Slashdot Mirror


Iowa Wants To Let You Carry Your Driver's License On Your Phone

An anonymous reader writes: The Iowa Department of Motor Vehicles is busily developing software that will allow users to store the information from their driver's license on their smartphone. It would also add features like a simple barcode to scan for information transfer, and two-factor authentication to access it. "At first thought, the idea seems rife with potential security and privacy issues. It is well known at this point that nothing is unhackable; and if a project is made on a government contracting schedule, the likelihood of a breach is only greater. ... Questions of security, however, must take into account context – and there, it can be argued that our current regimes of physical documents have been an enormous failure. Having every state choose their own approach for issuing IDs has led to patchwork regulations and glaring weak points in the system that criminals have repeatedly taken advantage of. Driver's licenses today are regularly forged, stolen, and compromised – it’s far from a secure situation."

159 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. This has been going on for a while by nucrash · · Score: 2

    I don't see this as any different than Apple pay at some point. If this would help officers obtain validity of the license faster, this might be a benefit.

    I don't think this should be a requirement for Iowa drivers, but a perk of driving in Iowa.

    The downside that I can think of is that in many areas of Iowa I don't care to carry a smartphone because the lack of coverage there kills batteries.

    --
    Place something witty here
    1. Re:This has been going on for a while by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a trap. If your driving licence is on your phone and you get pulled over, you have to hand over your phone. The cop takes it back to the car, data rapes it and hands it back. Later at the station they can analyse the contents offline, adding your contacts to the database of known associations and your selfies to their facial recognition database.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:This has been going on for a while by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I think the secure element in Android's NFC payment (I'm not familiar enough with Apple) does a very good job at preventing fraud as far as that is concerned. If the driver's license identity system carried a similar security, then creating a fake ID would become enormously more difficult.

      Of course, similar results could be achieved with smart NFC/ISO7816 computer inside of a drivers license. (I.e a system where the scanner sends a randomized number, and the on-card computer replies with a signed copy of that random number that could only be signed by the proper owner of that card.)

      But, I myself look forward to the days where I don't have to carry around a Costanza wallet full of cards (I already put my phone and credit cards inside of a phone wallet, and would like it to become even smaller than it already is.)

    3. Re:This has been going on for a while by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      SCOTUS already ruled on this. Welcome to 2014.

      http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/...

    4. Re:This has been going on for a while by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't need to be so dramatic, just bump the phone with another device (or another phone.) NFC simply doesn't have the bandwidth required to do what you're suggesting, and it could easily be configured to be doable without unlocking the device.

      It could also be done in such a way that it authenticates without giving out any sensitive information (i.e. the reader sends a random number, and your device responds with an ID number (that isn't the same as your DL number) and a signed copy of the random number.)

      That's all that the police would need to properly identify you for a traffic stop, and nobody who steals your phone would be able to impersonate you (unless they happened to look exactly like the person in your photo in the DMV records.)

    5. Re:This has been going on for a while by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      SCOTUS already ruled on this. Welcome to 2014.

      Yes, SCOTUS also ruled that you have a first amendment right to record the police, yet people are still being arrested (and occasionally beaten) for it, and often having their equipment damaged in the process. Your naivete might be cute if you were twelve.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:This has been going on for a while by B33rNinj4 · · Score: 1

      This is the biggest issue I see from having it on a phone. No thank you.

    7. Re:This has been going on for a while by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      whyt not? He's on a salary, he gets PAID to sit on the roadside, you don't. The only person it's costing is YOU.

      Besides, the second you start tapping your watch, he's gonna be asking why you're in such a hurry, then make you wait some more. Piss him off and you're heading for an overnight in the local jail pending charges of possession of kiddie rape videos. They're gonna love you, fish.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    8. Re:This has been going on for a while by Albanach · · Score: 1

      whyt not? He's on a salary, he gets PAID to sit on the roadside, you don't. The only person it's costing is YOU.

      Perhaps because the Supreme Court think the search would be unreasonable and while the officer may not have to pay personally, the local police force aren't going to be very happy after paying out for a few constitutional violations.

      I doubt the Supreme Court would think that, having given your phone to an officer for them to check your ID, you have somehow consented to them collecting GB of other personal information from it.

      Now you could probably hand over the information voluntarily if the terms and conditions associated with their app requested it, but if they do that I don't expect there to be much take up of the app in the first place.

    9. Re:This has been going on for a while by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      I already have my license on my phone, it's called scotch tape, bitchezz. and I can show the officer without even needing to unlock the screen!

    10. Re:This has been going on for a while by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      Yup, I will *not* be handing my phone to a cop. Period.

      Hell, I keep my phone locked and with MORE than the default 4-digit code for just this reason, I also have my phone set to not display texts or other info on the locked home screen. Opening this and giving to them is pretty much going to be considered "consent to search". I don't care that I have nothing to hide, it is none of their fucking business.

      Much like when pulled over (rarely happens), and if asked to get out of the car, I roll window up, step out and lock the car behind me. I'm not an ass to them at all, in fact I am very polite, answer as needed, and cooperate, but I do try to exercise my rights.

      And...as for the opening story, it was complaining about the "patchwork" of states issuing licenses. So what? People are forgetting, that you are a citizen of your state first, and then a citizen of the US. Besides the fact that a drivers license is a license to drive first, and not issuesdas an ID (you can get one of those for that purpose), there should be no national license, or national ID. The feds have no constitutional basis for issuing or regulating such IMHO. That would be yet another stretch for them overreaching "interstate commerce".

      I really, really wish...if we could as a country, is have the government basically tell me how much tax to pay (simplify this)...and then, leave me the fuck alone. Especially the Feds.

      For my local/state govt, well, they are more answerable to me, and I will be more willing and answerable to them too....within limited bounds.

      That's the way the country was set up, but we've wandered so far off the path over the years.

      *sigh*

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:This has been going on for a while by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      That's fine and all, but when it goes to court, even a shitty lawyer could get any evidence obtained thrown out.

      As far as involuntary repudiation (e.g. the cops destroying evidence) I think it would be prudent for everybody to have their data securely backed up to a cloud service as its acquired, preferably to some kind of zero knowledge storage provider.

    12. Re:This has been going on for a while by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      It's a trap. If your driving licence is on your phone and you get pulled over, you have to hand over your phone. The cop takes it back to the car, data rapes it and hands it back. Later at the station they can analyse the contents offline, adding your contacts to the database of known associations and your selfies to their facial recognition database.

      That makes the assumption that for example Apple is run by total idiots. Paying with Apple Pay doesn't unlock your phone. This could work in a very similar way, instead of a payment terminal the cop has a license card reader, you put your phone on the button, your phone sends the license card data over, and _doesn't_ unlock the phone.

    13. Re:This has been going on for a while by ihtoit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      but he's not compelling you to hand over for a data search, nor is he compelling you to unlock it. You've voluntarily not only unlocked the phone for him, you've handed it him. Now he has your data in unlocked condition and because you've already been pulled over for whatever moving violation, cause to search through the data just as if he were asking to see inside your glovebox to make sure you're not carrying anything illegal - actually, even easier than that for him.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    14. Re:This has been going on for a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      except that he still needs to arrest you or have reasonable suspicion (that he can state later) to search anything not in plain sight, which would include the glove box. Failing those you are pulled over for a moving violation and an officer asks to search your vehicle the proper response is "I do not consent to any searches"

    15. Re:This has been going on for a while by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      If this would help officers obtain validity of the license faster, this might be a benefit.

      The officer has a computer and data uplink in his vehicle - and a radio. Do you think he's going to trust *your* phone to verify *your* license? No he's still going to run it through his system, and to check for outstanding warrants on you, etc... Having your license on your phone does nothing to speed up the process, just allows the officer to your, freely unlocked, phone.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    16. Re:This has been going on for a while by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      If the offenders don't pay the cost of their offenses, where is the motivation for them to change what they are doing?

    17. Re:This has been going on for a while by Albanach · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you read the linked article in my post above? The Supreme Court has already held that police need a warrant to search the phone of someone they arrest. I don't see why you think that handing an officer your phone for one reason - viewing the on-screen ID, would appear to translate into "I grant you permission to close the ID app and browse/download my email and photos."

    18. Re:This has been going on for a while by swillden · · Score: 2

      It wouldn't need to be so dramatic, just bump the phone with another device (or another phone.) NFC simply doesn't have the bandwidth required to do what you're suggesting, and it could easily be configured to be doable without unlocking the device.

      +1

      If this becomes a thing -- and I strongly suspect it will -- I know the Android security team will be looking for a way to enable it such that police cannot get anything other than your DL data. Perhaps even a "police stop mode" which enables a lock screen even for users who don't normally lock their phones and turns on the NFC. How to make the UI on that easy to invoke in a hurry when you're flustered, but still out of the way, since it's only needed on rare occasions, is an interesting question challenge. I don't have any idea at the moment how such a feature would work, or if it's the best approach, but the nature of the requirement is pretty clear: Users must be able to provide officers with DL information, but officers must not be able to get any additional data.

      (Disclaimer: I'm a member of Google's Android security team, but the above represents only my own opinions not an official statement. You can certainly believe that they're opinions I will be sharing/pushing internally, though.)

      (Aside: I think my AC stalker has abandoned me. APK, where are you?)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    19. Re:This has been going on for a while by JeffAtl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's terribly naive. The SCOTUS has ruled that the public can video record police officers, yet the police will still stop you from doing it.

      The ruling only has teeth if the cops search your phone and then try to use it directly as evidence. There is nothing stopping them from using the information for parallel construction or just keeping the private photos that you took of your girlfriend/wife.

    20. Re:This has been going on for a while by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting about parallel construction. They can also just share your private photos with the rest of the department.

    21. Re:This has been going on for a while by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      he already had just cause to stop you, you're already fucked. Why prolong the agony?

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    22. Re:This has been going on for a while by PPH · · Score: 2

      I don't see this as any different than Apple pay at some point.

      Nice if you could load up $20 on Apple pay and pass it to the cop along with your DL.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    23. Re:This has been going on for a while by captjc · · Score: 1

      Care to cite some sources there, Butch? Or were they covered up by the Illuminati at the last gathering of Masons on the Moon Landing set?

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    24. Re:This has been going on for a while by bondsbw · · Score: 4, Informative

      there should be no requirement to drive on said roads other than proof of citizenship

      Our society, democratic/republican/whatever, has decided through legal means (enacting and enforcing laws) to place restrictions on the use of public roads. Driver licensing is such an example.

      Drivers licenses are unconsitutional

      No, you made that up.

      no way to opt out if you choose to not use the roads

      Not true.

      Well, the minute you stole the money from my pocket to build the roads, it became my right to use them.

      Again, no.

      There's lots of things tax dollars provide that you can't just use any way you want. Society has decided that citizens cannot access restricted government areas that are built with tax dollars. You don't have a right to fly a NASA rocket. You don't have a right to take a soldier's gun and shoot people. You don't have a right to rape a government official.

      You do have a right to learn about how society and government work. I encourage doing so, lest you might continue to appear as an idiot.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    25. Re:This has been going on for a while by Albanach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, he wouldn't. SCOTUS held that even if ARRESTED, police still need a warrant to search your phone. The law is pretty clear.

    26. Re:This has been going on for a while by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      best to assume ALL cops are dirty cops. start from there and go downward and you'll be close to reality.

      look, they have this thing called a 'blue line' (google it). that makes them all dirty, by collusion. any one who does NOT report bad behavior (think: serpico) is a bad cop. and so, probably 99% of the cops out there are bad, by definition.

      thugs with guns. I would trust the mafia (truly, honestly) before I'd trust an american cop.

      sad to say this. I don't enjoy feeling this way. but I'm realistic.

      don't talk to cops, don't socialize with them, avoid them at all costs. they CAN kill you and they will make up any story they want to save their own asses.

      bad scene. hope it gets fixed but I don't have any such false hopes.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    27. Re:This has been going on for a while by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      (Disclaimer: I'm a member of Google's Android security team, but the above represents only my own opinions not an official statement. You can certainly believe that they're opinions I will be sharing/pushing internally, though.)

      Sweet. Please consider taking this concept back to the team. On the unlock screen have three unlock codes: 1) The normal unlock code, 2) A "limited" unlock code that would allow access to a limited set of applications (and perhaps make the device look like it was mostly empty), 3) a "wipe" unlock code that wipes the device (or nukes the encryption key.) An additional "distress mode" unlock code could be useful as well - this mode would start audio and video streaming to some off-phone storage. The key feature is that these special modes are activated by entering an alternate unlock code (or pattern). That way if the officer (or adversary) is asking you for the code and entering it on your behalf, you would still be able to activate these features.

    28. Re:This has been going on for a while by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      sure thing butchie, ole pal:

      http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo...

      http://www.businessinsider.com...

      http://www.discourse.net/2011/...

      that set of articles refers to michigan, but a device IS out there and you'd think it would be well known by slashies, at this point.

      knowing about calea, its not a big stretch to see how this is yet another 'tool' that was given to cops to allow privacy invasions.

      and like networking vendors who MUST give backdoors to products or they will not be allowed to move forward in their business - cell phone vendors MUST allow cops to break into your phone if they have one of these magic keys.

      I'm really surprised you have not heard of this before.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    29. Re:This has been going on for a while by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup, I will *not* be handing my phone to a cop. Period.

      Me neither. But this is still a useful feature. Now I can just leave my license permanently in my car, and use the phone for routine ID checks, like buying beer, or when using a credit card for a big purchase.

    30. Re:This has been going on for a while by Tower · · Score: 2

      Wish I could find the "Sad But True +1" Mod

      --
      "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
    31. Re:This has been going on for a while by swillden · · Score: 1

      Duress codes are an old idea, and a great one in some contexts, but I don't think they're really appropriate for everyone, or even the majority of people. Given the data we have on how many people manage to forget their passcode and lock themselves out of their devices when there's only a single passcode, adding more of them would be a recipe for confusion-generated disaster.

