Slashdot Mirror
Real ID Act Poses Technical Challenges
segphault writes "Ars Technica has an article about some of the financial and technological challenges associated with implementing the Real ID Act." From the article: "Opposed by more than 600 independent organizations (including the National Governors Association) and hidden in the depths of a military spending bill in order to make passage easier, the Real ID Act has received heavy criticism from concerned citizens and state government agencies. Despite the fact that relatively sound and effective improvements to driver's license security had already been implemented as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, the federal government felt that it was necessary to go well beyond the recommendations of the 9/11 Comission Report by passing a costly and invasive law."
Unified
Federal
Identification
Act?
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
Why is it wrong for our government to be able to know which of us to protect and who to protect us from?
The 9/11 terrorists all had valid IDs. What's to stop the next batch of terrorists from getting valid Real IDs?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The consequences for not meeting the law's provisions are severe: those holding licenses from States that fail to meet the requirements by 2008 will not be permitted to fly on airplanes or enter federal buildings.
So the solution is to not get a license.
In any case, I can't see them possibly enforcing this, especially if you have multiple states or large states that don't meet the requirements. Frankly I think all states should just ignore the law. In a game of chicken between states and the federal government, the federal government can't win.
This has nothing to do with reducing terrorism and everything to do with reducing illegal immigration.
The competing Fake ID(tm) Act having been in full swing for several decades, released a statement syaing in part, "As long as there are teenagers, spring break, and alcohol, our business will continue to boom."
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
So, to sum up, why can't we use the existing SS number?
Anonymous Cowards are at -6...
It's a depressing sign of just how far we've fallen when the objections to the Real ID act by the states all center around its feasibility, rather than all the reasons it's fundamentally flawed. You know, little things like "the federal government doesn't have the Consitutional authority to mandate a national ID," or "it won't actually do anything to combat terrorism," or "it's a single point source of failure in protection against identity theft," or "it runs completely contrary to the principles this country was founded upon."
This is the inverse of damning with faint praise. So, blessing with faint criticisms, or some such. It's analogous to arguing with a poster by critiquing his grammar or spelling. Just as that implicitly states you agree with the argument, this implicitly states Real ID is a good idea.
Problem is, there's nowhere left to run.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
I know some people who don't have passports, or guys/gals who live in big cities and don't have a driver's license.
I suggest you go get yours renewed (or go get them if you don't have 'em) now, rather than when you need them.
Driver's licenses/State IDs are good for ~5 years and passports are good for 10 years.
Better do it now, before they institute radio tags, biometrics, or whatever other technology they plan to implement.
It's only a holding action, but I'll be happier knowing I put off the inevitable.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
FTFA:.... the Real ID Act creates a set of uniform standards for state-issued ID cards, and mandates the construction of a centralized national identification database that will contain the personal information of every citizen in America.
It's a national ID card in all but name. It's a national Id card that's issued by the States instead of the Federal Government. And considering all of the junk, faulty data, lies, etc... in all of those databases, it's going to fail. Which I like that idea. Unfortunately, some innocent people are going to get iconvenienced and I'm sure jailed. Disagree with me? Just look at what's happening with the DO NOT FLY LIST. This poor fucking girl!
Well if everyone in the nation has an "Real ID",shouln't that mean that terrorists in america will be know before and after they strike? there should be some sort of backgroud check before issuing a "Real lD"
If it's anything like Real Audio, thanks but no thanks.
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
With the extent of government meddling why not just get it over with and require RFID Implants? The site http://tagged.kaos.gen.nz/ already is a forum for people who have willingly undergone the implant lifestyle. After that it wont be so hard for the thought police to find us.
Think about this for a minute.
Everyone of you that live in fear of a national ID might tell me that whatever agency gets to build the thing will share with any agency that comes calling? Simple human nature tells me this won't happen. No sharing of information, no real substantial coordination between agencies. Nothing.
I am concerned that centralizing law enforcement authority will be a more desirable outcome of the legislation, with no intention of ever actually issuing an ID card.
There are quite a number of commercial information agencies many of which have gov't contracts for your personal data. Let's not forget the latest revelation regarding GWB's authorizing domestic survielance without any oversight.
Your detailed personal activity is already being collected. Many of you are up in arms because they want to issue a national ID????! It's water under the bridge. Done.
This guy http://www.identityblog.com/ (warning microsoftie) has the same hue and cry about privacy and yet the guy is advocating a system to collect far more detailed activity in a more revocable/authenticatable manner (whatever that means) than what's available now. I asked him to clarify his stance in comments to his blog. Surprise! Neither was the comment posted nor a response given.
