×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

REAL ID In Its Death Throes, Says ACLU

kdawson posted about 7 years ago | from the go-ahead-and-board-that-plane dept.

Privacy 315

Dr. Eggman points us to Ars Technica for an article on the ACLU's view of the latest loosening and deadline extensions for REAL ID act compliance by the Department of Homeland Security. The rights organization believes that REAL ID is doomed. "The ACLU, which opposes the plan on civil liberties grounds, says that the many changes made since the Act was passed [in 2005] nearly 'negate the original intent of the program.' 'DHS is essentially whittling Real ID down to nothing... all in the name of denying Real ID is a failure,' said ACLU senior legislative counsel Tim Sparapani. 'Real ID is in its death throes, and any signs of life are just last gasps.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Real ID (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21258267)

Good, or bad?

Re:Real ID (0)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | about 7 years ago | (#21258321)

Good

Re:Real ID (1, Informative)

cromar (1103585) | about 7 years ago | (#21258329)

Totally bad. There is no problem to which Real ID is a solution. We already have state IDs. And federal Social Security numbers. And passports. I can't see any benefit to Real ID.

The feds got slapped on this one and it is making me laugh so hard. It would make me even happier if thy get their ass kicked.

Re:Real ID (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21258369)

We already have state IDs

We have 19 states that give driver's licenses (State ID) to people who are in the country illegally. You are an idiot.

Re:Real ID (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21258449)

the rest of us should deport illegals to those fucking states (looking you california)

Re:Real ID (1)

sholden (12227) | about 7 years ago | (#21258759)

California isn't one of those 19 states so you're looking in the wrong place.

Re:Real ID (1)

megaditto (982598) | about 7 years ago | (#21258499)

And this affects you how, exactly?

Re:Real ID (2, Interesting)

John Courtland (585609) | about 7 years ago | (#21258525)

Well, I can't speak for the GP, but assuming you reside in the United States, have you ever been in an auto accident with an individual who is not a legal resident?

Re:Real ID (2, Insightful)

megaditto (982598) | about 7 years ago | (#21258611)

Why wouldn't you want the 'illegals' to be licensed and insured if they are going to drive anyway?

Re:Real ID (2, Insightful)

alan_dershowitz (586542) | about 7 years ago | (#21258969)

Because the driver's license has been a de-facto state ID since forever, and changing that would upset a lot of social convenience. It seems like a lot of anguish so that some politicians can passive-aggressively avoid dealing with the immigration debate. The logical and correct solution is to stop avoiding the immigration debate. It's stupid on its face to everyone who doesn't have an agenda to give state IDs to people who are not here legally.

Re:Real ID (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | about 7 years ago | (#21258721)

Coincidentally, about a month ago my cousin was hit by an uninsured illegal while driving. Due to quick thinking she avoided a direct hit that would have killed her.

However, I have no idea how that should influence my decision. I would prefer:

a) Illegals not drive.

If that's not viable, I'd prefer

b) illegals be insured

although considering how much they charge teenage drivers, I can't imagine how anyone could afford an actuarially accurate number. That would still be better than the current situation of:

c) illegals do drive, without insurance.

Re:Real ID (3, Informative)

onkelonkel (560274) | about 7 years ago | (#21258985)

In British Columbia, the government runs the auto insurance. You can't register a vehicle (i.e. get a license plate) without insurance. Driving without insurance is illegal. Thus, almost everybody has insurance. This also makes "underinsured motorist" coverage dirt cheap, around $25/year, which gives you full coverage whether or not "the other guy" has any insurance or not.

I'm not saying our system is perfect, but it certainly would eliminate the problem you have described.

Re:Real ID (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21259053)

In thoery that's how it's supposed to work many places. In practice, it doesn't work.

Re:Real ID (2, Informative)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | about 7 years ago | (#21259093)

I'm sure that, on paper, that's exactly how it works here (Texas). It's just a matter of apathetic enforcement of the law. If you really wanted to be sure that no one can get on the road uninsured unless they steal a car, then police would have to show up the moment I pass the renewal deadline for my insurance policy without replacing it or transferring ownership of the car. Needless to say, this doesn't happen. I've seen ads where the police offer temporary "warrant amnesty", giving you a chance to turn yourself in for outstanding warrants. Now, if they have that big a problem following up on warrants (where there's actually a judcial order for arrest), what are the odds they're so vigilant about uninsured drivers?

And then of course, both B/C and Texas do nothing about the possibility that someone will buy a car (and they check you for insurance on the secondary market, right?) and then share it with illegals.

It's all nice and feel-good that uninsured driving is illegal, but all that means is more hassle for people who obey the law. Criminals and illegals can effectively evade it until an accident.

Re:Real ID (1)

alan_dershowitz (586542) | about 7 years ago | (#21259155)

In my state it's illegal to register or drive a car without insurance, but people still do it, for example illegal aliens. I suppose they don't register their vehicles for the same reason they don't get licenses. I don't think being illegally without insurance is a deterrence for people that are here illegally already and are driving without a license. Unless I am missing something here.

