Washington State To Try RFID Drivers Licenses

tverbeek tells us about a program the state of Washington has approved, to issue RFID-equipped drivers licenses to facilitate cross-border traffic. The idea is to load the drivers license with information proving citizenship, so that (with Department of Homeland Security approval) the bearer doesn't need to carry a passport — which otherwise will be required to re-enter the US from Canada beginning in 2009. The "enhanced" licenses will require applicants to submit to an in-person interview and to show proof of citizenship. A pilot program in Washington begins January 2008. Officials hope for DHS approval of the program before the Vancouver Olympics in 2010 causes a spike in cross-border traffic.

Comments

Scary

[voice_of_all_reason]

Friday's announcement comes on the heels of last week's federal checkpoint set up outside of Forks for those driving south on U.S. Route 101, who were required to prove their U.S. citizenship.

Or what?

Re:Scary

[voice_of_all_reason]

I was curious, so I looked it up myself: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/20 03628279_danny21.html?syndication=rss

Starting at 8 a.m. last Thursday, federal Border Patrol agents blocked the highway outside town. For four hours, every car, truck and bus driving south on Highway 101 was pulled off the road and all passengers questioned. seven undocumented workers, who were shipped to a detention center in Tacoma.

Carted off 160 miles to not even a jail, but a detention center.

Re:Scary

[So IL Banker]

With the 'enhanced' system a terrorist need only steal your identification surreptiously or kill you and take your ID, and nobody at the border will stop them! Great plan!

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but does anything happen to them after that?

Re:Scary

[Frosty Piss]

The thing about this is that Forks isn't near any border crossing points, and is in fact in the middle of the Olympic Peninsula. More likely they where trolling for illegals migrant workers. But it really stinks like a "police state" sort of mentality.

More here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/20 03628279_danny21.html

Re:Scary

[essence]

Carted off 160 miles to not even a jail, but a detention center.

We have detention centers in Australia too. They are full of refugees who try to come to australia via boat without permission. I refuse to call these people 'illegals' because no human being is 'illegal', they are fucken human beings.

Sad thing is, only a minority of people in Australia feel for the plight of these people. Most 'aussies' are racist, even if they don't admit it (or don't realize it).

Whats even sadder is that some refugees have been detained for years on end without being processed. Even sadder still, after years in detention, some get sent back from where they came. There was one case I think where someone was returned to Iran to be subsequently killed by the Iranian government.

Detetntion centers need to be abolished. There is no place for them in a free society.

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no place for government in a free society, either. Until you get rid of your government, expect these kinds of things frequently.

Re:Scary

[jmv]

And your alternative is? Anarchy?

Re:Scary

[essence]

Anarchy would be fantastic!

An-archy - without rulers.

Note that doesn't just apply to parliaments. A ruler can be many things - a mob, a corporation, a thug, a rapist.

Re:Scary

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>I refuse to call these people 'illegals' because no human being is 'illegal', they are fucken human beings.

If they are from somewhere else, they are an alien.
If they are enterring illegally, they are an illegal alien.
And it's natural to shorten a long phrase like "illegal alien" to simply "illegal" when the context is clear.

The person themself is not illegal, but their status in that location is.

I don't see a problem with calling them illegals.

Now, treating them as less than human is a whole other ball o' wax.

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit! You're right! For lack of any better idea we hold people without charge or due process for years at a time for only following survival instincts. Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that?

Re:Scary

[bladesjester]

Maybe the people in the government in Washington just got around to watching Dark Angel.

Now, where's my Jam Pony ID...?

Re:Scary

[EinZweiDrei]

Language tends to dictate action. Not everyone who considers it alright to apply the epithet 'illegal' to individual human beings will be as thoughtful about it as you. Most won't.

Re:Scary

[jmv]

Exactly. And that's why anarchy is a total utopia.

Re:Scary

[drsmithy]

We have detention centers in Australia too. They are full of refugees who try to come to australia via boat without permission. I refuse to call these people 'illegals' because no human being is 'illegal', they are fucken human beings.

There are laws defining how non-citizens are allowed to enter the country. These people have broken those laws. They're illegal immigrants.

This does not mean they are "illegal people". They are free to leave - and go back to their point of origin - whenever they want.

Sad thing is, only a minority of people in Australia feel for the plight of these people. Most 'aussies' are racist, even if they don't admit it (or don't realize it).

Believing in immigration control is not racist, it's sensible.

If you're so gung-ho about this, can you give me your address ? I want to come over to your house, eat your food and sleep in your bed for a few weeks. Or are you some racist hypocrite who locks his door at night ?

Whats even sadder is that some refugees have been detained for years on end without being processed. Even sadder still, after years in detention, some get sent back from where they came. There was one case I think where someone was returned to Iran to be subsequently killed by the Iranian government.

Now, here you actually have something approaching a valid point. The time taken to process these people *is* something that needs to be improved. Of course, if they didn't destroy all the documentation proving who they are, that would expedite the process far more than anything that can be done on Australia's end.

Detetntion centers need to be abolished. There is no place for them in a free society.

So how *should* we deal with people who enter the country illegally, that we know nothing about ?

Re:Scary

[that this is not und]

without rulers.

Would we be allowed to carry tape measures, or is any form of orderlieness or rational measure frowned upon in this utopia?

Re:Scary

[essence]

There are laws defining how non-citizens are allowed to enter the country. These people have broken those laws. They're illegal immigrants.

Well actually no. These people are refugees. Under international conventions which australia is signatory to, refugees have the right to seek asylum in Australia.

They are free to leave - and go back to their point of origin

Well not always. There is a reason these people left their country. Often it is because they are a political dissident, and fear for their lives

So how *should* we deal with people who enter the country illegally, that we know nothing about ?

Do you like being able to travel freely across your own country without having to prove yourself when crossing state lines?. Yes? Apply the same rule here. You're not scared of people from another state are you?

On the topic of racism. The Australian government spends millions trying to keep out refugees (which are mostly from middle eastern countries). On the other hand they do fuck all about British tourist who have overstayed their visas

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

Starting at 8 a.m. last Thursday, federal Border Patrol agents blocked the highway outside town. For four hours, every car, truck and bus driving south on Highway 101 was pulled off the road and all passengers questioned.

How is this even remotely legal? (e.g., Ybarra v. Illinois)

Or did they count on the kind of people they were looking for not knowing how to say "Do you have a warrant?"?

Or maybe the officers thought there was probable cause that every car driving through Forks (!) had criminals in it?

Washington already has a law which says "It is mandatory for a motorist with criminal intentions to stop at the city limits and telephone the chief of police as he is entering the town". So it's not like they wouldn't have heard about things well in advance, anyway.

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds familiar...

Nazi Gestapo: Show me your papers!
Citizen: But I don't have any papers.
Nazi Gestapo: Then send him to the death err... detainment camp.

Re:Scary

[drsmithy]

Well actually no. These people are refugees. Under international conventions which australia is signatory to, refugees have the right to seek asylum in Australia.

No, they're illegal immigrants. If they were refugees and had followed the appropriate procedures for that status to be determined before they arrived, they'd be allowed in.

