Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Terror Arrest Used As Fodder To Fund Real ID Act

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the excuses-excuses-excuses dept.

Privacy 212

BeatTheChip writes "There's been a lot of buzz in recent days concerning the deadline to deliver on the federal Real ID Act. Congress is looking for corners to cut. One tactic is to attach emergency policy to the Real ID in order to sustain funding for its development by authoring members in Congress. In an effort to link the two, Rep. Lamar Smith and others asked DHS to increase enforcement of the Real ID Act over a terror suspect apprehended by lawful means."

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

As a US citizen (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362564)

I wonder what kind of judicial punishment I would get for refusing this if it went into law.

Re:As a US citizen (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35362604)

It almost seems more convenient to just use a national ID.

I mean, if I could replace my driver's license and passport with this card, and it could act as an oAuth for any other service ( meaning complaint companies wouldn't need to issue their own magic cards anymore ), and especially if this card erased the need for multiple proofs of ID I'd be fine with having it. I'm not normally a convenience over security guy, but I really don't get why people flip shit over this when you already have a local nation id in the form of a driver's license / state issued photo id and your passport.

captcha: infringe

Re:As a US citizen (0)

genghisjahn (1344927) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362732)

Of course you got modded down. You asked, "Hey, what's the big deal? Maybe it could be a good thing..."

Re:As a US citizen (5, Insightful)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362906)

I can decline to get a driver's license, and I can decline to get a passport. I don't have to have any id at all if I don't want. The implication is that I don't need identification or special permission to move freely about the country of which I am a citizen.

With a national ID card scheme, I don't have a choice to opt out. Such a card exists solely for "papers please" moments. The implication is that I am not free to move about the country of which I am a citizen.

Re:As a US citizen (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362990)

Also, it is NOT a national ID. It is issued by my state...other states and the federal govt, for the most part..do not have the information from my DL immediately upon query. There isn't a national drivers license database.

And most important...where the fuck is it in the constitution for the Federal Govt. to issues national id??

Re:As a US citizen (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363174)

State, national, what's the difference? Only in scale. Sometimes you need the feds to protect you from the state. Authority is authority. All you're choosing is whose foot you want up your ass. The natural birthright is to be able to move about without being tagged like cattle.

Re:As a US citizen (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363310)

State, national, what's the difference? Only in scale. Sometimes you need the feds to protect you from the state. Authority is authority. All you're choosing is whose foot you want up your ass. The natural birthright is to be able to move about without being tagged like cattle.

In terms of abuses of power ... the states are saintly figures of altruism who walk on water, heal the sick, feed the poor, and keep your cereal from getting soggy in milk when compared to the federal government. It's different when the people running things are not so damned far removed from being neighbors in or near your own community. State governments also don't receive nearly the sort of "attention" and dollars from lobbyists and special interests that the feds do. It does happen, but not nearly as much.

You as a taxpaying citizen are far better represented in your state government than you could ever dream of knowing at the federal level. And if all else fails, you can vote with your feet and take yourself and your tax dollars to another state that's more sane.

I heard a fable once about a particular culture's ancient rulers. When a man was to become a local king, the way his territory was determined was simple. He would stand on the very tallest hilltop he could find. Everything he could see was his to rule and not one acre more. The belief was that it's very dangerous to allow a man to rule more than he can see. Smaller and more local is how you lessen the pitfalls that come with political power. Compared to the lumbering gigantic monster that is the U.S. Federal Government, the state governments are quite close to this ideal.

Re:As a US citizen (1)

Redlazer (786403) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363520)

Well said, but I think you're putting too much faith in the local government. I would be curious what a nation would look like with most of it's power deliberated at the State level (or province, as I'm in Canada).

And what's to stop someone from leaving the country, rather than just the state?

Re:As a US citizen (1)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363630)

Well said, but I think you're putting too much faith in the local government. I would be curious what a nation would look like with most of it's power deliberated at the State level (or province, as I'm in Canada).

And what's to stop someone from leaving the country, rather than just the state?

It's far easier for a U.S. citizen to move from one U.S. state to another U.S. state than it would be to emigrate to another country.

Just off the top of my head ... another country would almost certainly mean changing your money to a different currency. For an American, it would likely mean getting used to the metric system. It would mean learning a whole different set of laws. It may mean learning a new language. It is possible but far less likely that you could remain with the same employer (than if you were moving from one U.S. state to another).

Then there is the culture shock. For example, in many countries bribing police officers is considered a standard practice. It's just the way things are done. For an American that would be quite a surprise, since in the USA that's a really great way to end up in jail (the way to do that in the USA is to bribe, err I mean make contributions of course, to the politicians who direct the police).

Not to mention that you'd have to obey the immigration laws of the country. They might or might not let you move there, something that's not a concern for moving from one U.S. state to another. They might let you move there, but only if you have a certain amount of money. You may have to perform military service. You may have restrictions about what kind of property you may own and similar things (for example, in Mexico, foreign nationals may be denied ownership of the highly sought-after oceanfront properties).

It's definitely harder to move to a foreign country and become a naturalized citizen there.

Re:As a US citizen (1)

Redlazer (786403) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363960)

Interesting, but I think you're off the mark ultimately.

Things like changing currency, a new (better) measurement system, different laws - those are easy. A hassle, to be certain, but far from a real prevention from moving.

Learning a new language should not stop people from moving there either - but that's a personal opinion, and I've also never done it myself. A challenge, but I think it would be a good challenge - the kind you'd like to defeat.

Changing employers does suck, but can be a great thing.

Culture shock - eh. I think your example is a poor one - an American in Djibouti or Iran would be a much more extreme culture shock than Canada or most of Europe. And in that case, just like your state scenario: don't go there, go somewhere else.

