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!

More States Challenging National Driver's Licenses

Hemos posted more than 7 years ago | from the get-together-right-now dept.

United States 389

berberine writes "A revolt against a national driver's license, begun in Maine last month, is quickly spreading to other states. The Maine Legislature on Jan. 26 overwhelmingly passed a resolution objecting to the Real ID Act of 2005. The federal law sets a national standard for driver's licenses and requires states to link their record-keeping systems to national databases. Within a week of Maine's action, lawmakers in Georgia, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington state also balked at Real ID. They are expected soon to pass laws or adopt resolutions declining to participate in the federal identification network. Maine's rejection was recently discussed on slashdot."

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

DB Linkage Is Inevitable (5, Interesting)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888738)

Those of us who work everyday with databases should know the futility of opposing any linkages of all DBs in the world. It is only through government stupidity and lethargy that this hasn't happened already. Anybody who has a DB is going to link them up if at all possible. The only thing we have on our side is the delay caused by government sloth.

Your best bet if you don't like this is to go off the grid. But we know what an exercise in futility that is unless you're willing to live in Montana ala Ted Kazinsky.

Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable (4, Insightful)

Heian-794 (834234) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888838)

Actually the best way to go off the grid is to expat to another country. If your destination is a place with a non-Roman alphabet, I doubt any databases will be able to link your name to anything without human intervention. Provided that you don't make the $80,000 required to be eligible for US taxes, you'll be able to sign contracts, use credit cards, etc. without the US or its corporations finding anything out. As far as the multinationals are concerned, 'you' are two different people.

Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888914)

Maybe American agencies are not used to non-ASCII characters, but I think they are a standard and mandatory feature of every Asian and European intelligence database. And as much as I like to bash American administration, I doubt that they don't have the necessary bridges to track an individual whose name is usually written in, say, arabic.

Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable (1)

Kerstyun (832278) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888954)

Swap big bruther fer grand-fraire? Je thinks not!

Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable (5, Insightful)

mikelieman (35628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888906)

Perhaps an Amendment guaranteeing our heretofore unenumerated Right to Privacy?

Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable (1, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889484)

Perhaps an Amendment guaranteeing our heretofore unenumerated Right to Privacy??

How does this invade your privacy? Is there a camera on these things?

Giving Up is Not Inevitable (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888978)

FWIW, the government sloth and lethargy is part of the American ideology of limiting government so it can do the least harm to the people, while doing the most work for us. I'd rather have an inefficient government topheavy with accountability than an efficient totalitarianism.

Those of us who work with the government (I advise the NYC City Council's Technology committee) know that governments, born to bureaucracy, have the most chance of actually adhering to policies that prohibit invasive DB linking, when the people get involved to stop aggressive officials with Big Brother dreams. They live by those rules and the audits. If they are designed by both policy and info architects, to actually work with the "machinery" of people who run them.

If you are that fatalistic, and just give up, of course exploiters in government, and the "subcontractors" who love them (and pillaging their data) will track your every move. Only if you do something to engage your democracy will you make it work for you. You are the "dem" in democracy.

NYC Is A Bastion (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889054)

As a fellow New Yorker, I agree that NYC is a great place for citizen involvement. However, this is the exception. In most cities, government can do what it wants because nobody cares. I have lived all over the US from Omaha, Phoenix, Cincinnati, Houston and Salt Lake City and no where do people notice or care what government is doing until it is done and directly affects them. It is a common experience to have people complaining about the horse after it escaped the barn months before.

Stopping these kinds of things takes constant vigilence. It's akin to stopping the gentrification of an old neighborhood. Drop your guard for one day and that old building you loved is a pile of ruble. In NYC, there have even been buildings that were protected under a court order that were taken down on a Sunday.

So, while I agree with your sentiment, my expectations are much more pessimistic.

Re:NYC Is A Bastion (3, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889332)

government can do what it wants because nobody cares
Well, your fatalistic comment perpetuates that apathy, which is self-perpetuating.

I lived in SF, where government access was just as open (in the early 1990s). I lived in Albany, NY, in the 1980s, and there was absolutely no access to the government by mere citizens, even under Cuomo "the Great". I lived in New Orleans the first part of this decade, and mere citizen access to N'O/LA government (without a fistful of cash or a cemetery of old boy relatives) was a dream, a joke, a thorough hoax. We'll see whether near extinction has any constructive effect, especially depending on which outsiders (if any) move in, bringing expectations of government with them.

Interactive government is a culture that varies by region. But the underlying rituals, however vestigal, leave all Americans somewhere to start reactivating citizen access, even if it's a long road to a real republican democracy. It's worth doing. And the only one who can do it is "you", whoever "you" are.

Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable (2, Insightful)

RedneckJack (934223) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889020)

The original Real ID Act legislation called for states to sign the Driver License Agreement [wikipedia.org] as written by the AAMVA [aamva.org] which would require states to share their driver license data including sensitive information such as Social Security Numbers not only with other states but also with foreign countries starting with Mexico and Canada.

