The point is; someone needs to know that I'm John Doe -- if they are wrong, VISA is going to lose some money.
Actually, no - it is the vendor that loses money. Visa never loses money. If there is a fraudulent transaction, VISA will turn right around and suck that money directly out of the vendor's bank account. When Visa says they protect you from fraud, guarantee a refund, what they are really saying is that they promise to take the money from the vendor and give it to you if someone buys something with your card and you call it an unauthorized purchase. Visa won't be out anything. The vendor will. Just so we're clear: The vendor is the one left holding the bag, each and every time; the vendor is out both product (the thief has that) and money (Visa has taken that and given all but $50 of it, sometimes, to the card-holder.)
I'll go out on a limb and say more people like you should have mod points
Which is really kind of funny, because (a) I wrote this and every time I point it out, I don't get mod points for many months in a row, and (b) one of the editors regularly and systematically mods down my posts, easily detected when I have a series of posts over several stories, over several days, sometimes highly rated, sometimes just at 1, then over the course of five minutes, I'll lose 10-15 points across multiple stories; clearly someone with more than 5 points to "spend" has had themselves a little "abuse party." As the "editors" brag, they have unlimited mod points, and they aren't afraid to use them.
Personally, I browse at -1 because there aren't enough positive mod points to raise up all the reasonable posts and because there are tons of good posts that get moderated down as a matter of commentary, rather than because they are actually bad posts. As far as I am concerned the moderation system just barely manages to make itself felt as commentary, less effectively than digg's does, and it is absolutely useless as a criteria of which messages to read.
...and of course, this post will very likely be modded off topic, which again is humorous, because the powers that be won't let any such thread appear as a story (I have tried) and of course moderation is very much on topic anywhere it occurs, and especially when it is done poorly (which is often) or ineffectively (which is always, because there aren't enough mod points to go around.)
Let me say, however, that I take your comment as a complement and I thank you for saying so.
Or maybe he posted anonymously because his opinion doesnt match with yours, and he doesnt feel like blowing his karma away for saying what he thinks.
Yes, thus showing the abstract value that anonymity brings to the table, and not just on slashdot. There are parallels here to anonymity in meat-space as well; an anonymous member of a protest group (in order not to blow one's standing in the community); an anonymous withdrawal of a book on anarchism or bomb-making because you want to understand the threats, but don't want to have the ATF come visit you with handcuffs; an anonymous objection to the will of the masses with regard to any number of topics, such as religion, sexuality, the drug war, etc. Anonymity is valuable. That's the darned point! RealID is a program designed to strip anonymity from us, and that is one (of many) reasons it is a bad thing.
I thought the "amerikkkan" government was supposed to be the evil facist ruler, and the free-thinking rebels on slashdot were the ones that embraced everyone's differing opinions in the spirit of debate.
I was debating the poster's opinion. I took the post seriously, and I responded with what I considered to be content that rebutted the posted opinion. So what is your objection to this? Does "embrace" mean that I have to agree? I don't think so!
The first thing to wrap your head around is that aside from the general issues of your liberty to travel and your privacy, the legislation for the ID contains enabling sections for - as yet - unspecified technologies to be part of the card. The most likely candidate, for quite a few reasons, is RFID, though something with more range might replace that. RFID allows your card to be read without you presenting it. This is a definite escalation from you deciding to show someone your ID in return for, oh, a bottle of wine, or that DVD of Erica Campbell you've been thinking about.
Any such technology creates a number of very bad potentials; someone could walk through a crime scene with a clone of your RFID (trivial to do, by the way) and thus "establish" your presence at the crime, at the time. You might have been home in bed, but your RFID was out being a criminal. You'll be arrested and then your lawyer can sort it out (after you mortgage your home, of course - criminal lawyers don't work on a "work now, pay later" basis. Or they could clone your card and purchase weaponry, using your good name, which they could then use in the commission of a crime. As far as the police are concerned, you bought those weapons. To prove otherwise, you're going to have to locate the fake card. Good luck with that.
Suppose you go like a good citizen to get your card, and the computer is corrupted, or someone was there first, and they say, no, we've already issued the card that matches your information (birthdate, name, SSN, mother's last name, birthplace and date, etc.) You can't get your card. Now you can't partake of any federal service. Yes, that's written right into the RealID act. Got cancer? Poor? Need your meds? Sorry. You're going to die. No federal services. Period. Of course, they're still going to tax you to pay for them.
Another issue is that tracking everything you purchase becomes 100% practical. So what? Well, let me point out that lately, it has been the habit of the legislature, backed up by the Supreme Court, to create and approve ex post facto laws. This class of laws includes those that make things crimes after they were done. The constitution guarantees your immunity to the four types of ex post facto law, but that has been disregarded and from the government's point of view, is irrelevant. They can, and will, jail you for such things. They've been doing so to others for years. Now. Imagine you buy a Playboy magazine. This is tracked. A year later, fundamentalists get laws passed that make purchasing such a magazine a crime - pornography, etc. Now they can come and get you; all it takes is the knowledge that you made the purchase and an ex post facto law.
Because of the unknown, secretive technological component of these cards, the threat to liberty escalates into a serious threat to privacy and security. Either should be enough to halt the program, expose its exact workings, and then allow evaluation on the basis of precisely known parameters. But they're not offering that opportunity. In 20 minutes, the window for even general objections base don what we do know - which is incomplete - closes.
The only redeeming thing at this moment is that they expect the states to bear the burden of the costs, and some states - Montana, Maine - are refusing. I suspect it is entirely budgetary, despite the high sounding words, but I'll take what I can get at this stage of the game.
Sure... you want to be ID'd where ever you go, automatically, with who knows what information available to the teller, toll both operator, merchant, insurance agent, and anyone who hacks into the system just because you walked close to them and your RFID burped. You want someone to be able to clone your RFID tag and walk through a crime scene a few times, thus "establishing" that you were at the scene of the crime. Sure you do. You're all about being identified, right?
That's why you post anonymously.
Sometimes I wonder if we ought to take a hint from the Spartans.
The changes you suggested would cost huge amounts of money -- far more than they were arguably worth even in light of 9/11, and vastly more than they're worth when the threat model consists of "traditional" hijackings.
You and I value lives differently. It is my considered opinion that this life is all we have, and the value of saving an innocent life shouldn't be measured by material treasure. I would have many changes that were very expensive, were it my option, such as fenced roads to prevent the deaths caused by colliding with wandering pets, wildlife and children. That's just me. I realize that people's lives don't matter more than money to others.
Control cabins should - of course - have emergency ventilation and fire suppression systems. For everyone' safety. If the plane is in the air, leaving the cabin isn't a good idea; it won't save them. If the plane is on the ground, they can leave through their hatch. There's no justification here for a door to the passenger or cargo spaces.
Wait.. are you arguing that people with warrants out shouldn't be caught?
I was pointing out that there is every reason to expect the money to be spent upon such a system, which was the subject of ridicule of the parent to the post you replied to. However, I will say that I am not willing to give up our liberties in order that criminals be any degree more likely to be apprehended after the fact. If this were a system that would prevent the act, I might feel differently; however, catching them later rarely undoes the crime, and so has far less value to me.
"flamebait", eh? That moderation is a perfect example of qualifying people arbitrarily to do something instead of seeing if they are actually competent. Thanks for making my point for me. Lines in the sand are rarely a good idea.
I was suggesting there be no door, that the control cabin be an isolated portion of the aircraft. The only way in or out would be through a hatch on the side of the aircraft. Doors are generally weak points until they are so heavy they almost defeat their purpose. It is also important to cut off communication to the passenger area; hence the two buttons. You can't hijack an aircraft if you can't talk to the pilot and you can't get to the controls. It isn't "difficult", it is impossible. That's why I like the solution.
You're considering the problem with the benefit of hindsight.
My "hindsight" existed prior to 9/11. #1 is the same methodology I always thought should have been implemented after the first aircraft hijacking. 9/11 was simply a hijacking with a really, really unfortunate "landing." There is no need to provide passenger access to the controls (or control crew access to passengers) on an aircraft, a bus, a ship, or any other passenger conveyance that may arise in the future, such as a spacecraft. Heavy transport hijackings have been bad news since the very first one, initially because of the risk to the bulk of the passengers if the vehicle becomes out of control, and also because any out of control heavy transport becomes a massive projectile. It is a situation that is easily remedied, and we should directly get after that, rather than get all stupid and trample our liberties.
No thanks. Remote control means radio control, which means the control signals can be hacked into or jammed, or even blocked by bad weather
There are pros and cons for all of them, of course. I wasn't suggesting they were freebies. But all are practical, and all prevent the problem without infringing on people's liberties. I prefer #1, myself. It is the least complex, the easiest to implement, and has the least ongoing costs. Control cabins would need their own hatches, which would be annoying to retrofit, but the bulkhead itself is easily managed, there are plenty of lightweight armoring technologies.
Of course, that was all back before the War on Underage Drinking.
The... oh, you mean the war on personal or consensual, informed, victimless choice. No, that started earlier, considerably earlier, in fact. When I was a kid, we still couldn't walk into a liquor store and buy a bottle of booze; they'd just say "ged ouda heah, kid!" Same thing in an adult bookstore. No ID required. Just "take off", because as you and I both know perfectly well, faces are just about as reliable an indicator of your age as are easily faked licenses. Didn't matter if you were buying a bottle of wine for your parent's dinner table or if you were planning a night of grape flavored debauchery with the 14-year old next door. You had to find some adult to do the buying, or you were leaving empty-handed.
No. I have no debt and I am not interested in debt. I use money, and will continue to do so as long as it remains legal. "Credit" cards are badly misnamed: They are debt cards with the interesting ability to increase your debt position just by getting a day older.
Ever use your real name at a restaurant?
I've never had a restaurant ask me my name, only what I wanted to eat. If they ever did make such an inquiry, I would be quite happy to leave before answering in detail any greater than my first name.
RFID range from my understanding is not that large,
RFID range is sufficient to talk to the cash register when you make a purchase, to talk to the teller when you go to a bank, to talk to the terminal when you apply for federally or state issued anything, to talk to the booth when you go through a toll station. It is short, but that's because it doesn't need to be long.
...and frankly having a National ID program would mean that everytime I travel to other states they can't refuse to sell my alcohol because they don't like the fact that I have an out of state ID.
As for the alcohol thing, that's a different problem, a consequence of society's war on consensual and personal, informed, victimless choice. You should fight that battle on its own turf rather than trying to be accommodating. A line in the sand drawn by age is certain to make errors on both sides. Those lines, if they are to be drawn at all, must be drawn upon a metric that determines if you are informed or not. Otherwise it is a straightforward affront to liberty.
And the government would want to spend millions doing this, why?
I'll answer that with a question and an answer: Why does a state trooper always check your criminal record (via NCIC) when they're simply giving you a traffic ticket? (or they may not even be doing that, they may have stopped to help you change your flat tire.) The answer: because they can.
I have the cure for an RFID chip. It is also coincidentally a known terrorist weapon also known as a common household hammer.
And I am quite sure the government has a cure for your smashed RFID chip. It begins with "please step this way, sir" and ends with habeas corpus nowhere in sight. In a retail setting, it begins with you walking up to the cash register and the cash register refusing to complete the purchase because it can't figure out who you are. Which leads back to "please step this way, sir." During a traffic stop, it leads directly to jail, like the monopoly square. So, about that hammer... maybe that's not such a good idea after all. They may not have legitimate power, but don't confuse that with them not having power at all.
People need to get it through their heads that *nothing* would have prevented 9/11. Nothing that is compatible with a free and open society, anyway.
That is nonsense. I can think of several things that would have prevented 9/11 without in the least impinging on anyone's liberties:
Bulletproof bulkheads between the cargo and control spaces of aircraft, with two buttons for the cargo / passenger space crews to tell the captain either (a) order obeyed or (b) please land ASAP at nearest hospital.
Remotely piloted aircarft
Rebelling citizens, preferably armed (see the flight that was stopped in Pennsylvania)
A decent scattering of air marshalls on board
A patriot battery and the will to use it
One fighter aircraft on CAP at the target location (for this and the last, please note that non-aerodynamic flaming debris falling straight down is a lot less dangerous than an intact aircraft moving at several hundred mph)
What you need to realize is this is a brand new set of circumstances that you are accepting as "normal." I am 50, and I have had many drivers licenses in many states and several countries. Only in the last couple of decades has it been standard procedure for them to worry about your identity details; they used to be primarily concerned with your ability to drive, as absurd as that may seem to you. They used to ask (ask, mind you, not, demand papers proving) your age, your name, test you, and issue you a license if you didn't scare a year off the examiner's life (or maybe sometimes if you did... I used to live in south Florida, and I swear, the one thing you really had to watch out for was a little grey fuzz just barely sticking up over the steering wheel in front of you... the entire concept of "right of way" instantly became a fiction.) Anyway, there was no photo on the license, the number was an arbitrary one issued by the D/L department or equivalent, the name and birth-date were issued as described, and that was it. The issue was "can you drive" and nothing else. That is reasonable. What you accept as normal is what we used to use to laugh and point our fingers at the Soviets over. There are other issues peripheral to this; you can even find old references to them in pop culture. Watch "Hunt for Red October" and ponder when the sub's second officer asks the captain if you can drive "state to state" without papers. RealID is an internal passport. Nothing less.
what kind of 'freethinker' never sets foot outside whichever country they happened to be born in?
Well, not to put too fine a point on it... poor ones, those who must work continually to support their families, those who are in jail as a consequence of the government's war against personal/consensual, informed, victimless choices (or those who have been there... either you can't get a passport, or they might not let you back in), those who are more interested in issues where they are than issues where they aren't (it isn't like there aren't enough problems to go around so you have to visit another country to find some!)
National IDs really don't offer the powers that be any more control over your life than a drivers license etc which you need to show for many transactions etc.
That remains to be seen. One of the things that RealID has (legislatively) plugged into it is an as-yet unspecified standard for technologies such as RFID. This would provide a nationally uniform means to track individuals each and every time they came into range of an RFID reader, which in turn provides the incentive to create such a network. Once you're pegged as being located in any particular place, that same network could be used to deliver all manner of specific information about you (and database integration is also part of the legislation.) I find this both likely and unsettling; I think liberty requires privacy, freedom to travel, and some measure of limits upon the government - if you're not currently being hunted as a criminal, punished as a criminal, or under post-release, sentence-imposed limits as a criminal, I can't see that they have any right or need to know where you are, what you are doing, or why you are doing it.
I have a nagging feeling that the real reason this is being resisted is because congress expected the states to bear the cost. If they ran it through again, 100% federally funded, I doubt there would be any significant resistance.
I call on all intelligent people to drop out of the career game and raise ridiculously large families to offset the rampant reproduction rate of morons. Or at least go knock up some moron's wife.
The intelligent provide a better chance of success for their children if they, as a group, have fewer children. The fewer intelligent people there are, the more they will be needed, the more they will stand out, and consequently the higher their recompense, social position, and actual social value.
Barring outright eugenics, this is precisely how things are likely to go. Of course, considering that 9/10ths of the bill of rights has been subverted already, I'm not at all positive that the failure of our attempts at eugenics in the early 1900's (and up into the 1970's for at least one midwest state) will serve as a moderating influence.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no - it is the vendor that loses money. Visa never loses money. If there is a fraudulent transaction, VISA will turn right around and suck that money directly out of the vendor's bank account. When Visa says they protect you from fraud, guarantee a refund, what they are really saying is that they promise to take the money from the vendor and give it to you if someone buys something with your card and you call it an unauthorized purchase. Visa won't be out anything. The vendor will. Just so we're clear: The vendor is the one left holding the bag, each and every time; the vendor is out both product (the thief has that) and money (Visa has taken that and given all but $50 of it, sometimes, to the card-holder.)
Which is really kind of funny, because (a) I wrote this and every time I point it out, I don't get mod points for many months in a row, and (b) one of the editors regularly and systematically mods down my posts, easily detected when I have a series of posts over several stories, over several days, sometimes highly rated, sometimes just at 1, then over the course of five minutes, I'll lose 10-15 points across multiple stories; clearly someone with more than 5 points to "spend" has had themselves a little "abuse party." As the "editors" brag, they have unlimited mod points, and they aren't afraid to use them.
Personally, I browse at -1 because there aren't enough positive mod points to raise up all the reasonable posts and because there are tons of good posts that get moderated down as a matter of commentary, rather than because they are actually bad posts. As far as I am concerned the moderation system just barely manages to make itself felt as commentary, less effectively than digg's does, and it is absolutely useless as a criteria of which messages to read.
Let me say, however, that I take your comment as a complement and I thank you for saying so.
Yes, thus showing the abstract value that anonymity brings to the table, and not just on slashdot. There are parallels here to anonymity in meat-space as well; an anonymous member of a protest group (in order not to blow one's standing in the community); an anonymous withdrawal of a book on anarchism or bomb-making because you want to understand the threats, but don't want to have the ATF come visit you with handcuffs; an anonymous objection to the will of the masses with regard to any number of topics, such as religion, sexuality, the drug war, etc. Anonymity is valuable. That's the darned point! RealID is a program designed to strip anonymity from us, and that is one (of many) reasons it is a bad thing.
I was debating the poster's opinion. I took the post seriously, and I responded with what I considered to be content that rebutted the posted opinion. So what is your objection to this? Does "embrace" mean that I have to agree? I don't think so!
I was thinking of something else.
The first thing to wrap your head around is that aside from the general issues of your liberty to travel and your privacy, the legislation for the ID contains enabling sections for - as yet - unspecified technologies to be part of the card. The most likely candidate, for quite a few reasons, is RFID, though something with more range might replace that. RFID allows your card to be read without you presenting it. This is a definite escalation from you deciding to show someone your ID in return for, oh, a bottle of wine, or that DVD of Erica Campbell you've been thinking about.
Any such technology creates a number of very bad potentials; someone could walk through a crime scene with a clone of your RFID (trivial to do, by the way) and thus "establish" your presence at the crime, at the time. You might have been home in bed, but your RFID was out being a criminal. You'll be arrested and then your lawyer can sort it out (after you mortgage your home, of course - criminal lawyers don't work on a "work now, pay later" basis. Or they could clone your card and purchase weaponry, using your good name, which they could then use in the commission of a crime. As far as the police are concerned, you bought those weapons. To prove otherwise, you're going to have to locate the fake card. Good luck with that.
Suppose you go like a good citizen to get your card, and the computer is corrupted, or someone was there first, and they say, no, we've already issued the card that matches your information (birthdate, name, SSN, mother's last name, birthplace and date, etc.) You can't get your card. Now you can't partake of any federal service. Yes, that's written right into the RealID act. Got cancer? Poor? Need your meds? Sorry. You're going to die. No federal services. Period. Of course, they're still going to tax you to pay for them.
Another issue is that tracking everything you purchase becomes 100% practical. So what? Well, let me point out that lately, it has been the habit of the legislature, backed up by the Supreme Court, to create and approve ex post facto laws. This class of laws includes those that make things crimes after they were done. The constitution guarantees your immunity to the four types of ex post facto law, but that has been disregarded and from the government's point of view, is irrelevant. They can, and will, jail you for such things. They've been doing so to others for years. Now. Imagine you buy a Playboy magazine. This is tracked. A year later, fundamentalists get laws passed that make purchasing such a magazine a crime - pornography, etc. Now they can come and get you; all it takes is the knowledge that you made the purchase and an ex post facto law.
Because of the unknown, secretive technological component of these cards, the threat to liberty escalates into a serious threat to privacy and security. Either should be enough to halt the program, expose its exact workings, and then allow evaluation on the basis of precisely known parameters. But they're not offering that opportunity. In 20 minutes, the window for even general objections base don what we do know - which is incomplete - closes.
The only redeeming thing at this moment is that they expect the states to bear the burden of the costs, and some states - Montana, Maine - are refusing. I suspect it is entirely budgetary, despite the high sounding words, but I'll take what I can get at this stage of the game.
Sure... you want to be ID'd where ever you go, automatically, with who knows what information available to the teller, toll both operator, merchant, insurance agent, and anyone who hacks into the system just because you walked close to them and your RFID burped. You want someone to be able to clone your RFID tag and walk through a crime scene a few times, thus "establishing" that you were at the scene of the crime. Sure you do. You're all about being identified, right?
That's why you post anonymously.
Sometimes I wonder if we ought to take a hint from the Spartans.
You and I value lives differently. It is my considered opinion that this life is all we have, and the value of saving an innocent life shouldn't be measured by material treasure. I would have many changes that were very expensive, were it my option, such as fenced roads to prevent the deaths caused by colliding with wandering pets, wildlife and children. That's just me. I realize that people's lives don't matter more than money to others.
Control cabins should - of course - have emergency ventilation and fire suppression systems. For everyone' safety. If the plane is in the air, leaving the cabin isn't a good idea; it won't save them. If the plane is on the ground, they can leave through their hatch. There's no justification here for a door to the passenger or cargo spaces.
I was pointing out that there is every reason to expect the money to be spent upon such a system, which was the subject of ridicule of the parent to the post you replied to. However, I will say that I am not willing to give up our liberties in order that criminals be any degree more likely to be apprehended after the fact. If this were a system that would prevent the act, I might feel differently; however, catching them later rarely undoes the crime, and so has far less value to me.
"flamebait", eh? That moderation is a perfect example of qualifying people arbitrarily to do something instead of seeing if they are actually competent. Thanks for making my point for me. Lines in the sand are rarely a good idea.
I was suggesting there be no door, that the control cabin be an isolated portion of the aircraft. The only way in or out would be through a hatch on the side of the aircraft. Doors are generally weak points until they are so heavy they almost defeat their purpose. It is also important to cut off communication to the passenger area; hence the two buttons. You can't hijack an aircraft if you can't talk to the pilot and you can't get to the controls. It isn't "difficult", it is impossible. That's why I like the solution.
umount... guy's probably got an alias, perfectly appropriate for a thread on RealID, don't you think?
alias unmount='umount'
My "hindsight" existed prior to 9/11. #1 is the same methodology I always thought should have been implemented after the first aircraft hijacking. 9/11 was simply a hijacking with a really, really unfortunate "landing." There is no need to provide passenger access to the controls (or control crew access to passengers) on an aircraft, a bus, a ship, or any other passenger conveyance that may arise in the future, such as a spacecraft. Heavy transport hijackings have been bad news since the very first one, initially because of the risk to the bulk of the passengers if the vehicle becomes out of control, and also because any out of control heavy transport becomes a massive projectile. It is a situation that is easily remedied, and we should directly get after that, rather than get all stupid and trample our liberties.
There are pros and cons for all of them, of course. I wasn't suggesting they were freebies. But all are practical, and all prevent the problem without infringing on people's liberties. I prefer #1, myself. It is the least complex, the easiest to implement, and has the least ongoing costs. Control cabins would need their own hatches, which would be annoying to retrofit, but the bulkhead itself is easily managed, there are plenty of lightweight armoring technologies.
The... oh, you mean the war on personal or consensual, informed, victimless choice. No, that started earlier, considerably earlier, in fact. When I was a kid, we still couldn't walk into a liquor store and buy a bottle of booze; they'd just say "ged ouda heah, kid!" Same thing in an adult bookstore. No ID required. Just "take off", because as you and I both know perfectly well, faces are just about as reliable an indicator of your age as are easily faked licenses. Didn't matter if you were buying a bottle of wine for your parent's dinner table or if you were planning a night of grape flavored debauchery with the 14-year old next door. You had to find some adult to do the buying, or you were leaving empty-handed.
No. I have no debt and I am not interested in debt. I use money, and will continue to do so as long as it remains legal. "Credit" cards are badly misnamed: They are debt cards with the interesting ability to increase your debt position just by getting a day older.
I've never had a restaurant ask me my name, only what I wanted to eat. If they ever did make such an inquiry, I would be quite happy to leave before answering in detail any greater than my first name.
RFID range is sufficient to talk to the cash register when you make a purchase, to talk to the teller when you go to a bank, to talk to the terminal when you apply for federally or state issued anything, to talk to the booth when you go through a toll station. It is short, but that's because it doesn't need to be long.
As for the alcohol thing, that's a different problem, a consequence of society's war on consensual and personal, informed, victimless choice. You should fight that battle on its own turf rather than trying to be accommodating. A line in the sand drawn by age is certain to make errors on both sides. Those lines, if they are to be drawn at all, must be drawn upon a metric that determines if you are informed or not. Otherwise it is a straightforward affront to liberty.
I'll answer that with a question and an answer: Why does a state trooper always check your criminal record (via NCIC) when they're simply giving you a traffic ticket? (or they may not even be doing that, they may have stopped to help you change your flat tire.) The answer: because they can.
And I am quite sure the government has a cure for your smashed RFID chip. It begins with "please step this way, sir" and ends with habeas corpus nowhere in sight. In a retail setting, it begins with you walking up to the cash register and the cash register refusing to complete the purchase because it can't figure out who you are. Which leads back to "please step this way, sir." During a traffic stop, it leads directly to jail, like the monopoly square. So, about that hammer... maybe that's not such a good idea after all. They may not have legitimate power, but don't confuse that with them not having power at all.
That is nonsense. I can think of several things that would have prevented 9/11 without in the least impinging on anyone's liberties:
What you need to realize is this is a brand new set of circumstances that you are accepting as "normal." I am 50, and I have had many drivers licenses in many states and several countries. Only in the last couple of decades has it been standard procedure for them to worry about your identity details; they used to be primarily concerned with your ability to drive, as absurd as that may seem to you. They used to ask (ask, mind you, not, demand papers proving) your age, your name, test you, and issue you a license if you didn't scare a year off the examiner's life (or maybe sometimes if you did... I used to live in south Florida, and I swear, the one thing you really had to watch out for was a little grey fuzz just barely sticking up over the steering wheel in front of you... the entire concept of "right of way" instantly became a fiction.) Anyway, there was no photo on the license, the number was an arbitrary one issued by the D/L department or equivalent, the name and birth-date were issued as described, and that was it. The issue was "can you drive" and nothing else. That is reasonable. What you accept as normal is what we used to use to laugh and point our fingers at the Soviets over. There are other issues peripheral to this; you can even find old references to them in pop culture. Watch "Hunt for Red October" and ponder when the sub's second officer asks the captain if you can drive "state to state" without papers. RealID is an internal passport. Nothing less.
Well, not to put too fine a point on it... poor ones, those who must work continually to support their families, those who are in jail as a consequence of the government's war against personal/consensual, informed, victimless choices (or those who have been there... either you can't get a passport, or they might not let you back in), those who are more interested in issues where they are than issues where they aren't (it isn't like there aren't enough problems to go around so you have to visit another country to find some!)
That remains to be seen. One of the things that RealID has (legislatively) plugged into it is an as-yet unspecified standard for technologies such as RFID. This would provide a nationally uniform means to track individuals each and every time they came into range of an RFID reader, which in turn provides the incentive to create such a network. Once you're pegged as being located in any particular place, that same network could be used to deliver all manner of specific information about you (and database integration is also part of the legislation.) I find this both likely and unsettling; I think liberty requires privacy, freedom to travel, and some measure of limits upon the government - if you're not currently being hunted as a criminal, punished as a criminal, or under post-release, sentence-imposed limits as a criminal, I can't see that they have any right or need to know where you are, what you are doing, or why you are doing it.
I have a nagging feeling that the real reason this is being resisted is because congress expected the states to bear the cost. If they ran it through again, 100% federally funded, I doubt there would be any significant resistance.
"flamebait"
Yes, the truth is often incendiary. I agree.
The intelligent provide a better chance of success for their children if they, as a group, have fewer children. The fewer intelligent people there are, the more they will be needed, the more they will stand out, and consequently the higher their recompense, social position, and actual social value.
Barring outright eugenics, this is precisely how things are likely to go. Of course, considering that 9/10ths of the bill of rights has been subverted already, I'm not at all positive that the failure of our attempts at eugenics in the early 1900's (and up into the 1970's for at least one midwest state) will serve as a moderating influence.