In Canada, I can assure you we do not bribe our police. We also have many of the same laws, our currency is practically identical in value, and so on and so forth.

Immigration laws are definitely a problem. But, again: there's tons of other countries, just don't go there. Canada, too, has rather relaxed immigration laws.

And, as for state to state, many of the same rules still apply, just to a lesser degree. Culture shock can certainly occur from city to city and state to state - and that includes the bribing of police officers.

In all, I think you are right, but the reality of the situation is much less severe than you think. It's true that getting into a new country is a challenge - but it is in no way an unacceptable option.

Re:As a US citizen (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363840)

I would be curious what a nation would look like with most of it's power deliberated at the State level (or province, as I'm in Canada).

Probably much like the EU did a few years ago. Ok, it wasn't -- still isn't -- a nation, but the point is moot if power isn't centralised. Nowadays there's probably too much centralised power for the EU to be a model of that any more, although it's probably still a pretty good model of the way things would be bound to go.

Re:As a US citizen (2)

muindaur (925372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363952)

Yeah, my state is now fully controlled by Dems, all of whom seem to think raising taxes, and not cutting services is the answer. Even though their continued raising of said taxes is driving the very young, young, and now middle aged people out of the state: that can afford to move.

It's really sad that my parents,who can't afford to move yet, have to drive over the state line in order to get groceries at an affordable rate: filling up their gas tank with the lower taxed gas. Yes, even with the added driving distance, they still save money.

Once they finishing paying off their mortgage in a few years they will be able to save enough to move out of the state.

On the town level: We almost had a Walmart. It would not have saved local businesses because it doesn't compete with them. Jobs and products townsfolk need to drive thirty minutes for would have been within ten minutes. No, Walmart is an "evil" corp: something I don't believe. So now that all the mills and factories are full on employees we have squat left. I can get my major medical still, and it *shock* would cost the same. People forget that medical benefits are payed for largely by the employee. So that's the dumbest reason for Walmart to be evil. Oh noes! They don't provide something someone can get privately, and often at lower price!

More traffic? Sure thing! It would be right on the main state highway running through the town; that just so happens to be the same one all the towns businesses that would BENEFIT from it are.

So you are right. Stupid decisions can happen on the state and local levels. At least there is some ability to move.

Re:As a US citizen (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363896)

Yeah, I understand the guy in the field should be the guy in charge, but it's still just a numbers game. If you kill 100 people or a million, I'm still going to treat you the same. Besides, if a state wants more authority, it might unite with other states. Next thing you know when 40 or 50 get together, you got a pretty big "trade federation" which will always evolve into a galactic empire. Then where are you gonna run? Best to nip the whole thing in the bud, before one's authority extends beyond himself.

States exchanging drivers license info ... (3, Informative)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363372)

Also, it is NOT a national ID. It is issued by my state...other states and the federal govt, for the most part..do not have the information from my DL immediately upon query.

From 2008: "The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has teamed up with law enforcement agencies in four states in a pilot project to transmit driver’s license photographs across state lines and deliver the photos to an officer’s computer within seconds of a request." http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/law-enforcement/strategies/information-led-policing/photo-sharing.htm [usdoj.gov]

There isn't a national drivers license database.

"The computerized system uses the Global Justice XML Data Model (Global JXDM), an information-exchange standard designed specifically for criminal justice agencies that has been widely, but not universally, adopted."

And most important...where the fuck is it in the constitution for the Federal Govt. to issues national id??

It is where it always is, the commerce clause.

Re:As a US citizen (-1, Troll)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363396)

The U.S. Constitution limits government powers. It does not grant them. Thus, if something is not in the Constitution, the government can do it.

Re:As a US citizen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35363460)

That's exactly wrong. The government has only the powers granted by the constitution, and everything else is reserved to the states or the people. That's explicitly stated.
 

Your comment was SO wrong, I suspect you're being sarcastic and I missed it.

Re:As a US citizen (3, Informative)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363510)

"Thus, if something is not in the Constitution, the government can do it."

The STATE government can, NOT the federal government. You apparently missed the 10th amendment "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."

Re:As a US citizen (1)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363512)

Someone hasn't read the 10th amendment.

Re:As a US citizen (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363602)

"The U.S. Constitution limits government powers. It does not grant them. Thus, if something is not in the Constitution, the government can do it."

Actually, the Constitution does both, and no it can't.

It limits federal government power to the 16 (some say 17) powers granted by Article 1, Section 8, and a scant few other places in the document. Powers not specifically granted by the Constitution to the Federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people (10th Amendment).

So if it's not in the Constitution, the Federal government can't legally do it. It's strictly State business. Also, contrary to popular opinion, the "necessary and proper" clause is a restrictive, not permissive, clause. And the "supremacy clause" only applies to laws that are "in pursuance of" the aforementioned specifically delegated powers.

So no. If it's not something specifically delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution, or something "necessary and proper" to carry out those delegated duties, the Federal government has no business trying to do it. Any such law is nulll and void.

Re:As a US citizen (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35363006)

I can decline to get a driver's license, and I can decline to get a passport. I don't have to have any id at all if I don't want. The implication is that I don't need identification or special permission to move freely about the country of which I am a citizen.

With a national ID card scheme, I don't have a choice to opt out. Such a card exists solely for "papers please" moments. The implication is that I am not free to move about the country of which I am a citizen.

