Homeland Security Offers Details on Real ID

pr0nqu33n writes "C|Net is running an article on the DHS's requirements for the Real ID system. Thursday members of the Bush administration finally unveiled details of the anticipated national identification program. Millions of Americans will have until 2013 to register for the system, which will (some would argue) constitute a national ID. RFID trackers for the cards are under consideration, as is a cohesive nation-wide design for the card. States must submit a proposal for how they'll adopt the system by early October of this year. If they don't, come May of next year their residents will see their licenses unable to gain them access to federal buildings and airplanes. The full regulations for the system are available online in PDF format. Likewise, the DHS has a Questions and Answers style FAQ available to explain the program to the curious."

Comments

Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

"Where are your papers?"

Land of the free^wregistered, home of the brave^wslave.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[KDR_11k]

How does having the government know that you exist enslave you?

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[JackMeyhoff]

What do you think you need when you drive your car? papers (Driving License) What do you think you need when you fly on a plane? papers (Photo ID / Pasport) What do you think you need when you board that bus? Papers (Ticket) What do you think you need when you board that train? Papers (Ticket) You carry your "papers" with you every day in one form or another.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[cheater512]

Do explain the following:

a) Why cant they do that right now?
b) How does a national ID help them track you?

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

You carry your "papers" with you every day in one form or another.

Yes. And this is a step beyond those, sometimes several steps beyond. Are you OK with that? Are you OK with the fact that the government decides where and when you can go, if you drive, if someone else drives? It used to be that a transportation ticket for any destination within the USA had the following information: Where you got on (sometimes), and where you're supposed to get off. In the case of the NY subway, an ID-less token got you on, and you got off when and where you pleased. You could ride all day. And I often did. I'm old enough I've had plane and train tickets w/o personal identity information; got on in NYC, getting off in Washington. Nothing else. Could have handed it to my girlfriend, it would have been perfectly valid. Didn't used to be the government's business where you were, who you were, or where you were going except in the case where your skills were a safety issue, or in other words, when you drive. In that case, the state has a compelling interest in your competence, and that is what a driver's license is supposed to attest to, not what your real name is or anything else - just that you can drive; the fact that it identifies you is peripheral to its purpose, not the other way around. These days, that's no longer true, but I submit that it is not a good thing at all.

In short, I agree, you're right in the technical sense, they are asking for more and more papers. I firmly believe that's 100% the wrong way to go, and that whatever good you might get out of it, it'll never make up for the enormous bad that it brings. I am not a criminal; I absolutely resent being treated like one. If someone is determined to be a criminal, hang a fucking GPS/RFID/venomous bracelet 'round their ankle if you must let them wander in public, otherwise incarcerate them or exterminate them, but do not bring the presumption of guilt onto the head of every warm body in the country.

I hate this whole "mommy" government thing, top to bottom. We don't need it, there are better ways to go, and getting it is going to hurt us a lot, count on it.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

How's the government going to track me with a fucking piece of paper in my pocket

I fully expect the answer to that to be RFID or something more advanced.

Do you think stores will all of a sudden expect you to show photo ID when you buy toothpaste

Yes, I do.

and immediately report to the police that they've seen you?

No, the database and the systems that monitor the database will do that. No need for the store to do anything but collect your ID automatically.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

a) Why cant they do that right now?

Because there is no system in place that can track everyone; it would take millions of cameras on the road to even come close, and they'd still only be close, because you can always walk. Once RealID is fully implemented, every time you pass an RFID station, which means, every time you buy something or interact with a bank or use public transit or anywhere else they're interested in what you do, they'll get an automatic - no work required - database update that tells them right where you are. You won't have to show your papers, you won't have to be asked any question, you won't need to have a powered up cellphone or "show your papers", they'll be read automatically and with zero fanfare.

b) How does a national ID help them track you

RFID, pal. Read up on it. And it's early days yet; don't think that technology is anywhere near its potential; it isn't.

Biometrics are required already; if you don't match the card, you're arrest-able. If you use someone else's card, you're arrest-able. They'll know where you are 100% of the time. Do you want that? Are you comfortable with that? You want to see what it feels like to be on a no-fly or no-drive or no-bus list? Really?

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[cheater512]

Your afraid of them from tracking everyone?

IMHO the government doesnt give a shit about you. :P

With so much data it can only be useful as statistics.
Personally I am fine with stats.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[westlake]

"Where are your papers?"
Land of the free^wregistered, home of the brave^wslave

when and where did you ever have the right to cross an international border, board a plane, enter a school or a courthouse without producing ID at some point along the way?

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[gregmark]

when and where did you ever have the right to cross an international border, board a plane, enter a school or a courthouse without producing ID at some point along the way?

• International Border: It's been a while. 100 years ago?
• Board a plane: Probably 50 years ago, give or take. Total guess. I do know that air travel in the 1960s was more like riding a bus than the situation we have today.
• Enter a school: Ah! I know the answer to this one. How about when I was in high school in 1992.
• Courthouse: Another one I know! The last time I went, Annapolis, MD, probably.. in 2005.

Now let me ask *you* some questions. When was the last time your ID was requested/scanned going through a toll booth? When was the last time you needed an ID to buy a tank of gas? When was the last time you needed an ID to get on a city bus or enter a subway system? When was the last time the government got your name confused with a suspected terrorist of the same name and used a radio frequency to hunt you down and drag you off to an undisclosed location for interrogation?

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[Qzukk]

IMHO the government doesnt give a shit about you. :P


However if the effort and expenditure required for the government to give a shit about me declines to near zero, then why not?

As other posters have pointed out, the government is welcome to change the law at any time, maybe wearing a yellow shirt will be made illegal (to stop gang violence, of course), and the first thing they'll do is round up everyone who had ever been observed wearing a yellow shirt.

One might claim that that would be applying the law retroactively, however that never stopped the government in the past, nor has it in the present, as indicated by the arrest of the Neteller execs who founded the money transfer company before such was made illegal, and by the time the law was passed, were no longer employees or executives of the company.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

With so much data it can only be useful as statistics.

You're quite wrong; there is no technical problem with managing this information, or with keeping it updated. Just a matter of enough hardware, and we're not talking unreasonable amounts; there are only 300 million citizens plus visitors, call it half a gig of data-points. For location, all they need is latitude and longitude, and that can be abstracted against a map when they decide to. So two 32-bit numbers (8 bytes), and they know where you to a precision of 4 thousand million in a space about 3000 miles wide and less than that high and way less than that deep if you add altitude. In other words, they would know exactly. This would take about 4 gigs of memory to track. That's in a perfectly efficient design. Call it six gigs if you want altitude information when available.

So let's say a machine with 16 gigs of ram (which you could actually buy from apple, for instance, I mean, this is strictly off the shelf stuff in terms of requirements) and enough horsepower to update the whole dataset pretty quickly. A modern CPU is limited in access to memory to about 800 million updates a second by the bus speed without getting all freaky, so it is reasonable that a DMA device could update everyone's position twice a second if the ram didn't have to do anything else. If we back off to once a second, we end up with half the RAM bandwidth available to do things like answer queries about citizens. That's the math; one Mac Pro could do this with the appropriate data feed and a DMA card any competent engineer could kick out in a few weeks. And with the other 12 or 10 gigs of ram and 1/2 the CPU bandwidth, we can draw a map, get a satellite image, and locate your sorry, over-confident butt in 0 time; one memory access and the abstraction from those floats into latitude and longitude, pop up a map, and there you are.

So much for too much data to handle, eh?

Given that they know where everyone has made last purchase, passed last tollbooth, paid last bill, bought last bag of Fritos, climbed onto an aircraft or other transport, made last cell phone call, your privacy is gone. Your ability to travel is 100% compromise-able at any time, based on decisions made by those same people who think the Internet is a "series of tubes" and that the constitution is "just a piece of paper" and that oral sex is wrong and that sex toys are wrong and free speech is outmoded and owning guns should be illegal. What you don't understand is that even if you trust the people in power to do *exactly* what you would have them do, in four years, it's a whole new ballgame, fella, and you may not like the new rules. But once this is in place, it's too late to opt out. You're playing. The feds never give back power they accumulate. Never.

IMHO the government doesnt give a shit about you.

I completely agree. And that, I'm afraid, is the problem. Not the solution.

Your afraid of them from tracking everyone?

Absolutely.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[dankrabach]

I am going to have to get out my Hunt for Red October DVD, edit out the scene between the Captain (Sean Connery) and the first officer:

FO: "You can travel, state to state?"

Captian: "State to state."

FO: "No papers?"

Captain: "No papers"

Deposit scene into the memory hole.

OOOOPPPPSS. Just broke DCMA........

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[lawpoop]

The government 'knowing' that you exist ( i.e. driver's license, birth certificate) does not enslave you. Having to present identification to travel or go to the store puts serious restrictions on your freedom.

The US constitution does not specifically mention Freedom of Movement (though the Supreme Court has ruled that it necessarily exists), it is in the UN declaration of human rights and the constitutions of other Western nations. Wikipedia says this:

"Freedom of movement, mobility rights or the right to travel is a human rights concept which is respected in the constitutions of numerous Western states. It asserts that a citizen of a state, in which that citizen is present, generally has the right to leave that state, travel wherever the citizen is welcome, and, with proper documentation, return to that state at any time; and also (of equal or greater importance) to travel to, reside in, and/or work in, any part of the state the citizen wishes without interference from the state."

Currently, I can travel from Ohio to California without having to prove my identity. If I choose to drive a car, various law enforcement officers might want to see that I am licensed to drive a vehicle, but if I walk, hitchhike, or ride a bike, I won't need to identify myself.

In Soviet Russia, if I wanted to travel to or live and work in another state or town, I would need an internal passport. Wikipedia says this under the Propiska article: " Under the Soviet rule, a valid propiska was required to apply for jobs, to get married, to receive medical treatment, and in many other situations. At the same time, it was almost impossible to get a local propiska in a major city without having a job (constituting a sort of Catch 22) or having relatives living in the city."

If we move to a system of internal passports here in the US, does that sound like we will have (a.) more freedom or (b.) less freedom than the current state of affairs?

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

It is sad when we can anticipate benchmarking the termination of our freedoms with a simple, and very recent, piece of pop culture, isn't it?

I don't raise rabbits, but I do live in Montana. Montana is one of the states that is resisting RealID. I'm rather proud of my fellow Montanans, in this case. I'm sorry they folded on the speed limit issue (very, very sorry - I own some moderately high performance vehicles) and I expect they'll cave when similar pressures are applied; we literally don't have the population to pay for interstates here, but at least for the moment, they're doing the right thing.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

You know what bothers me the most? Not that you asked the question, but that you asked it as if you really thought it was a reasonable one. I am not often actually stunned by ignorance, but in this case, I admit it. I am floored.

All those things were possible in my lifetime. All of them. I've been into Canada without ID; for Expo 67 (the world's fair), specifically, so that was 1967. I've been into and back out of Mexico without ID. I've been in and out of the Bahamas without ID. I've been on many aircraft without ID, both as passenger and as pilot. I've never had to show ID at a school, and I have been to many of them, and I also have three grown children, all of whom are college graduates, which adds quite a few more schools to the list. I've never had to show ID at a courthouse, and the last time I was in one was last Thursday.

And you are just as happy as a pig in shit with the idea of having to show ID in all those places. Amazing.

Simply. Fucking. Amazing.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

Well, uh, in an anonymous way, and cowardly as well, I appreciate that. I can't decide if your post was surreal, abstract or meant in fun. Huh. :)

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[Dun Malg]

when and where did you ever have the right to cross an international border, board a plane, enter a school or a courthouse without producing ID at some point along the way? Hate to turn this into a Constitutional law debate, but I think that's where the answer to your question lies. See, the premise behind the founding of the US was that we all have rights, and the exercise thereof is limited primarily only by those instances where they infringe upon the rights of others. The federal government's role in this is (supposed to be) limited to the narrow powers specifically enumerated in the constitution.

So basically, we've had those rights all along, and the feds claiming they have the power to infringe upon those rights is dubious at best.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[cheater512]

When I say too much data to handle I dont mean hardware constraints.

In cases where there is a specific target involved, e.g. a criminal then it becomes a valuable crime fighting aid.
Then a individual's data can be effectively used.

A computer can store all the data but for it to be meaningful to anyone it has to be distilled in to statistics.
The data is useless otherwise.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

I'm sorry to have to say this, but you are unable to understand the problem; that makes continued conversation meaningless. I wish you were right, and only criminals had to worry. But you're not right. You're just blind.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[innerweb]

Hmm. I think I am going to jump in here. My apologies up front for spelling, grammar and other syntactic issues, I am tired, it is late. If I get a chance, this might be a good topic to do a serious essay, but for now, a loosely grouped rambling of thoughts. But, don't hold you breath. 8-)

Anyone with some serious data mining background knows what you can do with large volumes of data. There are already corporate databases that dwarf what was just being discussed (I have worked on a few). Some of these databases are built on compliance requirements (think financial markets, insurance, medical...). Some of these databases are built on business requirements (think marketing, customer tracking, ...).

Now, think of all the mismatched junk mail you have received that has somehow selected you as a potential buyer of a product based on data in some databases(s) (not adult or dubious pharmaceuticals, but real products). The key is not to scrutinize every individual. The objective is to spot trends, relationships and other seemingly *tangential* data patterns. Once some *specified* criteria has been matched, then a deeper inspection into the data/individual(s) would occur, looking for other patterns, connections, locations, etc. This is how investigative research works - much like targeted marketing. This is also known as building a case - you build evidence of something.

All of this seems quite innocent until you stop to think about how your circle of friends puts you close to crime without your knowledge. The average person is guilty of very little though few are guilty of nothing. Most people do not know what laws/rules/standards they have violated. Many people wind up in violation of zoning, tax, traffic and safety laws without ever knowing. Think about this, do you have any friends or associates who have done something illegal? Odds are you do whether you know or not. You are now potentially linked to criminal activity. Remember many prosecutors win their cases on circumstantial evidence. No smoking gun per se, just information that demonstrates a *link* to the purported criminal activity. On its own, this is just a little thing.

Another problems with a tool like this is the power it focuses in the hands of those who can gain access to it. It is grossly unbalancing in the political and business world. Those who have access to this information now have the ability to much more easily discern what their competition is doing (unfair competitive advantage), find potential oversights (unfair competitive advantage), and discover potential legal issues that would otherwise never be worth paying attention to (the courtroom is as much a part of conducting business as is creating viable products).

You might want to believe that this can never happen with information held by the government. I think there is plenty of evidence out there that abuse of government held information happens on a regular basis. Just because it is illegal, does not mean people in the position of guarding it will not abuse it. It happens through theft (think of all the veterans information stolen recently), inappropriate use of government resources, and abuse of the legal system.

