Slashdot Mirror
Real ID: You Can Still Fight It
toupsz writes "Bill Scannell has created a website where anyone and everyone can fax their senators regarding the Real ID Act. Note that the act is up for vote on Tuesday, May 10th!
All those against the Act might want to go to Bill's site: UnrealID.com.
Thanks, Cory from BoingBoing!"
Typos in the headlines. What are editors for, again?
/usr/games/fortune
This will swing the deal, because nothing -- and I mean nothing -- persuades Senators faster than a room full of bulk faxes, all sent from the same website and all basically the same!
Sheesshh.
How can so mainly nominally smart people be so dumb about how best to influence the democratic process.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I don't care about the Big Brother side, I care about the part where our officials are enacting pointless legislation that won't solve anything but will create a whole new department of bureaucracy that you and I get to pay for. Hell no.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Of course this is slashdot and we are supposed to think alike and reflexively be against anything the government does in the security arena. But I *really do* want to know that the person boarding the airplane with me is who they say they are and not on an expired visa with a fraudulantly obtained ID (like the 9-11 hijackers on expired visas with fraudulantly obtained Virginia driver licences). I *really do* want the government (all of it including state and local subdivisions) to enforce immigration laws and to know if somebody's visa is expired.
So thank you for the information, I will call/fax my senator to let him know that I want him to vote in favor of Real ID.
The arguments in the "What is RealID" section are ludicrous.
Linking together databases is not spying. Just because China and Vietnam have national IDs doesn't make it a bad idea. A lot of people, after passing the driver license test, still can't drive properly. What's that got to do with illegal immigrants and national IDs?
To me, it sounded like it was written by the guys that wrote about peak oil and the 911 conspiracies.
and cuss him out for not reading it, you might want to read the text of it yourself. You know, just maybe. Democracy requires an informed populace to work, and if you believe the partisan propaganda in the headline of a Slashdot story, how are you any better than a Republican senator who buys the partisan propaganda of the bill's author?
1. It encodes the data digitally? My current driver's license has a mag stripe on the back that does that.
2. The data is readable at a distance? If you're really concerned about that possibility, wrap your license in foil.
3. There's a master database being built? I've got news: private companies have already done that. They've purchased the state databases, digitized them (including biometric data from your picture), and make them available for a fee. Las Vegas casinos love it for determining the identities of who's gambling in their places. Big Brother government, when it wants to know all about you, can, and does, buy that same info.
Real ID doesn't worry me. I'd be more concerned with the US becoming like the UK, a country burying itself in surveillance cameras (and soon, audio devices). That's the real Big Brother scenario to me, when it becomes possible to track and records one's every movement and every public utterance.
That is not a vote. And if the democrats phillabuster every thing on the table when they gain power again the republcans will do it right back at them.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Yeah, that's some REAL good insight.
A driver's license is just that, a license to drive a car. Same with a Social Security card/number, to identify you to the IRS and Social Security. Yet both of these are used as general identification. I think it's about time we had a standardized identification card. How many bars have gotten in trouble with the excise police because the accepted a fake out-of-state drivers license? It may have been the first time the bouncer saw a license from that state, and thus, has no reference in his mind. If this passes we might have something to replace Social Security numbers as the primary key for credit agencies that won't be treated as both identification and a password.
Sounds to me that paranoia is what drives this "REAL" guy. One of the points he makes is about the magnetic strip on the id making it easy to sell info to companies without authorization. I'm not a lawyer but that sounds illegal. That's beside the point. My driver's license already has a magnetic strip and I have had it scanned on a few occasions without consequence. This card makes it more difficult for illegal aliens and terrorists. Seems like a good idea to me.
Your papers are out of order!
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies. -- Groucho Marx
I guess I don't understand the difference between real ID and the passport. The only thing is that its a passport/drivers licence hybrid. Is this a replacement for the passport, the driver's license, or the plain identification card. Because if you are over 18 and you don't have a driver's license, you may have the plain ol' identification card. Seems kinda weird that it should be different from the standard driver's license. Or maybe they will change the background color (like that worked in the past). I must say that the site was pretty one-sided and didn't argue both sides. I don't think that it is the best idea with putting all your information on the same card that you have with you at all times. Might as well just burn a barcode in the back of our necks at birth. That way they can only look up the information, they can't specifically read it off of you.
