Slashdot Mirror
House Approves Electronic ID Cards
chrisaj5 writes "ZDNet News reports that the Real ID Act of 2005 has been passed by the House, by a 251-161 margin. It stipulates that driver's licenses must include a digital photograph, anticounterfeiting features and undefined machine-readable technology." From the article: "Another portion of the bill says that states would be required to link their DMV databases if they wished to receive federal funds. Among the information that must be shared: All data fields printed on drivers' licenses and identification cards, and complete drivers' histories, including motor vehicle violations, suspensions and points on licenses."
There is already a database of violators (the Nonresident Violator Compact) being shared between most of the states.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
Enter the "tinfoil wallet".
More
as a day when we fucked up while we should defend their liberty. Shame on us.
no really ... i couldnt
Think you can program? Prove it @ the geek challenges
i am over 21
You know, the United States always seemed to be the place where government stayed out of people's lives. Now, it seems a few want to make Orwell seem like a conservative vision.
I think it'll come to a point, that if you don't want government in your life, you'll need to live in a country where the government has little technology.
Freedom has been lost while no one was paying attention.
Oh well, so much for the insurance company not finding out about that ticket in that little town in Texas.
I used to have a good sig...
The real question is does it mandate the use of RFID or some other wireless technology (if so then this is probably related to under-the-table business dealings) and does it or will it ever require fingerprint or iris scans?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
It's too bad that civil rights had the negative side effect of causing the federal government to use money as a coersion to make states do what they want. It's quite annoying.
I was just writing a response just like this. Last I knew it was a states rights issue. Not to mention the fact that it's a mandate that's going to cost MANY under funded and less affluent states a LOT of money to impliment. And if they don't? They lose MORE money. Good. Great. Grand. What's the next step? Corporate sponsorship of a state just so they can stay afloat? "The Nextel province of Mississippi" And let's not even think about putting our tin foil hats on with the possibilities of a nation wide ID system...
I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on disk somewhere.
I found their quote interesting:
The American Civil Liberties Union likened the new rules to a "de facto national ID card," saying that the measure would force "states to deny driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants" and make DMV employees act as agents of the federal immigration service.
Just so we're clear, it appears in the debate about whether illegal immigrant should be granted access to all services that the U.S. has to offer, it would appear the ACLU is firmly in the PRO column.
I'm a big tall mofo.
If I remember my American History correctly, before the U.S. Constitution was attacked in Boston harbor, John Paul Jones played guitar for Led Zep and uttered the unforgettable words, "Surrender? I have not yet begun to fight!" Thus ended the first American Revolution.
After they won independence from Britain (go figure, JPJ was a Brit himself), the Americans set forth their first draft of the Constitution and called it The Articles Of Confederation. They had a bunch of cool General Lee flags to go along with it, but eventually these became associated with racism and were finally taken out of the final submitted draft.
The Articles of Confederation set forth a government that loosely tied together each state. Each state was essentially its own sovereign nation and would only be overseen by a few interstate commerce and extradition requirements set forth in the Articles. This is kind of like the EU today.
However, the final draft as written by Alexander Hamilton, dubbed The American Constitution of The United States of America, set forth a much more powerful central government.
Unfortunately, today's vote sees the culmination of 2 centuries of slowly educating the concept of sovereignty out of Americans. Good luck, you guys!
Are these going to be digitally signed by the authority which releases them, and will whatever devices that 'read' them be equipped to verify the signature? I've been wondering why the don't do this for IDs, as signature verification (public/private, a la PGP) would make counterfeiting much harder, when combined with traiditional anti-counterfeiting measures. Or will a distributed network of private-key-bruteforcing computers be enough to make short work of any such signature?
If it weren't for fog, the world would run at a really crappy framerate.
just got freer!
Who knows, perhaps in 30 years time you'll be able to go to theme parks where you can pretend to be in 20th century America and experience the freedoms you once had?
Enter ads on buses reading your data and printing you out a voucher for a cafe it has deduced based on your ticket you will pass as you get off the bus. Imagine walking in a cafe to recieve a personalised menu that removed some items because you are allergic to them
http://www.sandstorming.com
This doesnt take away your rights, it doesn't repress you as a person, it doesn't cause cancer, and it sure as hell isn't that big of a deal. Drivers license and ID information is largely public to begin with anyways, it just all getting (somewhat) standardized.
Fake ID's are a fairly good size problem. I used to work in a bar years ago and we could confiscate 30 fake ID's a night on the weekend- and that's at a country bar. A dance club can easily confiscate 100 ID's a night on a weekend. I'm sure law enforcement has much nastier problems on their hands.
The only thing to really be concerned about on this is to make sure this information stays private and doesnt get sold to marketers. Really, this whole security thing isn't that big of a deal.
ZDNet News reports that the Real ID Act of 2005 has been passed by the House, by a 251-161 margin. It stipulates that driver's licenses must include a digital photograph, anticounterfeiting features and undefined machine-readable technology.
Lessee....how are these electronic besides having a mag stripe or something that stores the data?? Sounds like you still have to physically have it....which by reading, the office HAS all of that info anyway. Most Drivers Licenses's already have this.
The worry is the linking of Databases. Also, there's going to be time after even the senate passes it if they do, that we can say something before the president has to sign it. Even then, the Supremes can still rull this unconstitutioinal.
Gorkman
That's nothing new. Why do you think we have mandatory speed limits and .08BAC drunk driving limits?
Federal coercion is the norm these days.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
There you have it folks. The closest thing to a National ID card which can be claimed isn't a National ID card. The only ones who wouldn't fall into this area would be those who don't drive/have a license.
Just remember, it's for your protection. All those terrorists out there are sure to be tripped up by this new measure. After all, one can't drive a vehicle, especially one on a one-way trip, without a license, now can you?
Keep repeating this over and over and you'll see why this is a necessary step: It's about fighting terrorism. It's about fighting terrorism. It's about fighting terrorism.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Why is it bad that the States will now share license information? Seems like a good idea to me. I think you guys are too paranoid when it comes to privacy issues.
We dislike the United States, but with good reason. :) So how's the microchip inserted underneath the skin to keep track of people coming along? The more I read news from the U.S., the more I feel sorry for the people that have to live under a constant barrage of FUD comming at them from front-left-and-center. Although it seems as though this FUD is starting to turn into a reality. Sounds like a Cyber-Punk movie.
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
Another reason to try and wrestle more federal rights back to the state level. And the money too. My state would not need any federal dollars if we took a good chunk of the money we pay in federal tax and gave it to the state instead. And on the plus side, the state seems to be more accountable to the citizens than the federal government is.
IMO the feds should be in charge of national security, nothing else.
As for digital pictures, I think a lot of the states, if not all of them, have switched to using some kind of digital camera now.
If there's such a big problem with the licenses being forged, why not inform the states whose licenses are forged the most and let them come up with something?
OCO is Loco
The ACLU and the Gun Owners lobby on the same side in this argument.
Lets hope the "complete drivers' histories, including motor vehicle violations, suspensions and points on licenses" is just going forward, or my insurance is going way up.
It's been done before and will probably be done again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit
this sig deleted by another sig
The praetorians registered a business name today
http://www.sandstorming.com
As we all know, and have been hearing for some time from people like the EFF, ID card schemes can easily be fooled by using fake ID when getting the ID issued. Even though the cards may be secure, it is the method of distibution which will decide their usefulness. I'm sure scammers will find a few ways to get their hands on real ID cards with fake details, so let's just hope that it will be harder than it is at present.
One good turn - gets all the covers.
Nobody has to accept highway funds from the federal government. I don't understand what the big deal is anyway as I personally would rather see state driver's licenses done away with completely and just go to a national ID system that would double as your driver's license. There's no reason every citizen shouldn't have an identification card issued by the federal government.
It could make thing so much easier and help to reduce identity theft if implemented properly. I imagine other countries have done this already without major fanfare. Besides, a strong national ID card could double as a taxpayer ID card and let you file taxes online without having to go out and buy third-party software. Go to an IRS website, use your national smart card to authenticate yourself and enter your tax information online.
Wasn't the purpose of the drivers license to prove you passed an operators test? Now you don't exist as a human in this country if you didn't pass your drivers test.
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
That's a fallacy. States don't have rights. People have rights.
Granted, I'm not fond of this thing either--it's just one more step down the slippery slope to "papers, please".
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
"Those willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither."
http://www.sandstorming.com
The bad part is not so much the ID card.
The bad part is the connection that will be made when a commercial entity needs your drivers license for one reason another, scans it, and it enters a commercial database where it will be crossed linked to other databases.
Airlines, insurance comapnies, grocery stores (for the new shopper cards they will want to issue), bospitals and doctor's offices, your bank, business' taking a check. I bet libraries will require it eventually.
Pretty much the beginning of the end. Congress is a bunch of whores.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
This is just another step in that direction.
What's with this whole RFID craze everywhere, even as Slashdot has posted four stories this week about their insecurity and "hack-ability" if you will? It sounds like Pokemon and Microsoft are working together to make the world an insecur^WRFID-connected planet.
Gotta hack 'em all, it seems.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Its time to move to a free and democratic country where the government still keeps its promises and does not try to push their ideas of "freedom" on its citizens and the rest of the world against their will.
Have you ze link to your papers mein herr?
I've lived in Texas all my life and hear this phrase come up from time to time on TV and in movies. I assume its related to speeding tickets and other moving violations, but can someone explain the system? How wide-spread is its use?
Um...yeah?
"When I get on an airplane and someone shows ID, I'd like to be sure they are who they say they are," said Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, during a floor debate that started Wednesday.
But they had valid ID. They were who they said they were. Or did I miss the article the day it was revealed that Atta guy (or whoever) was really called Joe Smith?
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
This isn't going to have any affect on people like me who are Carfree by Choice.
It's still another step down a slippery slope, and that scares me, but I'm glad that I'm not personally affected by this.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
Make all Muslims wear yellow crescents. That's what they really want, isn't it?
Seriously. If you can't be bothered to look up the exact quote, don't bother posting.
Better yet, try to come up with your own original idea. Surely you don't walk around spouting the opinions of others, you must have some personal opinions too. Use the education you've been given and formulate an original and insightful (and even witty, if possible) post.
Ben Franklin was a good guy. He loved his liberty. But this topic has very little to do with "Big Brother" and more to do with State's Rights than anything else. Why don't you give us a quote from someone like Thomas Jefferson who hated strong central government? You can't? Oops!
everyone I know can't live without an ID. All of the IDs are machine readable (magnetic strip) and data is shared between states about the license. Seems like this is just putting what's already in place into more formalized terms. I know that's not the popular opinion here. It would be nice to have a standard ID system that incorporated some modern methods of authentication and verification. At that point we could say goodbye to most identity theft. "Oh wait, that would be too scary! The government could track what I did and stuff!" Let me clue you into something. They already can. Why not put a decent system into place that verifies identification better than just obscuring some 9 digit number from other parties (yet giving it out to everyone that asks).
States as well as we, the people(> %85), have been against a number of points contained in that bill. Sorry, but I have the feeling that our "representatives" are not representing us anymore but rather the interests of a lobbying industry and a corrupt government. Where is this going and what happened to our democracy?
Ben Franklin said-- "Those who are willing to give up a measure of freedom for a measure of security deserve neither." We now will have the equivalent of a national ID card. You can be sure that this will move more towards other national databases to cause a chilling effect on our freedoms. The next step will be national registration of firearms I am guessing.
Where do they say "all services?"
The ACLU and NRA are both civil rights/liberties organizations.There is nothing strange about them agreeing or even working together.
The ACLU, unfortunately,has lost sight of its primary purpose and wastes time and resources fighting "threats" such as religous imagery in public places and defending "affirmative action"?
I'll be popping my new license in the microwave for about 3 seconds to fry it's little rfid chip...oops.
I'm sorta interested in why the ACLU is so interested in defending people, who by the simple act of being here, are breaking the law.
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
I think that was settled in 1865.
"Whenever the cause of the people is entrusted to professors, it is lost." ~ V.I. Lenin
..and a drinking age of 21 and not 18.
The coersion sucks however, it's an idea that should have been done long ago. Now you won't have folks that shouldn't be driving skipping from state to state getting licenses.
Like any database of info, as long as it's not abused , it has potential for good. That's a big if in today's political climate.
I sincerely hope the federal government is coughing up the cash for these changes. States are already strapped as it is!
the deacon...that's all you need to know for now
The states typically issue ID's in the same format as driver's licenses- they have varying forms of means of providing the fact that it's an ID, that the state certifies that you're who you claime to be, but that you've not met the requirements for legally operating a vehicle.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
See 10th amendment to US constitution. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Emphasis mine.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
I'm glad I live in a country where privacy and personal freedoms are championed and the ideals of our...oh, wait. crap.
No, Vern. They just let him in.
I am fed up by what's happening in our country and I am seriously considering moving to Canada or some other country that still respects freedom, civil liberties, and basic human rights without abusing them as arguments to push an Orwellian political agenda. Any suggestions on what countries to consider?
...they're using lame excuses to control our lives or they're THAT stupid, not realizing that all this BS they're spouting (i.e. the stupid crap Davis spouted off about...) is just that- BS.
I'm not 100% sure how to fix the situation, or if it's even fixable at this point. Basically, we desperately need to fire the people that voted "YES" on this thing as they're NOT serving the citizenry's best interests, only the government's.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I thought republicans were supposed to be all about smaller federal/stronger local government. WTF?
I wish that I was a catfish.
Rights aren't something granted by law. They simply exist. They can't be created or taken away. Only people have them, not states or even nations.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
What happens if you don't have a driving license? I've managed to get all the way to thirty without needing one. I ride a bike everywhere and take the plane and train for work travel. Ben
"Freedom of speech won't feed my children" - Manic Street Preachers
Nobody has to accept highway funds from the federal government
The federal government is collecting those funds from me and has been entrusted with providing highways with them. When they start to rely on extortion to get what they want under the threat of not using the money they collected from me for its intended purpose, they should no longer be entrusted to collect it for that purpose.
Whether or not this passes or fails, we average people have given up our privacy long ago. S.S.#'s, credit cards, bank accounts, ect. Most all of our lives are trackable, traceable, or otherwise transparent. Only a complete withdrawl from society can keep you of the radar screen. Most of us only show up as noise on the radar anyway so a personal concern to the situation, as it stands now, is not of consequence and will not be opposed. It's of our own doing and won't be undone.
There's really no reason the IRS couldn't just put together a website that works exactly like TurboTax's online version right now. They don't need a national ID card; it's not like Intuit has some way to authenticate my identity that wouldn't be available to the IRS. With or without a national ID card, the IRS isn't going to do that (and would you trust them to make their software get you the best possible refund?)
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Rights aren't the same thing as powers, not even close.
However, it's all a joke anyway, so, what the hell.
Maybe it's different in other states, but here in Minnesota, we have on our drivers licenses:
1. digital photographs
2. anti-counterfeiting measures
3. machine-readable technology (bar code & mag strip)
My only gripes are:
1. Forced sharing of information between states. While some shared database is probably practical, sharing ALL of that information is too much.
2. This is a law that shifts yet more power from the states to the federal government.
You are greatly confused as to what the states rights are in this matter
As the legistlation is written, it does not step down and say who the state can give licenses to. What it does do, is set a minimum standard in order to state issued IDs to be given validity as a form of federal identification.
For example, TN has a two tiered form of license. A federal ID qualified that is obtainable by legal immigrants, people with work visas and citizens. They have a driver's only version which has no identification value which undocumenteds can obtain to operate a motor vehicle. This will not change with passage of this bill.
I stole this
Thus sayeth the Anonymous Coward.
[
The states might technically have a choice on this matter but in the end their choice will be dictated for them. Did you ever drive across the state of LA after it refused to raise the drinking age? Their roads where horrible. Eventually they gave in so they could fix their roads. If a state refuses to go along with this indeffinently then their interstate system will collapse and soon after their economy. Easy example of that is that all those drivers/tourist/truckers will choose more easily traveled highways outside your state thus taking all the money that would be spent on food/gas.
I *IMPLEMENTED* DLID systems for Polaroid.
/.-ers think that these new rules are "stomping" on their rights. In point of fact, the states have been moving in this direction for years. AAMVA (the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) member states (most/all of 'em) have been slowly migrating the contents of driver licenses to standardize the information on them so *THEY* can share information.
I *KNOW* how they work.
I *KNOW* what happens to the demographic information.
It's amazing how many
States are reluctant to give a new D/L to someone who has a suspended license in another state. In fact, they *already* do inter-state checks when issuing licenses.
The new rules merely give a federal "stamp" to actions that the states have been moving towards.
As far as liquor stores "storing your data", this is not a problem that the federal government can solve. In actuality, it's a problem for the state legislatures to solve because they make the rules that the state liquor boards implement. Follow the liquor taxes, folks.
Finally, the problem of fake IDs is a huge one for states and goes beyond simple liquor/cigarette purchases. Think about people with suspended or invalid licenses, check-cashing IDs for stolen checks, proof of residence for voting and other purposes... the list of problems that are caused by fake IDs goes very deep indeed.
If you want more information, I'm quite willing to describe *HOW* I implemented the DLID servers, what data is stored there, and what the states do with their information. It's all on the public record: I'm giving away *NO* secrets, but I am shedding light rather than spreading FUD.
\burt
There is no such thing as bad weather - only inappropriate clothing.
way out.....
Canada is much less "Free" than the USA.
They lack free speech in a major way.
The Government restricts access to non-Canadian media.
Minimal gun rights.
While you are technically correct, the term "States' rights" has historically been used to describe "State autonomy in the federal system". So when someone against highway funding restrictions says "States' rights!", what they're really yelling about is the Congress removing state autonomy.
15-20 years ago there wasn't even routine information sharing between states on driver's license statuses, arrest warrants and criminal histories. The FBI, through NCIC (National Criminal Information Center) implemented the III (Interstate Identification Index). Initial response from many individual states - pissing and moaning about cost and the loss of their independence. Right - you now have to standardize terminology and call a Burglary a Burglary instead of Breaking and Entering. The world's coming to an end! The upside - Felony arrest warrants from California were now eaasily accessible in New York. Down side - ummm, wait a minute it'll come to me... or not.
Is it possible that this information could somehow be abused? Of course. Its possible to abuse any sort of personal information. Is it likely to bring 1984 crashing down around our ears? Hardly.
Its funny that as geeks we ridicule security through obscurity while supporting the rights of individuals to hide their poor driving records because of fears about 'Big Brother'.
Incidentally, I don't think the 5th Amendment should be scrapped. I just think we should get a clue from the Brits - you can't be forced to testify against yourself but your refusal to answer questions can be considered by the jury during deliberations.
Let the flaming begin!
This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
Is, how did you become king?
I didn't vote for you.
Yes, the proposal for mandatory biometric scans is already on the table. Give it another year or two to pass. If Bush and his buddies continue with their Orwellian agenda I am moving to Canada with my family.
Rights aren't something granted by law. They simply exist. They can't be created or taken away. Only people have them, not states or even nations.
Instead of "states' rights" you could use the term "states' powers", as in "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Also notice the "or to the people". Ultimately the people have the powers. We grant some powers to the states and to the federal government, according to the constitution.
When people use the term "States' Rights", it should be clear that this is just a short phrase that means the powers that the state has, that the constitution does not forbid, and that the constitution does not give to the federal government. That all seems simple enough.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
This is all information that is easily obtainable by law enforcement agencies anyway. This will just make it faster.
