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!"
You can find a lot of nations that have unique ID but not capital punishment, weapons in every house and don't make war every 10 years. Uh, and they have a working social security too!
Standards for ID's so we can be sure if you have an ID you are who you say you are.
This was a common sense idea, which was agreed to by everyone on the 9/11 commission.
Can a despotic regime misuse this? Yes. But bank accounts, credit cards, etc. could also be used.
I can see no good reason for not doing this unless you are pro-criminal or paranoid.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Sure, I'm probably going to be flamed a whole bunch for this, but ever since the national ID card issue developed in the U.S., I've been left wondering what the big deal about this is. States can pretty much get the same info off of you from a basic driver's license, the project is under development in the UK (apparently the project will create lots of IT jobs over there - I know jobs vs. limited freedom isn't much of an argument, but it's not a bad thing is it?), and until I see some solid evidence to the contrary, I see no reason not to believe it will help reduce, at the very least, illegal immigration. I can see a cop walking down the street asking people for their national ID card (which, on an aside, I prey will at least be difficult to counterfeit), and at least I wouldn't complain too much. The ACLU provides five reasons why the system would be a bad idea here, of which only reason #1 seems to make sense. I would love to hear opposing views on this, since, even though the idea doesn't seem too bad to me, I'm still on the fence. Flame away.
EAL ID also prohibits states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens. This makes no sense, and will only result in these illegal aliens driving without licenses -- which isn't going to help anyone's security.
It happens already. I got hit head-on on a one-way street by an illegal alien driving a stolen van with no license and no insurance in Houston, Texas. Fortunately, a cop was driving right behind me. Unfortunately, the cop let her go because she is illegal. At the time (March 2003, I don't know if it's still true), the police were under orders from city council not to arrest illegal aliens unless they do something like murder, rob, or rape. It was part of then-mayor Lee Brown's plan to make Houston a safe haven for illegals so he could boost census numbers and bring in more money from the federal government. Since the city signs the cops paychecks, not the federal government, they do what council wants, not what the law is -- and that means letting people who have broken the law go free. I'm so glad I moved to the north.
World's tallest building rises in the desert
I would like to see more enforcement along the borders. Both of them. But one positive benefit will be that illegal immigrants won't be taken advantage of by heartless money grubbers who could afford to pay a decent wage if they wanted too.
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.
Sorry, but thats as simple as it can be put.
This is the Information Age more than ever before, and any good (in the sense of being competent) entity (commercial, Government, or private investigator) can find out everything pertinent about you with any ONE identifying piece of info: name, phone number, address, where you work, SSN, car tag, etc. In some cases it may be illegal for a Government entity to do this, but I'm sure we can trust all Government entities to follow the law, can't we? [insert appropriate emoticon here]
/. saves the IP address of each post anyway.
A national ID card won't violate anything that's not already being violated, it will just be a public admission of what's already being done. Perhaps it would be a Good Thing to have it, that way everyone would have a clue as to what has happened to their financial and legal identity - that it's owned by themselves, but by the owners of commercial and government databases.
"Papers? We don't need no stinking papers!" "We have The Technology."
I'd post as Anonymous Coward but I'm sure
Tag lost or not installed.
Am I the only one who remembers Senator Everett Dirksen introducing this very same type of legislation (I believe during the Kennedy Administration) and then withdrawing it because he was informed it was unconstitutional? So why is it now constitutional and why has no one informed the writer of the bill of its potential constitutional illegitimacy? It says something about the current "Republicans" in power that I can look back with almost a sense of nostalgia at an era when Republicans were capable of bipartisan and constitutionally sound behaviour.
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
Personally, I want our government to confirm the identity of anyone receiving official identification docutments. The text of the bill just says that state governments will have to start doing things that I assumed they did already. Corporations have much more information on us than this puny bill requires the government to collect. Why do you think the Dept. of Homeland Security is now one of the biggest customers of many large commercial consumer databases?
- First, any site with a Matrix fetish loses all credibility.
- 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.
- The site says cops will die. Right. Because when cops are working under-cover they will be carrying their real ID cards. Just like today, when under-cover cops are required to carry their badge and drivers license. Oh, wait, no they aren't. FUD.
- "every convenience store learns to grab that data and sell it to Big Data for a nickel" Right. Because every time I got to the convenience store I have to present my license. Oh, wait, no I don't. FUD.