People entering the country *might* be refugees. Then again, they might be criminals, smugglers, or simply individuals who had been denied entry in the past for any number of reasons reasons. The purpose of immigration control is to determine these things and act accordingly.

Australian society clearly doesn't have a major problem with refugees (or, indeed, immigrants in general). We take in a relatively large number of them.

Well not always. There is a reason these people left their country. Often it is because they are a political dissident, and fear for their lives

Often it's because their country just sucks and they don't want to live there.

Do you like being able to travel freely across your own country without having to prove yourself when crossing state lines?. Yes? Apply the same rule here. You're not scared of people from another state are you?

There is a vast gulf of difference between moving between two states in the same country and moving between different countries. You can pretend otherwise as much as you want, stamp your foot and insist it's the same thing until you're blue in the face, but it won't change reality.

On the topic of racism. The Australian government spends millions trying to keep out refugees (which are mostly from middle eastern countries). On the other hand they do fuck all about British tourist who have overstayed their visas.

Illegal immigrants we know nothing about and tourists overstaying their visas are - by definition - two fundamentally different demographics. Conflating them is naive stupidity at best, deceptive propoganda at worst.

I'm still waiting to find out what your address is. You do have the courage of your convictions and happily let anyone who walks in off the street into your home, right ?

Re:Scary

[westfork]

Yes, Forks, WA, that hotbed of good steelheading... but maybe not illegals...
If they really wanted to nab illegals, their road block would have been between Yakima and the lower valley.

Re:Scary

[Brickwall]

Most 'aussies' are racist, even if they don't admit it (or don't realize it).

I don't think it's racist to be angry at people who come to the fairly successful countries we have built in Canada and Oz, and then want to change the rules to those of their fairly fucked up countries that they were so eager to leave. Why can't we put up Xmas trees in our schools? Because some immigrants are "offended". Well, I'm offended when I see women walking around all covered up, and refusing to take off their veils when, for example, store clerks are trying to verify photo ID. This reached its latest peak in the Quebec provincial election due Monday. The government, in response to protests from a few dozen Muslims, was going to allow Muslim women to not take off their veils to verify their identity. (Everyone else has to provide photo ID before being allowed to vote.) Only after massive protests that would have seen native Quebeckers wearing masks, bags, etc. on their heads did the government back off.

Moreover, since my wife is from the Philippines and we have visited there many times, I can attest that there are commercial schools in the Philippines that instruct people on how to apply for refugee status once they're in Canada, how to get welfare, how to get free medical care, etc. In Somalia, emigrants learn how to manipulate the Landlord-Tenant Act in Ontario, which is supposed to balance the rights of tenants and landlords. Instead, these people move into an apartment after paying first and last month's rent, then overcrowd it, and never pay rent again until they are evicted - a process which takes 6-9 months, and costs the landlord thousands of dollars.

In short, if you want to move to my country, then be prepared to accept the laws and norms of our society, and don't try to impose the failed rules from the country you were so desparate to escape. Muslims seem quite prepared to kill each other in Iraq; why don't other Muslims in Pakistan, Syria, etc., rise up and overthrow their despotic governments? Until emigrants are prepared to accept Canada's rules and standards, I want them to stay home.

Re:Scary

[TheSkyIsPurple]

> Language tends to dictate action

Sure does... And increasingly the language of political correctness, real or perceived, results in the exact opposite action as intended.
I see judgement behind how you speak of people using the word illegal... how (true or not), you seem to have lumped an entire group of people together, and assumed motivations behind their actions based on next to no evidence. Using the word itself does not make it an epithet, it's what's behind the word that does.

But more to the point... focusing on the language is distracting from the real issue.

It seems to me something like two people trying to come together and discuss a way to stop a generations long feud that has resulted in dozens of deaths.

Person A: Good... we made it to the table to speak
Person B: It's really more of a poker table than a real table
Person A: Yeah, but it's still a table
Person B: Not really... a table is something you sit at to eat or work, this is a play thing.
Person A: No, a poker table is still a table... see it even has the word table in the name stupid
Person B: How can I be stupid, you don't even know what a table is?
Person A: Why do you get to define "table"? That's just like you, always taking control
Person B: I take control because that's the only way I can survive with you always trying to dominate us. ... and on and on

The real issue never gets discussed.

Trying to get the "user of the epithet" [UOTE for short] to change their language does several things.

1. It distracts from the real issue: you end up arguing between "your language is evidence that you don't recognize these people as people"... "I do recognize them as people, just people that don't belong here"... "but your language belies your true feelings"... "screw you, I know what my feelings are, and these guys are sucking away our government resources"... "see, you're now referring to them as you would animals"...
You never get into understanding why they really have an issue with these people, and can't do anything to convince them they misunderstand. (or not, as the case may be)

2. It erodes trust: The UOTE hasn't reached any connection with you... they don't feel that you understand what they're saying at all, and if you don't understand what they're saying, they have no trust that you are actually addressing them or their concerns, or actually care about them in the slightest. More and more often, as soon as a hint of PC is felt, the brain shuts off. You may have the best of intentions, but at best you're wasting your time.

3. It may be seen as a power play: Why are you the one who gets to choose the word? Why does the UOTE's language intrinsically become incorrect? Who gave you the right to try to dictate to this person the terms with which to express themselves. It's a threat to personal sovereignty.
If you are trying to change someone else, it's often easier to do if you can get into their heads, and bring them back around to your way of thinking.

> Not everyone who considers it alright to apply the epithet 'illegal' to individual human beings will be as thoughtful about it as you. Most won't.

So what? Making it socially unacceptable to use the word "illegal" won't suddenly cause these people to forget about the problems they are having providing for their families while striving for a better life. It won't address the internal insecurities behind the emotions behind the word in the way they are using it.

Did making the dreaded-N-word socially unacceptable actually cause any change in behavior? No. It was the other way around. As people realized that black people were actually people, the usage of the word ended up being isolated to folks who were also socially unacceptable. During the transition, the folks who said "I would never use that word" ended up showing

If they're using a word as an epithet, they've already devalued the individual in their eyes, and passing

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

Washington already has a law which says "It is mandatory for a motorist with criminal intentions to stop at the city limits and telephone the chief of police as he is entering the town".

Well, I just searched Westlaw with this search: crim! /p inten! /p chief

"/p" means to look in the same paragraph and the "!" is the root expander (I'm looking for crimes, crime, criminal and intent, intentional, intend etc.). No hits for the Washington Admin Code, and only a handful of hits in the Revised Code of Washington (actual legislation). However, these are false-hits resulting form the statutory annotations (the annotations are summaries of cases that discuss various statutes -- it just happenss that some of the case summaries have these words, which is unsurprising when certain phrases show up a lot, like "case in chief" or "criminal intent").

Anyway, it is 2:56am and so my Westlaw ability is affected by my sleepiness. For example, I should change the "same paragraph" to "and" but that leads to a ton of junk results I won't wade through. Or it could be a historical matter -- something that was, but no longer is, on the books. I'm not going to search the historical databases either.

