Slashdot Mirror
Massachusetts Joins the Real ID Fight
In the battle against big government and the infamous Real ID, Massachusetts has hopped on board. In the words of State Senator Richard T. Moore, D-Uxbridge, "Historically, Americans have resisted the idea, which totalitarian governments have tended to do, of having a national ID. That's the broad philosophical issue. I don't think it's a good move and I would be reluctant to see why we are going to that step." And State Attorney General Martha Coakley thinks "it's a bad idea." Should be interesting to see how it gets voted.
I have a nagging feeling that the real reason this is being resisted is because congress expected the states to bear the cost. If they ran it through again, 100% federally funded, I doubt there would be any significant resistance.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Isn't a passport essentially the same as a national ID? It is physical proof of citizenship (and records where you've been, via stamps). Why not just issue everyone passports? What benefit would a new card/system have?
I'm probably missing something important, so I'm not trying to troll here.
Love sees no species.
Knowing who people are is the first step towards knowing how to truly protect people from fraud and invasion. Privacy as we knew it is dead. Get over it, and let's get ONE card that identifies us down to the DNA level so that we don't have to keep a bazillion cards in our wallet. Only luddites and con artists would be against this- as it would make identity MUCH harder to steal....
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
National IDs are basically a license to exist.
If you can't show one on demand, you are detained (to wit: your participation in society is suspended) until your license to exist or one is issued, or you are removed from society.
Not exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when creating a free country.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
This is heavily resisted in Europe too but many, many people have passports. What's the diff?
Do we know who it was that snuck the language into that bill at the last minute that allowed the Government to require these cards?
Technoli
Not to be pedantic, but isn't he saying that totalitarian governments have tended to resist the idea of having a national ID card? And he's happy cause Americans are resisting it too? Proper use of language for the win.
Life needs more saving throws.
FTA:
The Real ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005 and signed by President Bush, requires all U.S. residents without a passport to obtain a new state-issued type of driver's license or ID card in order to board commercial airplanes, enter federal buildings, get Social Security benefits or get into other federal government programs, starting next May.
As I read that, I can freely walk down the street without carrying an ID and not fear being detained. You may argue that it may grow into something more in the future, but at present, it is *not* a license to exist. Just thought I'd clarify that as I feel it's an important distinction.
Please also note, I'm not *for* the ID, but I'd like to try and blame the bill for what it actually does rather than what it doesn't do.
The only reason I see no need for a National ID type system is that there's no reason we can't efficiently connect the state systems together and keep our unique state images. Also, I personally like the fact that when I go to the Lower 48 and show my Alaska ID it spurs conversation. And vice versa, when people come here and show theirs.
I don't want to look just like everyone else. I may not be a unique snowflake (thx Tyler) but I'll be damned if I am going to let some politicians force me into a Federal program that's completely fucking useless.
This whole idea is an example of people doing totally unneccesary shit just so they can say they did something. Hey, Feds, leave us the hell alone. We didn't ask for this shit.
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
There are a lot of slashdotters who have become letter writers when it comes to issues like these. I hope more Slashdotters join them in writing their representatives and senators. I'm watching for Texas to join, but I fear that Texas is still considered "Bush country" and the current governor is really showing his Bush-like qualities when he pulls stunts like his HPV vaccination executive order. (So far, many people are confused by this since there is no such power given to the governor of the state of Texas... at least none that has been documented... but then again, if they let this ride, he'll have the power by precedent... very dangerous.)
If by "& co" you mean "all politicians and people involved in government", then yeah.
If you think this is a Democrat/Republican thing, you're a moron. Not even the Supreme Court has been kind to the 10th Amendment since about 1870, and it's just gotten worse and worse since WWII.
FanFictionRecs.net
The real problem with the ID is it is hard to see any justification beyond the feared extention-of-law (ID at all times).
It's a States Rights issue. This is just another example of the federal government sticking its nose into the affairs of states.
I'm all for the Feds mandating interstate standards, but there is no reason for them to take the place of our perfectly capable state governments.
And beyond that, if there is a federally mandated ID, how long until it will become required to show it upon request by any agent of the government? How much longer until anyone who doesn't have one is thrown in jail for not having one? "Papers please."