Your license is essentially a national ID card, already.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
They do such a good job with their own computer systems (http://www.taxhelpattorney.com/articles/irs-moder nization-failure.html) that I'm sure that they can build and maintain a high-volume, high-security site like that.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
What card do you have to copy a number from to do almost anything in the USA? Social Security, which has been around since the thirties. The only problem is that social security cards are not machine readable, and due to the sensitivity of the number most people just commit it to memory -- but will gladly put it at the top of their homework if asked, with only a slight groan about a possible leak. Having some machine-readable data (that the states already have and that parts of the federal government either have or could request and receive) on driver's licenses to give them some more of the functions of national ID in other countries seems like a good idea; we need to do something about counterfeiting hazards. I just hope that the mechanism for reading the data is not protected under some sort of patent; that would discourage the use of the card as machine-readable ID by third parties.
National ID card with RFID and other tracking devices sounds too scary to people, this is a way of slipping it in gently.
How about we stop using federal funds as a coercion tool?? The sad thing is that if we opted to put it to a vote, people would vote for the false sense of security.
Sad, Sad, Sad
Paper (or in this case plastic) identification didn't stop the French underground in Vichy France nor would it stop Al Queda in the US. There are too many ways around it.
Except for at the airport, it has been years since I showed my ID to anyone in actual authority. At the airport they do not scan it, they just look at it. And if I wanted, I could bypass the airport for virtually all of my travel needs.
If all of a sudden every credit card terminal required you to swipe your national ID card into it, the system could be used to track anyone and everyone although, I would imagine the courts would find that an invasion of privacy and would require a warrant (or, I would at least hope it would).
No, this isn't about fighting terrorisim, it is about the dark side of law enforcement, commercialisim, and privacy. It is about collecting data on you and I. It is in a word; Orwellian.
Sorry dude, valid indentification is a national issue.
The US Government doesn't mandate speed limits or the drunk driving limits. If you were paying attention (or even around...) the US Government had mandated 55MPH as a National Speed Limit and the states that didn't honor that didn't get Highway Funds from the US Federal Government. When the law requiring the same expired, that very month, the speed limits jumped to as high a 75 MPH through relatively uninhabited areas.
Sorry, but you're going to have to come up with something else, say like those highway info signs or the big-brother cams they're putting up in Metropolitan areas, ostensibly to monitor traffic congestion conditions...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
For many governmental services and welfare programs you will need things like a social security number and a physical address. Possibly in addition to a form of ID, of which a driver's license is only one.
Anyway, since the driver's license is NOT currently a national ID card it is not justified to use it as the only evidence for eligibility. You cannot say that the ACLU thinks undocumented immigrants should have access to all services--the ACLU would likely say that driver's licenses aren't the things that should be checked here anyway.
It's funny that you as a "geek" can't see the difference between the rights and protections due you as a human being, and application development.
That is, if "funny" is a word which here means "not at all surprising".
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
But the states should have a right to keep such law enforcement at the local level if they wish. The federal government has NO authority to do all of the things you outlined above. Read article 1, section 8, as well as the 9th and 10th ammendment.
I, for one, hope that my state will just simply deny the federal highway funding and refuse to co-operate. This is a horrendous violation of privacy. The law enforcement in California shouldn't be aware of my speeding ticket in New Jersey. It's not thier right to know!
And what happens when everything you do is public record? Anyone who wants to can find out what you bought at the grocery store last week, or what you ordered at Denny's 6 years ago? Isn't that a bit creepy? Once all knowledge is public, the government can regulate ANYTHING.
And yes, security through obscurity doesn't work -- all security PROTOCOLS should be volentarily submitted for public scrutiny. It's just pragmatic. However, the contents of the cypher doesn't have to be.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Aww... is someone sad because they were too retarded to go to college?
Then let the states stop going begging to the feds saying, "please please please build Federal highways in our state for free." State governments love it when they can get tax-financed goodies or "revenue sharing" without having to raise state taxes, then complain when they have to meet Federal standards.
Let the states send representatives who believe that the states should finance all their own programs and own all their own infrastructure, and the situation will change. You might even like the result. Or you might not.
Well, "impossible" is a bit much. The US takes in around a million migrants per year. But many, many more would if they could.
The illegal route is particularly common for those in the "gray economy" mentioned in a sibling post to yours. Many of those are people who don't want to immigrate. They simply wish to work here and live in Mexico, or live here and send much of their earnings back to their families in a country where it's far harder to earn a living.
That gray economy is very important economically, since it's a major component of agriculture in California. The President's approach calls for basically recognizing a class of second-class citizens to work for sub-minimum wage in exchange for certain rights, like driver's licenses. That's the point on which this whole issue is going to stick in the Senate, and may kill the entire bill.
Yeah and while they are at it lets institute travel permits. Yeah thats the ticket, make us all have to get permits to travel from one city to the next. Yeah you have to register with the police at every town you drive through also, or you go to jail. Welcome to facism boys and girls.
This is the most IDIOTIC thing I have ever heard.
Who makes sure these 'imaginary rights' you speak of are not violated? If these rights not in the law, are they written down somewhere? Should we come ask you when we have a question?
We are a REPUBLIC, and are based on the rule of law, not men.
Have you read them? While the powers expressly granted for holding those ties are weaker in some respects (EG, limiting the Confederal military power to the appointing of generals only), it was a more explicitly inviolable tie than the Constitution. There were even invocations of the Articles in the popular press preceding the civil war as argument against claims to a right of Secession:
And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
There is a term for a government in which legistlation is passed for the mere convenience of law enforcement officers.
The term is "police state".
Sure, what we have is a lite version, a mostly-benign police state (at least if you're a white middle-class non-Muslim person with mainstream political views). But as others have observed for the past few decades, anytime, anywhere, no matter what you're doing, there is some law under which you can be arrested and booked.
When a cop pulls me over, it is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand how many points are on my licence or what previous violations exist. In fact it would be a violation of equal protection if I were to be treated differently based on this information.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Magnetic strip - Use a big magnet to erase it.
m e nt.computers.ap/
Machine readable content - Indelible markers play heck with that
RFID - perhaps a good nuke in the microwave or perhaps a shot from a herf gun? http://www.itglossary.net/herf.html
yes I worry about all the databases being tied together. But considering the way big government IT projects fail Im not too worried.
http://www.computing.co.uk/news/1123872
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/govern
Not really - the fed, state and local do this all the time. For example: states offer funding to their state colleges if they keep a dry campus - if they decide to not keep a dry campus they don't give this bonus funding. This has been practiced, and accepted. It is also very reasonable. "Do as we ask and you will receive a reward, do not do it and do not receive a reward - your choice."
Frankly, to share this information is a positive thing. The only people who will have to worry are the criminals. Hopefully the Senate will approve this; which all assumes there is nothing funky about the document (for arguments sake, lets assume that the proposed law is written as intended).
Personally, I would like to see all drivers license and state ID's look the same (a state could personalize theirs with a picture in the back). The states can still keep their same requirements for getting these id's (and their respective drivers tests), but it would really be nice if the ID's were the same. I used to work at a bank (and I work part-time as a bouncer) and it can be tricky trying to find out if an ID is real or not when it comes from a different state.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I don't need or desire this kind of "protection." I need protection from my governemnt because I want to live in freedom. Why should we put up with more intrusions into our lives when the government will not even take the steps in securing our borders. What is wrong with building refugee camps to keep those who do not have American citizenship but might pose a danger? Tell them to go to the camps or back to their country.
What good is it it strip search old American women at airports and repress us with rfid tags and so-called foolproof drivers licences when our borders are overrun with illegals? I have seen personally numerous times American people get secondary searches at airpot checkpoints while those of obvious Middle Eastern descent go right through. Enough with the propaganda about safety for Americans when the people who should be watched are free to roam without a second glance.
Also, the influx of slave-made goods is making us vulnerable to terrorism (ever hear of sabotage). Fix our borders, and put reasonable tariffs on foreign made goods, and we will be safe. Train the citizenry on what to look for, have massive civil defence and first aid courses for the common people. Keep an eye on Middle Eastern travelers. I look like I'm Middle Eastern (I am not, though), and I wouldn't mind the extra checks.
I for one will give out information anywhere I can on how to disable rfid chips. A magnifying glass can be used for other purposes than frying ants! By defacto rule, we already have lost a lot of our Constitutional rights. Hey Bush, don't just allow the big Cartels to do what they want, we still like freedom too!
People, it is time for not only a new President but also a renewed governemnt, we can do it. We need another "Boston Tea Party". Our political parties have abandoned us. They make merchandice out of all of us. We desparately need a change, and it will not happen as long as the two political cartels remain in power. Take a look at the alternatives:
http://www.lp.org/
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
Until we make a real change in American it will only get worse.
If the Louisiana state government/bureaucracy wasn't so ridiculously corrupt, they could have kept their laws and paid for their own maintenance. The problem in modern times is that no states have the right combination of procedural integrity, fiscal discipline, and political clout necessary to keep the hook out of their lip.
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
Section 102 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive laws without Judical review. That strikes me as *way* worst then a huge database filled with non-verified DMV data.
From thomas.loc.gov
SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.
Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Waiver-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--
`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.
### end quote ###
Gee, sounds like he can suspend pretty much anything without review. He just has to "say" it is related to building a barrier or road.
Example: Labor laws governing the production of materials for the barriers or roads? Nah, they'll just get in the way, we're going to "suspend" those.
OR
What Endangered Species Act? Never heard of it, keep laying down the asphalt.
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
Thank you for posting this. I've been searching around, and it's amazing that nobody is talking about this section. If I had mod points, i'd mod you up.
Let's make a difference
So in a couple paragraphs, they've given the Department of Homeland Security (executive branch) the power to ignore laws (legislative branch) and not be held accountable in court (judicial branch) for it. Now, I may have been asleep in government class, but that sounds like you're disregarding the system of checks and balances which underpin our government.
Sure, they say it within the context of border security, but on the subject of rule of law and constitutional separation of powers, I can't see how anyone who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution could vote for a bill including this provision in good conscience.
Remember when the republicans were yelling about fiscal responsibility and unfunded mandates? It should be clear to everyone now that they just wanted control of the government and would say anything to get it. They've even stop using the our big government sucks tactic.
"Another portion of the bill says that states would be required to link their DMV databases if they wished to receive federal funds. Among the information that must be shared: All data fields printed on drivers' licenses and identification cards, and complete drivers' histories, including motor vehicle violations, suspensions and points on licenses."
Having worked in Law Enforcement messaging systems the last several years, I can say that this is already here, and has been for ages (except maybe the federal funding bit). All of the states are connected via NLETS (National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System) and most share their DMV records directly over that network. Some states (like Maryland) don't have their DMV records automated, so you they tell you to send a request (still via NLETS) to a certain station where the lookup will be performed.
The amount of data returned (for DMV records) varies from state to state, but some do include all of the above info. Some are just a minimum - the info on the card itself and the licensees status (active, expired, suspended, etc).
The federal law enforcement agencies, Canada, and Interpol are also members of the NLETS network.
End of line..
Well, clearly they'd have to hire some people with a clue, but it's not like web design people are in short supply these days. Just go knocking on the windows of expensive cars in the Bay Area with the owners sleeping in them, and you'll have a team of layed-off programmers in no time.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
It's not extortion - those funds will still go towards the highway system (i.e. federal highways which is paid for by the fed).
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Is it likely to bring 1984 crashing down around our ears?
I believe my, and much of slashdot's philosophy is: Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Many choose to fight the big fight, even on small issues. That's how it's perceived, and I for one agree.
We are a REPUBLIC, and are based on the rule of law, not men.
This has to be the SCARIEST thing I have ever heard.
Go back to Mussolini's Italy, troll.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
The only people I can see having a true complaint are the drivers who want to hide their tickets in one state from LEOs in another state.
As someone who has a speeding ticket from another state that is several years past due, I think this legislation is a bad idea.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Let's take a survey. Reply to this post with the state you live in and whether or not your state's driver's licenses already have, or will have in the near future due to changes in state law, the following features mandated by this bill:
(1) The person's full legal name.
(2) The person's date of birth.
(3) The person's gender.
(4) The person's driver's license or identification card number.
(5) A digital photograph of the person.
(6) The person's address of principle residence.
(7) The person's signature.
(8) Physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes.
(9) A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements.
For the purposes of #9, I'm going to assume that a magnetic stripe is acceptable.
The government isn't forcing the department of motor vehicles to do anything that it shouldn't have already. It isn't really an 'electronic ID', it makes no mention of RFID. Hell, its just like my Florida driver's license I carry now. It has a digital photo, holograms on a plastic card, and a machine-readable magnetic strip. See?
And, before everyone goes about getting their tinfoil hats on and running for the concrete bunkers, the government is not forcing the state to link to the database. If the state DMV wants federal funds then they have to link up. If your state is so opposed to the idea, pony up extra state tax money to pay for it. Enough said.
I mean, we accuse the media of fearmongering? It seems like posts on slashdot are as bad as Fox News sometimes. RTFA
-Gamma
Can you please point to one? Or tell me how they come into being? Or what causes them?
My Journal
...who really doesn't see a problem with this?
Photos on ID = good thing
Anti-counterfit measures = good thing except for college students, but the drinking age is another issue
Machine readable support = convineance
OK so no the problem is linking the databases?? Well your state already has all your info, whats so bad about the other states having it as well?
http://brandonbloom.name
mod up anyone?
Now this part of the law is scary. Hopefully they will cross this section out. I especially enjoy the "NO JUDICIAL REVIEW" part.
Can't we just name the secretary of homeland security complete and total monarch of this country and be done with it?
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I hope your state does too. Someone has to stand up to extortion using highway funds. My state can't afford to, because Bush spent our surplus before leaving. Now they've cut everything to the bone (losing federal matching funds at times) and are raise every hidden tax they can and still coming up short.
And let's not even think about putting our tin foil hats on with the possibilities of a nation wide ID system..
... hate to break it to you, but if all the states issue Drivers Licenses that meet these criteria, and all the databases have to be linked together, then the government doesn't need to issue a nationwide ID, they will already have one.
Umm
Yes, those who don't/can't drive dont have a drivers license, but lots of those people DO have a Non-Drivers license (at least in NY), which is an almost identical state issued document so they can have a proof of age and ID.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
It's never about the uses. It's always about the abuses. I don't think that anyone can say that a national system to cover drivers licenses is bad, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. It will not stop at that.
If you're going to stop them, it should be stopped here.
This section literally puts the secretary of homeland security above the law!
"SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.
Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Waiver-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--
`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'."
What this means is that the Secretary of Homeland Security only has to CLAIM that a law, ANY law, is preventing him from expediously construction one of these barriers or roads, and he can waive the law! NO ONE WILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CHALLENGE THE CLAIM, AND NO COURTS WILL BE ABLE RELIEF FOR DAMAGES CAUSED!
Again, the secrataries claim is the only thing that's needed to waive the law. The law doesn't actually have to have anything to with roads or barriers of any kind.
Extreme example: The secretary decides to kill 100 people because he doesn't like them. He claims that laws pertaining to homicide stand in the way of road construction. Since this claim is the only one that matters, even though everyone knows its complete bullshit no one will be able to stop him. Even if the Supreme Court later declairs the law from this bill unconstitutional, the Secretary of Homelad Security will still get away with the murder because his actions were completely legal while the bill was a law.
Now I'm not saying the secretary will do this, but the fact that this bill allows him to legally kill anyone he wants to is a huge problem, don't you think? Chances are the new law will simply be used to pull a Vogon on people's homes, and they won't be reimbursed and no court will be allowed to hear their complaints. Or maybe landmines will be placed to "protect the contruction crews." And if there are any protesters, they may be bulldozed over. Who knows....
I can't believe what you choose to ignore.
The fact its included to bill to build a fence in California to keep people out and that the department of Homeland security has the rights being granted to them to be above the law and even cease to adhere to the law when it sees fit. (under the guise of immigration control)..
The federalization of licensing is sick in itself, however the fluff the republicans are putting into the bills is downright scary and simply UN CONSTITUTIONAL. So much for the "roots" of the RNC.
Benjamin Franklin Said it best:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ---
Your not safer by assuming this information is used for your safety. Your personal rights, freedoms are being violated. You are innocent until proven guilty and your history and or driving records should not become government property and used to estimate or forecast your innocence or guilt.
This law has nothing to do with refusal to testify against yourself but the simple fact the government now assumes you are guilty until you defend your innocence. Which is the true crime people like you ignore because it makes you feel happy.
When the law requiring the same expired, that very month, the speed limits jumped to as high a 75 MPH through relatively uninhabited areas.
Higher, in fact. Montana went back to "Safe and Reasonable" (65 at night and for trucks) for a while. Ahhh, that was great summer to drive across the country in a car with turbo...
Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday
I am going to call my Senators and suggest that an amendment to this bill be added that requires that IF the bill is implemented, all the machine readable information be readable by me, at home, in plain text, with a maximum purchase price of $20 for necessary technology if I have to buy it. Technologically there are many ways to do it, and I'm not going to enumerate them, but the cost needs to be non-prohibitive and if it's encrypted for security/privacy reasons I need to be able to decrypt it myself. If we have to have this stuff on our ID cards, then we should have the right to independently review the information on there.
here's why.
Better anonymous than in "the man's" database.
I sure as hell want the police officer in California to be aware of your many speeding tickets, DUI and reckless driving tickets from Jersey when he pulls you over on I-5, I-8, I-10, or any of the other highways I frequent when I visit. You are driving on a public road, and I want officer to know all of the facts before he lets you off with a warning.
Methinks thou doest protesth too much. What are you trying to hide?? Can I look in the trunk?? On the hood, dirtbag!!!!
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
BTW, Ohio licenses already have all those features.
Indiana ID cards lack "full legal name", as my middle name is replaced with a middle initial. They also lack a signature unless you agree to become an organ donor after you get your ID. And the tech on the back is a 2D barcode, not a magnetic stripe, but I don't know what it encodes in what looks like 176 bytes.
As you might expect, the DMV and security angle is just the main selling point. The rest of the act is really scary.
It gives the feds the ability to refuse entry to any federal facility if you don't have the card. That includes government buildings, federal courts, parks, etc. As far as the park thing goes, it means foreign tourists may not be able to visit the Washington Monument or Yellowstone National Park.
The Secretary of Homeland Defense can override ANY law short of the Constitution when it comes to building barriers at borders. Although it is aimed at overriding EPA restricts on a 3 mile long fence between San Diego & Mexico, it technically applies to the 7500 mile long border of the USA. Theoretically the secretary can suspend all your rights at the border, and you can be strip searched and held in secret if you leave the USA and fail to declare the gift you bought your children when you come back through customs. The act also means the Secretary's decisions can't be challenged in court. Go home, the courts are closed!
What does this mean for people with H1B visas?
What would slashdotters say if the national ID cards ran Linux?
In 1759 Benjamin Franklin stated, "those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty." Though it was said over two hundred years ago, the principle still applies today. People should not be willing to give up liberties for security. Liberty is what makes our country special. These liberties are what shaped this country into what it is today and what have drawn so many immigrants to it over the years.
Enjoy Every Sandwich
It's not extortion - those funds will still go towards the highway system (i.e. federal highways which is paid for by the fed).
