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!

Real ID Act Poses Technical Challenges

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the sketchy-very-sketchy dept.

Privacy 296

segphault writes "Ars Technica has an article about some of the financial and technological challenges associated with implementing the Real ID Act." From the article: "Opposed by more than 600 independent organizations (including the National Governors Association) and hidden in the depths of a military spending bill in order to make passage easier, the Real ID Act has received heavy criticism from concerned citizens and state government agencies. Despite the fact that relatively sound and effective improvements to driver's license security had already been implemented as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, the federal government felt that it was necessary to go well beyond the recommendations of the 9/11 Comission Report by passing a costly and invasive law."

cancel ×

296 comments

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

New acronym (3, Funny)

Orrin Bloquy (898571) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467560)

Unified
Federal
Identification
Act?

Re:New acronym (2, Insightful)

OneOver137 (674481) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467574)

doubleplus ungood, comrade!

Re:New acronym (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467685)

wrong site

Re:New acronym (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14467729)

I don't get it... what does this have to do with Apple?

Re:New acronym (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14467888)

unsolicited doesn't apply, you voted him in!

Re:New acronym (2, Interesting)

GmAz (916505) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467898)

I have several friends from the middle east. They are all disgusted how their own people are acting and are glad they don't live there. And what definition are they using for people that we need to be protected from. Certain names or racial backgrounds? Guess what, i am half italian and my dad is full italian. Does this mean we should be watch and not considered 'safe people' since the leader of Italy fought along side Nazi Germany? How about germans as a whole? Should we consider them all Nazi's? My biggest worry is the guy next door that seems nice, has a nice house, keeps to himself but drives a hundred miles away and molests children or rapes women. That is who I am afraid of. And just because his background and lack of criminal record says he is a nice guy doesn't make him a nice guy.

Re:New acronym (2, Funny)

iceburn (137875) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467903)

In Soviet Russia, federal government identifies YOU. Um, wait... You identify federal government? Which one is the backwards one?

Re:New acronym (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14468080)



Don't forget to run all new acronyms through the
urbandictionary.com filter http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ufi a [urbandictionary.com]

Lawl (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14467568)

1st post lawl

Wrong? (3, Funny)

Elenthalion (854567) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467576)

Why is it wrong for our government to be able to know which of us to protect and who to protect us from?

Re:Wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14467636)

"which of us to protect and who to protect us from?"

They need to decide that at the borders, and not let in anyone we need to be protected from. Unfortunately leaky borders happen to be good for business.

Re:Wrong? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14467644)

Hitler would agree.

Re:Wrong? (3, Insightful)

miskatonic alumnus (668722) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467726)

Yeah. It's a good thing that bad guys have no way to obtain official ID.

Re:Wrong? (2, Insightful)

Jonar (945773) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467755)

I'll Quote Ben Franklin on this one!

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin

Re:Wrong? (2, Interesting)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467763)

You know full well that's not the reason people get upset about stuff like this. It is frightening that you were modded "Insightful".

Re:Wrong? (3, Interesting)

IAAP (937607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467773)

Why is it wrong for our government to be able to know which of us to protect and who to protect us from?

You're absolutely right! And when I'm elected, you'll be the first on the list of people that we need protection from. Why? Because I didn't like what you said.

See, it's that simple. You'd be an enemy of the state under my regime.

You know, I have Arab friends and acquaintances, but everytime I email them or whatever, I'm concerned about whose looking. Maybe I'm paranoid, but when innocent people are arrested for carying nothing but flour, I have to wonder.

Flour girl [ksdk.com]

Re:Wrong? (4, Insightful)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467856)

That reminds me of this quote from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

Re:Wrong? (1, Insightful)

monopole (44023) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468022)

Who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

Dick Cheney has had how many heart operations and how many implants?

Although personally I think he is trying to get rid of the good part.

Re:Wrong? (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468086)

Your question is suspicious.

KFG

Re:Wrong? (4, Insightful)

wsherman (154283) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468122)

Why is it wrong for our government to be able to know which of us to protect and who to protect us from?

Not so long ago, I moved from Michigan to California because of the weather and because the job opportunities in California were a better fit for my training (bio-tech). Basically, I just decided that I wanted to live in California and I moved there. Eventually I had to get a California driver's license and the California DMV is understaffed, inefficient and bureaucratic but on the whole it was an easy process.

The assumption seemed to be that whatever reasons I had for wanting to live in California were valid reasons. I didn't have to fill out endless paperwork proving that I thought that the State of California had a superior form of government or that I was of desirable minority status or that I would not be a drain on the state's resources or that I was favorably disposed toward the people of California or anything.

Furthermore, I wasn't stopped at the border of California to have all my possessions inspected for drugs or bombs. I didn't even have to stop at the California border to prove my identity and that I wasn't on some terrorist watch list.

Now, if California did carefully control its borders and if it carefully screened people to determine who was allowed to live in California then that would probably lead to at least a small decrease in crime and other social problems.