If I had a say, I would repeal the law and in addition, not allow states to use Social Security Numbers in motor vehicle matters and go as far as returning to the original intent of the SS# as for management of Social Security benefits only and no other purpose. The number would not be used for credit, motor vehicle matters, businesses, etc.

Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable (2, Interesting)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889022)

I love the grid life but I want information security too. I don't fear the government too much, like you said, they're lethargic and stupid. But I do fear the government's stupidity. If the government starts linking up all kinds of databases full of information like that found on the driver's liscence to who know's what else, how long until they link my credit history to my information? Surely there's a connection between credit rating to poverty and poverty to crime? Sure, that's not going to be a real problem, there always a bigger fish, but what in recent history makes you think that data's safe? How long ago were all those harddrives from a nuclear research facility lost? When was it that those USB drives from a US military base found being sold in an Afganistan bazaar? What makes us think that allowing this incompetent government manage all this data will keep it safe from ID theifs and other cybercriminals? I happen to be a believer in security via obscurity and this simply does not suit me well.

Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable (4, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889474)

Those of us who work everyday with databases should know the futility of opposing any linkages of all DBs in the world.

Those of us who work everyday with databases should also know the reliability, performance, and interoperability of a large collection of databases all independantly designed, implemented, and maintained by different people, running on different platforms, and intended for different purposes.

Good luck pulling out anything meaningful - You might have a lot of "data", but I'd trust an appropriations bill for an Alaskan bridge before I'd rely on anything you could query from a multi-state DB monstrosity.

Re:DB Linkage Is Inevitable (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889576)

You are absolutely right but different databases would mean different licenses and I expect the bean counters would demand that all those dbs be put on the same instance and so--eventually--they will interoperate.

We're all putting our privacy hopes on the chance that all these problems will never be worked out. Sure, during the short run they would never work but eventually it's going to be some hotshot programmer's job to make them work and I expect--eventually--they will get this problem solved and those databases are going to work well enough to violate all of our privacy.

Look how long it has taken the FBI to get their shit together. Decades. However, are you willing to bet that the NSA does not have enough money to solve these problems? I'm not. Given enough money, enough smart coders, I fear that these databases are going to be talking. Sure, not efficiently enough for real time. So that means the feds are going to be knocking on your door in a week rather than a day. The end result is the same.

These laws are to stop... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17888748)

all of those illegal aliens who are coming here to terrorize us by mowing our lawns and playing latino music really loud!

It's a good first step (4, Insightful)

knightmad (931578) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888752)

I wish they could take advantage of the timing and challenge other measures like national speed limit and national drinking age too, putting an end on this bastardized federalism that is not only against the intention of the Founding Fathers but very damaging to the very concept of the whole thing.

Re:It's a good first step (1)

endianx (1006895) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888762)

I'm with you on that. Maybe if they pushed hard on all of it, at least some of it would get done.

Colorado was the last to fight the drinking age (2, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888850)

We fought against the drinking age issue, but congress had tied it to the funding of the roads. IIRC, In the end after 2 years of losing ALL road funding, the state gave in.

you used the wrong approach (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17888986)

You should have placed tolls (collected simply by cops in cruisers) at all road entrances to your state and had them collect a (large -- think 5-figure or more per-vehicle) toll only from federal (military, etc.) vehicles.

Ensure that if the feds want to use your roads then they *will* fund them whether its indirectly (as per usual) or directly.

Re:Colorado was the last to fight the drinking age (4, Insightful)

AlHunt (982887) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888990)

We fought against the drinking age issue, but congress had tied it to the funding of the roads. IIRC, In the end after 2 years of losing ALL road funding, the state gave in.

This is one of the things Americans need to stand up against - the feds holding states hostage.

Truly scandalous. They take $$$ from the citizens of each state and then hold them hostage to get it back. What they can't accomplish through legislation, they force through coercion.

Re:Colorado was the last to fight the drinking age (0, Troll)

hotdiggitydawg (881316) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889050)

Absolutely! May the South rise again...

Oh the Irony! (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889080)

Now it is the Southern and MidWestern states which benefit from the federal government squeezing the Northern/Coastal states for tax money to re-distribute to the Southern and Midwestern states!

Perhaps the North should rise up, buy our food from South America, and stop giving welfare to states that can't compete! /partly kidding

Re:Oh the Irony! (0, Flamebait)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889452)

Now it is the Southern and MidWestern states which benefit from the federal government squeezing the Northern/Coastal states for tax money to re-distribute to the Southern and Midwestern states!

"Now"? It's always been that way.

Re:Colorado was the last to fight the drinking age (5, Insightful)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889272)

Truly scandalous. They take $$$ from the citizens of each state and then hold them hostage to get it back. What they can't accomplish through legislation, they force through coercion.