But then the federal government will discriminate against highways in one state vs. highways in another state, possibly in violation of Const. I.9.6 given generalization of "ports" and "vessels" to cover techologies unknown in the 1780s.
When a cop pulls me over, it is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand how many points are on my licence or what previous violations exist. In fact it would be a violation of equal protection if I were to be treated differently based on this information.
Bullshit. If you've lost your license because of DUI and are driving around in another state, it is of extreme importance. If you are wanted on felony charges, it is of extreme importance.
It would be a violated of equal protection if you were pulled over because of your ethnicity, but there is no equal protection for people with poor driving records.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
...you don't live in the UK, where we will soon have one nationwide database storing compulsory information (including a variety of biometrics) on everyone in the country.
Luckily, the system will be implemented by one of the fine private companies who have had such success in the past with government IT projects, so there won't be any worries about security or confidentiality. (That was sarcasm.)
You make some logical points, but remember what Benjamin Franklin said: Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. This is merely an example of the "foot in the door" technique that is common amongst communist nations. They get us to accept little things here and there, and over the course of some years, our freedom is eroded.
We are a shadow of what we once were. Our freedom is nearly dead. If we do not act, our children and their children will not know what freedom is. Remember, the price of freedom always has been, and ever will be, blood.
There is a term for a government in which legistlation is passed for the mere convenience of law enforcement officers.
Well, the aforementioned laws aren't merely for the convenience of LEOs. They are there to help apprehend criminals, including those who have arrest warrants, those who attempt to fraudulently obtain a license in another state when their original license had been suspended, and those who enter the country illegally. In other words, the laws are for the greater public good, not simply for the good of the police.
We grant some powers to the states and to the federal government, according to the constitution.
Who are "we the people"? The Constitution was ratified and all amendments were proposed before I was born; all amendments were ratified before I came of legal voting age. So how did I agree to the social contract?
How exactly is keeping your driving record hidden a part of essential liberty?
South Carolina has all of those. Hell, it even has height and weight stats on there.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Your statement is false. It is not discrimination because EVERY state has the opportunity to accept or reject the law.
Here is another example. A company institutes a mandate - every 6 months EVERY employee must take a drug test. If you do not want to take the drug test you will be fired. Three employees decide to not take the drug test. They are fired. Have they been discriminated against? No, they had the option and they rejected it. With that rejection came certain consequences. If they didn't want the consequences, they should have taken the test.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
In Vermont they either still allow, or are just barely phasing out non-photo licenses. I went to a photo license a few years back to facilitate flying.
(1) No, middle initial only
(2) Yes
(3) Yes
(4) Yes
(5) No (see top comment)
(6) Yes
(7) Yes
(8) Do you mean lamination? That's about it.
(9) There is a magstripe on the back, no idea what's on it, or if it's even used.
Is there such a thing as a generic magstripe reader that can deliver the raw bits for inspection?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I had 3 tickets in a 2 month period.. my wife paid one w/out me knowing, the other 2 I paid and OVERPAID $1 and didnt cash the dollar refund... the 2 i overpaid never shown up on my license.
it really does work.
Actually, this is exactly the roll of a federal government, and something that should have been done long before 9/11. Currently there is no standardization of drivers licenses nationally, even though someone can use a drivers license from one state to prove their identity in another state. States with tougher identification laws lose when states with lax ID requirements (like my very own Illinois) will issue a license to anyone with a piece of mail with their name on it.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
"We have too often seen freedom disappear in other countries not only by coups d'etat but by gradual erosion; and it is often the first step that counts. So it would be unwise to make even minor concessions"
I wonder what view the good Justice would have of 'democratic' govenments apparant acceptance of obnoxious technologies against the will, or at least without the informed support of many of their citizens
Much has been made of the "need" for illegal immigrants to have licenses because they drive and help keep the US economy competitive.
We could also be more competitive if we allowed third world working conditions to go with the living conditions, and made sure we enforced those working conditions with an extremely corrupt politico-judicial-military system that enforced said conditions with a barrel of a gun.
We're working on that. We've been doing a *great* job at importing third world workers familiar with and willing to accept as normal third world working and living conditions. All we need to do is relax our labor laws enough to allow businesses to use our increasingly paramilitary law enforcement to break strikes and arrest labor organizers. Since unions and organized labor are all but moribund in this country, no one will stop them.
What's ironic about immigration is that The Left has given the Republicans and their Corporate allies a HUGE economic victory by failing to stop the mass immigration we've been experiencing over the past 10 years.
It's diluted the labor pool and helped keep wages down, but the Left has consistently worked against stricter immigration rules and routinely paints those oppposing mass immigration as ignorant, bigoted, lazy and racist. This is despite the fact that unemployment in the native-born black community hovers around 10-11%.
It sounds conspiratorial, but I think they would rather see both black and white unemployment around 8% instead of pushing black unemployment to 5% by having them do the work we "need" the Mexicans for.
Furthermore, they have openly worked against even deporting those immigrants here illegally, often passing municipal ordinances prohibiting local police from inquiring as to immigration status, trying to block prohibitions on granting driver's licenses and other legal documentation to illegal immigrants, as well as wanting to give an ID issued by a foreign government -- the Matricula Consular, the Mexican-consulate issued ID card -- equal footing with domestic government issued identification, despite the obvious lack of control and verification, not to mention the widespread corruption and criminality that easily penetrates even the President of Mexico's own office.
What's next? Voting privileges, too? Why yes, they HAVE been pushing the very idea that resident aliens should be able to vote, too.
This last bit is the only thing that makes any sense about the Left's support for mass immigration and illegal immigrants, despite the way it shafts domestic workers, particularly low/unskilled minority native-born workers who are the direct competitors to immigrant laborers. They must believe that by flooding America with poor, non-white immigrants that they will once and for all regain the majority electoral status that Nixon's "Silent Majority" strategy robbed them of in the late 1960s when Nixon got disaffected Southeners and socially conservative working class voters to support him over the increasingly radical Democratic party.
I'm sure someone here will accuse me of racism, bigotry or just simple
ignorance. I know it's the knee-jerk reaction to someone who hasn't taken the Red Pill and adopted Marxism and Diversity as a religion. But c'mon -- how can you justify mass immigration, repudiation of immigration law by LAW ENFORCEMENT, the economic penalty being paid by labor, especially black labor, not to mention the financial victory to your own sworn enemies on Wall Street and the Republican party?
Your not safer by assuming this information is used for your safety. Your personal rights, freedoms are being violated. You are innocent until proven guilty and your history and or driving records should not become government property and used to estimate or forecast your innocence or guilt.
They already are. Police officers ruitienly call in your drivers license to get your history. The only thing this will mean is that offers won't have to call your information into the station to find your history (which also means they might forgo that step, and somone could store a clean history onto the license hopping to get off with more warnings... I don't really think putting the history on the card solve more problems then it causes
What I have in my trunk is no buisness of yours... but for the purpose of this argument I'll tell you -- I have a sleeping bag, a spare change of clothing, and a donut (spare-tire type), as well as some basic car tools (jack, jumper cables, tire iron, etc.) My driving record is fairly clean -- I've had one ticket in the nine years I've been an adult -- for going 51mph in a 40mph zone in Summit, NJ on Broad Street at about 2 AM sometime last February.
The point is, if I want to share that info, it's cool. But if I don't, I shouldn't have too.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Type "congress.org" into your browser, enter you zip, and call and email you senators telling them your feelings on this! If half the people that complained about laws in YRO communicated directly with their representatives, that would be a pretty big force against anti-privacy legislation.
So stop reading this. Go write...Go!
stupid bastards
No, you have it somewhat wrong. Private law abiding citizens have a right to privacy.
The 'state' does not have a right to invade it, unless we have committed a crime, or are under specific investigation authorized by the courts.
Just because I have nothing on my DMV report to hide, does mot mean I want to state to invade my rights. There are prices for freedom, and part of that price is that it can be abused by the dishonest. I still choose freedom.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
And is their posession/use of the land legal? The point is that it is becoming increasingly impossible to go anywhere uncontrolled or do anything which is unregulated. Your original love-it-or-leave-it" hyperbolic suggestion is impossible to do legally, so we are stuck with fighting for our rights in the cities.
Incidentally, doesn't "Montana Outback Militia" sound like a new SUV from General Motors?
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
The Secretary of Homeland Security can waive any and all laws he or she sees fit in order to build barriers at the US border. Any laws at all. It also would prohibit any judicial review of the Secretary of Homeland Security's decision to suspend any law.
That scares me, and I don't even live in the US.
Soylens viridis homines es
While I agree in principle, technically they aren't forcing the states to do anything.
They 'just' withhold federal funding..
Sure they might as well be forcing the state to act, but legally, and technically, they aren't..
Remember the government is full of ex-lawyers.. They know how to get around the rules easily.. its their life..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Mississippi DLs have all of those.
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
Opposition to a homeland-security bill brought to the floor of Congress yesterday largely has centered on fears it would lead to a national ID, but some critics point to an overlooked section that apparently gives the White House sweeping powers to suspend laws for the purpose of protecting U.S. borders.
The controversial section of the proposed legislation, as originally introduced, reads:
SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.
Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:
(c) Waiver-
(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--
(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.
Just a wee bit overeaching, no?
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
but only if you go to school in Sutter (so far)
Well, the aforementioned laws aren't merely for the convenience of LEOs. They are there to help apprehend criminals, including those who have arrest warrants, those who attempt to fraudulently obtain a license in another state when their original license had been suspended, and those who enter the country illegally. In other words, the laws are for the greater public good, not simply for the good of the police.
... no. the laws are there to make the police officers job easier. who is doing the apprehending of criminals, after all?
umm
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
"Well, the aforementioned laws aren't merely for the convenience of LEOs. "
Sure. They're for our protection.
Or the children's protection.
Or something.
Is that about right?
Your simplistic view fails to account for the enormous financial burdon that illegal immigration foists upon tax-paying citizens.
So why not stop undocumented immigration by turning it into legal immigration? Make it less impossible for undocumented aliens to get their papers and become tax-paying residents of a State, and the burden will evaporate.
...that the same sort of legislation had it's third reading in the UK parliament yesterday, too. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4252919.stm .
I wonder if the two are linked in any way?
I, for one, hope that my state will just simply deny the federal highway funding and refuse to co-operate. This is a horrendous violation of privacy. The law enforcement in California shouldn't be aware of my speeding ticket in New Jersey. It's not thier right to know!
;-)
abso-fucking-lutely!!! The motor vehicle laws vary from state to state. Why should I be penalized in my home state for something that might not even be illegal there?? And to take a hit on my insurance (which can increase 100%+ for a SINGLE INFRACTION) for something which may have NO BEARING on my driving in my home state?
Wow, what a rant. Better post AC...
The equivalent in your example: the President of the company institutes the mandate, and your manager refuses to allow his employees to be tested, so his employees all get fired. They didn't make the choice, but they pay the consequences.
LordBodak's journal.
Is it possible that this information could somehow be abused? Of course. Its possible to abuse any sort of personal information. Is it likely to bring 1984 crashing down around our ears? Hardly.
Instead of modding you down, I'm responding.
There are 3 main reasons why I object to this.
1) What I did in New Mexico 5 years ago has no bearing on what I'm doing in CA.
2) Those who are willing to give up a little liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor saftey.
3) Cost.
I'm sorry, but the costs to implement this would be enormous and yet another wasteful spending run on the part of the new-era Republican government.
When a cop pulls me over, it is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand how many points are on my licence or what previous violations exist. In fact it would be a violation of equal protection if I were to be treated differently based on this information.
It's completely reasonable (and not a "violation of equal protection") to treat repeat offenders differently. If you haven't noticed, your sentence will be longer the third time you commit armed robbery than it was the first time you did it. Perhaps you just think traffic violations are no big deal, and we should all stop hassling you about your unsafe and illegal driving habits.
I agree...the use of Fed. money witholding of Hwy. funds is basically blackmail....something a non-govt. individual would be arrested and prosecuted for..
The sad thing is...the states are giving all this money to the Feds to allow them to do this!!!
Any good suggestions on what can be done about this? The fed $$'s thing is the core of the problem....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Just for the record, the actual quote is:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Klein bottle for rent - inquire within.
Why are you an Anonymous Coward?
Look at the Bill, and look what all is included outside of the Drivers license issue. To me the DL issue is moot when you see that the congress has given Homeland security the precedence that it can assume responsibility to act without regard to all laws as it sees fit. Ofcourse its targeted to stopping immigration in California but there is no limits and it's open to interpretation.
The entire law isn't setting precedence on purpose (for which all laws should be created) but setting precedence on what can be done.
When you open the door to taking away my liberties, my rights and the laws we are bound to by our constitution that is infringing on my rights, my liberties and my freedoms.
How do you see it or better what why do you feel indifferent or amoral to the concept? Do you think your safer? Do you think because you don't "ever" do anything you will be alright?
Washington State, and my license already has all of those. Heck, it even has my height, weight, and eye color.
Poor choice of example - the employees didn't elect their manager. Their manager can act on his own desires w/no consequences from the employees. Our state politicians risk not being elected if they go against the will of the people (assuming the people have the will, the knowledge and the brains to vote).
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I'm American and I've been living and working in London for about eight years. No intention to go back permanently, however I am in the US from time to time on biz.
A lot of the verification work seems to have been delegated to the issuing states, but since I'm not resident who would carry this out for me?
I'm a little concerned about possbily being denied access to domestic flights, etc.
A message from our sponsor
I wish my state would too...but, here in LA, the oil crunch has killed that major revenue source. We were the last state to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21. They originally told the Feds. to keep their funds, they figured they'd lose more money in the state from the loss of alcohol tax revenue. Alas, the oil crunch of the 80's hit...and they had to surrender. Now, we've had to pass the ridiculously low BAC of 0.08 as drunk level. A grown man having 2 glasses of wine with a meal could now qualify for DWI....that's stupid.
Something has got to be done to check the Fed's increasing infringment on states rights. How did all the tax the states have to send to the feds to be blackmailed with start? How can we stop it?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Utah DL's have all of those, with the exception of "full" legal name. As mentioned previously, the middle name is replaced by an initial.
Unplug all controller for great reset!!
So are police cars. I say we get rid of those. Oh yeah, guns too. And uniforms, those just suck. And why in the world do they need computers anyway? Can't they just use pen and paper.
Sorry, I think I just needed to let some sarcasm out. It was building up.
Republican politicians argued that the new rules were necessary to thwart terrorists, saying that four of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers possessed valid state-issued driver's licenses. "When I get on an airplane and someone shows ID, I'd like to be sure they are who they say they are," said Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, during a floor debate that started Wednesday.
... all in the name of preventing terrorism. You know, as time goes on I realize just how bad of an event 9/11 was. Not for everyone who died, but for the fallout on the American public. Let me ask you something Mr. Tom Davis: if those terrorists had completely valid and legal licenses, what is going to prevent them from getting more completely valid and legal licenses with this new system?
Yet once again
Sigh.
::jafomatic
Please send me some nighttime videos of your bedroom, and your parents' bedroom. I'm just looking out for your safety. You have nothing to hide.
--
make install -not war
What Endangered Species Act? Never heard of it, keep laying down the asphalt.
I was with you until this last line. Now section 102 sounds like a good idea.
Anyone else not seeing this... people loose cards. cards get counterfeited, etc. etc. when are the bio-chips going to come?
(Check your spelling; I can wave the law around all I want to. :)
Yes, it passed the House with that provision. Our Representatives in Washington voted to exempt Homeland Security from all legal constraints in building an Iron Curtain around the US.
Sickening.
Is it possible that this information could somehow be abused? Of course. Its possible to abuse any sort of personal information.
Abuse is not only possible, it is inescapable. This information will be misused both by the government, and by hackers, to the detriment of pretty much everybody.
Presumably they've hired various experts time and time again - just to foul their "modernization" projects up.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
But driving is not a right.
If the federal gov't was much smaller, your federal income tax should be much smaller too. The states could then raise their taxes, and pay for much of their own needs themseleves.
I'd rather pay more taxes to the state, where my voice means more, then to the fed gov't, where it means almost nothing.
A good start would be repealing the amendment that provided for the direct election of senators.
It makes SINCE!!! This is the problem.
Put all my info under my skin one day so it can't be stolen?! IT MAKES SINCE!!
This is the problem. It will happen.
Let these sink in as deeply as you like.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me." - Pastor Niemöller on the Holocaust
Please mod me down, because replying to one's self is stupid; but I must also mention that the anti-counterfeiting measures on Utah DL's are practically impregnable. The State Seal, the names of every county, the [current] Governer's signature, and the holder's signature are all part of the background of the card, made with holographic printing techniques. The holder's picture is on there twice; one at regular size and color level to identify with, and one at a smaller size with faded coloring set behind all of the information wording. Also, a picture of the state capitol building is the backmost image on the card. On top of everything else, the card isn't just laminated paper, it's like a credit card; everything is printed right on the plastic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but those are some drastic security measures.
Unplug all controller for great reset!!
those who attempt to fraudulently obtain a license in another state when their original license had been suspended,
If drivers' licenses were only used for the privelege of driving, your case would have much more weight. But driver licenses have become a universal identification credential for everything from buying alcohol to getting a job.
I have a traffic infraction in another state that I REFUSE to address because 1) it was absolutely an abuse of power in the first place, and 2) the judicial process to clear my name is so expensive and cumbersome in and of itself that it constitutes a violation of Constitutional rights to avoid unreasonable penalties.
My version of civil disobedience means that I will not conform to an unjust process - I will simply allow the statute of limitations to expire on this instead.
So your argument about the 'public good' falls short here, too.
I would encourage you never to mod someone down because you don't agree with them. That's not the way the system is supposed to work. In fact, you probably shouldn't mod people up just because you agree with them.
Then again, this could be the first result of No Child Left Behind.
Assuming you're doing it strictly for philosophical reasons (and not because you're a drunk/junkie who had her license revoked), the most you'll likely get is a fine/ticket.
If you live in an area with a libertarian judge, you could probably even get out of the ticket.
I, Anal.
FYI, Vermont may already be on the road to refusing federal highway funding. They want to LOWER the drinking age to 18. The reasoning is simple: If you're old enough to join the army, learn to kill, go off and possibly be killed yourself, all for your country, you should be able to handle a beer.
It's about time.
Kierthos,
You're a shinning example of those who ignore the purpose of government and laws as long as it supposedly doesn't affect them.
Your interpretation is based upon your view of the law, and the issue is the law shouldn't be open to such a drastic interpretaion. It should have a subject, and speak about that subject clearly.
It's really satisfying to read childish comments like yours that refuse to actually comprehend the issue based upon the assumptions your now safer or not affected because you are mr goody 2 shoes. Satisfying in the sense that i feel accomplished for having read the bill, written my congressment and raised a stink about the issues and taken the time to analyze it. You on the otherhand seem to get satisfaction out of debunking the issue because you can.
Please, look at the law and understand what is happening. Don't defend it because your a republcian or whatnot, but defend it for its face value. If you can't, then don't twist it to make it look good just because its republican sponsored.
You're just plain wrong about the federal push for a lowered BAC percentage:
http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,4588,00.html
The national speed limits were around until 1995 or so; its still a valid example of coercion.