A national ID card won't change a thing.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
So if the feds want to ban the use of Arizona ID on planes, it's OK by me.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
but it's part of national security. constitutional validation guaranteed
The constitution originally said nothing about the right of the federal government to tax the income of its citizens, but if the government is going to tax citizens, the last thing people want is for their tax dollars to be given to support the non-citizen welfare state in this country due to illegal immigration.
Furthermore, if an illegal immigrant crashes into your car, or damages your property, or defames your character, how are you going to sue someone who cannot be tracked down to receive a summons and who has no real identity anyways since they are here illegally?
Of course, you could make the argument that you don't want your tax dollars being used to finance the rebuilding Iraq, but that is "foreign aid" which is another debate entirely.
The real ID act is a necessary evil to deal with the long-term problem of massive illegal immigration into the United States which you can thank lately almost exclusively to George Bush's non-enforcement and political appeasement to much of the hispanic community in the United States which supports open borders as well as key business industries which use "slave" errr I mean "illegal" labor to do their bidding. It sucks that things have gotten this bad, but that is the price citizens in this country have to face for allowing their leaders to get away with failing to do the most fundamental basic job of a national government and that is to protect its borders from invading forces.
If common criminals, gang members, and illegal aliens can just cross over into the United States whenever they want and can't be prosecuted for their illegal status thanks to sanctuary laws in many municipalities with correct governments, what on earth is next the Mexican military itself?
Also consider the wide variety of untested silicon snake oil being sold (eg. face recoginition doesn't work properly in the lab yet) by people making a buck out of a lot of dead people in New York. This is what you'll see again in the scramble to get methods to implement this ID system quickly - but it will all be for nothing if your local video library insists on using this ID for their records thus making it possible for others to use your ID for any purpose they wish.
'nuff said.
They seem to be stretching the truth on this one, the truth is that the official National Governors Association position is that they will happily make any kind of ID's requested as long as the federal government provides the funds.
Here is the official NGA statement:
http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.8358ec 82f5b198d18a278110501010a0/?vgnextoid=3f90d3add6da 2010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD
Policy Position
printable version
03/03/2005
EDC-18. Driver's License and Personal Identification Card Integrity
The motor vehicle driver's license, which is issued by each state, is used as an official identification document as well as a document that demonstrates an individual's knowledge and ability to operate a motor vehicle. States also issue personal identification cards that can be used as an official identification document. Most driver's licenses and personal identification cards have common elements displayed, such as a photo, a signature, a unique identifier number, and the individual's physical description. This has made the state-issued driver's license and personal identification card the most acceptable forms of identification in America.
Governors are concerned about the security and integrity of state driver's licenses, state personal identification cards, and the identification process. They are committed to working cooperatively with the federal government to develop and implement realistic, achievable standards that will enhance efforts to prevent document fraud and other illegal activity related to the issuance of driver's licenses and identification documents.
In making changes to the current system of issuing driver's licenses and personal identification cards, Governors believe that any rule or regulation requiring a change to the driver's license document or the personal identification card document should only apply to newly issued, renewed, and duplicate driver's licenses and identification cards produced by a state. Furthermore, any rulemaking body that is prescribing new standards for driver's licenses or personal identification cards must perform an assessment of the annual benefits and costs of its recommendations. The federal government should provide adequate funding to states to implement any required mandate stemming from the rulemaking. At no time should the rulemaking body propose an unfunded mandate on states.
Problem is, there's nowhere left to run.
Canada?
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
You know, I don't see what's the harm done in your arguments. Point bu point:
1) The Constitution states in the "Bill of Rights" set of ammendments some things the government cannot do. Creating a national ID isn't prohibited. Sure, the Constitution doesn't order the government to create a national ID either, but by default what isn't prohibited is allowed.
2) A national ID may not be the perfect "silver bullet" that kills terrorism once and for all, but it certainly would impose one more difficulty on terrorists.
3) Identity theft can be done in a great number of ways today. A national ID, if properly implemented, could make identity theft much more difficult. Think about it, if someone shows a fake driver's license from North Dakota with your name on it, what are the chances that the bank teller will be able to detect the fraud?
4) Why would a national ID be contrary to any principles the USA was founded upon? Do you think Washington and Jefferson were afraid to be recognized as themselves? There may be moments and places when I prefer to be anonymous, but when I need to show who I am I prefer to have a clear and unambiguous way to prove it.
If anyone cares to actually read the provisions of the Act which implement the Real ID system, they'll see a provision which allows for easy compliance. In essence, my state can continue to issue licenses and ignore the data gathering burdens of the act by simply changing the color of the license and printing "not valid as federal identification" on the front.
Of course, then I may need some alternative form of ID if I wish to deal with a federal agency... But it's cheap this way.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Trying to reason with people who can actually support such ideas is useless. They're beyond reason, usually due to fear. One sentence I've used that actualy worked on such people is:
/Your papers, please.