Personally, though, I'm glad I wasn't stopped at the California border and I'm glad I didn't have to prove to some California bureaucrat that I had the right reasons for moving to California. But that's just me. I personally value individual freedom more than the incremental increase in safety.

In fact, I would go even further and say that I would like to live in a world where anyone can live where ever they want and cross any border without restriction. The United States would probably see an increase in terrorism (more large buildings getting knocked down, etc.) but I would personally be willing to accept that in exchange for the freedom to travel and live anywhere in the world without government interference.

Obviously if every border in the world was opened all at once that could create some problems but there is no reason the United States couldn't open its borders gradually: first Canada, then Mexico, etc. Some people think that closing the borders protects US jobs but the reality is that, since corporations can cross borders with ease, if the cheap workers don't come to the corporations then the corporations will go to the cheap workers with the same loss of US jobs. Furthermore, most of the people in the world have never even used a telephone and it will be a long time before they have the resources for the intercontinental travel that it would take to get them to the USA.

Anyway, there really isn't a right answer to how controlling a government should be. It just depends where the people's values are. Each level of government control will results in certain levels of freedom and certain levels of security. Sometimes there is a trade off between freedom and security and sometimes there isn't. When there is a trade off, the people need to decide which is more important to them.

Real ID (5, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467598)

The 9/11 terrorists all had valid IDs. What's to stop the next batch of terrorists from getting valid Real IDs?

Re:Real ID (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467684)

They apparently also had multiple 'valid' ID's each. Presumably, the RealID would attempt to prevent this from happening. Whether it actually works or not is a different story.

Re:Real ID (4, Funny)

SQLz (564901) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467713)

Yes, if you put 2 Real IDs in your wallet, one will explode, killing a terrorist.

Re:Real ID (2, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467911)

That'll be the last time I ever carry a girl's ID around because she doesn't have any freakin' pockets.

Re:Real ID (1)

eric76 (679787) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467908)

At one time, I had three valid, legal driver's licenses, all issued by the State of Texas.

First was the regular driver's license.

Then, when I got a commercial license, the commercial license was issued in addition to my regular driver's license not in place of it. That is in spite of the fact that the commercial license covered everything a regular license covered.

Then when I got a chauffeur's license, instead of replacing the two cards I had, they issued an additional driver's license.

That ended when I turned 21. At that time, all three of the previous licenses expired and I was only issued a chauffeur's license from then on.

But it was kind of fun when asked for a driver's license when cashing a check to pull out three driver's licenses and ask if they had a preference which driver's license they wanted to see.

Re:Real ID (4, Funny)

Control Group (105494) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467689)

Please don't confuse the issue with your "facts" and your "logic."

IF WE DON'T HAVE REAL IDs, THE TERRORISTS HAVE WONfnord

Re:Real ID (4, Insightful)

rob_squared (821479) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467731)

Nothing. It's similiar to gun legislation or Microsoft product activation. If you want it, you're going to get it. It only hurts law abiding people.

Also, I think we should all take a moment to cross our fingers and hope that this new fangled thing called "common sense" will really catch on with the general public.

Re:Real ID (1)

KidHash (766864) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467751)

Can I just clarify, are you suggesting that gun legislation be removed?

Re:Real ID (2, Insightful)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467796)

I can say that most of it is worthless at best and criminal at worst. The 2nd Amd (not the CPU company) says so

Re:Real ID (1)

pete6677 (681676) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467764)

Nothing, but law enforcement officials seem to feel better when they know the identity of the people who are about to kill them.

Making a buck out of dead New Yorkers again (4, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467846)

The 9/11 terrorists all had valid IDs.
911 is the excuse and not the reason - opportunists have been using it to push their own agendas for some time worldwide. For a blantant example, consider a small group called the "Neo-cons" that has been bleating "finish Iraq" for years that got the go ahead after a more relevant military action in Afganistan. Consider that torture is not only considered justifiable by the USA but appears to be a frequently carried out process (although outsourced to deny responisbility).

Also consider the wide variety of untested silicon snake oil being sold (eg. face recoginition doesn't work properly in the lab yet) by people making a buck out of a lot of dead people in New York. This is what you'll see again in the scramble to get methods to implement this ID system quickly - but it will all be for nothing if your local video library insists on using this ID for their records thus making it possible for others to use your ID for any purpose they wish.

Re:Real ID (2, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467975)

The 9/11 terrorists all had valid IDs. What's to stop the next batch of terrorists from getting valid Real IDs?


That's the problem - they had valid ID. But there is a plethora of valid IDs out there. For instance, a birth certificate, which may or may not have foot prints, is considered a valid ID for applying for other IDs. How does a birth certificate IDentify anybody in this day and age?????!!!!! In 99% of cases, it's a non-standard scrap of paper (every county has a different looking one) you happen to have on your person.

Actually, I don't see the problem with a national ID. Any time this issue comes up, we have a bunch of fear mongering over some such rights.

