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."
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...
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.
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
as a day when we fucked up while we should defend their liberty. Shame on us.
No, they will remember it as a doubple plus-bad day.
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
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 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.
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!
"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"
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...
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).
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.
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.
Thus sayeth the Anonymous Coward.
[
But, but we have ALWAYS had these SecureIdentCards!
How will they remember when the event is erased from the official History.as.Taught.in.Schools?
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.
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.
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
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..
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 ----
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.........
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
Don't worry. A few more years of this and foreigners won't want to visit America at all.
--
It's not that they're wicked or naturally bad,
it's knowing they're foreign that makes them so mad!
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.
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
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.
Illegal != unsafe. In most instances, traffic laws are absurdities passed more as sops to bluestockings than as actualy safety measures.
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.
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.