Re:Real ID (1)

cdrguru (88047) | about 7 years ago | (#21259077)

Yes, it would be nice if illegals didn't drive without insurance. However, most of them have no assets in the US so you can't exactly sue them.

They could be insured, if you were paying their insurance. Since they have no assets, they don't care. You can't exactly sue them. So they aren't going to pay for insurance, no matter what the cost. It could be a state-provided benefit for illegals though.

Re:Real ID (1)

harl (84412) | about 7 years ago | (#21258537)

So rather than stop giving IDs to people here illegally we should add another level of bureaucracy?

It strikes me that it would be easier, cheaper, and fairer to simply stop giving IDs to people here illegally. I mean they are here illegally.

Re:Real ID (2, Insightful)

l1gunman (463233) | about 7 years ago | (#21258893)

Better still, when the illegals show up to claim their latest 'benefit' of being in this country (their shiny new driver's license) grab 'em and ship 'em home. For Pete's sake, why call them illegals if we're not going to treat them as such?

Re:Real ID (1)

cdrguru (88047) | about 7 years ago | (#21259113)

We're already there, decision made. Illinois and other states have decided to give ID to illegals. So they can have a license. Has nothing to do with insurance. But because these people have no documentation, you can't have the regular rules for getting a driver's license or state ID - they couldn't provide the documentation.

So they just give them the ID with no documentation. It is just another benefit of coming to the US.

I don't care if they drive without a license, if the license doesn't prove anything. I'd rather they go home so we can export the jobs that are exportable to them in their country rather than taking over the non-exportable jobs here at lower wages.

Re:Real ID (1)

alan_dershowitz (586542) | about 7 years ago | (#21258547)

One purported benefit of Real ID was uniform standards for state identification. Constitutionally states are obligated to recognize others' state IDs, so it would be nice to have a standard in place so that if my state's ID is good, people don't just go next door where the license is printed on card stock or something. I read part of Real ID was a minimum standard for preventing forgery, and I don't think this is a bad idea.

Re:Real ID (1)

plague3106 (71849) | about 7 years ago | (#21258951)

Constitutionally states are obligated to recognize others' state IDs

Really? I must have missed that part of the Constitution. Can you point out where it says that? Or where it mentions IDs at all for that matter?

Re:Real ID (5, Informative)

alan_dershowitz (586542) | about 7 years ago | (#21259045)

Article 4, section 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause [wikipedia.org] .

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
This is the reason that your state-issued marriage license is recognized in the entire country (and incidentally, why the DOMA [wikipedia.org] Act banning a state's obligation to recognise other states' gay marriages is a crock of crap.)

Re:Real ID (1)

plague3106 (71849) | about 7 years ago | (#21259139)

Doh... I forgot about that part. Thanks for correcting me.

Re:Real ID (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 7 years ago | (#21259061)

Not IDs per se, but how about the Full Faith and Credit [usconstitution.net] clause of the Constitution?

Hell, I hate REAL ID as much as anyone, but rereading Article IV, Section 1, I'm beginning to wonder if this piece of shit actually is Constitutional (I hope not).

Re:Real ID (1)

FredThompson (183335) | about 7 years ago | (#21259095)

State IDs are on the verge of being irrelelvant because the states are starting to issue them to non-citizens. There must be a way to discriminate between citizen and non-citizen for many essential foundations of any sovereign society such as voting. There are only two reasons I can imagine why the Democrats want to simultaneously prohibit Federal ID while destroying State ID integrity:

1) Dissolve US sovereignty
2) Weaken State sovereignty and strengthen Federal sovereignty
3) Contrariansm for the sake of contrarianism
4) Exacerbating the problem so they can "solve" it if they gain control of the Federal government

Europeans have a national ID card and a driver's license. They are 2 separate and distinct documents. That seems to be where the U.S. is heading. IMNSHO, that will be a huge waste of money and resources. If State IDs (driver's licenses) are limited to proven citizens then the data can be cross-referenced electronically. This is an important aspect of "open borders" between the States and free flow of trade across State borders.

The Patriot Act gets a lot of negative comments here on Slashdot but some aspects of it are really, really good. For example, it's a lot easier for the Police to quickly determine if a person has an outstanding warrant in another state. I've personally seen how it allows the Police and credit card companies track use of stolen cards in real time and catch the thieves in the process of using the stolen cards within 30 minutes of the theft. That kind of integrated data couldn't happen without some form of co-operation.

Why they don't link the Social Security numbers to these ID searches is beyond me. If a Policeman pulls a car over for speeding in, say, Massachusetts and the driver has a driver's license issued in Maryland but to a stolen Social Security number (I can't remember if Maryland uses Social Security number for the driver's license number, some states do that.), shouldn't the Policeman be informed of that? An ID is only as good as the data on it. For ID to have any value, it must be verifiable and trustworthy.

Re:Real ID (1)

TufelKinder (66342) | about 7 years ago | (#21259205)

The feds got slapped on this one and it is making me laugh so hard.