As de Tocqueville said:

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money"

your post is classic demagoguery (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889290)

it conflates state's rights with individual's rights

listen carefully:

state versus nation != individual versus government

anyone reading your post above would get the distinct impression that when the state of maine fights washington dc, they are fighting for your individual rights

oh really?

seems to me that the state of maine is fighting for the rights of the state of maine

why in a million years should i trust that the government in augusta to be a better guarantor of my rights than washington dc?

all of the corruption, nefariousness and other evils that happens in washington dc somehow magically doesn't happen in augusta?

but i do know this: there is a bright hot spotlight pointed at washington dc. i think the bulb pointed at augusta is a lot dimmer. people studying washington dc for erosions in personal rights probably outnumber those doing the same in augusta by orders of magnitude, don't you think?

therefore, contrary to all of the demagoguery out there championing state's rights that somehow conflates that with individual rights, i am firmly of the opinion that my individual liberties are better preserved by undermining state's rights

state capitols, it seems to be, always seem to be rotten with more corruption and social conservative agendas (agendas always at odds with personal liberties and freedoms) than what goes on washington dc

what goes on in washington dc isn't nice, and often hurts personal rights and freedoms

but i have enough wits about me to realize that what goes on in montpelier or sacramento or bismarck is no better, and often a lot worse, and often a lot less scrutinzed

so i'm not buying your demagoguery

the rights of the state of maine != individual rights

to think that augusta will somehow champion your individual rights better than washington dc is pure propaganda

what augusta will do is serve some agenda that probably is more corrupt, less scrutinized and more hostile to individual rights than anything that goes down in smoke filled rooms in washington dc

the fight for state rights is a red herring, a shell game. its a front for social conservatives to, ironically, push agendas which damage personal liberties more than anything that could go down in washington dc

when you hear a social conservative whine about state's rightsd and the fight for your freedoms, don't drink the koolaid. your state capitol will strip you of your personal privacy and freedoms far faster and easier than washington dc ever could
 

Re:your post is classic demagoguery (1)

FirstPostReplyTroll (1051956) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889558)

I read your post and immediately recognized the style as yours before I read your name
When did you move from kuro5hin to slashdot?

Re:Colorado was the last to fight the drinking age (1, Insightful)

siriuskase (679431) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889368)

The drinking age thing comes up just about every time the Georgia legislature meets. The traditional argument is that people old enough to fight our wars should be able to have a drink, so sometimes, it is tied to being in the military. But, that isn't even the best reason.

Kids still drink, possibly as much as when I was in college. I got totally plastered a few times when I was a freshman, but I always managed to find my way home. I didn't particularly enjoy it. By the time I was an upper classman, we were drinking maturally in the various restarants all around Georgia Tech, and branching out to the variious night clubs and such where you had to be of age to get in. I talk to kids now, and they still drink, they get stinking drunk, but it's in their rooms, not in public, and it's binge drinking, not responsible. As you might expect when you have a case of beer and a few bottles of other stuff calling you from your own fridge. It is responsible drinking that the laws discourage. I think it is much easier for drinking to get out of cntrol when it is done in the dorm room or frat house. Getting the stuff isn't hard since so many people don't like the law and many of those adults don't mind breaking a bad law.

Re:Colorado was the last to fight the drinking age (3, Insightful)

Thunderstruck (210399) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889568)

Actually, the federal law for witholding funds, 23 USC 158, only calls for a 10% reduction in funding, not the loss of all federal highway funds. The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed this section in South Dakota v. Dole. It held (arguably) that witholding all funds might constitute coercion and be impermissible, but a 10% sanction was within congressional spending authority.

i don't see what is so great about state's rights (0, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889132)

we're americans first, right? we're not north dakotans or georgians or texans first, right?

why do you think a state government is somehow immune form all of the problems you see inherent in a national government? especially as pertaining to individual rights: why in your mind is sacramento or montpelier somehow a better guardian of your individual rights than washington dc? i frnakly don't understand the faith in state's rights

i do however, understand this: some conservative backwater areas of this country resent washington dc enforcing progressive social policies on them. and so they speak in terms of state's rights, but the real conversation is about resisiting positive social change, and preserving backwardness in the hinterlands

no, i'd rather empower washington dc and undermine bismarck. bismarck will close down abortion clinics, washington dc will keep them open. that's the real story here: state's rights is the last vestige of the social conservative

personal liberties and freedoms are increased by putting power in the hands of washington dc, and decreased by putting power in the hands of

of course, social conservatives won't frame it this way. they speak of the rights of the state of maine, or the state of montana, with the vehemence of the fight for personal rights... right, got it, the "personal right" of social conservatives ot push their agenda which always seems to run counter to real personal liberties

it's a smokescreen. don't drink the koolaid folks: personal freedoms is increased by national power, and decreased by empowering the states, whose center so fpower are often rotten with social conservatives and their american taliban agenda

when they scream about the rights of the state of maine, remember: augusta is a worse protector of personal rights and freedoms and privacy than washington dc is

of course, the social conservatives will scream at this notion. it undermine's their "personal freedom" to talk away your and mine personal freedom

don't drink the koolaid: state's rights is the last vestige of conservative assholes

the whole discussion is loaded with demoagogues screaming about individual rights, arguing for a system that actually decreases individual rights

states rights != individual rights

Re:i don't see what is so great about state's righ (4, Funny)

Jon Peterson (1443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889162)

Well, look on the bright side. Neither the states nor the Feds are enforcing capital letters, and you for one must be very glad of that.

