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!"

Comments

Hurrah! Real ID is bound to fail

[gowen]

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.

Re:Hurrah! Real ID is bound to fail

[The Angry Mick]

nothing...persuades Senators faster than a room full of bulk faxes

Everybody knows its rooms full of cash that count.

Re:Hurrah! Real ID is bound to fail

[amliebsch]

Having worked in an actual legislator's office, the answer is to do one of the two following:

1. Hand-write a letter (that means in handwriting - I know, low-tech, but it works) stating your opposition and the reasons.

2. A polite phone call stating the same.

In both cases, be sure to mention that this an issue you care about strongly and will remember it during the next election.

Re:Hurrah! Real ID is bound to fail

[kpwoodr]

Well, it works for the FCC. They get a few hundred emails/faxes from the same family group, and suddenly I can't listen to Howard make dick and fart jokes, all radio shows are on a delay, and live TV only comes through with a censor on the hot button.

Moral of the story:

The vocal minority often rule. The silent majority are the ones who take it in the kiester. Sites like this are often seen in the wrong light. It serves as an easy way to get people to take an active part in government, and to have a say (even if it is miniscule) in largers issues that may end up affecting the way they live.

I sent a fax, did you?

Bruce Schneier on RealID

[PaxTech]

Bruce Schneier's weblog has some thoughts on RealID and why it's a terrible idea and won't increase security. Highly recommended.

Re:Bruce Schneier on RealID

[The Angry Mick]

Try using arguments instead of peer pressure, OK?

???

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.

Re:Bruce Schneier on RealID

[Kainaw]

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.

Re:Bruce Schneier on RealID

[jacoby]

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.

Re:What's so bad?

[uqbar]

Bruce Schneier (as usual) has good insights on this.

Re:What's so bad?

[stlhawkeye]

I mean seriously, what is so bad? Is everyone really buying into that Big Brother Crap where the government is going to know everywhere we go and shiat?

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.

Worldwide

[Exitar]

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!

Re:Worldwide

[cduffy]

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.

Re:Worldwide

[Kombat]

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.

Re:Worldwide

[jc42]

It's not really all that mind-boggling if you've read much of the press coverage of the issue in the US. (Not that many Americans have read it, but still ...)

There have been any number of "investigative reports" in recent years on the issue. Almost all the reporters express dismay and shock at the shoddiness they find when they look into capital-crime cases. They report that the cases they examined were absolute horrors of blatant injustice, with incompetent lawyers (usually publicly funded because the defendants are almost always very poor), arrogant and dishonest police and prosecutors, and juries that systematically exclude anyone with the slightest doubts about the rightness of capital punishment. They get across the idea pretty clearly that, no matter what their prior beliefs, they now believe that death sentences are essentially random, and reforming the system is hopeless.

The public reaction to this? A big yawn. Well, yes; there's the half of the population that pays attention, and doesn't want the death penalty. The other half of the population doesn't care, and doesn't read such activist, liberal reports. Why not? Their attitude is simple: A crime was committed. They want someone punished. If the defendant is guilty, so much the better. But all that really matters is that someone dies for the crime.

This becomes especially clear when you look at the reactions to the recent exoneration via DNA analysis. Overwhelmingly, people react by being very upset that the criminal was set free. There is political pressure to block such DNA analysis after the case is "settled".

A couple of years back, there was an interesting situation in Texas. After several such DNA exonerations, the state went through their frozen evidence from previous convictions, and destroyed them. This got the point across about as clearly as possible: They didn't care whether those prisoners had been wrongly convicted, and they weren't about to allow any re-examination of the evidence using new forensic technology.

So it's not that this half of the population believes that the government can determine guilt accurately. The real truth is that they don't care about justice. They just want vengeance and it doesn't matter if they get the right guy. It's the Hollywood approach to justice.

We should note the surveys that show this to be only around half of the American population. The other half shouldn't be blamed for their attitude. And there is a political fight (which the media calls a "culture war" ;-) raging right now over this and a lot of related issues. Stay tuned to see how it turns out ...

[Just doing my bit to explain the complexities of American culture to the rest of the mind-boggled world. ;-]

Re:Worldwide

[jc42]

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.

And before you fax your Senator...

[Jurph]

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?

Re:And before you fax your Senator...

[Oculus Habent]

Check out Section 102, which allows the Secretary of Homeland Security "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." It also prevents any oversight or judicial review of those actions.

I always wanted to be above the law. Now, to become Secretary of Homeland Security...

Re:What's so bad?

[null etc.]

REAL 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.

Yeah, that's some REAL good insight.

Re:Stll

[tehshen]

What are editors for, again?

Complaining about

Re:The article assumes a lot

[Y2]

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

I, on the other hand, don't give a flying expletive who they are or what their visa status is, as long as they don't have a weapon.

(It would be a distinct bonus to know that they also don't have a communicable disease!)

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.

You've satisfied yourself that Yet Another ID card won't be issued and obtained fraudulently? To paraphrase the patron saint of the current administration, "I find your excess of faith disturbing."