The taxpayers got slapped would be more accurate.
How much did this never-to-be-implemented boondoggle
cost the American people, I wonder?

Re:Real ID (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 7 years ago | (#21258391)

Good - We shouldn't be using SSNs for identification (not even what they are intended for).

That being said, it probably is overkill. It would be better to have a method of central access to state id information as that the Real ID would provide. Phase in standardizations of State IDs, and viola, same effect, but probably cheaper and would make people happier.

Hasn't much of this been done already anyway?

Re:Real ID (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 years ago | (#21258949)

Good - We shouldn't be using SSNs for identification (not even what they are intended for).
Maybe the ACLU could start claiming that Social Security is a civil liberty violation.
I don't think we'll ever get the US populace off that crack, but we could at least be honest, labeling the tax "a tax", and stop the crappy accounting sophistries.

Re:Real ID (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 7 years ago | (#21259255)

If it were used for it's intended purpose, it wouldn't be so bad (IMO).

Also, I'm used to hearing it referred to as Social Security Tax, so I'm not sure how they aren't labelling it a tax.

Free BSd (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21258289)

is in its death throws

i hate to sound like a pessimist... (4, Insightful)

User 956 (568564) | about 7 years ago | (#21258335)

The rights organization believes that REAL ID is doomed.

Yeah, but they'll just do what they did with CARNIVORE. Wait a few months, change the name, and go about their plans as usual.

Re:i hate to sound like a pessimist... (1)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | about 7 years ago | (#21258399)

It's not the same thing. It is a new licensing initiative that would have created a nationwide burden and had no hopes of funding.

It doesn't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21258833)

As long as they can get SOMETHING passed, they can expand it later.

Remember, there are TWO approaches.

#1. Demand EVERYTHING and then "compromise" by skipping the worst aspects. This is the fastest.

#2. Get ANYTHING passed and then go for "scope creep" to expand your authority. This is (usually) the most reliable. The old "frog in a pot".

Re:i hate to sound like a pessimist... (1)

BoothbyTCD (713107) | about 7 years ago | (#21258891)

Yes, but REAL ID requires the active cooperation and participation of state and local agencies. Changing the name won't change the fact that in order to get what they wanted they will still have to for example issue new ids etc. States that already vowed not to cooperate with the program won't suddenly decided to help out when they change the name, since the burdens it threatens to place on them are the same. Carnivore, on the other hand was a covert intelligence gathering operation. When everyone found out about it they could disavow it then come back and change the name and carry on when the furor died down.

So how isn't this a national ID again? (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | about 7 years ago | (#21258347)

DHS is at pains to point out that REAL ID is not a national identity card program but a set of regulations that direct states how to create their drivers' licenses and state ID cards. The program mandates digital photos, bar-coded information, and more stringent document checks, and it directs all states to link their databases with one another.

So with the bar-coded information we can't wipe the readability of the card with a magnet to stop the assholes at bars, liquors stores, etc from scanning us unnecessarily. Digital photos means that everyone's picture will be merged into the database of information shared with everyone else and "more stringent document checks" means that even more information will be in that same database. When all this information is linked how is it not a national ID database again?

I'm proud of the states that didn't crumble under the pressure of the Federal Government. At least someone out there is willing to tell them to fuck off -- regardless if it was over funding and not privacy implications.

Re:So how isn't this a national ID again? (1)

Bryansix (761547) | about 7 years ago | (#21258597)

The states that complained were the ones who's driver's licenses look like monopoly money. It's these states that make getting a fake ID so easy and contribute to under-age drinking.

Re:So how isn't this a national ID again? (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | about 7 years ago | (#21258685)

It's these states that make getting a fake ID so easy and contribute to under-age drinking.

oh noes, instead of raiding mom & dad's liquor cabinet they go buy it at the store.. OMG SOMEONE CALL CNN.

Re:So how isn't this a national ID again? (5, Insightful)

FrankieBaby1986 (1035596) | about 7 years ago | (#21258693)

I'd say its the drinking age that does the most to contribute to underage drinking.

Re:So how isn't this a national ID again? (0, Redundant)

smussman (1160103) | about 7 years ago | (#21259117)

I'd say its the drinking age that does the most to contribute to underage drinking.
I agree.

After all, if we didn't have a drinking age, we wouldn't have underage drinking!

Re:So how isn't this a national ID again? (4, Insightful)

plague3106 (71849) | about 7 years ago | (#21258787)

Why should government be stopping anyone from drinking? That's a job for the parents in my book. It also takes away the "I want to drink because I'm not supposed to" attitude.

Re:So how isn't this a national ID again? (1)

dpilot (134227) | about 7 years ago | (#21259081)

As a resident of one of the states that fought RealID, my license does NOT look like monopoly money. It has my photo, description, select "identity information", a not-really-bar code, but still machine-readable code on the back, organ donor checkboxes, and some anti-counterfeiting measures similar to those on modern money. (But it's laminated plastic, not simple paper, either.)

