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."

14 of 729 comments (clear)

  1. Yet another repugnant violation of states' rights by IO+ERROR · · Score: 5, Informative
    The driver license changes are one thing. But it's quite another to coerce the states into passing laws they don't want to pass, or that are contrary to their state constitutions, in order to receive highway funds. Hopefully the Senate kills this quickly.

    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?
  2. Welcome to 1984 by ip_freely_2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. insurance companies? by GLowder · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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...
  4. Re:Yet another repugnant violation of states' righ by opposume · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. The "Land of the free" by Threni · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

  6. Correct me if I'm wrong by Deanasc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  7. am I missing something here? by tuxette · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Republican politicians argued that the new rules were necessary to thwart terrorists, saying that four of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers possessed valid state-issued driver's licenses.

    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...
  8. Re:Yet another repugnant violation of states' righ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Yet another repugnant violation of states' righ by Speare · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I think you guys are too paranoid when it comes to privacy issues.

    Thus sayeth the Anonymous Coward.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  10. Re:Yet another repugnant violation of states' righ by dcsmith · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Are you really pissing and moaning because law enforcement wants to be able to get a certain level of appropriate information from all driver's licenses? Gimme a break. The only people I can see having a true complaint are the drivers who want to hide their tickets in one state from LEOs in another state.

    15-20 years ago there wasn't even routine information sharing between states on driver's license statuses, arrest warrants and criminal histories. The FBI, through NCIC (National Criminal Information Center) implemented the III (Interstate Identification Index). Initial response from many individual states - pissing and moaning about cost and the loss of their independence. Right - you now have to standardize terminology and call a Burglary a Burglary instead of Breaking and Entering. The world's coming to an end! The upside - Felony arrest warrants from California were now eaasily accessible in New York. Down side - ummm, wait a minute it'll come to me... or not.

    Is it possible that this information could somehow be abused? Of course. Its possible to abuse any sort of personal information. Is it likely to bring 1984 crashing down around our ears? Hardly.

    Its funny that as geeks we ridicule security through obscurity while supporting the rights of individuals to hide their poor driving records because of fears about 'Big Brother'.

    Incidentally, I don't think the 5th Amendment should be scrapped. I just think we should get a clue from the Brits - you can't be forced to testify against yourself but your refusal to answer questions can be considered by the jury during deliberations.

    Let the flaming begin!

    --
    This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
  11. Re:Yet another repugnant violation of states' righ by Aurostion · · Score: 5, Informative
    I think that the ID Card is the least worrisome part of this bill. From HR 418 (Real ID Act of 2005). THOMAS doesn't have permenent links, so forgive the lack of a link. Go to http://thomas.loc.gov and search for HR 418. The frightening section: 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.'. Rep. Earl Blumenauer yesterday:
    If this provision, the waiver of all laws necessary for quote improvements of barriers at the border was to become law, the Secretary of Homeland Security could give a contract to his political cronies that had no safety standards, using 12-year-old illegal immigrants to do the labor, run it through the site of a Native American burial ground, kill bald eagles in the process, and pollute the drinking water of neighboring communities. And under the provisions of this act, no member of Congress, no citizen could do anything about it because you waive all judicial review.
  12. Re:Yet another repugnant violation of states' righ by SomePoorSchmuck · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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'.

    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
  13. Re:Yet another repugnant violation of states' righ by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Are you really pissing and moaning because law enforcement wants to be able to get a certain level of appropriate information from all driver's licenses?...The only people I can see having a true complaint are the drivers who want to hide their tickets in one state from LEOs in another state.

    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
  14. Section 102 is even scarier. by grimwell · · Score: 5, Informative

    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