As an example, a very small database relatively speaking, credit reporting agencies. How accountable are they for the information they contain and for whom they hand the information out to? Not very. Yet, these databases have an immense impact on our lives. They are a major part of determining everything from the cost of living (loans for houses, cars, and much more ) to your employability (security clearance, trustworthiness). How often do they contain errors introduced by outside agencies? If my own records have errors or false information on them, I must spend my time tracking these down and proving that the information is incorrect. The companies involved will not do it for me. It is a process that eats up time, is very difficult to manage. Simply filling out a dispute will not

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[JackMeyhoff]

They already do decide where and when I go, if I drive and if somebody else drives. Its called traffic police, traffic control and so on. They also control us via the financial system, money, is a means of control. Nationality is a means of control, borders are for segregation and containment. Credit checks, forms of control.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[KDR_11k]

That's interesting because I live in a country where ID is mandatory and yet I rarely have to show it. Certainly not when buying stuff in a store (except for liquor if the salesperson has a bad day and that's hardly regular enough to allow any form of tracking). You're probably easier to track by your credit card than any ID card.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[sholden]

Except that everyone else uses the term "papers" to mean documents that identify who you are. When I catch the subway I buy a ticket from a machine with cash and the machine then sucks up the ticket when I enter - that's not "papers". Same with the bus.

Driving and traveling on planes is different, and I don't think that's necessarily a good thing. Driving makes perfect sense there are obvious safety issues and there has to be some way of stopping people from using someone else's certification of driving ability. A passenger on a plane I'm not so sure about...

For a very long time I had no ID documents. I had no drivers license and I had no passport. I had a medicare card (in Australia) but that had no information other than name and in fact sat in a box at home, I had a birth certificate too but that's not something anyone carries around with them. I traveled in buses and trains and on planes a couple of times with no issues.

Now that I'm in the US I have to carry my green card and show it on demand to various officials (it's never been demanded though). If I was a citizen I would expect to be allowed to walk to the corner shop without carrying ID though (and since a citizen can, I'm not sure how they can determine I have a green card in order to ask for it...).

My wife doesn't carry her papers with her everyday either. She is a US citizen and also has no drivers license - what papers do you think she carries?

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

That's interesting because I live in a country where ID is mandatory and yet I rarely have to show it

You're in danger of losing your geek card here. RFID means you don't have to show the card; it means that it can be read if you're within a few meters without you having to take it out of your wallet. Very... convenient. Old tech ID in another country has no relevance to the RealID program getting under way here; RealID mandates biometric identification details (retina scan, something along those lines) as well as photo and statistical data (height, age, etc.), and most importantly "undisclosed additional technologies." With RFID, if I am standing at a checkout or a toll booth, and you approach, everything on your RealID card will pop up on my display I need to verify you, including the biometric data, arrest history, and anything else they deem interesting (perhaps the prescriptions you take, or your tendency to stutter. Your location and activity can then (still automatically) be passed along to a larger network for use in tracking, privacy invasion, feedforward to entities like insurance providers, banks, various police agencies, and so forth. No one need lift a finger. You just buy your booze or copy of playboy (you filthy bastard!) and go on your way. Later, when they make a law against playboy, they'll just come and get your ass. They already have numerous "punish previous legal behavior with new law" programs running, as well as numerous "add to your sentence after conviction" programs, both the very definition of ex post facto law, which are forbidden by the constitution. Of course, they're not paying any attention to the constitution any longer; another reason to compound our worries.

In the US - traditionally - we have held that our privacy is something we hold dear. This program can erode privacy significantly; that's the general basis for resisting it. But there are others. I don't want my insurance agency to be deciding to change my insurance rates if they find that I am out in the woods from time to time (I collect rocks.) They may decide I am in the same group with hunters or dirt bikers and so pose a higher risk, when in fact, I don't. This is the kind of thing where information about you can be used against you; and like "no-fly" lists, once someone has made a decision that you are an undesirable, they are not generally going to turn around and reverse that decision without a lot of work on your part; work that would be unnecessary if they had simply kept their nose out of your business.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[KDR_11k]

Of course at that point they no longer need evidence to arrest you anyway.

Some of your concerns deal with "everyone" having access to that information, wouldn't it make more sense to try and get data protection laws in place to prevent "them" from sharing information with each other that could be used to track you? E.g. assuming "they" share data freely would mean that your insurance company could look up what you bought with your credit card and determine the quality of your nutrition that way. Most of those scenarios seem to have less to do with ID and more with collaboration and the willingness to track you.

I don't want my insurance agency to be deciding to change my insurance rates if they find that I am out in the woods from time to time (I collect rocks.)

Out of pure curiousity, how are they going to track that? In the woods there are no scanners, they'd need to place a GPS bug on you.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

Of course at that point they no longer need evidence to arrest you anyway.

Oh, no. You've not been paying attention to out little screw-ups. Allow me to enlighten you. Within the last year, legislation has been passed that allows them to pick you up and hold you incommunicado without warrant or evidence. We're already there. Complete suspension of habeas corpus at the sole discretion of the executive; no access to an attorney, communications, no public notice of incarceration, much less location of incarceration, no warrant, no charges, no hearing, no time limit, no nothing. The key to this little act of joy is the ability to hold someone indefinitely with no conditions based upon a nebulous, possibly entirely imaginary future - unspecified as to date or time - determination of status as an "alien combatant."

Not that there aren't other mechanisms being put into place; there are people who are sick who are being held without access to so much as a television; there are prisoners coming out of the clink who go straight to indefinite "civil" detention; there are people dragged off for holding up signs at presidential speeches. So there are lots of sub-rosa and sneaky little methods for them to pick you up and hold you. None of them are actually legitimate in the sense that they are constitutionally valid; but again, our government no longer pays any serious attention to that particular issue, unless it is to figure out how to rationalize away another area of it.

wouldn't it make more sense to try and get data protection laws in place to prevent "them" from sharing information with each other that could be used to track you?

Yes, and no. It'd make sense if we could trust them. But we can't. They've proven it over and over. There are laws in place to do various things; our government ignores them, and the constitutional prohibitions that underlie them. Example: The social security number was an account number. It was expressly forbidden and explicitly stated that it could not be used as a form of ID or citizen tracking. But that's exactly what they used it for. Further, the money into social security was to be invested for the benefit of the taxpayer. And? No... right into the general fund, and spent. Another example: The requirement to get a warrant to tap your communications. First, they came up with FISA; the nonsense there was "we'll tap, but it'll be ok if we ask for a warrent within 48 hours... and if hey say no, we'll just "forget" what we heard - tee hee!" Then that wasn't enough, and they began to tap without even bothering with FISA. These easily brought to mind examples demonstrate that the government does not respect the law; therefore: we cannot trust the government based on laws designed to constrain its actions. Anyone who is paying even a minimum amount of honest attention knows this. This leads to RealID: There is no reason to assume - none at all - that this information will be used in the manner they say it will; and there is no reason to assume that they have our best interests in mind.

E.g. assuming "they" share data freely would mean that your insurance company could look up what you bought with your credit card and determine the quality of your nutrition that way. Most of those scenarios seem to have less to do with ID and more with collaboration and the willingness to track you.

Yes, these problems are interrelated. However, one must precede the other; if you don't know what I'm buying, or when I'm buying it, then there is zero opportunity for even the temptation to use that information against me - you don't have that info in the first place. We know that information collections are misused. Insurance companies are now using poor credit ratings to bump up insurance rates. In other words, you fail to pay your credit card, and your car insurance rate rises. We know that correlation is not causation; unless you're

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[ckaminski]

This whole situation is scary when put against the fact that this is from the same administration that has REFUSED to disavow the use of torture.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[KDR_11k]

If it's really as bad as you say there's no point in protesting this ID stuff, get the hell out of there while you still can, ID or no ID.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[apparently]

Get this: Politicians have these things called Political Enemies. Do you not remember a certain Richard Nixon spying on his political enemies? You do not give the government power, because the government will abuse it.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

If it's really as bad as you say there's no point in protesting this ID stuff, get the hell out of there while you still can, ID or no ID.

While I appreciate your sentiment - the fact that you recognize how bad all this is - it is still my opinion that the US constitution remains the most advanced and most inherently correct description of how a government should be formed and maintained. I can see how it could be better, for instance the 13th amendment is completely wrong-headed, property ownership needs much better thought-out protection and there are other warts I could cite, but overall, the whole is still very good. Inasmuch as our government is supposed to obey it, we, as citizens, have every reason to hold the document up to the government and demand compliance; that's not true anywhere else (I can't reasonably tell the government and citizens of Spain, for instance, that the Spanish government owes any compliance to the US constitution.)

We've just had a little bit of a shakeup - just a little one - in the switch from Republican majority to Democratic majority. This is almost a distinction without a difference with regard to constitutional issues, but still, it is a change and this is a reasonable opportunity to speak up. The ballot box doesn't work; the jury box has been emasculated by the judiciary and doesn't work; the soap box is the one I'm on now... and the next box, perilously close to being used IMHO, is the ammo box. Is it worth it? I think it is.

If we could have stayed with what the constitution describes, we would have been the most advanced, respected, and imitated country in the world, and would be enjoying the benefits of such advancement at present. I truly believe that. Instead, we're reviled worldwide, and our internal systems are turned more against our own citizens than against the problems they face. We're now, IMHO, the poster child for how not to allow a government to get out of hand. "Regret" doesn't even begin to describe how I feel about that.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[KDR_11k]

To quote a certain man, "the constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper" because all good intentions are meaningless if people don't follow up on them. While I also doubt your claim about the US constitution being the best available I also think some mostly unchallenged parts of the US system are broken, e.g. the whole election system. Whether you believe in electoral fraud or not doesn't matter, that thing is so horrible that people pretty much vote for two parties when they like neither because unless 150 million people simultaneously decided to vote different no other party has a chance at getting a spot in the government and the guy who gets in power doesn't even have more than 50% of the voters behind him. Most other democratic countries have systems that allow for more representation of minor parties by e.g. giving power out roughly to percentages of the vote instead of a winner-takes-all system. It's a small wonder that the US even has two parties with a chance to win, if the balance wasn't so close you'd essentially have a single party like all those "people's" republics.

The lack of international regard for the US isn't caused by any unconstitutional activity, it's caused by bad foreign policies. Until you can get your constitution to say "don't mess with other countries' politics for short-term personal gain" the US won't become highly regarded again and any envy towards the US stems mostly from the fact that everyone wishes he had a military strong enough to conquer the world, too.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

While I also doubt your claim about the US constitution being the best available

Other than the above line, I don't really have any disagreement with anything you wrote there - we have huge numbers of problems, among which are those you mention (though many of them are, in fact, consequences of not following our constitution.)

As for the quoted section, I'm perfectly open minded, I think. What country, in your opinion, has a better constituting authority for its form of government? I don't even require that it be followed (after all, we don't follow ours) but I would be very interested to read such a document, or at least about it.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[KDR_11k]

For example the line "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness" is "Life, liberty and freedom from bodily harm" in the Declaration of Human Rights. The former would permit torture, the latter doesn't. Several of the amendments are way too abstract to be of much use, e.g. the first amendment only states "Congress shall make no law", it doesn't talk about other government authorities or other forms of censorship, the right to bear arms does not state what arms it's talking about, privacy isn't present to the same extend it's seen in the Declaration and overall the US Constitution was written at a different time and needs adjustment to the changed times. The election system IS anchored in the constitution. There's even several deadweight parts like the amendment that outlaws alcohol.

BTW, why does a person have to be 35 to become the POTUS?

Overall I'd say you should look through a few constitutions used throughout the EU, I can't say what's the best because everyone has a different metric (some prefer more freedom, some prefer more sensible restrictions, etc). Personally I prefer sensible restrictions over completely unrestricted freedoms because the latter will often interfere with preventing asssholes from behaving as such.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

As I already said, I do not assert that the constitution is perfect. What I said was that I thought it was the best out there. You said that you weren't ready to accept that or something along those lines, and I asked what you thought was better. Telling me to look at various other constitutions doesn't answer the question: What do you think is better? And why?

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[KDR_11k]

For one example I prefer the German constitution although I will not assert that there may not be better ones available.

It guarantees freedom of expression (which is a lot clearer than freedom of "speech" because the latter requires a judge to interpret what "speech" is) with the exception of promoting a war of aggression* (there is no good reason to start such a war).

It protects privacy strongly (I recall an incident where the US named a suspected terrorist and the German police couldn't search his home yet because search warrants aren't granted as easily) and the data protection helps reduce the abuse of personal data.

Due to using civil law over common law there's much less room for interpretation which means laws are used the way they are written, not the way judges have interpreted them in the past (the US constitution often has judges bending it because of interpretations, resulting in e.g. the restrictions on porn despite the freedom of speech). The inquisitorial system is better than the adversarial system in court, IMO, because the goal of the courts should be to find the truth and act upon it rather than be a game where it all depends upon the "players".

The election system has learned from two systems before it, the US system which resulted in too few candidates and the Weimarer system, which resulted in too much political chaos and finally the rise of Hitler. There are direct votes for each precinct (so individuals from a party can be elected without being on the party's seat list, Ströbele, for example, isn't on his party list but gets elected directly because of his personal agenda) but there's also a vote tally that assigns seats based on percentage. That means that while each precinct gets its representative there are usually also representatives that don't belong to any specific precinct and also parties that don't get any directly elected representatives but still have at least 5% of the "secondary" vote and get seats.

What's also quite useful to a member of the military is the inalienable honor of man (first paragraph of the constitution after the preamble) which means you cannot be forced into degrading punishments. While I expect Full Metal Jacket to be very exaggerated compared to what actually happens in the US Army, military training in Germany is almost nothing like FMJ. Your instructors aren't even allowed to insult you.

That also brings us to the negatives, the mandatory military service is stupid and the only reason it's even kept is because those who object can be used as a cheap workforce for social institutions (e.g. hospitals rely on that), with the new mandatory cheap labour for unemployed people there really shouldn't be any need for keeping the service, especially considering those who do go to the military aren't useful either since they can't be sent on foreign missions and all they do after basic training is hanging around, wasting time and getting drunk (in fact most anecdotes about the service revolve around the amount of alcohol everyone drank, some saying they didn't drink on the weekends because they'd like to be sober at least once a week).

The youth protection provisions could potentially be abused for censorship but then again that would require a very corrupt constitutional court to pull off and when you have a very corrupt constitutional court all is lost anyway. A problem with the indexing is that it's very unclear what constitutes advertising and stores aren't willing to risk anything so indexed media could be too hard to come by.

