U.S. National Identity Cards All But Law

CompSci101 writes "News.com is running a story about the RealID Card legislation that's been attached to emergency military spending bills to ensure its passage. How soon does everyone think this system will be abused either by the government or by thieves ? The worst part is the completely machine-readable/automatic nature of the thing -- you might not even know you're giving your information away." From the article: "Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards."

Comments

Blank Reg

[ackthpt]

"Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service.

So how possible would it be to get by without one? Regarding

Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards."

I expect that would cross the line of States Rights. Perhaps they could enforce it for interstate transportation, but within my state I think there would be a fight against such a thing.

Might as well start writing the check out now to help fund the fight against this thing.

Geez, you'd need to have spent half your life on drugs and alcohol to think this is a good idea and sign it into law.

"Aus Passe!"

Re:Blank Reg

[AdamWeeden]

States Rights haven't existed since the Civil War.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez, you'd need to have spent half your life on drugs and alcohol to think this is a good idea and sign it into law.

I have spent half my life on drugs and alcohol and I still think it's a bad idea!

Re:Blank Reg

[TripMaster Monkey]

Unfortunately, that's why they attached this thing to an Iraq spending bill...so they could ram it through Congress without actually having to debate the issues...on its own, it was expected to have trouble in the Senate.

Attached to an Iraq spending bill, it will have no trouble passing, and our esteemed President has already expressed his support.

This bill will impose costs on states (driver's licenses)without proper reimbursement, so there's a fighting point right there, but I don't realistically see this being stopped. Instead, it might be better to start thinking about how we might benefit from the imposition of this new technology.

Re:Blank Reg

[Nos.]

Just move north. Our Privacy Commissioner isn't too likely to let something like identity cards happen up here, at least not without a hell of a fight.

Re:Blank Reg

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

Geez, you'd need to have spent half your life on drugs and alcohol to think this is a good idea and sign it into law

Or possibly an entire life avoiding their 'evils' along with all the other non-conformist things you'd heard were 'wrong' to associate yourself with. Stupidity comes in all forms, and from many sources, but none is as scary as that which comes from following the rules and learning to trust them so much you can't understand people why you wouldn't...

Re:Blank Reg

[GamblerZG]

Geez, you'd need to have spent half your life on drugs and alcohol to think this is a good idea and sign it into law.

Judging by some of the existing laws, couple of years in big politics totally beats drugs and alcohol.

Re:Blank Reg

[ConceptJunkie]

You're wrong. Every state has the right to kiss the Federal government's butt and it might get some money. Of course what it gives away for that money is another matter.

In all seriousness though, your statement was exactly what I was going to say.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez, you'd need to have spent half your life on drugs and alcohol to think this is a good idea and sign it into law.

Well don't worry, we've got the right man for the job!

Re:Blank Reg

[ServeYourWorld]

You have a privacy commission?!?! I am so jealous. Our fish and wildlife commission is a former lobbiest for a trophy hunting club... :/

Re:Blank Reg

[Johnboi Waltune]

President Bush, what have I told you about using the internet without supervision?

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

You're close... the power that comes from being in politics BECOMES a drug. Politicians become physically addicted to the specific combination of neurotransmitters released when in a situation of power.

Re:Blank Reg

[rahlquist]

I expect that would cross the line of States Rights. Good luck! In some places, like here in GA you have to change your D/L every time you move to a different county! What fun!

Re:Blank Reg

[ZosX]

I expect that would cross the line of States Rights. Perhaps they could enforce it for interstate transportation, but within my state I think there would be a fight against such a thing.

Yeah, because dissent will get you far in todays political climate. Didn't you see the congressman on Farenheit 911 state very plainly that for the most part they don't even get to read and analyze what bills they are voting in? The Patriot Act is so fucking unpatriotic that George and Tom are still rolling in their graves. 200 years ago we went to war over such intrusions into our private lives and yet now we idly sit by and watch as slowly but surely the bill of rights becomes eroded with each new act of congress.

Think it is any small mystery that the government wants less people to own guns and certainly less people to carry them on their person? Why do you think militias, you know, those little civilian armies, you know, the ones that originally fought for our revolution, why the fuck do you think want them to only really have small arms and certainly no automatic weapons, bombs, grenades, or anything of power? The very real posibility that the people may one day get fed up with all these bullshit laws is precisely the reason that the federal government wants to ultimately have everything under wraps. Whatever happened to Taxation without Representation? Ask yourself honestly, who is being represented within the federal government? Who does congress typically side with? Who funded the media blitzes that got these cadidates seats within our government?

The political climate in this country is so stifling it makes me wonder how people can call themselves public servents when they have become so entirely self serving. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You should never trust any reigning power, including the president and his bought and sold republican congress. The people need a voice and that voice is drowning out in the politics of corporate america and the rethoric of an unwinnable war on terrorism. By coaxing the public into a constant state of fear, we have created a public opinion that our rights are not nearly as important as our safety. According to Mr. Franklin, we now deserve neither safety nor rights and will be given neither in this sad pursuit.

I think the James Madison quote in my sig speaks best about the current political environment. Remember, Madison and Jefferson both wanted no American to trust the federal government and left the flexibility in our constitution to tear down our government if need be and erect something in its place. As it happened with the original Articles of the Confederation, which basically gavae the federal government no authority, it was realized that such an arrangement would not work for a great many reasons, including the need for a single currency. Thus 10 years or so later, the Constitution was born and signed into law.

As long as people keep voting for a party that does paltry little to represent their voters and their voters' rights, then American will continue along this sombre path of imperialism, corruption, world manipulation, and war all in the name of protecting our "freedoms."

The next time you go to vote for someone, ask yourself, who does this candidate represent? If you can't put yourself into that picture, well then, who the hell can you vote for?

I hope your state does indeed fight this and my state as well, but unfortunately I'm sure that with the threat of removal of precious federal funding, most states will do as they have always done and bend over. Good thing you voted for those state reps right?

Re:Blank Reg

[Lord Kano]

I expect that would cross the line of States Rights. Perhaps they could enforce it for interstate transportation, but within my state I think there would be a fight against such a thing.

They'll probably do it the same way they enforced the 55MPH speed limit or the way they enforce the 21 drinking age. Tie federal highway funds to compliance. It's perfectly constitutional. States can opt out, but if they do, they'll lose millions of dollars in state highway funds. As much as the states wish otherwise they can't maintain the thousands of miles of interstate highways inside of them without the federal money.

LK

Re:Blank Reg

[keraneuology]

I expect that would cross the line of States Rights. Perhaps they could enforce it for interstate transportation, but within my state I think there would be a fight against such a thing.

The feds can't order the states to comply but they can withhold funding unless they do. The 0.08 BAL for DWI is a recent example, and the national speed limit is another.

It ain't ignore the rights of the state, it is bribing them away.

Re:Blank Reg

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

With regard to States Rights, the only thing the Civil War answered was if the states have a right to seceed. The idea that such a right might exist came more from fertile imaginations than any logical study of the law or historical precedent.

Which States Rights were you referring to?

Re:Blank Reg

[deanoaz]

>"I expect that would cross the line of States Rights. Perhaps they could enforce it for interstate transportation, but within my state I think there would be a fight against such a thing."

But, driver's licenses are part of Title 28, a creature of Federal Government, even though they are issued by individual states.

"Crash programs fail because they are based on theory that, with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby in a month."
- Wernher Von Braun

Re:Blank Reg

[Com2Kid]

That is the same thing we said to England a few years ago about us having better privacy rights.

Re:Blank Reg

[TheSpoom]

Personally, I think you should regain control of your country rather than just laying down and letting things like this happen.

"It would be better to start thinking about how we can benefit from Big Brother watching our every move."

Re:Blank Reg

[Nos.]

If you have a chance, read through some of the site especially some of the findings. Actually, in getting you that second link, I saw a new finding posted regarding SPAM - guess what, the complaint was well founded. So, any Canadians out there spamming better pay attention to this. The precedent has been set. If I haven't expressed an intrest in your product, you have no right to email me about it.

Re:Blank Reg

[Em Adespoton]

Just out of curiosity: Why doesn't Congress ever cross out tacked-on portions of bills, and sign the rest through? Seems to work well at every other level of bureaucracy.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

States have never had rights! The federal govt and state govt have powers! PEOPLE have rights states do not!

Re:Blank Reg

[hondo77]

Which States Rights were you referring to?

Presumably, the right to own slaves?

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead, it might be better to start thinking about how we might benefit from the imposition of this new technology.

No, I'm not interested in trying to figure out how I can benefit by the feds bending me over. I'm not interested in trying to be happy because I can't stop them anyway. They might be able to ram this abomination down my throat, but they can't make me try to like it.

Re:Blank Reg

[surefooted1]

As long as people keep voting for a party that does paltry little to represent their voters and their voters' rights, then American will continue along this sombre path of imperialism, corruption, world manipulation, and war all in the name of protecting our "freedoms."

I was right with you up until the part above. This is in part why things happen as they do. The gov't gets people arguing about democrats this, republicans that, when the gov't institution itself is corrupt. It doesn't matter if they're red or blue. They will both try to screw you to retain and/or increase their power.

Until we see that the problem is the federal government itself and fight the problem from that front, we will accomplish nothing in the smoke and mirros dems vs. reps debate.

Re:Blank Reg

[maladil]

You folks need to get a life and put the coffee and cigarettes down. The black helicopters aren't looking for you.

I'm a geek, and I suppose that carries with it a certain degree of paranoia, but this law is the only thing that stands between us and a National ID card a few years later. This law requires states to continue to provide drivers licenses, but establishes standards for the documents used to obtain an ID because the drivers licenses are used as a form of identification for gaining access to places that we don't want bad guys to be allowed to enter. It also has certain requirements for these IDs issued by states.

I'm not wild about the RFID thing, but I'm not worried if someone sniffs my ID and finds out that I'm a white male born in 1975, with brown hair and eyes, 5'10" and weigh 170 pounds.

I'm sick of the knee jerk reaction that geeks have. We have a bad reputation for a reason. We have earned it. There are too many of us that haven't been on a date in 5 years, and have learned the Klingon language while living in our parent's basement.

I honestly believe that if more of us would stop playing Everquest, and go to a park, then we'd stop acting like the government is just out to spy on the pron on our hard drives.

It's possible that I trust the government again now that the Good Guys(Republicans) are in power, and am blinded to what the bad guys(Liberals) could use their new authority for if they ever get back into power. But I don't think so. Who knows? Even if they do abuse their authority, this country will still be the best country in the world, and will survive. Eventually folks will get sick of having big brother look over their shoulder, and vote for politicians that will change the situation.

In the mean time, you guys need to get some sun.

Re:Blank Reg

[Cat_Byte]

President Bush, what have I told you about using the internet without supervision?

Sorry to break it to you, but this was kicked off in 1996 by Bill Clinton. link here

From the article: For those who point to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, Poole explains that President Bill Clinton recently signed Executive Order 13083 entitled "Federalism." That document effectively gives authority to the federal government to force anything it wants on states. No effort was made by anyone in Congress to overturn the Executive Order. Conservatives went to their legislators in 1995 to protest an effort by Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt to establish a Conference of the States to address the issue of states rights and federalism.

Little notice was given to the issue in 1996 when Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. One section of the act requires all states to make their driver's licenses comply with certain guidelines found in Section 656 (b) of the act. Federal agencies will be required to prohibit the use of state driver's licenses beginning Oct. 1, 2000, unless they comply with the federal standards.

"These new National ID regulations violate every notion of federalism, because they force states to comply with regulations issued by the federal government without any constitutional authority to do so," says Patrick Poole of the Free Congress Foundation. "Nor are federal agencies empowered to force state to gather detailed information on every person in order to comply with federal mandates. The net result of the DOT's regulations is to establish a national ID system, which has been opposed by almost every non-governmental sector for the past five decades." Shortly after the passage of the act by congress, Utah state Rep. Gerry A. Adair introduced a bill to comply with the federal requirements.

Without the new card it may become impossible to purchase firearms, get a job, board a plane, vote, cash a check, open a bank or investment account, purchase insurance, receive federal benefits, obtain a student loan, receive Medicare or Medicaid benefits, and many more basic services presently taken for granted according to Poole. Once the card is in use, Poole suggests that privacy will be a thing of the past.

All of this said, this is one of the reasons I can't stand it when ppl blame everything on Bush without even doing any research.

Re:Blank Reg

[AviLazar]

Oh I don't know. I think they could mandate using these ID cards, but still allow each state to determine their own, separate, rules for getting a license. Since your ID shows where you live, and you need to ahve your license issued to the address of where you live, this should be no problem.

Yes I would like an all in one ID. As a person who has worked in banking, and as a bouncer at bars - it's god awful annoying to get an ID from another state - which I have never seen (they really update them too often) and have to hope it looks good enough.
br Oh, as for the drug comment - I don't do drugs and only started drinking about 10 years ago - but don't do it too often (too damn expensive) ;)

Re:Blank Reg

[PHP Addict]

Geez, you'd need to have spent half your life on drugs and alcohol to think this is a good idea and sign it into law.

That's probably why you think it's a bad idea.

Re:Blank Reg

[AviLazar]

Are you that limited in brain capacity that you cannot expand your definition of what can gain rights? States have rights. Pennsylvania is granted specific rights which are carried out by its politicians. The Fed isn't saying "well Mr Pennsylvania Senator A you have these rights to carry out these tasks...but Mr Pennsylvania Senator B --- you unfortunately do not."

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

At which point the states could have fought back by failing to maintain any of those "interstate highways" the funds were meant to repair. At which point the people in the states might have woken up and realized what was being forced upon them. State governments are doing just a bad job of promoting the rights of thier citizens as the federal government is.

Re:Blank Reg

[Quattro Vezina]

Those are not rights. Those are government fiats. Rights are inalienable, can't be granted or taken away by any government, and only people can have rights.

Re:Blank Reg

[AviLazar]

If the law is passed in the Fed - your privacy commissioner can blow a whole lot of steam, but in the end - if he doesn't do what big daddy tells him to do - then big daddy will slap him with a bunch of federal fines, maybe even jail time for not obeying the federal law.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

NO! The state of Pennsylvania has the POWER to do certain things. Like issue a license for example. A senator from Pennsylvania is not a state he is a person and therefore he has certain rights.

Go read the constitution and tell me where you see any RIGHTS listed for the states.

Re:Blank Reg

[Seumas]

Personally, I think you should regain control of your country rather than just laying down and letting things like this happen.

Yeah. Fucking brilliant. Nothing like becoming a target for your government, be labeled a terrorist, communist, athiest, liberal, homosexual or whatever other evil thing that our government is against. Sorry, but in a country where your government has the right and ability to "dissapear" people, I think I'll just keep my fucking mouth shut and accept my dose of soma.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

The states do still have many rights to themselves. What rights are the states missing so bad that they had before? The right to keep people as slaves? Sorry, but you southern renecks lost that one. Give it up.

Re:Blank Reg

[Seumas]

and only people can have rights.

And corporations.

But of course, corporations are legally people, so . . .

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

What if a state decided to incorporate itself?

Re:Blank Reg

[Greyfox]

How possible is it to get by without one now? Without some form of ID:

1) Can you take any of the available transportation options other than carpooling with friends to travel across state lines?

2) Can you buy alcohol if the guy behind the counter decides to card you?

3) Can you get a bank account or withdraw cash from a real human teller?

4) Can you get credit for a large loan?

5) Can you prove you were a state resident for tax purposes?

The answer to some of these questions may be "Yes" but it can often be a major hassle. I would say that the simple fact of the matter now is that most adult Americans already have drivers licenseses. In fact, most states also offer a non-driver ID card through their drivers license offices.

Re:Blank Reg

[87C751]

Didn't you see the congressman on Farenheit 911 state very plainly that for the most part they don't even get to read and analyze what bills they are voting in?

Nit: He didn't say "get to". He said "We don't read most of the bills..." It's not for lack of opportunity. It's from lack of concern.

Personally, I think there should be no riders. Every bill should address one thing and one thing only, and should carry a title that clearly summarizes its intent. Of course, that would be the end of pork, so there's no chance in hell that it will happen prior to the revolution. But I can dream...

Re:Blank Reg

[DongleFondle]

I love you Canadians.

We Americans go around butting into every damn country's business we can find, put military bases in every little nook and crany of the earth, piss off damn-near everyone at one time or another, elect idiots that couldn't give a shit less about us, piss all over our own rights, and then Canadians say, "Hey, just come up north with us, Yank. We haven't fucked everything up here."

God Bless you Kanuks.

Re:Blank Reg

[AviLazar]

Rights are inalienable, can't be granted or taken away by any government, and only people can have rights.

Oh really? Go to jail - watch your rights be taken away real quick.

And yes they are rights, though not necessarily given on gov't fiat. Since people have to vote for these decisions (see it works like this you pick your politician and hope they vote in a manner that is similar to why you voted for them. If they don't you don't vote for them again, and hopefully complain to them. Since it takes a bunch of people to pass a law it is not by just some 'gov't fiat'.)

Re:Blank Reg

[emidln]

Everything not specifically granted to the Federal government by the Constitution.

Re:Blank Reg

[fimbulvetr]

Give me a hollar when you start getting people together to solve this. I'll bring some beer.

Re:Blank Reg

[TripMaster Monkey]

Excerpt from Pink Floyd's In the Flesh:

Are there any queers in the theater tonight?
Get them up against the wall!
There's one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me,
Get him up against the wall!
That one looks Jewish!
And that one's a coon!
Who let all of this riff-raff into the room?
There's one smoking a joint,
And another with spots!
If I had my way,
I'd have all of you shot!

Re:Blank Reg

[meckhert]

this country will still be the best country in the world, and will survive

How are you measuring that?

Have you ever lived anywhere else?

Re:Blank Reg

[drkich]

Excuse me you insensitive clod. The political spectrum is not made up entirely by Democrats and Republicans. There are many other partys to choose from. Unfortunately everyone is lead to believe that it is a wasted vote NOT to vote for dems or repubes.

Re:Blank Reg

[shawb]

Well, getting rid of the right to seceed kind of has repercussions. If a state does not agree with the federal government, it would have the ability to show massive disdain by seperating from the USA. Now that the Civil War has passed, this would mean war. Against the worlds largest army.

Re:Blank Reg

[MindStalker]

Well believe it or not slavery was only one of the rights that the south was fighting for. In the early days of the US each state acted in many ways as its own country. As time progressed the northern states consolidated many of their powers while the southern states and many western states maintained independance. Most of the disagrement was in taxes and tarrifs a few concerned individual rights. Either way the southern states felt they shouldn't be forced to do anything whatsoever and would most likly have already started giving up slaves if it hadn't become a symbol of southern independance. Either way I've always been mixed in my feelings for the Civil war, just as I would be in the uprising that would occur if abortion were outlawed. I might disagree with you but I'd fight for your right to disagree.

Re:Blank Reg

[raehl]

Why do you think militias, you know, those little civilian armies, you know, the ones that originally fought for our revolution, why the fuck do you think want them to only really have small arms and certainly no automatic weapons, bombs, grenades, or anything of power?

Because they're crasy, and crazy people shouldn't have bombs?

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Custard]

>Which States Rights were you referring to?

Presumably, the right to own slaves?

The right to own slaves wasn't the core issue. The civil right of a person in the USA to choose not to be a slave was what was won in the civil war.

After the war ended, many former slaves still chose to stay - working the fields in exchange for food and shelter - but the difference was it was their choice, and those who chose not to do this were allowed to leave.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes they do.

But if someone attaches a provision to a very popular bill or a spending bill with a time limit (like, say, the budget) the other side can accuse you of holding the process up when you take the time to try to get it out again.

Re:Blank Reg

[CheeseTroll]

One of the major issues to cause tensions between North and South, leading up to the Civil War, was the right of northern states to grant protection to runaway slaves. The (Federal) Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 overrode the northern states' laws that offered such protection. So it wasn't just the Southern states that used the States Rights issue to get their way before the war, and subsequently got steamrolled by the Federal gov't. The power of "States Rights", as a whole, was greatly diminished in this time.

Re:Blank Reg

[eexlebots]

Choosing to stay out of ignorance or fear is quite different from seeing all of your available options and picking one out.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a wasted vote. I really really want a change in the voting style or this will never ever improve. Condorcet (sp) is a great looking system, but those in power refuse to change the rules.

Re:Blank Reg

[alexhohio]

Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service

You need an ID card to do all these things anyway... If they could promise that this would cut out the fraud, ie illegal aliens draining the hospitals and all the social security number theft going on, I could see the point...
Keep in mind that you will be able to get Drivers Licenses that are for driving only, but they will say such- You won't be able to fly with it or use it for other ID purposes...
If you don't like having to be a citizen/legally here to use federally insured banks, you can always use a credit union.
I think that this is one of those instances where we don't know what will come of this- I for one hate to read media synopsis of Bills- I wish that I had the time/comprehension abilities to read all these bills and see what is really in them.
Business Idea: If someone had a website that was unbiased and gave plain English summaries of every bill in the legislature- I think that would be really popular...
How many of us really know what bills are passing through congress and what is in those bills?

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice troll. The best part is how you get modded informative on this, when the GP wasn't even saying anything about Bush pushing the national ID card. He was making a joke about Bush's supposed abuse of drugs and alcohol while in college. Although, I suppose that would just open things up for Slick Willie's "I did not inhale" thing.

You know what's scary? Nixon may have been one of the best presidents in recent times. Freaking NIXON. Really... name a better one since him.

Re:Blank Reg

[TripMaster Monkey]

No, I'm not interested in trying to figure out how I can benefit by the feds bending me over.

That's too bad. I am interested. I'm intensely interested in this mandate of technology...because the government is going to need people like us (the technologically-inclined) to figure out how to implement it. People like us will troubleshoot it. People like us will find a way to subvert it. People like us will have to find a way to protect it from said subversion. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

I'm interested because anytime something like this happens, people like us become more powerful.

Re:Blank Reg

[maladil]

I lived in Texas for a year and a half. Does that count? : )

Re:Blank Reg

[amigabill]

I wish we had things set up so these attachments could not be possible. If you're voting on a military spending bill, no off-topic items have any reason to be there. Are you spending money on the military, or are you defining an ID card requirement? They don't belong together.

Much like whatever that controversial thing added to the big budget omnibus a while back, this sort of thing should not be allowed to take place.

If you want a national ID card, VOTE ON A NATIONAL ID CARD LAW.

If you're afraid it will fail a vote, then it must not be a very good idea, and should not be snuck by in a vote on an unrelated topic.

Considering how many of our reps vote without reading bills, I think most of congress should be outright fired anyway, but I've already petitioned my own congressman to do something about this off-topic attachment crap and people not possibly having time to read and understand bills before voting, such as the emergency budget omnibus and anti-terror bills. I dont' expect this to go anywhere, but at least I've tried...

Re:Blank Reg

[Ivan Raikov]

Well believe it or not slavery was only one of the rights that the south was fighting for.

This is simply not true. Most Northerners were not abolitionists. Most northerners did not care about slavery in the South, so long as it stayed in the South and didn't wander into their back yards. Northerners were keenly interested in limiting the spread of slavery into the federal territories, which in 1860 was most of the country west of the Mississippi. This was more for economic than moral reasons. Slavery and capitalism simply can't function in the same place. Slavery sucks the life out of capitalism.

It's true that by 1860 abolitionist sentiment was growing in the North, thanks partly to the popularity of Uncle Tom's Cabin, but Northerners generally were not so enflamed about how awful slavery was in the South that they wanted to go to war over it.

At the same time, the plantation class in the South came to believe that they had to expand slavery into the territories in order to protect the institution itself. They were keenly interested in being sure new states entering the Union would be slave states. Otherwise, at some point in the future there might be a big enough majority of "free" states to amend the Constitution and ban slavery.

Also, cotton depletes nutrients in the soil, and if the same fields are used for growing cotton year after year, eventually there will be a reduced yield. Apparently crop rotation didn't occur to anyone back then. So, the plantation class wanted to move slavery into new territories (and not just U.S. territories) in order to keep production up with demand.

Most of the wealth of the antebellum South was concentrated in the hands of the plantation owners. Most southern whites were dirt poor, illiterate farmers, but the plantation class lived in lordly splendor. And the antebellum South was, in effect, a plutocracy controlled by the plantation class.

The southern plantation class believed slavery to be necessary to maintaining their wealth. The U.S. South was the chief supplier of high-quality cotton to Europe at the time. Plantation owners believed that their futures depended on the expansion of slavery into the territories, which Lincoln opposed and pledged to stop. Hence, as soon as Lincoln was elected the Southern states began to secede.

The secession conventions of Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Texas wrote "declaration of causes" documents that explained their reasons for secession. The reasons were slavery, slavery, slavery, and also slavery. What caused secession is what caused the war. You can find links to these here. This is what Mississippi had to say:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

And that's why there was a Civil War..

Re:Blank Reg

[$uperjay]

The right to choose not to be a slave wasn't the core issue either, though.

Lincoln only came up with emancipation as a threat: those southern states which stopped rebelling and rejoined the union would have been allowed to keep their slaves.

The US Civil War wasn't about slavery. Several northern states were allowed to keep slaves for many years after the war ended.

Re:Blank Reg

[anoiniminious cowher]

States Rights haven't existed since the Civil War.

Or before. It was more the South imposing their will on the North, with the Fugitive Slave Act, etc., than the other way around. The only reason the Northerns put up with it for so long is the South kept threating to bolt if they didn't, and what do you know, they bolted anyway.

*ducks*

Re:Blank Reg

[DongleFondle]

You talk about knee-jerk reactions, but then you continue to try to discredit any objection to this legislation by stereotyping the dissentors as pasty-skinned, 40 year old single guys who live with thier mothers. Your argument bares no logical sense whatsoever. The truth is that those objecting to this legislation are privacy advocates that are well-informed enought to understand the precedent this technology can set and the historical perspective of such a technology.

Also, you have completely missed the point. Scanning the card everytime you walk into a bar or buy a six-pack at the grocery store would take YOUR NAME and a UNIQUE ID number. (This was stated right in the article). This DOES ammount to a national database. Privacy advocates such as us on slashdot realize the potential for abuse this poses, not only from gov't but from marketers and corporations who have proven themselves to be even less scrupulous in their actions to the public. A national ID card is a privacy concern, one that we have never been forced to have in the past and that we don't want now.

Your post is nothing more than an uninformed, and to borrow your own phrase, knee-jerk attempt at silencing dissident opinion.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, Texas is the only state with a right to secede from the from the union (it's in their contract). Frankly, I think we'd be better off without them. We could dig a giant trench and fill it with plauge infected crocidiles.

Oil be damned!

Re:Blank Reg

[surefooted1]

You missed the whole point I was trying to make.

Re:Blank Reg

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Sigh.. why have we allowed our carefully constucted system of checks and balances to be perveted by the inclusion of riders? This ability to force passage of "pet" bills does not befit democracy.

Re:Blank Reg

[$uperjay]

The conflict wasn't specifically over taxation and tariffs. The south was expanding quickly, via plantations, to cover more area and have more voting power (this is where the African-American=3/5ths of a person court decision arose: plantation owners got to vote for their slaves, and each slave got 3/5ths of a vote, because the northern states didn't want to give them a whole vote, because then the south would have the overwhelming majority).

Basically the northern states were using the courts to ensure that the more populous (because of slave population) south did not gain the upper hand in the federal government; when the southern states got frustrated enough to secede, the northern states used their superior economic power to assert their control.

Lincoln only offered emancipation to slaves as a threat against the south, ie: stop rebelling, or when we take you over, you don't get slaves anymore. Several northern states retained slavery for many years after the war.

Re:Blank Reg

[Rinikusu]

It's not that they're "blaming Bush" for starting it, but blaming him for not STOPPING it,and indeed, advancing it at a pace that would, under "normal" circumstances, be hard fought in the legislature. Bush, champion of the Republican Party, which champions "individual rights", "smaller government", "personal responsibility", etc etc, is actively acting contrary to the position that the Republican party worked so hard to present during the Clinton administration. Yeah, Clinton started it. Once the Republicans took power, they didn't use their power to reverse any of those discretions.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Think it is any small mystery that the government wants less people to own guns and certainly less people to carry them on their person? Why do you think militias, you know, those little civilian armies, you know, the ones that originally fought for our revolution, why the fuck do you think want them to only really have small arms and certainly no automatic weapons, bombs, grenades, or anything of power?

Indeed, in truth it only takes about a thousand well placed shots to eliminate the 99.9% of cruft from our government. A few hundred well placed and well organized individuals could bring them to their knees with nothing more than small arms!

Re:Blank Reg

[turtledot]

So the matter was...choice?

You mean Lincoln was there to *unbalance* the equations?

I feel a slo-mo coming on...

Re:Blank Reg

[Tipa]

In the end, I think we'll find the euphemistically named Department of Homeland Security will be a greater threat to our liberty and democracy than any terrorist threat. It aims to turn us into a nation of suspects and potential saboteurs.

Re:Blank Reg

[ackthpt]

Good luck! In some places, like here in GA you have to change your D/L every time you move to a different county! What fun!

Every time you move to a new address in California. (really!)

Re:Blank Reg

[gweedoz]

Line item veto: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_item_veto/

However, it makes too much sense for it to ever happen.

Re:Blank Reg

[robert899]

I agree with you on the riders.

If memory serves me correct, I think Clinton got a line-item veto law passed which would in effect allow the president to veto these riders but let the rest of the bill pass. The Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional.

Re:Blank Reg

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Sorry, I have to nitpick something in your post, mainly because I see a lot of people making this mistake. You may recall that DWI has been supplanted by DUI? Many people assume they are the same but they are most assuredly not.

DWI = Driving While Intoxicated
DUI = Driving Under the Influence

Now, "DWI" had a clear definition, ie drunk driving. However, "DUI" is intentionally vague.

Under the influence of what?
What does "under the influence" mean?

Tipsy? Angry? Sleepy? Emotional?
Answer: it means anything they want it to mean. The ministry of truth would be proud.

Re:Blank Reg

[cayenne8]

"You're wrong. Every state has the right to kiss the Federal government's butt and it might get some money. Of course what it gives away for that money is another matter."

This is EXACTLY what we have got to stop allowing them to do!! We send tax dollars to the Feds...in order to enable them to extort us with these funds?

That, and something needs to be done about allowing them to tack irrelavent legislation onto any bills that go through. Only relavent items should be allowed on a bill...!!!

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they're crasy, and crazy people shouldn't have bombs?
I agree with you that crazy people shouldn't have bombs, but what's wrong with "crasy" people?

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with any claim that slavery wasn't the core issue of the civil war is that the secession of the southern states was a reaction to the election of an abolitionist president. Slavery was an issue so divisive that discussion of it was forbidden in congress since the arguments frequently became so severe that congress could not get anything done.

Throughout the history of the United States the argument for states' rights has almost always been used by those not in power. Those who are in power tend to overlook this idea.

Re:Blank Reg

[nharmon]

The US Civil War wasn't about slavery.

The American Civil War was as much about slavery as it was anything else, regardless of what some neo confederates say.

Several northern states were allowed to keep slaves for many years after the war ended.

The war effectively ended on April 9, 1865 when Robert E. Lee surrendered to General Grant at Appomattox. The 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery, was declared on December 18, 1865.

Explain to me, exactly, how several northern states were allowed to keep slaves after the 13th Amendment became law.

Re:Blank Reg

[meckhert]

Americans are told from the time they are very little that this is the best country in the world. Maybe its just my inherent distrust for authority, but it sounds like a bit of an ad campaign. It does seem to be one of the best countries in the world to work and make money in, but as far as daily life goes, I find there is a lot to be desired.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

the government is going to need people like us...anytime something like this happens, people like us become more powerful.

I'm not interested in becoming more powerful by stepping on other people. I'm not interested in helping them implement this stuff. I'm not interested in helping these people turn the "Land of the Free" into just another crappy totalitarian wasteland. I'm not interested in working for these jerks at all, under any circumstances. I couldn't sleep at night if I did.

None of this will make me more powerful, because I'll be on the other side. In another country, if things slide far enough. If I find that whatever country I move to is nicer than this one, that's the only way I will benefit from this pile of steaming excrement.

But feel free to help them forge your chains, and bleat about all the benefit you get from your nice government pension.

Re:Blank Reg

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Appearently it meant Civil War before the Civil War too. Jackson sent 50,000 troops to the border of SC during his Presidncy over seccession. When someone actually tried it, they went up against N. America's largest army. I don't see how the repercussions are any different today.

Re:Blank Reg

[amRadioHed]

I entirely, agree, I would love to see the end of riders, but first you need to establish what exactly constitutes a rider. Anything can be tacked onto a bill. A relevant addendum, something that is semi-relevent, or something that obviously has nothing to do with the original bill. If you made riders illegal you would have to be able to decided when something crossed that line and this would leave you open to endless bickering from both sides.

As nice as it would be, I don't know that it would be a practical thing to outlaw.

Re:Blank Reg

[quietkey]

Sorry, you're too late. EVERY state is incorporated, even as the corporation of "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" has been long incorporated.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what's scary? Nixon may have been one of the best presidents in recent times. Freaking NIXON. Really... name a better one since him.

Jimmy Carter. Yeah, he gets a lot of grief over the metric system, but if not for that the US would have been further out of whack when globalization hit. Yeah, the military completely failed him when he ordered the hostage rescue, but it was reforms launched as a resut of that incident that transformed our military. He was very smart, and genuinely cared about people.

Re:Blank Reg

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Allowing the protections to stand would have eroded private property rights. Remember that slaves are chattel, legally speaking. From the point of view of the law's internal consistency, you could not allow state protection laws to stand if slavery was Federally protected.

I have found that many of the claims about the erosion of States Rights are along these lines. Someone is just upset that the correct interpretation of the law doesn't go their way. It's the same thing with Activist Judges. People don't like the decisions and don't understand the law, so they make up a boogeyman. States Rights is the same thing. Federalism is a means, not an end.

I'd like to hear just one States Right that the Feds shouldn't have jurisdiction over.

Re:Blank Reg

[juanfe]

Problem with line-item veto is that it could really screw up a carefully crafted and balanced act (not that those are very common). It's like removing paragraphs from a novel as you read it--you may not think they're important, but when you get further into it, you may all of a sudden wonder why the plot doesn't work.

Better option: single-issue legislation. Some countries do this and don't have the problem of pork and nonsense that we do in the US.

Re:Blank Reg

[TripMaster Monkey]

Wow...someone has issues....and his name rhymes with synonomous.

Quick news flash for you, Braveheart. Technology is not inherently evil. If you don't like the direction this is going, change it. You were the one railing about 'regaining control of your country', and now you're talking about leaving the country? How about some consistency?

By the way,
the government is going to need people like us...anytime something like this happens, people like us become more powerful.

Way to cut and paste my original response into something completely new, jackass. If you're going to quote me, have some fucking integrity. You are worse than the ones you pretend to despise.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush, champion of the Republican Party, which champions "individual rights", "smaller government", "personal responsibility", etc etc, is actively acting contrary to the position that the Republican party worked so hard to present during the Clinton administration

Get over it. The Republicans have been taken over by the Neo-conservatives who reject all traditional values. Over the last twenty years, Democrats have been the fiscally responsible ones. The Republicans have been about cash giveaways while increasing spending.

Re:Blank Reg

[onkelonkel]

Civil War? Which Civil War?

Oh, you mean the _American_ Civil War. You USians always use the term civil war as if no other country ever had a civil war, or maybe if they did it didn't count. Well actually, lots of US southerners call it "The War between the States" and my old history teacher called it "The War of the American Secession". The rest of you, smarten up!

Abe Lincoln after a three day bender - "I freed the WHAT?"

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, slavery almost died out in the early 1800's because it was not economical. It cost more to support the slave labor than they were getting out in cotton.

But then Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. The profits came rolling in, and slavery became a staple lablor source.

I'm sort of glad he died penniless.

Teh CwarD

Re:Blank Reg

[Marthisdil]

I expect that would cross the line of States Rights. Perhaps they could enforce it for interstate transportation, but within my state I think there would be a fight against such a thing.

And the govt said that states that choose not to do it, don't get federal money. So the states have a choice - easy enough.

Re:Blank Reg

[jabberw0k]

I wish the speed limit laws would be enforced. Around here, everone seems to drive like a Bat-Out-O-Hell (tm) and I'm frequently given the finger, or lights flashed, for having the unmitigated gall of *obeying* them.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

The civil right of a person in the USA to choose not to be a slave was what was won in the civil war.

No. What was won in the civil war was the absolute power of the federal gov't. They should've let the south secede. In fact if it was me in charge, I would have kicked them out. The "real" united states would have been much better off. The south would have just been another third world country of inbred hicks. The north would have been almost as thoughtful of people's rights as Canada :-)

Re:Blank Reg

[Moofie]

You seem to think that Congress wants bills to be passed on their own merit, rather than being tacked on to other, un-killable legislation.

How would they pork barrel in that environment?

Re:Blank Reg

[Don Negro]

ah, grasshopper, that was called the 'line item veto'. it was ruled unconstitutional.

Line-Item Veto Outlawed (June 25, 1998): In a 6-3 decision, justices rule Constitution prohibits president from rewriting legislation by striking out single items of spending or specific tax breaks passed by Congress.

we'll need an amendment to get it back, but considering that the L.I.V. was the product of a divided legislative/executive world, I don't anticipate it's revival by the present administration or congressional leadership.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to break it to you, but this was kicked off in 1996 by Bill Clinton.
[snip]
All of this said, this is one of the reasons I can't stand it when ppl blame everything on Bush without even doing any research.

Who gives a flying monkey fuck? I don't care if it was Bush, Clinton, or Michael Jackson who are responsible. I don't want a national identity card, and goose-stepping Homeland Security agents yelling "Papers!" at me.

And why can't anyone critize Bush without hearing about Clinton? Hello?! Clinton isn't the fucking president anymore. Bush is. Clinton may have fucked an intern, but Bush fucked this country.

Re:Blank Reg

[Dobeln]

"The Patriot Act is so fucking unpatriotic that George and Tom are still rolling in their graves. 200 years ago we went to war over such intrusions into our private lives and yet now we idly sit by and watch as slowly but surely the bill of rights becomes eroded with each new act of congress."

I would be really thrilled if you specified which part of the Patriot Act it is that scares you so. What is it about the Act that intrudes into your personal life? Just a straight answer, please.

Re:Blank Reg

[Moofie]

So as long as you are the oppressor, oppression is just fine?

Yeah. I very much a lot don't agree with you.

Re:Blank Reg

[Refrag]

When the grandparent poster said s long as people keep voting for a party that does paltry little to represent their voters..., I don't think he meant the Republican party. I think he meant the two parties in this country which represent the corporations more than the people.

Re:Blank Reg

[87C751]

Maybe it's not that hard. Technically, a rider is an amendment. Just restricting amendments to affecting only the bill to which they are attached would go a long way toward sanity.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

We Americans go around butting into every damn country's business we can find [snip]

Well, to be honest, I think that it's not Americans themselves that do this, but more your government.

Re:Blank Reg

[Spetiam]

China would fight to maintain the Union??? Perhaps you meant the world's most powerful army.

Re:Blank Reg

[TheHonestTruth]

Personally I wish Texas would secede. Then we could bomb the shit out of them for oil.

-truth

PS, I wish I could take credit for this, but I can't. Saw it here on /. somewhere.

Re:Blank Reg

[GroovyChk]

Ha.

Re:Blank Reg

[Planesdragon]

I expect that would cross the line of States Rights.

ONLY if the Federal goverment tried to require it. A state could as easily upgrade their driver's license as issue new "travel permits" or simply not change their current system.

And let's not forget that the feds will probably allot some funding for states who want to upgrade their driver's licensing systems, or the fact that a universal ID is a good thing for the state.

FWIW, though, if you think that being easily identified is an encroachment on your civil liberties, you've likely lived your entire life enjoying the freedoms that others fought and died for. Having to say who you are is hardly an onerous restriction.

Re:Blank Reg

[shawb]

I honestly meant biggest in terms of dollars. Don't know why I didn't clarify.

Re:Blank Reg

[STrinity]

Civil War? Which Civil War? Oh, you mean the _American_ Civil War.When the topic under discussion is states' rights under the US Constitution, the "American" part is pretty much implied. If we were discussing the ouster of various English monarchs, you could refer to the "Civil War" and clearly mean the Roundhats and Cavaliers.

Re:Blank Reg

[Pyrrus]

The article is about US national identity cards. The conversation is about the United States, I think it's not difficult to understand that the American Civil War is what we're talking about. Stop being obtuse.

Re:Blank Reg

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Which would include Congress' power to raise a militia to crush an insurrection, wouldn't it?
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
The South fired on Ft. Sumter when the Federal forces wouldn't leave. I'd say that would qualify as an insurrection. So I don't think that the War of Northern Agression was a blow to States Rights.

How could you have a logically consistent system if the states had the right to determine citizenship?

Re:Blank Reg

[Quattro Vezina]

You don't understand what the word "right" means. Rights cannot be granted or taken away by the whim of the people either.

Re:Blank Reg

[LilGuy]

I have, and I REALLY don't think this is a good idea.

Re:Blank Reg

[bluGill]

Apparently crop rotation didn't occur to anyone back then.

It did. The founding fathers who had slaves were looking for ways to save their soil before the revolution. However cotton brings in a lot more money than any of the crops you can replace it with, so you pretty much need cotton growing (on good soil) all the time. Tough to do.

It wasn't so bad before the cotton gin, because before then it was hard to extract the seeds from cotton so there was less profit. Once the gin was invented you needed slaves to tend the cotton fields, and you needed cotton fields to generate the money to feed the slaves year round.

Re:Blank Reg

[maxpublic]

The American Civil War was as much about slavery as it was anything else, regardless of what some neo confederates say.

And the bullshit goes on....

What was being determined was whether or not the states or the federal government would reign supreme over the U.S. of A. The feds settled the issue by burning most of the South to the ground.

Slavery was the excuse, not the reason.

Max

Re:Blank Reg

[bluGill]

Not exactly. They can make their drivers license not qualify for federal ID. Of course that means if you want to fly you need a passport. Montana is considering doing this as well.

California drivers licenses (You can get non driver ids, lets ignore them for now) give you the right to drive in California. If California decides to not make their license comply other states could refuse to recognize them, thus someone from California could not drive elsewhere.

Re:Blank Reg

[ichthus]

Several northern states retained slavery for many years after the war.

How? Civil war ends April, 1865. 13th Ammendment is passed December, 1865. I'm no history expert, but your statement contradicts historical fact.

Re:Blank Reg

[Spetiam]

Oh really? Go to jail - watch your rights be taken away real quick.

Rights aren't taken away; they can be violated (wrongful imprisonment) or forfeited (when you do wrong, i.e., commit a real crime), but a Right can not be taken away. A Right can not be legislated (voted for), either. You have Rights because God gave them to you, or, in the words of Jefferson, you "are endowed by [your] Creator with certain inalienable Rights."

Re:Blank Reg

[Spetiam]

I honestly meant biggest in terms of dollars.

So you meant the most powerful army... ;)

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who funded the media blitzes that got these cadidates seats within our government?"

unfortunately, if people fall for bullshit on the television, then who's fault is that?

You know the hard thing about democracy? It's the realisation that the government we get is generally what we deserve...

Re:Blank Reg

[jez9999]

I have to agree with the AC who also replied to this post. A vote for a non-Republican/Democrat over there IS a wasted vote. We just had an election over here in the UK. TV and web forums are full of people saying that we need to improve our electoral system because the state of Parliament doesn't well enough represent the common vote. Still, at least it crudely approximates it. I laugh, because I take a look over at the US, and things are *much* worse. Even if you overlook the many voting irregularities there were in the previous elections, you literally throw away around 50% of people's votes, never to be seen again. Your system needs change, or you might as well throw away the notion that you have a democracy and declare a Whitehouse despotism.

Re:Blank Reg

[Infinite Entropy]

Strange, I would think the GOP would really want that power.

Re:Blank Reg

[maladil]

As a privacy advocate, I respect your opinion very much. Perhaps because I used to share it. I have since seen that we need to have a higher standard for issuing identification in all states in the US. The bill does not mandate RFID, but it is an example of technology that is suggested for the states to adopt.

As for a national database,,, Even if a store could manage to scan my ID when I walked in, that does not mean that a national governmental database would have to have access to it, any more than they have access to my Pricechopper card. In fact, I work for a federal governmental organization as a network engineer, and I don't think, based on what I've seen, that the government could manage to implement a national database. Maybe if they outsource it, then after 10 years of bids and RFPs, we could possibly have a working prototype. Another 10 years or 20 trips to Mars later, we could have a small scale database running. It would probably run on MSSQL though, so good luck at getting a decent query out of it.

For what I've read, RFID's can be bypassed by encasing them in foil. I don't see why some smart entrepreneur wouldn't design a line of wallets and purses with a foil lining to block unwanted access to our ID's.

As for

you continue to try to discredit any objection to this legislation by stereotyping the dissenters as pasty-skinned, 40 year old single guys who live with their mothers

- I say, "If the pocket protector fits, wear it." It was not my high school football team at DEFCON this year. I don't imply that all geeks opposed to this must fit my stereo type, but I'm sure statistically significant numbers do. Rather than my post being an attempt to silence dissidents, it is a call to get a life, and have some perspective. These things aren't the end of the world. The black helicopter crowd just seems to go unchecked on Slashdot.

I might be wrong, but I think this bill is a good thing. How politicians in the future use it, could be bad, I admit this. But then again, that is why it is far more important to elect good politicians than it is to have good laws. If you have bad elected officials then it doesn't matter how good the laws are, they will do what they want in the end.

Re:Blank Reg

[tarth]

Thank you for fulfilling your own sig's prophecy. Should the day come that the Feds start knocking down your door for thought crimes, you'll be glad we have all of those "wackos."

Re:Blank Reg

[maladil]

You are absolutely wrong about Americans being told "from time they are very little that this is the best country in the world." Liberals and pointy headed academic types have been trying to convince us that America is a horrible place of persecution, and founded by a bunch of racists, sexists, homophobic, slave owners. They used to add religious nuts, but since they have started to try to rewrite history and say that religion had little to do with the founding of the country, they seem to recognize the contradiction, and have dropped it. Of course there's a lot to be desired. I didn't say America was perfect. No country that elects Bill Clinton two times in a row doesn't have a lot to be desired. At the same time, where is a better place in the world?

You don't see folks dieing on home made rafts trying to get to Europe. South America doesn't have a history of protecting the helpless like America does. Asia isn't dominated by liberty. No other country has ever given so much money to poor countries than the US. In the US, the "poor" are considered at least middle class by world standards. It's recently been shown that folks on welfare have a higher chance of being obese than those who work for a living. That doesn't sound like they're starving to me.

The United States is the creative capital of the world. We stand for freedom, compassion, liberty, equality, and success. It's true that there are bad people in the United States, but evil exists everywhere. However, when you consider how much life is valued in America as opposed to the rest of the world, it becomes very clear to me that if I were ever to get sick or disabled, I would not want to live anywhere else.

We have the best doctors, best laws, and the best Chief Executive in the entire world.

Re:Blank Reg

[UnrefinedLayman]

You have Rights because God gave them to you, or, in the words of Jefferson, you "are endowed by [your] Creator with certain inalienable Rights."

...and it's the assumed role of government to tell you what those rights are. What god giveth, man filters.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

All militia members are crazy?
No, all people who play paintball are crazy and cannot be trusted.
Paintball players endanger the eyesite and often the very lives of young children. Their carelessness has left
numerous innocent children blind. I would fully support a bill to not only illegalize paintball, but also to detain and arrest
all people who on their person or in their homes own paintball weapons.
After all, if it could save just one child...

(Of course I am being sarcastic. I'm showing you how easily you've been duped into believing anyone who owns a gun is a crazy wacko).

Re:Blank Reg

[DigiShaman]

I find it rather disgusting that out country is tainted with the history of slavory. For one man to think he has rights above another and treat him like an ox is very VERY disturbing.

That said however, I really with the black community would get off the bandwagon of being "oppressed" in this day and age. Call me insensitive if you like, but the current generation of African Americans have NOTHING to do with slavory or oppression now. And for them to suck on this titty of an excuse is insulting to America as a whole.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think militias, you know, those little civilian armies, you know, the ones that originally fought for our revolution, why the fuck do you think want them to only really have small arms and certainly no automatic weapons, bombs, grenades, or anything of power?

Just guessing here, but could it perhaps be because most of them are a bunch of fucking loonies?

Re:Blank Reg

[Dhaos]

No, you're right. I think we really need to do something about this.

End pork. End lobbying. Get back our democracy.

I am fucking serious. This has to stop.

Will it take a revolution? Just maybe...

I'll send you a postcard from camp X-ray.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

And the bullshit goes on....

Were you referring to the rest of your post?

Re:Blank Reg

[b!arg]

Kinda, but not really. The line item veto does give legislative power to the President, which is no good. Congress has given away enough of its power to the President as it is. I think what he refers to is not allowing non-germane amendments on bills. This would reduce these sorts of tactics and probably a lot of porkbarrel legislation too. Hmmm...didn't the Republicans used to be the party of smaller federal government and states rights? I guess that's just whoever isn't in power. :)

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm certain they'll give you an alternative:

a DNA sample and a RFID injected into your right forearm -- currently being tested in a few areas of the US as well as a couple of Mexican politicians by their choice for the "purposes of security" - giving them access through certain high-security areas and proving identity as needed.


13.16

Re:Blank Reg

[70Bang]

You'll be offered an alternative:

a DNA sample and a RFID in your right forearm. Several Mexican gov't officials are currently testing them in lieu of keys, standard biometrics, or standard identification. (NYTimes? Chicago Tribune?)




13.16

Re:Blank Reg

[bofkentucky]

Straying OT, but those hunters pay a large amount of taxes to pay for land they can't hunt on. Gun and Ammo taxes and Hunting licenses fund your state and Federal parks systems, but it is rare you are allowed to hunt in those areas. The duck (and other waterfowl stamps) fund shore and wetland creation/rehabilitation programs.

I think it is more than fair to have someone familiar with what it takes to maintain healthy habitats for game running the show at a Fish and Wildlife commission.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Texas could do something that would kill your soul. When they came into the union, the agreement was that Texas could subdivide itself into FIVE states. Imagine that - FIVE of them instead of just one. Hehehehehe . . . .

Re:Blank Reg

[ErikZ]

"As long as people keep voting for a party that does paltry little to represent their voters and their voters' rights, then American will continue along this sombre path of imperialism, corruption, world manipulation, and war all in the name of protecting our freedoms."

Give it up man. The Libertarians will never hold the Presidency.

Re:Blank Reg

[Fjandr]

The idea that such a right might exist came more from fertile imaginations than any logical study of the law or historical precedent.

By "such a right" are you referring to the right of secession? If so, what do you think happened with the reforamtion of the United States of America under the current Constitution?

The United States was governed by the rticles of Confederation, which required unanimous consent of the members for changes. The Constitutional Convention required ratification by only 9 of the 13 members of the country as organized under the Articles of Confederation. Ergo, the ratification of the Constitution constituted a secession from the government formed under the Articles of Confederation.

Now, all 13 eventually ratified the new Constitution, but it came into force once the first 9 had ratified it. At that point in time, they formally seceded from the Union under the AoC (ignored the provision that all changes to government required unanimous consent).

This action cemented the notion that secession was legitimate, even if it was not allowed under the previous form of government.

Fast forward to Lincoln, and his claim that no such right of secession existed. His source for this "fact" was none other than the Articles of Confederation. He read something into a no-longer-current historical document that had already been determined by the Union to be illegitimate. Ergo, Lincoln's interpretation of the Articles of Confederation that no right of secession existed was illegitimate.

Whether it is "officially" recognized or not, all political divisions have an absolute right to remove themselves from higher governance should that governance become contrary to their own right to self-determination.

If secession wasn't what you were talking about, I apologize for the diatribe on an issue that won't really become extraordinarily important (to most people, at least) for a few more years yet. :)

Re:Blank Reg

[Fjandr]

The American Civil War was as much about slavery as it was anything else, regardless of what some neo confederates say.

Slavery was the catalyst, but Lincoln only cared about the Union. If you bothered to pull out a textbook with copies of his speeches on the issue, you'd know that he would have guaranteed the institution of slavery in perpetuity if he had thought it would maintain the integrity of the Union. Lincoln would have sold his own mother into slavery if it guaranteed the integrity of the Union.

Just read the Emancipation Proclamation if you don't want to believe it was about something other than slavery. If it was about slavery, it would have freed all the slaves, not just those in the Confederacy.

As for gp's assertion that several northern states were allowed to keep slaves for years after the end of the war, I'd have to have more info to start research before I'd really believe that.

Re:Blank Reg

[Roy Ward]

I think the real problem is bills having to be accepted or rejected in their entirety.

The way the New Zealand government legislation works, bills can be debated and clause by clause, with many votes in the process. This neatly solves the rider problem - any rider could be thrown out while the original bill goes through.

Of course it sometimes means that parliament spends days debating a bill - which I think is not a bad thing.

Re:Blank Reg

[ErikZ]

Just curious, what country *wasn't* tainted with slavery?

Even the Native Americans kept slaves.

And if you're honestly upset about slavery, well do something about it. Slavery is more widespread now than ever before.

And it's not a play on the word "Slavery". But honest "I bought and paid for your ass and your life is mine."

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

You're disgusted when one person thinks they have rights over another and treats them like a non-person.

First of all, not only does the current generation of Black's have nothing to do with slavery or oppression now, neither do Whitey's like me. Hell, I don't even have ancestors from the South or that otherwise ever held slaves (mom is big into geneology).

Secondly, thank goodness slavery has been abolished, but abortion hasn't, so still be disgusted that one person thinks they have rights over another and treats them like a non-person.

We really haven't changed at all.

Re:Blank Reg

[mrchaotica]

And this is why the entire concept of "political parties" is evil, as George Washington well knew...

Re:Blank Reg

[DigiShaman]

I totally agree.

Re:Blank Reg

[j_w_d]

Several northern states were allowed to keep slaves for many years after the war ended.

Just which states were these?

Re:Blank Reg

[mgbastard]

f karma - i agree

I think he meant the two parties in this country which represent the corporations more than the people.

hear hear!

Re:Blank Reg

[autophile]

Explain to me, exactly, how several northern states were allowed to keep slaves after the 13th Amendment became law.

Today these unfortunates are knows as wage slaves.

Ba-dup-dup.

--Rob

Re:Blank Reg

[The Snowman]

Strange, I would think the GOP would really want that power.

Why do they need it? It is not like the Democrats can get any legislation passed through Congress. The Republicans are all, for the most part, in bed with each other and scratch each others' backs even if a particular bill is not 100% in line with the GOP platform.

Re:Blank Reg

[siriuskase]

It wouldn't be a wasted vote if all the "third parties" made election reform their one and only plank. Unfortunately, the republicrats are the only one running in the middle (where most americans reside) of most issues.

Re:Blank Reg

[Martin Blank]

It doesn't cross states' rights, because there is no requirement that any state change its ID cards to conform to this standard. You're still free to get a passport and use that for all of the listed uses, including travel, opening accounts, and so forth. States will probably want to change their licenses so that their residents won't have to go through the need for a passport.

Personally, I back this. There's been a serious push on the part of some to allow driver's licenses for illegal immigrants in California, on the theory that this will allow more of them to get insurance, and that more will get the training and take the tests to get the license. This is ignoring that there are already hundreds of thousands, if not a couple of million of them, in the state driving without legal licenses to begin with.

The bill requires that all documentation submitted to check for accuracy be checked against US records. Social Security numbers must be checked against a federal database, for example. Licenses expire when visas expire, for the case of foreigners on visits here. These kind of checks will help to put pressure on those who are in the country illegally (whether they came here on visa or not). The bill also, IIRC, authorizes the construction of the final three miles of border fence in California to get to the ocean, something that has been blocked by the California Coastal Commission.

Slowly but surely, the nation's leaders are coming around to realize that a lot of the ideas presented by the 9/11 Commission were accurate and need to be put in place. Maybe later this year, the authorization for the training of the additional 2000-3000 Border Patrol agents for the Mexico border will get through even the president's head, so that the border can be adequately secured.

Re:Blank Reg

[siriuskase]

I'd vote for a candidate who promised never to vote for a bill he hadn't read. It would be even better if the bill was posted soon enough before the vote for me to get a chance to read it and respond.

Re:Blank Reg

[siriuskase]

Or Against -

I'd vote for a candidate who promised never to vote for or against a bill he hadn't read. It would be even better if the bill was posted soon enough before the vote for me to get a chance to read it and respond.

Re:Blank Reg

[muonman]

It is utterly amazing the lengths to which neoconfederates will go to rationalize their history.

Even the most cursory study of the history of the period should convince you that there was one issue and one issue only which had the power to force both sizes to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of their youth to the conflict.

That issue was not some abstruse cerebral principle or minor difference of viewpoint, it was first and always: SLAVERY!

When are you going to ealize that your ancestors dug a great big hole for themselves and you their posterity, and staying in it isn't going to accomplish anything but to make you look stupid. Admit your ancestors' mistakes, climb out of your pit of denial and join the rest of us as members of the human race.

Re:Blank Reg

[siriuskase]

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." ~James Madison

Mr. Madison, I wish you'd post more often. You've hit the nail right on the head. Better yet, you should write a text book which should be required reading for all school students.

If only the internet was 230 years old

Re:Blank Reg

[fhwghads]

The US Civil War wasn't about slavery.

Only the most tortured, ridiculous distortion of reality could support this kind of a claim. Here's how an actual logical analysis of the cause of the Civil War would work:

During the 20 or so years preceding CW, the primary dividing line between political parties was whether or not new states entering the union could be slave or free states.

During the 1860 election, a President representing the pro-abolition party was elected Immediately after that election, Slave states began to secede from the Union.

Ergo, the cause of Secession was Abolition, ergo the cause of the Secession was slavery. Without slavery, there would have been no political division between Slave and Free states, and therefore no reason to Secede.

To keep the union together, Lincoln then initiated the Civil War, which can then be said to have been primarily caused by, and fought about, Slavery. The easy way to check the reality of this conclusion is to imagine if the Civil War would have ever happened without it.

Re:Blank Reg

[tjstork]

That's a good bit of revisionism but is actually not true. The original Republican Party as postulated by Freemont was in fact an abolitionist party. Lincoln himself joined the Abolitionist party and only toned down his message so that he could elected. But he was given several opportunities to avoid the Civil War, none of which he accepted. He forced the situation at Fort Sumter, and then he invaded the South, and when he finally did get his first major victories, the first thing he did was to do the Emancipation Proclamation.

Re:Blank Reg

[fgl]

I totally had to mod this up, politicians don't really represent the "people" anymore (if they ever have)

Re:Blank Reg

[siriuskase]

The right to tax is the right to buy votes. I suppose we need to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Re:Blank Reg

[Fjandr]

You say it's revisionism, yet fail completely in the rest of your post to mention how.

I never claimed Lincoln supported slavery, I claimed he supported the Union and used the Emancipation Proclamation as leverage against the South.

I never claimed he had no opportunity to avoid the Civil War. I doubt he wanted to avoid it, as in fact the Civil War played into his attempts to empower the Federal Government and make the Union stronger. It did.

So am I completely missing your point, or did you intentionally fail to support your first sentence?

Re:Blank Reg

[siriuskase]

Maybe not the Civil War itself, but the Presidential election prior to the Civil War was all about slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_presidential_ele ction

That was a humdinger of an election, the established parties unable to get their acts together and letting the upstart Republicans take over. It's about time we did that again. It's the only way to get action on important issues. Have you noticed that the bipartisan duopoly never takes positions on the issues that I think are important. They always want to debate boring stuff because they already agree that the status quo is just dandy.

Re:Blank Reg

[ShadowBlasko]

You've never worked in retail have you?

Re:Blank Reg

[siriuskase]

You are right, but it isn't surprising that this is a confusing issue. Although Lincoln was an abolitionist, he did not run on that issue because he campaigned that it was even more important not to divide the union. That is why he didn't make the Emancipation Proclamation until well after the start of the Civil War. The Union was already split, freeing the slaves was no longer an election issue, but it had become ahelluvan economic weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_ele ction%2C_1860

Re:Blank Reg

[siriuskase]

The EP only applied to the 10 states that seceded from the union.

