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?
No, it doesn't. It hasn't even passed the Senate yet. Dept of Homeland Security gets (if it passes) to determine the details of "machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements".
I agree, that is bunk. I had a liquor store do that to me and refuse to remove my info from their database. When they asked for my ID I assumed the clerk was going to check it, not scan it. Very disturbing seeing my name and address appear on their computer. If such info is scanned, it should display nothing more than your age. It should also not be legal to keep the information.
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!
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Why _SHOULDN'T_ we? Are illegal immigrants somehow less human than you? Should they sit in the back of the bus too?
Do you realize that it is nearly impossible to immigrate legally to the USA, especially after 9/11? And the folks who can come in legally have 10+ years of paperwork and having to deal with the government trying to push them out. It's no wonder why people go the illegal route--it's much easier!
In the USA, the illegal immigrant population seems to be the latest dumping ground for hate, now that the gays have been throroughly dispensed with last election.
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.
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
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.
Link
Yes, correlation != causation, but the correlation does appear very strong. And isn't this exactly the sort of decision a state should be able to make for itself without the heavy hand of Washington coming down on it?
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....
The only ones who wouldn't fall into this area would be those who don't drive/have a license.
Nope, they'll get one too. Every adult needs a government-issue ID, so states provide IDs to non-drivers. In every state except Hawaii, these IDs are issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, so they'll be issued with the same technology as the driver's licenses. In Hawaii, the organization that issues non-driving IDs is associated with the criminal justice department, and I happen to know that they're looking to issue high-tech cards even if Hawaii's DMV doesn't.
So, yes, this is pretty much a comprehensive, national ID card program.
That bothers me, but it actually bothers me less than the fact that the Federal government can use it's power of the purse to coerce states into doing things they don't want to, and which the Federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to simply order them to do.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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
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'.
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.
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.