Re:So how isn't this a national ID again? (1)

Samalie (1016193) | about 7 years ago | (#21259109)

We all know Hawaii is the easiest. Hello McLovin

Re:So how isn't this a national ID again? (1)

rhakka (224319) | about 7 years ago | (#21259287)

In my state, bars don't even accept out of state ID if you look underage.

Regardless, a universal ID is not an acceptable price to pay to "fight underage drinking". yes, I know, won't we think of the children! But in this case, I'd rather think of the adults, and what they tend to do with too much consolidation of power.

Re:So how isn't this a national ID again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21258835)

So with the bar-coded information we can't wipe the readability of the card with a magnet to stop the assholes at bars, liquors stores, etc from scanning us unnecessarily.

And with a little work with an inkjet printer and a sheet of adhesive mylar, you can have an attractive-looking barcode that doesn't read at all in a scanner. Doesn't even have to have incorrect information; all it would take is a bad checksum code.

Take out the feeding tube! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21258363)

Vote Ron Paul 08!

Remember, remember... 4 mill plus in 24

They won't be calling us crazy for much longer.

We failed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21258365)

When was the last time a government bureaucrat ever characterized some measure as a failure? They don't fail. They de-emphasize, re-prioritize or reevaluate. No failures. The non-failure of "REAL ID" is nothing new. Don't worry; Hillary is coming; she'll give you lots of free stuff. Yay!

Internet branch? (1)

moogied (1175879) | about 7 years ago | (#21258371)

Anyone know if the real ID was going to have an internet branch?

I could certainly use that when purchasing uh... "goods" on wow. I hate the idea of buying "goods" from a man whos only pretending to be your normal wow player. Ya know, 19, blond, 38c, and wanting a real "man".

Re:Internet branch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21258405)

You are trying too hard for those mod points, sir =( The "there are no girls who play games on the internet" card is, while true, a sadly overused and, now, unfunny cliche.

It's all about the money (4, Informative)

Nightlily (140378) | about 7 years ago | (#21258375)

Real ID isn't dying because of privacy concerns. I think (at least in Michigan), it's about the cost for the states. States were ok with the plan until it hit them that it cost them money. Also let's consider the fact the states were asked to basically implement Real ID after they spent tons of money on homeland security.

Re:It's all about the money (1)

BlueMerle (1161489) | about 7 years ago | (#21258483)

That is a big issue certainly. But there are some states (Maine I think ) that oppose it on privacy and other issues.

HEY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21258387)

...in its death throes, and any signs of life are just last gasps.
That line belongs to Dick Cheney! :P

*ducks*

Re:HEY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21258397)

Yeah, and it worked so well for him!

While we're on the subject of "throes"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21258389)

I've heard that the insurgency is in its last throes.

This sounds familiar. (1, Interesting)

MonkeyCookie (657433) | about 7 years ago | (#21258431)

Real ID is in its death throes, and any signs of life are just last gasps.

Didn't Cheney say the same thing about the insurgency in Iraq a couple years ago?

It's a shame. (5, Insightful)

kabocox (199019) | about 7 years ago | (#21258439)

There are things that I think that the ACLU should fight. This isn't one of them though. RealID will never really go away. What it'll become is a federal requirement for the next incarnation of state DLs having to match a federal data standard. This is generally a good thing. What the really big up roar with the current RealID is that many states have gone their own way with having bar codes or digital information on their DLs, but only that state's systems can read the info off the card, and no one is willing to spend additional money just to conform to a federal standard. The main idea behind RealID is that you could have any of the 50 state's DL and they'd all "just work" in each other's and the federal computer system. Making "just work" would require lots of effort and money though.

Let's be honest there is no additional privacy problems with RealID. If you are in a position to be stopped and asked for State or Federal ID by a state or federal government official for government services, then you are either going to provide that information in a verbal or written form to those federal, state, or city officials or you won't be receiving that government service that you wanted. If you wanted to access a "controlled access area", then you could be "detained" while those government officials make sure that you aren't on any most wanted list, have outstanding warrants or on any special watch for lists.

If the government is hunting for you, they know your name and last known address. RealID was supposed to make it trivial to swipe a DL through a reader so all that DL info could be auto populated rather than manually entered. This is supposed to be a the huge privacy concern needing ACLU attention?

Re:It's a shame. (1)

heckler95 (1140369) | about 7 years ago | (#21258513)

I think another issue with Real ID is going to be the increased confidence in these new ID's that are supposedly "unfakable". Now a terrorist with a corrupt insider at the DMV can get a scannable, bona fide, *REAL* ID with someone else's name on it that would not be given a second thought since the barcode/watermark/etc is so "secure".

Re:It's a shame. (5, Informative)

nilbog (732352) | about 7 years ago | (#21258545)

No, that's not what its for. Clearly you have been mislead.

"Under REAL ID, the government would have easy access to an incredible amount of personal data stored in one national database (or, according to the DHS description, 56 State and Territory databases, each of which can access all of the others)."

The senator from New Mexico (I believe it was New Mexico anyway) said that the ultimate goal is to track everything. Every time you buy something, even with cash, it will be entered into the national database. 7Eleven will require you to swipe your card for purchasing gas, a snickers bar, or explosives from their terrorist discount bin.

