Slashdot Mirror


Deadline For Saying "No" To National ID

cnet-declan writes "If you don't like the idea of a federalized ID card, you have only have an hour left to let Homeland Security know your thoughts: the deadline to file comments on the Real ID Act is 5:00 pm EDT on Tuesday. Probably the best place to do that is a Web site created by an ad hoc alliance called the Privacy Coalition (they oppose the idea, but if you're a big Real ID fan you can use their site to send adoring comments too). Alternatively, Homeland Security has finally seen fit to give us an email address that you can use to submit comments on the Real ID Act. Send email to oscomments@dhs.gov with 'Docket No. DHS-2006-0030' in the Subject: line. Here's some background on what the Feds are planning."

284 comments

  1. International disquiet by idkk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it helpful for non USA citizens to also voice their disquiet?

    --
    Ian D. K. Kelly

    idkk Consultancy Ltd.

    "Quality through Thought"

    1. Re:International disquiet by ArcherB · · Score: 0, Troll

      Is it helpful for non USA citizens to also voice their disquiet?

      As a US citizen, I appreciate your concern, but I have to ask:

      Why do you care?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:International disquiet by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Only if you wish to help push it through. They would claim that it is Al Qaeda in disguise.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:International disquiet by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, for a start, I work in the computer industry and that inevitably means I have to visit your country for work now and then.

      But, more importantly, a number of countries look to the US for a model of what it means to be free.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:International disquiet by erroneus · · Score: 1

      I think that should be obvious. The more out of control the US becomes, the more it affects the world. All I can say is that it's a good thing there is no extradition treaty between the US and Sweden (or whereever the pirate bay resides)... because even though what they are doing over there is not illegal by their laws, it's not legal in the US and people with a lot of money are angry... hell even without that stuff, you can see what was done! Imagine if there were treaties in place to allow that to happen LEGALLY?

      No, there's no question that what happens in the US will have significant ripples into the rest of the world.

    5. Re:International disquiet by owlnation · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess he cares because he's British.

      In Britain there seems to be no option for registering disgust at our national ID scheme - seems we're getting one and that is that. For all the horrific breaches of privacy and freedom that the Patriot Act etc have brought you over there - at least you do have the right to protest. PLEASE PLEASE DO!!!

      If you can regain your freedom, then there's some hope for us over here in Airstrip One - maybe they'll even take down a couple of million cameras - you, know like 25% of them... (sounds like that's a sarcastic exaggeration doesn't it. But it's not, sadly)

    6. Re:International disquiet by omeomi · · Score: 1

      Is it helpful for non USA citizens to also voice their disquiet?

      It'll probably get you added to a terrorist watch list or something... ;-)

    7. Re:International disquiet by Fireflymantis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But, more importantly, a number of countries look to the US for a model of what it means to be free.

      Living in the neighboring country to the north of the States, we have a log running tendency to blindly follow in their example. Thus, anything being introduced or changed there, will generally always have a direct impact on our laws and society, and when this isn't the case, the big U.S. corps generally see to it that our parliament gets lobbied into submission.

      So that is why it matters to us.
    8. Re:International disquiet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it helpful for non USA citizens to also voice their disquiet?

      As a US citizen, I appreciate your concern, but I have to ask:

      Why do you care?

      Isn't it obvious? The US is powerful. Commercially. Militarily. Culturally. What happens in the US has a big impact on what happens elsewhere, be it by shifting values in media or by pressuring a government to support your latest interest (like stronger IP laws) or just by plain old invasion. The ability of decent, normal US citizens to control your increasingly radical government is of serious importance to us. That's why we care.
    9. Re:International disquiet by ZakMcCracken · · Score: 1

      As an "alien" living in the US for more than 3 years, I would care too!

    10. Re:International disquiet by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1

      Is it helpful for non USA citizens to also voice their disquiet?
      I have my doubts that it's even useful for us USA citizens to voice our disquiet. The people making these decisions have been bought and made up their mind long before us citizens even know about it and I highly doubt a few angry e-mails will change their minds.

    11. Re:International disquiet by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      If I were being naughty, I might suggest that we start blogging about;
      How to ruin surveillance devices and ID machines.

      You know, if I were bothered by this and thought my vote didn't count because it's run on the same machines made by companies that get these sorts of contracts.

      These fricken' fascists. How do I already know that this won't stop crime, government corruption, and scary bad acts that get everyone in a lather?

      I think I'm going to take all my discount cards, and start swapping them with strangers.

      They've tried multiple times to pass this -- much like their Media Consolidation that Rupert Murdoch wanted.

      Our government is made up at least by 70% of sellouts who should be in prison, of anyone were to invade their privacy and find out what they are up to. What use is all this security garbage, if you can't trust your government? None.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    12. Re:International disquiet by ArcherB · · Score: 1, Troll

      For all the horrific breaches of privacy and freedom that the Patriot Act etc have brought you over there

      Seriously, I haven't noticed any. I know that facts really don't matter, but nothing in my life has changed since the PATRIOT Act was passed.

      If you can regain your freedom...

      Again, I haven't lost any freedoms. As for Britain, it sounds like you haven't lost any freedoms either. Privacy while you are in public maybe, but not any freedoms. (Although, as I have never been there, I'm really just speaking out my arse)

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    13. Re:International disquiet by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Many many other countries have a national ID system. If you're from another country and wish to share your experiences with a national ID system, good or bad that's fine. But I don't think the US consolidating the identification process for its citizens is going to really have an external effect on the world.

      You should be more worried about the effects the US had on the global market through gray-area industrial subsidies. (if you can go on some random unrelated rant, so can I)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    14. Re:International disquiet by Gogo0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You didnt say it, but this is awfully close to blaming the US for most of the world's (current and future) problems.

      If another country decides to follow in the US' footsteps, thats their choice. The US isnt foisting this on anyone else. If its a bad idea, then maybe the other countries that adopt it need their citizens to rethink who they elected last time around and not blame the US for their own weird politicians.

    15. Re:International disquiet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it's helpful....probably more helpful. It would be most helpful if you are here illegally. the US Government listens more to illegal aliens than its own citizens.

    16. Re:International disquiet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if he's a non US citizen living in the U.S., he should care because he'll have to get a national ID card too. So, yes, it is helpful for non US citizens to voice their opinions.

    17. Re:International disquiet by Valdrax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But, more importantly, a number of countries look to the US for a model of what it means to be free.

      Six years ago, that would've made me proud.
      Now, it kind of makes me really depressed.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    18. Re:International disquiet by superbus1929 · · Score: 1

      Isn't the UK thinking strongly of a Real ID system?

      --
      Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
    19. Re:International disquiet by idkk · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I care because freedom is everyone's concern. Your loss of freedom is a negative influence on my freedom.


      I care because totalitarianism is insidious. "It's only an ID card" becomes "you have to carry the ID card at all times" becomes "the RFID chip (or whatever) allows us to track you, wherever you are" becomes .... I know not what. And I don't want to know. Let's stop before we start on that road.


      I care because the state is our servant, not our master.


      And I do not have to tell you good folks that it will be expensive, and it will be insecure, and it will not prevent crime or terror or social disintegration.
      I care, becase it won't work - and it is dangerous.

      --
      Ian D. K. Kelly

      idkk Consultancy Ltd.

      "Quality through Thought"

    20. Re:International disquiet by lordsid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You didnt say it, but this is awfully close to blaming the US for most of the world's (current and future) problems.

      If another country decides to follow in the US' footsteps, thats their choice. The US isnt foisting this on anyone else. If its a bad idea, then maybe the other countries that adopt it need their citizens to rethink who they elected last time around and not blame the US for their own weird politicians. You're trying to tell us that the US doesn't force their will on other countries?

      Note: When I say US I really mean W's administration, because believe it or not the other 49% of us are half way intelligent. (The implication that voting for W makes you a moron was intentional.)
      --
      IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
    21. Re:International disquiet by idkk · · Score: 1

      "... a mean and hungry look / he thinks too much - such men are dangerous."

      --
      Ian D. K. Kelly

      idkk Consultancy Ltd.

      "Quality through Thought"

    22. Re:International disquiet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you think it won't if you *are* a USAnian?

    23. Re:International disquiet by Gogo0 · · Score: 1

      The word "this" from "The US isnt foisting this on anyone else" would be me saying that the US isnt forcing this on anyone else. Let me know if i need to repeat it again.

      A guy who cannot comprehend that simple sentence represents 49% of the US population?

    24. Re:International disquiet by symbolic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously, I haven't noticed any. I know that facts really don't matter, but nothing in my life has changed since the PATRIOT Act was passed.

      Just because you haven't been charged with something, or spied on, or in some other manner had your rights compromised because of this nasty product of the Bush administration, doesn't mean you won't. By then, though, it will be too late. Keeping control of government is all about keeping the horses in the barn- trying to get them back after they've escaped is a very long and arduous process.

    25. Re:International disquiet by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I care because freedom is everyone's concern. Your loss of freedom is a negative influence on my freedom.
      I care because totalitarianism is insidious. Then I assume you supported the US/British/Spanish/Australian invasion Iraq. I presume you are currently pressing your government to liberate Saudi Arabia, Syria, Russia, and Iran, all in the name of freedom of course.

      "It's only an ID card" becomes "you have to carry the ID card at all times" becomes "the RFID chip (or whatever) allows us to track you, wherever you are" becomes .... I know not what. And I don't want to know. Let's stop before we start on that road.
      I care because the state is our servant, not our master.
      And I do not have to tell you good folks that it will be expensive, and it will be insecure, and it will not prevent crime or terror or social disintegration.
      I care, becase it won't work - and it is dangerous. I see. You are saying that a nationalized ID will lead to tyranny. Are Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Hungary, Iceland, Sweden, and Switzerland run by tyrannical regimes? They all have nationalized ID card standards. Spain, Greece and about 98 other countries require you to carry a nationalized ID card. (Source)

      For a list of ountries with compulsory identity cards, go HERE I think you find that none of them are run by Bush.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    26. Re:International disquiet by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Yep.. six years ago "land of the free" wasn't smirk-worthy.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    27. Re:International disquiet by ke5in · · Score: 1

      Six years ago, that would've made me proud. Now, it kind of makes me really depressed. I have not logged in to Slashdot in years. But felt moved enough log in and agree with your statement. I hope our reputation is not tarnished beyond repair.

    28. Re:International disquiet by MooUK · · Score: 1

      Oh, we had the opportunity to at least put our names against the idea of ID cards... and something considerably over ten million did, as I recall.

      We then get told "It's clear that a lot of you think this is a bad idea, but I'm right and we're doing it anyway" by our beloved Chief Goblin.

    29. Re:International disquiet by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      "Then I assume you supported the US/British/Spanish/Australian invasion Iraq"

      Why would you assume that when the invasion has absolutely nothing to do with freedom? How many countries has the US "liberated" that didn't have oil lately??

      "I think you find that none of them are run by Bush."

      "I think you find that none of them are run directly by Bush.
      Fixed it for you.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    30. Re:International disquiet by Shemmie · · Score: 1

      In Britain there seems to be no option for registering disgust at our national ID scheme - seems we're getting one and that is that. Let's see...
      Transcript from webchat with the head of ID card scheme
      Petition to Tony Blair & response
      No2ID - UK-wide, non-partisan campaign opposing the government's planned ID card and National Identity Register

      We're trying. Truly, we are.
    31. Re:International disquiet by moxley · · Score: 2, Funny

      >>But, more importantly, a number of countries look to the US for a model of what it means to be free.

      Tell them that the current state of affairs reflects more on th...

      tell them that, in general we're still....uh.

      aw fuck.

    32. Re:International disquiet by tgd · · Score: 1

      But, more importantly, a number of countries look to the US for a model of what it means to be free. Not the brightest bulbs on the tree, eh?
    33. Re:International disquiet by Grant_Watson · · Score: 1

      You're trying to tell us that the US doesn't force their will on other countries?

      Can you really see Bush lobbying vigorously to get Real ID duplicated in Australia?

      Some obnoxious laws get imposed other parts of the world. This one-- why?

    34. Re:International disquiet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I see. You are saying that a nationalized ID will lead to tyranny. Are Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Hungary, Iceland, Sweden, and Switzerland run by tyrannical regimes?"

      Are any of them forcing their citizens to carry a nationalised ID card with biometric data on them? No.

    35. Re:International disquiet by mistermiyagi · · Score: 0

      kind of off topic but I'd like to have our friendly brothers up north start exporting some more reasonable thinking and common sense our way we seem to have a severe shortage of both.

    36. Re:International disquiet by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Why would you assume that when the invasion has absolutely nothing to do with freedom? Tell that to those who voted in the first time of their lives where the ballot had more than one option.

      How many countries has the US "liberated" that didn't have oil lately?? Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Bosnia, nearly Haiti, and, of course, Afghanistan. Of course, this list only goes back to the late 80's, but you did say, "lately".

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    37. Re:International disquiet by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Bosnia, nearly Haiti, and, of course, Afghanistan. Of course, this list only goes back to the late 80's, but you did say, "lately".

      Crap! Scratch Kuwait. They have oil. Although, we didn't steal it all like the protesters said we would and the protesters say we are now.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    38. Re:International disquiet by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Are any of them forcing their citizens to carry a nationalised ID card with biometric data on them? No. Yes. They all have a picture on them as well as eye color, height, weight and so on. And if they had more, like, say a finger print, so what?
      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    39. Re:International disquiet by idkk · · Score: 1

      Then I assume you supported the US/British/Spanish/Australian invasion Iraq. I presume you are currently pressing your government to liberate Saudi Arabia, Syria, Russia, and Iran, all in the name of freedom of course. Supporting the invasion of Iraq? Quite the reverse - an obscene waste of human life - even though I am pleased by the downfall of Saddam. And, yes, I am pressing my government - and all the people I meet - to liberate these and all other countries - but by peaceful means. The hug is more powerful than the gun (in the long run).

      I see. You are saying that a nationalized ID will lead to tyranny. Not quite - just that it makes tyranny easier, and (in this maddly technological world) more probable, where the ID card is associated with central databases and (shudder) tracking. And because of the immense power of the USA - financially, militarily, and in fashions of government - W does effectively have a strong hand in the government of these - and many other - countries.
      --
      Ian D. K. Kelly

      idkk Consultancy Ltd.

      "Quality through Thought"

    40. Re:International disquiet by nschubach · · Score: 1

      When you have to decide between a monkey and a retard, it's hard to decide which one is going to throw the most shit at it's guardians.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    41. Re:International disquiet by jackbird · · Score: 1

      I dunno, freedom from being indefinitely imprisoned without charge by presidential fiat seems like a biggish one you recently lost. Freedom from warrantless, gag-ordered rifling of your library borrowing records, too.

    42. Re:International disquiet by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      I see... and how many of them have RFID chips in them (that have a tendency to be proven very insecure, allowing very easy identity theft - much less the tracking and monitoring implications), as well as a barcode that is not encrypted that any club, bar, bank, store that asks for ID with a credit card/check purchase can swipe to gain more information on you than they are entitled to? Just wondering. A national ID is no worse than a (our) national passport. It is the implementation of the additional features of the planned US National ID that most people are against. How many of the countries you have listed or referenced in your link have run into those problems?

    43. Re:International disquiet by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Grenada was a disaster, and made the US look weak. Bosnia is still a mess and when Clinton tried to do something, all the conservatives said it was to deflect the Monica blowjob. Nobody cares about Haiti, including the US. If we really wanted to help, we could do something about the AIDS epidemic. Afghanistan is once again under drug lord and terrorist control, like it was before we "liberated" it. The Soviets couldn't do it in 10 years, and we went in, did a half-assed job in a year, and called it "good enough". Way to go USA! Let me re-phrase the question - "Have we sucessfully "liberated" any countries without oil lately??

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    44. Re:International disquiet by piojo · · Score: 1

      Again, I haven't lost any freedoms. As for Britain, it sounds like you haven't lost any freedoms either. You're right--most people haven't lost any freedoms. But one purpose of government is to protect the minorities, the ones that aren't so normal. We must protect political dissidents, criminals, and even simple assholes. These people are the ones that need their rights protected most. It's not the average guy who will first suffer from an overzealous government--it's the other, the outsider.
      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    45. Re:International disquiet by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 1

      So Vietnam, Italy, Chile, Guatamala all freely decided to follow the United States? Read something other then the Wall Street Journal for once, like Empire, or any Noam Chomsky.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    46. Re:International disquiet by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 1

      I notice that there's a man going by "Captain Gatso" who's still active in certain protest activities in the UK. Looks like there's now suspicion on him as a letter-bomb terrorist, which he's denied outright and which doesn't make sense. The UK's universal surveillance plan for the nation's roadways (eg. here) was once marketed as something to fight crime, but is now all about "road pricing." Considering the amazing claim that the average Briton is now spotted on camera 300 times a day, that the cameras bark orders at you, and that the software will actively scan for signs of trouble, I'd like to avoid England until things change. No offense to you, much to the politicians and other officials building this network. Unfortunately we in the US are following along, with both parties involved.

      --
      Revive the Constitution.
    47. Re:International disquiet by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I care because freedom is everyone's concern. Your loss of freedom is a negative influence on my freedom.
      I care because totalitarianism is insidious.

      Then I assume you supported the US/British/Spanish/Australian invasion Iraq. I presume you are currently pressing your government to liberate Saudi Arabia, Syria, Russia, and Iran, all in the name of freedom of course.

      No I didn't support the invasion of Iraq, as it happened. Neither did I support Reagan's and Bush Sr's support for Saddam throughout the 1980s, precisely when he was using WMDs. I'd only support it if the UN or most other countries supported. What I did support is the first Bush president, Bush Sr, having the military go straight to Bagdad when Iraq was repelled from Kuwait. Unfortunately he didn't do that. You know, I'm still waiting to see all of those WMDs Bush said he had.