All because we refuse to profile the towelhead dune-coon camel-jockey sand niggers who are THE ONLY ONES causing this problem. Yeah if we focus our efforts at the source of the problem THAT'D BE RACIST! Not our fault if this group self-selects itself for every foreign terror problem the US has ever had. Every Al-Qaeda problem the US has ever had comes from young, adult, Islamic, males of Middle Eastern descent. It's fucking insanity to ignore this fact.

Inflammatory language deliberate and intended to get under the skin of the same political correctness idiots who want to infringe on everyone's liberties and open up yet more avenues of government abuse of power just to deal with a very small group of troublemakers. Political correctness: a luxury you can have only when one particular group isn't constantly trying to make shit go ka-boom. When they are, you got bigger problems than groveling and sniveling and constantly trying to prove how not-racist you are.

who did OKC ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35363184)

I seem to recall the UK having problems with the bloody micks not that long ago.

Over six dozen right wing attacks since 1995 (1, Troll)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363216)

No foreigners are as big a threat as the right wing. Little Timmy McVeigh was only the most well known of the bunch.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right [splcenter.org]

Re:Over six dozen right wing attacks since 1995 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35363328)

Really? Give it up. Just because the terror attacks of the left are not as 'well known' doesn't somehow make it better.

http://markhumphrys.com/left.right.violence.html

Re:Over six dozen right wing attacks since 1995 (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363478)

Uh huh. Just read that page, took all of thirty seconds. It is very short, short on facts, and even based on the facts presented, does not make a case for present day leftism terrorism. It claims leftist terrorism was once a problem . Cherry picking the dates 2000-2005, hmm, what happened during those years that might skew things? It also leaves out many, many right wing attacks. My source, and the FBI page linked to from your cherry-picker page, both list more. I guess he has his own criteria for what constitutes a right wing attack?

Was this really the best you could do?

Troll mod? Okay, I'll post it again (2)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363508)

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right [splcenter.org]

Read it and weep, you fucking terrorists. This isn't trolling, this is patriotism, calling out the madmen who attack my country. You want to mod me troll? Bring it, I've got karma to burn.

Re:Troll mod? Okay, I'll post it again (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363768)

"Read it and weep, you fucking terrorists. This isn't trolling, this is patriotism, calling out the madmen who attack my country. You want to mod me troll? Bring it, I've got karma to burn."

And you conveniently forget (or perhaps didn't even know?) about all the left-wing shootings and terror bombings that took place in the U.S. in the 1960s - 1980s?

FAR more than anybody in the "right wing" has ever pulled. If you don't believe that, I can pull up references. But you can yourself, too. Just look up these names, and learn about the things they took "credit" for doing: "Black Panthers", "Weather Underground".

There were more left-wing terrorist bombings just in Washington D.C. during that period, than all "right-wing" bombings combined.

Re:Troll mod? Okay, I'll post it again (1)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363966)

"Read it and weep, you fucking terrorists. This isn't trolling, this is patriotism, calling out the madmen who attack my country. You want to mod me troll? Bring it, I've got karma to burn."

And you conveniently forget (or perhaps didn't even know?) about all the left-wing shootings and terror bombings that took place in the U.S. in the 1960s - 1980s?

FAR more than anybody in the "right wing" has ever pulled. If you don't believe that, I can pull up references. But you can yourself, too. Just look up these names, and learn about the things they took "credit" for doing: "Black Panthers", "Weather Underground".

There were more left-wing terrorist bombings just in Washington D.C. during that period, than all "right-wing" bombings combined.

While you're absolutely right, I think the whole "right vs left" deal glosses over a lot of important things.

All I want is maximum freedom for consenting adults who do not use force or fraud to achieve their goals. All I want is the minimum possible government that can still provide effective public works, law enforcement (but only to prevent one person from using force/fraud to deprive another of civil rights), and national defense (against unprovoked foreign enemies -- to paraphrase Franklin, provoking foreign powers who otherwise would have left us alone is inconsistent with our form of government).

Both the leftist terrorist bombers and the right-wing terorrist bombers have one thing in common: they are willing to use lethal force in the form of unprovoked attack to attempt to achieve their goals. I really don't care in what name they perform these acts. It is the acts themselves and the willingness to perform them because they have no persuasive argument that is the problem.

As far as I am concerned, those who would expand government into tyranny in the name of safety and protection from threats are cut from the same cloth as those terrorists who think that blowing shit up is the very best way to make a statement. People are not supposed to fear their own government. That means they are both terrorists. The only difference is that one is institutional and organizational while the other is underground and ragtag.

Re:As a US citizen (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35363330)

Yes, yes. Fuck the PCs, and long live the non-PCs that dare say the truth.

Only, what you're saying actually isn't true. All of America's woes doesn't come from "young, adult, Islamic, males of Middle Eastern descent."

Some terrorist-attacks done by white people in America:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Terrorism#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

Also, serial killers seems to be mostly white in America:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_country#United_States_of_America

Face it. You're not a guy who dares tell it like it is. You're just a garden variety racist. Man up to it, or shut the fuck up.

Re:As a US citizen (3, Informative)

Draek (916851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363176)

I'm not an US citizen, but can you also decline to get a Social Security number? and, if you can, are you able to conduct a normal life (ie, keep a job, buy a home, etc) without one?

It seems to me your SS number serves the same role as other countries' national IDs, except with none of the safety checks they usually have.

Re:As a US citizen (1)

Zan Lynx (87672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363496)

Yes you can. You need a lawyer to front for you and you need to play some games with the corporation laws so that you pay your taxes through your corporation's tax ID. If you work at it you can manage to be legal and make money without a SSN. You cannot be an employee of anyone though. Best you can do is be a contractor.

Re:As a US citizen (1)

tirefire (724526) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363506)

but can you also decline to get a Social Security number?