"Well, there's nothing so wrong with it, it's just not America."
-Ryan C.
Ah, it is not "mandated".
You just cant go on ANY federal property (courts parks etc)
nor can you travel via interstate commerce (planes trains and buses)
That said there is nothing stopping a state from saying "FU".
Of course they "might" lose all their other federal funding should
they do so....
Screw security, I'll take liberty every time.
We've all got to die sometime, I'd prefer to live a short
and free life versus a long and opressed one.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Unfortunately, I'm as much a fan of the 2nd Amendment as I am the others, and Canada has slid further down the slope of restricting that right than we have.
Not that it won't necessarily come to a point where that's the lesser of two evils, of course.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Yeah, that's certainly the cop out the fed.gov is using to sidestep the whole problem that they're trying to do something they have no legal authority to do...but you and I both know it amounts to a mandate. How many states have managed to stay off the fed.gov teat well enough to not have to cave to federal highway funding requirements?
Want to bet that federal highway funds will be tied to this if there's any indication that states are deliberately not complying?
Feh.
Regarding security versus liberty, I couldn't agree more. What's really depressing, though, is the Big Lie nature of the whole thing. It might not be so frustrating if we actually were getting security at the cost of liberty. But the real crime is we're not; we're pissing away our liberty at an ever-increasing rate, and we've got nothing to show for it (or at least, nothing even close to equivalent value).
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Why cannot a state issue two types of driver's license, one that meets its needs at the current cost, and one that meets the Feds' requirements for an additional $67, the cost of obtaining a passport, but without the passport? Those who have passports needn't pay twice, including foreigners who presumably have passports from their own countries, and green cards or other visas if they are legals. Others have their choice of a conforming driver's license or a regular one plus a passport. For that matter, why not either do nothing, or charge more than the cost of a passport and kick the ball back in their court?
Im not an American but whats with all this hiding laws in other bills bullshit? Surely this is a most weaselly and below the belt tactic? Why is this accepted in anyway? Why does no-one automatically cry foul and make sure whoever did it looses all trust and respect? I can understand why you cant treat it as a hostage taking and automatically vote down any bill that's had something dodgy tacked on - obviously people would use that as a tool to get rid of bills but surely this sort of thing can be controlled or shunned out of practice? How does it work?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
As it stands now lack of state issued ID is almost a defacto guilty until proven innocent offense. As a perfect example, a few years ago I was on vacation at a beachfront hotel, One evening I was sitting out on the lounge chairs watching the sunset with a group of half a dozen or so strangers. There was typical limited casual conversation going on, one of the guys there was sipping a beer, and one of the women was drinking a glass of wine. A police officer pulls up on an ATV and starts asking for ID's from those that were drinking. The woman who appeared to be about 30 years old pulled her drivers license out from her purse. The guy with the beer was not so lucky, he looked a bit younger and was wearing a bathing suit, he said his ID was up in the hotel room. So the police officer spent the next 10-15 minutes disturbing out peaceful view of the sunset by asking this young guy all sorts of questions (Name, address, SSN, etc) then asked the entire group of people to not leave while he radioed this this information in. About 20 minutes later the police had looked up this guys drivers license, radioed back a description, etc. and confirmed that he was 25 years old.
Ike
and Canada has slid further down the slope of restricting that right than we have.
how so?
I thought humans were flightless. Is there a DO NOT BREATHE UNDERWATER list too?
paintball
I've written about non-compliance as a solution to the REAL ID Act.
Fortunately the act was written so states could decline to comply, and not have to deal with losing funding (which is unavailable to help states comply anyway.)
As I point out, on a day to day basis most people don't need a federally accepted ID card. It's cheaper for the states to tell people who need a federal ID card to just get a passport (which about 25% of Americans already have.)
If worse comes to worst, the occasionaly traveller can just travel ID-less. The airline will decide what to do with the ID card, and if it's not accepted, the passenger will become a selectee (which is the normal procedure for a passenger without ID.)
I realize that passports cost more than a driver's license and I don't see any reason why the cost of a passport can't be reduced. The point is that if the Feds require everyone to have valid identification papers, then the passport is the answer.
And let's not forget an important point: the 9/11 terrorists were travelling with valid visas issued by the State Department under their own real names. They were renting apartments and cars, attending school, working regular jobs (and paying taxes!), all in their own real names. I'm not exactly sure how this "Real ID" law will make any difference in the So-Called Global War On Terror. But then again, nothing the Bush Administration has done in the name of terror has been a rousing success.
Wait a minute ... maybe ID means "Intelligent Design," not "identification." Hmmmm ....