      Falcon
    48. Re:International disquiet by chord.wav · · Score: 1

      But, more importantly, a number of countries look to the US for a model of what it means to be free. mmmmmmpppfFFFFFWWWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA!!! Mod parent funny please! HAHAHAHA Can't hahahAhA stopHAHAHAHAhAlaughingHAHAHAHAhA! --- Sorry, I just had to do it:)
    49. Re:International disquiet by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Ya know, this post I can understand, but what's your story?

      chord.wav is probably too young to remember the US from 10 or 20 years ago.

      He probably has no idea that things have progressively gotten worse there.

      He probably didn't see the writing on the wall back then and wonder why the americans were letting things get so out of control.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    50. Re:International disquiet by gardyloo · · Score: 2, Funny

      You goddamned Italians!

    51. Re:International disquiet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I care because I have a natural human right (god-given if you prefer) to complete and total self-ownership. Yes, that means FREEDOM.

      No, I don't need ANY other reason.

    52. Re:International disquiet by lordsid · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you are the one in need of a reading comprehension lesson.

      Nowhere did I say I represent 49% of the US. Quite often the other countries the US forces it will on have no choice less they be economically sacked into the stone age. They aren't yet "foisting" it as you say, but you know the UK is already considering it. You can bet your sweet ass if another Republican gets elected it will be foisted. Kind of like the new passports with the "Hey, I'm an American" homing beacon built right in. That didn't get foisted did it?

      Need any of that repeated?

      --
      IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
    53. Re:International disquiet by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

      You're in a free speech zone.... you can say what you want....

    54. Re:International disquiet by SealBeater · · Score: 1

      Six years ago, that would've made me proud. Now, it kind of makes me really depressed. I have not logged in to Slashdot in years. But felt moved enough log in and agree with your statement. I hope our reputation is not tarnished beyond repair.

      I would like to add my formal support for this statement as well. As Americans, we have to ask ourselves if this is what we want America to be.

      SealBeater

      --
      -- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
    55. Re:International disquiet by goober1473 · · Score: 1

      And yet a woman who went for a picnic with her children outside the Houses of Parliament (on the public grass area) was moved by the police because she had a sponge cake with the word "peace" on it. This apparently constitutes a political demonstration, god forbid this happened outside the seat of the UK democracy...

    56. Re:International disquiet by tygerstripes · · Score: 1
      I fear it may be too late for the US.

      Many people have commented on how they're nervous about making their protest in case they get put on the Naughty List. Why hasn't anybody mentioned what an utterly, terrifyingly portentous fear that is to have??

      People are talking about fear of losing their freedom. When a significant part of the ordinarily anti-authoritarian /. crowd is already afraid of the governmental repercussions they may incur for even voicing disagreement (when invited to do so, no less) with such proposals... well, I have to say, the battle seems already lost. The way people are talking, I'm surprised the story wasn't tagged itsatrap...

      In my (admittedly vague) opinion, the most significant step towards becoming a fascist police-state is when anybody may be held on suspicion (of whatever) without a substantial prima facie case, ie suspected-until-proven-innocent. Anti-terrorism laws have that pinned down for anyone who doesn't look American enough (trolling, sorry), but ID schemes like this are a big step in the same direction for everyone else.

      I fear for you, America, I really do. And for us in the UK, for that matter.

      --
      Meta will eat itself
    57. Re:International disquiet by blootooth · · Score: 1

      Many foreign states have state IDs. So do we. We are fifty states. This is like a European ID system.

      --
      Do not mistake understanding for realization, and do not mistake realization for liberation
    58. Re:International disquiet by Alioth · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you don't want national ID, don't vote for Labour at the next election. At least one party has said it will simply cancel the national ID register and associated cards if it wins the next election.

    59. Re:International disquiet by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Then I assume you supported the US/British/Spanish/Australian invasion Iraq. I presume you are currently pressing your government to liberate Saudi Arabia, Syria, Russia, and Iran, all in the name of freedom of course.

      This is a silly comparison - it's perfectly possible to oppose and voice disgust of a Government, without supporting a war that kills 10,000s of that country's population!

      The OP may well disapprove of those Governments, just as he disapproves of ID being introduced into the US - in which case, your point is not valid. He's not suggesting we go to war with the US(!) so there's no reason he should support war with other countries.

      But that's an idea, if the US brings in ID, maybe we should go to war with it, because obviously that's the only way to state one's disagreement.

    60. Re:International disquiet by fyoder · · Score: 1

      Living in the neighboring country to the north of the States, we have a log running tendency to blindly follow in their example.

      That's something of an overstatement.

      Or it would have been, before Harper.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    61. Re:International disquiet by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Germany is a distinct (and autonomous) country from Belgium. But New Hampshire is not distinct *country* from Connecticut. It is not autonomous.

      The term "state" when applied to United States of America is not a broad term that then could be applied to a nation. They are technically commonwealths or provinces, because they depend on a central (and possibly distant) authority.

      The attempt at creating a Confederated States of America was ended with a civil war, and the Union won. Therefor we have a strong central government and states have well defined limits to their power.

      Can the state of Rhode Island issue passports? No, they can only issue state identification. And you are not really required to carry it. it varies between jurisdiction, but so far you aren't required to present id by the government except in specific circumstances. The national id wants you to present your identification under a very broad range of circumstances.

      I'd rather we just did a finger/thumb print of everyone and when a cop arrests you and asks you who you are you can tell them and they can verify it quickly with a finger print. searching by finger print itself is long because you need to access ALL the fingerprints, but if you give a name and address the search is so fast that it can be done in the field with ordinary wireless equipment. If you don't have fingers then use a most costly DNA or retina method and hope fingerless people don't commit too many crimes. Issuing id cards just seems open to abuse by the government, businesses and by the black market.

      A simple biometric and "key" (your name, ssn, address, whatever) seems far more secure, and less invasive. this is because you can't be tracked easily, lifting prints off objects is a long and tedious process. A card, especially one that can be swiped anywhere could be logged at stores, bars, traffic stops, etc.

      My ulterior motive for having national fingerprinting and giving cops equipment to check a person's claims to their identity is that you could also use it to bring illegal immigration under control. You could charge people at the border some small amount to have a temporary id, they would be issued a receipt and their name and thumb print would be logged into a database. Along with how long they are allowed to stay. Then we could ethically empower the police to arrest violators and put them on a bus back to the border to be put through the [relatively easy] new process of entering the country.

      If you are from another country and are arrested for a violent felony you're blacklisted, and have to enter the country through more difficult means. Which could then be closed off finally because we would have the immigration of "good" people under firm control. This would keep the rapists, murdered and organized crime from taking over the hispanic ghettos. providing a safer community for those here on temporary work visas. And if they like the place so much they can apply for the long and difficult process of citizenship while supporting themselves and paying taxes like a citizen.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    62. Re:International disquiet by OzoneLad · · Score: 1

      "Yes. They all have a picture on them as well as eye color, height, weight and so on. And if they had more, like, say a finger print, so what?"

      You're probably referring to the biometric information available on a Canadian driver's license. However, driver's licenses aren't mandatory. I'm a Canadian living in a big city, and I've never had a need for one. I can't think of any piece of ID I own, save my passport, that contains biometric information. Even my federal employee pass has little more than a picture on it.

  2. So if it goes through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if we get a national ID card, will there be any legal basis for overturning the Dept. of Homeland Security's decision?

  3. I'm skeptical... Where is original submitter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posted by kdawson on Tuesday May 08, @04:00PM
    If you don't like the idea of a federalized ID card, you have only have an hour left

    Generally, /. tends to be several days behind on submissions. That would tell me that this submitter did not somehow immediately submit this with an hour in their entry and have it immediately (under 59 seconds) approved. So, probably the editor updated the entry and posted it at 4PM. Well, that's fine, but why do they leave blatant typographical errors (Jobs telling the industry to "loose" DRM, for example)in articles until the outcry is enough to force a change?

  4. Re:Why wait to the last minute to post this? by roman_mir · · Score: 1
  5. Please sign up here...... by budword · · Score: 3, Funny

    to have the NSA and FBI investigate you to find out why you have something to hide.

    1. Re:Please sign up here...... by kennylogins · · Score: 1

      Exactly.
      I mean, GO USA #1!!!oneone11

    2. Re:Please sign up here...... by Rachel+Lucid · · Score: 1

      If it helps, I told them that even if I liked the idea, centralizing things was just BAD BAD BAD from an intelligence OR security standpoint.

      You know how SSNs are currently such a big target for identity theft? Think about how vulnerable these NON-ENCRYPTED barcodes will be.

    3. Re:Please sign up here...... by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      Daniel Boone said: "If you can hear the sound of your neighbor's axe, it is time to move to the next valley".
      Robert A Heinlein once said: "If the local government starts requiring identification cards it is time to move off planet"
      Different ways of saying the same thing: Individualism does not live well in the land of the pencil pusher, home of the file in triplicate...

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
  6. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You sir are an idiot. National ID will be a one stop shop for identity theft. Plain and simple. Please move along.

  7. As if they care what we think... by pafein · · Score: 0, Troll

    In case you hadn't noticed, this government does not give a rat's butt about the opinion of the citizenry.

    --
    --Pete
    1. Re:As if they care what we think... by k12techman · · Score: 1

      I cannot accept that as a patriot and an American. Once we accept that as truth, we've effectively disenfranchised ourselves and the treatment we get is what we deserve.

      I posted this to the DHS to note my displeasure with the RealID Act:

      Reference: Docket number DHS-2006-0030

      The implementation of the Real ID Act as proposed by the Department of Homeland Security carries a price tag near $20 billion. That money will be paid by states and individuals, not the DHS or Federal government. Real ID fails to justify its data collection, or offer adequate protections to the data collected, and has built in exemptions for receiving a Real ID that mean it won't succeed in its goal of making our country safer from terrorists. In fact, by increasing the risks and consequences of identity theft, it will put us all at greater risk.

      The Real ID Act is flawed, expensive, and cannot accomplish its stated goal. As a result, the proposed rule should be withdrawn.

      Furthermore, your own privacy committee has expressed the following concerns:
      (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/05/homeland _securi.html)

      "Given that these issues have not received adequate consideration, the Committee feels it is important that the following comments do not constitute an endorsement of REAL ID or the regulations as workable or appropriate," the committee wrote in the introduction to their comments (.pdf) for the rulemaking record. "The issues pose serious risks to an individual's privacy and, without amelioration, could undermine the stated goals of the REAL ID Act."

      Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns.

    2. Re:As if they care what we think... by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      I cannot accept that as a patriot and an American. Once we accept that as truth, we've effectively disenfranchised ourselves and the treatment we get is what we deserve.

      So a mugger steals your wallet. If you can accept that he doesn't care about your opinion on the mugging, then do you deserve the mugging? Would you waste time writing a letter to him, politely asking for your money back. What? No you wouldn't? Well then you deserve to be mugged by your logic.

      You can't disenfranchise yourself if you were never enfranchised to begin with. Anything you do to protest is about making yourself feel better. You'd have to have been in a comma the last 7 years to not realize that Homeland Security doesn't give a fuck what you think. Just ask someone who's permanently stuck on a "do not fly" list if DHS cares.

    3. Re:As if they care what we think... by Phu5ion · · Score: 1

      In case you hadn't noticed, this government does not give a rat's butt about the opinion of the citizenry.

      Unless it's an election year.

      --
      Slashdot is kind of like Playboy; we aren't here to read the articles.
    4. Re:As if they care what we think... by doggod · · Score: 1

      I agree with your sentiment as it applies to the commenting on this implementation issue. It's strictly window dressing to give people a place to let off steam before they do whatever they want to do.

      However, there is another avenue where making your voice heard does make a difference, and that's in Congress. The core of this problem isn't in the implementation of the REAL ID Act, it's in the passage of it. The law needs to be repealed. There is a lot of momentum building for doing this, and if you add your voice to that chorus there's a good chance of getting it done.

      This is one of many issues being championed at Downsize DC, and they have a handy, no-fuss web tool you can use to send a message to all of your congressional delegation telling them you want their action on this. They've only been around for a few years, but they've already compiled an impressive track record of getting bad legislation thrown out and good legislation passed. Using their system is not just pissing in the wind, IOW.

  8. I sent my email by dattaway · · Score: 1

    and I expect to have my information on the TSA's no fly list:

    No on the National ID. Please respect state sovereignty. A national ID may compromise the diversity that makes us a prosperous nation.

    1. Re:I sent my email by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I still sort of tepidly back the idea, though not for national security purposes, since that will be a minor effect, if there is any at all. Instead, the safeguards proposed seem to make identity theft more difficult for both con artists and illegal immigrants. (Of course, there's the problem that the state IDs under REAL ID then become even more trusted, and a successfully forged ID then provides even more access.)

      However, in the last year, I've started to root for the states, not because I've turned against the idea of a national ID card standard, but rather because I support states' rights more. I would love to see RealID work with all of about eight states, forcing the federal government to back down on the issue since they can't force it. It's time that the states reasserted themselves a bit, and forced Congress and the White House to face up to their limitations.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  9. I fail to see... by SilentUrbanFox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What real harm a national ID can do. I'm not trying to troll, I've just never really "gotten" why a single centralized ID is more dangerous than a large number of different IDs. Would anyone care to explain? Politely and collectedly without resorting to words like "sheeple?"

    1. Re:I fail to see... by Rachel+Lucid · · Score: 1

      It's called 'security in redundancy'. Y'know, the same reason you backup your important files every week or so.

      One flaw in one database of many can't hurt you the way one flaw in one database pretending to be many can.

    2. Re:I fail to see... by Baba+Ram+Dass · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The biggest gripe I have about it is the same gripe I have about there being a federal law against marijuana and a federal law *for* abortion: the 10th amendment and the concept of state sovereignty:

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.


      What it means is any power not specifically granted to the US federal government in the Constitution is in the jurisdiction of the various states. Issues like abortion and drug prohibition are to be decided by each state; the founders did this for a reason--you could move to the state whose politics most closely matched your own. The more centralized the federal government has become, the less choice we've had in regards to the policies governing us.

      (Not to mention that the Real ID won't help us catch terrorists, but I figured that was a given.)
      --
      Truckin like the Doo-Dah man...
    3. Re:I fail to see... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      What real harm a national ID can do. I'm not trying to troll, I've just never really "gotten" why a single centralized ID is more dangerous than a large number of different IDs.


      You know the privacy problem with SSNs? Now imagine if there were one single identifier that was even more frequently used than SSNs.

      Now you see one of the problems?

    4. Re:I fail to see... by owlnation · · Score: 4, Informative

      as a quick summary:

      1. It's bureaucratic and expensive.
      2. It's open to abuse of power
      3. It's only one thing to forge / steal - makes faking your ID and ID theft much simpler
      4. It leads to all sorts of data mining privacy issues - one ring to rule them all - get the ID card, get everything else.
      5. It's easy to stay outside the system - unless there are regular checkpoints and official stop and searches.

      I used to live in Germany and I've seen every single one of these be a problem at some point. Biggest issues are 1. the expense - this is serious money for something that is very ineffective, and 2. the abuse of power - ask anyone who looks Turkish in Germany how often they are stopped and asked for ID. It's pretty much daily in some areas.

      That said, there is a huge number of people living illegally in Germany that have no ID, and have been doing so for many years. It is an inconvenience to the law abiding, and no hassle to a criminal, possibly even an advantage.

    5. Re:I fail to see... by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The argument against all ID is that it eventually becomes mandatory. These days we are required to identify ourselves to our governments. This is demeaning as it is too much like stock keeping of people. Every year that goes by people forget about this. They start to think of themselves as belonging to a government instead of the government belonging to them. In the end, we accept requirements being placed on us by the government, and this inevitably leads to dictatorship and fascism.

      So yes, it's not specifically the fact that this ID is federal that is the problem, but I hope you can see that the abuse of power is easier. More efficient is something people are taught is a good thing. We live by the clock. But when it comes to government, more efficient is the opposite of what you want.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    6. Re:I fail to see... by vitaflo · · Score: 1

      It doesn't add anything that the current ID systems don't already have, and is going to cost over $10 Billion. It's also not going to replace any of the current ID systems. You'll still need a Passport to go overseas for example.

    7. Re:I fail to see... by Wordplay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The privacy problem with SSNs stems from trying to use the SSN number as a secret, not from the fact that everyone has an SSN.

    8. Re:I fail to see... by jdp · · Score: 5, Informative
      The basic question is whether any security benefits outweigh the costs in terms of security, identity theft, civil rights, and privacy.

      Bruce Schneier and Richard Forno's National ID card a disaster in the making discusses some of the many problems with Real ID.

      In a nod to states' rights advocates, DHS declares that states are free not to participate in the Real ID system if they choose--but any identification card issued by a state that does not meet Real ID criteria is to be clearly labeled as such, to include "bold lettering" or a "unique design" similar to how many states design driver's licenses for those under 21 years of age. In its own guidance document, the department has proposed branding citizens not possessing a Real ID card in a manner that lets all who see their official state-issued identification know that they're "different," and perhaps potentially dangerous, according to standards established by the federal government. They would become stigmatized, branded, marked, ostracized, segregated. All in the name of protecting the homeland; no wonder this provision appears at the very end of the document.
      As does the Wall Street Journal's Real ID Revolt:

      Americans are rational. And in a post-9/11 world, they are willing to trade some freedom and convenience for more security. But it's not at all clear that Real ID will make us safer. Deputizing motor vehicle office clerks, who would be entrusted with sensitive information and access to a national databank, also entails considerable privacy risk. Fraud and security lapses at DMVs today are hardly uncommon. Just last month, a DMV official in North Carolina was arrested in connection with issuing fraudulent drivers licenses. And if the goal is to stop the next Mohammed Atta, it's worth noting that, even under Real ID, people would be permitted to fly with identification other than licenses.
      In terms of the concept of National ID in general, Jim Harper describes it well in his excellent (long!) deconstruction of Real ID:

      U.S. policymakers have long rejected a national ID as inconsistent with American freedom. Ordinary people, it has long been believed, should not have to carry a card as if they are criminal suspects and they should not be asked to account to authorities for their whereabouts or activities.
      jon

      PS: more on this on the Stop Real ID Now! blog.

