Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Washington State To Try RFID Drivers Licenses

Posted by kdawson on from the chipped-again dept.

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.

20 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. Scary by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 2, Funny

    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?

    1. Re:Scary by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Scary by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Informative
      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

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:Scary by essence · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Scary by TheSkyIsPurple · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >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.

    5. Re:Scary by drsmithy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 ?

    6. Re:Scary by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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 ?

  2. I'm moving there soon by giminy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    --
    The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
    1. Re:I'm moving there soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  3. why RFID? by Allison+Geode · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  4. Re:Non-citizens? by Larry+Lightbulb · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  5. Proof of citizenship? by Kaenneth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Seumas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  7. What's going on with my state? by FirstTimeCaller · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.
  8. Re:Non-citizens? by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  9. Re:Why not just get a damn passport? by value_added · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  10. Re:Non-citizens? by The+Vulture · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  11. Already approved? by Rentiak · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  12. worthless by deblau · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
  13. Re:Non-citizens? by JimBobJoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.