      Also, I think having various unlocked-but-not-unlocked modes is the wrong solution. The right solution is to just leave the device locked. Then if the police want to peruse it, they can proceed via the court system.

      The wipe feature notion raises really interesting questions: In some cases, it would be awesome, for example activists resisting oppressive regimes (we can debate whether or not we believe the US is such). In others its primary use case is to facilitate destruction of evidence of actual crimes, which isn't so good. There are also risks in pushing the envelope too far because it may facilitate laws like the ones theorized by that other rather paranoid response to my post, which may actually make things worse.

      It's worth pointing out that you can already implement the "limited" feature with Lollipop: Just create a separate user account with limited stuff in it. If you want to be very careful, make it look like that is your primary account and the other (real) one is for your significant other's casual use or something. Switching between accounts is very easy and fast, and automatically invokes the lock screen.

      None of the ideas you raise are at all new; they've been discussed a thousand times in the Android team and are discussed on a regular basis. I don't know if you find that comforting or not, but there it is :-)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    32. Re:This has been going on for a while by nucrash · · Score: 1

      Move Along Citizen.

      Time be awastin'

      --
      Place something witty here
    33. Re:This has been going on for a while by drinkypoo · · Score: 3

      I've been pulled over multiple times for harassment by cops, when I've broken no laws. That's why I've been pulled over at least twice as much as I've gotten tickets. If they have a real reason to pull you over, they write you a ticket because that produces revenue and maintains their job. Sometimes they just want to stop you in your tracks and sniff up your ass because they can.

      It's sad, because we arguably need cops. That's why we need to crack down on police abuse. Respect for the law is at an all-time low.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    34. Re:This has been going on for a while by azav · · Score: 1

      No, you don't have to hand your phone over.

      I worked on some of the technology in this.

      Can't tell you anything about it, but you don't have to hand over your phone. That's FUD.

      And if you don't believe me, you can still use your printed license if you want too.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    35. Re:This has been going on for a while by azav · · Score: 1

      The Supreme Court thinks*

              you think
              I think
              it thinks*

      That's the way it works.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    36. Re:This has been going on for a while by John+Napkintosh · · Score: 1

      I've been pulled over a couple dozen times in my life, and only a few resulted in a citation. Seems like you're doing it wrong. Or your experience is not typical of law enforcement as a whole and you shouldn't try to portray it as such.

      --

      Long signatures suck.
    37. Re:This has been going on for a while by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      WARRANTJUST CAUSE.

      Yes, the law IS clear. Once arrested anything you hold in your possession that holds data is potientially evidence. Refusal to disclose decryption keys or electronic locks is PRECEDENTED as a sign of guilt. THAT is why a refusal to disclose can and does result in a committal for contempt.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    38. Re:This has been going on for a while by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      should be WARRANT < JUST CAUSE

      please Dice make up your mind which fucking elements you're going to parse as markup and which you're not, hm?

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    39. Re:This has been going on for a while by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 2

      Last time I got pulled over, the cop came up and said "Sorry, I misread your license plate, you can go" and then went back to his car. While I was glad it ended quickly, I'm left to wonder why he was running the plates of cars that weren't violating traffic laws and supect that the cruiser has some sort of camera system that's reading the plate of every single car that passes him and recording it in a database.

    40. Re:This has been going on for a while by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They need a warrant to search your phone WITHOUT CONSENT. When you unlocked it and handed it to the cop specifically to look at, you just consented.

    41. Re:This has been going on for a while by davester666 · · Score: 1

      yes. "oops, my reader isn't working. I'll need to take the phone back to my car to verify the information."

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    42. Re:This has been going on for a while by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I've been pulled over a couple dozen times in my life, and only a few resulted in a citation. Seems like you're doing it wrong.

      That, or you get harassed more than I do.

      That, or the cops are prejudiced against me more than you, for some reason.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    43. Re:This has been going on for a while by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm left to wonder why he was running the plates of cars that weren't violating traffic laws

      If they don't like the looks of you, then they run your plates to see if they can come up with an excuse to pull you over. Or, they just lie and tell you that they did (what are you going to do, subpoena the records? and if you do, do you really think you'll get them accurately?) so as to make an excuse, because pulling you over without probable cause is harassment.

      I'd bet they didn't even run your plates.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    44. Re:This has been going on for a while by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Can't tell you anything about it, but you don't have to hand over your phone. That's FUD.

      You're not supposed to have to. But while you're holding it out towards the cop, they're going to take it.

      And if you don't believe me, pay attention.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    45. Re:This has been going on for a while by Loconut1389 · · Score: 3

      Correction, his ANPR/ALPR misread your plate and you came up with some kind of flag.

    46. Re:This has been going on for a while by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      is it really that much trouble to carry around a license.

      No, but it is a hassle when I have to go to DMV and get a replacement because I lost my wallet. Why carry something extra around for no reason?

    47. Re:This has been going on for a while by Garybaldy · · Score: 2

      The last time i was pulled over was for a a brake light out. The officer did not give me a ticket.

      Seeing as i pulled over in a parking lot. When he was done. I got out my car, went to the trunk and got an umbrella. Proceeded to jam it in-between the brake pedal and the seat. Walked to the back of my car a saw all my brake light on. Looked over at the police officer and said "they work now" he just shrugged.

      Yeah fuck police harassment.

    48. Re:This has been going on for a while by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Parallel construction is still subject to fruit of the poisonous tree, and evidence obtained from clues given from illegally obtained evidence will also be thrown out.

      The only way parallel construction ever works is if they can catch you in some wrongdoing later.

      For example if you're running a criminal enterprise, and if they use previous evidence (illegal or otherwise) to predict your next moves, and then catch you in the act while you're susceptible to legal searches and seizures, such as the plain sight doctrine in a routine traffic stop.

      Or for example if they found photos of your recent murder victim on your phone, but those were illegally obtained, they could do something like getting your friends to trick you into confessing while your friends also consent to a wiretap (assuming that is legal in your state; it is legal in all but 10.)

    49. Re:This has been going on for a while by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      would my life be worse off if all cops disappeared tomorrow? I honestly do not think so,

      Well, I've thought about this quite a lot, and while I'm not an expert I think I've had some thoughts worth sharing. So here's some of them. Cops are convicted of crimes at about the same rate as the general population, except rape, of which they're convicted four times as often. Not sure if that proves that they're more rapey or that the indignation at rape-by-cop is more likely to produce a court case, but either way they're pretty rapey on average. They're also four times more likely to kill someone without justification in a given armed incident. So there's the bulk of the bad. Clearly, these are bad things; the cops should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, they should be setting an example. That this is not the case proves that they are currently a net drain.

