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?
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!
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...
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.
[
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
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 ----
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?
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.