Slashdot Mirror


REAL ID In Its Death Throes, Says ACLU

Dr. Eggman points us to Ars Technica for an article on the ACLU's view of the latest loosening and deadline extensions for REAL ID act compliance by the Department of Homeland Security. The rights organization believes that REAL ID is doomed. "The ACLU, which opposes the plan on civil liberties grounds, says that the many changes made since the Act was passed [in 2005] nearly 'negate the original intent of the program.' 'DHS is essentially whittling Real ID down to nothing... all in the name of denying Real ID is a failure,' said ACLU senior legislative counsel Tim Sparapani. 'Real ID is in its death throes, and any signs of life are just last gasps.'"

14 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. i hate to sound like a pessimist... by User+956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The rights organization believes that REAL ID is doomed.

    Yeah, but they'll just do what they did with CARNIVORE. Wait a few months, change the name, and go about their plans as usual.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  2. So how isn't this a national ID again? by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    DHS is at pains to point out that REAL ID is not a national identity card program but a set of regulations that direct states how to create their drivers' licenses and state ID cards. The program mandates digital photos, bar-coded information, and more stringent document checks, and it directs all states to link their databases with one another.

    So with the bar-coded information we can't wipe the readability of the card with a magnet to stop the assholes at bars, liquors stores, etc from scanning us unnecessarily. Digital photos means that everyone's picture will be merged into the database of information shared with everyone else and "more stringent document checks" means that even more information will be in that same database. When all this information is linked how is it not a national ID database again?

    I'm proud of the states that didn't crumble under the pressure of the Federal Government. At least someone out there is willing to tell them to fuck off -- regardless if it was over funding and not privacy implications.

    1. Re:So how isn't this a national ID again? by FrankieBaby1986 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd say its the drinking age that does the most to contribute to underage drinking.

      --
      ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?:
    2. Re:So how isn't this a national ID again? by plague3106 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why should government be stopping anyone from drinking? That's a job for the parents in my book. It also takes away the "I want to drink because I'm not supposed to" attitude.

    3. Re:So how isn't this a national ID again? by compro01 · · Score: 3, Informative

      agreed. i don't get it. they let you drive, smoke, vote, and go die for your country, but you can't have a beer for another 3(?) years?

      drinking age here is 19, which makes more sense to me.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  3. It's all about the money by Nightlily · · Score: 4, Informative

    Real ID isn't dying because of privacy concerns. I think (at least in Michigan), it's about the cost for the states. States were ok with the plan until it hit them that it cost them money. Also let's consider the fact the states were asked to basically implement Real ID after they spent tons of money on homeland security.

  4. It's a shame. by kabocox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are things that I think that the ACLU should fight. This isn't one of them though. RealID will never really go away. What it'll become is a federal requirement for the next incarnation of state DLs having to match a federal data standard. This is generally a good thing. What the really big up roar with the current RealID is that many states have gone their own way with having bar codes or digital information on their DLs, but only that state's systems can read the info off the card, and no one is willing to spend additional money just to conform to a federal standard. The main idea behind RealID is that you could have any of the 50 state's DL and they'd all "just work" in each other's and the federal computer system. Making "just work" would require lots of effort and money though.

    Let's be honest there is no additional privacy problems with RealID. If you are in a position to be stopped and asked for State or Federal ID by a state or federal government official for government services, then you are either going to provide that information in a verbal or written form to those federal, state, or city officials or you won't be receiving that government service that you wanted. If you wanted to access a "controlled access area", then you could be "detained" while those government officials make sure that you aren't on any most wanted list, have outstanding warrants or on any special watch for lists.

    If the government is hunting for you, they know your name and last known address. RealID was supposed to make it trivial to swipe a DL through a reader so all that DL info could be auto populated rather than manually entered. This is supposed to be a the huge privacy concern needing ACLU attention?

    1. Re:It's a shame. by nilbog · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, that's not what its for. Clearly you have been mislead.

      "Under REAL ID, the government would have easy access to an incredible amount of personal data stored in one national database (or, according to the DHS description, 56 State and Territory databases, each of which can access all of the others)."