There are thousands of other examples, from Medicare funding formulas to police funding initiatives.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Minnesota has already adopted a digital id which has been phasing in for the last month or so. So for Minnesota this is not a problem at all. Frankly I believe that this is a good idea as it will cut down on fake id use at bars, casinos, etc.. All you people gripe about losing freedom, what freedom are you losing, unless you have something to hide. So what if your driving record is stored on there, if you have a driving record with no DUI's then it should not be a problem. This could also possibly tied to a health database later on. Say someone has a heart attack, they go to the hospital, they swipe the drivers license for verification, and then accesses a database for all of the medical problems/ prescriptions the patient is on.
http://www.freestateproject.org/
New Hampshire is looking better every day...
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
But that's precisely the problem, they are using the witholding of funds (which are the states to begin with that they send it) to leverage and force them to adhering to these Fed. guidelines. In effect...they ARE mandating the states follow federal mandates. They're getting around the constitution by using financial blackmail. Most states today cannot afford to tell the feds to shove the $$'s up their ass. See my prior posts about LA originally refusing to raise drinking age.
The states need to stop sending funds to the feds that allow them to strong arm them this way...or at least mandate that witholding of these funds for not complying with federal 'suggestions' is illegal.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Whether it scares you are not, that is PRECISELY what the United States is all about. You must be one of those liberals who think that we live in a "democracy". Nothing could be more wrong. We ARE a "republic".
Go back to school and learn something. Your ignorance is showing.
Georgia has them all.
My UID is the product of 2 primes.
Virginia DL does not have magstripe but has all other features.
Have you read the bill to understand the purpose of the bill?
The bill isn't being created to catch DUI'ers escaping or driving illegaly, it isn't being created to catch criminals, crooks, thieves, rappists and what not.
We don't know why it is being created other then at the request of congress, the "homeland security" and other federal agencies.
What the "Homeland Security" has to do with my driving record is beyond me since states, not federal government control my ability to drive and should be pro-active in maintaining that right.
We are neither safer nor are we funding any initiative to catch bad guys by this law. There is no more police, there is no coordination to actually take charge and solve the problems you mention.
What is happening is the government is excluding itself from the law and creating infrastructure for it to do as it sees fit without judicial/congressional or representative oversite.
You support that for what? And you assume this law is solving your afformentioned issues how?
The insurance and credit companies have been assembling DL data among many other kinds. Homeland Security has become their biggest customer as internal database developments fail (e.g. TIPS, Carnivoir). Private data companies like Choice Point are prospering.
But driving is not a right.
Yes, but it should be. In this country, unless you live in a major city, it is almost impossible to live without the ability to drive. Our society has evolved to where nearly everyone has to commute some distance to work - even if it is a couple miles it's impractical for most of us to walk or bicycle to work. I know a few people that have lost their licenses to DUIs, but most of them continue to drive. How else are they supposed to stay employed and pay their bills.
This argument comes up all the time here and it irritates me. I wish we all had a magic subway that stopped at everyone's house and delivered them to wherever they wanted to go so we didn't have to drive most of the time. The bottom line is the operation of a motor vehicle and the ability to move about your city/state/country are currently tied directly to the "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" writtena about in the Declaration of Independence.
Find coupons in Greeley
While still largely true...the slimy political system here IS getting better. Many crooks have been prosecuted and others are being persuded. The main reason (see prior post) that LA succumbed to the Fed coersion...was the oil crunch of the 80's. They originally figured they'd lose more tax money from alcohol revenues by raising the drinking age than they would lose with fed hwy. dollars. Oil crunch hit...major revenues from that dried up....and they had to get the fed funds.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
But it won't happen in that order. The states will first have to ensure that they can live without the federal money, *then* they will be able to demand the cessation of federal programs and lowering of then-unnecessarily-high taxes, because the federal purse strings will be unable to strangle the initiative.
It won't happen at all, of course. Some states generate less wealth per capita than others, and there are not-unreasonable arguments that throwing poorer states upon their own resources is un-neighborly. It's the same kind of insoluble dilemma that led to the different formulas for representation in the two houses of Congress.
WTF would you want to live in Commie Europe anyway?
I have been waiting for a sumission like this so I could post what has been rolling around in my brain for quite some time...here goes:
The goverment of the United States was originally intended to be empowering to the people and severely limiting to the Federal governement. State and local government were to be able to dismiss just about (if not all) federal laws they didn't wish to follow. I don't think the same thing exists between the local and state governments but it could depending on how the state constitution reads.
So...why is it there don't seem to be any state's rights left? The answer is the rights are still there just as they always have been. The difference is FEDERAL DOLLARS. The feds pretty much say if you want to continue getting money from us then you will comply with this law/rule/regulation. I believe this is the very reason why there was a specific ban on "direct taxes" on the people by the federal government in the constitution. Money is power...something the founding fathers wanted the federal government to have very little of.
What to do about this? Kill off the sources of cash to the Federal government..."Starve the beast" as it has been referred to in recent months (at least in reference to social security). Fairtax would be a great place to start...HR25 (House) and S25 (Senate) are already on the floor for debate and are the "fairtax" bills. Write/call/e-mail/contact your reprosentatives and get this going while there is momentum. This is a great first-step towards doing away with the direct federal taxation of it's citizens.
Once (if ever) this is taken away from the federal government, Here is what I think should be the structure for the U.S.:
States should be the one's collecting all the tax revenue that is now currently going to the federal government. Each state should have it's own social security, medicare, welfare, education, etc. programs. This would give the citizens of the U.S. a choice...and they could choose by moving to whatever state has the set up they like the most.
States should give support to the military, CIA, FBI, etc. from the tax revenue they receive from their citizens based on the population of the state (or something equally fair).
Money should never be flowing from the citizens to the federal government and then back to the states...that's just backwards.
Some may say, "what if I move and I have paid into xyz state's social security, medicare, etc. programs. How does that transfer?" Well...that's where the representatives we send to Washington D.C. come into play. They would have to craft a way for this to be able to happen while providing maximum flexibility for the states to craft their programs how they see fit. That way the citizens have more direct control over this kind of thing...power to the people as it was originally intended. Additionally...sentators should go back to being appointed by the state governments as representatives of the state and not the citizens as it is now. That is how it was originally crafted...and under this arrangment it should be restored to it's original way.
This law has little to do with driving (none at all to be frank)
Yes, driving is a right that you earn in each state by meeting the requirements to obtain that right.
Just like i got my polits license, and the right to fly legally in our airspace as long as i maintain the proper credentials.
Its not a right by the bill of rights per say, but thats not the issue.
I need a license to buy beer, buy PAINT, go to a bar/club and some restaurants or to signup for credit cards or buy auto insurance or do many things that don't necessarily reflect the need to drive. I don't want the government having the ability to violate my rights of personal information without the due process of judicial oversight and an official warrant for that information.
That is where liberty and freedom are being killed.
But if not, it's because they're incompetent, not because of the lack of a national ID card. Having such a card would not, as the original poster suggested, make any difference in their ability to do so. The card cannot be justified purely on the idea that it would allow the IRS to make it easier to do our taxes.
It may be possible to justify the card on some other basis, but not this one. National standards for driving might be a more compelling argument, and they've already done it for truck drivers, but I think that falls flat. CDLs are easy to regulate federally because it's hard to argue that it doesn't fall under "regulating interstate commerce." Congress already clearly knows that they have no Constitutional right to regulate other driving directly, which is why they're trying to influence states by withholding funding instead of just passing a law requiring a federal drivers license.
The real question is what purpose the 10th Amendement even serves anymore, when Congress can just use financial bullying to expand its powers instead of directly making law.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Overstaying a visa would become grounds to deny a driver's license. There are many, many people who are now *legal* immigrants who have at some stage overstayed a visa period.
I D =17402&c=206
The act reduces the allowed list of reasons to be granted asylum, so the petitioner now has to prove that their claim arises from persecution due to race, nationality, religion, or political group membership. Merely having your life at risk will no longer be sufficient. There will also need to be corroborating evidence; even if the state knows full well that the petitioner was tortured, they'll be able to demand proof.
The act also amends the law to allow the US to deport *victims* of terrorism. For example, Colombian refugees who were forced to make "protection money" payments to FARC death squads would now be liable for deportation for financial ties to a terrorist organization, without the government actually needing to present any evidence that the payments supported terrorism. The mere fact of monetary ties to FARC, whatever the circumstances, would be enough--and it's believed that the majority of Colombian refugees have had money extorted from them by FARC.
Then, if a person is barred under the act, their spouse and children are also barred, even if they had nothing to do with the alleged activities.
http://www.lirs.org/DonateServe/advocate/HR418/
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?
"We've got enough huddled masses yearning to breathe free, thanks."
Let's see if this gets modded up...
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Hear, Hear! And I thought I was the only one.
Well, my theory of course is that the states will want to grab power for themselves, which would thus dismantle much of the current federal gov't.
I think 'checks & balances' really means that we setup a power struggle that no one i supposed to win. It operations on the premise that those with power always want more, and thus will fight to keep it (and attempt to stop other from gaining it too).
Which leads to my opinion on gov't; the best gov't is one that doesn't really do much of anything at all.
Many states suspend drivers licenses for a host of reasons, mainly to collect money. For example, failure to pay parking tickets, library fines, child support... It's just a little bit of leverage that bureaucrats discovered they could use. Wait until the feds have this same capability. Want to be allowed to travel by plane? Better get those library books turned in, terrorist!
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the federal government can do this as long as they are not coercing them. This was when they made it so all states needed to have drinking age at 21 and .1 limit. With more and more things being added and with the state of the economy as it is, it's starting to look a lot like coercion.
I plead insufficient coffee this morning
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I've got a better example.
I am a government agent. I put a gun to your head and threaten to pull the trigger if you do not sign a confession to a crime I have accused you of.
You have a choice. You can choose not to sign. But if you choose not to sign, there are consequences.
How is that example different from yours? The penalty for noncompliance is harsher. That is all.
That is called duress. "Constraint by threat."
Of course under the law, duress is coercion ILLEGALLY applied. The federal government has no incentive to make it illegal for them to coerce states into passing new laws. So technically it is not duress under the law.
But it's still COERCION.
coerce Audio pronunciation of "coerce" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-ûrs)
tr.v. coerced, coercing, coerces
1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.
3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.
Does that sound GOOD to you? It doesn't sound good to me. Coercion is bad. It is a way of forcing someone to do something. It may not be "against their will" in the traditional sense, but if the choice you offer is really no choice at all because of how much it will cost you for noncompliance, then I say yes, it is against their will.
Oh come off it. I perfectly agree with your right to not tell people what you don't want to tell them, but by having a licence you agreed to let the state know your driver details. You also agree to show your licence when asked, or as far as the system is concerned you're driving without a licence. You knew this when you signed the form, you can't bitch about it now.
Back to the article, i'm all in favour of sharing driver information between states. No, really. Why? Because if (like you) you have no or few points on your licence then what is there to worry about? "Oh no, the state can track me!". Your mobile phone company knows far more about your habits than you can possibly extract from a driving licence, so what's the worry? If it helps, go privatise it. I'm sure your store cards and credit cards would never be used to work out what you do and don't do without you telling the stores, my word no!
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
As far as I know, I dont have any rights, not even the ones provided by Geneva convention. It is mere generosity of the police force that they dont lock up the likes of me (in other words - any foreigner) at their whim and fancy. Yes, I am completely legit and respect the laws and culture of the USA and its member states.
This new law makes no difference to me, except that it makes US a much less desired place to immigrate to and become a citizen of. I dont want my children to grow up in this police state definitely.
When someone says USSR was oppresive blah blah blah, I usually laugh at them. I would like to ask them to live in the US as a foreigner and they can see how USSR was.
Satisfying in the sense that i feel accomplished for having read the bill, written my congressment and raised a stink about the issues and taken the time to analyze it. You on the otherhand seem to get satisfaction out of debunking the issue because you can.
O Mr. High and Mighty! I bow before your extreme involvement in the law making process!
Did it occur to you that he's defending it because he actually thinks it's a good idea? Personally, I don't want some idiot driving around Utah with four DUIs in other states. Got it?
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Please demonstrate how the creation of a national ID *automatically* causes people to abuse it because they don't like my face. If people shouldn't do that, we should pass useful laws punishing such behavior, and use them.
Explain how such laws would be enforced, and I'll agree.
Oh my god, it's Germany 1943. I should fear Big Brother because I am a law abiding citizen (sarcasm).
I would have to agree. I don't understand why people are afraid of a national database where their info is exchanged. I honestly think if you have nothing to hide, why complain about it. Those who have something to hide, I would see why. I just assume that the majority here who do not comprehend the reasoning behind this passage of law are just jumping to conclusions and fearing that someone will knock on their door. Grow up and stop believeing your nerdy leftist friend across the street. No shadowy figure are going to come and knock down your door and stop you from doing whatever you do in the privacy of your own home. Big Brother just doesn't pick on anyone. Christ, just be a good citizen and you have nothing to fear. Or do you like being a pain in society's rear?
In sentencing, after guilt has been "proven" in court, perhaps. But not for police to do so when making a citation or arrest.
My driving record is quite good, thank you, and you can take your ad hominem and stuff it.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
You know why we are complaining about this? It's called the 10th ammendment dumbass!
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
The founding fathers of this country were considered terrorists by the British.
Prohibition was fought by Terrorists.
That's the thing about the word Terrorist. It's assigned to you. The minute that you're labeled a terrorist, there's no reason to listen to you, and there's every reason to destroy you. There are some REAL terrorists, true, but people have been using that word a little loosely.
How far are we from becoming a REAL police state?
If you haven't read it, read 1984. The constituion would be a good primer, too.
You are working under the false impressions that:
A) Congress critters have READ the constitution.
B) Congress critters can UNDERSTAND the Constitution.
C) Congress critters actually READ the legislation they are voting on.
Except for Congressman Ron Paul, I don't think anyone in congress or the white house can pass
the above three criteria....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Yes, but paragraph 2 which does an end run around the constitution is not included in the list of paragraphs exempt from judicial review and thus a suit voiding paragraph 2 as unconstitutional, opens acts under paragraph 1 to judicial review. They know this provision has no meat. They also know it will take 5-10 years of courtroom anti-drama to get it stricken. In the meantime they're free to do as they please.
Yet another moron who throws out the "What are you trying to hide??" argument. You sir, are a the poster child of the kind of people who place our freedoms at grave risk with your cavalier attitudes about privacy.
Seriously, you need to really study history. You are grossly ignorant of human nature and how these "small things" like privacy have been abused over and over and over again throughout history. There's a reason these protections were put into the constitution. Don't fuck with these protections when you clearly have no clue what the fuck you're talking about. It's unfortunate how many people out there feel the same was as you do. I guess the people who have died for this shit don't really matter.
Feel free to mod me a flamer. I'll happily chew the ass of any dipshit who thinks this shit is ok.
Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
Kentucky ones do, also. 10 seconds in a microwave fixes 'em.
I was going to alter it, make myself a senator or something, but i got lazy.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
I've got no real problem with the federal government passing standards for drivers licensing. Right now, a state drivers license is for all intents and purposes a national ID card (with the Patriot Act, a valid drivers license or state ID is a requirement to even open a bank account) and as such there should be standards. How can I in the midwest trust a California drivers license as an ID if they just sort of give them out to anyone?
I agree with your point on the 10th amendment - but that leads us back to the IRS! Without the obscene amounts of tax revenue that the federal government collects, it couldn't bully the states into doing its bidding.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
I agreed, when I signed up for my liscence, to share that information with MY STATE's DMV. Not some other state.
Yes, I have nothing to worry about. So why not put a webcam in my bedroom that any government agent can watch? I mean, I have nothing to worry about -- I don't have sex with goats.
It's a slippery slope argument. The US Federal government now has access to my driving record, along with lots of other things. This conditions us to take the attitude that only dirtbags have something to hide, so all information will be public. I don't support that.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
So I guess what you said is already true.
i think the difference is you know exactly what the DMV (and hence the government) can see - you filled out the form. A camera is a much more generic thing, but nobody's forcing you to have either a camera or a driving licence.
Your state is just a logical partition of the federal government. Personally (being from the UK) I like government services being able to access details from anywhere in the country, especially with things like healthcare (A hospital in the south automatically knows I'm anemic and allergic to penicillin before giving me the drugs), driving licence is the same in reverse - if you have nothing to worry about be happy it catches the idiots who drive up your insurance.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
hmmm.
:
The United Kindom has a word for that role
Lord Protector.
look it up.
open your mind too much and your brain falls out!
It has never been about safety, about catching bad guys, about any of the reasons they state. It is about control of the citizenry pure and simple. Welcome to the brave new world. Oh and remember: RFID tags can be refreshed, and updated if periodically treated for 10 seconds in a microwave...
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
How can they even make a law stating no judicial review? It doesn't seem like it would be constitutional to even do so..since the SC has the sole ability to rule on whether the law is constitutional or not.
States don't have rights. Only natural persons have rights. (The) States have powers, and yes the purpose of locking this to highway funds is that the US Federal Government does not have the constitutional authority to mandate this. If the courts did their job, they would not allow this 'loop hole'.
It would be one thing if moving violations were given out for "safety", but in today's climate -- moving violations are simply another way to generate revenue for cities and states.
Don't think that's true? The only reason for having motorcycle policemen is because they can generate in excess of $500K/year in ticket revenue.
Is this 'Big Brother' in action? You bet it is! What the hell does the federal government need my ENTIRE driving history for? Mind you, insurance companies look at your driving record for the past 3-5 years (also questionable based on previous revenue generation argument). But the government was an indefinite record. Not even the IRS requires that (yet).
yes -- this is Big Brother in action. I'm sure they will claim it is for your safety. Of course the same folks that buy that bullshit think that Patriot Act has somehow made us safer -- rather than simply less free.
The argument "if you have nothing to hide then don't worry about it" ONLY works under the assumption that those w/ the information aren't going to abuse it.
If the government suddenly wanted to arrest those who disagreed w/ the administration, or arrest those who were Jewish, or a Marxists revolution wanted to take all assets from the wealthy they could use your drivers license at checkpoints to do these sorts of things.
The same way if your employer was pro-life and you had had an abortion if your medical insurance company abused your privacy they could sell the information to anyone interested in hiring you and deny you work based on something PRIVATE in your life.
Granted these are unlikely circumstances but that's the fear. Sure if they just want to check my perfect driving record and see if I'm wanted in any other states, sure I have no problem. But once that information is 'public' and linked if abused I have no place to hide.
Think if the government decided you were suddenly an enemy combatant against the state. They would have justification to get into any database and track you down. Even if your innocent.
It's not about OUR innocence or GUILT, its about the privacy to prevent the information from being abused.
Our state politicians risk not being elected if they go against the will of the people (assuming the people have the will, the knowledge and the brains to vote).
The media control which candidates have the money to get the word out to voters by donating to one candidate's campaign over another's. Very few people have both the will, the knowledge and the brains to vote with their dollars and the will, the knowledge, the brains, and the citizenship to vote with their votes.
If you're driving on a suspended or revoked license, yes, that fact is significant. But the offence that lead to the suspension or revokation is not relevant at the time of the stop. Your driving history is not relevant, only the question of whether or not your licence is valid.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Your state is just a logical partition of the federal government
Um... NO. If my state was just a logical partition of the federal government, there would be no need for an independent legislature, no need for state elections, no need for our own state police, our own tax board, different tax rates, our own laws, etc.