By the way, you didn't say what you like about the US constitution, I'd be interested in knowing what you consider the most important parts of that.

*=For some idiotic reason holocaust denial counts as such. I know that those deniers usually aren't nice people in other respects as well but I don't see how that's related to a war of aggression. Though it may just be related to the inalienable honor of man and denial would dishonor those who were killed in the holocaust or something. Not that I think holocaust denial counts as expression of an oppinion (oppinions that are claimed as fact shouldn't be protected, although fiction that isn't presented as fact should be and AFAIK is).

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

By the way, you didn't say what you like about the US constitution, I'd be interested in knowing what you consider the most important parts of that.

First, thanks for the info on the German constitution. Very interesting. I'll have to see if I can dig up an English-language version.

With regard to the US constitution, the first thing I should say (though I think I've already been pretty clear about this) is that I value what the constitution says - not how our sad, degenerate excuse for a government has "interpreted" it.

The obvious place to start for me is the bill of rights; amendments 1 through ten, and the 14th amendment which is used to apply those ten amendments to the states and, theoretically, keep them from doing anything that violates the ten as well as the federal government.

1; freedom of religion, press, and expression. This amendment is unequivocal; free speech is protected. No ifs, no ands, no buts, no "in a crowded theaters", no "at a funerals", no "at a political rally", no "libel", no nothing. Protected. Period. No exceptions. That is something I admire, and something I support wholeheartedly. The government has ignored the constitutional requirements and is operating illegitimately. That I do not admire.

2; Right to bear arms. This is in two phases; a justification, and a statement. The justification, it seems to me, is partial. The statement, however, is unequivocal, and offers up no exceptions. All US citizens have the right to bear arms. No limits on size, effectiveness, or who may bear. I support this but feel that it needs amending; I think when the arms are larger than you can use to defend property you own, they're too large (and you could bring in a technical quibble as well... you can't "bear" a JSOW, for instance.) But I think we should all be armed with at the very least, rifles and pistols, and I think that the amendment was prescient in the sense that right now, the government ought to have those weapons pointed right at its collective noses until they back down and obey the constituting authority, the constitution itself.

3; not a modern issue

4; search and seizure. Good idea; not strong enough, but a good idea. Needs amending to make stronger. Of course, the government has long ago abandoned it even as written.

5; trial and punishment, compensation for takings: hot spot for me. The compensation section needs a complete rewrite. I could go on about this for hours, but basically, the "market value" of a home or property is not sufficient unless you can show that the owner of the property set that price themselves. You can't value a centuries old family homestead by counting its square feet; you can't value where your children were born and raised by the view, and you can't value where you learned at your father's knee by the opinion of some suit from a land office. Trial and punishment is a decent system, not perfect, but unfortunately, like everything else, the government has abandoned it and now pursues a caricature.

6, 7 and 8; Just like 5. Good ideas, not being used, followed or otherwise respected.

9 and 10; these were such great ideas, I can hardly contain myself. Unfortunately, the feds do everything they can to destroy it. Examples: The commerce clause, designed to control commerce between the states, is being used to crush state autonomy on subjects like drugs. Speed limits are forced into uniformity by the feds by using mafia-like bribery tactics - either comply, or we'll cut funding to your state (thus threatening the entire state economy.) Etc. The feds are thugs, using thuglike approaches.

So what we have here is a document that I greatly admire, but which has been plowed under by criminal activities in the federal, and to a more limited extent, state governments. There are lots of other points I think are well thought out, I really don't have time to go into why things like forbidding ex post facto activities are important - or how deeply the government has violated those ideas. But suffice it to say, I think that for the time, the document is extraordinarily well thought out. If we were actually following it, I think we'd be a lot better off.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[KDR_11k]

There's an English translation of the "GG" here.

Some notes:
1. Do you define anything as speech that comes out of a mouth (or pen or key board or...)? A problem is that we assume that speech is used to communicate information and communicating false information can cause severe damage, both economic and physical, to other people. Acts like fraud usually involve promising things you don't fulfill. Does freedom of speech mean that there cannot be consequences for anything you say (this would include contracts if we interpret speech to mean media) or should it mean (as is probably intended) that the government cannot prevent you from criticising it and openly discussing issues they would rather sweep under the rug? No consequences means no accountability which in turn means that speech cannot be trusted. Since speech is often interpreted as referring to any communication the lack of accountability would mean we could no longer communicate with any form of insurance that people are saying the truth.

2. It says "bear arms" but the lack of any prescribed limits or statement that there are none leaves it open to the government to issue limitations as long as at least one form of weapon is permitted. I think this needs to be clarified to be unambiguous (e.g. "any personell weapon") or just handed down to "normal" law completely.

5. The issue with subjective values in assessing values is that you can't really put a price on them and it leaves too much leeway to whoever is in charge of assessing them with no way to review the decision.

Remember that Common Law dictates that the interpretation of a law by a judge is effectively a new law so you can never say "no interpreting" because your entire legal system is based on such interpretations.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

Thanks for the English pointer. I'll be after that.

1. Do you define anything as speech that comes out of a mouth (or pen or key board or...)? A problem is that we assume that speech is used to communicate information and communicating false information can cause severe damage, both economic and physical, to other people.

Yes. Speech, writings, radio, telephone, telegraph, videos - all human-to-human communications. At the time this amendment was penned, they had print/written and they had speech, and that was it. The 1st addressed print and speech; the generalization to all human communications is, to me, obvious and natural. With regard to your statement that "communicating false information can cause severe damage" I disagree. In all communications that are human to human, the only way damage can occur is if the receiving human takes action. If we are to have laws, they must be against actions taken, not communications made. I believe there is absolutely no reasonable, ethical case for stifling speech of any kind, under any circumstances. Actions are something else again. If I say you are a twit, nothing has happened but vibrating air. If you choose to act, you must be responsible for that act. If you act in such a way as to cause harm, then you should be liable for that harm. Speech never, ever causes harm, given only that it is not presented at such a level that the communication itself damages your sensory apparatus.

Acts like fraud usually involve promising things you don't fulfill.

Contracts require action; they fall under actions taken or not taken. Verbal contracts should not, in my opinion, be enforceable. For many reasons.

Does freedom of speech mean that there cannot be consequences for anything you say

That's exactly what it should mean.

No consequences means no accountability which in turn means that speech cannot be trusted.

Precisely - the fact is, speech cannot be trusted. The examples demonstrating this are literally endless.

Since speech is often interpreted as referring to any communication the lack of accountability would mean we could no longer communicate with any form of insurance that people are saying the truth.

The fact is, we can't do that now, and we never could do it. Whether we will be able to even come close to doing it in the future will depend on technologies that can reliably detect whether an individual believes what they are saying to be the truth; even so, that isn't the same as them actually telling the truth in many cases. Some people honestly believe in elves and faeries; if you asked them if that flash of light was a faery, they'd tell you the truth as they understand it: "Sure it was." Such technologies do not exist at this time, though there are hints in that direction.

5. The issue with subjective values in assessing values is that you can't really put a price on them and it leaves too much leeway to whoever is in charge of assessing them with no way to review the decision.

The actual issue is that the value of the land may legitimately be more than the government can afford or be willing to pay, and much higher than that which an appraiser might set. The entire premise of appraising land is based on the idea that the owner wishes to sell. When that precondition does not obtain, no appraiser can provide an accurate number for value, because it is the value to the owner that we are talking about. Not the value to a thief or thieves. Eminent domain is intellectually and financially dishonest from first principles. Coercion of non-criminal citizens is not a valid function of government.

Remember that Common Law dictates that the interpretation of a law by a judge is effectively a new law so

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[KDR_11k]

With regard to your statement that "communicating false information can cause severe damage" I disagree. In all communications that are human to human, the only way damage can occur is if the receiving human takes action. If we are to have laws, they must be against actions taken, not communications made.

An action resulting from false information is usually in good faith and with no knowledge of any error. E.g. a person is instructed to operate heavy machinery that can injure or kill people if operated improperly and a person with bad intent gives him an incorrect description of how to use the thing. Would you blame the operator of the machine for the damage or the person who misled him? The operator could not have referenced any other material since it isn't required to be correct as there are no consequences for false information.

Speech never, ever causes harm, given only that it is not presented at such a level that the communication itself damages your sensory apparatus.

Only if we assume all communication is devoid of any information and there is zero trust, noone knows anything they didn't verify themselves. In real life information changes our actions and intentionally feeding people wrong information to create a response should result in the speaker being liable for that response.

Contracts require action; they fall under actions taken or not taken. Verbal contracts should not, in my opinion, be enforceable. For many reasons.

A contract is just "speech" which two parties use to plan their actions. The act of agreeing to the contract is communication and if communication cannot have consequences the agreement to a contract cannot bind you to it (since you'd have the right to claim you're going to adhere to the contract, whether you intend to or not).

Precisely - the fact is, speech cannot be trusted. The examples demonstrating this are literally endless.

Naturally you cannot assume that someone who promises to handle your money properly if handed to him (e.g. a financial institution) can be trusted but that doesn't mean we should accept that natural law as a law for our society. For society to function we agreed to give up some of our rights to protect each other. One of the rights we decided to give up is the right to deceive each other because we agreed that society functions better if we can trust each other and punish those who abuse that.

The fact is, we can't do that now, and we never could do it.

Insurance means recourse in the case it doesn't happen, not that it will always happen. If someone lies to you in a way that causes damage to you (e.g. "the brakes work fine" when really the brakes fail once you go over 60mph) he is liable for that, thus creating a strong incentive to be truthful.

The actual issue is that the value of the land may legitimately be more than the government can afford or be willing to pay, and much higher than that which an appraiser might set. The entire premise of appraising land is based on the idea that the owner wishes to sell. When that precondition does not obtain, no appraiser can provide an accurate number for value, because it is the value to the owner that we are talking about. Not the value to a thief or thieves. Eminent domain is intellectually and financially dishonest from first principles. Coercion of non-criminal citizens is not a valid function of government.

I generally agree that eminent domain is something that's too easy to use and too hard to wield correctly. It's necessary to deal with some issues but generally shouldn't apply if the land it applies to is used productively already (and possibly with a maximum value for the land it's applied to). It makes sense to use if e.g. all farmers in a town refused to sell land to the town to build new houses on but it should not apply to replacing residential areas with a factory or something. If you want a factory there's plenty of open land on this planet, no need to flatten land that is actively use

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

An action resulting from false information is usually in good faith and with no knowledge of any error.

What this attitude does is excuses the action-taker from responsibility. If you are going to take action, you should be sure that you are doing the right thing. That means you are responsible for your actions. In business, this is called "due diligence", in other words, if a decision is to be made (an action taken) then the company has the responsibility to learn all about the consequences, justify the cause, etc. People are no better. If someone tells you A, then it is your responsibility to verify A before you act on it; it is certainly no one else's responsibility to bear the brunt of the effects of your actions. Every step the law, or society takes that exonerates people from the consequences of actions they chose to take is a step in the wrong direction. IMHO.

The operator could not have referenced any other material since it isn't required to be correct as there are no consequences for false information.

This is nonsense. The operator should not lift a finger until they are sure they know what they are doing. Because they are responsible for their actions. The action is the problem. Not the words.

A contract is just "speech" which two parties use to plan their actions

You can say anything you want in a contract; there is no restriction on free speech in such a document. That's all I argue for. Your argument that a signed, witnessed agreement isn't binding under law for free speech reasons is not of interest to me, though I will say I don't agree.

For society to function we agreed to give up some of our rights to protect each other. One of the rights we decided to give up is the right to deceive each other because we agreed that society functions better if we can trust each other and punish those who abuse that.

I made no such agreement; I signed no such agreement; I have been party to no such agreement. Just so we're 100% clear. This "we" you speak of does not include me. Nor does it include anyone else I know; I can't say I've ever met anyone who has mentioned being party to such an agreement, nor does my observation of society support the idea that such an agreement exists. People lie all the time. All the time. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous.

If someone lies to you in a way that causes damage to you (e.g. "the brakes work fine" when really the brakes fail once you go over 60mph) he is liable for that, thus creating a strong incentive to be truthful.

You are responsible for the magnified actions of yours taken by machines you operate. You should verify your machine works properly before you operate it. If you don't, you have no business operating it. It is just that simple. Personal responsibility. Certainly you should test your steering, brakes, tire inflation, know your lubrication status, and bearing wear before you drive. Why should you be excused from this? I can't think of a single reason. Blaming other people is the game of those who duck responsibility. Know what you're doing; know why you're doing it; know what the consequences are; understand the risks. Not the risks you'd prefer to take, but the actual risks.

What is written down, yes. Unfortunately the language is hardly unambiguous and judges are needed to interpret what it applies to and what not. In Common Law that interpretation then becomes law so if a judge says "porn isn't speech" that means porn isn't speech.

Let me give you an example: the 1st amendment, in full, emphasis mine:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or th

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[KDR_11k]

What this attitude does is excuses the action-taker from responsibility. If you are going to take action, you should be sure that you are doing the right thing. That means you are responsible for your actions. In business, this is called "due diligence", in other words, if a decision is to be made (an action taken) then the company has the responsibility to learn all about the consequences, justify the cause, etc. People are no better. If someone tells you A, then it is your responsibility to verify A before you act on it; it is certainly no one else's responsibility to bear the brunt of the effects of your actions. Every step the law, or society takes that exonerates people from the consequences of actions they chose to take is a step in the wrong direction. IMHO.

Well, how do you verify that other than taking the machine apart? Nothing written or spoken is trustworthy, you can't trust the manual or any other documentation you find.

This is nonsense. The operator should not lift a finger until they are sure they know what they are doing. Because they are responsible for their actions. The action is the problem. Not the words.

In that case he must never do anything because he can never know what he is doing.

You can say anything you want in a contract; there is no restriction on free speech in such a document. That's all I argue for. Your argument that a signed, witnessed agreement isn't binding under law for free speech reasons is not of interest to me, though I will say I don't agree.

Well, you said no exceptions. A signature is just a bit of text.

I made no such agreement; I signed no such agreement; I have been party to no such agreement. Just so we're 100% clear. This "we" you speak of does not include me. Nor does it include anyone else I know; I can't say I've ever met anyone who has mentioned being party to such an agreement, nor does my observation of society support the idea that such an agreement exists. People lie all the time. All the time. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous.

People lie and people get jailed for it. Some people wanted to impeach a president for not telling the truth on whether he got a blowjob and they could actually have done that. Common Law is based on what people did before the law was there and that sure as hell included punishing liars.