      Thing is, cops do fill an important niche in society. There are those times when someone acts in a manner so antisocial that it cannot be tolerated. And I have this sneaking suspicion that if you actually expected non-cops to fill those roles, you'd wind up with many of the same problems. The police are tasked with responding to many situations that other citizens don't routinely encounter. It stands to reason that people put into different situations are going to have different experiences.

      To me, the bottom line is that we have to be completely serious about holding police accountable for their behavior. We're paying for them to do what they're doing. Therefore, We The People have both a right and a responsibility to keep them reined in so they don't get away from us and trample all over our liberties.

      life would be better without a police force. or, having a police force that really fought the actual crimes and were not on a power-trip to try to fuck every citizen they can.

      This is why what has to be done to fix the problem is to hold individual cops accountable for violating citizens' rights. There's no such thing as a right that will be trampled on; it's just a nice idea, at that point. If you want rights, you have to fight for them, because anything someone else can and will take away from you isn't a right. It's just something you [might have] had, once upon a time long long ago in your mind.

      I don't advocate armed conflict with the police, that's not the kind of fight I'm talking about. There's a lot of them, so it would be dumb even if it were moral. But we've got to unite as citizens and stand against police abuse even of people we don't like.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    50. Re:This has been going on for a while by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I don't see this as any different than Apple pay at some point. If this would help officers obtain validity of the license faster, this might be a benefit.

      I don't think this should be a requirement for Iowa drivers, but a perk of driving in Iowa.

      The downside that I can think of is that in many areas of Iowa I don't care to carry a smartphone because the lack of coverage there kills batteries.

      System would have to be world wide. In some countries tourists show passports, and car rental requires a scannable driver's license.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    51. Re:This has been going on for a while by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Parallel construction is still subject to fruit of the poisonous tree, and evidence obtained from clues given from illegally obtained evidence will also be thrown out.

      You're not really understanding what parallel construction is. If it is done correctly, there is no way for the defendant to ever know that any information was ever illegally obtained.

      For example, if an illegal wiretap reveals that a person will be carrying illegal items on a certain date, the police can make a point of stopping that person's car for some other reason.

    52. Re:This has been going on for a while by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the entire department will get a kick out of my trip to Niagra, pictures of my cats and memes.

      Never record or write anything that you don't want somebody else's lawyer holding up in court.

      Ah, the "if you have nothing to fear, if you have nothing to hide" boot licking.

    53. Re:This has been going on for a while by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I don't think that technology (which is well over 3 years old at this point) will work on modern phones.

      Keep in mind that this time period was the same time period where you could jailbreak an ipad by just visiting a website that carried exploit code. Likewise, I imagine the exploit that this hardware used was anticipating a jailbreak style attack to break into the phone.

      If you notice however, Apple has been getting better at preventing these. Likewise, Android OEMs have been getting good enough at preventing exploits that nobody bothers trying to load a third party rom to phones any more unless the phone includes a built in unlock mechanism. All phones that do this, I might add, wipe all of the contents of the phone prior to enabling that feature.

      Android itself has also turned on safeguards that require the phone's owner to accept the host machine's fingerprint to enable USB debugging, so you can no longer just plug in any computer of your choosing to have ADB enabled.

  2. no worse than paper documents by tatman · · Score: 1

    I like this idea. Yes its prone to hacking. So are paper documents. Who hasn't forged an ID setting their age appropriately to get alcohol? :) And what happens when you lose your ID, in which most wallets or purses has absolutely no form of security?

    --
    I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
    1. Re: no worse than paper documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When I hand the officer my plastic licence card that is all he/she gets. If I hand them my phone there is a lot more data for them to pull into their database with the machine in rheir car designed for that purpose.

      Besides, I refuse to have a contract phone from anybody. Month by month phones can't even be used as the verification device for Blizzard or Google. There is no way I'm getting sucked into some fucking "plan" with a lockin clause solely so I can use it to authenticate to the State.

      This is just one step closer to everyone carrying a government issued electronic device. Where's my Vandegraf Generator to blow it out again?

    2. Re:no worse than paper documents by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Who hasn't forged an ID setting their age appropriately to get alcohol? :)

      I never did. If I wanted alcohol, I just grabbed a beer from the refrigerator. My dad always kept a six pack chilled, and didn't mind if I had one occasionally.

    3. Re:no worse than paper documents by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      I like this idea. Yes its prone to hacking. So are paper documents. Who hasn't forged an ID setting their age appropriately to get alcohol? :)

      I never needed to. Apparently the country where I grew up was a bit more free than the world's "freest" country.

    4. Re:no worse than paper documents by sjbe · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Who hasn't forged an ID setting their age appropriately to get alcohol?

      I haven't. In fact I've never consumed any alcohol because the smell makes me nauseous. I've tasted enough beer, wine and spirits (I cook with it) to know that I find the taste repulsive as well. I have no moral issue with responsible alcohol consumption but I never saw the point in trying to get drunk, especially when under-age.

      And what happens when you lose your ID, in which most wallets or purses has absolutely no form of security?

      I get a new one. It happens. That's not really a big worry to be honest. I'm more worried about losing the credit cards, medical cards and cash contained in my wallet.

    5. Re: no worse than paper documents by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      If you had read the article at all, you would understand that "hand them my phone" is not a step in this process. Showing them a barcode, or holding your phone up to an NFC reader is.

    6. Re:no worse than paper documents by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I've never had to show ID when buying alcohol (outside the US, that is). Where I grew up we didn't need to carry our drivers licenses when driving - if the cops needed to see it, they'd give you a notice to show up at your local police station with the ID within a few days. Land of the free my ass :)

    7. Re: no worse than paper documents by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      "I'm sorry officer, I'd rather not let it out of my possession, could you go grab a scanner that works instead please?"

    8. Re:no worse than paper documents by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I think it varies mostly by family here but having the occasional drink was fine in my family. In my family it has been acceptable for underage people to have a beer, glass of wine, glass of the good stuff (take your pick) at family gatherings and outing as far back as I can remember. No one got shitface drunk either. Then again it was nice to when I turned 21 to actually to finally be able to go down to the liquor store and buy what I wanted.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    9. Re: no worse than paper documents by hey! · · Score: 1

      ... and then carry it in my wallet. Maybe it could have my picture on it to prove it's really mine.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re: no worse than paper documents by hey! · · Score: 1

      Having read the article, it seems pretty clear to me that there is more to this than just a bar code, that there's an app with information stored in it. At the very least giving the officer access to the data in this app will require an additional layer of legal ceremony, e.g., "I grant you permission to access my license data, but I do not consent to any access to other data on my phone."

      In any case I wonder why we need physical licenses and registrations at all. Why not give the *officer* a smartphone and an app that scan's the license plate, and pulls up your license data when you give him your name and address?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    11. Re: no worse than paper documents by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      I'm going to file a police complaints report, and sue the cop for stealing my property without due cause.

    12. Re: no worse than paper documents by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      This is pretty much how it works in most of Europe, but America is deathly afraid of the government having databases, even of information that they themselves give to you.