There are some who would like to standardize everything, so that every law in California is the same as every law in New Jersey. Personally, I think that's just asking for trouble. If you don't like the laws where you live, you can always move elsewhere - there's a good chance you'll find a more comfortable environment in one of the many counties and parishes somewhere in this country. If the feds controlled it all, down to the state and local level, where would you go if you didn't like what they were doing?
To give a concrete example, some states use your Social Security number as your driver's license number (a really BAD idea) - others don't. Some states allow right turns on red lights, others don't. Some states have sales tax/income tax, others don't.
Come to the US and spend some time touring the countryside. We're cut from the same common history as a nation, but we're not tailored in the same way everywhere. Trust me, this is a GOOD thing.
"The law enforcement in California shouldn't be aware of my speeding ticket in New Jersey. It's not thier right to know!"
Why not? You act as though your privacy is being violated, but you forget rather quickly that driving is a PRIVILEGE. I'm not sure what "rights" they are violating.
This is a classic example of why you don't deal with the devil. You may not like the terms when it comes time to pay up.
PS I hate the idea of national ID cards, and will leave the country before submitting to them. Keep that in mind before you make snap judgements about my comments.
We welcome a return to the old days where governments abused their citizens through fear and power:
Nazi Germany
The McCarthy Era
The George W. Bush Era
Do you have your papers? Do you know any "potential terrorists" (with the term being defined as anyone you don't like)?
Did I mention we're spreading freedom across the globe?
Perhaps, but it is not without precedent. Threats to highway funding were used to get states to increase the minimum drinking age to 21 and to require vehicle emissions testing. Whether or not that is just, it is.
I find it ironic that the so-called proponents of transferring more power to the states are the ones behind this and any number of other issues where they want conformance to their ideology. But this hypocrisy was predictable even back in 1994.
"Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss..." -- The Who (?)
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
"But it's quite another to coerce the states into passing laws they don't want to pass, or that are contrary to their state constitutions, in order to receive highway funds. Hopefully the Senate kills this quickly. "
LOL! HAHAHHAH!
Are you an idiot or just play one on Slashdot or something??!
What are you talking about force states to do something "they don't want to do"? That's too damend bad. One of the benefits and drawbacks of the union is Federal laws. And States don't have to engage in this UNLESS they want to continue getting thier stipend from the government.
But maybe you didn't know that or cared to glance over that one little line.
If State constitutions are contrary to federal laws, then guess what - it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So it doesn't matter WHAT federal law goes against state laws, that's not how it works. If they state does not want to engage in this, they wont get Federal funds. Simple.
This is a good way to weed out states that care about our border protection and national security and find out who panders to the illegal population and gives them illegal jobs with illegal residences.
Brooklyn.
because, my friend, what you do not recall is that the greatness of the constitution is that it can be changed to cope with the needs of our current society. The problem arises, however, with corrupt sob's who are out for themselves, and not for the people they "serve".
Hopefully the president will veto this (particular part of the law), i doubt it though. So our hope resides with the senate. The only way the judicial board will get a say is if somebody takes it to court.
My biggest gripe about laws is that they make them TOO comprehensive and add TOO many extras in there. So while 90% of the law may be great, that last 10% will probably rape, plunder and loot the people.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I really do. When i was a young child growing up here in America, i and many others were taught of the great freedoms we have. The battles we fought for our rights, the many deaths men women and children suffered before us....
:)
I mean just how are they teaching history in schools today?
Surely they cant be teaching the same "stories" of civil wars, civil rights, seperation of church and state, no taxation without representation, freedom of the press, monarchs in other countries, dictatorships, labor unions and works rights! etc....
Just what are they teaching in history today?
Where is America going?
Frankly i beleive we're all under control of the ruling class that taxes us, without any representation. They arent affraid for our well being, they're affraid terrorists will blow up their wealthy gated communities.
Does anyone else have that "this wasnt what i was taught in school" feeling?
This seems kind of like California's new law that allows them to store criminals' DNA information in a database.
And I recently heard that they just caught a rapist/murderer using this new technology.
The 'tinfoil hat' people were making a big fuss about it when it was submitted to our vote ("Privacy Violations!", "Big Brother!", and the like).
But I think the benefits far outweight the costs.
Why do people have to make a big fuss over the government improving the way it communicates with itself?
(...even using technology. Who knew!)
http://augustwestproducts.i8.com
You're right in that it doesn't affect me. I don't own a car. I don't drive anywhere. I do maintain a driver's license for proof of identity and, if necessary, to be a designated driver for my friends if the need comes up. I'm also not a Republican, btw. Nor am I a Democrat.
I still fail to see what is wrong with having a national standard for driver's licenses and requiring states to share their DMV databases. There are far worse "violations" of "privacy" already, and no-one screams at those. Everything you buy with a credit card is kept in a database for who knows how long, for one example.
Practically all the things they want on the 'standard' driver's license are already on the license I have. I'm not giving up anything I haven't already willingly given the DMV already. So, shockingly, it's not a big deal to me.
Get a grip, it's not that big a deal.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
So basically, the new ID rules are to prevent air terror. And it stinks. So what are some better alternatives:
1. Start racial profiling at airport security. Israel's El-Al airlines has been doing this for ever. This would be accompanied by a voluntary registered traveller program to allow for speedier passage thru security for middle aged and/or male and/or dark skinned folks.
1a. Implement tighter screening for *any* non registered travellers.
2. Tighten immigration. Can anyone tell me why we should let a single Saudi into this country? Instead, we should make the Saudi pay $10000 for a State Dept. background investigation on them to make sure they're benign.
2a. Tighten the boarders. Illegal immigration is is illegal, so don't allow it. Deport illegals within 24 hours of being caught.
These would be better in my opinion.
Bush has yet to use veto power on a single bill passed by Congress. Since he hasn't threatened to veto it, it is virtually guaranteed that he won't. Since his pick for Attorney General is a man who advocates the use of torture in certain instances, he's not going to limit power to his darling new office (DHS).
I agree that it's unfortunate the "suspension of all laws" clause, as well as the coupling with a ban on judicial review is much, much, much, much more important than the incredibly egregious national ID section. Welcome to the Brave New World. The only differences between licenses now are the State Seals. Everything else is different in the same way two style sheets dealing with the same code are different.
It'll be interesting in my particular instance, because the text of the law says states must verify SS numbers or get verification that the applicant is not eligible. I do not have one, but as a US citizen I am eligible. There is no provision for people like me. "Voluntarily apply for our 'mandatory' retirement scheme or lose the privilege of traveling by the common means of the day."
My expat date seems to be moving closer and closer. At least I can still board a plane out of the country with my passport.
It even gets better. A part of this bill is the mandate that states join the "Driver License Agreement" (DLA) (PDF Document) as sponsored by the AAMVA. Not only will our driving records include personal info like SS# be available to cops within the US but also Canada and Mexico ! Also this means a traffic ticket anywhere within North America will go against your driving record at home which your insurance company will punish you for accordingly.
So, go on vacation to Cancun Mexico, get a ticket from some dickhead cop and since there are no due process rights there, get home and get boned again by your state DMV just because of him.
This DLA will be replacing the Driver License Compact (DLC) and Non-Resident Violator Compact (NRVC). The DLC is where your state will assess points for the out of state ticket or pull your license for the out of state DUI. The NRVC means that when you get ticketed for a violation in a different state, the cop does not have to take you to jail or make you post bond. He treats you like a resident. If you ignore the out of state ticket, the other state notifies your home DMV and your home DMV will pull your license until you take care of business in the other state.
The DLA will replace or supercede the DLC and NRVC and. The DLA will include provisions from the old compacts but however, it is more draconian. It also allows for the suspension/revokation of not only your drivers license from another state but also the suspension/revokation of your vehicle registration especially for something like ignoring the out of state parking ticket. Also, it limits due process rights such as you cannot challenge violations that are put on your record from a different state except for clerical errors. It benefits the DMV's and insurance companies.
The state I live in - Colorado participates in both compacts but however, the legislature put in limitations on the DLC to mention that points cannot be assessed for minor offenses such as speeding reported from other states. This was recognition that other states are known to abuse nonresidents for revenue enhancement, therefore, at least when the motorist gets home, he does not have to worry about home state punishement. In addition, since out of state violations are no points, they don't go on your record since another part of Colorado law does not allow zero points tickets to be recorded. The DLA would change all that.
I don't know if our legislature would be too keen to join the DLA but I can see them writing in some limitations such as not sharing all information with other states like SS#'s. However, the DLA does not allow for any exceptions. I hope our legislatures decides to skip the DLA but won't hold my breath. They already implemented most parts of the house bill anyway such as photo recognition, checking SS#, mag strip and 2 level bar code.
The only people I can see having a true complaint are the drivers who want to hide their tickets in one state from LEOs in another state.
If you get pulled over and the card "doesn't work" that's "Not Your Problem". It means that the cop WILL have to type in your DL # and then wait for the data to come back (like many of them do now).
The card itself is of no consequence, really. What is of consequence is the sharing of data on demand, as triggered by the card. But the card could just as easily be your SS# or your State+DL# or any number of unique identifying data points.
As noted in other posts - most of this info is already shared. So, the problem seems ot be the convenience factor for Officer Krupke of the Donut Patrol - apparently people feel threatened if the denizens of the Krispy Kreme Brigade have instant access to one's entire driving and legal record.
They *Already* have that access, they just have to work for it. So, if you think their convenience is deniable, then demagnetise the card and go on with your life. It just means that a 5 minute traffic stop that would have been "Hey Asshole^H^H^H^H^H^Citizen - you were doing 73 in a 65, so you're getting a ticket!" that would last 5 minutes will now drag out into a 20 minute disaster, ending with "Hey Asshole^H^H^H^H^H^H^Citizen - you're National ID Card has been demagnetised. Better get a new one, OK?"
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
It's not our rights as individuals that being infringed upon, but rather the states rights. The federal government has no power over what info state chooses to be required on your license, and how it dissemenates it.
Bill of Rights: Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Learn English and then memorize the constitution. Not the other way around.
If I wanted easy I wouldnt be an engineer or a patriot.
Vote the rascals out. Convince your fellow citizens
How would the media go along with this plan? The major movie studios and record labels give millions of dollars to elected officials from both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, both of which support a broader monopoly for incumbent publishers.
Ya' know, I'd really like airport screeners to be required by law to ask: "Your papers, please!" instead of "Can I see your boarding pass and driver's license?" (or whatever).
Might make people think about what's going on.
No, wait. No it wouldn't. I'm only kidding myself. They could stand there with an M16, dark glasses and a scowl, shouting, "do you have your papers, comrade?" and 99% of our compatriots would just keep thinking, "But! We're! Safer! Now! No! Terrorists! I hope they have a nice snack mix on the plane..."
Amen to that. The only reason most states go along with this crap is that most of them are already doing it anyway. Shouldn't the federal government be taxing less and the states taxing more, rather than the feds controlling the states by sticking their hands into the revenue stream? If the money goes to the states anyway, why does the federal government need to get its hands on it first? Yeah, I know, I know... some states are too poor so they have to live off the richer states' federal taxes.
...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
How do you not have an SS number? It is the law that every citizen/permenant resident must have a SS number, and every person with a visa who wants a job (not under the table obviously) must have a ss number.
SS numbers helps the person having it as well as the gov't (how do you get credit btw without one?).
I do not have a problem with torture...err i mean re-education in certain instances. For example, if they catch a terrorist - say one of Bin Laden's henchmen, and he can provide information about Bin Laden's whereabouts, then use whatever means necessary to get that information...if they need a hand I am willing to lend my fist to that service.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Some states generate less wealth per capita than others, and there are not-unreasonable arguments that throwing poorer states upon their own resources is un-neighborly.
Redistributing the wealth among the states via Federal taxation reduces the motivation of less successful states (i.e., the voters in the state) to fix their problems since it is easier to get more Federal welfare than to actually increase their state's per-capita productivity. If there is some state that is unable to take care of its basic needs, it would be neighborly for other states to help them. However, I'm not aware of any state that is incapable of supporting itself at a minimum level without Federal aid (of course, there would be a period of pain during the process of weaning states from the current misguided redistribution system). More importantly, last time I checked the United States Constitution, I don't recall seeing anything that explicitly authorizes the Federal government to force wealth redistribution among the states.
The value of Federal government involvement in areas such as education is a waste of resources. The redistribution process increases total costs while reducing agility and innovation in local education. If a group of states voluntarily decide to cooperate with each other, that's fine and they might choose to do so (for example, to pool costs of textbook development and standards) but there is no place for the Federal government in this process. I've never heard the elected officials of any state say something to the effect of "We are too stupid to run our own education system - we need the help of the smart Federal government to force us to educate our children properly". Instead, state officials often complain about the imposition of things such as standardized testing mandated by Federal programs while simultaneously complaining that they need more Federal money to fund education in their state.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
But that's not how it works.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
We shouldn't! We should pay everything to the State, and the State should be responsible to pay the Federal portion of their taxes.
:p
Next time someone in the federal government starts saying how we won't receive federal funds because of XX and YY the State can at least begin looking at what it contributes to the coffer versus what it gets paid out.
Besides, States are our representative government; at least it is the highest level of government the common person should have to deal with. Let the State representatives track activities and determine if programs are worthwhile. We can much more easily vote for change locally than across the entire (federal) government!
Oh. And corporations should have any rights as an individual either! I'm a Republican btw!
I dislike the fact that the state treats driving as a privilege not a right -- I cannot go to work without a car. I can't simply choose not to get a liscence.
The US was originally set up as a loose union of states that agreed to abide by the US Constitution. NH actually has the right to secede from the union in its state constitution. This is the way it should still be.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
I have a serious problem with the fact that driving is regarded as a privelege. I don't have a choice -- either drive, or lose my job, and default on the mortgage on my house.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
That's one of the most common responses. People think there's a law somewhere that requires you to fill out a form SS-5. Pick one up at your local SS office sometime, and read the Privacy Act statement on the back of it. That should clear up the notion that there's a law requiring people to have one.
I don't use credit. If I should need to get a credit card for myself, it's easy enough to get a foreign account in any number of other countries, with a card linked to a bank account.
Actually a visa gets you a TIN, not an SSN.
I would agree with the use of torture in certain instances myself, hypothetically. However, I would not ever choose to empower a bureaucracy with the power to torture. It would, no question, be abused. Most especially since there is currently no oversight for the people being held without charges (Writ of Habeas Corpus, anyone?) in this country.
Additionally, torture violates the 4th amendment, being necessarily cruel (though not necessarily unusual).
Lastly, in anticipation of response from those who would say only US citizens are entitled to the protection of the Constitution, the founding documents of the US lay out a doctrine whereby all people are vested of the same rights naturally. The Constitution is just there to protect those rights, no matter who the person is or where they come from. Rights are not derived from the government, rather they supercede the existence of the government. The government's only legitimate job is to protect those rights (with certain notable exceptions documented in the Constitution). Any other function is an abuse of power.
If the federal government wanted to terminate its relationship with states, that would be perfectly fair, but that's not what they're up to. They want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to withhold funds/services but still have the power to tax the citizens of that state. That's like "firing" somebody, so they don't get paid anymore, but still demanding that they show up for work.
I think every congresscritter who votes in favor of this type of abuse, should be punished. If not impeached, then at least voted out of office in the next election. They are clearing acting in bad faith, and have forgotten why the federal government has power at all, and where it comes from.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Funny, they can track you down for a moving violation in another state, but asshole deadbeat dads can't be tracked down and held accountable. Well, I guess if we can't hold the President accountable for lying, oh well. BUCK FUSH!
I guess this abuse is another one of those things that the feds are justifying as "interstate commerce." Sometimes, I think we need a constitutional amendment that defines just what the fuck interstate commerce is. That would probably wipe away 90% of the bullshit that comes out of Washington.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
That said, I believe if they take money from you as in a fine, then you've paid for your crime. Give points(or whatever) or take money, not both, and points should TOTALLY disappear from all records after a period of time and if they take money, your violation is paid for and shouldn't be held against you any further.
You knew this when you signed the form, you can't bitch about it now
Why not, who the hell are you to say I can't complain about something that bothers me, before OR after the fact? No one ever asked MY opinion on this. I didn't see it up for public debate. I had no input whatsoever. I'll bitch if I like.
So I'm guessing you'd be ok with paying higher insurance rates for life because you got caught speeding when you were young, after all it's now on your record FOREVER. How about being pulled over on a regular basis anywhere you go, because once you got a DUI and now it shows on every report about you. This means no matter how you change , grow, learn, your violation/crime can never truley be paid for and you will be paying for mistakes until the day you die, mostley because there's money in it for someone. I guess you'd call that the "american dream" huh. Once a criminal always a criminal. One step away from a real police state, where everyone except law enforcement is a criminal waiting to be caught.
Here's some examples of what happens when you do things this way. I won't shop at any store that requires tracking cards, I always use cash whenever possible, I avoid doctors like the plague(I'd have to be dying, and I'd still mull it over first)and any other "professional?" who feels it neccessary to make my private life available to anyone with a nickle. Whenever possible I only use my credit cards for business. I refuse to take a job with any company where I'm not hired by an owner who respects my rights(I give what I'm paid to give, but you don't get my soul). I've never had a cell/wireless/cordless phone and never will. I will never use a highway "easy pass". I'll take the hit to protect my privacy and freedom if I have to.
I gotten along quite nicely so far. It's not that I have anything to hide, it's that you never know what they'll(corporati/government) use against you next or make available to your competitors/enemies. So I attempt to avoid supplying them with ammo to use against me if I can.
Yup, this is basically a national ID law without the term "national ID" in it. Congress knew this was the only way to create one without massive public outcry. The US is truly an incremental society: as long as each change is barely noticeable, nobody complains.
"The only people I can see having a true complaint are the drivers who want to hide their tickets in one state from LEOs in another state."
Usually stated, "If you haven't done anything wrong, you shouldn't object to letting us look around."
THAT'S a slippery slope, and/or the thin end of the wedge.
"Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
Nice idea, but, couldn't they have chosen a state with a bit warmer climate??
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
So I'm guessing you'd be ok with paying higher insurance rates for life because you got caught speeding when you were young, after all it's now on your record FOREVER. How about being pulled over on a regular basis anywhere you go, because once you got a DUI and now it shows on every report about you. This means no matter how you change , grow, learn, your violation/crime can never truley be paid for and you will be paying for mistakes until the day you die, mostley because there's money in it for someone. I guess you'd call that the "american dream" huh. Once a criminal always a criminal. One step away from a real police state, where everyone except law enforcement is a criminal waiting to be caught.
Being from the UK, the 'American Dream' seems a bit of a fanciful idea thrown around by the Irish a few hundred years ago, and a bit of an irritation thrown around by current US administration. If what you're saying makes any sense, then you are telling me points are never removed from your licence, and you solve this by moving to another state? Because if not then points would be removed from *all* states at once, meaning if you cock up in different states you not only get penalised fairly, but you also get your redemption fairly. The world of 1984 takes a lot of effort to create, and it looks like the only thing which would make a police state necessary is people who blindly refuse to give details to government. You as a people go and vote the currend administration into power, if you don't like it move out of the country. Otherwise, fill out the forms. By all means refuse to give things you know aren't needed, but at least let the people you put into power try do their jobs.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
1984 is closer than you think, thanks to the broad powers given to the state via the PATRIOT Act.
Know your rights and speakup!