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's a good thing that bad guys would never get a job at the agency handling all that information and get access to those databases.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... "Ihre Erkennung, bitte."
Pirate Party UK
Despite the fact that relatively sound and effective improvements to driver's license security had already been implemented as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
The only "improvements" to license registration I've seen in West Virginia are stupid and ineffective. Law-abiding citizens need an act of Congress to get a license but all a terrorist has to do is forge a couple more documents. I imagine other states that made changes aren't much better.
Rob
I suggest it's time for the USA to go back to trying to be the shining example of democracy instead of going for an arms race of kleptocracy with the former USSR.
So, they're going to make provision for names only as long as 128 characters? What are they going to do with the people whose names are longer than that? It's not legal to use abbreviations or nicknames. What if I change my name to "Russsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssssssssssssss
Nelson"? Oh, but I won't have the freedom to do that, because they'll make it illegal (rather than doing the obvious and allowing for database fields of unlimited length). Why do I want such a stupid freedom? Because that is what freedom is all about: the freedom to do stupid things. Freedom is not about the actions other people don't mind. Freedom is about being able to do things that Other People Object To.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Trying to be funny I hope...
The criminals that committed the bombings in Londen were all British citizen, border checks would not have helped any.
Even the 9/11 criminals entered the US quite legally.
Save for making these criminals unacceptable in their own community only good old fashioned criminal investigations and undercover work can help us.
The proposed law has a completely different goal.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
A very valid question, why are legislators allowing this?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Those vehicles are quite capable of traveling within a state.
Let's say California is one of the states that can't comply with RealID. Flying from Los Angeles to San Francisco would not be interstate commerce, but I would not be able to do it.
AC SaidIf I am taking a flight from somewhere, and some screeners find cocaine in a bag of a fellow passenger, I would hope that they raise a red flag.
The drug laws are stupid. One of the most toxic substances is completely legal (Alcohol) and yet, something as benign as pot will get you sent away for years.
And let make this point: How would a drug jeoperdise your safety? I don't give a shit if a drug smuggler is on the plane because he is of no harm. If you want to give up your liberty for some reason or laws that are made by ignorant people - go ahead. I refuse!
any asshole could have just tasted it and known it was just flour! You don't need a drug test. That's absolutely NO excuse to blame that poor girl's troubles on a "faulty drug test". Now who's the stupid one?
I dont appologise for being political.
This is simply a statement of fact.
The Republican Party controls every level of American Federal Government. Their Right Wing agendas have been the driving force behind the Iraq War, The Destruction of American Privacy and the Ballooning of the powers in the hands of the president. Dialogue on the possible abuse of this power is being squelched by party lines in all levels of government and the press.
If you don't like American Trends - remove the party in power. Vote.
Be critical, and examine all your available options. But remember the recent scandals, deficit and the war in Iraq all happenned on a completely Republican watch.
Support free media and speach - it is the biggest reason to keep a free internet.
Skip to the [back to serious] to mod this up. What is below is comment on the original poster.
/. article if I ever saw one.
Supported by more than 600 independent organizations (including the INS, DEA, FBI, CIA, NSA) and sheltered from liberal political bias and privacy hysteria by being associated the context of a military spending bill in order to deliver on the promise that freedom is not free but requires eternal vigilance, the Real ID Act has received heavy praise from concerned citizens and state government agencies. Despite the fact that relatively pathetic and ineffective improvements to driver's license security have lagged behind the times for 20 years, the bill has been structured constitutional law experts in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention departments of the federal government to guard individual rights while surpassing the protections and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Report by passing a relatively cheap and at a personal level, noninvasive law.
I posted the above because I felt it wise to illustrate the mindless bias and lack of constructive though of the original poster. The original flame bait post was pure political spin without out regard to rational considerations of the opinions of other or any sort of attempt to elicit intelligent conversation.
I know a troll sir and you are one ugly green skinned regenerating long nosed smelly poster. What a flame bait
[Back to serious,]
Getting a license is required; every license will expire, the broken process we have now might as well be replaced with an effective and uniformly implemented one, so get ready to have your identity checked or head for the border of your illegal entrance.
The financial sector is the fuel terrorists live by and on. Terrorists being propped up by illegal money transfers are 100% against this bill.
In order to dry up terrorism / money laundering, we must dry out the funds of terrorists. Current non repudiation legal requirements in place make a valid ID with a reasonable level of surety a requirement.
for the trans folk like me. I was born male, and transitioned to living as a woman 12 years ago. I've had some surgery, and lots of hormones, and have finally come to terms with life in-between. I really don't need any more surgery to be happy, and that's the whole point of the treatment for gender dysphoria.