Anyway, I'm skeptical there is such a WA law, but I'd love to be wrong. It would be great fun to actually cite to such a silly law. So ... got an RCW or WAC cite for it?

Re:Scary

[the_mushroom_king]

Anarchy would not be better, but it would be nice to live in a society where ordinary citizens (the majority) and not the rich (corporations) who make laws contradictory to the will of the common man (and common sense).

Its sad that 2% of the population control 99% of the wealth. Its criminal that we have to live in a society with laws tailored to their interests.

--TMK

Re:Scary

[mpe]

I don't think it's racist to be angry at people who come to the fairly successful countries we have built in Canada and Oz, and then want to change the rules to those of their fairly fucked up countries that they were so eager to leave.

Locals tend to be offended when it's only tourists with this attitude.

Why can't we put up Xmas trees in our schools? Because some immigrants are "offended". Well, I'm offended when I see women walking around all covered up, and refusing to take off their veils when, for example, store clerks are trying to verify photo ID.

Not only that in many parts of the world someone who covers their face without good reason is generally assumed to be up to no good. Wonder what would happen if the average Canadian woman wanted to walk around Ryad in her usual clothes...

This reached its latest peak in the Quebec provincial election due Monday. The government, in response to protests from a few dozen Muslims, was going to allow Muslim women to not take off their veils to verify their identity. (Everyone else has to provide photo ID before being allowed to vote.) Only after massive protests that would have seen native Quebeckers wearing masks, bags, etc. on their heads did the government back off.

Maybe they should have worn motorcycle crash helmets. A very practical form of headgear, yet often expected to be removed when entering buildings.

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

Happens in the Detroit area all the time. No big deal, they ask you about the Boston Tea Party, Thomas Jefferson, who was Lois & Clark, stuff people who were not raised here would not know.

Re:Scary

[KDR_11k]

A gas mask might be more impressive than a motorcycle helmet. Doesn't hide as much but makes people uneasy. Though maybe one of those Intel cleanroom suits would work, too.

Re:Scary

[Dog-Cow]

Border Agents will still want to see photo ID. This would just let them use an RFID reader to pull up the same citizen information that's on a passport. Your scenario would be the same as waving a closed passport at an immigration official and expecting to be passed through.

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

Language tends to dictate action
Umm, ok, what action might the world illegal tend to dictate?

I don't really get your point. When you think of a felon, do you also refrain from using the term felon? How about with a murder or rapist, do you refrain from calling them a rapist? I doubt it, but these folks are as you say "fucken human beings" too.

Re:Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

Its sad that 2% of the population control 99% of the wealth.

It is?

Re:Scary

[IAmTheDave]

If they are from somewhere else, they are an alien. If they are enterring illegally, they are an illegal alien. And it's natural to shorten a long phrase like "illegal alien" to simply "illegal" when the context is clear.

And for God's sake, calling someone an illegal alien, when they in fact are, does not make someone racist.

Talk about misuse of a word to further a political agenda.

"We need to control the flow of illegal aliens into..."

"RACIST!!"

WTF??

Re:Scary

[UnknownSoldier]

> If they are from somewhere else, they are an alien.
> If they are enterring illegally, they are an illegal alien.

How quickly we forgot North America was built by immigration. No wonder it was already inhabited by people who laughed at the concept of ownership of land as ridiculous as trying to own the sky, or the ocean.

The planet doesn't belong to you -- stop pretending part of it does. You have no more "authority" over it, then the next person. Resorting to guns to backup your "authority" is childish behavior based on fear and control.

The planet existed long before you were born, and will exist long after your dead.

--
How can a contract/law (Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc) apply when you NEVER signed it?!?!

Re:Scary

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>How quickly we forgot North America was built by immigration.

Just because they're illegal doesn't make them wrong to be there. You've conflating two separate issues... ones legal disposition with there place in the world.

>The planet doesn't belong to you -- stop pretending part of it does

Just try coming into my bedroom to say that. I will damn well pretend I own this part of the world.

Maybe they had no formal concept of "ownership" of the land, but they certainly had social rules as to who was allowed to be where when... Could you and your friends just walk into the Chief's teepee and start having a random conversation? Or might there be some resistance?

They couldn't understand our social rules... and I don't imagine anyone really tried too hard to explain it to them.

Maybe their rules were entirely based on the actions one person might take against another, or positions of leadership... our just happened to be a bit more abstract and rigid (note, I didn't say civilized... I'm not getting that argument here).

Re:Scary

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>but these folks are as you say "fucken human beings" too

Yeah, especially the rapist.

I know, I know... I reserved an aisle seat awhile ago

Re:Scary

[EinZweiDrei]

You... you sure drew a lot of meaning out of that little blurb of mine. Funny thing is, I agree with a lot of what you said, although I don't quite understand who it was directed at. I'm not for politically correct goose-stepping with language. That doesn't mean I'm not for human courtesy. It existed before political correctness and we can hope it will exist after.

I'd rebut formally against a much less beleaguering rant than the one you posted -- but against that, I'll respectfully concede.


But VT was the opposite of TV;
He'd never accuse someone of being 'PC' --
'Cause it's so frickin' dumb to say!
The term arose on the Columbus Day Quincentennary
When the Republic was honest about the conquest,
And wouldn't party as they had previously promised.

argggghhhhhhh

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

One of my teachers in college. lo, these twenty years ago, warned me this would happen.

Of course, we already had seen it in Micro$oft's say 80/20 to excuse any level of functionality.

Re:argggghhhhhhh

[Larry Lightbulb]

That you'd need a passport if travelling between two countries?

Papers

[Anonymous Coward]

Papers Please!

Re:Papers

[Anonymous Coward]

You are missing the point -- with RFID, you'll never hear the phrase "paper please!" They'll just silently scan you. If you are found wanting, they'll throw a bag over your head and haul you away.
The citizens of the country won't be inconvenienced in the least. Have a good day Citizen!

Non-citizens?

[BluedemonX]

What would permanent residents and H1-B types have on their "enhanced" papers in lieu of proof of American citizenship?

Re:Non-citizens?

[Larry Lightbulb]

If you're a permanent resident or a H1-B holder you're not am American citizen, so you'd still need to have your passport and green card or whatever a H1-B has.

Re:Non-citizens?

[Lord Kano]

What would permanent residents and H1-B types have on their "enhanced" papers in lieu of proof of American citizenship?

I imagine that they'd already have passports and/or other papers to show their legal status.

LK

Re:Non-citizens?

[c_forq]

For going to Canada I think that matters what citizenship you are and what your countries deal with Canada is. I attend a large university in Michigan, and when making trips to Canada I have friends that can't go due to restrictions on their visas or a few can go if we give them about 6 weeks for the Canadian visa application process, and others just need a stamp in their passport or just have to show their passport.

Re:Non-citizens?

[maxume]

H1-B holders have a visa(that is, that's the way their status is documented).

Re:Non-citizens?

[maxume]

Some probably can't go because the US wouldn't let them back in.

Re:Non-citizens?

[The Vulture]

As I've been told by many pedant border crossing officials (in Toronto), an H-1B is not a visa.

