Slashdot Mirror
National ID Cards Mandated in the US, If You're Under 50
charleste writes "CNN is reporting that the US Homeland Security Department has mandated Real ID for drivers licenses. According to the article, this will not include a 'chip', but a list of options by state. Despite legislation passed in various states and objections by groups such as ACLU, this appears to be a done deal. Without one of the new IDs you will be unable to board a plane after 2014 if you are under 50."
Under 50 is not a permanent exemption. After 2017, those over 50 will have to have a Real ID license as well. The additional 3 years for them was added so the states would have more time to issue everyone new licenses.
Regardless, if we don't want this then the states need to be firm in their opposition to it.
If every state (or nearly every one) opposes it, the DHS can't really do anything, unless they want to be the agent of the economy's collapse because no businesspeople can travel. If enough states do not oppose it strongly, then the ones who do will be forced to capitulate eventually, similar to the 21 drinking age.
If you want to fly within the US, you don't really need any ID at all. They just stick you over to the side and give you the extra treatment. My friend lost his wallet and that's what happened. Internationally of course, you need a passport..
None of this would have prevented anything about 911, the purported impetus for this. All legal ID's.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
"Out of curiosity, why the over 50 exemption?" The article says that it's to give states time to play 'catchup' and that people over 50 are unlikely to be terrorists or con artists. They still, however, need to be 'randomly' stripped searched at the airport.
So how do you get on a plane or into a federal building if you don't have a REAL ID compliant license, like um
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
"In the past week, the civil liberties debate has exploded in Sweden, with numerous mainstream politicians finally having understood the issue. Last week, seven Swedish MPs wrote a prominent opinion piece saying that removing national ID is not just the best solution, it's the only solution. Now their number has increased to 13, and the issue continues to grow. Good summaries at www.aclu.org and ID Consortium. Original opinion piece in English here." One can dream, can't he?
I don't think you read the comment correctly. The hijackers had valid IDs, not fakes. Meaning they could do anything we would normally do with those IDs.
Developers: We can use your help.
I'd assume they do the same thing they do now. Either they go without, which prevents them from getting on an aircraft anyway as far as I know, or they get a non-driver ID, which at least in Oklahoma are exactly like the DL only with a 'Not a Valid Driver's License' or something similar printed on it.
Not a whole lot different from the current state of things as far as I know.
I think the idea was that they had 'valid ids' plural, one of them had 4 from different states which I suppose somehow helped them with their terrorist activities. This will help to ensure you can only get one licence.
Here is the rest of the quote for those who care:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-- C.S. Lewis
love is just extroverted narcissism
The 9/11 hijackers had multiple driver's licenses from multiple states, and multiple addresses within states (such as Virginia). ReadID is supposed to enforce "one person, one license", to prevent this. The hijacker's IDs may have been valid in that they were official, not forged, government documents, but they were obtained fraudulently (they had friends provide them with proof of address, etc).
Well, for one thing, some of the hijackers had driver's licenses for multiple states under multiple names. They were "valid" insofar as the hijackers were able to game the system to get the states to issue them IDs. Real-ID would have prevented them from doing that. I can't tell you that would have prevented 9/11, but obviously criminals can and do use weak state-issued IDs in commission of their crimes.
"I don't recall reading that any of the 9/11 hijackers used fake IDs to get onto the airplanes. They obtained them quite legally. Perhaps we should be looking into reforming who can obtain a drivers license, rather then reforming the drivers license itself."
Based on reading the article, it looks like most of the changes being made are not changes to the license itself, but to the process of obtaining them.
It appears to me that this is not a "federal ID", but consists of the following:
1) Requirements levied on the process of granting a person a drivers' license, in terms of verifying that that person is who they say they are.
2) Requirements levied on the anti-counterfeiting features of that license.
TFA states that a number of states already issue licenses that meet all of these requirements. For example, California residents will apparently not notice any difference except the point at which their picture is taken during the process of obtaining a license. From the looks of it, this will also not affect me, as my state (New York) already implements all of the process and anti-counterfeiting requirements levied here.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Exactly... I am all for a set of design standards... a central DB is a bit much..
Although I do not like the idea of someone who had their license revoked (or almost did) or got caught drunk driving in another state getting a clean ID in a different state. Linking traffic violations/points between all 50 states would be a real advancement IMO
-nick
Go re-read the appendix to "1984".
Yes, it's written in a past-tense explanatory manner.
However, it is so thorough and detailed and systematic as to be, for most practical purposes, an instruction manual.
The difference between "how did you do X" vs. "how should you do X" is often negligible.
(And as for "-1 Wrong": sometimes the facts presented in a post are, objectively, wrong. A moderator should be able to facilitate downplaying factually erronious material, rather than having to shout among the masses. The whole POINT of a -1 moderation, whatever the reason, is to prevent crap from floating to the top.)
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
RTFA: "The American Civil Liberties Union has fiercely objected to the effort, particularly the sharing of personal data among government agencies. The DHS and other officials say the only way to make sure an ID is safe is to check it against secure government data;"
That is a federated system - this is a federal ID. Putting quotes around "federal ID" is being either dismissive or ignorant of the ACLU's concerns.
The most humorous thing was a day later finding out she had her lighter in her jacket pocket the entire flight home, so even on the connecting flight up from Florida it was on her and she didn't know and no one checked for it.
What kind of lighter was it? As long as it was not a Torch Lighter TSA has allowed lighters since April of last year so unless she flew before then it would not have been a problem. You can read more about TSA's lighter guidelines here and here
Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
It's a case of a mistaken identity for a 5-year-old boy from Normandy Park. He had trouble boarding a plane because someone with the same name is wanted by the federal government.
"When his mother went to pick him up and hug him and comfort him during the proceedings, she was told not to touch him because he was a national security risk. They also had to frisk her again to make sure the little Dillinger hadn't passed anything dangerous weapons or materials to his mother when she hugged him."
Cory Doctrow adds: "if you wanted to systematically discredit the idea of a Department of Homeland Security, if you wanted to make an utter mockery of aviation safety, you could not do a better job than this."
This begins to remind one of the Good Germans.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I honestly don't understand what the problem is.
OK.
The set of things that licenses are required for is not changing.
Well, yes, it is.
Once upon a time, driver's licenses were for driving (and social security numbers were for social security.)
In Hiibel v Nevada, Hiibel was arrested for not showing his standing-by-the-side-of-the-road license.
In Indianapolis, they won't let me vote anymore, because I won't show my voting license until they get a warrant.
They like to pretend that you need an airline passenger license, although you really don't.
Gilmore v Gonzales, papersplease,org.
In Indiana, they are trying to say that my right to drink expires every 4 years; that I can't go into the bar till I renew my going into the bar license.
In Denver, some lady was asked for her bus-riding license.
In Chicago, I wasn't allowed to go up to Judge Posner's office because I didn't have a going-up-to-judge-Posner's-office license. (I paid some guy $20 to run the paperwork upstairs for me.)
I'm not sure we have the right take on what this item of news is about. Here's the wall street journal TFA
TFA.
I'm not sure I'm reading it right, but it looks like the feds semi-caved,and are putting off till tomorrow what they can't get away with today. But they are tricky, and we should look for analysis from somebody who knows this stuff - maybe EFF or EPIC.
Above post is insightful and informative.