Slashdot Mirror
More States Challenging National Driver's Licenses
berberine writes "A revolt against a national driver's license, begun in Maine last month, is quickly spreading to other states.
The Maine Legislature on Jan. 26 overwhelmingly passed a resolution objecting to the Real ID Act of 2005. The federal law sets a national standard for driver's licenses and requires states to link their record-keeping systems to national databases.
Within a week of Maine's action, lawmakers in Georgia, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington state also balked at Real ID. They are expected soon to pass laws or adopt resolutions declining to participate in the federal identification network.
Maine's rejection was recently discussed on slashdot."
Those of us who work everyday with databases should know the futility of opposing any linkages of all DBs in the world. It is only through government stupidity and lethargy that this hasn't happened already. Anybody who has a DB is going to link them up if at all possible. The only thing we have on our side is the delay caused by government sloth.
Your best bet if you don't like this is to go off the grid. But we know what an exercise in futility that is unless you're willing to live in Montana ala Ted Kazinsky.
I wish they could take advantage of the timing and challenge other measures like national speed limit and national drinking age too, putting an end on this bastardized federalism that is not only against the intention of the Founding Fathers but very damaging to the very concept of the whole thing.
The White-House will just claim it is needed in the War of Terror, just like before.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
sorry, couldnt resist.
watch out for revenous mooninites while you are at it.
comment directly in my journal
We fought against the drinking age issue, but congress had tied it to the funding of the roads. IIRC, In the end after 2 years of losing ALL road funding, the state gave in.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I sure hope more states revolt against this. We are surrendering our privacy for 'security'. Of course one must realize how few terrorist attacks the USSR and Nazi Germany had that weren't staged. I find it very interesting how the government convinced millions of very independent Americans to be tracked in the first place. Social Security, aka 'free' money.
Sorry, it needed to be said.
-Charlie
(once again, sarcasm)
Most people don't think much about the north eastern and north western states. But it's these states that have truly helped retain the last remnants of the freedom the Founding Fathers fought so valiantly for.
So while the people in a state like Kansas focus all their attention on debating whether or not evolution should be taught in science classes, the people in states like Maine, Vermont, and Washington are defending their freedoms.
Maybe it's a matter of the level of education of the general populace in those states. No offense to anyone from Kansas, but it has traditionally ranked quite low, often at the very bottom, when it comes to a variety of measures. As a whole, the people of Kansas typically have a lower IQ than those from other states. Fewer people there have undergraduate or graduate degrees from universities (sorry, Oral Roberts University doesn't count) as compared to the people from other states. On the other hand, university degrees are extremely common in the north western and north eastern states, with virtually everybody having at least attended university for some period of time.
So while I no longer live in America, I do want to thank those in the north west and north east who are defending the rights of our nation's people.
...the united states of America.
Unite for a change.
FWIW, the government sloth and lethargy is part of the American ideology of limiting government so it can do the least harm to the people, while doing the most work for us. I'd rather have an inefficient government topheavy with accountability than an efficient totalitarianism.
Those of us who work with the government (I advise the NYC City Council's Technology committee) know that governments, born to bureaucracy, have the most chance of actually adhering to policies that prohibit invasive DB linking, when the people get involved to stop aggressive officials with Big Brother dreams. They live by those rules and the audits. If they are designed by both policy and info architects, to actually work with the "machinery" of people who run them.
If you are that fatalistic, and just give up, of course exploiters in government, and the "subcontractors" who love them (and pillaging their data) will track your every move. Only if you do something to engage your democracy will you make it work for you. You are the "dem" in democracy.
--
make install -not war
My understanding is that it makes applicants prove either their citizenship or legal presence in the country (i.e valid permanent resident visa) to get a license. The 9-11 hijackers had real valid Virginia issued drivers licenses, but they were obtained fraudulently. This makes it harder for them to get one. Once they are denied a driver license, a whole host of otherwise trivial transactions (banking, travel, renting an apartment, etc) become much harder from them to accomplish without attracting attention.
national id, or state id: from a privacy point of view, what's the difference?
but, from a law enforcement id, it provides a comprehensive framework:
1. rather than have to prove/ disprove the veracity of 50 different ids, you only need to figure out the authenticity of one
2. it brings to bear national resources when weeding out the fakes/ questionable ids/ other types of enforcement and vetting
i understand privacy concerns and what they mean. but what i don't understand is if someone with privacy concerns were to grant that a state id is acceptable, why a national id is somehow any different or more onerus to privacy concerns. a national id, from a privacy point of view, grants no more exposure than that which is lost with a state id
however, from a security point of view, one national id obviously superior than all the different state models. so what's the problem? it makes law enforcement's job easier. what, you think there will be more nefarious government activity with one big model? one big model that every privacy group will monitor with a white hot spotlight? you think somehow 50 different little models is going to have less shady activity, more monitoring? oh i get it: crooked law enforcement only goes on in washington dc, it doesn't go on in montpelier or bismarck or sacramento. pfft... get real
of course maine is fighting the model: it undermines their entrenched authority. furthermore, fighting the national id from maine's point of view then has nothing to do with championing privacy rights for individuals, its all about championing the state of maine and its concerns. why does anyone think that what maine is fighting for has anything to do with the fight for privacy? its all about states versus nation, not individuals versus government
don't drink the koolaid: a national model is superior from a security AND privacy stand point
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You should have placed tolls (collected simply by cops in cruisers) at all road entrances to your state and had them collect a (large -- think 5-figure or more per-vehicle) toll only from federal (military, etc.) vehicles.
Ensure that if the feds want to use your roads then they *will* fund them whether its indirectly (as per usual) or directly.
If you live in the US, you can voice your opposition to the REAL ID Act by sending your senators and representative a message using the handy form at http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=30
The states don't care about you.
They have eleventy-billion lines of COBOL to care about.
it is easy for an illegal to get a fake state dmv license
that's the point
50 different state models, with only a state's resources behind them, is easier to crack than one big national model
i would go so far as to say that it might still not be so hard to get a national id
however, it will be HARDER, without a doubt. no huge bureaucratic system is airtight. but national resources, and one national id card, brings to bear resources on the problem that individual states are ill-equipped to handle. plus. for law enforcement, its easier to vet one card and one database than 50 fractious, differently standardized state models
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
As a fellow New Yorker, I agree that NYC is a great place for citizen involvement. However, this is the exception. In most cities, government can do what it wants because nobody cares. I have lived all over the US from Omaha, Phoenix, Cincinnati, Houston and Salt Lake City and no where do people notice or care what government is doing until it is done and directly affects them. It is a common experience to have people complaining about the horse after it escaped the barn months before.
Stopping these kinds of things takes constant vigilence. It's akin to stopping the gentrification of an old neighborhood. Drop your guard for one day and that old building you loved is a pile of ruble. In NYC, there have even been buildings that were protected under a court order that were taken down on a Sunday.
So, while I agree with your sentiment, my expectations are much more pessimistic.
This makes great grandstanding for politicians, but when these states' citizens are unable to open bank accounts, get on an airplane or train, enter a federal court house, or do anything under the control of the federal government or involving interstate commerce, then the other 90% of the people in those states (the 90% who don't care about real id) are going to be madder than hell at the state legislature for dragging the feet.
I predict their resistance won't last long.
The NH congress voted 217 to 84 not to implement the Real ID Act here, last April. http://news.com.com/The+Real+ID+rebellion/2010-102 8_3-6061578.html
Now it is the Southern and MidWestern states which benefit from the federal government squeezing the Northern/Coastal states for tax money to re-distribute to the Southern and Midwestern states!
/partly kidding
Perhaps the North should rise up, buy our food from South America, and stop giving welfare to states that can't compete!
Blar.
They're rejecting it because it means the thieves in the State House lose another incremental little bit of their power and authority.
They need to be dragged out into the street and shot for the mess of new taxes and shitty welfare services they're shoving down our necks up here.
(Yes, I live in Maine. I go to university with the governor's nephew--he's almost as much of a turd as the governor himself.)
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Why is there a problem with a national driving licence in the USA?
I'm not trying to start a flamewar, just genuinely interested in what the key issues of the debate are (I'm posting from the UK). Is it something to do with the federal political make up of your country, or individual states lack of trust in national government?
I think you have other national level shared data sources don't you - isn't the social security number a national level ID? or is this also only ratified at a federal level? would the national driving licence be a precedent in the USA?