You are responsible for the magnified actions of yours taken by machines you operate. You should verify your machine works properly before you operate it. If you don't, you have no business operating it. It is just that simple. Personal responsibility. Certainly you should test your steering, brakes, tire inflation, know your lubrication status, and bearing wear before you drive. Why should you be excused from this? I can't think of a single reason. Blaming other people is the game of those who duck responsibility. Know what you're doing; know why you're doing it; know what the consequences are; understand the risks. Not the risks you'd prefer to take, but the actual risks.

There are WAY too many things in our life to comprehend them all down to the smallest piece without asking anyone or reading about it. There are many things that CANNOT be verified before acting. E.g. the police get a call that there's a hostage taker in a building. Should they send one bored officer over to walk in there and see if there's actually a hostage? That would just get the hostage killed. If they send the whole SWAT team they're having great expenses and the team is unavailable during its mission. Since you could no longer get people for prank calls (other than pulling them in a dark alley, alhough since testimonials would no longer be valid they could probably beat him up in broad daylight and noone could convict them) their ressources can and will often be used for false alarms while real criminals get away because no policemen are left to deal with them.

There are also things that cannot be questioned easily like orders from a superior. You have no idea what he's pla

I hope this falls flat

[El Cubano]

States must submit a proposal for how they'll adopt the system by early October of this year. If they don't, come May of next year their residents will see their licenses unable to gain them access to federal buildings and airplanes.

I hope that enough states refuse to participate that it makes the federal legistlature repeal the law. Of course, congress will likely do as they've always done and threaten to pull federal highway funding or education funding until the states in question comply.

Re:I hope this falls flat

[kimvette]

Which is what happened to the unlimited speed highways in the western us.

OK, the limit was "reasonable and prudent" in those states, which in the plains and the deserts means "unless it's raining go for the rev limiter"

*sigh*

Re:I hope this falls flat

[andreMA]

I'm interested in what happens if a person lives in a state that doesn't "comply" and a citizen of that state receives a suphoena to testify in a trial at a Federal courthouse. I suspect there will be a wiver system available only to witnesses that the govenment likes.

Re:I hope this falls flat

[bockelboy]

Sometimes I think states depend too heavily on the federal government loan shark.

For example, take Colorado. Their land-grant institution, CSU, is supposed to be the premier state-run school. However, only about 8% of the budget is provided for by the state. The rest of it is mostly provided by student loans (in turn, provided by the government) and federal government grants.

So, if Colorado ever wanted to exert a state right over a federal right, Congress can easily cut education funding for the state and watch the state universities collapse.

It's sad that states are so dependent on the teat of Uncle Sam. Of course, if they wanted to provide the services through the state, the resulting state tax increase (followed by no federal tax increase) would insure the whole government got voted out.

I wonder if the founding fathers would be saddened by how state governments basically only have the rights and duties the federal government doesn't care to control. Look how easily ID systems just went from state control to federal control - barely any fighting that Joe Q Public even noticed! What state right is next?

Re:I hope this falls flat

[fyngyrz]

Hmm. Revolution: Maybe states ought to make a law that all fuel/road/highway taxes stay in-state, and cannot be "fed" to the feds; then they can build their own highways. Of course, it wouldn't work here in Montana; too much land, not enough taxpayers. Same thing for edumactionisming; figure out the portion of the federal taxes that go to education, and take them before the fed does, and indemnify the taxpayer - by force against the feds if need be - from paying the fed, then handle your own education costs. Well populated states could make a hell of a splash that way. Someone definitely needs to stick a size 12 foot up the feds ass. They're totally out of hand, using bribery as a tool of coercion on their own sub-regions. Disgusting.

Re:I hope this falls flat

[GigsVT]

What state right is next?

Vote for Ron Paul in 2008 and it will be "none".

Re:I hope this falls flat

[Registered Coward v2]

States must submit a proposal for how they'll adopt the system by early October of this year. If they don't, come May of next year their residents will see their licenses unable to gain them access to federal buildings and airplanes.

I hope that enough states refuse to participate that it makes the federal legislature repeal the law. Of course, congress will likely do as they've always done and threaten to pull federal highway funding or education funding until the states in question comply.

Except, in this case, it'll be the same Congress' constituents raising an uproar - when Grandpa and Grandma miss their grandchild's birth; or the kids miss getting to a dying relative; vacations get ruined, etc they'll run as fast from DHS and work to limit the damage.

Re:I hope this falls flat

[Walt Dismal]

Well, the good side of this is that airports, Federal courthouses, and other Federal buildings, are no longer going to be cleaned by (mostly Mexican) illegals. The bad side is, all the Federal buildings in Los Angeles, and LAX, are going to stay dirty.

Re:I hope this falls flat

[ultranova]

by force against the feds if need be

At which point the federal government will respond with force and, having a larger army at its disposal, win. The same way it happened the last time.

The time when US was a loose federation are long past. With modern communication and transport methods, not to mention information technology, there are no empires so large they couldn't be centrally controlled effectively. Better forget fantasies about matching central government with force and instead trying to affect it from the inside, by trying to get people selected there who will losen the reins.

Re:I hope this falls flat

[fyngyrz]

No, that is entirely wrong. That wasn't the feds; that was one group of states against another. This would be the states - all of them - against the feds. Recall the citizens to the guard; the feds wouldn't even *have* an army. Trust me, a real revolt would work. The civil war was not a revolt; it was an almost equal polarizing of the states, which is something else entirely.

Re:I hope this falls flat

[Dun Malg]

At which point the federal government will respond with force and, having a larger army at its disposal, win. The same way it happened the last time. Yeah, not likely. There was a specific divide between the north and the south that made for a "perfect storm" of civil war. There is no such clearly delineated divide when it comes to federal overreach. If it ever gets to the point where the feds have to call out the Regular Army to put down a revolt, you can bet that the Regular Army will more likely than not be in against the feds. Thing is, the military is trained to fight foreigners, not shoot fellow civilians. Only the cops are instilled with that particular distasteful trait. The cops and feds are screwed if they try to fight the military, even if bolstered by MPs from the Nat'l Guard*. Personally, I don't see it escalating to that any time soon. Someday maybe.

* army cops, sadly, are very much like civilian cops--- instilled with an adversarial attitude towards their fellows.

Re:I hope this falls flat

[jbdigriz]

We don't speak of "states' rights" too much here in the South, anymore. That became a code word for segregationism, so it's too easy to be marginalized as a racist crank or an Uncle Tom if you invoke it.

The system of federal bribery and funding extortion is typically (though not exclusively) applied to evade responsibility and bypasses rights reserved to the *people* under the Constitution, explicitly or otherwise, in any case. As in the present example. This is the first time I've seen access to Federal jurisdictions threatened. Presumably some kind of exception will be made for Federal detainees. One hopes the same consideration will be extended to plaintiffs from non-complying states suing the govt in Federal court, because there will be some.

However, RealID amounts to a major jurisdictional as well as bureaucratic (and contractor) turf war, so we may yet see states's rights legitimized once again. The states haven't lost them, they just haven't mustered the backbone to exercise them enough in the past. Even the most pliant state legislatures can see the menace in RealID, though. It really amounts to turning ths States into mere provinces. They've allowed themselves to be treated that way for some time; now Congress is just deciding to go ahead and make it official, albeit using it's patented, behind-its-ass-to-get-to-its-elbow, indirect approach in order to duck accountablity, as usual.

Definitely one for the Supremes. And the voters.

Re:I hope this falls flat

[ckaminski]

Are you kidding? The United State of California will get its Amnesty Waivers from the Federales. :-)

Migrant workers my ass... cheap orange juice. pah!

Smoke and mirrors

[Wind_Walker]

Next time you're going through airport security and being forced to show your Photo ID and boarding pass, remember this:

All 19 of the 9/11 hijackers had valid photo ID and a valid boarding pass.

Re:Smoke and mirrors

[fyngyrz]

Troll? Fucking troll? For crying out loud, mods, fix this - that is anything but a troll comment! It is topical, relevant, true and thought provoking. /P.

Re:Smoke and mirrors

[penguinrenegade]

MOD PARENT UP.

This is absolutely true and D.C. is trying to get the rest of the people to become sheep and give up their rights. If no new information is being collected, no new requirements are being mandated, then exactly why is this necessary?

9-11 was cited as the reason for this in the FAQ (for those who RTFAQ) and it is complete and utter bull.

States that are trying to reject this (so far) include:
Maine (passed)
Georgia, Massachusetts, Montana, Washington, California, and Texas)

This is EXACTLY a national ID card, and we already have the right to board aircraft. The problem is that we LET D.C. regulate states! Mod parent up - this is "national security" at its worst.

Re:Smoke and mirrors

[mack knife]

You're missing the point. You're viewing this initiative out of the context of every other post-9/11 counterterror program, and then faulting it for not doing everything on its own.

The point is not that terrorists can't get access to legitimate ID documents--it's that if ID documents can be issued with greater confidence as to their integrity, it's easier to check people's names against watch lists. You can argue about the propriety of those lists, and the competence of the government in creating them, but ultimately even the very best, most complete, no-false-positives watch list won't be any good if fraudulent ID documents can be easily obtained or created.

Re:Smoke and mirrors

[ProgressD]

The District of Columbia (D.C.) has nothing to do with creating National ID, it is the Federal Government. There is a very big difference between the two. The Federal Government just happens to be located in Washington, DC, but D.C. is its own entity whose 500,000 or so citizens have no representation in the Senate and very little representation in the House.

Re:Smoke and mirrors

[Darlantan]

Holy cow. California is actually doing something right for a change. That's impressive.

I bet they fold first.

Re:Smoke and mirrors

[tbo]

All 19 of the 9/11 hijackers had valid photo ID and a valid boarding pass.

I know we all like to think the government is pure stupid with a touch of evil, or vice versa, but DHS has actually done better than you give them credit this time.

Many of the terrorists had IDs obtained either by bribing DMV officials or by using forged "primary" ID documents. If you read the proposed DHS rules, you'll see that they contain measures to require additional security checks for DMV employees, and measures to improve verification of primary ID documents and the data therein.

I read a good chunk of the DHS rules, and they've actually done a very good job, given what Congress told them to do. In fact, there were one or two spots where they flat-out told Congress to shove it (in bureaucrat-speak) because what Congress wanted wasn't possible or was ridiculous.

On its own, REAL ID won't catch terrorists, but, if paired with good intelligence and watch lists, could actually be effective. Whether it's worth the price (both monetary and otherwise) is another question.

Re:Smoke and mirrors

[Chazz Layne]

Interesting, considering California's ID was practically auto-accepted as already being "Real-ID Valid". As much as I love the Great Republic of California, I feel shame for the fight I know we will not be putting up... :(

Re:Profit

[FooMoeDee]

The taxpayer will never see the corporate profit of his tax dollar but the private citizen may Doesn't this indicate that the taxpayer is paying twice--once for the product and once for the privelege of investing in society? Isn't the tax dollar supposed to cover the cost of the privelege of investing in society?

The citizens are being double charged and receiving the least profitable levels of stock options. It makes perfect sense from a profit perspective.

Hmm...I could see this at the airport...

[StringBlade]

INDY: Fahrscheine meine Herr.
VOGEL: Weg.
INDY: Tickets please.
VOGEL: (in German) Was?

VOGEL glances up and recognizes INDY who quickly punches Vogel in the face, knocking him toward the window. In another quick move, Indy TOSSES HIM OUT THE WINDOW onto the tarmac below.

(Shocked Passengers blink in bewilderment.)

INDY: No ticket!

Your papers, please.

[rantingkitten]

What, exactly, is this supposed to do to "fight terror"? The only thing I'm terrified of is how easy it would be for an invasive, looming government with no regard for privacy and individual rights -- such as the one we have now -- to abuse this. "The terrorists" aren't getting ID cards. The law-abiding citizens are. And the citizens are the ones who will pay the consequences.

Parent is not trolling

[vivaoporto]

It is relevant. The government is trying to sell this ID idea using the good old and worn out excuse of "curbing terrorism", but indeed, all the "allegedly" 9/11 terrorists had valid IDs. Despite of the fact of National IDs working in a lot of places (Europe and Brasil, from the top of my head), it doesn't really fits in the U.S. concepts of freedom.

Re:Parent is not trolling

[mikael]

Look at recent history in the past 50 years, in particular World War II identity cards

During World War II the government kept a central register of everyone in Britain. Names, date of birth and address were listed in this national register. It held the information needed for issuing national identity cards and food and clothing ration books, and for identifying children eligible for evacuation and adults eligible for call-up into the armed forces.
...

The police, army and Home Guard checked identity cards for security reasons. It was believed that this helped in the detection of foreign spies and Nazi paratroopers. But there was never a case of an enemy spy being discovered for lack of an identity card.

How is that a "Troll"?

[khasim]

Read the "Questions and Answers" section.

What is REAL ID?

        REAL ID is a nationwide effort intended to prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the reliability and accuracy of identification documents that State governments issue.

So pointing out that the terrorists had authentic identification does contradict the premise of Real ID.

Do not confuse terrorism with identification. These cards will NOT carry the "may be a terrorist" stamp when they are issued.

Re:How is that a "Troll"?

[Trailwalker]

REAL ID is a nationwide effort intended to prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the reliability and accuracy of identification documents that State governments issue.

Government at all levels is well known for its magnificent record when it comes to reliability and accuracy.

Only Government approved terrorists and fraudsters will receive REAL ID.

Re:How is that a "Troll"?

[KDR_11k]

How does an ID reduce terrorism? Do they plan on putting an evil bit on these things that terrorists will have to set?

Re:How is that a "Troll"?

[Marillion]

In the wake of 9/11, the people at the DHS are under enormous pressure to do something about security.

What's been lost is the difference between doing something about it is and doing anything about it. Read ID is the later.

Re:How is that a "Troll"?

[David Greene]

You've all got it wrong. REAL ID isn't about terrorism, it's about immigration.

The law exists for one reason: some people want to see other people denied basic human rights and opportunity. While the law has scary slippery-slope scenarios, the real danger is what it will do the minute it goes into action: brand some people as lesser than others.

Re:How is that a "Troll"?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Do not confuse terrorism with identification. These cards will NOT carry the "may be a terrorist" stamp when they are issued.

No way? Could it be possible they won't be able to detect pedophiles either? And that nice man on TV said it'd make the world safe for children.

Re:Profit

[FuMoDi]

just go and make sure you have yours...After you have yours then you can freely debate Debate within compliance is just lip service, isn't it? We can debate until we're blue in the face but it won't make a bit of difference in terms of profit as the money has already been allocated and spent.

Write Your Representatives

[pyro_peter_911]

Downsize DC has an ongoing campaign to repeal the REAL ID Act. Go visit their site then send your Senators and Representative a message. It only takes a couple of minutes. Let your idiot representative know that you're watching and you'll hold them accountable for their actions. It doesn't take long. Just go do it.

