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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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'.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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
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.