Real ID IS bad news. It has severe privacy implications. Please research before commenting. The quote above is from here [epic.org] .

The purpose of a driver's license is to show and prove proficiency in driving, not anything else. It is not meant as a defacto identification card or anything else. It is a license to drive, period.

The fourth amendment guarantees us security of papers. How can we have security of papers if all of our information is stored in every government database across the entire union? That sounds like the opposite of security of papers. We can refuse to show our papers, but it won't matter because the government will already have them.

Re:It's a shame. (1)

kabocox (199019) | about 7 years ago | (#21258709)

The purpose of a driver's license is to show and prove proficiency in driving, not anything else. It is not meant as a defacto identification card or anything else. It is a license to drive, period.

Do you write checks or use credit cards? Usually, you are required to show your DL at the same time. That state government issued DL is the only ID that businesses have of verifying who you actually are. I'm sure that folks don't want the DL or the SSN used as a form of ID other than just between the individual and that government office, but that's not how our world works. The state DL has become the defacto universal US ID card. Have you tried buying beer, tobacco, fire arms, or spray paint without a DL for ID? We already have RealID in practice.

Re:It's a shame. (1)

masdog (794316) | about 7 years ago | (#21258795)

Credit Cards? Are you kidding? Unless I'm making a big ticket purchase, I am never asked to show an ID when using my credit card. My girlfriend even has "Ask For ID" written in the signature panel, and its rare that someone even checks.

Re:It's a shame. (1)

plague3106 (71849) | about 7 years ago | (#21258841)

I think you need to lookup the facts more; first, nothing currently requires you to have a DL. Second, you CAN buy those restricted items if you have state issued photo id (distinctly different than a DL).

I'd like to go back and rethink why as free americans we need permission to use roads which we as americans fund.

Re:It's a shame. (1)

cromar (1103585) | about 7 years ago | (#21258909)

...but that's not how our world works.

That doesn't make it a good thing.

Re:It's a shame. (1)

cdrguru (88047) | about 7 years ago | (#21258943)

Not really. When I can get a note from a non-governmental agency that tells the state ID bureau "Nevermind your rules, give this person an ID." it means there are no requirements and any fake ID is just as good as the state-issued one.

What is happening in Illinois is the local Mexican embassy/consulate office can give you a little card that says you don't have to present any other proof of who you are because there isn't any other proof. The Secretary of State's office has decided to accept this and issue you either a driver's license or state ID card in whatever name you choose to present.

I believe several other states are doing exactly the same thing. The supposed goal is to make sure that all illegal immigrants have valid driver's licenses. What exactly this does to help matters when an uninsured illegal causes an accident is very, very unclear to me. But we now have lots of people running around with whatever sort of ID they want, in whatever name they would like to have one.

So how is having a ID like that any better than having no ID at all?

Re:It's a shame. (2)

nilbog (732352) | about 7 years ago | (#21259253)

Businesses are not allowed to require an ID to accept credit card transactions. Despite what you might think.

Re:It's a shame. (1)

R2.0 (532027) | about 7 years ago | (#21258829)

You had me until you started talking about "papers". The "papers" in the Constitution refer to ones writings and other documents, NOT "papers" from cheap spy movies with Russian accents.

Under your interpretation, it would be fine to implement a National ID system, as long as one didn't have to cough it up at every transaction., i.e. you could keep your "papers" secure.

Under the original interpretation, the govt. keeps it's damned nose out of my business and it's paws off my person and property, unless so allowed by a court of law. Period. There is nothing against a natioanl ID card in the constitution per se, but the idea is so anathema to personal freedom that it should fall under the "just effin' obvious" clause. There is no need to require someone to be able to PROVE who they are at all times when the government doesn't have the right to ASK who you are at any time.

I know the latter isn't the scenario now, but I'd rather strive for that ideal of "security" than the first.

Re:It's a shame. (1)

nilbog (732352) | about 7 years ago | (#21259337)

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ..."

That's some wacky interpretation of the constitution you've come up with there. Imagine the founding fathers "We need to protect peoples rights! Yea! And their property, yes! And also their poetry and short story collections!" Um... No, the bill of rights here is referring to your papers as in your documents relating to identity, birth, etc.

In other words, a agent of the government (a cop, federal agent, etc.) cannot stop and ask you for your ID (aka papers) for no reason. We can't have checkpoints. We can't have tracking systems. We make an exception to this when a cop actually witnesses you do something illegal, or has reasonable evidence to suspect you of something illegal, but otherwise they are not allowed to ask for ID. You're not even required to have ID in the first place (unless you're driving).

I really hope you're not distorting the bill of rights as part of some sort of agenda. This is exactly the kind of talk I would expect to hear from a president who wants to take away people's rights and institute a police state. In your case, I will chalk it up to ignorance.