I think that this has less to do with "protecting your rights" than it does with states keeping their archaic way getting you licenced. If you have ever moved from one state to another, you know the total nightmare process it is to move your licence and register your car. Every state has some crazy multi level state process for doing this. Oh no, it would be too obvious to get ALL that stuff done at the DMV, no its to the tax office, then to the department of transportation (not the dmv), then to the court house, then if you are unlucky enough to go to a state that will reject your previous state's driver's licence, you need to take their set of tests etc etc. The processes is so old and confusing, and these people have had these jobs position for years, the above government standardization will make these people jobless and ruin their money shuffling games. The last state I came from still was using PAPER for these registration processes, and it was MY responsibilty to check after a few months that my previous state had actually processed my move. I have had friends who made a similar move where the state they came from STILL had them registered in the previous state, their licence expired in that state and it was a big pain to get it all straightened out.
we're americans first, right? we're not north dakotans or georgians or texans first, right?
why do you think a state government is somehow immune form all of the problems you see inherent in a national government? especially as pertaining to individual rights: why in your mind is sacramento or montpelier somehow a better guardian of your individual rights than washington dc? i frnakly don't understand the faith in state's rights
i do however, understand this: some conservative backwater areas of this country resent washington dc enforcing progressive social policies on them. and so they speak in terms of state's rights, but the real conversation is about resisiting positive social change, and preserving backwardness in the hinterlands
no, i'd rather empower washington dc and undermine bismarck. bismarck will close down abortion clinics, washington dc will keep them open. that's the real story here: state's rights is the last vestige of the social conservative
personal liberties and freedoms are increased by putting power in the hands of washington dc, and decreased by putting power in the hands of
of course, social conservatives won't frame it this way. they speak of the rights of the state of maine, or the state of montana, with the vehemence of the fight for personal rights... right, got it, the "personal right" of social conservatives ot push their agenda which always seems to run counter to real personal liberties
it's a smokescreen. don't drink the koolaid folks: personal freedoms is increased by national power, and decreased by empowering the states, whose center so fpower are often rotten with social conservatives and their american taliban agenda
when they scream about the rights of the state of maine, remember: augusta is a worse protector of personal rights and freedoms and privacy than washington dc is
of course, the social conservatives will scream at this notion. it undermine's their "personal freedom" to talk away your and mine personal freedom
don't drink the koolaid: state's rights is the last vestige of conservative assholes
the whole discussion is loaded with demoagogues screaming about individual rights, arguing for a system that actually decreases individual rights
states rights != individual rights
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So just curious, what exactly is most people's concern about having a National ID card? It's not like your name isn't already in a dozen databases that are either owned by the national government (Social Security, IRS, Selective Service), available to corporate entities nation wide (Credit reports) or can be linked up between states (DMV, criminal records, etc). People can cry about Big Brother all they want, but the fact of the matter is, if the government wants your info, they can find it.
If a national ID card could be created that was truly impossible to counterfeit, that couldn't be used for identity theft, and that you could use for your driver's license, banking, passport, employment identification, and various other situations that require some other form of legal documentation (such as birth certificate, etc), I'd rather just have that than have to carry a dozen other things. The card could carry an electronic hash code that gets sent to a central database to retrieve data, so any really important data, such as SSN, wouldn't be stored directly on the card itself. For added security in some scenarios (like banking), biometric data of some sort could be stored in the central database as well. The central database could be cut off from any network to eliminate (or minimize) hacking and it could occasionally be connected to a shadow database with a down stream only connection. The shadow database would be the one actually accessed for data requests and it would be auto-updated multiple times a day, so even if it were hacked somehow it would be corrected automatically and any changes could be reported.
Maybe I say this because I work for a healthcare IT company, but I see one of the greatest uses of a national ID card to be for the establishment of national electronic medical records. If you show up in the ER, they could just swipe your card and pull up your entire past medical history within minutes. (Note: in the current world of EMRs it's virtually impossible to pull almost all data from one healthcare organiation to another, because various settings or lists of data objects will never match and most databases don't store literal strings for all data because the amount of storage required would be even more ridiculous than it already is. However, essential information such as historical problems, allergies, medications, etc can be shared readily, even if they aren't in a format that can be dumped into the local database.)
I'm glad to see that happening. The way this bill was passed in the first place was just despicable. A national ID database would be costly, time consuming and mostly ineffective.
l id_costs_an.html
Bruce Schneier has a great write up about this very subject:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/01/rea
This is based on a problem that some states started fighting at least 10 years ago. I has nothing to do with protecting your privacy, it's about money. This is just another "unfunded mandate" from Washington. Congresscritters pass a law requireing the states to do something but don't supply the funds to cover it. The states are supposed to come up with the money out of already tight budgets, sometimes when the legislature is not in session so there is no way to alter the budget until the next session. During the Clinton era many states passed their own bills stating that any law like this would be enforced only when Washington paid for it. In other words: Don't tell us how to waste our money, we are already very good at that and don't need your help!
If half the money taken in taxes was actually spent wisely, most people would quit complaining.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Well, look on the bright side. Neither the states nor the Feds are enforcing capital letters, and you for one must be very glad of that.
-----
So, they're not as good at: memorizing long strings of numbers, placing blocks to copy a pattern that they see in a picture, their vocabulary doesn't match what the test creator thinks an intelligent person should have, and find patterns in a string of symbols, numbers, picture, etc... as the rest of the country.
The IQ test was created to find deficiencies in children with the hopes of finding kids who are having problems in school and then help them to succeed in school. Then the US military got it and turned it into a measuring stick. An as a result, the US school systems started using it as a measuring stick also - which is completely moronic since IQ tests were not designed for that purpose. See this book.
No, I'm not from Kansas, but I agree with everything else said in the parent. I'm just a little touchy about the whole measuring stick bullshit...it's not just IQ, folks use income...never mind!
You are why this country is failing apart. In the 1940's and earlier it wasn't The United States of America. It was These United States of America. The loss of two little letters changed us from 50 states of different people united, to one Nation State who must follow the will of the Party in Control.
The Constitution clearly states that all rights not assigned to the federal government are rights of the States.
It is too bad you have never read and understood such an important document.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
According to a report from the National Conference of State Legislatures, it'll cost states 11 billion dollars to comply with the Real ID act. There was no money put aside in the bill for states to comply, just a mandate to do so. California is looking to spend between 500 and 700 million dollars alone.
I'm not saying that the fine people from the states that are holding back are less than honest - some of them probably feel that privacy is important. But when your state's already facing a budget deficit - as most are - yet another unfunded Federal mandate is going to get a less than warm reception.
George Bush is a champion of states' rights. His Republican Party stands for keeping Uncle Sam out of most private info, and out of your bedroom.
--
make install -not war
For what it's worth, the original slashdot discussion had a lot of people incorrectly assuming that Maine was giving up highway funding in order to reject the REAL ID Act.
The REAL ID Act doesn't affect funding at all, and promises no money to states in order to meet REAL ID Act requirements.
Maine's decision only means that Maine licenses after the deadline will not be REAL ID Act compliant and will not be accepted for identification by the Department of Homeland Security (which, for all practical purposes, means a slight change on how one travels by air.)
Having said that, the REAL ID Act also allows for mixed issuance systems--where a state would issue both Real ID Act compliant license documents, and non-compliant documents, with the requirement that the non-compliant documents indicate their non-compliance.
it conflates state's rights with individual's rights
listen carefully:
state versus nation != individual versus government
anyone reading your post above would get the distinct impression that when the state of maine fights washington dc, they are fighting for your individual rights
oh really?
seems to me that the state of maine is fighting for the rights of the state of maine
why in a million years should i trust that the government in augusta to be a better guarantor of my rights than washington dc?
all of the corruption, nefariousness and other evils that happens in washington dc somehow magically doesn't happen in augusta?
but i do know this: there is a bright hot spotlight pointed at washington dc. i think the bulb pointed at augusta is a lot dimmer. people studying washington dc for erosions in personal rights probably outnumber those doing the same in augusta by orders of magnitude, don't you think?
therefore, contrary to all of the demagoguery out there championing state's rights that somehow conflates that with individual rights, i am firmly of the opinion that my individual liberties are better preserved by undermining state's rights
state capitols, it seems to be, always seem to be rotten with more corruption and social conservative agendas (agendas always at odds with personal liberties and freedoms) than what goes on washington dc
what goes on in washington dc isn't nice, and often hurts personal rights and freedoms
but i have enough wits about me to realize that what goes on in montpelier or sacramento or bismarck is no better, and often a lot worse, and often a lot less scrutinzed
so i'm not buying your demagoguery
the rights of the state of maine != individual rights
to think that augusta will somehow champion your individual rights better than washington dc is pure propaganda
what augusta will do is serve some agenda that probably is more corrupt, less scrutinized and more hostile to individual rights than anything that goes down in smoke filled rooms in washington dc
the fight for state rights is a red herring, a shell game. its a front for social conservatives to, ironically, push agendas which damage personal liberties more than anything that could go down in washington dc
when you hear a social conservative whine about state's rightsd and the fight for your freedoms, don't drink the koolaid. your state capitol will strip you of your personal privacy and freedoms far faster and easier than washington dc ever could
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I disagree with the parent on one point. There is no fundamental reason that a given solution is bad simply because a state conceived or implemented it. None of our states are so resource-poor that they cannot take a problem, say standardized ID, and solve it. Now the *quality* of said solution may certainly (and rather likely) be crap, we are talking about government here. But what I am getting at is that the Feds will do no better. If you throw more money and more bureaucracy at a problem, does that guarantee a better solution? Hell no!
according to you, the legal technicalities matter more than the philosophical concepts
listen carefully, you missed it:
state versus nation != individual versus government
why in your mind is your state capitol a better guarrantor of your personal freedoms and privacy than washington dc?
how the heck does that work in your mind?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
is inferior to a poor national solution
the very concept of one national standardized id backed by one standard database cuts through so much bureaucracy. and that seems to be your problem: bureaucracy
therefore, i'll say it again: 50 different fractious differently implemented, differently standardized, but excellent, state models is inferior to one poor national model in efficiency
strictly on the basis of cutting through mounds of red tape
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
just like it is all about the money for augusta maine
so money is a moot point
the efficiency gains however are one sided in favor of washington dc
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There are two reasons I support state's rights:
... and approximately 1 million other people. My state congressman represents a few orders less. Having laws passed by a group whose majority doesn't come from within 1000 miles of my home does not give me a warm fuzzy. What does the Congresswoman from California know of the needs of Connecticuters?