The ten affected states were individually named on January 1, 1863. Intentionally omitted were Maryland and Delaware (which had never seceded), Tennessee (already under Union control), and Missouri and Kentucky (with factional governments that had been accepted to the Confederacy, but had not officially seceded). Specific exemptions were stated for 48 counties designated to become the free state of West Virginia, along with several other named counties of Virginia; and also New Orleans and several named parishes in Louisiana already under Union control.

If it weren't for the 13th Amendment (ratified by the states in December 1865), the fine citizens of Tennessee, Kentucky, et al, would still have the right to own or be owned.

Re:Blank Reg

[siriuskase]

The reps and senators themselves should abstain from voting on bills that can't stay on topic. If that became popular, they'd only have a quorum when the bill made sense.

We'd have much fewer bad laws.

Re:Blank Reg

[tmortn]

Neo-confederate spin work or not it is pretty well accepted that upon the signing of the constitution there was a serious question about the balance of power between the federal government and states rights. Most historians seem to agree that a conflict was inevitable. It was simply a question of what issue would be powerfull enough to bring the issue to a head and force a resolution.

Tragicly, though unsurpisingly, that issue was Slavery and it was sufficiently polarizing that it led to blows rather than allowing for a peacfull resolution. I agree so called neo-confedrates do most anything to try and divert attention from the simple fact that the confederate deffense of states rights was inextricably intertwined with a deffense of slavery. However, your not doing much better in asserting to the opposit extreme, that it was all about slavery.

Personally I hold to three views regarding the "War of Northern Agression". One, The South was wrong to maintain slavery in any shape form or fashion. If they had wanted to retain the high ground they should have freed their slaves AND succeeded. Two, the federal government had the trump card in the upholding of the self evident truths laid out in the Decleration of Independence for all people. Three, the federal government did not really use that trump. The north went to war and doggedly maintained it largely because Lincoln was right in that the maintaining of the union was more important than anything... INCLUDING slavery.

It is a well esstablished that Lincoln would have given in on slavery in a heartbeat if it had meant the ceasation of hostilities and re-unification. The concept that the war was only about slavery is pretty damn ludicrous when the man largely responsible for the Unions Resolve decalred it largely a side issue to the task at hand... and it is massively ironic to me that he is perhaps remembered as much, if not more for the emancipation proclimation rather than his resolve to maintain the union. Slavery was a dead end. Whether the South won or lost it would never have survived. The same cannot be said of the Union.

The underlying causes and issues surrounding the Civil War are anything but simple, or cut and dried. Statements to the contrary are just plain troll bait. It is a shame that such a polarizing issue so completely taints the discussion becasue there are some very important issues of government to study in the lead up to and results after the war. Few people ever get past the "black and white" issue of slavery.

Re:Blank Reg

[COredneck]

I have been a lifelong Republican, this Real ID Act is a big usurpation of state rights ! At least the mandate for states to join the Driver License Agreement was removed from the bill which would have forced states to share data not onlt betwen states but also Canada and Mexico. In 2006, I am going to vote Democrat because my Congressman refused to step in to change the bill but instead not only he voted for it but signed it. I think it is time for to have divided power and eventaully I would like to see third parties get into office like the Libertarians.

There is one thing I support of the Republicans is reducing taxation such as getting rid of the inheritance/estate tax which was designed to hurt the family owned business in favor of large corporations.

I read a survey recently that that the US is not in the top ten of the most free countries and New Zealand is rated at number 5. I am thinking of immigrating to NZ. One big downside of NZ is they have much more gun control.

Re:Blank Reg

[Porkbreath]

Hey! I've spent at least half my life on drugs and alchohol and I think it's a terrible idea.

Re:Blank Reg

[diablo2007]

How did /. become the host of another debate about the causes of the Civil War?

Re:Blank Reg

[siriuskase]

Fast forward to Lincoln, and his claim that no such right of secession existed. His source for this "fact" was none other than the Articles of Confederation.

Actually, he somehow logicked that the allowance of sucession was the equivalent of anarchy - that it made more sense for states to have a civilized debate in Congress than to work out treaties with adjacent states that comprised an alien nation.

In Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, he never references the Articles of the Confederation. Maybe some other speech, but he intended the First Inaugural to be a sufficient explanation.

Here's the part that makes the most sense:

Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before?

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never worked in retail have you?

I have, an I could tell my bosses to fuck off and die at any time.

People like you need to be sold into slavery.

Re:Blank Reg

[floodo1]

calling neocons republicans is an insult to republicans.

its a shame that congressional "republicans" toe the party line so much. "well the neocons say we should vote yes for this....i vote yes".

the republican party has been corrupted (as if it wasnt already!) by neocons.

Re:Blank Reg

[jasmusic]

Guess what. As it stands even without a federal ID card, it would be stupid for a bank to blindly loan money without knowing an assload about the person receiving it and his/her ability to repay it. It's dangerous in an era of widespread election fraud for the federal government not to be able to verify each unique living voter.

You already present your life's story when receiving loans and grants, already present a passport when travelling abroad, already present ID for adult, tobacco, and liquor purchases and dance club entrances; and are already required to keep your license and registration on your person at all times merely for driving your car... so why the Chicken Little routine? Why the banter?

The only serious question is the constitutionality of it. But even that is solved because (a) the states are the ones producing the ID's, and (b) Article 4 Section 1 says Congress gets to make the laws determining how the "public Records" of the states are to be "proved".

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh stop it! If all these Americans come to Canada, they'll vote for Bush's second cousin as PM and we'll be just as screwed. We should just close the border and let them rot down South.

Re:Blank Reg

[floodo1]

wow, the truth is currently buried with a score of only 1 :(

Re:Blank Reg

[floodo1]

but how would pork get passed then?
you forget that corruption ABOUNDS in congress. and therefore congresspeople serve almost exclusively their self interest.

i TOTALLY agree. why a provision for this wasnt made, i dont know. but then again maybe there IS a quality reason for allowing the attachment of ungermane attachments.

yay for the US

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Secondly, thank goodness slavery has been abolished, but abortion hasn't,

you are so right, it would be disgusting for the state to force a woman to bear a child against her will - the very idea

Re:Blank Reg

[ShadowBlasko]

Glad you never had kids and had to keep your insurance. Or worse, had to pay child support in a state like Ohio where you can be jailed for losing your job even if you are less than $500 behind.

Re:Blank Reg

[BackInIraq]

I wish we had things set up so these attachments could not be possible. If you're voting on a military spending bill, no off-topic items have any reason to be there. Are you spending money on the military, or are you defining an ID card requirement? They don't belong together.

When was the last time that the idea of the line-item veto was brought up? We really need that. I'd blame it on the Republicans, because I believe they were running Congress last time the idea was being kicked around and failed to pass it...but the Democrats would never go for it either. Congresscritters in general will never go for it, because it takes away their power. Basically, it allows them to force the President to sign things he wouldn't normally sign, because he needs W, X, and Y so they tack Z on there. Granted, any President with balls (or who didn't, you know, favor the idea of a national ID...I believe our current one does) would just veto the whole damn thing.

Personally, I'd rather see the Iraq spending bill get vetoed (or voted down) than see this go through with it. This is yet another reason the expenses for the war over here should be, you know, in the budget rather than added as emergency spending bills.

Re:Blank Reg

[satans_advocate]

Slavery is more widespread now than ever before.

There are currently an estimated 4 million 'slaves' in the United States currently, which compared to the total population is about 1.5%

Compared to pre-civil war levels of 7-12% of the population, I call you on your claim that slavery is more widespread than ever before.

Still. Modern slavery, done in secret, is probably much more oppressive and exploitave than when it was legal. So the problem itself is as bad as ever, perhaps worse.

Re:Blank Reg

[raehl]

I don't believe anyone who owns a gun is a wacko - I live in the Northwoods of Wisconsin, almost EVERYONE owns a gun. Unless they prefer bow hunting.

But if you're part of an organization that runs around in the woods thinking they're going to fight off the government, then you're crazy.

Fact of the matter is, militias are completely ineffective unless the government they're fighting is similarly armed. We're not talking about revolutionaries with muskets fighting off a government army with muskets. We're talking about a milita with rifles trying to fight off an army with tanks and stealth bombers. That's not a fight a militia will ever win.

Which means their only options are to not get in the fight in the first place, or resort to what every other "militia" trying to fight the army of a western power in the past 60 years resorts to: Terrorism.

So, if you're in a militia, either you honestly believe your militia is going to be effective against the US military, or you're planning on conducting a war or terrorism. Either way, you're crazy.

Re:Blank Reg

[unitron]

Well actually, lots of US southerners call it "The War between the States"...

Here in the South we call it "The Wa-ah"*

:-)

*(and then we succumb to a case of the vah-pahs)

Re:Blank Reg

[FuegoFuerte]

Ergo, the cause of Secession was...

You, twinkie, seem to be confused about what "cause" entails. What you describe is simple correlation. The fact that there is a correlation in two events in no way makes one event causative of the other. You see, it's possible that the cause of secession was abolition. It's also possible that the cause of abolition was secession. It's also possible that the cause of secession was states getting sick of bullshit from the feds, and the cause of abolition was feds wanting to assert their dominance over the states. There are other possibilities as well. Do not assume anything political has a simple cause. Doing so labels you a product of the gulag that the truly learned call publik indoktrination and the rest of the sheeple call public education.

Re:Blank Reg

[quarkscat]

Wow! Well said.

This doesn't directly address the original topic of the "Real ID" amendment that was tacked onto the military funding bill. The real questions that this issue exposes are "Does the Federal government have the right to set the standard for what documentation is required for a driver's license?" Along with "Does the Federal government have an obligation to safeguard our national boundaries?" And "Does the Federal government have the right to determine (through legislation) quotas and restrictions on the number of immigrants that enter the USA?"

Insofar as the various states use their driver's licenses as a form of identification that (they would hope) is honored by the other states, the Federal government does have the right to establish a common standard for the issuance of that license. Without such a standard, the only alternative would be the requirement for a separate National ID card. Such a policy would portent the possibility that one state's driver's license might not be accepted in another state for driving there, which opens a big can of worms regarding interstate commerce. The FAA certainly has the right to know, through appropriate documentation, exactly who is getting onto commercial aircraft that they are responsible for.

Every national government, the USA included, has not only the right to control its borders, but also an obligation and responsibility to do so. A basic tenent of any organized government is the definition and delineation of its borders, if it is to continue to exist. There is also, albeit largely unwritten, a basic contract between a government and its people to provide for their safety (if not their welfare). A government, therefore, has the duty to screen visitors entering their domain, with the explicit right to exclude those that it deems unsuitable (foreign military, criminals, terrorists, or even persons with dangerous communicable diseases).

The Federal government long ago established procedures, quotas, and standards (including health) for persons immigrating to this country. It has been codified into law. From time to time that law has been changed in order to reflect changing conditions (health issues, housing, and jobs( that effect the general welfare of its citizens. This is as much a right of the Federal government as its right (and obligation) to control the borders.

The current situation (IMHO) is completely out of control. Not only does the Federal government not take full responsibility for the control of our borders, but also burdens the states with unfunded/underfunded mandates as to how the local governments are obliged to take care of illegal immigrants. All of the border states have seen a drastic increase in communicable diseases, as well as their public health systems being driven into bankruptcy. Our public school systems are under Federal pressure (through education funding, including "No Child Left Behind") to provide an education to illegal immigrants whose numbers are largely unknown. Illegal immigrants caught in criminal acts, then tried, convicted, punished, and deported keep slipping across our borders for further mischief, sometimes with the help of their governments. (They don't want them there, either.) Our politicians have ressurrected that old saw from the pre-Civil War South that our economy needs more cheaper labor to keep the economy going. Then it was slavery -- today it's "undocumented immigrant labor". Today's employers that make use of such labor are being subsidized by the rest of the country's taxpayers.

If the current regime in power is either unwilling or unable to find the funding to secure our borders, place some controls on immigration, and actually enforce current laws against employers hiring illegal aliens, they certainly have no business engaging in "optional" preemptive military actions halfway around the globe. There is no good reason for this government to institute draconian measures against their own citizens while granting a "free pass" to everyon

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

> Just curious, what country *wasn't* tainted with slavery?

In the classical sense of the word, you mean.
For instance Switzerland, Romania, Greece, Austria. Small and medium countries that didn't have colonial empires.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad you never had kids and had to keep your insurance. Or worse, had to pay child support in a state like Ohio where you can be jailed for losing your job even if you are less than $500 behind.

Yep, I was never irresponsible enough to have kids I couldn't support.

It's a shame that many men get Jewed by states with feminazi child support laws that serve only to enrich members of the Lesser Gender with money to be blown on booze, drugs, clothes, cars and vacations, but it doesn't mean retail jobs are a form of "slavery".

Re:Blank Reg

[ConceptJunkie]

It is not like the Democrats can get any legislation passed through Congress.

Well, it's not like the Republicans are getting anything interesting done either. Besides the war and other foreign policy exploits (which I generally support by the way), and the tax cut, what else have they accomplished?

It seems like all we hear about these days is that silly filibuster business, which should have been smacked down years ago. It ticked me off when the Republicans did it to Clinton (even though many of Clinton's appointees are firghteningly bad judges) and it ticks me off even more now. It seems all the Big Two Parties do these days is tit-for-tat sabotaging each other.

Re:Blank Reg

[tjstork]

"The original Republican Party as postulated by Freemont was in fact an abolitionist party"

Speaks for itself. The Civil War was about slavery. Saying that you believe the Civil War was about the Union is like saying you believe that the War in Iraq is about September 11th. Just like today's neoconservatives want to bring Democracy to the middle east and used 9/11 as an excuse to start the project in Iraq, the 19th century abolitionists used anything they could think of so long as it got them closer to their goal of banning slavery.

A really good proof of this is the old compromises of that predated the war. The arrangement between north and south was that one state would be admitted free and the next a slave, to preserve the balance of power in the Senate between the north and south. Then there was the mini civil war in Kansas, the John Brown incidents, all of the speeches by Frederick Douglas, all of the anti-slavery literature produced up north, the fact that the British had actually banned slavery on the high seas by fiat some years before, that even the original constitution had to allow for reduced rights for blacks in order to get the south to join the union. It was a hot button issue that dominated the American political scene from the founding of the country right up until the emancipation proclamation, and you want to say that the civil war wasn't about slavery? That's just absolutely absurd.

Re:Blank Reg

[dave_f1m]

Look, just because he saw it on Farenheit 911, doesn't change the facts. I didn't see 911, but I did watch CSPAN the day the PATRIOT act came up and here is what happened. After 3 weeks of bickering, the justice committe voted unanimously (36-0) on a bill. Instead of it coming to the house floor, a bill drafted by the administration and a couple of republican congressmen was brought up, with the rule: you must vote on this now. Most of the debate was on trying to hold off the vote until people had a chance to read it, but that was not to be. There were only a couple of copies available (sorry, it's so long we haven't had time to make copies for everyone, and why would you want your staff to read it anyhow - we just told you what it says). Just vote on it now, we have to get it passed today before the Prez goes on vacation (even after the railroad job through the house, it still took 3 weeks for him so sign it into law). Wether or not a biased movie brings up something doesn't change the truth.

Re:Blank Reg

[ConceptJunkie]

it was ruled unconstitutional.

Yeah, and that was a real kick in the pants. Not having thr LIV means Congress can blackmail the President into signing tons and tons of pork and other crap that they attach to these massive appropriation bills and whatnot.

I think the Line-Item Veto would be one of the most effective ways to start cleaning things up. Does it take some power away from Congress? Well, sure. But Congress has been doing such a sucky job for the last 40 years or more, with respect to spending. They are the ones responsible for the grotesque national debt. The Presidents can help or hurt the process, but it's ultimately Congress that does the spending.

Now that we have a Republican White House and Republican majorities they've gone from "tax and spend" to "don't tax but still spend". If President Clinton, and now President Bush could just slice out some of the huge greasy pieces of fat that get wedged into every bill Congress passes, maybe we could start to reign in a government that has almost nothing in common with what was created in 1787.

Re:Blank Reg

[Tassach]

the established parties unable to get their acts together

Unfortunately that is not the case today. The Republicans are very organized and disciplined -- just look at the Congressional voting record and see how many Republicans vote against the party line, particuarly on policy issues and spending. The main unifying force behind the GOP is, frightenly, the Religious Right; and their theocratic agenda is driving policy. The fiscal conservitives who are socially moderate are a distinct minority.

At the national level, the Democrats are floundering, but at the local level the Democratic machine is still chugging along strong as ever.

Re:Blank Reg

[Tassach]

I wish I could take credit for the line in your sig; It's properly attributed to Ed Howdershelt.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Crop rotation was widely applied in early Medieval times. I suspect greed has something to do with it.

Re:Blank Reg

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

From http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/bdsds/timelin2.html:

Annapolis Convention. Nine states agreed to send delegates to Annapolis to discuss commerce, but only five state delegations arrived on time. Because of the poor attendance, the delegates decided to invite the states to another convention. Alexander Hamilton drafted an address to the states, inviting them to a convention to be held in Philadelphia in 1787, to discuss not only commerce, but all matters necessary to improve the federal government. After debate, on February 21, 1787, Congress endorsed the plan to revise the Articles of Confederation.

After carefully reviewing the draft, the Convention approved the Constitution on September 17. After signing it and sending it to Congress, the Convention adjourned.

Congress Receives the Constitution. Although some congressmen were displeased at the Convention for doing far more than revising the Articles of Confederation, on September 28 Congress agreed to pass the Constitution on to the states, so each could debate it in separate ratifying conventions. Nine states had to agree to the new Constitution for it to go into effect.

Seems like a perfectly legal transition, which in no way means secession was legitimatized by the process. As for absolute rights, there are none. There are rights you are willing to kill in order to defend or otherwise a point at with you will enforce political decisions with violence. There is no "right to rebellion". Others may support a rebellion for moral reasons or practical political purposes, but there is no natural force that will insure victory in a morally just rebellion, thus, no absolute right to rebel.

Re:Blank Reg

[sushi_steve]

I've spent the last year of my life on drugs and alcohol, and I still don't think it's a good idea.

Re:Blank Reg

[brpr]

He was talking about slavery across the world, you silly parochial American.

Re:Blank Reg

[satans_advocate]

He was talking about slavery across the world, you silly parochial American.

Wow! Wrong twice in a single sentence.

Re:Blank Reg

[satans_advocate]

One big downside of NZ is they have much more gun control.

Go to New Zealand. Meet some New Zealanders. Then you will know why they have such strong gun control.

As to immigrating there. I'm always surprised by American's stating that 'I might just immigrate to X'. As if all you had to do to become a citizen or resident of another country is just hop on a plane with your credit card.

Do you think New Zealanders want millions of whinging Yanks turning up on their front doorstep with a suitcase?

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

No!

Actually there are two different rights in play here and you refer only to one of them. You refer specifically to "human rights" and are ignoring "civil rights". Civil rights are those defined by a government's constitution and can only be granted by the government. Human rights are those that are "inalienable, can't be granted or taken away by any government". The overwhelming principle is that civil rights should never trump human rights (unfortunately that is seldom the reality even in the USA).

Please go to a dictionary and look these up:
human rights; pl.n. - The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled
civil rights; pl.n. - The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship

And I say "yes" to the fact that the civil war was fought over states-vs-federal powers. This was the "camel"; but slavery was the "straw that broke the camel's back". Without this states-vs-federal power struggle the civil war would not have happened; but without the slavery question it would not have happened when it did. Regardless, some "straw" would have broken the "camel's" back. It is just that time and place that made slavery the "straw". (Could I use any clearer metaphor?)

Davey: Poli Sci major, KSU OH 1983-87 (who is too exhausted from the May 4th week of remembrance and protest at Kent State to even log-in...)

Re:Blank Reg

[jhylkema]

"Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service.

Wrong. This is to prevent asshead state legislatures from issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

Before you scream "xenophobe" and mod me troll, this is an issue that's near and dear to the heart of many /.'ers. Importing cheap foreign workers has become the stuff of legends in the tech industry, especially so now that His Billness has called for the abolition of H1-B visa caps. Other industries have been doing this illegally for years (Wal-Mart anyone?) It's to the point where many unscrupulous contractors use "Manuel labor" i.e., cheap, non-union, and forcing out skilled union labor. Besides, California is about to go bankrupt from the cost of uncompensated care and bennies for illegals.

Re:Blank Reg

[Fjandr]

Seems like a perfectly legal transition, which in no way means secession was legitimatized by the process.

It was illegitimate under the AoC because once 9 states ratified it, those member states ceased to view the AoC as governing documents, a fact that was in direct contravention of the requirement for unanimity.

We could have a new Constitutional Convention tommorrow, and have that Convention draft a document requiring only 2 states to ratify it for it to be formally adopted by those states. That would be in direct contravention of our current governing document, whether or not the rest of the states eventually supported the move. I'm not saying the secession from the government under the Articles of Confederation was either right or wrong, simply that it was in violation of the governing document at the time. Civility does not make something legal. Legality does not make something right.

While you may argue there are no absolute rights, it is all a matter of semantics. I certainly agree there is no natural force that insures victory, or even compels action in the face of overwhelming odds.

You can as easily say there is no right to defend yourself. Rebellion is simply an organized defenes against an organization who claims control over that individual/group that is in the act of rebellion.

The definition of "rights" is very subjective in nature, but rights derive their power from belief. Thus, it is necessary to support the belief in rights by speaking in absolute, rather than relative, terms. Since I support the concept of rights, I speak of them in absolute terms rather than subjectively, in order to lend power to the concept.

Thus, there are in fact absolute rights. You may say otherwise, I just won't agree with your argument. :)

Re:Blank Reg

[Doc Ruby]

With $2.5 spent without any Democrat "interference", and the latest Budget resolution passed forecasting an additional $4T in debts over the next 5 years, what else could Republicans possibly divide their attention to care about? Spending all that money on military contractors and tax cuts for the rich, they're exhausted. So they've got only a little energy left for destroying the immensely popular Social Security, getting it out of the position of funding all those other government programs that protect consumers from corporations. What else would you expect them to do?

Re:Blank Reg

[Doc Ruby]

Yeah, it shouldn't be up to the president which part of a bill isn't "germane". I'd like to see the system patched to require that any single bill allow changes only to a single department, program or budget, or that it be a "bundle" referring only to other bills with those scope constraints. Bills could require their passage only as part of a bundle, or be autorescinded. That structure would force Congress to more clearly vote on easily identifiable packages of related legislation. Without laws representing more horsetrading than integrated policy.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing I don't understand about that statement is this.

Are we still british citizens, because what right did the colonies have to seceed from GB.

If the decaration of independence and constitution says the people have the right to seceed and form a new govt., then the states have a right to seceed if the majority of voters in a state want it.

Re:Blank Reg

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the tech, it's the use thereof I have issues with. I didn't say anything about "regaining control", mighta been a different AC...and I don't see how I took your quote out of context at all. I'll change this place if I can, but there are too many idiots like you around to have much hope of success. Go lick the boot on your face, weasel man.

Re:Blank Reg

[MindStalker]

Exactly, and while we are at it, how dare the state expect that women to feed and clothe that child once they are born. How dare we expect any one to bear the responsibilities that come with our actions. Especially when we can simply murder our children and then not have to worry about them.

Re:Blank Reg

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

It was illegitimate under the AoC because once 9 states ratified it, those member states ceased to view the AoC as governing documents, a fact that was in direct contravention of the requirement for unanimity.
The unanimous vote would have been to send the Constitution to the states. Hence, that vote legitimized the procedure of moving to the Constitution with only 9 states.

We could have a new Constitutional Convention tommorrow, and have that Convention draft a document requiring only 2 states to ratify it for it to be formally adopted by those states.
The Constitution has specific ammendment requirements in Article 5, which would need to be fulfilled to change to another document. Any ammendments that come out of a Constitutional Convention must be ratified by 3/4's of the states in order to pass. 2 states couldn't just adopt a new Constitution, convention or no convention.

That would be in direct contravention of our current governing document, whether or not the rest of the states eventually supported the move. I'm not saying the secession from the government under the Articles of Confederation was either right or wrong, simply that it was in violation of the governing document at the time. Civility does not make something legal. Legality does not make something right.
You're still not correct about the passage of legal status with regard to the Articles of Confederation. The Federal Government would consider any move illegal and would attempt to enforce Federal law. So those states would not have been able to secede. Are you trying to argue there is some moral right to secede or a legal one? There has never been a legal one. The right to rebel morally has always been recognized by those who share the rebel's moral goals and opposed by those who don't. So what, it still doesn't establish a right.

While you may argue there are no absolute rights, it is all a matter of semantics. I certainly agree there is no natural force that insures victory, or even compels action in the face of overwhelming odds.
It's not semantics, it's epistemology. If the basis for you're laws authority isn't some natural enforcement, you'd better understand what is the ultimate mechanism for enforcement.

The definition of "rights" is very subjective in nature, but rights derive their power from belief.
Nope, not at all. Rights are defined very precisely. They must be. Rights get their power from the civil contract, faith in society to enforce it's laws based on past experience, nothing more.

Thus, it is necessary to support the belief in rights by speaking in absolute, rather than relative, terms.
Nonsense. All rights are positive law, there is no absolute or natural authority from which they flow. Perpetuating myths like their "inalienable nature" does nothing to strengthen them. We may determine that defending each others rights is more efficient to reaching our collective goals than not defending them, we may even back up that position with the threat of violence. That does nothing to make those rights any more absolute.

Since I support the concept of rights, I speak of them in absolute terms rather than subjectively, in order to lend power to the concept.
It's a false power, easily dispelled as any other myth.

Thus, there are in fact absolute rights. You may say otherwise, I just won't agree with your argument. :)
You don't have to agree, the argument proves you position incorrect. You're allowed to irrationally continue advocating a false belief. It would be more rational to understand why you choose to defend a system of rights and whether or not it is internally consistent. You should determine if it is universal and how so.

Political opinions are rational choices, and can be attacked regardless of your moral opinion. Your moral opinion may be valid, but your political opinions are not so by default since they can be measured.

Re:Blank Reg

[Fjandr]

The unanimous vote would have been to send the Constitution to the states. Hence, that vote legitimized the procedure of moving to the Constitution with only 9 states.

No, the unanimous requirement is that all 9 States agree. Article XIII. It's clear as a bell. If all 9 states do not agree, the action is not valid. It's no different than if an item were unanimously sent to the current States with a requirement of 2 States ratifying.

The Constitution has specific ammendment requirements in Article 5, which would need to be fulfilled to change to another document. Any ammendments that come out of a Constitutional Convention must be ratified by 3/4's of the states in order to pass. 2 states couldn't just adopt a new Constitution, convention or no convention.

You mean like the specific requirements of AoC XIII, which were not adhered to? The new Constitution went into effect before all 9 States ratified it, in violation of Article XIII.

The right to rebel morally has always been recognized by those who share the rebel's moral goals and opposed by those who don't.

Replace "rebel" with * and you've got a pretty good general statement there. :)

It's not semantics, it's epistemology.

I wasn't arguing the theory of knowledge, rather an interpretation of words. "Semantics" is more suited to my position than "epistemology." Your belief may vary, but arguing which words better suit the argument furthers confirms the semantic basis for disagreement. :)

If the basis for you're laws authority isn't some natural enforcement, you'd better understand what is the ultimate mechanism for enforcement.

There is no "natural" enforcement of any rights. The ultimate enforcement of anything is control, which invariably terminates with superior physical power concentrated in one form or another. I really have no idea what your point with this statement is.

Rights get their power from the civil contract, faith in society to enforce it's laws based on past experience, nothing more.

What's your definition of faith then? I always defined it as a type of belief...

All rights are positive law [...]

And the basis of all law is this civil contract which is in turn based on faith in society.

It's a false power, easily dispelled as any other myth.

Like Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or Hinduism, etc. Easily dispelled, like any other myth. Haven't checked your barometer for the longevity of "false powers" have you? Belief is a powerful thing, even if you choose to deny that fact.

You're allowed to irrationally continue advocating a false belief.

Why, thank you for allowing me to do such a thing. Last I checked, understanding something is not completely (or even partially) true and still choosing to support the dissemination of the idea is not irrational if you also understand your purpose for doing so. I understand my purpose for supporting a concept I understand to be not necessarily true, because I also understand the effect that can have on others. Yes it is deceptive, but it also serves a purpose, just as many many other causes are supported through intentional misinformation.

Political opinions are rational choices, and can be attacked regardless of your moral opinion. Your moral opinion may be valid, but your political opinions are not so by default since they can be measured.

Please, do tell how you rationalize the difference between the two, especially since you call them both opinions. How exactly is it that you measure an opinion?

Re:Blank Reg

[AviLazar]

Yes "rights" can be given and taken away by the whim of the people. Go commit a crime and watch your rights go away real quick - many of them. Have a bill passed into law with regards to freedom of speech and watch that right go away. You, and a few others think there is some "gaurenteed" set of priveledges. The only thing gaurenteed to us is life and death. That piece of paper - the consitution - gives us rights - without it we would be held under different codes. Put it this way - think of China - they don't have the freedom of speech like we do...why you ask? Because their government took away their "right".

Re:Blank Reg

[AviLazar]

You have Rights because God gave them to you

What you mean is "You are physically capable of doing certain things." Maybe it was due to faulty memory, but I just don't remember the training course where god said I have certain rights. There are certain things I can do. For example: I can speak out, i can type, i can run, i can kill someone. Then there are certain things which the gov't says I am allowed to do and not allowed to do (my rights). In this country I am allowed to speak out, allowed to type, allowed to run, allowed to...oh wait I am not allowed to kill someone.

No God does not give "rights" God gives us the physical ability ("can" i do this) to do things. Government gives us permission (am I "allowed" to do this). "Allowed" = your rights. In China you have rights - and they are different from your rights here in the US. In Iraq - under Saddam- you had rights, and they were different from the US. I guess God didn't give those Iraq's the right to freedom of speech did he?

Re:Blank Reg

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

No, the unanimous requirement is that all 9 States agree. Article XIII. It's clear as a bell. If all 9 states do not agree, the action is not valid. It's no different than if an item were unanimously sent to the current States with a requirement of 2 States ratifying.

You're ignoring the the pertinent Congressional decision on Sept. 28th 1787. The Resolution of Sept. 28th, 1787, Submitting the Constitution to the Several States stated the following:
Resolved Unanimously that the said Report with the resolutions and letter accompanying the same be transmitted to the several legislatures in Order to be submitted to a convention of Delegates chosen in each state by the people thereof in conformity to the resolves of the Convention made and provided in that case.

That fulfills Art. 13 in the AoC. Congress only had to unanimously decide to send the Constitution to the States to satisfy Art. 13. The 9 state requirement was legally covered by the Sept. 28th unanimous vote.

Replace "rebel" with * and you've got a pretty good general statement there. :)
Intentionally so. Moral goals are as individual as DNA and purely subjective. Any moral decision would have just as much variation and subjectivity. This is one of the reasons that a right to rebel doesn't appear anywhere in legal theory outside of natural law theory, and there the authority comes from interpreting God's will.

I wasn't arguing the theory of knowledge, rather an interpretation of words. "Semantics" is more suited to my position than "epistemology." Your belief may vary, but arguing which words better suit the argument furthers confirms the semantic basis for disagreement. :)
It's not semantics, you're claiming that the idea of rights, somehow has more force because people hold certain beliefs. How is this no different than a religious cult? Is the entire basis of our civilization that fragile? I claim that the evidence states otherwise. The psychological observation you've made here has no bearing on law or legal theory. This isn't a matter of disagreement on wording, and the question of authority in a Liberal legal system is a question of epistemology.

And the basis of all law is this civil contract which is in turn based on faith in society.
This is different than the use of the terms faith and belief you've used elsewhwere. Faith in society to enforce it's laws has a measureable history, like a credit score. That's a far cry from a faith in a deity for which there is no physical evidence. Equivocating the two uses of faith here does not follow logically.

Like Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or Hinduism, etc. Easily dispelled, like any other myth. Haven't checked your barometer for the longevity of "false powers" have you? Belief is a powerful thing, even if you choose to deny that fact.
That doesn't make it the basis for law, or where the source of authority for law comes from.

Last I checked, understanding something is not completely (or even partially) true and still choosing to support the dissemination of the idea is not irrational if you also understand your purpose for doing so.
No, that's irrational. The truth is the most efficient means for reaching one's moral goals, so if believing 2 + 2 = 5 is required to reach your moral goals, then it is the truth for your purposes, even if it is not truth in the epistemological model called arithmetic. If we were talking abotu aritmetic and you asserted 2 + 2 = 5, then I could evaluate that it was false for that model. Similarly, since we are dicussing the model of Western Law, American Constitutional Law and legal theory, I can evaluate statements to be true or false. An opinion is a statement which attaches a moral claim or judgement to a fact. An assertion of fact, as to the nature of an idea is not simply a matter of opinion. Again, these are issues of epistemology, not semantics.

Yes it is deceptive, but it also serves a purp

Re:Blank Reg

[Fjandr]

You're ignoring the the pertinent Congressional decision on Sept. 28th 1787.

Not ignoring. I wasn't aware of it. It appears I was wrong. Thank you for pointing out this bit of evidence that I had overlooked.

It's not semantics, you're claiming that the idea of rights, somehow has more force because people hold certain beliefs.

I still hold to both. The most profound differences here are as a result of differences of opinion regarding word usage. You accuse me of imprecision in language, yet the very roots of our language imprecisely reflect their various meanings today. You attempt to attribute very narrow definitions to each word so as to preclude any other use. I frequently do the same. It is an exercise in clarification of position, of manipulating language to convey a sense of exactly what your stated position is. What it is not is an excursion down the road to find absolute truth (epistemology), which is ultimately nothing more than mental masturbation. I will grant you that the two are frequently not so very far apart though.

How is this no different than a religious cult? Is the entire basis of our civilization that fragile? I claim that the evidence states otherwise. The psychological observation you've made here has no bearing on law or legal theory. This isn't a matter of disagreement on wording, and the question of authority in a Liberal legal system is a question of epistemology.

It is not any different, and it's hardly any more fragile than the basis for any other human interaction. They are both expressions of the same psychological drives.

It appears you were under the misconception that I was arguing law or legal theory. I was not. Rather, my statements are about something I see to be above any law or legal theory.

History has shown time and again that self-determination (the "rights" to rebellion, self-defense, secession, etc.) supercedes the law, because the law is easily perverted. The law is a construct like religion, a tool. Ergo, not an argument about the law.

That doesn't make it the basis for law, or where the source of authority for law comes from.

No, but if you disagree, please let me in on what the real basis of the law is. Then we can get on with an actual epistemological discussion, which will end in a comparison of beliefs and opinions (the only definitive result of any such discussion).

This is different than the use of the terms faith and belief you've used elsewhwere. Faith in society to enforce it's laws has a measureable history, like a credit score. That's a far cry from a faith in a deity for which there is no physical evidence. Equivocating the two uses of faith here does not follow logically.

See: Part of your problem here seems to actually be a problem of semantics. You are mixing meanings of words in ways to support your arguments, that's sloppy. If you were more precise in your language, then you might see the inconsistencies in your assertions.

If you are willing to mask your intentions, then why should I believe any of your intentions.

You should use your own judgement, and then come to a decision as to whether to believe what I say. Or not. It doesn't actually matter to me one way or the other, because at the end of the day it will still just be your opinion, regardless of the basis you used to determine it. The same can be said for me, or anyone else.

That said, you have no reason to believe I support rights even if I explain a perfectly logical (to you) basis for supporting them. Your experience is the sole determining factor for what you decide is truth. Ultimately, your definition of truth is solely your own responsibility. I have no desire for you to believe anything in particular, only a desire to trade information.

An assertion of fact, as to the nature of an idea is not simply a matter of opinion.

Asserting that an idea is

Re:Blank Reg

[dual_boot_brain]

The emancipation proclamation had only one purpose, to keep Britain from aiding the south. Once the war was "about slavery" there was no way the Brits could join in. Lincon's plan was to send the slaves back to Africa, it's why they let him die.

Re:Blank Reg

[Cat_Byte]

Clinton isn't the fucking president anymore. Bush is.

So if we get a democrat next election (2nd democrat in 30 years), since Bush isn't the president any more at that point we can just blame everything that happened in this administration on the new president? Its all about the root cause of a problem and not pointing a finger at whoevers face is on TV. I'm even disgusted by the # of people who blame 9/11 on Bush. They trained for 8 years for the attack and yet that fact just causes Bush bashers to explode with anger when you ask them how the terrorists knew who was going to win 8 years in advance.

Re:Blank Reg

[Spetiam]

What you mean is "You are physically capable of doing certain things."

That is precisely what I don't mean.

Re:Blank Reg

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Not ignoring. I wasn't aware of it. It appears I was wrong. Thank you for pointing out this bit of evidence that I had overlooked.
No problem.

I still hold to both. The most profound differences here are as a result of differences of opinion regarding word usage. You accuse me of imprecision in language, yet the very roots of our language imprecisely reflect their various meanings today.
A precise idea can be descibed accurately, even if it takes several attempts to convey it. If you could not use a knife to reproduce a wood cut, would you suddenly claim the original's craftsman was nothing more than a victum of luck? Would it be impossible to recreate the wood cut without reporducing all the craftsman's tools or his workshop in every detail? Language and ideas are no different.

You attempt to attribute very narrow definitions to each word so as to preclude any other use. I frequently do the same. It is an exercise in clarification of position, of manipulating language to convey a sense of exactly what your stated position is.
Law is precise for a reason, it could be said that computer languages are extremely precise languages. Science uses exact language. I define words to clarify exactly what I mean by them, not to preclude other usage. Other usage is fine, as long as that usage's meaning is clearly stated. It's not a manipulation of language, as my intent is to clarify, not decieve.

What it is not is an excursion down the road to find absolute truth (epistemology), which is ultimately nothing more than mental masturbation. I will grant you that the two are frequently not so very far apart though.
The words are used to define and describe the epistemology, your choice of words does not dictate your epistemology. It is hardly mental masturbation, that's like saying the scientific method is mental masturbation.

It is not any different, and it's hardly any more fragile than the basis for any other human interaction. They are both expressions of the same psychological drives.
It is different, you have no certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow. You know the odds are pretty good though, so you don't worry about it when you go to bed. Similarly, you weigh the liklihood of getting caught speeding or killing someone who dishonors you. You know that to some measurable extent, you may not get away with it. It is the collective political will, along with the wealth of the nation that determines the probability of enforcement. To say that one posesses "inalienable rights" is to support a falsified statement. To say that you won't cheat on your taxes, because you don't want to get caught, is to make a conclusion based on probabilities. That both choices contain some element of faith does not eliminate the rational aspects of the latter.

It appears you were under the misconception that I was arguing law or legal theory. I was not. Rather, my statements are about something I see to be above any law or legal theory.
Outside of law, there is simply the arbitrary imposition of moral goals aka tyranny. Your entire argument is the classical justificationalists position, that at some point a leap of faith is taken and given that all people are equal, one leap is no better than another. This nihlistic position was disproven in WW Bartley's "The Retreat to Commitment". These choices can be defined rationally, given that moral goals are as unique as fingerprints. If one's truth is the most efficeint means to their moral goals, then no matter what moral goals a person has their preferences for action should logically correspond. Where they do not correspond, probability suggests that it's due to a misunderstanding the moral goals involved. Laws are a normalization of those goals, that's why law changes, but must stay logically consistent. It's not that morals are above the law, it's just all that's left when the law breaks down.

History has shown time and again that self-determination (the "rights" to rebellion, self-def

Re:Blank Reg

[Fjandr]

If you could not use a knife to reproduce a wood cut, would you suddenly claim the original's craftsman was nothing more than a victum of luck? Would it be impossible to recreate the wood cut without reporducing all the craftsman's tools or his workshop in every detail?

I don't see how your example follows. Since you claim to operate with more precision, I would assume you place yourself in the category of the craftsman, and me as the bumbler with a dull knife attempting to recreate your piece.

Only, I was never attempting to recreate any of your positions, only to clarify my own, since you as yet seem to fail to understand my position.

The one part I would agree with is that there are multiple paths and different tools one can use to achieve the same result. There are many paths in language to describe the same idea. The only catch is that both parties need to be on the same page. It is still my contention that we are not on the same page.

It's not a manipulation of language, as my intent is to clarify, not decieve.

manipulate: to handle or use, esp. with skill.
Perhaps that is enough clarification of my use of the term "manipulate in that sentence? I guess It is an exercise in clarification wasn't enough. :)

Other usage is fine

Other usage is only fine if you don't care about precise understanding. For precisely conveying an idea, you must exclude other usage so that all parties understand exactly what remains. Otherwise, there is always the chance that some other meaning of all or part of the language used will be attributed to your message. That is a frequent pitfall of any in-depth discussion, especially those where participants are particularly dug-in to their position, and have a hard time looking at it in terms other than those they most closely associate with (something I am frequently guilty of).

Law is precise for a reason

Law is ideally precise. If it were precise in reality, void for vagueness would not be part of legal doctrine.

It is hardly mental masturbation, that's like saying the scientific method is mental masturbation.

Epistemology is a mental exercise with its entire basis grounded in opinion. The scientific method is grounded in logic. Using one method you can argue that the other method is entirely baseless. I would hardly equate the two. :)

To say that one posesses "inalienable rights" is to support a falsified statement.

From the standpoint of tangible reality, you are right. From that same standpoint, "the" government is a false idea. It does not exist anywhere but the minds of people. Erase the term "government" from everyone's mind, and there would be no physical change to the world anymore than if you erased the concepts of "forests" or "rights". The people are still the same people, they just interact differently. If you no longer have "forests," the trees do not disappear, they simply are not described the same way.

Outside of law, there is simply the arbitrary imposition of moral goals aka tyranny.

There are very few areas that currently exist outside "the law." All of the current tyrants have countries that exist inside "the law." Simply having laws does not negate a tyranny, and not having "laws" (written instruments of a ruling authority) does not mean you have tyranny. Just because something is not in category A does not immediately mean it falls into category B. There are many more possibilities out there than (written instruments OR tyranny).

The authority of the laws of the US are moral goals of the Constitution.

And if nobody believes in the moral goals of the Constitution anymore, what is the basis?

All language is a construct, morality is a construct.

I agree completely. The "validity" of both are based on shared belief in them, just as the validity

Re:Blank Reg

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

I don't see how your example follows. Since you claim to operate with more precision, I would assume you place yourself in the category of the craftsman, and me as the bumbler with a dull knife attempting to recreate your piece.

Only, I was never attempting to recreate any of your positions, only to clarify my own, since you as yet seem to fail to understand my position.
It was a general metaphor, an example, not a description of this conversation. The knife is language, the woodshop would be the historical context. If I were to reproduce a wood cut, I would only need skill and a knife. I wouldn't need to duplicate the type of light that came through the windows, or how much sawdust it refracted against on it's way to light the piece of wood I was carving. Your assertion that language has changed, does not make my usage of it imprecise. Just as historical language was precise in it's historical context, my language can be precise for my context. To say that language cannot be precise is to claim that all of the knowledge we have built up is a product of luck, not some method of progress.

A word can be precisely defined and still fail to communicate the idea, that does not mean it was imprecisely defined. Take any technical acronym. I can precisely define it for my mom, but she probably has no clue what I'm talking about. I have to find another manner to describe the idea, and I know the idea is conveyed when she integrates it properly into other ideas. I can do this without technical language, and it then makes it easier to teach the technical labels for the concepts afterwards, because she has a conceptual model to hang the terms on. From there on out, I can use the efficient technical abstractions with her and she will understand my communication.

The one part I would agree with is that there are multiple paths and different tools one can use to achieve the same result. There are many paths in language to describe the same idea. The only catch is that both parties need to be on the same page. It is still my contention that we are not on the same page.
Agreed. I know which page I'm on, I have a few ideas about which ones you are on, but this assertion is entirely possible.

Perhaps that is enough clarification of my use of the term "manipulate in that sentence? I guess It is an exercise in clarification wasn't enough. :)
Given the nihilistic and relativist nature of your epistemology, I assumed you meant manipulate in the way one would manipulate public opinion about "inalienable rights". As long as the manipulation is done without guile or deception, I have no argument with restating a position to gain clarity.

Other usage is only fine if you don't care about precise understanding. For precisely conveying an idea, you must exclude other usage so that all parties understand exactly what remains.
False relationship. There need not be only one meaning for a word. There need only be one meaning for a single usage. As long as I am willing to define terms upon examination and stick to those definitions, I may use as many meanings as needed without worrying about deception. One may understand my meanings of constitution dealing with corporal health or with dealing with political matters without losing precision. If there is misunderstanding I can mend it, that does not mean my usage wasn't precise.

Otherwise, there is always the chance that some other meaning of all or part of the language used will be attributed to your message. That is a frequent pitfall of any in-depth discussion, especially those where participants are particularly dug-in to their position, and have a hard time looking at it in terms other than those they most closely associate with (something I am frequently guilty of).
Communication is a different art form than definition. Definition can only happen in a state of arrested change, a context. Since reality changes, that context is temporary and the definition must be translated betwe

Re:Blank Reg

[Fjandr]

Your assertion that language has changed, does not make my usage of it imprecise.

That was never my contention. Quite the contrary, it was you contending that I was imprecise.

See:

Precision in language cannot be gained the same way one sharpens a knife. The sharpness does not depend on who uses it. However, most words can be used in innumerable fashions, so precision comes only through agreeing on the same definitions. Just because you do not agree with my definitions does not make me imprecise, any more than my disagreeing with yours makes you so.

A word can be precisely defined and still fail to communicate the idea, that does not mean it was imprecisely defined.

Perhaps you should apply this assertion to your claim that I am imprecise in my language.

Given the nihilistic and relativist nature of your epistemology

That's funny. I never said there was no meaning or purpose in existence. I just don't believe anyone has ever accurately determined an absolute meaning or purpose. As for relativism, you appear firmly on that page as well: I may not be able to know something absolutely and My moral goals, on the other hand, are knowable as they are entirely mental constructs[referring to the basis of "truth"]. If "truth" isn't relative, what is the absolute, unchanging basis for it? Or is it only "absolute" for each person (essentially arbitrary and relative when viewed in general).

There need not be only one meaning for a word. There need only be one meaning for a single usage.

You're restating my position. Different pages again. For words in general, your first sentence is right. For specific instances of communication, your second sentence is right.

[Epistemology] is the search for objective knowledge.

A major branch of philosophy that concerns the forms, nature, and preconditions of knowledge.

Not necessarily objective knowledge. Part of the search is attempting to answer the question of whether objective knowledge exists and if it exists in a form comprehensible to finite beings.

Firmly inside the realm of metaphysics.

Epistemology asks the question "How do I know what I know?"

And provides no answers, only conjecture based as much on fact as a discussion of whether God exists up in Heaven. I should clarify, when I use the term "science," I mean a hard science, rather than a soft science that cannot provide anything resembling a controlled environment.

You equate the source of authority for the government with the existence of the government.

I did no such thing. I was equating something physical with an abstract extension of that physical thing. Both "authority" and "government" are abstract extensions of physical things, and I was not comparing two abstracts in any of those three examples.

You put more importance on labels of tangible objects and less importance on labels of intangible objects i.e. ideas.

That's an interesting stance given that this discussion started regarding my supportive position on labels of intangible things (secession, inalienable rights, belief).

Tyranny is [everything that exists without written laws]

I don't agree with your definition of tyranny, so response to this will be unproductive.

The only way that authority disappears is if we no longer believe

So you do agree that ultimately the law only exists by a group's belief in it.

I'd give Anarchy a week [...]

I would certainly agree with you, but I think your definition of "law" would have to slip a little bit here to be realistic. Warlords who rise out of anarchy tend to rule by verbal decree for a while before getting around to writing it all down neatly into the law books.

[Law is] tangible because it's enforced.

No, the enforcement is a tang

Re:Blank Reg

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Perhaps you should apply this assertion to your claim that I am imprecise in my language.
I very well may have misspoke and meant unclear instead of imprecise. Regardless, I don't think it's pertinent to the discussion. My point was that language is relative, but that we can verify that each other understands the meaning of the communication. Anything beyond that is probably a debate on semantics.

That's funny. I never said there was no meaning or purpose in existence. I just don't believe anyone has ever accurately determined an absolute meaning or purpose.
I did not make that accusation. Nihilism can also mean there is no authority. That is the nihilism of the relativist who assumes that because everyone's perspective is equal that there can be no absolutes. My own moral goals are absolute. It is ultimately me who is responsible for determining that meaning or purpose. I might be lazy and take a pre-packaged one because it works for me, but I have still made a choice.

As for relativism, you appear firmly on that page as well: I may not be able to know something absolutely and My moral goals, on the other hand, are knowable as they are entirely mental constructs[referring to the basis of "truth"]. If "truth" isn't relative, what is the absolute, unchanging basis for it? Or is it only "absolute" for each person (essentially arbitrary and relative when viewed in general).
Exactly. Truth is only absolute for your own moral goals. Since I cannot falsify your moral goals, yet we all possess them, we must derive a system which allows us to get along, given this conundrum of authority. Your moral goals are the authority for your actions, the state gains authority when we each cede come amount of that political will to the state. By doing so, I give up the right use violence against my fellow citizens to enforce my political will as long as the state, or my fellow citizens do not violate certain defined rights.
A major branch of philosophy that concerns the forms, nature, and preconditions of knowledge.
As a science, it is only concerned with objective knowledge. There is a sociological aspect of epistemology, but that is not what we are discussing here. Plato's forms have long been shown to be metaphysics.

Not necessarily objective knowledge. Part of the search is attempting to answer the question of whether objective knowledge exists and if it exists in a form comprehensible to finite beings.

Firmly inside the realm of metaphysics.
The reasoning behind Natural Law, that all law flows from God given laws, has to do with the nature of reason. The theology goes something like this: The 10 commandments cannot be derived from nature, how can our law be derivative of God if it is not consistent with nature? The answer is that reason itself is one of God's creations; therefore as God gave us reason, God gave us the 10 commandments. We can derive law from the 10 commandments since they were divinely revealed, but we cannot derive the 10 commandments from nature.

We can never truly know anything beyond our perception, which may not record "reality" correctly. Our own moral perceptions can be truly known. They are entirely constructed inside our minds, have no actual attachment to reality, yet through our actions, we impose that vision upon reality in measurable ways. This means that our moral goals are the only objective truth we have. Thus, "The Truth", is whatever means is most-efficient for us to accomplish our moral goals.

As you noted, your question [...of whether objective knowledge exists and if it exists in a form comprehensible to finite beings...] is a metaphysical question. It is like asking what is outside the expanding Universe. I do not ask if we can really know the truth, I ask what we truly know. What we truly know is the truth. To rephrase, asking if you can know about something that you know nothing about is stupid and useless to science. Asking what we know is useful to science.

And provid

Re:Blank Reg

[Fjandr]

Nihilism can also mean there is no authority.

In the absence of clues to differentiate your usage, I assumed you meant it as it is most commonly used. Even so, my comment still stands. I never claimed there was no "authority," either.

You are looking for universal truth as a constant

Hardly. It's unclear to me how you reached that conclusion. I've never argued for a knowable universal truth.

[D]o you believe that these are not capable of being hard sciences?

Certainly they are capable of it. They just don't resemble anything like a hard science currently. The forecast for the future isn't very rosy in that regard, either. That does not preclude the possibility of it happening at some point, though.

Believing that we should utilize a falsehood like "inalienable rights" supports both of these views

If something is useful from the standpoint of reaching your moral goals (taking for granted that it does not contradict them, or it wouldn't actually have a net use), and moral constructs are the only absolute truth (the only thing knowable), then usefulness certainly can be equated with truth. You just have to make sure "usefulness" isn't sloppily defined. As for it being a "falsehood," that can only be if it is not a part of one's moral goals. If it is antithetical, it is "false." If it is beneficial, it is "true." For those who see it as having no bearing, it is irrelevant. It may be false from your point of view, but given that you define truth to be composed of only what you have constructed in your mind, your truth or falsehood is functionally irrelevant to anyone else.

It seems that the major point of contention now is this apparent belief that I am relying on the concept of universally knowable constants. If this is the case, let me dispel it. I am not.

You're only talking about removing labels, not actually removing the institutions or concepts from the world, thus logically you could only be referring to abstract things.

If tomorrow everyone ceases to understand "government" or any of the extensions of it, nothing physical would cease to exist. "Government" does not exist in a tangible manner except by the actions of people acting with a belief in the idea. If people stopped believing in trees, it would not make trees go away.

If they were actually removed, then people would interact differently, which would make them different people.

I never said it wouldn't have an effect. Certainly it would. Beliefs lead individuals to certain actions. Alter those beliefs and you alter the pattern of actions. You can rationalize a network of relationships into a single, physical entity, but that doesn't actually make that entity physical.

You are claiming that belief makes some things "less abstract".

Reprint where you believe I said that, and I'll clear up what I actually meant. Belief makes certain actions more likely, not "less abstract."

[T]yranny is imposition of arbitrariness relative to one's own perspective.

Tyranny is classically defined as a single person wielding absolute power within the confines of a certain area. If you wish to define it as arbitrariness relative to one's own perspective then anything can be a tyranny. Just because laws are passed does not make them any less arbitrary where someone who has no direct hand in them is concerned. Writing something down does not make it any less arbitrary than verbally pronouncing something. Both can be changed within the blink of an eye. The law does not preclude the powerful from arbitrary decisions, or from stacking the legal process against those who would seek redress. It seems you hold ideals as utopian as any you accuse me of having. Nowhere in the world does the "government" work as you would have it, in strict subordination to a set of moral goals.

You claim governments derive their authority from these moral goals, yet reject a fundame

Re:Blank Reg

[siriuskase]

I think the Line-Item Veto would be one of the most effective ways to start cleaning things up

If I was President, here's what I'd do. I don't need a LIV, I'd just veto the whole damn bill and make a list of which lines I found objectionable. If I did that, how quickly could they cut the crap out and send the money to the troops or whatever was the original purpose, that of course, is assuming they went with the best case scenario. In a worst case, this could iterate forever up and down the Mall, not just back and forth in the Capital.

Re:Blank Reg

[siriuskase]

Whoops, sorry about the unattributed quote. I don't have the foggiest notion of where I got it, probably wikipedia.

Here's a nifty Emancipation Timeline courtesy of the Library of Congress. It contains link to the draft version, the beta version, and the final version. And just think, my fifth grade History teacher taught us that he wrote it on an envelope on the way to event.

Re:Blank Reg

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

In the absence of clues to differentiate your usage, I assumed you meant it as it is most commonly used. Even so, my comment still stands. I never claimed there was no "authority," either.
Your comment was that you didn't "believe anyone has ever accurately determined an absolute meaning or purpose". That statement supposes that any objective truth must be a truth that is manifest to all. You claimed that all truth was an equal source of authority, which I did not disagree with. I do not believe that there is any objective truth that is manifest to all.
Hardly. It's unclear to me how you reached that conclusion. I've never argued for a knowable universal truth.
My statement above should show how I reached that conclusion. I have argued for an absolute truth for an individual perspective and that such truth is not capable of being manifest to all.

Certainly they are capable of it. They just don't resemble anything like a hard science currently. The forecast for the future isn't very rosy in that regard, either. That does not preclude the possibility of it happening at some point, though.
You must have some knowledge about the state of the epistemology of these fields that you are not sharing to have such an exact assessment of their futures.

(taking for granted that it does not contradict them, or it wouldn't actually have a net use)
Your parentheses contains the thrust of my attack. I contend that maintaining a falsehood does contradict the moral goals of the US and therefore has no net use.

If something is useful from the standpoint of reaching your moral goals (taking for granted that it does not contradict them, or it wouldn't actually have a net use), and moral constructs are the only absolute truth (the only thing knowable), then usefulness certainly can be equated with truth. You just have to make sure "usefulness" isn't sloppily defined. As for it being a "falsehood," that can only be if it is not a part of one's moral goals. If it is antithetical, it is "false." If it is beneficial, it is "true." For those who see it as having no bearing, it is irrelevant. It may be false from your point of view, but given that you define truth to be composed of only what you have constructed in your mind, your truth or falsehood is functionally irrelevant to anyone else
The "absolute truth" is the "most efficient" means of achieving one's moral goals. If you chose an action that was 50% less efficient in fulfilling your moral goals than another, you could say it was only half-true. I don't know how the definition could be more exact than that. An action that defeated one's moral goals could be considered a falsehood. You can claim a degree of truth as long as the net result is forward movement towards one's moral goals. You could also claim a degree of falsehood as long as the net result is a retreat from one's moral goals.

The truth or falsehood of my moral goals aren't irrelevant if robbing you is part of my "truth". The epistemology I am extending from Popper and Bartley contends that all language is abstract, and that we can only communicate in abstractions. This means that any absolute truth would be impossible to communicate, that there can be no truth that is manifest to all. Moral goals are entirely mental constructs, there is nothing that can be described as naturally good or bad. Such valuations are entirely relative to one's own moral goals and exist entirely in one's mind. However they influence the world around us when we choose to achieve our moral goals.

The poverty of your claim of irrelevancy is further shown if you consider the need to trust me to assist in achieving your moral goals. You need to evaluate my actions against your moral goals as well as those I have stated to ascertain the truthfulness of my statements. As long as we interact, my moral goals are relevant to you.

If tomorrow everyone ceases to understand "government" or any of the extensions of it, nothing physical would cease t

Re:Blank Reg

[ConceptJunkie]

Yeah, but that requires backbone. You've got a very valid point though. I hadn't thought of it that way. The problem is that then you get the opposition party running around "The President vetoed funding the troops! He must hate this country!" or "The President vetoed the Porridge for War Orphans Appropriation Act. He must hate needy children!"

And it would work too, because no one would listen to the real reason it was vetoed. Of course, a good president wouldn't worry about superficial appearences over substance, but then that kind of attitude would never get you elected in the first place.

Re:Blank Reg

[siriuskase]

"Think of the Children" doesn't work anymore, but we still can't handle "We must support the Troops"

The President would need the backbone to convince the public that him vetoing a badly written bill is the Congress' fault, not his. That weakening our right to privacy doesn't help our troops and doesn't belong in a bill that supposed to help our troops.

Re:Blank Reg

[ConceptJunkie]

The President would need the backbone to convince the public that him vetoing a badly written bill is the Congress' fault, not his.

Yup. Except more important than backbone would be, I dunno, mass hypnosis or something. There's no way that message could get through the MSM and the sound bite machine. Not just because the President is a Republican, but because the MSM are idiots.

RFID chips in IDs:

[TripMaster Monkey]

From TFA:

The Real ID Act says federally accepted ID cards must be "machine readable," and lets Homeland Security determine the details. That could end up being a magnetic strip, enhanced bar code, or radio frequency identification (RFID) chips.

In the past, Homeland Security has indicated it likes the concept of RFID chips. The State Department is already going to be embedding RFID devices in passports, and Homeland Security wants to issue RFID-outfitted IDs to foreign visitors who enter the country at the Mexican and Canadian borders. The agency plans to start a yearlong test of the technology in July at checkpoints in Arizona, New York and Washington state.

Looks like devices like these are going to become very popular very soon...

Also, devices like these could be used to really complicate the lives of people you dislike...

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[cplusplus]

or radio frequency identification (RFID) chips

Heh. I guess I'll have to make a tinfoil hat for my driver's license, too.

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[TrumpetPower!]

What makes you think that such devices will remain legal?

Cheers,

b&

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[athakur999]

I've heard it's sufficient to simply wear a tin foil hat when you take your driver's license photo.

The guy that said this was wearing a black suit, so he must have been telling the truth.

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[shawb]

If they outlaw those devices, I'm pretty sure the good old microwave oven would do the job.

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[Xzzy]

The race is on: Submit a patent for a faraday cage wallet.

Shielded wallets already exist I suppose, but they lack the punch of saying "faraday cage" to people. It just sounds better.

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[X0563511]

So...

What happens when I screw up (again) and send my passport and wallet through the wash? Will this hurt the RFID chips (and presumably make me shell out cash for replacement IDs)?