My immigration attorney actually addressed this situation with me, because he knows that I like to travel, and I mentioned that I'd like to head to San Diego sometime soon. His advice is to carry your I-94 form (which should be stapled in your passport), and you should be fine.

On Interstate 8, where it's close to the border, they apparently do checks every now and then, especially if they see a broken-down car.

-- Joe

Re:Non-citizens?

[Jerry Rivers]

Permanent Residents have a Permanent Resident Card (A.K.A. a Green Card or Alien Registration Receipt Card) which is already encoded with all sorts of information, so they don't need any other I.D.. Not even a passport.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_2223.ht ml

Re:Non-citizens?

[maxume]

It's a visa. It just isn't a travel visa, which sort of makes my comment stupid.

Re:Non-citizens?

[JimBobJoe]

What would permanent residents and H1-B types have on their "enhanced" papers in lieu of proof of American citizenship?

Permanent US residents don't need an enhanced license because they already have a Green Card. The Green Card is accepted by Canada for entry and it's accepted by the US for return. (Permanent US residents are, in effect, treated by Canada as if they were US citizens.)

Non-permanent residents are not treated the same way, and are evaluated by their citizenship and other credential issues--so they'll need their passport anyway.

Re:Non-citizens?

[JimBobJoe]

If you're a permanent resident or a H1-B holder you're not am American citizen

Though this reply sorta contradicts another reply I made to the parent, US Permanent Residents are treated by Canada as if they were American citizens, so it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to have an enhanced license indicating they were a green card holder.

My contention on that is they don't need it because they already have a green card--which is sufficient for crossing into Canada and back.

Re:Non-citizens?

[synx]

You are incorrect - Canadians on H1-B status are not required to get a visa. A Visa is a stamp (now a holographic decal the size of an entire page) you get at a US embassy in your home country. Canadians only require proof of their H1-B status, which is essentially just a I94 card.

The other question is, if you are a Canadian in the US on a H1-B you don't carry your passport with you. So what happens if you get pulled over by one of those? Do you get arrested?

Re:Non-citizens?

[KDR_11k]

So if they got MasterCard they're screwed?

Re:Non-citizens?

[maxume]

So why is the H1-B called a visa all over the place? I'm not insisting that I am correct, just trying to understand what labels apply to which things. It seems to me that the thing you call the I94 card is documentation of an H1-B visa, and that the confusion is due to the fact that 'visa' generally means 'document showing you are in a foreign country legally' and applies to work, study and travel permits, and further, that the requirements between the US and Canada are generally low.

I'm moving there soon

[giminy]

I'm moving to Washington State soon. I wonder what their reaction will be when I apply for one of these and during the interview state that I'm a security researcher interested in breaking it. :).

Reid

Re:I'm moving there soon

[Anonymous Coward]

Then one of two things will happen:

Either your interrogator will be "you better love the USA or else" type of asshole, in which case youll be labeled a traitor.

Or, your interrogator will be a underpaid, overworked person who could care less. Ill vote for this one.

Re:I'm moving there soon

[Frosty Piss]

Or, your interrogator will be a underpaid, overworked person who could care less.

So what does that mean? That the care enough to care less if they wanted? Or that they don't care at all? I don't understand...

Re:I'm moving there soon

[hedwards]

I know what you're getting at, but I think that more likely they could care less, but it would really screw up their nap schedule.

Believe me, not caring at all about something really takes a lot of energy.

Re:I'm moving there soon

[sumdumass]

I think you better look into it a little more before doing it. Most states have strong laws about creating false IDs or screwing with security measure on it. You could probably get a permit and have your research watched but if you release something to the public that could allow someone to bypass the security, your could be in as much trouble as whoever did it.

Anyways, Good luck with it. Just don't end up being the next guy that someone is crying about on slashdot because they don't understand your a white hat hacker and no9t a terrorist.

Re:I'm moving there soon

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually what is meant by the phrase is "couldn't care less," which has the clearer meaning "couldn't care any less because they are currently at the minimum level at which they could possibly care," but the phrase is often passed on as the erroneous "could care less".

Re:I'm moving there soon

[Anonymous Coward]

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to our new episode of "Famous Last Words"

Great idea!

[Black Parrot]

Because we know that Canadians and other undesirables who want to visit the USA illegally will find these so hard to fake.

Re:Great idea!

[jmv]

Actually, they won't even bother faking it. They'll just cross the border at one of the many border points that have no officer there. Or they'll cross in the middle of the woods, or by crossing a lake/river, or through an indian reservation... I still haven't figured out why they're pushing these stupid measures. It's bad for the US even economically since Americans can still easily enter Canada, but Canadians have a harder time spending their money in the US. Then again, I'm Canadian, so what do I care...

Re:Great idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you mentioned it, because I'm curious why Walmart bothered to build a new supercenter in Sarnia when you guys just cross the border and go to ours, instead. There's so many Ontario plates here that some of us think it's an invasion - not that we really mind. I like your queen more than our asshole president, anyway. Matter of fact, there's even been a couple of times when I've seen a couple of Quebec plates too, and one from beautiful British Columbia as well.

why RFID?

[Allison Geode]

why can't they just keep a database and have barcodes? wouldn't that be, essentially, the same as this, only less prone to RFID's insecure nature?

Re:why RFID?

[Joe The Dragon]

toll roads use an RFID based system fro ETC and you don't hear about people copying the tags.

Re:why RFID?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Now there's an idea. If only there was a way to make the barcode impossible to lose...

Re:why RFID?

[malkir]

Yes, probably because you'd rather just pay the 75 cents and be on with it rather than taking your time to hack the RFID?

Re:why RFID?

[Original Replica]

If only there was a way to make the barcode impossible to lose...

...tatooed on the back of your neck of course.

Re:why RFID?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh ooh ooh... How about this... We could tatoo the barcode on the foreheads and wrists of people and list a number like... uhh... 666.

Wait... that may be too Biblical.

Re:why RFID?

[Anonymous Coward]

and how much harder is it to fake barcodes? or magnetic strips? we need a smart tool to protect the data and it must not be dumb enough to broadcast unnecessarily.

Re:why RFID?

[Joe The Dragon]

In IL tag uses pay less and they can use the high speed lanes.

Re:why RFID?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, that's easy. They already have a database, and our licenses (I'm in WA) already have barcodes.

I suspect it has something to do with money exchanging hands. The RFID salesmen said that making new RFID cards would totally be simpler and cheaper than adding a new boolean field to the existing database. (Or asking people leaving the country to have passports.)

Re:why RFID?

[Anonymous Coward]

Barcodes are essentially too small to track individual people. The fields that make up a barcode are limited in the amount of information they can carry. You can tell a bar of soap apart from a 6-pack of Cokes using a barcode, but you couldn't tell one bar of Dove soap from another. When you start talking about tracking people, you simply run out of unique identifiers...

Where did you get the idea that UPC was the end-all be-all of barcodes?

The back of my WA driver's license already has a 2D barcode, which seems to have 23 rows and about 285 columns. Since each point is either black or white, that's about 2^(23*285) different numbers, or just under 1.785 x 10^1973. In terms of data, that's over 6 KB, which is way more than you need for identifying people.