Anyway, the site goes on with a bunch of rambling, random conspiracy nonsense (We'll turn into a communist state! Oh no! The highways will run red with blood!). There may be good reasons not to support this bill, but this web site doesn't give you any.Read the bill yourself. Don't trust this unreal.com guy.
After you decide if you want to support the bill or not, contact your senator through www.senate.gov.
CC is commonly used form of ID. You can check into a flight with a CC, a bar, ect. Social security card is considered a form of ID. There was a checklist of what is considered forms of ID, driver's license and SS card together is the same as a passport (according to the list).
Really? Where? I worked at three different banks and each of those had CC as a secondary form of ID (you had to have a primary with you). I worked as a bouncer at a bar and we didn't accept CC's as 1) it didnt state your age 2) didn't have your picture.
Now at banks what we did accept was: DL, state ID (official), passport, military ID, green card. At a bar we accepted all of those ID's. There may be one or two I am missing but all of the official ID's have this in common: Picture, Age, and were issued by the fed/state/local gov't.
RFID I agree should not be included. If someone wants to see my ID information they need to ask me for it (or grab it from my body), not just get near me with a scanner. As for paying for it - we currently pay for ID's, and if handled properly (by merging all id's to one form) it might get cheaper (though the way our gov't is run, i doubt it).
Everyone COULD demand to see ID, but not everyone will get it. Then again, they can just as well demand it now. Do you think if the GAP store didn't demand your DL before they will do so now? The bank has and will continue to do so, bars will (those that do in the first place), police will, and so forth.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
There are some good initiatives in this bill. One of them is eliminating the 10,000 adjustments limit for asylees.
there are currenly 180,000 asylees waiting to get their green cards, and with this cap in place it'll take more then 18 years to get it (and then another 5 to get citizenship).
I wrote:
The implications of having a card like this are HUGE.
We must address a variety of privacy concerns, including if the card will have its own ID number, how long that number is, whether it has 'check digits' in it to verify that is is valid (a checksum or 'hash' in computer lingo), whether anyone can request or retain the information in it, whether it has the person's address, if the address's city is the Post Office's or not (various villages are not recognized by the USPS), If there will be an RFID embedded in it, and if so, what information will be accessible via that RFID, and many other questions.
Please address these issues in committee or in the Senate before voting quickly on something with so many privacy concerns attached. Various people in and out of the US Senate have said it is a very deliberative body. This bill cries out for committee hearings to determine what the advantages and disadvantages are for various items of information being put on the card as well as the open questions above.
Thanks for your time,
Cordially yours,
-- Kevin (etc).
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
However, if you wish to, for instance, cash a check, you may be asked for ID. Your local store might choose to accept your word for your identity, or you may choose to avail yourself of the identification provided by your state, which is generally more widely accepted. Still, you aren't being required to have anything, if you're willing to operate on a cash basis or only with people who know and trust you.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
Populist policies, which are exploited by politicians such as the aforementioned mayor, are common in South America and Mexico and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the end result of those policies. The problem is that selective enforcement of laws for political purposes breeds contempt for all laws which leads to rampant government corruption, citizen vigilantism, and, in the most extreme cases, armed rebellions. If the states are not enforcing federal laws then the federal government needs to step in and do it for them before the problems escalate out of control.
I know who I'd bet on. But when the odds are 0% vs .1%, I can tell you who'd win that, too - and this answer isn't as nice.
I've given this quite a bit of thought. When you are in a pinch, a lot of stuff becomes a weapon. Especially when you don't value your own life very highly. Lets say that some guy had a box cutters (which is apparently what the 9/11 hijackers had). Take jacket, wrap around arm (use as protection against blade). Hold Laptop in both hands and use as shield/club. Bull charge the guy and don't stop hitting him until one of you stops moving.
Most people might not want to "get hurt" but some of us are borderline suicidal as is and don't give a flying f*ck about what physical condition we are in afterwards. As long as the guy doesn't have anything serious, the passengers can overwelm him.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Most European countries are analogous to US states, not to the entire US. And most European countries learned from their 20th Century fascist disasters just how dangerous is the centralized control of identity. So European privacy laws, and government operations, aren't a tinderbox of identity theft and covert surveillance risks. The US, on the other hand, is swarming with powermad bureaucrats, and their corporate backers, doing whatever they can to turn the $2.5T Federal government's eyes on our citizens, on the hollow pretext of "protecting us" from terrorists.