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[finkployd]

What makes you think building such devices is at all difficult? :)

Finkployd

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[Vapon]

They already scan some ID's in bars, imagine where RFID readers would be setup monitoring exactly where you go when and where.

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[Matthias Wiesmann]

At least, you still have three years...

Two years ago, the US have imposed that all foreign passport have to be machine readable for people from countries in the Visa Waiver program. In Switzerland, this forced a lot of people to get new passports, which caused a huge backlog. Now that most people me including have new passports which are machine readable, they want passeport with biometric information, so expect biometric information on US ID card within six years.

Going to conferences in the US is really getting needlessly complicated, but at least the US are protected from those nasty Swiss terrorists...

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[b1t r0t]

Also, devices like these are going to become even more popular very soon...

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[WormholeFiend]

If they outlaw those devices, I'm pretty sure the good old microwave oven would do the job

I'm not taking any chances either way, so I'll keep using tinfoil.

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you hate freedom soo much?

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[bill_mcgonigle]

The State Department is already going to be embedding RFID devices in passports

They're starting to consider some of the ramifications.

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[bucket74]

The article linked to by this parent regarding the "RFID Blocker Tag" is mostly full of shit.

From the article:

"The blocker tag system is software-based and relies on technology developed by RSA researchers that prevents RFID readers from gathering data from other tags in their immediate vicinity. Without it, any RFID reader could query any tag, enabling retailers or other companies to read the tags on any merchandise a customer may be carrying."

As someone who works in the industry as an RFID technology integrator I can tell you that this is simply not true.
- Different tag types can use very different frequencies depending on their target application.
- Tags from different manufacturers (TI, Phillips, Tagsys, Checkpoint) are seldom, if ever, interoperable with competitors' hardware.
- Often, a manufacturer produces several tag types and each one can require the reader to have different firmware for each type.
- Even if tags from two different manufacturers both comply with the current applicable RFID ISO standards (15693, or subset 18000-3) there really is no such thing as an "interoperable tag." The standard has been developing since 1999 but to date still does not define memory size, security method, or data format. So each manufacturer essentially "rolls their own" resulting in proprietary systems.

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[jbarr]

Don't forget that "Machine Readable" doesn't necessarily mean RFID. It could just as easily mean a 2D barcode, mag strip, or other technology. The obvious problem with RFID is its readability by close proximity without the user's consent or awareness. 2D barcodes, mag strips, etc. require the card to be physically scanned or line-of-site to be scanned. RFID does not.

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that was my thought too. But how will that help? Instead of having to show your ID to fly, you will now have the hassle of the card not working in their machine, which means you probably won't be allowed to fly.

And who do you think gets to pay for the cards? We pay for our driver's licenses, so I'm guessing we will be footing the bill for these new fancy cards. If you fry yours, they'll probably make you get another one.

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[will_die]

Some of thoses changes where not ask for by the US.

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[iminplaya]

Then the RFIDAA will want to outlaw the microwave oven as an infringing device. It doesn't matter if there are legal uses for the microwave. The fact is that 99% percent of users are infringing on their right to track you. Besides, if you're caught with a non-functioning tag, you will be "detained" until the matter is settled.

Re:RFID chips in IDs:

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, you were both in a building painted in soothing colors, where the furniture had no sharp edges, and all the personnel wore white.

*Please* RTFA

[daveschroeder]

I bef of you. Please RTFA.

The worst part is the completely machine-readable/automatic nature of the thing -- you might not even know you're giving your information away.

Um. Huh? With the exception of RFID, how in the living hell would you not know you're "giving your information away"?

If, again, the argument is "ease", thanks to a technological change or technology itself, then why do slashdotters always argue in favor of technology elsewhere, but against it here?

- The card will still be issued by your state motor vehicle agency. It will merely be a federally approved, standardized version of your state Driver's License or state Identification Card.

- The process to obtain the card will be more rigorous, and you will have to provide more documents to prove your identity.

- The House *already approved* a standalone version of the Real ID bill, so the fact this is attached to military spending is irrelevant

- IF the standardized "machine readable technology" (which almost all state issues IDs already have in the form of a bar code, magnetic strip, etc.) ends up being RFID, you must at least concede that this standardization is based on consistency, functionality, and ease of use, not a desire to build a nationwide network of centrally administered RFID detectors for the purposes of tracking every citizen

- All of the information on all of the cards is already accessible to any entity that requests identification, such as banks. However, the information will now be presented and stored in a uniform manner.

- If you think that all of these actions are designed exlusively to institute a 1984-style police state by evil conservatives, you probably don't see the illogic in opposing simple standardization of ID cards that already exist.

- All of the items listed - opening bank accounts, collecting social security checks, travelling by air, etc. - already require ID (and if you want to get retarded about the whole air travel thing, go for it. John Gilmore already found he could travel without ID (a href=http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=140827&ci d=11799450>2, but it didn't serve his agenda).

Look. I don't mind vigilance for the sake of privacy and individual rights. In fact, I think the vigilance of privacy advocates, the ACLU, etc., is necessary and important. But you must realize that extreme views are almost always not the correct ones. It's the interplay and balance between both sides of a reasonable debate that is important. The people who think a national ID card with a DNA fingerprint and everyone implanted with GPS are wrong, and the people who think that every single bit of legislation like this is part of a corporate/government/Republican conspiracy to control them are also wrong. By all means, fight for your convictions, but if you do it from a not-so-tinfoily perspective, you'll have more chance at convincing others of the validity of your position.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[stinerman]

- The House *already approved* a standalone version of the Real ID bill, so the fact this is attached to military spending is irrelevant

Wrong.

1) Rules for a federally approved ID don't belong with a supplemental military spending bill.
2) It means nothing that it was passed by the house. If you follow the article a bit more (part 2):

It was expected to run into some trouble in the Senate. Now that it's part of an Iraq spending bill, senators won't want to vote against it.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[Dachannien]

Riders in the Senate happen all the time. This is neither novel nor shocking.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[TripMaster Monkey]

I bef of you.

How dare you bef of me!!!

Heh heh...Ok, seriously,


With the exception of RFID, how in the living hell would you not know you're "giving your information away"?


The Department of Homeland Security is already pushing RFID. FTA:

In the past, Homeland Security has indicated it likes the concept of RFID chips.

The House *already approved* a standalone version of the Real ID bill, so the fact this is attached to military spending is irrelevant

I think you missed the point there...the point isn't that the House passed the bill, but that the Senate wasn't expected to. Thus, the attachment of this bill to military spending is entirely relevant, since its chances on its own were poor.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[Grant_Watson]

"If, again, the argument is 'ease,' thanks to a technological change or technology itself, then why do slashdotters always argue in favor of technology elsewhere, but against it here?"

Technology is great because, among other things, it tends to be used to make lots of stuff easier, cheaper, or more powerful. If it involves the federal government and personal data, I would rather most anything be difficult, expensive and weak.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[daveschroeder]

Wrong.

Um, no, your statement of "Wrong" would be what's wrong here.

The House already approved a standalone version of the Real ID bill.

1) Rules for a federally approved ID don't belong with a supplemental military spending bill.

I didn't say they did. And a lot of things don't belong in a lot of bills. Next?

2) It means nothing that it was passed by the house.

...

Oh, really? Let me reword for you:

"It means nothing that it was passed by the house if it is also not passed by the senate."

Ok, I'll agree with that. But you forget the converse. In general terms,

"It means nothing that it was passed by the senate if it is also not passed by the house."

The House already had overwhelming support for the standalone bill, and there is no reason to believe it would not have passed in the Senate as well.

It was expected to run into some trouble in the Senate.

Yes. Some people expected it to "run into some trouble".

"Running into trouble" != not passing

And it still likely would have passed. Now it will for sure. And before you repeat that it shouldn't be part of the supplemental, I never said it should be. But it is. But it likely would have passed the House and Senate and been signed by the president regardless.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[TripMaster Monkey]

I agree with you completely, with the exception of the 'shocking' part.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[joebok]

The problem is that there are many abuses possible with this system and for no gain. All of the 9/11 terrorists had valid id - if this system were in place then, they would have obtained valid "Real IDs".

Bruce Schneir has a good article here: http://www.schneier.com/essay-034.html

Re:*Please* RTFA

[ClioCJS]

You sure like to give the benefit of the doubt to the government.

Funny thing when you give them the benefit of the doubt. You usually can't take it back. Once the floodgates are open, they can't generally be closed.

You fail to realize the reason of the dichotimy(sp?) between the two slashdot viewpoints: Technology is an enabler, but it is a much more efficient oppressor. Slashdotters want technology that enables, and don't want technology that oppresses, or can oppress. It's quite simple really.

Considering that Texas is considering RFID tags on all license places, and yes, police would scan them automatically for criminals in the like, I'd say the "trcaking system" infrastructure is already being put in place. (Only if the license gets an RFID tag, now they'll know if someone's borrowing your car or not.) And as more and more things are RFID-mandated, more and more government buildings will have readers, then like red-light cameras they'll be red-light RFID readers (to help catch people who run red lights, of course)... The end result will indeed be tracking of everyone's movements. Technology as an oppressor. NO ONE has to have that idea in mind now for that to be what happens; it's simply where the current trend will end up.

You also seem to think that just because there are not men in dark suits in a dimly-lit board room conspiring against us, that there is no conspiracy. There is a conspiracy, but it is more a de-facto conspiracy of ideas and moral forces that mesh together to create things bigger than any single human being (corporations, government entities, grassroot movements). That the conspiracy doesn't have a specific face does not mean that it is not something that should be fought against.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[autopr0n]

Um. Huh? With the exception of RFID, how in the living hell would you not know you're "giving your information away"? Because RFID is not excepted. Duh.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

"Running into trouble" also does not equal passing. The fact that it passed the House does not mean it will pass the Senate. If it did, there would be no point in having two houses. Maybe it would have likely fought its way through the trouble in the Senate, but that's still a chance it would not.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[finkployd]

Riders in the Senate happen all the time. This is neither novel nor shocking.

The fact that you do not find this shocking shows just how perverted the lawmaking process has become. We not only accept it, we expect it.

Finkployd

Re:*Please* RTFA

[Xepherys2]

Come now... you can't be serious?!

Federal Identification

This is blatently anti-American, or at a bare minimum anti-Checks and Balances. Primary identification has always been a function of the state. In fact, I can rarely use my military ID in place of a state ID at banks and the like. Places that do accept it often require additional identification, where if I had used my state driver's license, that one piece would suffice.

RFID as a Convenient Technology

Why, you ask, is it that most /.ers will champion technology that created convenience as long as it doesn't have to do with privacy? I almost feel ignorant answering that question, but I will anyhow. The fact of the matter is, if RFID chips make it more convenient for a grocery store to track items, therefore saving money due to less shoplifting, better restock times, no lost items, et cetera, I will(should) in turn save as well. If RFID chips are used in retail for inventory purposes, then those companies will see more profit. More profit for American companies = good.

Now, if those same RFID chips make it more convenient for a would-be thief to steal my identity, or for government agents in a terrorist-stricken world to pilfer my whereabouts, then I am against it. Stolen identity != good. You following?

Uniformity in Identification

Currently, the most common and uniform form of identity in the United States is the Social Security Card / SSN. This common and uniform (and important) piece of information is also the root cause of the majority of identity theft in the US. Uniformity is not always a good thing. Each state creates it's own forms of ID, and those agents that are required to request that ID understand where/what/how data is stored on those cards. Nobody else needs to know. *shrug*

Final Comments

Now DNA/Fingerprints I don't see as much of a problem. Of course, being in the Army, they already have that for me. Frankly, the only thing I can see that being used for is matching criminal investigations. The amount of effort spent tracking a person down for whatever reason solely on DNA and/or fingerprints is outrageous. However, RFID, GPS, tracking devices, cameras... Anything that allows a person to be tracked by the government (even for potentially legitimate reasons) allows a person to be tracked by malevolent persons as well. That is never an option IMHO.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

I bef of *you*: please preview your comments before you hit "Submit"

Re:*Please* RTFA

[Myrmidon10]

None of the terrorists would have been able to have gotten a Real ID with the expired Visa they all had. So no, none of the terrorists would have gotton a Real ID.

Putting all of that info together in shareable formate with uniform standards provides for the ability to indentify people with expired visas, are here illegally, have outstanding warrents, etc and prevent them from getting services they should not get or use.

I would argue that having an id that really does prove who you say you are IS a good thing.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[RuB1X]

In case you missed the article from the same site: DHS loves RFID.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[TripMaster Monkey]

And it still likely would have passed.

If it was so likely to have passed on its own (its original method of submission) then please tell me why it was deemed necessary to tack it onto a military spending bill?

Occam had this razor...it comes in handy in situations like these.

Now it will for sure.

<sarcasm>
It certainly will...no need to worry about any of that 'due process' malarkey.
</sarcasm>

Re:*Please* RTFA

[stinerman]

Hell, I'm bored. Lets have a go.

The House already had overwhelming support for the standalone bill, and there is no reason to believe it would not have passed in the Senate as well.

There is also no reason to believe it would have passed the senate.

"Running into trouble" != not passing

Similarly, "Running into trouble" != passing. So the best either of us can do is to say that we can't know how the stand-alone bill would have done in the senate.

I think you're smart enough to know the point of my arguement. That is, that it is wrong to tack an unrelated rider that may have touble passing onto a bill that is guaranteed to pass. Any laws passed in this way are patently wrong, no matter what they legislate for or against.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[shawb]

you must at least concede that this standardization is based on consistency, functionality, and ease of use, not a desire to build a nationwide network of centrally administered RFID detectors for the purposes of tracking every citizen

Even if the reason is not to track citizens, it will eventually be used for it if allowed. Speed pass records have been confiscated in investigations ever since the speed pass was introduced. Do you think that the government won't subpoena records of where you've been if they deem you a threat? It's already done with credit card records, cell phone usage records, etc etc. Except in this case the ID card scanner will probably have to phone home to a central server to verify the card. Now the government won't have to go through the hassle of collecting all this data, when it's already in their hands. Allows for a lot more shuffling of locational data to make a case appear to fit (even if the data is only circumstantial.)

Granted, this data mining will probably be used MOSTLY on investigations where there is already a suspect, and this information could also be subpoenad by a defendant to prove his innocence. Basically if you feel that your government is generally benevolant, there should not be a problem with using this tech. However if you have fears that your government is moving towards more totalitarianisticor even fascist state, then you might actually has a valid reason to fear this.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[Sassinak]

--The worst part is the completely machine-readable/automatic nature of the thing -- you might not even know you're giving your information away.

-Um. Huh? With the exception of RFID, how in the living hell would you not know you're "giving your information away"?
Its not the fact that you are giving away information (we do that everytime we give our DL, SS, or any other form of numner).. its the aggrigation method.. and don't believe for a second that it won't be used as a method to reduce, restrict, or eliminate people based on whatever qualifier they choose).

If, again, the argument is "ease", thanks to a technological change or technology itself, then why do slashdotters always argue in favor of technology elsewhere, but against it here?
Because governments traditionally have used technology to restrict or oppress their populus under the guise of "life improvement".

The card will still be issued by your state motor vehicle agency. It will merely be a federally approved, standardized version of your state Driver's License or state Identification Card.

Read your history... this one is too easy (see above comment)

- The process to obtain the card will be more rigorous, and you will have to provide more documents to prove your identity.

Granted..

- The House *already approved* a standalone version of the Real ID bill, so the fact this is attached to military spending is irrelevant

It is entirely relevant because with it attached to the military spending package, no one is going to vote against it for fear of being labeled "unpatriotic". Otherwise it would have a shot at being reviewed and at least amended.

- IF the standardized "machine readable technology" (which almost all state issues IDs already have in the form of a bar code, magnetic strip, etc.) ends up being RFID, you must at least concede that this standardization is based on consistency, functionality, and ease of use, not a desire to build a nationwide network of centrally administered RFID detectors for the purposes of tracking every citizen.

So, let me understand this... moving from actually inserting a card in a machine (which reduces the possibility of passive theft (an RFID scanner in the hands of an unauthorized person) to a method that allows what I just mentioned makes it "easier"? and "consistant"?.. (if by consistant, you mean having human robots read and issue a pass/block on the data that comes up.. regardless of the situation. Then I see your point.. otherwise.. I'm lost.

-All of the information on all of the cards is already accessible to any entity that requests identification, such as banks. However, the information will now be presented and stored in a uniform manner.

See above comment.

- If you think that all of these actions are designed exlusively to institute a 1984-style police state by evil conservatives, you probably don't see the illogic in opposing simple standardization of ID cards that already exist.

Why do you think people have been fighting all of these things> because of the trials and pain they have ALREADY gone through and left countries that have been under this oppression. It is frightening to see the same foolishness occur in the US. (what, you think east germany said to the population: "Yup, we are going to pursecute you, and isolate you, and lock you up if you even consider doing anything that we don't want. What do you think?.. Good idea, yeah?").. Of course not.. everything was done under the statement and intention of a "good idea".. (which went horribly wrong). And if you think we don't repeat those mistakes.. again, I direct you to history.. (pick any chapter you want).

- All of the items listed - opening bank accounts, collecting social security checks, travelling by air, etc. - already require ID (and if you want to get retarded about the whole air travel thing, go for it. John Gilmore already found

Re:*Please* RTFA

[Godeke]

But it likely would have passed the House and Senate and been signed by the president regardless.

Well, whoop-ti-doo, we just found a wonderful way to avoid all that messy discussion and debate. Declare it "likely to do stuff" and just toss it on the pile of "must be voted for" items.

Look, you admit it shouldn't have been on a spending bill, so why bother people with all the logic when what you really are saying is "the fact it won't get debated doesn't bother me because I'm for the whole thing". The people who are annoyed are annoyed because of the bypass of the whole open discussion and debate part of our lawmaking process. Obviously those opposed to it would be more annoyed than those who see it as manifest destiny. Even if it passed after discussion, it likely would be modified in some way if the normal processes took place. Ever notice the phrase "reconciling house and senate versions of the bills" bouncing around? That is because both houses have different makeup and therefor different viewpoints and often make different choices. Now the alternative viewpoint is squelched. Sure, the end result might be the same. In fact, it is probable... but why be all happy and supportive of short curcuits to the law making process?

Re:*Please* RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the same 9/11 terrorists the FBI listed? Haven't 7 of them been found to be alive? Some of them as legitimate airline pilots? link link 2 read the correction box

Re:*Please* RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

"And it still likely would have passed. "

That is an unsupported assertion. The parent's implied assertion that it wouldn't pass is based on the article which says that it was expected to run into trouble, which clearly implies that it wasn't expected to pass. It certainly wouldn't have passed as easily. The standalone version passed the House by a vote of 261-161, which TFA described as a "relatively close margin". The full package, military and ID, is what passed with "overwhelming support", specifically 368-58.

In other words, the parent had SOME support for his assertion, and you have provided none for yours or against his. Do you have any? Is there any reason that we should believe you that it would likely have passed over C|Net's reporter, who apparently believed that it was less than likely?

"the fact this is attached to military spending is irrelevant" - DS

"Rules for a federally approved ID don't belong with a supplemental military spending bill" - stinerman

"I didn't say they did. And a lot of things don't belong in a lot of bills. Next?" -DS

You didn't say it belonged there, but you said that being there was irrelevant. Those of us who are still a bit idealistic about people elected to Congress behaving honorably and with America's (and Americans') best interests at heart might disagree, as this sort of chicanery is essentially dishonest. A congressman who votes against the bill for having such a disgusting rider attached will be attacked for voting against "supporting our troops". This removes the ability of a congressman to vote as he should, if voting against such a measure is the wish of his electorate. Yes, I know it goes on all the time. That doesn't make it OK, and doesn't mean that we should just ignore it, as you wish us to. It DOES matter how a bill is presented to House and Senate, because that affects how the various flavors of congresscritters are able to vote upon it. Picking a military spending bill makes this law more likely to be passed regardless of its own merits, and therefore it is completely relevant to this discussion.

Your setting up of straw men to refute only highlights the poor tactics and intellectual dishonesty with which you've approached this issue. Further, you've managed to refute neither of the points he made. Why did you bother commenting? Would it be possible for you to STOP commenting, at least without something more of substance to offer? Thanks.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[joebok]

Read the Scheiner article, he explains far better than I (http://www.schneier.com/essay-034.html

Selective Quotes:

It doesn't really matter how well an ID card works when used by the hundreds of millions of honest people that would carry it. What matters is how the system might fail when used by someone intent on subverting that system: how it fails naturally, how it can be made to fail, and how failures might be exploited.

The first problem is the card itself. No matter how unforgeable we make it, it will be forged. And even worse, people will get legitimate cards in fraudulent names.

Two of the 9/11 terrorists had valid Virginia driver's licenses in fake names. And even if we could guarantee that everyone who issued national ID cards couldn't be bribed, initial cardholder identity would be determined by other identity documents ... all of which would be easier to forge. ...

But the main problem with any ID system is that it requires the existence of a database. In this case it would have to be an immense database of private and sensitive information on every American -- one widely and instantaneously accessible from airline check-in stations, police cars, schools, and so on.

The security risks are enormous. Such a database would be a kludge of existing databases; databases that are incompatible, full of erroneous data, and unreliable. As computer scientists, we do not know how to keep a database of this magnitude secure, whether from outside hackers or the thousands of insiders authorized to access it. ...

What good would it have been to know the names of Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, or the DC snipers before they were arrested? Palestinian suicide bombers generally have no history of terrorism. The goal is here is to know someone's intentions, and their identity has very little to do with that.

And there are security benefits in having a variety of different ID documents. A single national ID is an exceedingly valuable document, and accordingly there's greater incentive to forge it. There is more security in alert guards paying attention to subtle social cues than bored minimum-wage guards blindly checking IDs.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

I bef of *you*: please preview your comments before you hit "Submit"

I beg of you to preview before hitting submit with the word "bef" in it.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

it's bad enough that the politicans are so enthusiastic to foist this on the people, but seeing someone so eager and willing to surrender their liberties.... it's simply nauseating.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[brass1]

I think you missed the point there...the point isn't that the House passed the bill, but that the Senate wasn't expected to. Thus, the attachment of this bill to military spending is entirely relevant, since its chances on its own were poor.

Well.. Let us understand why the Senate wasn't going to pass the bill.

You see, one of the provisions in the bill is that people who obtain state ID (which is de-facto proof of citizenship) actually prove that they are, in fact, citizens of the United States and the State in which they are attempting to obtain ID in. I'll remind everyone that in many states, all it takes to get voter's registration is ID.

This provision is troublesome to certain segments of the business community who depend on the ability to hire people who are in our country illegally, as it makes it a lot harder for the illegal workers to get documentation.

Now, granted, we as a society need to do something about the 12-20 Million people who are here illegally. We need to do something that's realistic, but does not reward people who did not follow the law when they decided to come here (and, by implication punish the people who did follow then law when they came here).

As for RealID:
Recommendation:Secure identification should begin in the United States.The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers licenses.Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a prob- lem of theft.At many entry points to vulnerable facilities,including gates for boarding aircraft,sources of identification are the last oppor- tunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists. [The 911 Commission Report. p407.]

The Commission is 100% correct.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[kin_korn_karn]

Thank you. I wish I had mod points today.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[NixLuver]

Hey, let's not get ahead of yourself. You can't just define "/.ers" as though we're all of one mind. For my money, I *hate* enabling technology, and am *drooling* over opressive technology. I love Windows, and abhor Linux, and get the heebie-jeebies when someone talks about that OpenBSD. I think we should adopt government-transparent encryption in every phase of our data processes; I think we should have video cameras in our bedrooms to make sure that we're having "Approved" sex. DRM gives me wood. How much do RFID-based ID's cost? Wonder what happens if people start surreptitiously installing de-RFIDers in, say, McDonald's doorframes, or malls. hrmm.... No, wait, that's evil thinking! That's against God, and heterosexuality, and my kid is dying over there so you have the right to say the same goddamned thing I am!

Re:*Please* RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't have any problem giving amnesty to everyone already here. But only after we've decided on who we really want to let in and actually started to enforce it going forward.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[nietzsche_freak]

The House already approved a standalone version of the Real ID bill.

And? That, put simply, means nothing. I suggest you do some basic review of the structure your government's legislative branch before arguing that point further.

I didn't say they did [belong with a supplemental military spending bill]. And a lot of things don't belong in a lot of bills. Next?

So, something ceases to be unethical just because it is commonplace? That says a lot about the nature of your moral character.

The House already had overwhelming support for the standalone bill, and there is no reason to believe it would not have passed in the Senate as well.

And how did you arrive at that conclusion? RTFA! On the contrary, it was expected to run into problems in the Senate -- that's why it was tacked on to an emergency military spending bill in the first place.

And it still likely would have passed.

And what is that opinion based on, besides a marriage of arrogance and ignorance? And don't give that line, 'it was passed in the House' -- it makes you look like a fool, as if you were ignorant of not only the purpose of a bicameral legislature, but even of the existence of a bicameral legislature.

Learn something about your nation's government before entering a political discussion. It helps.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[llefler]

Considering that Texas is considering RFID tags on all license places, and yes, police would scan them automatically for criminals in the like, I'd say the "trcaking system" infrastructure is already being put in place.

I think they are going to find that the technology is going to be more trouble than it is worth. Someone already posted a link to a device that destroys the RFID. The first thing I thought was what happens the first time someone sticks that device in their coat and walks through the airport? The first few times, chaos.

An airport would have risks of getting caught, but if they put these on license plates, who is going to monitor all those mall parking lots?

Re:*Please* RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

s/neither\snovel\snor\sshocking/disturbing/;

Re:*Please* RTFA

[lahvak]

The House already had overwhelming support for the standalone bill, and there is no reason to believe it would not have passed in the Senate as well.

I heard that president has already signed it. He said "It's gonna pass anyway, why wait!"

Re:*Please* RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

"Um. Huh? With the exception of RFID, how in the living hell would you not know you're "giving your information away"?"

Presumably the information from the card would be stored in many databases, which could easily be "given away" without notifying the person that data related to.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[evil_tandem]

cute, but flawed logic.

if it was going to pass anyway, why bother with this? the only logical reason to pass it again as a rider on a bill you know people will have problems voting against, is to avoid letting them vote on it on its own merits.

just because this is business as usual doesn't make it right. i'm not even saying i have a problem with it. there could be some advantages to me as a citizen to have a centralized system. conversely i am horrified that my representatives are too chicken sh@#@ to discuss this in the open with the people whom they are supposedly protecting.

to me the funniest part is that in the next breath we will be talking tax cuts again. how far up your butt does your head have to be to try and lower taxes while dramatically increasing spending on pet projects that you did not have the balls to discuss with the people who will pay for it in the first place? we NEED a national id system? we have only functioned without one for the entire span of american history. are you offering to pay more taxes for it?

i already regret every dollar i pay, last thing i need is some new inept beauracracy to funnel money into. maybe we could just divert some money from education. stupid liberals are just using it to teach this crazy "evolution" theory anyway...

Re:*Please* RTFA

[antiMStroll]

"The worst part is the completely machine-readable/automatic nature of the thing -- you might not even know you're giving your information away.

Um. Huh? With the exception of RFID, how in the living hell would you not know you're "giving your information away"?"

Wait! I know , I know! You'll always know you're broadcasting, you'll just have no way to know when someone's receiving, or who they are. Is that simple and obvious enough for you?

Re:*Please* RTFA

[ClioCJS]

I think you should know that technology continually improves.

Saying RFIDs can be defeated is like saying you can make an un-pirable CD. It's just a claim. Progress eventually works through all obstacles. In the end, the oppressors are going to be able to afford to spend more money on better things than we will be.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[pyros]

state ID (which is de-facto proof of citizenship)

No it isn't, I know resident aliens with driver's licenses (in Texas). To prove citizenship (for example to get a passport) you need a birth certificate which shows you were born on U.S. soil, or proof that one of your parents (listed on your birth certificate) is/was a citizen (their birth certificate or passport). I know all this having gone through helping my wife (a naturalized citizen, born in the Ancon Canal Zone in Panama) get a new passport without having her old expired passport.

sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists.

Sure would have been a good idea to have checked ID on Sept. 11th, then, considering several of the highjackers has state issued driver's licenses identifying them as people on the terrorist no-fly lists. If authorities didn't make use of the old ID cards, why would creating new ID cards have any effect?

Re:*Please* RTFA

[bigpat]

"Currently, the most common and uniform form of identity in the United States is the Social Security Card / SSN. This common and uniform (and important) piece of information is also the root cause of the majority of identity theft in the US."

I would add that social security (the tax id) is the reason for identity theft in the first place. Identity theft for the most part is so that illigal immigrants can work to support themselves and their families.

Marketers have just thrown in credit card theft under the umbrella of the term "identity theft" to make it sound more insidious. Really this is about government control over individuals for purpsoes of taxation not about protecting people from thieves and terrorists.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[Raven_Stark]

First, the Feds already had the data and the power to stop the 9-11 murderers. They failed and people died. Claiming to need these ID cards and the like is, IMO, a way of diverting attention away from that failure. The ID system is also a way for them to aquire more power over us.

Trusting government is about as sensible as trusting Jackson to take good care of your little boy during a sleepover at Neverland Ranch. It would probably be easier to name all the laws the government hasn't abused than those it has. A couple of decades ago, when I was a kid watching movies about Nazis and Communists it seemed silly to even think that someday an American would ask to see my freaking travel papers. That particular horror seems likely to happen now.

Government abuses power. Take eminent domain, the law that allows government to take land from an individual in exchange for fair market value for the "general good." A lady near my city voluntarily sold off hundreds of acres of her land for a city backed housing development. She kept 20 acres for herself. After the development went in, the city suddenly remembered that they had to build a school for all the kids in the development. The lady with the land said, too bad, should have thought of that before you filled up all that land with houses. The city took the rest of her land by force. They offered to name the school after the lady's family which had lived there for generations but she told them where to shove the offer. The same city is in the process of stealing my friend's friend's house at below market value. When these types of issues came up at a city manager's meeting, they stopped the public access video feed. That is how wonderful and trustworthy government is. The Feds only seem to be a little more sophisticated at cover-ups.

Also, these sorts of ID cards tend to get abused by everyone. My community college used our social security number as our school ID number. During registration we were supposed to recite the number several times to various clerks. I could easily hear everyone recite their name, number and some other personal data which could be used for identity theft. When I peaceably refused to give my number but continued to insist upon being registered with a randomly chosen number, they threatened to call security to have me removed.

I find it easy to imagine something like this happening in a few years when I try to buy potato chips without carrying my RFID card. As I understand it, grocery stores track what you buy through "loyalty cards" and this info is sometimes shared with the government because supposidly terrorists have predictable buying habits. Watch for it to become law that Uncle Sam needs to know for homeland security how much hemorhoid cream you use. Will you bend over for that one too?

Re:*Please* RTFA

[ClioCJS]

well, you could hit the 'alter relationship' button, and make me a friend, and then add a +4 modifier to posts-by-friends in your config... and then it would LOOK like you had mod points... heh

Re:*Please* RTFA

[bornbitter]

interesting...
Your reading of all /.'ers having the same dichotomy,(correct spelling btw), that you do is shortsighted. Are the majority of /.'ers oppressed by the computers, or are they simply self-confined to their cubicles because they are enabled by the computer age to do so? Look around, the very same technology that "enables us" to do things also can be used to "oppress." If you don't believe me, ask anyone who wants to use the internet, but has a spyware/adware problem.
"...then like red-light cameras they'll be red-light RFID readers (to help catch people who run red lights, of course)... The end result will indeed be tracking of everyone's movements. Technology as an oppressor. NO ONE has to have that idea in mind now for that to be what happens; it's simply where the current trend will end up."
well... My wife was t-boned by a hit&run red-light offender, I can see use for this too. I think that, like others have said, this will end up being more work than it is worth for the government. Don't forget that the founding fathers built in an outlet for your red-light-running anarchist passions; the right to bear arms. Just because the government knows that 150mil.+ citizens LEGALLY own weapons doesn't mean that the government can stop them. That is why the floodgates can be shut.
remember, the government can only rule you as long as you let them. ...in the mean-time, go ahead and run those red-lights with impunity, I am sure no-one will begrudge you your 'right' to break the law, or the subsequent 'right' to go to jail. (Someone should call the ACLU about those rights.)
If you are looking for 'smaller' government, you can't vote for Democrats or Republicans. I suggest you look for or start another alternative, because it is obvious both parties, and thus the gov., is failing you.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[reconn]

Onoes RFID is coming! Here's a presumptuous pronounciation about the slashdot crowd: you've got your heads too far up the techhype bum. License plates are all the trcaking system we need.

The camera can scan 1000 license plates per minute

That's why, as the man says, it doesn't matter if they don't have facial recognition, or the processing power to do real massive pattern searching and cross referencing with all the information they're collecting (they gov, they corp, it make no difference.) They can just keep it all until they do.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[ClioCJS]

At least I spelled that d-word right. :)

You said: Your reading of all /.'ers having the same dichotomy,(correct spelling btw), that you do is shortsighted. Are the majority of /.'ers oppressed by the computers, or are they simply self-confined to their cubicles because they are enabled by the computer age to do so?

Actually, I was not talking about work at all. I am talking more about things like DMCA, RFID, red-light cameras, Carnivore, crowd suppression technology (including microwave-based), thermal imaging, quantum computers [which will eventually allow those who have them first to be able to listen in to those who don't have them], nanotechnology, spy devices, etc. But then there are things like software patents which control some software technologies so that only the (seemingly) nefarious can use it. My speech had nothing to do with work at all. I prefer to be in a cubicle.

Anyway, most of those tools are not enablers. Quntum computing will enable much -- but break all our encryption keys. Most of the rest of those do absolutely nothing to enable for me. Conceivably I could use RFID in my house to track my stuff...("Where's my keys again?")...or maybe a cunning burglar with sophisticated software could use THAT against me...((begins fashiong tin-foil hat))...

One of my point being that there is a technology war going on, mostly on the legal and cultural fronts, with technology almost never being used in the way that benefits the most. For instance, self-sealing car tires were invented a good 40 years ago (heresay/unverified), but I was only able to buy one recently (and only $20 more!). There was more profit to be made in people buying outdated tires because they are replaceable. There's no way to force the better technology to market. It gets seized by corporate lawyers often in a way that exploits us.

I'm definitely rambling here (at home now). I am very sorry about your car accident and would gladly kick the offender's ass for you if given a chance. But I think a better solution would be if your own car had camera(s) that recorded what happened: So that if this happened to you you'd have your own proof right there.

Red-light cameras are inhuman. Take snow. You can't stop as fast in snow. Some say double your stopping distance. Well, that means you have to be twice as far away from a light to stop when it turns yellow. So you pretty much HAVE to run the red lights if you don't want to slide into the intersection. A camera can't capture the real situation. My wife got one, but the picture was so pathetic you couldn't tell who it was. Apparantly, it was her father, but he claimed it wasn't as did she. Her previous employers were fascist, so she had a "guestbook" (the real kind) that people would sign in and out of when going to work/lunch/errands/home. The fact that she was signed in was the only way to convince her father to take responsibility. No doubt that if we'd tried to fight it, we'd lose. Not gonna play that game. Not when the cost of taking time off from work is more than the ticket (another problem I have with the system).

150 million citizens? That's 1 in 2 people. Are there huge clusters of these people right around you? Cause I don't see them here. Canada has higher gun ownership than America, per capita. Marijuana smokers can't own guns because it's an automatic 10 year federal mandatory minium with a pot conviction even if it's not involved in the crime, locked up, unloaded, in a safe. Assault rifles can't be owned. The guns that the govt has are much better than what the civilians have (not necessarily such a big divide in 1776). We have no militia. The right to bear arms is somewhat of a farce in many ways.

I don't know that if America wanted to revolt, that it could successfully. And let technology (soldier robots are already starting to be used, didn't slashdot say recently?) build up, and pretty soon a revolution might well be damn

Re:*Please* RTFA

[llefler]

Well, it's not like I'm clueless about RFID, I heard about them long before the gov't found their new toy, or even Walmart. I do warehouse automation for a living.

BTW, your analogy sucks, it's backwards. More appropriately, making an RFID that can't be defeated is like making an un-piratable CD. As long as there are people willing to attack the technology, it will be broken.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[ClioCJS]

I was talking more along the lines of: A bunch of poor citizens can always break it, but a bunch of rich govts and corps can always make a better, harder-to-break one. Eventually, I think technology and engineering will be perfect, and then we may very well have that which cannot be broken.

"Someday, they shall make a nail on the end of a stick far larger than any others, and will destroy themselves."

Re:*Please* RTFA

[swillden]

I was talking more along the lines of: A bunch of poor citizens can always break it, but a bunch of rich govts and corps can always make a better, harder-to-break one. Eventually, I think technology and engineering will be perfect, and then we may very well have that which cannot be broken.

For example, consider software copy protection schemes.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[ClioCJS]

Think more like radar detectors. Then they have radar detector detectors. You can't always circumvent technology. Software, yes. Hardware? Not always.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[NotBorg]

... Anything that allows a person to be tracked by the government (even for potentially legitimate reasons) allows a person to be tracked by malevolent persons as well. That is never an option IMHO.

Thank you.

I personally enjoy the freedom of not being monitored by entities that I don't know if I can trust. I can walk into a store look around, perhaps buy an item, pay cash and leave and not worry about being tracked by some database whose existence is for the express purpose of targeting me for financial gain.

You've seen the Tom Cruse movie. Dude walks by a poster and it changes to reflect his "interests." Now everyone in the store knows that he's pussy whipped and buys feminine hygiene products for his wife.

It has been widely recognized that most governing bodies don't understand the technology being governed most of the time.

Re:*Please* RTFA

[Dachannien]

Suppose it were a rider that was more palatable to the Slashdot crowd, like prevent child exploitation on the Internet? Riders are generally pork-barrel projects or controversial items, yes, but the Senate is far more liberal on such tactics (see also: filibuster) than the House, which has rules requiring the germaneness (on-topic-ness) of all amendments.

The simple fact that something is a rider doesn't make it evil or sickening or disturbing, and it's really a poor argument against the underlying measure.

How soon?

[PopeAlien]

How soon does everyone think this system will be abused either by the government or by thieves ?

you mean theres a difference?

Re:How soon?

[WormholeFiend]

Yes.

Government officials almost never go to jail.

Re:How soon?

[fataugie]

Worse, we PAY the Government officials to rob/rape us. Theives only get paid if they succeed (think of it like piecework).

Re:How soon?

[willCode4Beer.com]

hahaha.
Since this works with all the states, the crooks need only go to a state with a broken education system and take advantage of the people to get in the system.
And as pointed out, the system is as weak as the state with the weakest system.

Re:How soon?

[Shajenko42]

Yes. Not all thieves work for the government.

Re:How soon?

[XxtraLarGe]

The difference is that after you give the theives what they want, they typically leave you alone. The government keeps coming around, taking your money, and telling you what to do.

Re:How soon?

[Uruk]

Are you sure? Larry Franklin might beg to differ:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=829855&C=am erica

Here's another recent story about a government procurement officer whose probably headed to the pokey for a long time in connection with a Boeing deal:
http://www.govexec.com/features/0704-15/0704-15s2. htm

Government workers actually have very strong regulations on them, and the government really doesn't have a sense of humor about some of its regulations. Particularly what's found in the FAR (Federal Acquisitions Regs)

When people do things that are crooked, from what I've seen they get nailed to the wall. They don't do Martha Stewart white collar leniency, particularly for actual (or perceived) graft.

At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[stinerman]

To wit:

Q: Why did these ID requirements get attached to an "emergency" military spending bill?
Because it's difficult for politicians to vote against money that will go to the troops in Iraq and tsunami relief.

As I have already said in a different discussion, this rider crap needs to stop now.

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[steve buttgereit]

The legislation was actually going to be part of different, more contextually appropriate piece of legislation last session. Because the inclusion of this measure threatened that bill, they (the provision's supporters)removed it promising to introduce it as an amendment to the first major piece of legislation this year... which happened to be this military funding bill.

Actually, this was quite above board (meaning public) as these sorts of things go. Especially here in California where there are real issues that this bill will help solve.

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[fudgefactor7]

I suggested this exact same sentiment, along with an explanation, which I called "Legislative Germanity" to my Senators. I can still hear their laughter. It didn't go well. Effectively, what I envision is all parts of a bill must logically link up to the title/subject of the bill, and the subject/title must not be vague or overly broad. What this would do is eliminate craptacular bills, since the bill could only relate to a single concept, while fast-tracking legit "good stuff" because of the same reason. It also would end-run around the unconstitutionality of line item veto by making the President's veto power a stronger item. Everyone wins except those who have their hands in the cookie jar/pork entitlements. But like I said, you can still hear the laughter.

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[Rakishi]

...I can only imagine the debates that would result as different groups tried to claim a given bill fits or does not fit the requirement.

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[jafac]

As I have already said in a different discussion, this rider crap needs to stop now. ...which is why the party of fiscal responsibility and smaller government, let the "line item veto" lapse.

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[bersl2]

To put it another way: if a bill's description needs to end with "and for other purposes"---and having read bills on thomas.loc.gov, they all seem to include that phrase, even if it seems very unnecessary---should not be allowed to reach the floors of Congress.

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

The line item veto was ruled un-Constitutional by SCOTUS. The "small government" party (yeah right) did let the pay as you go rules lapse though.

Seriously, line-item veto's are a great Constitutional discussion. It would probably require an Ammendment to the Constitution in order to change from the method Congress uses now to something that resembled line-item veto's or riderless legislation.

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[BAKup]

And there would be a problem with this how? I'd rather have my goverment fighting on what to do rather than doing something that screws up everything.

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[lahvak]

The bill sponsors would have to make sure that it clearly does, otherwise their bill would be open to an attack. It would be in their interest to make things as clear as possible.

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[orderb13]

What real issues will this bill solve?

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[ChristTrekker]

I tried the same thing once, and got the same response.

I'm increasingly convinced I ought to try a run for Congress in 2006. Just so there'd be one guy (in addition to Ron Paul) who wouldn't stand for this junk.

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[AviLazar]

As I have already said in a different discussion, this rider crap needs to stop now.

This i TOTALLY agree with. They do things like create laws that have about 100-200 pages worth of riders. Assuming a person doesn't miss subsection 3 of paragaph A151 of line 31 word 2, they then have to fight the political advertisements that say "so and so refused to support funds that go to make bullet proof vests for our soldiers."

Can't they just learn to keep things simple/stupid - i mean its not that hard.

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[Tycho]

In Minnesota at least, riders are unconstitutional. Bills have to cover one subject and unreated items cannot be on the bill or else the rider item is declared unconstitutional. Two years ago gun rights extrememists in the Republican controlled Minnesota House attached a conceal carry law to a natural resources technical bill, alone the conceal carry bill would have never passed the Democrat held Senate. The rider itself may have even been written by the NRA. Last month the Minnesota Appeals Court ruled the rider unconstitutional. The courts have declared riders unconstitutional many times before for other riders. At any rate, new concealed carry bills have been introduced in the House and Senate, but the bills seems to have a tough time ahead of them. The Senate in Minnesota is still held by the Democrats and since last year's election the Republicans only hold a two seat majority in the House.

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[bill_mcgonigle]

It would probably require an Ammendment to the Constitution in order to change from the method Congress uses now to something that resembled line-item veto's or riderless legislation.

Has anybody drafted one? It got good bipartisan support last time.

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[stinerman]

If you look at the PATRIOT Act, its riddled with amendments to existing law. For example Section 502 reads:

Section 36 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (Public Law 885, August 1, 1956; 22 U.S.C. 2708) is amended--

(1) in subsection (b)--

(A) in paragraph (4), by striking `or' at the end;

(B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and inserting `, including by dismantling an organization in whole or significant part; or'; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

`(6) the identification or location of an individual who holds a key leadership position in a terrorist organization.';

(2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) and redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2); and

(3) in subsection (e)(1), by inserting `, except as personally authorized by the Secretary of State if he determines that offer or payment of an award of a larger amount is necessary to combat terrorism or defend the Nation against terrorist acts.' after `$5,000,000'.

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[Koiu Lpoi]

Wasn't it ruled unconstitutional because congress can't give the president powers he doesn't have?

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[gabrieltss]

The Democrats want to take away your guns, and the Republicans want to take you away period.

Both are crooked as hell and both need to be taken down a notch.

Now someone tell me why we don't need third party candidates.....? Because, I'm sorry we need them desperately!

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[dmatos]

All in favour of the Springfield Aid slash Perverted Arts bill?

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

It was over the Presentment Clause (Article 1, Section 7). That describes how a piece of legislation is passed. It's very specific and in order to change the procedure, one must ammend the Constitution. So in a way, you're correct.

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[steve buttgereit]

Here in California it's primarily an immigration law issue, in addition to the legitimate security issues the bill seeks to cover.

There are strong political constituencies in our state's legislature to provide de facto legalization to individuals coming into the country illegally by giving them state driver licenses that are indistinguishable from those provided to legal citizens and residents. The Real ID amendment, by setting out guidelines including proof of legal residency to obtain state issued identification, effectively pre-empts these ill-conceived state efforts.

Generally my preference is to have these issues sorted out at the state level, however there are very real security concerns for the nation at large that I think makes Federal intervention warranted in this case. I have no example, for instance, that the California state government will take appropriate measures to validate backgrounds for those receiving driver licenses illegal or not whereas, say, Arizona may have appropriate policies. In this case, Real ID would ensure that a standard level of assurance would be enforced (theoretically) across the board. Of course there are laws about immigration itself not being enforced, so this may well end up in that category.

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[C0deM0nkey]

Tim?

Re:At least TFA isn't beating around the bush

[ChristTrekker]

What?

Whoa!

[Colin Smith]

Where's the debate on this?

The "New Labour" government got back in the UK (with a reduced minority) so are going to try to introduce ID cards here, but at least there's going to be a hell of a debate on it now they won't be able to steamroller it through.

http://www.no2id.net/

Re:Whoa!

[m50d]

Unfortunately they still can steamroller it. It would take over 30 defectors to stop them even if all opposition parties voted against. We really need proportional representation

Re:Whoa!

[Tenebrious1]

Where's the debate on this?

There'd be plenty of debate, except that it got tagged onto a military funding and tsunami relief bill. That's how things work on this side of the pond, if you want something controversial passed, you append it to a bill nobody can say "no" to.

What the hell.

[j14ast]

Never mind the facist asking you for your papers for now, I'm 20 and I don't have a license(nor do I want one, I live in a city for a reason). Do I not exist?

Re:What the hell.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't exist if you live completely under your parents. You'll need some kind of ID if you want to do anything on your own as an adult in the world.

Re:What the hell.

[TekGoNos]

Yes, you don't exist.

Seriously, when I still lived in Germany (where we do have a national ID card since as long as I live), I tried to open a bank account, but my ID was expired. The bank's employee seriously told me that because of that, I did not exist for the bank.
(To create the account, I had to get my birth certificate, which I think is pretty stupid, as it only proves that someone with my name was born, not that I am this person ...)

Re:What the hell.

[TripMaster Monkey]

No, you don't exist.

Therfore, you could not have posted on this forum.

Therefore, I could not respond to your post.

However, I am responding to your post...but you don't exist...can't post...no response....aaaaargh....paradoxheadache...

Don't we already?

[nate nice]

"you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service"

So I can still use my passport?

Ident-i-Eeze

[Malicious]

Is this going to be like a Ident-i-Eeze card which I can use to secure an Unlimited expense account provided I steal it from someone filthy rich?

Oh Boy

[SengirV]

Nazi Germany, here we come. Where are your PAPERS!!!!!

Re:Oh Boy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pre-emptively invoking godwins law to stop this post from becoming a thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Re:Oh Boy

[stevejsmith]

May I remind you of Quirk's exception:

Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.

Re:Oh Boy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah real insightful... Accept for the fact all of these getting on a plane, openign a bank account, getting social security, and so on all require a form of id alreayd usually a drivers licsense.

Re:Oh Boy

[Clansman]

What's Nazi about it? Many countries have ID that you have to provide on demand - Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain, for example. These are all centrist democracies.

I think you meant to get modded as funny rather than insightful :-)

Re:Oh Boy

[SengirV]

Maybe you are too young to have this ingrained in your head as a BAD idea. Especially when trying to move around within one's own country.

Re:Oh Boy

[DarkOx]

centrist???? everyone of thoes nations is socialist.

Re:Oh Boy

[mc6809e]

This image is a little off the deep end, but today seems to fit.

Re:Oh Boy

[antiMStroll]

Perhaps not Nazi, but many here are old enough to remember when the Soviet requirement of identity papers for internal travel was held up to all as an example of tyranny in action. In some ways the collapse of the Soviet regime was the worst thing to happen to America in the second half of the twentieth.

What about...

[hoka]

People who forgot their information? As it stands now you can still fly if you go through extra security measures, but what will happen in the future? Will they block you and wave goodbye? And what is to stop these cards from being faked anyways, even if there is a central database that will check all of these cards, injection attacks are still possible, and then of course there are malicious users. Furthermore, what about rejecting the bill, or preventing it from being attached? This article seems to be talking about "The end is neigh" as opposed to why it is near.

Re:What about...

[Anonymous Coward]

"This article seems to be talking about "The end is neigh" as opposed to why it is near."

I think they meant the end is "nigh", you probably misunderstood, as it was the wrong end of a horse that came up with the whole idea for the cards, and it seems to other end believes the end is near.

Re:What about...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The end is neigh"

horses have historically been good fortune tellers..

Like all this growth in government

[Anonymous Coward]

It will do little to stop criminals, because criminals have never cared about the rules, but decent American citizens will have to jump through hoops and come to accept presenting papers to travel in-country just like those Soviets we looked down on.

Re:Like all this growth in government

[Stop Error]

So let me get this straight. You don't carry your drivers licence or any other ID when you travel now? I am sure the state patrol would disagree with you that that's okay.

Fact of the matter is in almost every state you can be jailed if you refuse to ID yourself to Law Enforcement until they can ascertain who you are. How is this different? It is just a standardization is it not?

Re:Like all this growth in government

[NoData]

Hmm, see I always thought a "Driver's License" was a document that established that you have a license to drive. The fact that it has been co-opted to be some form of state identity establishing device doesn't make it right that now the government is further co-opting it to produce some federal identity establishing device. This drift toward depersonalizing people into (corruptible, opaque) database entries is not the way to sustain an open, free society. I don't understand why the rightists who bemoan the collapse of our "culture" all around them fail to see this most fundamental cornerstone crumbling under their own power and paranoia.

Re:Like all this growth in government

[peragrin]

First you don't need a Driver's license to get around. You don't need photo ID in most cases either.

Second In most of the states that I know of you have 24 hours to produce proof of ID.

If you leave your license at home, you can show it to a police officer with-in 24 hours. Not having it on you won't help your case any, but if a police officer is stopping you, you already screwed up once.

Re:Like all this growth in government

[Reaperducer]

You don't carry your drivers licence or any other ID when you travel now? I am sure the state patrol would disagree with you that that's okay.

When I lived in Ohio, the ACLU reps would sometimes hand out little information cards for you to carry if you didn't want to carry a photo ID. You were supposed to give the card to any police officer demanding ID. On it, it explained the state court decisions which ruled that people (at least in Ohio) can't be forced to carry ID at all times, and it had a phone number up in Cleveland you could call in case the cop decided to throw you in jail anyway. I wish I still had one.

Re:Like all this growth in government

[radish]

I live in New York - have done for over 18 months (I moved here from the UK). I got my NY drivers license a couple of weeks ago. So I, for one, survived perfectly well without one for a year and a half. I finaly got a drivers license, because (shock horror) I wanted to be able to drive. Most of the time I didn't carry any ID beyond credit cards or maybe my work ID. I never found myself in a situation where that was an issue.

Re:Like all this growth in government

[Anonymous Coward]

but if a police officer is stopping you, you already screwed up once.

What the fuck makes you think that? 'Oh, a police officer is stopping me, that must mean I screwed up.' Sorry, that's bullshit.

Re:Like all this growth in government

[wintermute740]

"It will do little to stop criminals, because criminals have never cared about the rules, but decent American citizens will have to jump through hoops and come to accept presenting papers to travel in-country just like those Soviets we looked down on."

I think you nailed it... If you were a child of the 70s and 80s, you were taught to hate the Soviet Union because, among other things, they made their own citizens show papers just to travel domestically. Now, *we* have to show papers to travel domestically. And that's not good enough. They now want to make those papers uniform. All in the name of what? And what would we give up to gain that? A wise man would say that we deserve neither.

Re:Like all this growth in government

[kfg]

September '77
Port Elizabeth, weather fine
It was business as usual
In Police room 619

KFG

Pretty sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

We never had real freedom here in this part of europe. People used to dream of travelling to the USA, the land of the free.

Americans had freedom and are willingly throwing it away. All it takes for evil to triumph is for a few good men to do nothing. WAKE UP!

Re:Pretty sad.

[op00to]

Wow, your euro-centric views make my brain hurt.

Americans had freedom and are willingly throwing it away.

Right. We're not doing anything. This didn't appear on /.. We're not complaining to our congresscritters. We're not completely livid that wingnuts have taken over our government. Whatever, dude.

Re:Pretty sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever, dude.

That's axactly what your government expect you to do. Whatever nothing. Stupid dude.

Re:Pretty sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

As you are obviously too idiotic to understand, his 'whatever dude' was referring to the fact that the accusation that Americans were not doing anything is false.

Perhaps you should learn to read before you post and you won't look so stupid next time.

Re:Pretty sad.

[mbone]

What part of Europe is that ?

Re:Pretty sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. A handful of angry letters and a slashdot article will be all it takes to deal with this sort of thing.

I hope for your sake you aren't always that naive.

Re:Pretty sad.

[op00to]

I hope for your sake, you read the entirety of people's sentences before you attack them.

Re:Pretty sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

To me, grandparent seems to be from the US and tries to appear like a European Cassandra. His message makes no sense, whatever part of Europe he would come from.

Re:Pretty sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA is NOT the land of the free. It's the land of opportunity. That's very different.

Re:Pretty sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

WAKE UP!

Your in/from europe? Then just go back to sleep (you must have been for two years now). The US didn`t start forcing this on its own population *it started forcing this upon europe* assuming the EU would be slow, inneficient and all "democratic" like. (Slow? yes, democratic? no. don`t they remember the patent and traffic data stories?)

I guess this is just a "eating ones own dogfood" situation. Good news for USians though, on the passport front the US is reconsidering trading the security of the passports (mainly unauthorized reading) against ease of implementation and a slightly sooner rollout date. After thousands of people told them so they think that the Basic Access Control part of the spec they are paying and shoving down others throat may actually be there for a reason... A TSA official was quoted as saying: "Engineers designing security features for a reason? gee what an idea, Imagene what would heapon if we would think things through like that all beforehand and stuff. Wanna build a monorail?... everyone! monorail, monorail monorail".

Think I am cynical? read the EU`s research center`s arguments for these things:
"The large-scale introduction of biometric passports in Europe provides Member States with a unique opportunity to ensure that these have a positive impact, and that they enable the creation a vibrant European industry sector. Two conditions would appear to be necessary for this to happen. Firstly, the creation of a demand market based on wide user acceptance, by clearly setting out the purpose and providing appropriate safeguards for privacy and data protection. Secondly, the fostering of a competitive supply market for biometrics. This is unlikely to emerge by itself and will need kick-starting by governments - in their role as launch customers, not as regulators."

An opportunity to ensure things don`t get f@#$ed up? yeah I want one of those, hell give me two! What, they can cost money? lets give everyone one then!

Re:Pretty sad.

[smchris]

Not willingly. Most Americans don't have a clue that anything is going on because the "news" is too busy with brain-dead women, runaway brides, six-toed cats and Paris Hilton.

Remember, this is the land that originated Disney and Madison Avenue advertising. A child's soul is sold before kindergarten.

Re:Pretty sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

We never had real freedom here in this part of europe. People used to dream of travelling to the USA, the land of the free.

Americans had freedom and are willingly throwing it away. All it takes for evil to triumph is for a few good men to do nothing. WAKE UP!

People went to America because they felt they needed different external circumstances to be 'free'. Europeans knew better.

Re:Pretty sad.

[surprise_audit]

the USA, the land of the free.

I think you misspelled "fee"

Nice trick

[sg3000]

Wow, is anyone else surprised CNET put this in here:

> Why did these ID requirements get attached to an "emergency" military
> spending bill??
> Because it's difficult for politicians to vote against money that will go to the troops
> in Iraq and tsunami relief. The funds cover ammunition, weapons, tracked combat
> vehicles, aircraft, troop housing, death benefits, and so on.

The Republicans control congress and the executive branch now, and they wanted to have this National ID bill. By attaching this to a wholly unrelated military spending bill, the so-called advocates of small government will get their national ID card wish.

As an interesting aside it's funny that they chose to stick this into a military spending bill for Iraq. Anyone recall that the Bush Administration told us told this war was going to cost? I thought this was was supposed to cost between $10 and $100 billion? We're already more than three times the high end figure, with no end in sight. This is the fourth emergency allocation of money Bush has asked for for his war "on the cheap".

Anyway, make no mistake about it. The Republicans are now using their complete control to railroad this bill through, by sticking this thing in a military spending bill. It's a perfect catch-22. If the Democrats voted against it, they would have been accused of being against our troops (John Kerry, please take some time to describe how that feels). If they voted for it, it miraculously becomes a bipartisan bill so the Republicans can pass the blame around to evade responsibility. Even after this, the Democrats can be accused of "flip-flopping" since they voted against the national ID before, and now they're voting for it when it's buried in a military spending bill (Senator Kerry, your turn again). Wow, it's a win-win-win situation for the Republicans.

Of course, for the Democrats and the public in general, it's a nice lose-lose-lose situation though. Maybe a brave Democrat can filibuster this bill so it doesn't get railroaded through. Oh, wait, the Republicans want to get rid of the filibuster, too.

I call upon all the Democratic senators and representatives who read Slashdot to stop this as soon as possible! There. I've done my part.

Re:Nice trick

[chandoni]

Actually, all Democratic senators and representatives do these days is read Slashdot.

Re:Nice trick

[Anonymous Coward]

I call upon all the Democratic senators and representatives who read Slashdot to stop this as soon as possible!

You mean the way they stopped the Iraqi war or the meddling in the Schiavo case. The Democrats are as much of the problem as the Republicans. The only principle the parties fight for anymore is the principle of reelection.

Re:Nice trick

[danheskett]

What about all the representatives in the House of the Democratic nature who voted for the House version of the bill?

Are they railroading this bill?

Re:Nice trick

[Kaimelar]

I call upon all the Democratic senators and representatives who read Slashdot to stop this as soon as possible! There. I've done my part.

I agree with what you said, right up until the bit about having "done my part." I sincerely doubt that many Senators or their staff members read Slashdot, or make policy based on our comments.

Instead, how about contacting your elected represenatives directly, and telling them what you just told us? Here, I'll help you out:

• Contact info for US Senators
• Contact info for US House of Represenatives

Be polite and make a reasoned, rational argument to the people chosen to represent you -- then your opinion will be worth more than a (+5, Insightful).

Re:Nice trick

[Jtheletter]

By attaching this to a wholly unrelated military spending bill, the so-called advocates of small government will get their national ID card wish.

I agree that this bill is problematic in setting up a de-facto (if not in-facto) national ID card. However you really need to RTFA (again perhaps) as it clearly states that the ID card rider had already been passed in a stand-alone bill before it was tacked onto the military spending one. Yes, this makes it difficult, if not impossible, for dissenting reps who may have changed their mind having learned more about it since the first time it went through, but this is not a backdoor bill, it already had major support.

On a side note re: your mention of the rampant spending for this war - at what point can we begin impeachment for such blatant lies? We entered this war with no exit strategy, no reconstruction plans. Hell I'd be astonished to learn Bush had planned anything farther than "bang-bang shoot em up real good". I think it's pretty clear that this administration has at no point cared about actual public opinion, political results, or actual cost. They wanted this war at any cost and have lied, cheated, and passed the buck from day 1 of Bush taking office. As much as every piece of government seems to be in bed with the executive branch (goodbye checks and balances) I can't believe there is no legal case against half the cabinet members for knowingly misleading the public and basically doing whatever the hell they want with zero regard for legality, international relations, or - for fssk's sake - the consequences of their actions over the next generation.

