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...
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.
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?
No, it doesn't. It hasn't even passed the Senate yet. Dept of Homeland Security gets (if it passes) to determine the details of "machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements".
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
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
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!
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...
Why should we give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants? We should be giving them a ride home.
You have a very large grey economy, with a lot of companies (especially farming companies and service operations) depending on those illegal aliens for their operation. In a different world, there would actually be a real effort to stop these immigrants and kill that economy, but realistically that is not going to happen, ever. Too large a part of the economy of those states are utterly dependent on that source of inexpensive labour to ever do anything more than empty gestures.
With the fact that these immigrants are not going away, a few things follow. First, granting drivers licenses means fewer people out on the road driving without good knowledge of local laws and regulations. This means less accidents and less injuries and deaths.
Similarily, allowing medical treatment and consultation means less acute cases (that become _really_ expensive) since you can do preventative care.
Most "immigration friendly" initiatives actually save money, not the other way around (and that doesn't even touch the issue of basic human decency when it comes to medical care).
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
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.
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.
Thus sayeth the Anonymous Coward.
[
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 ----
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.
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?
Take, for instance, "The condition of being free from restriction or control" and "The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing." If you take those at face value, any form of criminal law infringes on freedom - you are, for instance, restricting the freedom of one person to take something that someone else wants ("stealing").
I know that's not what people mean when they say "freedom", but that's what "freedom" really means. I think what we want is a system where we can affect what controls and restrictions we have upon us - that is what the US Founding Fathers meant by "freedom" (the whole taxation without representation thing). After all, I don't think people really want to live in a world without restriction or control. Anyway, that's why we have this thing called a representative democracy - the Founding Fathers knew that the only way to practically guide what controls should be in place or not was the way they set it up. The problem is, people have been gradually saying they don't want the responsibility of deciding things any more and then when a decision is made they don't like they complain. The problem is that we *do* have freedom here, but people choose to not excersise that freedom.
If the issue is over what control we have imposed upon ourselves, the appropriate action is to get involved and change those controls; not sit around and complain and cry "my rights are violated!"
(Incidentally, the Bill of Rights is intended to be a limit on the types of control that may be imposed to help protect against instances where the people are not as involved as they should. Another brilliant piece of work. The trouble is, we let relativism get in the way to interpret what those things mean, instead of just following what the Bill says.)
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
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
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.
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.