      The senator from New Mexico (I believe it was New Mexico anyway) said that the ultimate goal is to track everything. Every time you buy something, even with cash, it will be entered into the national database. 7Eleven will require you to swipe your card for purchasing gas, a snickers bar, or explosives from their terrorist discount bin.

      Real ID IS bad news. It has severe privacy implications. Please research before commenting. The quote above is from here.

      The purpose of a driver's license is to show and prove proficiency in driving, not anything else. It is not meant as a defacto identification card or anything else. It is a license to drive, period.

      The fourth amendment guarantees us security of papers. How can we have security of papers if all of our information is stored in every government database across the entire union? That sounds like the opposite of security of papers. We can refuse to show our papers, but it won't matter because the government will already have them.

      --
      or else!
    2. Re:It's a shame. by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      RealID did nothing beneficial, but made it real easy for the feds to watch your movements.

      How?

      Make it a federal requirement for everything.

      Alcohol? Scan.
      Cigarettes? Scan.
      Bank transactions? Scan.
      Anything they want a scan done on, they just ram through a federal law to require a scan of your RealID.

      What purpose does this serve? Security? Gimme a freaking break. It does nothing but needlessly invade the privacy of every citizen of this country while providing ZERO security whatsoever.

      It's a program that needs to die and STAY DEAD. Lest you be required to present your RealID any time a cop asks or risk arrest (federal requirements for travel between states you know, commerce clause and whatnot...)

  5. Cheers to the ACLU by Maestro485 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's sometimes easy to forget about the work that organizations such as the ACLU do. I doubt most citizens are even aware of the kind of things that the ACLU actively fights for.

    Organizations like these should be applauded for their work. We need more people willing to do this kind of thing.

  6. Let's not forget... by gillbates · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That all of the 9/11 terrorists had valid ID's

    Granted, there might be some benefits to a unified ID across the 50 states, but combating terrorism isn't one of them. Instead, we should be asking if the other so-called benefits are worth the privacy invation and expansion of the Federal government that this program would entail.

    Exactly why are my Federal tax dollars being used for this sort of thing, when it seems perfectly clear that my state government is already perfectly capable of issuing ID? The implications that someone is a terrorist if they can't produce the "satisfactory" identification document is a Constitutional problem, not a law enforcement issue.

    Besides, what would an elderly father in law - who can't legally drive - do? Should he really be denied seeing his daughter married because he can't produce the ID to board a plane? This bill assumes (incorrectly) that everyone has an ID. That's not the way it's supposed to work.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:Let's not forget... by cdrguru · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1. States issue photo IDs already to people that do not drive.

      2. The problem is exactly that the states are issuing VALID ID to anyone. In Chicago, for example, you can get a driver's license or state ID with a birth certificate or passport. Or, if you happen to not have either one of those, you can get a note from the Mexican embassy saying in effect to give this person an ID with no further verificattion. Yes indeed, Illinois does recognize the authority of the Mexican embassy to determine ID requirements for the state.

      Please tell me the difference between my drawing a driver's license with a crayon and using it and what Illinois is doing. I don't see any difference at all.

      If the states are going to issue an ID in any name with no proof this pretty much means the ID has no value. Of course people are going to abuse the system. Why can't I have three driver's licenses in different names under this sort of system? Why should teens pay for fake ID when they can get a "real" one from the state?

      The reason behind the Federal rules is to put a stop to the states that are issuing ID with no rules whatsoever.

  7. Re:Real ID by onkelonkel · · Score: 3, Informative

    In British Columbia, the government runs the auto insurance. You can't register a vehicle (i.e. get a license plate) without insurance. Driving without insurance is illegal. Thus, almost everybody has insurance. This also makes "underinsured motorist" coverage dirt cheap, around $25/year, which gives you full coverage whether or not "the other guy" has any insurance or not.

    I'm not saying our system is perfect, but it certainly would eliminate the problem you have described.

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
  8. Re:Real ID by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 5, Informative
    Article 4, section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause.

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. This is the reason that your state-issued marriage license is recognized in the entire country (and incidentally, why the DOMA Act banning a state's obligation to recognise other states' gay marriages is a crock of crap.)