"Democracy delivered by the bomb and the gun is terror elsewhere in the world where I'm from." - Special Delivery, MC Frontalot

Re:Nice trick

[Usaflt2003]

Yes, lets blame the evil republicans for being the sole users of political dirty tricks, those bastards!

How about dumping the partisan rhetoric and getting some of your facts straight. First with the rhetoric, you make it sound like the democrats have never used a rider on a bill for whatever hot potato pet project they have going at the moment. If you do believe them to be pure as the undriven snow when it comes to politcal dirty tricks you are just naive. Both sides of the aisle are equally dirty and to blame for abuse of the legislative process to the detriment of society as a whole.

As a short aside I get really pissed at both sides of the aisle for using me and my fellow military members (read my name as United States Air Force LT) as a means to an end in this kinda political shit. Military spending for troops in the field is not a rug to sweep bad laws under. One of these days someone is going to put some truly egregious rider on a spending bill that cannot be ignored and the whole spending bill will get voted down and some troops are going to die. Its sad but that probably what it will take to end this crap practice. (sorry, just had to vent about that for a minute)

As far as the facts, you have wrong the propsed end of the filibuster. It is for judicial nominees only, not legislation. Though, hey, it feeds in to your bombast and rhetoric to over state the issue so thats all that matters right? Thats not to say that the end of the judicial filibuster is a good thing but please if your going to rail against injustice keep it accurate, exaggeration just makes you look silly and hurts the over all cause to fight said injustice.

Re:Nice trick

[bleckywelcky]

Are you seriously arguing that the filibuster should be a legitimate means of making decisions about legislation? For the longest time this has been one of the most ridiculous activities of congress. One person should not be able to stop congress from moving on and doing their job.

However, if __enough__ people disagree with a piece of legislation, I think they should be able to delay the processing of that legislation. Perhaps by a boycott. Congress should require a certain attendance to have a vote, perhaps 85% attendance or something. Then, if a vote is coming up that has a large opposition (yet not a majority opposition), then the opposition can boycott that particular vote. For this to work, we would need designated voting dates (perhaps even times), and once a piece of legislation is up for a vote, it can't be up for a vote for another week or some time period.

This would be different from voting down a piece of legislation because it won't go back to be completely rewritten. Instead, it sticks around in its original form and can be put up for another vote at a later date. Once its supporters realize that it won't be passed in its current state, they can negotiate (with the opposition) some modifications to the legislation and resubmit it. At that point the opposition may still not like the legislation, but they are not appalled at it, and they can still vote no for the official record.

Re:Nice trick

[Talas213]

While I completely understand the dislike of the Republicans pushing a National ID through, I can't imagine how you think that the Democrats are the solution to get government out of our lives (see socialized healthcare, government planned retirement program - Social Security, etc). The only party left for those of us that want LESS government involvement in the lives of the average citizen is the Libertarian party http://lp.org/

Re:Nice trick

[llefler]

Re: filibuster

Actually, all Democratic senators and representatives do these days is read Slashdot.

Maybe that's a good idea for them. Instead of standing up there reading a phone book, they could pick a slashdot article and read all the comments. They might even learn a thing or two in the process.

Re:Nice trick

[bobsledbob]

So, if 15% don't show up, there's no vote? Sounds like a great way to completely shutdown the system entirely. This doesn't help with the problem, it makes it worse. There's really few votes that take place where more than 85% of congressmen are in attendance.

Re:Nice trick

[bobsledbob]

This "trick" is not something new or only used by the Republican party. It's generally something that is used/abused by the majority party, regardless if they're Democrat or Republican.

I assume that you're just making commentary on the way things are currently on the hill, so that's ok. However, don't think it's just the "evil republicans" who do this railroading of bills.

Re:Nice trick

[Shajenko42]

One person should not be able to stop congress from moving on and doing their job.

And one person can't do that. It requires 40 senators to fillibuster. If 60 vote to end a fillibuster, it stops.

Re:Nice trick

[sharky611aol.com]

For the sake of intellectual honesty, I should point out that the Republicans are trying to ban filibusters on votes for judicial nominees only, with the argument being that the Consitution charges Congress with giving "adivce and consent" for presidential judicial nominations. Argue the validity of that amongst yourselves.

I hate taking flamebait...

Re:Nice trick

[iminplaya]

There. I've done my part.

If you vote democrat OR republican, you're part of the problem. All you are doing is maintaining the staus quo. If you really think that the dems are against national IDs and are trying to protect our rights, you must be one of those poor, deluded souls that own a piece of the Brooklyn Bridge. The dems will lose nothing, because they are the same as the republicans. The differences you see are a soap opera for the TV, nothing more. The major parties get their money from the same people who know how to play both sides.

Re:Nice trick

[Alsee]

setting up a de-facto (if not in-facto) national ID card.

And causing an ex-post-facto cardiac in-farcto.

-

Re:Nice trick

[EnglishTim]

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.

If you can take a shit without having to go to some outhouse to do your business into a hole in the floor, thank a sewage worker.

The real problem

[skraps]

The real problem is that our legislature is so broken that it is possible to "attach" stupid bills to other unrelated bills.

Re:The real problem

[b3s]

What we need is an amendment to the constitution that sets up a 4th branch of government. Congress is responsible for making laws, what we need is another branch of government responsible for destroying laws!

Re:The real problem

[UWC]

So then it becomes rock, paper, scissors, dynamite!

Re:The real problem

[iminplaya]

The real problem is that our legislature is so broken...

And just who allowed that to happen? After you figure that out, try to restate where the REAL problem is. Hint: It's something you always have with you.

--
"I come from a broken family. I broke it myself." --??

Re:The real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Do you really think that politicians would suddenly become good if the rules were written differently? It's not the system, it's the people running it. After all, a system is just an idea - the only thing that gives it power is the people who decide to follow it.

You're like those people who say they don't have to pay taxes because the laws don't actually say it's required. Often, these people are right about what the laws say. And sometimes they even manage to get a court to agree with them. Yet, the IRS still tries their damndest to force them to pay, by whatever methods they can lay their hands on.

Government never follows its own rules, even though their PR people would say they do. The rules aren't the cause of the problem, and they don't matter one whit in the long run.

1984

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it's about time, they're already 21 years late.

Re:1984

[harley_frog]

True, frighteningly sad but true. While I'm far from being a member of the tin-hat crowd, I am very, very afraid of what our goverment, and the right, have been done over the past four-plus years. I can't help but think back to my history classes and what I learned about Germany during the 1930's and the rise of the Nazi Party and the Third Reich.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -- George Santayana

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing is that the whole "GOP = Fascist" thing is a cliche, but it being a cliche is hiding the fact that it's becoming true! They used to be crypto-fascists, but they're more and more open about it these days.

America has already had its Reichstag on 9/11. We have replaced fear of the Jew with fear of the Arab. As we haven't forgotten Poland, when do we invade it?

For the . . .

[JJ]

reduction in the chance of future terrorism via jet hijacking, I'll take a little bit of compromising my privacy.

Re:For the . . .

[nagora]

reduction in the chance of future terrorism via jet hijacking,

Yes, because knowing that they'll be identified from their personal effects after the rubble has been sifted will really put such hijackers off.

TWW

Re:For the . . .

[ClosedSource]

That might be a resonable trade-off if it really worked.

It's interesting to me that most of the security changes that have been made since 9/11 have a common property: they wouldn't have prevented it.

Re:For the . . .

[NiceGeek]

People like you will be the end of freedom. I'll spare you the Ben Frankin quote since you'd probably consider him a terrorist sympathiser.

Re:For the . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

chance to get the boot off my friggin' neck, I'll take a little bit of insecurity.

Re:For the . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Yuo == teh stupid.

Re:For the . . .

[LynchMan]

reduction in the chance of future terrorism via jet hijacking, I'll take a little bit of compromising my privacy.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Re:For the . . .

[Foamy]

Those who give up a little freedom for putative security neither deserve, nor shall receive either.

This ID card will NOT make you any safer in any way whatsoever.

Let's use the old NRA argument here. One of the main reasons the NRA is opposed to gun registration (excluding their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment) is that criminals will not register their guns, thus only legitimate gun owners will be registered and potentially tracked.

This national ID is exactly the same. Do you really think that the Terrorists will go to the DMV and say, "Hi, I'm Osama Bin Laden, I'd like my Driver's license today. Thank you?" Do you really think they won't be able to get fake credentials that are as good as these IDs or can be used to get a legitimate ID?

And finally, do you really think that the government won't abuse this new power (i.e. knowleged of your every purchase, move, travel, etc.)? Who do you think will hold and compile these data? My guess is an Oracle based system. Do you really think that our corporatocracy will keep this information away from corporations?

Can you imagine how much corporations would pay to know your every move, flight, purchase, hotel reservation, rental, etc. etc. etc? These data are worth billions upon billions and they won't be sitting idly in some database in DC doing nothing.

Re:For the . . .

[dr_dank]

reduction in the chance of future terrorism via jet hijacking, I'll take a little bit of compromising my privacy.

/me looks at script

ok, Ben Franklin quote enter stage left... now!

Re:For the . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

more people are killed in auto accidents you fool...

Re:For the . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Asshat.

Re:For the . . .

[RatBastard]

You are a terrified, easily manipulated idiot. There is no nice way to put it.

How wil this stop a hijacking? None of the previous group used false ID. And neither will the next group.

You obviously have no idea of how they were able to crash those planes and why it won't happen again. The reason they succeeded was because in the entire histiory of domestic hijacking the best way ti survive was to sit down and shut up. The hijackers wanted money, travel out of the country, the freedom of a comrade, or some other goal that only power outside of the plane could grant them. The passangers were hostages and the plane was a convenient container to keep them in. The 9/11 hijackers played a completelt new set of rules. The passangers meant nothing to them. They wanted the aircraft.

Do you get that? The rules changed and only the hijackers knew it. But now everyone knows. The next time someone tries to hijack a plane they are going to get the shit kicked out of them by people who don't want to die. Just look at what happened to the "shoe bomber".

But this begs the question: "how much of your privacy are you willing tio give away?" What will you give away when terrorists find a different way to attack us? And what about the attacks after that? At what point do you declare that you've had enough?

The brutal truth is that there is no way to stop terrorists completely. If they really want to hurt us they will. They will find ways to attack us that we haven't thought to defend against.

Re:For the . . .

[Stop Error]

Maybe I am missing something. How will the Goverment track my Purchases? How will they track where I drive?

Please remove the tinfoil hat. Arguments like that detract from your point. (some of which I agree with)

Re:For the . . .

[powerlord]

Lets forget for a minute the fact that the terrorists involved in the 9/11 hijacking all had valid, state issued identification. ... ... How is this supposed to help again?

Re:For the . . .

[Colin Smith]

"This national ID is exactly the same. Do you really think that the Terrorists will go to the DMV and say, "Hi, I'm Osama Bin Laden, I'd like my Driver's license today. Thank you?""

Actually, yes I do. I think they will do it again and again and again until they have all the cards they need.

UK anti-ID card pages:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ican/A2561834
and
http://www.no2id.net/

Re:For the . . .

[richg74]

This ID card will NOT make you any safer in any way whatsoever.

I entirely agree. First of all, it is worth remembering that almost all of the 9/11 terrorists had valid, DMV-issued IDs. There is nothing that I can see in this bill that is going to fix that. It will also screw up the effort in some states to give limited driver's licenses to (possibly) illegal immigrants, in the interest of seeing that they actually know how to drive, have insurance, and so on. Since, statistically, your chances of dying in an auto accident are much higher than in a terrorist incident, I don't think this is a trivial concern.

Second, the whole concept of checking IDs against a list in order to fly is stupid. If we know who the suspects are, it would be much more efficient to spend the resources investigating what they're doing. Does anyone actually believe that potential terrorists are so dumb that they'll not try flying before they do the real thing? Or that they might not consider just blowing up a shopping center or a sports stadium?

These data are worth billions upon billions and they won't be sitting idly in some database in DC doing nothing.

Even assuming I trusted the government 100% not to misuse this data, one class of people to whom it would be very valuable are identity thieves. I suppose the argument will be that the database is so secure it can't be hacked.

Right.

Re:For the . . .

[Myrmidon10]

While they all had valid state issued IDs, under the RealID system, they would not have been able to have gotten them on the expired visas they used.

Re:For the . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this does not beg the question.

Re:For the . . .

[JJ]

Two fronts here.

Do I think that would be hijackers would try to get new improved real-id?

If they do, then they are entered into the database and should any agency of the government (INS for visa violation, FBI for suspected terrorist, CIA for evidence of being in terrorist training camps, etc.) post a reason to detain, they will be detained at the next traffic stop. THIS ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE SAVED THE LIVES OF ONE PLANEFUL OF PEOPLE AND THOSE THEY KILLED CRASHING INTO ON THE GROUND ON SEP 11, 2001. Two of the hijackers were traffic stopped the night before but the State Trooper had no way of knowing they were in violation.

If they don't get the new id and get a fake id then everytime they use it they run the risk of getting busted and having far greater scrutiny. A friend of mine, for a joke, put me on Interpol's Suspected Drug Courier list. I was detained in Fiji for a few days where every record available was searched. Because I was flying generally toward New Zealand (destination Australia) a warrant from there was identified and I had to resolve that before the Fijians would release me. Had I been a terrorist the extra days probably would have been helpful to the authorities and that would have been that.

Re:For the . . .

[raehl]

Let's use the old NRA argument here. One of the main reasons the NRA is opposed to gun registration is that criminals will not register their guns, thus only legitimate gun owners will be registered and potentially tracked.

Exactly, that's the whole point.

How do you tell the difference between a law abiding citizen with a gun and a criminal is the one who holds up the liquor store or kills somebody.

If you require that guns are registered, the criminal is the one with the unregistered gun.

Gun registration allows you to arrest criminals when they acquire the unregistered firearm instead of having to wait until they actually kill someone.

Now back to the matter at hand...

knowleged of your every purchase, move, travel, etc.

Do you buy your tin foil by the ton?

Are you in the habit of showing your driver's license when you buy stuff? I didn't think so.

The fact of the matter is, any information you think the evil government/corporations are going to get because of these new standardized IDs they already have, because these things are not tracked by your ID, they're tracked by PAYMENT. Do you use credit cards? Even if you don't, the airline knos who you are by the name on your ticket, the hotel knows who you are by the name on the reservation (and if they don't, it's because you lied, and I doubt a standardized ID card in your pocket is going to ruin your poker face), the grocery store knows what you buy because you use their discount program (or don't, but I don't remember the last time I was carded for buying doritos.)

I mean, seriously, who really looks at your ID? The only time anyone ever looks at my ID is:

- When I'm buying alcohol
- When I'm getting on a plane
- When I'm withdrawing money from my banking account
- When I'm on the receiving end of a traffic violation

Other than the first one, the party looking at my ID already has my information anyway, and no one records any info in the first case anyway.

Re:For the . . .

[JJ]

Those who give up a little freedom for putative security neither deserve, nor shall receive either.

Really!!!??!!

I'll be sure to yell "Fire!!" Next time you are in a crowded movie house.

Re:For the . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

This national ID is exactly the same. Do you really think that the Terrorists will go to the DMV and say, "Hi, I'm Osama Bin Laden, I'd like my Driver's license today. Thank you?"

well, no.. He would be using an alias like "George W. Bush".

Re:For the . . .

[johnkoer]

Well of course they will put it on a secure machine, I heard they were looking at one of these:

http://www.hackiis6.com/

Re:For the . . .

[tbo]

This ID card will NOT make you any safer in any way whatsoever.

Several of the September 11 hijackers had state-issued IDs which they wouldn't have been able to get under this new law (because their visas had expired).

Do you really think that the Terrorists will go to the DMV and say, "Hi, I'm Osama Bin Laden, I'd like my Driver's license today. Thank you?" Do you really think they won't be able to get fake credentials that are as good as these IDs or can be used to get a legitimate ID?

It would be pretty easy to prevent fakes with this system. Since your photo is digitally encoded on the card, it could also be digitally signed by the state. That makes it effectively impossible to forge an ID that will fool a digital scanner (provided that some human makes sure that the digitally-encoded photo matches up with your face). Combine this with much more stringent documentation requirements for getting the ID card (valid visa, etc.), and you've tightened things up considerably. Throw in the "machine-readable passport" requirement the US is pushing on other countries, and the system starts to look fairly hard to break, unless you can get a foreign government to issue you a fake passport (in which case we know who to bomb--er, blame).

And finally, do you really think that the government won't abuse this new power (i.e. knowleged of your every purchase, move, travel, etc.)?

Knowledge of your every purchase? WTF? Nobody is requiring licenses to buy groceries. This bill won't change that.

Can you imagine how much corporations would pay to know your every move, flight, purchase, hotel reservation, rental, etc. etc. etc?

They already know that for everyone who uses credit cards, which is just about everyone except privacy nuts (who are probably not a very desirable target market for anyone except tin-foil manufacturers).

Real ID is about stopping terrorism and illegal immigration. A lot of people disagree with the latter purpose, which is why RealID is tacked on to an emergency spending bill to ram it through. If you're looking for conspiracies, look at its effect on illegal immigration. Specifically, drivers licenses will only be available to those legally in the country, and they will expire at the same time as someone's visa status expires. Thus, they will probably later become required for lawful employment, with stiff fines for employers who don't check. It really doesn't have much to do with collecting personal data on people. Dick Cheney doesn't care how much porn you rent on DVD versus VHS.

Re:For the . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

This ID card will NOT make you any safer in any way whatsoever.

What is extra scary is that once everyone has a national ID and the next terrorist event happens, what will be then 'needed' to protect the people. Since the ID didn't work, tracking of the ID needs to be implemented. The ID will need to be shown and the number recorded on every purchase. You will need to check into a recording station once a week to reactivate the ID. The people that say none of this will come to pass had similar people saying a national ID would never come to pass. As for me, I'm planing on leaving as soon as feasable (not that there are that many places that are better).

Re:For the . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there is a very simple way to stop terrorists...simply just understand why they are doing this activities and see if they are valid or not. Its not because they hate our freedom and democracy!

Re:For the . . .

[christopher240240]

Listen, I live in Illinois (The land of Lincoln and Bribes for licenses), and I do not believe for one second that given this program were in effect at the time of 9/11 it would have made us any safer for one reason. People ultimately distribute these cards. Do you really believe that someone is going to look at all of the scanned documents that every worker takes every day? How reliable is that scanner? Is there any image degradation? What does your social security card look like? I know mine is practically illegible because it is illegal to laminate them. Do you really believe that this ridiculously complicated proposal will nab all of the bad guys as opposed to creating hassles for those who will follow the rules? There are ways around any rules, so long as they are enforced by people.

Re:For the . . .

[emidln]

Show me an RFID tag that will hold this much security measure in a small enough space to fit inside an ID card. I work for a company that develops products based on RFID and the transponders don't hold that much to begin with. 255 bytes I believe. If you can encode this much info into 255 bytes, I can sure as hell, write to the transponder and change my information, through sheer brute force techniques. Plus, with 255 bytes, I can pretty much guarantee that not everyone can be uniquely identified. So you get into a larger format. Which requires more area incidentally. Or density. Which is more expensive. A decent security system for this will take way too much money to implement across the board, so holes will exist. Because not everyone can implement it (budget), these holes can be exploited. Besides, if you give me a couple weeks with this system, I'll have it rev. engineered. At the very least, I'll have fried mine.

Re:For the . . .

[Tenebrious1]

If they do, then they are entered into the database and should any agency of the government (INS for visa violation, FBI for suspected terrorist, CIA for evidence of being in terrorist training camps, etc.) post a reason to detain, they will be detained at the next traffic stop. THIS ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE SAVED THE LIVES OF ONE PLANEFUL OF PEOPLE AND THOSE THEY KILLED CRASHING INTO ON THE GROUND ON SEP 11, 2001.

No, it wouldn't. Each plane had two pilots, so unless both pilots were captured, and unless both talked, it would not have made a difference. Z> Moussaoui knew of the attacks, and even though he was being held by the INS, he didn't talk. So there's no proof that capturing one person would have stopped the attacks in any way.

Had I been a terrorist the extra days probably would have been helpful to the authorities and that would have been that.

You were supect, but they let you go in the end because they didn't have enough proof of a crime in progress. Remember that Mohammad Atta was already under surveillence by the FBI, but he was allowed to travel freely. A national ID would do nothing to prevent this.

Re:For the . . .

[tbo]

I work for a company that develops products based on RFID and the transponders don't hold that much to begin with. 255 bytes I believe. If you can encode this much info into 255 bytes, I can sure as hell, write to the transponder and change my information, through sheer brute force techniques. Plus, with 255 bytes, I can pretty much guarantee that not everyone can be uniquely identified.

255 bytes isn't enough for a picture, but it is enough for a digitally-signed unique ID number, which could be used to look up a picture from a central database. 1 billion people could have unique IDs with a string just 30 bits long. That leaves about 251 bytes for digital signatures, etc. Perhaps iris scans can produce a "fingerprint" that would fit into a couple hundred bytes.

Of course, RFID isn't a done deal--it's apparently just what Homeland Security likes for passports. Other technologies would allow for digital encoding of photos.

Re:For the . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, it is worth remembering that almost all of the 9/11 terrorists had valid, DMV-issued IDs.

The whole point of this bill is to plug holes like that. The idea is that you have to prove who you say you are, and you have to prove that you are in the country legally. If you can't provide the needed proof, you don't get the ID. and hopefully you get deported if you're in-country illegally. The nice thing about a unified database though, if your're turned down once, it'll be harder to try again. -just hope they have really good error checking systems in place!

I for one won't mind this new card. From what I've read it will contain the same information as my current ID.

Re:For the . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

The next time someone tries to hijack a plane they are going to get the shit kicked out of them by people who don't want to die.

It's not so much that they don't want to die - that's a given, but that the assumption is that their life is forfeit anyway at this point, and there is no downside to fighting back.

Re:For the . . .

[JJ]

No, it wouldn't. Each plane had two pilots, so unless both pilots were captured, and unless both talked, it would not have made a difference. Z> Moussaoui knew of the attacks, and even though he was being held by the INS, he didn't talk. So there's no proof that capturing one person would have stopped the attacks in any way.

Two people were in the car that was stopped. One was the only terrorist on that plane with flight training. Stop the one pilot and you stop the hijacking.
Second, the terrorists plan called for canceling the attack on one plane if two men from any one team were detained. They wanted a minimum of four on each plane. If two are in jail, that plane doesn't get hijacked.

Start thinking not preaching.

Re:For the . . .

[ednopantz]

Wait, you used an actual piece of evidence to suggest that imperfect security measures with minimal civil rights impacts might be a good thing.

Isn't that somehow prohibited in YRO threads?

Re:For the . . .

[tbuckner]

RatBastard, you are the only other guy I know who 'gets it' about the tactical nature of domestic hijackings. 9-11 was a one-shot. All these security checks at airports are pointless because it can't work again. Morons! I knew how it had gone down the instant I heard about the second plane.

Re:For the . . .

[JJ]

The Pentagon would not have been struck if this system was in place. The hijack pilot of the plane and another hijacker were stopped by the Maryland State Police the night before on a traffic stop. Being in visa violation they would have been detained.

It's your ability to reasonably evaluate alternatives which doesn't work.

Re:For the . . .

[Foamy]

We agree. My quote should have been, "Hi, I'm Osama Bin Laden, Islamic Terrosit Numero Uno and I plan to kill thousands of Americans real soon now, I'd like my Driver's license today. Thank you?"

My point, which I thought I made, was that they'll use fake identities and counterfeit documents to get these real IDs and that makes them much more dangerous. It is like the putative "trusted flyer" the TSA has been talking about so that our business customers aren't inconvenienced; get trusted flyer status and go to the front of the line, no special searches of your person, etc. If you wanted to hijack an airplane, then the first thing you'd try to do in this environment of heightened security would be to gather the fake documents necessary to get a legitimate ID allowing you special privileges, that as a terrorist, were never supposed to get in the first place.

Re:For the . . .

[swillden]

The next time someone tries to hijack a plane they are going to get the shit kicked out of them by people who don't want to die. Just look at what happened to the "shoe bomber".

More to the point, look at what happened to flight 93. Even though it was in the air before the first plane hit, the information about the change in the rules managed to make its way to the people on that plane. They got it through their cellphones even as their plain was being directed towards its target. They understood the change in the rules, and acted upon that understanding, not so much because they didn't want to die, but because they realized that they had nothing to lose. If they did nothing, they would die, and others on the ground would die with them. If they acted, they would probably still die, but at least they could save some others, and they might manage to save themselves.

All of the new and "improved" airport security is pure theatre, designed to make people who don't think things through more comfortable and convince them that it's safe to travel. If someone manages to crash another plane into a building, they'll have to either use an aircraft without any passengers on board, or they'll have to figure out some way to keep the passengers unaware that anything has gone wrong.

Re:For the . . .

[lysium]

So, lets get this straight. You would sacrifice the very nature of America for the lives of, at most, a few thousand people? You would change it, whore it, just to feel a little bit safer while you work, shop, sleep, and eat.

Congratulations, you just spit on the graves of every soldier that died to protect America. You, my religious friend, are pathetic. Fuck you.

Re:For the . . .

[lysium]

At least you left that juvenile sig out of this post. You retarded or what?

Re:For the . . .

[ClosedSource]

At least some of the hijackers were known by the government to be in the US and known to be associates of Bin Laden and yet they were able to do things like take flying lessons. Even when the instructors notified the government of their suspicions, nothing was done.

The idea that a high-tech license would have prevented these individuals from carrying out their objective is pure speculation and assumes a level of government competancy that all the actual evidence suggests did not exist.

Re:For the . . .

[powerlord]

Okay. Lets assume that they had Valid State IDs that were obtained with Invalid (expired) Visas.

The Visas are issued by the Federal Government.

The Federal Government should, arguably, inact a better form of Visa. Perhaps one that is more tamper resistant and includes an expiration date. Or perhaps require that all Visa backed State IDs be verified/reported to the Federal Government at the time of issue. (to better help track possible foreign terrorists)

How exactly does the increased Federal Jurisdiction over the defined contents and access to State ID, and their information help secure the loop-hole that we've agreed was exploited?

It seems like that part of the provision, while perhaps understandable from some perspectives, doesn't seem valid for the reason you originally are stating.

Re:For the . . .

[koniosis]

In the UK the ID Card system will be biometric based, I'm not saying that it isn't forgable but it is a hell of a lot better than a signature! If Osama wanted multiple ID cards he's going to have to have different hand/finger/face and iris prints for each one, since the nation ID database will of course stop people with the same biometrics getting additional ID cards and most likley flag that person to the correct authorities. Yes, making fake finger prints isn't hard but there are now scanners that use finger-vein scanning which requires the veins in fingers to match as well as the pattern (much harder to fake). You don't think these things have been tought of?

Re:For the . . .

[JJ]

I spit on the graves?

Are you aware that there was a national id during WWII, which although not linked thru an electronic database did exactly the same function albeit with days not milliseconds as the cycle time.

Take the propoganda which you've been swallowing hook, line and sinker my stupid, idealistic friend and realize that you are the one choking on it and spitting on the graves of Americas defenders.

Re:For the . . .

[ClosedSource]

"Are you aware that there was a national id during WWII, which although not linked thru an electronic database did exactly the same function albeit with days not milliseconds as the cycle time."

I assume your aware of the illegal imprisonment of japanese men, woman, and children in WWII as well (including George Takei and his family).

Lots of stuff happened during WWII and not all of it was good. So I don't see how the fact that a national ID was used in WWII has anything to do with whether it's a good or bad idea.

Re:For the . . .

[mdwh2]

Yes, the last time we needed national ID was when there was a world war. Even all through the cold war with the threat of thermonuclear holocaust, an ID card was not considered necessary or worthwhile.

But now, obviously we must obviously live in far more dangerous times to need not just ID cards, but ones linked to electronic databases.

Re:For the . . .

[JJ]

I assume your aware of the illegal imprisonment of japanese men, woman, and children in WWII as well (including George Takei and his family).

Lots of stuff happened during WWII and not all of it was good. So I don't see how the fact that a national ID was used in WWII has anything to do with whether it's a good or bad idea.

Aware of it? My first wife's family were interred. My great-uncle also chose voluntary internment to be with his fiancee. Yes, I am aware of it.

A national id card was needed during a time of national crisis when the nation was battling an enemy capable of causing greta harm to our way of life. Currently, we are battling an enemy (international terrorism) which thanks to the gross missmanagement by the Clintoon administration, has become capable of threatening the American way of life.

In times of national crisis certain individual freedoms may need to be subjigated to group responsibilities. The sacrifice of the one for the good of the many.

Re:For the . . .

[ClosedSource]

" .. which thanks to the gross missmanagement by the Clintoon administration ..."

Now I see where you are coming from. I can't take anyone seriously who blames 9/11 on Clinton without at least assigning some responsibility to the man who was in office when the attack occurred, so I'll just stop here.

Re:For the . . .

[JJ]

So you place FULL blame for the original WTC attacks on the Clinton admin? That's good to hear.

Re:For the . . .

[ClosedSource]

Even when you write it in all caps full != some.

On the other hand, if you wish to distort what I said it would have been more effective to site the Oklahoma bombing which was a much more serious terrorist attack than the first WTC attack.

Re:For the . . .

[JJ]

Have you even read your posts?

You're the one who distorted what I said.

The Clinton admin missmanaged the responses to terrorist events throughout it's term. The Bush admin did not correct all the flaws as well as they could have. On the other hand, attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan was the appropriate response and it was taken immediately under the Bush admin.

There's plenty of blame to go around, but morons like you who say WTC was Bush's fault are just swallowing the press' bias whole hog. Watch out for the bones if you use that little of your brain in rational thought.

Re:For the . . .

[ClosedSource]

"Have you even read your posts?"

Obviously you haven't. Please provide me with a quote where I said that 9/11 was all Bush's fault.

"The Bush admin did not correct all the flaws as well as they could have."

I'm glad to see that you are no longer blaming 9/11 entirely on Clinton, but it's too late. Changing your story after you got caught bending the truth doesn't change anything.

"On the other hand, attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan was the appropriate response and it was taken immediately under the Bush admin."

I have nothing against Bush fighting the Taliban, I just wished he finished the job. The Taliban are on the rise, but at least president Karzai will be safe as long as he stays in Kabul.

"There's plenty of blame to go around, but morons like you who say WTC was Bush's fault are just swallowing the press' bias whole hog. Watch out for the bones if you use that little of your brain in rational thought."

Insults are the last refuge of those who can't win on the merit of their arguments.

Re:For the . . .

[JJ]

"Have you even read your posts?"

Obviously you haven't. Please provide me with a quote where I said that 9/11 was all Bush's fault.

Nothing simpler.

Now I see where you are coming from. I can't take anyone seriously who blames 9/11 on Clinton. . .

Argueing with blind morons like you truly makes my day. It reminds me the American left is so empty of reason that the majority of Americans see right thru their claptrap (and yours.)

Soc. Sec. Cards have been used for years.

[SB5]

Soc. Sec. Cards have been used for years as a form of National ID, I welcome this, just wish it was more secure and private.

Re:Soc. Sec. Cards have been used for years.

[Wubby]

True, but it is illegal for a gov't agency to use SSN as a form of identification (military exempted). Someone had forethought, but noone has had enforcement.

Re:Soc. Sec. Cards have been used for years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Odd. My SS Card explicitly states "Not for Identification"

Re:Soc. Sec. Cards have been used for years.

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that you never gave your SSN to buy a beer at local pub, or to get into the Hungry Eye club, etc.

Re:Soc. Sec. Cards have been used for years.

[Reaperducer]

it is illegal for a gov't agency to use SSN as a form of identification (military exempted)

And presumably, the Social Security Administration is exempted, as well.

Re:Soc. Sec. Cards have been used for years.

[SB5]

Along with my State DOT which issues out IDs and Driver's Licenses...

And I know the IRS uses it too...

it may have been illegal but not anymore

Re:Soc. Sec. Cards have been used for years.

[iminplaya]

But the IRS calls it "taxpayer identification number". Just because it matches your SSN, it doesn't mean they're actually using it :-)

Abuse

[Ctrl-Z]

How soon does everyone think this system will be abused either by the government or by thieves?

Probably about as quickly as emergency military spending bills have been abused to pass RealID Card legislation.

free pass

[PopeAlien]

Might as well start writing the check out now to help fund the fight against this thing.

But why would you want to do that?! This is all about freedom and safety and other comfortable words.

Re:free pass

[Anonymous Coward]

Cause it's the Mark of the Beast...

Re:free pass

[pla]

This is all about freedom and safety and other comfortable words.

You forgot "for the kids".

Can't forget the children - They make such great little pawns in just about any game of Politics.

Ugh

[seneces]

I see http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/pizzacall coming true soon. Goodbye privacy, nice knowing you.

Someone needs to make a stand against these growing attempts to watch over every part of our lives, before it goes too far.

Re:ugh

[bombadillo]

It went out the door back in the 80's under Reagan. Being that the Regan/Bushes cabinet was formed from the Nixon administration ( Bush Sr., Rumsfeld )I would say that it was always just a Red Herring slogan anyways. If you consider that the Bush Family had been in political contact with Nixon since 1946 you can really begin to see the shaping of our current political situation. It's actually pretty un-nerving to think of the power and influence that the Bush family has. It's amazing how Bush Sr. built the power. He is definitely the most underated political figure of the 20/21st century.

Re:ugh

[op00to]

If you have no clue where the republican stand on "no big government" went, you're a wingnut-chomping moron.

Re:ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're really conservative, you should check out the Libertarian Party. They probably represent your interests better than the present-day Republican Party.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, so nice. Watched through that, then clicked on the link the the ACLU. The site was not available due to an "upgrade in progress." Would that count as ironic?

Re:ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Most hardcore conservatives really hate neocons once they actually look at what they stand for. And apparantly you haven't actually read the patriot act. Oh, wait, that would be illegal. I may have my beef with traditional conservatives (and other beefs with traditional liberals... don't worry.) But that's nothing compared to our thinly veiled new fascist leadership.

Re:Ugh

[KD5UZZ]

Someone needs to make a stand against...
Someone? Why is it Someone?? It should read:
WE need to take a stand.
I can't very well point fingers at others, as I'm not doing my part either. But I'm willing. Tell me where to start. I know I'm not the only one to see the writting on the wall. At first I was worried about trusted computing (It's my computer damnit!), then it was the music/movie companies trying (and succedding) to take away my rights (I _PAID_ for that CD, I don't post it on P2P, why can't I use it how I want?!).
People see injustices and say "Someone should do something!" because THIS time its not really big enough for me to get involved. This happens time and time again, always something small that only gets a few people angry. Eventually those many small injustices are going to add up to more than the sum of their parts. Eventually, we won't be able to 'do something,' It'll be against the law.
The founding fathers had it right, we are unable to govern ourselves. If we were smart enough we wouldn't let things like this happen.

Re:ugh

[rwven]

I have no beef with conservative values or anything they "stand for." My beef is with a new insecure system of identification that will doubtless be cracked in weeks exposing millions to identity theft. Heck, i like the patriot act. If them legally having the ability to tap my and other peopels phone lines protects this country and brings down people who threaten us, then so be it. Hypothetically, Say your family lives in Chicago IL and some extremist group is about to detonate a large barrel of some chemical agent there that will doubtless wipe out 3/4 of the population of Chicago, but a communication over a tapped line tips off the gov't and they can stop the attack, wouldnt you be glad they did it? Your whole family might have been killed had they not... If the government wants to listen to me telling my wife i love her, on the phone, i couldn't care less. The idea behind them doing this is right and IMHO, it's the best course of action given what they're up against. Priorities people....

``Papers, please.''

[TrumpetPower!]

``Papers, please.''

Cheers,

b&

Re:``Papers, please.''

[arbitraryaardvark]

That's papersplease.org.
papersplease.org
I hope John Gilmore wins his suit. As a laywer who's read the briefs, it looks good, although I'm not objective on the issue.
"a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane,"
His best argument is, this is a search, a search requires probable cause and, usually, a warrant.
He also has a strong argument that the regulation, if there is one, shouldn't be secret.
I've written, twice now, to a congressman asking for a copy of the regulation, if there is one, and get the usual evasive non-answer letters in response.
I encourage slashdot readers to ask their congresspeople and or senators for a copy of whatever law says you need to have a driver's license to get on a plane, and keep asking until you get a strait answer, and if there is one, send me and EFF a copy.

Re:``Papers, please.''

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats the thing all USAsses seem to have with that sentence?

I rather have my "papers" in my wallet than being send to syria for torture or living in a country with "emergeny laws" that are on the best way to stay for good...

Warning: Alarmist Article

[Kainaw]

FTA:
"Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards."

What standards doesn't my driver's license have? Again, FTA:
At a minimum: name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address, and a "common machine-readable technology" that Homeland Security will decide on.

Checking my driver's license:
[x] Name
[x] Birth Date
[x] Sex
[x] ID Number
[x] Digital Photograph
[x] Address
[x] Machine-readable technology: both a magstrip and a barcode.

What states are issuing driver's licenses without this information on them?

Re:Warning: Alarmist Article

[Rakishi]

No, it's not just "machine-readable technology" but "'common machine-readable technology' that Homeland Security will decide on." There is a difference.

Re:Warning: Alarmist Article

[Marillion]

result = (WORLD) ~ (USA)

Re:Warning: Alarmist Article

[LouCifer]

Admittedly, I didn't RTFA. But, I've seen something similar to this on tv recently. They're talking about standardizing all driver's licenses to have this. My TXDL has this info. Yours has this info. Whose to say that one issued in Bupkiss, Arkansas has this info?

"It'll help to protect the US against terrorists"

Whatever.

Personally, I'm not looking forward to having to explain to some clueless minimum wadge DMV twit that my birth certificate is legit. That a DOD document issued in Germany IS a valid goverment birth certificate and no, I will not drive to San Antonio (nearest USAF base) to get another document to prove I am who I say I am.

Nor should I have to allow them to make copies of it.

Re:Warning: Alarmist Article

[Phoenix823]

My father still has a New Jersey driver's license without his picture on it.

Re:Warning: Alarmist Article

[travller]

My Wyoming drivers license has no machine readable data on it neither bar code nor magnetic strip

Re:Warning: Alarmist Article

[powerlord]

Well ... up until a few years ago a photo was optional on a New Jersey drivers License. I THINK its required now.

Re:Warning: Alarmist Article

[fonetik]

That's because they haven't discovered magnetism yet.

Wyoming is so far back you can't even get AIDS there yet.

(But at least it's not Utah.) ;)

Re:Warning: Alarmist Article

[knobboy]

My and my wife's licenses from Missouri have no barcodes, but do have magstrips. My magstrip doesn't work due to an unfortunate encounter with a rare-earth magnet.

Additionally, what "ID Number" will be required on the license? I don't have my SSN as Missouri and many other states let you opt out of this for privacy (and now ID theft) reasons. Will the federal government make it easier for crooks to get this information by requiring it to be present on all IDs?

Finally, the machine readable technology is set by DHS and can change at their whim. Just because you have a DL with magstrip and barcode doesn't mean they can't make your state issue a new DL with RFID. Still complacent?

Re:Warning: Alarmist Article

[Kainaw]

Additionally, what "ID Number" will be required on the license?

It merely states that there must be an ID number. In other words, there must be some unique feature of the identification card that allows them to track it back to the owner of the card. If they didn't require this, two guys with the same name could easily be confused. Hey, we'd never confuse Al-Libbi with Al-Libbey.

Finally, the machine readable technology is set by DHS and can change at their whim.

Keep in mind that it requires a common machine readable technology. Most people are ignoring the work common and assuming that the government will require all IDs to have some expensive crystal matrix technology embedded into them. Think common: Barcodes and Mag Strips are the only common machine readable technologies that I know of. Who says they can't allow one, the other, or both?

So how's this different to now?

[AnonymousJackass]

you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service

When I came to the U.S. I had no Social Security number and no drivers licence. With the exception of airplane travel I was unable to all of those things anyway. Everywhere I went, I was asked for my SSN of drivers licence. Showing them a UK passport did nothing.

Now I have a Green Card -- it has my fingerprint on it, photo of me, and a huge magnetic strip on the back that almost certainly contains my life history/DNA, etc! So do I care about "invasion of my privacy"? Do I care about having to get another ID card to be able to function in this country? No, I'm doing it every day already!

Re:So how's this different to now?

[An ominous Cow art]

Unless they've changed the cards, that thing on the back is an optical media area. It contains everything that's on the rest of the card. An interesting byproduct of the technology is that when its written to you it visibly scars the media, so they can also etch your picture, signature, etc in the material.

Gosh, finally

[BitterAndDrunk]

We're one step closer to Ident-i-Eeze cards. And I can't wait! No more remembering passwords or ATM numbers!

Americans Abroad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anybody know how this will affect Americans living abroad? I don't just mean overseas... I'm right next door in Canada. I have an Ontario driver's license. Presumably, I'll still just be using my Passport once this goes into effect (I hope).

Alreday have one

[saterdaies]

My ID card is already machine readable. All drivers licenses in Massachusetts have a 2-dimentional barcode on them. I'm sure that a lot of other states have these barcodes or mag-stripes. I don't think it's going to make much of a difference in that department.

Now, if people actually start reading the information on my car with readers, that would be a huge change. I'm not too worried about this because I know when I hand someone my license that I'm handing over information. Now, if it were an RFID setup - that's SCARY! Imagine people being able to see your license without your knowledge. It's one thing to make it mandatory for me to show ID for something. It's another for someone to look at it without me handing it to them. **shudder**

Re:Alreday have one

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of bars and clubs in Boston REQUIRE you to hand over your driving license to gain entry, and they place the card into a machine which reads the magstripe/2dbarcode, so I scratched the 2dbarcode in places that rendered the 2dbarcode unreadable (took me all of 10-15mins to download a free 2dbarcode reader and with a scanner and a sharp knife and some knowledge of 2d codes made scratches that would make the 2d produce an error!). When I go to a club, they scan my license, it comes up with an error, they look at the license (it looks real and passes all the usual tests as it's a REAL license) and let me go on, NO DATA collection at least not from my license :)

You should have seen me question the manager of one club, what happens to the data you collect from reading the licenses, "NO COMMENT" was his canned response and he rushed back into the bowels of the club!

Some state troopers have 2d barcode readers on their laptops, they scan your license to verify the details as it's all machine readable, saves them typing. I've gotten stopped by troopers on a few occasions and they all come back and say go on, as they cannot read the barcode and don't bother to actually type in my really long foreign name. When asked if there was a problem they just say nothing and let me get on with my travel.

Federal ID Cards

[Princess Tarja]

Hello Big Brother revisted..
How can they exepct to do this? they cant even police our borders and keep out the great unwanted. And will they train airport employees to discern a legal card from a counterfeit ? There are many rules/reg already on the books but in the real world cannot/are not ever put into effect. Will state issued drivers licenses & id cards be invalid now?
And what's the military have to do with this? (aside from post 9/11 paranoia) Just another excuse for big brother to get into our pants (or skirt in this case) and watch us. The gov needs to focus on other things more pressing right now. Excuse me while I go encrypt my swap partition

RFID hackers anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

...In the past, Homeland Security has indicated it likes the concept of RFID chips. The State Department is already going to be embedding RFID devices in passports, and Homeland Security wants to issue RFID-outfitted IDs to foreign visitors who enter the country at the Mexican and Canadian borders...

Looks like it's time to get out your little tin foil hats for your passport and id card!

How is this different from passports?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who's anything has a passport already. If you don't, you ain't sh*t. If you do, why are you bitching?

Typical slashdot liberalism getting in the way of news for nerds and / or stuff that matters.

Re:How is this different from passports?

[Anonymous Coward]

You only need a passport if you're going to some other Commie country. Are you saying that America isn't good enough for you? You have to go to France for wine tastings? Greece for the bathhouses? Hmm???

Idiot.

We already have these...

[Anonymous Coward]

..they are called Social Security cards. You need a SSN to get a loan, open a bank account, get a drivers licence anyway. Seems they are just going to slap a barcode/RFID on them.

Re:We already have these...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, like passports you mean? LOL.... why is this wasting space on slashdot?!??!

This doesn't really worry me

[MetalliQaZ]

Like the summary says, we already have these cards in the form of driver's licenses. We already have to show a drivers license or passport for most of the stuff we do, and provide a SSN. Basically, the only people I see being affected by this are illegal aliens that can't obtain one of these new cards.

-d

Re:This doesn't really worry me

[llefler]

They aren't flying or applying for government services, generally. They won't need this new ID.

The problem isn't a national ID so much as a RFID national ID. I'll identify myself when required, but I don't want any stranger on the street to be able to scan my ID.

Re:This doesn't really worry me

[MetalliQaZ]

Yes, this is true, and scary. However RFID has never bothered me much either, since I know I can always just wrap the tag in foil, or destroy it. (20 dollar bill in microwave, etc)

The whole thing has the added bonus of creating more opportinity to cause havoc with the system, by interrupting the operation of the scanners ;]

-d

I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

I also wonder when the cost of occupation of Iraq will be too high. 500 billion? 1 trillion? Draft?

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

I turn 35 in three months, and at that time I become inelligible for first-time military service. The draft can KMA.

Why can't they...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't they just pass a law that only allows one law per bill. I'm tired of this kind of political bs that they can get away with - attaching these types of little things at the end just to get it through. I can imagine there will be a "preferred" vendor of these cards/equipment and they amazingly increased their spending in congressional pocket lining... err.. lobbying this year to get 'er done!

Re:Why can't they...

[FunkyMonkey]

Here in Minnesota, that's exactly what they do. It is illegal to attach unrelated legislation to a bill. There was just recently a conceal and carry gun law declared unconstitutional for this very reason. http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/14/64167

I completely agree that this is what the US legislature needs to do. It would almost completely eliminate pork barrel projects and the sneaky, politically motivated manuvering that has so deranged and perverted our law making system.

We need a lean, transparent system because it's obvious that we can't trust our representatives.

Wonderful...

[sjbe]

One more unnecessary piece of identification that everyone will ask for and thieves to steal. I already have a social security card, driver's licence, passport, birth certificate, two credit cards, video rental card, insurance card, health insurance card, AAA card and somehow this isn't enough? How on earth is one more ID card, administered by one more bureacracy going to accomplish anything other than making it easier for thieves to steal my identity. Hell I'll have to present all the above cards to "prove" that I am who I say I am despite the fact that all of those can be (and regularly are) forged/stolen.

Gotta love our lawmakers. Solving problems nobody asked them to.

Re:Wonderful...

[stinkyfingers]

From the article: At a minimum: name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address, and a "common machine-readable technology" that Homeland Security will decide on.

* Social security cards have just a name and an address on them (mine is 25 years old, so I could be wrong on this point).
* There are at least 50 disparate driver's licensing systems in this country
* Ditto for birth certificates. You carry yours around?
* Credit cards are not identification, even if Bank of America put your picture on the front.
* Ditto for your video card, insurance card, health insurance card, and AAA card.

Passports could work, but they are awkward and not everyone has one. That means you still have to force people to get something.

It sounds to me like you really have two gripes: Two much crap in your wallet and identity theft. There's a simple way to fix the first problem, and I sympathize with the second.

The reality is, though, that because individual states value their own autonomy, there is not currently a federally administered identification method.

Re:Wonderful...

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll just replace your drivers liscense. Please, if you can't bring yourself to RTFA, at least read the fucking blurb.

This wasn't designed to fight terrorism.

[Loundry]

Neither was the Patriot Act, for that matter. Perhaps since you read slashdot you're aware of the many number of investigations under the Patriot act that had nothing to do with terrorism.

The government has been wanting even more control of our liberty for a long time, but us individualistic, stubborn Americans just weren't having any of it. 9/11 and terrorism are the excuse, not the reason, for these new intrusions on our liberty.

It's going to get worse before it gets any better. And what's even sadder is that terrorists can still get us. It seems that the small-government Republicans have their priorities in order: destroy liberty first, then maybe do something about terrorism (after pracising some heavy borrow-and-spend).

And people wonder why I vote Libertarian!

Re:This wasn't designed to fight terrorism.

[Rakishi]

"Perhaps since you read slashdot you're aware of the many number of investigations under the Patriot act that had nothing to do with terrorism."

Are you honestly trying to claim that given the power a Law Enforcement agency would not use it? Your argument does not hold water unless you provide direct evidence that such usage is not a by-product but a reason for the act. It's quite possible that the law was passed with the intention of making terrorism easier to stop however law enforcement realized that it could be used for other reasons so they did.

Re:This wasn't designed to fight terrorism.

[Anonymous Coward]

You actually think the patriot act was not passed to help fight terrorism?

You are obviously a young naieve idiot.

And you vote for a Libertarian president with no chance of winning? Instead of a Democrat?

You are DEFINATELY an idiot.

Re:This wasn't designed to fight terrorism.

[Anonymous Coward]

And you vote for a Libertarian president with no chance of winning? Instead of a Democrat?

You think the Democrats are different in any substantial way from the Republicans? Sorry to shatter your illusion, but all of these mainstream, big-money, corporate sponsored, career politicans are just different sides of the same f'in coin. Democrat / Republican? Hell, no, more like Demopublican / Republicrat.

Either way, Democrat or Republican, you're going to get: higher taxes, more government, less freedom and an increasingly corrupt government.

Re:This wasn't designed to fight terrorism.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather be an idiot than an active part of the problem, dumbass.

Re:This wasn't designed to fight terrorism.

[Money for Nothin']

It seems that the small-government Republicans have their priorities in order: destroy liberty first, then maybe do something about terrorism (after pracising some heavy borrow-and-spend).

I would argue that the idea of a "small government Republican" is dead for the most part.

Both the Republicans and Democrats support big government when it suits their purposes. For the Republicans, it's anything having to do with security or the military, the latter of which demands basically all the same resources (and more) that civilians do (hence, we have the military-industrial complex). For the Democrats (and the Greens, and the socialists, and any other strain of "you mean the Berlin Wall fell and communism was an empirical failure?" leftist collectivists still around), it's anything that involves any reason *except* the military.

Big government fascists everywhere. Know what I'd like to do? Get a bunch of libertarians and classical liberals to pool their money to buy an unused offshore oil rig in international waters and declare it our own sovereign nation. Sort of like this famous data haven... Or build a large floating island for the same purpose... wTaking over NH isn't likely to achieve any significant goals, sadly. :(

Re:This wasn't designed to fight terrorism.

[Loundry]

I would argue that the idea of a "small government Republican" is dead for the most part.

Ron Paul is still alive, but he's definately in the minority. To many republicans, winning is more important than remaining true to the principle of liberty.

Big government fascists everywhere. Know what I'd like to do? Get a bunch of libertarians and classical liberals to pool their money to buy an unused offshore oil rig in international waters and declare it our own sovereign nation.

I don't think there is much we can do, as things are going to get a lot worse before they get any better. I am forming a group that will serve as a community of rational and liberty-minded folks. It's my hope and dream for creating the long term success of our people.

Attached to emergency spending bill

[834r9394557r011]

"...RealID Card legislation that's been attached to emergency military spending bills to ensure its passage." A similar thing happened with our conceal and carry law last year. It was attached ot a completely unrelated bill to try and improve its chances of being passed (which it did). However later that year it was found unconstitutional, and was repealed, due to the fact that it was attachedto a bill having nothing to do with one another. I would like to know how this is any different or "more unconstitutional" than what happened with our conceal and carry bill.

Destroy the magnetic strip.

[LouCifer]

Who here has a couple of dead HDDs lying around? Raise your hands.

Cut 'em open with a dremel.
Remove the magnets
Expose the magnetic strip to said magnets

Thats one way to reduce the chances of your government-issued ID card of being "abused".

Like they're going to force me to get it reissued. I'll just blame it on their crappy equipment.

And there are plenty of places on the 'net that will show you how to build your own card readers. Surely it won't be long before we get standardized ID cards that someone will post a how-to on building your own card reader so the paranoid curious can read just what's on their card. That is, unless they're DMCA locked. ;-)

Re:Destroy the magnetic strip.

[goldspider]

Thats one way to reduce the chances of your government-issued ID card of being "abused".

That's also one way to get arrested for posessing a fake ID card. If an officer's equipment can't read the card, what is he/she supposed to think of its authenticity?

Re:Destroy the magnetic strip.

[josh3736]

...someone will post a how-to on building your own card reader so the paranoid curious can read just what's on their card.

Already done.

Re:Destroy the magnetic strip.

[LouCifer]

Hmm. Easy. Take your DL out of your wallet, hold it at an angle and examine it in the light. See those official logos stamped in the plastic?

That's how.

Re:Destroy the magnetic strip.

[windex]

I've had many credit cards in my wallet loose their magnetic data, not to mention get scratched up from repeated removal. Do you really think ID's are going to be immune to that problem in a way that people don't just ignore after awhile?

Papers Comrade?

[bombadillo]

Enough said.

ugh

[rwven]

That's all we need. I'm a hardcore republican/conservative but i sure as heck want to know where the republican stand on "no big government" went. Patriot act i can even stand, but a forced act like this is really kinda pathetic. When someone decides to stand at the entrance of an airport with an RFID reader picking up identities, that's gonna be a problem...

Emergency military spending bill

[MobyDisk]

The real tragedy here is not the use of a national ID. There are legitimate merits to both sides of that discussion, and I will not address them here. The real tragedy is that this is an "Emergency military spending bill" which a HUGE rider on it.

This is why the line item veto was popular, despite being blatently unconstitutional. A few congress persons sitting on a committee can completely disrupt the validity of a bill. Nobody is going to veto a bill that gives money to the military and be responsible for leaving them high and dry. And the bill also gives tsunami aid. Nobody will veto that either.

It should be unconstitutional to place this type of stuff on a bill. It is also highly irresponsible of our congress people to not flame anyone who tries to do this stuff. I don't know how to word the ammendment, but it would probably do a LOT to clean up some of the obnoxious laws that sneak into place.

Re:Emergency military spending bill

[Specter]

Ok, I've seen variations on this quote a couple of times already: "This is why the line item veto was popular, despite being blatently unconstitutional."

Would anyone care to elaborate why a line-item veto is unconstitutional?

Re:Emergency military spending bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Would anyone care to elaborate why a line-item veto is unconstitutional?

Because the Supreme Court said so.

Re:Emergency military spending bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Line Item Veto would have been a great start, but what we really need is line item voting in Congress.

Re:Emergency military spending bill

[zsau]

Can I suggest that when wording the ammendment, something like:---

(1) It will be unlawful for Congress to make legislation that works in diverse areas.
(2) Should any such law be passed by Congress, it will be the obligation of the President to veto it.
(3) The first ammendment is hereby repealed.

Additional Information

[commonchaos]

I've been collecting links which can be viewed at del.icio.us under the "realid" tag

Feel free to make your own del.icio.us account and add to the collection.

Yellow Star

[Walrus99]

Just be sure that your card isn't marked "Juden."

Re:You don't exist...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't have a passport, dont even have a drivers license, how can anyone take you seriously? No one says you have to USE the drivers license, but not having one says you are some kind of social freak or outcast who does not want to participate in the capitalist system. Business, Government, etc will not take that seriously. You won't get far in the job market, or trying to own a house by simply opting out. Its a pathetic line of reasoning that we have to make special exceptions for people like you.

Interesting connection to bible...

[BytePusher]

Now, I'm certain most everyone has heard of the evil number 666... well just... read. Not that I'm saying this card is "the mark," but it's amazing how close the mark as described in Revelation resembles some of the technologies for tracking people that are being proposed today.

Revelation 13:
16He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

18This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.

Re:Interesting connection to bible...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pass this information on to the Kansas Creationism/Evolution thread and see what happens....lol. Brings back all those memories of folks taking Ronald Reagan's name and computing 666 from it.

Re:Interesting connection to bible...

[tuxguy]

Interestingly enough, in Europe peopole are now getting RFID chips implanted in them, and they say that soon they can implant them in your hand (Right now it's in your arm). It would be a genious technology, and I would definately accept it, if it weren't for the fact that I know what it means...

Ha ha ha.

[Anonymous Coward]

We got 30 million illegal aliens swarming through the streets.

all but law

Ha ha ha. What a joke.

Can't bother to RTFA...

[Thud457]

Are these things gonna have RFID like the new passports? I won't support any national identy card that can't be phished from across the room!

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the terrorists?!!!! And the illegal aliens. And the drug mules. And the human trafficers...

Re:Can't bother to RTFA...

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

But they published such a nice article for you to read! For shame...

To answer your question directly, from TFA, Homeland Security is "intrigued" or some such nonsense by RFID. I'm not crazy about the whole thing, but if this is to come I sure hope that they choose barcodes or magnetic strips as a standard. If they go with RFID, us /.'ers should start a pool to see when it will be widely cracked. What then? Reissue us new cards? Slide them into a USB device on our comps to get the latest patch installed on our cards?

Re:Can't bother to RTFA...

[ThatDamnMurphyGuy]

If it's an approved "national" id meeting these national standards, why do I even need a passport; or need a passport to get back into this country?

Seems redundant to me.

Re:Can't bother to RTFA...

[Maclir]

Because other countries will expect to see your passport to let you in. They don't care a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys about some US id card.

Re:Can't bother to RTFA...

[ThatDamnMurphyGuy]

I don't need a passport to go to Canada or Mexico; yet, but getting back in, the National ID card should suffice in leau of a Passport. It's no more or less effective than the birth certificate I (get legally, stole, or created/faked)....

My point is not current examples, but the fact that TWO or more forms of IS is stupid, and no more helping our security than 1 form.

Re:Can't bother to RTFA...

[ThatDamnMurphyGuy]

Let me take this in another direction. Having a "National ID" card for every country you are going to visit is impractical. That's why we have Passports. So, if I have a passport, is there any reason to have a national ID too?

For that matter, if passports are going to become scannable, but not just my my drivers licence info on that.

Re:Can't bother to RTFA...

[SnapShot]

Gives whole new meaning to "reprogramming camps".

National ID was Inevitable

[CodeBuster]

It is unfortunate that it has come to this, but how much longer could we in the United States or indeed anywhere else in the world continue to operate as nations with national identities in the face of massive global migrations of illegal immigrant populations? The national identity card has drawbacks to be sure, but it is finally, perhaps, the only way to avoid the loss of national integrity and social meltdown that would otherwise occur in the decades ahead as population growth spiraled out of control.

Re:National ID was Inevitable

[psykocrime]

finally, perhaps, the only way to avoid the loss of national integrity

Define "national integrity" and tell me why I should care about it? What does that buy me, exactly?

How about we start worrying about "individual" integrity and allow free individuals to make residence wherever they see fit. Nations don't really mean anything in the grand scheme of things anyway. They rise and fall, and they're just artificial constructs anyway.

Re:National ID was Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember well, when Communists used to say, that in the face of massive attack on socialism by imperialist powers it was inevitable to introduce national ID, travel restrictions, the amount of currency everybody would be allowed to keep, beside other things.

I also remember one of my collegues who was badly beaten up and arrested by police because he could not show his national ID, he had left accidentally at the office.

I can't escape the horror that somehow bloody Stalinism is in the making of resurrecting in America.

Re:National ID was Inevitable

[_Hiro_]

Wow, you must have a marketing degree, because that's probably the most garbled buzzword-speak I've seen in a long time.

And as far as national identies are concerned, which I think you were talking about there, they change. They mutate. The US 40 years ago was about freedom and privacy, from the politicians on down. I'm not saying the politicians weren't corrupt or stupid, but they put on a good front about caring about freedom.

These guys aren't even trying now.

Re:National ID was Inevitable

[radish]

Hah. Right. So the USA was founded by....

a) Native Americans who lived here all along
b) Illegal Immigrants

Answers on a postcard please.

From the notebook of Lazarus Long

[Anonymous Coward]

In the words of a Heinlein:

"When a place gets crowded enough to require ID's, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere."
-Lazarus Long

Choices

[PreDefined]

So now I'm wondering which future-past-future scenario I'd rather watch play out in front of my eyes.

• America: 1984, The Second Coming?
• America: A New Deal - Part 2, Return of the Great Depression?

Would you rather lose rights? or riches?

Re:Choices

[psykocrime]

Would you rather lose rights? or riches?

riches, duh.

