Slashdot Mirror
Maine Rejects Federally Mandated ID Cards
WebHostingGuy writes "The State of Maine rejected the federally mandated ID cards passed by Congress. In a non-partisan vote the legislature flatly stated that they would not force its citizens to use driver's licenses that comply with digital ID standards, which were established under the 2005 Real ID Act. It also asked Congress to repeal the law."
Seriously, someone explain to me what is wrong with a national ID standard... without saying "papers please".
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I think this is similar to how SD created the anti-abortion law. They are deliberately saying no to get the law tested in court.
it's like this..
28 guys want military spending
31 guys want tsunami relifer
only 2 guys want both.
that means, lump them together, get 57 votes
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
This Federal ID idea is definitely rediculous. I'm glad someone is actively opposing it. I suppose it is good they are trying to push states to actually have good ID cards. Some of them (West Virginia, New Jersey until recently) are rediculously easy to fake. Not that I, ahem, would know anything about that.
But let's not give them too much credit. This is obviously another step toward removing already eroding privacy rights in this country. And of course the convenient excuse "war on terror" will be stamped all over this.
Let's get a run-down of what this will actually mean to the average consumer.
~ By "common machine readable technology", I'm assuming they mean RFID, which we all know has its drawbacks.
~ I doubt this will end up being a substitute for a Driver's License. What if you lose driving privilages and have to turn in your ID? Do you have to get a new "non-driver" card just to go to the bank? Bull shit. Inevitably, this will have to be carried around in addition to a driver's license. Great, another unnecessary card to carry in my wallet. Why don't they just make us all wear collars around our necks. Not like nobody's ever thought of that before.
~ It will obviously be scanned at every point of use. I forsee an amendment in the near future extending this to train/bus travel as well.
~ Inevitably, this will be part of a big government database. We all know those are generally bad ideas. I wouldn't be surprised if they link this up to your EZ-Pass so they can see where your car is going too. Remember (FTA) this is an $83 billion project. It is going to be BIG. ~ What if you lose this thing? It's bad enough getting the state to replace an ID... who do I complain to now? The FBI? Dept of Homeland Security?
I don't even want to think about this anymore. Go Maine.
Partial Credit: The Engineer's Best friend
"Well, the bridge didn't fall all the way down!"
They are indeed questioning the constitutionality of the law. And, to (roughly) quote Larry Lessig, "In America, the way to ask a legal question is to sue somebody". Passing a state law rejecting the Federal one is just the first stepping stone to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which is really where this question will be authoritatively answered.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
my daughter said something quite profound about a year ago: "Standing up to bullies is easy, you just stomp on their toes".
It is profound for several reasons. You shouldn't fight the bully head on, they are bigger and (in this case) control the White house and the Army.
But you make it hurt, a lot (you "stomp"), but you do it below the vision of most people watching.
You stand right up to the bully, to their face and make them face you. Most bullies are craven and will crumble at the first sign of real resistance.
Bush Psychology -- http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011807J.shtml
This is just the first step in a long, painful road to recovery for this nation.
Do you really think the TSA would stop all of Maine from flying? The feds rely on the taxpayers for income. Pissing off a state's worth of them is not a good plan.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
Personally I have no problem with congress appointing non-government experts to define minimum security standards for important documents. But congress is treating RealID as a security end in itself.
This is not an issue of interstate commerce. The federal government does not have the authority to pass this law, the law clearly states that if states don't participate, they lose certain amounts of federal revenue, most likely highway funding. That will be Maine's penalty. There will probably not be a federal lawsuit, and this is not nullification.
Yea, I already have my nationally issued I.D. card... It's called my social security number! People ask me for it all the time when I do even the most basic of purchasing. Soooo, this would solve??? There will always be ways around it no matter what you do. Remember... those "sneaky terrorists" get more resourceful all the time!
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
Why 21 is better drinking age than 18? As it is, at least here in Finland, almost everybody have drank alcohol long ago before turning to 18. In other parts of Europe young people also drink alcohol very young, and this haven't flushed the continent under the table. What I have heard, both from European exchange students visiting US and from Americans, is that young people instead of drinking alcohol, because it's so hard to get, blow pot. So one 'bad habit' is traded to another one.
On a note, when one turns to 18, he is adult, he usually moves to own his/her place, he can vote, he can be elected and he can/has to go to a army. So why not give all the rights to 18 year old at the same time when he/she comes fully liable on his/her own life?