By some judges, I'm legally female. By others, nothing I'll ever do will make me female. I look feminine enough that even nurses do a double-take upon seeing my Social Security card which says I'm male.
My ID currently has my legal name, my pretty femmme picture, and says I'm female. What will my "real" ID say? And what bathroom must I use when out? Would I cause a stir by using the men's room, when I haven't been "read" as male in 6 years?
I may not survive the Real ID.
Lemon curry?
1. The Federal government has no provision in the Constitution in order to force anyone to carry ID. When I fly, I still refuse to show my ID to any government agency and the TSA couldn't do anything about it.
2. For those who intend to mention it, the commerce clause was intended to keep the STATES from hurting trade. It was never meant to allow the Federal government any power to tax, regulate, mandate or require.
3. The entire Federal government is unconstitutional. Every officer that takes an oath to uphold the Constitution has broken that oath. I believe this is possibly treason, and the penalty for treason should be public hanging if found guilty.
4. I'm finished with this mess. If you're ready to take steps to get yourself out of the authoritarian rut, cancel your bank accounts, switch from a salaried employee to a 1099 contractor, stop using credit cards and loans, sell your house and buy something without a mortgage, store your wealth in gold and silver and work to start your own company. Get out from under the hands of these bastards.
5. If the day comes that the dollar crashes, I'll be taking names for anyone who wants to toil on my land in trade for food and shelter.
Seriously, though, this is just nuts. I refuse my ID to everyone already (except private companies who request it for me to enter their private property). In Illinois we have laws requiring me to show my ID when I am pulled over for a traffic stop -- I refuse. I don't even roll the window down more than a crack. I tell the (possibly fake) officer that I refuse to speak, and if there is a problem he can call another squad car in to arrest me and charge me with a crime. This is the proper way to deal with speeding tickets (and I've been arrested on a ticket only once in a dozen times in a dozen years -- and the officer's boss let me go immediately).
Stop helping the system! Stop using their services. Just walk away. Life is much better when you're free.
which I hope you are cool with
----
A girl on slashdot! Sweet! Lets date.
Oh, wait, judging by your UID you're old enough to be my father.
Here's the real deal, which outlines one of the fundamental problems of Capitalism. I call it the "Communist Problem".
1. Firstly, capitalism is based on people owning things. Very very obvious. But, how does one determine this "ownership". Is it possession, title, what? In a lot of cases, it's possession, such as cash money, diamonds, etc. In a lot of other cases, usually regarding big expensive things, but increasingly attaching itself to smaller and smaller things (video store card, etc.), it is what's called "title" or basically a piece of paper legally describing the property and a statement legally describing the owner.
2. Capitalism is also based (nowadays) on a gradually increasing amount of money in a system with a gradually increasing amount of owners getting new stuff that's created gradually. The gradually increasing amount of money is called "credit", which is how the government "prints" money nowadays. They just lend it out, with no real chance of repayment, or they borrow it with no real chance for repayment. The increasing number of owners is called the growth rate (babies being born) and the increasing number of new stuff is called production or GDP or a bunch of other terms.
3. So people have to own stuff and they need a way to prove that it's their stuff. How do you do that though? Now that everything is about "title" or "entitlement", it's really about proving your name or number applies to you, and then they give you the physical stuff. They problem is, how do you prove you're you? Well, it used to be that everyone knew each other and there was social trust and if there was a bad guy he pissed off enough people and got shot. In a lot of ways, the underground economy of drugs and stolen stuff still works this way. Not a perfect system, but people are held accountable and prices are actually fairly steady. Now, in the legitimate system, it's all based on legal precendent. Companies now have to expect a certain amount of loss, and they make up for it with lawsuits. Consumers should also expect to have a certain amount of loss and should make up for it with lawsuits.
4. Lawyers win.
5. Ok, now comes the "communist problem". If no one knew what everyone owned, everyone would own the same stuff, which is what communism is all about. But if everyone has a number, like the DNA thing, then we are all just numbers and are really just serving the system, which is what communism is all about. Either way, we are not better off either way. What they've tried to do here is keep it balanced by letting people buy all the shit they want, and then letting protect that which they possess with guns. When you start getting to the big stuff like houses and cars and land and companies and stuff like that, you have to get lawyers involved to make sure that all this "title" and "entitle" paperwork is correct. (Of course, if they prove that you are not you, they can take all that titled shit)
We all know the real thing we are afraid of is not our fellow citizens but the police and government who uses them to take our shit. They can't do that because we have guns, so it balances it out. They CAN take stuff that is only "titled" though, because you don't actually possess it, it's just there and there's a piece of paper that says you can do whatever you want with it.
6. Anyway, that's the problem. You can only really for sure own stuff if you can stand next to it and protect it, and if there's a national ID we will all have a number and be slaves to the system.