60 million Elvis fans can be wrong, and so can 600 organizations. Try using arguments instead of peer pressure, OK?
No mainstream Republican will be able to claim they represent small government ever again, when they voted in a president who signs such a reckless and constitutionally irresponsible bill into law.
What will happen to those of us who refuse to sign up for an identity card? Or sends the assigned ID card back to the Big Bureau of Bureaucracy cut into shreds in an act of protest? Jail?
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
When a place gets crowded enough to require ID's, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere.
-From the Notebook of Lazarus Long
The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
Well for one, I am not required to have a passport.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
I don't give a shit if the guy in the seat next to me claims to be bobo the dog-faced boy. What I do care about is that he does not have a weapon, and cannot get into the fricking cockpit. A National ID does not stop that from happening.
It will also not stop another Timothy McVeigh, who as far as I understand was never busted for anything prior.
What it will do is create more red tape, and the perception that government is doing SOMETHING so it must be making us safer. It will probably INCREASE terrorism as well. Why?
Because as the government continues to push more draconian laws, they will begin to piss "patriots" here in this country off. It may very well create a positive feedback loop.
I value what little privacy I have remaining, and I should not have to carry a piece of plastic just to fricking travel.....
If we were serious about stopping terrorism, we would stop playing world policeman. The arrogance of my fellow countrymen just amazes me sometimes. It's as though americans believe we have a god given right to intervene around the world if we don't like a certain government, etc.
The Republic is Dead. Long Live the Empire...
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Ah, we seem to have forgotten already about all the judges Bill Clinton couldn't even get voted on. Did you know that most federal judges now sitting are Bush and Reagan appointees? Doesn't it bother you that these "conservative" judges now are even too liberal for the current crop of neo-fascists who control the Republican Party? No, I didn't think so...
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
Do we now judge the government and its actions by how bad they are?
heartless money grubbers who could afford to pay a decent wage if they wanted too.
As an aside, I find this logic amusing. Because wal-mart could "afford" to pay more, they are heartless bastards if they don't. On the other hand, assuming you "could afford" to pay a little extra for a gallon of milk, and yet still refuse to do so, I'd bet my last dollar you don't apply the same standard to yourself and consider yourself a hearless bastard. Maybe instead of paying $2 a gallon, you should just go ahead and start pitching in an extra buck, eh? Or maybe it's just easy to have "high standards" when it's someone else's money. heh.
A modern day witchhunt.
???
Peer pressure is exactly the mechanism being used to get this act passed. Seriously you don't expect us to believe that its inclusion into a "support our troops" bill is an unintentional side-effect of an absent minded congressman? No sane congressperson would dare to vote against the troop funding omnibus because all of his peers would immediately label him an enemy of the troops. If that's not peer pressure, I don't know what is.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
How is this bill going to prevent the documents that are required to get a RealID from being forged in the first place? Granted, this is outside the realm of most illegals, but if the intention is to stop terrorists from coming into the country under guise, than they are more than likely well-funded enough to get forged documentation to get a real Real ID. This is, at best, a short term solution that will, more than likely, become a long-term problem.
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
What's wrong with capital punishment and ownership of weapons by the law-abiding public? ("Weapons in every house" is a pretty serious overstatement, unless you count kitchen knives). The latter is pretty damned near necessary in the rural regions, anyhow; I have friends (in rural Texas) who literally have alligators and water snakes in their back yards.
Getting back to topic, a National ID is just one more step away from a group of independent states who are members of a federation with strictly limited powers, and one more step towards a strong central government which flaunts the document supposedly limiting its extent. Look: You out in the rest of the world don't like the US federal government getting too much power, especially when it's mismanaged as badly as it is. Us here in the US don't like our Federal government taking too much power, either, when that power would better be left closer to home where we have more influence -- in our state governments.
I'm glad the Republican control of Washington means a smaller, less intrusive government, protecting state's rights to self-government. And real tough security measures, to protect us from terrorists.
Wait - Republicans have controlled the White House, Senate and House of Representatives for years? The WTC planebombers and OK City bombers all had legitimate ID? I'll have to wait for the next Fox News cycle to get ny updated talking points.