Re:Line Item Veto?

[jumbledInTheHead]

The line item veto was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, so I don't see how this would be any good to Bush, who by the way supports the bill.

Re:Stll

[PaxTech]

Vwls wst bndwdth.

Re:What's so bad?

[intnsred]

I'll ignore the fact that this law blatantly violates the 10th Amendment, and will instead cite this CNet article by someone who knows far more about the law than I do:

How Real ID will affect you
By Declan McCullagh

What's all the fuss with the Real ID Act about?

President Bush is expected to sign an $82 billion military spending bill soon that will, in part, create electronically readable, federally approved ID cards for Americans. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the package--which includes the Real ID Act--on Thursday.

What does that mean for me?

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. News.context

What's new:

The House of Representatives has approved an $82 billion military spending bill with an attachment that would mandate electronically readable ID cards for Americans. President Bush is expected to sign the bill.

Bottom line:

The Real ID Act would establish what amounts to a national identity card. State drivers' licenses and other such documents would have to meet federal ID standards established by the Department of Homeland Security.

More stories on this topic

The Real ID Act hands the Department of Homeland Security the power to set these standards and determine whether state drivers' licenses and other ID cards pass muster. Only ID cards approved by Homeland Security can be accepted "for any official purpose" by the feds.

How will I get one of these new ID cards?

You'll still get one through your state motor vehicle agency, and it will likely take the place of your drivers' license. But the identification process will be more rigorous.

For instance, you'll need to bring a "photo identity document," document your birth date and address, and show that your Social Security number is what you had claimed it to be. U.S. citizens will have to prove that status, and foreigners will have to show a valid visa.

State DMVs will have to verify that these identity documents are legitimate, digitize them and store them permanently. In addition, Social Security numbers must be verified with the Social Security Administration.

What's going to be stored on this ID card?

At a minimum: name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address, and a "common machine-readable technology" that Homeland Security will decide on. The card must also sport "physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes."

Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements--such as a fingerprint or retinal scan--on top of those. We won't know for a while what these additional requirements will be.

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 House already approved a standalone version of the Real ID Act in February, but by a relatively close margin of 261-161. It was expected to run into some trouble in the Senate. Now that it's part of an Iraq spending bill, senators won't want to vote against it.

What's the justification for this legislation anyway?

Its supporters say that the Real ID Act is necessary to hinder terrorists, and to follow the ID card recommendations that the 9/11 Commission made last year.

It will "hamper the ability of terrorist and criminal aliens to move freely throughout our socie

Re:But... but...

[cyber0ne]

I dont even have a senator, you American-centric clods!

That's ok, I have two. You want one of them?

Re:What's so bad?

[waynelorentz]

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.

Nothing he can do

[discordja]

At this point there is nothing that can stop the passage of REAL ID short of a line item veto when it reaches the presidents desk .. and that's simply not going to happen.

It's part of the spending bill, which just so happens to be a war bill, and was passed by some 350-50 margin in the house. If you think the Senate is gonna vote an 80 billion spending bill down you need your head examined.

Bush will sign this into law even tho he doesn't want to, because if he doesn't, he'll never get anything through the Judicial committee. Sensenbrenner pretty much drew a line in the sand after the Pres promished him last November that he would get the opportunity to bring it to the floor after effectively demanding it be removed from the 9/11 bill. In some ways, the white house hopes to use this to leverage the immigration reform Bush has talked about twice.

Reasoning

[Perl-Pusher]

This law is an attempt to stop the flow of illegal aliens. To stop organizations such as MS-13 and of course these guys

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.

Re:Reasoning

[Jelanen]

Who determines need? Maybe we should create a Politburo to determine how much someone "needs"...oh wait...that was tried already...hrmm..

Re:What's so bad?

[discordja]

REAL 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.

Wrong, it means they can't issue a drivers licence that has any value as an ID card. For example, in TN, there are two forms of licenses available. One that can be issued to undocs that states clearly 'For Driving Only' and is not a valid ID for airports etc. This does not limit whom the states may give a drivers license to but it does limit the value of that license if it does not meet certain minimum standards.

Re:Why Bother.

[Concerned Onlooker]

What a load of Republican crap that is. The Republicans stopped more Clinton appointments than the Democrats ever will for Bush.

In reality, Bush has had more judicial nominees approved than in the first terms of Presidents Clinton and Reagan, and the administration of his father. Of the 214 nominees sent to the Senate for a vote during his first term, Democrats blocked only ten, using the filibuster. As such, 95 percent of Bush's nominees have been approved. By contrast, from 1995 to 2000, while Republican Senator Orrin Hatch was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senate blocked 35% of Clinton's circuit court nominees.

From http://www.counterbias.com/236.html">this article.

Peeing in the wind

[Ars-Fartsica]

No Senator/Congressperson is oging to vote against an implied national security bill. No Senator/Congressperson is going to hold up a military spending bill that seeks to get body armor to soldiers in Iraq.