7. I had a point originally but I got lost on a tangent. It's Friday. I'm not one of those gun persons, I don't own a gun, I don't like them. But this all seems to make a certain small amount of sense.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
The correct question is, "Why are voters allowing this?" I hate to be redundant, but every post I make here has something to do with PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Strange how we love to complain, tell everybody how we'd fix things, rant on our blogs about how bad things are, and post our "solutions" on slashdot. Notice that nowhere in that list do we do anything more than ADVOCATE change. Sorry folks, but spouting off isn't enough. The whole "bearing witness" concept, while useful, is insufficient. There is only ONE way to make things better. Gandhi said it best, "Be the change you wish to see in the world." That means get off your duff and do things differently! Voting "against" is a start, but it's not constructive. If you want to build a better nation, then you have to do it from the bottom up. Every decent government the world has come up with originated with a populist, grass-roots movement. What a pity the people lose interest so quickly and relinquish the power to an "elite" few. Baaaaa.... Remember, "They're more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules."
He who would be a man, must be a nonconformist. -- Emerson
Because we need the bricks for our own? Papieren bitte, genosse! your govt are shafting you big time, from here it looks like the democratic peoples republic of America. Might it have been the long and ardent struggle against warsaw pact style communism that did this? As in: "He who fights monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. When you gaze long into the abyss the abyss gazes long into you." -- Friedrich Nietzsche Good work lads, you cornered every little piece of progressive socialist initiative in the world, rather having them bunch up with soviets, that eventually croaked and laying waste to a big part of the world economy, then you BECOME soviet union. Trollish, and a bit tongue in cheek, but still, it holds a bit o' truth?
If you read the constitution, the federal government has NO authority within the State borders and it is unconstitutional to restrict travel.
God I wish our Federal gov would read and UNDERSTAND the rules that were established that they are REQUIRED to live within.
For those of you who say gee it will be easier to find bad people with this program, ask yourself one question....How many bad people are going to raise their hand and say, "May I please and a bad guy ID"
There are only 2 things that have improved the security of air travel so far...
1. Reinforced cockpit doors
2. Passengers who are now willing to fight with the bad people.
Everything else is just to make us feel secure.
But I guess that what you get when those who can't do teach, and those who can teach go into public service.
Please excuse the shouting but all this crap really pisses me off, if you couldn't already guess.
If you really believe that, I suggest that you look into the FBI website and run to the Supreme Court. The FBI is against the Constitution. Their website itself states explicitly that "in 1908, the establishment of this kind of agency at a national level was highly controversial. The U.S. Constitution is based on "federalism:" a national government with jurisdiction over matters that crossed boundaries, like interstate commerce and foreign affairs, with all other powers reserved to the states. Through the 1800s, Americans usually looked to cities, counties, and states to fulfill most government responsibilities."
The Real ID Act will be ruled unconstitutional since States are incharge of licenses, not the federal government. I'd imagine that it will be overturned soon after it goes into effect.
technically, you're supposed to get a new picture every 10 or 12 years.
I know the date on the card says it's good until you're 65, but I guess they'll send you a letter telling you to report at 12 years from the date of your last photograph.
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/03173.htm
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Maybe the poster means it's still occasionally considered a "right" in the US, whereas it is most assuredly a "privilege" in Canada.
*shrug*
I'm with you there with liberty over security.
I'd rather live in the ghetto and be able to legally protect myself than live in a gated community and be prosecuted for shooting an armed intruder.
Selectees are passengers who are chosen for more intense security checks (indicated by a bunch of SSSSSSs on the boarding pass. Selectees will be interviewed, hand examined, have their carry ons opened...etc.)
Certain criteria automatically trigger it (buying a ticket in cash, buying a ticket within 24 hours of flight time...certain names/date combinations...et cetera.) And of course, the airline itself can make the passenger a selectee (such as not having ID.)
who aren't paranoid about Big Brother. Republicans can be morons like anyone else. They just seem to be doing more of it lately.
One of the best quotes ever. David Hewlett in Cube, "Big Brother isn't watching you. Can you comprehend that?"
Who cares if our IDs have chips in them?
UFIA is also an acronym for "Unwanted Finger In Anus"
Watch Aussie rugby sometime:)
Mal Maninga smell ma finga!!
Nothing to show for it?
With all that's been going on we now get to enjoy a Police State with all the benefits. Search and seizure without a warrant, being held without cause and most of all no right to any sort of privacy in anything we do.
I think we have quite a bit to show for pissing away our liberty. Quite a bit indeed.
We have the right, we have the duty to tear down an oppressive government that binds us. Our founding fathers knew this. Sadly most americans don't.
http://www.xpurple.com
You heard it here first - and you can mod me as troll if you want.
