Slashdot Mirror
U.S. National Identity Cards All But Law
CompSci101 writes "News.com is running a story about the RealID Card legislation that's been attached to emergency military spending bills to ensure its passage. How soon does everyone think this system will be abused either by the government or by thieves ? The worst part is the completely machine-readable/automatic nature of the thing -- you might not even know you're giving your information away." From the article: "Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards."
So how possible would it be to get by without one? Regarding
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!"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
From TFA:
Looks like devices like these are going to become very popular very soon...
Also, devices like these could be used to really complicate the lives of people you dislike...
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
How soon does everyone think this system will be abused either by the government or by thieves ?
you mean theres a difference?
air and light and time and space
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.
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/
Deleted
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.
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!
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.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
The real problem is that our legislature is so broken that it is possible to "attach" stupid bills to other unrelated bills.
Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
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.
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.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
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.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Come now... you can't be serious?!
/.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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Security of my papers includes the right to not have to show ID to an agent of the state.
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Anonymity and privacy are not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights; that doesn't mean we don't have 'em. Remember that the BoR is a backup to the idea expressed in Amendment X...
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
...that everything not expressly granted to the federal government is forbidden it. There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that grants the federal government the power to infringe on anonymity. (Only much later did it become apparent that the individual states were far from excellent guardians of liberty, and Amendment XIV was passed.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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...