Survey research tool for commercial and scientific use
As a European, you've probably grown up under an oppressive nanny-type government and have very little (if any) notion of how free (in the real sense) US citizens were a mere 50 years ago, and still are, despite repeated encroachments upon their rights by successive abusive far-right governments. There are a couple good technical solutions to the problem of authentication, but a unique state-mandated uniform ID is not one of them. For the unique id is a single point of failure, and it's very, very weak.
What ties you to your precious govt-issued ID, pray tell? Does it store (in a secure manner) data about something you are, like a DNA sample or a fingerprint? Or perhaps something you and only you know, like a passphrase? Both, maybe? Not likely. All it does is constitute a a search key for data mining and no, the photo don't cut it - they're trivially easy to fake and biometrics don't really work yet.
Use your head a bit, mmkay?
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
"They are indeed questioning the constitutionality of the law."
They need to question the constitutionality behind the way the law was passed in the first place. From the article, "A key Republican supporter of the Real ID Act said Thursday that the law was just as necessary now as when it was enacted as part of an $82 billion military spending and tsunami relief bill."
In other words some sleezy congress-critter appended it to a "must pass" spending bill, and we, the people, didn't get a chance to debate it, or determine if it was in fact "necessary" at all.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
So Maine doesn't have to accept the fed's ID standards. Then the TSA doesn't have to accept Maine DLs at airports. Who will win?
It should hardly be relevent in the first place. It's not like you can drive a car around a depature lounge or along the aisle of a passenger aircraft. AFAIK it's also not a requirment that all people in the other 49 states must drive.
As a European, you've probably grown up under an oppressive nanny-type government
Legal drugs, legal prostitution, legal abortion, legal porn, legal drinking age of 16 (and not much policing below it)... real oppressive and nanny-like, yeah. Fix yourselves first.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Don't forget the socialist healthcare, welfare middle class, and 50% income tax.
Honestly, I do not think Maine cares about their highway funds. There are not a lot of US routes through Maine, the only Interstate is I-95, which is tolled for portion where it is the Maine Turnpike. I think there could actually be a potential here for Maine, if they truly do not care about the highway funds. Lower the drinking age back to 18. I am sure a lot of kids in the parts closer to Canada already make trips across the border for alcohol, so why not just keep them in state and keep the money at home. It could also attract college students and other individuals from Boston and NH, who want to get alcohol legally.
Now, to argue the drinking age. Here is why 21 is bad. Is underage drinking a problem? Yes. Is binge drinking a problem? Yes, but one that has been a bit overblown. How to you solve both at once? Lower the age to 16. Here is why. Where do most 16 yr olds live? At home, with their parents who can teach them the importance of drinking responsibly while they are still at home. By having the drinking age 21, people are well into college before they can legally drink. For many college students, it is their first time away from home for any extended time. Without the parents around, the children will play and drinking becomes an issue. Since it is their first times drinking (and they are "unsupervised") they wound up into trouble situations. I could also use that old (and possible flawed) argument, "At 18 you are old enough to fight and die for this country, but you are not old enough to enjoy a little bit of alcohol." You will find that in the countries where drinking is legal, the countries with drinking ages of 21 are in the minority.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
"...that would require not pissing people off so badly..."
And, if your mere existence as a non-Muslim is sufficient to piss them off enough to blow you and themselves up, your response is what? To simply convert to avoid being the pisser? M'thinks not. They already want to kill me just because of what I do or don't believe. So, give me a plan -- an intelligent one -- that allows me to remain me and deal with those people.
At home, with their parents who can teach them the importance of drinking responsibly while they are still at home.
The problem is with the parents/parenting to begin with.
Americans are pretty psychotic with respect to things like mistakes, moderation, and honest communication.
Instead of these things, we like harder rules and harder punishments. Things like zero tolerance, mandatory minimums, 3 strike rules, police roadblocks.
There is a saying that goes something like "The firmer grip you use, the faster the the stuff squirts between your fingers". This is what is happening.
I live in one of the most policed conservative states in the US, and it sucks. Trust me, once your "in the system" its next to impossible to get out of it.