Re:i don't see what is so great about state's righ (3, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889236)

You are why this country is failing apart. In the 1940's and earlier it wasn't The United States of America. It was These United States of America. The loss of two little letters changed us from 50 states of different people united, to one Nation State who must follow the will of the Party in Control.

The Constitution clearly states that all rights not assigned to the federal government are rights of the States.

It is too bad you have never read and understood such an important document.

Re:i don't see what is so great about state's righ (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889338)

What's wrong with your shift key?

don't drink the koolaid: state's rights is the last vestige of conservative assholes
That's an ad hominem and has no place in any rational argument. You're totally disregarding the concept of regional interest. It has nothing to do with conservatism. You don't think that in left wing meccas like Massachusetts that they have common interests to be defended?

regional interest? (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889478)

what is that?

the region i'm in in the united states. my regional rights and interests are fought for in washignton dc

the region known as texas, or california... they are subsets of the region i'm in

i am an american first, a new yorker a distant second

when 9/11 happened, was it an attack on new yorkers? is illegal mexican immigration only a problem for texas? no and no. when 9/11 happened, texans were just as shocked and outraged at the attack on AMERICA. not new york. when illegal immigration is a concern in dallas, as a new yorker do i not care? no. it's a NATIONAL problem, not a regional one

to take your point to the absurd, then we should champion city rights over states rights?

if texas and california have regional interests above and beyond washington dc, why doesn't dallas and houston have rights that trump austin or why doesn't san fransisco and la have rights that trump sacramento?

now before you lecture me on the obvious, of COURSE the paving of a street in san diego is of more interest to san diegans than californians or americans. but that is a GENUINE geography specific problem

but what are we talking about here?

a NATIONAL problem

why is it superior to solve a NATIONAL problem on a state level?

it isn't!

Re:i don't see what is so great about state's righ (4, Insightful)

TheGavster (774657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889400)

There are two reasons I support state's rights:

- The likelihood of a public policy being agreeable to 300 million people is much less than it being agreeable to 3-30 million people. Additionally, there is a tendancy for the 'rich' states to be forced to subsidize the 'poor' states. Before you say it's the poor states' right to be subsidized, is it the right of say Kosovo to be subsidized by Lichtenstein? Coming together for a common defense and free trade doesn't mean coming together for the giving of ones resources to the other.

- Representative governments lose touch with their constituents as the number of constituents rises. My US congressman represents me ... and approximately 1 million other people. My state congressman represents a few orders less. Having laws passed by a group whose majority doesn't come from within 1000 miles of my home does not give me a warm fuzzy. What does the Congresswoman from California know of the needs of Connecticuters?

adopting resolutions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17888770)

Within a week of Maine's action, lawmakers in Georgia, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington state also balked at Real ID. They are expected soon to pass laws or adopt resolutions declining to participate in the federal identification network.

The White-House will just claim it is needed in the War of Terror, just like before.

What's it really for? (4, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888788)

The law's supporters say it is needed to prevent terrorists and illegal immigrants from getting fake identification cards.
Because we all know it's completely and totally impossible for a terrorist or illegal immigrant to have actual IDs from the DMV in their pockets, right?

Re:What's it really for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17888822)

If the ID picture actually looks like the person holding the license I'd peg the terr-O-meter at "Enemy of the State."

Re:What's it really for? (4, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888886)

I think this is a valid point because several of the "19" had valid passports and other ID.

Re:What's it really for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17889150)

I think this is a valid point because several of the "19" had valid passports and other ID.

Actually, all the "19" had valid ID, in their real names.

Re:What's it really for? (1)

gsslay (807818) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888900)

It'll be exactly like the UK ID Card. What it's for is whatever hot-button topic of the month is. And once that has been thoroughly debunked it'll be for the next month's hot-button topic. And so on until something sticks or it's too late....


And by the end of it all the government will have grafted a shiny new ID handle onto you, all the better to grab you by and put you where they want you..


For your own good, of course.

Re:What's it really for? (2, Interesting)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888950)

Does Joker [wikipedia.org] classify as a terrorist? Because it's certainly possible for him to get a new national ID card [theregister.co.uk] designed to prevent just such problems.

It's Black History month... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17888964)

Time for a month-long history lesson about Rosa Parks and the Tuskegee Airmen. Time for all non-blacks to wallow in self-hatred...