Remember, we live in the United States of America, not the Republic of America or Bushland for that matter.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Read your own quote. Without a RealID... ...you can't enter federal buildings. You can't participate in your own government's processes, even if required to (insofar as entering federal buildings is involved). ...you can't travel by air, train, or long-haul bus. ...you can't receive federal benefits, even though the money involved was compulsarily taken from your pocket.
In many areas, police CAN stop and ask for ID, and detain you if you don't comply.
Just because the totality of the potential of this "license to exist" groundwork hasn't been finished doesn't mean now isn't the time to start resisting it. They've learned to phase things in gradually, a la "boiling the frog".
Heck, this means you soon won't even be able to BUY BEER without a gov't-mandated RealID "license to exist".
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Libertarian leaning US Congressman Ron Paul who finished first in the MSNBC poll following the GOP primary debate last week absolutely opposses a national ID. 6:33 into this clip from the debate shows what he said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo
Libertas in infinitum
What this issue does really provide is an inflammatory diversion to attract the attention away from something else.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
DHS is taking comments on the proposed regulations until 5pm EST tomorrow (May 8). Get yours in now (takes 5 minutes):
http://www.privacycoalition.org/stoprealid/
... that the government always EXPANDS their requirements.
So, in order to avoid being REQUIRED to have a National ID, you have to go to the extra effort of maintaining (how much effort is that?) a few extra forms.
Sounds like a great deal to me. But then I'm philosophically opposed to "papers, please" becoming common in the US.
Even if I agreed with the idea of a national ID (I don't). Taking all of the government assumptions at face value, the plan still won't touch identity theft. Why not?
1) Base documents. How will you get a Real ID? You will have to present base documents (driver's license, birth certificate, passport, social security card, proof of address, whatever) to prove your identity. These can already be forged and already are to get perfectly valid driver's licenses. Without fixing the base documents, there is no foundation for Real ID. Someone can quite happily get the fake documents they need to get a very real document which will be accepted for a gold standard. What does someone do when they go to the government to get their Real ID, and someone says "Can't, someone's already got one."?
2) Existing identity theft. Issuing a new ID won't straighten out the existing tangled records. Which fraudulent credit lines go to which real person? How about income taxes and criminal records? You can't fix IDs that have already been stolen with a new document based on the already bad information.
3) Electronic transactions. An ID won't help you in electronic communications. You can't present your ID to a web page. They might start collecting Real ID numbers, but, like SS numbers, they can be stolen.
4) Lack of verification even in person. Right now, businesses and agencies are not required (and don't have the ability) to check the information that is there, like the fact that a given Social Security number belongs to a two year-old girl, not a thirty year-old man applying for a job. This is the source of a lot of fraud.
What you *might* be able to do is focus on fixing base documents, like fixing birth certificates, Social Security cards, and voter registrations. If those were harder to forge, easier to verify, it would be harder to get a fake ID of any kind. Once you had a significant chunk of the population with good base documents, people who currently have ****ed identities will eventually die off. Then, maybe, *maybe* a Real ID would make sense, but I think there are still better ways.
Right now, they're focusing on the wrong end of things. Probably because a real solution takes time, care, and won't be done before they leave office. A bad solution looks good now, and won't be discovered bad until long after they care.
I like the national ID because it arguable can fold services 1, 2, 4, and 7 into one stupid card and cut the bureaucracy.
... ha. .. ha.
... it'll be a total shitshow. That's what the government does. They don't "cut bureaucracy," they are bureaucracy.
Hahahahahaha(snort)hahha
Okay, I'm done.
Seriously, do you really think that's going to happen? Have you ever worked with the government? What you'll end up with is one gigantic new Federal agency, which contains all the bureaucracy of the agencies it was supposed to replace, plus a lot of administrative overhead, plus the added cost of high-level management
And none of this ID crap would change the state drivers' license procedure, so you'd still have all the same crap at the state-level DMVs. No elimination there. And this ID wouldn't replace Passports, so you still have that separately, under the State Department -- that's not going away any time soon.