Peter

Re:Profit

[hairpinblue]

Doesn't this indicate that the taxpayer is paying twice The taxpayers pay far more than that.

Re:Announced on a Thursday?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2007/01/25/AR2007012501951.html

Bush aides charged with speaking to the public and the media are kept out of the loop on some of the most important issues. And bad news is dumped before the weekend for the sole purpose of burying it.

With a candor that is frowned upon at the White House, Martin explained the use of late-Friday statements. "Fewer people pay attention to it late on Friday," she said. "Fewer people pay attention when it's reported on Saturday."

It's worse than that.

[khasim]

"The terrorists" aren't getting ID cards. The law-abiding citizens are. And the citizens are the ones who will pay the consequences.

Actually, most terrorists in the US have had authentic identification issued by the US government (or accepted by it).

The real terrorists will have no problem complying with this law.

Not only that, but it will be run by people. And people can be corrupted. A single ID card that is accepted as valid anywhere in the US becomes very valuable. So some low grade government paper pusher decides that he can make a bit of money on the side by approving fake requests. So the illegals in Texas are getting ID cards issued by a corrupt guy in New York.

Yeah, if you wanted to help crime NATIONWIDE, you really couldn't come up with a better plan than this.

There isn't even a valid debate here..

[mofomojo]

We should just boo them until they leave office.

Mod him up ?

[DrYak]

Who did mod him troll ?

I mean, it's true : those terrorist had valid non-counterfeit IDs, linking them to the identities they used in the states and with which they didn't have any problem. Serious terrorist are supposed to keep low profile until last moment and ID linking to central database will be no help having a centralized national database won't bring any new information. (Except if "Al Qaida" provides a database of all identity of their terrorist. But as Al Qaida is more a "franchise" used by small groups [and used by the media to scare people] rather than a real well organised corporation, that not possible even in theory...)

Politicians should stop pretending that the ID is some magical problem that'll definitely fix the terrorism problem for sure. Here in Europe, almost every country has ID, but *that* isn't what will stop some of them of being targeted by attacks.

An ID card is just a convenient and standardized way for quickly showing who you are, for all those moments where you need it (before entering in nightclubs. while buying alcohol, when going to the administration, to prove you are the owner when using credit card). And that is the only thing politician should ever pretend. All the rest are lies. An ID card will never show what people *intend to do* and will never ever stop terrorists.

Re:Mod him up ?

[YrWrstNtmr]

I mean, it's true : those terrorist had valid non-counterfeit IDs, linking them to the identities they used in the states and with which they didn't have any problem.

They also had multiple "valid" drivers licenses, and expired visas. On top of that, the initial visas some of them were issued were invalid, in that they were issued under the table, by a relative who worked in the issuing office.

Saying that their 'papers' were in order is flat out wrong.

Re:Mod him up ?

[Hognoxious]

On top of that, the initial visas some of them were issued were invalid, in that they were issued under the table, by a relative who worked in the issuing office.

Problem with any unified ID system is it has a single point of failure - it's especially vulnerable to an inside job. It does raise the question of why people issuing visas aren't properly checked out - political correctness, perhaps?

Privacy advocates trolls and flamebaiting?

[jforest1]

Is this /.? Since when do privacy advocates' comments get marked as flamebait and troll? And a "don't argue, just do as your told." post get modded up?

Re:Privacy advocates trolls and flamebaiting?

[beakerMeep]

it happens from time to time but slashdot has pretty good system to keep the mods honest (unlike digg or some other such nonsense sites). The karma system hands out mod points to those with good karma more often than those without, as well as the meta moderating which (i think) performfs a similar function. wrongs tend to get righted quickly, and overall it's probably one of the better systems anyone could come up with imho.

It makes us less secure

[Original Replica]

From the article:which means that businesses like bars and banks that require ID would be capable of scanning and recording customers' home addresses.

Because reading it off the front isn't good enough? Why would they need to scan my address unless they wanted to send me junk mail or make a database of my drinking habits? This is security theater at best.

Re:It makes us less secure

[buxton2k]

From the article:which means that businesses like bars and banks that require ID would be capable of scanning and recording customers' home addresses. Because reading it off the front isn't good enough? Why would they need to scan my address unless they wanted to send me junk mail or make a database of my drinking habits? This is security theater at best.

More than just security theater - potentially very lucrative security theater. The bar itself - or the convenience store where you buy cigarettes and junk food, or whatever - might not have goals much beyond sending you junk mail. But whoever is running the database can make plenty of extra cash through a variety of means. For example, insurance companies would love to have a database that can identify whether your purchases are "healthy" or "risky". They can get this easily enough by buying the databases from bars, stores, etc, once everything about you is tied to a single machine readable ID number. Ready to live the life of an ascetic, or go without anything but exorbitantly expensive insurance?

Re:It makes us less secure

[cdrguru]

The key is the address on the front is printed and can be faked easily. The encrypted bar code on the back is much, much harder. So you can fake the front and copy a seemingly valid bar code from some other license. Obviously, when the bar code and front of the license aren't the same you have fake.

Re:It makes us less secure

[RexRhino]

Reading it off the front would require a lot of time and effort... with the labor cost for data entry, it would be cost prohibitive. However, if the bar simply scans the card in a fraction of a second, it IS cost effective to sell the data to a database.

we already have sufficient ID

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't the federal government simply require its existing Federal ID for anyone who boards a plane? It's called a passport, and it's already (presumably) secure, or can easily be legislated as such. People who don't take airline flights needn't bother to get one, and no additional (read: expensive) requirements need to be imposed on the states. The fact that this isn't being considered (or even discussed) tends to corroborate the real purpose of the REAL ID Act: a complete database of everyone, forever. Your papers, please.

Re:we already have sufficient ID

[Phroggy]

Because then everyone would have passports, and then everyone could visit another country more easily, and we can't have that!

come next May IF your state says NO you are SOL

[Joe The Dragon]

If you need fly, use federal buildings, work at the airport, work at a federal building?

Re:come next May IF your state says NO you are SOL

[Darlantan]

Remember that Federal buildings are staffed by local citizens. If the local area doesn't like RealID, it won't be enforced there. Airlines are likely to be a different matter entirely, though.

Much better

[DogDude]

Join the Libertarian Party. That's the basic premise of the party, and since they're (a distant) #3 in terms of power, you can do much more good by joining them than "joining" some random blog that nobody has ever heard of.

Re:Much better

[pyro_peter_911]

I was a registered Libertarian when I lived in Arizona, but thanks to Oklahoma's most restrictive ballot access requirements in the nation I can't be registered as a Libertarian and there was one (count 'em. One) Independent candidate on my November 2006 ballot. Uggh.
So, I try to do both. I support the Libertarian Party and Downsize DC.
In many ways, Downsize DC has the potential to be more influential than the Libertarian Party in the near future. Downsize DC attempts to focus on "transpartisan" issues. We want to draw members from Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents. Virtually everyone agrees that the federal government is too big and too intrusive. Most people can agree that federal programs like REAL ID need to be repealed. It is an issue that crosses party lines. Downsize DC's flagship legislation is the "Read The Bills Act" is designed to remove the lack of accountability that our legislators abuse by passing volumes and volumes of laws that we are expected to know and follow but they don't even bother to read.
I think the Libertarians are a great group and would be a good match for many /. readers. I think Downsize DC is too.
Peter

Good luck with that

[localroger]

Back when the Feds were twisting everyone's arms to raise the drinking age to 21 Lousiana refused. We had a damn good reason; our state constitution forbids it, very directly saying that at 18 a person has "all the rights and privileges" of adulthood. (It's from the Napoleonic Code, and survived the big overhaul of 1974). So the lege started by floating a constitutional amendment, which fell flat with the voters. So then they passed the law anyway, and the state supreme court struck it down. So then, with weeks left on the deadline they passed the exact same law again and this time the state supreme court did a back flip and a twist and said that the constitution doesn't really say what it says and upheld the law. And that is how Louisiana became the very last state where an 18 year old can't buy a beer.

It will go down the same way with Real ID, just watch. It might be the Mormons or some blue state that stands up but they'll be told fine, pay for your own highways (though we'll still take your tax money) and good luck to any of your citizens who want to fly. And conversations will be had behind closed doors about the way things have to be and it will be done.

Re:Good luck with that

[Warshadow]

This is also why countries like Zimbabwe have better roads than Louisiana. It felt like I had a concussion for the 2.5 years I lived in Shreveport because of the wonderful roads.

Re:Good luck with that

[Original Replica]

(though we'll still take your tax money)

Look at your proportion of tax dollars paid to the feds vs your state. That's the same amount of control your state has over it's own "state" law. When a stae lowers it's income tax or property tax to attract residents, it loses some autonomy. Imagine what a diverse country we would live in if States had equal power and money to the Fed.

Re:Good luck with that

[flyingfsck]

The states can tell the Feds that they will collect all taxes themselves and then go slow on handing it over to the Feds - Two years later: Yeah, yeah, cool down, the cheque is in the mail...

That is what Alberta threatened to do a few years ago during a Federal spat and the Canadian government backtracked very quickly. Of course it helps that Alberta is just about the only province that actually pays anything.

Another Alberta trick is to threaten to replace the RCMP with a provincial police force, which will throw thousands of Mounties out of work. Any state with a semi-intelligent governor can do things like this to force the Fed's hand. The Washington burocrats only have as much power as the states allow them to have.

Re:Good luck with that

[MightyMartian]

Another Alberta trick is to threaten to replace the RCMP with a provincial police force, which will throw thousands of Mounties out of work. Any state with a semi-intelligent governor can do things like this to force the Fed's hand. The Washington burocrats only have as much power as the states allow them to have.

Uh, no. You might have heard of this little thing called the Civil War, wherein it was determined, after a few million casualties, that Washington has more power than the states would like it to have.

Re:Good luck with that

[k1e0x]

Same things happened with Montana, back in the 70's we voted in Vegas style gambling. The people voted for it, the law was passed, but it was never signed. And again with the Drinking age.. and again with the seatbelt and helmet laws.

Here is how a state gets out of this.. they tell the feds.. That sounds like a great idea.. take away our hi-way funds. We will sell some of our roads, and some of the land around them off to private people. Private people can open up shops or casinos or whatever, or use the land for advertising if they keep the road itself in good condition.

The people in the state win, the itself state wins, and the Fed looses.

Re:Good luck with that

[dnahelix1]

1. I don't need a driver's license to fly. I have a passport.
2. I don't need a ID to fly. You're not required to show a valid ID to get through security. You'll be inconvienced, but it's not a law to show it.

Re:Good luck with that

[Darlantan]

...yet.

In case you missed the recent fad, it's all the rage to blame terrorist for all our ills, then enact more restrictive laws. Just give it some time.

Re:Good luck with that

[dryeo]

I thought that you guys have a constitution? Can't the States get together and amend it? Yes, here we go, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_U nited_States_Constitution
Seems the States do have some power as long as 2/3 to 3/4 agree.

Re:Good luck with that

[cnystrom]

We may need to fight for state's rights.

Re:Good luck with that

[fyngyrz]

Seems the States do have some power as long as 2/3 to 3/4 agree.

That was only true as long as the federal government was obeying the constitution. Those times are gone. First they started "interpreting" the constitution (to say "creatively" is to understate the case most dramatically), then they proceeded to outright ignore it. Today, there is only one item remaining out of the bill of rights that has not been outright sundered, and that is amendment 3; they've not yet forced anyone to quarter soldiers. I presume this is because they already took enough of our money to build the soldiers their own quarters.

zero to lawsuit

[superwiz]

This smells like zero-to-lawsuit in less than .1 second. It would mean that residents of the states that don't adapt DHS' guidelines would be discriminated against in Fed Gov employment as well as interstate travel. First of these is probably unconstitutional and the second of these is definately unconstitutional.

Re:zero to lawsuit

[Short Circuit]

No, it's illegal for states to discriminate against residents of other states. It's not illegal for the federal government to give preferrential treatment. The constitution specifically grants the federal government the sole right to regulate interstate commerce, and air travel easily falls under that category.

As for federal employment? I've never heard of federal laws against residency-based employment restrictions.

Air travel?

[imunfair]

Shouldn't the states have control of the airports within them? If that were the case then you could fly to any other state that had rejected the Real ID as well.

I'd be curious to know exactly what law gives the federal government control over who can fly, instead of the airlines or the airport. If there is such a law, is it constitutional? Interstate commerce is the only federal juristiction I can think of that's close - but that doesn't apply to civilian passengers with nothing to sell...

Re:Air travel?

[bluemonq]

In this case the *airlines* are engaging in a form of interstate commerce. A little hard to get around that one.

Re:Air travel?

[cdrguru]

What law? How about being the insurer of last resort?

You see, if there is a "security failure" the airline does not have to solve the problem. The federal government almost certainly has to clean up the mess. The airlines have pretty much disclaimed responsibility and washed their hands of it. So, it clearly is the responsibility of the federal government.

The other alternative would be for the airlines to be responsible for security and any lapses. The airlines pretty much collapsed after 9/11 and most would be out of business today without the government supporting them. So, if United and American were made responsible for the damages and lawsuits stemming from 9/11 we wouldn't have those two companies around anymore. And, the government would have been tapped to take care of anyway.

I think the government ends up being responsible no matter what. I do not think classing most "security failures" in the realm of 9/11 is too far off the mark. We have had a bunch of attempts since then and so far TSA has pretty much failed utterly.

Re:Profit

[maxume]

Senators and Representatives spending time arguing fruitlessly may be expensive, but it has the excellent side effect of preventing them from doing other even more stupid and expensive things.

Why are you guys always against this?

[trimbo]

What's the problem with trying to create a more reliable identification system? Why is this considered an invasion of privacy? Is Slashdot full of id theiving outlaws or something?

Even if the government is selling this with the wrong focus ("9/11 terrorists oh noes!"), we still need a more reliable ID system than drivers licenses. Ever had your credit card number stolen, or your bank account drained simply because someone knows the last 4 of your SSN? That last four digits seems like it's the key to everything in your life these days.

It's obvious that Citibank, BofA, Visa, etc. aren't ever going to do anything to stop identity theft, maybe it's time the government starts doing something about it. If ReadID helps, it would be a big step forward on that front. I don't care if it has to be sold to the public using terrorism, because it's still an improvement over what we have today.

Re:Why are you guys always against this?

[coastwalker]

Not everyone has a driving license. Even a SSN is not the same as an id card. Everyone will have an id card - and you will carry it at all times and be expected to produce it before entering any building or using any transport - at least I will be voting for you to do these things as soon as I know that it can be done.