- The likelihood of a public policy being agreeable to 300 million people is much less than it being agreeable to 3-30 million people. Additionally, there is a tendancy for the 'rich' states to be forced to subsidize the 'poor' states. Before you say it's the poor states' right to be subsidized, is it the right of say Kosovo to be subsidized by Lichtenstein? Coming together for a common defense and free trade doesn't mean coming together for the giving of ones resources to the other.
- Representative governments lose touch with their constituents as the number of constituents rises. My US congressman represents me
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
My problem is I can't get one.
Tennessee is "previewing" the system; I recently moved here, and tried to get a local drivers license.
However, I couldn't. They require a birth certificate as ID; all I have, have EVER had, is a certificate of live birth.
which, by the way, was adequate to get me into the miitary. and wasn't required to pay into social security. I'm a disabled vet, receive social security disability, have blonde hair & green eyes. if they insist I have a birth certificate to get my travel papers for the new reich, they can damn well pay for them.
Then we track all purchases via national ID numbers (we just got an alert that a licensed driver purchased 4 drinks in an hour, and the master control programs reports his GPS phone is moving outside the public transportation grid, better dispatch a pursuit car)...
Then we socialize medicine...
Then we use the info from the purchases to determine if you get healthcare (cigarettes and fast food, no doctor for you my friend)...
Then we see who are buying fast expensive new cars...
Then we investigate them cause they're obviously not paying enough in taxes or insurance...
Then we start tracking all gun and ammo purchases, cause anyone with a gun is obviously a terrorist...
The modern push for federal control in what is and should be states rights started in the modern day with the speed limit...at the time it seemed sensible, there was an energy crisis. Then helment laws, it only affected a small part of the population so what's the difference, next drinking age, it makes sense after all to protect the children. But the real starting point was in the mid-1800's and tarrifs on cash crops from the south...the northeastern states wanted the products but the overseas market was paying more. How to solve the dilemma? Get the House (populated by the densely concentrated north) to pass a tarrif that canceled out any profit.
Next we'll hear how cool it is to have an RFID implant that makes accessing your now national information so fast and easy...Not hard to do if you think about it...we require newborns basically to have a social security number now when they are YEARS from being on the tax roles...
Who said that because a freedome wasn't explicitly there in the document, it didn't have to exist.
Now, on to your point (what little of it there is)
a) The state controls only intra state business. If you leave the state, the state cannot stop you. Feds can.
b) The single point of failure with much greater rewars of a fed DB makes it less secure
c) The federal government is less accountable to the people, the state governors aren't
d) The US is a big place and one size fits all isn't the right answer. A state has better uniformity
e) Why is the feds telling the state what to do but not paying for it?
There are a few more, but this'll do for a start.
PS I'm not even in the US and I can see this...
what is that?
the region i'm in in the united states. my regional rights and interests are fought for in washignton dc
the region known as texas, or california... they are subsets of the region i'm in
i am an american first, a new yorker a distant second
when 9/11 happened, was it an attack on new yorkers? is illegal mexican immigration only a problem for texas? no and no. when 9/11 happened, texans were just as shocked and outraged at the attack on AMERICA. not new york. when illegal immigration is a concern in dallas, as a new yorker do i not care? no. it's a NATIONAL problem, not a regional one
to take your point to the absurd, then we should champion city rights over states rights?
if texas and california have regional interests above and beyond washington dc, why doesn't dallas and houston have rights that trump austin or why doesn't san fransisco and la have rights that trump sacramento?
now before you lecture me on the obvious, of COURSE the paving of a street in san diego is of more interest to san diegans than californians or americans. but that is a GENUINE geography specific problem
but what are we talking about here?
a NATIONAL problem
why is it superior to solve a NATIONAL problem on a state level?
it isn't!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The American people overwhelmingly support National ID cards.
Without Real ID Congress will never authorize replacing Passports with Driver's Licenses. In most some instances now and within the next year no-one will be able to enter the US without a passport, at at $80-$100 per person, this pretty much blocks low income folks from leaving the country even for Mexico/Canada/Cruise Ship visits.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
If a national ID card could be created that was truly impossible to counterfeit, that couldn't be used for identity theft, and that you could use for your driver's license, banking, passport, employment identification, and various other situations that require some other form of legal documentation (such as birth certificate, etc), I'd rather just have that than have to carry a dozen other things.
In a perfect world, yes. However in this world what will happen is that it will be counterfeitable (I think I made that word up), but everyone will believe it is not. So rather than do anything productive about identity theft, it will simply place the burden of proof on the victim.
"You have a government certified ID card which we are assured cannot be counterfeited, so your little claim about identity theft must be false, all those charges must have been by you, so pay up or go to jail."
That is the best case, the worst case is that something illegal is done in your name and you have no way of defending yourself, because a foolproof ID card was used. Believe me, the financial institutions would LOVE to be able to blame everyone else for identity theft and not have to eat the costs of it on their own. The government just wants people to think they are doing something productive about both identity theft and terrorism, but as usual this does absolutely nothing for either.
Finkployd
you genuinely cannot work on the level of concepts, you need details
so lets give you details to prove you wrong:
san diego wants to pave a road in san diego. is that of interest to washington dc? of course not. its not even of interest in sacramento. (its a city concern, not even a state concern, but that's another argument against your fracturing of the country: how far do you go?)
now what are we talking about here in this thread? a national problem, illegals and terrorists getting fake ids. they get a fake id in virginia, allowing them to board a plane in boston. it's a NATIONAL problem, not a LOCAL problem. get it?
so: i grant you that a LOCAL problem is better solved LOCALLY, you are right to illustrate that concept
now: do you grant me that a NATIONAL problem is better solved NATIONALLY?
in your mind is a NATIONAL problem solved better LOCALLY?
see if you can answer that question in the realm of concepts, without getting bogged down in tedious details: "it's not written down by a lawyer on a piece of paper, so it is not true!"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
(is also non-USA-ian, but wth...) ...is illegal immigration. The major sponsors of illegal immigration*, primarily from Mexico, want to make sure that anti-ID theft measures, border control measures, etc. remain lax.
*
Read:
Various business lobbies (More profits)
Ethnic lobbies (More voters = more power)
George W Bush (More voters + God told me to)
Most of the Democratic party (More voters)
however, from a security point of view, one national id obviously superior than all the different state models.
Whoa there! Obviously? Not at all. A national model is, using the security lingo, a much more brittle system than the 50 state model.
Let's compare a non-standardized 50 state model to a fully centralized national ID card model, issued by a federal agency:
a.) The fraud vectors increase with the quantity of employees involved. A national ID card system would introduce probably 30 to 50,000 employees all of whom would have varying levels of access to creating what is an extremely sensitive document. Compare that to even the worst case state--California--which probably has only 2000 employees with similar access. (This is a problem both of employees doing wrong, and employees who just don't know any better.) Either way, I suggest this fraud vector issue is not minor, and the relationship is not linear, but either logarithmic or exponential (much in the same way that the complexities of bureaucracies grow exponentially and not necessarily linearly.)
And for god sakes, the closest thing we have to a national ID document, the passport, has postal employees as the identification verification vector.
b.) Document counterfeiters have just one easy target. In an ideal system, the 50 state documents are sufficiently different from each other so that a counterfeiter who masters the creation of one document doesn't necessarily learn much to help him create another document. (To be fair, this isn't necessarily the case, because there are few companies involved in the US who make the documents. However, European docuements are different.) Having said that, counterfeiters do indeed communicate with each other and explore synergies and other sharing strategies. Whereas today, a California counterfeiter specializes in the California DL and a New York counterfeiter specializes in the New York DL, both will simply put their brains together on the national ID. If you can imagine all the counterfeiting talent (arguably worldwide) focusing themselves on the national ID, you'll understand why it really won't matter how amazing the document would be.
c.) A fraudulent/counterfeited document's value is correlated, obviously, with how useful it is and how trusted it is. A national ID card would be very useful and unjustifiably trusted--which would create a much higher incentive for fraud than the driver's licenses we have today. (Since it would include information about citizenship/status than a driver's license doesn't, you can essentially think of it as the worst combination of driver's license fraud with passport fraud.)
On that note, there is some weird correlation between how people trust the document and the level of government issuing it. (A document is more trusted issued by the federal government than issued by a state government. A state government document is more trusted than a document issued by a county government. Etc.)
None of that makes any sense really. A passport is far more likely to be bad than, say, a Kentucky driver's license, but time and time again, people will assume the opposite.
d.) Identity theft artists have one target. The reason why the SSN is the number we have to protect and not the driver's license number is being institutions were so happy to accept the national standardized number for their own purposes, but they just didn't know what to do with the DL number. (I have written before that I think the DL number will become a fraud vector in time anyway, but at least it took alot longer.)