Re:Choices

[Anonymous Coward]

> Would you rather lose rights? or riches?
>
>riches, duh.

Wrong. Having rights doesn't help you get your riches back, but if you keep the riches, you can always buy rights.

Re:Choices

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up.

Given the choice between losing my rights and my riches, I'll choose to lose my riches. Why? Because if I still have my rights, and they guarantee that I have the opportunity to get my riches back.

Conversely, I'm not guaranteed the opportunity to get my rights back if I keep my riches.

In one case, you have the opportunity (though not the guarantee) to reclaim that which was lost. In the other you don't even have the opportunity. If I'm losing one right now, I'd rather have the opportunity to get both in the future, thanks.

--AC

Bullshit

[ifwm]

This is another example of the idiots who write the headlines exaggerating the situation.

There's plenty of discussion about this currently, with all the same people for and against it. No one is going to sneak this one in.

Claiming it's "all but law" is like claiming slasdot is "all but accurate"

If I remember correctly...

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember when this National ID Card idea was considered during the Reagan years (some would say the Pre-Presidency Presidency of George Bush the First).

It is said that 'The Gipper' heard about the idea and said simply, "Why don't we just number them all '666'?"

The idea was dropped from then on. I wonder what brings it up again?

As a non-US citizen...

[MarcoAtWork]

... could somebody please explain me how exactly this whole concept of 'rider' bills got started and, most important, how it continues without being made illegal?

Who exactly has the authority to 'attach' things to a bill? If I was a politician and was sure that a bill had a 100% chance of passing (say, one of these 'emergency, need money for our troops' bills), what would prevent me from attaching to it a few pork projects for the people who elected me for example?

Re:As a non-US citizen...

[fuzzybunny]

Very roughly, "rider" additions to bills are a type of amendments which aren't necessarily directly related to the main purpose of the bill.

Essentially what happens is that representatives (bills originate in the House of Representatives, the lower house) can add their own provisions, make edits, whatnot, of draft bills submitted for review. It's basically a way of saying "change this-and-that or I won't vote for it"--if you have a lot of influence, for example through which committees you chair, you can exercise substantial control over things like budgets, membership in committees (and thus peoples' political careers, etc.)

Committees also have varying degrees of influence of new bills as they can "go to committee" for review, editing, whatnot--for example, the senate foreign relations committee, select committee on intelligence, and others have pretty inordinate amounts of power. The chair of these can engage in what is essentially blackmail to get his way, or to help a colleague/ally/whatever.

No, nothing prevents you from attaching pork projects. And yes, it's shit.

Re:As a non-US citizen...

[bill_mcgonigle]

fuzzybunny already handled what they are... why is a more sad story.

Basically, this is how Senators get wasteful and special interest spending passed as political favors to the people who funded their reelection campaigns.

Now, it gets even more sad when you realize that the only thing that a candidate needs to do to get elected is to greatly outspend his opponent. Darth Vader would win over Jesus Christ if Jesus spend $2000 and Vader spent $2,00,000 on his campaign. It's works because the populous is so easily manipulated and can't work past the voices-of-authority they hear from the media.

Now, who is it who educated the populous and failed to teach them critical thinking skills? Aye, there's the rub.

Re:As a non-US citizen...

[koehn]

Rider bills are crucial to the way that democracies work. Sorry, it really is that simple. When your country has a population of several hundred million people, the potential for anybody getting a bill passed is next to nothing. So your elected representatives get together and agree on a series of of compromises: I'll vote for your pet bill, if you'll vote for mine. When the stakes are high, and you don't think your pet bill will pass (like the one in question), you attach it to a bill that your opponents don't want to vote against.

None of this is new, and none of it is going away, ever. The founding fathers all knew that this is the way democracies can actually function (as opposed to being constantly in gridlock), which is why riders are allowed: they make it easier for a bunch of folks who don't trust each other (politicians) to get something done.

As an aside, there's a part of the constitution in my state (Minnesota) that does banish riders that have nothing to do with the primary subject of a bill. This was used recently to throw out a law making getting concealed-carry gun permits much easier (it's now hard to get the permits again). Legislative gridlock has hamstrung Minnesota for several years, mostly because neither of the two main parties (republican and democrat-farmer-labor) can trust the other to follow through with their promises. It's a mess.

So yes, riders cause crap like the legislation mentioned in the article to get passed, but it's all part of the process that keeps things moving. If you look back, a lot of legislation that US citizens enjoy was also passed as a rider, or had riders attached to it.

Don't blame the process just because you don't like the outcome: the process has been around for centuries. Instead, blame the folks who tacked on the legislation, and have your reps oppose it.

Re:As a non-US citizen...

[Anonymous Coward]

(bills originate in the House of Representatives, the lower house)

The lower house? Odd terminology.

Bills aside from those on budget/spending issues can originate in either house.

Or worse yet ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"American Middle Class Taxpayer".

That's the dude that's gonna get screwed by this "New World Order" crap.

I'm going to tatoo my number onto my forehead!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

616

Nice touch

[BandwidthHog]

I like the sample image they used.

New checkout option

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you want paper or plastic sir?

I'll take Lead ... but Alluminum will do thank you :)

this is bullshit, repubs + democrats = SHITPILE

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course this is bullshit. There's 2 million gringos crossing the rio grande every year and they don't give a damn about any id, they won't need id to get work, get welfare, health care and all sorts of other welfare state benefits..

This will help prevent another 9/11 hijacking ? bullshit. The terrorists will just register for these stupid fucking cards or have them conterfeited.

All bullshit! We're just a bunch of fucking cattle now, why not brand me with a serial code, that'd be easier.. or how about a tatoo, ya, a nice tatoo on my forearm with my id #.

This is all being done in the name of freedom! yaaaaaaaaaaa, Let's Roll Mr. Bush and you scum sucking bastard congressmen

my hat! where's my tinfoil hat!

[Dun Malg]

News.com is running a story about the RealID Card legislation that's been attached to emergency military spending bills to ensure its passage. How soon does everyone think this system will be abused either by the government or by thieves ?

Put your tinfoil hat away, man. The real purpose of this bill is not to build some massive government tracking system, but to prevent states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. The idea is that your driver's license should continue to be taken as legitimate proof that you are either a) a citizen, or b) a legal resident. The issue was that some states were considering accepting Mexican matricular cards as sufficient proof of identity in issuing driver's licenses and that the matricular cards are not just easily forged, but easy to get in a false name from the Mexican government itself.

Re:my hat! where's my tinfoil hat!

[supertbone]

You are so right. Plus people with illegal aliens with drivers liscences were registering to vote under moter voters laws. I welcome this law.

Re:my hat! where's my tinfoil hat!

[vandon]

And just as soon as the next election comes around and people fed up with the GoP vote in a bunch of Dems, they'll say it's unfair to deny someone an ID just because they're an illegal alien.
It happened in CA, and with the backlash coming at the republicans there's going to be a lot of liberals elected next time around.
At least then they'll be tracking everyone and not just citizens.
The governement said they were protecting us from terrorists. So why do I feel like they're protecting me from my neighbor?

tin-foil wallets

[amigabill]

OK all you foil hat types, start working on a tin-foil insert to protect the contents of my wallet!

You want reasons not to have an ID card?

[Colin Smith]

Here's some prepared earlier.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ican/A2561834

http://www.no2id.net/

Re:You want reasons not to have an ID card?

[DiamondGeezer]

The second link goes to no2id.net which claims

"NO2ID is a campaigning organisation opposed to the government's planned ID card and National Identity Register"

If you want to register for the free newsletter you have to put in name, e-mail address and POSTCODE. For you non-Brits that means that you can be identified down to one of a few houses.

Brilliant.

Re:You want reasons not to have an ID card?

[jwgoerlich]

Yes, I want reasons not to have the card. Simple, straightforward reasons. Not that I am for such a card. Rather, I do not see how this is any different than my existing driver's license.

Anyone have a non-biased link or news item?

Re:You want reasons not to have an ID card?

[Colin Smith]

FFS! It's not compulsory, it's *voluntary*, just don't put the postcode in if you don't want to... OR, just read the FAQ and web page.

There's rational debate and there's paranoia. Rational debate can accomplish things, paranoia gets you locked up in a padded cell.

Re:You want reasons not to have an ID card?

[Colin Smith]

The big difference with your driver's license is that your drivers license is a license to drive a vehicle and not a unique index which will allow any and all transactions using it to be collated by pretty much anyone who can afford it.

"Anyone have a non-biased link or news item"

You believe there's such a thing?
http://forms.theregister.co.uk/search/?q=ID+cards& x=0&y=0

The points on the ican and no2id.net pages are simple, straightforward and very good reasons why ID cards should not be introduced.

Re:You want reasons not to have an ID card?

[jwgoerlich]

"You believe there's such a thing?

To a certain extent but, then, I have been accused of being an optimist.

"The points on the ican and no2id.net pages are simple..."

Certainly. However, no2id.net is clearly presenting a one-sided viewpoint.

Re:You want reasons not to have an ID card?

[mdwh2]

Rather, I do not see how this is any different than my existing driver's license.

But if that's true, why spend billions on something we already have?

Things were getting better.

[mcc]

We were starting to get to a point where using social security numbers as identification was actually prohibited, and this prohibition was actually being enforced. For example, note how many colleges had previously used soc#s as student IDs but who have been phasing that out in the last five years.

Well, so much for that.

Re:Things were getting better.

[Anonymous Coward]

That kind of thing is only a problem because the financial industry has chosen to use SSN as their unique ID to identify people. If they got their own damn ID, SSN would be pretty much entirely harmless.

Use a Faraday Cage to protect your privacy...

[Anonymous Coward]

If such cards are issued, you can just slip it into a flexible-metallic sleeve which will act as a Faraday cage, preventing signals from getting to the card, or from leaving the card's sleeve.

That way you'll be able to take your card around with you and only take it out when a scan is required, such as at the airport.

Better yet, if the metallic sleeve is semi-transparent, you won't need to take it out when people visibly check your license at points of sale, etc.

Of course it will be best if such an ID is never required in the first place.

Revelations anyone???

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmm, seems the mark of the beast is about to begin. That just sucks. I was hopeing it would be after my lifetime. Time to move to the woods and live off the land.

Auchtung! Show me your papers!

[Whammy666]

I getting a little tired and quite frankly alarmed at how Bushy and his cronies are "protecting my freedoms". I'm not sure that we aren't better off with the terrorists. At least they make no bones about where they stand.

It's said that the devil won't appear carrying a pitch fork and sporting horns and a pointy tail. Instead he'll appear looking like you and me and claim to be your friend. Beware, GW is not your friend despite claims otherwise. He is the most injurious force this country has ever had to face. *** Why do repubs hate America?

Re:Auchtung! Show me your papers!

[Bullfish]

I get the distinct impression that these actions are probably what bin Laden was hoping for when the planes went into the buildings. The erosion of democracy, fueled by fear, and driven into the arms of the police state.

Re:Auchtung! Show me your papers!

[Anonymous Coward]

"What no one seemed to notice was the ever widening gap between the government and the people...And it became always wider...
"The whole process of this disconnect coming into being was built around diversion...
"Nazism gave us some other dreadful, fundamental things to think about ...or, rather, provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway...
"Nazism kept us so busy with continuous changes, accusations and 'crises' and so fascinated ... by the machinations of the 'national enemies' without and within) and the government's 'responses' to them, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us...
"Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted', that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures' must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing...
"Each act curtailing freedom... is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow...
"You don't want to act, or even talk, alone... you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble' or be 'unpatriotic'...But the one great shocking
occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes...
"That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring: the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit (which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms) is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. ...
"You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father... could never have imagined."
Source: They Thought They Were Free, The Germans, 1938-45 (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1955)
__________________________________
"We will not wait as our enemies gather strength against us. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action, and this nation will act." G.W.Bush, West Point, June 2002
"In this new world, declarations of war serve no purpose. Our enemies must be defeated before they can harm us. I will never declare war, but will take action!" Adolph Hitler, June 1940
"Not too many people will be crying in their beer if there are more detentions, more stops and more profiling. There will be a groundswell of public opinion to banish civil rights," Peter Kirsanow, Bush's controversial appointee the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people, and the West in general, into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
Osama bin Laden, October, 2001

Re:Auchtung! Show me your papers!

[Anonymous Coward]

which is exactly why they paid him to do it!

And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[kalirion]

For those who don't know, Section 102 of the bill allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to disregard any and all laws that HE ALONE DEEMS NECESSARY to the construction of barriers at borders, without any oversight, judicial or otherwise. He could claim that setting landmines along the borders is necessary. Hell, he could claim that nuking San Francisco is necessary. Doesn't matter what he claims - as long as he makes a claim, no one has the authority to stop him.

"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, administrative agency, or other entity 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.'"

Re:And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[tonyj]

US Constitution, Amendment 5:

No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.


There is always a recourse for these actions if they directly effect a US citizen. 102.C explicitly recognizes this.

Re:And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. Looks to me like this simply frees him from any local zoning ordinances or interference by local city councils. The only laws waived are those pertaining to building barriers and roads at borders.

Re:And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[Anonymous Coward]

Unconstitutional.

Re:And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[kneeless]

Nope, it was struck out of the law.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:5:./tem p/~c109tF1cnZ:e111688:

Re:And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[Anonymous Coward]

That might be the intent but that is not what the law says. The law says if he feels nuking cities is necessary then no one can challenge that. The DMCA wasn't intended to apply to toner cartriges or universal remotes either but it was.

Re:And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[st0rmshad0w]

no Judicial Review????

Since when can Congress create laws that are beyond the review of the courts? I thought that was the whole point of having a judicial system?

Re:And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[Anonymous Coward]

Whew! Glad to see we finally got some anti-immigration legislation that the (liberal) courts can't monkey with.

Re:And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[Abcd1234]

Well, see, this is to protect those fine folks in the administration from those damned activist judges who insist on legislating from the bench! Or something like that...

Re:And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[Anonymous Coward]

Please post a direct link, your link results in

Please resubmit your search

Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.

Re:And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[RmanB17499]

And since when is the Secretary of Homeland Security a Constitutional officer? Never...The secretary can be dismissed, fired, or powers stripped by his or her boss...The President of the United States Government.

Re:And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[goretexguy]

Actually, the amendment failed.
The vote was recorded, in case you want to see what your state rep has done to you.
Hopefully, our Senators will be a more thoughtful on this issue.

Re:And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[Valar]

It doesn't matter what is in the law, the power of judicial review trumps it. In fact, that is exactly what judicial review is for. Just like you can make a law that says "Ok, America has a king now" and it will have no effect. The constitution would override it.

Re:And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[jaywee]

Actually there's something else I wondered when I first read this section - does it grant power to build roads/barriers BETWEEN individual US states or even within them?

Re:And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[bersl2]

If the courts declare that the provision of the law that exempts such actions and decisions of the SecDHS from judicial review, then all bets are off. However, if the courts allow that provision to stand, that is that. Of course, each outcome must stand up to appeals.

The only thing that logically would prevent judicial review at all would be a self-referential statement that all sections added or changed due to the amendment are exempt from judicial review. However, that is quite obvious, even with several levels of reference, and is probably just plain illegal to begin with.

Re:And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[evilviper]

without any oversight, judicial or otherwise.

Bullshit. Unless it's an AMMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUION, the Judicial branch still has complete oversight. You can't just throw out checks and balances with a new law that says so...

Hell, he could claim that nuking San Francisco is necessary.

That's a completely ridiculous claim. This law is specific to improving barriers at borders, anything that isn't directly related to doing that falls outside of this law.

Re:And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[kalirion]

That's a completely ridiculous claim. This law is specific to improving barriers at borders, anything that isn't directly related to doing that falls outside of this law.

I'm going to try to put this into terms you can understand. You think the bill says:

if (relatesToBarriers(action)) {
doActionIgnoreLaw(action);
}

When in actuality the bill says:

if (DODSecretary.claimsRelatesToBarriers(action)) {
doActionIgnoreLaw(action);
}

See the difference? It doesn't actually have to relate to the barriers. The DOD Secretary just has to claim that it does, and as the bill is written no one has the authority to challege the claim.

Re:And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[evilviper]

When in actuality the bill says:

No that's what YOU think it means, but that's not how the US government works. Hell, the court just struck-down the FCC's broadcast flag on HDTV, saying they overstepped their authority, and the broadcast flag is not related to the broadcast of signals.

The FCC says it is, the court disagrees, the court always wins. The DOD Secy can say anything he wants to, but if the court finds what he's doing is NOT actually related to building barriers at borders, they certainly can strike down his decisions.

Re:And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[kalirion]

Sure, and by the time they get around to doing that, it San Francisco will be a glowing ruin.

Anyway, according to thomas.loc.gov, Latest Major Action: 2/17/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. . Hopefully the committee is smart enough to cut sec 102 out.

Re:And section 102 IS STILL THERE???

[evilviper]

Sure, and by the time they get around to doing that, it San Francisco will be a glowing ruin.

No, it's called a preliminary injunction. Look it up.

Hmmmm.

[Pig Hogger]

Looks like the terrorists have won...

As a foreigner living in the USA

[sapped]

ha-ha. I repeat. ha-ha.

When most people here think that it is OK to discriminate against foreigners living here legally by passing crap like this then you should not be surprised when the power to abuse this is kicked a few notches higher.

I am also constantly amazed when I speak to most Americans around me about the Patriot Act. They seem to live in this dream world thinking that it will only be used against "terrorists". Yeah. Right.

heh

[Anonymous Coward]

RFID tag fun.

Recode some tag.

"looks like you are a can of beans sir. Please come with us."

I'm all for this

[ellem]

When I went on my cruise I had one card that took care of everything:

Opened my door
Got me into dinner
Bought stuff
Got me beer!

Viva la Indentificacionne Cardo.

It's about time!

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? Our information is already known to the Federal government: social security numbers, federal tax return numbers, student loans, etc?

Do any of know know how badly the current system is taken advantage of?

National ID cards are a good thing. To hell with illegal aliens, dead people collecting my social security money, and people with arrest warrents being able to hop over to another state.

Now for the next job: secure the border and deport the illegals.

- AC, in Los Angeles.

(yes, I voted for Bush)

-1, Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the definition of "Internal Passport"?

[publius_ovidius]

So, any /. folks old enough, like me, to remember how we would react with derision and scorn at the horrifying stories of people in the USSR being required to have "internal passports" for travel and always carry identity papers? Well, just for giggles, how would you define "internal passport" and how is that different from this?

Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Internal passport: for countries that don't let their citizens leave the country with *REAL* passports (see: communists).

Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Russian tourists reacting with amazement upon learning that they can take pictures of bridges and buildings - with no police interrogation.

Man, those were the days...

Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"?

[wk633]

It is not 'communism' that prevents people from leaving a country. It is 'totalitarianism'.

To get real Soviet style internal passports, we need to list the citizen's address, and not let them live at a different address without permission. That way we can optimally locate the population. Too many people want to live in California. We're relocate some of them to, say, Kansas.

Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"?

[rnelsonee]

To play the devil's advocate here, I'd define an "internal passport" as a document that is used to allow citizens to pass through areas within their own country.

Obviously, this is different from what's being proposed here. I didn't even RTFA and I'm reasonably sure that this ID will not be required to travel in the U.S. I'd bet that you can drive from Maine to California without ever showing your ID to anyone.

Flying will require this, but really, is it any different than how you fly now? Flying is not a right, it's a priviledge, and although I don't agree with the government's ability to force you to show your ID (remember, I'm playing devil's advocate), I would have no problem if the airlines themselves took the initiative and demanded ID. It's their planes, and the safety of their customers (and equipment) is a justifiable concern.

Anywho, I just wanted to point out this isn't some ID card we'll have to have on us at all times, and I don't envision checkpoints every 100 miles so big brother can track our movements.

Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"?

[publius_ovidius]

I certainly don't think it's quite as onerous, but it's not too far from it. I did read the article and here's the second paragraph:

Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards.

Further, with the Supremes recently ruling that's it's OK to arrest someone who fails to produce an ID upon demand, this just puts us one step closer.

Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Er... Flying's not a right, nor a priviledge. It's a service provided by a business.

Just to be clear. It's not like the ability to fly is conferred by knighthood or anything.

Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"?

[Dun Malg]

I certainly don't think it's quite as onerous, but it's not too far from it. I did read the article and here's the second paragraph:

Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards.

So what's your objection? You don't want a new driver's license that differs from your old one in that it has a federally standardized mag stripe on the back? Or that you'll have to present ID to do all those things listed which, at present, already require presenting an ID? Honestly, nothing is changing unless you are an illegal alien hoping to get a driver's license with your Mexican matricular card as identification.

Further, with the Supremes recently ruling that's it's OK to arrest someone who fails to produce an ID upon demand, this just puts us one step closer.

No, they just said you have to identify yourself, not that you hade to produce proof of identity. The dude in that case need only have said "my name is Larry Hiibel". Cripes, don't you people even read what you link to?

Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"?

[Clod9]

Internal Passports. I am married to someone who has both an internal and external passport from a former Soviet country.

The internal passport is a photo ID that is physically very similar to the external passport; it is all in the local language, though, not intended to be legible to passport control officers in other countries. It has pages, on which are noted:
current residential address
marriage statistics (date of marriage, spouse's name & ID number, etc.)
list of children
space for whatever other notations might be necessary.

The external passport has everything in both the local language and in English. It has space for visas. Note that a person from this country may have to get EXIT visas (permission by the local government allowing the person to leave) as well as ENTRANCE visas from other countries, which most westerners are more familiar with.

When in the local country, the internal passport must be carried at all times. Note that this is true in places in Europe even today -- it isn't unique to the former Soviet Union. When travelling outside the country, of course the external passport must be carried.

(And yes, I too remember thinking that being forced to carry ID all the time would be the essence of living in a police state. And yes, I believe it contravenes the freedoms that America was founded on.)

Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"?

[publius_ovidius]

Or that you'll have to present ID to do all those things listed which, at present, already require presenting an ID?

First of all, there's a difference between an ID that is issued locally and the ID that is proposed. If you read the original, then you would understand how the proposed ID is different and why there are privacy concerns. Further, am I really required to provide ID when flying on an airplane? There's already a well-known lawsuit challenging whether or not this is the case. Is this an airline rule? Is this a law? Who knows? The US government refuses to explain the exact status of this rule citing "security concerns." Thus we, as individuals, are being asked to obey laws that we're not allowed to see and which may or may not be Constitutional. Does having secret laws not strike you as a bit odd?

Frankly, I don't care to have our government exercising its authority without citizens having some say in the matter. In the case of the national ID law that was attached to a military spending bill, debate has been stifled and we're left sitting here wondering if the government will abuse this law, too.

No, they just said you have to identify yourself, not that you hade to produce proof of identity. The dude in that case need only have said "my name is Larry Hiibel". Cripes, don't you people even read what you link to?

I do read what I link to, thank you. Had you bothered to follow the link through to the actual ruling, and had you actually bothered to read it, you would have noticed this little gem:

"[I]nterrogation relating to one's identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure."

So yes, a police officer can interrogate someone and demand to see some form of identification. And while there is a requirement that the police officer's stop be "reasonable" and somehow limited to what is currently being investigated, no probably cause is required. Then, if the request is legitimate and the person refuses, the officer can arrest that individual.

Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"?

[Dun Malg]

I do read what I link to, thank you. Had you bothered to follow the link through to the actual ruling, and had you actually bothered to read it, you would have noticed this little gem:

"[I]nterrogation relating to one's identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure." So yes, a police officer can interrogate someone and demand to see some form of identification.

Read it again, further down:

With regard to the privacy implications of case, the court claimed "[t]o hold that a name, which is neutral and non-incriminating information, is somehow an invasion of privacy is untenable . . . . Requiring identification is far less intrusive than conducting a pat down search of one's physical person,"

The "request for identification" you cite is simply a request for someone's name. The case itself was about Mr. Hiibel being arrested for refusing to give his name. I challenge you to find any reference to identification cards or papers anywhere in the linked article.

Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"?

[G00F]

Why not relocate MPAA/RIAA to alatic ocean while we are at it?

Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"?

[Dun Malg]

First of all, there's a difference between an ID that is issued locally and the ID that is proposed. If you read the original, then you would understand how the proposed ID is different and why there are privacy concerns.

Seriously, what's the significant difference? Most state driver's licenses already comply with the minimum information, machine readability, and tamper proof feature requirements. Most states already collect a thumbprint when they issue an ID. The one major change is that states won't be able to accept foreign documents as proof of identity in issuing these IDs. I really don't see how anything has changed. We've gone from an ad-hoc collection of mildly invasive ID procedures to a single national standard of the same mildly invasive ID procedures.

Further, am I really required to provide ID when flying on an airplane?

They already make you show your state issued ID to board a plane. If you're opposed to that, fine; but the RealID act has nothing to do with it. The requirement was there before the act, and it remains there now.

Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"?

[iminplaya]

Flying is not a right, it's a priviledge...

Funny how people keep throwing this out. Traveling is a right. We have a right to travel, and we have a right to choose how to travel. I consider the airlines to be public transportation, and should be treated as such. They can't refuse you service on the buses in Montgomery, Alabama. They shouldn't be allowed to refuse you here either. Unless I'm flying the plane and I bought a ticket, I have a right to travel on that plane without ID.(Now if you mean piloting a plane is a privilege...well...then that would be completely different. I don't claim a right to operate the machinery.) Which leads me to your next thought...

I would have no problem if the airlines themselves took the initiative and demanded ID. It's their planes, and the safety of their customers (and equipment) is a justifiable concern.

It's not about safety. It's about money. The airlines don't want you to sell your ticket to anyone else. The whole ID thing is only to make the tickets non-transferable. Notice that requiring ID didn't prevent 9/11? Maybe it helps to find deadbeat dads, parking scoflaws, or draft(coming soon) dodgers, but not much else.

Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"?

[10101001 10101001]

Driving isn't a right, it's a priviledge. There's nothing logicallly from stopping any state between Maine and California from rejecting your drivers license and arresting you for unlawful operation of a vehicle--if it works on marriage licenses, I don't see why it wouldn't work on drivers licenses.

That said, you could take public transportation (commercial airlines would seem to count given that the federal government is providing security). But "public" private airlines, including most bus services, would be subject to whatever rules they decide on, including if they decide to require checking your ID to get on--assumedly they're not doing it as a service to the government in trade for something else. So, either prepare in the future to window shop a lot for whatever private bus services don't require this ID card (and it won't be many, since most people will give their identity to feel safer) or save up your cash and charter a personal travel plan.

But you're right, there will almost certainly still be a way to travel across the US without ever giving out your ID. Just don't be surprised when you have to dump bucket loads to actually do it or a willingness to bike/walk the whole way.

Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"?

[ptudor]

I'd bet that you can drive from Maine to California without ever showing your ID to anyone.

Every time I've driven back into California I've had to stop at both the California state inspection station and the permanent Border Patrol checkpoints on the interstate. Once the gaurds see I'm a White Anglo-Saxon I get waved right through (but they're not profiling of course)... but demanding ID is a miniscule step beyond what is already in place. I can't leave this county without passing through Border Patrol. I didn't say country; I said county, inside America.

I just wanted to point out this isn't some ID card we'll have to have on us at all times, and I don't envision checkpoints every 100 miles so big brother can track our movements.

You need to both review recent Supreme Court decisions permitting arrest for failing to provide ID upon demand without probable cause and actually take a trip out here so you can see the checkpoints on the interstates.

When you take that trip to California, be sure to leave your evil firearms at home because this state has chosen to pick and choose the parts of the Constitution it respects, a talent apparently common to many presently in office.

Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"?

[surprise_audit]

I'd bet that you can drive from Maine to California without ever showing your ID to anyone.

....and I don't envision checkpoints every 100 miles so big brother can track our movements.

I think a lot of people here are concerned that with RFID tags, you don't have to actually show your ID. It can be scanned by any conveniently placed tag scanner. So, at some point on your drive from Maine to California you'll need to get gas, food, lodging, etc. Motels generally want to see some ID when you check-in, and the gas pump could have a tag scanner built into it. You may not have to have ID to travel within the US, but there are plenty of opportunities for checkpoints to track your movements.

Re:What's the definition of "Internal Passport"?

[BackInIraq]

Obviously, this is different from what's being proposed here. I didn't even RTFA and I'm reasonably sure that this ID will not be required to travel in the U.S. I'd bet that you can drive from Maine to California without ever showing your ID to anyone.

If I remember correctly there are, in some states, checkpoints at major points of entry into that state (I seem to remember there being one on I-10 at the AZ/CA border, for instance). Granted, all they ever asked me is if I'm carrying any fruit or animals with me (or something similar)...but what would stop them from also requiring that I show my ID? I am driving, so I am required to have it.

Or, even better, what is to stop them from scanning it via the DHS-preferred RFID method, with or without my knowledge?

In addition, what is to stop any of the state-run toll-collection agencies on the many toll roads across this great land from doing the same? And what is to stop these checkpoints from going up at almost every state border on every interstate...or major highway for that matter? The fact remains that many such checkpoints are already physically present and could easily be converted to use tracking our citizen's interstate movements. May not be every 100 miles, but it would make it difficult to relocate from Maine to California without having one of these IDs on you...especially if such methods as busses require them as well. Unless you've got a good pair of hiking boots.

I think that it might be harder for you to travel from one end of this country to the other without having an ID on you than you think, especially once this law passes.

And I'm not even getting into the ability of police to pull you over for all kinds of technical infractions (which many cops will tell you are just there to allow them to check for larger violations, such as DUI/warrants/drugs).

Why do I care personally? Because I don't like the idea of my movements being tracked. Not because I am doing any thing wrong, mind you...I just never want to have to explain why I have taken multiple 1500+ mile road trips in the same year to anybody. Especially because the actual reason (just felt like getting away for a little while) may or may not be acceptable to the interrogating party depending on the circumstances. Track just about any person's movements long enough, and you can make them look suspicious, given right right circumstances. Even a lack of travel can look suspicious. Which is why the government shouldn't be in the business of tracking it's citizens on a routine basis.

(And to answer the direct quote in a more straightforward manner, while it might be possible to travel from Maine to California without having a driver's license, even with the laws and such as they are today it is a risky proposition, especially considering the penalties for getting caught, which is not as unlikely as you might think on so long a trip.)

Re:That's the PROBLEM, not the solution.

[symbolic]

Why do you think identity theft is so rampant and easy? It's because the use of Social Security Number became re-purposed and expanded, even after the initial intent was stated to apply ONLY to Social Security. Now we have a huge and growing mess to deal with, a mess that was engineered by our own government. The national ID card, at least in my view, is just another monstrous mess waiting to happen.

On the WWII anniversary

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't ignore thinking, what if Hitler's nazi state had this power?

Would everything be the same today?

What No One Seemed to Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

"What no one seemed to notice was the ever widening gap between the government and the people...And it became always wider...
"The whole process of this disconnect coming into being was built around diversion...
"Nazism gave us some other dreadful, fundamental things to think about ...or, rather, provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway...
"Nazism kept us so busy with continuous changes, accusations and 'crises' and so fascinated ... by the machinations of the 'national enemies' without and within) and the government's 'responses' to them, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us...
"Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted', that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures' must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing...
"Each act curtailing freedom... is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow...
"You don't want to act, or even talk, alone... you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble' or be 'unpatriotic'...But the one great shocking
occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes...
"That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring: the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit (which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms) is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. ...
"You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father... could never have imagined."
Source: They Thought They Were Free, The Germans, 1938-45 (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1955)
__________________________________
"We will not wait as our enemies gather strength against us. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action, and this nation will act." G.W.Bush, West Point, June 2002
"In this new world, declarations of war serve no purpose. Our enemies must be defeated before they can harm us. I will never declare war, but will take action!" Adolph Hitler, June 1940
"Not too many people will be crying in their beer if there are more detentions, more stops and more profiling. There will be a groundswell of public opinion to banish civil rights," Peter Kirsanow, Bush's controversial appointee the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people, and the West in general, into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
Osama bin Laden, October, 2001

Re:What No One Seemed to Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. So many people can't understand that dictatorships were created by small, logical, well explained step - seemingly addressing "real" fears of the public.

With all due respect to the victims of 911, it's time to say: wake up, it was not Hiroshima.

Don't act as if it was.

Re:What No One Seemed to Notice

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit. If the Founding Fathers - men who fought the most powerful military nation on earth to earn America's freedom - returned to see what the freed permitted the government to do to their precious nation in response to the threat posed by a handful of immigrants with box cutters, well, I expect they won't have bothered.

Banks might like it a lot

[Kaenneth]

Identity theft is a real problem nowdays, so a common yet secure method of ID could be useful, however...

The more common, the bigger the target; erasers and cloners will be standard criminal equipment. Just as you can be arrested for a 'slim-jim' (used to unlock car doors) or various DMCA violating devices, these will quickly be considered 'criminal tools' and it'll be a felony to own one.

Clerks and such are often lazy, they rarly check my ID as it is, and they don't care if you use someone elses card anyway; say a man was arrested for using another mans card, and it turns out they are 'domestic partners', and he sues the store for a few million in 'Emotional Distress' and sexual preferance discrimination... think about the $2 bill stories... if your card fails, will you automatically become a suspect?

Re:Banks might like it a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats the great thing about the new DNA scanner/transmitter technology that will permit the RFID cards to automate the governments ability to control your life without having to worry about clerks making a mistake.

I feel safer already.

How convenient...

[Anonymous Coward]

... that this should go into effect just as Bush & co. are leaving office

All your base are belong to us...

[digitaldc]

I know Freedom & Liberty are our inaliable rights...but I still need to see your ID card please!

Question: How Does Knowing One's ID Make Us Safer?

[Ron Bennett]

How does knowing one's identity really make us collectively safer. I've yet to see a good answer to this question.

Requiring identification is basically a way of tracking people; fishing expeditions.

Scanning for explosives, etc is what they should concentrate on... most, if not all?, of the 911 terrorists had valid licenses; many of them had no criminal records ... again, my question is how does requiring ID make us safer?

Ron Bennett

Um...we kind of have this now

[PenguinBoyDave]

1. If you want to drive, you need a license 2. If you want to work you need a SS Card 3. If you want to travel overseas you need a passport. Frankly, I don't have a problem with it, but if we're going to have it, can I PLEASE use one of my old pictures :)

Who Cares?

[JMUChrisF]

It won' thinder my individual liberties. It should streamline my life. Make it easier to board a plane, easier to get a bank account etc. I don't give two shits.

IF this does become law, THEN

[TheLoneGundam]

we must work to make sure that WE can read the information on our own cards, to ensure accuracy, with a low-cost device owned by US and not some agency (to prevent the trivial programming of reader devices to omit information that agencies don't want us to know they've encoded there). We must not accept any form of encryption of the data that we don't have a key to (encryption is OK to prevent trivial theft of the information, but the owner of the ID card should own (at least a copy of) the decryption key).

Re:IF this does become law, THEN

[Khyras]

I agree, but I don't think this will realistically be passed. There is abuse potential, especially if the cards end up using a radio transmitter. Having us common folk able to read the ID cards is something I don't see the US government being too fond of. There would have to be some sort of encryption algorithm, and it's only a matter of time before someone resourceful finds a way to crack it.

Re:IF this does become law, THEN

[TheLoneGundam]

will we then, end up with ID cards that contain items only our supposed guardians can read?

Makes sense...

[bsquizzato]

I can see why they want to do this though. Currently every state has it's own different standards for the drivers license system, and it is a nationally acceptable means of identifying oneself (although I'm sure there are federal requirements on what absolutely must be on a driver's license...)

There's been a lot of stories in the news about how ridiculously easy it is to get a driver's license in different states. I know here in North Carolina it has appeared in the local papers quite often since illegal immigrants (mostly Hispanics) end up obtaining them all the time.

It gives the government a centralized form of identification to "keep track of people" for "security." Whether or not this is a good thing is for someone else on here to discuss...

On a side note I can see the possibility this card being overused for everything, kind of like the social security number. Name one form you don't have to use your social security number for these days.

abuse

[cahiha]

How soon does everyone think this system will be abused either by the government or by thieves ?

I dunno. But I do know that it will be harder to abuse than the current system, which is absolutely atrocious.

Not too late, call your senator, here's a form:

[rleibman]

I get emails from this organization: www.downsizedc.org. They've been working against this for a while, and they have tons of information about *exactly* why a national ID card is a bad idea.
They have a very easy form to contact your senator on this issue.

They are also working on a law proposal that would force lawmakers to read the laws before they get to vote on them. A good idea and well presented.

Re:Not too late, call your senator, here's a form:

[iminplaya]

They are also working on a law proposal that would force lawmakers to read the laws before they get to vote on them.

What chance do you think it has of passing if they actually read it? This is one bill might might make it if nobody reads it, and if it's called the "automatic pay raise" bill.

Re:Not too late, call your senator, here's a form:

[Alsee]

Well while we're wishing for impossible laws, I have one to contribute.

Any legislator who has voted for an excessive number of bills later struck down as unconstitutional should be barred from holding any further public office for violating his oath to uphold the constitution.

"Excessive number" of unconstitutional bills is a bit vague, but I'm sure something reasonable could be worked out. I am sick and tired of the legislature knowingly passing all sorts of unconstitutional crap and knowing they won't / can't be held accountable for it.

-

Just Demand ID First.

[mikelieman]

Simple fix. Tin-foil wallet, and refuse to provide ID to anyone until you have inspected, and recorded the information on theirs, first.

This is important to prevent IDENTY THEFT, and make sure the person requesting the ID is actually AUTHORIZED to use it. Oh, and if you wanna scan the magstripe into your POS terminal to prove that you're permitted to sell me booze, you'll have to fill out this NON-DISCLOSURE and USE AND AUDTITING AGREEMENT, first.

I love the 21st Century!

Re:Just Demand ID First.

[zmollusc]

..........and the wage-slave won't be allowed to sign or approve anything so no booze for you.

Re:Just Demand ID First.

[mikelieman]

Yes, but how many sales did he miss because of all the time I took up? I can't change EVERYTHING, but I can toss a little sand into the bearings...

Sometimes, that's enough.

suggested profile db service provider

[psbrogna]

That timing will work out great. W/in the next three years Google should just about have completed their global database containing everything about everybody. They'll be an ideal service provider for the federal gov't in producing these ID's.

ID card

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans: 0
Terrorists: 1

Fascist United States

[Guysmiley777]

From the inventor of the concept:
"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power."
-Benito Mussolini

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes.nsf/QuotesByC atPerson?ReadForm&RestrictToCategory=Benito+Mussol ini

At least the Federal government in the United States isn't controlled by corporate power. Oh damn.

Fletch

[Shimmer]

you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane

I was watching the movie Fletch the other day. I remembered it as being pretty good from when I was a kid. It's still good, but it's pretty dated in places. Perhaps the most egregious example occurred at the end of the movie when Fletch takes two airplane tickets from the bad guy and uses them to fly with his girlfriend to an exotic vacation.

This was done so nonchalantly that I was forcefully reminded that things that we take for granted today may easily be gone tomorrow.

Criminals and terrorists can still get an ID

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this a win for thieves, criminals and the like? All they have to do is present some documents to the DMV and they can get a real ID.
Nobody will disbelieve their ID because it is, in fact, a valid ID.

If the DMV is provided forged documents, how will they know? Joe Terrorist can still blow something up. All this would do is provide the authorities with copies of the documents used to procure the ID after they did their deed and became exposed. I don't see how that helps.

Re:Criminals and terrorists can still get an ID

[udowish]

congratulations, you just realized that the national ID card is BS, it is intended for other things not just ID....

I hope there isn't a wait like getting a license

[zymano]

That would really suck.

Faraday cage? Why?

[YrWrstNtmr]

There is no RFID for these. Not yet, anyway.

Looking at my drivers license, issued 4 yrs ago, there is nothing in this provision that it doesn't already have.

Funny/scary ACLU "movie" that's relevant to this..

[dagnabit]

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/

What's really wrong...

[vistic]

...and needs to be fixed is the way legislation works in this country where things can keep getting tacked onto bills so various things can be snuck in. There should be some committee that make sure bills stay focused and on task.

New bill going through to prevent the government from beating up your dear, sweet grandma... (and we snuck on legislation that allows us to sneak into your home and rummage through your stuff for any reason we decide, without informing you)... can't vote that down, think of all the grandmas!

Re:Privacy Shmivacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it's not explicitly given to us doesn't mean we don't have it. In fact, unless the Constitution explicitly DENIES a right, then the people automatically have it.

Fascist.

Damn...

[Mysticalfruit]

Guess I'm walking and keeping my money in a jar buried out in the woods... Along with a supply of rubber gloves so when I pay for something, it won't have my fingerprints on it.

Beginning of the end.

[pixel_bc]

Can I see your paperwork, citizen?

Every day, that place is becoming more and more of a strange cross between the movies Brazil and 1984.

There are a number of labour rebels

[Colin Smith]

Not my own MP though, his voting record is a near perfect copy of Tony Blair's.

We do need proportional representation. *36%* is all they got, barely more than 1/3. I'm going to have a word with my new MP and inform him that he is supposed to be a representative for his constituency, including the 58% majority who didn't vote for him.

Re:There are a number of labour rebels

[koniosis]

Unfortunatly proportional representation also has its problems, the biggest being which party ends up being your local MP? Also it will lead to no party having enough power to pass anything through parliment. As bad (I agree it is) as the current system is, it does leave the country in a functional state.

Re:There are a number of labour rebels

[m50d]

The current system allows parties to force things through, which is bad. If it was a 3 way split then only those laws which were necessary would get passed. Which is how it should be. Last term there was an average of iirc over 1 law a day being passed, most of them frivolous stuff that shouldn't have got into law.

Also bans torture and "extraordinary rendition"

[jsproul]

This bill also includes an amendment by my local Representative, Ed Markey (D-MA) to ban the "extraordinary rendition" of suspects to regimes like Syria that routinely use torture.

I'm not sure which is worse - allowing the government to continue to kidnap potentially innocent people and send them to other countries to be tortured, or a national ID that's little more than the existing drivers' licenses.

Fortunately we still have the Second Amendment. For now.

Re:Also bans torture and "extraordinary rendition"

[Apocros]

hmmm... while generally i'm pretty annoyed with the whole concept of rider amendments, this sounds like one that i can almost support (subject to the ends-justiying-the-means sorts of quandries). i question whether it'll have any real effect though. since violating the spirit of the law (but not the letter!) with respect to torture seems to be acceptable to the powers-that-be, i've no doubt that some other loophole will be exploited to work around this amendment.

drifting a bit off-topic, i wonder what would happen if someone had managed to sneak an amendment onto this bill (or any other MustPassLegislation(TM)) that made it henceforth illegal to attach unrelated amendments to proposed legislation.

Haha. Losers.

[Anonymous Coward]

In two years I finish my graduate degree and I'm getting the hell out of this place. Dual citizenship means I can dump my American passport like the psycho girlfriend it's becoming. Enjoy your Orwellian paradise. Chumps.

OT: Swap partition

[Anonymous Coward]

What piece of crap OS are you running that doesn't encrypt the swap by default?

whats the big deal?

[raides]

honestly outside of the ever going "Big Brother" is this step even a surprise ? i dont really think there is too much to worry about your privacy. honestly, how many of you are running cocaine deals to colombia or taking over third world countries? ive been reading over this bill for over a month, since it has been setup for a while to be passed and there are many problems that state represenatives are already looking into. i would be less worried about giving up the same information you give up to take the SATs or ACTs and be more worried about where the information is stored and how it is checked. if RFID is to be put in our passports for checking identification, you should be more worried about what database that is being read. example, is it one giant network or a single network for each facility. both have their extremes in security risks. that seems to be the main problem in debate right now for the bill. a few liberals are still arguing over how inhumane it is for the government to acquire our information like this, but i in turn would say , "do you drive a car?" you give up just as much information to your state to get a license, is that better ? are they less corrupt ? come on . i would be more worried aobut who will have access to the database and how secure it is, due to idenity theft and people who really have reasons not to give up their personal information in fear of being put in prison. i in no way support big brother, but this type of "registration" as nazi as it seems, has been done in many countries. this will also guarrantee that we are able to determine what people in the United States are actual citizens. This is a huge problem in california, and me not being a racist, i see no real reason that people who jump into our country can use to claim they deserve to not pay taxes for 3 years as immigrants, when they fled to this country for freedom and citizenship. If you dont want to be a citizen of this country, then leave, millions a day in my home state work extremely hard to make sure people have a good way of life , people in our homes, community, and on a greater scale our state. outside of this old news, i would hope more people follow cspan and sign reports on this RFID setup. mainly because no matter what solution they pick for the database setup, huge security risks will be open, and i would be more worried about that. well that, and someone who just opens the hole in security to show the company it is there, but then their acts are made public by news media or themselves and boom, everyone is able to open the hole. if you really dont want people to fuck with your personal info, do not make give others the ability to do so...in short, i hope some people go out and actually research this problem, cause it will be a big change for this coountry.

Revelation 13:16-17

[TripMaster Monkey]

16

He also forced everyone,
small and great, rich and poor,
free and slave, to receive a mark
on his right hand or on his forehead,

17

so that no one could buy or sell
unless he had the mark, which is
the name of the beast or the
number of his name.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[Terrasque]

I don't have a clue as of how to moderate this.
Funny? Interesting? I think we need a "+1 Scary"...

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[MooseByte]

"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead"

So this would effectively reveal Dubya as the anti-christ? Yeah, kinda figured.... ;-)

Though I always had him cast as Jar-Jar with Rove as the Sith Lord.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[Seumas]

Then there's the whole wearing of polyfibers thing. Oh NOES WE ALL FUCKED, WILLIS!

*yawn*

Religious crazies are fun.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[Anonymous Coward]

What I'm sure you'd hate to recognize is that this proposal makes the US more like Europe.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[dsfox]

http://www.bushisantichrist.com/

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[Frangible]

So uh, why are a good 10% of the comments I've seen on this blaming Bush for a bill the democrats are happily voting into law? Wake up guys, both political parties are in screw-you mode.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[bill_mcgonigle]

a mark on his right hand or on his forehead ...so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark

What does that have to do with an ID card?

Now, if you want to start talking about requiring biometrics for a cashless society, fingerprints and iris scans, then you're getting a bit closer to the description.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Always two there are, a Master and an Apprentice.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[flyingsquid]

So uh, why are a good 10% of the comments I've seen on this blaming Bush for a bill the democrats are happily voting into law? Wake up guys, both political parties are in screw-you mode.

This provision is attached to the funding for troops in Iraq. If a Democrat votes against it because of the ID card, they're committing political suicide: Republicans would claim they're "weak on defense", "not supporting our boys" and "playing into the hands of the terrorists", no matter how much they protested that they were voting against the ID card, not war funding. You can blame the politicians, but the voters bear a lot of the blame for being dumb enough to fall for tricks like this.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[Anonymous Coward]

W---TF?

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[operagost]

Most of the Jews thought it was the Law that saved them, rather than grace. Nowhere in the Old Testament does it say that you must follow the Law or face eternal damnation. The Law, like the Sabbath, was created for men and not for God. For example, there are laws regarding divorce, which Jesus said explicitly he hated and gave to us only because our hearts were hard. He also said that what comes out of a man's mouth was more important than what goes into it, thereby explaining why turning your back on shrimp and bacon isn't going to make a damn difference if lies and slurs are part of your modus operandum.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[glenebob]

What's the difference? They (would be) both required by law.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[glenebob]

Religious? You mean you're unable to recognize wisdom thousands of years old just because the wording is badly out-dated? You shouldn't discount out of hand what someone says just because they have a belief system different than yours. Some things never change. People in power have always and will always strive to increase that power, and people have always know it.

16
Congress also forced everyone,
small and great, rich and poor,
free and slave, to receive an ID
and a card,

17
so that no one could buy or sell
unless he had the card, which bears
the number of his name.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[Spetiam]

Republicans would claim they're "weak on defense", "not supporting our boys" and "playing into the hands of the terrorists"

Not this Republican. I just called my Democrat Senators to point out that (a) I'm a Republican and (b) the Democrats have a wonderful opportunity to put heat on the Republican Party.

Of course, since both Parties like to put slimeball riders on legit legislation, I doubt the Democrats will do anything...

I'll be "-1 Redundant" here: bills should be single issue.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, so I end up in jail because some bozo witha jello finger embezzled millions with my fingerprint. Lovely. Well, at least I was a millionaire for 12 seconds...

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[rainman_bc]

I don't think a fingerprint counts as a mark on your right hand... It's already friggin' there.

Maybe RFID embedded under the skin of your right hand, but seriously, this is retarded...

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, a bit off-topic, but in line with the parent post... Assuming, of course, that the author of Revelation indeed had some kind of vision-like expereince, I wonder if he simply didn't misread what he saw (considering how numerals were written at the time compared to modern times). I wonder if the mark of the beast wasn't actually 666, or 616 as some scholars claim, but 1776...

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[Anonymous Coward]

In Texas, for the past few years, in order to get a State issued ID or Drivers License the applicant has to provide a digital thumbprint and digital picture of their face (mainly the forehead area for Facial recognition purposes)... thus the forehead and right hand reference.

Add to that the part about the number of his name (ie. your DL # or SS#) and the Revelation is damn near close to being fulfilled.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[bill_mcgonigle]

wha? The Bible doesn't talk about ID cards.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[bill_mcgonigle]

I don't think a fingerprint counts as a mark on your right hand... It's already friggin' there.

Tell me about the knowledge of fingerprints c. 100 AD.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[bill_mcgonigle]

bingo. 1-factor authentication sucks.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[arminw]

actually the "ON his right hand or ON his forehead..." is also translated ..."IN his right hand or IN his forehead"...

Why bother with a card that can be lost or stolen. Just require an implantable chip device that can be read at a distance.

The next verse adds to this: "And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark..."

The elimination and outlawing of cash money will follow this ID system to allow the total control of all people, ultimately world wide.

For centuries nobody reading this prophecy imagined how it could ever be that trade could be prevented by the lack of an identifying mark. Now it is on the not too distant horizon thanks to technology.

Could it be that other prophecies in the Bible, such as many of the statements of Jesus Christ will also come true soon? For example, Jesus said that there would come a time so terrible, that if God did not intervene, all life on Earth would be extinguished. With modern WMDs that doesn't sound to far fetched anymore either.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[arminw]

...What does that have to do with an ID card?....

The card is just the pre-cursor to the mandatory implantable chip device. These chips are already commonly used in animals. Biometrics is a good way to go, but is much more expensive to implement universally than a simple chip reader connected to a phone line or network. Just replace the present credit card reader with a cheap chip scanner.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[Anonymous Coward]

Then russia will actually save usa, by nuking all the cities and corporations, ala fightclub * 10000

So move out to the country towns now, cities are gona be big ole cemetaries.

Oh and sell your shares now!, and buy some gold because cash will be useless, as in, any one can print it, but you have to work to get gold/silver.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[unitron]

...to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead...

...or at least dubya will saddle them with a silly nickname.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[Anonymous Coward]

Revelation 21:19

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

---
Might want to be careful with cute edits on this book of the bible... Seems to have an ultimate copyright and 'fair-use' exclusion system built in.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no "wisdom" to recognize here. Wise statements are ones that make carefully argued points.

What you have posted is merely a claim.

If someone 1,000 years ago wrote, "National ID cards are bad" we would not consider it "wise". Likewise, if someone had written "National ID cards are good" we would not consider it "wise", either.

Both are merely statements, devoid of any argument or reasoning.

In fact, if you take the passages from Relevation out of DIVINE context (as you are attempting to do here by transliteration) they are on par with just about every other piece of ancient writing that is a mere assertion. And just because a statement is old doesn't make it true or interesting.

-- AC

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[millennial]

It sounds quite feasible now, since the US starting the planning phase for an invasion of North Korea. I wish I could find my source for that, but searching Google News for "north korea" is just turning up the same stories dozens of times.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[arminw]

...invasion of North Korea...

Korea is likely to be only a side show in the end time scenarios predicted in the Bible. The center of action will be in the Middle East. This is where human civilization began and this is where it will end, save for the grace and last minute, personal intervention by the God-Man Jesus. He will re-enter our time-space dimension once again, this time put an end to human foolishness and rebellion against God.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[millennial]

Sir, I do believe you may be crazy person. What's this about Jesus and space-time? God-Man?

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[arminw]

Jesus claimed to be God in human form so among other things, we could get some idea what the transcendant eternal God is like. He came from a place called Heaven which is not part of our space-time domain. Jesus commissioned the Apostle John to write the book of Revelation. It details in admittedly difficult picture language some of the concluding events ending history as we have known it. John wrote other parts of the Bible also. If you only know about the Bible from others, I recommend you read it for yourself at least once. It is a remarkable collection of 66 books written by 40 authors over thousands of years. These men were given what to write by God. It is funny how many of the most vocal critics of the Bible have never read it for themselves.

I am not a crazy. There are millions of Christians who also believe this. Maybe in some people's eyes they are all crazy.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[millennial]

It is funny how many of the most vocal critics of the Bible have never read it for themselves.
It's also funny how many of them have, and how many times you see criticism of a particular non-Biblical belief as criticism of the Bible.
The Bible never says that Heaven is outside of our space-time. The concept didn't exist back then, so to say that Heaven is outside of our space-time is to interpret the Bible in a way it was obviously never meant to be interpreted.
P.S. Why are you referring to Jesus as a Man-God? He was, and is, and ever shall be God.

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[arminw]

...The Bible never says that Heaven is outside of our space-time...

Not directly, but we are told in Isaiah 57:15 - "For thus saith the high and lofty One that INHABITETH ETERNITY, whose name is Holy; -...

God created time, space, matter-energy and is not subject to time. The first verse of the Bible tells us this and modern science calls it "The Big Bang". A concept of eternity being "just a lot of time" is not biblical, but very hard to understand. God exists eternally, outside of time and Heaven is where God dwells.

God looks in from the outside of our whole time-space universe. He sees everything going on at once. He sees time as one who sees a parade from the air -- the first float, the last one and the ones in between all at once. We, standing at the street corner see each only as it comes before us and after it has passed, we have but a memory of it.

Jesus is all God, but for our sake He took on our humanity and limited himself to the laws of physics he formulated - including time and even death. He often referred to Himself "as the Son of Man".

Re:Revelation 13:16-17

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgive my ignorance on the matter, but I always thought that St. John the Divine was a different person than John the Apostle.

Echo of the cold war

[Yndoendo]

Is this not the same thing Soviet Union did during the cold war? And weren't Americans making fun of them the communist government forcing their citizens to do this because Americans had freedom?

We've been moving in this direction for years

[Anitra]

When the younger brother of my husband (my boyfriend at the time) came to visit a few years ago, he had trouble buying a bus ticket to get home, because he didn't have a state- or federally-issued ID. They didn't care that he was 14, and too young to have a driver's licence. In the end, we had to give a bunch of our own personal information to Greyhound so that this kid could ride a bus from Massachusetts to New Hampshire. No one would argue that he was too young to ride by himself, but they wouldn't accept a school ID, which was the only identification he had.

Since that day, I've been expecting a bill like this to come up. Eventually, you'll need an ID to take any form of long-distance public transportation - if you don't already. I'm still not sure what they're going to do about people too young to drive - will the states start issuing IDs when you turn 13? 10? 5? Or if you're a "child" like my brother-in-law, will you need a passport just to take the bus?

Re:We've been moving in this direction for years

[conteXXt]

go a little further.

You will need identification to take transit at all.

and transit will be all there is.

When oil is scarce, do you think you'll actually be buying any directly?

Question

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Will the RFID blocker protect the card from the RFID zapper?

Nobody in, nobody out

[amichalo]

These ID cards look like a great way of making it difficult to travel to/from the US. No because of teh technology perhaps. More likely because it makes it so "expensive" to one's privacy.

Further, by continuing to pissoff the rest of the world, making coming to the US difficult or leaving just as hard, we will end up with an effective "closed" border. Nobody in, Nobody out.

I understand more and more why Paul Allen would spend $200 Million on a yatch!

If you didn't vote straight Libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

you ASKED for this!
________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.

I'm getting myself an mCloak

[tim_olsen]

I'm getting myself one of these

Re:I'm getting myself an mCloak

[jdmarandino]

My FastPass came in an anti-static bag.
Because the unit itself is not vulnerable to ESD, I guessed the bag was to block RFID activity while being shipped to me. I checked this out by leaving in the bag as I drove thru a toll booth, sure enough it blocked the activity.

This was a typical silvery anti-static bag that electronics come in, way cheaper than a $30 mCloak :D

No kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

But you know how they get around that.

"Oh we don't tell states how they permit people to drive cars. But if states meet the following requirements they get a load of money for roads."

Yeah. It's crap but they are at least consistent.

Congratulations.

[OwP_Fabricated]

...On being the first retard to post that in this topic.

Because we sure haven't seen some idiot post it in EVERY FUCKING TOPIC that mentions RFID, Barcodes, Biometrics, National IDs, Passports, etc. etc.

Re:Congratulations.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it may be redundant, but it sure ain't offtopic.

Re:Congratulations.

[cheekyboy]

So that just means that from year 33AD to 1913AD, everything was peachy and cool. It took that long for someone to finally read the bible and say, look heres how to ruin the world or cause jesus to get real pissed off and come back.

Re:Congratulations.

[labiator]

Get fucking real dipshit... the poster is only pointing out that in the case of dubya, it is a matter of live by the sword, die by the sword... (sub Bible for sword, and you will understand). dubya claims to be a Christian, but he seems to be more of a fascist to me... he makes me ashamed of being a Texan...

Re:Congratulations.

[dustmite]

So you are saying the relevance of the content of that post is somehow dependent on, and influenced by, whether or not it is posted in "every topic" relating to electronic IDs and tracking? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. "It's posted every time, therefore it's nonsense" - WTF!? Play the ball, try to refute the message itself.

Re:Congratulations.

[millennial]

FYI: Dubya is from Connecticut.
See here.
President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut.

At least the pilots could be armed now

[johnny cashed]

So that is one change that might stop a hijacking. I just hope they are using ammo that won't penentrate the aircraft fuselage. Of course, that has little to do with ID cards.

Good riddance, shitbag.

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need pig ignorant child fuckers like you who can't even connect with reality.

i certainly dislike this, but....

[carambola5]

OK, so the idea of a national ID card being attached to the emergency military bill sucks.

And requiring such a national ID card to fly in an airplace sucks.

And a lot of other things about this ID thing suck.

But there is one upside to this: reduction of election fraud. If you're required to scan in when you vote, voter disenfranchisement should plummet... assuming Diebold doesn't get it's slimy hands on the system, of course. Sorry Chicago, no more "Vote early, vote often" of yore.

Re:i certainly dislike this, but....

[BandwidthHog]

But there is one upside to this: reduction of election fraud. If you're required to scan in when you vote, voter disenfranchisement should plummet.

Oh good, knowing that your vote is being recorded for posterity oughta do wonders for voter turnout!

Re:i certainly dislike this, but....

[dfenstrate]

Oh good, knowing that your vote is being recorded for posterity oughta do wonders for voter turnout!

No, just THAT you voted. Kinda like they do now when they check your name off at the front desk of the voting area, give you a form to fill out, and then you put it in a machine that reads the vote after as many people as you care to wait for put their forms in before you.

What the parent poster meant was that the electronic nature of this system would make it easy to prevent multivotes by using a county-wide system.

Re:i certainly dislike this, but....

[SagSaw]

But there is one upside to this: reduction of election fraud. If you're required to scan in when you vote, voter disenfranchisement should plummet...

Actually, I think that requiring that you "scan a card" to vote makes election fraud easier in some repects. Let say that you have a close race that you don't want to lose. Create a profile of voters who are likely not to vote for you. Secretly load that list onto the voting machine. Reject, at random, some percentage of the voters who fit the profile. Perhaps you can simply discard their votes, rather than not allowing them to vote in the first place.

Today, you could also do this. However, precinct workers might notice that there are a large number of apparently registered voters who are being rejected. If the system is automated, and the precinct workers take the systems decision regarding who may vote as gospel, then you could reject many more voters.