--
make install -not war
Who determines need? Maybe we should create a Politburo to determine how much someone "needs"...oh wait...that was tried already...hrmm..
Your quote is misleading. The difference here is that Democrats are using the fillibuster to block Judicial nominations, something that has never been done before.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_2721531
Soviet Russia taught people how to share too. . . The concept is called communism, and it only works on a large scale when someone points a gun at your head.
Sure the big corporations may have more than moeny than they need in your eyes, but I'm sure in someone elses eyes you have more money than you need. This trickles down all the way to the bottom. If we all gave what we didn't need, everyone would be living at the poorest level. We wouldn't bring the poor up to the level of the middle class. Its just the way humanity works.
Phil
I think *you* should learn about sharing. I do share. What I don't do is get mad at someone else who I don't think shares "enough" (whatever that means this week). Sharing is voluntary and people who think otherwise are usually only interested in sharing when they are on the receiving end of the share.
A modern day witchhunt.
Seriously though, I have still not been able to figure out the whole "privacy" debate. All the information that is on these cards, as far as I can tell, including address, is information that can be publicly observed. Of course, this raises the question "should it be legal for someone to follow someone around to determine where they live?"
Where you live isn't necessarily a private piece of information, but I can understand the desire people have to not make that information easily available to anyone who might want it. The plain fact of the matter is, there isn't really any such thing as privacy except where there is no possibility of observation.
The dilemma faced by legislators - and the average citizen - is how do you know if people are telling the truth? How do you ensure "trust"? It's a pain in the rear in modern society - it used to be that you lived your life in a small town where you knew the entire town, and when outsiders came in they were treated with suspicion until they were around for long enough with demonstrated character to be trusted.
That is, in fact, the only way to build trust: continued demonstration of certain behavior. This isn't even a guarantee of future behavior, which is the nasty caveat. So, as far as I see it, at best any new type of ID will be a neutral thing. In reality, it will probably carry some nominal fee and so not be good, and it will also probably be abused by certain people or organizations.
The thing is, society is based on trust, and all this type of thing demonstrates is that people are less likely to trust than in the past. The other interesting thing is that you really cannot legislate trust, or behavior for that matter. You can only build trust, and you can only punish or reward behavior. Those are the only controls in society: reward and punishment. It's the unfortunate reality of the world in which we live.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Currently most states do not even require proof of U.S. citizenship to obtain a Driver's License. You don't even need a SSN.
Sigh. SSNs are for getting social security benefits, they do not uniquely identify you. And why should someone need to tell you where they live to get a driver's license? Does it somehow effect their ability to drive?
We don't have ID cards because we're supposed to be a free people that don't have to register with the government just to live. I guess such outdated ideals were thrown away because the TV scared all the little cowards into being afraid of the big, bad terrorists. You're a a stinking coward if you're willing to give up your freedom to let the government try to protect you and an idiot if you think they can or will. How about trying out a little personal responsibility? If a terrorist tries to blow you up, shoot them. This is America, right?
Chile, Vietnam, CIA-funded terrorism training in Afghanistan, among others; all these predate your dad getting blown up. That doesn't make it any better, and it doesn't exuse it in any way, I know, but don't try to pretend that the US hasn't conducted multiple illegal wars prior to "9-11".
There are definite reasons why the US is so hated by some peoples around the world. Some of those people are extremists, unfortunately, and will do crazy things as a result.
Perhaps if the US would stop f*cking around in other sovereign nations' affairs, extremists would have less ideological ammunition (and thus less real ammunition, eventually).
ERROR 144 - REBOOT ?
Well, really it doesn't. The act only seeks to establish federal guidelines for what kinds of ID the states can issue. The act won't establish a bureau of federal licenses or anything like that. It just sets the standards and mandates that the states follow.
It's called an "unfunded mandate," and to respond to that other poster out there someplace, no, it's no more a violation of the 10th Amendment than federal highway safety laws are.
Wow. The responses I got for this post are exactly what I expected. Mostly people shaking their fists in the air rattling on about communism. At least you didn't do that, so I will respond.