But right now, our system is deeply flawed. We are IDed by our Social Security # in a mass of places and financial applications - which is leading to ever increasing Identity theft. Who would have thought? A 9-10 digit number with a name attached, which one has to give out everywhere, to be used in ID theft?

And we also have the problem of at least 50 different driver's licenses. Not just standards, but different looking. How is someone supposed to acknowledge a fake ID from another state? Much less the problems of someone applying for a driver's license in say Maryland because they lost theirs in Pennsylvania for whatever odd reason.

A national ID, with biometric info, may not be a bad idea, of telling the authorities YOUR ARE WHO YOU SAY YOU ARE.

Do I trust the government of implementing this correctly? Well, that's another issue.

Consequences schmonsequences (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14467608)

The consequences for not meeting the law's provisions are severe: those holding licenses from States that fail to meet the requirements by 2008 will not be permitted to fly on airplanes or enter federal buildings.

So the solution is to not get a license.

In any case, I can't see them possibly enforcing this, especially if you have multiple states or large states that don't meet the requirements. Frankly I think all states should just ignore the law. In a game of chicken between states and the federal government, the federal government can't win.

Re:Consequences schmonsequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14467678)

In any case, I can't see them possibly enforcing this, especially if you have multiple states or large states that don't meet the requirements.


So the real question is... since the punishment for failing to implenet this is that none of the states residents will be able to fly on commercial planes or enter federal buildings, will the senators and representatives conspire to commite a crime and let the congressmen from said states still enter the various federal buildings where they meet, office and generally fuck up the country?

How about all those military people who work in the pentagon but live in Virginia?

Re:Consequences schmonsequences (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467691)

So the solution is to not get a license.

Okay, so now you aren't allowed to drive.

Good luck with that.

(And if there's a chance at enforcement, I don't think you'll see ANY state resist. People depend too much on air travel.)

Re:Consequences schmonsequences (1)

DDLKermit007 (911046) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467830)

Tell that to all the mexicans & white trash on the road who don't have licences and generaly don't even have plates either.

Re:Consequences schmonsequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14467693)

On the contrary, the federal government often wins. All the federal government has to do is withhold funds from the states who fail to comply.

Re:Consequences schmonsequences (1)

Stripe7 (571267) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467720)

State: We do not have the funds to implement RealID. Fed: You did not implement RealID, so we are pulling your funds. Problem?

Re:Consequences schmonsequences (1)

Phillup (317168) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467837)

Fed: You did not implement RealID, so we are pulling your funds.

Correction:

Fed: You did not implement RealID, so we are pulling your highway* funds.

* or education, or health and welfare, or any other money they decide to tie up... after all, they made the law.

It can mean whatever they want it too...

Re:Consequences schmonsequences (2, Insightful)

DDLKermit007 (911046) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467927)

At which point the states reply "oh you mean the funds coming directly from citizens within our state?" It's a quick way to flair up a fast civil war.

Re:Consequences schmonsequences (1)

byard53 (763072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467699)

In a game of chicken between states and the federal government, the federal government can't win.

Sure they can / do. They just threaten to withhold federal funds from the states. I can't quote sources, but I seem to remember over the years the feds essentially forcing the states to toe the line on issues such as raising the drinking age to 21, lowering the DUI threshold to 0.08%, and maybe also requiring seat belts, all by threatening to withhold highway money.

Re:Consequences schmonsequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14467776)

That's also how there used to be a nationwide speed limit of 55. The states eventually said screw it and set their own limits again. What happened to funding? Still there.

Also, the penalty here is not retraction of funding. It's denying access to things they can't possibly deny access to. Just imagine an entire state unable to use a post office any more. Not happening.

Re:Consequences schmonsequences (2, Informative)

budcub (92165) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467899)

The 55 mph speed limit was repealed by the 1994 Republican Congress. I know higher speed limits did manage to pop up here and there before then, but giving the authority to set speed limits back to the states was one of the things on their agenda. One of the few things about them that I agreed with.

The South would like a word with you. (2, Insightful)

C10H14N2 (640033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467851)

'nuff said.

Re:Consequences schmonsequences (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468106)

So the solution is to not get a license.

Or your nondriver ID.

You want ID? Ya gotta go to the DMV.

KFG

HAHAHAHA (0, Flamebait)

XflopThreeShitty (943599) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467611)

S00n billyboy and W will bumfuk all AmerikaZ. They 0wn3rz u all f00lz!!!!

Illegal Immigration (4, Interesting)

Vicissidude (878310) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467618)

This has nothing to do with reducing terrorism and everything to do with reducing illegal immigration.

Re:Illegal Immigration (2, Insightful)

Control Group (105494) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467661)

Well, you're half right. It has nothing to do with terrorism. But I have no idea what makes you think this administration gives two shitake mushrooms about illegal immigration. This is the same administration, remember, that referred to the first effective effort to curb illegal immigration - a bunch of citizens sitting in the desert and calling the border patrol when they found an illegal - "vigilanteism," and then did everything possible to kiss up to Vicente Fox.