Parliamentary Procedure

[bubba_ry]

Now it's been some time since I was on the Debate team/Model U.N./etc. where I could easily recall parliamentary procedure, but in general, wouldn't the representatives have had the opportunity to motion to remove the portion of the bill that was *snuck* in? I fail to see how someone snuck it in? Obviously they weren't very sneaky if we know about it, right? Bring the bill back up for debate and have that clause/paragraph/whatever removed or placed in another bill.

It saddens me to think that we, as constituents, can fall into the same trap as our Representatives and Senators by playing the party-card (Reps did this, Dems did that). Try this: Chalk it up to the folks in Congress either not doing their jobs correctly or just plain playing politics.

One of these days (when I grow up) I'm going to get into politics. Not because I like it, but because I want to make it better.

How long until...

[Anonymous Coward]

Our whole system is failing. The government is becoming the we say so corporation. It's good for you because we say so.

Stupid laws are being made right under us. After they pass, most of the country just has a go along with it attitude. There are no checks and balances on government anymore. Officials are elected then pay back their corporate donors when they are elected. They make laws that benefit everyone but the citizens.

This is our country. Our rights are being stripped down left and right. Our president might as well be a dictator. He does what he wants when he wants. Same for all other areas of government.

Someting needs to be done. They are trying to regulate everything so this can't happen.

A call to arms against Rep. Sensenbrenner

[JimBobJoe]

I *just* got this posted on Politech...I'm reposting it here on Slashdot as a Call to Arms.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] House approves Real ID Act;one Democrat's
objections [priv]
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 09:50:32 -0800
From: James Moyer
To: Declan McCullagh

Declan,

With the approval of the REAL ID Act, I believe it's time to place blame
of it passage and make sure that Congress knows that there are people
who still believe in liberty and care about their privacy.

For this reason, I believe that we (those who care) should begin a
campaign against Wisconsin Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, to make sure
that he loses the September 2006 Congressional Primary.

We must make it clear, to the people of the 5th Wisconsin district, that
Rep. Sensenbrenner, is directly responsible for the creation of the
National ID Card, through his sponsorship and work on the REAL ID Act.

We must make it clear that Rep. Sensenbrenner is putting American's
identities and lives at stake, by fomenting the introduction of RFID
based passports (a result of his "leadership" as chair of the House
Judiciary Committee.)

And finally, we must make it clear to people of faith in his district,
that he is *most* responsible for paving the way toward the Mark of the
Beast, as predicted in the book of Revelations, and that, like the Mark
of the Beast, no American shall be able to "buy or sell" without one of
Jim Sensenbrenner's "REAL IDs." There should be no doubt his work on the
REAL ID Act is entirely unchristian.

By aggressively targeting Jim Sensenbrenner next year, we shall make it
clear to leadership that we are demanding that they take liberty and
privacy needs into account. We can further awake the sleeping giant of
Christians who are concerned about National ID card issues, but haven't
found a medium for voicing their concerns.

Now's the time to begin such a campaign, so that everyone is well aware
of Sensenbrenner's dastardly REAL ID act. By September 2006 every
churchgoer in the Wisconsin 5th shall be aware of it as well.

Anyone who wants to work on this project is more than welcome to get in
touch with me.

James Moyer

Re:A call to arms against Rep. Sensenbrenner

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Republican, I heartily welcome you wasting your campaign dolalrs against a man who won his district by an enormous margin and is unbeatable.

FJS is one of the more powerful congressmen we've got, so good luck there. And he did the right thing here. I realize that national standards for ID cards are not good, but the ease of getting a driver's liscense is part of why 9/11 happened. Either driver's liscences should ensure residency and identity, or they ought not permit someone on a plane (etc.)

Furthermore, the reason the GOP is in power, in spite of their unpopular and dangerous social politics, is exactly for things like this, realizing the sacrifices needed in this time of war. I hope the Democrats continue to focus on how they would rather be lax on security. Even though that isn't really true, that's the message you are sending out.

What would be better for you is if you pretended you agreed with security matters, that politics stopped at the water's edge and all that, and then attacked relentlessly on the social issues.

Instead the dems are largely complacent or even in agreement about socially conservative politics and you spend your attacks on these obvious political moves. If you think the ID card issue wasn't intended to bring out a bunch of dems to make fruitless and unflattering attacks, you're not savvy of these matters.

Re:A call to arms against Rep. Sensenbrenner

[JimBobJoe]

As a Republican, I heartily welcome you wasting your campaign dolalrs against a man who won his district by an enormous margin and is unbeatable.

It's definitely a Republican district...which is why his opponent should be another Republican. If it's so conservative to elect him with 65% margins, then its conservative enough to find a better conservative.

but the ease of getting a driver's liscense is part of why 9/11 happened. Either driver's liscences should ensure residency and identity, or they ought not permit someone on a plane (etc.)

My point exactly. Security morons are assuming that the problem was that the IDs we had are somehow lacking...the problem is actually relying on IDs for security in the first place. The security morons are not questioning their assumption that IDs are appropriate for airline security.

Re:A call to arms against Rep. Sensenbrenner

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what we would rely on to identify people if not id's. We;ve lost a lot of freedom, that's for sure.

Still, it seems necessary.

The republicans would not forfeit one the most important and stalwart of their number for some other republican.

FJS doesn't toe the party line, as anyone who watched news late last year knows. He won't be judiciary chair forever, but he will be after this next election. No way a republican could raise the money to oppose him.

Anyway, this is what the voters want, more security etc.

Instead of real debate, conyers asks republicans he doesnt agree with to elect someone else.

Pretty petty.

Re:A call to arms against Rep. Sensenbrenner

[Anonymous Coward]

Where can we donate money to help fire FJS ? Talk about a hell bent, hard headed man !

Re:A call to arms against Rep. Sensenbrenner

[darkonc]

but the ease of getting a driver's liscense is part of why 9/11 happened. Either driver's liscences should ensure residency and identity, or they ought not permit someone on a plane (etc.)
My point exactly. Security morons are assuming that the problem was that the IDs we had are somehow lacking [....] the problem is actually relying on IDs for security in the first place.

As far as I know, most of the 9/11 hijackers used things like their passports to get on the planes, and their IDs were accurate.

In other words, innaccurate IDs had almost nothing at all to do with 9/11.

Re:A call to arms against Rep. Sensenbrenner

[arbitraryaardvark]

One approach would be to send it to the Republican Liberty Caucus c/o congressman Ron Paul. They are reasonably good about recruiting further-right people to run against bad republicans. However, their success rate isn't very high, and they tend not to play hardball. When you need to take out a well-funded powerful politician, someone like Rostenkowski or Nixon, one of the more workable tactics is to invest in investigations of criminal activity. It can be hard to run for re-election from a jail cell, although it happens. I am -not- suggesting I know of any illegality or wrongdoing by Sensenbrenner. I'm just saying sometimes that approach gives you more bang for your buck. And I don't know who you go to for that, in WI 5th district. Maybe, if asked nicely, George Souros would put up some money to do background checks on certain republicans. Maybe the money could be used to hire declan (just for example)to coordinate things. Campaigns and Elections magazine puts out a directory of political operatives, look under "opposition research" or "skullduggery." rarely, but now and then, these things actually work. In 1994, a group called Dfoli8 America was able to raise just enough funds online to beat Tom Foley, who was the democratic house mahjority leader or some such. Whether it works or not, a sincere and committed effort to get rid of Sensenbrenner because of this one bad bill, is the kind of thing that politicians respond to. On the other hand, a few of us just talking on slashdot won't accomplish the thing without more. So I'm just speculating, not planning.

Bush never figured on...

[gosand]

Anyone recall that the Bush Administration told us told this war was going to cost? I thought this was was supposed to cost between $10 and $100 billion [salon.com]? We're already more than three times the high end figure, with no end in sight. This is the fourth emergency allocation of money Bush has asked for for his war "on the cheap".

That's because he never thought he would get re-elected. That figure was just for the first term. Now he has a blank check and doesn't have to worry about completely doing whatever he wants in his second term. Strangely, this all comes back to how organized fundamentalist religion is ruining this country.

Re:Bush never figured on...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because he never thought he would get re-elected.

Alright, I can see your point there, it's kind of funny!

That figure was just for the first term. Now he has a blank check and doesn't have to worry about completely doing whatever he wants in his second term.

I'm beginning to see your point. I can almost buy that. What other arguments will you make to convince me?

Strangely, this all comes back to how organized fundamentalist religion is ruining this country.

...and it all goes up in a puff of smoke

Re:Bush never figured on...

[gosand]

Strangely, this all comes back to how organized fundamentalist religion is ruining this country.

...and it all goes up in a puff of smoke

Well, I did make a jump. All the steps were there, I just didn't feel like typing them. I think it was widely accepted that the "family values" vote was what helped Bush win. It's funny how he spouts on about "family values" considering his past and present. Yet he continues to push his religious agenda. While spending hundreds of billions of dollars for a war whose cause has still yet to be explained. That has been declared a victory, yet people are still dying every day, years later, because of it.

He is well known to have ties with evangelical religion. See this PBS story on it. It was just one that I found quite quickly via Google. He has implemented a "faith-based initiative". He wants to push his own religious beliefs on the rest of the country (gay marriage, abortion, censorship). Bush is ruining this country at an alarming pace, and we are going to be paying for it for many generations. His religious beliefs are by his own admission the force that is driving him. This is bigger than just the current clown that we have in the White House.

Daniel Schorr on National Public Radio

[jwgoerlich]

"NPR's senior news analyst argues that the 'Real ID' proposal, as tacked onto the $82 billion supplementary spending bill for Iraq and foreign aid, is at best a half-mesaure that fails to undertake a full consideration of the merits of a national identification card."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=4630875

Ineffective.

[EvilStein]

I've written to my Senators. I got back a banal, canned reply. Some senators don't take email because they've been so flooded with spam.
Some senators don't take phone calls. "Mr X's office is not accepting phone calls at this time."

I'm > this close to saying that we need to stage huge protests in front of the state capitol buildings. Problem is that you wind up confined to "legal protest areas."

What the fuck is happening in America?!

Re:Ineffective.

[siriuskase]

Doesn't your computer know how to be a fax machine? Open up that email you wrote and select "print to fax". The folks up in DC won't be able to tell it from a real fax. If you really want to make an impact, "print to printer", fold it up and stick it in an envelope, address it properly, don't forget the stamp, then mail it the old fashioned way. That still makes the strongest impression and it really isn't much harder, assuming you don't need to buy a stamp.

Types of ID

[sjbe]

* Social security cards have just a name and an address on them (mine is 25 years old, so I could be wrong on this point).

Actually they don't have an address on them (mine doesn't anyway, just the name and SSN) and it would be quickly out of date if it did. And mine's well over 30 years old if we're comparing. But all that's beside the point. Have you ever held a job? It's one of the valid forms of ID when combined with a driver's license required by the IRS on their W2 form (I think that's the right one) in order to prove authorization to work in the US. There are alternatives but it's widely accepted and used.

* There are at least 50 disparate driver's licensing systems in this country

Each of which is a perfectly valid form of ID, issued by a governmental (just not federal) agency. I see no need for another one from the federal government.

* Ditto for birth certificates. You carry yours around?

When needed. I've been asked for it to get a passport, for background checks, and when I was a kid to prove my age at sporting events.

* Credit cards are not identification, even if Bank of America put your picture on the front.

Sure they are. I've seen companies accept credit cards as a form of valid ID. Admitedly they usually (but not always) require some form of government picture ID as well.

* Ditto for your video card, insurance card, health insurance card, and AAA card.

Again, all valid forms of ID to the parties who are interested. Not widely accepted but required here and there.

It sounds to me like you really have two gripes: Two much crap in your wallet and identity theft. There's a simple way to fix the first problem, and I sympathize with the second.

No I have a lot more gripes than that. Give me some credit. :-) Those are just among the ones I listed.

The reality is, though, that because individual states value their own autonomy, there is not currently a federally administered identification method.

And what's wrong with that? There's a reason this country is called the United STATES of America. Centralizing everything with the federal government is needless, wasteful, and frankly kind of scary.

Um, that's exactly what it means.

[Run4yourlives]

The notion of common law is effectivly abolished in states that have working constitutions.

In fact, unless the Constitution explicitly DENIES a right, then the people automatically have it.

Until a law is passed that takes it away.

Stop quoting founding fathers...

[Anonymous Coward]

...because you are not worthy of licking their boots.

This ID card will NOT make you any safer in any way whatsoever.

Of course a Conspiracy Kook^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Big Bad Rebel like you can explain how it makes you less free, right?

This national ID is exactly the same. Do you really think that the Terrorists will go to the DMV and say, "Hi, I'm Osama Bin Laden, I'd like my Driver's license today. Thank you?"

My God, can you BE that fucking stupid? You completely don't understand the point. Son of a fucking bitch in a handpurse, man, kill yourself as soon as you can. You are THAT worthless! Oh my effing god, DIE! You're too stupid to live!

Who do you think will hold and compile these data?

And do what with it? What is this magical database going to do? You Big Bad Rebel cocksuckers can never explain that. Oh my gawds, scumbag, please die already. You're in a permanent dissociative event. Holy fucks, someone pull this dumbass's feeding tube.

NATIONAL DRIVER's LICENSE - A GOOD IDEA

[Palal]

I wish they'd issue a standard driver's license and make a federal vehicle code so that I don't have to look at a state's DMV when I travel to that state.

Re:NATIONAL DRIVER's LICENSE - A GOOD IDEA

[COredneck]

I would prefer to keep it as a state function. If you think the state DMV is bad, a federal one would suck !

I do a lot of out of state traveling. I am licensed in Colorado and currently, Colorado does not penalize for out of state tickets (minor but will hammer you for DUI). In other words, no points, no record, no insurance increase. I do make myself aware of the other state's laws such as concerning tinted windows. Some states will apply their tint law to non-resident vehicles such as recently enacted in Georgia due to the GA Surpreme Court decision. Utah, California, Iowa, Virginia and Indiana are other states that apply their tint law to out of state vehicles. Other laws I have to concern myself with are lights. I have ECE code (European spec) headlamps on my Jeep and Toyota Truck. In some states, you are required to have US-DOT spec headlamps such as Illinois, Virginia for example. Colorado is silent, they just require headlamps. When I travel through some states, I am aware that I can get stopped and ticketed for violating their vehicle code such as vehicle equipment.

Doesn't "Federally Approved ID" = Passport?

[Omega]

Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards.

I'm sorry, why are we mucking with Driver's Licenses? Isn't issuing and regulating DLs the purview of the states? Especially when we already have a federally issued and regulated ID called a passport!!!

Re:Doesn't "Federally Approved ID" = Passport?

[stinerman]

Isn't issuing and regulating DLs the purview of the states?

Nothing is within the purview of the states when you own all three branches of the federal government.

Re:Doesn't "Federally Approved ID" = Passport?

[MCZapf]

Especially when we already have a federally issued and regulated ID called a passport!!!

A passport is like a letter of introduction from the Secretary of State (I think) to "whom it may concern" in foreign countries. Turning it into a national ID is just as much a perversion of its original purpose as turning drivers licenses into National ID cards.

I guess you could argue that the phrase, "to whom it may concern," on your passport could also include people in the U.S., but I don't buy it. Why would/should the state police need to see my entry/exit stamps to, say, Germany? And why should I carry that darn booklet around every day?

Actually, I don't mind a national ID card as much as I mind the federal government forcing the states to do all the work.

Re:Doesn't "Federally Approved ID" = Passport?

[SiO2]

Especially when we already have a federally issued and regulated ID called a passport!!!

Don't forget about the federally issued social security number, which as far as I know you can only get if you're a citizen of the U.S.

SiO2

Re:Doesn't "Federally Approved ID" = Passport?

[NormalVisual]

Yup - from my passport:

"The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection."

You could argue "to whom it may concern" would include people within the U.S., but it would be a difficult argument to justify given that the Secretary of State is issuing that request. It's not SecState's job to be dealing with internal affairs, thus it's a reasonable inference that the request was directed at those outside the borders of the U.S.

If it's anything like the SEVIS system it's gonna

[Sai Babu]

take 6 years and when finally live will end up snagging thousands of people in "glitches". One day you'll try to get on a, NO CAMERAS ALLOWED, train and you'll find the computer system has either lost all your information or mistakenly returned data for someone on the the FBI VAPORIZE ON SIGHT list.

Machine readable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not until they pry my bulk eraser and microwave from my cold dead hands.

Re:ACLU movie? "pizza and fun at NAMBLA"!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure they would love to make that movie.

"OK little timmy, now go sit on the couch with the ACLU lawyers and fun NAMBLA reps!"

"Stay away from the Boy Scouts, come to NAMBLA country!"

Could be a good aspect

[Hershmire]

Speaking as someone whose had his SSN stolen and misused, this could be beneficial in preventing identity theft. However, I don't think that's what the had in mind when they voted for it.

Yeah, yeah, I know "Homeland Security." But can somebody explain to me how the hell is this going to stop terrorists? A hijacker with an ID card is just as dangerous as one without. And don't give me any crap about being able to track them down more easily. As we've seen, any system can and will be circumvented. Once an act of terroism has been commited, that card won't have changed a damn thing.

Cruise Missile Legislation.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unfortunately, that's why they attached this thing to an Iraq spending bill...so they could ram it through Congress without actually having to debate the issues...on its own, it was expected to have trouble in the Senate."

WHAT!? You mean our members of congress actually do their job? How dare people sneak legislation past the hand that grafts.

Soc. Sec. NUMBERS have been used for years.

[Anonymous Coward]

We've used Soc. Sec. Numbers for Identifiction when doing certain things, but the physical cards have never been that important.
The issue of always having to carry this form of ID seems to be the problem.

But why?

[EtherAlchemist]

I really, 100%, no trolling, no flamebaiting, but actually REALLY want to know: Why do you care. Why does anyone care, for that matter? You're already required to carry ID or a driver's license, this bill doesn't change that fact.

Unless you are illegally in this country (and if you are, hint: you're here ILLEGALLY) this doesn't matter to you.

Yes, the way they attached it to a bill that of course will pass is stupid and wrong (and frankly, they did it because it couldn't stand on it's own merits) but it happens. All the time. And not just for stupid things like this, Tsunami relief was also attached to that same bill. Why? Because somebody lobbied for it.

I am not saying this is right or wrong, I am honestly asking you all why, why do you care?

Do you think the government will find sonething out about you they don't already know? Are you afraid you'll be watched somehow in a way you already aren't being watched? Are you afraid it violates your rights? Which ones?

I see a lot of "they shouldn't have made it a rider" and "damn those dirty apes in Washington" but not a lot of actual reasons why it, in and of itself, is bad or wrong.

I know one reason, the infrastructure isn't in place to make sure the cards being issued today aren't fraudulent. Another is that without some kind of national checking system, there's no way to prove a card is valid. Some might say it's a way to identify people who are in this country illegally. (see note above).

So, why do you care?

Re:But why?

[bodrell]

You're already required to carry ID or a driver's license, this bill doesn't change that fact.

Um, no, you are most certainly NOT required to carry ID or a driver's license. You are required to carry a driver's license when you are driving, but that's it. If I'm a passenger in a car, or walking down the street, there is no requirement for me to have identification.

Also, Declan's article was misleading on this point:

Steinhardt predicts the federalized IDs will be a gold mine for government agencies and marketers. Also, he notes that the Supreme Court ruled last year that police can demand to see ID from law-abiding U.S. citizens.

Police can demand all they want, but you have no obligation to show them ID. The case was about a man's refusal to identify himself, not refusal to show ID. You are required to identify yourself, but that can be as simple as saying "my name is [insert name here]." If a police officer wants to take you down to the station because you won't present an ID card, that's false arrest.

But to answer your question, why do I care? The first reason is that having to present this ID to board an airplane is a hindrance to both interstate commerce and freedom of assembly (note the environmental activists who were prevented from flying due to the secret watch list). But John Gilmore does a much better job explaining this point.

Re:But why?

[coopaq]

I am not saying this is right or wrong, I am honestly asking you all why, why do you care?

Maybe the question is "Why don't you care?"

Some people still think a little anonymity is a right.

Re:But why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're already required to carry ID or a driver's license, this bill doesn't change that fact.

That's 100% false, for starters. There is currently no requirement to carry any form of ID on your person unless you are engaged in certain regulated activities, such as driving, hunting, fishing, crossing a national border, etc.

Do you think the government will find sonething out about you they don't already know?

Perhaps.

Are you afraid you'll be watched somehow in a way you already aren't being watched?

Tracking everyone by ID cards is a way of watching me that isn't already happening. Why shouldn't I oppose that?

Are you afraid it violates your rights? Which ones?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." That's the first half of the 4th Amendment, and is one small part of the right to privacy that we are all entitled to.

This is bad and wrong because it is easy to abuse by its very nature. It's bad and wrong because it will cost us all money without benefitting us in any appreciable way. It's bad and wrong because it will make identity theft even easier than it already is. It's bad and wrong because IT'S SO OBVIOUS THAT THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT IT THAT ITS SUPPORTERS HAD TO SNEAK IT THROUGH CONGRESS UNETHICALLY.

Re:But why?

[sacrilicious]

Why [does one care?]

To turn it around: what good will this new id card do?

To any extent that it facilitates better tracking (or whatever), it's not too hard to come up with a scenario where that greater tracking is abused.

More generally, this intiative smells like any of a number of garden-variety post-9/11 "anti-terrorist security" notions that piss people off because they're showboating in the name of security while in fact simply taking away freedoms (and yes, anonymity is a freedom). Our "greater airport security", for example, deters nobody from hijacking or bombing airplanes but the stupid and impulsive, and the folks who pulled off 9/11 were neither. Don't even get me started on the patriot act.

Rest assured that your complacency about this issue in no way placates me.

Re:But why?

[abulafia]

You're already required to carry ID or a driver's license, this bill doesn't change that fact.

That is not correct. Certain activities require certain forms of id, but simply existing does not.

Re:But why?

[galego]

a privelege in some cases .... but a 'right'? I don't know the consitution all that well, and don't remember that in there. But ... I *have* been wrong before. Is there a 'right to anonymity' mentioned in the constitution?

Re:But why?

[Cerv]

>>You're already required to carry ID or a driver's license, this bill doesn't change that fact.

>Um, no, you are most certainly NOT required to carry ID or a driver's license. You are required to carry a driver's license when you are driving, but that's it. If I'm a passenger in a car, or walking down the street, there is no requirement for me to have identification.

Really? In the UK you're not required to have your driving license when driving. If you're in an accident, pulled over or whatever and you don't have it on you you're given a week to take it to a specified local police station.

Re:But why?

[flathead_iv]

You're already required to carry ID or a driver's license, this bill doesn't change that fact.

That's 100% false, for starters. There is currently no requirement to carry any form of ID on your person unless you are engaged in certain regulated activities, such as driving, hunting, fishing, crossing a national border, etc.

Maybe that is true in your state. In Oklahoma, you are required by law to carry a photo ID (either a driver's licence or state ID) at all times. Of course, this is not vigorously enforced, but it is the law nonetheless.

Re:But why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's about a man's refusal to show his ID. There was a video with the cop flatly asking for a driver's license. Now admittedly, the guy was being obtuse about it, but it came down to his not showing a license and getting arrested. And that's exactly what happened.

Re:But why?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK you're not required to have your driving license when driving.

True in many US states as well.

Re:But why?

[Maggott]

We care because there has never historically been a government power that has not been abused at some point.

Imagine, for a moment, if your worst enemy--the person you loathe more than anyone in the world, and who makes no secret of the fact that he delights in doing things that hurt you for their own sake--is placed in a position of authority over federally-mandated security cards.

He can make sure you never get one. He can place you on all manner of government watch lists preventing you from doing just about anything. After making sure you don't have an ID, he can give the cops a tip to pull you over and get you arrested for not carrying one. Don't laugh--I have personally KNOWN people like this.

Power is dangerous. Authority is a form of power. What does a law like this do? Well, it lets them punish (read: Cause harm to) people for not carrying a card around; a card over which they have complete control. And when it comes down to handing out harm, they're not going to care whether the situation was justified or whether they're doing anyone any good; to most people, the fact that it's "The Law" is excuse enough to cause all the mayhem and real life hurt you want.

As such, you must assume the law will lash out anywhere it is able, because people who are petty and corrupt will actively seek out positions that allow them to indulge that pettyness and corruption. If through law we create those positions, they will be filled by those kinds of people. If you do not have a clear, present, and pressing need for a law, it is dangerous, irresponsible and, if I dare use the term, un-American to pass it anyway.

And in my mind this whole "Rider" bullshit is unconscionable--it is intentionally undermining the democratic process by end-running around it. People who see democracy as an obstacle should not be our leaders under any circumstances. I wouldn't mind if they declared it treason.

And if they're willing to shitcan democracy for the convenience of their personal agenda, their motives should be PLACED VERY HIGHLY IN QUESTION.

Re:But why?

[anoiniminious cowher]

Because it will make it harder for everyone to get drivers licences. ie. More lines at the DMV, less state money for education, (or tax cuts, whatever more useless bureaucracy...

Re:But why?

[Etherwalk]

Because a single database, once compromised, would compromise information for all fifty states.

Because my life history shouldn't be available to someone at the touch of a button.

Because my movements should not be monitored by my government. That is a presumption of my guilt. And a presumption of guilt on the part of my government is in itself a curtailment of my rights.

Re:But why?

[Eryximachus]

This is one more grain of precedent on a terrible scale. I do not know exactly where the balance is right now, but every grain hurts.

Re:But why?

[necrognome]

I care because the system will become significantly more oppressive.

You're right: at the current moment, there is somewhat of a universal requirement to show state-issued ID under certain circumstances (e.g airports). However, these IDs are manufactured to disparate standards and even the machine-readable cards have different formats. This soon-to-be-passed law requires any state-issued ID to be machine-readable vis-a-vis the federal standard.

Sure, the powers-that-be could "track a person across the country" with today's relatively low-tech ID, but that's expensive for all but the big players. Post-RealID, this cost will decrease dramatically, and it will be trivial for any of the players to monitor a person's movement and behavior.

Frequency of Fishing Expeditions = constant / Cost of "Tracking" Large Numbers of Subjects

This is essentially my fear. The cheaper it is to acquire "real-time" information about the whereabouts and habits of people, and cross-correlate said info with at database of attributes, the easier it is for the powers-that-be to engage in "pre-emptive policing", all in the name of fighting terrorism.

Illegal immigrants will be first, because it is hard for anyone to make a case for their civil rights. Sex offenders have already been taken care of, but I'm sure some aspect of the "sex offender flag" will be rolled into RealID. Then the fun starts when insurance companies, probably with bipartisan assistance from Congress, decide to reduce rates for companies/buildings that refuse association/entry to persons with a "high threat index". Arabs and Muslims will be next, especially those who reside in "certain zip codes". Then the leftists, later the conservatives who still believe in freedom with a capital 'F'.

No one else will care.

Re:But why?

[Schmendr1ck]

From the article:

Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's technology and liberty program, says: "It's going to result in everyone, from the 7-Eleven store to the bank and airlines, demanding to see the ID card. They're going to scan it in. They're going to have all the data on it from the front of the card...It's going to be not just a national ID card but a national database."

If the government wants to hunt you down for some reason, they can do it. That's not my fear. I am more afraid of giving up my SSN and other personal data to buy a six-pack, get into a movie, etc. etc. As it is, I have gotten in numerous arguments with doctor's offices who require an SSN on their patient info sheets. When I ask why they need it, the usual answer is "Well, that's our policy." That's not good enough for me.

Currently, I have control over this information. I don't object to showing my ID, for example, to buy beer (even though I passed 21 a long long time ago). A visual check of my birthdate is harmless. However, with a standardized card, businesses will begin scanning your ID "to verify that it is not a fake." And of course, every bit of information they can access will be collected. That takes the control away from me, and that is why I object to this system. There is great potential for the abuse of this type of information, and the more people who have access to it, the higher the chances are that it will be abused.

We see card swipers that are used to copy credit cards all the time today. How long will it be before similar technology is available to criminals who want to scan your RealID (especially if they use RFID)? I believe that within a few months of implementation, we will see the first identity theft cases where criminals got their info from RealID.

Re:But why?

[LinuxOnEveryDesktop]

Unless you are illegally in this country (and if you are, hint: you're here ILLEGALLY) this doesn't matter to you.


Ah yes. All those illegal people that supposedly profit from our society without paying any taxes. Except for the billions a year they contribute to social security, with their false SSN's to which their contributions are charged that will never be useable for them. And except for all the sales tax, and gas taxes, etc they pay.

So, this bill will require verification of your SSN to get a card. This means that suddenly, whole industries will be without workers. And millions of illegal immigrants will be without legal jobs.

Good move, people in power. Very well thought out. We're going to have millions of people that will have to work under the table (or will be forced into crime) to survive, and lots and lots of jobs that will remain open (mostly of the worst kind, that no legal residents want to do).

Very smart. Can you spell civil unrest? I'm looking forward to a bunch of incumbents being kicked out of their seats when, say, half of Iowa's meat-packing industry comes to a halt because there are no workers to do the job.

Maybe those of us who are not illegal should care. This is going to cause massive disruption in society.

Re:But why?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but there is this:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Re:But why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The good old 'point it out' attack. :)

No, it's not mentioned by name, but the right to privacy is considered to be the underpinning of several of the amendments in the bill of rights.

Re:But why?

[Mr. Slippery]

Is there a 'right to anonymity' mentioned in the constitution?

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Security of my papers includes the right to not have to show ID to an agent of the state.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Anonymity and privacy are not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights; that doesn't mean we don't have 'em. Remember that the BoR is a backup to the idea expressed in Amendment X...

Amendment X: 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.

...that everything not expressly granted to the federal government is forbidden it. There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that grants the federal government the power to infringe on anonymity. (Only much later did it become apparent that the individual states were far from excellent guardians of liberty, and Amendment XIV was passed.)

Re:But why?

[hacker]

"Um, no, you are most certainly NOT required to carry ID or a driver's license. You are required to carry a driver's license when you are driving, but that's it. If I'm a passenger in a car, or walking down the street, there is no requirement for me to have identification."

I've actually been issued an infraction before, as a passenger in a vehicle in the state of Connecticut (my home state), for not carrying "proper identification" with me. The officer insisted that I was being evasive for "not showing" my driver's license to him. I literally didn't have it on me, and even if I did, he had no right to require it.

I couldn't get out of the ticket in court, and had to pay it. It appears to vary state to state.

Re:But why?

[RmanB17499]

Simply existing does require identifications. All states require birth and death certificates a form of identification and registration. Also, most states require marriage licenses and certifications, although a few states still have an alternative form of common law marriage without any of the required paper work.

Re:But why?

[dedeman]

THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT IT

Thank (instert diety's name) for having the common sense enought to point out, although it should go without saying, that this is the purpose regarding the institution we know as the federal government.

Even better is the careful caps and bold emphasis on the most important point of why we shouldn't have such programs, it is in no way to the benefit of the population at large, it is a way to garner support from a body of voters who are so damn scared out of their wits about getting attacked by the "terrorists" that they will sell you(anyone) and your grandmother to the FBI for saying that you don't like the current administration.

Thank you, parent poster, for having the insight I've been searching /. for, for quite some time now.

Re:But why?

[macdaddy]

That's actually how it works here too with both driver's licenses and proof of insurance. The officer may hassle you but you do in fact have a week to present proof of whatever it was that you were missing at your local courthouse. I do believe that you have to have your vehicle's registration in the car though. I may be wrong on that one.

Re:But why?

[Anonymous Coward]

It begins with airplanes and cars. All they would have to do is require the ID for trains and buses, which wouldn't be hard to lobby for, and in effect you will need ID papers to cross state lines.

Not only that, they could combine it with bank transactions, which require the ID card for an account, and track the movement of everyone travelling. If you drive to another state, you have to buy gas. If you bicycle or walk across, you have to eat and sleep somewhere. Not many people are going to carry $10,000 in cash.

This will have far reaching consequences, but for the moment I can only forsee denying political critics and unacreditted reporters / blog journalists the right to travel to events. David Byrne has pointed out in his blog that it's becoming very difficult for legitimate foreign entertainers to be granted entrance into the US. There's also copyright extensions, which are prevent us from learning about history because it's too controversial or the owner cannot be located. Who knows what affect these will have on our ability to make educated decisions?

Re:But why?

[njfuzzy]

A government that feels it must force it's people, by law, to carry identification is verging on tyranny. Why should our country (all of us) feel the need to track our people (all of us) in such a distrustful manner?

Re:But why?

[Moofie]

Why do I care? Because the security organizations care.

If this is not going to give the security forces more power to surveil ME, why are they in favor of it?

That's why I care. If it didn't matter, it wouldn't be happening. It is happening, so therefore it's of concern to me.

Re:But why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Concur.

I, for one, am extremely tired of using my SSN as ID. About a million different people have it right now (for you see, I am a student). I'd much rather have a smart card that someone would have to physically steal to impersonate me, and that I'd probably notice if it went missing. I'm already trackable -- why not be trackable and get something useful out of it?

Re:But why?

[galego]

WOW! ... A reply on Slashdot that I would actually mod up for being informative!! :P I thought of IV in that regard, but I didn't quite interpret it that way ... all depends on the 'unreasonable' and 'probable cause' I suppose. I agree with your point on X. What I wonder is ... if the founding fathers could see the issue of terrorism ... what would they propose (besides the 2nd Amendment) in terms of securing the nation ... ??? Cheers, Galego

Re:But why?

[lxw56]

Certain activities require certain forms of id, but simply existing does not.

I'd argue that having a job (which for most people is a requirement for existing) requires a SSN (actually, it doesn't, but you are taxed at the maximum rate of 35% without one).

But the reason I object to this law is this: Oppressive countries like the former Soviet Russia used internal passports to monitor and limit their citizens' transportation around the country. Such ID cards are readily used to opress citizens - you can pick your reason for oppression.

Re:But why?

[bodrell]

Of course it's about a man's refusal to show his ID. There was a video with the cop flatly asking for a driver's license. Now admittedly, the guy was being obtuse about it, but it came down to his not showing a license and getting arrested. And that's exactly what happened.

He also refused to give his name. And that's where the court found in favor of the cop. It's a little bit sketchy because he was in the vicinity of his car, and if he'd been driving he would have been required to show a license. Here in Oregon, if you're passed out drunk behind the steering wheel, even if parked on the side of the road, they can convict you of DUI. That's also a bit sketchy, in my opinion, because some people live in their cars.

Re:But why?

[bodrell]

I couldn't get out of the ticket in court, and had to pay it. It appears to vary state to state.

Sounds like you got a shitty judge. And, like most people, not enough money to appeal a bad ruling. My condolences, because that's complete bullshit. That's an "activist judge" if I've ever seen one ;)

Re:But why?

[jazman_777]

Police can demand all they want, but you have no obligation to show them ID. ... You are required to identify yourself, but that can be as simple as saying "my name is [insert name here]."

Name, rank, and serial number is all they're gettin' from me!

Re:But why?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I wonder is ... if the founding fathers could see the issue of terrorism ... what would they propose (besides the 2nd Amendment) in terms of securing the nation ...

What makes you think there weren't terrorists back then? I'm sure there were british loyalists in the colonies who tried to make as much trouble as possible. And unlike our current brown arab problem, they were much harder to spot.

Re:But why?

[AviLazar]

Um, no, you are most certainly NOT required to carry ID or a driver's license. You are

You may want to check with your state, but most states require everyone over the age of 18 to carry a state ID/DL/Passport/etc. If you do not and a cop stops you, he can cite you (possibly arrest you) for not carrying ID. Yes not many people know this, and probably not many cops would do this - but they can.

As for the ID's being a gold mine for marketers - no more or less so then state issued ID's like DL or gov't issued ID's like Passport. So far I have not gotten any spam cause of my DL or my passport.

The first reason is that having to present this ID to board an airplane is a hindrance to both interstate commerce and freedom of assembly

I do not know what planes you board, but ever since I was four years old I have had to have some kind of ID to board a plane. Be it a passport for international flights or a state id/dl for national flights (obviously being under 16 I would need to use my passport for national flights). All this does is consolidate the passport to the DL.

Re:But why?

[operagost]

I got a $15 ticket for not having my proof of insurance in the car with me (although I did have insurance). I'd say that is determined by the local laws.

Re:But why?

[HTH NE1]

Security of my papers includes the right to not have to show ID to an agent of the state.

Then expect not to own your own ID. They will instead be owned by the state and only entrusted to you, thereby presentable on demand without warrant.

Re:But why?

[cliffski]

I agree. we are going through the same in the UK. People say "everyone has a bank card and a drievrs licence", but i don't HAVE to drive, and I can pay cash if I don't want Asda/walmart to know my spending habits.
The really different thing about an ID card is the only way I can avoid the requiremnent to carry one, is to not be born in the UK, and guess what? I had no say in that. I was born here, I aint hurting anyone, and I have every right to freely go about my business without state interference.
I sure hope the US doesnt go further down this route. People who oppose ID cards in the UK (sadly Blair is pro-ID and just got re-elected) often point to the US saying "Look! these guys had 9/11 and are paranoid as fuck, and even THEy dont have ID cards!"
Dont let us down.

Re:But why?

[Obfuscant]

Just a few nits...

Security of my papers includes the right to not have to show ID to an agent of the state.

Most state ids are and remain the property of the state. Technically, your DL or passport are not YOUR papers, they belong to the state.

Anonymity and privacy are not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights; that doesn't mean we don't have 'em.

Yep. That's the clincher.

There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that grants the federal government the power to infringe on anonymity.

Unless such anonymity iterferes with any of the powers the government does have. For example, anonymity and paying taxes aren't compatible. I'd be surprised if regulation of interstate commerce could work very well if too many participants were anonymous. And I'd sure as hell not want anonymous search warrants.

Re:But why?

[Mr. Slippery]

if the founding fathers could see the issue of terrorism ... what would they propose

It could be argued that, by the standards of their time, the Founders were terrorists. The tactics of the Colonial armies often violated the rules of war common at the time.

That depends on the definition of "terrorism". But certainly attacks on civilian populations, assassinations, bombing (Guy Fawkes plot) and the use of mass indiscriminate destruction (burning cities) were known 200 years ago. The founder's solution was the same as it was for more "conventional" threats: a population prepared and willing to defend itself.

(And if we'd stuck with that rather than standing armies, we'd have been much less likely to fall into the trap of foreign adventures in imperialism that has made us a terrorist target.)

Re:But why?

[DougInthezoo]

And may I add my my 2 cents on "airport security". The whole thing is a sham. I understand that they don't ever want to let terrorists turn an airplane into a bomb again. I don't want that either.

But even without all the added security, it can never happen again. EVER! You see, back before 9/11 the thought was that if a terrorist was to hijack a plane, they wanted to go somewhere, maybe land and hold hostages for a while, negotiate, and eventually, if you were quiet and did what they said, you would go back to your family after a frightening ordeal.

Now that whole paradigm has changed. If a terrorist takes a plane, every man woman and child aboard will know that they WILL DIE if they do nothing. See the difference?

Before 9/11 - do nothing during a hijack and live
After 9/11 - do nothing during a hijack and die

The terrorists used a one-time window of opportunity to do what they did that day. But now, were it to happen, the terrorists themselves would die before they ever took the plane down. Every able bodied passenger will fight for their lives if facing death. How can a terrorist take a plane if there are 30 people willing to die fighting to re-gain control of the plane?

Using a plane full of passengers as a missile will never happen again. So all the airport security in the world, searching for box knives and zippo lighters, is only to make frightened people feel like they should be frightened, and more importantly, to take away more liberty.

The people of this country have got to figure out that the only way to loose the war on terror is to let your life be changed out of fear of terrorism. That's the whole goal of terrorists, and our government is simply letting them win.

Ok, more like ten cents than two...

Re:But why?

[Pentavirate]

Has anyone noticed from the article that this is in fact NOT a national ID card? It's merely standards for state ID cards so that they qualify to be used on the federal level. This ensures a basic amount of certainty that the person is in fact the person identified on the state ID. If we're going to hold the federal government responsible for our safety while flying (which we obviously do) than we have to allow them to provide that safety.

A state can still issue a driver's license that doesn't qualify, you just can't use it to get on a plane, among other things. Nobody has to get it, you'll just be walking or riding the bus everywhere you go.

So before we go off about the mark of the devil and other tin-foil hat absurdities, let's read the article and really get a handle on what we're talking about here.

Re:But why?

[Casualposter]

I'm not so much worried about privacy, as I am about secrecy. The feds have become very secretive about the use of information collected on citizens. Technology allows this to be done efficiently, and the move is slowly towards tracking everyone for every moment of every day of their lives through RFID, or ID, etc. Tracking people 24/7 is a tool for good or bad and depends entirely upon the actions of the user. A secretive government has the power to abuse the system to make people that dissagree with the current regime "vanish" or have lots of trouble with their lives.

People are already having trouble with secret government information. Why would anyone want to give the government more information to screw us with?

Imagine how criminals and unscrupulous politicans could use tracking information that is coupled to ever aspect of your life. Records could get "mixed" with terrorist, criminals, or just plain lost. A massive and barely competent bureaucracy would form around this information and getting anything done would become a multi-month epic saga, which is already evidenced in many social programs curently in existence.

I think that push to control the last minute of everyone's life will grind every thing to a halt. Criminals could assault the whole of the country by crippling the tracking system that the goverment uses to control the flow of good, services, money, and people. Imaging being stranded in an airport without the ability to use your money or even place a call because the network tracking system is down.

Re:But why?

[BreadMan]

I was visited by my local police for a noise complaint about my dog. The cop wanted to cite me and *insisted* on seeing a driver's license, when I told him (nicely) "I'm not driving a car", he got more than a bit testy. Small-town cops are just a step above mall gaurds and I didn't want to deal with him arresting me, so I coughed-up my driver's license. It may not be a formal requirement, but if you're dealing with a person that can cuff you and otherwise ruin your day, it's best to comply.

At least I beat the noise complaint in court.

Re:But why?

[cHiphead]

1.) Its none of your's or the government's business where I go and what I do.

2.) It can be used to restrict my ability to travel in the event I lose my mind some day and become some activist protestor. I might not be one now, but I always reserve the right to be one.

3.) Its more government BULLSHIT I have to worry about renewing and taking care of. Do you have any idea how much information is already out there about us? Do you have any idea what kind and the perceived value of information you give to the government when you have to file Self Employment taxes? This card will be used for all sorts of identification purposes and thats one hell of a database for adverspamming companies like Doubleclick to build and parse.

4.) Lets have a look at U.S. Constitution Amendment 4.

Article [IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This allows for automated searches against me with a database upon any crimial or terrorist activity, the data base has to read (and reading a cache of the data counts as well!!!!) each person's set of records looking for a pattern. This is a search of everyone in the database. I will be searched whether I'm suspected directly, indirectly, or not at all. Sounds pretty unreasonable, and unconstitutional to boot, don't it.

Re:But why?

[Adult film producer]

Don't worry yourself too much, special exemptions will be made for companies that employ 'undocumented workers' illegally.

Re:But why?

[Spetiam]

If a police officer wants to take you down to the station because you won't present an ID card, that's false arrest.

It was my understanding that the courts said the police can detain someone in order to "ascertain their identity," which might entail a trip to the station if you don't have ID.

Re:But why?

[Heian-794]

Readers of Bodrell's comment above can see the relevant Supreme Court decision here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-55 54.pdf It is as he has stated.

Re:But why?

[pbaer]

Well 1. It's supposed to be a much harder to forge ID card so that should increase airport security.

2. It makes it very easy to determine who's an illegal immigrant and remove them.

---

My only problems with this bill is forcing is that it's forced on the states and it will use RFID.

Re:But why?

[commonchaos]

The requirements vary from state to state, so far I have done the research for California and Texas:

Texas Penal Code 38.02 - Required: Name, Birthdate, Address
California Penal Code 647(e) - Required: Identification of self and account of presence (who you are and why you are there)

lawcollective.org has good information on how to deal with Police encounters.

Personal experience in Texas:
Some bored cops pulled my friend over. I didn't have an ID on me, I gave the cop my name, birthdate and address as required, when he asked for my social security number, I told him that I was going to remain silent (thus invoking the protection given by the 5th amendment).

He got really pissed, tried to make it look like he was letting me off "just this once", then we left.

Re:But why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Police can demand all they want, but you have no obligation to show them ID."

"If a police officer wants to take you down to the station because you won't present an ID card, that's false arrest."

You may want to actually read the Supreme Court opinion. What the Supreme Court decided was exactly the opposite of what you assert: the Nevada statute that authorized police to arrest a citizen who refused to show identification did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, the arrest for failure to identify did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=nv&vol=118NevAdvOpNo88&invol=2

Re:But why?

[misterpies]

"Security of my papers includes the right to not have to show ID to an agent of the state."

You missed out the word "unreasonably" (since the amendment protects only against unreasonable searches). Stopping people and random and asking for their papers I would agree was unreasonable (though it's common enough in almost every non-common law country). Checking ID because there are solid grounds to think you're a wanted criminal, though, that sounds reasonable enough. Checking ID to board a plane... maybe before 9/11 that would have been unreasonable but now most people would probably think it's fair enough. It's a question of where to draw the line.

Re:But why?

[Porter Doran]

If a person is already being raped in several ways, that is a poor argument against why he should dislike to be raped with something larger.

Re:But why?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Illegal immigrants will be first, because it is hard for anyone to make a case for their civil rights

I don't see why - any illegal alien has full civil rights. For your info, there's no such thing as an illegal immigrant.

Then the fun starts when insurance companies, probably with bipartisan assistance from Congress, decide to reduce rates for companies/buildings that refuse association/entry to persons with a "high threat index".

Arabs and Muslims will be next, especially those who reside in "certain zip codes".

These are likely illegal - the practice is called redlining, and banks have gotten into trouble for it before.

Re:But why?

[Alrescha]

"You may want to check with your state, but most states require everyone over the age of 18 to carry a state ID/DL/Passport/etc. If you do not and a cop stops you, he can cite you (possibly arrest you) for not carrying ID. Yes not many people know this, and probably not many cops would do this - but they can."

I'd be interested in where the 'most states' concept comes from. To the best of my knowledge, no state that I have ever lived in has this requirement (yes, I've lived in more than one).

A.

Re:But why?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Most state ids are and remain the property of the state. Technically, your DL or passport are not YOUR papers, they belong to the state.

Which is irrelevant - you don't have to show them. One exception is if you're driving and they request a DL.

Re:But why?

[roothog]

You, along with most of America, are missing the main point of the Constitution. The Constitution is not a listing of the rights that people have. The Constitution specifies what powers the government has. Anything not listed as a power of the government is reserved to the people.

The Constitution does not need to give a 'right to anonymity' to citizens. Simply by not giving the government the right to search, the citizen's right to privacy is assured.

At least, that's how it was supposed to work.

Re:But why?

[tarogue]

I do not know what planes you board, but ever since I was four years old I have had to have some kind of ID to board a plane. Be it a passport for international flights or a state id/dl for national flights (obviously being under 16 I would need to use my passport for national flights). All this does is consolidate the passport to the DL.

Umm... granted I haven't flown since 2000, but all I ever needed to fly was a boarding pass/ticket. I never needed ID unless I was buying my ticket, at the counter, with a credit card. Which I never did, so I have never needed any ID to fly state to state within the continental US border.

Re:But why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The laws vary a bit state-by-state, but in West Virginia, driving without a license is a misdemeanor, but if you present your license in a courthouse in (something like) fifteen days, no charges will be pressed.

Re:But why?

[Kiryat Malachi]

Yeah, you haven't flown since 2000, and it shows.

You need ID to fly now.

Re:But why?

[DworkinLV]

I am not saying this is right or wrong, I am honestly asking you all why, why do you care?

Quite simply, Identity theft. You are already required to show your ID when purchasing Tobacco and Alcohol products. Producing this ID with a standardized machine readable format will allow the collection of information. Businesses will use this to market. Unethical employees will use this to steal identity.

When everything needed to forge someones Identity or market to them is provided in a easy to grab package, it will be used.

This promotes the consolidation of databases about you without seriously impacting terrorism. All the terrorists will do is use people with clean pasts for their acts.

Re:But why?

[rfunches]

I'd have to halfway disagree and halfway agree with your statement.

The "shoe bomber" was not stopped by airport security -- he was restrained by passengers on the plane who realised he was a threat and were not going to sit idle and, as you put it, "do nothing during a hijack and die."

At the same time, airport security turns away people in possession of dangerous materials. Notice I didn't say dangerous people or terrorists, merely people in possession of dangerous materials. They keep the stupid people who call themselves "terrorists" from getting on the plane in the first place. An idiot who brings fireworks and a Zippo on a plane may have no intentions of doing anything with it, but if someone else on board takes it for malicious purposes...well, you can see where I'm going, and that's a whole can of worms.

Is airport security taking away liberty and frightening people? Not quite -- it keeps stupid people from doing stupid things, but at the same time it's useless against a smart, determined individual.

Re:But why?

[jdhutchins]

In Oklahoma, you are required by law to carry a photo ID (either a driver's licence or state ID) at all times.

Has that law actually been tested in court? I somewhat doubt (although IANAL) that it would stand in court. The ACLU would defend anyone indicted on this law, just as they will for the National ID law.

Re:But why?

[Jafafa Hots]

What I wonder is ... if the founding fathers could see the issue of terrorism .

By the current standards, the founding fathers WERE terrorists.

Re:But why?

[Jafafa Hots]

I took a flight last month and of course they made me take off my New Balance sneakers.

Later on the place the guy next to me shows me what he has in his carry-on - a huge gas-powered RC car.

He said to me "dude, this thing has a gas tank, empty now but with fumes at least... a big battery pack, a circuit board, and radio control unit. You know what that is? That's a fucking BOMB, man, and they didn't even open up the bag after the x-ray.

Not to mention they would never catch a glass or obsidian knife strapped to your leg.

The "security" at airports is not about security at all, it's about the illusion of security. Make people feel good about spending their money again, can't let those airlines go bust.

Re:But why?

[TheoMurpse]

I read your sig, and wanted to tell you -- in my hometown, there literally is a Denny's and IHOP at one intersection ;)

Re:But why?

[glesga_kiss]

So all the airport security in the world, searching for box knives and zippo lighters, is only to make frightened people feel like they should be frightened, and more importantly, to take away more liberty.

I agree with everything else in your post, but you are wrong on this IMHO. The extra security, largly illusional, made people feel protected. After 2001, air passenger numbers dropped massively, and the screening made people feel as it something had been done about the problem. It's gone a long way to help bring it back up some.

As for scaring the population, colour charts and warning so vague they are bordering on surealist seem to be working quite well already!

Re:But why?

[Jafafa Hots]

I can't claim credit, that's off the homestarunner.com strong bad email "crying."

Re:But why?

[macdaddy]

Perhaps your state is different but all the states I've dealt with don't operate that way. Really it shouldn't be hard at all to keep proof of insurance in a car. Of course it's quite possible have end up with an outdated proof of insurance. I do that often. I don't always get the latest insurance card in my glove box as quickly as I should. Still I don't think that many cops will razz you about it much if you're only a month past the date on the old card. They're human too, usually... ;-)

Re:But why?

[rthille]

I've heard that about CA as well, _if_ you possess the keys to the car, or they are present in the car. So, you just need to hot-wire your own car and you're safe :-)

Re:But why?

[NormalVisual]

And this was also in the context of a Terry stop where the man in question was suspected of being involved in a domestic violence situation that had been called in. It's not like they just pulled him over out of the blue and started hassling him.

Re:But why?

[NormalVisual]

As I recall, you actually don't need ID to fly in the U.S., but you do need a willingness to be severely inconvenienced by the extra security activity you'll be subjected to.

Let qualified passengers bring their own weapons onto the flight, and I think you'll see issues with terrorists go way down. Sure, you'll have the occasional incident, but the extremely low incidence of problems with concealed carry owners in the general public would seem to indicate those incidents would be very few and far between.

Re:But why?

[surprise_audit]

Using a plane full of passengers as a missile will never happen again.

True enough. But how many politicians are going to risk re-election by saying, "OK, well, them darned terrorists won't try that again. And if they do, you guys can defend yourselves, right??"

Re:But why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Before 9/11 - do nothing during a hijack and live
After 9/11 - do nothing during a hijack and die

The terrorists used a one-time window of opportunity to do what they did that day.

Yes, and it didn't even take a day for people to realize this. It happened in *minutes*. As soon as the people on the fourth plane heard what had happened to the other planes, they went to try to take control of the plane, preventing it from being flown into a building.

How can a terrorist take a plane if there are 30 people willing to die fighting to re-gain control of the plane?

The sad answer is: terrorists will have smuggled weapons onto the plane. From the news reports, it's still surprisingly easy to do -- at least one person brought a loaded gun on board, by accident! And the honest passengers will have only their hands, because the government said they'd be safer if granny isn't allowed to bring her knitting needles on board.

4 hijackers, with weapons, who only need to keep the unarmed passengers out of the cockpit (and away from my pilot) for a few minutes in a narrowbody jet? If I was a terrorist hijacker willing to give my life for a Cause, I'd like those odds.

Re:But why?

[Atario]

how many politicians are going to risk re-election by saying, "OK, well, them darned terrorists won't try that again. And if they do, you guys can defend yourselves, right??"

Hm. I'd definitely vote for anyone who had that much common sense.

Re:But why?

[l3v1]

Most state ids are and remain the property of the state. Technically, your DL or passport are not YOUR papers, they belong to the state.

Well, I'm no expert at where you live, but here we have to pay real money for getting any type of id cards (plain old id card, driver's licence, whatever else), including paying for the picture taken to put on it, etc. Still, they retain property. And yes, most people to whom I mentioned this didn't find a bit wierd that we have to pay for it. And why should thay, we pay for it anyways, doesn't matter that it comes directly from my pocket or from my taxes.

Re:But why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up to the sky because he is RIGHT!
BTW nationwide ID isn't that bad idea (it's a pretty common thing in Europe) but the implementation is extremely misusable. Anyway, nationwide ID doesn't have anything to do with security, it can be forged as any other ID in the world. Howgh.

Re:But why?

[DoctorDeath]

It varies from state to state. In Georgia, a person is required to have some form of ID on them at all times (hardly ever enforced however). In Ohio you do not have to produce your drivers license even when pulled over as long as you know your DL number or social security number. These are two states that I know of personally, so as you see it varies.

Re:But why?

[gronofer]

There have been a few aircraft hijackings in the last few years where the hijackers just forced the plane to fly somewhere, as usual, the passengers apparently did nothing and didn't die. See Ariana hijack and Eritrean hijack

The hijackings in the USA in 2001 were unusual, and so far a one-off event, not necessarily a "whole new paradigm".

Re:But why?

[arbitraryaardvark]

You could have appealed, and reasonably chose not to. You could have filed a 42 usc 1983 action for the unwarranted search, and reasonably chose not to.
My roommate joell got the aclu to back him up when he was illegally stopped and searched, and the supreme court upheld his position in edmonds v indianapolis, and he got $10K and his lawyers got $100k. But that's the exception, not the rule.

papersplease.org link has more up-to-date info on both the hibbel case (pedestrian license upheld 5-4 by supreme court)
and gilmore v ashcroft (secret law requires plane passenger license.)

There are indeed serious state's rights issues raised by the ID bill, which will get litigated. The federal government is telling the states what to do, and not providing funds, instead of just making it a string attached to highway grants.
Sometimes the courts remember that the federal government isn't allowed to commandeer the state governments without specific constitutional authority. Other times, the feds get away with it.
EFF will likely get involved, and is a good group to support. The iclu (indiana civil liberties union, iclu) last week filed a suit about whether the state can require voting licenses. They would welcome your contributions.
I'm personally not a big fan of donating to worthy causes; I'd rather see a futures-market based approach, in which you could invest in the outcome of cases like that. Not motivated enough to try to implement it myself.

Re:But why?

[AviLazar]

An airline does not have to let you on their plane. So if you do not have an ID they do not have to let you on. So assuming that security gets finished anally raping you prior to the plane leaving - the airline may still not let you on.

As for "qualified" passangers. Who is qualified? Personally I don't trust anyone with a gun. What if they miss and hit the plane? Thats great a bullet hits the plane - imagine the fun there.

Re:But why?

[arbitraryaardvark]

If i'd read the full article, I might have avoided two errors of fact above. It's Hiibel, and the ID bill does use federal funds as a carrot to get the states to go along, rather than just ordering them to.
This from fourthamendment.com:
PA statute that gives Game Officers authority to stop and ask for identification any person without Reasonable Suspicion is unconstitutional under Hiibel; RS was foundation of Hiibel: Commonwealth v Ickes (2005, Pa) 2005 Pa Lexis 945.
As another commenter stated, Hiibel involved a terry stop, which is when the cop is worried about his own safety. That doesn't justify asking every pedestrian, or voter, for an ID.
Also, the cop asked Hiibel for his license. The supreme court misrepresented the facts of the case when they treated it as a request to orally identify himself - that's not what happened. It's rare (I hope) for the supreme court to get the facts wrong.

Re:But why?

[NormalVisual]

Regarding the airline not letting you on board - if they issue you a boarding pass without having seen ID, it's a pretty fair bet they're going to let you on the aircraft. You don't get through security without a boarding pass these days.

Regarding firearms, I would consider "qualified" to mean someone that has demonstrated proficiency with a firearm and knowledge of the law regarding its use. Most individuals with a state-issued concealed carry permit would do, as would most law enforcement officers.

If the individual shoots, misses, and hits the aircraft, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of nothing happening - it's been proven before that a half inch or so diameter hole in a pressurized aircraft isn't going to cause significant problems unless it damages a critical hydraulic or electrical circuit, which itself isn't likely either. Besides, if you've got a group of hijackers on board that are intent on killing all aboard, it's rather a moot point, isn't it?

Re:But why?

[AviLazar]

Regarding firearms, I would consider "qualified" to mean someone that has demonstrated proficiency with a firearm and knowledge of the law regarding its use. Most individuals with a state-issued concealed carry permit would do, as would most law enforcement officers.

While I agree with law enforcement officers being qualified - people having state-issued carry permits I would not. For one, not every state has the same requirements. In PA (philly) it requires a one month wait period (presumably a background check), and a minor fee (around $30), and an application. No training in shooting/maintaing a weapon. No training of the laws (they give you a simple one page pamphlet). So I highly disagree.

Also, airplanes have so many people on board you risk hitting someone if you miss. If you do not kill your target in that split second (and even if you do) and the target is strapped with a bomb - you might set it off (be it hitting the bomb, the target pressing the trigger, or it is connected to bio-signs). All of these things a non-trained person would not think of or even know to look for.

No I do not want ANYONE allowed on the plane with any weapons - with the exception of FBI agents who have received prior permission from their agency to do so.

Since most terrorists try and keep a criminal free background (at least known), allowing someone with a carrying permit on the ground is inviting many terrorists to get on the plane with a gun.

Re:But why?

[NormalVisual]

I'm not sure why one would consider law-enforcement officers qualified, and CCWers not in regards to firearms proficiency - most cops shoot just enough to pass their once-or-twice yearly proficiency tests, and those generally are not very stringent. It's a rare cop that actually takes an interest in firearms and attempts to excel in their use. The average CCWer will spend a lot more time at the range than the average cop, and also tends to take better care of his weapons, as most people don't have a staff armorer available to fix stuff for free when it breaks. I would also say that CCWers tend to understand the weapons laws a bit better simply because they're held to them much more stringently than are the police, and failure to abide by them has much more serious consequences. BTW, the fee in Pennsylvania by law is $19, but some counties seem to require varying amounts. I wish I had been that lucky - my permit was $117. [shrug]

Again I see the "what ifs" - if there are terrorists on board that are intent on destroying the aircraft to make a political statement (which is the general assumption being made regarding aircraft hijackings today), then any collateral damage simply does not matter if the action in question results in getting the aircraft down in one piece with a minimum loss of life. If 50 passengers are accidentally killed, it's still a more desirable result than losing all 200 of them and possibly more on the ground. Whether a passenger dies from a stray bullet, the terrorists' bomb, or the Sidewinder the Air Force used to shoot the aircraft down really doesn't matter to that particular passenger.