For more information, look into the MATRIX and TIA programs, their connections to identity leakers like ChoicePoint, and the seriously real threat all this Big Brother "crap" poses to Americans.
--
make install -not war
We have national ID cards in Belgium and I never ever felt they were a threat to my freedom at all. I'm 35 and so far I think I needed that card about 5 times. Other then those 5 times it is just a card that sits in your wallet and doesn't bother me in the slightest bit. I really don't see what freedom has to do with that.
Greetings,
Project Manager of Crystal Space (http://www.crystalspace3d.org). Support CS at http://tinyurl.com/cb3x4
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.
Sane congresspeople vote against military and defense spending all the time. They vote to close military bases all the time - putting hundreds of people out of work. There is nothing at all magical about 'troops' or 'military'. It is simply an issue where people focus heavily on the times when military spending is accepted and ignore the times when it is denied.
This is a reply to a topic of peer pressure. Peer pressure is used to invoke inflamtory concepts, such as the Reds are invading Hollywood and we must blacklist all the dang Communists! Peer pressure tells you that you must believe the inflamatory concept at face value. Do not do research. Do not go to the US Congress' website. Do not look up military bills that have been voted on. Do not look at the voting history on those bills. Do not get the facts. Just believe what you are told - oh, and tell it to everyone else. If enough people say it, it must be true.
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
ITs specifically a power grab by the Secretary of Homeland Security. He is once again being given the same authority as the Attorney General without the checks and balances.
It give the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to do whatever they decide regarding immigration, with no recourse for us.
This doesn't just mean borders, this mean anything he determince citizens need to do.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Don't American citizens require passports to enter their own country?
You want to convince me that this is bad legislation? You want me to do more, to call my congresscritter and say "don't vote for this"? Saying "over 600 organizations are against it" doesn't say much. Saying "This is what Bruce Schneier thinks" says a lot, because I accept Bruce as an authority on security matters, and because Bruce writes "this is a bad idea because...", and you can accept, reject or counter the arguments he gives. Saying "Over 600 organizations are against it" isn't debate, it's social pressure. That is what I'm talking about, and all I'm talking about here.
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.'.
My wife is in the US on an H4 visa. She cannot apply for SSN. You are trying to prevent her from getting a driving license and driving a car. I am in the US on an H1-b visa. I don't have a US citizenship. You are trying to get my WA driving license away (you want me to walk to work or what?). Lukasz
Lukasz Anforowicz
Hikipedia - a free database of hi
That doesn't make any sense - police are charged with enforcing the law, not just the laws that have been enacted by the government that signs their paychecks. That may be a political or economic reality, but not a legal one.
Of course, if I'm wrong, please post some definitive sources to the contrary.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
The privacy argument is really pretty simple:
If somebody were to follow you around all day, everyday... from your house to your work to the convienience store, and anywhere else, would you get creeped out? Or more accurately, if you knew somebody was doing this but couldn't see them (they sent you summaries of what you did that day or something) would you like that? Would you want to stop them from doing this by invoking some anti-stalking law?
If you would not like somebody following you everywhere in this way then you are either against the Real ID or feigning ignorance.
But fundamentally the issue is whether you think obeying laws should be a person's responsibility or something enforced mechanically, because ultimately Real ID is about the latter. Seriously, how many war funding bills do you think it will take before your car will refuse to start without reading your id card first and checking wirelessly against a national "ok-to-drive" list? Or for that matter before the voting booth will require a machine-readable ID before allowing you to place your 'anonymous' vote? Do you want to be mechanically excluded from virtually everything with flip of a bit because some CITI thinks your daily patterns changed too much and requires an explation first, or do you want humans to always be in the loop?
The more you actually think about the ramifications the more you should be against this id.
the card will require awful, intrusive things like
An adress of current residence
Here in Ohio I worked my ass off and got a legislator last year to introduce a bill that would allow any Ohio license to be issued without an individual's address.
The address is an awful anachronism, and unnecessary today. If you're an attractive 22 year old, would you want to show ever bouncer in town your home address simply to get into a club? For people who use their ID's a lot, it doesn't make so much sense to show everyone and their grandmother where they live. (Keep in mind, this doesn't remove the address record from DMV files, and if the DMV wants proof of address before issuing the license, that doesn't change anything either.)