But doesn't it also makes them harder to get? (3, Insightful)

HighOrbit (631451) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888980)

My understanding is that it makes applicants prove either their citizenship or legal presence in the country (i.e valid permanent resident visa) to get a license. The 9-11 hijackers had real valid Virginia issued drivers licenses, but they were obtained fraudulently. This makes it harder for them to get one. Once they are denied a driver license, a whole host of otherwise trivial transactions (banking, travel, renting an apartment, etc) become much harder from them to accomplish without attracting attention.

Re:But doesn't it also makes them harder to get? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17889344)

California will issue driver's licenses to illegals, knowing they are illegal. Governer Patrick of Masaachusetts says he intends to do the same.

that's the whole point (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889040)

it is easy for an illegal to get a fake state dmv license

that's the point

50 different state models, with only a state's resources behind them, is easier to crack than one big national model

i would go so far as to say that it might still not be so hard to get a national id

however, it will be HARDER, without a doubt. no huge bureaucratic system is airtight. but national resources, and one national id card, brings to bear resources on the problem that individual states are ill-equipped to handle. plus. for law enforcement, its easier to vet one card and one database than 50 fractious, differently standardized state models

Why are states ill-equipped? (1)

halr9000 (465474) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889300)

I disagree with the parent on one point. There is no fundamental reason that a given solution is bad simply because a state conceived or implemented it. None of our states are so resource-poor that they cannot take a problem, say standardized ID, and solve it. Now the *quality* of said solution may certainly (and rather likely) be crap, we are talking about government here. But what I am getting at is that the Feds will do no better. If you throw more money and more bureaucracy at a problem, does that guarantee a better solution? Hell no!

an excellent state solution (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889358)

is inferior to a poor national solution

the very concept of one national standardized id backed by one standard database cuts through so much bureaucracy. and that seems to be your problem: bureaucracy

therefore, i'll say it again: 50 different fractious differently implemented, differently standardized, but excellent, state models is inferior to one poor national model in efficiency

strictly on the basis of cutting through mounds of red tape

Re:that's the whole point (2, Insightful)

Magada (741361) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889388)

50 different state models, with only a state's resources behind them, is easier to crack than one big national model
Excuse me while I go laugh my arse off. Is the notion of single point of failure familiar to you? The resources of all criminal organizations operating or wishing to operate inside the US would thereafter be focused on compromising ONE database and ONE form of ID, both managed and guarded with all the care and diligence that federal subcontractors have become famous for over the years. In the meantime, everyone and their dog would be relying on that one form of ID, because it's federally mandated and if it's good for the feds, it must be good enough for everyone.

Yes. I can see how that would be harder than having to piece together identities for people from lots of disjointed sources - afaik right now as a citizen of the US you need a ssn, a valid address(though what constitutes a valid address is debatable), a state driver's license, a bank account with a good credit score and possibly a gun permit to be able to pass off as a respectable citizen - that adds up to five different systems to bypass/hijack, of which at least one is run by operators who have real money riding on the correctness and accuracy of their data.

The point you make about vetting is similarly flawed, but I won't bother to elaborate.

Also, please consider that once such a system is deployed, any flaws it may have will tend to persist due to the huge upfront costs of making nationwide changes.

Think of the Children! (3, Funny)

emptybody (12341) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888808)

sorry, couldnt resist.

watch out for revenous mooninites while you are at it.

Re:Think of the Children! (0, Offtopic)

Randall311 (866824) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888854)

"Mooninites! Duplicate, Reunite, and Unihilate!"

Giving up privacy (2)

mulhollandj (807571) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888852)

I sure hope more states revolt against this. We are surrendering our privacy for 'security'. Of course one must realize how few terrorist attacks the USSR and Nazi Germany had that weren't staged. I find it very interesting how the government convinced millions of very independent Americans to be tracked in the first place. Social Security, aka 'free' money.

Re:Giving up privacy (4, Interesting)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888988)

Explain to me why a national ID surrenders more privacy than a state ID. It is not as though the federal government doesn't already have access to all 50 states' ID systems. What is the inherent harm in replacing 50 different databases with one database?

Re:Giving up privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17889126)

The national ID just usurps more power from the states. The US is a Republic which means the States cooperate with each other for their benefit. The US is not meant to be a central government that controls all aspects of life in the US. Of course, the Civil War kind of destroyed the whole Republic concept, but going to a National ID is just another step to the point that States are irrelevant.

Re:Giving up privacy (1)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889476)

Actually, the "whole republic concept" has nothing to do with federalism. There are dozens of unitary republics in the world. But more to the point, "usurping power from the states" is not a violation of privacy. People are calling this a privacy issue, and I want to know why. I get that there is a states rights argument, but that has nothing to do with privacy.

Re:Giving up privacy (1)

onecheapgeek (964280) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889160)

That would fall under the argument that states should be given limited autonomy. You know, that part of the Constitution?

Why not just have the federal government annex all state governments? It would be much easier to have one government than two or more for most of us.

Re:Giving up privacy (0)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889440)

Where in the Constitution do states get the right to issue drivers licenses? They don't--it only happened that way because there were only local motor roads when the automobile was introduced. In fact, given that licenses are required on interstate highways, the commerce clause would undoubtedly be an easy point of entry for requiring a federal drivers license (as required in most of the world's 191 countries).