There's no "reduction" of anything happening here. All it's going to do is create a new layer of bureaucracy on top of what already exists in the form of your state drivers license.
It'll be a few hundred million dollars of taxpayer dollars down the drain, and the end result will be a whole lot of personal data siloed in some giant database run by a brand-new agency in Washington.*
* Probably not actually in Washington; it'll probably get an office somewhere out on the fringes somewhere.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"The plan will create a massive national identification system without adequate privacy and security safeguards. It will also make it more difficult for people to get driver's licenses. And it will make it too easy for identity thieves, stalkers, and corrupt government officials to get access to such personal information as a home address, age, and Social Security number."
Slashdotters should offer their perspective. REAL ID was approved without Congressional hearings, and this is the last 24 hours for the public to comment on this proposal!
Yep. When Mafia family A wants to take over some territory from Mafia family B, just call the Feds. They'll do the work for you.
If you're a little strapped for cash, just offer to sell that old weapons cache for cash!
You see, the problem is the corruption of the law enforcement agencies. No matter how clean they are to begin with, once they start swapping favours and cash with the bad guys, they become corrupt.
The final result is cops being paid as hit men. And we've seen that.
As far as i can tell, no one will require anybody to show ID upon request except where they are already being asked to show ID: at the airport, during a traffic stop, in court, at the DMV, to open a bank account, etc. So it doesn't look to me like this will impact when we have to show ID and when we need to carry it.
Furthermore, there already exists one national ID number that is, according to nearly all expert opinions, completely broken: our SSN. Open a bank accout? Get a credit card? Get hooked up to electricity and the internet? Interview for a job? Regardless of where you are, your SSN is your national ID number, even if it was never designed to be used as such.
I realize that the REAL ID won't reach any of its purported goals (deter terrorism, etc), but it will be a semi-component replacement for a very, very badly implemented national id number.
What's wrong with that? As I said, I'm not trying to troll, I'd just really like to understand what all the opposition is about.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
is if the majoirty of the states take this stance. Otherwise, congress will punish those states that do not join in.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
More likely to auto-replicate the errors.
A single database is more efficient.
Eventually, the other departments will just stop maintaining their databases and use the database that has the most information in it. Then you have the one big database with whatever errors anyone has put in.
Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.
That's the dumbest fucking idea I've heard since I've been at Microsoft.
Sentence structure important, it is. No with no sense make.
While I don't think it's what he intended, he's saying that he is unwilling to see the logic behind something he disagrees with. His words are either refreshingly candid or, much more likely, poorly phrased.
While I can understand that people can get caught off their guard and the occasional sentence may come out incorrectly, the guy's a state senator. Isn't the ability to formulate a comprehensible statement a rather crucial part of statesmanship?
Oratory really is a lost art, it seems.
Among the totalitarian regimes that require people to possess (but not necessarily carry) a national ID are:
Belgium
Germany
Greece
Netherlands
Poland
South Korea
Spain
</sarcasm>
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_identity_car
A national ID card does not seem to be a sufficient condition to make a country a totalitarian state. State Senator Moore's statement may be true (most totalitarian regimes may require a national ID card). That does not mean that all countries that require a national ID card are totalitarian.
The social security card acts as a national ID card in the US. You are not required to have it, but you must have one to be able to work legally, or perform any number of mundane activities, such as open a bank account or get credit. It is a weak form of national ID card, since it contains no information that can be used to verify that the holder is the person named on the card. According to press reports I have read, forgeries are easy to obtain.
From another source:
In the words of State Senator Richard T. Moore, D-Uxbridge, "...I don't think it's a good move and I would be reluctant to see why we are going to that step."
Is it just me, or is this barely even English?
I know that we all sound funny when quoted verbatim, but I'd like to think most of us can form a coherent sentence, especially when it's really a prepared sound-bite for the media.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
The power of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), along with other federal government agencies, to reach into the everyday lives of people living in this country will be unprecedented. This is the same federal agency that had responsibility for helping people following hurricane Katrina, and proved itself not to be ready for the challenge. Creating a national identification system is a huge, complex project and there no agency in the Federal government that has proven that it could manage a project of this magnitude.