Just think! anybody caught without a card must be a terrorist or at least a criminal of some kind and we can put them straight into concentration camps! brilliant! Illegal immigrants and minor criminals off the street in less than a year! Don't know what your going to do with all these millions of non-citizens. Oh hang on I have an idea - you could issue them with second class cards marked with a yellow star or something, once you had found out exactly what sort of non-citizen they are.

Has anybody really thought through what you are going to do with all the people you catch who wont have a real id card? Its certainly going to be a great job creation scheme locking them all up and processing them. Maybe thats the great economic miracle of this century - everybody will be employed running the United States Prison.

I'm all for it mind you, and I want everything to be stored on video - and available for the police to review if they suspect you of a crime. We almost have the technology to do it, so why not do it. After all if you are happy having a metal tag in your ear whats wrong with your every moment being recorded on video. After all the police are only going to look at it if they suspect you of committing a crime.

By the way if you happen to be a rich criminal or terrorist who needs a fake id or your life video editing - then for a very large sum of money I can fix it for you.

If you happen to be Joe public with no money then you had better hope you never run a red light - because I'm selling a data mining program to the government that looks through every bodies life video & flags it up to the police. Its ok it doesn't tell them how many people you have slept with or even what sex they are - thats in the medical data mining program that will stamp out STD's - Permanently! Just think of the social good we can do with this technology, no more pedophiles or gun crime, no underage drinking, no drug taking - it will be fantastic!

I am not paranoid. I am looking forward to the technological means to create paradise on Earth. If you have any concerns about that paradise you had better start thinking about it now, because its coming in your life time and not mine. I am old enough to avoid it, but I'm betting that you arn't.

Re:Why are you guys always against this?

[bigstrat2003]

I don't care if it has to be sold to the public using terrorism, because it's still an improvement over what we have today. You don't care? WTF are you smoking? Your points were reasonable and clear up until that point. Do you realize what, in effect, you're saying? Let me translate:

"I don't care if our government lies to us about something to pass it, because it's better for us."

There's something horribly wrong if the government is lying to us to pass laws, because we don't think the law is beneficial, and they do. That's a phenomenon I'd rather not allow to happen, thank you very much.

Re:Why are you guys always against this?

[trimbo]

> "I don't care if our government lies to us about something to pass it, because it's better for us."

It doesn't work for me when people put words in my mouth. Invoking terrorism for the RealID debate is an overstatement, but not a lie. Now that we have much more effective watch lists, and I would really hope some of those guys on the 9/11 flights would have showed up on them in this day and age. If they would have, and the guys would have needed fake IDs, having better identification would actually help in fighting terrorism.

In any case, I'm surprised that you're surprised about the government officials using overstatement as a tool. It is a necessary, standard operating procedure in politics in the US. Since Katrina happened, all politicians invoke it to get public works projects done like fixing levees in California, which, even if they broke, would be far, far less impactful than it was on New Orleans. You'll hear things like "We have another Katrina on our hands in Sacramento" -- a gross overstatement of the real issue -- but which might be the only thing that can get taxpayers to approve another $5bn bond.

A good definition of politics in a republic or democracy might be "Convincing people to do the right thing for the wrong reasons." I've always said the debate over Al Gore's global warming claims are in this category. Does it matter if he's wrong? Wouldn't it be best if we did cut down on fossil fuel use either way? I'd rather have Al Gore be wrong and cut down on imported oil than keep sending money to the Saudis.

In any case, I read up on the RealID plan more after my post and it seems like they just want to change the requirements for driver's licenses. I'm not sure it will really help identity theft like they say it will. That kind of impact would be too inconvenient for Visa and Mastercard :\

Re:Why are you guys always against this?

[Watson Ladd]

Come on. If Congress can issue the ID cards, and state that they are government property, then they can regulate how they are used. Just impose European-style privacy regulations onto all businesses.

Re:Why are you guys always against this?

[DamnStupidElf]

It's obvious that Citibank, BofA, Visa, etc. aren't ever going to do anything to stop identity theft, maybe it's time the government starts doing something about it. If ReadID helps, it would be a big step forward on that front. I don't care if it has to be sold to the public using terrorism, because it's still an improvement over what we have today.

I rarely have to show my ID when I'm using a credit card physically, and absolutely never has a website required a copy or scan of my ID. It's silly, it doesn't prevent fraud, and it *costs taxpayers money*! It's just a scheme to fund $Business that creates ID cards that's related to some congresscritter.

Re:Why are you guys always against this?

[FrozenFOXX]

Remind me just how in the hell a more invasive ID will fix someone stealing your credit card number. Seriously, I'd like to hear how this contraption works that will have some online retailer/general department store/mom-and-pop-shop check for your proper credentials. I have NEVER and I mean never been asked in any state, store, or other for my identification. Ever. Not even once. The only time I'm ever asked for my ID is for military bases and night clubs. So please, tell me how a more invasive system capable of enabling people to keep more invasive databases on me will force that 15 year old across the counter to make sure that I possess my credit card (and don't feed that line about, "Well they're supposed to." I worked retail at a nationally recognized chain and when I asked people for their IDs I was eventually told to stop due to customer "convenience"). For the moment I'd also like to note that the most effective way to get someone's bank account number or credit card number, since you asked, is not in forging an ID but in using those wonderful social engineering skills to con them out of some wage-worker who's not paid enough to care. Read "The Art of Deception," it should help. And this "RealID helping" thing. Remind me what on earth is going to "help" with these problems from a national identification system. In fact, if the government REALLY wants to help they'll look into punishing the crap out of any company who DOESN'T do something to help keep your identity safe. But then that steps on the toes of private business. So guess what, DON'T USE THOSE COMPANIES and trust the government will find some way of punishing them if they don't help safeguard your information. I swear, the answer everyone's got these days to everything is, "Let the government do it." Schooling, parenting, stupidity, and everything else. Wanna know why the government is interested in regulating your entertainment, your food, your home, and now where you can fly, if you can leave the country, and whether you stand up when you pee? Here's a clue, because of reasoning like this.

How the fuck did this come to pass?

[Ka D'Argo]

I read one of the other articles about it here on /. a while back, when it was in the "idea" stage. Now it's all but basically implemented? I got a few..questions here so mod me down if you wish cause, I gotta ask;

So, we have until 2013 to become registered and with card right, what if we don't register? Are we just not admitted into federal buildings and airplanes as the article says? Or can businesses start not allowing customers entrance to their places without a card? Will businesses be able to shut off allowing a customer to buy a service or good from them cause they don't have a card? (such as even if they are paying for cash?) And what will be the "cost" of this new card for individuals? Some of us on fixed or basically no income at all, can barely afford to pay the bills and buy food every week, even if it's an el cheap price of like $20.00 USD that's $20 I don't have to waste every week, that's money spent on bills, and food. If it were something of a luxury item as most people would tell you, eat less or buy cheap food like ramen, save up and buy it. But should we American's be forced to pay for it? (The article wasn't clear on any individual cost)

This is both not shocking at all and scary. I expected much from Bush's plans and whatnot, I wouldn't be surprised if he got us caught in a nuclear war. But this is scary. I don't fly on planes and such so ID's to get on them never bothered me. I have a fear of cars. I don't mind riding in them, as long as someone else is driving. As such I've never gotten a drivers license and anything I've needed one for can always be clarified for by a DMV issue state ID', none of this RFID-track-me-anywhere bullshit etc. If I'm paying in cash, a restaurant or bookstore shouldn't need to see my "papers" to allow me the grace of purchasing their services or goods.

Re:How the fuck did this come to pass?

[little4ce]

I think that the main problem with the businesses will be that they will REQUIRE the card to open accounts; for example: you move to a new home and want telephone, cable, internet service, water, electricity, gas, etc. the list goes on and on.
Right now you cannot have any of those services (at least in this part of the country) without SSN, imagine that they will switch to the new card. Of course, immediately your life will be pretty tough without the new card.

I believe that when they introduced the SSN they said/promissed that SSN will not be used as an ID card and of course they were wrong...

Just my 2 cents.

Or can businesses start not allowing customers entrance to their places without a card? Will businesses be able to shut off allowing a customer to buy a service or good from them cause they don't have a card? (such as even if they are paying for cash?)

So, let's actually read the article...

[Jeian]

Since /. readers have a tendency to start screaming about national ID cards and identity databases without (apparently) actually reading the documents in question, I will provide the relevant quotes for you.

http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/laws/gc_1172767635686 .shtm

"In the proposed rule, DHS is proposing to limit the official purposes of a REAL ID license to those listed by Congress in the law: accessing a Federal facility; boarding Federally-regulated commercial aircraft; and entering nuclear power plants."

"Is this a National ID card? No. The proposed regulations establish common standards for States to issue licenses. The Federal Government is not issuing the licenses, is not collecting information about license holders, and is not requiring States to transmit license holder information to the Federal Government that the Government does not already have (such as a Social Security Number)."

"Will a national database be created that stores information about every applicant? No. The REAL ID Act and these regulations do not establish a national database of driver information. States will continue to collect and store information about applicants as they do today. The NPRM does not propose to change this practice and would not give the Federal government any greater access to this information."

"DHS is proposing minimum standards that will appear on the face of the card. The proposed regulation would require each of the following on the face of REAL IDs; space available for 39 characters for full legal name; address of principal residence; digital photograph; gender; date of birth; signature, document number; and machine readable technology."

"What is the Machine Readable Technology specified in the NPRM? The regulations propose the use of the 2-D barcode already used by 46 jurisdictions (45 States and the District of Columbia). DHS leans towards encrypting the data on the barcode as a privacy protection and requests comments on how to proceed given operational considerations."

So, let's see. What we're *actually* looking at is federal standards on what information needs to be displayed on state ID cards, and how identity needs to be proved prior to the issuance of a state ID card.

Gee, that's actually a lot less threatening then all the comments are making it sound. Hmm...

Re:So, let's actually read the article...

[Darlantan]

Take a good hard look at what your SSN is _supposed_ to be for. Now look at what all it gets used in.

Also, bear in mind that the RealID card is already being played up to have big restrictions to what people can do that the SSN never did. Extrapolate from there, and MAYBE you'll see why people are worried. Or you can continue to wear your blinders and take what the government says at face value.

Re:So, let's actually read the article...

[samwichse]

Not to be used for identification purposes

Re:So, let's actually read the article...

[BoberFett]

Yet...

Re:So, let's actually read the article...

[Sqreater]

What a naive trusting soul you are. All government programs and systems expand. And this one will too.

Re:So, let's actually read the article...

[Sqreater]

And one has the RIGHT to not give one's SSN. But doing so, you don't get the services. A right that you are punished for using is no right at all. Yet this is the kind of twisted logic that the government will use with regard to the RealID too, sooner or later. It will be optional for services, but if you don't present one, you won't get services.

Re:So, let's actually read the article...

[Darlantan]

Precisely my point. I don't know why the OP refuses to see this.

Downsize DC

[HomelessInLaJolla]

The website has prominent names with proven records in real results for the taxpayers and citizens. Best of luck in their efforts.

Why Is this Bad?

[otterpop81]

I'm being totally serious here. Please don't flame. I just would like someone to carefully explain why a National ID is bad. We already have State IDs (Driver's Licenses) which are are required for virtually everything. We also have Passports, which some may argue are optional, but they are certainly not optional if you want to leave the country. We also have Social Security numbers and cards which you have to present if you want to get a job anywhere. The SSNs are presumably primary keys to a big database somewhere with all your information in it. Oh, and there are voter IDs too, but the requirements of those seems to vary by state (and maybe locale).

So my question is, since we already have State IDs with pictures on them, and National Social Security cards (without pictures, but with a big database somewhere attached to it), and National Passports (optional, but with picture), what's wrong with having a national ID card with your picture on it. Seriously asking.

Re:Why Is this Bad?

[otterpop81]

Thank you for this comment. You're right. Reasonable debate somehow seems impossible here.

The thing is, I can't say that I really have any opinion at all about National IDs. I really do just want someone to explain to me what the big deal is. Maybe I'm just stupid. Someone here already called me that today on another thread :)

Re:Why Is this Bad?

[mschuyler]

Moding this post flamebait is a perfect example of the misuse of the moderation system. As I understand it, moderation is not there simply so you can push your own politial point of view. The moderation itself is a flame. Hopefully others will mod it back up--NOT for its point of view, but because of the injustice. Or perhaps meta-moderation will ctach it. It's really unfortunate slashdot has become so politically correct that you can't have a reasonable discussion with encountering this nonsense. Just for the record, I hope my state says "No" as well.

Re:Why Is this Bad?

[otterpop81]

I do appreciate your comments. It _is_ an injustice that one can't have a differing point of view around here.

However, like I said in my original post, I don't _have_ a point of view. I just want some explanation of why this is bad. I'm not trolling here. I promise. Will someone please tell me what the problem with a national ID is in light of the things in my original post?

Re:Why Is this Bad?

[Darlantan]

A lot of us view this as bad simply because it gives the federal government more power, and any time the feds get more power it means that either the states or the people are losing it. Sometimes both. The 10th ammendment to the US constitution is getting walked on, at any rate.

Others view that it is a bad thing because it offers a central point of failure. Some will argue this, stating that it has specific uses. Practically, though, that argument is pretty lousy. The same thing could be said about SSN's, but look at all the companies and such that collect that information. If it is good enough to ID you to the federal government, many companies will adopt it for the same reason. When a flaw is found, the belief in it being 'secure' will only make the damage that can be done even worse.

Yet another concern is that embeded RFID or what-have-you may eventually be used to track people. As others have pointed out, it isn't nearly as demanding as you might think. It's a legitimate privacy concern, even if it does lean a bit to the paranoid side.

There are no doubt other reasons, but I think that those three sum up a lot of the dissent. Personally, I find all three to be good enough to scrap the plan by themselves.

Re:Why Is this Bad?

[FrozenFOXX]

You've already answered your own question: centralization of information.

Consider this. Someone wants to get information about you and wishes to do so by nefarious means. Suppose they manage to find your SSN. That's nice, what did that get them in the way of your passport? Not much, they'd have to climb that mountain separately. Now what if they wanted your driver's license? Damn, that's another agency to mess with. Anything else? Have to go to different agencies. And of course they have to cross-check the information to make sure it's you which may fail and then they're back at square one.