1) Goverment bar codes on our foreheads - well, that might be an exaggeration, but this is sure not far from it. All we need now is an RFID tag....
2) Letters of National Security - Any FBI field supervisor can authorize surveillance on anyone for any reason at any time just by sitting down at a typewriter.
3) Senator Dumbass's bill that you can now no longer post anonymously on the internet if the message is "annoying"
4) Giant databases of spending habits, personal habits, etc. that are being collected and "shared with third parties where appropriate" that are not being purged of data on those deemed innocent when they are done
Roll it all up together, and call me paranoid or alarmist or whatever else you want to call me, but it's the beginnings of a police state. WAKE UP PEOPLE! Societies get the rights they are willing to fight for. Join the EFF - send letters to your elected representatives - deal with this now while it's still naescent. Once it becomes full-blown, it will be far to late. Ask the chinese students at Tienamen square what's it's like standing up to an oppressive regieme.
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
Some people think that closing the borders protects US jobs but the reality is that, since corporations can cross borders with ease, if the cheap workers don't come to the corporations then the corporations will go to the cheap workers with the same loss of US jobs.
The problem with "illegal" foreign workers is not that they work for less.
The problem with "illegal" foregin workers is that they work for less than legal US citizens CAN work.
Because they're illegal they can work for less than minimum wage, when a documented worker must be paid at least the minimum. (And they can often keep a lot more of it because many of them don't have to pay taxes on what they do make.)
Because they're illegal they can't complain of poor working conditions, or join or organize unions. First time one makes trouble for the boss, all the boss has to do is inform on him and he's gone.
Result: Essentially all the unions except the government employee unions have been broken. And contractors must hire illegals and pay them crap, or they can't compete with those who do. (In construction work, for instance, virtually all the positions except crane operator (a very visible, responsible, and REGULATED position, given the havoc an incompent can cause) are now filled almost entirely with "undocumented" non-union labor, when they were once held by union employees, paid a decent wage and benefits and working under decent conditions.)
Of course this situation means no benefits either - especially medical benefits. So both the "undocumented" workers and their families obtain health care and other benefits through the welfare system, and through leaching on the medical system. Clinics and urgent care operations require a payment and information for billing, while the much more expensive emergency rooms are required to treat all comers and prohibited from inquiring about immigration status. So E-rooms are used for every cold and flu, and virtally all of the cost is transferred to the progressively smaller fraction of patients who actually pay for their care - directly, or through employer-paid insurance programs. This load causes the cost of medical care to skyrocket - and these added costs make citizen workers even less competitive against "undocumented" workers.
Yet many of them do not seek, or can't obtain, treatment for chronic illnesses or immunizations. The result is a resurgence of childhood diseases for which immunizations exist, drug-resistant tuburculosis, and introduction into the US of a number of mosquito-borne tropical diseases - to name just a few of the problems.
The children of these families, of course, receive education in the public schools. Very expensive education, of course, thanks to the requirement that the be taught in Spanish (even if they were not native speakers of it). California is wallowing in debt. Yet just the money spend on public school education for children of the "undocumented" has been reliabily estimated to exceed the state's defict. Eliminating this cost alone would balance the state's budget.
So, despite claims that the "undocumented" contribute to the economy, for the average taxpaying citizen the costs are far disproportionate to the benefit. Those rich enough to afford domestic help and companies able to hire an "undocumented" workforce get cheap labor (and union busters), subsidized by the taxes and increased service costs paid by the rest of us.
And make no mistake: These people are displacing the citizen work force. (In the last reporting interval the number of blue-collar jobs lost by US citizens and the number gained by "undocumented" laborers inside the US were virtually identical.)
Some jobs CAN'T be outsourced: Construction. Farm labor. Landscaping. Janitorial work. I could go on. These are jobs that US citizens have historically done - and which they mostly don't do any more. It's not because they don't WANT to. It's because they CAN'T - because employers CAN'T hire them, under US law, for as
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It is not really possible for States to keep of the Federal teat. With the passage of the 18th amendment, it was guaranteed that the Federal would tax to the point that the States wouldn't be able to levy tax enough to operate independantly. Since then, we have enjoyed the steady erosion of freedom that a heavy centralized government always brings. It was the nail in the coffin for States rights, as well as the loss of one of the few checks against the Federal as a whole.
The States can't operate without Federal money just as the local governments can rarely operate without State and Federal money. Pull the money up high, and you control those below you.
The USAF was originally part of the Army. At the time, no one was flying planes around, so their use in militaries is an understandable oversight. ;)
"Under Nevada law, a person stopped by a police officer under a reasonable suspicion standard "shall identify himself". After 11 denied requests for identification, Dove finally arrested Hiibel, who was subsequently convicted of resisting an officer."