No.

are you able to conduct a normal life (ie, keep a job, buy a home, etc) without one?

No.

It seems to me your SS number serves the same role as other countries' national IDs, except with none of the safety checks they usually have.

This is 100% correct right now, however, it is a recent development. People these days use SSNs excessively; they were only designed 80 years ago to be used for income/social security tax collection and for receiving social security benefits. Nowadays you're asked for your SSN if you try to order cable TV. *facepalm*

Re:As a US citizen (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363660)

"... they were only designed 80 years ago to be used for income/social security tax collection and for receiving social security benefits."

Not even that, really. When this was proposed, people were concerned that it would be used as a national ID. So the people were guaranteed, in so many words, that the SSN would never be used as an ID card. Up until just a few years ago, the cards said right on them that they were not to be used as ID.

But then the government started making exceptions, and allowed banks and credit reporting agencies to use it as ID. Now, it's a big mess.

But it demonstrates one thing clearly: don't trust government guarantees, when they try something like that. It might last for a few years, then "bye, bye."

Re:As a US citizen (1)

Zarim (1167823) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363686)

Apparently you can decline to get a SSN [ssa.gov] , but I couldn't find out if you can actually disassociate yourself from it if you already have one. Also while you can legally open a bank account [fairloanrate.com] without a SSN, it seems to make the whole process a lot more complicated. My guess is that it's like that for most things; legally allowed, but five times the hassle.

Re:As a US citizen (1)

Ravon Rodriguez (1074038) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363376)

Do you have a driver's license? Have you ever declined to show it when asked? If so, you know it causes more trouble than it's worth. Not having one is even more of a hassle. It's great to have principles, but at the end of the day you have to pick your fights; it's easier to just comply and move on with your life. We no longer live in a society where people can be anonymous; Accept it and move on.

Re:As a US citizen (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363694)

"More trouble than it's worth" is a matter of perspective. It might cause you inconvenience to refuse, but if you do, your children might just grow up in a society that still can't require IDs just to walk down the street. If you consistently cave, they might not.

You choose which you think is more "worth it".

Re:As a US citizen (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363718)

I didn't see your last sentence at first, but I have now, so I will go further: your attitude is precisely what caused us to be in a situation where anonymity is in danger.

The ability to speak and transact business anonymously is essential to a free society. If you do not understand why, maybe you should read a few history books.

Re:As a US citizen (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363802)

Just out of curiosity. If you don't have an ID, how does anyone know that you're a citizen of this country? If you are never required to produce it, how would anyone distinguish you from an illegal alien? ESP?

Re:As a US citizen (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362970)

I really don't get why people flip shit over this when you already have a local nation id in the form of a driver's license / state issued photo id and your passport

Slippery slope for one. If this passes, the issue could become "Basically everyone already has these ID cards, why not make them mandatory" then "You already all have ID cards issued, there's no reason you shouldn't have them on you at all times. To prevent terrorism." Then "We had to shut down that protest: there were people breaking the law by not having national ID cards" or "Suspect was obeying the law, and had an ID card, but we suspected it was fake and incarcerated him until we could determine it was legitimate, at which time he had missed his speech 'when did we submit to totalitarian rule."

And while each of those steps are a long shot and maybe unrealistic, but it's a pointless risk to take: we get no increased security in return. None. This won't prevent terrorism.

Re:As a US citizen (1)

NoSig (1919688) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363424)

It's not about terrorism, it's about not having 10 different IDs in your wallet. Combine them into one, make it harder to fake now that you only need to make 1/10 as many and use it for everything. If you don't like your grocer talking to your shoe shop about what you are buying, have the card present a different id to everyone who asks, and have it so it takes a court order/similar process to access the information necessary to track that information back to you. So you wouldn't have a single card number, you'd have as many numbers associated to the card as there are people who want you in their particular system. It wouldn't be the same number they've all got so no tracking problem. This would be better security than giving your name has now.

Re:As a US citizen (4, Insightful)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362632)

Cling to your 9th and 10th amendment rights (right to privacy is one of those non-enumerated rights). It appears that's what the Member States of the Union are doing: "Half the states in the country have affirmatively barred themselves from implementing REAL ID or they have passed resolutions objecting to the national ID law." (Congress shall exercise no power reserved to the States.)

BTW does the European Union have a single ID that all europeans must carry? If the EU tried to force the adoption of such an ID, how would the citizens or states react?

As a EU citizen (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35362806)

Some states have national ID cards, some require you to always carry one on pain of arrest and a fine. The UK is a notable exception in that it actually implemented such a thing and then repealed it. Still has biometric passports though, and they'll take your fingerprints AND DNA swab if you're arrested --regardless of reason-- and will keep the profile indefinitely, "just in case". Getting out if proven innocent is unreasonably hard to the point of being almost impossible.

My government insists on fingerprints, storing them in the RFIDed passport, and storing them on local computers at the municipality (there's a plan to network all those things but not in effect yet) run by some foreign (AAMOF French) company. All passports are in the EU are RFIDed, none come with built-in shielding like in US passports. EG Germany just added RFID to national ID cards, having added fingerprints first.

It's a bit of a jumble, as this sort of thing is regulated through EU directive that then gets implemented more or less zealously byt the state, generally more. All states have a national standard ID card that's valid in the entire EU plus some extras (like Switzerland), and many more people have passports. More biometrics, less privacy.

And yes, that all really got pushed through when the US started requiring it for the so-called visa waiver programme, though the extra zeal was "our" own invention. There's some eurocrats that like that a lot, sneaking through as many loopholes as possible to get out from the built-in oversight mechanisms.