If I had to decide what this really had to do with, I'd go with any or all of:

a) the ever popular War On (some) Drugs
b) consolidation of power for its own sake
c) lining the pockets of government contractors

Re:Illegal Immigration (1)

Vicissidude (878310) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467770)

While this administration loves to influence legislation, it is ultimately not responsible for writing bills. This was buried in a military appropriations bill against the wishes of the administration. This administration doesn't veto anything, especially military appropriations bills, so they merely accepted it.

The Republicans in Congress that voted on this wanted something to give to the Conservatives back home who are overwhelming against illegal immigration.

Re:Illegal Immigration (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467847)

What ever happened to the "Line Item Veto"

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-sm032300.html [cato.org]

It doesn't seem like it was being abused.

Re:Illegal Immigration (1)

powerg3 (22943) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467902)

Looks like the SCotUS determined [wikipedia.org] it was unconstitutional and killed it.

Re:Illegal Immigration (2, Funny)

Taevin (850923) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467978)

I think it was causing problems with the save the children bills.

Re:Illegal Immigration (1)

NCraig (773500) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467996)

This has nothing to do with reducing terrorism and everything to do with reducing illegal immigration.

No, that's just an added benefit.

We spend billions of dollars to secure our airports whilst doing nothing about the million people per year that cross our borders illegally. This is akin to buying a home alarm system, wiring it to the front door, and leaving the back wide open.

We desperately need to combine a sane border policy with an extensive guest worker program. The current administration does not understand this. At least the governor of Arizona does [azstarnet.com] .

Re:Illegal Immigration (1)

Vicissidude (878310) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468057)

The idea that terrorists won't harm us or cross our borders due to a lack of American ID cards is complete nonsense, and everyone knows it. However, everyone also knows that immigrants can get American IDs and drive on American roads because of it. This law only provides another disincentive for illegal immigrants to enter our country. It has nothing to do with terrorism.

Re:Illegal Immigration (1)

NCraig (773500) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468117)

The idea that terrorists won't harm us or cross our borders due to a lack of American ID cards is complete nonsense, and everyone knows it.
I don't "know it."

Are you saying we should make no attempt to stop terrorists at our borders? And would you prefer we made no effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration?

Just because a task is difficult does not mean we should shy away from it. Especially regarding matters of life and death.

Luckily (5, Funny)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467620)

The competing Fake ID(tm) Act having been in full swing for several decades, released a statement syaing in part, "As long as there are teenagers, spring break, and alcohol, our business will continue to boom."

Dumb Question... (1)

Quintios (594318) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467621)

Why isn't it that our Social Security numbers are used in this manner? Why reinvent the wheel? I mean, they have my SS number, my address, my income, my occupation. I figure that's in a database somewhere? Admittedly I read *most* of the article, and this is the first time I've heard of Real ID.

So, to sum up, why can't we use the existing SS number?

Re:Dumb Question... (1)

cpt_rhetoric (740663) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467666)

Because no government contractors get paid some billion odd $$$ to implement a new system to handle this new law.

Re:Dumb Question... (2, Informative)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467752)

Because it's not supposed to be used that way.

The Privacy Act of 1974 [cpsr.org]

Re:Dumb Question... (2, Informative)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467820)

Because they legally can't. And because SS # are reused. When you die your SS# will return to the regional pool and be reassigned. When you are trying to uniquely identify everyone, a repeating logic containing key is not a good idea ;)

-Rick

Re:Dumb Question... (1)

bubulubugoth (896803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467988)

But you are dead...

Isnt like you will be a re-instanciated or something and the POOFF! there are you again...

SS points to a unique collection of LIVING individes, so, I think it should do the work...

Re:Dumb Question... (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468118)

What if someone dies with $9,000 in state taxes owed and 5 years later you and your 4 year old child are getting harrased by the state because your child now owes $25,000 in state taxes, late fees and fines. How important is tracking the dead then?

-Rick

Principles lost, or not there in the first place? (5, Insightful)

Control Group (105494) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467627)

It's a depressing sign of just how far we've fallen when the objections to the Real ID act by the states all center around its feasibility, rather than all the reasons it's fundamentally flawed. You know, little things like "the federal government doesn't have the Consitutional authority to mandate a national ID," or "it won't actually do anything to combat terrorism," or "it's a single point source of failure in protection against identity theft," or "it runs completely contrary to the principles this country was founded upon."

This is the inverse of damning with faint praise. So, blessing with faint criticisms, or some such. It's analogous to arguing with a poster by critiquing his grammar or spelling. Just as that implicitly states you agree with the argument, this implicitly states Real ID is a good idea.

Problem is, there's nowhere left to run.

Re:Principles lost, or not there in the first plac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14467817)

but it's part of national security. constitutional validation guaranteed

Some freedoms conflict with each other (2, Interesting)

MCTFB (863774) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467818)

The constitution originally said nothing about the right of the federal government to tax the income of its citizens, but if the government is going to tax citizens, the last thing people want is for their tax dollars to be given to support the non-citizen welfare state in this country due to illegal immigration.