Re:Giving up privacy (1)

llavern (520059) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889500)

It's not the idea of a national database that is so offensive but rather the insidious way the federal government is usurping the rights of the states to govern themselves.

Re:Giving up privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17889146)

You're not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed are you?

A national ID doesn't give up any more privacy than a state ID does. What it does do is allow a streamlined and effective security plan to be implemented across the board that can help prevent illegal immigration and terrorism. Moving the same info you give to your state, to the national level increases your security while keeping your privacy the same as it always has been.

Unless you're a deadbeat dad, a child molester, an illegal immigrant, or someone who is hiding for some reason; a national ID does not harm your privacy. The states are rebuking this because they want the tax money for themselves.

Re:Giving up privacy (1)

mulhollandj (807571) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889348)

It is the RFID part that bothers me the most. Ever read 1984?

Re:Giving up privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17889498)

That last bit sounds suspiciously like "The innocent have nothing to fear." Furthremore, it doesn't matter WHY the states are opposing it, just that they are. We need less influence from FedGov. Put that first, and we'll deal with the states later.

WHY DO YOU HATE OUR FREEDOM!!!! (1)

Groo Wanderer (180806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888862)

Sorry, it needed to be said.

              -Charlie

(once again, sarcasm)

Many thanks to the north east and north west! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17888878)

Most people don't think much about the north eastern and north western states. But it's these states that have truly helped retain the last remnants of the freedom the Founding Fathers fought so valiantly for.

So while the people in a state like Kansas focus all their attention on debating whether or not evolution should be taught in science classes, the people in states like Maine, Vermont, and Washington are defending their freedoms.

Maybe it's a matter of the level of education of the general populace in those states. No offense to anyone from Kansas, but it has traditionally ranked quite low, often at the very bottom, when it comes to a variety of measures. As a whole, the people of Kansas typically have a lower IQ than those from other states. Fewer people there have undergraduate or graduate degrees from universities (sorry, Oral Roberts University doesn't count) as compared to the people from other states. On the other hand, university degrees are extremely common in the north western and north eastern states, with virtually everybody having at least attended university for some period of time.

So while I no longer live in America, I do want to thank those in the north west and north east who are defending the rights of our nation's people.

Re:Many thanks to the north east and north west! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17888972)

the people of Kansas typically have a lower IQ than those from other states. Fewer people there have undergraduate or graduate degrees from universities (sorry, Oral Roberts University doesn't count)

ORU is in Oklahoma, fucktard.

Now, what was all that banter about low IQs?

BTW: ORU (think of it what you will) is still an accredited university. If you want to make up rules as you go along I'm sure we can prove just about anyone's point about anything. Your bigotry (and it is bigotry) shows that you have no faith in your own abilities. Thanks for your 0.02. Too bad it wasn't worth shit.

Re:Many thanks to the north east and north west! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17889118)

ORU is in Oklahoma

I never said it wasn't. Likewise, I never said it was in Kansas. You need to work on your basic reading comprehension skills, my Kansasian friend! Many people from Kansas attend Oral Roberts, since it's one of the few educational facilities in that region of the United States.

That said, the fact remains that these people in the north west and north east are doing more to protect the freedoms of the American citizenry than all of those Bible Belt youngsters off in shitholes like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Measuring sticks.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17889170)

As a whole, the people of Kansas typically have a lower IQ than those from other states.

So, they're not as good at: memorizing long strings of numbers, placing blocks to copy a pattern that they see in a picture, their vocabulary doesn't match what the test creator thinks an intelligent person should have, and find patterns in a string of symbols, numbers, picture, etc... as the rest of the country.

The IQ test was created to find deficiencies in children with the hopes of finding kids who are having problems in school and then help them to succeed in school. Then the US military got it and turned it into a measuring stick. An as a result, the US school systems started using it as a measuring stick also - which is completely moronic since IQ tests were not designed for that purpose. See this book [amazon.com] .

No, I'm not from Kansas, but I agree with everything else said in the parent. I'm just a little touchy about the whole measuring stick bullshit...it's not just IQ, folks use income...never mind!

Re:Many thanks to the north east and north west! (2, Insightful)

green453 (889049) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889180)

I think you may have a misunderstanding of which regions of the US are likely to defend what. Admittedly, the NE and NW regions generally tend to support much more liberal policies, but I think you should keep in mind that states in the midwest, west, and south are the bastions of small government thinking and states rights.

If you read the article, you will notice that the coalition being formed to fight the realID was spearheaded by a Missourian. If you don't remember your geography, especially the parts about those backwards midwestern states, then perhaps you have forgotten that Missouri and Kansas are next door neighbors and that Missouri is about as far as you can get from the northern coastal regions.