  3. Inherent 4th amendment problem... by Bugler412 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Handing you phone to a cop grants them implicit rights to search the phone. Therefore, having your license on the phone is a backdoor way to grant them access to search your device.

    1. Re:Inherent 4th amendment problem... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Good call! This is would immediately be abused because a device would have to be unlocked to show your ID. Someone (not you Burgler412) will probably say "well if you have nothing to hide" completely oblivious or forgetting that a cop in California was busted stealing people's selfies and sharing them with all his buddies and online. You may not have anything illegal on your phone, but that does not imply you have nothing you wish kept private either.

      I have to wonder... Did the greasy politicians wring their hands and do the Dr. Evil laugh when they came up with this one? har har, they will never catch on...

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    2. Re:Inherent 4th amendment problem... by duranaki · · Score: 5, Informative

      Right? So don't hand them the phone. Hold it up so they can scan the QR code on the display. I don't hand my phone to the TSA Security guard validating my boarding pass, I just hold my phone over the scanner.

    3. Re:Inherent 4th amendment problem... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Allowing a police officer to set foot in your house doesn't give them implicit permission to tear it apart. Why would this be any different? Especially after the Supreme Court ruled that warrants are required to search phones?

      (Those are rhetorical questions. It would be no different.)

    4. Re:Inherent 4th amendment problem... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      because a device would have to be unlocked to show your ID.

      Incorrect, and what you replied to:

      Handing you phone to a cop grants them implicit rights to search the phone.

      Is also incorrect. As I mentioned here:

      http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

    5. Re:Inherent 4th amendment problem... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      Right? So don't hand them the phone. Hold it up so they can scan the QR code on the display.

      Where I live, and based upon my experience :), the policeman asks you for your license and insurance card, then walks back to his/her vehicle to do the checks. There is no way for the policeman to scan the QR code while the phone is in your possession in your car. You would have to give up possession of your phone to the policeman while the checks are being performed.

    6. Re:Inherent 4th amendment problem... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      Allowing a police officer to set foot in your house doesn't give them implicit permission to tear it apart. Why would this be any different?

      Opening the trunk of your car to get something for the policeman then allows the policeman to search the trunk. Once you hand the phone over to the policeman, he can search it.

    7. Re:Inherent 4th amendment problem... by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "there is no way for the policeman to scan the QR code while the phone is in your possession in you car."

      This system hasn't been implemented yet, that means that the cops don't have the necessary hardware... yet. The necessary hardware is a hand held NFC terminal or QR code scanner. He walks up to your window, taps on it, says license and registration. You hold up your phone, he holds up the scanner, you put your thumb on your phone's fingerprint scanner, the information transfers.

    8. Re:Inherent 4th amendment problem... by duranaki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, that's pretty much the routine because your license and registration have no inherent value. Your phone on the other hand, is a VERY personal and rather expensive device. It would be pretty insane to devise a policy where you *wanted* all your police officers to take temporary possession and responsibility for expensive fragile devices to accidentally drop on the asphalt and what not. If such a policy was created, no one would use it because no one would hand their phone to the cops. How would they occupy their time while waiting for the cop to write the ticket? I appreciate paranoia for paranoia sake, but no implementation that has you surrendering possession of your phone just to show ID will ever fly.

    9. Re:Inherent 4th amendment problem... by c · · Score: 1

      There is no way for the policeman to scan the QR code while the phone is in your possession in your car.

      Hold your QR code up to the always-on camera on his chest?

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    10. Re:Inherent 4th amendment problem... by Bugler412 · · Score: 1

      it would also block the most common method of recording the interaction with the cop

    11. Re:Inherent 4th amendment problem... by quantaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right? So don't hand them the phone. Hold it up so they can scan the QR code on the display. I don't hand my phone to the TSA Security guard validating my boarding pass, I just hold my phone over the scanner.

      Fine in theory until the officer opens with "can you please hand me your phone so I can check your license information".

      People have trouble saying no to completely unreasonable and unnecessary requests from cops, how many people do you think will start a police interaction by rejecting what sounds like a reasonable request for a standard procedure?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    12. Re:Inherent 4th amendment problem... by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      The question is not is them searching your phone legal? Its how long before they do it anyway. Remember the way it works is the police use a new tool quietly for a while, and slowly make it more and more common. Soon enough you will never be able to get it rolled back because it is an "essential tool".

      "Parallel construction" is a prime example of this.

    13. Re:Inherent 4th amendment problem... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      That analogy sucks.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  4. Everyone's already missing the point. by ckatko · · Score: 1

    "Hello, officer."
    "ID please."
    "Here you go." [unlocks phone and hands it to cop.]
    "Thanks.

    The cop now has, an unlocked-by-you, legal access to everything on your phone. You willing handed to him, and disabled the protective lock. Enjoy your reduced legal freedom, tech hippy.

    1. Re:Everyone's already missing the point. by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      So... don't implement the system this way. Why are you guys all so unimaginative in its implementation?

      Here's an alternative implementation.

      "Hello, officer"
      "ID please." [holds up NFC scanner.]
      "here" [holds phone to NFC scanner, sees the drivers license and insurance card pop up on screen, puts finger on home button to authorise transfer of information]
      "thanks"

      The cop now has a unique id for your drivers license and insurance card that he can look up in the DMV and insurer's databases, and you have your phone in hand, still locked.

    2. Re:Everyone's already missing the point. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe you're missing the point - the phone never leaves your possession. The on-screen barcode is scanned, or the NFC is accessed. But I guess it's easier and more fun to just knee-jerk away.

    3. Re:Everyone's already missing the point. by PPH · · Score: 1

      Here's an alternative implementation.

      Cop says: "My reader's battey died and is charging in my patrol car. Give me your phone and I'll carry it back to read it."

      Added benefit: Cop has your phone/camera now so you can't record the subsequent beating.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Everyone's already missing the point. by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      "I'm sorry officer, I'd rather not let my phone out of my possession, could you go grab the spare battery from your car, or get another officer to come and join you please."

    5. Re:Everyone's already missing the point. by gnupun · · Score: 1

      The cop now has, an unlocked-by-you, legal access to everything on your phone. You willing handed to him, and disabled the protective lock.

      Why does the cop need physically search your phone? He can simply ask one of the app developers to provide all your private data. In case you didn't know, almost all android apps transmit your private data (such as contact list, call logs, photos, apps installed etc) to their servers.

      Why do you suddenly care that the police can search your phone, but pose no resistance to apps doing the same?

    6. Re:Everyone's already missing the point. by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Exactly - keeping your insurance id on your phone is already available in Texas. Not sure why this would be different.

  5. I'm sorry officer.. by Kadagan+AU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .. I can't show you my license because my battery died..

    --
    This space for rent, inquire within.
    1. Re:I'm sorry officer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      .. I can't show you my license because my battery died..

      No problem, sir, I happen to have a charger in my cruiser.. Don't mind that it will copy the entire contents of your phone as well.

    2. Re:I'm sorry officer.. by PPH · · Score: 1

      Unless you are in the EU:

      No problem, sir, I happen to have a large box of assorted chargers in my cruiser.