The last statement simply doesn't make sense. A sufficiently determined and resourceful terrorist organization WILL find ways to get weapons on the aircraft, regardless of what the law is. If one makes weapons on aircaft legal, sure, there will be armed terrorists boarding, but there will also be armed citizens with more at stake. We've experimentally seen the result of having armed terrorists and unarmed passengers, and it wasn't good.

new market opportunity

[realkiwi]

Oh goody!

The money we shall make from false federal approved ID cards! I can see organized crime rubbing their hands from here...

Whats so bad

[AviLazar]

Will someone please tell me, in a civilized manner, what is so bad about national IDs. Answers such as "the fed might abuse it" do not apply as the only response is "duh, so might the state or local gov't". Two points for the person who can give pro's.
Here is a pro that I can think of:br>
Easy to identify ID cards that are universal. No more guessing if this ID from a state you have never been to is legit or not.

Re:Whats so bad

[nagora]

Will someone please tell me, in a civilized manner, what is so bad about national IDs.

Very simple: McCarthy.

Many, many people were forced to flee America because they were unable to work in their own field (Hollywood) because they were blacklisted. The ability to blacklist someone from basically everything and anything, including justice, using automated systems linked to a central database is too powerful to allow into the hands of human politicians or, worse still, unelected officials at local level.

Think how hard you could make the life of a political opponent with a few bribes or a good ol' boys network and ID cards. A few adjustments to the records and - boom! - you're wanted/undesirable/a no-fly. Who's the guy at the gate going to believe? You, or the machine?

The innocent have had, and will always have, something to fear from the power that knowing their every move gives to the corrupt but powerful. That's human nature and there's no point pretending it can't happen to you, because that's what everyone says until it does and then it's too late.

TWW

Re:Whats so bad

[AviLazar]

Find me a politician who does not have a national ID card (social security), or a state ID card (drivers license/state id). You simply give way too much credit to these pieces of identification. The difference between this card and what we have today:

1) Today we have three pieces of ID. Social security, stateID/drivers license (optional from state to state, Passport (totally optional).
2) This card would consolidate all of these three forms of ID.

So how is manipulating what we have today any different from manipulating the proposed? In all honesty - what can be done to the proposed card can be done to the regular forms of ID. Except with the current ID cards we have:
1) Non-uniform ID. I can make a fake (but real looking) PA ID and go to New Mexico and many people will get easily scammed

2) I have to carry with me up to three pieces of ID instead of just one convenient card.

Re:Whats so bad

[nagora]

I have to carry with me up to three pieces of ID instead of just one convenient card.

At the moment, I don't have to carry any. Perhaps you should be asking why you have to have one, instead of asking why you need three.

ID cards are totally ineffectual against the sorts of threats being talked about, and making them compulsory is open to abuse, so why bother?

TWW

Re:Whats so bad

[AviLazar]

1) So I can drive my car without worried if i get pulled over
2) Because I carry a gun and need to have my carrying permit on me (a fourth piece of ID mind you)
3) Because I want it to be easy for someone to identify me if i am murdered or found unconscious
4) Because many places like bars, banks, stores that take credit cards want a valid form of ID.

While ID cards may not be a god-send and nobody is saying they are - they do provide some help. An ID card that a potential criminal (including terrorists) has might help give some insight (i.e. known aliases, picture, fingerprint, etc)

This is absurd

[mosb1000]

This isn't about taking away peoples rights and freedom, it's about bookkeeping and bureaucracy. National ID cards would greatly reduce the need for archaic paperwork and needless form-filling. The result is a more efficient government. You already need to prove your identity to get anything done, this just makes that easier.

There's no reason this can't be at least as secure as a credit card, and we all use those.

What we really need is for the government to stop printing currency, and just issue accounts to people that they can credit into and debit out of. Then you could do away with income tax and property tax, and just tax a percentage of each transaction. You could tax each end of the transaction, that way inter-state commerce could be taxed differently on each end depending on the state and local taxes. I don't think it would really allow for anonymous transactions, but that's what barter is for, right.

If you're afraid of identity theft, bear in mind that with the government, you wouldn't necessarily be liable for spending done by someone else, and it'd be a lot easier for them to track down the perpetrator if all monetary transactions had to happen through the government accounts.

Re:This is absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kidding, right?

Please say you're not serious.

Re:This is absurd

[earache]

Pass that joint over here, smells like some good shit.

Long wait at DMV now?? hahahah

[curtisk]

...well its just gonna get longer. No more "I gotta go pick-up/renew my license"

States will be required to do the following for each license:

• Verify existing photo id
• Verify document verifying date of birth
• Document verifying SSN or verification that the person is not eligible for an SSN
• Verify proof of residence *So far not much changed, but the next few are the killers*
• Required to view evidence of lawful immigration status (so now the DMV's become junior immigration officers)
• States would be required to verify, with the issuing agency, each document required to be presented by the person to obtain a driver's license or identification card.
• States would have to confirm with SSA the full Social Security account number presented by a person to obtain a driver's license or identification card. In the event that a Social Security account number belongs to another person, to which any State has issued a driver's license or identification card, the State would be required to resolve the discrepancy and take appropriate action.

Sounds good, but like most federal changes, there probably won't be any extra money to hire staff or change operations/infastructure to conduct all of the required verification.

Oh to hell with that

[Wyatt Earp]

I'm not going back to the damned DMV to pay more money for bad customer service for a bad picture.

Why is our ID system being funded by the military?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is our ID system being funded by the military? I personally believe that the millatary performs a great service to our nation, but the thought that the funding for Personal Identification systems is being funneled through the military SCARES ME!

Does anyone else fear National ID cards or just those who read history?

... the irony of this is incredible ...

[ninjagin]

I've been keeping track of this legislation for a few months, now, and I can't believe the irony of it.

My gun club is populated by a lot of right-wingers, some of whom are pretty far right. The guy I buy my ammo from used to regale me (because he knows I'm a lefty) with tales of how the liberals were trying to institute national IDs which would stomp on states rights. He used to say stuff like "The liberals are gonna take away our freedom to go where we please when we please without having to show papers. It'll be illegal to just be walking down the street without anything in your pockets. Then they'll take away our guns." I laughed at him then and I confess that it's still pretty funny to me. Nobody's going to take away our guns, after all.

It's especially funny that the same righties that used to holler and crow about how those liberal treehugging twits were gonna take away our rights are now the same ones that want national ID cards. Now that's ironic.

It's funny also because I used to think that conservatives were for smaller federal government that leaves more responsibilities to individual states and doesn't spend so much money. Yet, these IDs are very much a big-government imposition on the states, the federal ban on gay marriage is one more such example, the Terry Schiavo fiasco proves that the fed is even willing to bypass the states to step on individual rights, and I've never seen an administration spend so much borrowed money since the Reagan years. Do republicans stand for anything conservative anymore?

I'll probably garner some flame for this post, but there just seem to be so many examples over the past couple years where the supposed "conservative" parts of the legislature and the admittedly conservative executive branch have taken stands that are so completely at odds with conservatism as I've always understood it. Honestly, I'm not intending to start a right-left flame war -- some of my best friends are republicans, not to mention folks in my family -- I'm just trying to figure out what being a conservative means at this time.

Re:... the irony of this is incredible ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its all a big lie. When bureaucrats get togther and start thinking about what to do, it doesn't matter what side of the eisle they're from. The real problem is the we believe that there is a difference.

Re:... the irony of this is incredible ...

[stealth.c]

According to an article in a recent edition of the American Conservative, being a conservative these days means unconditional support of the war and worshipping the President and the Party. That is all.

The author of the article, who had recently been at a Republican convention, laments that anyone who is too intellectually alert to realize that these things are neither conservative nor desirable is instantly shunned as a "leftie."

America's definitions of words for political stance have been so perverted that meaningful political discussion is very difficult in face-to-face conversation unless you start with definitions, and literally impossible on TV.

I think the whole thing strikes me as frighteningly Huxleyan. There probably isn't much we can do about it at this point.

Re:... the irony of this is incredible ...

[ninjagin]

Jeez, if you can find a link to the article, I'd love to read it.

I agree that our vocabulary for political stances has become kinda muddied. I'd like to know what the new terms are, frankly.

Anyhow, I see it as more Orwellian than Huxley-like, but terms like "Orwellian" seem to cross into politically incorrect territory these days.

Re:... the irony of this is incredible ...

[SunFan]

Republicans now stand only for moral conservatism at the expense of everything else. They don't care about individual rights, because free thinking people could act immorally. They don't care about states rights, because states could support immoral legislation. All they care about is their 'one true way', which is a farce. Removing everyone's ability to be immoral is in itself immoral, but they probably are completely blind to that. Cue the Spanish Inquisition jokes...just to lighten the mood a bit.

Re:... the irony of this is incredible ...

[SunFan]

Oh, I should add that the Republicans-in-name-only need to be excused from this criticism, because to stay politically viable they found a need to ally with the major parties.

Re:... the irony of this is incredible ...

[ninjagin]

Yunno, I hear what you're saying about how contemporary republicans have expoited popular notions of morals and cultural values, but to me it seems that this kind of activity is NOT in what I know as a conservative spirit, or one that the conservatives of 20-50 years ago would agree is valid.

What I hear from my conservative pals is that they really don't want one person's morals to intrude on the quality or safety of someone else's idea of moral behavior, as long as everyone's not breaking any laws. They seem to be bothered that religion is a defining factor, too.

I made my post because I'm having trouble figuring out what conservatism means, and how that is reconciled with the way republicans are interpreting it. Right now I know more democrats than republicans who ascribe to what seem to me to be genuinely conservative initiatives.

I'd welcome the input of a conservative on my question, if only to help clarify this ironic discrepancy that I'm noticing.

Re:... the irony of this is incredible ...

[stealth.c]

Here's the article. The author went to a "conservative" political action committee, and the minority of pro-peace conservatives were practically spat upon.

"Orwellian" would mean Big Brother is watching. And you're right. "Orwellian" has been used so much, it has been pegerized into conspiracy-nut meaninglessness.

While a national ID would smell like Orwell, reality at hand is more akin to Huxley. Huxley spelled out a future where everyone was turned (by drugs and something like TV) into obedient zombies. Surveillance was unnecessary. I think that is closer to the world we have now. (How many of us would rather escape into a sitcom than think about--hell, DO SOMETHING about--the horrors of runaway government?)

I heard of a contemporary poet saying that Big Brother isn't watching; he's singing and dancing. When people are more interested in American Idol (or Slashdot) than they are in things that affect their lives, I think that's accurate.

Re:... the irony of this is incredible ...

[SunFan]

What's your take on the Libertarians' notion of conservatism? What if it isn't possible to reconcile modern Republicanism with what you think conservatism should be? Are your friends' opinions indicative of a larger dissention within the Republican party, where the Republican party could even split into its capitalist, religious zealot, and political conservatist factions?

Sorry about the questions, but I don't know the answers to all this, either.

Re:... the irony of this is incredible ...

[Money for Nothin']

Sad, isn't it?

IMO (as a moderate libertarian, though former lefty myself), it doesn't matter who's in power. Republican or Democrat -- all that matters is getting into the government and using it for the party's own ideological ends.

Until at least 2006, those ends will be neocon Republican ends -- meaning, stripping away all individual liberties possible, putting religion into as many public institutions as possible, going to war with as many nations as possible, and running up deficits that a probably-Democratic Presiddent elected in 2008 or 2012 will have to clean up after (i.e., by raising taxes or doing the politically-unlikely due to a variety of special interests -- cutting spending).

No, Republicans have *zero* interest in the very small-government rhetoric they tout so highly -- when they're not in office.

And whenever the pendulum swings back the other way and the Democrats are the majority party in the legislative, executive, and (arguably) judicial branches again, it will be more of the same -- except, the left will ignore their calls for individual liberties by taking away guns (see also Janet Reno) and kicking down the doors of religious people (see also the FBI and Waco).

It doesn't matter who's in power. Government by its nature is corrupt.

IMO, I would define the word "conservative" to mean "desiring a return to an era resembling that prior to the Enligtenment", which is to say, a theocracy.

I would thusly define the word "liberal" in 2 ways, both of which are post-Enlightenment and thus more "progressive" in view:

1) the classical sense (which libertarians and "classical liberals" like myself follow), which is to say "promoting a view of society involving minimal, limited government, free markets, and individual liberties as far as the eye can see"

2) the modern sense (which Democrats, Greens, socialists, etc. follow) of "the same as the classical sense, minus gun-ownership rights and economic freedoms"

By those definitions, IMO, either of the liberal views is preferable to that of any "conservative" view. I would (and have, many times) argue that socialism and other economically-collective systems are empirically-proven failures and that we ought to limit their use in our own govn't as much as possible, but that's an argument for a different thread. :-)

Basically, American "conservatives" just want to institute an American version of Iranian theocracy... Given my opinion of religion -- *all* religions, not just Christianity or Islam or Buddhism, but any system of factually-devoid belief in a higher or spiritual power -- I can do nothing else than give American conservatives a hearty "FUCK YOU AND DIE!"

(No, I am not very tolerant of religious people. I support their right to practice religion insofar as their practice doesn't infringe my liberties, but that's it. People can believe in whatever invisible friends they like; that's their business. But fuck anyone who tries to impose their faith on me.)

Re:... the irony of this is incredible ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Traditional conservatism is dead in the Republican party, as far as I can tell. I was a life-long Republican voter. In 2002, I was getting uneasy, and voted Libertarian where available, Republican otherwise. In 2004 I voted Libertarian or nobody.

Re:... the irony of this is incredible ...

[evilviper]

I'm just trying to figure out what being a conservative means at this time.

As far as I can tell, being "conservative" today means that you can't stand the idea that someone, somewhere, is having anal-sex.

Marketing's wet dream?

[Darth Muffin]

Anyone else worried about marketers getting ahold of this info? I can see it now: I go to make a purchase at the store, use my debit card, they ask to see my ID with it. It's swiped, they log my name, address, phone number, e-mail, whatever and *poof* I'm on their marketing list for life (to be sold to who knows). Worse yet, they've now got an "existing business relationship" with me and can bypass the do-not-call list.

WTH?

[Martigan80]

How soon does everyone think this system will be abused either by the government or by thieves

There is a difference? OMG what the hell have I been thinking?

Re:Hey fundie,

[Anonymous Coward]

You claim to know something about history, but why can't you realize that the military is not "funding" shit. A piece of legislations can encompass all maner of things that do not have to pull from the same bank accounts.

WTF is wrong with you? Just trying to stir the liberals into another daily shit fit?

why not?

[mbaudis]

because this is the u.s.? well, with the current government 8-(

however, in europe (not the brits, though, yet), you have them. don't feel bad about it; in the u.s., you have instead to provide constantly a large number uf personal data to "identify" yourself; in europe, your id makes you trustworthy enough (well, at least one trusts to get the wrongdoers ;-) ).

here (u.s.), i have to distribute a lot of information (like SSID etc.), which also can easily be collected by others for the infamous "identity theft". and it is done.

so, please, some plastic and a registered address, and not more of this SSID and "maiden name of your dog's mother" stuff.

Hey liberals, saved money can feed the poor

[Anonymous Coward]

With all the efficiency and less paperwork, think of all the starving people in America that can be fed! LOL!!!!! Where is your compassion, liberals? Think, we could free up money to help give college educations to all the people on death row!

Machine readable for ease of use?

[Alwin Henseler]

-IF the standardized "machine readable technology" (which almost all state issues IDs already have in the form of a bar code, magnetic strip, etc.) ends up being RFID, you must at least concede that this standardization is based on consistency, functionality, and ease of use, not a desire to build a nationwide network of centrally administered RFID detectors for the purposes of tracking every citizen

Wrong! The whole issue about these RFID tags, is that its owner loses any control, and knowledge about when, where his/her ID is read, by who, and for what purpose. Anyone (criminals included) could read a RFID tag, anytime, anywhere, without me knowing, or without telling me what the hell for.

Non-RFID equipped documents may be machine-readable in other ways (chip, barcode, magnetic strip). But each time they're used, I'll know it, watch it being used, see who's asking me, and be informed what for. RFID tags simply throw your permission/control in the use of your ID card, out the door. And for what? Ease of use? How long does it take to scan a barcode anyway? (Answer: 0.1 seconds max). And to grab an ID card from wherever you keep it, and put it back? (Answer: a couple of seconds if you know where it is, and you should know, since they're important documents).

As for law enforcement purposes, the need to ID everybody to keep the streets safe, is flawed reasoning. Stop a bus filled with people, and ID everyone. Safer ride now? Bullshit, you'd know who is on that bus, but if you don't search people+luggage, everybody could be armed to the teeth, and you wouldn't know about that. Drive safely now!

A nutcase carrying a bomb onto a plane isn't dangerous because he's a nutcase, but because he carries a bomb onto a plane. Law enforcement should concentrate on that (prevent bombs from being carried onto planes). And if possible, on that alone.

--Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you.

Not much, really

[Scorchio]

I've been through exactly the same thing. It seems that a driver's licence is already an official-but-don't-tell-them-in-case-they-panic ID card, rather than proof of ability to drive a car.

The worst example I've seen is when Honda Finance refused a loan for a car because I didn't have a US licence at the time. I was the source of income, but my wife was the one with the US licence. USAA got our business that day.

Re:Question: How Does Knowing One's ID Make Us Saf

[Myrmidon10]

While they all had valid licenses, they all had expired visas which they used to get them. Withe RealID, they would not have been able to get those drivers licenses.

Knowing that you really are who you say you are isn't such a bad idea. Having that drivers license is an open door to getting access to all kinds of things and services, not just driving cars. Its a breeder document to getting a job, opening up a bank account, buying a house, etc.

What's so bad about making the standard uniform, rigerous, reliable, and easy to share? Why would it be a bad thing to prove that you are who you say you are? Why would it be a bad thing to make it easy to identify that you have an outstanding warrent, an expired visa, etc?

How does it make society safer for law abidding citizens if we keep the current loose and un-uniform standards of identification?

USA = insane

[RedLaggedTeut]

This practice of bundling unassociated bills is completely insane.

I was always doing this as Consul in Republic of Rome boardgame, but at least I knew I was being corrupt at the time.

Let's see if this kind of progress can be carried over into the EU.

Re:Masterbatory posting

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people are more concerned about catching child molesters like NAMBLA, killing terrorists like Al Qaeda, and making bling bling like TRUMP.

So, you know, don't get too lathered up.

Re:USA = $11 trillion GDP

[Anonymous Coward]

So, when you get a better system in place, uh yeah... let me know.

I thought liberals weren't supposed to like black-and-white issues anyway? Aren't the bills much better when they are a color of grey containing many diverse viewpoints and backgrounds? LOLOLOLOL

And this is some how new???

[LWATCDR]

"Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards.""
You must have a Social Security card/number now to work an any number of other things in the US already. You have to have ID to fly on a plane or drive a car.
I just do not see how this really changes anything. Sure the story makes it seem like the end of the world but exactly how does this change much if anything?

Addressing the wrong problem

[DJHeini]

Is the Bush administration forgetting that almost all of the 9/11 participants were in the country legally? ie, they would have been able to get whatever ID the government creates. First step is to actually not let the terrorists in and give them a valid ID. Then you can worry about how easy it is to make fake IDs.

In my state (IL)...

[achbed]

...I had to submit to all of those "new" requirements to get my license changed over when I moved from the East Coast last year. It was a royal pain to get all the paperwork required (4 forms of ID). The one big question I have is since a photo ID is required to get your license, and the license is typically the only "photo ID" the people have, how will new citizens get their licenses? A passport will not count, as it is only used for "citizenship verification", and thus cannot be used as a photo ID.

On another note, the "machine readable" format requirement being pushed onto the Homeland Security secretary lets the Congress point fingers when every state has to scrap their license system and re-issue all IDs within 3 years. The only good thing for the states is they charge for the IDs - anyone wanna bet that license fees go through the roof?

Damn....

[Anonymous Coward]

My life is totally screwed now....

Active Tracking

[nurb432]

Why not just get it over with and make them 'active' and link all the readers across the country to actively track everyone's movements, purchases, etc.. Then do data mining on it to make sure everyone is being a good citizen

Its bound to happen eventually anyway...

This whole idea of the federal government imposing onto the states is wrong in so many ways.. What ever happened to the rule of the land? you know.. that constitution thing?

Re:Yeah... but... er.. we are free!

[TripMaster Monkey]

Whoever modded the parent 'Flamebait' obviously didn't bother to read pst the first three lines.

<sarcasm>
Tip to flamers: Make the first three lines of your post non-inflammatory...past that, you can be as much of a bitch as you want.
</sarcasm>

Line item veto

[IGnatius T Foobar]

This is a perfect example of why the "line item veto" should have been enacted in our legislation process. I think it was Reagan who wanted that amendment.

If we had a line item veto, the President could say "go for the military spending, but axe the RealID clause."

(Of course, our current president wouldn't line item veto in this case, because both he and his corporate masters are known to have fascist tendencies.)

Re:Line item veto

[What me a Coward]

>Come on give G.W. Hitler a break will ya he's only trying to make amerika safe for the Arian race for pete sakes! Sarcasem

Ya know people really should have known our civil liberties and freedoms were going to get stripped away after electing a guy who said and i Qoute " Their aw't to be limits to freedom". Ok so it was in response to the guy who registared GeorgeWbush.com and he was unable to get it back legaly. Still any candidate who would say something like that while running for office just never should have gotten his party's nomination let alone get elected.

Eh when were all forced to goose step and salute Zieg heil fashion to G.W.'s Picture all thoughs who supported him will have only themselves to blame.

Of course they'll probably be to busy hiding in shame from the rest of us blaming them to even worry about blaming themselves.

Ok so I maybe over exagerating things a tad..... Maybe that is.

Re:Line item veto

[0x0000]

any candidate who would say something like that while running for office just never should have gotten his party's nomination let alone get elected

Can't speak to the RNC actions, but it's been pretty well established that Dubya was never elected President of the United States - he was appointed by the Supreme Court. First explicitly in 2000, then tacitly in 2004 when the Court declined to consider the election fraud suits brought by various parties (notably Citizens of Ohio). In short, under the Constitution of the United States of America the man is not the president - in fact, as best I've been able to determine, there is no acting President.

I maybe over exagerating things a tad

No, but you (and others) may be forgiven, I think, for not wanting to carry the logic through to the obvious conclusions. The Reality is ... disturbing ... to say the least - it could reasonably be called "unthinkable" by a sane individual.

Sounds like a business opportunity...

[artemis67]

The worst part is the completely machine-readable/automatic nature of the thing -- you might not even know you're giving your information away.

Sure, they might require RFID cards... but somebody is going to make a fortune selling metal-lined ID card holders that block any signal from getting through.

its a start

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.downsizedc.org/read_the_laws.shtml

here is a link to downsizedc, they are trying to start a law that forces congress to read EVERY word of the bills they will pass. this should help on dumb ass riders like this that would never pass on their own

Speculation: President Bush's and Karl Rove's plan

[joneshenry]

I suspect the motivation behind the national ID card is a far-sighted effort by Karl Rove to tend to the health of the Republican Party.

Under the current system, there is enough leakage at the border to allow a flood of illegal immigration into the United States. The Democrats over the next few decades plan to force confrontations at the state level to gradually de facto legalize these immigrants, plus using the political battles to win a huge voting block. I think both Karl Rove and the Democrats for example believe that the victories of anti-illegal immigrant propositions in California paved the way for an backlash that resulted in Democratic victories until Schwarzenegger became governor.

The Republican Party faces a battle it cannot win if the present situation continues. Key elements of the Republican coalition will demand action against what they view to be lawlessness that threatens social order, but if these elements succeed to forcing votes that are deemed to be anti-Hispanic, the demographic balance will swing in the direction of the Democrats in states that were at least competitive for the Republicans. President Bush has always prided himself in his success in reaching out to the Latino vote, especially in his home state of Texas.

I believe that Rove's solution to the dilemna is to recognize the reality that the United States will never find the political will to create border security that would staunch the flow of illegal immigration. If the people are going to come, then I believe the plan is to at least have them come formally in a "guest-worker" program. I also believe that part of the bill creating the guest worker program, a bill which I would not be surprised would be the centerpiece of the last two years of the Bush administration, will be a general amnesty leading to at least permanent residency for major portions of illegal immigrants already here. In order for these proposals to pass, a bone has to be thrown to anti-immigration elements within the Republican Party to avoid a revolt that would tear the party apart. The national ID card is part of this bone.

Re:Question: How Does Knowing One's ID Make Us Saf

[fonetik]

Good! So they would have re-upped thier visas on 9/10/01. From now on, all terrorists will have valid credentials. Thank god!

Just rereading the Constitution... May I help?

[digital.prion]

Article I

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.




Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Re:Just rereading the Constitution... May I help?

[flyingsquid]

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque

WHAT? I just went and got a Letter of Marque from the Governor of Wyoming and now you're telling men its invalid and I can't go and seize foreign shipping on the high seas? Stupid Constitution, telling me I can't be a pirate!

Re:Just rereading the Constitution... May I help?

[operagost]

Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

The most abused part of the Constitution. Basically no states honor this part except when it's extremely impractical not to (drivers and marriage licenses, for example). Just try to carry your firearm into another state using your home state's permit, unless they have an explicit reciprocal agreement. Same for certifications such as electrical licenses: some states will limit or ignore your license completely based only on the fact it was obtained in another state and not because of training or code variations.

Re:Just rereading the Constitution... May I help?

[dargon]

> make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts

Hmm, I don't recall getting gold or silver the last time I cashed my pay check.

Re:Just rereading the Constitution... May I help?

[fish_in_the_c]

you missed an important part. It was one of the first changes made to the constitution. Amendment X 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.

Re:Just rereading the Constitution... May I help?

[Pyrrus]

I don't recall any state printing money either. The feds do that.

Re:Just rereading the Constitution... May I help?

[Fjandr]

Or try getting married to someone of the same sex in Massachusetts, see how many other states honor the marriage.

Or, try to get a state to pay you a debt (ie jury duty payment) in gold or silver coin, also mandated by the Constitution.

The Constitution exists only as long as people believe in it (much like the value of paper money, or anything else written on paper). Most Americans today have no idea what's in the Constitution, hence there is no consistent belief in its tenets. As a result of this, it basically does not exist past what people see on Law & Order.

Welcome to the USA.
Papers please, comrade.

Re:Just rereading the Constitution... May I help?

[dargon]

Have you never gotten a check from the gov't? I know they're rare, but they do happen ;)

sure.

[Run4yourlives]

1. Security: Would you advocate a single username/password for all your computer accounts? So why advocate a single ID for your life? If my DL is stolen/lost, I don't need to cancel my CC. Could you imagine the disaster your life would be in if you couldn't travel/buy/rent a video/go to the bank without this card?

2. Democracy: This is being passed as part of an emergency military bill. Does it not merit its own debate and review? It seems that such a drastic change in everyday life should not take place without proper review.

3. Why?: How would this card benefit me? My wallet isn't that big, and I'd perfer if the airline wasn't able to access other areas of my life. Efficiency of government is not my concern, espescially when it goes against my self interests.

4. Abuse of Power: The federal gov't isn't the problem, it's the corporation that refuses to see me food until I pay their sister company's video rental late fees. It's the bank that won't give me a loan because people of my race have a higher default risk. It's the hacker that couldn't get into the fed Database, so instead asked a nice secretary at the rental car company for my information.

Enough for you?

Re:sure.

[AviLazar]

1. Security: Would you advocate a single username/password for all your computer accounts? So why advocate a single ID for your life? If my DL is stolen/lost, I don't need to cancel my CC. Could you imagine the disaster your life would be in if you couldn't travel/buy/rent a video/go to the bank without this card?

If I lose my d/l I probably lost my CC. Go to the bank, they have signature cards. Go to DMV and they have your picture on file

2. Democracy: This is being passed as part of an emergency military bill. Does it not merit its own debate and review? It seems that such a drastic change in everyday life should not take place without proper review.

I agree it merits its own debate and review - but that is out of s cope of my question - what is so bad about having a one national ID. Which all they are currently asking is pretty much your drivers license and passport rolled up into one. I would prefer this. I do not feel like carrying both.

3. Why?: How would this card benefit me? My wallet isn't that big, and I'd perfer if the airline wasn't able to access other areas of my life. Efficiency of government is not my concern, espescially when it goes against my self interests.

Convenience. You no longer have to carry a passport AND drivers license. Also, since the ID looks the same from state to state there is less chance of someone coming from Alabama, showing you their fake ID, but because you have never seen an Alabama ID and the ID looks pretty good you just got scammed

4. Abuse of Power: The federal gov't isn't the problem, it's the corporation that refuses to see me food until I pay their sister company's video rental late fees. It's the bank that won't give me a loan because people of my race have a higher default risk. It's the hacker that couldn't get into the fed Database, so instead asked a nice secretary at the rental car company for my information.

A lot of questions here. What corporation gives you food and requires you to pay the video company late fees? What bank does not give you a loan based on race? (highly illegal actually, and the underwriters do not know what your race is - especially since they rarely if ever come in contact with you). The secretary at the car rental agency could just as easily give your drivers license which has a whole lot of info.

So why do i need to carry an SS card, drivers license AND passport? DL's are not uniform which is a bad idea. Any of these cards could be stolen (via social engineering and physically).

So really not enough for me because everything you said could be applied to our current system and more.

I fail to see the problem here...

[jzarling]

So we have a standardized National ID card.
The goverment already has all the information on you that it needs.

This just puts it into an easy to access format.
The next step to help deter identity theft would be to link up some sort of biometric tagging...like Gattaca

Re:I fail to see the problem here...

[udowish]

Well, glad its happening to you then and not up here. The thought of being stopped by a cop or some other government body and then "may I see your papers?" remindes me of the USSR. You may think this is just an id paper or card but I am sure it will lead to many other rights being erroded. NOWHERE does it say you MUST carry ANY form of ID in Canada unless you are operating some form of motor vehicle. And it sure as hell better stay that way!

Re:I fail to see the problem here...

[What me a Coward]

Oh yeah right like that'll really stop identity theft!

God give me a break all this will do is make it just that much easier for the ID theaves to steal your identity. Everything they need to be you right their in one convienient place. It's not your id card anymore it's theirs while they run around ruining your life with even greater ease.

Theirs never been a program code or piece of electronics that can't be cracked. Now with a card imprinted with all your personal info all they need is a second to swip it and your theirs.

Same thing with biometrics an even more useless piece of technology. Just ask the guy who had his finger chopped off by a car theif because his mercadies had a biometric ignition in it for all the good it did him. Just think though it could have been worse, Retina scan pluck out the eye. Any thing that uses biometrics is only usefull till the crooks out their learn (takes two seconds to figure it out) how to crack them. Do it the hard way trying to fool the system or just take what's needed from the person and use it to overcome the problem.

I mean seriously what idiot's are these people developing these things and though in charge who think they'll solve any problems? Really tell em to cut it out their just making it easier for all the crooks and terroists etc. to get/do what they want.

Obligatory Simpsons quote

[cmburns69]

Speaker of the house: Then it's unanimous in our support of the bill to evacuate Springfield in the great state of--

Senator: Wait! I'd like to tack on a rider to this bill.. One million dollars to support the, uh, perverted arts.

Speaker of the house: All in favor of the ammended Springfield/Pervert bill?

All Senators: Nay!

*Cut to Kent Brockman in the middle of a newscast*

Kent Brockman: I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Democracy just doesn't work!

Errata

[harley_frog]

Sorry, after a quick check on the Santayana quote, it should read: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- George Santayana "The Life of Reason"

Help me out here...

[raehl]

Funny thing when you give them the benefit of the doubt. You usually can't take it back. Once the floodgates are open, they can't generally be closed.

Is there some big, rampant, government conspiracy I'm not aware of? When we allowed the government to decide who was allowed to operate a motor vehicle, did the government end up prohibiting everyone from driving? When we let the government issue licenses to broadcasters, did they shut down all the private radio stations?

A functioning society REQUIRES that the government be given a certain level of the benefit of the doubt. It's part of democracy - you elect people to make some decisions that can't be made by a mob of 300 million. If it turns out they make bad decisions, then you elect someone else to fix it.

The government is replacable. It can't run too wild without being replaced.

Re:Help me out here...

[ClioCJS]

Republican?

If you build it, villians will come

[cfalcon]

You are not required to carry an ID or a driver's license (though you may be in order to go about activities like driving). That's your first mistake. The USA is not the land of "papers, please". You can *choose* to do it (my job required a full background check, drug test, fingerprinting, but if I needed it just to exist I'd be pissed).

The argument "Law abiding folk have nothing to fear" is used time and time again by oppresive governments. It's not the American way.

That said, I'm pretty sure a national ID card is largely inevitable, and if they can implement it correctly (which this is not), it probably won't be used to violate civil rights left and right.

I care because it's a bad precedent, a step towards a land that is less free and more monitored. Have you seen some of the stuff that is illegal in some places? Certain sex consensual sex acts are just the start.

I also don't think it's a problem with the *current* government, but a potentially evil *future* one.

It's inherently a bad idea to build an infrastructure that a Hitler or a Stalin can immediately exploit should such a villian cease power, and this is a step in that direction.

Re:If you build it, villians will come

[russotto]

Actually, the US _IS_ a land of "papers, please". At one time it wasn't. In the near future, Americans will watch old movies depicting WWII-era Germany and wonder while the filmmaker made such a big point of showing the checkpoints.

RFID identity cards? So you can identify anyone carrying the card (which will be everyone, as you'll need it to do just about anything) at a distance, without him knowing he's been scanned? 20th Century totalitarians had wet dreams about that sort of thing.

Well...

[speedfreak_5]

see those things that you listed? Those aren't necessarily bad things. I think safety nets like those are kinda cool just in case you ever need them.

American Taliban == Republikaans

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, all you small government, keep the feds off my back, Republicans who are running everything now. Geez, if Clinton would have tried this, you'd have impeached him again as a communist. When will you finally stop believing this Bushit?

Thanks again, Voters!

[homebrewmike]

Hey, thanks again for voting more "conservatives" into office! You get to "keep yer gun," and instead of registering, you get to register your ass!

Way to go, boys! Way to go! Gotta love that tripe your NRA masters fed ya.

Ossama is free - are you?

(waitin' for the -1 flaimbait.)

Re:Thanks again, Voters!

[r4nge1217]

You are right, sir.

Re:Are you KIDDING me???

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? We're already far too deep in this as the unwitting co-conspirators.

With every election since I've been voting age, it was always vote for the lesser evil, and the Dems and especially Repbs always become more and more progressively evil. Neither truly represent the people when you're talking about the players far enough in the game for the federal level offices. It's all about the oligarchy, and if they don't play along they don't get to continue playing.

And any truly independent / 3rd party candidate has been dismissed with a "A vote for XXX is a wasted vote". And every time it's "This Year Only" even though it's ALWAYS been that year when it was an election year.

No. The damage is already dome, much too deeply, and I don't think any talking is going to break the paradigm.

My Objection: The Name

[peteyfrogboy]

The thing that bothers me more than the content of this bill (and others from this administration) is its name. If you're going to give an act of Congress a name, it should be precise and descriptive, not a contrived acronym (CAN-SPAM, USA PATRIOT) or something that sounds like a brand name (RealID).

Re:Mexicans made it possible

[udowish]

I can't believe you made such a racist comment like that. This was going to happen wheather there was a single "mexican" in the US or not....

it's true, but link is borked

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent up. section 102 was struck before passing.

BROOKLYN: Social Security card or Driver ID

[Anonymous Coward]

You idiots realize that it takes a driver's license and your social security number to get a wireless / cell phone, right?

I know you can't fathom the fact that a national id would be very restrictive on illegal immigrants, and that you want to open the floodgates to every type of America hating swath to the country, but get your arguments straight:

We already have A national ID - it's called a SOCIAL SECURITY card, fools. And you can't do much without one, unless you're ILLEGAL.

So stop the BS. The only thing that a national ID will create is better security. It wont be perfect, but what does an innocent citizen have to worry about? That's right. Nothing.

Brooklyn.

(Go ahead, reduce this post to a -1 so that you can continue your worthless preaching to the choir about how Evil Bush is and how great Kerry would have been)

your bank already has your fingerprints on file??

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of RTFA ... "Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements--such as a fingerprint or retinal scan--on top of those."

I don't know what you give your bank but mine certainly doesn't have my fingerprint on file yet! Nor does my bank have "a digital photograph" of me on file. But the "Real ID Act" will require them to.

What a bunch of tards!

[DnemoniX]

My god go wrap your heads in tinfoil you bunch of nutballs. How in the world is this a problem for anyone is simply beyond me? Seriously. I work in technology for the government at the local level. That means at your local county courthouse if you haven't figured that out. Here we handle issuing passports and drivers licenses among all the other county type activities.

I have also lived in several different states and have had to get several diffent drivers licenses, obviously one in each state. Several of these states take six weeks or more to get you your new license. Others are generated on the spot. I for one would welcome a unified standard or Federal ID that would take care of this problem. One ID no matter where I need to move for my job. One less thing I need to worry about. I know this doesn't accomplish that, but it is a step in the right direction.

But what about Big Brother, he's tracking you ya know! Grow the hell up. A bunch of over educated cry babies with nothing better to do than to bitch about politics.

Here is a novel idea a standardized system of identification that will help out everyone in some way or another.

Picture yourself in the shoes of that Satte Trooper standing on the side of the road at midnight with somebody from out of state pulled over. Don't you think a little consistancy in identification would help him out and get you on your way faster? Simple answer is yes.

Put yourself in the shoes of the store clerk that asks to see an ID with a large credit card purchase. Only they hand the person an out of state license that they aren't familiar with. Instead of looking at it closely they shrug and hand it back, sale completed, woops that was your credit card they used.

Stop seeing evil in every idea that rolls down the pipe and look at the simplicity behind it, and how it can benifit different people in many different ways. If you can't wrap your brain around the concept of it, think of it as a standardized API then. /rant

Re:What a bunch of tards!

[What me a Coward]

Oh my what a nice rosy picture you paint.

Trouble is you left out all the rest of people this will make things easier on like identity theives who now will only have to get their grubby mitt's on one card and they suddenly have everything they need to take your identity. Now they can run around with a fake card with your info imprinted on it along with their picture so they can ruin your life all the quicker. Or worse yet sell your identity to some terrorist who needs a identity whil in the country trying to carry out osamma's lattest plot to bring the nation to it's knees.

Yeah a real rosy picture isn't it. It's people like you who don't think about the bad things that could be done with this kind of tech that really make me sick. I mean really theirs a guy in eroupe who had a mercadies with a biometric ignition to foil car theives, Now thanks to a theif who was carrying a knife he's less a finger and his mercadies as well as the fancy biometric security system all because somebody didn't think about it when they decicded to put biometric ignitions into new mercadies cars.

Look we'd all like to have a nice world were nobodies bad and things like this don't happen so we can all carry around a simple easy ID card that's good anywere but the worlds just not like that and since their is no way to really secure information like this it's just a bad idea to put it all in one place to make it just so easy for the bad people to get their hands on.

Ya know this is just so screwed up it's not even funny and the fact that peopple like you in the local and federal government can't see this is just scary. A lot scarier than any conspericy theories cooked up in the minds of your Tinfoil hat brigade. At least a malevolent government trying to take away our freedoms still leaves an illusion that they are at least compitent enough to protectr us while usurping us like the romans were. But when they do things like this that expose the people even more to the elements their supposed to be protecting said people from out of sheer ignorance and stupidity thats what we should really be afraid of. Hey at least it does show that our government is just to imcompetent to really try to carry off a comsperiecy eh!

Yep a real confort *Shudder*

Re:What a bunch of tards!

[Catamaran]

Wow, your rite. I nevr new how stuped i was befor you tol me. Thanks you for screwing my hed on strate for me!

Re:What a bunch of tards!

[DougInthezoo]

I'm so glad that the Walmart store clerk, barely making minimum wage, and the IQ of a turnip, will have access to the same level of information that the police will have. Somebody paid minimum wage has no incentive to steal my information for their own personal gain.

Yeah, that was sarcastic.

Re:What a bunch of tards!

[UberGeekEdward]

What about that President that has the authority to ban travel between states in a time of "emergency". What about when he decides that "in the interest of national security" any person wishing to cross state line shall present a valid National ID to an officer at the border. This officer is equipped with the means to scan your identity and decide if you are allowed to proceed. He can check you for warrants, credit history, and medical records. He tells you that you are not allowed to proceed because you are on some mysterious "no travel" list. We already have the beginning of this in the "no fly" lists that have stopped such worthies as Ted Kennedy and Cat Stevens from flying, and turned back a flight that was not even landing in the US. Once we surrender a "right" we will NEVER get it back.

Re:What a bunch of tards!

[/dev/trash]

Oh man you forgot the part where he brings back the draft and sets the upper age limit to 76, and the lower to 12.

Some useful links

[Catamaran]

There is some useful discussion of this topic at EFF and Schneier.

Norway beats the US in GNP per C

[Anonymous Coward]

Norway beats you in per capita income, and most of that extra US income is earned by Bill Gates and other CEOs. Well, when I said that I was joking, but I think it might be true.

An aggregated bill is not grey, it is just white noise and as such cannot lead to best results. It invites bartering for personal gain.

And you owe US dominance to Hitler anyway, who was financed by Bush's granddad. I must admit, a smart move, as it turns out.

It's REAL ID, not RFID

[jbarr]

Let's not get confused here. The article is about being able to prove your real identity, not the use of RFID. In fact, RFID is a horrible solution to this because it means that the card holder does not have to physically present the card for reading--it's donce by proximity to a reader. Implementations of 2D barcodes or Mag Strips makes more sense from a privacy perspective. Of course, all of these technologies are easily duplicated...

Constitutionality: Post roads

[tepples]

"These new National ID regulations violate every notion of federalism, because they force states to comply with regulations issued by the federal government without any constitutional authority to do so," says Patrick Poole of the Free Congress Foundation.

It's not as clearly unconstitutional as one may think: "The Congress shall have Power ... To establish Post Offices and post Roads". The Congress provides for a network of post roads, implemented as the U.S. federal highway system, and it doesn't want unsafe drivers on federal highways to endanger the safety of postal drivers.

Re:Constitutionality: Post roads

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking idiot. what does that have to with anything? The ID card system has nothing to do with Driving! its part of the grand Homeland "Security" scheme. The fact that it has, so far, been passed secretly should be enough to arouse suspicion. Ironically enough, all this hype and legislature about protecting our freedoms is diminishing it. scratch that - obliterating it.

Re:Constitutionality: Post roads

[God of Lemmings]

Except that the president is not actually granted the power to issue executive orders in the first place.

Re:Constitutionality: Post roads

[Fareq]

Not particularly secret.

This was one of the changes "proposed" by the Sept 11th commission.

The anti-illegal-immigrant crowd has stupidly decided that this is an absolute necessity in the battle against illegal immigration.

While illegal immigration is an enormous problem, it can be solved just fine without the feds taking over state driver's licenses.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but over the last couple of months the illegal immigration issue has become more important -- due to the extreme publicity of things such as the minuteman project.

Unfortunately, what started out as a wonderful thing -- citizens who are pissed off finally seeing to it that something was done about illegal immigration -- has since turned into the rebirth of the national ID card... something that would not have passed (and in fact did not pass) as recently as December 2004.

National ID Cards

[IDOXLR8]

I'm one of the older /.'s that hardly post. I'm, appalled that the government that we elected is willing/going to ignore our constitutional right to privacy just to justify their short comings. Bush F***ed up and took our sons and daughters into a war that we should not be in. I know that my Karma will go down for posting this but... His(Bush) reason for invading Iraq was to rid them of MWD(Mass weapons of destructions) and therefore protecting us Americans from some sort of world domination scheme that... If you stand back and take an open minded look at the entire situation(Bush's Iraq War / Why are we targets for terrorists(Google It)) you might... and I say might...see how the USA is becoming exactly what we are at war for. Ok The Senate passes a bill... A bullshit bill... Do we have the same rights as we had before 9/11? Just because we have a shitty President does that mean that we have to rewrite the constitution? BTW Yes I'm one of the older /.'s and I live on Social Security and No... I do not want my right to privacy to be violated... The United States Of ... What Now?

Re:Blank Reg - Hello

[Spackler]

Dude, Bush is still a Pig Fucker, no matter how you slice it.

Same old apology...

[Urusai]

"Only criminals will be affected."
or
"I don't need civil rights because I'm not using them."
or
"Since everyone should be just like me, nobody should have the right to be different than me."
or
"I hate the human race. Everyone should just die (except me)."

Identification is Required...Get Over It

[RmanB17499]

Already:

Simply existing does require identification(s). All states require birth and death certificates a form of identification and registration. Also, most states require marriage licenses and certifications, although a few states still have an alternative form of common law marriage without any of the required paper work.

Ever look at your original copy of your birth certificate, as filed, in your states archives and records administration?

I have...It has a foot print, doctor's signature, and basic identity/biographical information on it.

Immigrants are required to register with, obtain visas, and are subject to other forms of identification and tracking such as the "Green card", but they, too, have birth certificates from their place of origin.

All this does is to strengthen identification requirements and make it better for everyone. The government can easily argue that this does affect interstate commerce and so is a valid area to regulate. Identity theft, interstate crime, and national security are often concerns of the Government of the United States of America.

Re:Identification is Required...Get Over It

[Wandering-Seraph]

The more identification it requires simply to buy a can of peas at a local store only increases the ease that Thieves will have at stealing your identity. Oh this'll vainly try to expediate the red-tape of identities alright, maybe give that Cop an extra ten seconds back in his day as he reads over your by-the-book ID, but what, exactly, is this doing for us, again?

"name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address"

That's great. Now our planes will be that much more protected from the non-White-20-to-30-year-old-Male who likely doesn't sport a bear, but does wear a suit, looking for a way to destroy our buildings and blow up our planes. Or, perhaps, it'll do no such thing, because that information does nothing to indicate just who the person is who is boarding that plane, only that they're this numeric number of registered (theoretically) citizens of the United States. *Shrug* No maybe, *maybe* had this little gem of theirs included things like criminal background or psychological evaluation (which wouldn't be possible under privacy laws, more than likely) then it might actually mean a hill of beans. As it is, I don't see why they had to append it to a document where no one would dare refute it. Maybe it has to do with the fact they couldnt get it pass otherwise because it is not necessary, at all, except to zoom in on those "evil" and "dirty" little immigrants coming across our borders, "stealing" our jobs (which are getting sent over seas, but who cares about that, blame the immigrants please).

Do I mind a universally recognized ID? No. But if the government intends to take this "Real ID" scheme to its extent, they'll need just a little more on there other than what's already proposed. If, in fact, this is their idea, then brushing this issue off will come to bite us in the butt just like Global Warming or the Hole in the Ozone (let's avoid the 'Those Don't Exist' tangents for relevence's sake). On the other hand, if this is just our government *hard* at work, yet again, then I'd like to ask just why we put up with their disgusting use of our money, hm? I especially loved how we put up the money to buy back the Presidential Yaucht a year or two ago. Pure brilliance. Good use of money. Go Congress.

See how much you miss the point?

[Run4yourlives]

Go to the bank, they have signature cards. Go to DMV and they have your picture on file

Um, I'm worried more about the guy who picks up your wallet, not the DMV or Bank.

Which all they are currently asking is pretty much your drivers license and passport rolled up into one

Two words: Cross Reference. Next to impossible now, all but standard with a new card.

You obviously do not design databases. If you did you'd know how powerful those two little words were.

Convenience. You no longer have to carry a passport AND drivers license.

Not an fair trade vs. the side effects. You may disagree, but that's all the more reason for public discourse.

What corporation gives you food and requires you to pay the video company late fees?

Good grief it's an example, and it's not that far off. Let me change it then, What company could refuse you live saving healthcare because you haven't paid your cable bill?

Answer: GE

and the underwriters do not know what your race is - especially since they rarely if ever come in contact with you

They would with an ID card. That's my point.

The secretary at the car rental agency could just as easily give your drivers license which has a whole lot of info.

BUT MY DL ISN'T CONNECTED DIRECTLY TO MY BANK! That's my whole point!

Re:See how much you miss the point?

[AviLazar]

Good grief it's an example, and it's not that far off. Let me change it then, What company could refuse you live saving healthcare because you haven't paid your cable bill?

pay your bills perhaps? GE apparantly doesn't need to have all these ID's in one to deny you one service because you defaulted on another.

They would with an ID card. That's my point

They would not know anymore about you then they do now. They would get your SS#, DL#, DOB, Address. They would cross-reference your credit record and possibly any criminal records. The only additional information they would have is your passport (which they can get already if you give them your passport for ID). So no they really wouldnt'.

BUT MY DL ISN'T CONNECTED DIRECTLY TO MY BANK! That's my whole point!

First nobody said your bank account had to be in your gov't ID. That might be an option, but not a requirement. Second yes your DL is directly connected to your bank. That or your passport. When you open up a bank account you must have a legal form of ID. Legal forms of ID are: Military ID, State ID/DL, Passport, and some other gov't ID's.

The Mark of the Beast?

[Anonymous Coward]

"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark..."

Re:one way to fix that

[mapmaker]

I recently learned (by accident) that if you have multiple RFID chips next to each other in your wallet, none of them can be read.

The subway here in DC uses RFID cards, and my employer just swithced to them as well for building access, so I'm now the proud owner of two RFID cards. If I keep them next to each other in my wallet, I can neither get on the subway nor get into my office. I'm guessing that the multiple signal responses become garbled together resulting in none of them being readable.

Re:Mexicans made it possible

[anubi]

I think the Mexican thing is just a smokescreen - any diversion the Gov't can get to justify their crap so they don't have a revolutionary-style Boston Tea Party on their hands while they implement these draconian measures to rid the populace of their freedoms.

"My Country Tis of Thee, Sweet Land of Liberty"???

My guess is that with our continued import/export balance being so way out of kilter, and here we are pumping enormous amounts of "dollars" into our economy without the goods to back it up.

Read up on economics - money supply - fed interest rates - and required reserve margins for banks to see how they finangle this... money created by a bank from thin air because they had sufficient deposit on hand to cover the margin is loaned against one banks reserve to fund a buyer - who deposits the sum in yet another bank, which funds the reserve enabling yet another bank to issue backless funding. This house of cards is built on thin air! And its gonna come down just like the overinflated stock market. And its gonna be hard as hell for the government to find out who has any money to assess tax on!

Already, with most of yesteryear's massive employers going overseas for bulk labor, many of us are forced to "fend for ourselves", working for cash. Since the people we are doing the work for can't write us off, we get paid without the government being informed of the wealth transfer. As American Employment dwindle, people just don't die off, they find other ways to survive - which do not involve being employed by a tax-cooperating employer - we have to work directly for another individual - doing what we do - fixing his car, upgrading software, painting a house, whatever.

I think the government knows full good and well that people are still surviving - yet its difficult to get a tax collected on their earnings.

So, to me, its obvious what they are doing is getting a system in place so no one can buy or sell anything without reporting it to the government, so data aggregation can be used to determing lifestyle and expected tax levies. And to fund this monitoring system by the taxpayer - and do it without a revolt.

don't call it a blog

[bodrell]

David Byrne has pointed out in his blog that it's becoming very difficult for legitimate foreign entertainers to be granted entrance into the US.

He has also said in his web journal Just don't call it a blog.

Because I am a FREE man, contrary to what my govt

[Anonymous Coward]

wants.

For the same reason I don't put a pile of bricks, I must climb over, in front of a door I go in and out of constantly. There's no point and it takes up extra time and energy.

Our (and I use that term loosely) govt. has become internally corrupted
and is now lead by people who are morally bankrupt and ethically insane. *shrug*

The U.S. Constitution needs a community re-write, from the ground up, in grand Netscape/Mozilla style. That's right, lets strip away all the patches and hacks
and outright illegal contradictions and freshen it up.
Re-Design it from the ground up to be conducive to changes presented by societal evolution... not internal corruption.
We need an ind-depth study of the corruption and how it has
permeated into what we have today and lay
out the foundations with new error correction.
We need to educate the masses on how the checks and balances
of the origional system were poisoned and corrupted
for capital gain and religious ideals, then show
them a clearer more defined constitution that works to prevent that.
A new constitution that not only reasserts the rights of man unto man but emphasizes the abuses that are known and work in balances to keep them in check.

While all this is going on.... we need to work out a process to re-set the financial arena back to
what it should be. Heheheh yeah.. that's going to be a fun task. (Not! Heheheh)

In 10 years I see either a revolution of the people (only possible if people begin to TRULY seek
enlightenment and wake the fuck up!)
or
A military Coup that puts the good ole USA into
"fuck the world" mode, "Our leader is an ass and
we are no longer a nation of freedom!"

Life is the funniest, longest running joke I've ever heard. :)
Worth living every minute with a positive attitude and enjoying it. :)

Let's try and stop fucking it up by sleeping through life and dreaming you're awake.
Stop cheapening your life by being dishonest with yourself and start living like a real enlightened human
should live.
Be as honest as possible with yourself and those around you for several years
and it will be blatantly obvious to you what a different world it would
be if everyone was awake.

Peace out and don't forget to take a trip now and again to enjoy nature
as she was meant to be enjoyed. :)

Re:Mexicans made it possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that was a nationalist comment, not racist.

Re:Question: How Does Knowing One's ID Make Us Saf

[radish]

How does it make society safer for law abidding citizens if we keep the current loose and un-uniform standards of identification?


It doesn't. Neither does all this ID card junk. However, those proposals will cost money, restrict previously existing freedoms and (almost inevitably) lead to mistakes, identity theft, etc.

possible failure modes

[geoff lane]

During a nuclear war the EMP will zap all the RFID chips...

We already have the US passport

[EaglesNest]

We already HAVE a federal ID card called a passport. It's expensive because it is designed to be an identity document. Why don't we just make a passport the required document for traveling between states? This is what - in effect - we are doing, only it's more politically palletable to the ignorant, and an unfunded state mandate, too. I remember when we used to make fun of Russia for requiring papers for in-country travel. Now, we're doing the same thing.

Texas Drivers License

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Real ID Act says federally accepted ID cards must be "machine readable," and lets Homeland Security determine the details."

Not in Texas, for Driver's Licence, only Law Enforcement officers and Bars can read the drivers license's mag stripe, else its a Class A misdemeanor. So banking and the other are out. http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/op49cornyn/jc- 0337.htm

Re:Texas Drivers License

[Steve Fuller]

Thats odd... I used my Texas DL as ID to check-in at the airport recently... I don't think the machine used any type of OCR to read the front of the license.

Internal Passport

[Anonymous Coward]

In America, Internal Passport stamps you!

Papiere gefallen

[Anonymous Coward]

as you have a free ipod/psp link in your sig i guess you dont mind selling out to advertisers.

Thank you very much

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm getting sick of folks saying the South fought for "states rights". The "state right" they were fighting for was slavery, plain and simple.

Read the Dred Scott decision, where the US Supreme Court pulled a ruling out of its collective ass to keep Dred Scott a slave.

The 14th Amendment, which specifically overruled the Dred Scott decision, contains the "equal protection" phrase. IIRC "state's rights" was central to the reasoning in the Dred Scott decision, and the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment was aimed directly at that reasoning. The "state right" in Dred Scott was that a state could say someone was a slave and federal law couldn't do anything about it.

So when someone says "state's rights" with respect to the US Civil War, they're referring to the Southern state's attempt to make keeping slaves their "right".

(And don't just think Dred Scott was a poorly-reasoned decision. The basis of Brown v. Board of Education was lame, too. For some reason the USSC in that case didn't have the guts to call "separate but equal" inherently wrong.)

Re:Thank you very much

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, you dumb yankee, explain exactly why tens of thousands whites who didn't own slaves fought against the North. Then, explain why thousands of blacks fought on the side of the South.

My great-great-grandfather fought for the South and all he was was just a simple small farmer. In fact, the county he was from had only a handful of slaves, but the vast majority of whites enlisted. Please explain what they were fighting for. I'm waiting . . . . .

Don't have an answer? We would fight you again today for the very same reason. It's THAT important and you're too stupid to even know what it is. Pity.

Re:Thank you very much

[Anonymous Coward]

They were fighting out of patriotism, plain and simple.

Re:Thank you very much

[BackInIraq]

I'm getting sick of folks saying the South fought for "states rights". The "state right" they were fighting for was slavery, plain and simple.

The problem is that many school systems in the south cater to "interests" that would rather they teach "state's rights" leading to the Civil War rather than slavery. I believe there are textbooks used in southern states that limit the mention of slavery to a sentence or few, and gloss over the possiblity that it may have led to the Civil War. It isn't the fault of (most of) those that argue this side of things, it's the fault of the system that educated them in this way. Wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of the descendants of the slave owners, now would we?

And somebody brought up the large numbers of non-slave-owners that fought on the Confederate side as proof that it wasn't about slavery. Newsflash, once the states seceded, they were fighting to defend their homes, their new country. But the reason the states seceded was, for the most part, the federal government's new stance on limiting slavery to states that currently employed it, and not allowing it in new states entering the union. Notice use of the word "slavery?" So indirectly, even the non-slave owners were fighting for slavery. Go figure.

Re:Thank you very much

[RespekMyAthorati]

I'll tell you why: they were a bunch of dumb-ass crackers. Just like you.

Re:Thank you very much

[Brandybuck]

The states rights they were fighting for wasn't slavery so much, as it was the right to seceed. The slavery may have caused the secession, but it was the secession that the war was fought over. Lincoln didn't free the slaves until after the war was well under way.

Re:Thank you very much

[BackInIraq]

The states rights they were fighting for wasn't slavery so much, as it was the right to seceed. The slavery may have caused the secession, but it was the secession that the war was fought over. Lincoln didn't free the slaves until after the war was well under way.

True, that is another way of looking at it (and an accurate one at that). However, this still leaves slavery as the overall reason for the war, as it was the largest issue leading to their secession. The Civil War was basically brought on by the fact that southern society and northern society could no longer happily co-exist, brought on almost entirely by the fact that the south had based most of their economy on the idea that humans should be owned rather than paid.

Still, many southerners today will deny that slavery had anything to do with the war, when it was almost without doubt the root cause. And from what I understand, southern school systems are helping to perpetuate this myth.

Re:Thank you very much

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously went to a northern school. Where I believe heavy emphasis is placed on the "we freed the slaves!" mentality. Besides, I believe it's been overused, but history is written by the winners.
So what if I came and said you couldn't drive a car anymore. I believe your use of the car is reminiscent of a slave driver in his fields. If you speak out against me, I'll attack you.
I'm doing so for the good of all cars everywhere, who don't get washed, don't get oil changes. The cars who are forced into traffic daily and beaten around by their owners who are too stupid to operate a vehicle. Freedom to the cars!
After the battle is over, I'll step in and offer jobs to the immensly damaged economy.
Now, don't take this as me being pro-slavery, cause I'm not. I'm just under the impression that not everything was carefully considered beforehand, and power hungry fools were more than willing to sacrafice the "lesser beings" for a chance at more power.
Besides, the sudden lack of a resource always gives rise to an invention to replace it. Why if Americans suddenly stopped using gasoline powered vehicles. We might suddenly find ourselves driving clean cars, that work 100 times better than they currently do, simple due to the neccessity of having to replace that resource.

Re:Thank you very much

[BackInIraq]

You obviously went to a northern school. Where I believe heavy emphasis is placed on the "we freed the slaves!" mentality. Besides, I believe it's been overused, but history is written by the winners.

Actually I went to high school in Arizona, and I was previously attending college in Montana (where I have taken a couple history courses as well, including one on the 19th century U.S., though it is not my major by a long shot). It really doesn't get more neutral than that (at least not inside the United States) on the issue. Not like I'm from Pennsylvania or anything.

Also, your comparison of people to cars disturbs me. You talk of cars being "beaten around by their owners" to try and make the Union sound bad on this one. The slaves were _people_ being beaten by their owners. Both being owned and being beaten are not appropriate conditions for human beings, a reality that is not appropriately conveyed by your car analogy.

That said, no the north's motives were not truly benevolent either. They would have let the current slave-owning states in the south go on for quite some time without intervening, so it isn't like they marched in all gung-ho about freeing some slaves. But the war WAS fought over slavery. The election of an abolitionist president, and the attempts to confine slavery to the current southern states, sparked the secession. The secession sparked the war. Without slavery there would likely have been no war...it was the foundation of much of the cultural difference between the north and the south (and one might argue still influences the cultural differences to this day).

