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."
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.
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.
Under the rules, federal employees would reject licenses or identity cards that don't comply, which could curb Americans' access to airplanes, trains, national parks, federal courthouses and other areas controlled by the federal government.
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
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.
This isn't flamebait - this guys right
in the uk, its the legal immigrants we have to worry about. If they were real immigrants, they would have settled somewhere along the way (last time i checked, none of our neighbours are unstable*) to the uk, unless they wanted to milk our poncey benifits system
*yes i know scotland is unstable, but thats drunk unstable, not civil war unstable
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.
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.
Look at Bush's immigration reform plan. He can't get half his own party to support it because it would let people who came here illegally stay here to work for a limited amount of time.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Then surely the solution is to make it easier for people to immigrate legally rather than to ignore (or encourage) illegal immigration. If the rationale for making it hard to immigrate legally is to make it hard for terrorists to enter, then surely you want illegal immigration to be harder than legal immigration: at least legal immigrants have to present some paperwork and go through some background checking, so you have some chance of detecting the would-be terrorists.
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?
You misunderstand the quote.
Liberty is:
1.
1. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
2. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
3. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See synonyms at freedom.
2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.
4.
1. A breach or overstepping of propriety or social convention. Often used in the plural.
2. A statement, attitude, or action not warranted by conditions or actualities: a historical novel that takes liberties with chronology.
3. An unwarranted risk; a chance: took foolish liberties on the ski slopes.
5. A period, usually short, during which a sailor is authorized to go ashore.
You see liberty as i see it is free from government (aka federal) control. It is federal control when the government can exclude itself from law to build this fence and it is government control when the stated law has no purpose and is left to interpretation thus the cost to my liberties.
Look at #2 and tell me you still don't understand the quote. Benjamin Franklin basically said your not free and your don't have liberties when you give away those freedoms under the guise of safety.
The people that don't deserve liberty are the ones so willing to give it away, thus not knowing or caring what freedom and liberties actually mean. Our constitution and Democracy ceases to exist when you give in and the quote is a polite way to describe those who don't bother to understand the issues. (for whatever reason that may be)
Since you don't understand what your giving away you assume it is OK. That is wrong, and not how many other Americans feel.
I also find it laughable you would say Benjamin Franklin was full of dung as you put it. Is that how you cope with todays issues?
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.
And the strange part is, this National ID card system is supposedly going to get EVERYONE, including illegal aliens set up w/ and ID. The whole reason they want this system, is so that "terrorists" would have to have one to get on a plane.
The part that confuses me, is what about foreign tourists? They certainly WILL NOT have this American ID. They will have their passports from which ever of 100's of nations around the world. So if a terrorist wants to get on a plane, they will simply use a passport (which could easily be faked).
My question then, WHAT'S THE POINT of having this system of control put on Americans if it is that easily circumventable?
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
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.
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!
this is a little OT, but you should really keep the full ammendment in you sig...cause otherwise you're just engaging in polemics. Without the part about a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, you ignore that implicit in the right to bear arms is the duty of those bearing them to be well-regulated. just a thought
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
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.