Facts: You will make more than one trip to the motor vehicle office to apply for your REAL ID national identification card; the government has estimated that the scheme will cost taxpayers $21 billion; REAL ID requires documentation that most people will have difficulty finding; and the cost of driver's licenses and state ID cards will skyrocket. We do know that the federal government is considering expanding the REAL ID card to everyday use.
The new requirements dictate state collection of personal data and documents without setting adequate security standards for the card, state motor vehicle facilities, or state motor vehicle databases. The government will create a national identification database by linking the databases of all 50 states and the data of 245 million state license and identification cardholders. REAL ID also increases the risk of counterfeiting and identity theft by creating one unifying ID card (with one design) to forge and one database full of sensitive personal information, with many entry points across the nation, to attack.
Add all of this to the fact that when Congress created the Department of Homeland Security, it made clear in the enabling legislation that the agency could not create a national ID system. In September 2004, then-DHS Secretary Tom Ridge reiterated, "[t]he legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security was very specific on the question of a national ID card. They said there will be no national ID card."
DHS is accepting public comments on REAL ID until tomorrow, May 8, at 5pm EST. A broad coalition of over 55 groups has launched a campaign to encourage the public to submit comments rejecting the REAL ID program. Check out http://www.privacycoalition.org/stoprealid/ for information on how you can submit comments.
Wrong answer.
Libertarians are split on the abortion issue. Some libertarians think that the right of a women to choose what to do with her body is paramount (I agree to an extent), and other libertarians think that the individual unborn child is also sovereign and is deserving of the same human rights as everyone else (this is what I fully support). In other words you don't have the right to kill your child because the child is a sovereign individual.
Libertas in infinitum
1) Base documents. How will you get a Real ID? You will have to present base documents (driver's license, birth certificate, passport, social security card, proof of address, whatever) to prove your identity. These can already be forged and already are to get perfectly valid driver's licenses. Without fixing the base documents, there is no foundation for Real ID. Someone can quite happily get the fake documents they need to get a very real document which will be accepted for a gold standard. What does someone do when they go to the government to get their Real ID, and someone says "Can't, someone's already got one."?
Have you READ the RealID act? Fixing the base documents IS the first step- it really tightens up the requirments.
2) Existing identity theft. Issuing a new ID won't straighten out the existing tangled records. Which fraudulent credit lines go to which real person? How about income taxes and criminal records? You can't fix IDs that have already been stolen with a new document based on the already bad information.
True enough on this one- the credit reporting agencies will likely face some problems until they clean up their act and stop taking fake IDs.
3) Electronic transactions. An ID won't help you in electronic communications. You can't present your ID to a web page. They might start collecting Real ID numbers, but, like SS numbers, they can be stolen.
Not if you index it to a fingerprint scanner- cheap enough these days, I have one on my cell phone.
4) Lack of verification even in person. Right now, businesses and agencies are not required (and don't have the ability) to check the information that is there, like the fact that a given Social Security number belongs to a two year-old girl, not a thirty year-old man applying for a job. This is the source of a lot of fraud.
This is also a MAJOR part of the RealID act- instant web verification, like the banks already do on SSNs.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
1) A Democrat is opposed to a communist/fascist idea.
2) Republicans are the biggest spenders the US have ever seen.
3) Democrats are opposed to the nanny state interfering with online gambling.
4) Republicans pass a very intrusive nanny state like law to outlaw online gambling.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
Nope. You infiltrate the organization.
They must NEVER know that they're dealing with law enforcement until AFTER they've been captured.
If the government intends to use RFID in these cards I for one must pass. I tried to look up the article that I thought was from wired mag but could not find it. Self edit I did find it http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/rfid.html
Its just to easy to steal the rfid, and until they can get something safer I for one won't have it if I can stop it. The only rfid card I have lets me into my condo and that gate is broken so often one only needs to wait before the gates are pinned open if you want to steal something.
There are just about 24 hours left for the public to submit comments against REAL ID.
Just for our information (and inspiration), what is the point of these comments?