      FTFY.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:I'm sorry officer.. by schlachter · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, looks like you might get charged for not having your license.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    4. Re:I'm sorry officer.. by trawg · · Score: 1

      In my country, you can actually drive while not in physical possession of your license - if pulled over by the police, you have a period of time in which to go to a police station to show them the license.

      This allows citizens and police to gracefully deal with a wide range of legit issues like people forgetting their wallets, people losing their licenses, etc. I'm sure this could be extended easily to phones.

    5. Re:I'm sorry officer.. by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      What kind of a screwed up country is the USA? I live in the UK and do not carry my license everywhere I go (or any paperwork whatsoever). That would be very inconvenient to have to do so for a start. The cop simply looks up the reg number of my car and asks me for my name/address/date of birth if he wants to check anything.

    6. Re:I'm sorry officer.. by schlachter · · Score: 1

      You don't have to have any paperwork on you in the USA. You can go anywhere without paperwork. But if you are driving, you need proof of the right to drive. Reg number of the car has nothing to do with a license. What if it's not your car? What if it's a rental. Both common situations here in the USA.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    7. Re:I'm sorry officer.. by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I can borrow a car or rent a car here too. But I don't need to carry paperwork to drive it legally. They can check my details on their computer in the cop car. I just get asked my name and address etc. If everything appears to tally up with their records, they're happy. And they only ever ask if there's something wrong like I'm speeding. I'd really hate to live in America.

    8. Re:I'm sorry officer.. by schlachter · · Score: 1

      would be nice not to carry paper work, but it's just a card in my wallet, not a big deal. seems like you'd really just hate to live in the USA and everything else follows from that...rather than vice versa.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    9. Re:I'm sorry officer.. by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      I don't use a wallet. I have a bank card and a mobile phone loose in my pocket. Carrying a license would wear it out, make my pocket fuller, and be something else to lose or forget. These pointless rules and many many others in the USA is why I don't want to live there. Unfortunately, the UK is copying a lot of them. For example, we didn't used to sue each other every 5 minutes.

  6. Done right, this could be quite secure. by queazocotal · · Score: 2

    Licence has a qrcode or similar onto the DMV website.
    (proper verification apps ensure that the URL is actually the DMV website and ignore any other URL)

    1. Re:Done right, this could be quite secure. by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      all well and good but what's to stop the cop from rifling through the texts on the device you just voluntarily handed to him in an unlocked condition?

      That's right, NOTHING. At that point, no form of estoppel would be legal, in fact telling a cop he can look at your digital licence but not your text messages would give him cause for suspicion. Welcome to an overnight pending charges of possession of kiddie porn.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    2. Re:Done right, this could be quite secure. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      If enough states had drivers license apps, maybe we could pressure device manufacturers to make a "license mode." So you get pulled over and need to show your driver's license. You unlock your phone just enough that the drivers license can be displayed but not so much that other applications can launch (or photos/texts/etc can be rifled through).

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:Done right, this could be quite secure. by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      I've dealt with cops, I think I got a handle on how they're trained to think.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  7. Bad idea by snoig · · Score: 1

    Who really thinks that handing your phone to a cop is a good idea?

    1. Re:Bad idea by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      every fucking police officer in the United States.

      "For your safety, I need to check your phone for evidence of illegal activity -- one second citiz... actually let me double check that too."

    2. Re:Bad idea by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      And what happens if you go to a state or country that doesn't accept "license-in-a-phone"? Have fun visiting Canada or Mexico.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Bad idea by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      You need a passport to go into these countries anyways.

    4. Re:Bad idea by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      And what does that have to do with you not having a physical copy of your driver's license?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  8. What happens when you hand your phone to the cop? by charles05663 · · Score: 1

    What happens when you hand your phone to the cop? Do you know consent to a voluntary search?

    This is rife with issues. A cop cannot search your phone without a warrant. Once you relinquish control and voluntary give up your phone what recourse do you have if they start searching it? Cops are known for not giving a damn about privacy rights.

  9. Digital is easier by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    This makes it easier to copy someone else's license, as you don't need a fancy plastic card. All you need is an app that can read people's phones and connect to the internet (like basically every app out there).

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  10. Nope nope nope... by MadCow42 · · Score: 1

    Anything that involves me handing my unlocked phone to a police officer is a complete no-go... it would open any of the contents of that phone to their search.

    Sorry, this idea should be shot dead.

    --
    I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
  11. Veiled reason for access to your phone? by jeffy210 · · Score: 2

    The biggest problem I have with this and carrying your insurance on your phone is in order to produce it to authorities you have to unlock your phone. Coupled with some of the rulings we've seen about law enforcement being able to rifle through your phone without a warrant, this gives them instant access to everything beyond your license.

    I'd rather just stick to handing them a single card that is solely for that purpose.

    --
    ------
    "And may your days be long upon the earth."
    1. Re:Veiled reason for access to your phone? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      he biggest problem I have with this and carrying your insurance on your phone is in order to produce it to authorities you have to unlock your phone.

      You have to unlock the phone? Says who?

    2. Re:Veiled reason for access to your phone? by jeffy210 · · Score: 1

      You have to unlock the phone? Says who?

      So think through it logically: This is going to be either an app or a web page. If it's a web page you'll have to have your phone unlocked. If it's an app, there is a potential to use it on the lock screen but 1) that would only be feasible for Android phones, and 2) doesn't work if you're using something like Exchange which prevents lock app programs unless you have rooted your phone.

      I guess there is an alternative if were only an image and you made it your lock screen background, but that's going to have some hard buy off from drivers, and will have text in front it that will interfere things.

      The only way you're going to realistically do things without unlocking the phone would require modifications from Apple and most smart phone manufacturers, as well as the app creators designing things accordingly.

      --
      ------
      "And may your days be long upon the earth."
  12. exactly by dlt074 · · Score: 1

    you beat me to it. this was the very first thing i thought of as well. while convenient, as it would make carrying a wallet unnecessary, it's a huge trap. you can't complain the cops have your phone, if you hand it to them. not to mention the camera you're probably using to document the stop is under their control.

    1. Re:exactly by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      you beat me to it. this was the very first thing i thought of as well. while convenient, as it would make carrying a wallet unnecessary, it's a huge trap. you can't complain the cops have your phone, if you hand it to them. not to mention the camera you're probably using to document the stop is under their control.

      However, if you hand your wallet over to a cop in the USA and theres cash in it he'll declare it 'obviously drug money' and confiscate it...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You hand them the license not the wallet. Ive even seen cops tell drivers to take the license out. They don't want to fumble with your wallet. It is the potential to drop something out of it or get accused of stealing from it.

    3. Re:exactly by Lazere · · Score: 1

      Why the hell would you hand a cop your wallet when all they need is your license?

    4. Re: exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bribery

    5. Re:exactly by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You both missed the bit where they very cunningly would make carrying you phone around compulsory and Stingray http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.... No need to carry away you phone, you have now been bugged 24/7/365, welcome to the Panopticon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P....