It's also then that I decided not to travel to the USoA while the security circus was still in effect, but it's come home: My passport and ID card are about to expire (last 5 years only) and I won't be able to get new ones without handing over my fingerprints. Well, if I'm to be a criminal then so be it. Bye bye legal identity.

Re:As a EU citizen (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363298)

Bye bye legal identity.

Are you planning on going off-grid, or the sneakier method of using faked fingerprints for registration?

(if #2, just remember to keep your fakes on hand when you need them)

Seems to me it should be fairly easy to take a print mold of your own prints, modify them, then keep those inverted moulds. When you want to change prints, take some quick drying glue (Krazy Glue over here) and apply to finger tips, then press into your print mould.

As the prints will only last a few days and aren't your default ones, they act as "something you have" instead of "something you are", thus protecting your identity while giving you expected freedoms.

I wonder if countries have requirements on the state of your fingers when you get fingerprinted?

Re:As a EU citizen (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363500)

How do some states (Germany, France, etc) have national (EU) ID cards while others don't? If the EU has a national ID card wouldn't that apply to every state in the EU?

Re:As a EU citizen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35363712)

The EU isn't a nation. It doesn't have "national" anything.

It has directives that are implemented by its member states, and it has courts that enforce rules at a trans-national level. But a German ID card is German, not EU; if other member states choose to recognise it, that's at their discretion subject to bilateral agreements (the Schengen Agreement [wikipedia.org] ) with Germany.

Re:As a EU citizen (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35363854)

The EU isn't a state. How it works is that states become members by ratifying shedloads of international treaties --sort-of like the UN-- to the point that EU directives have to be poured into law by member states within $this_many years after passing of the directive, and so on. So lots of laws end up "harmonised" meaning that all the states have implemented laws pertaining to the directives that basically mean the same across the EU. But it's still the individual states that pass them (using a rubber stamp, often as not).

Given how very few people even know who their own nation's and party's Members of the European Parliament are, and how shady commitees and bunches of ministers have this habit of circumventing EU parliament oversight (like what happened with the first "data sharing deal"), well, you might guess the rest. Should a state deviate it might end up getting slapped by the EU, which may or may not have an effect.

Passports and ID cards are issued in the name of the member states. Laws on whether and where to carry also vary. But basically every state issues passports anyway, and most issue ID cards "because it's easier to carry".

There's no directive (yet, afaik) mandating a card, but there are directives defining baselines of what passports must minimally have (RFID, some biometric, IIRC at least two fingerprints on the chip. IIRC my state stores four, and takes the opportunity to make yet another national privacy invading database.) The results vary a bit. The bottom line is generally spun to look like it's in the favour of all the citizens, but depressingly often it turns out to be not quite that.

Like how the "Schengen" treaty was to open EU-internal borders and removing customs checks and such, that directly resulting in many countries passing "always carry ID" laws. No, it wasn't because of the terrorists. It was because the border checks were removed. This in turn caused many, many more places to demand ID checks, because you have to have the darn thing on you anyway. So yes, that slope indeed is slippery, and it goes down quicker than you tend to notice.

Re:As a US citizen (0)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362854)

Every EU country has a law which enforces to carry an ID it always has been like it and I am 40. If people really do is another issue.
It has been about 24 years since a policement stopped me and controlled my id on the streets, and that was because I was drinking and just turned 16 (which is the legal age for drinking here)
So the chances of being controlled just for the sake of having to show your id is pretty slim here unless you dont have the average european caucasian look and even if they catch you then the worst which can happen is a small fine.

Re:As a US citizen (3, Informative)

Hope Thelps (322083) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362988)

Every EU country has a law which enforces to carry an ID it always has been like it and I am 40. If people really do is another issue.

There's no legal requirement to carry ID in the UK. You don't even have to carry a driving license when driving, though if stopped you may be required to present it at a police station within a few days.

Don't know about other EU countries. When abroad I generally keep my passport handy so that might cover me if such is a requirement? It's never been an issue.

Re:As a US citizen (1)

gay358 (770596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363276)

Every EU country has a law which enforces to carry an ID it always has been like it and I am 40.

While this might be true in some countries, it is certainly not true in all EU countries. I live in Finland and and there isn't any legal oblication to carry or even own any kind of ID card here. However, in practice doing some things, like opening bank account, might be difficult or impossible without some kind of proof of your identity because of current laws against money laundering laws etc.

Re:As a US citizen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35363482)

Every EU country has a law which enforces to carry an ID it always has been like it and I am 40.

Could you please list the EU countries where you positively know of such a law?

I am asking because it is certainly not "every EU country". No such law exists in Denmark. Other postings say the same for Finland and UK.

Re:As a US citizen (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363212)

BTW does the European Union have a single ID that all europeans must carry? If the EU tried to force the adoption of such an ID, how would the citizens or states react?

Not every country of the EU has that. But most have. As we have this since nearly hundreds of years, depending on country, no one complains.
Afaik only the UK has no requirement for an ID card.

(We have no EU wide unique id, though, they are country specific)

angel'o'sphere

Re:As a US citizen (1)

orient (535927) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363848)

If the EU tried to force the adoption of such an ID, how would the citizens or states react?

EU is a group of sovereign states. Nobody can impose such a decision on a sovereign state. The governments of the member states will react before the citizens will even hear about such an idea.

Re:As a US citizen (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362678)

Excommunication.

Re:As a US citizen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35362850)

You won't have any trouble refusing it. The trouble will come when you're pulled over and a cop arrests you for driving without a license; Home Depot won't let you return products without a receipt; you can't drive into Canada or take a flight anywhere without a passport; you're harassed for not carrying ID; you can't enter a federal courtroom to fight the law.