Re:It's a shame. (1)

compro01 (777531) | about 7 years ago | (#21258935)

The purpose of a driver's license is to show and prove proficiency in driving, not anything else. It is not meant as a defacto identification card or anything else. It is a license to drive, period.

in most cases, it's a 2-in-1 card. it serves are both a license to drive and as government-issued identifacation. you can get a non-license "state ID card".

here in Saskatchewan, we have our ID card and our actual driver's license is a small sheet of cardstock-like paper that we get a new one of every year and a new ID card every 4 years.

Re:It's a shame. (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | about 7 years ago | (#21258557)

RealID did nothing beneficial, but made it real easy for the feds to watch your movements.

How?

Make it a federal requirement for everything.

Alcohol? Scan.
Cigarettes? Scan.
Bank transactions? Scan.
Anything they want a scan done on, they just ram through a federal law to require a scan of your RealID.

What purpose does this serve? Security? Gimme a freaking break. It does nothing but needlessly invade the privacy of every citizen of this country while providing ZERO security whatsoever.

It's a program that needs to die and STAY DEAD. Lest you be required to present your RealID any time a cop asks or risk arrest (federal requirements for travel between states you know, commerce clause and whatnot...)

Re:It's a shame. (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | about 7 years ago | (#21259209)

It's a bit like the war. The apparent reason to government insiders was financial necessity. The apparent reason for the public was to treat some kind of dire evil. The real reason is power and protection of the wealthy at the behest of the hidden hand.

The purpose of government is nolonger the service of the populace, but the suppression of any uprising against the establishment. And if there is to be any uprising, it must be controlled by the establishment.

Re:It's a shame. (2, Funny)

schwit1 (797399) | about 7 years ago | (#21258579)

"Let's be honest there is no additional privacy problems with RealID." The government wants to share data with Mexico, Europe and Canada and you don't consider that a privacy problem? The government want to eventually get RFID into DLs and you don't consider that a privacy problem? Let me guess, you are from North Korea or the former East Germany?

Re:It's a shame. (2, Insightful)

stevedcc (1000313) | about 7 years ago | (#21258665)

"Let's be honest there is no additional privacy problems with RealID." The government wants to share data with Mexico, Europe and Canada and you don't consider that a privacy problem? The government want to eventually get RFID into DLs and you don't consider that a privacy problem? Let me guess, you are from North Korea or the former East Germany?
Excuse me, but Europe actually has data privacy laws, unlike the USA. If your data DID get over here, at least the law prevents it being used for any purpose other than the one for which it was legitemately obtained. Whereas when MY data was given ILLEGALY to the American government because I got on a plane to the US, it had no protection at all.

Re:It's a shame. (1)

plague3106 (71849) | about 7 years ago | (#21258873)

Huh? I think you need to READ what was actually posted. East Germany, you know, the nation that no longer exists that was part of the Soviet Union since the end of WW2 to the fall of the Berlin Wall? You DO know about that right? East, not Eastern!

Re:It's a shame. (1)

stevedcc (1000313) | about 7 years ago | (#21258913)

I did read. I was merely pointing out that at least when his data comes over here, it's protected, whereas when the US government illegaly takes mine, it's not. Quite an important difference.

Re:It's a shame. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21258917)

Everyone is pointing out the flaws of a competent government. I have yet to see one of those so I'll point out the flaws of the incompetent(realistic) government.

1. To run a RealID system that tracks everything (yes, that's their end-game stated goal as others have said) it would take a massive data center. Run by government contractors, who designed, implemented and maintain this behemoth.

2. Data decay in a well maintained database is a fairly large problem which stems from data not being updated, data entry errors, and just flat out poorly designed databases.

With just these 2 things on their plate.. not to mention management issues, corruption issues, and normal communication issues this database would be 100% assured to have faulty data in it that would inevitably screw over someone. And all of this effort would be for what?

Of course it is (1)

TheBrutalTruth (890948) | about 7 years ago | (#21258467)

For now - luckily the States are poor and can't divert funds from their pork projects for it. But it will resurface, perhaps with another name, in time. It's like Dr. Evil - keeps coming back to rule us all.

I propose a NO ID Act - everyone, turn in your UID's and become the glorious AC's we all really want to be. That will set an example, like a hunger strike. Except we can eat. And post as AC's.

You don't need to see his identification (1)

Billosaur (927319) | about 7 years ago | (#21258495)

Identification is only as good as the people screening it. You can standardize driver's license standards all over the place, but in the end, if the guy who is supposed to be scrutinizing the id isn't paying attention or is typically lackadaisical, the id is worthless. It's a mechanism in any formulaic Hollywood movie, but it happens to be true. When was the last time a sales clerk bothered to look on the back of your credit card for a signature, or compare it to the one written on the slip/screen?

Re:You don't need to see his identification (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21258595)

Credit signatures aren't for identification; you're saying you agree to the contract of the card (when you sign the card) and that you won't charge back the purchase (when you sign the receipt). That's a very general view, but you can do more research.

Cheers to the ACLU (3, Insightful)

Maestro485 (1166937) | about 7 years ago | (#21258521)

It's sometimes easy to forget about the work that organizations such as the ACLU do. I doubt most citizens are even aware of the kind of things that the ACLU actively fights for.