It's possible that a national ID card would have much stricter laws regarding its use, and prohibit a lot of 3rd party uses as a way of dealing with privacy and security issues. (I think this will happen in time with driver's licenses anyway--states will simply become forced to define who may and may not use the driver's license for verifying identity. They were the idiots who thought that licenses needed photos, so they should de
i am an american. when i go to new orleans, or portland, i don't see oregonians or residents of louisiana, i see americans
when you leave your state to the state next door, have you entered a strange foreign land?
so what do you mean poor state versus rich state? does such tension even exist? or, even better: does it have a right to exist in your mind if you consider yourself an american? you want all of the rights of being an american but none of the responsibilities? is that how it works?
do you imagine yourself a texan/ kansan/ georgian before you imagine yourself an american?
silly me, i'm an american. i'm a new yorker, a far distant second, as a point of trivia, not of identity
how does it work in your mind?
it's all about identity politics
and frankly, i don't know how or why you would champion your identity to be tied more closely with your state than your nation. or anyone. such a person to me has invalidated their point by simply championing their state identity ove rtheir national identity. it's an intellectually dishonest and indefensible position on the issue we are talking about here
did 9/11 happen to americans? or new yorkers?
is illegal immigration only a problem for texas? or for the usa?
get real!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i am the reason for the usa falling apart... by championing its unity
boom goes my head
you win in the game of cognitive dissonance, but i don't think you realize you counteract your own point with your own words. you got nice bombast, but try parsing for some simple logic next time: championing unity is not encouraging fractiousness
try some intellectual rigor on the concepts you discuss next time
k thx
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Replacing 50 or more databases full of useful personal information with one database. Why introduce a single point of failure?
Best Slashdot Co
The CDL is a form of national drivers license for truckers that has been around for many years. It eliminated the widely varying state laws regulating commercial drivers, and also the tricks many used to get around violations on their records. By making it national, a trucker is not able to (for example) drop a FL license with 25 tickets on it to get a NY license with a clean driving record.
I realize that's not the reason for a national license under Real ID, but there are positives to linking driving records at least.
I recently moved from Florida to Pennsylvania and DL databases are already linked, having national database and national drivers license would actually be a really nice thing.
To get my car registered in PA I needed to get PA insurance. Figuring I'd do it all in one trip I got PA insurance, canceled my FL insurance and headed down to the DMV. Because my FL insurance was canceled, FL suspended my DL. Because FL suspended my license and PA checks that with their already connected DBs, they won't issue me a license.
FL won't reinstate my license without insurance or returning the plates and waiting a few weeks. I can't get PA to register the car and get plates from them without a PA license. My insurance company won't issue me FL insurance without a Florida address (i.e. I could do it, but it would be fraud).
Finally an email to the guy in charge of DMV Florida (who reports to Jeb Bush) got a response and someone who would work with us. Funny enough the exact same thing happened to the daughter of the woman who called us back.
This is the problem with having 50 distinct (but already connected) databases. It shouldn't be such a pain to move.
NATIONAL problem versus LOCAL problem, get it?
a local problem: paving a road
a national problem: border control
get it?
does it make sense for street grids in all cities and towns to be micromanaged from washington dc?
of course not!
so: does it make sense that an id issued in virginia was used to board a plane in boston on 9/11?
of course not!
ids, that are used across the country, is a problem best solved NATIONALLY
now if viriginia issued ids that were only valid in virginia, then you would be correct. but it's not a LOCAL problem, these ids, right?
do you get the concept? local problem versus national problem?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If Real ID's anything like as bad as RealPlayer, I don't blame them!
Cheers for your thoughts imikem.
I think we've got something analogous here in Europe, as the European Union becomes more significant and the final court for more laws, and more and more legislation is "harmonised" (I think this is the official term they use, for gently negotiating common ground and gradually bringing laws to the same place between countries). I could imagine in a few years time that an EU-wide driving licence might be proposed.
Probably this is not a perfect parallel though as the concept of 'European nationhood' is much more nebulous than 'United States nationhood'. I think people self -identify with their nation rather than the EU when talking to outsiders, whereas my impression is that folk from the USA will tend to tell people they are from the USA first, rather than that they are from Ohio, or New England, etc.
I'd be interested to hear from readers in other federalised countries as well - for example Germany - on how the interaction between local state and nation is worked out.
Why such paranoia? I mean I feel everybody's wish for freedom and anonymity, but come on?....
what is your answer to the dilemma? How do we better track individuals identities while preserving freedom? No one here has mentioned any type of solution, just a bunch whining about how it's not right. If you can think of a better way for some officer in Dallas to quickly know if this ID from Vermont is legit or not, then lets have at it...other wise your just whining and not helping.
Now I have my own reservations about a national ID card, the main one being that instead of having 50 types of ID's to be able to copy instead of just one, was a deterrent in itself. Now they only have to perfect one card...quite a bit easier. But I don't see a better method for that problem either.
national id, or state id: from a privacy point of view, what's the difference?
The difference is this: a state ID card is an administrative document. It helps verify identity in particular situations, but it is still an optional document. (It's really only tangentially related to driving--it's the driver's record that more important, not so much the license itself.)
And while the uses of the state ID card are more varied today, I maintain that it's easier to live without one than it would have been 10 or 15 years ago (when financial transactions were heavily dependent on an ID card.)
A national ID card is a document of citizenship. If other countries experiences are a guide, it does more than verify identity, it is your identity. Failure to carry makes you a non-person in the eyes of the state. An expired document means your citizenship is suspended. (To be fair, this can happen with state ID cards. Recent laws requiring ID to vote often require the ID to be valid, which I think is a bad precedence. After all, does your citizenship magically come to an end simply because your license is 30 days too old?)
A national ID can be thought of as a document of requesting the privilege to exist from the state, and in that way, changes dramatically the relationship between individuals and the state for the worst. So yes, I think "there will be more nefarious government activity with one big model" as you put it because the stakes are so very different.
Why don't you just forge one? There is no way to verify them. Birth certs are accepted at face value if they either appear to be an original or they appear to have all the proper stamps for a copy. It's yet another reason why this whole thing is insanely stupid.
Are you truly that stupid?
Oh, wait, this is Slashdot..the answer would be 'yes'.
Basically your argument is that we dare not leave decisions for things like this up to the States because the people in those states may not agree with you.
You either completely missed the point of my post or otherwise replied to the wrong one, because your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with the post it is replying to.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
got illegal virginia ids and used them to board planes in boston
50 different fractious models versus one model with more resources is obviously superior in terms of security, and has no more privacy concerns than the 50 different little models
in other words, you don't lose anything in terms of privacy, you only gain more security (of coruse someone will still get fake ids on the national level, but it will be HARDED to get them: no system is foolproof, but anything little like this where we lose nothing and only gain something helps)
you talk about an excuse to make a national id, with no gain in security. but you DO gain security, and you lose no more privacy
and what do you mean its an excuse? there's someone in washignton dc working hard to turn me into a slave? silly me, i thought they were just bureacrats. i see dumb dimwitted slow moving, but well intentioned bumblers. what do you see in washington dc?
tell me: do people in washington dc want a national id because it occurs to them its less bureacracy and its easier for law enforcement, or because they work for the illuminati/ satan/ want to take away our rights just because they're cartoon characters from a b-level hollywood movie?
the national id is not being pushed to turn you into a slave of satan. its being pushed to make law enforcements jod easier. really
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
a few dozen entirely independent nations agreed on a common drivers license, credit card sized and with uniform data format. So how about the 'United States of Europa' and the 'American Union'?
you allude to something being lost with a national id. what exactly, in concrete terms, do you lose? you've listed some nebulous conceptual losses, but you haven't actually put your finger on a real threat to you. just phantoms and ghosts
there are guys who stockpile guns and cans of tuna in the woods because they're preparing for the last final fight against the all nefarious fed, which i suppose is intent on putting microchips in our brain and turning us into zombies, or something
yes, this guy is very passionate, but truth be told: he's out of touch with reality
you're not as loony as he is, but your "concerns" begin to approach that
when you look at the bureaucrats in washington, do you see satan and the illuminati working hard in a smoke filled room to turn you into a slave?
i'll tell you what i see: well-meaning but bumbling bureaucrats. nothing more, nothing less. they don't do evil. they do stupidity. you see evil where there is just ineptitude
you see nefarious schemes and plot twists, and they all end at a cartoonish one dimensional character from a b-level holloywood movie out to take over the world
no, that's not reality. your concerns, frnakly, are illusionary
a national id is asimple small step meant to improve our security, at no further loss of privacy. that's the beginning, and the end of it. the entire story. really
and who, might ask, between us, me with my concerns for ineptitude but faith in basic good intent, and you and your utter lack of trust in the basic integrity and well meaning of your fellow man, is further out of touch with the reality of our situation?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
so ebay, amazon.com, google, etc.: they should all subdivide into separate companies for the sake of database integrity? what a red herring. there is no single point of failure. look into some rudimentary concepts if basic IT work
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
because last i checked, a well-informed citizenry in any country of free individuals is willing to question anything
it's about the concepts, not worshipping the constitution and its wording and legalistic details
are you some sort of constitutional fundamentalist? its not the bible you know
am i allowed to think about a problem and come up with a superior solution? or should i fall in blind obedience to what is written, and to come to a conclusion that in any way conflicts with the wording in a document makes me what, some sort of heretic?