Peace
Uhmmm... but... won't the courts strike that provision as unconstitutional, pulling anything fang-like out of this legislation? Isn't that provision a bit like putting a sticker on your bumper stating "By pulling this vehicle over, you, (as a LEO) waive all right to search, impede the progress of, or impound this vehicle, and waive all liability for injuries to yourself in the process of attempting any unauthorized arrest of persons in this vehicle", etc.?
This is bad law, it will be destroyed. (we hope)
a.c.
There's a problem with "sending federal tax back to the states". It won't work for a majority of the western and southern states which, per capita, receive far more federal dollars back than they pay in Federal taxes. Those who complain the loudest about Federal funding, Colorado, Idaho, yadda yadda, are swimming in free cash. Welfare queens with Stetsons on.
To twist the blade a bit further, the states which are not predominately Republican pay more in than they receive back. The old line states, New York, California, Ohio, a few others, get creamed by pumping their tax dollars into states which then in turn complain about the tax system.
The federal taxes that the western and southern states pay are bonanzas for them!
To The Honorable Tom Davis Declan McCullough cites you as saying "When I get on an airplane and someone shows ID, I'd like to be sure they are who they say they are," said Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, during a floor debate that started Wednesday. I am writing seeking clarification of what existing policy is about ID requirements for being a passenger on a plane. A friend of my brother's was asked to show ID, and asked whether that was a government policy or an airline policy, and couldn't get a straight answer. If there is a government policy that airline passengers must show ID, can you provide me with a copy of the policy? Thanks in advance, Sincerely, [me] (send via web page form) # posted by gt @ 9:38 http://ballots.blogspot.com (the friend of my brother was john gilmore, as in gilmore v ashcroft. see http://papersplease.org ) Perhaps other slashdotters could make similar requests and see if we get an answer. If it is a government policy, it is also an unwarranted search, which is a civil rights violation, which is a federal felony. John's case is pending before the 9th circuit.
I also hope that someone in the Senate has the guts to fight this and get it killed. I always thought that the federal government wasn't supposed to infringe upon states rights, but then I may be confused. A drivers license is a right to drive granted by a state - it is not an identification card.
The root of the problem is that drivers licenses are used as identification and they should have never been used as ID. Can you use your hunting license as ID when you pay for something with a credit card? How about any other licenses for that matter? Maybe if hunting licenses and business licenses had photos on them then they could be used as identification too?
The Federal government wants a national identification card for all Americans but they can't have it directly without startling a lot of people and scaring some. As a result, they'll coerce states to do it instead so that it seems a little more palatable.
It strikes me as strange that anyone is concerned about a national identification card in the first place. If you have an American passport then you have an American national ID document. If you have a social security card then you also have an American national ID document but it has no photo on it.
If the federal government required everyone to get a new social security card with their photo on it then I'd have no problem with it. Is the photo going to make any difference anyway? At least with the social security card idea, the federal government wouldn't by usurping control from the states.
Good troll, but I'll address your point anyway.
A professional black man I work with made a trip by car from Washington state to Georgia in 2003, going the long way through California. He drives normally, doesn't speed, isn't reckless or drunk, but he IS quite black. He was pulled over once or twice in every single state . The traffic stops were mostly to hassle him for DWB, but he did get two un-earned tickets. On one of them he written up for 15 over when he was actually doing 10 under.
I'm white, but I drive a sports car. I can't count the number of times I've been written up for 5, 10 or 20 faster than what I was doing, just because I was in a sports car.
I'd rather not have my complete history of bullshit tickets available to every cop in the world to judge me by. I prefer they judge me by what they see, and if it's a good cop they will see an honest hard-working law-abiding tax-paying citizen. I don't want all those good cops to get blinded by a long list of BS tickets -- they won't know any better and might just pull me over on general principles.
Most cops are good cops, but there are also racist ones and intolerant ones and just plain stupid ones, and they have extraordinary power to ruin your whole day. The authoritarian police powers you espouse go too far and give the bad cops too much power and in many cases the good cops too much bad information.
Its already happened. Its why there's a speed limit posted on highways.
The general consensus is that this is probably a bad thing. If you don't think so, read title I, section 2- it REMOVES JUDICIAL REVIEW from the process as far as Homeland Security is concerned. This is more than a little scary. So stop slashdotting, and start emailing your senators to quash this before it becomes all too real of a problem.
Honestly, that's my biggest problem with the state too... But they're probably the freest state. No sales tax, they're looking at abolishing the property tax, little dependance on federal funding and shrinking, little enforcement of drug laws, good economy, good tolerance of homeschooling, most of the state-level legislators (state senators, freeholders, etc.) get paid only about $100.00-200.00 a year.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
It occurs to me that to be really, really safe, eventually we all should have cameras and microphones implanted in our foreheads, streaming data back to federal servers via encrypted radio links. It's the logical course for a country trying for the title of Safest, Securest Nation on Earth.
Don't laugh. Train people over generations to expect surveillance, and they'll accept headcams For The Good of All. And the cameras could be made relatively unobtrusive.
Quick questions for all of you out there: Will Bill Gates and the Bush family, or anyone else wealthy and connected, make their data available for all to see? Do we get to see Bush's arrest record? Drug record? Accident record? Complete military service records? No? Why can they hide, and not us? Will there be two societies, one which cannot hide, with no civil rights, and the other, which will have full civil rights formerly possessed by all?
Bullshit. Gonzales noted that certain practises are not legally termed torture. That's all: whether or not to utilise them is a different thing entirely, and he did not touch that.
He issued an opinion on the law it stands. Don't like the law--then change it.
That said, just about everyone would advocate the use of torture under certain circumstances. If cutting the finger off of one known-guilty man would get one full details about a plan to set off nukes in London, New York, Washington, Stockholm, Paris and Moscow, I believe that most of us would reach for the pruning shears and feel bad about it later.
Give me one good reason why I should trust the government or anyone in power. Trust is something that's earned, not expected in response to "get a grip." I don't trust the powers that be to not misuse information.
I have nothing to hide. It'd be better if the powers that be ate their own dogfood and made THEIR information public, like they're about to make ours public. Yeah, I know this isn't about "making information public," but it underscores one worry I have about this system: those with sufficient funds or power can always exclude themselves and those they like.
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
Contact Congress and oppose this draconian bill ! Contact your Senators and ask them to strip this "HR418 - Real ID Act of 2005" from any bill it rides over on from the House, probably the Iraqi funding.
Contact Congress
Except of course that the money has already been taken out of the state via federal income taxes. So it's more like taking a man's wallet, then saying 'if you do what I like, then you get half of your money back; don't and I keep it all--your choice.'
The concept of an identification card is un-American, the concept of a national ID card doubly so.
There shouldn't be identification. Liquor laws are wrong, and so should not be enforced. Banks can identify customers just like companies verify employees: with badges.
Well, I got hit head-on by a drunk in Texas that had 21 DUIs. All of them in Texas. My accident was no. 22 for him. Could you please explain to me what the fuck good it's going to do you or anybody else to know how many DUIs a driver has? The State of Texas knew this guy was a moron but it didn't do me a lot of good. I mean if the state is doing it's job, drunk drivers shouldn't have a drivers license in the first place. Adequate mechanisms to prevent drunks from driving around already exist; they just aren't enforced.
Illegal != unsafe. In most instances, traffic laws are absurdities passed more as sops to bluestockings than as actualy safety measures.
No, my state is a state, just like the UK or France. It happens to have joined into a federation (like the EU) known as the United States, and has given up certain rights (such as negotiating with foreign powers and taxing commerce with others of the United States) but has retained all others.
Among those rights is that of regulating driving on public roads (see anything in the Constitution about them?).
Does it really? And yet it fought to subjugate those who did actually secede. Now that's the height of hypocrisy...
Yes yes, just make sure you have Approved Political Views, citizen.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
The federal government has no incentive to make it illegal for them to coerce states into passing new laws.
Which is why the framers had the thoughtful foresight to make it illegal to begin with, since they knew they couldn't trust a later government to pass such a law.
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
I don't think I understand the problem here. Do you feel people with a suspended license in one state, and driving in another, should be able to? Driving on public roads is not a right, it's a privelege... remember that.
Please, look at the law and understand what is happening
What exacly is happening? Is this something Hitler did right before he set up concentration camps? Is this another in a long line of personal freedoms being removed? No, not really. Currently it is possible for a police officer in Texas to get your record in other states. This law does nothing more than make that easier.
Am I comfortable with that? Sure I am. Not because I never do anything wrong, but because it won't change what could possibly happen to me if I get pulled over. As a matter of fact, it could speed the process up. Right now, police officers (might) check 2-3 different databases for your information. If you have a warrant for an unpaid speeding ticket in another state, chances are you'll be on your merry way in a few minutes anyway. Nobody wants to spend the money on extradition for a
So please, and without charging me with any political affiliation (because I hate the two party system we have) or calling me neo-anything, explain to me what is happening.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
I predict: 1) Cars will not start unless a valid electronic drivers license is plugged into a slot. 2) Speeding tickets will be mailed to you as your RFID tag is read by sensors in the road. 3) All other licensed drivers in the car with you as passengers will also be mailed speeding tickets as "accessories to the act."
Others have phrased it better than I can:
Others certainly may have different views.
It is not a fictional book that concerns me. It is 1934-44 that does. While this by itself is not a big deal, consider the following from my state.
- Constitional admendment to stop gay marrages from Colorado. This was an attempt to see how it would fly here (and to use it as a distraction).
- An attempt by the republicans to "test" professors and their political beliefs.
- An attempt to try and boot a tenured prof for his political statement. I am not wild about his statement, but at least it is not more of the same. This allows the conservative intelligencia (no, rush is not an intellectual) to go after the idea, with some clear thinking.
- All the while, Colorado ran up a billion dollar deficit over several years (even against our state law) and finally, the republican controlled congress was booted for this shit (can not wait until Owens is gone; Now, we need somebody who is a good and effective leader; I wonder if we can subcontract Arnie
:) ).
Yes, In light of patriot act II and III, I see us heading towards 1934-44, not 1984.As to the ridding us of 5'th admendment, I say thank god for the 1'st and the 2'nd. However, I do not think that the 1'st is effective anymore, so I think that we will see more citizens falling back on the 2'nd.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It's -1, Redundant. Not -1, I_don't_agree. The history of driver ID usage that he states has absolutely no bearing on the future use. The first things cops ask for is your driver's license, even if you aren't driving.
then again, the states have no right to those money's to begin with.
.08.
ie Wisconsin didnt want the money for the longest time becuase it chose to not have the BAC at
but its the federal govts money, not the states, the fed is choosing to give it to them. they can say no.
just because someone offers you something, doesnt meanyou have to take it (especially so if there are restrictions).
I agree. They changed. But in recent years, they've been casting out fedral baggage anywhere they can.
I personally think that the size and scope of the Federal government today was the fault of Lincoln. Worst president ever. If the states still had the right to secede from the union, the federal government would have to stop and think before making these big laws that take away a states' rights.
And don't bring up the damn slavery argument. That was a minor issue for the north -- the north didn't care that much. And because of economic reasons, slavery would have been done with in a decade anyway. The biggest reason for the south's secession was over the selection of the northen standard for railroad tracks.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
And your point is irrelevant. States do NOT have the right of refusal for paying the money that goes into those Federal programs. So it is discrimatory. You don't play ball, you don't any of the monies, that you paid in, back.
OK my fine constitutional friend here's three small points.
1. Kindly point to the clause in the constitution where you are guaranteed a right to privacy. By article and section if you please. I have perused my copy to some extent and seem to be missing it.
2. Driving records and criminal records are matters of public record, unless sealed by order of the court or unless the offender is a minor. This bill simply extends the ability to consult those public records to law enforcement on a real time basis. By the by the government already gets such record investigations as do most credit bureaus when doing credit and background investigations. My wife makes a living by doing such record searches, it's called abstracting and investigations.
3. You have no right to drive, driving is a privilege, use of the states and federal governments road system is a privilege, if they decide that they want to be able to conclusively and absolutely identify in a non forge-able manner each person using their road system and to maintain a central data base of your record of the use of that system they have an absolute right as the owners to do so.
Section 102 must in no circumstances be approved by senate. www.congress.org (got the address from another comment) gives a couple ways to contact your representative and two senators, and the one by email is free. Granted the chances of them even looking at the messages are rather small, but those chances are better than nothing! I figure this bill was passed in the House because a lot of the people who voted for it never even looked at Sec . 102. Lets do what we can to make sure this section is killed in the Senate!
Hmm. I wonder what'll happen if a bad terrorist bombing or such occurs in the US and the perpetrator is documented (proven after the fact) as having come through the Mexican border?
Seems they've painted themselves into a corner, what with the terrorism alert, spending 100s of billions of dollars on the "war on terror", terrorism being in the news everyday, etc.
They'd have to do something about illegal immigration. The US public is a bunch of sheep about alot of what the Bush Admin. tells them, and they've been indoctrinated well since 9/11. They wouldn't settle for a lax response to this.
The federal gov't will not terminate it's agreement with the states (another civil war anyone) and that is not a valid reason. They are terminating a specific part of the agreement and it is not discrimination (remember I argued that you called it discrimination) because each state has the same option.
Highway support is not the only services the fed provides so your argument cannot apply about the "cake and eat it to." The fed taxes us, they provide us with many services - and they provide extra funding for some services but they want something in return...if you don't give it to them, they do not give oyu the funding. It is a fair deal.
WIth the exception of the statements about the secretary of homeland defense getting some more insane powers - i think this law is pretty damn good. If the state does not want to comply, they do not have to, but they do not get money to fix their roads (the fed still fixes its roads, however).
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
The more who write, the better chance we have to successfully fight this.
Florida:
(1) Yes
(2) Yes
(3) Yes
(4) Yes
(5) Yes
(6) Yes
(7) Yes
(8) Yes; holographic and laminate
(9) Magstrip, so yes.
Also, Florida's driver's license number contains parts of this information encoded in your driver's license number, namely:
First, middle initial; soundex of your last name, gender, date of birth.
From my number, you can determine that I'm S. M. Mikhail, male, born October 19, 1983.
Except I'm not, of course.
http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/numbers/ This is a good website to continue exploring DL numbers and the information therein.
Some states even use the SSN as the DL#. Hope you don't get your wallet stolen.
'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
Actually you are using discrimination improperly again. Because it effects every state, not just a select few, it is not discrimination. Also, as said in a previous post, you are not just paying taxes for the road systems. The fed is still paying for fed highways, army, many social services, etc.
dictionary.com
Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit
in this case, the merit being to accept the law or to not accept the law.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Does anyone know why the drinking age is 21 in every state except Louisianna?
I'll tell you why. Back in the 1980's Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) lobbied congress to pass a law tying each state's federal highway funding to its drinking age. If a state wanted funding, the drinking age had to be 21.
The rationale for this law was that it would lower the incidence of drunk driving. The political truth behind this law is that it targed a segment of the population which lacked political clout or influence, namely 18 to 21 year olds. Basically a bunch of overprotective moms, unable to deal with the fact that their children were now grown, petitioned the government to impose childhood restrictions upon them a little longer. The supposed benefit of this imposition and erosion of personal freedom, fewer drunk drivers, never panned out. The rate changed 0.3%, which anyone with a knowledge of statistics will tell you is indistinguishable from white noise. Statistics also tell us that it is 23 to 25 year olds who are most likely to drive drunk, making even the excuse for this law laughable. This law costs society who knows how much money in terms of police manpower wasted persecuting college students for drinking beer. All this time and trouble are spent trying to keep people from doing something when there is no evidence that any good comes from the effort, and a whole lot of people who are innocent of any actual wrongdoing find themselves criminalized as a result. Thanks a lot moms!
It is a law which serves no purpose other than to subvert the rights and status of 18 to 21 year old's as adults. I'm frankly amazed that society allows its enforcement, let alone goes to the trouble of carding anyone who looks like they might be under 30. It just goes to show that people are always willing to infringe upon the rights of others when they know their own rights are not at risk as a result.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Point taken, however, this isn't a constitutional amendment.
That said, I don't think the framers intended for the checks and balances to be dismantled. After all, that would destory everything they worked to create.
Aaah, they come from God.
Sorry, don't believe in God.
My Journal
If the states were smart, they'd tell the fed to take their highway money and shove it up their pothole.
Will highways start suffering? They could...but this puts the responsility solely where it belongs, because voters will be more likely to elect representatives with their constituents interests in mind, rather than whatever they think will advance the U.S. further toward a police state.
Mag stripes are too easy to manipulate. Plus, I'm not sure you could fit a decent photo on a mag stripe.
Think smart card with 128k of memory. Think digital signatures to authenticate the contents and holograms on the outside of the card.
The missing piece here is technology to obscure your transactions from business. Indexing by Soc-Sec # or your Drivers License # should be illegal. The smartcard should push out a unique identifier based on an authenticator's id.
This is what we need to crack down on ID forgery as well as identity theft.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
States? How about we stop making the cities stop getting robbed by rural areas? I'm sure northwestern New York State loves the massive windfall that is the tax from New York City.
Sorry, my karma just ran over your dogma.
Congress does NOT have the authority to bypass the judicial branch. Nor does it have authority to bypass the executive (president).
Hell, the court has ruled that Congress can't even bypass ITSELF (they overturned line item vetoes).
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
This is a great bill. Finally, the ten renegade states that issue licenses to illegal aliens, or issue licenses longer than a visa is good for, will be shut down.
Illinois basically has all of the above, though middle name is not printed (at least not on mine), but middle initial is. The machine-readable thing has some data (I don't know what) as a 2-D barcode, which I thought was pretty cool a couple of years ago (when they weren't that common).
1. Keep the front of the license the same. Photo, personal info, etc. Nothing weird.
2. On the back, print a 2-D barcode which contains a digital photograph, and a copy of all the information on the front of the card.
3. The 2-D barcode is digitally signed by the State.
Now, ID verification goes like this:
1. Take card from holder, check picture and age.
2. Scan card into a computer. This verifies the digital signature and decodes the image and personal information and displays them onscreen.
3. Make sure the digital image matches the one on the front of the card as well as the person standing in front of you. Also match the digital information with the information on the front of the card.
This would literally make it impossible to forge driver's licenses (unless you managed to gain access to the State's signing key, which would be a disaster).
I don't see any privacy impacts. There's no new information that wasn't there before, the card has simply become unforgable.
if you can't tell the difference between an object and an oppressive law, then ...
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Is it possible that this information could somehow be abused?
Unless uses of the information are clearly enumerated and limitted by law to only those uses, it will absolutely be abused.
I'll give you an example. Here in CA, like many states, our licenses have mag strips on the back that contain all the information printed on the front. A local bar began using card readers to check that people were 21 or older. They did it under the pretense that it was harder to get by with a fake ID. What they didn't tell people (and was leaked to the media by a bar employee) was that the card readers were also gathering name, age, sex, home address, and a few other pieces of information. This was all being sent to a database so that the bar could better target its advertising. From what I heard, the only reason they stopped was due to public outrage, not any law prohibiting what they were doing.
So we do need to be paranoid until it is explicitly stated *everything* that will be done with the information.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
"I don't have a choice"
Yes you do. Taxi, bus, helicopter, bike or walking. Not sure what you were trying to say here.
Now, they may not be platable choices, but you DO have choices.