Furthermore, if an illegal immigrant crashes into your car, or damages your property, or defames your character, how are you going to sue someone who cannot be tracked down to receive a summons and who has no real identity anyways since they are here illegally?

Of course, you could make the argument that you don't want your tax dollars being used to finance the rebuilding Iraq, but that is "foreign aid" which is another debate entirely.

The real ID act is a necessary evil to deal with the long-term problem of massive illegal immigration into the United States which you can thank lately almost exclusively to George Bush's non-enforcement and political appeasement to much of the hispanic community in the United States which supports open borders as well as key business industries which use "slave" errr I mean "illegal" labor to do their bidding. It sucks that things have gotten this bad, but that is the price citizens in this country have to face for allowing their leaders to get away with failing to do the most fundamental basic job of a national government and that is to protect its borders from invading forces.

If common criminals, gang members, and illegal aliens can just cross over into the United States whenever they want and can't be prosecuted for their illegal status thanks to sanctuary laws in many municipalities with correct governments, what on earth is next the Mexican military itself?

Re:Principles lost, or not there in the first plac (1)

doormat (63648) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467886)

Problem is, there's nowhere left to run.

Canada?

Re:Principles lost, or not there in the first plac (1)

Control Group (105494) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467994)

Unfortunately, I'm as much a fan of the 2nd Amendment as I am the others, and Canada has slid further down the slope of restricting that right than we have.

Not that it won't necessarily come to a point where that's the lesser of two evils, of course.

Re:Principles lost, or not there in the first plac (1)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468077)

and Canada has slid further down the slope of restricting that right than we have.

 
how so?

Constitutional authority (0, Flamebait)

mangu (126918) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467897)

little things like "the federal government doesn't have the Consitutional authority to mandate a national ID," or "it won't actually do anything to combat terrorism," or "it's a single point source of failure in protection against identity theft," or "it runs completely contrary to the principles this country was founded upon."


You know, I don't see what's the harm done in your arguments. Point bu point:


1) The Constitution states in the "Bill of Rights" set of ammendments some things the government cannot do. Creating a national ID isn't prohibited. Sure, the Constitution doesn't order the government to create a national ID either, but by default what isn't prohibited is allowed.


2) A national ID may not be the perfect "silver bullet" that kills terrorism once and for all, but it certainly would impose one more difficulty on terrorists.


3) Identity theft can be done in a great number of ways today. A national ID, if properly implemented, could make identity theft much more difficult. Think about it, if someone shows a fake driver's license from North Dakota with your name on it, what are the chances that the bank teller will be able to detect the fraud?


4) Why would a national ID be contrary to any principles the USA was founded upon? Do you think Washington and Jefferson were afraid to be recognized as themselves? There may be moments and places when I prefer to be anonymous, but when I need to show who I am I prefer to have a clear and unambiguous way to prove it.

Re:Constitutional authority (4, Informative)

eric76 (679787) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467954)

1) The Constitution states in the "Bill of Rights" set of ammendments some things the government cannot do. Creating a national ID isn't prohibited. Sure, the Constitution doesn't order the government to create a national ID either, but by default what isn't prohibited is allowed.

That's quite incorrect.

Read the 9th and 10th amendments:

AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, according to the Bill of Rights, the fact that a right is not explicitly enumerated does not mean we don't have that right.

And, from the 10th Amendment, all powers that are not given to the government by the Constition and that are not prohibited by it to the states are reserved for the people or the states.

Thus, the Federal Government has no legal powers that are not explicitly set forth in the Constitution.

Re:Constitutional authority (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14467956)

1) The Constitution states in the "Bill of Rights" set of ammendments some things the government cannot do. Creating a national ID isn't prohibited. Sure, the Constitution doesn't order the government to create a national ID either, but by default what isn't prohibited is allowed.

Um, are you not familiar with the concept of Natural Rights? The constitution was originally written to enumerate the powers of government. By default the government IS prohibited from doing things _unless_ the constitution says otherwise. Jesus, what do they teach you people in school these days?

Re:Constitutional authority (4, Insightful)

Control Group (105494) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467974)

1) The Constitution states in the "Bill of Rights" set of ammendments some things the government cannot do. Creating a national ID isn't prohibited. Sure, the Constitution doesn't order the government to create a national ID either, but by default what isn't prohibited is allowed.

I don't want to be rude, but if you actually believe this, you really need to read the Constitution, with a specific focus on the 9th and 10th Amendments. I'm absolutely serious. You are perfectly, exactly, and 100% wrong about this. The Consitution explicitly states that the only things the fed.gov is allowed to do are those things enumerated in the Constitution; anything else is reserved to the people, or the states. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as an asshole, here; I'm not trying to. But, assuming you live in the US, it's apalling to me that you can be so fundamentally wrong about how our government works.