Now suppose it's "the government." Interestingly the system works against itself here. Suppose, hypothetically, they wanted to see if you drank alcohol before you got on a plane bound for the Netherlands (why? I don't know, probably something stupid and given the amount of blatant stupidity on capitol hill I wouldn't put it past them and this is just purely hypothetical). Well you're in line and now they "need" to know and they need that information fast. Well what do they have to check? Same kinds of things as in the previous example. They need to look into an arrest record, see if you've got a valid driver's license (did you have a DUI?), perhaps see if you've been flagged as a "bar hopper" in some database somewhere, your passport, or anything else. Problem is you're standing there in line and they've got to cross check all this ton of information. Why bother? You've got a passport, obviously someone thought you were good to go, and do they REALLY "need to know" anything else about you beyond someone giving you a passport? No. You get your ticket and you hop on the plane without fear of information about you being exploited because it was in a central location for some curious asshole to poke around with.

The cops around here have a saying. "If you want to charge someone just follow them long enough." Putting all that information in one place is making it VERY easy for someone nefarious to find something bad or at least bad-looking about you. Having it separate minimizes that. That's what's bad about it.

How will they staff the building?

[IvyMike]

If they don't, come May of next year their residents will see their licenses unable to gain them access to federal buildings and airplanes.

I hope my state doesn't comply. It will be interesting to see how the feds are planning to staff their buildings with 100% out-of-state employees. I can see it now: "Sorry, Judge! Even though you were elected to serve in California, you can't enter the building...because your id is from California."

Who ultimately benefits from controlled chaos?

[JAB Creations]

This is the last step before they inject these things in to our flesh. This is part of a greater plan to stop an anti-government uprising because they will be able to lock down those who do not conform. Why do you think the armed forces can have big guns but civilians can't? This is not about improving systems but improving systems of control. The worst evil is the one you've been convinced does not exist! The original US Government when creating the constitution foresaw the government to become oppressive once again and gave us these constitutional rights to defend our lands, our homes, our people. Pacifism, indifference, and apathy towards these issues will lead our people to worse things then miscegenation, homosexuality, and complete moral decay of society. The real question is who ultimately benefits from all of this controlled chaos?

Re:Who ultimately benefits from controlled chaos?

[One Childish N00b]

acifism, indifference, and apathy towards these issues will lead our people to worse things then miscegenation, homosexuality, and complete moral decay of society

Mr Phelps? Is that you?

Re:No thanks

[DogDude]

The Libertarian Party has never advocated for privatization of police. Read the official platform here.

In two of three cases, safer.

[twitter]

From the QA:

the official purposes of a REAL ID license to those listed by Congress in the law: accessing a Federal facility; boarding Federally-regulated commercial aircraft; and entering nuclear power plants.

You are safer on a bus and outside of nuclear power plants than you are on an airplane or inside a nuclear power plant. See, big brother is watching out for you after all.

Getting spammed by bars, and crushing political opposition, free speech and the American way, are an unfortunate side effects of insuring your safety. Be grateful, so grateful that you do as you are told.

Re:How is that a "Fake ID"?

[Talgrath]

Except, again, the 9/11 terrorists had VALID, LEGAL IDs; they weren't fraudulent, they didn't lie about who they were. The 9/11 terrorists were here on perfectly valid visas, and all their IDs were obtained through perfectly legal means; which means, even if the "Real ID" system flies, it still won't stop terrorists from getting a valid ID. Somehow people have gotten it into their head that the 9/11 terrorists did things illegally before they attacked us, but this simply isn't the case; the 9/11 terrorists were normal, law-abiding individuals until their actions on 9/11.

If big air-travel states opt out it's doomed

[davidwr]

If even 2 or 3 states with lots of air travelers opt out, er, "just say no," the feds will be forced to adopt another way for these people to board airplanes or the airline industry will have a fit. If it's inconvenient or expensive expect a hew and cry from the voters.

The "ultimate" backup plan for the feds is to require passports for internal travel. Insert In Soviet Russia joke here.

"usa (tagging beta)" -- how appropriate

[schwaang]

Considering how Real ID is the USA's beta tagging program.

Uhh.. well.. we will let you wait before we ID you

[k1e0x]

What they are going to allow us to wait before they enact total control?

Airline companies should decide who can, and who can not, fly on their own air planes. They should decide who must be searched and who must present ID. Why the government is involved, I'll never understand.

This is absurd.. its like saying.. "You don't like the interest rate? Well how about.. no payments for 60 days on your 21% interest loan. ehh? good deal there son."

I'm.. actually scared to do this.. but I'm drawing the line here. I declare that I will not be spied upon! I will not be recorded! RFID tagged! or video taped! ..and I'm inventing methods to break systems that will try to. I am aware I will probably go to jail but I am not going to willfully allow this.

what diffrence does it make?

[proadventurer]

The morning of the Polish revolution civilians were not allowed to even posses BB guns, by noon they had tanks. Everyone is all fussy about a national ID. Let it be known: Me, mr PSG1, FiveseveN, and M2 will be sharing 1 national ID. I am no nutcase, (self diagnose) and I think the 2nd amendment is clear.

Re:what diffrence does it make?

[Darlantan]

M2? You've got an operational ma deuce? How much did THAT set you back?

Me an' my FsN (and friends) will be covered under 0 national ID's. I don't just stand for the 2A, I stand for all of them...that includes good old number 10, which I believe this violates.

the illusion of security and counterexamples

[borgalicious]

Having traveled through countries that have actual, recurrent terrorism, I've encountered real efforts at security. These contrast markedly with the US "put a duffer in the airport to check that the name on my boarding pass matches my driver's license" policy.

Two examples stand out clearly in memory. Passing through Paris' Charles de Gaulle airport I was stopped and questioned by no less than 7 pairs of guards who wanted to see my passport and ask me some simple, relevant questions. Although the questions were simple, they studied my response intently looking for any indication that I was lying. It was polite, it was brief, but I was scrutinized. On one of those trips, I found that the luggage carousel had been locked off because an unattended bag had been discovered. Within minutes, that bag was taken outside, put under a bomb blanket, and had a primer bomb fired next to it. It turned out to be just plain luggage, but it was clear that they were taking no chances.

Another time, on business travel ending in Heathrow, I was asked questions relevant to my journey by someone as polite and as assiduous as in Paris. He finally asked me "why did your firm send you and not someone else?" which caught me quite off guard. I have little doubt that he was expecting me to fish for an answer to that question, and might have been moved to further questions if I replied more facilely.

An ID card is junk compared to civil servants like those.

Re:the illusion of security and counterexamples

[RexRhino]

First of all, I have flown through Charles de Gaulle airport several times in the recent past, and wasn't asked a single question by anyone. In fact, I accidently bypassed one of their security checks. I wasn't trying to avoid the security check, I just didn't notice it and walked right by, not being stopped or noticed by anyone. So what you are saying about the security at Charles de Gualle just isn't true. The security was pretty half-assed (which is fine by me, because it made things faster).

However, assuming it was true for the sake of arguement, the whole questioning people thing is a pretty lame security measure. Not only is it totally subjective and so prone to abuses (like racial profiling), but any terrorist worth their salt will take the time to create an impecable cover story, and it will be the jet-lagged guy who has been plane-hopping for the last 18 hours who gets taken in custody who is harrassed by security. Given that there are probably thousands or tens of thousands of people taken aside for giving suspicious answers each year, and virtually none of them are terrorists - With that kind of false-positive rate I would say it is nothing but security theater.

But I agree with you on one thing, an ID card is junk security too.

Interstate Commerce covers everything

[bigtrike]

If the interstate commerce clause can be used to regulate the growing and consumption of a plant which is never sold and never leaves the owner's property, then it can cover just about anything else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Re:Profit

[phlegmofdiscontent]

Compliance before argument? What country are you from, 'cause it sure ain't the U.S.? Did the Sons of Liberty comply with the British on the Tea Tax? No, they threw that fucking tea into the ocean. Did Pennsylvania farmers comply with the excise tax in 1794? No, they took up arms and started the Whiskey Rebellion. Did the Native Americans comply with orders to move to reservations? No, they got some guns and started shooting white settlers and the Army. This country has a long history of rebellion rather than compliance. When rights are being taken away, people fight back. It wasn't until we gained a huge amount of prosperity that more and more people (and states) started willingly giving up their rights because there's too much to lose if they resist.
You can comply with RealID and argue until you're blue in the face, but the fact is, once it's a reality, it's NOT going to go away. You've just surrendered another small portion of your rights. What happens next time? When you need to show your new ID to get into ANY building, or swipe your ID to get into your car? Or get a tracking chip? Are you going to comply? Or are you going to resist? Somewhere there needs to be a line and the fact that a few states are resisting is heartening, because maybe more can be persuaded to resist this power grab.

What the fuck happened to Full Faith and Credit?!?

[bitbucketeer]

What do you mean my State's ID won't be accepted? I guess Article IV, Section 1 can be safely ignored from now on. Besides, I already have a National ID... it's called a Social Security Number. Why do I need two National ID's?

Re:No thanks

[drix]

Done. The only mention I found of the police had something to do with roadblocks. I did find this, however:

Federal, state and local governments have created inefficient service monopolies throughout the economy. From the US Postal Service to municipal garbage collection and water works, government is forcing citizens to use monopoly services. These are services that the private sector is already capable of providing in a manner that gives the public better service at a competitive price.

That sounds a lot like what the parent poster was talking about. One could easily see that sort of thinking leading to something a lot more extreme, if we were ever stupid enough to vote you wackos into power. (This seems like a good time to plug one of my favorite The Onion articles of all time.)

And I'm measuring my words carefully when I say "wacko." I don't see how else you could characterize this:

Solutions: We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. We oppose all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition. We support repeal of all gun control laws. We demand the immediate abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Wow. Congratulations on being to the right of the NRA. Not very many people can claim that.

I agree with a great many of the positions espoused in your platform, but in the end you libertarians are just as pie-in-the-sky detached from reality as the lefties you so ardently despise. Who knows, maybe AK in every garage and a chicken in every pot sounds like a great idea to a bunch of white computer programmers living in the suburbs. Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination, plus maybe a very passing acquaintance with human nature, to see what a monstrously reckless idea that is that you are advocating.

Re:Gettng "smack the US" over with (appropriately!

[fyngyrz]

So you're telling us that this ONLY happens in the US?

No. I didn't say that, imply it, or bring up other countries at all. Strawman.

Are you sure you want to do a "the US is evil" rant before looking in your own backyard?

The US is my country. It is my own backyard. Strawman.

Besides in case it slipped your mind, two words. Selective Service.

Selective service. You bring this up, why? Are you trying to point out that the issue of having your name in a database somewhere already exists in various forms and degrees? I know; I didn't say otherwise. However, this is a different problem. Signing up for selective service - or not - did not restrict your ability to travel freely. This will do that, and where restrictions already exist, it will make them worse.

If you meant something else, by all means, enlighten me. I'm paying attention.

For fellow tin-hat wearers....

[james_bray]

You can purchase a nice RFID blocking wallet from a number of places (I got mine from here ), or alternatively make your own

Re:For fellow tin-hat wearers....

[k1e0x]

Nice one, this is good for blocking the credit cards, and I wont be getting a federal one.

The problem here is sharing of data ...

[schwit1]

The feds requiring consistent documentation standards is not THE issue, but they should let the states work it out. THE issue is the sharing of data. The feds want to share the DL data with Canada and Mexico. Mexico?!?! Mexican law enforcement is owned by drug dealers for Christ's sake! Who's next ... Venezuela or Columbia?

Re:No thanks

[DogDude]

Eh. Anybody who wants a gun can already get one. It's not hard. I got mine by walking into a "Dick's Sporting Goods" and asking for "the cheapest gun that will blow a big hole in someone". I walked out 5 minutes later with a Mossberg 20 gauge 6 shot short barrel pump shotgun and a few hundred shells.

The idea behind everybody being able to own guns is that if the government ever becomes opporessive (some would argue we're close to that already), that people can fight back (ie: revolution). As is right now, the police are armed so heavily, that they can put down any kind of protest that they'd like to with ease. We're already past the point where the people could rise up against the government if they wanted to. You know, the whole "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." thing.

Even the most ardent Libertarians believe that a common police force is necessary to maintain order. I've never heard any serious Libertarian saying that we should privatize the police.

But hey, what do I know? Just keep voting Coke or Pepsi (oh, I'm sorry...Republican or Democrat). That seems to be working out pretty well for everybody, right?

Time for Civil War II

[blank_vlad]

Time for Civil War II: States' Rights Strike Back.

Re:Time for Civil War II

[KudyardRipling]

The problem here is that too many people are chasing lifestyles that disafford them the ability to successfully resist tyranny. Single family homes, SUV's, home theatres, vacations, etc. So many things to lose if these misbehave. These sheep will say "Toys make America different from the rest of the world." Dour is the tone in which political reality speaks: Toys are political opiates and DEBT GIVES EMPLOYERS (and government) LEVERAGE OVER EMPLOYEES. Moveover, the sheep are *carefully taught* that those who have less to lose than they are dangerous (You don't own a home? You don't fly on planes!) Political liberty MUST BE PRESERVED AS WELL AS economic liberty. One without the other is a mockery of both.

I disagree

[KKlaus]

You're right about any potential terrorist getting IDs themselves, 9/11 being obvious evidence to that fact. But the whole "single ID card" as asking for a huge exploit is silly. All states already honor all other states driver's licenses. I'm living in CA right now, with a NH license, for instance, and I'm treated exactly the same in all instances as someone with a CA license. As security is only as strong as its weakest link, a National ID would be (maybe will be) much harder to exploit. This is because the situation as it is now is that the weakest ID is all you need to exploit to get full privileges. We've already seen this with the 9/11 guys getting Virgina IDs. They did that for a reason.

With a national ID, ideally it would have the resources behind it to be stronger than any single state ID. However, any fraud protection is useless when you can just pay off a DMV employee, again as some of the hijackers did. The problem with national ID is not that it's in any way worse at IDing people. It's not. The problem is that is does nothing to deter or hinder terrorists, and that trying to know who everyone is at all times (and where they are if you are checked frequently enough) is extremely unamerican. It's a papers-please society, and its very bad. But it _is_ efficient, and that's unfortunately not an argument against it.

Re:Profit

[k1e0x]

The BEST thing to do is to tell the federal government they do not have the athority to do this. We need to control them, not the other way around.

Do not get this, stop it, interfere with it, break it. If you cant fly without it then dont fly. If you cant open a bank account then dont open a bank account. If you are somehow "forced" to get it, break the RFID chip in the ID with a hammer or microwave it. I'm standing me ground on this, I will not comply with it under any amount of force.

You apperntly don't want it.. WTF is with you? "if they're really dead-set on going ahead with it, it cannot be avoided." I've decided I will go to jail for this, and your just going to accept it without any fight at all? Screw you.

preaching to the choir

[Major]

It has been my experience that a superior power forcing the weak to give up their rights is merely an indication of that power flagrantly trying to hide the truth of their wrongdoing. And I do speak from experience: this same fascist stupidity went on when I worked at the New York Academy of Art in 2003. While trying to hide their money laundering and blatant theft of student funds, the Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer tried to silence dissenters with bribes and distracted those who couldn't be bought by assigning them to implement ridiculous security measures and burying them in paperwork. I hate paperwork. Bah, I've nothing intelligent to add here. I'm going back to watching Star Trek re-runs.

