Slashdot Mirror
Administration Wants To Scale Back Real ID Law
The Washington Post is running a story on the Obama Administration's attempt to get a scaled-back version of Bush's Real ID program passed and implemented. We've been discussing the Real ID program from its earliest days up through the states' resistance to its "unfunded mandate." "Yielding to a rebellion by states that refused to pay for it, the Obama administration is moving to scale back a federal law passed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that was designed to tighten security requirements for driver's licenses... Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano wants to repeal and replace the controversial, $4 billion domestic security initiative known as Real ID... The new proposal, called Pass ID, would be cheaper, less rigorous, and partly funded by federal grants, according to draft legislation that Napolitano's Senate allies plan to introduce as early as tomorrow. ...the Bush administration struggled to implement the 2005 [Real ID] law, delaying the program repeatedly as states called it an unfunded mandate and privacy advocates warned it would create a de facto national ID."
We go right back to where we were on Sept. 10, 2001. Maybe governors should have been in the Capitol when we knew a plane was on its way to Washington wanting to kill a few thousand more people.
You hear that? The lawmakers that take us to war were actually in danger of physical harm themselves! Imagine that! But their voice, urgency and argument are getting pretty pathetic now that it's been eight years and no such thing has reoccurred. The fear card isn't so strong these days. "You might lose your house and/or job" seems to worry people more than "the odds are 1:10,000,000 that a terrorist may kill you in an extremely contrived scenario!"
Remember any sort of compromise or rational thought is bad because Sensenbrenner says doing so instantly brings us back to pre-9/11 danger. Beware of this sort of mentality. Beware the men that play with your emotions and speak in absolutes for the world is shades of grey.
My work here is dung.
The real problem with ID issuance in the United States is everything -- everything, including a passport -- goes back to a birth certificate, and not all difficult to obtain a phony birth certificate. I'm not sure this problem really has a short term solution.
It's useless for preventing terrorist attacks, but highly useful for helping government officials track a citizen's movements. Now they can use that power for good (more promptly serving arrest warrants) or evil (harassing political opponents as just one example). Anti-terrorism is a smokescreen. What RealID proponents really want, and won't stop until they get, is the 24/7 tracking of every person in the country.
What I say to this is, if you're not doing anything wrong ... then where you are and what you're up to are none of the government's damned business.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Why not just tattoo a number on people. Hear it worked real well about 60 years ago.
I'd be curious are people here more apprehensive about the intrusive government or terrorists?
When can I have my America back?
Hope is the currency of fools
Commissioners called for federal standards for driver's licenses and birth certificates, noting, "For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons." Eighteen of 19 terrorist hijackers obtained state IDs, some of them fraudulently, easing their movements inside the country.
Since when was a driver's license a "travel document"?
correlation is not causation.
"I've been snapping my fingers the last 8 yrs too; and so far, no lions have appeared. this stuff must really work!"
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
A National ID would not have stopped the American terrorist who recently murdered the Holocaust Museum guard nor the American terrorist who murdered that doctor who performed abortions.
Heard of DNA?
How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
On the other hand, I have no great objection to requiring the states to standardize the physical driver's license card so that law enforcement doesn't need to know about the designs of fifty plus different licenses.
Then they should pass a law saying "All states will issue driving licenses in accordance with the following design..... Existing licenses will remain valid until their expiry".
Quick, easy, relatively non-controversial and the entire damn law can be written in about 2 sentences.
Why does there have to be a solution?
More efficient commerce isn't an acceptable answer.
A free people don't have to verify themselves to their government and the government has no intrinsic right to demand that of a person.
Is your ID card linked to a database that Russian police can access?
By comparison, ours would be linked to a database that the Texas police would have access to.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
As far as I'm aware the US Federal Government doesn't have the mandate or authority to "require" the states to do anything like that. Given that it was the states who created the Federal Government and gave it the power to exist to do a limited range of things involving common defense and keeping interstate trade regular in the first place it's not really ok for it to turn around and tell the states what to do.
But that may just be my naive reading of the highest law of your land, the law that actually allows a legal entity such as the federal government to exists. I was under the impression that the US was a nation of laws. Unlike say Soviet Russia who had a set of laws outlined in a similar document that stated what the central government could do, but completely ignored them and did whatever it liked.
"Unlike say Soviet Russia who had a set of laws outlined in a similar document that stated what the central government could do, but completely ignored them and did whatever it liked."
No, that's pretty much how the US Federal government works too. But don't say it too loudly or the government will call you a radical right-wing militia terrorist.
"it doesn't make our government track our every move or anything."
And you know that how?
Because in my country at least getting government departments to tell us what they do and don't talk to each other about and what info they are and aren't mining about the citizens is like pulling teeth and requires costly court battles.
I assume you just implicitly trust your public servants to do the moral thing in the course of their duties?
I've worked in our federal government, if the data is there and there isn't a specific law banning the use of it, at best there's a pilot project or little dodgey in house app to play with the data a million different ways. I know this because I wrote one and though it was pretty benign to start with, the potential that it created and the hunger for information on everyone displayed by the various deparments I worked with I'm sure it's not benign (or even legal) anymore.
The thing is, who's going to stop them from doing things like that? You?
My license had been expired for six months. Renewal, pay a late fee and they hand it over. Easy. It's funny but on that day I heard on the radio some
Republican senator saying: "If we have national health insurance, we will have healthcare like the DMV."
Now I'm a right wing kind of guy, but I couldn't help but immediately think:
"I wish my health care was as good as my DMV". I would say Republicans should shy away from DMV arguments, because right now health care is so screwed up that
making it like the DMV would be an improvement. Imagine an emergency room where they had different lines for different ailments, actually gave out numbers like the DMV does, had friendly people and a nice building... and only cost $50.
This is my sig.
One of the reasons for Real ID was because some state drivers licenses were too easily to fake. And in some states, the identity checks you have to take to get the license were too lax. (i.e. the "can you drive" parts were more important than the "are you who you claim to be" parts)
Guess what? A driver's license is supposed to say you can drive, not you are who you say you are. Social Security numbers too are used as ID, heck at least some states require a Social Security card to get a license, but they were never meant to be used as an ID. The Social Security Administration even says "You need a Social Security number to get a job, collect Social Security benefits and receive some other government services. But you don't often need to show your Social Security card. Do not carry your card with you. Keep it in a safe place with your other important papers." I don't know if the cards still do but they used to say something along the lines "This is not an identification card".
Falcon
Should there be a Law?