The Civil War was caused by slavery. Seems simplistic, but it really does boil down to that. Generally the only people who will argue with that assertion are either those that were educated in the south, or racists.

(And before anybody gets upset, that is not to say that all those educated in the south are racists, as that is the reason I listed them seperatly!)

Re:Thank you very much

[Anonymous Coward]

how could the civil war be about slavery if it DIDNT free a single slave in the USA? you also need to mention the other issues that caused the war, amoung them the way state reps. were picked. western expansion(the south didnt want to have to pay for civil projects in the western areas. also economy, though that ties in with slavery, you have to relize that cotton was the basis for the southern economy. with out slaves, the entire economy would have collapsed.
also keep in mind the south was paraniod about the federal govt. claimed it had to much power. thats when they created the CON-FEDracy, they hamstrung the govt so badly it was amazing the war lasted as long as it did.
oh as for my first sentence, not one slave in america was freed by the emancipation proclamation. only those in the confedercy, and NO, not all of the slave states left the union. as i recall, 2 remained with the US. and the slaves in those states wernt freed until those states added amendments freeing them, after the war. then the federal govt passed its ammendment.

another note, i went to school in texas, and as i recall i was tought that the civil war was ALL about freeing the slaves up untill 9th grade when a history teacher made some off the cuff comment about there being more to the story. i had to go to the libray to find out more, and some stuff i didnt figure out until a few collage courses later on american history.

Single point of failure

[5n3ak3rp1mp]

Here, I'll give you one.

Any monolithic system creates a single point of failure. And since no system in existence is invulnerable, you are essentially creating a huge privacy security risk.

My 120gb drive could most likely store a very large amount of sensitive information about U.S. citizens. Any national ID system implies that this information WILL be present in a single location, and probably not just in 1 location, but duplicated in a few locations. If any ONE of these is broken into (imagine how valuable that database would be! are you kidding me?), we are all screwed.

The way it is now, with state ID's that are only required for driving, a database breakin or informational leak is confined to one area. I don't recall any such information theft (or perhaps we simply never hear about it), but a mass database of every U.S. citizen would be an order of magnitude more valuable to pilfer/hack.

Not to mention, there seems to be a history of required-national-ID-or-paperwork being a prelude to some very bad things (conjures images of "Vere are your paperzzz?!!?!") The Rwanda massacre, rise of the nazi party, etc. etc. It's just far too easy for someone in power to take advantage of.

And also, this is too much like that whole "mark of the beast" thing that those crazy thumpers warn about /obligatory-troll (lol)

Damn you're thick.

[Run4yourlives]

They would not know anymore about you then they do now.... From TFA: At a minimum: name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address, and a "common machine-readable technology" that Homeland Security will decide on...Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements--such as a fingerprint or retinal scan--on top of those. We won't know for a while what these additional requirements will be. Considering that you'll be required to show this card to open a bank account, it only stands to reason "for sake of convience" that it become a debit card also. This would be trivial. I don't disagree that the lack of an ID card doesn't mean the things I speak of happening are impossible. What the ID card does though is virtually remove any difficultly whatsoever in making these things reality. Your lack of concern is absolutley astounding.

Re:Damn you're thick.

[AviLazar]

Thats some good piece of information, and I would hope some Congressman would say "lets define these requirements before we pass the bill."

Considering that you'll be required to show this card to open a bank account, it only stands to reason "for sake of convience" that it become a debit card also

No more so then I use my drivers license (which is required to open a bank account AND has a bar code) to use at an ATM machine. Though *I* would not mind this.

Your lack of concern is absolutley astounding.

I am concerned, but I am not jumping the gun. I would like to see everything outlined and when it says something insane then I will flip. See I only have one average tin-foil hat - I do not have ten tin-foil hats ranging from mildly interested to psychotic.

"Hindrance to interstate commerce" is lame

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, the US Constitution gives the feds the right to regulate interstate commerce. Saying something is a hindrance to interstate commerce can hardly be interpreted as a good argument against a federal law.

That's literally the same as saying the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to "provide for the common defense".

That's not a winning argument.

Besides, if the feds have the right to run a national retirement program which involves a national ID system, they sure have the right to require state IDs to meed federal requirements for specific federal reasons.

You have to be...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's possible that I trust the government again now that the Good Guys(Republicans) are in power

If you believe Bush and Cheney are "good", you have to be one of the stupidest people i've ever encountered.

Re:You have to be...

[maladil]

Really? I suppose you have evidence to the contrary. I'm willing to change my opinion if folks can provide proof to the contrary. So the ball is in your court. I'm willing to convert, are you able to provide a reason.

Of course I know you can't. But the offer is on the table.

But what do I know, I'm just the stupidest person you've ever encountered.

Re:You have to be...

[shadow_slicer]

This is not some crappy western. There are no "Good" guys, there are no "Bad" guys.
There are just people trying to do what they think is right.
If you fool yourself into thinking that just because someone associates them with a poorly defined ideology that you also associate yourself with they are looking after your own interests exclusively, you ARE the stupidest person in the world (along with every other fanatic =P).
All the politicians have their own agenda. Maybe their agenda takes the interests of their supporters into account, and maybe not. You should look critically on the actions of any person regardless of their professed viewpoints. (If you get shot by a "friend" you're just as dead as if you were shot by a "foe").

Myself, I did not endorse the invasion of Iraq (without UN approval).
I do not endorse all the "patriotic" legislation to "protect" us from "terrorists".
I do not endorse the refusal to extend Geneva convention guidelines to "illegal" combatants.
I do not support the use of inhumane methods of interogation or the suspension of habeaus corpus by ourselves or our allies (I'm looking at you Israel), and would strongly support applying pressure to those allies to stop such practices.

I fail to see how an administration that denies people their basic human rights without any due process could be seen as the "Good" guys.
On the other hand, they're not entirely bad either.

clarification

[bodrell]

Here's an article in the Christian Science Monitor about the Nevada case. Most interesting passage:

In upholding his conviction and the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority justices also said the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document.

I take that to mean that even if a state does require you to identify yourself, that does not mean you must produce a document to do so. I was unable to find anything suggesting a pedestrian must produce an ID card.

Re:clarification

[AviLazar]

I take that to mean that even if a state does require you to identify yourself, that does not mean you must produce a document to do so. I was unable to find anything suggesting a pedestrian must produce an ID card.

So what happens if I decide to tell the office my name is Tom Dick? The cop gives "Tom Dick" a ticket which nothing ever comes about?

Re:clarification

[bodrell]

So what happens if I decide to tell the office my name is Tom Dick? The cop gives "Tom Dick" a ticket which nothing ever comes about?

Pretty much. But that's only if the cops obey the law. Someone else asked me the same question, more or less, and this is what I said.

Really, though, what would the ticket be for? If you're a pedestrian, minding your own business, I guess you could get a ticket for jaywalking, or littering, or some other petty crime. If the offense is so slight that you will only get a citation, not get arrested, most police officers are not going to waste their time taking you downtown because you didn't show ID. If you did something bad enough to get arrested, then you'd probably be better off saying "yes sir" and showing ID, and hoping for leniency. Cops love it when people grovel at their authority. In fact, most of the times a cop has asked for my ID, I wasn't doing anything wrong. It's just a show of force, an assertion of their authority. If I were a passenger and the driver had been pulled over, damn straight I'm not going to give my ID. There's no reason a cop should need to see a passenger's ID when the driver was the one with the traffic violation.

Just this morning a friend of mine told me ebay removed one of her auctions, for Kaplan books, because Kaplan said it was a copyright violation to sell them! That's complete bullshit, but my friend has little recourse, even though what she was doing was completely legal. No matter what laws are on the books, might makes right. That's why I think it's important to assert the right to not carry ID, even though it's more convenient to show it. Pretty soon, people are going to routinely consent to body cavity searches just because it's more convenient than protesting.

Re:clarification

[AviLazar]

taking you downtown because you didn't show ID

Do you really want to go through this because you didnt want to show ID? I mean you probably had some plans (a date, tickets to a show, dinner reservations, etc). Why go through this hassle? And what does this have to do with plans to consolidate ID forms into one national ID? Cops love it when people grovel at their authority. In fact, most of the times a cop has asked for my ID, I wasn't doing anything wrong.

What if they were searching for someone with your description? But they had a name and vague description. It would be nice if the cop could say "show me your ID" so they could verify if you were the perp or not....then again, would you rather spend two minutes showing your ID or spend two hours going downtown? And I am willing to bet that 1) if you missed your plans they won't reimburse you and 2) they won't drive you back home.

Again, imho, cops/gov't/businesses have certain powers they can inact. You can choose not to listen to a business (i.e. bank) by not working with them. The gov't/cops are slightly different, obviously. This will consolidate ID forms - you will be "hindered" just the same.

Currently, all the naysayers are, imho, being scared little tin-foil hat wearers who want to scream that this is bad just because it is a gov't enacted law.

The End Times are here...

[FunkyMonkey]

...prepair to recieve the mark of the Beast.

Controversy = Don't Worry

[Anonymous Coward]

It always seems that the more controversial an issue is and the equally inexplicable support at high-levels usually spells corruption...

So it probably won't even come to pass...just fritter away the funds.

Papers please...

[Vellmont]

Unless you are illegally in this country (and if you are, hint: you're here ILLEGALLY) this doesn't matter to you.


Hardly. This is a great way for the feds to limit access to whatever they see fit. The bill has a provision that allows the gestapo.. err. department of homeland security to determine the information requirements on all ID. That could mean fingerprints, DNA, etc all without any elected official having any say. Or maybe you have to have proof that you're not a "threat to the government", whatever that definition is today. That could mean any member of some unpopular protest group (tree huggers, anti-abortionists, anti-globalization, whatever) could be denied ID. Don't try to tell me this will only be used for illegal aliens.

Do you think the government will find sonething out about you they don't already know?

Yes, possibly. Like requirements to have my fingerprints, or DNA on file.

Are you afraid you'll be watched somehow in a way you already aren't being watched?

Sure. National databases of every activity I've done, then data-mining of the records to spy on people matching a certain profile. "Sir, because you make so many trips to Canada, we think you're a terrorist and have searched your home".

Are you afraid it violates your rights? Which ones?

Privacy for one. It's also not democratic to have a single, unelected official being able to determine the requirements for such an ID card.

Rider amendments constitutional?

[bloodstar]

Simple and to the point, has there been any efforts to sue to declare the act of creating rider amendments unconstitutional. I don't think it'd fly, but it'd be worth a shot to claim that without each individual provision having an up or down vote, you are effectively passing a bill without voting on it. Yes I know that Congress votes on the entire measure, but did each rider get a seperate vote to be included into the origional bill?

Then if each rider is in fact a seperate item, why can't the Senate simply pass the bill without the offending rider and kick it back to the House and say, here, pass this measure without the rider.

Maybe the second idea would have a shot if someone can get the ear of the senate and suggest the idea. Anyone got any movers and shakers that can get the ball rolling?

Just some thoughts...

Oblig Fifth Element quote.

[fonetik]

Negative, I am a meat popsicle.

source?

[Main Gauche]

"You may want to check with your state, but most states require everyone over the age of 18 to carry a state ID/DL/Passport/etc. If you do not and a cop stops you, he can cite you (possibly arrest you) for not carrying ID. Yes not many people know this,

I am one of the many people who don't know this. Can you cite just one state's law which backs up this claim?

I wonder what happens if someone is broke, and cannot afford to pay for the ID. These states would have an easy, legal way of tossing most homeless people in jail whenever they feel like it.

(In as troll-less a way as possible, I'm trying to say I don't believe the claim.)

Oh, the hell with it.

[ta ma de]

I just made my appointment to get 666 branded on my forehead. I just can't decide whether to stick with the depricated 666 or go with the new and improved number of evil 616. Maybe I will just go with 666-616 just to make sure I have my bases covered.

Reminds me of.....

[thefloatingmonkey]

Nazi Germany (J on the national ID cards) and Rwanda (Tutsi on the national ID cards). National ID cards are definitely bad news!

Move along...

[Anonymous Coward]

These are not the droids you are looking for. You do not need to see our identification.

So? As an Americanliving in the USA ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't Americans enjoy the special rights of citizenship? Are we all the new serfs to multinational coporations?

Is there an amendment in Bill of Rights granting equal rights to non-citizens?

Crap? Crap is letting so many people over the border. There should be more strict laws so some people can come over; not just anybody who wants to.

Funny ... same debate in France

[Anonymous Coward]

We're just having the same debate in France.

Because of the last decision of the International Civil Aviation Organization following the 9/11 and our own will to fight terrorism (prove me that an ID card will protect us from terrorists), Europe decided to go for an electronic ID card with biometric information stored.
We already have an ID Card in France so our perception of the problem is not completely the same as you may have in the US or the UK. But the issue is that our ID cart was not mandatory (even though you should never try to refuse to show your ID card to any police officer ...) but will be in the future and that this new card will be used in a IT system which will centralise all fingerprints ... and for what real purpose ? go figure ... They are claiming that the ID card will be EAL4+ rated ... But what about the IT infrastructure and the people accessing it ? We've seen police officers reselling information to banks and insurance companies etc ...
Seems that, we, citizens of civilized and democratic countries, are going to lose a lot of freedom in the coming years.

Patriot Act

[Anonymous Coward]

1) How about the suspension of the Habeus Corpus?
2) How about the right for the government to wiretap you without going to Court?

If that doesn't bother you, then I'm sure Communism will suit you fine.

try reading your own links before posting

[bodrell]

I did read the opinion, but apparently you did not. From the link you provided:

The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists.

The man declined to identify himself. He was unwilling to even state his name (and I can't say that I blame him). The court held that people are required to say who they are, but nothing more.

Re:try reading your own links before posting

[Dyolf Knip]

Out of curiosity, what happens if I just lie, either convincingly or blatantly?

I should make a mental list of apt names to respond with. Henry Thoreau comes to mind. Maybe Richard Starke (wrote the criminal-as-protagonist Parker novels, source for the movie Payback)?

Or I could just say my name is John Smith. Considering how many people with that name there are, wouldn't he have to believe it?

Re:try reading your own links before posting

[bodrell]

Out of curiosity, what happens if I just lie, either convincingly or blatantly?

If you get caught, it's obstruction of justice. I've wondered about this myself. I frequently bike to work, and there's no requirement to have ID while riding a bicycle, so what would I do if a cop pulled me over and tried to give me a ticket? I would probably give a fake name and be done with it. But if I tried to pull a "John Smith" then I might get taken to the station and beaten.

As someone else pointed out, cops don't always (or often) follow the letter of the law. Cops break the law all the time. So if you want to lie about your identity, you'd better do it convincingly. You have a better chance of persuading an officer to let you go your merry way than asserting your (legitimate) rights. Be polite, and pretend to be naive. And you'd better not be black or latino if you want to try this in the US. Or Indian, for that matter--I know of at least one Bengali guy who was harassed by a cop in Texas who thought he was Mexican.

It's been coming for a while...

[TrevorB]

Your papers, please.

Re:It's been coming for a while...

[pu'u_bear]

I only have a pipe, man.

You know

[drwhofan]

How soon does everyone think this system will be abused either by the government or by thieves?

The posters says this like they aren't the same thing.

ID Please

[SyntaxJack]

As previously stated, police and goverment officals can ask, and demand all they want but under no law to you have to provide ID. SSN is also a voluntary program. There is no law that states you have to have a number. If anyone states that you do, they themselves are in violation of the law. As for financial institutions, there is no law that states you have to have a SSN to open a bank account, if said account is a non-interest account. They only thing they are allowed to do is verify your ID. There is nothing in banking regulations or the Patriot Act(s) that states a US nationals have to have a SSN, because its voluntary.

Silly rabbit

[Safety Cap]

~ when he asked for my social security number, I told him that I was going to remain silent ~.

(adopt slightly vacant look one gets when one watches TeeVee)

"Uh, sorry, I don't remember it."

You don't remember your social security number?

No, sorry.

(sigh) Fine. I'll let you off this time.

(yes, this time and every time, you fat, donut-eating pork belly product of generational incest) "Thank you."

Exit, stage left.

Re:Silly rabbit

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know my SS# never got around to trying to remember it cause it doesn't exactly show up on a day to day basis.

Re:BROOKLYN: Social Security card or Driver ID

[DougInthezoo]

I understand what you are saying, but I think you are missing the main point. This has nothing to do with helping 'national security' or slowing down terrorists. Hell, it won't stop illegal aliens from coming over the border and working either. Do you really think all those people HAVE valid ID's?

What this will do is to make it very easy for identity theives to get access to all your information. It's not that I don't want the government to have all this info on me. They already have most of it in various places. It's that I don't want to be forced to hand over this information to a dishonest store clerk at Walmart who will double swipe it, and know everything about me.

(And, completely offtopic, but I have to say that I do not shop at WalMart. My personal choice, not going to preach as to why.)

The number of his name

[TapeCutter]

He also forced everyone,
small and great, rich and poor,
free and slave, to receive a mark
on his right hand or on his forehead, - $Millions

so that no one could buy or sell
unless he had the mark, which is
the name of the beast or the
number of his name. - Priceless

Why I don't care, since you asked

[EtherAlchemist]

Maybe the question is "Why don't you care?"

1, I believe that if asked to identify myself, I damn well had better be able to, especially if for some reason I am suspected as someone else. I want to be able to prove I am who I say (verbally) I am. I should have the right to and feel safe that regardless of what state I am in, if asked to provide ID, my identification will be verified and if questioned, it will be able to stand up to scrutiny.

2, I believe that if anyone else is asked to identify themselves, they should be able to for the same and indeed for the inverse reasons, for example when authorities suspect the person of being who they are and the person says they are not.

3, I have worked for the government at the county, state and national levels. I have worked for the DOD and DLA. I have been in the Amry. I have been arrested (though as a juvenile). I was born to a military father at a military hospital. In every one of these cases I have generated a record at some level of government. I have nothing to hide.

4, I do not fear my government. Yes, I think I've been unfairly ticketed a few times, no I don't agree with a lot of what our administration does, but I am not subversive to the system.

5, I live an honest life. I don't buy/sell/consume illegal drugs, I pay my taxes, I do not (try) to violate the basic human rights of people nor their rights as extended to them by our constitution and other laws. Unlike a lot of people, I feel that if I do something wrong, on purpose, I should pay the consequence and I do not engage in activities I can not afford the consequences of.

6, I feel that, regardless of the sad reality of it, the people around me in society should also live according to the laws of this country. I feel that since they have the option of either engaging in actions to lobby for change or leave the country, there isn't an excuse to not abide by the law.

As for the anonimity, no way in hell I would ever want to be found in the wrong place at the wrong time and be unable to identify myself. Fuck that.

If that didn't help answer your question, please let me know.

"Your papers please"

[Hecatonchires]

"I don't have any papers"
"Your papers _please_"
"I don't.."
"HALT!" *bang*

What is it you americans call yourselves? Home of the free? heh.

Sorry, Godwin...

[Mac Degger]

Ausweiss, bitte!

We got compulsory ID here in the Netherlands first though (well, before the US...in january 2005)...funny thing is, that's the seconds time in 60 years we've had that happen.

Stop WHINING for God's sake...

[WhiskerTheMad]

I am so sick of this stupid shit. Some crazy shit like this looks on the verge of becoming law and all you people can do is sit around whining about each other's political affiliations! For fuck's sake, stop biting and clawing at each other and come together and DO SOMETHING for once in your puny, useless lives! You were right and he was wrong! Congratulations, you've won valuable argument points that can be redemed for... nothing! Yay!

So the question becomes, HOW DO WE FIX IT? Turn that incredible whiny brainpower to FIXING the problem instead of bitching about it. Make a website. Organize a rally. Tell the rest of us how to support any opposition to this, and failing all that, how to get around these shitty IDs. Because bitching on slashdot accomplishes ZERO. I would have thought that if there was ANY issue that could bring together the politically diverse Slashdot crowd, it would be this kind of bullshit power grab by the government.

(takes a deep breath)

Now, any ideas? How can we stop this?

Its not necessarily as bad as you think...

[jonwil]

Firstly, when I opened my bank account I had to provide various pieces of ID to the bank.
As for airplane travel, I recently went on a holiday and I wasnt issued a paper ticket, I had to to go to the check-in counter and show some form of ID before they would give me my seat.
As for social security, here in australia, my payments go into my bank account automatically.
If I need to talk to Centerlink about something, I need to provide my centerlink customer reference number. I imagine that if I was someone who collected payments directly instead of having them go into the bank, I would need to show ID (probobly including my Centerlink CRN) to get the payment.

Agreed.

[lysium]

You are a terrified, easily manipulated idiot. There is no nice way to put it.

According to his journal he is a practicing Catholic. So yes, he is quite easily manipulated.

Re:Question: How Does Knowing One's ID Make Us Saf

[Anonymous Coward]

People who *feel* safer bitch less about their safety. That's all.

Ahem

[Tesko]

In Soviet Russia, federal identification card... wait a second...

We asked for a global village and are getting one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Recall that in a village everyone knows everyone by sight, a stranger is immediatly noticed. In the early ninties we talked about the global village, and now we see the down side of it, no anonymity. In a village no one is anonymous, and thats what we will have.

Which box is it time for?

[BobSutan]

Your choices are soapbox, ballot box, ammo box. Which is it time for?

Well, let me summarize it for ya: we've been speaking out against the government's intrusions into personal privacy, the bill of rights, etc. And then there's the lack of representation of the people because so many congresscritters have sold their souls to the corporations.

After all the screaming and shouting we all got to vote with our hearts, but then we're stuck with a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario because of our 2-party system where both candidates aren't about to serve the best interests of the people anyway. Hell, has that really ever been the case with oligarchies like the US gov?

And to top it off, the 2000 election was not so quietly stolen by not so obvious voter fraud, thanks in part to Bush family ties to Choicepoint's owners (which is the company that eliminated the number of votes to give "W" the Florida electorate).

So, we've used the soapbox extensively, in fact I'm doing it now. We've used to ballot box, but that didn't seem to have any affect. So what's that leave us with?

Unfunded Re:But why?

[AussieVamp2]

Seem to remember a lot of complaining by republicans about democrat unfunded mandates vis a vis Bill the inhaler.

What a shock to see hypocrisy from politicians?

Re ID's Abolutely essential

[Anonymous Coward]

National ID cards are absolutely essential. Its the only way for the government to stop Democrats and other terrorist types from trying to overthrow our legally appointed government.

With national ID cards the government will be able to monitor the actions of all citizens all the time in real time. The good thing is that the new voting machines will be able to electrocute those who press the wrong button by voting for other than an officially sanctioned republican candidate. This should insure that only the righteous prevail.

Republicans are right to insure that they take control of our government from activist judges. With 24/7 ID monitoring the need for judges will largely be a thing of the past.

Our glorious new religious order will be at last fulfilled!

After all, its high time that we put an end to the teaching of science in schools. The new ID program should go a long way in monitoring those who might engage in any type of non-government sactioned programs to confuse the electorate or upset the new world order.

zapper?

[AussieVamp2]

That's interesting so if you have one of those zappers, you could go around a crowded place, making everyone's ids not work? Imagine someone with one of those in a long airport or bank queue then?

Re:Right

[Anonymous Coward]

The new ID cards will carry WIFI readable chips to identify anyone any time any place. There will be no need to show the card, unless of course you are not carrying one. Those not carrying the cards can be subjected to immediate deporation and without an ID card will not be able to reenter the US. The legislation is quite clear.

This will be especially useful in riding us of democrats and other terrorists who would do us harm. Its about time we got rid of this kind of scum. Anyone refusing to show their ID should be shot on sight but I guess immediately deporting them is a reasonable compromise.

Proving your loyalty...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The more hoops you're willing to jump through to be a "good citizen," the more loyal you'll be seen by the government.

It's an interesting, if highly disturbing, filter...

Re:Proving your loyalty...

[Fallingcow]

George Carlin says that "foul language" is the first little indicator in the exact thing that you're talking about. Someone who refuses to think of any word as inherently worse than another just because society tells them to might start to question other things.

On the other hand, If people buy a dumb idea like "bad words", then they'll probably go along with slightly more justifiable--and dangerous--ones. Like, oh, say, having to carry an ID at all times.

It's humor and all, not really an idea on which to base one's outlook on life. It does, however, make a certain amount of sense, and is in the same vein as what you were saying. "What, no ID? Hm, this one might be having SUBVERSIVE thoughts. Better hold him for a couple of days, just to be sure."

And they won't even have to say

[ppanon]

Ihre Papieren, Bitte.

Filibusters suck

[istartedi]

Funny how none of the ads supporting them (I live near DC so I actually get to see ads supporting the fillibuster!) mention what a fillibuster actually is. In case you don't know, it's people just holding the floor, spouting rhetorical nonsense just for the sake of holding the floor so they can trump the majority. It's just a total waste of time that keeps the government from doing anything... and... ummm... oh, as I was saying. Don't let the fillibuster die. We need it.

Re:Filibusters suck

[siriuskase]

I know what a filibuster is. Sounds like fun, sometimes it's nice to see the Senate do nothing at all, especially if it can get a small supermajority to go along.

Re:Filibusters suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it was originally that, but nobody has actually tried to hold the floor like that since the 19th century. A party only needs to threaten to fillibuster, and if the other side doesn't have the 60 votes needed to shut them up, they just move on to other business with no time wasted. This system is obviously something of a kludge, but if you've got a better idea for preventing the majority from taking the rights of the minority then please post it.

Re:Filibusters suck

[evilviper]

It's just a total waste of time that keeps the government from doing anything...

No, it keeps a SMALL MINORITY in congress from doing absolutely anything they want to, and steamrolling the rest.

Re I do too.

[Anonymous Coward]

So do I. I run a small but growing business that sells legally obtained privacy information to the governemt and corporations, which often can't legally do this kind of work themselves. By making the radio-taged ID cards available, I will be better able to serve my custormers by knowing exactly where and when you make any kind of movement or enter a monitored site of any kind. Coupled with real time validation against any credit card purchases you make or our new DNA sensor chips in any currency that you might handle, the government and our corporate clients will be able to better chart how we can utilize your personal information to our advantage.

Thank you for supporting this important legislation.

Re: Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a seller of security products and privacy data that can be coupled with our new DNA sensor/transmitter technology, the new broadcast ready cards will enable us to better monitor the movements of all persons to our corporate and government clients.

Thank you for supporting this legislation that will permit us to greatly expand the basic kind of information services we are able to receive from the new ID cards. You should feel safer to know that we will be better positioned to use our knowledge of you and other citizens to profit and thereby improve the economy.

Re: Go ahead and wrap your RFID tag. Make my day!

[Anonymous Coward]

Provisions of the act permit police to sieze and the INS to immediately deport anyone whose RFID tag is missing or not properly transmitting accurate identifying information.

This is good as it will permit us to permanently dispose of unwanted persons who might be inclined to disrupt or abuse the system and save the judicial system from being clogged with trials that might be presided over by activist judges.

Re: Enjoy the flight!

[Anonymous Coward]

YOu sound like you will be enjoy your trip to mars.

Bye bye.

Down with activist judges.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats why its so important to pack the courts with judges who have the correct political pursuasion and short circuit the entire judical branch when judges become activists by rendering opinions.

Its time to root out the democrats and scientists and declare a one party state, where only christian values are allowed.

Re:Don't be so stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not about making us feel safer, its about monitoring human activity for power and profit.

By using the new RIFD tags, being able to deport those who attempt to abuse the system by deactivating thier cards, control of all decisions can be placed into the hands of a few. This is essential in the new ownership society where only a few of us will be able to own such information.

Submit, its your turn. Hail to your new masters.

As an American living in the USA

[Money for Nothin']

Why are you laughing at me (in your categorical laugh-in)?

I voted for 3 Libertarians (President, VP, and 1 Senator) and 2 Democrats, all of whom failed to get elected (not unsurprisingly in the Libertarians' cases) in the Nov. 2004 election. I didn't vote for President Bush or any of his fascist cronies, and I certainly didn't vote for this sort of totalitarian bullshit. If I had my way, there would never be a national ID in the U.S., nor would there be a PATRIOT Act, or any laws which treat differently foreigners who have entered the U.S. legally. [1]

Yet you categorically laugh at me, and the many tens of thousands of Americans like me who favor individual freedom over fascist statism like the Real ID Act institutes. What is your justification? Anger at the *other* 50%, perhaps?

[1] With the exception of some laws relating to election to office, but that is based on the grounds of gaining experience with American culture and society first. That said, I'm "on the fence regarding the "Schwarzenegger Amendment", which would allow foreigners to serve as President, mostly because I haven't considered the issue enough to have an opinion either way.

Re:As an American living in the USA

[sapped]

No. I am not laughing at people like you. It is the people around my office that insist that they have to vote Dem/Rep even though they all agree that the candidates are useless. They still see a vote for any other party as "throwing your vote away". Those are the people I am laughing at. While they persist in that stupid mentality then nothing will improve here because both the big parties are equally loathsome to me at the moment and they have no incentive to improve under the current setup.

States issue cards for just ID

[Anonymous Coward]

at least California does. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/idinfo/idcard.htm

Nope.

[raehl]

Maybe the guys who threw the tea into the harbor - but uniformed soldiers who attack other uniformed soldiers are soldiers, not terrorists.

People who blow up other people waiting in line to join the police force are terrorists.

Re:Nope.

[Fallingcow]

I'm inclined to believe that our much-revered "founding fathers" would have been forced to use the same tactics, were they up against an enemy who had attack helicopters, tanks, and cruise missiles.

That, or they would have had to accept British rule. Or die in a pointless "fair fight" where they had rifles and the British got to blast the crap out of their easily-identifiable, uniformed asses from miles away with super-accurate artillery fire and helicopter attacks, taking few or no casualties while crushing the entire Revolutionary army. But, hey, at least they'd have been fighting "fair".

Old-style violent revolution is no longer possible, at least not in or against a modern state. The average citizen can no longer afford the weapons of war, even if they were allowed to have them. Wars of attrition and morale-breaking are all the rage.

And hey, sometimes it works. Certainly gives better results than showing up on the battlefield wearing nice bright uniforms and carrying rifles. I'm not trying to say it's right, but any force that wishes to revolt against a state with a modern army practically *has* to resort to terrorism if they want to win. If they're not willing to do that, they might as well not bother trying to revolt in the first place, as they *will* lose.

All bets are off, of course, if the revolutionaries have massive (80-90%) support in the local populus. Example: Algeria. The French put down a violent revolutionary movement, only to be driven out by a popular movement a couple of years later. But then it's no longer a violent revolution, which is what I was talking about above.

Re:Nope.

[raehl]

All bets are off, of course, if the revolutionaries have massive (80-90%) support in the local populus. Example: Algeria. The French put down a violent revolutionary movement, only to be driven out by a popular movement a couple of years later. But then it's no longer a violent revolution, which is what I was talking about above.

And that's exactly why revolution is not a logical argument for the populace being allowed to have tanks, especially in a democracy. If the revolution is popular, you'll win anyway. If not, you're just a minority group engaging in terrorism.

Re:Nope.

[Jafafa Hots]

Only a third of the american populace supported independence. A third wer tories, and a third just wanted to be left alone by whoever won. Also, the tactics the revolutionaries used WERE terrorism in the idea of those times. At the time, armies were marched in formation to face each other, then still facing with no obstruction they fired. The revolutionaries instead hid behind fences and trees, ambushed by surprise, etc. Totally against the prevailing european standards of warfare. They were considered savages for this. Also, pro-independence fighters attacked CIVILIANS that were known to support the king, killing them, burning their houses, and TERRORIZING them.

Re:Nope.

[Fallingcow]

Thanks, I saw that reply to my post earlier but didn't have time to respond, but you ended up saying exactly what I wanted to say, except probably better.

Re:Nope.

[CrimsonAvenger]

At the time, armies were marched in formation to face each other, then still facing with no obstruction they fired.

Umm, no. What you describe were open-field tactics, which were as they were because they were EFFECTIVE given the limits of technology (smoothbore muskets means you can't hit the broad side of a barn at much over 50 yards, much less a man - so massed fire was mandatory).

Note that standing behind walls was considered quite acceptable by any sane soldier. Likewise, ambuscades were a part of war - usually a not very effective part, but part nonetheless.

What offended the British was the American rifleman's (not all soldiers had rifles - in fact, even in the Continental Army, very few did) penchant for shooting British Officers - it was considered very poor form to target the (aristocratic) officers especially. (Apparently, it was felt that the common soldiers would behave in a beastly fashion if the officers were eliminated, so elimination of officers was frowned upon)

Also, pro-independence fighters attacked CIVILIANS that were known to support the king, killing them, burning their houses, and TERRORIZING them.

And British troops did much the same, in reverse. The Battle of King's Mountain happened because the British OIC (Officer in Command) threatened to burn out all those frontiersmen who were supporting the revolution. Which had the effect of annoying enough frontiersmen who had no interest in the War to come over the mountains and beat the tar out of Colonel Ferguson and his men.

They were considered savages for this.

What got the Brits and French (our French allies had more in common with the Brits than with us) incensed is that we refused to treat their sristocratic officers in any way as special.

But that's not the reason.

[raehl]

The reason is that:

- Somebody hijacked a plane and flew it into buildings.
- Many people want to know what the government is doing to make sure that doesn't happen again.
- "The paradigm has changed so we don't need to do anything to prevent it from happening again" is not an acceptable answer.

It's not that the government is sneakily trying to take away liberty. It's that the people will not be satisfied until the government takes away some of their liberty.

You can't avoid it.

[SeaFox]

It's funny how people complain about having to show their ID and being tracked everywhere and fortifying borders for 'national security'. They make claims that if things get much worse they're moving to Canada. They seem to miss the big picture.

With all these sealed national borders and national ID card initiatives getting pushed through Congress, you may wake up one day and find you couldn't leave the U.S. if you wanted to.

Maybe we all need to take a breather and reread select chapters from Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.

You fogot one item...

[Atario]

So all the airport security in the world, searching for box knives and zippo lighters, is only to make frightened people feel like they should be frightened, and more importantly, to take away more liberty.

Also: to make it look like they're Doing Something About It(tm). AKA looking busy. All these newly-minted petty dictators have to keep enacting new egregious violations of your libery to keep reminding you why their jobs are "needed". If they just do their jobs, they'll eventually be let go as an unneccessary and annoying expense. Instead, we get dire warnings, intoned in the most serious of voices, that fingernail clippers are not permitted. What? Ohhh, it's inconvenient and unreasonable? Izzat so? Well, why don't you tell us -- why do you hate America??

If our forefathers could see us now, we'd hide in embarrasment at the glare they'd give us. It's sickening.

no obligation to show id

[Anonymous Coward]

here is Supreme Court case: explicitly says defendenat has to identify self , NOT show id.

www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/ argument_transcripts/03-5554.pdf

many news accounts stated it wrong.

That's right, I don't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, the closest piece of paper or plastic with my name on it is several hundred miles away from me. (At least that I know of; I suppose there could be a coincidence somewhere.)

No, you *can't* be jailed. Even in Hiibel vs. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the issue was *refusing to give his name*. Not being able to *prove* it is not a crime anywhere.

Re:Emphasis on citizenship diversity and civiliani

[unitron]

Are "Courts Marshal" and "Marshal Law" something different and distinct from "Courts Martial" and "Martial Law"?

Ordering pizza in 2008

[Phist]

I recieved this email on jan 15, 2004 and i guess this is as good as time as any to share

laugh but i can see this in the near future!

Operator: "Thank you for calling Pizza Hut. May I have your national ID number?"

Customer: "Hi, I'd like to place an order."

Operator: "I must have your NIDN first, sir?"

Customer: "My National ID Number, yeah, hold on, eh, it's 6102049998-45-54610."

Operator: "Thank you, Mr. Sheehan. I see you live at 1742 Meadowland Drive, and the phone number's 494-2366. Your office number over at Lincoln Insurance is 745-2302 and your cell number's 266-2566. Email address is sheehan@ home.net Which number are you calling from, sir?"

Customer: "Huh? I'm at home. Where d'ya get all this information?"

Operator: "We're wired into the HSS, sir."

Customer: "The HSS, what is that?"

Operator: "We're wired into the Homeland Security System, sir. This will add only 15 seconds to your ordering time"

Customer: (Sighs) "Oh, well, I'd like to order a couple of your All-Meat Special pizzas."

Operator: "I don't think that's a good idea, Sir."

Customer: "Whaddya mean?"

Operator: "Sir, your medical records and commode sensors indicate that you've got very high blood pressure and extremely high cholesterol. Your National Health Care provider won't allow such an unhealthy choice."

Customer: "What?!?! What do you recommend, then?"

Operator: "You might try our low-fat Soybean Pizza. I'm sure you'll like it."

Customer: "What makes you think I'd like something like that?"

Operator: "Well, you checked out 'Gourmet Soybean Recipes' from your local library last week, sir. That's why I made the suggestion."

Customer: "All right, all right. Give me two family-sized ones, then."

Operator: "That should be plenty for you, your wife and your four kids, and your 2 dogs can finish the crusts, sir. Your total is $49.99."

Customer: "Lemme give you my credit card number."

Operator: "I'm sorry sir, but I'm afraid you'll have to pay in cash. Your credit card balance is over its limit."

Customer: "I'll run over to the ATM and get some cash before your driver gets here."

Operator: "That won't work either, sir. Your checking account's overdrawn also."

Customer: "Never mind! Just send the pizzas. I'll have the cash ready. How long will it take?"

Operator: "We're running a little behind, sir. It'll be about 45 minutes, sir. If you're in a hurry you might want to pick 'em up while you're out getting the cash, but then, carrying pizzas on a motorcycle can be a little awkward."

Customer: "Wait! How do you know I ride a scooter?"

Operator: "It says here you're in arrears on your car payments, so your car got repo'ed. But your Harley's paid for and you just filled the tank yesterday"

Customer: Well I'll be a "@#%/$@&?#!"

Operator: "I'd advise watching your language, sir. You've already got a July 4, 2006 conviction for cussing out a cop and another one I see here on September for contempt at your hearing for cussing at a judge." "Oh yes I see here that you just got out from a 90 day stay in the State Correctional Facility. Is this your first pizza since your return to society?

Customer: (Speechless)

Operator: "Will there be anything else, sir?"

Customer: "Yes, I have a coupon for a free 2 liter of Coke".

Operator: "I'm sorry sir, but our ad's exclusionary clause prevents us from offering free soda to diabetics. The New Constitution prohibits this.

Thank you for calling Pizza Hut!"

Talking about this??

[Anonymous Coward]

Maps Around the California Checkpoints

When entering California from any major highway, you will have to stop at a checkpoint where they will most likely ask you if you have "any fruits or vegatables?" Sometimes they will ask you about plants or animals.

If you keep your ferret and any ferret paraphernalia or cages out of sight, you should go right through. The only time people seem to get caught is when they are unaware of the ban on ferrets. Folks with out of state license plates are most at risk for a thorough vehicle inspection. http://www.ferretsanonymous.com/Ag%20Stations/maps .html

The meek greek empire...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, yes, Greece especially. I think you're really way off base regarding slaves
(http://www.crystalinks.com/greekslavery.h tml/) as well as the 'not having an empire' thing (remember some guy called 'Alexander'?). I'm not sure if you'd call it 'colonial', though.

Re:The meek greek empire...

[satans_advocate]

as well as the 'not having an empire' thing (remember some guy called 'Alexander'?).

I remember that he was Macedonian, from Macedonia. But it's all Greek to me.

But I'm not doing anything wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I have nothing to hide, I haven't done anything wrong.

YOU STUPID F*CKING SLAVES!

2nd Class Citizen / subjects keep kissing US Government ass, I am really sick of it. With your Social Serial Number / Inventory Serial Number because you are owned and propery of the US Government.

Are you a "U.S." Citizen?

Are you a "U.S. Government" Citizen?

Are you "U.S. Government Property"?

"I have nothing to hide" as they take you away. STUPID!

Where is the press?

[dkmj17]

It occured to me that /.'s article here is the first I've heard of this Real ID plan... even though it is the threat to the fundamental liberties of every US citizen. Though I do wonder what people will say when they realize that the government could find them guilty of crimes before talking to them, or that Uncle Sam could litterally know where you are at all times using those RFID tags Homeland Security wants... That's really not the point of my reply.

I want to know- where is NBC; where is FOX or CBS? What happend to CNN and ABC? Why haven't I heard that my government wants to make me carry papers everywhere I go? My fellow citizens should be up in arms about this law but instead are watching the Michael Jackson trial and the report of who did what to who on American Idol. I have this feeling like I want to grab the country and just shake the whole darn thing- look it in the eyes and say "pay attention damnit... your government is becoming your dictator!"

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin

Re:Where is the press?

[0x0000]

/.'s article here is the first I've heard of this Real ID plan...

Well, aside from the obvious fact that since the neo-con coup the network media hasn't covered anything except talking-dubya-points, the reason you haven't noticed this tidbit of legistlation (which apparently started back in Feburary) is because "liberal media" has painted it as an immagration issue - that is: the only people targeted by this legislation according to the to PTB and their media cheerleaders were illegal aliens - I heard it debated on Faux News as an immagration issue a least a month ago. I would have to say either a) you haven't been paying attention, or b) you are foolish enough to a ctually believe the that the motives these pseudo-news agencies put forward are the actual intent of the neo-con coup. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course...

Here is a list of articles about this legislation (trivially found using Google) from some touchy feely immagration rights outfit that no one will pay any attention to.

[ -- copied & pasted -- ]

The REAL ID Act in the Media

• "Jewish Groups Oppose US's Stricter Controls on Asylum," Jerusalem Post, March 9, 2005
• "Death Sentence?" Christianity Today, March 8, 2005
• "Republican Plan Would Tighten Laws for Asylum Cases," Hearst Newspapers, March 6, 2005
• "Keep the Doors Open," The Jewish Week editorial, February 25, 2005
• "Unwelcome Mat," The Boston Globe, February 25, 2005
• "Religious Asylum Assailed," Family News in Focus, February 22, 2005 (PDF - 51KB)
• "Proyecto de ley torpedea el derecho de asilo," El Nuevo Herald, February 22, 2005
• "Conservative camps split on tightening asylum," The Boston Globe, February 21, 2005
• "Not broke, don't fix," The Washington Times, February 20, 2005
• "National ID Party," The Wall Street Journal editorial, February 17, 2005 (subscription required)
• "On Guard, America," The New York Times editorial, February 15, 2005
• "Refugee Politics," The Baltimore Sun editorial, February 14, 2005
• "Real ID Act deserves defeat in the Senate," San Antonio Express-News editorial, February 18, 2005
• "Playing the terror card," Contra Costa Times, February 14, 2005
• "Ineffectual migrant policy," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial

Excerpt from David Cross' It's Not Funny

[TripMaster Monkey]

...they're freedom haters.

...we're freedom lovers.

...don't tell Canada.

immigration

[mu51c10rd]

At the risk of becoming flamebait...it seems most people don't understand what this bill is attempting to do.
It is more designed against illegal immigration. The terrorists and anyone else can waltz across the border with Mexico. Now, first gut reaction is...the Border Patrol needs to secure it. The manpower required to secure a 2000+ mile border 24/7 is beyond cost-prohibitive. This ensures that anyone who sneaks in can be caught later. I have crossed the Mexico border from vacations myself...and have never had anyone check me or care to ask what I was doing beyond the big city border checkpoints (try crossing somewhere else besides Tijuana or Ciudad Juarez). This is not an "internal passport", no one will be checking it at state borders nor will police ask for it when stopped (it is not a driver's license).
Now, instead of mentioning privacy concerns, does anyone here have better ideas on securing the nation's borders? We all know the current system does not work. There are 10,000,000 illegal immigrants here...obviously no one has checked them. Now...the terrorists can do that just as easily. Anyone notice the Chinese guys who were picked up in Houston who were planning on setting off some bombs back east? My question still stands, does somewhere here have a better idea?

Re:immigration

[Phist]

Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service.

Do any of these things get used by all those poor illegal immigrants who have come to steal jobs from the unemployed Americans? BTW, in America, even sympathy is capitalized on.

While I agree that the land of opportunity's international borders should be locked to all invaders I think it would be easier and more beneficial to simply take over the world.

so it's all marketing by the gub'mint

[Jafa]

The extra security, largly illusional, made people feel protected. After 2001, air passenger numbers dropped massively, and the screening made people feel as it something had been done about the problem.

So, all these new procedures were just a marketing move paid for by us so the airline companies could recover some business? A new pr campaign with tax payer dollars saying "No look! It really is safe! Look at all this security!" while they point to cardboard cutouts?

Damn, I started out trying to make a funny but now I'm all pissed.

Welcome to the "New America"

[milette]

Is everyone over there BLIND as to what's happening? Since 9/11 America the Free have turned into America the Paranoid.

Under the guise of "Anti-Terrorism", your government have embarked on a campaign to systematically strip you of your rights, catalog you, and make sure that the machine gun wall gets built around your country to keep all them damn foreigners out, and good, hard-working 'mericans in.

RFID tags in your passports, now the ID card -- what's next?

Pretty soon, it won't be your CAT or DOG that gets the ID pellet behind the ear -- it will be YOU.

Of course, capitalism may prevail -- the market for quick-and-dirty surgery to replace the pellets with new identification chips will be great -- as will the buying and selling of stolen or traded chips.

What happens if you go out to a bar, someone slips you a mikey, and you wake up in the morning in an alley with a hole in your head where your chip used to be?

Maybe you'll find your bank account has been cleaned out, your wife, your job and your home are all occupied by the new owner of your chip.

Welcome to America! :)

The press is on the collar end of business leash

[Phist]

IMO, this is not so much about the American government and more about American business. The "media" is a business which gets most of its funding from commercial business. Everything from an employer testing employees for cigarette smoking to knowing as much about each consumer as possible primarily serves the interest of American businesses.

automatic voter registration

[Anonymous Coward]

For all this verification of id, getting your id should include UNIVERSAL AUTOMATIC VOTER REGISTRATION. THere is no point to yet another database to enter to vote. But do you think that's part of the bill? No, that would be promoting too much democracy.

Reciprocity

[Anonymous Coward]

One way to reduce id abuse is make it a requirement that if someone wants to see your id, they have to show theirs.

Reciprocity

used to be normal among humans.

However, back to reality. What are the rules that say who must show id to whom , and when? Looks like the power is all going one direction. THEY can look at your id, but you can't reveal other's ids due to privacy laws.

Example. in California, it is illegal to reveal the home address of police or prison guards to others. (extra clauses, having to do with intent and legitamate purposes.

Private databases. Private companies can make private databases, but just some individual do the same, it will be considered envidence of illegal purposes

etc

read the damn bill: it IS a national ID card

[dangermouse]

I know you don't want to get all worked up, but you might want to consider doing so, because this bill does exactly what you claim it doesn't do: it establishes a national ID card.

Section 202 of the bill defines standards for State-issued driver's licenses. Section 203 requires participation by the States in a "shared database".

When you figure out how every state issuing a standard ID tied into a single database is functionally different from the Federal government issuing a standard ID, you let us know.

A state can still issue a driver's license that doesn't qualify, you just can't use it to get on a plane, among other things. Nobody has to get it, you'll just be walking or riding the bus everywhere you go.

I can't imagine why you would dissemble in such a manner, so I'll just assume you're a fool. If this passes into law, no State is going to voluntarily restrict its own citizens from doing business with the Federal government or with Federally-regulated industries. That would be economic suicide.

Re:Emphasis on citizenship diversity and civiliani

[unitron]

"...Constables are the only dully-sworn justices..."

As long as they are duly sworn, so that it's official, I don't think it matters whether the oath is dull or interesting. :-)

Slavery accepted

[SonicSpike]

Oddly enough slavery was a widley accepted (and still is) institution. It obviously was in direct violation of the literal words of our Constitution/DoI but it took us a while to figure that out.

Also no where in the Bible does it condem slavery. In fact it even reads that slaves should obey their master and that masters should treat their slaves justly and fairly. It is just another economic system.

Personally I disagree with the idea of slavery, and would never participate in that sort of activity. However I cannot corrolate my dislike of slavery to my faith as there is no real corrolation to be had.

I am open to comments and thoughts about this especially from other Christians.

Re:Slavery accepted

[Anonymous Coward]

year of jubilee.
every 49 years the nation of israel celebrated a special celebration. all debts were forgiven, all land returned to its original owners, and all slaves set free. so a slave could be a slave for no more than 49 years. of course this idea was corrupted and the isralies stopped celebrating the year of jubilee(one of the reason god claimed they turned from him in fact) and greed took over and slavery became lifetime. but that is a corruption of the original idea.

though i dont know if the rule of jubile applied to gentile slaves.

Identification Crisis

[fierYice]

The fundamental flaw with any form of identification is truthfully likning it to the proper owner as no doubtedly there is going to be some previous form of identification (existence) that is required to get the new form of identfication (control/tracking) but if you only need present a subset of information to get the new form of identification the no doubtedly it will ALWAYS be able to be spoofed. The real issue here that should be looked at is accountability for ones actions being tracked through an identification system that is not robust enough to combat the issues. If we first remove accountability by actually listening to the truth involved in each case in stead of the spoofed identification then we can fundamentally see the barriers in identity theft as a virable source of income shrinking in the work place. In other words, if we make it so your identification papers have an overall less impact on your life then all life will fundamentally be better for both the people whom have lost thier identities as well as those who no longer pursue it because there is no edge to gain.

Fundamentally reassising all our laws that require accountability and reducing them to the most basic subset that is required for peace and happiness in our society should be the first goal of our nation before we think about tagging everybody like cattle. How accountable do I really need to be in this life if I forgot to take a blockbuster movie back for 6 days? It doesn't feel that important to me, what about you?

-D

Just thought i would post this from revelations

[eadint]

16. And he enslaved them all, the small and the famous* and the rich and the poor and the children of the free and the slaves, whereas to be given a mark* on their right hands or between their eyes*[,]
17. So that no one* could sell or buy, except he who has the mark of that demon or the number of his name.
18. Here there is wisdom, whoever has a mind* should count the number of that demon [,] for it is the number of a human being. And his number is six hundred and sixty-six.

Why don't you learn some English, moron?

[Quattro Vezina]

How many times do I have to explain this to you, you stupid animal?

THESE ARE NOT RIGHTS. EVEN IF YOUR RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED, YOU STILL HAVE THEM. People in China have the Right to freedom of speech, the government is simply violating that Right.

It's morons like you who shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Re:Why don't you learn some English, moron?

[AviLazar]

There we go. "Fear leads to hate... Hate leads to anger... Anger leads to the DARKSIDE!!!"

Please show me where it is written that a "right" is something given to you by god. Please show me where it is written where "Right to freedom of speech" is granted to you by god. Just try to avoid quotes from people such as our founding fathers.

Nevermind, i actually dont care to hear anything from someone so beligerant as you.

Re:read the damn bill: it IS a national ID card

[Pentavirate]

I appreciate your assumptions as to my mental capacity. Since you have such a low user number, I wouldn't dare dispute them.

My main point was that we have required a certain level of safety from terrorists from our Federal Government and then we complain when they take steps to help ensure that. Total safety == no rights. The more rights citizens have, the more we have to take responsibility for our own safety. We have driver's licenses because we require a certain amount of safety from other drivers on the roads. We give up the right to drive under cetain situations in exchange for that safety.

The Federal Government needs to know the identities of people that get on planes. They can't know that for sure when there are many states that have loose identification requirements in order to get a drivers license. When I got my license in California, I brought a copy of my birth certificate and my passport. They didn't even want to look at the passport and used the easily forged copy of a birth certificate as primary identification. California even wants to give licenses to illegal aliens! I think the measures in the bill make sense.

You say that it would be economic suicide for a state not to meet the standards. If the citizens of a state felt strongly enough about it, they could intentionally not comply. A state could even have a seperate ID card that complies with the federal guidelines and keep the driver's licenses seperate if they so chose so that people would have more of a choice.

I, for one, have no problem with a national ID card. Most every other country in the world has them. Maybe if they did, people wouldn't use our Social Security Numbers so much for identification which utilizes no anti-theft or identification measures. This is merely the Federal government attempting to do the job that is required of them without getting too many people up in arms about the maligned national ID card.

ORDERING A PIZZA IN 2006 with the ID card

[Troden]

ORDERING A PIZZA IN 2006 Operator: "Thank you for calling Pizza Hut. May I have your national ID number?" Customer: "Hi, I'd like to place an order." Operator: "I must have your NIDN first, sir?" Customer: "My National ID Number, yeah, hold on. It's 6102049998-45-54610." Operator: "Thank you, Mr. Sheehan. I see you live at 1742 Meadowland Drive, and the phone number's 494-2366. Your office number over at Lincoln Insurance is 745-2302 and your cell number's 266-2566. Email address is sheehan@home.net. Which number are you calling from, sir?" Customer: "Huh? I'm at home. Where d'ya get all this information?" Operator: "We're wired into the HSS, sir." Customer: "The HSS, what is that?" Operator: "We're wired into the Homeland Security System, sir. This will add only 15 seconds to your ordering time" Customer: (Sighs) "Oh well, I'd like to order a couple of your All-Meat Special pizzas." Operator: "I don't think that's a good idea, sir." Customer: "Whaddya mean?" Operator: "Sir, your medical records and commode sensors indicate that you've got very high blood pressure and extremely high cholesterol. Your National Health Care provider won't allow such an unhealthy choice." Customer: "What? What do you recommend, then?" Operator: "You might try our low-fat Soybean Pizza. I'm sure you'll like it." Customer: "What makes you think I'd like something like that?" Operator: "Well, you checked out 'Gourmet Soybean Recipes' from your local library last week, sir. That's why I made the suggestion." Customer: "All right, all right. Give me two family-sized ones, then." Operator: "That should be plenty for you, your wife and your four children, and your 2 dogs can finish the crusts, sir. Your total is $49.99." Customer: "Lemme give you my credit card number." Operator: "I'm sorry sir, but I'm afraid you'll have to pay in cash. Your credit card balance is over its limit." Customer: "I'll run over to the ATM and get some cash before your driver gets here." Operator: "That won't work either, sir. Your checking account's overdrawn also." Customer: "Never mind! Just send the pizzas. I'll have the cash ready. How long will it take?" Operator: "We're running a little behind, sir. It'll be about 4 minutes, sir. If you're in a hurry you might want to pick 'em up while you're out getting the cash, but then, carrying pizzas on a motorcycle can be a little awkward." Customer: "Wait! How do you know I ride a 'cycle?" Operator: "It says here you're in arrears on your car payments, so your car got repo'ed. But your Harley's paid for and you just filled the tank yesterday." Customer: Well I'll be a "@#%/$@&?#!&?#!" Operator: "I'd advise watching your language, sir. You've already got a July 4, 2004 conviction for cussing out a cop and another one I see here in September for contempt at your hearing for cussing at a judge." "Oh yes I see here that you just got out from a 90 day stay in the State Correctional Facility. Is this your first pizza since your return to society? Customer: (Speechless) Operator: "Will there be anything else, sir?" Customer: "Yes, I have a coupon for a free 2 litre of Coke". Operator: "I'm sorry sir, but our ad's exclusionary clause prevents us from offering free soda to diabetics. The New Constitution prohibits this. Thank you for calling Pizza Hut!" Troden

small government, democrats, and republicans

[falconwolf]

,p>Hmmm...didn't the Republicans used to be the party of smaller federal government and states rights?

Supposedly that's what the Reagan's Republican party was about, but Reagan actually increased the size and power of the federal government. No, actually the party that originally was for small government was the Democratic Party, ala Thomas Jefferson's liberalism not to be confused with today's liberals and neo liberals. Today neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want small government, the only governmental difference between the two are in what parts of government are small and what parts are big. The only political party I'm aware of who wants a small and limited government that follows the Constitution of the USA is the Libertarian Party

Falcon

slaves and the US Civil War

[falconwolf]

After the war ended, many former slaves still chose to stay - working the fields in exchange for food and shelter - but the difference was it was their choice, and those who chose not to do this were allowed to leave.

Though I don't currently have the data of how many, there were also slaves who fought for the South.

Falcon

state succession from the USA

[falconwolf]

If a state does not agree with the federal government, it would have the ability to show massive disdain by seperating from the USA

In a way there's a plan afoot to do this now, to show disdain for the feds, though not by succession.

Free State Project.
The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. The success of the Project would likely entail reductions in taxation and regulation, reforms at all levels of government to expand individual rights and free markets, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world.

Falcon

the South and slavery

[falconwolf]

Either way the southern states felt they shouldn't be forced to do anything whatsoever and would most likly have already started giving up slaves if it hadn't become a symbol of southern independance.

Unfortuately I don't know where the references are right now, but I read a few months back about a study of economics and slavery and the conclusion was that if the South were left alone within about 20 years slavery would of ended because it's not econmomically feasible. In the long run it's cheaper to hire willing workers and pay them a living wage than it is to own slaves.

Falcon

Re:the South and slavery

[MindStalker]

Exactly, I'm sure illigal immigrant workers of today are probably cheaper than slaves. With slaves you have to buy them, then you want to keep your investment so you try to feed and clothe them enough so they are healthy. Hell not to sound racist but it seems as if most mexican workers seem to be able to stretch a dollar and stay alive a lot farther that I would know how to do if I was responsible for taking care of one.

cotton depletes nutrients in the soil

[falconwolf]

More than most if not any other crop, usage of herbicides and pesticides is also high on cotton crops.

Falcon

Re:ORDERING A PIZZA IN 2006 with the ID card

[Heian-794]

Troden, you're missing the last lines. (Yeah, Offtopic, I know.)

(Scene: Pizza delivery man arrives at Mr. Sheehan's house.)

Delivery Man: "Herea re your pizzas, sir. That'll be $50.01, please."

Customer: "But you said $49.99 on the phone!"

Delivery Man: "Yes, but at one point you were put on hold."

Customer: "And...!?"

Delivery Man: "Well, the RIAA wants its two cents for that Fugees Muzak remix that was playing while you waited."

(Customer slams door and goes to fix himself a salad.)

Domestic hijacking?

[leonbrooks]

Sorry, but this phrase calls to mind an image of Odie putting a pistol against a hostess's temple.

in the entire histiory of domestic hijacking the best way ti survive was to sit down and shut up

Only in the short term.

This might (situational) help towards the survival of the passengers on that one plane, but the fact that the hijacker has a chance of surviving encourages repeat hijackings.

The Israelis are a long way from building the perfect society or anything (the widespread prejudice against goyim being an obvious failing), but one thing they generally get right is that the instant a hijacker is identified, they're dead. Not because of "sky marshals" or anything, but because many if not most of the passengers on the 'plane will attack them the first chance they get, instantly and without warning or quarter.

They still get the occasional hijacker due to the sheer, overwhelming hatred directed at them (some of it justifiable, none of it useful), but nothing like the USA and other Western countries suffer. Knowing that you are absolutely certain to die painfully and messily and very unlikely to accomplish your objective casts quite a different light on your view of the prospects. Very few suicidal idiots are both dedicated and skilled enough to face that without obviously giving themselves away.

Not only that, our local security measures...

[leonbrooks]

...suck. There are at least three different vectors along which - if I was a suicidal, homicidal maniac - get a few tons of high explosives (at a time, you could use several vectors at once or re-use a vector for several vehicles) into the middle of the domestic or international concourses (demolishing the terminal building and killing maybe two thousand people on a busy day), plus an essentially unlimited number of ways to get dozens of tons of HE onto the runway (and take out a plane as it landed or lifted off) or taxiway (and ram it into the terminal building, taking out several planes and scattering the buildingand everyone inside it into the car-park).

If I was a merely homicidal maniac, there are a large number of ways in which I could do the same with a reasonable chance of surviving it.

All of the above is as a lone maniac. Given a dozen selected vehicles, about forty tonnes of high explosives, and enough suicidal idiots to drive them all, converting all of Perth (WestOz) airport into a wasteland littered with the rubble of buildings and aircraft would take about five minutes.

With the addition of a few light aircraft and suitable idiots to fly them, rendering the runways themselves unusable would be a trivial addition. If you stole the vehicles it wouldn't even be expensive.

This scares me. Really, the only protection we have against this being done is a shortage of homicidal maniacs.