    9. Re:I fail to see... by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What real harm a national ID can do

      The first thing to wrap your head around is that aside from the general issues of your liberty to travel and your privacy, the legislation for the ID contains enabling sections for - as yet - unspecified technologies to be part of the card. The most likely candidate, for quite a few reasons, is RFID, though something with more range might replace that. RFID allows your card to be read without you presenting it. This is a definite escalation from you deciding to show someone your ID in return for, oh, a bottle of wine, or that DVD of Erica Campbell you've been thinking about.

      Any such technology creates a number of very bad potentials; someone could walk through a crime scene with a clone of your RFID (trivial to do, by the way) and thus "establish" your presence at the crime, at the time. You might have been home in bed, but your RFID was out being a criminal. You'll be arrested and then your lawyer can sort it out (after you mortgage your home, of course - criminal lawyers don't work on a "work now, pay later" basis. Or they could clone your card and purchase weaponry, using your good name, which they could then use in the commission of a crime. As far as the police are concerned, you bought those weapons. To prove otherwise, you're going to have to locate the fake card. Good luck with that.

      Suppose you go like a good citizen to get your card, and the computer is corrupted, or someone was there first, and they say, no, we've already issued the card that matches your information (birthdate, name, SSN, mother's last name, birthplace and date, etc.) You can't get your card. Now you can't partake of any federal service. Yes, that's written right into the RealID act. Got cancer? Poor? Need your meds? Sorry. You're going to die. No federal services. Period. Of course, they're still going to tax you to pay for them.

      Another issue is that tracking everything you purchase becomes 100% practical. So what? Well, let me point out that lately, it has been the habit of the legislature, backed up by the Supreme Court, to create and approve ex post facto laws. This class of laws includes those that make things crimes after they were done. The constitution guarantees your immunity to the four types of ex post facto law, but that has been disregarded and from the government's point of view, is irrelevant. They can, and will, jail you for such things. They've been doing so to others for years. Now. Imagine you buy a Playboy magazine. This is tracked. A year later, fundamentalists get laws passed that make purchasing such a magazine a crime - pornography, etc. Now they can come and get you; all it takes is the knowledge that you made the purchase and an ex post facto law.

      Because of the unknown, secretive technological component of these cards, the threat to liberty escalates into a serious threat to privacy and security. Either should be enough to halt the program, expose its exact workings, and then allow evaluation on the basis of precisely known parameters. But they're not offering that opportunity. In 20 minutes, the window for even general objections base don what we do know - which is incomplete - closes.

      The only redeeming thing at this moment is that they expect the states to bear the burden of the costs, and some states - Montana, Maine - are refusing. I suspect it is entirely budgetary, despite the high sounding words, but I'll take what I can get at this stage of the game.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    10. Re:I fail to see... by hal2814 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "the founders did this for a reason--you could move to the state whose politics most closely matched your own."

      What? That doesn't even make any sense. Moving from state to state just didn't happen all that often back then. The founders granted so much power to the states because they were proceeding from the vantage point of allying 13 separate bodies. If they couldn't come to an agreement among the states, there wasn't going to be a United States. They gave the states as much power as they had to to get them to agree to join. Providing our nation with a wide variety of local legal options had nothing to do with it.

    11. Re:I fail to see... by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      The same people that require the use of an SSN will do exactly
      the same thing with a "better" identifier.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    12. Re:I fail to see... by metlin · · Score: 1

      "Ihr Papieren, bitte!"

      Does that do it for you? History often repeats itself, and people often fail to learn from it.

    13. Re:I fail to see... by RobNich · · Score: 4, Informative

      (I'm giving up moderator status by replying. Worth it, I hope.)

      Travel between the colonies was common, especially for those who signed the Declaration and Constitution. I doubt that it is much more common today. While the number of people traveling has increased, so has the population.

      The driving force of the creation of the Union was to remove the power that the centralized government of England had over the colonies. The government had too much power and was using that power to keep itself established. In doing so it was oppressive.

      You're right, providing the nation with a variety of legal options was not the goal, it was a side effect. In order to keep a centralized government from taking control of the country, the States were given the power to make those decisions. Creating mass opinion is not difficult, but by keeping each decision in a smaller area (the state) large society-changing laws would be limited in scope (to the state).

      Unfortunately the tide turned leading up to and because of the Civil War, which the southern states rightly call the "War for States Rights". Unfortunately they are right. The states that were trying to enforce slavery were wrong for doing so, and it's fortunate that slavery was abolished. However, it was not necessary for the federal government to take over the way it did, and I hope that the pendulum swings back soon.

      Mind you, not because I agree with slavery, but because the Federal government is making decisions that have far broader consequences than were intended, and there's no way out for citizens. When some states wanted a different president, they were forced by a slight majority to have another. The President's office was not supposed to be so powerful that that would be a problem. The state governors are supposed to be more important to the individual.

      The Federal government has made regulations regarding various drugs, for instance, that some states disagree with. When a state opposes a federal law, is that allowed? Constitutionally yes! But there are those who want federal funds to be pulled from that state. Where are the federal funds coming from? Each individual in that state!

      If the government wasn't so big on making new laws, it wouldn't be such a large a problem, but don't get me started on that.

      --
      Hello little man. I will destroy you!
    14. Re:I fail to see... by Elektroschock · · Score: 0, Troll

      Persons get a number and are registered. The Netherlands made it easy for the nazi occupation to kill jews. They had a register of jews. Security by obfuscation works. It makes it more complicated to track you down.

    15. Re:I fail to see... by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      1) Right now states authorize IDs. The principle format of our government is based upon Individual rights trump the State. State's Rights trump the Federal Government. It's supposed to be the willingly governed -- I know that sounds like a foreign concept. Because Corporate Media has done a really good job of making us unaware of this. For instance; "The Consumer is Sovereign" should mean that anyone can buy a ticket and then resell it. So tickets now are just a lease-hold on a particular seat -- a contract. Also, corporations have more money -- so they've been slowly eroding the right of people to do what they will with what they bought. If you never own it... ... anyway, this National ID card centralizes data, and usurps the role of the State to govern its citizens -- and for people to move out of states that get too crazy.

      States used to be the ones who regulated business incorporation -- they still do in a way. But a business that incorporated used to have to prove it's worth to the common good. Corporations lasted about 2 years until renewal, and many businesses lost their Incorporation privileges. Now you have to prove that a corporation is harming everyone, and catch them red-handed, just to sit in court for 10 years to get a monetary judgement.

      2) You'd better believe it has a chip. They are going to encode more than your name and SSN.

      3) You cannot trust our current government -- so, you shouldn't have to trust ANY government. If you like this government, than wonder what a Socialist government might do with this centralized power.

      4) There is no Constitutional basis.

      5) 100,000 of records have been stolen from the IRS. This centralization of all this information is a "trust us" arrangement with a group that has time after time proved negligent. What makes anyone think that there won't be ID theft, fraud, or political corruption after the National ID?

      6) As I've stated before, if we wanted to end identity theft, we could just use a Public/Private key security code using our SSN as the Public key. Give your SSN to anyone -- but only YOU can use it because you have a password that authorizes you with that SSN -- and the government could set up a system to verify this. But they don't seem to give a damn about identity theft -- just at expensive operations like this.

      7) It will cost a lot. What has this administration done on the cheap, besides the VA and education? Who's going to make the IDs? Friends.

      8) It will make it harder to protest. We all carry some form of ID. But this will centralize and allow for storage of; "John Doe Went to war protest." Yeah, can you tell I don't trust these war-mongers?

      9) What are the barriers? Who gets an ID and who doesn't? I know what it takes to get a drivers licence. We can also get regular IDs, passports and Visas.

      >> Did I mention I don't trust the Bush administration? This would be like privatizing Social Security... meaning they loot it. I fully expect that people who don't like BushCo, will have all sorts of "problems" crop up. They also will likely create databases that scan the data and track wherever we all go... the government has no need of this sort of information if it is a government that represents the will of its people. So here comes the huge, huge, Elephant in the room;
      10) A National ID -- or any "foolproof" and required ID that would inlclude biometrics, DNA, or other data would make resistance to a totalitarian state very, very hard. If the state wanted to declare martial law, because they were sick and tired of the "will of the people" -- denying people access or preventing civil disobedience would be a lot easier. I don't want cards that are impossible to forge... as I said before, for employment purposes or financial transactions, we could easily fix our SSN crisis. -- the SSN was originally developed as a way to provide services for Americans -- and it has crept into a way to track citizens. In a real Democracy, people behave and follow the laws because THEY

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    16. Re:I fail to see... by mrogers · · Score: 1

      1. Single point of failure. Everyone's information is on one database, and lots of people need access to (parts of) that database.
      2. Ubiquity. When there's one standard ID card, it's a lot easier to demand that everyone carries it - "you must show Real ID to enter this stadium" is easier to enforce than "you must show one of this long list of acceptable forms of ID, or two of this even longer list of marginally acceptable forms of ID, to enter this stadium". That means more opportunistic data collection, a greater sense of being under surveillance, and a harder life for people who prefer not to present an ID card every time they spend money or enter a building.
      3. Network effects. Just as in the UK, the database is the goal, the card is just a distraction. If identity databases didn't make it easier to monitor people, why would governments be prepared to spend so much money on them? They've seen the kind of data mining and profiling that's possible with commercial databases, and they know they can do better because they can demand more information. But a database of 2 million people is more valuable than two databases of 1 million people each - data mining and profiling don't just work on individuals, they work on groups, but only if everyone's on the same database.

    17. Re:I fail to see... by 7Prime · · Score: 1

      The bottom line is, there is no right or wrong here. We all have different levels of trust in centralized or localized governments, and so did the founding fathers, btw. I'll also add that we shouldn't turn to the founding fathers for anything but the bear inspiration of what their ideas represented, our culture and our world is SO vastly different from theres that quoting what the founding fathers had in mind is rarely meaningful.

      I, personally, tend to trust centralized government more, as it tends to be freer of outliers. I'm willing to give up a bit more of the extreme viewpoints I have in favor of a more stable one that will shift to fit the culture over longer periods of time. Larger bodies tend to be more stable and slower to change than smaller ones, thus they tend to represent longer-term social change, and not so much, knee-jerk reactions. That's not always the case, as we've seen in the past 7 years, but for the most part, I personally prefer to see a large central convernment. What, exactly, the founding fathers had in mind is irrelivant to me, and as I've said before, even they had large dissagreements in this subject.

      However, I can totally see reasoning for smaller, more localized governments. Their worth is not to be underestimated. Sometimes I agree more with a local government than a centralized one. Maybe I'm a bit biased because I come from a state (Alaska), which tends not to reflect my own viewpoints, and I often look to the national government to put it in its place. If I lived in California or Vermont, I might feel differently.

      Regardless, though, I think it's healthy to view this as difference in political philosophy. There are very few right and wrongs in politics, and this is an excellent example.

      --
      Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
    18. Re:I fail to see... by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      There are many good reason to not have one, as other have posted, but I think most people's aversion to it comes from our lingering WWII/Cold War mentality. Having to show someone your papers was always considered a big difference between living in a free society and a totalitarian one. That's why there's such an extreme reaction against it. The hypocrisy hasn't been lost on some and those people haven't adapted to the "new freedom" quickly enough for it to go by without a debate.

    19. Re:I fail to see... by demachina · · Score: 1

      "Providing our nation with a wide variety of local legal options had nothing to do with it"

      Uh yea it did. That was exactly the point. People in the Southern states didn't want to be dictated to by people in the North and vice versa. As you recall the U.S. fought the bloodiest war in its history because a Northern biased Federal government wanted to abolish slavery, and the South being very dependent on plantation agriculture didn't appreciate the intrusion. Various states a predisposition to have very different views on social issues, economics, taxation, religion then and now.

      A strong central government has advantages in things like international relations, defense, sometimes economics. Its a reason Europe has rushed in to the arms of the EU in an effort to improve its global position, efficiency and economics against the U.S., India and China.

      A strong central government tends to be extremely bad for things like excessive taxation, privacy invasion, bureaucracy, inefficiency, wasting tax money(leading to more excessive taxation), foreign adventurism, etc.

      The biggest danger of centralized government is a political party scrapes together a slim majority to gain control over the levers of power at the national level and then inflicts all kinds of mischief on a big minority. For example, the last six years have seen an ultra conservative, fascist leaning, right wing Christian block forged out of the South and Midwest doing things that the majority of the people in more liberal states in the more liberal NorthEast and Pacific coast completely abhor.

      States rights is an almost universally good thing in that it allows states to settle controversial issues in a way acceptable to most of the people in that state, like abortion, gay marriage and civil unions, gun control, taxation, government subsidized social programs etc. If the right or left lean of the state you are in is unacceptable to you, you have the option of moving to another state without the massive trauma of emigrating to another country more akin to your views. This happens on a wide scale as young liberals routinely migrate out of the rigidity of the bible belts of the South and Midwest to the liberal coasts. Socialists have done just this with a pretty extensive migration to Vermont where they have influenced legislation and pick law makers attune to their views (one of their senators is a Socialist independent caucusing with the Democrats). Me personally I have no use for Vermont's socialism, to much taxation and intrusion in to people's lives, but its nice there is an enclave in the U.S. where socialists can feel at home.

      If you want a big bureaucracy dictating every aspect of your life, taxing you in to the ground, and completely unresponsive to your views then yes a big centralized government is for you. Me I would be overjoyed if the Federal government was gutted overnight, and all the power and money it has usurped were returned to the states.

      Decentralization, would if nothing else, prevent another debacle like the last 6 years where one group of completely incompetent people managed to seize power and have pretty much wrecked the nation as a whole. In a states right system at least the carnage would have been confined to an individual state like Texas which deserves the carnage for giving George W. his leg up.

      --
      @de_machina
    20. Re:I fail to see... by DanFM · · Score: 0
      Yes the Civil War, but one other little talked about change is really responsible for the Centralization of power in the Fed.

      The Seventeeth Amendment provided for direct election of Senators by the people. Prior to that, the Senator was selected by the State Legislature, while the Representatives were selected by the people. So in essence you had one delegation to represent the people, and one delegation to represent the state. Senators beholden to the State Legislatures would never have approved this measure...just look at all the opposition from the states (true, the states are only angry because the bill amounts to an unfunded mandate, but take what you can get).

      Once the Seventeenth Amendment was passed in 1913, the states had no say in what laws passed. Instead, we got 2 uber-Representatives from each state. Thank you Progressivism.

      Amendment XVII (the Seventeenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution was passed by the Senate on June 12, 1911 and by the House on May 13, 1912. It was ratified on April 8, 1913 and was first put into effect for the election of 1914. It amends Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution to provide for the direct election of Senators by the people of a state rather than their election or appointment by a state legislature, thus effectively eliminating state representation in Congress. It was passed and ratified during the Progressive Era.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment _to_the_United_States_Constitution
    21. Re:I fail to see... by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      2. the abuse of power - ask anyone who looks Turkish in Germany how often they are stopped and asked for ID. It's pretty much daily in some areas.

      Obviously this type of racism is impossible in a country without ID cards.

    22. Re:I fail to see... by petrus4 · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to troll either...but here's a question for you.

      Let's say, purely for the sake of hypothetical argument, that wonderful things like this are not merely schizophrenic conspiracist fantasy.

      Let's also say, again purely for the sake of hypothetical argument, that once both this ID card becomes a reality and these facilities are operational and accepting large swathes of the American population, a law is passed which says that the penalty for not having a valid ID card at any time and for any reason is to be immediately sent to one of these facilities.

      Now let's also say, again for the sake of argument, that there's a hard drive crash one night within whatever facility is housing your state's records for the ID cards, including the stuff about whose cards in that state are valid at any given point in time.

      In this hypothetical scenario, let's also say as a final point that it just so happens that the very next day a conscientious local police officer stops you on the way home from work and asks to see your ID card. He can decide you look suspicious for whatever reason he wants; he doesn't even need one. Because of the disk crash at the database housing facility the previous night however, the status of your ID card comes up indeterminate when it is scanned. Since the status of your card cannot be determined, it is assumed that you're fairly obviously either a terrorist or an illegal alien. The cop decides (and it could literally have been decided by a coin toss) to go for the first option, and since other legislation has also been passed recently that enemy combatants can be processed immediately, without charge or trial, (since they obviously represent such a grave risk to national security) you get shipped off to one of the camps within 24 hours.

      At that point, you officially do not exist. You're a non-entity, and as such, you don't even legally have the right to exist at all. Family members or anyone else who might want to know what has happened to you are legally strictly forbidden from finding out, and anyone who tries will merely end up in a similar facility themselves.

      So...you arrive, you're stripped of your old clothing, head shaved, and subdermally chipped. They're not really too worried about anyone escaping, but it's better not to take chances, so the chip is a good form of insurance. If the people who've received you take the terrorist charge seriously, or even if they merely feel like it, you might also be tortured as well. A traditionalist among the guards might want to go for the usual cranial water immersion, or maybe they've been developing something novel recently which they want to try out on you, just for kicks. Maybe the guards at your particular facility have a penchant for the classics; slowly dripping water on the head, use of red-hot iron, or nails slowly driven through your hands and feet. You might even be lucky enough to have a doctor there who's working on an unorthodox form of electroshock treatment, and needs a new test subject after the last one died.

      After the reception committee gets finished with you, you find yourself in a communal dirt-floor storage room, (dormitory would be way too mild a word) lying on one of what almost seems like a stack of wood bunks. This isn't because they knew that solitary was rougher on the inmates at all, mind you...it's just that creating solitary cells actually takes up more space, and there are going to be so many similar undesirables needing to come in that they need to pack as many human beings into as small a space as possible. You're initially nervous, but after a while you realise there's nothing to fear from your fellow inmates; most of them have been recently tortured themselves, and that has taken any energy they might have had for fighting. You can hear a brief period of crying, some wailing, or some low moans occasionally, but apart from that there is nothing to break the silence. After a few months you'll learn to

    23. Re:I fail to see... by Wordplay · · Score: 1

      Debatable. You could make it a multifactor security procedure (what you have, what you know, what you are...i.e. a smartcard, the ID number, and a biometric). Only the ID number would be given out, and wouldn't be enough to completely validate your ID. The rest could be done through an indirect service of some kind such that your doctor's office doesn't have a complete copy of your identification to store.