Organizations like these should be applauded for their work. We need more people willing to do this kind of thing.

Re:Cheers to the ACLU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21259179)

It's sometimes easy to forget about the work that organizations such as the ACLU do. I doubt most citizens are even aware of the kind of things that the ACLU actively fights for.
According to my parents, at least, the ACLU are a bunch of freedom hating socialists that want to outlaw Christianity. Nevermind that the ACLU has defend end Christians...

So... (1)

JustShootMe (122551) | about 7 years ago | (#21258587)

Do the rest of us have FAKE IDs?

Wish that'd happened 20 years ago when I could really use one. :)

Re:So... (1)

shredswithpiks (867616) | about 7 years ago | (#21259059)

well, getting the pun out of the way and bringing this to seriousness... a bar-coded id, I think, would really make fake IDs more common. As it is now, if I go to a bar or a liquor store or something some guy checks my ID to make sure the birthdate is good and that the picture matches me. If we let everyone get lazy all they have to do is scan it and get a green light... thus all someone needs to do is get an ID that says 21 and the bar-keeps handheld ID checker gives out the green light. Nobody has to look at the picture.

Real ID will not be stopped. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21258593)

Real ID will not be stopped and it is yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like America Deceived (book) [iuniverse.com] from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul (who raised a record $4 million yesterday) and save this great country.

Re:Real ID will not be stopped. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21258889)

Hmmm, when is the "Ron Paul" corrolary to Godwin's law going to go into effect?

Re:Real ID will not be stopped. (1)

z-j-y (1056250) | about 7 years ago | (#21259187)

Why can't people mention Ron Paul on this issue at this time? Is it a slashdot taboo or anything? It was OK for slashdot to cover Howard Dean's internet campaign, but not Ron Paul's - hmmm why?

Re:Real ID will not be stopped. (1)

plague3106 (71849) | about 7 years ago | (#21258911)

Will Ron Paul effectively dismantle most of the Federal government (FBI, CIA, NSA, our standing army, the FCC, etc)? If not, he's no different than anyone else.

Re:Real ID will not be stopped. (1)

Elemenope (905108) | about 7 years ago | (#21259201)

You clearly have been living under a Ron Paul-free rock. Fer goshsakes, visit his site or Google the man.

Re:Real ID will not be stopped. (1)

plague3106 (71849) | about 7 years ago | (#21259331)

I hear about him on this site, and sometimes in relation to his fund-raising on the radio.

Re:Real ID will not be stopped. (1)

R2.0 (532027) | about 7 years ago | (#21259127)

Real ID will not be stopped and it is yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
"They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon."
You mean the book that was never LISTED on Amazon because it was published by a subsidiary of Barnes and Noble?

They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
Local police, who were smacked down HARD by the local courts. Feds had absolutely zero to do with it.

They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
That is still legally gray. Wiretapping 2 foreigners is OK, 2 americans is illegal, but when there's one of each? Courts haven't ruled. And it was Clinton policy that it was legal as well.

They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
Habeus doesn't apply to Gitmo. Period. If it is a POW camp, it doesn't apply, and if it is a camp for insurgents and saboteurs from another country, it doesn't apply. My guess is that the courts will decide that it doesn't fall under either, but that is because it is a case of first impression - no one has been in this situation before. In previous wars, insurgents were shot on the street. I'll agree about the Padilla case, but that is 1 case, not wholesale rounding up of dissidents.

They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
8th amendment applies to cruel and unusual punishment under the penal system. It violates the Geneva convention.

They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Huh? What foreign government?

Support Dr. Ron Paul (who raised a record $4 million yesterday) and save this great country.
Oh yeah, I know that guy - I loved "Puff, the Magic Dragon"!

Your sentiment is admirable. Maybe if you get real arguments instead of the pathetic examples above, someone would pay more attention to you.

real "open social" id (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21258599)

Here is my OpenSocial: 263-18-3946.

Security through openness.

Let's not forget... (4, Insightful)

gillbates (106458) | about 7 years ago | (#21258655)

That all of the 9/11 terrorists had valid ID's

Granted, there might be some benefits to a unified ID across the 50 states, but combating terrorism isn't one of them. Instead, we should be asking if the other so-called benefits are worth the privacy invation and expansion of the Federal government that this program would entail.

Exactly why are my Federal tax dollars being used for this sort of thing, when it seems perfectly clear that my state government is already perfectly capable of issuing ID? The implications that someone is a terrorist if they can't produce the "satisfactory" identification document is a Constitutional problem, not a law enforcement issue.

Besides, what would an elderly father in law - who can't legally drive - do? Should he really be denied seeing his daughter married because he can't produce the ID to board a plane? This bill assumes (incorrectly) that everyone has an ID. That's not the way it's supposed to work.

