You need an ID to drive a car in all 50 states now. How is this different? Let's run through your list: boarding a plane: Need an ID opening an bank account: Need an ID (and Social Security number) taking several other actions (like buying a beer, cashing a check, writing a check, using a credit card, driving a car.. the list goes on): Need an ID
Yeah, you pretty much need an ID to anything now, except my Texas state ID may or may not work in New Jersey. Seeing how few in Jersey have seen a TX ID, it's likely to get rejected. But with a national ID, my ID could NOT be refused in the other 49 states. So the way I see it, this actually INCREASES my freedoms while requiring nothing extra from me.
How does a national ID standard qualify as "regulating interstate commerce"? Where does it say that only a state can issue ID's? How is this NOT allowed in the necessary and proper clause?
My personal issue is that it further confuses the notion of identity; I'm me because I say so, not because my id says so. That my id says who I am means that to the extent that you trust that particular form of id(it could be fake), the body that issued it believes me to be the person on the id(I could have tricked them)
Great! How 'bout I say I'm you and crawl into bed with your wife tonight. After all, I'm you... I mean me because I say so, right? Maybe I'll go get a few credit cards in your... er.. my name and get that big-screen I've been eye-balling. That house you're living in... it's mine. See my name, right there on the mortgage. What? You say that's your name? Fine, it's my word against yours, we'll split the profit. Now get off my wife and lawn and take my kids with you, whoever you are!
Bullshit. We're supposed to believe that the enemies you allude to have vast resources and total commitment.
I don't know about their resources, but I don't doubt their commitment for a second! Besides, I was 16 and working at Burger King and I had a fake ID. I don't think I could have pulled it off if it required a retinal scan. Also, a national ID card could help in preventing ID theft.
Such pedestrian measures as standardized ID is not going to be an effective protection. The only people that this sort of ID affects are the citizenry. Like searching people at airports? It's not meant to stop all terrorism, but it will help. I see we will disagree on terrorism forever, so let's move on...
Currently, we have 50 different standards for ID cards. Once you leave California, your ID is invalid. You could be prevented from cashing a check, opening a bank account, getting a job or even buying a friggin beer! The way I see it, with this standard, my state ID works in 50 states rather than just one. It actually INCREASES my rights and what I can do, and I don't have to change a thing since I have to carry a driver's license anyway.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
You mean Congress is not allowed to pass laws? What is their job exactly?
Everything you mentioned -- HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. -- is, in fact, unconstitutional!
Well, then I think you got bigger fish to fry than just a little ID card standard! May I recommend starting with the IRS.
Actually, it is: Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The fact that the federal government has abused the commerce clause and completly disregarded most of the constitution for some time now doesn't make this particular encroachment right. Again, no one can tell me how this is a violation of rights. Does it limit free speech? Does it search your house? Does it take away your guns or limit the freedom of the press? Does it keep you from worshiping the God of your choice or your right to petition your government? What right is violated here? Amendment X?
So are you telling me that Congress can not pass laws? Why do we keep sending those slackers to Washington for? I thought that was their job! Shows what I know!
"Why not?" should never be the standard for anything that enhances government power and/or limits individual liberty. How does a national ID standard limit liberty any more that the existing standard set by the state of Maine or any of the other 49 states? How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today. (not to mention that you are already in a Federal database, probably several like Social Security, IRS and so on)
The standard should be "Why should we?". Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.
And no, "We have to keep you safe." is not an adequate reason. Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep me (and you) safe... How is this any different?
Nothing, except the federal government doesn't have the authority to enforce the law. The state of Maine refuses to comply not because they disagree with the law, but because they don't recognize the authority of the federal legislature to create such a law, nor of the executive to enforce it.
What authority do they have to force me to pay for Social Security and have a card for that? What authority does the state of Maine have to set the standards for ID's?
Still that doesn't answer my question. All the people here that bash the idea of a national ID can't be on the Maine legislature.
Please point out the section of the Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to require this
I'll show you as soon as you show me where in the Constitution it authorizes HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and everything else our gov't does that is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.
Where in the Constitution does it ALLOW federal government to control where people go? "Interstate commerce" would only apply if we brought back slaves, as they were 'commerce'.
Who said anything about telling people where they can and can't go? Why would an ID prevent you from going somewhere? Is there some secret clause in this law that states that once you receive this new ID, you must get permission before traveling over state lines? My Social Security card has never prevented me from going anywhere.
I don't think the fed has the authority to say what goes on a state-issued card. I'm not sure how you can get that authority from the commerce clause.
