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!
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.
- 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.
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
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
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.
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.'.
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.