Accessing a Federal Facility

[Stanislav_J]

"In the proposed rule, DHS is proposing to limit the official purposes of a REAL ID license to those listed by Congress in the law: accessing a Federal facility; boarding Federally-regulated commercial aircraft; and entering nuclear power plants."

Let's see, I don't fly, don't have any reason to be anywhere near a nuke plant.....that leaves only "accessing a federal facility."

So, if I don't have a REAL ID, and the feds arrest, try, and convict me for some crime, does that mean they can't put me in a federal prison?

When 5000 forms of ID aren't enough

[heroine]

What's this new ID going to accomplish that the driver's license, social security card, birth certificate, passport, and credit card didn't accomplish?

Loophole

[Stanislav_J]

"DHS is proposing to limit the official purposes of a REAL ID license to those listed by Congress in the law: accessing a Federal facility; boarding Federally-regulated commercial aircraft; and entering nuclear power plants. DHS may consider expanding these official purposes through future rulemakings....."

Yeah. That's a loophole on a par with those job descriptions that end with the phrase "and such other duties as may be required..."

The data collected, Any Security?

[Icemaann]

This question was interesting:
How does the NPRM protect Privacy of license holders?

Continuing to protect the privacy of license holders was a key consideration for DHS in the development of this NPRM, which contains a detailed analysis of the three key privacy issues posed by the Act: (1) the connectivity of the databases; (2) the protection of the personal information stored in the State databases; and (3) the protection of the personal information stored on machine readable technology on the DL/IDs. We invite comments on whether the steps outlined within the NPRM are appropriate and adequate.

Okay, so they covered the three things that the feds will have control over. Can they secure it? I doubt it, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Moving on to another question from the FAQ...

How long will a REAL ID license be valid for?

The proposed regulation requires that REAL ID licenses be valid for a period limited to eight years. If a state has maintained the source document images, the DMV may re-verify that information without requiring that the applicant re-present the source documents. If, however, the State does not have the information and images of source documents at the time of the renewal, the State would need to require the applicant to re-submit any appropriate, missing documentation.

Now they expect all the DMVs across the states to scan, store, and protect our personal documents. Sure the states already have some of this, but now we are putting it in the hands of the DMVs. I can only imagine how our data and documents will be stored and who will have access to them.

Re:Profit

[Harmonious Botch]

The best thing for a taxpayer to do is to comply as quickly and painlessly as possible Ok. I'll be an obedient citizen. I'll do that. Twice. Maybe a third time just for backup.

Re:Uhh.. well.. we will let you wait before we ID

[cdrguru]

The problem is the airlines have proven they aren't going to do the job. Not that TSA is currently doing a lot better, by any means, but the airlines were worse.

Also, unless we hold the airlines responsible for security failures, giving them the job is pointless. Having the same organzation responsible for both security and security failures is the only way it should work.

Re:Profit

[Darlantan]

Better yet, don't just not accept it, actively fight it. If you happen to be well-off enough to have a private jet or airplane, consider using it to transport people who don't go with the RealID scheme. You probably won't turn a profit, but at least you can genuinely do something until they bust you.

Re:No thanks

[Dun Malg]

wow! stunning rebuttal! brilliant!

Re:My bad memory

[slickwillie]

Can someone tell me when we voted on this?

Re:No thanks

[Dun Malg]

(This seems like a good time to plug one of my favorite The Onion articles of all time.) A libertarian calling the fire department because he has no alternative. Is that supposed to be some sort of irony? It's not. First, he had no option to hire a private fire fighting service, and second, his taxes (unwilling though they might have been) paid for the public fire service already. Why would anyone expect him to pay twice? Or not call on principle? I say he was a little nutty to delay calling, but it's hardly an abandonment of his ideals to finally call.
It might interest you to know that there indeed are areas that use private fire service. My father lives on the outskirts of Tucson, AZ. He pays a small but entirely voluntary fee for fire fighting service provided by a private company. Last year some guy's detached garage caught fire and he called the fire department. They showed up, verified his address did not show up in their list of customers, and calmy kept his (paying) neighbors houses, from catching fire while his garage burned down. He offered to pay them on the spot, but (as you can imagine) it just doesn't work that way. The guy now pays his fire department bill. The system works great, and keeps taxes low. If you don't have anything flammable, you don't have to pay for fire protection.

Isn't that the whole point?

[lorcha]

Also, unless we hold the airlines responsible for security failures, giving them the job is pointless. Having the same organzation responsible for both security and security failures is the only way it should work.

Isn't that the whole point of making the airlines responsible for security? I mean, whose expensive planes are being targeted? Who is going to be on the receiving end of all the wrongful death lawsuits? The airlines. The TSA is a great example of making noone responsible. Ever try to sue the federal government? Does the TSA own any airplanes? What would the consequences to the TSA be if there were another successful terrorist attack against airplanes?

That would break the 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments.

[the_REAL_sam]

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
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.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Marbury vs Madison
Marbury vs. Madison 5 U.S. 137, 174, 176. (1803) states: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

Miranda vs. Arizona
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 p.491. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Re:No thanks

[drix]

Man, you people are just great. You want irony? How about the high-strung, douchebag libertarian who writes a 220 (I counted) word rebuttal to a 67-word fake newsbrief in a joke newspaper. God... that works on so many levels. Are any editors of the Onion reading this? Shit just writes itself.

Fuck you and your ID USA

[CranberryKing]

I'm not going to do it. You shouldn't either. Refuse the RealID.

"None of your God damned business. Show me your ID."

The First Amendment, as well.

[the_REAL_sam]

In the wild west those beaurocrats would be swinging from a gallows. They really had some things figured out, back then, in the wild west.

My claim is not that they were asking for much, in terms of modifying the cards, although that is also questionable. My claim is that the sanctions [with which they threaten] are unconstitutional. What's more, it is indeed deeply disturbing that the federal government would adopt a policy designed to force U.S. citizens to choose between their privacy and their liberty. The government should be an ally to both of those interests.

From the article: "States must submit a plan of how they'll comply with the Real ID Act by October 7, 2007. If they don't, their residents will not be able to use IDs to board planes or enter federal buildings starting on May 11, 2008."

It means that the right of U.S. citizens to enter U.S. federal buildings [and to board airplanes] would be revoked, unless they are from states that complied with the "Real ID" act.

That would violate the Bill of Rights. (1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments) The right to enter federal buildings, in some cases, corresponds directly to the ability to petition the government.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In many cases, that includes poling centers, AND it almost certainly includes the famous Washington lobbies (where corporations and special interests have so infamously gotten their way with our government).

The sanctions of the policy are therefore unconstitutional, based on the miranda ruling.

Miranda vs. Arizona
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 p.491. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Al Quaeda as franchise? more like fan club?

[fantomas]

"Al Qaida is more a "franchise" used by small groups [and used by the media to scare people] rather than a real well organised corporation"

Interesting thought, nice one. Hadn't thought of that before. But maybe to extend it further, Al Quaeda is more like an unofficial sports fans club, more like "the Boston Manchester United FC Fan Club" than the local branch of McDonalds? Franchises involve one or more people contacting the big central place, paying some money, being told the rules and how to present themselves. It doesn't sound like there's a head office of AQ sorting this out and running the database. Unofficial fan clubs set themselves up independently, note their desired affiliation with a a central group, work independently but hope to be seen as part of a bigger family. Seems that's more like what's going on.

Couple of radical kids fed up with the state in some backwater hick town blow up a car or burn something out, take a couple of potshots, the local cops sort it out, locals just think they are disaffected youth and idiots, maybe sympathise with your views on the local mayor. But call yourselves Al Quaeda and suddenly you're getting respect, you're big shots... and on the flipside, if you can define a couple of local idiots as Al Quaeda suddenly you can call in resources, scare the people, all the rest of it...

Blood

[Sqreater]

American blood calls from the ground,"What are you doing?" The blood of generations of American soldiers who died to create and maintain our freedoms calls to the government, "We were not afraid, why are you?" With the justification of saving the last American life, our government gathers to itself a huge chunk of our freedom, making us merely cells in a governmental system, no longer individual citizens with individual rights and freedoms to be respected. The government is showing contempt for and faithlessness to those who came before, who gave everything for us, that we may be free. I am not afraid of the terrorists, are you? I doubt so. But our weak and frightened representatives in a rapidly obsolescing system are afraid, or at least pretend to be in order to steal our freedom. The President makes his laying of wreaths disgusting and contemptible because it is mere show now, containing nothing of respect and due honor.

I suggest that states that do not want this national ID combine to tell the government loudly, "NO!". And if this national ID system goes through and citizens of resisting states are deprived access to federal buildings and airplanes, I suggest that Federal employees be denied access to state properties of all kinds, from buildings to parks. If they want a restricted access war of the states against the Federal government, they should get it. This must not obtain.

I say this from the city that raised the first flag of the American Revolution.

The advantage of NOT getting a Real ID!

[gabrieltss]

Has anyone thought of the advantages in YOUR favor of NOT getting the Real ID.
Think about it. If you won't be allowed -into Federal Buildings- without it. Then when you get say summoned to appear in court - guess what - sorry Mr. Judge the Law says I can't come in without a Real ID and I have a RIGHT to choose NOT to have one. Oh Mr. Congressman you want to force me to appear before congress - sorry I can't I don't have a Real ID I can't enter a Federal Building. It's your law not mine! Or you get called for jury duty - sorry Mr. Judge, I can't help you I'm not allowed into the building without a Real ID. Or you say get a DUI or arrested and are released on bond, how can the force you to court when you don't have a Real ID and are NOT allowed into a Federal Building. Think about it, if enough people refuse the Real ID - it could put a huge pinch in the Government and the court system. If enough people refuse the Real ID - yes they can't fly, but who does that hurt? It hurts the airlines. If business in the airline industry is hurt enough, maybe the airlines will start yelling and screaming, or they will just all go out of business.

I did, and here's a response

[festers]

From IL Senator Durbin:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the REAL ID Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.

I am concerned about several of the provisions of the REAL ID Act. While I support measures to deter illegal entry into the United States, I also believe we must preserve due process under the law and the historic separation of powers. This legislation ignored a number of the bipartisan suggestions of the 9/11 Commission and reversed some of the positive steps we made in passing the Intelligence Reform bill last year.

The Intelligence Reform bill implemented a number of the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. The legislation calls for the Border Patrol workforce to be increased by 2000 agents per year from 2006 through 2010. This would double the size of the Border Patrol over a five year period. It also increases the number of full-time Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigators by 800 per year from 2006 to 2010, and the number of detention beds for immigration detention and removal by 8,000 per year from 2006 to 2010. The bill also strengthens and codifies visa requirements and toughens penalties against individuals who unlawfully bring in and harbor aliens.

In contrast, some provisions of the REAL ID Act are unnecessary, expensive, and dangerous. Although the REAL ID Act was offered as a means of improving identification security, it undermined the improvements in identification document security and reliability enacted in the Intelligence Reform bill. The Intelligence Reform bill not only set strict national standards for state identification documents, it also promised funds to assist states with document handling upgrades. The REAL ID Act ignored these provisions and set national standards without providing the necessary financial resources for these costly improvements. This unfunded mandate led the National Governors Association and the National Council of State Legislatures to oppose the REAL ID Act.

Additionally, the REAL ID Act includes provisions designed to expedite the deportation process without preserving a defendant's right to a lawyer and to present his or her case in court. We can enforce our immigration laws and protect our national security without violating due process.

Lastly, I am concerned with a clause in the REAL ID Act that permits the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all laws in order to expedite the construction of barriers along any U.S. borders. Not only would this provision grant the Secretary of Homeland Security a free hand in overriding laws and regulations, it would prevent the Judicial Branch from reviewing the actions taken by the Secretary. Such a provision would violate the system of checks and balances central to our Constitution, upset the balance of power between the branches of government, and lend itself to abuses of power.

Although the Senate decided not to include the REAL ID Act in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, many of its provisions were added to the final version of that measure during the House-Senate conference on the bill.

Thank you again for writing and expressing your views on this issue.

Re:Uhh.. well.. we will let you wait before we ID

[k1e0x]

>> Also, unless we hold the airlines responsible for security failures, giving them the job is
>> pointless. Having the same organzation responsible for both security and security failures is
>> the only way it should work.

?? The Government is not held liable for ANYTHING. Nothing ever, its never governments fault, they never take the hit. If they airlines fuck it up they loose money. If the Government fucks it up.. that means they MAKE money. (We just need a better bigger more expensive program THEN it will work.)

You just absolutely made my point, yes I agree, that the airlines should be, and are the only ones that can be held responsible for their security on their own aircraft.

Re:Read History Much?

[fyngyrz]

Oh, not to worry. Slavery is still alive and well. Behold the 13th amendment (emphasis mine):

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Keeping in mind you can now be "duly convicted" for such "crimes" as smoking a plant, holding up a protest sign at a public rally or funeral, owning arms unconditionally guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, spanking your child, getting oral sex from your spouse, marrying in a non-Christian tradition (polygamy or polyandry, for instance)... slavery is a right both the feds and the states have kept alive and well. Your license plate was probably made by slaves. You could be a slave real soon if you slip up. They are waiting for you. You can never have too many license plates; and there is no shortage of rocks to break, either.

You Can Fly Without ID

[JonnyBnDC]

You do not need a photo ID to fly. I fly without ID all of the time.

Re:You Can Fly Without ID

[Plekto]

The thing about it is that in daily life, it won't matter, but if you want to fly or cross a border or go into half a dozen places, the ID in your pocket will function exactly like those Speedpass attachments you put on your car to get through the tollbooth quickly.

Casinos, venues, maybe even major retailer chains - the entrances will have readers embedded in them as well - you don't seriously think that commercial interestes won't utilize this since it's perfectly legal to scan the ID tags that you have on your person. And you'd never know when it was read, either. Is a huge concern, because first it will start with the government but then it will get out of control.

"Person 45502A7 spent 45 minutes in Nordstrom's and then stopped to look in the windows of (list of stores, noting how many seconds you stayed still)..." Or.. "person 45502A7 is in front of store #17. (sends advert on your cellhpone for that store)" Basically it would be like having a GPS installed on you out in public. They might as well put a tag on my ear like some wild animal. Nothing good can come from this.

I'm certainly not getting one. If I have to, I'll definately find a way to blow up the chip inside - like hitting the card with a stungun or simmilar.