Sharing is not voluntary, it's a moral obligation. I'm more than willing to share the things that I have and freely give away things that I have more than enough of. What's the point in my keeping more of a resource than I need? I can see keeping alittle in reserve for the potential that I may need more of a resource later. But anything more than that is selfish hoarding. The way I see it, there is only one thing that we are all here for: to help each other. If some people can't be bothered to help others who are less fotunate out, then they are typically the root cause of the problem.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I don't believe a policeman asking to see my ID card qualifies as harrassment. And as someone who has been on the receiving end of police harrassment, lemme tell ya that getting my ID checked out is paltry compared to what they CAN do to you.
It's funny...other democratic nations have laws in place where cops can ask anyone for their ID whenever they like, and no one even so much as sez anything. Take, for example, Japan; granted, Japan has all kinds of problems, but I personally don't believe this to be one of them.
And, as debatable as it might be (read: flame away ), suspicion of being a terrorist could one day become just cause. It pretty much already is here in New York.
Legally, they cannot keep US citizens out of the US. Now, airlines can stop them from flying in, or Canada may not let them walk to the border, but the US government cannot keep Americans out of the country. (Barring some sort of due process of law that results in exile, but exile is not currently a punishment for any crimes.)
Do people honestly not know this? You really think the government can say 'No, you stepped out of the country, we do not have to let you back in?'. That's been like the definition of 'citizen of a country' for millennia...they have to take you back.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I'm sorry that you love liberty that little.
My identity, much less the information on my personal papers, is simply not a beat cop's business.
Unless he's looking for a specific person fitting my description ("I have an arrest warrant for a Richard Roe, fitting your description, please show me some ID to prove you're not him or I'll have to arrest you"), my name and information have nothing to do with whether he has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
I see no reason to beleive that it would help reduce illegal immigration. I certainly see no reason to curtail the liberties of American citizens in a half-assed attempt to pretend to reduce illegal immigration.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
My position is to respect the degree to which an individual (or company) does give. It's hard to judge someone elses need and further, how much is "too much" to have. Giving is good. But to what degree should one go to give? Is it ok, for example, if I were making good money and trying to retire (through savings/investments) when I'm 30? That money I could give away, and presumably be ok in the short term. (I don't really have that kind of money, I'm just speculating) How much money is it ok for a company to have in reserve to provide security for the insecure future?
I think those are all personal questions, which only you can answer. And it's no more ok for me to say "you give to much" than to say "you don't give enough".
Certianly, legal obligation to "share" according to someone else's standard begins to smack of communism and many people see your type of position as one who would like to legally force everyone to share according to your standard. So those type of "communism" responses seem somewhat valid as well.
A modern day witchhunt.
I have a feeling that a national ID is one of those things they will continue to push until they finally get it. President, Congress, none of that matters, they will do it regardless. They, Them - The Men In Black.
about national id under clinton
Know your customer
Lots of other articles on this, check with google. Type in "clinton national id" and "clinton know your customer".
"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."
How is this substantially different from the situation today, where I need to present a state-issued driver's license and/or a federally-issued Social Security number in order to do any of those things?
I'm sure there are some pretty nefarious riders attached to this bill, since that's the case with almost all legislation. But the basic concept of a national ID card is not anything that I have any objection to.
Damn, so for the past 229 years, the United States hasn't really been a nation? Just a hunk of land? And this ID card will fix that?
And remind me exactly how a national ID card will "secure our borders"? Last time I checked, most illegal immigration happened away from our border checkpoints. How exactly will that change with a national ID card?
Sheesh
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
If they're working for Walmart, they're already paying taxes. It's called 'withholding'. And they're paying it under a purchased SS number.
Which means they not only pay as much taxes as you, they can't get a refund and they can never withdraw that money from social security. Yeah, man, they've got a great scam! Pay too much taxes and get no credit for them. How clever of them.
The people who don't pay taxes are the ones getting paid in cash on the side of the road.
And legality wouldn't alter that. Plenty of those people are here legally. The only way to do anything about that is to demand accurate record keeping and withholding by the people who hire them. At which point the illegals will use made up SS numbers and start paying taxes they can't benefit from.
Wait, no they wouldn't. You don't have to pay taxes if you make that little money.
It astonishes me that people think all these people make less than minimum wage are causing some huge tax shortfall. Most of them wouldn't have to legally file a return because they didn't make enough!