If that's not enough, I note that it covers less than 1/3 of the height of the back of the card. Maybe they use that space for other things (truck/motorcycle qualifications?), but if not, you can bump it up to about 18 KB really easily.

As far as security goes... don't pay attention to the tin-foil hat crowd. The type RFID they would use on a passport/drivers license will have a strong (probably 128 bit) encription engine on the tag. Any concerns of reading an RFID tag from a distance (and becoming a target etc.) are easily engineered around. It's not difficult to limit read distance to a few centimeters if desired (and a simple piece of foil wrapped around the license would make it unreadable by anyone.)

That's a great theory, but in practice either it doesn't work so well, or the people implementing it know less than you do: passport RFID chips have been read from 30 feet away.

And wrapping a piece of foil only works when it's in the foil; the second you take it out to use it for anything, it's fair game.

WA state licenses already have a high-density barcode. Adding RFID increases cost, decreases security, and adds no new features that the barcode couldn't already accommodate.

This Doesn't Make Sense

[Seumas]

So if you are a legal citizen entering the country legally, this will track your movements and information.

If you are not a legal citizen and do not have legal documentation and you are entering the country, this won't affect you. (There are MANY points where entry into the united states is completely unhindered by any enforcement whatsoever - in fact one place has an HONOR system where you are supposed to stop at an unmanned shack and call the authorities and give them your information before continuing... and sometimes they don't even answer the phone!).

So again... exactly how does this help? This sounds a lot like those idiots who get their children fingerprinted and swabbed for DNA at the mall or their child's school, with some sort of warped idea that if their child is kidnapped, having their fingerprints on record will somehow magically return them.

Just an excuse to acquire more data on citizens. Period.

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense

[Lord Kano]

This sounds a lot like those idiots who get their children fingerprinted and swabbed for DNA at the mall or their child's school, with some sort of warped idea that if their child is kidnapped, having their fingerprints on record will somehow magically return them.

People do that so in a worst case scenario, they can identify their child's remains.

Most people have never thought about it, most likely because it is a horrible thing to think about, but not knowing that the body that the police just found is your child can be worse than knowing.

LK

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense

[Seumas]

People do that so in a worst case scenario, they can identify their child's remains. That isn't the reason the parents do it. These services are done in shopping malls and grade schools and they are promoted as ways to keep your child safe. Not identify your child after they've been raped, murdered and then chopped up. People just don't put any though into it and they honestly believe that by giving the government a record of their child's biometric information they will somehow receive increased safety out of it.

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense

[Lord Kano]

That isn't the reason the parents do it. These services are done in shopping malls and grade schools and they are promoted as ways to keep your child safe. Not identify your child after they've been raped, murdered and then chopped up.

Because you can't have a sign up that say that. Reasonably intelligent people know that this won't keep their kids safe. Reasonably intelligent people know that it's a way to identify the remains. I concede that it's quite debatable, how many people out there are stupid, but it's a euphemism. No one would visit a booth marked "Identify your child's dead body with our help!"

LK

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense

[sumdumass]

(There are MANY points where entry into the united states is completely unhindered by any enforcement whatsoever - in fact one place has an HONOR system where you are supposed to stop at an unmanned shack and call the authorities and give them your information before continuing... and sometimes they don't even answer the phone!).

You do exactly as your suggest. If your one of these illegals (terrorist/whatever) coming into the states, you will feel reasonable comfortable in large crowded passages were you could slip by more easily then the less known and less secure places. So we make it more difficult and now the illegals want to go through the less secure areas to get away from this tech that will flag them every time for not having it. So the smaller crossings have increased surveillance and either grab you on this side but far enough away or watch were you go and get the lot of you later.

It is the same thing as when hunting deer or something and you put up fallen trees or some others obstruction in an attempt to funnel the heard into a set pathway. We used to mow tall fields and place cross backs on them because the animals would take the easiest paths until they got scared. This isn't much different but costs a lot more, has a much larger geographical span and has potential failure points that are different he with an animal. But if they were getting buy in the first place, the there were already points of failure.

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

If my child is kidnapped, I think I would like a record indicating that I'm the parent. When he escapes and goes to the cops saying "I've been kidnapped", what's to stop the kidnapper from saying, "Oh, he just says that when I make him do his homework"?

Granted, getting them fingerprinted doesn't inherently make them safer, it just makes them traceable back to me should something happen to them.

What would happen should they end up at the hospital unable to communicate, though? Children don't carry IDs, so the only way they'll be able to contact me is via their fingerprints.

dom

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense

[DavidMarquis]

You're damn right and if poeple can't accept it, we, or they, are all doomed. you're damn right, period. And im not being cynic or anything im serious, I live in canada and from an outsider point of view, this seems totally abusive from the government to me... The poeple should be the ones deciding and in power, but we allow ourselves to be rules by some rich ass politicians who do not really care about providing some truth, just mass manipulation... this is sad times for humanity.

And the terrorists greet this news with ?

[zappepcs]

Counterfeit drivers licenses for 'Olympics visitors' to use to enter the US in
3....
2....
1....

Re:And the terrorists greet this news with ?

[VGPowerlord]

Counterfeit drivers licenses for 'Olympics visitors' to use to enter the US in

You are aware that Vancouver is in British Columbia, Canada, right?

Re:And the terrorists greet this news with ?

[Mikkeles]

'You are aware that Vancouver is in British Columbia, Canada, right?'

There is also one in Washington state, although it is a very much smaller city.

Re:And the terrorists greet this news with ?

[Jerry Rivers]

It looks as if you have misinterpreted the OP's post. I do believe he meant to say that visitors to the Vancouver Olympics may be able to purchase phony Washington State licenses in B.C., for the purposes of illegally entering the US.

I think it's more likely that there will be problem with illegals entering Canada from the US than rather than the other way around. Though from what i understand about the new enforcement capabilities of border guards on sides, illegal crossings are far less likely to happen than past years.

Re:And the terrorists greet this news with ?

[VGPowerlord]

I actually realized that after I posted my comment, but since /. doesn't let you delete or edit them once you make them, it was too late then.

Note to self: Don't make /. posts right after waking up from a nap.

Yes, actually. The cat does got my tongue.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Investigator: So why did New York just blow up again?

RFID License Plate Politician: Our system was flawless except for someone stealing a good one.

Why not just get a damn passport?

[sulli]

I've never understood the problem with just getting a passport to cross the border.

Re:Why not just get a damn passport?

[Anonymous Coward]

This save you $$$ not having to have a passport if all you do is drive past the US/Canada border.

Re:Why not just get a damn passport?

[value_added]

I've never understood the problem with just getting a passport to cross the border.

I think this program is targetted more specifically at cross-border car travellers. That said, here's a few reasons:

1. Most Americans will never travel outside the state they live in let alone outside the country, and see little use in obtaining one, notwithstanding the general native distrust of things associated with federal government.
2. The passport application requires submission of original documentation. Most American don't even have a copy of their birth certificate.
3. Obtaining a passport can take anywhere from a few weeks to a few months.
4. The fee for the passport alone is $67. See No. 1.
5. Driver's licenses are the de facto Identity Card in the U.S. If you try getting into a bar with a passport alone, you could fill a blog describing the looks on people's face when you present it, let alone the different reactions you'd get.
6. Everyone (presumably) already has a driver license so there is a strong incentive by everyone involved to make use of them.
7. Passports don't fit into your wallet which makes them more subject to loss or theft.
8. Passports need to be renewed.