      Heck, you can accomplish a less secure version of the same thing by assigning people two numbers--one is the SSN and the other is your identifying passcode that other entities are absolutely forbidden to store or share by law. All they can do is call the (presumed) US passcode service to verify that that passcode you give them at time of identification matches that SSN. At the same time, they'd establish an audit record with the passcode service to prove they checked the ID. If someone steals your identity and there's no audit record, that means someone accepted it without checking, and you can gut them in court. It'd still be miles better than what we have now, if only because you could -change the passcode- without invalidating every bit of paperwork that currently exists about you.

      There's lots you can do if you don't count on one unchangeable number to be the be-all-end-all of the identification.

      But you can't have it both ways--you can't be anonymous -and- be securely identifiable, at least until someone comes up with an impossible-to-counterfeit smartcard or implant, so you can carry the whole of your identification around with you. I tend to view anything that relies on an "impossible-to..." device as a bit of a pipe dream.

    24. Re:I fail to see... by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      The "...forbidden by law to store or share..." part is the thing.

      SSN is such a poor ID ( for security/validation ) because many
      commercial entities require it. So, my point was that they would
      just require the new ID, no ID, no product/service, and we are
      back in the same pit.

      There are, as you point out, ways to make it more secure.

      Funny, the "impossible-to-counterfeit" identification idea was
      explored a very long time ago by E.E. "Doc" Smith with his
      Lensmen series. The Lens of Arisia is that ID. Not practical
      until we meet the Arisians ( or someone like them... ) :-)

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    25. Re:I fail to see... by Wordplay · · Score: 1

      Heh, yeah. Or, in the modern mode, we can give out Green Lantern rings. :)

      You joke, but that's one important factor of a multifactor ID. True, most of us have SecureID keyfobs instead of Green Lantern rings, but same idea.

      You're right, though. If they don't go for a split ID that has one public identifier and one private secret, we're back in the same boat. This would be why computer sites don't just have you sign in with your username or identify you by your password. I -hope- that the state of security has advanced sufficiently to rub off on the mainstream a little.

  10. Reagan by proficiovera · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When the idea of national ID cards were suggested to Reagan it was received negatively. He responded by sarcastically suggesting tattooing bar codes on everybody's heads. That killed the issue during his administration.

    1. Re:Reagan by Bearpaw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't remember Reagan making a barcode tattoos crack about National ID cards, but it'd be interesting if he did. That could be taken as a reference to Revelations 13:16-17 ...

      16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
      17 and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

    2. Re:Reagan by kabocox · · Score: 1

      When the idea of national ID cards were suggested to Reagan it was received negatively. He responded by sarcastically suggesting tattooing bar codes on everybody's heads. That killed the issue during his administration.

      I'd rather have a federal drivers license/ID card rather than all the different state driver's licenses and IDs. I'd also like the feds to be incharge of car titles and license plates on all cars. Is that a popular idea? Nope. I'd rather have a stronger federal government and weaker state governments, but that's just me. I think that the voting age needs to be dropped to 12 so folks don't need to listen to me.

    3. Re:Reagan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is truly amazing that Americans look at Reagan as if he were a champion of liberty. He was resposible for an unprecendented growth in government and an errosion of liberties.

    4. Re:Reagan by Altus · · Score: 1


      I remember talk about bar codes on peoples foreheads back then (mostly because of the connection to revelations ) but I don't remember a specific comment by regan comparing national ids to bar codes.

      Still, given the talk about bar codes it wouldn't surprise me

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    5. Re:Reagan by fm6 · · Score: 0

      Bar codes! Hey, that's a good idea! Think of all the hassle would save!

  11. Deadline For Saying "Yes" To National ID by blacklint · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    That would also be the Deadline For Saying "Yes" To National ID, wouldn't it? News (look at the top of the page... "news for nerds") about voting shouldn't say tell you how to vote, should it?

  12. Has there ever been a better time... by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...to invoke Al Gore's inspiring leadership in leading us in our succession from the unjust and intolerant union from whence we sprang.

    Mexico and Japan both join me in pleading, "Mr. Gore, Lead us to freedom! Lead us to that glorious future that only the great country of Mexiforniapan can offer!"

    1. Re:Has there ever been a better time... by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 1

      Hmm, obviously someone doesn't like sushi-burritos...actually, that's not too surprising.

  13. Unnecessary by Tx · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...you have only have an hour left to let Homeland Security know your thoughts

    Considering the amount of surveillance they now carry out on US citizens, I suspect the already know your thoughts.

    And if you're not being watched now, you will be if you sign that petition, you troublemaker.
    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
  14. Please raise your hands... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... if you think that public comment will have ANY impact whatsoever on the ultimate decision.

    Those of you with your hands up .... wanna buy a bridge?

    They are soliciting public comment because they have to. Not because they are going to pay attention.

    1. Re:Please raise your hands... by Lockejaw · · Score: 1

      I'm commenting on it -- if nothing else, at least nobody can tell me, "you should have said something about it." When this goes through, we can say it did so in spite of criticism. In countries where the people believe they live in a democracy, they are rather sensitive about government actions which are contrary to the will of the people.

      --
      (IANAL)
    2. Re:Please raise your hands... by blugu64 · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why I'm commenting on it.

      --
      "Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
  15. You terrorists by packetmon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Its obvious that anyone expressing their discontent with this new ID is affiliated with Al-Qaeda (© 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 ONI/CIA/DISA). On a serious note though, with all of the data breaches, etc., what's the worst that could happen. This place has gone to hell in a handbasket since 2000. I see no reason to avoid it lest I want to be thrown on the no fly list because I didn't want this card... S'what will end up happening like it or not...

  16. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sure... you want to be ID'd where ever you go, automatically, with who knows what information available to the teller, toll both operator, merchant, insurance agent, and anyone who hacks into the system just because you walked close to them and your RFID burped. You want someone to be able to clone your RFID tag and walk through a crime scene a few times, thus "establishing" that you were at the scene of the crime. Sure you do. You're all about being identified, right?

    That's why you post anonymously.

    Sometimes I wonder if we ought to take a hint from the Spartans.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  17. No, it can only hurt by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, the American attitude has always been something along the lines of, "If other countries have a problem with it, then we must be doing it right." This is no exception. If other people in the world try to start inserting their opinions into our domestic matters, all it will do is 1) build resentment towards those people, no matter how well-intentioned their opinions were, and 2) push our government to do the exact opposite just to show how little we care about world opinion.

    I'm not saying it's right. I wish all decisions like these were made independent of what other people thought, but they're not.

    Also, there's the matter of protecting your own. Everyone has the right to complain about their home team. But when others start talking about ways in which your home team sucks, people tend to get defensive of them, even of those people are right and your home team really does suck.

    1. Re:No, it can only hurt by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nobody likes this... save for a few corporate shills that make a living on blogs, pretending that people demand this nonsense.

      There is no groundswell of support for these things -- just a Corporate media that downplays the numbers of American's who protest, and fail to mention that one Bus brought all those "concerned citizens" to Florida to prevent the recount in Florida in 2000.

      This is just more of the creeping fascism in America. Just like the "No Child Left Behind" just served to profit one testing company, that had a lot of Bush family money in it.

      Now this will be used to track protesters. Why do you think that the FBI has Quakers on it's list to spy on and not violent hate groups?

      This is getting really ugly. When not dodging investigations into corruption, evil and vote-rigging, our administration finds excuses to extend their power and intrusiveness into our lives. I feel like they are herding us, and by the time everyone wakes up -- there won't be much we can do.

      By the way -- I seriously doubt sending an email to HS will do any good. They already bury office supplies in the desert to keep their budget up -- does anyone know any function of that group beyond being a place to give cronies jobs?

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  18. Great Idea ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a great idea, I am all for it. It's about time we had a secure National ID.

  19. Need help writing a letter / more info? by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you are rushing, check out the EFF's page on the Real ID act. They have a summary and a sample letter. Join them while you are there!

    1. Re:Need help writing a letter / more info? by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 1

      It's ok to submit late comments. They are a little more free to ignore them and not respond to them, but they still get collected and read and are part of the process. So don't feel it's too late.

  20. Before you have your day, consider the alternative by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If there is no national id card, then what will happen is that a "virtual" national id card will be created. It could take a number of forms, from collecting drivers license ID information from the states, to building biometric databases.

    The thing is "Papers, please" is a quaint, obsolete phrase. In fact the problem is not people looking at your ID, the problem is that event being recorded in a database to produce a picture of your movements.

    If there were a national id that was secure and could be validated without hooking up to a national database, there would actually be less government intrusion into our privacy than if they data mine information from drivers databases and track you secretly.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  21. Why is it so bad? by Koookiemonster · · Score: 0, Troll

    What makes the national ID bad is that it's been designed by an intelligent being, instead of using an evolutionary design model.

  22. The card is a mcguffin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A centralized biometric database is the real intent; a totalitarian regimes wet dream.

    1. Re:The card is a mcguffin by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      Who ASKED for a National ID anyway?

      The Government.

      Who has done nothing about Identity Theft?

      The Government.

      >> Everytime these jerk-offs fail to help the citizens, they somehow translate it into requiring MORE power for them.

      Like if a security guard were at a bank and got repeated warnings by the FBI of bank robbers in the area -- then fell asleep.... the bank gets looted, and instead of firing the sleepy policeman, he gets promoted and given an M-16 machine gun. That's been our government in a nutshell since 2000. Except that some of us look at the new Porsche the security guard is driving and perhaps consider that he didn't "just fall asleep."

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    2. Re:The card is a mcguffin by korekrash · · Score: 1

      Tinfoil hats and conspiracy theories are all fun and good, but my idea is....what the heck are we all hiding from? I don't, and will never, understand what the big deal is here. If you are a U.S. Citizen then you probably: -Have a Social Security Number and card -Have a State ID, Passport and/or Drivers License -Have to give the IRS your address or bank info once a year (if you are wokring and pay taxes) Since most of us already have those things, what's the big deal? The government already has your info and you already carry at least one if not multiple ID's on you. Put away the tinfoil hat and give it up.

    3. Re:The card is a mcguffin by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Every time someone has no rebuttal they use the Tin-foil-hat theory accusation.

      Do you know how many times the popular conspiracy theories about the Bush government proved to be true?

      No torture -- conspiracy theory.
      No secret prisons -- conspiracy theory.
      No rendition -- conspiracy theory.
      WMDs in Iraq -- conspiracy theory.
      Jessica Lynch rescue was faked -- conspiracy theory.
      Nobody in the administration outed Valerie Plame -- conspiracy theory.
      Elections rigged in Florida in 2000, and Ohio (and many other places) in 2004 -- conspiracy theory (hey, they arrested 3 people and they were in charge of elections).

      You know, I could go on with all the tin-foil-hat theories that proved true all day. So, thanks for lumping me in with such an accurate, and prescient group as the conspiracy theorists. Obviously, they have a better track record of getting it right than CNN.

      >> I really can't protect you from your lack of imagination on the National ID card. The better question is; Why do we need it? What does it solve?
      The only thing I could think of -- is Identity theft and illegal workers. Which the government has no interest in stopping. None. They let Tyson foods bus illegals into chicken plants.

      So, if there is nothing SOLVED by having a National ID -- why do it? It is not a convenience for me -- I don't want one. The government should have to prove its merits -- not have people like you say; "what could possibly go wrong?" That isn't much of a discussion.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    4. Re:The card is a mcguffin by korekrash · · Score: 1

      The government should have to prove its merits -- not have people like you say; "what could possibly go wrong?" That isn't much of a discussion.

      They did.
      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./tem p/~c109xMWd19::

      But you didn't answer any of my questions; you just gave me some rhetoric....

  23. 30 seconds for a life time. by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

    I emailed NO to the Real ID. It took less than a minute.

  24. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

    "With it or on it"?

    Or were you talking about another Spartan hint?

  25. Datamining email addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it kind of sad when you are afraid to submit an email in fear of being added to some kind of database of people who don't want this? As an American it makes me kinda sad when in this day of data gathering and mining, it's worrisome to voice ones opinion.

    1. Re:Datamining email addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. However, I also feel compelled to voice my agreement while posting anonymously.

      It feels lately like protests must be organized in the shadows, but I hope this is not yet entirely true.

  26. I for one ... by srobert · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Let me be the first to say that I for one ...

  27. You're so right. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With all the damage the existence of the United States Passport has done to our diversity and prosperity...

    If everyone went out and got a passport, this would be a non-issue, so that raises the question for me: have those people complaining the loudest about this ever held one? It seems scarcely any different and I don't know many people with valid passports who get entirely big-brother about it. It's just a global reality and not a terribly ominous one at that.

    1. Re:You're so right. by dattaway · · Score: 1

      But why would we need a passport or ID to deal with federal matters? Does the federal government not trust the states anymore?

    2. Re:You're so right. by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >If everyone went out and got a passport

      Not everyone who will be obligated to get a national ID card is eligible to get a passport.
      The passport is expensive, and has a rather time-consuming process involved.

      On the other hand, I carry mine, and I show it whenever I am asked for ID. It seems to confuse cops sometimes, and it makes private people nervous. People who won't think twice about taking your drivers license in hand, seem to get quite nervous about holding your passport. It's somewhat amusing to watch. Any time I'm asked by an official for ID, I proceed as though I've left the US, and I behave *exactly* as I would when asked for ID abroad. (However, I have never been asked by anyone except customs agents.)

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    3. Re:You're so right. by maxume · · Score: 1

      The larger concern is the unification of access to each states database. There are many things that one needs a state issued id for. Passports are only required for international travel, so opting out is somewhat less onerous.

      http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/05/real _id_action.html

      Another side of it is that unfunded mandates always suck.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:You're so right. by arminw · · Score: 1

      .....If everyone went out and got a passport, this would be a non-issue.....

      Exactly right. A passport is required to fly from LA to Vancouver B.C. or to Mexico or any other foreign country. They could just require one to fly from LA to NY or any other place within the USA. Why should a license to drive a vehicle to be anything other than that? Why does it serve as a de-facto ID card in the first place?

      The US Passport agency already has the expertise and infra structure in place. The could issue a non-passport document for those not currently eligible for a normal US passport. Having a reasonably secure, uniform special ID to get on an airplane is not such a bad idea. However there are many who never fly, so why should they need one?

      A court might strike down the coercing of the states to re-make all their driver licenses. A number of states have already flatly said they will not comply, especially if the high costs are not covered. Someone who is from a state the license of which is not 'approved' by the federal bureaucrats might also have a good chance in a lawsuit against the feds. The commerce clause in the constitution is being stretched awfully far these days.

      --
      All theory is gray
    5. Re:You're so right. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Having a reasonably secure, uniform special ID to get on an airplane is not such a bad idea.

      Having a government mandated requirement to board a private, commerical, airplane is a very BAD idea. If a specific airline wants to require one, that's between them and those who fly on them but the gov should keep out of the way!

      Falcon
    6. Re:You're so right. by ls+-la · · Score: 1

      Does the federal government not trust the states anymore?


      You mean to do things like set a drinking age or speed limits? No. I'm sure there are other examples of where the federal government likes to tell the states things it doesn't have the authority to.
    7. Re:You're so right. by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....Having a government mandated requirement to board a private, commerical, airplane is a very BAD idea.......

      Having each airline choose whether to have such a requirement might work. I suspect however that the airlines which do have an ID requirement would get the lions share of business because people like to FEEL secure. If having an ID requirement actually DOES improve security is at the very best debatable. I think you would be in the minority of passengers who object to having an ID requirement.

      While I generally agree that when government touches anything it is more often than not done more expensively and in an inept manner than when a private entity with a profit motive does the same thing. Because there are many private entities, there is the potential of a confusing hodge-podge of requirements and methods. This requires standards which everybody must agree to. In the absence of such an agreement, it often becomes necessary for an outside body to impose one. To do this is generally a function of government. What side of the road to drive on and which color of light to stop and go for are arbitrary, but everyone must agree. Having a uniform means of identification applicable to a common activity, such as getting on a public, common carrier is desirable for an orderly society. A relatively trivial extension of the current passport structure already in place for international travel could be extended to domestic airlines. Very few people have a problem with the passport requirement to travel to foreign lands.

      --
      All theory is gray
    8. Re:You're so right. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      If having an ID requirement actually DOES improve security is at the very best debatable.

      Requiring an ID will not improve security on planes. Every one of the 911 highjackers had ID. And having one national ID will only make ID theft more lucrative.

      Having a uniform means of identification applicable to a common activity, such as getting on a public, common carrier is desirable for an orderly society.

      As I say above a national ID will only aid id theives. Well, and government tracking of it's citizens. And yes, the US government has tracked it's citizens. Especially of the amin's protesters. J Edgar Hoover was real good at spying on citizens. For instance there was Conintel Pro.

      Very few people have a problem with the passport requirement to travel to foreign lands.

      Ah but it's those other nations that require passports for US travelers to enter their country. Though not all do many even require visas. In return the US does the same.

      Falcon
  28. If this passes by jshriverWVU · · Score: 1

    Would it be required to carry it at all times? If not then it's not such a problem, just stuff it in the closet till your next vacation then just use it as you would a passport. Perhaps I'm missing something here.

    1. Re:If this passes by TomorrowPlusX · · Score: 1

      It seems fairly obvious that the people who are pushing for this are the type to demand that all citizens carry it at all times.

      This ain't a free country, any more. And it wasn't those shifty democrats who did it, either.

      --

      lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
    2. Re:If this passes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's never been tested in court, but common opinion seems to be that requiring a person to carry or have ID is unconstitutional.

      The Supreme Court has ruled that state laws requiring you to identify yourself are constitutional though. And of course since when has something being unconstitutional every stopped them from trying?

    3. Re:If this passes by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Right, because after going to the expense of creating this program, it would make total sense for the authorities to accept "Well, it's in my other pants..." as an excuse.

      Are you familiar with the notion of "the thin end of the wedge"? How about the aphorism "If you give a mouse a cookie..."?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:If this passes by tsalaroth · · Score: 1

      You seem to be under the impression it hasn't passed. It did.

      100-0 in the Senate (when was the last time EVERY senator voted, let alone voted yes on a bill?).

      I believe 261-160 in the House (not 100% sure on that).

      I wrote letters to both my Senator and Rep before the vote, and the Senator responded back with "I had to say yes on it, it had Tsunami relief in the bill, as well as provisions for the war in Iraq.", the Rep voted no on it.

      We've been mugged and left in an alley to rot, we just don't realize it yet. Once we do, people will say it's too late, but it won't be. The people of this nation have thrown off the shackles of oppression once before, and they'll do it again. I just hope it doesn't come down to violence.

  29. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by hickory-smoked · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you think you're helping?

    I would like to hear actual arguments. Research papers. Something that suggests that a national system would be worse or harder to defend from privacy invasion or theft. I'm certainly more than ready to listen to such arguments, but who did you expect to convince with this?

    "Oh gee, if some Anonymous Coward dick is going to call me an idiot on Slashdot, I guess I would be a fool to disagree with him..."

  30. My response bounced.... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

    Subject: DHS-2006-0030 Comments
    Sent: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:38:33 -0400

    did not reach the following recipient(s):

    moscomments@dhs.gov on Tue, 8 May 2007 16:28:26 -0400
    The e-mail account does not exist at the organization this message
    was sent to. Check the e-mail address, or contact the recipient
    directly to find out the correct address.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    1. Re:My response bounced.... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

      The typo in the "moscomments" was in my copying and formating to the post here (adding in the little formating...)

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  31. As someone who works on police RMS systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    at various levels from Mayberry, PD, up to the federal forces for some large government sites, I get a kick at the conspiracy angle of this.

    Seriously, don't worry about any big-brother like data mining at this point. These guys cant find a big fat "CLICK HERE DUMMY" icon on their desktop.

    None of the interfaces ever work. Dickheads constantly change protocols for whatever internal political reasons they have. XML is the latest flavor of the week, so now *everything* has to be XML-'ed up.

    What you would really want is a system at the federal level. There's so much beurocracy at the federal level, it's truly mind-numbing. The system would never work the way you guys think it would.

    Your local PD may be really on-the-ball, and have a good IT guy, and are definately much more "in-touch" than many federal agents I've worked with.

    1. Re:As someone who works on police RMS systems by hey! · · Score: 1

      It's not the cops you have to worry about.

      It's the vendors.

      Since 9/11, people in the commercial data mining business have been selling the wares to various police and intelligence agencies. So systems that were supposed to tell companies who to send catalogs for mixed nuts to and who to send catalogs for guns and ammo are not being used to put people on the watch list.

      Federal money has gone to states to develop "fusion centers" (google "law enforcement fusion center") which collect intelligence data on citizens from both government criminal and administrative databases as well as private commercial databases. Naturally the money passes right through the hands of local officials into a few connected vendors (the same folks who were involved in purging voter rolls in FL of felons I might add).

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:As someone who works on police RMS systems by boyfaceddog · · Score: 1

      Amen, brother.

      I've said for years the best way to protect you data is divide between two government agencies. I worked for our great state health dept. here and they were constantly fighting to connect-up their DBs, but their comittees and conferences and meetings and calls couldn't quite agree on such prosaid and unimportant things as, say, the data-length of the first name field. I was there for four years and no one managed to combine so much as two lousy mailing databases.

      BTW, I was NOT in data managment and as a red-blooded, vote-casting citizen of my good state I kept my @#$%ed mouth shut about how to fix the problem, as should we all.

      --
      Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
    3. Re:As someone who works on police RMS systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to work for a company that created a product for LN (Lexis-Nexis) called SmartLynx. We collected public records, and provided an excellent index to the customer showing all the documents which related to each other.

      Our accuracy was well above 99%, and for a few years they would ask: "How did you match those docs together?" and we'd simply reply "is it wrong?" Eventually internal politics of that company resulted in them trying to replace us by purchasing a FL company (Seisint) for $750Million dollars. Their quality has gone down - but it's not altogether useless, and some day Seisint may figure out how we did thing. Or I may go to work for them at some point - if they realize they need help.

      The fact is, the knowledge of how to do "data mining" is finally out there - but rare are the people who can use it. The hard part is the matching and the verification of matches. It's been solved - but as I said most people still can't do it.

            It's only a matter of time now before the government uses the right combination of people, and.. to paraphrase: "All your data belong to us."

          If anyone has sufficient money, and access to Dice's resume database, you can hire me to teach you how to build tools to do such a thing.
          And if you have even more money, I can show you how to utterly fudge up the ability of someone like LN to track you. :)

  32. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by Schnoogs · · Score: 0

    Just like Passports and Social Security cards have been....oh wait.

  33. Re:Before you have your day, consider the alternat by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Informative

    If there is no national id card, then what will happen is that a "virtual" national id card will be created. It could take a number of forms, from collecting drivers license ID information from the states, to building biometric databases. Do you mean something like the Total Information Awareness program?

    The giant unified database of all our electronic records ( bank, phone records, internet logs, credit card purchases, medical records, court records, magazine subscriptions etc. etc. ) was officially killed in 2003, but what happened is that all of the separate functions were farmed out to smaller, separate programs. Wikipedia says "An unknown number of TIA's functions have been merged under the codename 'Topsail'."
    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
  34. Of course they do! by Bearpaw · · Score: 1

    In case you hadn't noticed, this government does not give a rat's butt about the opinion of the citizenry.
    If you loudly disagree with the President, that matters a great deal to them.

    It matters so much, they'll even put you on a nice list, so you get extra-special treatment at airports.

    1. Re:Of course they do! by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1

      It matters so much, they'll even put you on a nice list, so you get extra-special treatment at airports.
      I know I'm going to feel much safer now that I'll be receiving my complimentary bomb check to make sure no terrorists stuffed one into my pockets, luggage, or bodily cavities while I wasn't looking.

    2. Re:Of course they do! by alphamugwump · · Score: 1

      Realistically, the no-fly list probably has nothing to do with being anti-government. I doubt they have the time for that. Most likely, it has to do with calling someone who called someone else who called someone else who is an al-Quaida agent. Which is also bad, but a different kind of bad.

  35. One Click to Take Action by journalistguy · · Score: 1

    You can use this link http://ws.collactive.com/points/point?id=mNM2eWNGH VVv to head straight to the ACLU's talking points and a one click way to submit comments here.[/URL] Clicking the "Act Now' button will allow you to email your comments directly to the Department of Homeland Security, bypassing the ridiculously difficult-to-use regulations.gov website.

    --
    [Insert the usual disclaimer here]
  36. If they were REALLY serious about stopping by night_flyer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    terrorists they would FIX THE BORDER!

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  37. What's the big deal? by nenya · · Score: 0

    Not sure what all the fuss is here. Has anyone actually read the proposed regulation? They aren't creating a national ID database. They're simply changing the requirements for state-issued ID that federal agencies can accept for official purposes. The new requirements would be:
    - full name
    - gender
    - date of birth
    - issue/expiration dates
    - unique license or ID number (not your Social Security Number)
    - permanent residence
    - signature
    - picture
    - machine-readability
    - counterfeit protection measures

    The regulation would also require all state databases of qualifying IDs to be accessible by other state databases.

    Frankly, my current drivers license has all of those things already. No one is talking about creating a federal national identification database. Such a thing is nowhere in the proposed regulation. The regulation doesn't even require the states to issue such ID cards. Congress couldn't pass such a law if it wanted to. States are entirely free to issue non-REAL ID licenses and identifications. The only drawback is that federal agencies won't accept them as official IDs. Which doesn't really matter, because they'll always accept a passport, and you can get one of those without a drivers license anyways.

    Why does everyone have their panties in a bunch? Both Slashdot and BoingBoing have been going apeshit about this for weeks now, but it just looks paranoid. The proposed regulation would not enable identity tracing with any greater degree of ease than currently exists.

    Relax, people.

    1. Re:What's the big deal? by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      They aren't creating a national ID database.
      [snip]
      The regulation would also require all state databases of qualifying IDs to be accessible by other state databases.

      These two statements are mutually exclusive. Insofar as there will not be one single, physical data store holding all the information, I suppose it's technically correct to say it won't be a national ID database.

      But if a person in one state can issue a single query against all the "separate" databases to pull a result set from everywhere in the country at the same time, my professional opinion as a DBA is that it sure as hell is a single database. And that's the goal of making sure all the state databases are accessible from every state and talk the same language.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    2. Re:What's the big deal? by ChadL · · Score: 1

      For the sake of argument (I am not sure this is the case), say that this national ID won't do anything. Then, the question becomes, why would you spend money on nothing? (This is OUR tax dollars they are spending on nothing)

    3. Re:What's the big deal? by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1
      Man, it's like you have no idea what's been going on in our country for the last 6 years (well... longer, but you guys all know what I mean). We've had new "security" measures and things done in the name of security over and over, none of which have any chance of providing more security or would have stopped the 9/11 attack (which almost all of them, including Real ID, use as the basis for why they were thought up). Almost all of them do, on the other hand, infringe on the rights and privacy of law abiding Americans.

      You want to see what scares me the most about Real ID and what I really think is "the bid deal"? This does. Specifically this line:

      DHS may consider expanding these official purposes through future rulemakings to maximize the security benefits of REAL ID.

      They are ALREADY planning on adding more restrictions and monitoring of the people by using this thing.
    4. Re:What's the big deal? by nenya · · Score: 1

      1) Though perhaps not on a information systems level, I would still maintain that there is a practical and legal difference between a federal database and linked state databases. Practically, a federal database would be the responsibility of a federal agency to maintain, and I don't really want to have the feds managing that kind of information. We've seen how good they are at that. The states might not be all that much better, but they're already got such databases, so why not let them just keep at it? Additionally, a database the feds can query but not control is a lot better than one which they can.

      2) You can already get results from databases everywhere in the country with a single query. I know this because I've worked for insurance companies and would routinely pull DMV reports on insureds at their request for discount qualification purposes. That was 3 years ago, and even then there were only a handful of states that wouldn't pull the results directly to my screen. The rest of them had to be done by underwriters, but the results weren't any harder to get. I still say you're being paranoid. The federal government isn't mandating anything that isn't already in place, and it isn't really mandating anything. States are free to opt out if they choose to do so.

    5. Re:What's the big deal? by nenya · · Score: 1

      Have you even read the regulation? Because your comment doesn't suggest that you have. It does suggest that you're well versed in the language of conspiracy theory, but not the language of regulations.

      There is no monitoring language in the proposed regulation. None. The "official purposes" term you quote from the regulation has to do what purposes non-REAL ID will be accepted by federal agencies, not adding more functionality to identification cards.

    6. Re:What's the big deal? by markbt73 · · Score: 1

      One, they're spending a metric fuckload of money to do it. Two, they're going to charge us a lot of money per card. And three, I already waste enough time standing in enough lines so that some asshole in a suit can feel self-important.

      YOU may not mind, but I sure as hell do. And it's not because of some "conspiracy;" it's because it's a fucking expensive hassle for no reason besides a bunch of politicians waving their dicks around. Fuck them.

      --
      "Oh boy! Are we going to try something dangerous?"
    7. Re:What's the big deal? by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1

      Because a nationally trackable "state" ID which will be required for me to get into various places which will log the fact I was there using the info from that national "state" ID and has provisions in place to expand where it's required is in no way going to be used for tracking people.

      You're right, I've got my extra large tinfoil hat on today, I'll give you that. Has this administration or any laws or actions that use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse given me a reason not to? Hell, how many have just not given me a reason TO have my tinfoil hat on?

    8. Re:What's the big deal? by tthomas48 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Republican party has already floated the idea of using the National ID as a voter ID to help with their voter fraud efforts (even though I believe the law currently forbids this. They'd just change the law). I don't know whether that scares you or not.

      Having to have a birth certificate as ID is my biggest opposition to it. If I loose my birth certificate I will have to get a new one from a hospital in a city that no longer exists. The hospital or the city. I'd like to think that they pulled all of my records out from under the 6 feet of volcanic ash, but somehow I doubt it. And I don't want to spend 17 hours in the DMV explaining that to someone.

      You are correct in that nothing MAY happen, and this MAY just end up being a boring ass driver's license that triples the amount of time I have to spend at the DMV. But that would be ignoring history.

    9. Re:What's the big deal? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Why would billions be expended to create this datastore, if it were not going to be examined?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  38. No, they listen! They really do! by Palmyst · · Score: 1

    Just speak clearly into the phone. Any phone.

  39. Not raising hand, but ... by finalrain · · Score: 1

    This stuff does go into the public record, and oh what fun it will be to show my hypothetical offspring my comments on Real ID. "See, kids. This is why we don't live in America anymore, and daddy can't get a passport." ;)

    That, and it will help cancel out some ignorant comments I made to the feds (still available on the internet somewhere) about the plausibility of downloading movies over the internet.

    The real reason we're in this bind right now is that we didn't make a huge stink about it a few years back when Congress and the Executive Branch were playing their games. Admittedly, if I (or anyone else who had known about it) had gotten on the evening news and made a bazillion websites about it, something actually could have been done about it when we had a chance. My bad.

    I don't see how it's a bad thing to speak up now just because we didn't speak up loudly enough back when it might have made a difference.

    --
    -- It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
  40. We already have a national ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called a Social Security number. What's the difference? This one just might have a photo attached.

  41. Public Health Implications by PM+Guy · · Score: 1

    I have been working for several years under a grant from the federal government to improve health care provider access to critical information about people's health records. The largest problem we run into is trying to uniquely identify a patient and correctly match it to people's health information, which can be dispersed across many institutions. The potential benefits to public health of a Federal ID are astounding, especially when you look at the under served and public health population. Likewise, the amount of money governments and institutions are pouring into solving this problem is outrageous. As a country, we are pouring money down the drain trying to save this, and are actually increasing the risk of privacy theft. "Master Patient Indexes" are being built in every state to collect demographic data and try to match and de-duplicate records. This is completely unnecessary if there were a federal ID in place.

    1. Re:Public Health Implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like things this way. If it was up to me, no health care provider would be keeping records for me. Instead they should be making it easy for me to keep the records and give them access to what I think they need to know.

  42. I'll try to give it a go. by rts008 · · Score: 1

    First off, for this discussion keep these three things in mind:

          1. History seems to repeat itself.
          2. As an intelligent, rational, thinking, sentient species, we understand cause and effect and learn from our mistakes (debatable-see #1 above).
          3. "A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step."

    Historically we see too many examples of a "National I.D." system being abused by government to control it's own population as the primary focus after having been sold as a 'protect us from our outside enemies' measure to the population.

    Add in our (USA's) major focus at our comparitively recent founding of freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
    and our percieved rights and freedoms as individuals, and our deep-rooted distrust of a strong central authority.

    Now add in the 'mark of the beast' religious aspect into the mix.

    Put this together and you have the stereotypical, generic U.S.American's attitude.

    Now at the risk of Godwin's Law:

    *scene unfolds in 1944 Germany: man in black uniform with the twin lightningbolt insignia and the Death's Head emblem arrogantly confronts a small group of pedestrians*

    SS officer: "I will examine your papers now, please"

    Hope this helps.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:I'll try to give it a go. by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Historically we see too many examples of a "National I.D." system being abused by government to control it's own population as the primary focus after having been sold as a 'protect us from our outside enemies' measure to the population.
      Except it will be true, because they didn't disclose that "us" == "the government" and "our outside enemies" == "people not in the government".
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  43. Stairway to an Orwellian Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd really rather not be required to have such a thing. While I would love to see small government I can accept that may not be entirely reasonable in the current political climate. What I cannot accept is the implementation of the REAL ID Act. It's every argument what was levied against social security numbers times ten.

    We gain what from the REAL ID Act? I false sense of security? Higher taxes? A shorter climb to an Orwellian nightmare? All of the above I'm afraid. The vice outweighs the virtue.

  44. ...open your eyes. by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. The 4th Amendment states you have a right "to be secure in your papers". That means squat if, by looking at one card for any reason, a gov't bureaucrat can pull up darn near ANYTHING about you. Does your participation in Social Security really have anything to do with being pulled over for speeding? Are your travel records really necessary for borrowing a book from the library? Does pulling health records really need cross-linking with when you got a driver's license? Is your credit rating really needed to board an airplane?

    2. Sure, they'll promise to only use relevant data appropriately. Right. Governments do not have a good history of using such pervasive data without oppression (up to and including genocide).

    3. The more ID is needed to function in society, the more valuable IDs become. A national ID becomes a one-stop-shop for ID theft. Crack one card, and I become you.

    4. Without the national ID, you can't participate in government. You can't enter a courthouse, visit your Congressman, etc. because you won't be able to even enter the building - no ID, no entry.

    5. Ultimately a national ID is a license to exist. No license shown on demand? You're detained until your ID is found, one is created, or you get removed from society. The fact that you exist means nothing; no card, no you.

    6. Corrupted data screws you over. Your file gets marked "deceased"? You're officially dead, and no amount of "but I'm standing here ranting at you!" won't help. At least with diverse cards & databases you can argue "8 out of 9 government databases say I'm still alive; please correct yours!"

    7. Pervasiveness. No card, you can't function. Without that one centralized ID card, which you don't get unless everything is in order, you can't drive, fly, ride, vote, own property, get married, file suit, work, ... YOU CAN'T EVEN BUY BEER!

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
    1. Re:...open your eyes. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      3. The more ID is needed to function in society, the more valuable IDs become. A national ID becomes a one-stop-shop for ID theft. Crack one card, and I become you.

      Don't most places already accept it as ID if one document is presented that seems to be somewhat personal? Hell, I heard USAns talk about using their phone bill to ID themselves at a poll booth. Some places apparently consider it ID to know your SSN. At least with this card there's one document that needs to be secured against forgery, not dozens of them, lowering the chance of one being weak enough to be compromised.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    2. Re:...open your eyes. by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      4. Without the national ID, you can't participate in government. You can't enter a courthouse
      Somehow I don't think will be a viable method of avoiding jury duty, prosecution, or being sued.
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  45. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by quantaman · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you don't like the idea of a federalized ID card,I love how the editors and submitter think that everybody on slashdot should hold the same stance as they do on this issue.

    I happen to believe Real ID is a very good idea, and that it would make society better.

    We already have national IDs in the form of passports, Social Security cards, etc.

    I'm all for cracking down on states to make their IDs more secure and lessen counterfeits. I don't believe our privacy would change markedly than what we have today.

    Verifying someone's identity is a lot tougher then just issuing them a card, in fact it could even backfire by giving people a false confidence in the authenticity of documents that are based on faulty information.

    To see the drawbacks of real id I'd take a look at http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/05/real _id_action.html/. Schneier knows a lot about these kind of issues and unlike the government he has an excellent track record when it comes to evaluating security systems.
    --
    I stole this Sig
  46. Spartans by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    I was thinking of something else.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  47. Already have one...two even. by multimediavt · · Score: 1

    Umm, last I checked every American citizen that legally has a job in the U.S. already has a "federalized ID card". It's called your Social Security Card. Also, if you travel outside the U.S. at all you have *two* federalized IDs in the Social Security Card and your passport (which has RFID).

    Now, someone please explain to me why this ID would be any more of a big deal. I'm at a loss here. I read the draft spec. There's nothing in there that I can see that isn't already being done at a state level with personal information. They are just going to make it a national database.

    1. Re:Already have one...two even. by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Umm, last I checked every American citizen that legally has a job in the U.S. already has a "federalized ID card". It's called your Social Security Card.


      A social security card is not an ID card.

      Also, if you travel outside the U.S. at all you have *two* federalized IDs in the Social Security Card and your passport (which has RFID).


      True, foreign travel requires you to get a passport. Very few Americans, proportionately, have passports, because Americans don't tend to leave America.
    2. Re:Already have one...two even. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      your social security card isn't an ID and is completely useless as such (and easily forged too). No police officer, city, state or local, will ever ask you to prove your identity with a social security card. In fact, now the government says don't carry your social security card with you because you open yourself to identify theft (the only thing related to ID that a social security card can do because financial institutions are so very stupid when it comes to ID and security). A passport is not required of citizens inside the country. Can be used as an ID, but not required.

  48. As something from a country with a mandatory ID... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...lemme tell you where it leads to.

    In my country it's mandatory to carry a (real, state issued) ID wherever you go. No matter what, when a cop stops you and asks for your ID, you have to be able to prove that you're you. And they can do that whenever, whereever and for whatever reason they want. Failure to comply results in an arrest.

    If you want that, don't write. It's what you'll get.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  49. This is a sham by k1e0x · · Score: 1

    They already passed it.

    It's a done deal.. why bother asking us now. I dont trust them and I think they just want to get all these PRO letters so they can ram them at us and say "SEE you want this!"

    I dont want it and if you try to give it to me you will see my answer.

    --
    Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
  50. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or maybe he posted anonymously because his opinion doesnt match with yours, and he doesnt feel like blowing his karma away for saying what he thinks.

    I thought the "amerikkkan" government was supposed to be the evil facist ruler, and the free-thinking rebels on slashdot were the ones that embraced everyone's differing opinions in the spirit of debate.

    Im posting anonymous so the opinion police dont kill my karma too.

  51. Easy? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    5. It's easy to stay outside the system - unless there are regular checkpoints and official stop and searches.

    Oh, really? Got any advice for those of us trapped in it?

    I might like to own a house someday, and I currently enjoy the ability to rent an apartment -- which you can't do without giving over your SSN so that people can run a credit check on you. I also like having a job, but it's getting impossible to find a job where someone doesn't want your SSN for credit checks, and they have to have it anyway for doing your tax and insurance paperwork. Speaking of which, try driving legally without getting insurance which requires -- you guessed it -- your social security number.

    Frankly, I'd really like to know how our own illegal immigrant get by, but hearing more about yours might be handy enough. It would be nice to be able to get "off the grid" without being independantly wealthy and/or breaking laws in the process.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:Easy? by Tiro · · Score: 1

      All taxpayers, including illegal immigrants, can get Tax ID numbers, no questions asked.

    2. Re:Easy? by SoulRider · · Score: 1

      I might like to own a house someday, and I currently enjoy the ability to rent an apartment -- which you can't do without giving over your SSN so that people can run a credit check on you

      Who says you have to own a house to live in it? There are plenty of "no question asked, pay by cash" apartments out there.

      I also like having a job

      Work for cash. You would be suprised at the number of employers who would hire you at a decent salary for cash just because they then dont have to pay things like taxes and insurance.

      driving

      If you do nothing to get pulled over who is going to know you are driving without license? I know people who have been driving for their whole lives without licenses.

      My point is that it really is not that difficult to live "off of the grid", of course you give up a lot of the social services provided by this country but it is not difficult if you dont mind the inconvenience. Under a system of a single ID it does become easier since now you only have to forge one document and not many documents and you are now essentially legal as far as law enforcement is concerned. This is a very slippery slope we are going down with a single National ID, checkpoints and having to register yourself every time you go somewhere are only the beginning. It always sounds good, but no matter how well intentioned this is I guarantee it will come back a bite us in the ass. And it probably wont be any major conspiracy or any attempted coup in this country it will simply be because we are giving law enforcement too much power and historically law enforcement will abuse any power given them exponentially.

  52. Federal Watch List by Cemu · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else feel that they were going to be put on a federal watch list if they filled out the form on that .gov website?

  53. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by Fifty+Points · · Score: 0

    ... Says Anonymous Coward

    --
    I'm in between insightful sigs right now...
  54. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wow -- stopping identity theft would be very easy -- without an expensive national ID card, and making everyone a tracked suspect.

    With our SSN, we could all create a private key. By using something like the credit card networks, ID boxes could be put in stores -- or wherever you wanted to identify a person.

    A person would enter their SSN into the box. They would use their "check pin" -- with the Check pin and the public SSN, they would get a response code which would verify that this was a secure connection (whatever they choose to have their response be) -- then they would enter in their password. The Vendor, would just receive a time-stamped verification that said; John Doe is authorized to act on behalf of John Doe -- coupled with a picture ID of any sort.

    If anyone else uses your SSN -- they don't have the password. If someone gets that -- you go through a simple face-to-face visit at a bank or some authorized ID place, and submit a new password.

    >> Wow. Gee --look! I solved the whole crisis, with just using telephone lines and a new system to just add a password to the SSN system and use common Public/Private Key techniques. A thousand Slashdotters could solve this dilemma -- so how come we have such an insipid, expensive, stupid National ID from BushCo and the Poodle-fascist in England? Perhaps we just need to jump ahead and get chipped or barcoded. Then only authorized criminals will get to steal our retirement funds.

    A National ID does nothing to resolve someone stealing your ID. Does nothing to prevent anything -- but it does a great job of keeping track of the average joe, or allowing an overbearing government to oppress people. Just like that stinking "do not fly list."

    I have yet to see one example -- even ONE, where this administration has done something that benefitted me. They take great pride and probably pass around the cigars every time the come up with another clever way to cheat Americans. I would sooner trust the random stranger on the train than ANYONE in this criminal enterprise in Washington.

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  55. Re:Why wait to the last minute to post this? by kinglink · · Score: 1, Interesting

    No, because Kerry was the best person they ran against him.

    You can only blame Bush so much when the democrats do so much to destroy themselves. Hell Clinton is the front runner for 2008? Obama is slightly better but no track record, and Gore who everyone seems to want lost last time he ran to what everyone seemed to think is a boob. And that was before we knew Gore loves to throw tantrums instead of being a good sport. Those are the proposed alternatives to who ever the republicans put up. Notice the word alternatives. I'll get back to this.

    As for this situation the Real ID, why are you against it. And if you tell me it's because you want privacy I'll give you a shack out in the middle of nowhere. Want to be part of any community or country you're going to be giving up some freedoms.

    Worried about Identity theft? Oh right because that's what the media runs tons of stories about and doesn't give statistics about how rare it happens. Guess what? Work on getting safeguards around that rather then bitching about the ID system itself.

    I hear about 100 complaints from people about all sorts of crap but no one is ever offering an actual alternative. With Bush you had Kerry, Bush won. Sorry if you wanted Clinton/Gore/Mccain or any other politician to win but you had 2 (or a few more) choices. Want to stop the Real ID act? Have a proposal about what to do instead of it? So far I haven't heard any real options other than "just keep doing the same shit that gives anyone a visa, and any illegal immegrant a ID." Oh wait that's fine by some people.

  56. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by Schnoogs · · Score: 0

    Tin foil?

  57. Get a Clue by Luscious868 · · Score: 1

    This Administration doesn't give a flying fuck what you or anybody else thinks. It will do what it wants to do.

  58. id card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Sweden (and in Finland, as it were part of Kingdom at that time), we've had national register about people since 1580 A.D.

    For your information, we haven't had big increase in massacres, witch hunts or government abuse of power a lot since those days.

    In EU area, unified drivers license, id card or password is valid ID. You don't have to carry one around all the time, this ain't Soviet Union.

    Well, American paranoids are great for terrorists and scam-artists, as they can continue utilizing worlds easiest place to steal identities or forge ID, United States. If Bin Laden is hiding somewhere, he probably is doing so at say NJ - was that the place drivers license (valid id) doesn't even have a photograph. Geez.

  59. LifeLock by k1e0x · · Score: 1

    You dont need government to stop IDENITY THEFT!

    http://lifelock.com/ and the cost it low when you compare it to government programs.

    --
    Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
  60. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Or maybe he posted anonymously because his opinion doesnt match with yours, and he doesnt feel like blowing his karma away for saying what he thinks.

    Yes, thus showing the abstract value that anonymity brings to the table, and not just on slashdot. There are parallels here to anonymity in meat-space as well; an anonymous member of a protest group (in order not to blow one's standing in the community); an anonymous withdrawal of a book on anarchism or bomb-making because you want to understand the threats, but don't want to have the ATF come visit you with handcuffs; an anonymous objection to the will of the masses with regard to any number of topics, such as religion, sexuality, the drug war, etc. Anonymity is valuable. That's the darned point! RealID is a program designed to strip anonymity from us, and that is one (of many) reasons it is a bad thing.

    I thought the "amerikkkan" government was supposed to be the evil facist ruler, and the free-thinking rebels on slashdot were the ones that embraced everyone's differing opinions in the spirit of debate.

    I was debating the poster's opinion. I took the post seriously, and I responded with what I considered to be content that rebutted the posted opinion. So what is your objection to this? Does "embrace" mean that I have to agree? I don't think so!

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  61. Mod up parent by mrraven · · Score: 1

    Coordinated state data bases ARE a national base the grandparent post FUD must be refuted!

    --
    Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
  62. Not so bad by pseudorand · · Score: 1

    I was all ready to write a scathing e-mail of opposition before the deadline, but in reading the FAQ, I couldn't find much I objected to.

    1) It's not a national ID because states maintain the databases individually -- there is no national database.

    2) It's not necessarily a remotely readable ID. RFID is optional, bar codes are mandatory. This means we need to lobby our state representatives to opt for the bar code. (Unencrypted, please, so I can read what's on it myself, as opposed to just the hackers being able to read it when the encryption scheme is broken 5 seconds after release just like CSS).

    3) There's no requirement to use a REALID-compliant license for anything except a) Airplanes, b) Federal facilities, c) Nuclear power plants. I'll gladly get a REALID passport for those purposes (which I keep in an RFID-resistant bag) and lobby my state to provide non-REALID licenses.

    4) The federal government isn't providing funds to states, but that's good. The states SHOULD be paying for it so they (and in turn, their voters) maintain control. If we raise local taxes and lower federal taxes, or local governments will have more power and, in turn, each of us will have more power since our votes are part of a smaller state and local pool. How many of us can even name the mayor of our city? Why? Because he's not that important.

    My only real objection is that some citizens may not have all the required documents, but I'm not one of them, so I'll let someone else complain about that.

    1. Re:Not so bad by Jimmy+King · · Score: 2, Informative

      3) There's no requirement to use a REALID-compliant license for anything except a) Airplanes, b) Federal facilities, c) Nuclear power plants. I'll gladly get a REALID passport for those purposes (which I keep in an RFID-resistant bag) and lobby my state to provide non-REALID licenses.
      So far, anyway. The answer to the third question there says "DHS may consider expanding these official purposes through future rulemakings to maximize the security benefits of REAL ID." I'm pretty certain that can be translated as "DHS has already decided it is going to expand the official purposes for the Real ID as soon as it has passed because it appears fairly harmless at the moment."

      4) The federal government isn't providing funds to states, but that's good. The states SHOULD be paying for it so they (and in turn, their voters) maintain control. If we raise local taxes and lower federal taxes, or local governments will have more power and, in turn, each of us will have more power since our votes are part of a smaller state and local pool. How many of us can even name the mayor of our city? Why? Because he's not that important.
      So the federal government is going to set rules for how a state ID must be and require that the ID which is supposedly completely state determined and maintained meet those requirements for use in several places, but the states are going to pay for it. That's good? Where is this control the voters are maintaining that you speak of? The only control is to have one or not and based on the quote above, it's quite likely it will be nearly impossible to not have one in the near future.

      To be fair, I'll take off my tinfoil hat. Let's say that nothing bad comes of this. What good comes of it? We've already got state ID's and several other forms of ID that are considered to be valid and secure forms of identification. Why would I want to have my taxes go to having another one instead of something useful (not that I really think that money would otherwise go to something useful).
    2. Re:Not so bad by night_flyer · · Score: 1

      1) It's not a national ID because states maintain the databases individually -- there is no national database.

      Yet, (or there is, but they arent telling)

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  63. Re:Why wait to the last minute to post this? by Ngarrang · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This sort of legislation is really annoying. It was coupled with Tsunami relief. What, is the President going to look like a jerk and not grant money for relief, just to avoid this act? Like everything he does, the Bush Haters would have twisted it around and blamed it all him anywho. Well, they will anyways, but this is not Bush's fault.

    --
    Bearded Dragon
  64. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, and Poindexter is still assembling a huge database on Americans -- as they've privatized the Total Information Awareness gambit.

    IF you wanted to blacklist someone, you might enter anything into a database about that person. Everyone paying attention to how much fun we've had with the Credit Score companies and how long it took to force them to tell us what the damn score was without spending $40 for the privilege of correcting their errors?

    And, who is going to bet me $10 that you won't be allowed to know what data gets on your ID card? As well as medical health, and most like genetic data, you might even have job history, traffic accidents -- think of all the baggage a corporation would want to have about you. All this data gets sold right now to private corporations -- did we vote on that? Please, by all means google it. Yes, the Bush administration takes info from your tax forms, or from Homeland Security, and sells it to private companies that do things like identify issues for politicians to campaign on -- or probably anything someone will pay for.

    I'm sure future employers will consult the National ID card when they hire you. What sort of information will be on that card? Well ... did you agree to let the government, or bank lose your data on a laptop recently? No? Did you ask them to sell the data -- the bank can't do it by law, but there is no provision against the government doing it. What about false information?

    No, the national ID card isn't to identify you -- it's to track you, and to build a database on you. It's to make you a citizen at the level that they think you deserve to be. What happens to a traveling salesman who gets on the "Do Not Fly" list?

    It might be your SAT score or it might be some government information that decides what college you or your kids go to. "Not corporate friendly" might keep you out of Yale. I'm sure my voting record would be useful, so that they could keep me out of Political debates -- who needs a loyalty oath when you can actually determine if someone is the "right sort."

    You may call me paranoid. I just think if you don't imagine what the abuse could be -- you are being naive.

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  65. Yes, by default? by k1e0x · · Score: 1

    Since when do we have to write to government to tell them what they CANT do.. why is there program Yes, by default.

    Oh right because they control us.. not the other way around and because the 10th is gone.

    --
    Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
  66. Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This place has gone to hell in a handbasket since 2000

    Yeah. Everything was hunky dory before November 2000.

    It's not like the federal government was shooting mothers holding infants in their arms, setting children on fire, or pointing machine guns at the heads of 6 year olds prior to Jan 20, 2001 or anything.

  67. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by PWill · · Score: 0

    Well, we can see you have no problem with the violation of the Constitution (Amendment X), so shall we just go ahead and scrap the whole thing? You wouldn't like that, now would you? It's the United States of America, not the United State of America.

    --
    A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere.
  68. Real ID != National ID by saintory · · Score: 1

    Three key points I see from this link to dhs.gov

    Is this a National ID card?
    No. The proposed regulations establish common standards for States to issue licenses. The Federal Government is not issuing the licenses, is not collecting information about license holders, and is not requiring States to transmit license holder information to the Federal Government that the Government does not already have (such as a Social Security Number). Most States already routinely collect the information required by the Act and the proposed regulations.
    ...
    What is the Machine Readable Technology specified in the NPRM?
    The regulations propose the use of the 2-D barcode already used by 46 jurisdictions (45 States and the District of Columbia). DHS leans towards encrypting the data on the barcode as a privacy protection and requests comments on how to proceed given operational considerations.
    Will REAL ID driver's licenses include RFID cards?
    The NPRM does not specify the use of RFID cards as a minimum standard. States may independently choose to implement an RFID solution, in addition to the standard 2-D barcode, to meet their constituent's needs.

    It would seem to me that the US Government is setting a standard for all the states to follow since they all do not seem to play well together. In doing so there could be an increase in efficiency with interstate information gathering and/or duplication, etc. This appears to contain no information about the federal government collecting more information than they already know (e.g., SSN and Passport numbers). Please give me links to government issued documents to show that this has changed.