no: the SPIRIT if the constitution is what i champion
what you seem to champion is blind acceptance and obedience
exactly the kind of person whose existence is antithetical to the great ideals the constitution represents
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"states are not subsets of the USA
the USA is a superset of states
the states came before the federation of the states, and
the federal government derives it's power by consent of the states"
yes, yes, yes
and?
is there a difference between a national and local problem in your mind?
i think it would be more correct to say that your points have no bearing whatsoever to the larger issue at hand in this thread
you've outlined a history of the united states. as if from the very beginning, nay, even before the states delcared their independence, there wasn't the recogntiion of the need for a national-level institutions. the army/ military/ navy for one: are you saying all of the states should have their own armies/ navies?
of course not, that's preposterous
and if you can graps that point, you can begin to grasp the idea of why some problems are best solved locally, and some are best solved nationally
and then focus on the concepts in this thread, and use your minsd to think critically
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
they are called passports.
further, can you tell me, would the standard to be applied (the new federal ID requirements that are the focus of the topic)
if they had been in effect at the time of the incident, would they have prevented it?
as in, will this unfunded national 'solution' solve any problem OTHER than keeping sheep citizens in their pens a little more firmly?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Constitutionally, your state can pretty much trample all over you and you have little recourse. At least with the federal government, as in this case, the states, on your behalf, can blow raspberries. The federal government really can't do much to you without the active participation of your state. So, people freak out whenever the feds do something they don't like, but they haven't the slightest clue what anyone in their state government is up to, which rather makes the states the more dangerous beasts, since your state is not just your protection from the federal government--it is also the colluding executor of its will.
I can work on the level of concepts. When was a concrete example given?
The concept that the nation of the US cannot represent the needs of all its' divergent peoples and situations is a concept.
You seem to have a problem with reading. Spit the dictionary out, the US already have Stephen Donaldson to show how many big words they know, no need for another.
Now, where is the reason for a national ID because it will stop illegals entering? How about securing your borders? How about not employing them. The illegals have to work in one state, they can't pop round and work in several states, so there isn't the need for a national standard. Just a securing of the borders.
Terrorists aren't a threat. Especially on a national level. The reason why 11/9 was such a shock to the American Psyche is that, though there had been MANY terrorist attacks on americans, they had ALL BEEN ABROAD. Not the loss of life. The fact that the loss was on the Mainland. Much like the shock for the Japanese was the attack on Tokyo: bombings happen "out there" not "here"!
So two examples don't work.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/
That's the "nice" case. The "not so nice" case is that you continue to complain until the bank finally gets fed up and reports you to the police for fraud. I've read a report of this happening at least once, but I can't find any evidence as search results get buried in instances of people being arrested for big organised crime card fraud.
a constitutional fundamentalist ;-)
;-P
do you understand your world is made of ideas and concepts, not legalistic details?
if someone came up to you and said "you can't do that, it says so in the bible" would you have anything to say to him about literal interpretations versus conceptualization?
so when does your inquisition start, oh high priest of the constitution?
i don't worship the piece of parchment, unlike yourself
i worship the ideas the piece of parchment represents
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
that your point isn't germane to the discussion
perhaps when you see that my response has nothing to do what you said, perhaps you should have seen a restatement on my part of the issue at hand. and that it was your comment that wasn't topical
topical: national versus local problems
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Coming to this discussion on Slashdot, that bastion of principle, free speech, and privacy, and finding the following banner ads:
All Driving Records ®
Find any Driving Record in 1 Min. Using The Database of Government!
Gov-Records.com
Driving Records Search
US & Canada Driving Records Search. 100% Free, Unlimited Searches.
www.Web-Detective.com
Do you think the government looks in the amazon database to check who you are?
And what about all those stories about trillions lost to identity theft from online losses?
When you lose cash, that's one problem the bank can sort out.
When you lose your liberty, you are complaining to the people that put you in there that their info is wrong.
as if they are the only problems int he world
now examine those problems outside of a vacuum, in the context of other larger problems those problems lie in tension with, and you have a more nuanced opinion than just "you are an enemy of liberty"
when in fact, it is in the name of liberty i am arguing
in other words, we are fighting for the same cause, but i seem to be taking more factors into account when forming my opinion
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
About living in Russia, you are correct, or at least you were correct. I lived there in 1997 [See Russian Plumbers. For a time, I lived in the apartment of friends while I rented out my own St. Petersburg apartment. The electric bill arrived and so--not wanting to mess up my Russian friends--I set out to pay it. That was not easy. When I finally found the place to pay it, the woman behind the counter was really surprised that I did. She dutifully took my money and I paid the bill.
When my Russian friends returned from the dacha, they were amused that I had bothered to pay the bill.
"Nobody pays the electric bill in Russia," they said.
Because there were no separate electric meters in the apartment building, there was no way for the government in Russia to know their individual electricity usage, let alone shut it off for anybody.Likewise, when I got paid from the Russian newspaper where I worked, I was told I would be making 146,000 rubles (about $42.00). When payday arrived, I was paid in cash exactly the amount I had been promised. No taxes whatsoever.
I don't know if it is still that way but in 1997 Russia was the wild west. So if you're looking to avoid government, Russia used to be the place to be. Just the mafia to worry about.
a navy, an airforce, and some marines even
why aren't you pissing in your pants out of fear?
no, the truth is, a national id card isn't some gateway to slavery
the turth is, some people like you are hysterical
there is no demon in washington dc, just bumbling bureaucrats
theres no evil, only stupidity
beleive it or not, the national id is meant to make you safer. that really is the beginning and ending of its intent. really
but some people i guess only feel safe when their world is explained to them in terms of cartoon characters and b-level hollywood plots involving megalomaniacs out to turn them into slaves of the illuminati
there's no threat to your privacy or freedoms from a national id
really
i know that simple truth doesn't sell many paranoid fantasies, but reality is like that, unfortunately: not as exciting a narrative as a hollywood movie can supply
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
How's life in France?
ebay, amazon.com, google, etc. to break up into smaller companies?
all of your arguments apply against them too
but they're not going to break up, and their data can remain solid
why?
well, because of just about a dozen simple concepts in fundamental IT work i can think of that i don't care to enumerate because you probably already know of them but have conveniently temporarily forgotten, that's why
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
people talk about unbridled fear as a reason people give up their liberty for the sake of security, that the terrorists have won because in their hysteria, people are willing to give everything up and become slaves of washington dc
but that just shows you where the real hysteria is: you talk like the people in dc are agents of the illuminati hard at work at recreating the nazi state or invooking satan to turn you into a slave forever
reality: washington dc is a bunch of bumbling well-menaing bureacrats
really
there's no evil there. plenty of stupidity,but no evil
but you go ahead and rail at me with your cartoonish b-level hollywood plots about nefarious schemes to turn us into a fascist state
right
because it's only hysteria and unfounded fear coming from the side that wants a national id, right? "terrorists are everywhere! oh my god!" hysteria
a national id: just an easier prudent step to manage what is already out of your privacy. a simple small easy step to help us all
but listen to guys like you, and its a gateway to hell, turning us all into slaves under goosestepping neofascists
right! no hysteria and illogical fear there!
oh noes! the federal government is going to put a mind control chip in my head!
pffft
paranoid schizophrenia, that's what your argument is
fear uncertainty denial
hysteria is the words you speak
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
is a story about maine versus the federal government
i am saying this should be about local versus national problems
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Why are we saddling the state driver's license with such a burden. Why don't we let it just be a driver's license and put the burden of "real identification" on something else (national card or whatever)?
First , it requires security clearances for DMV workers. It also closes off some of the easier fraudulent approaches. Previously, it was easy to present totally bogus "identification" like an electric bill and a fake SSN, which were almost never verified. Now you will have to at least present verifiable documents like a certified birth certificate, valid SSN in your own name, or a passport to be accepted. The DMV is required to verify those documents before they issue an ID. Here is a link (PDF) to a explanation put out by Oregon on the key requirements of the Real ID Act.
No system can ever be made completely secure. But it can be made more secure than it currently is. No computer system can ever be protected against all possible threats. Does that mean you shouldn't institute good security practices? As far as the corrupt officials go, you can never completely protect against an inside job, but you try to hire trustworthy people with background checks for sensitive positions.
I'll respond with an even bigger picture gambit: In a million years, we'll all be dead and what we do today will have had no effect on the universe.
So why work to create a National ID if the end result is still the end of the universe..?
Oh, good grief.
While I am troubled by the current measures being taken to track people (which will never meet the stated objectives of enhancing security, but which given the track record whenever such information is gathered *will* be used in unpredicted and probably dangerous ways), let's keep our conspiracy theories straight, shall we? (Knowing a little bit about history goes a long way when debunking 'talk-radio style' nonsense.)
Social Security had nothing to do with any deliberate intent to try to 'track citizens'. It really was intended to be a safety net -- not 'free money', an entirely disingenuous label -- but a reasonable pension for people who *worked* their entire lives, but who knew nothing about investments, in an era where investing was uncommon, and corporate pensions nearly non-existent (most people worked in small businesses that didn't have them).
It was implemented so that people might be able to afford to eat, and at least survive at a subsistence level when they finally reached the end of their working career, enacted by FDR in 1935, along with the first national unemployment compensation plan, federal support for state unemployment programs already in place, and 'Aid to Dependent Children' as part of his new deal legislation to address the significant social issues brought about by the Great Depression.