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Of course sharing is voluntary. When sharing is not voluntary, it is called something else. If you try to share something of mine when I don't want you to, it's called "theft". When the government tries to share my stuff, it's called "eminent domain" or some other high-sounding euphemism for "theft".
Here is where your argument fails. You can talk about sharing your toys because you have more than you need, but once you start talking about sharing someone else's toys because you decide for them that they have more than they need, it is no longer "voluntary" and thus no longer "sharing", no matter what high sounding moral terms you put it in. Your 'moral obligations' are not binding on anyone else. They're yours to deal with, not mine.
If some people can't be bothered to help others who are less fotunate out, then they are typically the root cause of the problem.
This illustrates the second fallacy of your argument. Reworded slightly, you are saying: "the rich are filthy bastards because they have money they won't give to other people. They have 'more than they need'. ". Well, yes, they have money, but they've also done something to earn that money that includes making things better for others. (Let's ignore Carly and her platinum parachute for now, since there are always outliers in the data. Most "rich" aren't like her.)
Even Sam Walton has done some good for a lot of people -- they have jobs selling cheap stuff to the rest of us, or driving trucks delivering cheap stuff to the stores where we can buy it. Even the Chinese, who get paid a pittance (in US dollars) are probably better off than they would be otherwise, since they have jobs, too. (And yes, they could be paid more.) So, there are a lot of people that Sam "helps out", just like every other entrepreneur who hires folks to help him make money. Yes, he keeps what you think is "more than he needs", but if you take it away from him to meet YOUR definition of need, why should he bother working to make anything more than what you'll so graciously let him keep?
Why would anyone want to work any harder than the minimum necessary, if all they get to keep is what you decide they need? And then, when they figure out that they could just as easily be one of the folks on the receiving end of things instead of the producing end, there goes the incentive to even get up in the morning. And that's the point behind the failure of communism and every other welfare system.
I think in the old days you were right. But now it's more like this:
- Democrats: For any problem the poor and middle class have, the solution is bigger government.
- Republicans: For any problem the ultra rich have, the solution is bigger government.
- Libertarians: For any problem, the solution is smaller government.
That looks about right for the year 2005.What if these so-called illegals aren't stupid enough to apply for a state ID or driver's license? What then? [That sensation that your soul is being pierced is from the blank stare you'll get when you ask any politician for an honest answer to this question.]
Obviously, the guy wants to cut down on the potential terrorist threat. But who in HELL says that a terrorist needs a driver's license? Or a state ID?
So who suffers? The criminals and terrorsts? Hell no- they'll just route around it. That leaves only one other class...the vast, vast majority of people who are neither terrorists nor criminals.
Second, clearly the site is designed to spread FUD. The fake image of the "Real ID" card indicates that the card will contain information such as Religion and Occupation. It will not. Read the bill. FUD.
Granted, their 'mock ID' is designed to spread fear with lines such as religion and occupation, however the text of the bill itself grants the power for other information to be added to the ID as the government sees fit. Most people assume this will be retina or fingerprint, but it could include anything, including religion! FUD is FUD, but their example is illustrating one of the key points why myself, and many others, are opposed to the bill - the fact that it hands the government arbitrary and vastly expandable powers of information collection and tracking. If Big Brother says your new ID must carry and display your political party affiliation, your stance on abortion, and if you've bought a 'support the troops ribbon magnet' then that info will be collected and added for anyone reading it to see. They could add your 'terrorist score' to the card, they can add your campaign contributions info to the card, anything!
Also in regard to your comment about your data being scanned and sold by convenience stores being FUD, I think that's very likely to happen. Right now, at least in MA, if you look under the age of 27 - which is a totally objective evaluation by the store clerk - you must present ID to purchase tobacco or alcohol. In most of the stores around here they not only check your birthdate listed but they scan the drivers license to make sure it's real and not forged. Guess what? You want to make that transaction, you have to let them scan it or they won't accept it as a valid ID, and once they scan it they have your ID and all your data and it can be sold. It's bad enough you have to scrutinize privacy policies for every webstore you buy from, but now I need to find and read the privacy policy of every 7-11 or liquor store I want to make purchases from? Yes, consumers can vote with their wallet for those establishments but a majority of the populace either is unaware, or doesn't even care most of the time. Do you really think you and a handful of morally conscientious (sp?) geeks boycotting the 7-11 will affect their bottom line when 2000 other Joe Publics will buy smokes from them regardless?