2) A national ID may not be the perfect "silver bullet" that kills terrorism once and for all, but it certainly would impose one more difficulty on terrorists.

Since the 9/11 terrorists were, prior to the attack, completely indiscernible from other, non-terrorist citizens, this is clearly a difficulty they have already overcome.

3) Identity theft can be done in a great number of ways today. A national ID, if properly implemented, could make identity theft much more difficult. Think about it, if someone shows a fake driver's license from North Dakota with your name on it, what are the chances that the bank teller will be able to detect the fraud?

As it currently stands, when someone breaks into, say, a credit card database, they get information on a couple million people. This proposes to set up a database with all the identifying information on everybody. If it breaks, the criminal has information on every single American citizen with a driver's license.

4) Why would a national ID be contrary to any principles the USA was founded upon? Do you think Washington and Jefferson were afraid to be recognized as themselves? There may be moments and places when I prefer to be anonymous, but when I need to show who I am I prefer to have a clear and unambiguous way to prove it.

Because, if you read the Federalist papers, you'll realize that the federal government was intended to have essentially no contact with the lives of the citizens, only with state governments. The average citizen was supposed to be able to go his entire life without even knowing or caring what the fed.gov was doing.

Anyway, you very, very much need to read the Constitution.

Re:Constitutional authority (1)

kcbrown (7426) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468098)

But, assuming you live in the US, it's apalling to me that you can be so fundamentally wrong about how our government works.

He's not wrong about how our government works, only about how it's supposed to work.

In practice, our government does whatever damned thing it wants, Constitution or no Constitution.

Re:Constitutional authority (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468009)

Sure, the Constitution doesn't order the government to create a national ID either, but by default what isn't prohibited is allowed.

Not so for the Federal Government. ONLY those laws that have a basis in the Constitution are valid when passed by Congress; the rest, no matter how good an idea they may be, are summarily dismissed.

OTOH, Congress's powers to regulate interstate trade, levy taxes, and regulate the militia give it plenty of power.

Re:Principles lost, or not there in the first plac (1)

isotope23 (210590) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467980)

Ah, it is not "mandated".

You just cant go on ANY federal property (courts parks etc)
nor can you travel via interstate commerce (planes trains and buses)

That said there is nothing stopping a state from saying "FU".
Of course they "might" lose all their other federal funding should
they do so....

Screw security, I'll take liberty every time.
We've all got to die sometime, I'd prefer to live a short
and free life versus a long and opressed one.

Re:Principles lost, or not there in the first plac (4, Insightful)

Control Group (105494) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468024)

Yeah, that's certainly the cop out the fed.gov is using to sidestep the whole problem that they're trying to do something they have no legal authority to do...but you and I both know it amounts to a mandate. How many states have managed to stay off the fed.gov teat well enough to not have to cave to federal highway funding requirements?

Want to bet that federal highway funds will be tied to this if there's any indication that states are deliberately not complying?

Feh.

Regarding security versus liberty, I couldn't agree more. What's really depressing, though, is the Big Lie nature of the whole thing. It might not be so frustrating if we actually were getting security at the cost of liberty. But the real crime is we're not; we're pissing away our liberty at an ever-increasing rate, and we've got nothing to show for it (or at least, nothing even close to equivalent value).

Passports, State IDs, etc (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467642)

I know some people who don't have passports, or guys/gals who live in big cities and don't have a driver's license.

I suggest you go get yours renewed (or go get them if you don't have 'em) now, rather than when you need them.

Driver's licenses/State IDs are good for ~5 years and passports are good for 10 years.

Better do it now, before they institute radio tags, biometrics, or whatever other technology they plan to implement.

It's only a holding action, but I'll be happier knowing I put off the inevitable.

How is this NOT a (1)

IAAP (937607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467643)

national ID card?

FTFA:.... the Real ID Act creates a set of uniform standards for state-issued ID cards, and mandates the construction of a centralized national identification database that will contain the personal information of every citizen in America.

It's a national ID card in all but name. It's a national Id card that's issued by the States instead of the Federal Government. And considering all of the junk, faulty data, lies, etc... in all of those databases, it's going to fail. Which I like that idea. Unfortunately, some innocent people are going to get iconvenienced and I'm sure jailed. Disagree with me? Just look at what's happening with the DO NOT FLY LIST. This poor fucking girl! [ksdk.com]

Re:How is this NOT a (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14467793)

She filled condoms with flour? How does this have anything to do with the do not fly list and why the hell would she use condoms instead of baloons? I suspect she was looking more of a get rich quick scheme. Or just to see if they really search bags. Why would you use condoms for a stress relieving "project". (all puns aside regarding condoms and stress relief). Who whips out a condom for use like this?

Re:How is this NOT a (3, Informative)

IAAP (937607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467845)

How does this have anything to do with the do not fly list..

It's a perfect example of the slippery slope and how these laws do nothing but take our civil liberties away and give power to the corrupt and incompetent. The TSA was supposed to screen for potential threats to airplane and passenger safety, NOT catch drug dealers. Soon, they'll be looking for deadbeat dads, or maybe, if you're behind on your credit card payments, they'll look for you!

Also, the cops "tested" what was in the condoms and said that it showed that the contents were illegal drugs. Subsequently, when tested by the DEA, it came back as flour. My point: The cops either lied or are incompetent.They should be fired and arrested themselves.

Re:How is this NOT a (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14468047)

It was unfortunate that the girl was unfairly charged and thrown in jail at the expense of either a faulty drug field tester or a stupid policemen... but the job of airport security screeners is to search for any suspicious material. If I am taking a flight from somewhere, and some screeners find cocaine in a bag of a fellow passenger, I would hope that they raise a red flag. It sure as hell is a potential threat if someone is smuggling drugs, whether intentionally or not. So to say that they are supposed to do this or that to ensure passenger safety, but not catch drug dealers is stupid.

What's the point of a DO NOT FLY list? (1)

raehl (609729) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468082)

I thought humans were flightless. Is there a DO NOT BREATHE UNDERWATER list too?

So now everyone knows (1)

csscmaster3 (837887) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467649)

Well if everyone in the nation has an "Real ID",shouln't that mean that terrorists in america will be know before and after they strike? there should be some sort of backgroud check before issuing a "Real lD"

Real ID? (4, Funny)

taskforce (866056) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467653)

If it's anything like Real Audio, thanks but no thanks.

Re:Real ID? (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467715)

At the airport: buffering ...

Re:Real ID? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14467829)

If it is anything like Real Doll... thanks... no, really... Thanks!

Why not just go with mandatory RFID Implants? (1)

DrSchollz (792410) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467732)

With the extent of government meddling why not just get it over with and require RFID Implants? The site http://tagged.kaos.gen.nz/ [kaos.gen.nz] already is a forum for people who have willingly undergone the implant lifestyle. After that it wont be so hard for the thought police to find us.

It Should Happen... (1, Insightful)

mpapet (761907) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467768)

Think about this for a minute.

Everyone of you that live in fear of a national ID might tell me that whatever agency gets to build the thing will share with any agency that comes calling? Simple human nature tells me this won't happen. No sharing of information, no real substantial coordination between agencies. Nothing.

I am concerned that centralizing law enforcement authority will be a more desirable outcome of the legislation, with no intention of ever actually issuing an ID card.

There are quite a number of commercial information agencies many of which have gov't contracts for your personal data. Let's not forget the latest revelation regarding GWB's authorizing domestic survielance without any oversight.

Your detailed personal activity is already being collected. Many of you are up in arms because they want to issue a national ID????! It's water under the bridge. Done.

This guy http://www.identityblog.com/ [identityblog.com] (warning microsoftie) has the same hue and cry about privacy and yet the guy is advocating a system to collect far more detailed activity in a more revocable/authenticatable manner (whatever that means) than what's available now. I asked him to clarify his stance in comments to his blog. Surprise! Neither was the comment posted nor a response given.

A national ID card won't change a thing.

Re:It Should Happen... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14467810)

"Your detailed personal activity is already being collected... It's water under the bridge. Done."

Yup, and many people have been raped to date, so it's OK to go out and do rape & murder tomorrow.

No Prob (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467809)

My driver's license doesn't expire until 2017, and my passport is good for flying nearly as long.

So if the feds want to ban the use of Arizona ID on planes, it's OK by me.

Re:No Prob (1)

Bassman59 (519820) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468069)

My AZ DL expires in 2031!

Opposed by National Governors Association? (3, Informative)

ugmoe (776194) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467867)

>>"Opposed by more than 600 independent organizations >> (including the National Governors Association)

They seem to be stretching the truth on this one, the truth is that the official National Governors Association position is that they will happily make any kind of ID's requested as long as the federal government provides the funds.

Here is the official NGA statement:

http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.8358ec 82f5b198d18a278110501010a0/?vgnextoid=3f90d3add6da 2010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD [nga.org]

Policy Position

printable version

03/03/2005

EDC-18. Driver's License and Personal Identification Card Integrity

The motor vehicle driver's license, which is issued by each state, is used as an official identification document as well as a document that demonstrates an individual's knowledge and ability to operate a motor vehicle. States also issue personal identification cards that can be used as an official identification document. Most driver's licenses and personal identification cards have common elements displayed, such as a photo, a signature, a unique identifier number, and the individual's physical description. This has made the state-issued driver's license and personal identification card the most acceptable forms of identification in America.

Governors are concerned about the security and integrity of state driver's licenses, state personal identification cards, and the identification process. They are committed to working cooperatively with the federal government to develop and implement realistic, achievable standards that will enhance efforts to prevent document fraud and other illegal activity related to the issuance of driver's licenses and identification documents.