Having to keep track of individual's identities in order to deliver the appropriate benefits was a *byproduct*, not the original intent.
It was also originally paid in a single lump-sum. The practice of paying benefits on a monthly basis was implemented later, making it less likely that an elderly person could be swindled out of their savings in one go, while providing a more substantial financial base for interest. A side effect of this was that the program re-absorbed what was not paid out lump-sum, when the recipient died, so an offshoot of that was the addition of survivors benefits (which were not originally paid).
The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and a variety of court decisions give various powers to the federal government while others are reserved to the states or to the individual.
There is neither specification in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights for anything like the Real ID. States have any rights of that nature. There also is no precedent to give the Federal government anything like a Real ID authority.
So a constitutional amendment would be required to enact Real ID. That won't happen. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will throw out the federal government's attempts to enforce a Real ID and will affirm the various states' exclusive rights.
the states are furious because of a "right now" timetable, requirement of catching up existing drivers... and a hallmark of the bush administration, NO MONEY TO DO WHAT THEY DEMAND. same thing for pollution control, school requirements, aid for Katrina sufferers... under the bushers, it's all mandates and all unfunded.
if this is important enough to do, the feds need to pay for it.
otherwise, screw 'em. unfunded mandates are killing local governments and forcing property taxes into the stratosphere. if you don't believe it, call a county commissioner and ask how he sees "unfunded mandates." I guarantee you'll be on the phone for two hours unless you scream and hang up.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
That stupidity is enough reason. That's my argument. Every layer of bureaucratic bullshit you go through subjects you to more and more of this stupidity. Federal ID cards are going to be worse than state ID cards, and once companies and services start requiring them you'll be forced to undergo the anal cavity search they require for you to get one. Kind of like passports. Yet, somehow, the terrorists will still be able to make fake ones just fine, and no crime really prevented. Just another day at the office.
The ability does exist there for better checking. The idea that someone might make you scan a card that could be of 50 inconsistent types for travel between states is a little far-fetched. Federalize IDs, install RFs in them and suddenly this can happen whenever they need without even having to interrupt your progress, or have you notice.
They installed surveillance cameras in downtown Philadelphia to "catch criminals", people that live in NYC are caught on camera several times a day, networks get more centralized and privacy will eventually cease to exist. Whether or not people will eventually have access to this information isn't I guess the real concern, because that's more of a when then a will they or won't they thing. I guess that the real concern is when they do get this information, do you want them to have the rights to go with it? Do you want them to be legally allowed to snoop on your movements, and trust in their motives? That they are only doing it to protect against terrorism?
Every step taken to fight against the federalization of this country and the compilation of its databases into something that could be utilized to severely curtail our liberties is a good one, even if it only results in some delay of these actions.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
Insurance companies would love to get their hands on correlated national data. They could send your premiums through the roof and circumvent all of the State insurance boards.
You are the reason why it is so easy to start the system crumbling. I have been fucking around lately with local government and have found out one thing that no one seems to give a shit about: it is much easier to pass a law than to repeal one. Just by calling a non-profit group, or writing a local politician, you would be amazed what sort of shit one person can get started. Most politicians really don't care - for many of them it is about the bills. Some of them do, but there is always one right that you have that your politician thinks that you should not have.
The WILL pass, no doubt. If it does not, something else will that will be more draconian and eventually take away everyone's rights. With the coming national health care, we will all get ID cards anyways, and a whole new set of laws that go with them.
I have been looking into getting smoking banned in a few states. Completely banned - you can't smoke in your house, your car. To break the law will cause a huge fine and possible jail time if you have kids. I could care less about this issue (I like to smoke sometimes) but it is now an easy law to get passed now that parts of California are passing these laws themselves. Do a search on google for "smoking outlawed" and get a few of those people in touch with your local government. There are people who will work all day and night to remove your rights because they think they know better. A small group of focused people can trump the values of a large group of unfocused people any day. I don't want smoking banned, you might not want it banned, but someone does - and he or she will work all day and night till all cigarettes are gone.
Next on the agenda:
- Force fast food companies to limit the amount of food they sell. Also, do not allow any fast food establishment to be in walking distance from a school due to health concerns.
- Limit Walmart to a percentage of market share in any part of a city.
I am serious here. I bet that no one stops any of this.
I would say that we shouldn't restrict 16-18 year old drivers to one per car. Going out with your friends is a right of passage in our county. People consistently say that we don't have any 'culture', and we don't have the quaint 'rights of passage' that many other cultures have. I say that most of us just don't recognize our culture and rights of passage. If you want to reduce the damage that teen drivers do, don't stop them from driving, or dating (that's what a one teen per car does). How about licensing them sooner. Let them get a license at 14, but only for one of those Gem type cars. You know the road legal golf carts. They max out at ~35 mph, and are not allowed on the freeway. Not only will it get a majority of new drivers to spend 2 years driving slow instead of getting a muscle car for their first vehicle, but you can bet that a large percentage of them will not be trading in their slow small vehicle for a fast one on their 16th birthday. It would help in getting people to transition to more rational car choices.
As for drinking, don't reduce it to 14. Get rid of the drinking age all together. Remove the mystique of drinking all together. Don't tell your 13 year old that on their next birthday, they will be grown up enough to drink. Make it something that is not a prize at all. Of course getting rid of the drinking age would remove that right of passage. Maybe I could be convinced that there should be a drinking age. It would take some doing, but maybe.
What a wonderful utopia it would be to be able to sit in the tag agency knowing that it won't take 5 thousand hours to go through the line because the operators stopped working on machines from antiquity when they were forced to upgrade to modern hardware to meet the federal mandate.
While I agree that nobody ever went broke betting on the intelligence of the government. But, all it takes is ONE hotshot programmer and your theory is defunct. I just know that it's going to happen, one DB at a time.
There are always trade offs. I don't debate that. The question here is whether the benefits are greater than the costs, and I don't see that they are.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
If you "go to university" as upposed to "I go to UMaine Orono," I'd guess you're from some other country. How about you shut the hell up and stop pretending you know what you're talking about?
Maine's government sucks no more or less than any other state's. The problem with Maine isn't the government, it's the fact there's no money in trees anymore.
Go back to your trailer in Waterville or Wells or wherever the hell it is and unplug your GWI account. You're not getting any value out of it.
No, even better, and don't forget to "go to hospital" or "go to university" in Canada, or Britain or wherever the hell you come from, because I'm sure you spell it "colour," too.
Ahem.
Sorry. I, too, live in Maine.
why do people conflate state's rights with personal freedoms?
when maine or oregon fight for their state's rights they are fighting for... drum roll please... their state's rights
states rights != personal freedoms
i don't understand why people conflate these two concepts
state versus nation != individual versus government
montpelier or bismarck can oppress your rights just as easily, if not more so (they get less scrutiny) as washington dc can
i simply do not understand why people look at the fight for state's rights and see in that some great fight for their own freedoms. it's insane
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I agree it would be impossible to make a card that can't be counterfeited in some way, although the newer credit card style DLs are harder to fake than the old laminated ones, and I'm sure they could come up with something more complicated that than. I wouldn't expect these cards to actually be used as bank cards; I was referring more the fact that you're often asked for picture ID when cashing a check, and would likely need ID to get a loan. If the card only has the same information as a current DL with perhaps a couple of extra items printed on the card itself, a counterfeit could likely pass at just face value. But, if the card is then scanned and pulls data from the central database and the data on that database doesn't match what's on the card (or maybe the database has a picture that doesn't match the one on the card) then it can be identified as counterfeit.
I suppose I'm a bit strange when it comes to this issue - I also see no problem with having a national Fingerpint and DNA registry of all citizens taken at birth. Some view it as illegal search and seizure, but I see it as a crime preventative measure. I don't see a need to worry about the government framing you for crimes with that data, because they could already frame you for a crime easily enough if they wanted to. There are a lot of crimes where fingerprints or DNA are found but they cannot be solved because the matching data is not in any current database. We already fingerprint teachers and other professionals as a necessity for employment, so why not automatically fingerprint every potential nutjob out there.
The only possible concern is that a few too many people take DNA evidence as being infallible, while it has at times shown to have been comprimisd or contaminated.
I renewed my State DL a several months ago. I presented my expiring DL, and was given a signature card. I signed it once in the presence of a DMV worker (compared against my expiring DL), and assumed I was supposed to sign it a second time in the presence of the final DMV worker who would take my photo. I sat at a row of chairs for about 15min before I was called to get my photo taken and then my license issued. My photo was taken without EVER validating my signature again, or even asking for the signature card. I could have traded places with my hypothetical "illegal" friend. When my name was called, he could stand up, get his photo taken, and then walk away with a DL showing my info and his photo.
I couldn't believe it. Perhaps my expectations were too high that there might actually be some semblance of security when obtaining a state-licensed identification card.
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
Here's the thing.
There's 50 states. That's a whole lot of different processes and pieces of plastic for one simple thing: a driver's licence. If there were 10 states, it would be a bit more reasonable, but 50 is an enourmous clutter.
Even simply unifying the DESIGN would straighten out matters a whole bunch. It could still have the state's name and flag on it, and go through each state's cryptic process and rules, but no longer would a bouncer at a club (for example) have to memorise what 50 different licences look like in order to determine a fake and all pertinent info would be in the same format.