A few more references.
It is not clear to me whether or not a verbal "My name is Joe Smith", assuming your name actually is Joe Smith, would meet the requirement of 'shall identify himself' - some will most assuredly take that to mean "prove" it with official papers. Keep in mind that the Nevada Supreme Court *upheld* the charges against Hiibel, so thinking this was overturned on the first appeal, as it should have been IMHO, would be incorrect.
Living outside the system in Nevada means buying a lot of shoes, apparently. Or, perhaps, never leaving the house, as Hiibel wasn't driving at the time.
It's a depressing sign of just how far we've fallen when the objections to the Real ID act by the states all center around its feasibility, rather than all the reasons it's fundamentally flawed. You know, little things like "the federal government doesn't have the Consitutional authority to mandate a national ID," or "it won't actually do anything to combat terrorism," or "it's a single point source of failure in protection against identity theft," or "it runs completely contrary to the principles this country was founded upon."
:)
Or even "there are other things which the US Government could be spending time and money on, which would do a lot more to protect the lives and livelyhoods of people in the US than this white elephant"
The Real ID Act was originally part of the House Intelligence bill in the previous 108th Congress. The provisions were yanked because of the problems it posed especially at the insistence of the Senate. It came back in the current session of Congress. It was passed by the House without discussion or debate. There were no committee hearings either. The Senate refused to act upon especially how it would usurp states rights. The House decided to attach to a must pass appropriations bill to fund the Iraq troops and Tsunami relief fund. The Senate removed the provisions but the bill went to conference. The House prevailed.
Now, people are realizing this montrosity. Here are a couple of ways to get rid of this bill. First is a grassroots coalition to encourage the Senate to unilaterally attach the repeal language to any and all bills coming over from the House. A good place would be to hold the PATRIOT ACT hostage. The Senate could refuse to act on it unless the House goes along to repeal the Real ID Act. The PATRIOT ACT was temporarily extended.
The second way is contact our state legislators and governors and ask them to refuse to go along with this. If all 50 states refuse to sign on to the Real ID Act, it would be hard to stop commerce because Congress would not want to bankrupt the airlines.
What is Real ID Act about ? It would require states to follow the Federal Gov't prescription on how Driver's Licenses are issued such as linking driver databases, checking background information on license applicants such as birth certificates, proof of residence, etc. If a state decides to not go along, then citizens from that state would not be allowed to board aircraft, go into Federal buildings. Even more, the driver databases would allow hackers and marketers easy access for identity theft and some states with strong privacy laws would have their databases accessed from states with weak privacy laws.
Last of all, guess who was the sponsor ? House Judiciary Chairman Francis James Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin. The same nitwit who is pushing to close the analog "loophole" for video and music. The people of Wisconsin should remove him from office through the ballot box. His Democrat opponent should be supported with money or whatever means. I am a Republican, a conservative one at that. People like Sensenbrennerare country club Republicans who originally opposed President Reagan.
its not about protecting anything more than national security of those in power.
...
...What do you really think this national ID thing is going to be used for?
its not about protecting american citizens and their freedom at all.
With as much digital leakage as has been happening, this only makes leakage easier and abuse of your identity easier too.
Simply put you oppose some politician or other giovernment official and the next thing you know yoyu are dealing with Identity theift and a destruction of whatever financial resources and other accests you have/.
The 9/11 insident was an act of retailation against the American draining of south east asia via world stock market wrongful manipulation. Do a search for "Trillion dollar bet" and read the transcript. And if you really follow the money here, you'll also know what the "easy come easy go" money came from that created teh dotcom boom and bust and what failed companies like worldcom and enron were investing in.
Now think about it... The truth has not been told the public but everyone know by now that Sadam had nothing to do with 9/11, there weren't even any weapons of mass destruction
IF american government is going to go to such extreams as to threaten teh American Media industry with anthrax, so to get them to help the government bang war drums against a country that had nothing to fo with 9/11, while hiding from teh American people the connection between the "trillionj dollar bet" and the fall of the World Trade Center (it wasn't the first attempt to take it down)....
What is meant by reasonable suspicion in this situation? Not only what constitutes "reasonable" suspicion, but suspicion of WHAT?
It's interesting that it uses language to "identify himself" and not specifically mention a goverment-issed ID card.
Who needs facts? They can be used to prove anything!
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
what do they teach you people in school these days?
It's a government funded school, with government defined curriculum, with standardized testing to government written tests required even for students educated in private or home schools.
Where in there do you see room for "limited government of enumerated powers"? Everything about education in the US is of, by and for GOVERNMENT.
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics