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."

19 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. 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.
  2. 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 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...
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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!
  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  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: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.
  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. 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!

  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. 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"

  12. 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.
  13. 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!!!"
  14. 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.

  15. 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.