Re:Why not just get a damn passport?

[Larry Lightbulb]

The only figure I've seen for the 'enhanced' license is a $40 fee - I'm assuming you'd get that, then pay the same amount to renew it every five years, like the current regular license. So if the prices don't change the 'enhanced' would be $82 cheaper than the passport and regular license when buying them, and then $4.40 a year cheaper in renewals.

Re:Why not just get a damn passport?

[Anonymous Coward]

BS.

1. I don't know where you're from, but I certainly don't know anyone here that never leaves the state, and many of us here make the trip to BC a lot more often than Oregon or Eastern Washington.
2. Passports applications require proof of citizenship, nothing more. ( http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_1738.htm l ). Same as the new "enhanced" licenses.
4. The fees are about equal, given how often each needs to be renewed.
5. What does this have to do with crossing into Canada. Do you think bouncers in a foreign country are more likely to trust a Washington state driver's license, or a US passport?
6. But no one has an enhanced license yet, and seeing as they will be optional and more expensive, this argument of convenience doesn't make sense.
8. Driver's licenses (in Washington state) need to be renewed twice as often as passports.

Re:Why not just get a damn passport?

[Seumas]

I'm still confused as to when we started needing identification to cross into Canada in the first place. Last few times I crossed, nobody even checked my identification. And when I flew, all they cared for was seeing my license or state ID card.

Re:Why not just get a damn passport?

[Maniakes]

I didn't get a drivers license until after I finished college, so I did use my passport to get into bars for a while and nobody batted an eyelash. Of course, this was in a small college town which one could bike across in about 15 minutes without breaking a sweat, so people without drivers licenses were probably much more common there than in most of the US.

Are they really gonna check these?

[eggman9713]

Are the border guards on both sides actually gonna check these RFID chips? I mean, the few times I have driven into and out of Canada over the Blaine border crossing north of Seattle, the Canadian, yes, Canadian border guards grill you worse than the American ones. The last time I went into Canada in October 2006, I gave the guard my passport, and he asked me where I was going, for how long, and asked me to recite some of my passport information from memory.

Two days later, when I came back (in the middle of border rush hour) I gave my passport to the American border guard and he asked me where I was going. I told him I was going to x-town. He didn't even care that x-town was not anywhere near where my residential address was. (going to college in a different area of the state).

Makes me wonder if the guards have the scanners for the chips in hand rather than a gian car-size one, if they will even care if any information is mismatched.

Re:Are they really gonna check these?

[MntlChaos]

I think border guards care less about citizens of their country than others. Thus the USA Border Patrol will let you off easier than a Canadian and vice versa.

Re:Are they really gonna check these?

[Jayemji]

I've found quite the opposite. The US boder patrol has generally been more strict on me than the Canadian one ever was.

Re:Are they really gonna check these?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. On my last trip to Canada, I was just waved through customs. On the way back, though... let me just say that having a Portugese last name and pasty white skin is apparently something very bad when entering the US.

Re:Are they really gonna check these?

[TravisO]

I couldn't disagree more, I live in Western NY and go to Canada about 5 times a year. Entering Canada is a breeze, 90% of the time they only ask if I have any weapons, how long I will be staying and what I will be doing. Entering the US, even after showing my license often and most likely a license plate lookup still results in a barrage of questions. The last couple times I've gone to Canada I have notice they are entering some kind of data involving my license plate (probably just tracking how often I'm entering). So I'd say once in a blue moon entering Canada gives me a hassle, but once in a blue moon entering the US doesn't give me a hassle. Heck the lines on the US side are longer & slower too. I doubt this has much about "border guards care less about citizens of their country" and more about a laid back attitude from Canada but a paranoid attitude on the US side.

Proof of citizenship?

[Kaenneth]

This will help security how?

The Unibomber and Oklahoma City bombers were US Citizens, the 9/11 attackers had real, not forged documents, the vast majority of illegal immigrants are probably nice folks... since when does lack of proper ID portend terror?

If someone is planning a complex plot to attack the US, they probably won't let it fail because a key member has a badly forged ID card.

Re:Proof of citizenship?

[DerekLyons]

This will help security how?

It's not intended to help security - it's intended to make the lives of thousands of WA state residents that cross the border daily much, much easier. (Especially when the traffic levels spike in 2010 - the residents won't be impeded by the touristas.) Heck, it'll make my life easier. I used to go to Van or the Lower Mainland 2-3 times a year, but had to give it up because of the hassle. I'll be applying for one as soon as I can.

Re:Proof of citizenship?

[cmarkn]

I don't see how it makes your life any easier. The only difference is that you have to produce a state government-issued document instead of a federal government-issued document. Either way, you still have to stop and wait for the border guard to ask for "your papers, please".

Re:Proof of citizenship?

[mpe]

It's not intended to help security - it's intended to make the lives of thousands of WA state residents that cross the border daily much, much easier

Which is probably a tiny proportion of the people living there who wish to drive. Why should they pay the cost of more expensive driving documents. When those who wish to drive to Canada already have the option of simply getting a passport.

Re:Proof of citizenship?

[tyroney]

Please try reading about this proposed alternative license again. Thank you.

What's going on with my state?

[FirstTimeCaller]

First they want to tax internet purchases, now they want to put RFID tags on my license. I think our legislators are hopped up on too much StarBucks... I liked it better when they didn't do anything.

Re:What's going on with my state?

[GigsVT]

"I own I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." -- Thomas Jefferson

Re:What's going on with my state?

[AncientPC]

Washington State also made it a felony to play online poker since 6/6/06 (what a dubious date).

Re:What's going on with my state?

[StikyPad]

Don't forget their online poker ban.

Perception != reality

[EmbeddedJanitor]

The security organisations get their power (and money for toys) through fear. They need to keep the fear alive and they can do that by coming up with new security measures at airports/borders/whatever. These all help to build the perception that there is a dangerous world full of hippies/commies/rag-heads/$MONSTER_OF_THE DECADE.

Also, being politically driven, these organisations must pander to perceptions rather than reality. They respond to, and help fan, the perceived external threat rather than deal to the more real internal one.

Cattle

[SnappyTurtle]

Like teh subject says.

Re:Cattle

[Anonymous Coward]

brilliant insite. Just brilliant.

What a nasty hack

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that the underlying problem is that the US passport system is not meeting the needs of the citizens of Washington. I wonder why Washington feels the need to solve this problem by tacking additional functionality on a system that is meant to ensure that one is capable of operating a vehicle instead of directly addressing whatever shortcomings exist with the passport system.

Re:What a nasty hack

[terrymr]

I don't know ... even more puzzling is the requirement to produce a drivers license when writing a check in a store.

