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."

Comments

Re:Yet another repugnant violation of states' righ

[dcsmith]

Are you really pissing and moaning because law enforcement wants to be able to get a certain level of appropriate information from all driver's licenses? Gimme a break. 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.

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!