Sorry, but thats as simple as it can be put.

Re:What's so bad?

[Holi]

Well for one, I am not required to have a passport.

Re:Wow...

[Valar]

How about this? It will cost money and will not make anyone safer.

It will, however, provide a false sense of security which is dangerous.

First,

[isotope23]

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...

Re:Why Bother.

[Winkhorst]

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...

Don't bother with unrealid.com

[hikerhat]

That UnRealID site is the worst I've seen in a long time.

• 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.

Re:Don't bother with unrealid.com

[Jtheletter]

I agree with you the site is rather uninformative and alarmist, and it also comes across as slightly suspicious since it doesn't even link to the full text of the bill as far as I could tell - but it was already at least partially slashdotted when I visited. However I have read the text of the bill and I must refute the following point you made.

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!

THE HORROR!

[Jim_Callahan]

Yeah, better protest... reading the act, the card will require awful, intrusive things like

An adress of current residence
A signature (oh, no!)
A photograph (the horror!)
and... wait for it... a DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER.

Those bastards! How dare they force my driver's license to reveal confidential information like my driver's license number! It's a crime against humanity, I tell you?

Seriously, though. I have applied for drivers license in two states and neither of them will have to change a thing under this law, except being overseen by a federal organization. Maybe this means I'll finally stop getting jury summons for a state I haven't lived in in three years.

Re:THE HORROR!

[JimBobJoe]

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.

Re:What's so bad?

[camliner]

Look at the no child left behind act. Oh yes, that do SOOOO well didn't it?

Evidently not...

Libertarian Fantasies

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:What's so bad?

[pilgrim23]

Another REAL product? Will this ID included embeded Spyware an Adware like all their other products?

Re:What's so bad?

[As Seen On TV]

A passport is required to re-enter the United States, even if the place to which you're going doesn't require you to show one.

Last May, I went to a family friend's house on a small private island off the Florida Keys for Memorial Day. (The owner went to boarding school with my Dad, became a banker, grew to be super-rich, all years before I was born.) Because the island was outside US territorial waters, I had to show my passport at airport customs to get back in, even though the entire island where we went was privately owned.

Passports are required by the United States when a US citizen crosses the border inbound, no matter where you're coming from.

Lazarus Long said it best:

[ThosLives]

"When a society starts requiring ID cards, it's time to move to another planet." (probably paraphrased, credits to Heinlein)

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.

Big Brother is BAD

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:What's so bad?

[poot_rootbeer]

"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.

here is why this is bad with Excerpts:

[geekoid]

I noticed several people not understanding why this is bad. Here are some excerpts from the bill:

`(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.'.

Secretary of Homeland Security can do what he wants, and nobody has any recourse at ALL. He wanst to put in land mines, nothing we can do about it. Wants to spend 80 Billion dollars a year patrolling our borders, nothing he can do about it.

It errods Attorney General position by giving the Secertary of Homeland security the same power. Bear in mind the attorny general has checks and balances that the Secretary of Homeland Security does not.

NO judicial review???

[KlomDark]

What in the mother fucking hell is wrong with these people? No judicial review? Since when do we remove a major check and balance from the American system? Just let this Homeland security guy play cowboy with no oversite from other factions of government?

How completely, absolutely UNAMERICAN this Sensenbrenner person is. Has no grasp of the long term impact things like this will be to the US. Has no place in our government.

Yah buddy, I said it, get out of our country since you obviously don't respect what made our country great.

------------------

SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.

Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) Waiver-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--

`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.

Re:What's so bad?

[Skye16]

Err... republicans have been in pretty much complete control for almost 4 and a half years now. The government has gotten a LOT bigger than it was under the Democrats.

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.

Re:ALL of this begs the question...

[symbolic]

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.

Re:ALL of this begs the question...

[rootbeertapper]

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.

Re:Better than what we have!

[bani]

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?

Bullshit.

[isotope23]

"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)

Re:ALL of this begs the question...

[RM6f9]

"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?

Reread your history books

[isotope23]

"Just like we had no obligation to the rest of the world in both world wars. we went in not because we were obligated, but because it was the right thing to do."

We entered WW I because the Germans sank the Lusitania. Even though they published a full page ad in American Newspapers warning people sailing to Britain that any ship carrying war goods was subject to sinking, (which the Lusitania was), when it was sunk with americans onboard we got sucked into the war.

We entered WW II because of Pearl Harbor.

Before BOTH incidents the majority of people here in the US were Isolationalist. Doing the "right" thing, had nothing to do with our entrance into either war.

"and if we were in iraq for the oil, we sure as hell wouldn't be paying opec's prices for it."

I'd suggest you read Wolfowitz's papers for the Project for a New American Century to understand why we invaded Iraq. Iraq not only has the 2nd largest oil reserves, but being centrally located in the middle east it is the perfect place to have permanent military bases.

Keep in mind this was written in the 1990's long before 9/11 and the whole preemptive strike/WMD
tale.