This is not a personal attack, and I am against FUD. But I think people need to be shown examples of what this ID allows and - lets face it - things this government will probably get around to trying to track with these cards. They want a nationally standardized ID? Fine, but it should outline all the info and a new bill should have to be passed (to allow for public input to their reps) to change what that card tracks. Simply giving the government un-checked, unmonitored ability to add info as they see fit is dangerous to freedom!
I recommend everyone follow the parent poster's lead and read the text of this bill in full, think about it, read some arguments for and against, then send your opinion to your senator. Informed decisions people! Basing your choice on kneejerk reactions from any source (esp /.) would be just as bad as the people trying to fly this under the radar by attaching it to must-pass legislation!
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
It would be easy to fight this provision in the senate: Just attach a simple amendment that requires gun dealers to scan a customer's Real ID before making a sale!
They are criminals by definition. They broke immigration laws and entered the country illegally. Calling them undocumented workers or another PC term is intellectually dishonest.
Stuff like this seems harmless to the "average" citizen, and it seems like it could somehow "stop" illegal immigrants and potential terrorists. This is exactly how freedom is lost. Seemingly well meaning bills passed during times of "crisis." Oh I'm sure some will say that I'm being paranoid and shouldn't by all this "big brother crap." But if you give the state the ability to monitor all of its citizens, then you have essentially put yourself into a prison and given away your rights. It's called a panopticon. If the state can observe you at any times, then you lose all freedom. Not because they punish you for things, but just because of the fear it creates. It's the perfect prison.
Now the Real ID does not create a panopticon necessarily. However, it does create the means. If everyone has to have this card with them at all times and it can be "read" electronically, then it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots, through in some GPS (or even just triangulation) and suddenly the state can track the location of all of its citizens at all times. Now imagine if all businesses start requiring Real ID if you're going to use a credit card. That's not really that far-fetched, now is it? So now suddenly much of your economic activity can also be identified and tracked without your knowledge. You can easily get even more wild with the "uses" of such technology, but these two things are both pretty simple and far-reaching.
Most of those crossing the border are just looking to better themselves and their families. We need a legal way to help those who want "the American Dream" and kick those listed above out.
The legal way to keep those seeking the "American Dream" is called immigration, perhaps we should start enforcing it.
Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
"An adress of current residence" is very bad. Do you realise that eventually (even if not in the beginning) it may require you to report to the authorities every time you move. Initially it may not be required for short trips, but it's only a technical change to replace "more than 60 days" with "more than 6 days". That would basically mean an obligatory trip to a police station when you travel to any place for more than a few days. Trust me, it sucks and it does strongly infringe on human rights of people - in practice, in those places that have such requirements.
I don't know much more about the law than is written in your post and don't particularly care, not being an American and having decided already that I don't want to visit your nice police state any time soon. But I can tell you that requiring a "propiska" is indeed undemocratic, restrictive and limits your freedom of travel. Sucks to be an American.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
So do tell me how a national ID will prevent another 9/11. Considering all the hijackers had valid ID, and none of them were on any watch list.
What's going to stop the next batch of terrorists from having perfectly valid ID? Nothing.
What will this prevent? Nothing.
Remind me again what the point of this bill is then?
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps we have no business meddling in other countries' affairs in the first place? The terrorism problem would essentially vanish if we just got out of there completely and left them alone. (And abortion clinic protection is an internal problem that has nothing to do with middle-eastern terrorists; you're just diverting the issue.)
Public bathrooms. Public swimming pools. Public schools.
Think about the above three things, and then tell me you want public healthcare.
This is one of the perplexing paradoxes of a pro-capital-punishment society. You people think the government lacks the competence to run schools or hospitals, yet you put your faith in its ability to conclusively determine a person's guilt with enough certainty that you're willing to execute someone when that same government has concluded is "guilty." Mind-boggling.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
"If you don't like that idea, I'm sure you could move to Rwanda and be perfectly happy without all the responsibilities of being a US Citizen."
:
I not only have a right, but an OBLIGATION as an American Citizen to question the actions of my government.