Is that completely unreasonable? You wouldn't have to centralise authority, it would just be a design standardisation.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti on.amendmentxvii.html
Senators used to be appointed by the state government, but the 17th changed all that, for the worse. Now in there more populism/mob-ocracy, and less states rights, local control, and freedom.
I think you're overlooking the power of SQL Server SOUNDEX!
Or risk a serious conflict with their state constitution. IANAL, but Article 7 of the Washington State constitution explicitly guarantees a right to privacy to all of their citizens. I believe that would include the state making a reasonable effort to protect its citizens personal information. (but of course IANAL, so what do I really know?)
Heck, it's a state where the police can't look in your car's trunk without your permission or a search warrant. The state should treat your personal information with equal respect.
Actually...NO.
The country was set up that you were basically a citizen of your state first, then an American...well, you're equally both really I guess, but, the US is a more 'loose' association of separate states with separate issues largely, hence the independence of each state. The common interestes are supposed to be addressed by the Federal Govt..which was set up purposely to be 'weaker'...
You can draw an analogy...Europeans live in many different small countries. They've created the EU to help address their common issues as a greater Europe.
The states in the US are analgous to the countries of Europe...see where I'm going here?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Is that completely unreasonable? You wouldn't have to centralise authority, it would just be a design standardisation.
Power attracts more power. So the central government claims the authority to standardize the design of IDs and mandate their use in certain situations (air travel, alcohol purchases). Can the feds then mandate that all of them contain a thumbprint? Hmm, suddenly we have mandatory thumb-printing for the entire US. If they can claim an arbitrary power from the states, a power granted to the states by the constitution, what other powers can they claim? Can they mandate retinal scans be encoded on the ID, and political party affiliation? Can they mandate health records and genetic code be added? Can they mandate your phone number be added? Can they then verify your location every time you use it and build a profile of where you go and who else is there?
All powers not granted the feds are given to the states because otherwise they gradually claim all power in one central authority, which will eventually be subverted. Even the power to mandate a format can be abused and lead to greater abuse. We must resist all consolidation of power because individually these powers may not mean much, but together they add up to a lot. The government enforcing only one maker for crayons is not a risk. The government enforcing who makes what for the entire economy almost guarantees a totalitarian regime within a decade. I don't know which powers will lead to that and neither do you. It makes sense to me to be very conservative about this.
If you want the states to have the same format for all ID cards why not get a couple of state legislatures together and form a standard? Then try to get other states to adopt it. This is a lot less risky than handing arbitrary powers to the feds, or worse yet not doing anything when they unconstitutionally claim those powers.
Then why don't the states each print their own currency? Why doesn't each state have its own Social Security card? Are the FCC and FAA overreaching their bounds by demanding broadcast and flight standards nationwide? What about the fact that cars have to be built to national standards? Why do all the states use the same power connector for wall outlets?
Hell, why are all the 50 states even IN a union if things like that are so bad? Why don't all of them go it alone on their own terms?
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
It happened over a DECADE ago when Commercial Drivers were restricted to using ONLY the license they are issued from their home state. It was made a federal felony for a commercial driver to possess more than one drivers license...the one issued that driver in their home state. Later, it became law that 'civilians' became covered under the same statute. [Don't believe me? Go to another state and try to get a second drivers license and see what happens.]
When was the last time you renewed your DL? Did you have to provide your STATE ISSUED birth cerificate (or documentation proving where you were born if you were born outside the USA), SS card, RECENT bill sent to your HOME address, etc. to "prove" who you are? If so, your state already has Real ID intact!!!!!
What insidious thing that the national ID act wants to evolve into is everyone having to have RFID chips implanted within their person for tracking purposes. THIS is the thing we REALLY need to worry about.
RFID chip manufacturing companies are already starting to try to entice ppl into volunartily allowing "long distance" RFIDs to be installed into cars so that when that car passes a billboard a 'personalized/vanity' "message/advertisement/warning/etc." can be flashed at the owner of said vehicle.
Then why don't the states each print their own currency?
They used to, but it lead to a lot of divisiveness, so the constitution was written to allow the federal government to print the money, and very nearly to create a federal banking system that probably would have lead to the government to collapse in 50 years.
Why doesn't each state have its own Social Security card?
I'm all in favor of making social security a state run institution. Its constitutionality is pretty arguable.
Are the FCC and FAA overreaching their bounds by demanding broadcast and flight standards nationwide?
Perhaps, but these are items that naturally cross state boundaries constantly. Abuses by the FAA and FCC are both numerous and threatening to our democracy. One performs searches of people without any probable cause that they may have committed a crime, while the other has been found censoring free speech numerous times. How many such abuses can our democracy survive before it is completely taken over by authoritarian special interests?
What about the fact that cars have to be built to national standards?
Actually you can build any kind of car you want and ignore standards.
Why do all the states use the same power connector for wall outlets?
Because the industry standardized for convenience, independent of the government.
Hell, why are all the 50 states even IN a union if things like that are so bad? Why don't all of them go it alone on their own terms?
There is strength in unity, but according to the constitution each state has the right to secede (although the south was illegally prevented from so doing). The point isn't that things are "so bad" it is that the risk to centralization of power is very, very real. By creating a divided centralized government and limiting their power to very specific items, and restricting them from acting in any other way we gain the lion's share of the benefits of a central government, while minimizing the risks to the freedom of the people such a government poses. Jefferson thought the system created could keep from becoming tyrannical for 20-40 years. It has been several hundred years now and we still haven't gone completely off the deep end. It is, however, almost inevitable that eventually the central government will become a tyranny and we are commanded to remain ever vigilant against that day and against the central government gathering too much power to itself. One of the central tenants of our government's creation was that the central government itself is the largest threat to freedom in the US. That has not changed, although people's awareness of it has.
To: Slashdot Readerz
From: "President" George W. Bush
Dear Slashdot Lamers:
You have no rights. I've just invaded Iran so there's no need
to be concerned about your civil rights anymore. You simply don't have ANY.
I hope this helps.
Patriotistically,
George W. Bush
JFC...
Are you a native of the U.S., or where you here for just a short time? Either way, you must've been brainwashed by the coastal jacka$$es that stereotype like no other group. They'll run with the flimsiest excuse if it will let them trash "flyover country." (Aside: Did you happen to see Montana and Wyoming in the list? They're RED now, but they both have long traditions of Libertarian-style thought.) Ever been to Chicago? I'll bet there's more BLUE there than there is in the entire Central Valley of California, darling of the "coastals." Egad...
Give us a break, eh? Bin Laden and similar creeps have real resources fueled by petrodollars behind them. Not vast sums most likely, but plenty to manage whatever form of real or false ID is needed for any given operation that doesn't involve thousands of people. Neither the DHS/INS STASI-lite operation nor the bizarre and ineffective financial controls that do not affect the real cash flows to fundamentalist islam are going to do anything other than incovenience Americans and legitimate visitors.
(BTW, How many people are going to want to visit a totalitarian state where incompetent federal police might throw you in jail for years with no legal recourse because they have confused you with a Bulgarian arms dealer or a Malaysian moslem extremist?)
Want proof? Think about this. The draconian measures that are supposed to protect the US from terrorists are largely the same measures that would be needed for a real and serious war on drugs. Have you heard any stories about the price of imported drugs (Cocaine, Heroin, etc) soaring due to scarcity? Anything about a massive switch to domestic drugs (e.g. methamphetamine). Do you really doubt that with the right contacts and a bunch of cash, you could get a metric ton of good quality Latim American or Canadian marijuana delivered to your garage a week from next Tuesday?
Make no mistake, these driver's license/passport etc measures are a foolish and inept attempt by incompetent leaders to accomplish the impossible -- to deter terrorism without actually infringing serously on personal freedoms. The net result will be to infringe on freedoms without impeding terrorists one bit.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
There are state-issued licenses to operate motor vehicles, but these are explicitly NOT identification cards for general use. No state requires its residents to hold a driver's license, and no ID is required to enter or exit or reside within the state.
A national ID is quite different in concept, in that it will explicitly be not only a citizen identification form (papers, please), but also a permit to travel--and that which is permitted can be limited. It's the polar opposite of freedom to move, which is one of the central tenets of American freedom.
If the government wants to coopt existing paperwork for such a purpose, why not use the passport or the Social Security card?? Passports are already needed for international travel, and Social Security cards are already issued to every single citizen at birth. If you're really a proponent of a national ID system, either one of these would be a much lighter lift to get there than state drivers licenses.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The feds will claim 'sure its optional, but we will hold the taxes you sent us hostage. Have a nice day'.
Its worked for other things too.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Serious GP is being a closed-minded jackass. Obvious drunk driving is terrible but taking somebodies licence away for the rest of their life a such a young age is totally absurd. I really hope he gets busted for jaywalking and made an example of.
The new requirements don't prove your id either, they just prove you have the paperwork. Its trivial to get a copy of a birth certificate and holding such a document doesn't prove its you. It only proves a person was born with that name. My original one is a bad print job on cheap paper with my foot prints but that's not even considered a proper birth certificate by anyone any more and they prefer the fancy one that came out of the color laser printer with a raised seal. All this will do is increase id fraud over time since now people can't get fake documents in their own name so they will have to pick someone else's.