With all the furor it gets here on/., I doubt that it is just because it runs afoul of the commerce clause and it's certainly not a state's rights issue that has everyone all riled up.
But I'll never buy a chemical battery based electric or hybrid. Why? I'm in Alaska. Capacitors can work at low temps much better than the chemical batteries.
From TFA:
Finally, EEStor claims that its system works to specification in temperatures as low as -20 C, revised from a previous claim of -40 C.
"Temperature of -20 degrees C is not good enough for automotive," says Miller. "You need -40 degrees." By comparison, Altair and A123Systems claim that their lithium-ion cells can operate at -30 C.
What does CnR do that YOU can't do with apt-get? Probably nothing, but you are asking the wrong question. The correct question is:
What does CnR do that my grandmother can't do with apt-get?
I used Linspire back when it was called Lindows. CnR was by far the easiest installation system I had used to that point and is still the easiest software management system that I've used to date. Not that apt-get (with synaptics), rpm (with yum), and even emerge (with Kuroo or Porthole) are difficult, but they can hose your system when you really didn't do anything wrong. CnR, while it did not install everything perfectly every time, never broke my system, even when trying to do something major like a system upgrade. Granted, I haven't used it in years, (using Gentoo now) but I can't see that it could have gotten worse or harder to use. Things like this tend to get better over time.
I live in a small town between Austin and San Antonio TX. 100% of my Internet traffic passes through Austin. I have cable Internet. If I were to get DSL or even a T1 or T3, all of my traffic would still follow the same path. When construction cut a fiber line along I-35 between where I live and Austin, 100% of the Internet was down for everyone in my area. So all a company would need to do in order to have complete control over the Internet for everyone in my area would be to buy up the bandwidth on that single line.
I was searching for an Internet map that would show this, but this is the best I could come up with. They have a quote that explains it better than I can:
I've been following the net neutrality debate for a while now. Real briefly, the telecommunications industry is lobbying for the right to manage the traffic that flows over their networks as they see fit. For more read the post linked above. Everyone is focusing on the last mile, which makes sense because that is the part of the network where there is the most congestion. But getting rid of net neutrality would also give the companies that own the fiber and routers at the core of the Internet the ability to manage data there.
When I heard that AT&T was going to buy Bell South, I wondered how much of the backbone this new company would own. With all the attention on the last mile were we overlooking a burgeoning monopoly at the core?
Did you sleep through Econ 101? That's called Allocative_efficiency via the Free Price System. The market price allocation of goods and services is the best that humankind has come up with in the last 4,000 years of recorded history, and the only one that matches production to demand, because it is the only scheme that accounts for human nature and motivations. Price allocation means people will pay for a good if the good is worth the price and other people will produce the good if the selling price is worth their efforts. Every other type of allocation scheme has brought woe and shortages.
If your content is "worthy", people will pay what it is worth to see it. The installed bandwidth will increase to meet the demand (absent any non-competative tinkering like monopolies or goverment franchises, which may be the problem here).
Actually, I did... and I got a B. I did stay awake through most of the stuff about monopolies and public utilities. I see the Internet as a public utility. I understand paying more for more usage, but I don't see giving my neighbor priority because he pays more. How 'bout if the utility company cut off only the poor neighborhoods in a brown out? A bit closer would be if the cable company blocked CNN because FoxNews paid for the bandwidth and the maximum number of people in my area were already watching CNN. So I have the option of watching FoxNews or nothing at all. Of course, FoxNews would get more viewers, meaning they could charge more from advertisers, so they could buy more bandwidth... and of course, CNN would not be able to get advertisers because they have no viewers. Now replace FoxNews with Google and CNN with Yahoo.
Granted, people in Idaho don't care about Chicago's toll roads until they have to pay more for a loaf of bread that had to travel through Chicago to get to their local store. And yes, since many companies like UPS has enormous hubs in Chicago, everything that passes through them gets more expensive. This means that the people in Hawaii are paying for Chicago's toll roads twice: Once because UPS pays local taxes for those roads and again when their trucks pay the toll to get from Midway Airport to the UPS hub.
This is not about the end-user paying more for faster Internet service. This is about companies paying line owners to give their traffic priority. While a Comcast customer may not want to pay for blazing speed, they shouldn't have to wait longer or pay a toll when their web browsing takes them off of Comcast's lines and onto AT&T's. Internet lines are rarely local.
Finally, packets will follow the path of least resistance. This means that if Google pays gets priority for Time Warner's lines, most non-Google traffic will be routed around Time Warner, congesting AT&T's lines until AT&T starts giving priority to Yahoo, congesting everyone else s's lines further, which means that my slashdot post will get bogged down.
That's like saying someone can go to Ford or Honda and buy up all the cars, and thus deprive all others of automobiles.
No, it's like someone buying up all the lanes on the freeway and then dictating who can drive and how fast. And they wouldn't even have to buy all the roads, just a few "choke points". Actually, a bit more accurate would be that a company would pay the "road-company" to dictate who can drive what, to where and how fast. Of course, as each company owns different stretches of roads, I see different companies paying for different roads so that all traffic moves at a stand still.
However, the rest of your comment makes sense. And while the existing legislation under consideration may suck, the absence of it would imply that what I mentioned above is legal.
I don't have a problem with networks prioritizing data based on the port number or type of data. I do have problems with networks prioritizing data based on its target or originating computers.
Unfortunately, I see no reason why a company as large as Google or Microsoft couldn't create their own proprietary protocols like GDP or MS/IP and then pay the companies that own the wires to give priority to those particular protocols.
I guess I'm OK as long as the networks don't prioritize bandwidth based on a payment they have received, and it appears that is already the case.
Okay, you get some of your infrastructure (water, sewage) from the city. How does that translate into the Feds running the Internet again?
Think toll roads! I don't want the Internet to look like the Chicago freeway system... Full of tolls! Want to travel on the FREEway, pay a toll. Want to get on another road, pay a toll. Want to get off the FREEway, pay a toll. You can't get anywhere in Chicago without stopping every 5 minutes to pay a toll. I don't want to see the Internet become that way.
Granted, Chicago's streets are owned by the city gov't, but there are private roads all over the country... and they are all toll roads!
Who is "we", and who put "we" in the position of being in charge of what everybody else can do? If "we" is the government, I think "we the people" can count on them botching being in charge of the Internet.
Yes, We, as in WE the People who vote.
Governments, like it or not, are in the best position to provide certain services like roads, water, sewage, defense and so on. If private industries take over these services, bad things happen, like toll roads, dumped sewage and dirty water. Governments are wasteful because they are not bound by profit. Wasteful includes things like repairing roads that are still passable, but need repair and treating sewage before dumping it back into the water supply, even though it is expensive.
I think what will happen is that you will be charged for services on the Internet on top of your usual connection charges.
A couple of examples: Google has to pay AT&T, the company that owns the lines in your area, a premium to get higher bandwidth. Google passes the charges onto you and charges you $0.10 a search. Google pays AT&T a large premium to block all bandwidth to Yahoo. Google passes the charges onto the consumer by charging $0.25 per search.
Slashdot Mirror
You need an ID to drive a car in all 50 states now. How is this different?
Let's run through your list:
boarding a plane: Need an ID
opening an bank account: Need an ID (and Social Security number)
taking several other actions (like buying a beer, cashing a check, writing a check, using a credit card, driving a car.. the list goes on): Need an ID
Yeah, you pretty much need an ID to anything now, except my Texas state ID may or may not work in New Jersey. Seeing how few in Jersey have seen a TX ID, it's likely to get rejected. But with a national ID, my ID could NOT be refused in the other 49 states. So the way I see it, this actually INCREASES my freedoms while requiring nothing extra from me.
How does a national ID standard qualify as "regulating interstate commerce"? Where does it say that only a state can issue ID's? How is this NOT allowed in the necessary and proper clause?
My personal issue is that it further confuses the notion of identity; I'm me because I say so, not because my id says so. That my id says who I am means that to the extent that you trust that particular form of id(it could be fake), the body that issued it believes me to be the person on the id(I could have tricked them)
Great! How 'bout I say I'm you and crawl into bed with your wife tonight. After all, I'm you... I mean me because I say so, right? Maybe I'll go get a few credit cards in your... er.. my name and get that big-screen I've been eye-balling. That house you're living in... it's mine. See my name, right there on the mortgage. What? You say that's your name? Fine, it's my word against yours, we'll split the profit. Now get off my wife and lawn and take my kids with you, whoever you are!
Bullshit. We're supposed to believe that the enemies you allude to have vast resources and total commitment.
I don't know about their resources, but I don't doubt their commitment for a second! Besides, I was 16 and working at Burger King and I had a fake ID. I don't think I could have pulled it off if it required a retinal scan. Also, a national ID card could help in preventing ID theft.
Such pedestrian measures as standardized ID is not going to be an effective protection. The only people that this sort of ID affects are the citizenry.
Like searching people at airports? It's not meant to stop all terrorism, but it will help. I see we will disagree on terrorism forever, so let's move on...
Currently, we have 50 different standards for ID cards. Once you leave California, your ID is invalid. You could be prevented from cashing a check, opening a bank account, getting a job or even buying a friggin beer! The way I see it, with this standard, my state ID works in 50 states rather than just one. It actually INCREASES my rights and what I can do, and I don't have to change a thing since I have to carry a driver's license anyway.
The Hell it doesn't! Read it and weep:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
You mean Congress is not allowed to pass laws? What is their job exactly?
Everything you mentioned -- HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. -- is, in fact, unconstitutional!
Well, then I think you got bigger fish to fry than just a little ID card standard! May I recommend starting with the IRS.
Actually, it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The fact that the federal government has abused the commerce clause and completly disregarded most of the constitution for some time now doesn't make this particular encroachment right.
Again, no one can tell me how this is a violation of rights. Does it limit free speech? Does it search your house? Does it take away your guns or limit the freedom of the press? Does it keep you from worshiping the God of your choice or your right to petition your government? What right is violated here? Amendment X?
So are you telling me that Congress can not pass laws? Why do we keep sending those slackers to Washington for? I thought that was their job! Shows what I know!
Does that mean that weed is really legal?
"Why not?" should never be the standard for anything that enhances government power and/or limits individual liberty.
How does a national ID standard limit liberty any more that the existing standard set by the state of Maine or any of the other 49 states? How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today. (not to mention that you are already in a Federal database, probably several like Social Security, IRS and so on)
The standard should be "Why should we?".
Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.
And no, "We have to keep you safe." is not an adequate reason.
Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep me (and you) safe... How is this any different?
Nothing, except the federal government doesn't have the authority to enforce the law. The state of Maine refuses to comply not because they disagree with the law, but because they don't recognize the authority of the federal legislature to create such a law, nor of the executive to enforce it.
What authority do they have to force me to pay for Social Security and have a card for that? What authority does the state of Maine have to set the standards for ID's?
Still that doesn't answer my question. All the people here that bash the idea of a national ID can't be on the Maine legislature.
Please point out the section of the Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to require this
I'll show you as soon as you show me where in the Constitution it authorizes HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and everything else our gov't does that is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.
Where in the Constitution does it ALLOW federal government to control where people go? "Interstate commerce" would only apply if we brought back slaves, as they were 'commerce'.
Who said anything about telling people where they can and can't go? Why would an ID prevent you from going somewhere? Is there some secret clause in this law that states that once you receive this new ID, you must get permission before traveling over state lines? My Social Security card has never prevented me from going anywhere.
I don't think the fed has the authority to say what goes on a state-issued card. I'm not sure how you can get that authority from the commerce clause.
/., I doubt that it is just because it runs afoul of the commerce clause and it's certainly not a state's rights issue that has everyone all riled up.
With all the furor it gets here on
Seriously, someone explain to me what is wrong with a national ID standard... without saying "papers please".
Does Sprawl Make Us Fat?
No. Sitting on our fat asses makes us fat!
From TFA:
Why are they even trying to do cars?
Because companies like Honda and Ford won't produce a viable electric car on their own!
What does cnr do that I cant do with apt-get?
What does CnR do that YOU can't do with apt-get? Probably nothing, but you are asking the wrong question. The correct question is:
What does CnR do that my grandmother can't do with apt-get?
I used Linspire back when it was called Lindows. CnR was by far the easiest installation system I had used to that point and is still the easiest software management system that I've used to date. Not that apt-get (with synaptics), rpm (with yum), and even emerge (with Kuroo or Porthole) are difficult, but they can hose your system when you really didn't do anything wrong. CnR, while it did not install everything perfectly every time, never broke my system, even when trying to do something major like a system upgrade. Granted, I haven't used it in years, (using Gentoo now) but I can't see that it could have gotten worse or harder to use. Things like this tend to get better over time.
Note: Click-n-Run is based on apt-get.
I was searching for an Internet map that would show this, but this is the best I could come up with. They have a quote that explains it better than I can:
All that smoke in a couple of those pictures... Was that from the nitrogen or that pack of Camels sitting there?
Did you sleep through Econ 101? That's called Allocative_efficiency via the Free Price System. The market price allocation of goods and services is the best that humankind has come up with in the last 4,000 years of recorded history, and the only one that matches production to demand, because it is the only scheme that accounts for human nature and motivations. Price allocation means people will pay for a good if the good is worth the price and other people will produce the good if the selling price is worth their efforts. Every other type of allocation scheme has brought woe and shortages.
If your content is "worthy", people will pay what it is worth to see it. The installed bandwidth will increase to meet the demand (absent any non-competative tinkering like monopolies or goverment franchises, which may be the problem here).
Actually, I did... and I got a B. I did stay awake through most of the stuff about monopolies and public utilities. I see the Internet as a public utility. I understand paying more for more usage, but I don't see giving my neighbor priority because he pays more. How 'bout if the utility company cut off only the poor neighborhoods in a brown out? A bit closer would be if the cable company blocked CNN because FoxNews paid for the bandwidth and the maximum number of people in my area were already watching CNN. So I have the option of watching FoxNews or nothing at all. Of course, FoxNews would get more viewers, meaning they could charge more from advertisers, so they could buy more bandwidth... and of course, CNN would not be able to get advertisers because they have no viewers. Now replace FoxNews with Google and CNN with Yahoo.
Granted, people in Idaho don't care about Chicago's toll roads until they have to pay more for a loaf of bread that had to travel through Chicago to get to their local store. And yes, since many companies like UPS has enormous hubs in Chicago, everything that passes through them gets more expensive. This means that the people in Hawaii are paying for Chicago's toll roads twice: Once because UPS pays local taxes for those roads and again when their trucks pay the toll to get from Midway Airport to the UPS hub.
This is not about the end-user paying more for faster Internet service. This is about companies paying line owners to give their traffic priority. While a Comcast customer may not want to pay for blazing speed, they shouldn't have to wait longer or pay a toll when their web browsing takes them off of Comcast's lines and onto AT&T's. Internet lines are rarely local.
Finally, packets will follow the path of least resistance. This means that if Google pays gets priority for Time Warner's lines, most non-Google traffic will be routed around Time Warner, congesting AT&T's lines until AT&T starts giving priority to Yahoo, congesting everyone else s's lines further, which means that my slashdot post will get bogged down.
That's like saying someone can go to Ford or Honda and buy up all the cars, and thus deprive all others of automobiles.
No, it's like someone buying up all the lanes on the freeway and then dictating who can drive and how fast. And they wouldn't even have to buy all the roads, just a few "choke points". Actually, a bit more accurate would be that a company would pay the "road-company" to dictate who can drive what, to where and how fast. Of course, as each company owns different stretches of roads, I see different companies paying for different roads so that all traffic moves at a stand still.
However, the rest of your comment makes sense. And while the existing legislation under consideration may suck, the absence of it would imply that what I mentioned above is legal.
I don't have a problem with networks prioritizing data based on the port number or type of data. I do have problems with networks prioritizing data based on its target or originating computers.
Unfortunately, I see no reason why a company as large as Google or Microsoft couldn't create their own proprietary protocols like GDP or MS/IP and then pay the companies that own the wires to give priority to those particular protocols.
I guess I'm OK as long as the networks don't prioritize bandwidth based on a payment they have received, and it appears that is already the case.
Okay, you get some of your infrastructure (water, sewage) from the city. How does that translate into the Feds running the Internet again?
Think toll roads! I don't want the Internet to look like the Chicago freeway system... Full of tolls! Want to travel on the FREEway, pay a toll. Want to get on another road, pay a toll. Want to get off the FREEway, pay a toll. You can't get anywhere in Chicago without stopping every 5 minutes to pay a toll. I don't want to see the Internet become that way.
Granted, Chicago's streets are owned by the city gov't, but there are private roads all over the country... and they are all toll roads!
Who is "we", and who put "we" in the position of being in charge of what everybody else can do? If "we" is the government, I think "we the people" can count on them botching being in charge of the Internet.
Yes, We, as in WE the People who vote.
Governments, like it or not, are in the best position to provide certain services like roads, water, sewage, defense and so on. If private industries take over these services, bad things happen, like toll roads, dumped sewage and dirty water. Governments are wasteful because they are not bound by profit. Wasteful includes things like repairing roads that are still passable, but need repair and treating sewage before dumping it back into the water supply, even though it is expensive.
I think what will happen is that you will be charged for services on the Internet on top of your usual connection charges.
A couple of examples:
Google has to pay AT&T, the company that owns the lines in your area, a premium to get higher bandwidth. Google passes the charges onto you and charges you $0.10 a search.
Google pays AT&T a large premium to block all bandwidth to Yahoo. Google passes the charges onto the consumer by charging $0.25 per search.