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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Com2Kid]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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:

[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:

[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...

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?

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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/

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?

Oh Boy

[SengirV]

Nazi Germany, here we come. Where are your PAPERS!!!!!

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.

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!

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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:*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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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:*Please* RTFA

[TripMaster Monkey]

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

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.

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/

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.

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???

[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???

[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:*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.

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.

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"?

[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.

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

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

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).

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.

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

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:

[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.

-

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.

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:*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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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: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.

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: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/

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:*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: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:*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.

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

[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:*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?

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

... 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.

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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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...

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!"

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?