Slashdot Mirror
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."
From TFA:
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...
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
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.
The real problem is that our legislature is so broken that it is possible to "attach" stupid bills to other unrelated bills.
Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
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.
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.'"
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.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
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.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
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..
Bush Lies Watch
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.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar