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!)

[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!)

[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]

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]

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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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"?

[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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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...

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...

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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..."