Will they have any effect on whether, or how, the law will be enforced? If so, now? Or are they just an opportunity to blow off steam and feel good about having "done something"?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
For anyone who's actually READ the Real ID act -- it is NOT an National ID. What it IS is a set of standards the federal government would place on state IDs -- like your driver's license - for proof of identity in acquiring that.
There is no requirement that you have it. All the "right to privacy" people who are confusing this bill -- along with certain congress people who like to obfuscate the facts -- are totally off base or outright lying. Senator Moore is obviously showing his ignorance.
Real ID sets the standards for ID requirements on a National level. This MAY or MAY NOT be used by individual states, but ID's issued from those states would be invalid for identification at federal facilities (like the airport).
Any YES -- your passport already qualifies as this.
Number one, the Coalition is looking for them to have lots of comments. Sheer numbers from individuals and people outside the organized civil liberties movement to show the broad opposition to this proposal.
Number two, agencies have to make their rulemakings "fully reasoned." This means that they must take into account data, analysis, and interests offered by the public. Courts have said that agencies must respond -- by either modifying a rule or explaining why they are not modifying a rule -- to "significant comments" or "comments of cogent materiality" from the private sector. (all this from Afred C. Aman & William T. Maton, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 54-55 (2001).)
Number three, commenting gives you standing to sue. "Ungrounded Lightning v. Chertoff" :)
When These United States became The United States. It was a slow transition until it got to the point that it was - and is - generally accepted. Unless states like these step up and defend their rights (for whatever reason - maintaining funds for internal driver's licenses, etc.) and continue to do so, then everything will continue to move toward "central processing." And I'm sure things like National ID cards (and their predecessor, the "required-to-travel" passport) will continue to happen and will grow in numbers and requirements.
Bark less. Wag more.
Been looking for a change of scenery anyway. I think I'll just "defect" to a "free" country before we're required special permits for interstate travel. Laugh now... It's coming.
Besides, credit-cards can already do the same, with the cost being borne by the various commercial interests rather than the government. Additionally, I would be a lot more worried about what the credit-card companies (and their big corporate friends) are planning to do with such information than the federal government.
Ah but no body forces you to use credit cards when you go shopping. With the Real ID the government can and will require it's use. Right now it'll only be for boarding planes but once they get a taste of power it'll be required for more and more things. Government and bureaucracy expand to fill the void. As another /.er's tagline says it's not terrorists who are the greatest threat to liberty, it's government.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Thank you. Those are very good reasons to spend the time on making reasoned comments.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Secondly it would be a lot easier to carry around then your SS card and birth certificate everytime you want to say go to canada
I've never had to have my SS card or birth certificate to enter Canada. All I've ever needed was my driver's license. Then again the last tyme I was in Canada was a few weeks before 911.
I'm quite sick and tired of places not accepting out of state ID's.
And I'm sick of talk of requiring an ID for many things forget about a national ID. I was born in the land of the free, my dad retired from, and both my sister and I served in the military and I don't want to see it turned into any more a policy state than it currently is. "Papers please". Forget THAT!!!
FalconShould there be a Law?
Is it a Colt?
FalconShould there be a Law?
the id is useful for delivering services to citizens...
such as national health insurance...
Forget that! I don't want any national healthcare! All that leads to is rationing. I'm all for affordable health insurance for everyone but I oppose mandated nation healthcare run by the government.
at least consolidating one's health records so that you never have to fill out the same idiotic form every time you visit a new doctor
I don't want anyone to be able to see my medical records unless I authorize it. When I go see a new doc I'll bring my medical records from the last doc I saw.
It will also be important if you end up unconscious in the ER and are allergic to the drug they think they need to give you immediately.
There are alert bracelets and Medi Alerts people can get identifying allergies or other medical conditions for healthcare personel.
I believe it is more important to fight for legislation that demands that information is used properly for the right reasons and that all use of personal information be audited and available for individuals on demand.
Once collected, the info will be ABUSED!!!
FalconShould there be a Law?
NT
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Existing documents aren't good enough, documents like birth certificates which are easy to forge and easy to obtain. You can't just tighten up the requirements when issuing ID based on it because the base documents (and processes producing them) aren't good enough. You would end up denying millions of existing legitimate documents as unverifiable--- because they are. Fixing that takes time (like decades) and Real ID is useless until that happens.