Aw, how cute. The troll speaks.
Maine's government "sucks no more or less" than others? Really now! Let's see.
$41 million on leasing shitty Apple laptops for middle schoolers (why do middle schoolers need my tax money for laptops?). Baldacci cozying up to Venezuela for cheap heating oil. Jacking the tax on cigarettes by fifty percent (yeah, we really need $3 per pack in cigarette taxes). Selling $400 million of lottery revenues to an investor for $250 million because his goddamn retarded policies (and those of his mental-midget predecessor) have left the state way deep in the hole.
Yeah, Baldacci and his administration don't suck at all. They don't even get the benefit of bitching about an opposing party in the state government.
Waterville. Wells. Ahahaha. That's good. "Trailer" is even better. Self-hatred's a bitch, ain't it?
Face it, Democrat. Your boys in Augusta have screwed the pooch, and you're doing as much damage control as the goddamn Republicans in Washington. You lose.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
The card could carry an electronic hash code that gets sent to a central database to retrieve data, so any really important data, such as SSN, wouldn't be stored directly on the card itself. For added security in some scenarios (like banking), biometric data of some sort could be stored in the central database as well. The central database could be cut off from any network to eliminate (or minimize) hacking and it could occasionally be connected to a shadow database with a down stream only connection. The shadow database would be the one actually accessed for data requests and it would be auto-updated multiple times a day, so even if it were hacked somehow it would be corrected automatically and any changes could be reported.
You're expecting a lot of tech-savviness from the government that didn't even think of buying www.whitehouse.com and www.whitehouse.org until they'd already been bought and turned into a porn site and an anti-Bush site.
Not to mention the passports with unencrypted RFID chips.
http://earthtoerika.blogspot.com/
people don't fucking understand how us government works.
Whether of not you agree with either side, do the states stand a chance of this resistance actually flying constitutionally? It seems to me that the Supremecy Clause of the Constitution, combined with one of the enumerated powers of Congress makes this a slam dunk for the Feds. As to enumerated powers, you can make a much stronger case that ID cards are part of Interstate Commerce than growing cannabis plants for personal consuption is, and the Feds still control that with the full support of the Supreme Court.
Nice to see that George Walker Bush's Natizification of the United States of America is hitting a road block.
I hope hope the Joint Chiefs of Staff will see the signal flare and get on with the arrest and incarsenation of
the criminal George Walker Bush.
It will be interesting to watch the hanging of the criminal George Walker Bush on CNN.
Toodles!
Your best bet if you don't like this is to go off the grid. But we know what an exercise in futility that is unless you're willing to live in Montana ala Ted Kazinsky.
Actually more and more people are living off the grid, and it's getting easier and easier to build a home to live off the grid. Most of those doing so don't live in Montana either. Many live on either coast, CA to WA in the west and FL to ME in the east. A person can build a comfortable home off the grid in most places in the US, most parts of the US are either good for solar power or for wind power. For some it makes more sense to build an energy efficient home with solar or wind power than it is to have powerlines put in. And because those who put in these systems either won't have a power bill or will have one that is significantly reduced in cost, morgage lenders are offering higher morgages to those who do this than those that don't.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Perhaps an Amendment guaranteeing our heretofore unenumerated Right to Privacy?
Actually as early as the early 1800s the USSC has ruled there is a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights. It's right in there as part of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech. The reasoning used is that if a person did not have the right to anonymous political speech then they couldn't exercise free speech.
FalconShould there be a Law?
These will be required to purchase and use air plane tickets (and IIRC, bus and train tickets),...
ID is not required to fly, either a person provides ID or they must be willing to go through a more extensive search. So as long as they allow the search they don't need id. Of course this only applies to domestic flights.
when you use any government office, etc. And while this isn't part of the legislation (its only a matter of time), doubtless for most financial transactions such as new bank and credit card accounts, utilities, etc.
Yeap, I can see it coming when a national ID is required, even for bank transactions. Which is why I'm glad more and more states are saying no to the Real ID Act.
Now, you might say, "But thats not what this legislation is for, its to prevent fraud." The fact remains that privacy will be lost and we will face these consequences. Even if the current administration shows restraint with these powers (fat chance of that) others could in the future.
Thing to ask people who support this is if they would support it if it was their opponent who asked for and wanted the power. Say a supporter is a Republican would they still support it if Democrats were the ones who wanted it? Seems like it's good if thier side wants it but it's bad if the other side wants it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Am I the only one that finds the irony in states that issue ID's are resisting Federal ID's because they say ID's are an invasion of privacy?
I don't recall any state fighting this because it's an invasion of privacy, what I see as a reason to fight it is because nowhere in the USA Constitution does it give the federal government to power to require, or create, a national ID and this specifically violates the 10th Amendment, Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Also some states, like Maine, oppose it because it's another federal government mandate the states, not the feds, have to pay for. If the feds are going to require something them the feds are the ones that should pay for it! However because it DOES NOT have the power it should not have anything to do with a national ID.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Contrary to the report, NH was the first to refuse to cooperate with the act, and it did so last year.
After getting really pissed off about it, the next time someone asked my SS number (a membership at Sam's club), they refused to allow me to use a credit card (not theirs, just a plain old Visa or Mastercard), I had to use cash. I said "fine."
No Sam's I've been in accept any credit card with the exception of I believe it's the Discover card. I can't even use my visa debit card. If it weren't for the fact that the Sam's I go to had an atm from my bank I'd have to carry cash there. Unfortunately Costco is the same where I live.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Surely there's a connection between credit rating to poverty and poverty to crime?
Recently a study was done using GIS for an analysis of crime in New York. The area, buroughs, of NYC that had the highest rate of people in prison also had the lowest per capita income and got the lowest government assistance.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money"
Yeap, Alexis was amazed at how much control of government the cities and towns had and feared they'd loose it when he traavelled the USA. Sometimes I want to buy cases and cases of his "Democracy in America" to hand to people so they'd know what democracy means. Thomas Jefferson thought pretty much the same, that's why he suggested there should be a revolution every 20 years.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I don't particularly want to see what kind of a constitution would be written if we started over today.
If a new Constitution was written today for the USA I'm affraid it would end up like the failed EU Constitution, and be several hundred pages. That's not exactly a limited government. Anything over one or two pages is too much. Actually I'd like to see some amendments repealed. Starting with the Amendment XII - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804.
FalconShould there be a Law?
This law is more than likely saving several thousand kids per year, at the cost of what? Nobody under the age of 21 has any more "freedom" to drink alcohol than they have "freedom" to smoke crack or drive without a license. There are plenty of laws that restrict all sorts of things; just because you want to do those things doesn't make them inalienable rights, and there is no guarantee in any of our founding documents that says anything different.
You've got it backwards. There is nothing in the founding documents, especially in the USA Constitution, giving power to the feds to regulate alcohol. And since the Constitution is a limit on government what it says nothing about the feds have no power to do. The Constitution says what the federal government can do, everything else is left to the people or to the states.
But a 3 year increase to the drinking age has helped dramatically reduce alcohol-related traffic deaths while just forcing you to wait a little bit longer to drink legally.
As far as I'm concerned this is BS. What needs to be done is not to raise the drinking age but is to hold those responsible for what they do while drinking, or anything else that influences them. Growing up my mother occassionally gave me somethig to drink, usually beer but also screwdrivers and other mixed drinks, yet I have not turned into a drunk or caused an accident while intoxicated. Actually I hate getting drunk. When drinking alcohol as soon as I start getting a buzz, which hasn't happened in more than 10 ten years, I stop drinking alcohol.
Many years ago I spent tyme in Germany and while there I saw how parents could order an alcoholic drink to their children while eating out. I was kind of shocked to see this, my mother did the same for me though she had to hide it. Yet Germany doesn't have a higher rate of drunken driving than the US has, despite having a lower blood alcohol content for drunken driving and higher alcohol content in beer than the US has. They deal with it effectively, when napped and found guilty of drunken driving there's a good change you'll spend tyme in gaol. You loose your license for several years then to get a new one you have to pay a high fee.
FalconShould there be a Law?
So, people freak out whenever the feds do something they don't like, but they haven't the slightest clue what anyone in their state government is up to, which rather makes the states the more dangerous beasts, since your state is not just your protection from the federal government--it is also the colluding executor of its will.
Actually most politics is local not national. People have more control, and exercise it, at the local level than they have at the national level. Don't believe it? Check with you local city and county governments. A group of people can have a more effective say in these than they can at the state or national level. When Alexis de Tocqueville travelled the USA in the 1820s he was amazed to see just how well democracy worked at the local level and wrote the book Democracy in America describing what he saw.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I find it very interesting how the government convinced millions of very independent Americans to be tracked in the first place. Social Security, aka 'free' money.
Because of the Great Depression many people accepted Franklin Roosevelt's SS. Not all did though and took him to the USSC, however they lost becuase Roosevelt was able to pack the Supreme Court with SC Justices that supported him They ruled he could do it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Australia has driving licenses standardised across all of our states, and it seems to work just fine. Of course, the only personal information stored on them is your name, address, photo, DOB and whether or not you need to wear glasses to drive...after all, it is designed as a driving license not an ID card (although it is used and accepted as ID). I don't get why you would include a person's weight on a driving license - it seems pointless given that weight can change so easily.
I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.