Re:Let's not forget... (1)

Tinyn (1100891) | about 7 years ago | (#21258713)

Im pretty sure all States will issue non-drivers license 'State IDs'

Re:Let's not forget... (3, Interesting)

cdrguru (88047) | about 7 years ago | (#21258809)

1. States issue photo IDs already to people that do not drive.

2. The problem is exactly that the states are issuing VALID ID to anyone. In Chicago, for example, you can get a driver's license or state ID with a birth certificate or passport. Or, if you happen to not have either one of those, you can get a note from the Mexican embassy saying in effect to give this person an ID with no further verificattion. Yes indeed, Illinois does recognize the authority of the Mexican embassy to determine ID requirements for the state.

Please tell me the difference between my drawing a driver's license with a crayon and using it and what Illinois is doing. I don't see any difference at all.

If the states are going to issue an ID in any name with no proof this pretty much means the ID has no value. Of course people are going to abuse the system. Why can't I have three driver's licenses in different names under this sort of system? Why should teens pay for fake ID when they can get a "real" one from the state?

The reason behind the Federal rules is to put a stop to the states that are issuing ID with no rules whatsoever.

Re:Let's not forget... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21259271)

An Illinois state ID or driver's license requires considerably more documentation than you have listed. Moreover, what does it matter? If the Federal government has a valid ID in its passports, than all you and anyone else need require for valid-ID situations is a passport. Let us not make this more complicated than it need be. Don't like the state IDs? Then do not accept them. There, problem solved.

Re:Let's not forget... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21258879)

A real ID system may have allow the federal govt. to realize that people on a govt. terrorist watch list were in the country, and prevented 9/11. They would have gotten information that these people applied for ID's. Use your brain instead of regurgitating left wing propaganda.

Pick your poison (1)

athloi (1075845) | about 7 years ago | (#21258657)

More anarchy, crime, terrorism, fear... or stronger government. There's probably a third way around this that involves smaller nations with fewer rules, but that's for political theorists, not technical writers.

Re:Pick your poison (2, Insightful)

cromar (1103585) | about 7 years ago | (#21258839)

More anarchy, crime, terrorism, fear... or stronger government.

Our government perpetrates more anarchy, crime, terrorism, and fear than any "enemy combatants."

...but that's for political theorists, not technical writers.

No, its not for political theorists. It is for the governed to decide how they will be governed. You don't need a degree in Political Science to know the difference between right and wrong.

Or refuse poison entirely (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | about 7 years ago | (#21259027)

More anarchy, crime, terrorism, fear... or stronger government.


or a restoration of the concept of innocent until proven guilty, trust of the public, and personal moral choice without any real fallout despite what fearmongers spout off about anarchy, crime, and terrorism.

funny, but the crime rates were fine before invasive policies were introduced, and they will be fine after they're repealed, assuming we dont (or haven't already) fall into fascism.

You see, I don't suspect my neighbors, and when i see someone who isn't white walking down the street I actually assume theyre doing something non-destructive, you know.. like just walking because they feel like it, or to give their dog exercise, or to head to a friend's or the store.

people who do will just need to bolt their doors, armor their houses, and spend the rest of their lives crawling on the floor commando style so the evil terrorists dont get them.

What's the problem? (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | about 7 years ago | (#21259001)

I don't understand exactly how such IDs would be a violation of our privacy. We already have such identification. The key distinction is that it's a scattered mess of documentation, spread across a driver's license, passport, social security card and who knows what else? How exactly is conveniently condensing all that information onto a single card an invasion of privacy?

Most of the rest of the world already uses similar ID cards in one form or another and I've seen no issues. This proposed card simply takes advantage of existing technologies to converge identification onto one card. The thing with current ID cards in other nations is that citizens still need separate driver's licenses and still need to carry passports when traveling overseas. But I know that some nations are already in the process of developing more sophisticated cards.

I suppose identity theft is a concern. Beyond that, however, what's the concern? So the police can identify a person more quickly with these cards than they can with the current system. I can't help but think people are getting worked up about something they're already living with.

I'm a lot more concerned about the trend I see with our government trying to control every aspect of our lives, for the so-called good of the people. A modernized form of ID is a non-event.

Re:What's the problem? (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 7 years ago | (#21259161)

Read up.

Please, scroll up and read the posts before yours.

Revel in your ignorance, and seek to correct it.

I'm a lot more concerned about the trend I see with our government trying to control every aspect of our lives, for the so-called good of the people.
Then you should see EXACTLY what is wrong with RealID.

Fascinating inversion. (2, Interesting)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | about 7 years ago | (#21259141)

The Feds want a 1984-style system of ID for citizens, but will do almost nothing about the flood of illegals coming across the Southern border.

The states are refusing to comply on the ID card, and are enforcing border controls.

This is a fascinating inversion of control.

It was just a failure of marketing (1)

palladiate (1018086) | about 7 years ago | (#21259239)

This all comes down to bad marketing on behalf of the DHS. With the proper ad campaigns, people would be less apprehensive.

Fade in of serious-looking woman.

"To stop people from making fake IDs, we called them "Real IDs."

"With Real ID, we can easily track minorities and other poor people. Anyone we can't track can be easily deported.

"With Real ID, you know when someone shows you a Real ID, it's a real ID. It's in the name."

Cut to Real ID logo.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?