  69. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by Kijori · · Score: 1

    1) What's to stop someone else going and submitting a new password? Why can't the authentication the bank does be faked?
    2) What's to stop a shop using a faked terminal to get your password?
    3) How would this reduce the tracking? They'd still be able to log everywhere you requested authorization.
    4) How is requiring a password to shop an improvement?

  70. Re:As something from a country with a mandatory ID by FuryG3 · · Score: 1

    netherlands?

  71. Patriotism requires courage by LandruBek · · Score: 1

    It takes courage to stand up and voice a contrary opinion, and I think it's always been that way. Yes, we might feel afraid, but that feeling does not have to control us. I think we are going to be feeling much more fear if REALID goes into effect. It was worrisome and took courage to buck the trends in Nixon's day, in J. Edgar Hoover's day, and I daresay in George III's day, and all the way back.


    Sure there might be repression and trouble for us if we speak out, but there is certainly going to be repression and trouble if we don't. Better to play the man.

    --
    $META_SIG_JOKE
  72. Re:Why wait to the last minute to post this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Want to stop the Real ID act? Have a proposal about what to do instead of it?

    Um. First you'll have to explain just what problem this attempting to solve. I've never seen a consistent explanation of the purpose of this act to begin with.

  73. Re:As something from a country with a mandatory ID by zCyl · · Score: 1

    In my country it's mandatory to carry a (real, state issued) ID wherever you go.

    It strikes me that this is the real problem, rather than a problem over who issues ID cards. It would be preferable if a bill creating national ID cards specified that it is not mandatory to carry them, nor even mandatory to have them.
  74. I want to see this idea by Jaeph · · Score: 1

    Just to control all the spam emails. I would love to see all email include a field for a national id. The field is optional, but of course my mail reader would filter on that. Any fraudulent use of an ID would be a federal crime and subject to severe penalties (meaning hard jail time for a large number of uses and no mitigating circumstances).

    What about other countries? They can setup there own plans, or not. Of course, my mail reader will be set to reject their emails.

    -Jeff

    --
    Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
  75. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

    And, who is going to bet me $10 that you won't be allowed to know what data gets on your ID card? I'll bet against that. Since the data is unencrypted, some hacker will figure it out 10 minutes after he gets his card. It'll be public knowledge within half an hour.
  76. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1) Because you need the old password, and you sit down at some place like a bank -- or anywhere authorized, and show them photo IDs, mail -- all the stuff you do now when you lose an ID and go to Motor Vehicles. This is at least 10 times more secure ... so what's the beef?
    Why can't the bank authentication be faked? Well, if I were faking being John Doe -- I'd be in a bank or somewhere getting my photo and finger print and hoping there were no other John Doe screaming about identity theft... and the bank has a few Million in the vault and expensive property -- so I doubt they'd want to make money on fake IDs.

    2) That's the point of the "check code" -- the handshake in private/public key incryption. I punch my ID in a box that is authorized and hooked up to a phone line -- just like we do right now, billions of times a day, with credit cards. When I enter in my SSN, I get something back like "Ouch!" -- because that's what I set up as my "check key." Now, however someone wants to create the authorization scheme to verify that box -- they are still going to have to intercept incrypted codes for anyone who's ID they are going to want to steal. I could get very detailed but I could say with a GPS, authorization procedures, and a phone line -- these ID boxes could be pretty hard to steel -- you could authorize them by day, and for one location on the planet.

    OK, now that I saw "Ouch!" on the screen -- I know it is an authorized ID system I'm hooked up to. Unless someone has intercepted my last transaction with an authorized device, and is running an elaborate scam -- this is at least many times more work than what it takes to steal a bank pin on my Debit card -- which is harder to steal than my SSN right now. So now I can send my password that goes to the ID system, and then they wire back to the Vender an authorization like "John Doe Approved" and a transaction number -- just like credit card companies use -- a time stamp and hash that could be used to prove later that I, John Doe, really did buy that crappy leather jacket so pay up!

    3) Yes, it doesn't reduce tracking. But I would want such a system to be State-based authorities. Not Federal. I don't have a problem with a company like VISA being an authorized ID System. The point is; someone needs to know that I'm John Doe -- if they are wrong, VISA is going to lose some money. THAT sort of privatization is fine with me. In the National ID scheme; huge government beuaracracy authorizes cards, but outsources to one politically friendly company. I guess it's pretty much that I know BushCo will screw it up, and it will cost us a lot of money, and only benefit friendly crooks. What else is new? But any ID system needs to only provide a reasonable guarantee to Company X or Person Y that I am John Doe. VISA has a vested interest in Credit Cards and would be financially damaged trying to screw me over -- see, they have something to lose! Not one appointed company made for the sole purpose of privatizing and keeping he system forever from oversight.

    4) Um, because my password can be changed. If someone steals my ID Number -- how do I change my unique ID like a SSN? Everything is based on some sort of fixed tracking number in every database ever used. The password can change and be used merely to authorize that I am John Doe using such and such SSN. It's only a slight inconvenience like a bank pin -- you don't need it everytime you shop -- you just use this INSTEAD of your SSN. Like when you take our a loan, or apply for that fricken' blockbuster video card where they think I'm going to trust them and 20 part-time teenagers with my SSN to rent a video.

    So, in short -- you don't use your SSN to go shopping now. You use your credit card and occassionally your drivers license. In fact, you can even use CASH. McDonalds does not need to know I'm John Doe in order to sell me a hamburger. They just need my money. If VISA wants to do a better job of securing money -- then let THEM solve it. I don't want a MORE PERFECT ID system -- I just

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  77. Actung! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ihre Papiere, bitte...
    Zeigen Sie mir Ihre Papiere!

  78. Re:Why wait to the last minute to post this? by orielbean · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is no problem. They want to create an extra layer of red tape, exactly like Homeland Security. They don't want to streamline state id systems; they want to leave all the flaws in place, but report to a Big Daddy computer. You've hit the nail on the head. Real ID is a solution in search of a non-existent problem.

  79. The REAL problem... by Maekrix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The real problem of the "Real Id Act" isn't that its a national ID card. It is a standardization for all states. However, what it could become is frightening.

    Its that there isn't a clear limit of what states can put on the card. There isn't necessarily a database per card, but thats up to states to decide. And it is a major stepping stone to a national ID card.

    And yes, that is a problem for ID theft, and it is a problem for a police state. It would be so simple to say "Where is your card? I'm sorry.. you don't have it? Please step out of the car, ma'am, you're under arrest for suspected terrorism."

    Honestly, its that easy.

    Oh yeah, and yes Social Security numbers are tied to the card. Not listed ON card, but directly linked.

    --
    Praise His Noodliness. RAmen.
  80. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

    I said "allowed to know." Yes, a hacker might be able to decrypt this -- but that is a LOT harder than decoding a DVD. The ID card is not a device that you or I will be "playing back." It has data, in a non-consumer oriented device -- so the reading device will be restricted and tracked. I can bet that some mafia groups will get their hands on these types of devices and find a way to keep them authorized. But that isn't good news for YOU or ME anyway.

    Don't confuse the hacking of Big Media titles with decrypting something like this.

    However, if they use their normal "crony + idiot" like they did with the voting machines -- it will be hacked right away. If they want to use some NSA geniuses, then it would be many, many orders of magnitudes harder to crack than the latest Blue-Ray DVD. Imagine every DVD being unique, and you had to enter in a password to read "parts of it." I'd expect that there will be compartments of encrypted DATA on this card that only some will be able to access -- for instance; medical data might only come out at a hospital card scanner, and they have the pass key to read it.
    While only the RNC might be able to read the other part that says; "Voted for Dean."

    I pretty much figure that there will be an RFID that can tell who you are just passing by. So people will get your ID whether you agreed or not --- that part will probably be hacked in 10 minutes and treat you to wonderful, personalized adds everytime you pass a billboard. "Hey John Doe -- do you want a burger." "Hey John, I'm waiting.... call me..." Hey John, are you worried about Identity theft? For a small fee, we could guarantee that nobody knows you are John Doe..."

    Yeah, all the government services we DON'T want.

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  81. Oh, we know Declan McCullagh's work... by rholland356 · · Score: 1

    Just before the turn of the century Declan McCullagh wrote articles about how Y2K would cause the end of the world as we know it. He was a regular part of the doom brood over at comp.software.year-2000, amplifying any minor negative aspect to Y2K he could find. You can find articles he wrote about his bias before researching the story.

    Same Declan, same approach.

    Interesting to see that he still amplifies government news items beyond reason. Too bad it's for CNET, though. They once held a certain cachet...

  82. Re:Why wait to the last minute to post this? by kinglink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I listed two. But you might have missed them or think they are common place enough that they arn't a problem.

    A. Visas are granted with little or no thought. Can you pretend you're going to college? You can probably get a Visa. Technically fixed now, but having actual rules about them wouldn't be a bad thing.

    B. ID is becoming to the point where different states have completely different rules. Why not have a standardized rule that says if you have these X pieces of identification? You can get an ID. If not you can't. Instead I've seen every single state that I've lived in (4 in the last 5 years) has different laws. 2 of them didn't require proof of residency, One required just my old ID which they just looked at and assumed it's ok, they didn't even scrutinize the picture (and they don't have access to that state's database so they definitely didn't pull up the database to look at the official picture).

    One state I went to allowed you to use ID from certain states... why? Because those states had "adequate" security measures. I didn't have that state's license and I had to go through the official process of proving who I was, which was easy.

    So why should we have such a variety in the ways we gain ID and have states having different levels of security but everyone assuming that the two drivers licenses from different states are both the same level of proof of your identity, when even the states themselves know certain states are more secure? Oh right, because it's not a problem....

    I'm not trying to tell you Real ID is right, but at the same time let's find a way to make the law better than yelling about it and trying to get it completely thrown out, which just won't happen.

  83. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

    OK, here is my position in a nutshell;

    I Trust our government like I do John Gotti. When John Gotti wants me to buy a card for "protection" -- I'm going to wonder... what's in it for good old John Gotti -- where is the fix?

    So I don't trust THIS government -- I can barely tolerate it anymore. They are proven crooks, vote-riggers and threaten the security and prosperity of America at every turn. Can we be sure if it is by mere incompetence or just larseny? Why should WE have to figure out WHY?

    I think the ONLY reason that Bush wants a National ID, is so someone can make money, he can track people, and that it would make a totalitarian state easier.

    >> But hey, if it can make it slightly more convenient to a color TV... what's the worst that could happen?

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  84. National CORPORATION id by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Whey don't they numeritize corporations first? It may reduce spam and other commercial problems, terrorist money laundering included.

  85. freedom by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    If you can regain your freedom...

    Again, I haven't lost any freedoms. As for Britain, it sounds like you haven't lost any freedoms either. Privacy while you are in public maybe, but not any freedoms.

    you mean you haven't noticed? Do you ever fly? If so have you ever found you're barred from flying because your name, or a similar name, is on one of the Do Not Fly lists? And in 2010 will you be able to fly without showing ID? Also part of being free is being free from government intrusion.

    Falcon
  86. How would you breathe in there, anyway? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    You'd have to have been in a comma the last 7 years to not realize that Homeland Security doesn't give a fuck what you think.

    Well, being in a comma for seven years certainly would do some odd things to your head, I have to give you that...

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  87. Annoying, but I support it by SirBruce · · Score: 1

    I support Real ID in general, so I will go along with it. The most annoying part is that I currently have a state ID that doesn't expire, which makes it quite useful as a default form of ID that I don't have to worry about. Now, that ID is going to become unacceptable to many federal institutions in 2013, so I'm going to have to get a Real ID compliant one to replace it.

    1. Re:Annoying, but I support it by SirBruce · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I meant to add, Real ID cards expire after no more than 8 years, so this will become an annoying chore.

  88. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by Gogo0 · · Score: 1

    I was debating the poster's opinion. I took the post seriously, and I responded with what I considered to be content that rebutted the posted opinion. So what is your objection to this? Does "embrace" mean that I have to agree? I don't think so!

    I'll go out on a limb and say more people like you should have mod points. That would solve the problem of having to hide your identity when you have an unpopular opinion. I think thats the point the original poster was trying to make, that slashdot's messed up, not you specifically.
  89. Re:Why wait to the last minute to post this? by General+Wesc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hear about 100 complaints from people about all sorts of crap but no one is ever offering an actual alternative. ... Want to stop the Real ID act? Have a proposal about what to do instead of it? So far I haven't heard any real options other than "just keep doing the same shit that gives anyone a visa, and any illegal immegrant a ID." Oh wait that's fine by some people.

    You're right. My only alternative idea to reducing freedoms is 'leave things the way they are until we come up with a good idea'. I wish I had that good idea right now, but at least I'm opposed to making things worse. 'You don't have an idea on how to improve things so don't complain about our idea to make things worse' seems like a really, really weak position to me.

    So, we've posted a hundred complaints about Real ID. If they're legitimate, it's important that we consider them. When the proponents of an idea object to critical analysis, that's a strong sign that it's a bad idea.

  90. Bush Bash by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Get a life, and get over the fact you lost.

    Now, back on topic: It wouldn't have mattered who was in office. The US government is larger then any single man. The end result is always ther same, regardless of what party is in office.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  91. If you don't like the idea? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Then you better start making plans on moving elsewhere. Is coming, and it really doesnt matter what 'we the people' want.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  92. Iraqi election by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Tell that to those who voted in the first time of their lives where the ballot had more than one option.

    Wow, a whole 12 million Iraqis voted. Out of a population of more than 60 Million that's only 1 in 5 that voted.

    How many countries has the US "liberated" that didn't have oil lately??

    Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Bosnia, nearly Haiti, and, of course, Afghanistan. Of course, this list only goes back to the late 80's, but you did say, "lately".

    Panama? Who did the US liberate Panama from? The same person the US supported to begin with. Kuwait? Kuwait does have oil for one thing. A second is that Kuwait was not then and is not now a democracy. It is a sheikdom, ruled by a Sheikh. Haiti? The US used Papa Doc as a bulwark against communism. He is the one Haiti needed to be liberated from. Afghanistan? Though it doesn't produce oil, Afghanistan is building oil pipelines. However now the Taliban, whom Bush gave $43 millions in taxpayer money to, are regaining strength and power.

    Falcon
  93. Re:Why wait to the last minute to post this? by Ikester8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, it is. He's the executive, he could have vetoed this if he found anything in there he did not support. Apparently he did not, and neither did the legislators who voted in favor of it. It's their fault, too.

    --
    That's the last time I run code posted in somebody's sig...
  94. States Rights by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Does the federal government not trust the states anymore?

    No, the feds want all the power.

    Falcon
  95. Its a creepy organization. No contact from me. by MMInterface · · Score: 1

    Email the department of homeland security so I can volunteer to be put in their database of accidental persecution.... I don't even feel comfortable typing their name. Er, I don't have anything to hide that I can think of, I just don't like accidents because like that one guy said, its okay to kidnap and torture a few innocents if it saves thousands of Americans lives. This nation has lost its mind. Next thing you know its a dog color or a chip in the neck. The thing is if they do it gradually enough the same people will say what harm is it. Despite all our condmenation of foreign countries that violate civil rights and privacy, we are becoming more and more like them.

    1. Re:Its a creepy organization. No contact from me. by petrus4 · · Score: 1

      Email the department of homeland security so I can volunteer to be put in their database of accidental persecution.... I don't even feel comfortable typing their name.

      It's going to get a lot more uncomfortable than it is even now once the internment camps activate and start accepting people for "processing." I'm expecting that that will happen at some point next year. The furor about illegal immigrants is being used as justification for the opening of the camps...but what are people going to say when entirely legal, naturalised Americans start ending up in the camps alongside the supposed illegals?

  96. Civil War by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    As you recall the U.S. fought the bloodiest war in its history because a Northern biased Federal government wanted to abolish slavery

    The US Civil War wasn't over slavery, it was all about keeping the nation united. The war didn't start until some southern states secesseded from the USA and formed the Confederate States of America.

    Falcon
  97. Your car is on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Posted an hour before the deadline. Great job.

  98. trust in government by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I, personally, tend to trust centralized government more

    I distrust a centralized government more than I do decentralized government, which I distrust a lot. So long as I am not harming another I should be able to do whatever I want whenever I want. And the same applies to everyone else!

    I'm willing to give up a bit more of the extreme viewpoints I have in favor of a more stable one that will shift to fit the culture over longer periods of time.

    As stated above, I'm not willing to give any of my freedom. Give up a little and next tyme they ask for a little more. This will continue until people stand up to them or people have no more freedom.

    I'm willing to give up a bit more of the extreme viewpoints I have in favor of a more stable one that will shift to fit the culture over longer periods of time.

    Yeah, like congress didn't march in lockstep to the admin's drums these past 7 years. NOT!!!

    Falcon
    1. Re:trust in government by 7Prime · · Score: 1

      I'm actually in agreement with most of what you say here. Although, I never said anything about giving up freedom, I said I'd give up some of my more extremist viewpoints in favor for stability, that has nothing to do with my personal freedom, it has to do with "getting my way", which is not always the best solution.

      And yes, as I said, congress goose-stepped along with Bush for at least the first 6 years... even in the short time the dems had power during '05, they just whined a lot.

      The one thing I'll say, and I know you're going to dissagree with me, but there is a balance between quality of life and freedom. I don't believe that unlimited freedom produces the best outcome for ones existance. unlimited freedom is anarchy, which while workable in theory (like just about every other political philosophy), usually leads to chaos. If you think about it, hardly ANYONE believes that absolute freedom is the best way to go, so we're all speculating on some middle ground here.

      I think we're actually pretty much in agreement on this, we just have different ideas about what level of freedom is best for our culture.

      --
      Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
  99. Not to get biblical here , but....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they release a national id card and then later start having problems with identity thefts, cards stolen, counterfeit cards , etc.
    So the next legislation to go into effect is "lets put the id number on the hand", that way you can always see the id number and noone can take it from you ! , uhm, no thanks, If theres even a 1 in 999 trillion chance, I'll pass.