Re:As a US citizen (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363308)

You'll be cited for mopery with intent to gawk.

*gasp* Noooooo waaaaay! (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362584)

Are you telling me that the government manufactures or manipulates events to frighten people into providing funding and release their liberties? Why, I've never heard of such a thing!

Re:*gasp* Noooooo waaaaay! (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363004)

Are you implying that somehow makes it less important to pay attention to?

Interesting outlook.

"Jimmy murdered someone? So what? OLD NEWS! He murders people all the time?"

I've been thinking about moving.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35362626)

Just give me a reason to solidify my decision..

Wow. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35362642)

I... am not sure I understand what the summary means. There is something wrong with those sentences. They give me a headache.

Didn't we catch him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35362648)

Why do we need to change the laws when they worked?

I actually welcome mandatory ID cards (-1, Troll)

ubuntufan1 (2007426) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362658)

One resident in Texas was actually arrested [tiny.cc] and held for a week for a suspicion of being a terrorist, because he didn't have an ID card. (He didn't have a car and didn't apply for ID card, because these aren't mandatory).

Re:I actually welcome mandatory ID cards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35362946)

Ahhh aren't you making the exact point of why we shouldn't have a national ID or any ID for that matter? Drivers licenses are a poor excuse for needing ID. We don't need drivers licenses. If you are driving dangerously you should be arrested- not ticketed. It wouldn't be as bad as it sounds either. When you have to take someone to jail to safeguard society it is allot less likely to harm society at large without merit. Merely driving at unsanctioned speeds is not a good reason to fine or imprison a person. On the other hand driving impaired might be or driving so excessively as to endanger other drivers. Nothing would prevent police officers from pulling people over and issuing "warnings". Those warnings might in practice be baseless given the speed. However we don't really need to go after people at the low end of the spectrum anyway or those who aren't really driving recklessly- just fast.

Re:I actually welcome mandatory ID cards (2)

Kiralan (765796) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363072)

Heads up! Goatse link!!

Re:I actually welcome mandatory ID cards (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363254)

I think you're confusing this with the Cheech Marin film, Born in East L.A., [wikipedia.org] .

We don't need no steenking real-id (3, Interesting)

Plugh (27537) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362660)

Not in New Hampshire. We rejected Real-ID, and any de facto national identification card system [freestateproject.org] .

Re:We don't need no steenking real-id (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35363320)

So a state can reject the Real ID act but not the (so called) affordable care act?

Re:We don't need no steenking real-id (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35363540)

There are plenty of functioning democracies with state-issued ID. This is not the last bulwark against gov't takeover. Protection of our rights is not built on lack of ID standardization, or personal firearms ownership. But those are great distractions for people to focus on while more important rights are restricted.

Re:We don't need no steenking real-id (3, Insightful)

Plugh (27537) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363634)

I always find it amusing when someone declares that "focusing on Right X is just a distraction; you should REALLY focus on Right Y!

See, the whole idea of personal rights, individuality, and self-ownership is predicated on the notion that different people have different values and different priorities. Me personally, I hate mandatory seat-belt laws, and I fought hard to make sure NH didn't adopt such a law (it came real close in 2008, but we did defeat it, NH remains "free to choose" on seat belts)

For some people it's taxation. For some people it's guns. For some people it's marijuana. For some people it's education choice. And on and on and on...

We are gathering a critical mass of people who agree in principle that the government should back away from all these things. Different people work harder or less hard on different issues. At the end of the day, all these freedoms are being defended by those who feel most passionately about them, and all of us who have made the move to New Hampshire feel the benefit.

California (3, Insightful)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362712)

It's funny, for all our talk about being a forward looking state, and about being one of the strongest states in The Union, California sure likes to bend over and take it from the Federal Government regarding issues like this. Maybe we should start a rumor that the Real ID will allow the Federal Government to put homosexuals in concentration camps. That might get folks in this state thinking about privacy some....

Re:California (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362760)

Your papers, please. I must see your papers.

Ahh, I see you have recently been to New York. Please step this way, this gentleman will escort you.

Re:California (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362860)

Your papers, please. I must see your papers.

*pulls out scissors*

Re:California (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35362802)

It's funny, for all our talk about being a forward looking state, and about being one of the strongest states in The Union, California sure likes to bend over and take it from the Federal Government regarding issues like this. Maybe we should start a rumor that the Real ID will allow the Federal Government to put homosexuals in concentration camps. That might get folks in this state thinking about privacy some....

Well, that'd get some of them thinking about it. The other half would be trying to figure out how they can speed up the process, unless you tell *them* that it's actually going to be the Mark of the Beast or something.

Re:California (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35362874)

So I am to assume from your post that half of California is Gay and the other half is Fundamentalist Christian? Weird, it never seemed that way. Though if you were speaking about their lawmakers, you would be closer to being right.

Re:California (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362948)

The other half would be trying to figure out how they can speed up the process, unless you tell *them* that it's actually going to be the Mark of the Beast or something.

The fundies I used to know already considered 'national ID' proposals to be the 'Mark of the Beast'. Some of them opposed it on that basis while others supported it because it means the End Times are coming and they're about to be Raptured.

A ID card every 3 years? (-1, Troll)

ubuntufan2 (2007428) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362766)

The Act (relevant part [tiny.cc] ) makes it mandatory to replace the ID card every 3 years. If you you don't you face large fine. I think that is just another money making machine for the Government.

I don't get it at all (1)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362786)

I don't understand why there's a want or a need for a national ID system. If you're a citizen, you already have Social Security documentation, and probably a passport/driver's license. If you're a legal resident, you have a visa of some sort. If you're not a legal resident, you're not going to get an ID anyway.