In making changes to the current system of issuing driver's licenses and personal identification cards, Governors believe that any rule or regulation requiring a change to the driver's license document or the personal identification card document should only apply to newly issued, renewed, and duplicate driver's licenses and identification cards produced by a state. Furthermore, any rulemaking body that is prescribing new standards for driver's licenses or personal identification cards must perform an assessment of the annual benefits and costs of its recommendations. The federal government should provide adequate funding to states to implement any required mandate stemming from the rulemaking. At no time should the rulemaking body propose an unfunded mandate on states.

Easy Compliance (2, Interesting)

Thunderstruck (210399) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467917)

If anyone cares to actually read the provisions of the Act which implement the Real ID system, they'll see a provision which allows for easy compliance. In essence, my state can continue to issue licenses and ignore the data gathering burdens of the act by simply changing the color of the license and printing "not valid as federal identification" on the front.

Of course, then I may need some alternative form of ID if I wish to deal with a federal agency... But it's cheap this way.

Re:Easy Compliance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14467979)

And there's no problem with that, unless you want to travel via airplane...

A simple answer to "why not?" (1)

Ryan C. (159039) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467932)

Trying to reason with people who can actually support such ideas is useless. They're beyond reason, usually due to fear. One sentence I've used that actualy worked on such people is:

"Well, there's nothing so wrong with it, it's just not America."

/Your papers, please.

A Modest Proposal (1)

jmcharry (608079) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468025)

Why cannot a state issue two types of driver's license, one that meets its needs at the current cost, and one that meets the Feds' requirements for an additional $67, the cost of obtaining a passport, but without the passport? Those who have passports needn't pay twice, including foreigners who presumably have passports from their own countries, and green cards or other visas if they are legals. Others have their choice of a conforming driver's license or a regular one plus a passport. For that matter, why not either do nothing, or charge more than the cost of a passport and kick the ball back in their court?

Tacking on bills (2, Interesting)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468027)

Im not an American but whats with all this hiding laws in other bills bullshit? Surely this is a most weaselly and below the belt tactic? Why is this accepted in anyway? Why does no-one automatically cry foul and make sure whoever did it looses all trust and respect? I can understand why you cant treat it as a hostage taking and automatically vote down any bill that's had something dodgy tacked on - obviously people would use that as a tool to get rid of bills but surely this sort of thing can be controlled or shunned out of practice? How does it work?

Whats the big deal? (4, Interesting)

Isaac-1 (233099) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468060)

As it stands now lack of state issued ID is almost a defacto guilty until proven innocent offense. As a perfect example, a few years ago I was on vacation at a beachfront hotel, One evening I was sitting out on the lounge chairs watching the sunset with a group of half a dozen or so strangers. There was typical limited casual conversation going on, one of the guys there was sipping a beer, and one of the women was drinking a glass of wine. A police officer pulls up on an ATV and starts asking for ID's from those that were drinking. The woman who appeared to be about 30 years old pulled her drivers license out from her purse. The guy with the beer was not so lucky, he looked a bit younger and was wearing a bathing suit, he said his ID was up in the hotel room. So the police officer spent the next 10-15 minutes disturbing out peaceful view of the sunset by asking this young guy all sorts of questions (Name, address, SSN, etc) then asked the entire group of people to not leave while he radioed this this information in. About 20 minutes later the police had looked up this guys drivers license, radioed back a description, etc. and confirmed that he was 25 years old.

Ike

Non-compliance as the solution (3, Informative)

JimBobJoe (2758) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468085)

I've written about non-compliance as a solution [politechbot.com] to the REAL ID Act.

Fortunately the act was written so states could decline to comply, and not have to deal with losing funding (which is unavailable to help states comply anyway.)

As I point out, on a day to day basis most people don't need a federally accepted ID card. It's cheaper for the states to tell people who need a federal ID card to just get a passport (which about 25% of Americans already have.)

If worse comes to worst, the occasionaly traveller can just travel ID-less. The airline will decide what to do with the ID card, and if it's not accepted, the passenger will become a selectee (which is the normal procedure for a passenger without ID.)

Passports (0, Troll)

Bassman59 (519820) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468129)

Seems to me we already have a "real ID" in the form of a passport. They're issued by the State Department or the equivalent from a foreign nation. It oughta be good enough for regular ID use, as one presumes that if you apply for a passport, the State Department will do some minimal checking to ensure that you are you. And the infrastructure to issue passports already exists. No other gov't agency required.

I realize that passports cost more than a driver's license and I don't see any reason why the cost of a passport can't be reduced. The point is that if the Feds require everyone to have valid identification papers, then the passport is the answer.

And let's not forget an important point: the 9/11 terrorists were travelling with valid visas issued by the State Department under their own real names. They were renting apartments and cars, attending school, working regular jobs (and paying taxes!), all in their own real names. I'm not exactly sure how this "Real ID" law will make any difference in the So-Called Global War On Terror. But then again, nothing the Bush Administration has done in the name of terror has been a rousing success.

Wait a minute ... maybe ID means "Intelligent Design," not "identification." Hmmmm ....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>