In the fight against encroachment by the federal government and the removal of citizens rights in the name of safety, I think it is dangerous to rely solely on the efforts of the NE and NW which don't have quite the same attitude towards protecting their citizens rights as some other regions of the country. I won't lie and say that Missouri, Montana, etc have always done the best job of protecting privacy, but I think midwestern and western states are just as good of defenders of privacy freedoms as other states, especially given the political sway they hold with the GOP.

Re:Many thanks to the north east and north west! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17889310)

I think you should keep in mind that states in the midwest, west, and south are the bastions of small government thinking and states rights.

What America are you thinking of? The states in the central, southern and south eastern US have relied heavily on government transfer payments since the end of the Civil War. The vast majority of this money comes from the taxes paid by those in the north east, the north, the north west, and the west coast. The Bible Belt is essentially funded by the rest of the country, via the federal government, since they really couldn't maintain a decent standard of living without such financial help.

The people in states like Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Alabama, and Tennessee may think they support small government. But when you consider their near complete dependence on the large government in place today, we can see that these people are either clueless to the massive amount of financial support their state gets from the other states, or they intentionally play ignorant.

And states rights have very little to do with individual rights. Individual rights are what matters here: the rights of each individual American to not be subjected to a federal database system.

Re:Many thanks to the north east and north west! (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889380)

Sorry, but the only difference between the North and the South as far as that goes anymore is that southerners think it's "freedom of religion" while northerners think it's "freedom from religion". Oh, and discrimination. If you're not a white male in the north, you're being discriminated against and entitled to something.

Re:Many thanks to the north east and north west! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17889406)

Most people don't think much about the north eastern and north western states. But it's these states that have truly helped retain the last remnants of the freedom the Founding Fathers fought so valiantly for.

The Northern states refused to allow the Confederacy its freedom. Anything else pales in comparison to that.

Well, you are called... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17888892)

...the united states of America.

Unite for a change.

Hear hear !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17889480)

The American people overwhelmingly support National ID cards.

frankly, i don't understand the problem (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17888982)

national id, or state id: from a privacy point of view, what's the difference?

but, from a law enforcement id, it provides a comprehensive framework:

1. rather than have to prove/ disprove the veracity of 50 different ids, you only need to figure out the authenticity of one
2. it brings to bear national resources when weeding out the fakes/ questionable ids/ other types of enforcement and vetting

i understand privacy concerns and what they mean. but what i don't understand is if someone with privacy concerns were to grant that a state id is acceptable, why a national id is somehow any different or more onerus to privacy concerns. a national id, from a privacy point of view, grants no more exposure than that which is lost with a state id

however, from a security point of view, one national id obviously superior than all the different state models. so what's the problem? it makes law enforcement's job easier. what, you think there will be more nefarious government activity with one big model? one big model that every privacy group will monitor with a white hot spotlight? you think somehow 50 different little models is going to have less shady activity, more monitoring? oh i get it: crooked law enforcement only goes on in washington dc, it doesn't go on in montpelier or bismarck or sacramento. pfft... get real

of course maine is fighting the model: it undermines their entrenched authority. furthermore, fighting the national id from maine's point of view then has nothing to do with championing privacy rights for individuals, its all about championing the state of maine and its concerns. why does anyone think that what maine is fighting for has anything to do with the fight for privacy? its all about states versus nation, not individuals versus government

don't drink the koolaid: a national model is superior from a security AND privacy stand point

Re:frankly, i don't understand the problem (3, Insightful)

LM741N (258038) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889244)

Its all about money. One more unfunded mandate from the Federal Government.

yes, it is all about the money for washignton dc (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889382)

just like it is all about the money for augusta maine

so money is a moot point

the efficiency gains however are one sided in favor of washington dc

Re:frankly, i don't understand the problem (1, Informative)

korbin_dallas (783372) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889282)

So go ahead point out to us, the Slashdot crowd, exactly which article and paragraph in the Constitution of the United States of America, in plain English, where the Federal Goverment has the authority to require an ID?

Remember, unless EXPLICITLY stated in the Constitution of the United States of America a power granted to the Federal Governement, then its a STATES or the PEOPLES right. And Maine and the other States BETTER stand up for their rights, or we are all sunk.

Neither security of individuals, nor IDs are listed in said Document.

got it (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889316)

according to you, the legal technicalities matter more than the philosophical concepts

listen carefully, you missed it:

state versus nation != individual versus government

why in your mind is your state capitol a better guarrantor of your personal freedoms and privacy than washington dc?

how the heck does that work in your mind?

Look at your pres' AG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17889444)

Who said that because a freedome wasn't explicitly there in the document, it didn't have to exist.

Now, on to your point (what little of it there is)

a) The state controls only intra state business. If you leave the state, the state cannot stop you. Feds can.
b) The single point of failure with much greater rewars of a fed DB makes it less secure
c) The federal government is less accountable to the people, the state governors aren't
d) The US is a big place and one size fits all isn't the right answer. A state has better uniformity
e) Why is the feds telling the state what to do but not paying for it?