From the article:
Because an ID is required to purchase a firearm from a dealer, Gun Owners of America said the bill amounts to a "bureaucratic back door to implementation of a national ID card." The group warned that it would "empower the federal government to determine who can get a driver's license--and under what conditions."
I expect this is precisely the plan. It has to start somewhere, and a driver's license is a pretty innocent place to start. Eventually, per Revelation 13:16-17, you will not be able to "buy or sell" without this ID, but that time is not yet.
This, folks, is the part where we all write our respective senators and let them know that this will not stand. You can find your senators here. There should be a link next to each senator's name where you can either email them or send a message through a web-based form. I've just completed my message to my senators, and I'll post it below if anyone wants to reference it for ideas (or use it yourself... I'll leave the variable parts blank ;)
[Mr./Ms.] [Senator's Surname],
Recently I became aware of a highly objectionable and appalingly unconstitutional bill that has just been passed through the House of Representatives: HR 418, also known as the Real ID Act of 2005. The problems with this bill are numerous, but I will focus on just two that I found particularly troubling.
First, the bill overall is an attempt to force the individual states to submit to the federal government's will or risk losing federal highway funding. The federal government receives the money used for the highway funding from its citizens through taxes, of course. These taxes are paid willingly under the assumption that the money will be used for the stated purpose (in this case, highway funding). Ethically, then, it follows that there should be no situation in which the federal government should be allowed to withhold that money from the states. This, however, is of a bit lesser concern than my next point.
In section 102, the bill states that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section." This, in my opinion, is allowing the Secretary FAR too much power. The argument can (and will, I'm sure) be made that there is a restriction placed on this with the last phrase "to ensure expeditious construtction of the barriers and roads under this section," but this seems like a flimsy bit of filler to make this bit of totalitarian legislation seem palatable.
The bill goes on to say "Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--
`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'." This could quite possibly be the worst part of the entire bill, as everything else up to this point could be dealt with in court if it ever were to be challenged. This part changes everything, however, stating that if someone disagrees with the Secretary bypassing any and all laws he feels like bypassing, no one can challenge it in the court.
To illustrate the deficiencies in this bill, I quote Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon. "If this provision, the waiver of all laws necessary for quote improvements of barriers at the border was to become law, the Secretary of Homeland Security could give a contract to his political cronies that had no safety standards, using 12-year-old illegal immigrants to do the labor, run it through the site of a Native American burial ground, kill bald eagles in the process, and pollute the drinking water of neighboring communities. And under the provisions of this act, no member of Congress, no citizen could do anything about it because you waive all judicial review."
I implore you to vote against this bill, and to do everything in your power to ensure that this does not become a law.
Thank you,
[Your name]
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." -- Groucho Marx
I'm confused.. I googled for "oppose real id act of 2005" and all I could find was quotes on how this impacts refugee's. None of the top 10 talked about citizen privacy or bypassing checks and balances.
Anyone care to explain to me how immigration is the overwhelming opposition to this?
Mine (WA) already has a machine-readable PDF417 barcode AND a Code128 barcode.
My MA license four years ago had a barcode AND a magnetic strip.
Just like my college ID had.
Check it out for other states.
Both licenses also have/had holographic watermarks.
Now all of you, stop getting distracted.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
one of the nice things about our judicial system (tho there are of course many bad aspects as well...) is that it likes to protect its right to judicial review. Its coming around on guantanamo, and I'm sure if someone tried to contest somethign under this law, that the courts would find it unconstitutional, if not for violating the people's rights, at the very least for trammeling the right of judicial review. now this is not, of course, to say that one shouldnt be sketched out by the law in the first place
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
Um, the federal government coercing states into doing things upon the threat of withheld funds is not without precedent. Or did we forget the primary motivation for states to move to a 21 year old minimum drinking age...fact is many states were refused federal highway funds for many years until they got their minimum drinking age up to 21 (I think it was called the federal highway act of 1984).
I haven't scrutinized the proposed law yet - in principle, I have nothing wrong with enhanced ID standards across the US...however, I do have a problem with required IDs in general...while it's been argued anonymous travel is not a constitutional right, removing that capability (through required IDs, or at the very least, through the support of arbitrary ability for any law enforcement official to demand that id regardless of when, where or why) brings us one step closer to a police state where a right to liberty is replaced with corruption and persecution by those in power.
The New WORLD ODOR .
And it STINKS.
I've noticed several themes in this discussion.
(1) Why privacy if you have nothing to hide?
Then why are you prying into my life? Because you suspect me of doing something. If you didn't, you would not be asking. So by investigating me, you automatically assume I'm guilty.
Privacy not equal to criminal activity.
Privacy protects the individual from unwarranted intrusion by the collective. I do things that are not illegal. Yet I don't want them broadcast. I don't want people knowing what I bought at the grocery store, Radio Shack, bookstore, etc because it's none of thier business.
Any why are you (gossips, clubs, agencies, etc) sooo interested in me? Do you have such a poor life that you must use me as a surrogate? Are there so few rapes, robberies and other real crimes that, you Mr. or Ms. Cop, have to agonize over traffic tickets? Or are you trying to make it appear you are doing something worthwhile? Try actually doing something worthwhile.
(2) My wireless phone company, ISP, computer store ,(other private company) collects data on you. Why not let FBI, DMV, (other gov't entity) do so?
Because private companies can't arrest me, tax me, freeze my assets, (other nasty action). Furthermore, most private companies make their $$$ by trying to please you in some way. If you have trouble seeing that, note the difference in attitude between the clerks in a gov't agency and those in a store.
Equating info collection by the two is an invalid comparsion.
(3) Why are you so afraid of gov't?
Because of the people who are in it. Goverment brings out the worse in people. That's why the US Constition has checks and balances. Furthermore, government attracts crusader types. People like this seem unaware that blast and fragments from their bombs(figurative or literal) can harm innocents. Or that karma frequently doesn't fit dogma. Or that others have good ideas, too.
They're not feasable choices. No bus/train would get me to work on time. I can't bike or walk 25 miles every morning. I can't afford a taxi every day or a helicopter. There would be no job I'm qualified for in walking distance that would cover my mortgage. My only real choices are:
1) drive
2) sell my house and move closer (which means buying a house that costs almost twice as much).
3) relocate and find a new job (in this job market, that's unlikely).
Driving is a right, as far as I'm concerned. It should be assumed that all persons over a certain age are allowed to drive, unless they prove themselves dangerous. There should be no requirement of a state-issued liscense.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
I've heard that this is done somewhere, at least with surveillance cameras. While I don't like the idea of surveillance cameras, I certainly do prefer making all of their output public, as opposed to controlled by rules, means, and people not only beyond my review, but beyond my knowledge.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Is section 102 there specifically to be given up as a negotiating point? Get everyone focused on it, spend their energies on it, and breathe a collective sigh of relief when it's knocked out of the bill.
The end result? We still get a nationwide ID database.
Did anyone actually go to the government website and take a look at this bill? It consists of two titles. The first being mostly about terrorism, and the ability of the government to erect walls and deport people they note as terrorists. The second part which consists of a few lines is about electronic ID.... interesting...
Is it likely to bring 1984 crashing down around our ears? Hardly.
Do you honestly think that the world in "1984" just happened? By the time "1984" happens we won't know it. There won't be anyone around to remember anything else. By taking our rights a little at a time, allowing enough of the population die between each truly outragous new law, there isn't anyone who really sees the whole picture. The winner writes the history, in 1984 they rewrote history, every day.
-Daniel
KD5UZZ
www.w5yj.org
Has anybody else noticed that a lot of places now just runs a check through a reader and you sign the paper to authorize a debit from your checking and returns the paper check to you. In the last few days I've been asked for my drivers license so that they can swipe it in order to verify my checking information.
Just one more loose end being tied up makeing driver's license into a national ID - at least if you want to any banking.
I don't know if this is true but some years ago I seem to remember a story about a bycicle rider getting a moving violation was forced to get a driver's license because he did not have one just because the law called for his driver's license to be suspended.
zenray
You know, it probably doesn't matter all that much even if the information is public, because only those with money or power (really the same thing) will be able to process the information.
What we should do is greatly restrict the powers of the federal government. In fact, the federal government should only take care of those things which it needs to, things like interstate commerce, a unified currency, wars with foreign nations, these types of things. We could create a document ensuring that the federal government is only allowed to do these things, and we could call it the Constitution. Then we wouldn't have to worry about the federal government getting involved in things like who drives a car, drinks beer, or walks down the street.... [that was sarcasm for the humor impaired]
Sure, THIS law won't result in 1984 crashing down around us, but it is a slow and steady usurpation of state and individual rights. This is the same kind of problem that second amendment activists have been lamenting for years. This one law by itself won't present a problem right now, but where does it stop?
Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
You obviously don't seem to get it. They want to mandate all ID reports so 1) that they can sell the information to your insurance company and 2) so that they can institute digital scanning technology that will read your required ID at every opportunity. This will permit corporate benefactors of government intrusion to obtain a complete map of your whereabouts at all times. Insurance and marketing companies are clamoring for this since they can then institute location based indexing of prices and sales pitches.
Take it from me. I used to be a lobbyist for an insurance company until I became a Christian.
Shortly after September 11, 2001, I wrote a friend of mine in Panama, saying that he should watch what we, as the foundation of liberty, do once attacked. I theorized at the time that we would not declare martial law and we would not proceed to limit the rights of persons dwelling in the US.
I have since written him to apologize. I am ashamed of what our lawmakers have done in the face of a pretty desperate attack by a bunch of nut-jobs hijacking a religion as an "excuse." The United States can take no pride in what we have done as a result of September 11, 2001.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
I note with no amusement that the very same Republicans who were calling for limits on Federal power and arguing for States Rights are now of the opinion that the various States cannot manage the business of identifying drivers any more.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
I felt 2 years ago that there would be a tipping point, a point where the populace that is aware of what they are loosing will not tolerate what is in the process of being lost.
That tipping point is rapidly arriving. I've coined a term for it, the "Third Exodus", to describe the quiet depletion of the "aware" portion of the population leaving for other democratic countries. Now is NOT a good time to own a home or have high debt that keeps you from being mobile in the next few years...
I think we are seeing the precursor to an event that will occur, much like what happened in Germany before WWII broke out - a mass exodus of the population that is acutely aware of what is happening to their country, trying to get out before "they" cement their power base and have the country under "their" sway. Then it was Jews, Intellectuals, Scientists, Teachers, and other "undesireables" fleeing from the Nazi Party of Germany. Today, it will be Democrats, Libertarians, Liberals, Scientists, Teachers, Information Technology personnel (who are already feeling the "pinch" of Sarbanes-Oxley and the DMCA, as well as representing a real threat from their ability to spread information over the internet that may be "undersireable"), fleeing from a radical segment of the Republican Party. At some point in the future, expect the moderate republicans to revolt against their own party and split off, possibly joining the libertarians or the conservative democrats, in a form of protest against the hijack of their party. Unfortunately, these people are still believing the illusion that "America is a great, free country" and it will be too late for them. I fear the most not for me, but for these people, who will possibly be pariahed or shuned, or even carted off in the middle of the night to places we don't want to think about...
If we, as a nation, don't get our collective shit together and figure out how to turn the tide, it will happen, mark my words. I told (very) close friends and family about the upcoming election and how Shrub would win not by majority vote but by massive election fraud and miscounts due to those wonderful, wacky electronic voting machines. Sure, I'm saying this after the fact, but those I spoke then to know me and know I was right (do some research on the four states that had trouble with their electronic voting machines, one of which was Ohio). I see this happening (almost like watching a train wreck in slow motion), and it will continue to happen, unless people get rid of their apathy and kick these people out of office, and get the laws turned around.
To those who disagree: go ahead, "flame on" about how I'm un-American or un-Patriotic or some other catch phrase that's been perverted to suit propaganda needs; I really don't give a shit anymore, because if you're too goddamn blind to see with your own eyes and judge with your own mind what's happening, then you get what you want (deserve?). The old, tired, arguement of "Love the country or leave it!" doesn't work on me - I already have an answer, and if things continue, I will leave, and you can keep your (neo-)Facist-Sponsored Police State where crappy food at a McDonalds is paid with your all-in-one Credit Line/National ID/Social Security/Driver License/RFID Real-Time Tracker card while corporate-sponsored public police officers in tactical response gear guard the doors "to protect the valuable customers from potential terrorism" while "keeping out unwanted elements" to "ensuring proper dining decorum".
(Those last lines translate as "giving the illusion of security while we monitor your activities to ensure that you are a pliant and gullible consumer/prole, while keeping out any protester or advocate of free thought that might threaten our power base and undermine our propaganda and slogans".)
And how the hell have you lived to be 30 without any form of goverment issued ID? Haven't you ever taken an airplane flight or opened a bank account?
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
"Everything you buy with a credit card is kept in a database for who knows how long, for one example."
This data is only stored as long as is required by government regulation. Interest rates at their current level painful for banking institutions so now is not the time to throw money away at storing large quantities of unnecessary data in offsite facilities. It is also worthwile noting that banks are required by government regulation to have higher security standards then most government agencies.
The truth is an illusion.
The sample images don't show the anti-counterfeiting measure, but there's a color-shifting sorta holographic overlay. The machine-readable measures - barcode on the older ones, 2-dimensional code on the newer ones - are obvious. And yes, the photos are digital, printed right onto the plastic.
And of course, all the other things that are required by the bill - full name, current address, date of birth, gender - are also fully met by Hawaii's current licenses.
If you can't tell, under the old ones, it was standard to get your Social Security number as your license number. When I first got a state ID card, they were still using the old format, but I was able to "opt out" having my SSN visible (though it may have still been in the bar code). By the time I got my license a few years later (after one from another state expired), they'd switched over to the new style. I still occasionally run into people who look confused when they need my SSN for employment purposes and can't find it on my license, though.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
The term "police state" refers to the strict, all-encompassing nature of the controls used by the police over the population. Whether said controls were introduced for convience's sake or not is irrelevant. Laws such as these would make a police state's life easier, but do not necessarily lead to the existence of a police state.
It means that people with H-1B visas will have DL/ID that will expire at the same time as their visa expires. No overstaying!
If you're driving on a suspended or revoked license, yes, that fact is significant. But the offence that lead to the suspension or revokation is not relevant at the time of the stop. Your driving history is not relevant, only the question of whether or not your licence is valid.
That is your opinion, and your opinion only, it is not something absolute.
The fact is that it is very plausible that traffic law and specifically traffic stop procedure can be based on prior offenses (what do you think felony status means.. once you are branded a felon it affects a whole bunch of things you might not consider "relevant"). There is nothing absolute that would prevent it from being relevent in the eyes of the legal system.
Very few things in the justice system are universally "fair" anyways.
NOTE: I may or may not agree with your point of view, that is irrelevant. Regardless, your reasoning, or lack thereof, is flawed.
I would disagree with the princible that anonymous travel is not a constitutional right. As other posters have mentioned, the US Constitution grants all rights not explicetly discussed in the Constitution to the states and the people. I don't remember anything in the Constitution saying we can't travel anonymously.
In some was it is perhapse absurd to say that we can travel without anonynimity. When you go on a vaction somewhere how many of the people there know who you are or will remember afterward? If you don't do anything illegel whatever happens while you are gone will not affect your reputation unless you tell people about it.
The truth is an illusion.
Flamebait?? How so? try 'interesting'
And is their posession/use of the land legal?
If you're trying to escape society and live off the grid, do you really care?
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Frankly I'm suspect of most instances of people claiming they were stopped for DWB. I don't by any means deny that it happens, but I've worked with literally thousands of police officers in dozens of jurisdictions over the last 20 years, and I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of flaming assholes who would make that kind of stop.
I'm white, but I drive a sports car. I can't count the number of times I've been written up for 5, 10 or 20 faster than what I was doing, just because I was in a sports car.
This, however, I'll call complete crap unless you live in some weird Anonymous Coward part of the world I've never visited. I drove a bright red Trans-AM with a big-assed V-8 engine for 6-7 years, and I was NEVER stopped for anything unreasonable. To get written for a higher speed than you were actually going you have ot push pretty hard. Screaming about your rights being violated by The Man is a good start.
Besides that, if you actually can't count the number oftimes you were stopped and charged improperly, you must have been stopped quite a few times and legitimately charged. That mens you're either a liar or a freaking maniac who I'd prefere to see off theroad for the safety of every human being in your path. Exactly the reason I like LEOs to be able to get your history no matter where in the US you were cited.
This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
Sure you can - live on a farm and raise hogs. Farm equipment generally doesn't require a driver's license unless you're driving significant distances on public (notice that - public) roads. If that doesn't appeal to you, well, you can take public transportation. Nothing at all preventing you from working, unless you feel you have some God-given right to be able to do whatever you want without having to balance that opportunity against living in the real world where your actions impact other people.
This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
Well, all I can say is that I've been moderated up to five and so have most of the intelligent replies to my comment - whether they agree with me or not...
This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
Just wondering- are you in law enforcement?
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
No. A grown man, intentionally decreasing the speed and accuracy of his reflexes by voluntary and knowing consumption of even small amounts of a recreational drug and then getting behind the wheel of a car -- that is stupid.
There is no "ok" level of recreational drug consumption that entitles one to say "I'm ok to drive." Drink and ride, abstain and drive. The ethics should be clear to anyone.
For the record, if anyone "happens" to hit a family member of mine with a machine they are piloting and it turns out that their blood alchohol level was not zero, I'm going to rip their head off and shit down their neck.
I absolutely support anyone's choice to use recreational drugs; but that in no way absolves the user of responsibility -- operating dangerous machinery does not somehow become the appropriate thing to do because you think you "only had a little."
Your rights end where mine begin. Violate mine, and as far as I am concerned you lose yours. All of them. Including the right to breathe air.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Oh, my. Sounds a hell of a lot like the argument that the South used to secede from the Union. 'Ain't none uh your damn Yankee business if we want to keep slaves...'. Dude, I'm FROM the South and that's a stupid argument.
The federal government has NO authority to do all of the things you outlined above. Read article 1, section 8, as well as the 9th and 10th ammendment.
OK, let's see - I assume that you're NOT referring to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution - '(The Congress shall have Power to)...regulate Commerce ... among the several States', because if you were I'm pretty sure you'd comprehend that the same thesis that drives the Interstate Commerce Commission drives the ability to provide legitimate law enforcement information like DL status and histories across state lines.
As for Amendments IX and X, if the above isn't clear to you, then I suppose you'd think that these amendments apply to this situation. Luckily that's no more valid a train of thought than your 'keep such law enforcement at the local level' was.
And what happens when everything you do is public record? Anyone who wants to can find out what you bought at the grocery store last week, or what you ordered at Denny's 6 years ago? Isn't that a bit creepy? Once all knowledge is public, the government can regulate ANYTHING.
OK, I'll concede that one, although I don't consider it much of a concession. I'd strongly oppose the ability of any Law Enforcement Agency to gather such data about me without a warrant. I'm not sure how accesing my driving record after having stopped me for a driving violation compares, but if you think it does, OK.
I think I'll just skip out on the 'Information wants to be free!' rallying cry of uber-nerds everywhere with regards to public information.
I will give you props, though for not posting as an AC...
This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
Right on! There's absolutely no freaking way it would be relevant to the officer who stopped me for speeding to know that I have been cited four times for doing 90 mph in a school zone! Keep that irrelevant crap hidden!
This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
I hear this all the time and it reminds me of a little story from high school.