I don't understand why people panic over a national ID system. They already have Social Security documentation, driver's licenses, and passports. It's not like nobody knows you exist, or you can't be tracked in the same way from some government database. I mean, I don't really need another card in my wallet, and it seems like a lot of bureaucratic hoopla with nontrivial administrative costs, but it doesn't make me afraid for my civil liberties.

I'm really, truly apathetic on this, and I don't understand why anyone cares at all.

Re:I don't get it at all (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362924)

I don't understand why people panic over a national ID system.

Because they've studied some history?

As you say, there's no legitimate need for a 'national ID' system and there are a bazillion ways to abuse it to harm people. So everyone should panic when their government is trying to force it through.

Re:I don't get it at all (3, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362938)

Two words:

"internal passport" [wikipedia.org]

some animals are more equal than others (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363102)

"A man with a watch knows what time it is.
A man with two watches is never sure."
-- Segal's Law

Re:I don't get it at all (1)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362974)

I'm really, truly apathetic on this, and I don't understand why anyone cares at all.

It's a huge waste of money. We pay that money with our taxes or with fees associated with the IDs.

Re:I don't get it at all (1)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363042)

I think they need real id's soon because they are going to bankrupt the social security system and have to have something in place when it collapses.

Re:I don't get it at all (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362976)

Perhaps you should take your time to look for the videos on youtube.com of www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

And take the time to watch one of them, yes takes 2h ... so scroll back and forth if you want.

But it will give you an idea what your government and the men behind it are doing since 60 - 80 years ;D

Regards

angel'o'sphere

Re:I don't get it at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35363932)

I don't see why anyone would take someone who signs his posts seriously. It makes you a tool automatically.

Re:I don't get it at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35363002)

Because the feds (lawmakers) can never leave well enough alone. In 20 years, it will probably carry every bit of data ever associated with you on it and be able to be read from a distance (for safety, you see). In addition there will likely be jailtime / huge fines levied for failing to carry it on you at all times (also for safety, you see). You may even be required to present it to make a purchase of anything deemed 'potentially dangerous' (decided by policy makers and lobbyists), and it will be permanently associated with both your bank account numbers and your genetic profile (safety).
 
*Dons tinfoil hat, for safety*

Re:I don't get it at all (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363050)

I don't understand why there's a want or a need for a national ID system.

Probably slightly less paperwork for law enforcement, so they like it. And some government contracts would probably be awarded for the manufacture and tracking of the ID, so there's that economic interest to hire lobbyists. Plus, homeland security's primary job is to fool the public into thinking they're safe, big intrusive programs are some of the most effective placebos in that aspect. So there's plenty of want and need for it.

Oh, did you mean legitimate reasons why this is good for the nation? Well, none, obviously.

Re:I don't get it at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35363286)

To my knowledge, Real ID isn't about adding an additional ID card. It is more about providing requirements for State ID (driver's license) to be valid with federal organizations. The implication is that if the Real ID program fails, we'll have to use passports to fly domestically (or do anything else where we have to identify ourselves to a federal organization).

While there are valid concerns today about the increasing power and scope of government influence in Americans' lives, Real ID doesn't seem to be large concern (at least posed against issues surrounding DHS, TSA, recording police actions, etc.) The real argument is actually around money, in the form of the federal government is requiring the changes but the state government must pay for it.

Re:I don't get it at all (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363426)

First: Social Security doesn't have biometric data tied to it, or anything else other than Federal information. Driver's Licenses are only tied to State activities, and Passports are only tied to International activities. The Federal government wants access to ALL that information, without having to ask those who currently control it to provide it. They want to be able to cross-reference those PII markers.

Second: Illegal Immigrants can still get identity cards. Strange, yes... but true. The government wants to be able to ID illegal immigrants just as easily as they can ID citizens.

People care because they know that any government will misuse information if given the chance. One branch of government has access to your PII for a specific purpose, another branch has access to other pieces of PII for another specific purpose. When the government as a whole has de-facto access to ALL your PII, they truly own you, and have significantly more power over you than was originally granted. The assumption (which is time and again proven to be correct) is that this will breed misuse of information and corruption in government.

This mindset holds true more in republics which stand on limited government of a free people. Socialist leaning countries (most of the western world) place government in a different role with different safeguards designed to match the assigned role. In a (modern) socialist government, the government having de-facto access to all PII isn't as big of an issue, as there are other mechanisms in place to prevent at least casual abuse.

This is a simplistic explanation, but I hope it gets the point across. If you don't mind the government running your life, then don't worry about it.

Re:I don't get it at all (1)

Geodesy99 (1002847) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363584)

I don't understand why there's a want or a need for a national ID system. If you're a citizen, you already have Social Security documentation, and probably a passport/driver's license. ...

A national ID is a Single Point of Failure. I have had several cops / security folks tell me that a collection of documentation greatly increases the difficulty of forgery, because they have to be mutually consistent over space and time. A variety of documents provides a multitude of entry points and traversals for even a cursory on the spot casual interrogation. For example, some of the digits of the SSN associate with certain states at certain times, so even if the SSN Card isn't produced as ID, a question to tell the SSN orally, Followed by a remark like "Do you parents still live in State X" can trip someone up. Also, some states have had difficulties with corruption and counterfeiting in DL bureaus, but perhaps not all states at all times. Relative wear, like marks and de-lamination, also are giveaways, along with other seemingly innocuous contents of a wallet. Collections of anything will exhibit patterns of differences and similarities from individual to individual, and will be characteristic of a given 'locale', and these will alert an experienced observer. A national ID would tend to be adopted by any and all agencies as proof o person, if just as a cost and complexity saving measure. But it's that same complexity which trips the impostors.

Re:I don't get it at all (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363670)

Maybe you missed the part about some states deciding that it was better for illegal immigrants (or undocumented workers, if you prefer) to have driver's licenses than not. As part of this decision the rules controlling how you got a driver's license were relaxed. No longer is there a need for a certified copy of a birth certificate or any other government document that offers a proof of identity. All that is needed is a note from somewhere (most often cited is the local Mexican consulate) that says this person might be who they say they are and no documents are available which prove otherwise.

End result of this is that if you are even somewhat clever you can get an official document issued by any number of US state governments which says precisely whatever they heck you want it to. Want a driver's license that says you are William Jefferson Clinton age 64? Not a problem. Take that and go rent car, run over some nice old lady and see the fur fly when Hillary tries to explain just what seems to have happened there. All this is possible because the standards for issuing state-backed IDs got thrown out and replaced with essentially no standard at all.

Re:I don't get it at all (1)

bugi (8479) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363774)

Along with the various ways it can be abused against citizens directly, there's the slow lobster-cook method of stripping away rights. Recall the old "First they came" statement. In addition to the direct effects on citizens, it is an excuse to further consolidate power into a national government. Thus the actions by those states that are paying attention, to hopefully prevent their rights from being further eroded.

seriously stop trying to complicate shit (1)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362880)

If they think having real id's will protect infrastructure they are wrong.
If they think having real id's would save more lives or fight crime/terrorism more than just dumping the money into police / safety / intelligence measures wrong again.

What we need to do is think further ahead after the real id comes out. We will need a really real id.
Then we can lay the ground work for a Real DNA id.
Then maybe we can have Really real secure dna id by 2020.
It'll only set us back 10 trillion and another 2 trillion each year after that.
The idea is to make the USA so poor no one would care to launch terror attacks on it.
Kind of like Africa but with real id's.

Re:seriously stop trying to complicate shit (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362908)

Then we can lay the ground work for a Real DNA id.

Oh crap. My DNA is synthetic!

Re:seriously stop trying to complicate shit (1)

bugi (8479) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363158)

DNA-based IDs -- the better with which to discriminate against the growing population of non-biological sentients.

Re:seriously stop trying to complicate shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35363410)

DNA-based IDs -- the better with which to discriminate against the growing population of non-biological sentients.

When you say "non-biological sentients" I immediately think of large corporations... because you know, Clarance Thomas says according to the Constitution they are real people.

Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35362966)

America doesn't have passports yet?

Re:Wait, what? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363064)

America doesn't have passports yet?

Sure we have them...but no one is ever required to register and get one...unless perhaps they were going to travel outside the country. Heck, its only been in the last few years that you needed anything more than a birth certificate copy, or a drivers license to go back and forth on vacation to Mexico from the US.

We could ... (3, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363200)

... set fire to the Reichstag building [wikipedia.org] .

On second thought, that's been done already. Never mind.

666 (1)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363380)

Can't we get the fundies stirred up on this? They usually equate this sort of thing with "the mark of the beast." Perhaps it's a good time for a reminder...

It's nothing but FUD. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363822)

No less than 25 states have passed resolutions or laws saying that they will not comply with Real ID. Period. It is dead in the water, it will never fly.

Faced with this state refusal, every year since Congress has voted to "delay" the program for another year. They haven't killed it, simply because they don't want to lose face over having voted to pass a law that is universally despised throughout the U.S. They simply don't want it to come to people's attention.

If they tried to enforce it tomorrow, my guess is that even more states would refuse.

It's FUD. It will never fly. Forget about it. Or if you are concerned at all, write your Congresscritters and tell them to stuff it. They do listen, because they want votes.

Real ID brought about by some states (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363828)

The whole Real ID mess came about because a number of states (Illinois for one) decided to abandon any real standard for issuing state-backed identification. I was recently in Germany and they accepted my Arizona driver's license as a valid ID - no passport required after the guy at the airport. I'm sure they would accept an Illinois driver's license equally well - in fact, they did the time before I went to Germany and was living in Illinois.

The problem is, in Illinois you an get a driver's license that says pretty much whatever the heck you want. When I got my first driver's license I had to come in with a certified copy of a birth certificate plus a bunch of other stuff that "proved" I had a valid address in the state. This changed a while back because it was decided that it would be better if illegal immigrants (or undocumented workers) had real driver's licenses from Illinois rather either nothing or a Mexican driver's license which I guess has equally bad standards as Illinois does now. But how do you prove who someone is when they have no papers of any sort? Well, in Illinois they decided they would take a rather unofficial note from the Mexican consulate that said this person seems to be who they say they are. And that is the extent of it.

In no way is this "official" document tracable back to someone taking responsibility for it. Could it be copied? Sure. Could it be forged? Absolutely. So then what good is an Illinois driver's license if I can get one that says I'm Albert E. Enstein? Not a whole heck of a lot.

The Federal response was the Real ID act with an attempt to shore up the driver's license to have some actual tracability back to a person and to keep them from having 17 of them in different names. I don't think Illinois signed on to it, however. And Real ID is likely going to fail to really be enforced so that means many states can be considered to be issuing utterly bogus documents which prove nothing. Next time you are in an accident and ask to see the other person's driver's license remember this - they might have gotten it out of a Cracker Jack box ... I mean from Illinois or any one of the other states accepting Matricula Consular [americanpatrol.com] as a valid ID.

Re:Real ID brought about by some states (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363860)

There are a lot more reasons the Feds have for wanting Real ID than just that. They just don't talk about them. The situation you describe probably isn't even a major motivation; it's just an excuse.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?