"I'm not saying that we do it perfectly... there's plenty of intervention that i think we could stay out of and not be the worse for it, and at the same time I know there are plenty of circumstances that the US could intervene that it doesn't"
That is just it, the USA intervenes ONLY when it is in its interests, i.e. OIL, or geopolitical games.
"If you can live with the ridicule and guilt of your nation NOT doing something that was considered so "wrong" to the rest of the world when you COULD HAVE... fine, I can't"
Hmmmm.... Why haven't you volunteered to go fight for "freedom" in Rawanda, or Darfur yet? Oh that's right you are perfectly happy to say "we" have a duty to fix the world, as long as YOU don't have to risk your life for it. I just love people who talk about how we need to fix the world, as long as the potential cost is someone else.
Frankly we do not have a responsibility to any other nation or people. We have no obligation to send our soldiers to die for someone else, nor do we have an obligation to spend our taxes upon them.
That said I have no problem if you or any other private citizen voluntarily donantes your money, or volunteers to fight for the cause of freedom in another country.
As for Patriotism I offer this quote
Theodore Roosevelt:
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (1918)
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
"When the government tries to share my stuff, it's called "eminent domain" or some other high-sounding euphemism for "theft"."
You get nothing in return for theft.
In return for taxes you get to vote for representation, you get a system of laws and courts, an army deterring aggressors etc etc
It's the information it might hold in the future that matters and that's basically anything that the government want it to be. Today they want your name and address, tomorrow they could add ethnicity, religion, sexuality, salary or political preferences.
Hell, they can put anything they want on the database, you're giving them that power, and guess what, you're also giving them your identity. Once an ID system is in place it is the state, the card and the number which define *your* identity, not the other way round. The real Colin Smith becomes the person with the Colin Smith card and the Colin Smith ID number.
You may well think this is paranoid. Well I would have thought so as well but history says that it isn't, look up Tutsi and the J stamp on Google in the context of ID cards.
The thing is that an ID card is an enabler for discrimination, it is *specifically* designed to allow the government to discriminate against non citizens, but why stop there? Adding another field to a database is a seconds work.
Deleted
The government calls this sensitive information. Things are are public, but when combined can result in conclusions that are secret.
My mom's maiden name is public information. My address and phone number is public. My social security number is easily available, though in theory non-public. (Nearly everyone uses it as ID) Knowing any one of the above is pretty harmless to me. Knowing all of them is enough to withdraw all my saved money, and get some loans in my name.
This card puts too much sensitive information in one place.
For your argument to make sense, you would have to prove that being rich is a positive attribute. But that is not the case. Some people get rich off prostitution, pornography, selling drugs, selling cigarettes, selling weapons to third world despots, exploiting the elderly, exploiting children, winning the lottery, investing in a stock, destroying the environment, etc. These are all ways of getting rich that don't reflect positively on the person who acquired the money.
What you are arguing for is a plotocracy: a society in which power and virtue should be given and attributed to the rich simply because they are rich. Personally, I'm strongly against that idea, and so are most people -- when they stop to think about it.
I'm not in favor of communism, but your statement about the "failure" of communism is patently false. The fastest growing economy in the world today is run by the Chinese communist government. It has been growing at some 8 to 10 percent per year for nearly ten years now, and no one is expecting it to slow down.
Lots of nations? Reallly.
Name one nation that meets your "requirements" other than Sweden. Can you? I'd like to see you try.
Even if you could, that's not the norm by far. With the trend our government is taking (including all the civl rights violations we've seen from the DMCA to the Patriot Act in the last 5 years - to say nothing of how some of our gun laws are more strict than even Britian's), can you honestly say that you don't think this will be abused?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
That is inscribed on what may be the most famous symbol of the USA. The statue of liberty. She stands in NY harbor, welcoming the immigrants since being given to the USA by France, in 1886.
Should we just take the old girl down, then?
Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
If we're going to let states issue IDs that are not worth the plastic they are printed on, what's the point? Why make everyone go through the trouble of getting an ID if the criminals are just going to walk into the DMV and get fake ones anyway?
You say this as though it's going to make any difference- or did I misunderstand your intent?