You see my friend and I on a friday night were driving past the school to get to our friends house, who lived down the street from the school. Well there was some kind of event going on at the school and they had a cop on duty who had the schools security guy with him.
Well he saw my friends truck drive by, and we got pulled over. The reason? Because the security guy knew that my friend had been suspended a few times and decided that we were probably doing something bad driving by the school at this late hour. It was real fun getting searched and harassed, and then after filling a complain against the cop, finding out what real harassment they can do.
So yes, I'm again this. Why does he need to know about the speeding ticket I got 4 years ago if he's pulling me over for a broken headlight?
For the record I'm against drivers licenses from holding any information that isn't absolutely required. This includes my full address and date of birth. For drinking purposes why not just put a over 21 stamp on there, a under 21 stamp works fine.
You might say the address needs to be on there, but lets see how it is when you lose your wallet/get it stolen and that person knows where you live. I've had my wallet stolen then got robbed, the person who was caught had my ID on him at the time, to see where I am coming from.
What about my speeding ticket years ago when I was in high school, how does that pertain to me being pulled over for driving somewhere a cop thinks is suspicious? And if I'm pulled over for not coming to a complete stop, how is it important that I have 1 point on my license?
Remind me... which roads are those?
Keep in mind that the interstate highway system (Freeways) are actually maintained by the states, by fiat of the Feds with Federal funding. When the Feds say they're going to withhold highway funding, they mean the money they usually provide to keep up the interstate highway system.
Some states actually delegate this authority on a county-by-county basis; Washington is one of these. If you want to see the result of it, drive from Seattle (in King County) to Tacoma (in Pierce county) on I-5. You'll be able to tell exactly where the county line is.
With the exception of the requirement for a statement of citizenship/nationality status, Maryland licenses have met all of these requirements since 1994.
Maryland also has an exception as they don't have an automated system, apparently they once had one but someone hacked it and they took the databases offline. Nice Maryland.
However, in recent years, Maryland has been intensively lobbied by a variety of front groups for the Mexican government, trying to get laws passed that would specifically prohibit the MVA (DMV) from asking national-origin or citizenship-status questions! Google google-news for "CASA" and "Maryland" for some reports. I tried to get my Maryland State Delegate to take some position on the issue 18 months ago, her attitude was "the Feds are going to deal with this issue and they'll probably protect people's rights to not have the State know their citizenship status". Crazy but true.
It's important that cops be able to tell what's a person's nationality/citizenship status when they pull them over. That's what this particular law is all about.
Are you really pissing and moaning because some random hacker wants to be able to get a certain level of appropriate information from all driver's licenses?
Yes. And thats all I have to say on the subject.
"It stipulates that driver's licenses must include a digital photograph, anticounterfeiting features and undefined machine-readable technology."
Alright, boys and girls, since we know that the excuse for this act being constitutional (since, as we all (should) know, if it's not in the constitution, Congress isn't allowed to do it) is "interstate commerce," who here can dream up just how this is related to interstate commerce?
Vermont Rocks ( I'm down in Albany, so I really SEE the difference... VT Carry explains the lowest crime rates in the nation.
Keep up the good work!
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
This is a violoation of peoples rights.
Problem is not that one is old enough to die for your country, it is that the human body is not as capable to deal with the alcohol at 18 as it is a few years later. Another issue for discussion another day::when is one old enough to die for ones country/family/friends? Evidence is coming out that the frontal lobes that help us make reasoned decisions about potental danger are not fully developed until about 25 years of age. Hence young drivers are at higher risk. Add alcohol and it gets nasty!
So, how much does your fake-ids-for-underage-libertarians business gross per month?
Using the public roadways used to be a governmentally-recognized right under the right to move/travel freely by the common means of the day. It was at some point illegitimately converted into a privilege. I'm away from my main machine or I'd post the last Supreme Court ruling that confirmed it as an absolute right.
I completely agree that it should continue to be treated as a right. Those who abuse that right should be punished appropriately (just like any other crime involving injury or property damage). Unfortunately, the US is no longer a country where self-responsibility is encouraged. People are not free to do as they please and punishment is meted out based on an abuse of rights. Nowadays everything is dictated just so, and there is no room for personal responsibility.
Commerce = business transactions
Most driving is not an act of interstate commerce. Driving within a state is purely a state matter, and travelling between the states may not be prohibited by states (and can only be regulated if it is commercial in nature).
The Commerce Clause was meant to prevent states from hampering interstate commerce, not to facilitate law enforcement. Federal law enforcement as pertains to interstate matters is confined in Article IV, not Article I. The only law enforcement powers discussed in Article I are those which the federal government has sole jurisdiction over (particularly piracy and counterfeiting currency).
Then again, that's all hypothetical, because actual practice is that anything can be regulated or banned.
Will Bill Gates and the Bush family, or anyone else wealthy and connected, make their data available for all to see?
No, sight is only one way in the Panopticon: out. Those higher on the food chain cannot be viewed by those lower.
Unless uses of the information are clearly enumerated and limitted by law to only those uses, it will absolutely be abused.
The problem is, once the basic provisions become law the limitations are easily changed or removed surreptitiously.
For example, the initial Social Security Act stated SSNs were not ever to be used for identification purposes.
Function creep is an essential way bureaucracies increase their power and influence.
Or do you like being a pain in society's rear?
:)
Yes, I do. Every day I loath US society and the direction it's moving in more and more. Thanks for asking.
Privacy is mostly a desire of the underdog in a relationship with an unequal power distribution. It's a defense mechanism. As the centralization of power within the government increases, more individuals will strive for privacy even if they have nothing of consequence (to the government, or most other people) to hide.
A good citizen is one who exercises the right to dissent when he/she feels the need, and does not attempt to deny the same exercise by another. Someone who sits down and shuts up because they're told to is not a good citizen.
If I didn't feel the need to post in this story I would have modded you up. Insightful in a story where so many people apparently lack any kind of insight into why government should generally be distrusted and granted power sparingly.
> The ACLU, unfortunately,has lost sight of its
> primary purpose and wastes time and resources
> fighting "threats" such as religous imagery in
> public places
Separation of church and state, non-establishment...
If you don't think a defacto state religion isn't
the goal of the christian wrong, you're not reading the news...
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
-- Randall Terry, quoted in The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, August 16, 1993
Rarely is anyone on the road at full 100% capacity...gonna give a cell phone test to everyone in a wreck?
Everyone drives at one time or another slightly impared from something...it is the amount of imparement that is the problem...I'm saying 0.08 is unreasonable.
Lighten up a a bit, and get in the real world, eh?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It is worth observing that mild sleep deprivation cannot be definitely identified as being in the realm of debilitation-by-choice -- you may not even know that you have this problem; it can be a matter of poor sleep, not even lack of sleep.
In stark contrast, recreational drug consumption (including alchohol, of course) almost always is voluntary and you will be aware that you have been involved in such activities; if you aren't, then someone else needs some jail time. Drugging people without their knowledge is criminal in the most basic sense of the word.
Specifically with regard to alchohol, 0.08 BAL isn't reasonable because no voluntary diminishment of skill is reasonable when you decide to pilot machinery that is dangerous to others.
The same thing goes for serious sleep deprivation. I think it is a pretty safe bet that you know if you're seriously short on sleep.
Everyone needs to be in the best possible shape to drive, because driving is a very dangerous activity.
The fact that this isn't the norm in society reflects only that society is made up of ethical cripples.
FYI, I am in the real world. I've seen the deaths and injuries that come from drugged drivers; I've seen them up close and personal, and lots of them. I was married to a surgeon in rural America for quite a few years, and I can tell you that this isn't something that "lighten up" is the appropriate reaction to.
It's not OK. It'll never be OK. You can't make it OK, and you can't make it seem OK. Grow up before you fuck somebody up.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Not as capable? In what sense? Can you posit a mechanism that would cause this? I'd think just
the opposite -- a more youthful body with less wear and tear should be able to handle toxins, such as alcohol better (apart from size issues, which don't make a huge difference between 18 and 25, though some).
It seems to me that a large part of being able to handle alcohol is having practice handling alcohol. Teenagers should be drinking under the supervision of their parents before they go off to college and get wasted every night.
Yes, young drivers and alcohol don't mix. So maybe driving should go up to 21, and alcohol use gets brought down to 16. (Okay, okay, this utterly fails in rural areas...)
Fact 1: National ID cards were used in Saddam Hussein's Iraq to track, then torture and kill people who said "bad things" about Hussein.
Fact 2: National ID cards were used to oppress citizens of the Soviet Union (do a find on "7. INTERNAL PASSPORTS").
Fact 3: Eastern Europeans experienced oppression and idiocy via national ID cards too.
Rumor 1 ("rumor", because it comes from prisonplanet.com rather than a more-reliable source): The Dept. of Homeland Security has hired the former head of socialist East Germany's infamous "Stasi" domestic spy agency - the same man who architected their national ID program.
Fact 4: Today, the U.S. House has approved by a 261-161 vote to institute an electronic national ID card system for all Americans.
Chances are good that President Bush will sign this into law, claiming that it will help fight terrorism and other boogeymen, nevermind the fact that the 9/11 hijackers used IDs as legit as anybody else's.
Question: From whom are you "free" of observation and interference when you are required to possess means of constant monitoring? Where is your right to be left alone, as suggested by Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeis in his famous dissent in 1928?
Even former President Ronald Reagan recognized the danger of national ID cards, albeit, from the perspective of Biblical prophecy. What about today's Republicans? Oh, that's right, Reagan Republicanism is dead, except in convenient revivals of peoples' dreams of a (relatively) freer, happier, more-hopeful America for which Reagan is so well remembered. No, the new cheer among Republicans is "long live big government totalitarian bureaucracy!" as imposed by President Bush.
Most Republicans in government are fuckwads. If they want my vote, or the vote of anybody who is even *remotely* interested in protecting the civil liberties and Constitutional protections for which the U.S. has been so famous and well-regarded, then they'd do well to listen to one of their own.
Until then, fuck that coke-snorting, basement-level-IQ RINO running the country, fuck those groupthink RINOs in Congress. Real Republicans vote against totalitarianism and in favor of federalism -- precisely the opposite traits of any national ID program we could ever institute.
Fucking commie pinko red-staters, every one of them.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Two words: New Hamshire
My sig is as boring as you...
Ahh, I thought this would come up.
You're basically using science to justify discrimination based on age. Lets take away someone's rights because science says they can't handle them!
While your at it, lets also study and see if whites, blacks, or hispanics have lower intelligence, and then setup a nanny state for them, and say they can't have as many rights because science tells us one of those groups is less developed.
Yay! I can't wait to legalize discrimation because we have science telling us its ok.
Yes, VT does have alot of things that make sense...but then there are some that don't. They might be lowering the drinking age, but you still can't drink on New Year's Eve! http://www.firstnightburlington.com/
Well you can, but they make it REALLY hard to. You have to make reservations at ONE bar, and stay there the whole night..'bar hopping' is illegal, because people want to be able to take thier kids out until 12am for some ungodly reason.
So..there are definatly alot of good things here, but some other ideas just seem really backwards.
Bullshit. Gonzales noted that certain practises are not legally termed torture. That's all: whether or not to utilise them is a different thing entirely, and he did not touch that.
Just a matter of semantics. Just because its not illegal to push someone down the steps, does not make it right.
That said, just about everyone would advocate the use of torture under certain circumstances. If cutting the finger off of one known-guilty man would get one full details about a plan to set off nukes in London, New York, Washington, Stockholm, Paris and Moscow, I believe that most of us would reach for the pruning shears and feel bad about it later.
That said, just about everyone is discusting with no respect for human life. Just because most people support something doesn't make it right either.
Oh, and this 'known guilty' man you're talking about. He never even had charges filed against him, let alone a trial. I really wish people like you, and their utter contempt for the Constitution (and the law really) would leave. What you describe is not rule of law, but rule of the mob.
Sorry- that is not where I am coming from! My understanding of civilization is that we should protect people until they are truly able to make reasoned choices on their own; are able to understand the consequenses; and accept the responsiblity for the results of their choices. The state (Federal,and/or in my case NC) has the responsibility under our form of government to protect the citizens, sometimes from themselves. If you want to live in anarchy, go find a place in a desert, or your own private island. Evolutionary teaching from the likes of Margaret Sanger(founder of Planned Parenthood- advocate of eugenics-same fountain that "uncle" Adolf drank from- Aryan Super Race) have no place in our world. My worldview does not accept "Race" as a divisior of mankind. The Bible does not recognize "race" the way our culture has taken it. Don't go there!
Yes. The context of this discussion isn't "escaping society", but rather finding ways to escape an ever more deeply entangled society's instinct to move towards greater control of its individual components. The entire purpose of my entering this thread was not to encourage becoming a lawbreaker. I intended to draw attention to the fact that "love it or leave it" is no longer a viable option for Americans who wish to remain American. I apologize if a lack of clarity on my part contributed to your misunderstanding of the thread.
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
You will not be so sure of your position when the rest of this pattern emerges. When you are required to confirm your identity at state borders, when you are required to check in with the police at your destination. This is the first step in establishing an internal passport system. Welcome to the beginnings of the Soviet Union of the Americas
Talking to geeks is like eating jello with a chainsaw, interesting, but painful.
Makes sense. 18 is still a stupid kid, but the military loves them at that age, and would probably love to be able to get them younger.
25 is a good limit, but do they need a FULL brain?
If they get into the military, you better believe they can get access to it...
Hell, come on, who doesn't know/remember 18-21 year olds getting fairly easy access to it--- and there is a stronger appeal because it is taboo.
When Social Security numbers first came out, there was a similar minority grumble about the idea of 'one person, one number' -the government PROMISED that S.S. numbers would not be used for ID. Hmm..... I feel that a driver's license should ONLY be used for two purposes: 1) Identification by record when required by a police officer if you are sitting behind the wheel (i.e. DRIVER's license) 2) Totally un-recorded confirmation of DOB. (i.e. buying cigarrettes, alcohol, regulated medication, etc.) Last week I was stopped by a cop for jay-walking. I asked him, "How fast was I going, officer" -I dunno if he was gonna give me a ticket, or just a verbal warning, but he was laughing too hard to give me the ticket anyways.
Don't you mean.. BIZZARO!
But, you do have a choice when it comes to your job. You can just lose or quit your job and default on the mortgage. It certainly doesn't seem like a very economically wise decision to buy a house when you can't afford to easily pay the mortgage.
Umm...I CAN afford my mortgage. But that requires a job. If I lose my job, I won't be able to live ANYWHERE, because I couldn't pay rent either.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Sorry, but thats where you are going. I think your understanding of civilization is a bit off too. Remember, just a hundred years ago we had child labor common place in the country, we were helping the blacks because they weren't smart enough to make their own decisions...so slavery was better for them! Those were the arguements made...go research ifyou don't believe me.
If someone is capable of understanding the consequences of their actions, and accepting the responsibility for those choices, then why does the state have to protect a person from themselves?
I never said i wanted to live in anarchy, but I sure as hell don't want someone telling me 'your brain is not developed, so you have no rights.'
Thanks by the way for showing what a bigot you really are. You try to paint me in with Hilter (with, BTW, also ends this thread), and then you want to take people's God given free will away from them, based on science.
Reading your post, you seem to be trying to paint me with every negative label you can think of. Maybe you should go back and re-read your bible, because it does support free will and hopefully you'll abandon your attempts to take away people's free will using science. My worldview doesn't support using race to divide mankind, nor does it use age or 'stages of brain development' to do so either. You seem to have no problem discriminated based on brainscans.
Please re-read my post in light of yours. I was not attempting to paint you with any negative label. I was responding to your comment that we should study and then judge people by their skin color, or other such characteristics. In no way! From your post: "If someone is capable of understanding the consequences of their actions, and accepting the responsibility for those choices, then why does the state have to protect a person from themselves?" UNTIL they are capable and able to accept responibility, then and no longer. I am not trying to use "science" (Knowledge from KJV) to discriminate against anyone. When a child becomes aware of what sin is, they then become responsible- before that God gives a free pass. I agree wholeheartedly that the God of the Bible provided for free will. Check out when in Hebrew (Gods chosen people)civilization man was/is granted the ability to exercise that free will. It was not as children. Adam and Eve were created full grown. They made their choice and then suffered the consequences. Children are to be protected, not abused. I was raised in the midst of racial bigots, but learned how NOT to follow that path. I heartly disagree with the positions that were used in previous times, justified by proof-text of the Bible to support slavery of children or any other person.
Once again, since like most leftists you seem to be illiterate: Gonzales never advocated torture; he just noted that certain practises do not seem to be legally considered torture. He never said that those practises should be utilised: he just noted (correctly) that they are not legally considered torture.
There are plenty of people who are 30 and completely incapable of making reasoned choices. Women, for example.
Seriously though, age does not equate with wisdom. Many people would argue that anyone who uses alcohol is unwise. You can argue either way. If people are unable to make reasoned choices at 18, why can they vote? Why can they be charged as an adult in a crime? Why can people under 18 be charged as an adult? Society is overly willing to use age as a useful metric when it serves their interest, but less willing when it clashes with popularity. (Not that this is different than anything else). Old people are a risk on the road, but you'll never see a law to ban people over 70 from driving. If anything, there will be a regualar retest to ensure continued competence.
21 is a semi-arbitrary age limit established by MADD using statistics that argued decreased highway fatalities, which may or may not directly correspond with years-of-experience rather than raw age. You could just as well say that people with 5 years of driving experience as less likely to be involved in an alcohol-related crash.
At some point you have to transfer responsibility to the individual. Proponents of the 21 year age limit argue that it's not worth the cost in human lives. Obviously one person's right to party shouldn't trump another person's right to be alive. That's a fundamental and powerful argument, but it's all based on a shakey correlation between allowing alcohol consumption at 18, and traffic fatalities, and it further assumes that outright banning of alcohol consumption under the age of 21 is the best solution. Any number of other things may have contributed to the documented reduction in highway fatalities in the 18-21 age group; namely education and heightened awareness of the risks and consequences.
I'm of the opinion that the biggest reason the drinking age is 21 is that the largest percentage of the voting population is over 21, and we naturally regard the decision making abilities of people who are younger than us with suspicion. Once we turn 21, we tend to put aside the whole issue of a drinking age, since it doesn't affect us directly. In many cases, people will often assist their friends in aquiring alcohol once they're of age, which hardly demonstrates a capability for reasoned decision-making. Or does it?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
This is a troll? Is the mod who ranked this on crack? Please, someone has to explain to me how the above is a troll.
I must have a fan out there who likes to rate me troll/flamebait on every occasion.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
The federal government has NO authority to do all of the things you outlined above. Read article 1, section 8, as well as the 9th and 10th ammendment.
Well, we Southerners tried to tell the rest of the country before the Civil War, but nobody listened. All you hear nowadays is how the war was about slavery, when it was really about states' rights. Satisfied now, you GD Yankees?
Some states allow right turns on red lights, others don't.
Some allow left turns on red from 2-way to 1-way streets (five at my last count) at a red light. However, I know of no state that doesn't allow right turn on red, and even if there were one, you used the plural, and there certainly aren't two. New York City (not state) is the only jurisdiction in the US I'm aware of that bans right-on-red without signage to that effect.
Your points are fine, and a union of states is not a strong federal governemnt with little regions. But I just wanted to clear up that one little traffic related item.
Learn to love Alaska