... snip ...
3) Electronic transactions. An ID won't help you in electronic communications. You can't present your ID to a web page. They might start collecting Real ID numbers, but, like SS numbers, they can be stolen. Not if you index it to a fingerprint scanner- cheap enough these days, I have one on my cell phone.Useless. A fingerprint is just data; there's no magic. It can be copied like anything else. How does an online bank know whether someone is really using a fingerprint scanner or just sending a data stream of a fingerprint they captured? For that matter, the scanners themselves can be fooled in any number of ways. Unlike a CC number, you can't change your biometrics once they're misused. Because people believe biometrics are magic, it will be a lot harder to prove you've been defrauded. No one will believe you.
4) Lack of verification even in person. Right now, businesses and agencies are not required (and don't have the ability) to check the information that is there, like the fact that a given Social Security number belongs to a two year-old girl, not a thirty year-old man applying for a job. This is the source of a lot of fraud. This is also a MAJOR part of the RealID act- instant web verification, like the banks already do on SSNs.Yes, it is a target, but not given enough focus. Effort is being spent on a lot of other (expensive and unreliable) garbage rather than simple, effective solutions based on data already available, cleaning up existing processes, and making incremental improvements at the bottom end (the issuing and validation of base documents). They'll have a large, insecure, unreliable, expensive database of poorly validated data delivered much later than needed. Cleaning up this validation process, at least to catch 90%+ of fraud, doesn't need Real ID or any reasonable fraction of what they are trying to throw at it. What Real ID does do is create a centralized database which government loves but can never seem to secure, and enrich a lot of tech companies for technology which has never been vetted.
Once the system can catch the majority of fraud early, the rest of it can be handled and cleaned up by existing methods and good old-fashioned detective work. Expecting the system to catch more than that automatically, at any expense, is pure fantasy and ignores centuries of experience in intelligence and counter-intelligence.
That's right, there is a Republican who opposes this; Ron Paul of Texas. He is actually a libertarian but strictly opposes a national ID. You can see his response 6:33 in this video of the debate as he is running for President:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo
Libertas in infinitum
"which totalitarian governments have tended to do, of having a national ID"
I agree the Real ID initiative is unwarranted, but what totalitarian governments have national ID?
Unfortunately the States have conceded their representation to the Fed. Now that US Senators are no longer representatives of each state legislature, the states have ZERO say in what the Fed does to them. The 17th amendment should be repealed!
Forget that, I want to be able to vote for the senator that's supposed to represent my interests. Now if you want to talk about repealing an amendment then let's repeal Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Let every candidate run for president then the winner becomes president and second place is vice president. Of course the Democrats and Republicans will never go for this. They don't want to risk the chance the president will be from one party and the vp from another one.
FalconShould there be a Law?
then we should have no IDs at all. Have a state ID but not federal why? Okay, then why have a state ID? Who said I want or should have everyone in the state in on my info? Why not a town-issued ID? Why not issued by your neighborhood association? Maybe only one you make yourself? Oh wait, we call those our names...
Doesn't matter one way or another. Someone is going to need to be able to program, categorize or easily reference us sometime somehow. Might be even for our own benefit and we want it. What matters isn't the dangers but the government holding the dangerous tools.
Instead of doing like the government and our politicians keep doing, by using band-aid fixes that were never really intended to do their stated function anyhow and instead simply serve some ulterior motive (in their case aggrandizement) maybe we should be about fixing government and politicians by paying more and wiser attention to the system and voting accordingly. The government that doesn't trust its people can never be trusted by its people. The government that trusts its people will only do so because its people first trusted it. We don't trust those we empower and we do it anyways so what do you expect?
Left, right, Democrat, Republican... Whoever wins, we lose. Because we like it that way. Thinking deeper than going "yeah" in response to exhortations to patriotism or socialist activism either way isn't our strong suit. So we get what we set ourselves up for. Not saying we can't change, just that we won't until we do.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
We haven't had freedom in the United States since the 1950s.