Re:Yes, actually. The cat does got my tongue.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who the f*** decided that sentences on the Internet shall no longer be formatted with two spaces after a period?!"

Probably the same one who decided there shouldn't be two spaces after a colon, or that following a question mark with an exclamation mark actually means something.

Truly Scary

[camperdave]

An-archy - without rulers.

So, no safety regulations. Nothing to stop bankers from making off with your life savings. No internet. No Thank You.

I like knowing that my food has passed mandated quality control measures. I like knowing that the rules that govern how vehicles use the roads are enforced, that planes are not going to be dropping parts on my head, that buildings can withstand a moderate wind without falling over, that the wiring is adequate, and that the bridges I drive over can handle the weight of my car, and hundreds of thousands of things that would just fall apart without any rules, and the authority derived from rulers to enforce them.

Re:Truly Scary

[essence]

You misunderstand the quest for anarchy. The idea is that there is no tyranny of any sorts. The freedom to rule over other people doesnt count. Lets have a look at what you said..

So, no safety regulations.

Without some sort of safety regulations. Greedy property developers would rule over their workers, forcing them to work in unsafe conditions.

Nothing to stop bankers from making off with your life savings.

That would make the banker a ruler, therefore its is not anarchy

I like knowing that my food has passed mandated quality control measures. I like knowing that the rules that govern how vehicles use the roads are enforced, that planes are not going to be dropping parts on my head, that buildings can withstand a moderate wind without falling over, that the wiring is adequate, and that the bridges I drive over can handle the weight of my car, and hundreds of thousands of things that would just fall apart without any rules.

All valid points that I agree with. The idea of anarchy is 'rules without rulers'.

So how do we enforce these things without becoming a ruler? Good question, I think the answer lies in free association, mutual aid, co-operativism. That is, when people freely associate to get a certain job done, then they are less likely to build something shoddy for their community. Take open source Vs. Micorsoft. Who makes the better OS? The people who do it as volunteers, or the people who do what they are told by Billy boy.

Re:Truly Scary

[Goaway]

So how do we enforce these things without becoming a ruler?

How about some kind of representative system where the people are polled about who they would like to be represented by? And some sort of "separation of powers" to make sure no sub-group of said system gains control over the others?

Re:Truly Scary

[essence]

i dont think so. Thats what we have now in most places. It's called representative democracy, and its become corrupt as hell.

The key to getting rid of rulers/tyrants is to decentralise power, and abolish hierachy. That is, abolish nation states and their governments/presidents, and let all power go to the local community. Orgnaisation of the world would become a network of local communities. Kind of like peer-to-peer self government, instead of a hierachy of beaurocrats which gain ever more power. This model works for open source software development and it has worked for the self organisation of society in some parts of the world, such as in Chiapas.

Re:Truly Scary

[celkin]

So let's see...

article about driver's licenses == coments about anarchy

Intersting chain of events. I look forward to reading more.

Re:Truly Scary

[Goaway]

i dont think so. Thats what we have now in most places.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. In fine form tonight, I see.

Now tell me, how does your system deal with large corporations that can just move around operations as it pleases them, and wield far more power than any single decentralized community?

Re:Truly Scary

[tverbeek]

With lots and lots of wishful thinking.

Re:Truly Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

Elected rulers are still rulers. Read a newspaper for examples.

Re:Truly Scary

[zcsteele]

Great idea in theory, but no matter how you try to implement it, it will go wrong the minute any humans get their hands on it.

What we really need is some form of government that doesn't allow humans any amount of control.

Re:Truly Scary

[KDR_11k]

In other words, you welcome our future robotic overlords?

Uhhhh.....

[Premo_Maggot]

-goes to buy anti-rfid wallet- (http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/security/8cdd/)

Already approved?

[Rentiak]

According to this CNN article, the initiative appears to already have been approved by DHS.

"The pilot project, signed into law by Gov. Chris Gregoire and formally approved by (DHS Secretary) Chertoff on Friday"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/03/24/border.crossi ng.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

worthless

[deblau]

The idea is to load the drivers license with information proving citizenship

Driver's licenses are not authentication, they are evidence of a license to drive on State roads. They were not designed to satisfy strong authentication protocols. They can only properly be used* once a person has been authenticated in other ways**. To see how massively ineffective they are at authentication, see here.

For the love of all that is right in the world, stop trying to use them for more than they were designed.

* By used, I mean to offer evidence to the person 'using' it that the possessor has permission to drive on the roads. It's only evidence, it's not conclusive. Using it for other things (e.g. checking age at a bar) is foolish.

** For instance, checking the car's registration against the DMV database to see if the driver's name, address, tags, and VIN line up.

Re:Go directly to jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think such wallets will be legal to use if this scheme goes through?

NICE!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

All of your information belonging to me!

And now I don't even have to get out of my vehicle to steal all of your info!

hacked from your wallet

[theatrecade]

washington just made it easier for id thieves to steal your info from your wallet without you taking it out

Re:Go directly to jail

[Premo_Maggot]

If I have to I'll rap the card in tin foil.

show proof of citizenship

[l3v1]

show proof of citizenship

Well, and I thought it's the state's job to know about a person whether (s)he's a citizen or not. If I show a whatever ID they issued I expect them to know my status and be that ID enough proof of my citizenship. Enormous amounts of tax payers' money is spent of countless forms of identification methods and cards issues, on systems storing these information, so use the damn thing.
 

Haven't seen any "Republican" comments yet...

[93 Escort Wagon]

... so I'd like to point out (speaking as a citizen of Washington state) that our governor is a Democrat, as is the majority in both houses of our legislature.

Just wanted to be sure there was some equal opportunity finger pointing. I must admit I'm not really much of a fan of Madam Governor.

Re:Haven't seen any "Republican" comments yet...

[synx]

Whatever, as a non left or right person, I ask you - why has the US turned in to the soviet union? Remember the movie "The Hunt for Red October" where the first mate was talking about defecting to America and thinking how amazing it would be to drive state to state without papers.

While there isn't border checkpoints between states yet, it doesn't seem so far fetched does it?

On the subject of the DHS non-border checks, what happens to those who are unable to prove their legal status in the US because they don't have their paperwork? That pretty much includes anyone who wasn't born in the US, including legally naturalized citizens.

So left, right, who cares - there are bigger problems here.

incomplete technologies

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

That all the hype in computers would drive the adoption of incomplete technologies in places where they'll do more harm than good.

It was a class called "Computers and Society".

We discussed the possibility that the government would establish a computer system to eavesdrop on telephone conversations. All of us students figured that level of voice recognition and the number of calls in process at any particular time made the concept preposterous. Somebody pointed out that such a system could at any rate be targeted, but none of us realized how cheap the required processing power would become. We figured it would remain cheaper to use human eavesdroppers.

We discussed a lot of issues like that, and the teacher tried to get us to consider the damage incompletely implemented systems could do, but we figured nobody would be stupid enough to risk so seriously embarassing themselves by making, much less selling, such things.