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  13. we have had this story before by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    and the overwhelming response was "NO". Why would it be any different now?

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    1. Re:we have had this story before by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Because this time they're absolutely certain that millions of 18-20 year old college students won't work to forge this ID and get drunk.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  14. Enormous failure? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... it can be argued that our current regimes of physical documents have been an enormous failure.

    Unless, by enormous failure, you mean, has been working for hundreds of years, then citation please. No one's stolen my driver's license or any other physical documents - ever - and they're pretty simple to use - no batteries or cell signal required. In addition, I don't have a smartphone.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  15. Nice trick by omnichad · · Score: 2

    This is just a ploy to get you to hand over an unlocked phone without a warrant.

  16. 2-factor national ID by goodmanj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is as good a place as any for me to jump on my favorite hobby horse: the US government should be issuing a standardized national ID; there should be a federal administration that handles identity of US persons.

    Specifically, the government should issue 2-factor authenticators to all citizens which do absolutely nothing but verify identity to businesses, people, and other government agencies. The service should return no name, address, or other identifying data: just a hash ID code which is unique for every person, and unique for every agency or business which requests your ID. Thus, a bank can verify that you're the same person who set up your bank account, the state police can verify that you're the same person who applied for a driver's license, but that's all they can learn about you. This would makes it very difficult for anyone but the federal government to steal your identity, and tough for anyone but the feds to correlate your credit card data with your medical data with your Facebook profile.

    Obviously, this means the federal government would be able to use your identity records to track you. But they can do that anyway, with a quick call to a credit card company and your internet service provider. This at least keeps everyone *else* from being able to do so.

    1. Re:2-factor national ID by gsslay · · Score: 1

      The service should return no name, address, or other identifying data

      Can you spot the flaw in the plan?

      The service should return no name, address, or other identifying data

      See it now?

    2. Re:2-factor national ID by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      There's no question you could make this system nightmarish, but the way I see it, the American public (not just Slashdot nerds) has successfully opposed national ID for ages; the only way you'll get public support for this is by offering people something better than the current system. Like an end to identity theft and spam.

      Also, the social security administration already offers an identity verification service that only verifies "yes or no", and does not return names or other identifying data. Of course, it's pretty much useless because since so many private databases use the same SS#, the data's out in the wild and easy to collate. But it demonstrates that the government can and will take steps to protect citizens' identity.

    3. Re:2-factor national ID by h4x0t · · Score: 1

      Does the 2-factor authenticator work in the sticks or when the power goes out?

    4. Re:2-factor national ID by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      I'm imagining a smart card that provides an ever-changing one-time code that's displayed on an LCD on the front, and is embossed with your photo. Usually you use a chip-and-pin style process to confirm your identity, but when there's no power or network access, the person who needs to confirm your identity can just look at the photo and write down the one-time code, to be verified later when he's at a computer.

      Without network access, it's less secure, but it's still better than any offline system we have today. I mean, last time I ordered takeout, the delivery guy took a rubbing of my credit card using a pen and some carbon paper...

    5. Re:2-factor national ID by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      But it demonstrates that the government can and will take steps to protect citizens' identity.

      I should have added, protect citizens' identity *from other citizens*. The premise here is that protecting your identity from the government is a lost cause, but protecting it from other citizens and corporations is possible, with the government's help.

  17. Re:What happens when you hand your phone to the co by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    What happens when you hand your phone to the cop? Do you know consent to a voluntary search?

    YES, in exactly the same way that getting out of your car and not locking it grants them consent to search your car... at least, in some places.

    And even if the answer is no, do you trust them to follow the law? If there's one thing you can count on, it's that cops will break the law if they feel it's the best way to "get" someone they think is a "bad guy".

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. On the plus side... by dohzer · · Score: 3, Funny

    On the plus side, if your battery goes flat, all you have to do is commit a crime and wait for the police to recharge your phone so they can access your ID card.

  19. You never read TFA.. by s.petry · · Score: 1

    "Could" sure, but nothing you state relates to what is being developed and proposed. "Could of", "should of", "would of" and all that...

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:You never read TFA.. by JigJag · · Score: 1

      and just to make sure it got said, it's neither "could of", nor "should of", nor "would of", but "could have", "should have", and "would have".

      --
      "The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
    2. Re:You never read TFA.. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You obviously need a remedial slang course...

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:You never read TFA.. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Bad grammar aside, nothing has been done yet. We don't know what the implementation will look like. It may very well be better than what I propose.

  20. Bad idea with current laws by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It'll probably involve a minimal contactless reader and token-transfer like Apple Pay.

    I assure you it will not. That is not how police play that game. Furthermore that requires your phone to be on and then the officer can search the phone because you just gave him access and probable cause. If they want to come up with a system whereby the officer has no physical way to search the phone (not just legal protections) then I might think this is a good idea. As the law stands right now there is no way in hell I would do this.

    Some idiot judge apparently recently ruled that while you don't have to give your password you do have to give your fingerprint. How that doesn't violate the 5th amendment involves some mental gymnastics that I'm not really capable of.

    Don't need to transfer all phone data. (really? you think cops are going to sit around to transfer 16-128GB? lol)

    Don't know why you are laughing. It's not funny at all. Yes I absolutely think cops are going to sit around and transfer the entire contents. You'd be a fool to presume otherwise. He gets paid to be there no matter how long it takes.

    1. Re:Bad idea with current laws by queazocotal · · Score: 2

      You are not required to incriminate yourself.
      This however does not mean you cannot be compelled to give physical items,or access to physical items (including fingerprints).
      The cops have no right to demand you produce your passphrase.
      They have a right to demand the bit of paper they know you wrote the passphrase on.

    2. Re:Bad idea with current laws by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The cops have no right to demand you produce your passphrase.

      That is not settled law. Under some circumstances they can demand that you produce your passphrase. If they don't know that you know the passphrase, and the fact that you know the passphrase is, in itself, incriminating evidence, then they cannot demand it. If they already know that you know the password, then they may be able to compel you to disclose it. So it is best to not only refuse to tell them the password, but also refuse to acknowledge that you even know what it is.

      Dumb: I refuse to tell you the passphrase
      Better: I don't remember the passphrase.
      Best: I want a lawyer

    3. Re:Bad idea with current laws by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      The license could be the lock screen wallpaper. Handing a locked phone to the cop doesn’t give him permission to crack it. (I think.)

  21. What could possibly go wrong? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the government wants you to accept an application built by them, including giving it permissions to operate on your phone. You don't even need to hand your unlocked phone to a cop to have them looking around in your personal business. The app can do that all by itself any time it wants. Thanks but no thanks.

  22. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    Lol. I haven't even considered this, but good point.

  23. How about no by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    This wasn't a good idea the first time someone proposed this. Or the second time. Or the 5th, 10th, whatever.
    Having ID that I may need to hand to a city/state/federal official, that lives on my phone...is a complete non-starter.