Erm. I'm not an USian, can't fix what is wrong with that great country. As for Europe, legal drinking age is 18 in many places, prostitution is illegal but "tolerated" (gov't demands income taxes but doesn't recognize the occupation as legal) in yet many more, straight porn isn't a crime but some forms of political expression may be. Seatbelts are mandatory almost all over the place. So is health insurance. Gimme a break.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
You sure we live in the same America? This is a country where a child can scream abuse for a spanking, and it is typically on the parents' shoulders to prove their innocence. Legislation was offered up in California to make it illegal to spank children under the age of 4. My mom was raised in a household where you were punished for misbehaving, and my grandfather was known for sending the boys out to pick the switches with which they would be punished. Could you imagine if a parent did that today? You leave a mark on your child and you will probably get a call from social services.
The real problem is parenting has become some sort of balance between punishment and political correctness. You'd better be careful how you raise your children or the government might come and take them away. What I love is that we now have the same people complaining that the youth do not show their elders respect, are often the same ones who are making it illegal to punish your children. Actually, we might not have needed these tougher laws if people were raised right in the first place.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
go outside today
this is not an excuse for the past to ABSIMIMAL winters, but its fucking COLD out there atm
Yeah, and it's ok to beat my wife with a stick thats 1" in diameter or smaller, anything larger is abuse.
Look, to a small child, getting yelled at and spanked is absolutely terrifying. Regular physical and emotional trauma creates enormous personal and social costs. Schools don't use physical punishment, workplaces don't use physical punishment, first world prison systems don't use physical punishment (except in Singapore and the U.S.), and hitting another adult is totally inexcuseable except in self-defense. So why engage in that treatment with the most vulnerable members of society? Does it make them better people? Better at relating to others? Does it foster their emotional and intellectual growth? Or is it just a means of terrifying children into behaving the way we think they should behave and for us to feel powerful and vent our frustrations?
I find its usually people who hit their kids or were hit as children that steadfastly defend physical assault as a valid parenting technique. Which means they have a fuckload of emotional baggage attached to the issue, and are not a good source of info.
A much better source is child development psychologists and, to a lesser degree, primate researchers. One interesting study showed the quite dramatic changes early physical punishment had not only on primate behavior latter in life, but on the actual anatomy of the brain (i.e. some structures were stunted, others greatly enlarged). Anyway, I defy anyone to produce evidence that human, or higher order primate offspring benefit in anyway to physical punishment and the resulting terror inflicted on them by those they depend on for survival.
* spanking is just a subset of hitting
The current British PM is a Scot. The current Home Secretary is a Scot. The next Prime Minister will most likely be a Scot. The Home Office is admittedly in chaos; we have severe prison overcrowding. The head of the Youth Offending division has just resigned and given an interview in which he complained of the criminalisation of the behaviour of young people and the drawing of excessive numbers of them into the criminal justice system, with no signs whatever that this was reducing crime or reforming the convicted. This guy is no bleeding heart liberal; he is the former head of the Probation Service with an excellent track record. Because he opposed the Government lock-them-up policy, he was told he had to re-apply for his own job. The present Government is attracting the opposition of the judges because it keeps passing new laws to create new crimes, regardless of whether existing ones are being applied. Of course a mess of new laws lengthens trials, increases the number of appeals, increases the cost of justice and creates confusion in the police, who are expected to understand them all, completely and immediately they are passed. My side swipe about Scots passing excessive legislation in England was based on a serious point about Government attitudes and policy.
When it was clear that the Government had lied over Iraq, I formally resigned my membership of the Labour Party. I learnt last week that a former leading party activist in our area - who had asked me not to leave - has now resigned in disgust.
Personally, as a very English - Home Counties, Cambridge graduate, working in IT - person, I feel I usually have far more in common with English people of Indian and West Indian extraction than the Scots, and I don't just mean cricket. Their whole cultural and philosophical tradition I find quite alien, more so than, say, the Dutch and the North Germans (and yes, I have read Hume as well as Trainspotting. But I do make an exception for that great genius Macaulay). Now that there is a separate Scottish parliament, there is a perfectly legitimate question to be asked as to why the Scots are allowed to legislate on social laws, education etc., when England cannot legislate for Scotland. Consider the hypocrisy of Scottish MPs who voted for university tuition fees in England while their fellow party members voted against them in Scotland. If it's flamebait to refer to this, then the level of what is allowed in political debate has sunk very low indeed.
Pining for the fjords