It was staring us in the face. We were all using MSC on MS-DOS machines and swearing at Microsoft for lying in their feature lists and hiding the reality deep in the smal print in the manuals. ("This feature only works under the following conditions:" with no apologies that the sacrifice of a live pigeon at midnight on the thirteenth Tuesday of the year seemed to have no relation to any know algorithms for memory allocation or string parsing.) Well, most of us were using MS-DOS. Some of us were using Macs. I was using a M6800 prototyping board and tape drive when I wasn't using the VAX. I just assumed the complaints about Microsoft's junk were due to lack of experience or excessive expectations, partly because I never bothered reading Microsoft advertisements or Microsoft breathless fanboy articles on the magnificence of MSWord and MS(doesn't)Excel. I didn't realize how much Microsoft were fudging under the 80% functionality banner. (Would have been more correct if they had said, "We sell it at the 80% functionality left to implement level.")

What does this have to do with trying to use RFD in drivers licenses to hold passport data when the government is finally (grudgingly) admitting that radio tagged passports need tin foil covers?

How much do I have to burlesque? (And why did my initial comment deserve to be labelled flamebait?)

a home is smaller than a country

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

but then there is also that old saw about a samaritan

So, how long is this good for?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean really. $40 for this über cool license that doubles as a border crossing card? How long is this good for? Four years? Five years? That is a ripoff! For that kind of money, you can get a NEXUS card, and bypass the long queues at the border. Alternatively, for $45 you can get your hands on the upcoming PASS card, and that'll last you 10 years just like the passport.

http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_222 3.html

They're talking about doing this in my state too, and I for one am not opting in to this little scam when it comes. I already have a NEXUS card right now and in the meantime, I'm waiting on my passport as well.

Maybe this has to do with this

[geoff_smith82]

Amero Currency and a North American Union, and the North American Superhighway.

Hmmm...

[Nulagrithom]

Is there something wrong when I'm getting pertenent and/or breaking news about a state that I live in from Slashdot? =\ Maybe I should pick up a newspaper or turn on the TV...

I live in Washington state and I approve

[adwb]

I'm not concerned about the new RFID cards. It's supposedly going to make things easier and I don't have a good reason to doubt that at this point. I have a photo on my debit card which makes my life easier because I don't have to show ID to make credit purchases. That means the only time I take out my license is to buy booze and cross the boarder. I have a better chance of my entire wallet being stolen at a bar than any of my personally identifiable information getting out through RF airwaves. Especially considering I bought this RFID Blocking Wallet a few months ago.

I say bring on the antennae!

Marching Behind the Jews into Hi-tech Ovens

[ImitationEnergy]

Marching Behind the Jews into Hi-tech Ovens. I guess that says it all.

A bit presumptious of Washington...

[Conor Turton]

This will only work if Canada decides to accept the RFID Driving Licence as a valid document for entry. They don't have to. Washington can come out with this and Canada can just completely ignore it. You'd still need a passport to get into Canada.

Re:A bit presumptious of Washington...

[dforreal]

But Canada is not asking for new documentation of US Citizens (or Canadian Citizens) to enter/re-enter Canada in the first place.. The "Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative" is a US Program.

Re:A bit presumptious of Washington...

[LordKronos]

Actually, in my border crossing experience (at least at the Detroit/Windsor border), Canadian border guards are pretty lax about the whole issue. I'm usually through the border in about 5 seconds. They ask where I'm going and how long I'll be in Canada. Half the time they don't even request ID. When they do request it, they quickly look at each passport for about 2 seconds while they are asking those question, and that's it.

Canada doesn't really care. They don't seem to have an issue with it. It's getting back into the US that is the difficult part. If the US mandates that you need a passport to cross the border, that's probably not going to change Canada's stance on the issue.

St. Paul/Mpls '08 because nobody else wanted it?

[smchris]

Makes me so happy I could just sh*t. They are already holding preliminary public meetings on where to set up the free speech pens and the like. One can only imagine the non-public planning. It overlaps with the state fair which is a big thing in Minnesota so I can envision the SWAT snipers on the roof of the dairy barn.

Erm, you forgot something...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that you forgot the 'big brother' tag when submitting this entry.

400,000 ID Thefts in Washington State.

[Mykroughpsyoughpht]

In a related story,
400,000 RFID Identity Thefts hit Washington State.
Washington Citizens losing their credit cards, bank accounts, homes, etc.
Please feel free to pass on your concerns to your legislators.
Wouldn't it be safer to implant the chip in the drivers hand, or perhaps inside their heads?

border silliness

[themushroom]

First, I think when they say "Forks" they mean "Blaine" where there IS a border crossing... but ya never know, maybe they were doing a sweep for frostbacks in the Christmas tree farm and came across wetbacks. Still fishy.

The last time I went north, there was no hassle getting into the Great White North (through Peace Arch, Blaine). Had a great time eating Wunderbars and Kinder Surprise eggs. Coming back home was another story, because the US border guard really wanted to see proof that I'm a US Citizen. My driver's license wasn't enough, he said, I need a passport, and launched into this story about how the fourteen terrorists behind 9/11 got boarded to planes because they had driver's licenses. I'm thinking and they had passports, but you didn't stop them anyway. I smiled and nodded, swore to try harder, and went back to where I've lived all my life 200 miles south of the border.

You have a strange idea of what government is

[Anonymous Coward]

As with most people faced with a large change, you seem to not quite understand what it is you're arguing against. You claim that things will disappear but don't say why or how; here on slashdot, we call this "FUD".

So, no safety regulations.

I see companies struggling to invent new safety devices every day. (I work at such a company, in fact.) It's a competitive advantage. We go way beyond government regulations. When's the last time you saw a safety innovation from the government?

If you want safety for, say, workers, I see unions being more effective than governments. Trying to enforce government regulations can be a slow process. If somebody says "This is unsafe! Let's all stop working until it's fixed", the company takes action immediately.

While it may be nice in theory to have a government help out here, its actual contribution is miniscule -- lost in the noise. All it does in practice is add paperwork and cost me money.

Nothing to stop bankers from making off with your life savings.

Most people naturally behave honestly. Those that wouldn't, probably wouldn't make it far enough to build a bank. If they do, they still have "fear of retaliation" to keep them in line. After all, that's all we have now, as well (only it's government-sponsored retaliation).

No internet. No Thank You.

I fail to see how the internet would disappear. Change form, quite possibly; disappear, doubtful.

I like knowing that my food has passed mandated quality control measures.

Enough people agree with you that even without government, it wouldn't go away. (That is, if you want it; I like to go to a farmer's market or get homebrew from my friends, which government food quality control measures don't affect, anyway.)

I like knowing that the rules that govern how vehicles use the roads are enforced, that planes are not going to be dropping parts on my head, that buildings can withstand a moderate wind without falling over, that the wiring is adequate, and that the bridges I drive over can handle the weight of my car, and hundreds of thousands of things that would just fall apart without any rules, and the authority derived from rulers to enforce them.

Again, just because the government is the only body doing this now, doesn't mean it's the only body that could possibly ever do it. If it's useful, some group will step up and do it.

You sound like a 15th century Byzantine hearing about separation of church and state: "I like knowing that there's a religion! No god? No thanks" -- as if having the head of government be head of religion was the only way it could possibly be.