    You get the little plastic thing in my wallet. You do NOT get all of my contacts and other information as well.

  24. Oh let me list why no by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

    They want you to install an app. Yet pretty much a picture of the barcode is all that is needed. Considering the poor state of security on phones the rights are far to course grained. The app needs to connect to the DMV for authentication means it has access to data at all times. You quickly have a heavily encrypted app that can can expand it's scope of permissions with clueless users.

    They will I assume want you to hand your phone to the cop unlocked. Maybe your smart and setup a secondary login with only the licence and insurances apps more probably you handed a cop access to your entire digital life. Is that enough protection to secure the phone from state overreach?

    Expand it out will bouncers be able to validate the licence? In effect that means the state knows when you went to what club.

    Will potential employers be able to use it? Now the state knows every place you ever applied for a job.

    Will stores be able to use it to cash a check (I know how many people will use this that still use checks)

    Are fake ID's really a problem primarily it's for buying booze and we along with a handful of other first world nations has the highest legal drinking age in the first world.

    What does the phone app add over the existing ability for police to pull up a photo id via the barcode or just name and address on the in cruiser laptops.

    How portable will this be one state must accept another's ID. Will they build in the same protections? If so how will they be required to do so and held accountable for failing to do so?

    At this point a simple name and address should be all that is needed to pull up a picture ID.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
  25. Do not want by PPH · · Score: 1

    Right now I can opt out of any identification requirements by simply not engaging in activities that require it. Don't want a drivers license? Don't drive. This will not be the case if any form of ID is created solely for the purpose of identifying individuals. Then you won't be able to 'opt out'. It will be a short step to requiring identification be carried at all times.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Do not want by h4x0t · · Score: 1

      It will be a short step to requiring identification be carried at all times.

      Well that's categorically false.
      Why don't they force you to carry your SSID or birth cert? And did you 'opt out' of those as well?

  26. XKCD wrench by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Users must be able to provide officers with DL information, but officers must not be able to get any additional data.

    Obligatory xkcd.

  27. Don't be naive by sjbe · · Score: 2

    I don't see why you think that handing an officer your phone for one reason - viewing the on-screen ID, would appear to translate into "I grant you permission to close the ID app and browse/download my email and photos."

    That is EXACTLY how it will be interpreted by the police until they are told very explicitly that doing so is a no-no. In fact odds are they will keep doing it anyway because the cost of fighting them on it is really steep, well beyond what is reasonable for most people. Justice may be done at the end of the day but that doesn't mean that you won't experience a whole bunch of severe inconvenience and civil rights violations along the way.

    1. Re:Don't be naive by Albanach · · Score: 1

      They already have been told. The case has been litigated and SCOTUS held the police need a warrant to conduct a search. Letting the police look at what is displayed on your phone screen is not a voluntary consent to a search of the phone.

      As for the cost of fighting them, if it's litigated again it will be as a civil rights violation under 42 U.S. Code section 1983 which includes a fee shifting provision.

      (for some reason /. doesn't permit &sect; to generate a section symbol)

    2. Re:Don't be naive by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The case has been litigated and SCOTUS held the police need a warrant to conduct a search.

      And of course the police always do what they are told... [/sarcasm]

      Letting the police look at what is displayed on your phone screen is not a voluntary consent to a search of the phone.

      And yet I assure you it will be interpreted as such.

      As for the cost of fighting them, if it's litigated again it will be as a civil rights violation under 42 U.S. Code section 1983 which includes a fee shifting provision.

      Which only matters if you have enough money in the first place to see the litigation through and happen to win which is by no means guaranteed.

  28. Re: And they take your camera by DigitAl56K · · Score: 1

    And how are you going to go about recording your stop when the police just took away your camera? What if they don't bring it back when they come back to your car, something serious comes up, and you have no evidence regarding what happened?

  29. Oh, you wanted me to scan the code??? by schlachter · · Score: 1

    I thought you were holding it out for me to take...whoops...I'll bring it back to you in a few minutes.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  30. Re:Don't Hand Them the Phone by sudon't · · Score: 1

    You haven't had much experience with cops, right? Besides, even if you're only getting a traffic ticket, they'll want to take it back to their car.

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped

  31. how will this Iowa license work in other states? by swell · · Score: 1

    See the USA in your Chevrolet... But bring a physical driver license.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  32. No access without warrant or consent by sjbe · · Score: 1

    You are not required to incriminate yourself.

    Agreed.

    This however does not mean you cannot be compelled to give physical items,or access to physical items (including fingerprints).

    I disagree that I should have to (potentially) incriminate myself by giving access to data that the police would not otherwise have the ability to access if I were not present.

    The cops have no right to demand you produce your passphrase.

    Nor should they have any rights to my fingerprints except for taking ink copies for comparison should prints be relevant to a criminal investigation.

    They have a right to demand the bit of paper they know you wrote the passphrase on.

    That doesn't mean they should be able to physically force me to enter the passphrase into the device. They can do that bit of work themselves. Forcing you to enter your fingerprint is a functionally identical process to forcing you to enter a passphrase - the only difference is that one doesn't involve my memory. They can take my keys but I see no reason to insert them in the door for them. They can do that without me - or not.

  33. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by iczer1 · · Score: 1

    It seems like this is a good place for a new app. It could display only your driver's license but not allow access to the rest of the phone without a PIN being entered. It would also have to shut off the data port, NFC, etc to prevent the other ways of getting data off of the phone with physical access.

    For me, I'll stick with my plastic license.

  34. Good idea, bad implementation by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    Digitally storing your license and registration and insurance information are tremendous ideas, which would make it much more convenient for us. A nice little state issued fob. with only that data on it.

    But seriously, not ever, ever, ever on your smartphone.

    A whole lot of information is on there, and the second you hand it over, you have just given consent for it to be searched.

    And in a day and age where officers can somehow legally confiscate your cash, I can't help but wonder what happens when they have access to your credit card.

    Note this is not just the never ending bitching about "popo" but just noting that giving up your phone to anyone isn't a good idea. Ever.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  35. Re:APK! This guy said HOSTS were garbage by swillden · · Score: 1

    In my case the script didn't even harass me for five days, assuming it is a script. And the harassment stopped the instant I began calling him out.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  36. Alabama cop anyone by rojash · · Score: 1

    Imagine what that coward Alabama cop who paralyzed a helpless innocent Indian grandad in yesterday's news would've done with his phone if this was the norm in Alabama too.

  37. You have to carry a driver's license in Iowa? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    Really, do you?

    I actually have a driving license (about a 50% probability for a random person in this country), and only in the last couple of months down-graded to a photographic one. Naturally, I don't carry it with me, except when I'm going to hire a car. Otherwise, it's simply not necessary, and there is no way that I am going to let our local police get into the habit of thinking "you must carry THIS piece of ID with you at all times".

    But then, it seems that Iowans obviously have got into the habit of valuing convenience (for the police) over the liberty of the individual.

    Didn't some guy called Frank Benjamin say something about that once?

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"