Freedom was lost before the 1950s, some freedoms at least. By 1900 the USA didn't have the freedom and liberty Alexis de Tocqueville saw in the 1820-30s and wrote about in Democracy in America .
FalconShould there be a Law?
I love how the politics section is "fair and balanced". It's basically a propaganda catagory to push the editor's political agendas
I agree fully, I'm against a national ID.
I want to see state ID be gone, as well.
In fact I think the only form of ID should be the one we use daily - references from other people. Sort of like Ebay.
"I know him" - positive IDentification
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
The last time I looked at the Real ID Act, it looked like Mass was already doing everything that the act required....
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
The address is oscomments@dhs.gov -- emails must have "DHS-2006-0030" in the subject line
jon
"You know what irritates me about this claim, it's that people (and by this I think you mean all those Mexicans which Americans love to love and hate) have been coming across the border for a long time now. "
Indeed - to a significant degree because US ID requirements are laughably lax. This is also a reason why much opposition to effective, more counterfit-proof ID schemes is in bad faith. Much of the other opposition to effective ID schemes is driven by little more than slogans.
"Do you honestly believe that anything will prevent individuals sufficiently motivated to cause carnage?"
Yes - many things will stop them. The most efficient one is very simple, in the case of assymetrical foreign threats: Don't let them get into the United States. Presto.
"Repressive Nazi overlords and their willing servants in Occupied France couldn't stop bridges from being blown up."
Order in occupied France was reasonably well kept throughout German occupation. The resistance was never a major obstacle to the Germans.
"The British intelligence community couldn't stop IRA operatives from blowing up people."
Again - binary thinking. The relevant question is: Did British intelligence reduce the number of people blown up?
"The Founding Fathers knew damn well what would happen when personal liberties were sacrificed, even in the name of some greater good."
Citizens of all western nations sacrifice lots of personal liberties for the greater good. It's a tradeoff, as with most other things, not a binary choice. Drivers licenses, etc. becoming harder to forge or obtain fradulently is hardly a major blow to any significant liberty. (Except to those who shouldn't have those liberties to begin with).
And besides, isn't a passport a form of national ID card? You DO have passports over in the US I presume?
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
Electronic transactions. An ID won't help you in electronic communications. You can't present your ID to a web page. They might start collecting Real ID numbers, but, like SS numbers, they can be stolen.
Easy to fix. The Belgian ID card has a smart chip with an RSA certificate signed by the government. With it you can legally authenticate yourself and sign documents electronically. It is impossible to steal the cert, however, as it's generated on-chip and the chip does not contain the functionality to let it be read by an external device. Therefore, a sucessful authentication exchange guarantees that you're talking with that person's card and someone who knows its pin.
Various websites, such as the login for my university and certain Belgian banks, already allow you to use the card to authenticate yourself.
Jw
because I agree with you whole-heartedly (voted Bruce Guthrie for Senate out here in WA), but I had to show ID three different times when flying from Iowa to WA when I moved up here: Ticket Agent, Security Check Point before departure gates and another Security Check Point at my connecting flight.
just wondering what airlines you're flying, mate.
-- Joshua
A national ID sounds good
A national ID IS NOT needed, nor is it authorized by the supreme law of the land, the USA Constitution. And it sounds BAD!!!
It sounds simple and less complicated
Less complicated than what? And what for? Why should government be given more power. The scandels the past few months should provide enough evidence government can't be trusted.
Just like Gun Control it only hinders and hurts honest citizens.
It potentially harms citizens. Next thing you know government will be requiring stamps on your sleeves and tatoos on your arms. And yes, I met someone with numbers burned on her arms. About 20 years ago I met a survivor of one of NAZI Germany's concentration camps.
I just came across the border Saturday into Detroit. I wasn't even asked to show my license. Guy asked me about my citizenship and commented on my 74 Blazer and let me through.
Uhm. I've heard of Native American Indians who've been harrassed crossing from Canada to Buffalo, NY. One was on his way to a ceremony and was carrying a pouch with a blend of sacred herbs and he was told he couldn't enter the US with it, even though they have the right to by treaty.
FalconShould there be a Law?