Instead, they'll just issue a "motor-vehicle operator's-license-turned-universal-id" so that everyone and their grandmother can have access to pretty much everything about you. That makes a MUCH more sense.
In other words, it won't solve the problem, and it will likely create a few that we have yet to see.
They are criminals by definition. They broke immigration laws and entered the country illegally. Calling them undocumented workers or another PC term is intellectually dishonest.
Ever exceed the speed limit? Congratulations you, and just about every other citizen, are a criminal by definition.
It is not politically correct to use a term that reflects your feelings about the severity of the "crime." If anything, that is the exact opposite of political correctness. People who have a bug up their ass about the issue can call them wanton dangerous criminals while people who think immigration policy is no big deal can call them undocumented workers and then we can all better know each other's position than if we had simply used a rather non-descriptive catch-all term.
In other words, it won't solve the problem, and it will likely create a few that we have yet to see.
My point is that's a specuous argument. You can make that argument about *ANY* change - virtually no change compleely solves the problem, and virtually every change will create a few that we have yet to see.
Take the CURRENT system of drivers licenses for example. Does that "solve the problem" of preventing people who are not qualified from driving? Nope. People who are not qualified still get licenses, and people who have revoked licenses still drive. I guess since it didn't "solve the problem", we shouldn't bother licensing drivers at all, right?
The correct question is "Will the benefits of this change outweigh the other consequences?" And the answer to that is yes. It won't be perfect, but it will be closer to perfect than the current hodge-podge of 50 different identification systems.
Any argument against a national ID card system boils down to "My (whatever) relies on having several incompatible, and sometimes ineffective, ID systems in this country." Regardless of (whatever) is, it's a stupid argument. If you do think having ineffective ID systems is a good thing, then having no ID system would be better, right?
paintball
A couple of years ago, I was in Finland with a group of people (performing at a folk festival ;-). One of the group's members got a toothache, and went to a clinic. They advised a root canal, which she agreed to. Afterwards, the people at the clinic were apologetic that they had to charge her the equivalent of about US$15 because she wasn't a citizen.
Now, we are all aware that this was paid for out of the taxes of Finnish workers. But when you compare, they don't pay much more in taxes than we do here in America. They sure do get a lot more for it.
OTOH, they don't get the fun of watching their nation's troops expending large quantities of munitions in another country. But if they're into that, they can follow the news of American troops, and cheer them on. I did meet a number of Finns who rooted for the French or English or Italian soccer teams; I suppose this wouldn't be much different.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Someone can correct me if i'm wrong, but, if i'm not mistaken, most of the terrorists who highjacked the planes on 9/11 were let on because they had foreign passports. They did not need a driver's licence or a state ID, and the REAL ID Act does not change this fact. You can still board a plane with a foreign passport.
In other words, if REAL ID was in effect in 2001, 9/11 probably still would have happened.
Gee, let's examine your brilliant comment here:
If you're an "illegal alien," you are probably working in this country. That's what most of the fuss is around them. They're "Not Authorized To Work In The United States," the little checkbox on any job application. So right off, they're paying payroll taxes, including federal income tax, and social security and medicare tax--which they'll never be able to collect on with their fake SSN's, and they won't be able to file a tax return to get part of that money back. Then they go out and buy things (like $800 apiece rims) and pay 7-10% sales tax on them. Ditto for all the tons of taxes on cars, on gas, on cigarettes, on phone service...
So who are you trying to kid that these people aren't contributing their fair share?? Yeah, their kids are going to school. So are every trailerpark welfare mother's kids in Podunk, Oklahoma. I don't see anyone trying to deport them. Everyone's paying taxes. You can be sure of that. (Oh, except the rich...They always manage to avoid paying their fair share by keeping a team of lawyers researching loopholes, and offshore accounts in the Caymans.)
And if you want to draw a correlation between illegal immigrants and increased lawbreaking, I dare you to show a statistic that shows that they are any more likely to commit crimes than US-born citizens with white skin, of equal economic status.
the administration is pushing it as a magic bullet for terrorism though.
no, the only reason for this bill to exist is to make tracking and surveillance of citizens easier.
i guarantee the next wave of terrorists will have perfectly valid national id.
and the government will have blown $120 million on a placebo anti-terrorism measure, instead of $120 million that could have been used on actually effective security measures.