North Carolina currently issues address-less licenses to individuals who are domestic violence or stalking victims.
I've also pointed out that the address is a huge key toward identity theft, should your license fall into the wrong hands.
(You'll note that the legislation also allowed you to have a license issued without date of birth, also on privacy grounds, for individuals who do not use their license for age verification activities.)
A signature (oh, no!)
There is something to be said about your license not having the signature of the bearer, in case the license finds itself in the wrong hands, and then someone can use that signature for nefarious purposes.
A photograph (the horror!)
Approximately 16 states have codified relgious objector's non-photo driver's licenses. All states are technically supposed to issue them under federal case law.
Keep in mind however, you've left out the bigger requirement regarding the photo. It must be a *digital* photo. I guess that's not necessarily a huge thing because all states now are on the digital license kick.
However, this legislation technically requires that every single american over the age of 16 be photographed and that photograph be put into a national photograph database (since the state databases must be combined.) While that's basically in place, it wasn't being done with federal requirement.
Think about it this way, essentially, every American is being required to show up at their local police station and be photographed. Since it's part of the natural licensing process that's been created no one noticed. (My Ohio BMV, when they brought out the photo license in 1974, promised that there would be no central photo archive...which they introduced in 1995 and hoped no one was paying attention.)
and... wait for it... a DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER.
Did this legislation require a permanent driver's license number? If so...that's basically another SSN, with all its disadvantages and baggage.
When I was a teenager, some Republican American President and former actor said that countries that did these kinds of things to its own people were "the focus of evil in the modern world" and "the evil empire".
25 years later, another Republican President says they are absolutely nescesary for "security" and to "support the troops". So how come if I say that the US is now the focus of evil in the modern world or an evil empire, I get modded as "Flamebait" or "Troll"?
In a nation ruled by the politics of fear, this is not surprising. Look at who stands to benefit from this:
Will you be safer from an "terrorist" attack? Nope, this may even make it easier by creating a false sense of security.
Will it make it easier to catch terrorists? The CIA and the FBI seemed to have all sorts of information on 19 folks travelling on their own identities 4 years ago but couldn't figure it out. This won't change because of a shiny new card.
Will it be easier for large corporations to use information to better target their goods, prevent labour from effectively organizing and get into the "new" business of selling personal data? Yep.
You guys once had a great country. It is very sad to see it sliding into corporatism and facism.
Frankly, the billions spent on the card would be better spent on intelligence gathering and disemination. Now THAT would provide protection to the US. Unfortunately, it wouldn't provide a central information database for corporate America.
Now which way do you think the vote will go?
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
But who in HELL says that a terrorist needs a driver's license? Or a state ID?
You're kidding, right? Let's think of things that it is harder for a terrorist to do with a national standard for issuing driver's licenses and state IDs:
- Obtain a driver's license or state ID with a fake name
- Get on an airplane
- Rent a Ryder truck
- Buy Firearms
- Withdraw money from a bank
- Go Clubbing
It blows my mind that the general reasdership of Slashdot, who would assail the concept of security through obscurity were it applied anywhere else, think their personal privacy depends on states being able to issue IDs without actually being very sure if the IDs they are issuing are for the people they are issuing them for. "As long as the government has to keep track of 50 different IDs, my privacy is secure!" Right.
That's all the federal government is saying: If you want YOUR state's ID to be accepted as REAL identification, your state needs to excecise due diligence in making sure the IDs issued by your state are accurate.
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?
So if we don't force states to take issuing IDs seriously, who suffers? The criminals and terrorsts? Hell no- they'll just get bad IDs. That leaves only one other class...the vast, vast majority of people who are neither terrorists nor criminals.
paintball
nope, just when your poor and tired huddled masses come in, make sure they sign up to pay taxes and follow the law like the rest of us.
Speak for yourself.
You have got to be joking me. This statue is indeed there to welcome the "huddled masses yearning to be free" but it is not there to welcome the 25 million illegal aliens that enter this country every year. Immigrants fleeing to this land of liberty is one thing, and everyone has an opportunity here. But you cannot claim that our attempts to keep those who refuse to register, refuse to become citizens, to learn our language, to become part of our culture, out of this country, is defying the fundamental liberties of this country.
Read the only personal Runyon page out there.