  100. Re:Why wait to the last minute to post this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually Bush DIDN'T win that election. In fact he didn't win either election. The votings where rigged. There is a ton of evidence to show this, including a testimony in court of the programmer who wrote the routine to flip the numbers around.(why do you think diebold was so insistant on no paper trails and no viewing of the source code?) The public did not vote for this person. And he has done damage to this country that is going to take a very long time to repair.

    Hopefully this will not happen again as alot of new regulations are being put into place on electronic voting machines. Unfortunatly the damage is already done.

  101. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'll go out on a limb and say more people like you should have mod points

    Which is really kind of funny, because (a) I wrote this and every time I point it out, I don't get mod points for many months in a row, and (b) one of the editors regularly and systematically mods down my posts, easily detected when I have a series of posts over several stories, over several days, sometimes highly rated, sometimes just at 1, then over the course of five minutes, I'll lose 10-15 points across multiple stories; clearly someone with more than 5 points to "spend" has had themselves a little "abuse party." As the "editors" brag, they have unlimited mod points, and they aren't afraid to use them.

    Personally, I browse at -1 because there aren't enough positive mod points to raise up all the reasonable posts and because there are tons of good posts that get moderated down as a matter of commentary, rather than because they are actually bad posts. As far as I am concerned the moderation system just barely manages to make itself felt as commentary, less effectively than digg's does, and it is absolutely useless as a criteria of which messages to read.

    ...and of course, this post will very likely be modded off topic, which again is humorous, because the powers that be won't let any such thread appear as a story (I have tried) and of course moderation is very much on topic anywhere it occurs, and especially when it is done poorly (which is often) or ineffectively (which is always, because there aren't enough mod points to go around.)

    Let me say, however, that I take your comment as a complement and I thank you for saying so.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  102. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
    The point is; someone needs to know that I'm John Doe -- if they are wrong, VISA is going to lose some money.

    Actually, no - it is the vendor that loses money. Visa never loses money. If there is a fraudulent transaction, VISA will turn right around and suck that money directly out of the vendor's bank account. When Visa says they protect you from fraud, guarantee a refund, what they are really saying is that they promise to take the money from the vendor and give it to you if someone buys something with your card and you call it an unauthorized purchase. Visa won't be out anything. The vendor will. Just so we're clear: The vendor is the one left holding the bag, each and every time; the vendor is out both product (the thief has that) and money (Visa has taken that and given all but $50 of it, sometimes, to the card-holder.)

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  103. Re:Before you have your day, consider the alternat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didnt you know that the Real ID act is being billed as not an national ID card? It sets forth standards for state issued identification... NATIONAL STANDARDS. They did this so that they can claim that its not a National ID card and make the states pay for it while retaining complete control over it.

  104. Re: Re: Redundant (and unnecessarily repetitive) by srobert · · Score: 1

    I must admit the "I for one" joke has run its course. I got modded redundant and no one else even said it.

  105. Are you reluctant to register your disapproval? by srobert · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously, there are reasons to support a National ID. I could take that argument up separately. But what I want to comment on is this. Isn't it a little bit disturbing, that among those of us who are opposed to the idea, there is a feeling of intimidation about registering dissent with the Department of Homeland Security? It reminds me eerily of a teacher querying a fourth grade class, "is there anyone here who objects to saying the Pledge of Allegiance?, If so raise your hand and you may wait out in the hallway, while the rest of us say the pledge."

  106. Re:As something from a country with a mandatory ID by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Then you can rest assured that it would soon be very favorable to have one, or even more or less mandatory if you don't want to live as a hermit. You'd soon see various services that you can only access with one. Voting being the first and foremost. Next, banks would require one if you wanted to get a mortgage or even any kind of account. And so on.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  107. let Homeland Security know your thoughts... by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    "We are everywhere! For your convenience."

    I think I'll pass.

  108. Re:Actually I Support A National ID by Kijori · · Score: 1

    1) OK, that works for changing your current password, what would you have happen if you forget your password? You can't just rely on photo ID and similar, since we know that can be faked. And remember that it's not the banks that do the authorizing, it's bank employees. These can be crooked just like everyone else.

    2) The faked box doesn't do anything fancy. It just sits there, looks like a normal box - and is. Except that it records every button you press, perhaps by having a camera watching the keypad, perhaps by changing the keypad itself to monitor you. Think about it; people don't build whole fake ATMs now to steal PINs, they just put a camera on a real one.

    3) No reply - I mentioned it because you phrased it like an advantage, but if you don't mind, it's not part of your plan.

    4) Ah, OK.

  109. haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a two sided thing, and I love the solution we have in germany

    We have European(!) driving licenses, but we also have personal ID's, so its up to our own matter which one we use for identification ... the driving license doesnt need to have our home address because of that

    Funny thing is, that your driving license costs you about a similar price like a personal ID for me ... now guess what we pay for the driving license?

    ---
    answer to the quiz

    about 10eu for personal id
    about 3k eu for driving license (+driving lessons and examinations,which are mandatory)

    ps:
    don't cry, our next generation ID's will include rfid soon, too ... we really need shielded wallets

  110. Re:Why wait to the last minute to post this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, people might lose their cards so why don't we just get bar codes tattooed on our foreheads, sound good Hitler?

  111. Re:As something from a country with a mandatory ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want that, don't write. It's what you'll get.

    Newsflash: they have been planning this (mandatory ID, surveillance of innocents, a system of law so huge and complex that the average individual could never understand it, the police state in general) for a long, long time. It's the career politician's wet dream: imagine the billions of dollars that will be fed into these programs, with no financial risk at all to the central planners. Clearly, those in the business of government stand to benefit from any expansion of government power, either directly or indirectly -- and the police state just happens to be one of the ultimate expansions.

    Looking at history, we can observe that year after year, government expands not only in revenue but power over the people. It's only a matter of time before government is big enough to build the surveillance society, not only in terms of revenue and power, but compacency among the Believers. There's no way it can't happen -- government can only grow so big before the police state becomes a business requirement.

    Guess what? That time has come. It's already here in more ways than one. And it's not going away, no matter how many people raise objection. The US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 50, let alone 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people. Every year we are subject to more laws than the year before. There's a reason why all this is happening: more government benefits those in the business of government.

    I respect you for believing that change is possible, but history says otherwise. No government in the history of organized coercion has ever significantly and permanently reduced its powers through the process of democracy. I dare say it's not possible -- the best a man can do is move his family to a country which isn't so far down the inevitable path to oppression, the path that all governments eventually take.

    You're not in the administration business, are you?

  112. Paranoid Much? by AP31R0N · · Score: 1
    Can some non-pothead/omgmarkofthebeast person explain why you're so afraid of this? If a national id is bad, why isn't a state id? If a state id is bad, why aren't we all pissy about that? What about passports, are they evil too?

    oh noes! someone knows who i am! teh horror of it all!

    Methinks 90% of the whining about this is due to who happens to be president, rather than the actual issue.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    1. Re:Paranoid Much? by srobert · · Score: 1

      It's partly generational. Many from my father's generation, the WWII vets, would have fought hard to make sure this wouldn't happen. They remembered the way Nazi's used National ID's. As time passes, fewer people will be able to remember it directly and resistance to the idea will wane away.

  113. I Don't Support A National ID by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

    1) No help there. We all have to remember something in life... I'd say most people could probably right it down... the point is, they don't ever hand the password to anyone -- but only type it into an authorized ID box. It's at least BETTER than now, without being worse.... nothing is going to be perfect. I'd like it NOT to be perfect ID, if you understand my other rants about being anonymous is necessary for free speech.

    2) No -- a faked box wouldn't work. If I type in my SSN it won't reply with "Ouch!" -- unless someone looked over my shoulder when I used a REAL box. This "man in the middle attack" would only work at an establishment with regular customers that has REAL and FAKE boxes. So, you capture the "check key" -- or authorization response with a hidden camera, and then play that back for the customer when they come in again. But that is at least more work than now... and it requires someone who is authorized for business (something to lose), and a repeat customer -- which means that anyone running such a scam has a bit more exposure than the one-hit tourist who is your ideal target. That's about the only scam that could work -- and it is a bit trickier than the phony ATMs that have done the same scam. In this case, you'd have to have a real ATM next to a phony one -- and match the customer on a second pass.

    3) "I phrased it like an advantage" -- well, that is my marketing instincts coming out. NO REAL advantage on tracking -- I just thought when pushing this idea, there should be the distinct push that States would authorize, or real businesses -- not groups that have a few fat-cat investers like the one that does all the standardized testing we subject our kids to in "No Child Left Behind." Currently, we get the worst of both worlds when our government privatizes things -- but that's because they have little vision beyond their own larcenous hearts.

    The Policy part of this, is that the Private/Public Key SSN Authorization Sytem (sound like a Government agency already?) is to be used where YOU WOULD USE YOUR SSN. I think the National ID will come with a policy that you will use it even more than a drivers license. As in "papers please."

    Yeah, and it figures coming from the Bush group.... just do a little research on the people who show up at their regular "Prayer Breakfasts." They definitely have a lot of people who should have been tried at nuremburg on the family tree. This is a group that LOVES this kind of tracking citizens like so much cattle.

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    1. Re:I Don't Support A National ID by Kijori · · Score: 1

      2) No -- a faked box wouldn't work. If I type in my SSN it won't reply with "Ouch!" -- unless someone looked over my shoulder when I used a REAL box. This "man in the middle attack" would only work at an establishment with regular customers that has REAL and FAKE boxes. So, you capture the "check key" -- or authorization response with a hidden camera, and then play that back for the customer when they come in again. But that is at least more work than now... and it requires someone who is authorized for business (something to lose), and a repeat customer -- which means that anyone running such a scam has a bit more exposure than the one-hit tourist who is your ideal target. That's about the only scam that could work -- and it is a bit trickier than the phony ATMs that have done the same scam. In this case, you'd have to have a real ATM next to a phony one -- and match the customer on a second pass.

      A faked box wouldn't work - if you take a faked box as being just a box with numbers stuck on the outside. If I fake a box by taking my real one and pointing a hidden camera at the keypad then it will still respond correctly. Alternatively I can just put up a sign saying that the feedback isn't working - maybe accompany it with a broken looking screen - and then clear out your account. Or I can just shoulder-surf it. Also, are you saying that you wouldn't allow people to get their password back if they forgot it or that you'd stick with normal photo-ID - all that does is create a system, no more secure than the current one (because it's just a compression of the current one into a password) but that is seen as infallible - misplaced confidence isn't good for security.

    2. Re:I Don't Support A National ID by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      You still need a real device with a fake one.

      Public education would be needed, to tell people "don't enter your password in an authenticator that doesn't give you your secret reply!" Anyone falling for a "broken screen" is being socially engineered out of a password. Worse case, Grandma has to go get a new password.

      Currently, if someone steals your identity, you have to go through a lot of pain and suffering and may still never be able to resolve it. Getting a new SSN is pretty difficult. Changing a password would be easy, and still allow the SSN to track you as a unique person.

      Also, are you saying that you wouldn't allow people to get their password back if they forgot it or that you'd stick with normal photo-ID - all that does is create a system, no more secure than the current one (because it's just a compression of the current one into a password) but that is seen as infallible - misplaced confidence isn't good for security.

      The current system relies on nobody knowing your SSN attached to your name. But you have to give almost every regulatory body your SSN if you want most any service these days. Anyone with access to their database, or your records, could make quick money selling the data.

      With my system, you could give anyone you SSN, and they could sell the data -- but it is worthless to AUTHENTICATE as you. The point is, to remove ID from AUTHENTICATION. Right now, your SSN serves as both. How is this not 1000% better than the current system?

      If I lose a drivers license, I have to go to motor vehicles with another photo ID and about 3 other forms of identifying me. So getting a new password is slightly easier. The point is -- it should not be electronic. Someone should have to sit down and prove they are you AND have access to the old password. This would remove the wholesale looting of whole databases of SSN and just hitting them for a few dollars at a time. This requirement is MUCH easier than trying to change a SSN, but without making it too easy.

      I would also further require a 3-try limit on the private Key. If too many hits happen on your SSN -- then you get a callback or something from the Authentication agency. No more than 3 authorizations should happen per day, and no more than 10 a week and 30 a month. Something reasonable that would make it very difficult to hammer out the password.

      I don't believe in constantly changing passwords -- that forces people to NOT remember them. It's also necessary with things Like Microsofts OS, because the hacker has access to the box and can do unlimited brute force attacks. In the SSN Authentication System, the password would be stored somewhere in a remote network and transferred with encryption, no more than few times a day to authenticated devices.

      If I wanted to get into detail ... I would encrypt each box with a GPS and date-stamp key. Move the box and it can no longer authenticate the box with the Authenticating Agency. Any box off the grid for more than a week would no longer be valid. So the box never gets or stores the password -- the only place it will exist is on the keypad and on a server.

      Anyway, I don't see how this isn't BETTER than what we have now. With this system, I could say; "I'm John Doe 123-45-1234" and let them store me as that as a unique ID. When AUTHORIZING this -- the company or person I'm dealing with, is only getting a recognition receipt that This John Doe is authorized for SSN 123-45-1234.

      Right now, if the wrong person gets my SSN -- I'm screwed. So just adding a password to it would improve the system. Having a third-party authentication system would improve that system. Having a 'handshake" check key so that a user could make sure they have an authentic Authenticator improves that. Making it slightly difficult to get a new password, is a necessary annoyance.

      Getting the OLD password, would be something like going to the agency in person, and having them mail it to your house. Not fool-proof, but if you can't remember your

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    3. Re:I Don't Support A National ID by Kijori · · Score: 1

      I think we're going at this different ways. I don't just want a system that's better than the current one - that's hardly challenging. I want a system that resists these sorts of attacks and isn't difficult for people to use - unlike requiring them to enter two passwords. You originally described your solution as being infallible, which is why I was comparing it to a benchmark rather higher than "better than the current system".

    4. Re:I Don't Support A National ID by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      NOT two passwords.

      I'm going to a bank, to open a new account. Or I'm getting some restricted drugs. Or I'm opening a credit account at Sears -- all things that require your SSN now.

      I go to a box that looks like the ATM reader box we've all seen today.

      I type in my SSN. It replies "Ouch!" -- or the name of my kid -- whatever, that tells me it is the Authentication Service.

      THEN I type in my password. It doesn't need to be elaborate like the ones we use to login to Windows -- because the system does not allow for brute-force attacks.

      Other than that, the other common way for people to get passwords is to social engineer them. But these people don't know me, or live in my house -- so securing my password is not a big deal. I don't need to change my password - EVER, unless I want to. I could even use my bank pin, or just my best friends name. The only point is to keep it something a stranger doesn't know about you from perhaps scanning public records.

      Trying to commit an identity theft against someone you don't know will be pretty difficult and shut down, when they change their password. Because anyone using your ID to identify you, will get a notice that you changed your password, and that you should re-authorize before doing any more transactions.

      If you can think of anything better, that is only a minor inconvenience like this one (we can even use the same Credit Card networks and give them a few bucks for the privilege for the authorization). -- then please suggest it.
      No new cards are needed -- just a new system to authorize. The Box could be the ATM card scanner, or a new, more secure one. Credit agencies already use the time stamp plus hash I was talking about.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    5. Re:I Don't Support A National ID by Kijori · · Score: 1

      I thought your SS number was public? If it is, what's stopping me finding out your reply code and then fooling you? It might not be a worry for you or me, but for people in important positions single-target attacks are a problem.

  114. Refusal on religious grounds by Bubariba · · Score: 1

    I wonder if US citizens will be able to refuse having to carry the National ID card based on religious grounds. Christian fundamentalists could make the claim that it is too close to wearing the sign of the beast, and therefore they could refuse under the freedom to practice their religion.

  115. I already said "No" to HLS and the National ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when I voted straight Libertarian in the last several elections.
    __________________________________________________ __
    A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
    a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.

  116. Re:As something from a country with a mandatory ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think everyone in the US should have a mandatory ID, and it should at the very least include all the information the US asks from people traveling to the US, Including fingerprints of all 10 fingers, details about preferred food menu, address of travel destination, etc.

  117. Re:Why wait to the last minute to post this? by nixkuroi · · Score: 1

    Most people don't ever need to transfer ID's from one state to another so the majority of the country is unaffected by this possible inconvenience. 90% of everyone I know has never left the state we were all born or grew up in.

    The idea is to be able to track and identify anyone in the country from one database. The barrier isn't technological, it's sociological. Almost every place I've worked in the last 10 years has a database with more than 300 million records.

    If the government was intelligent, they'd phase in new Social Security cards with whatever technology they want to use, then add a layer to the beauracracy you have to go through in order to get a birth certificate where the baby is given a SSN right then. Most people would see this as a SERVICE instead of a government agenda. They already have your SSN, why are they bothering with trying to give you another?

  118. freedom and liberty by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    If you think about it, hardly ANYONE believes that absolute freedom is the best way to go

    I should of used "liberty" instead of "freedom" the way I lok at it. Liberty isn't just a matter of freedom but also is accepting responsibility for the actions the person does.

    but there is a balance between quality of life and freedom

    As far as I'm concerned there's little quality of life if there isn't liberty to enjoy. Admittedly though quality of life has more parts than just liberty.

    Falcon
    1. Re:freedom and liberty by 7Prime · · Score: 1

      True, but I'm not talking about a world without liberty either, just with some limitations. There ALWAYS will be limitations on liberty, there always has to be, for various reasons. It's just a question of how much.

      It's clear that I believe that there should be more limitations than you do. Although, in the grand scheme of things, we're probably thinking along the same lines. I'm not a communist, and you're probably not an anarchist.

      --
      Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
  119. anarchism by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    you're probably not an anarchist.

    You're right, I'm not an anarchist as I do believe in some government. However I believe in as little as possible. That being a military for the defense of the nation, a good citizens' army much like Switzerland's, and a court justice system. Add a, er the, State Department for international affairs.

    Falcon