There are a few more, but this'll do for a start.

PS I'm not even in the US and I can see this...

i see your problem (0, Redundant)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889552)

you genuinely cannot work on the level of concepts, you need details

so lets give you details to prove you wrong:

san diego wants to pave a road in san diego. is that of interest to washington dc? of course not. its not even of interest in sacramento. (its a city concern, not even a state concern, but that's another argument against your fracturing of the country: how far do you go?)

now what are we talking about here in this thread? a national problem, illegals and terrorists getting fake ids. they get a fake id in virginia, allowing them to board a plane in boston. it's a NATIONAL problem, not a LOCAL problem. get it?

so: i grant you that a LOCAL problem is better solved LOCALLY, you are right to illustrate that concept

now: do you grant me that a NATIONAL problem is better solved NATIONALLY?

in your mind is a NATIONAL problem solved better LOCALLY?

see if you can answer that question in the realm of concepts, without getting bogged down in tedious details: "it's not written down by a lawyer on a piece of paper, so it is not true!"

Re:frankly, i don't understand the problem (1)

danpsmith (922127) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889530)

of course maine is fighting the model: it undermines their entrenched authority. furthermore, fighting the national id from maine's point of view then has nothing to do with championing privacy rights for individuals, its all about championing the state of maine and its concerns. why does anyone think that what maine is fighting for has anything to do with the fight for privacy? its all about states versus nation, not individuals versus government

Which is exactly the point. There's a reason why this country isn't formally named "America" you know, it's named "the United States of America," want to know what that reason is? Because it's a federation of states, not one large country with nationwide laws and legislation for everything. States rights used to be more important, before federal laws seemed to get all the press and everyone gathered around to support the President's new education bill, even though the fact remains that states are what provide the majority of the funding for schools.

The idea is simple really, each state is its own ruling area as far as laws go for the most part. Having a national ID or especially having a national drivers license provides the ability for the federal government to not only snoop on, but also regulate intrastate commerce. This is exactly what the federal government shouldn't be handling.

Everyone seems to be pushing this new federalism, and they see no need for locality of measures, but the truth is that this country is huge and varied. Different laws are needed for different places in the land, and different measures must be taken in different states because they are more likely to know what to do in their own neck of the woods. Federal law should be less important than state law, which should be less important than local law, because when it comes right down to it, each level of abstraction provides a new level of bureaucracy and bullshit. Go ahead, give them the national id, make it mandatory. But you can blame yourself when your neighbor gets pulled over for carrying "illegal fireworks" because he traveled down south and they scanned his id as he passed state borders, and found the fireworks on a "random" search. Just one more step toward a police state...all 50 states.

You too can voice your opposition (5, Informative)

Cainam (10838) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889000)

If you live in the US, you can voice your opposition to the REAL ID Act by sending your senators and representative a message using the handy form at http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=30 [downsizedc.org]

just being lazy and cheap (4, Insightful)

r00t (33219) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889026)

The states don't care about you.

They have eleventy-billion lines of COBOL to care about.

Their citizens will clamour for them to reverse (1)

HighOrbit (631451) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889060)

This makes great grandstanding for politicians, but when these states' citizens are unable to open bank accounts, get on an airplane or train, enter a federal court house, or do anything under the control of the federal government or involving interstate commerce, then the other 90% of the people in those states (the 90% who don't care about real id) are going to be madder than hell at the state legislature for dragging the feet.

I predict their resistance won't last long.

New Hampshire was first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17889070)

The NH congress voted 217 to 84 not to implement the Real ID Act here, last April. http://news.com.com/The+Real+ID+rebellion/2010-102 8_3-6061578.html [com.com]

Re:New Hampshire was first... (1)

Qubit (100461) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889094)

Live Free or Die!

-- Q,
born in Oregon, livin' in NH.
(I'm generally pretty happy about both states...)

Maine isn't rejecting RealID because it's bad... (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889086)

They're rejecting it because it means the thieves in the State House lose another incremental little bit of their power and authority.

They need to be dragged out into the street and shot for the mess of new taxes and shitty welfare services they're shoving down our necks up here.

(Yes, I live in Maine. I go to university with the governor's nephew--he's almost as much of a turd as the governor himself.)

Why? what's the problem? (non-USian asks...) (1)

fantomas (94850) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889090)

Why is there a problem with a national driving licence in the USA?

I'm not trying to start a flamewar, just genuinely interested in what the key issues of the debate are (I'm posting from the UK). Is it something to do with the federal political make up of your country, or individual states lack of trust in national government?

I think you have other national level shared data sources don't you - isn't the social security number a national level ID? or is this also only ratified at a federal level? would the national driving licence be a precedent in the USA?

Re:Why? what's the problem? (non-USian asks...) (1)

imikem (767509) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889430)

In my opinion, the main problem with this is that the US Constitution enumerates the rights granted to the federal government, and specifically states, that those rights not so enumerated are reserved to the states. The intent was to limit the breadth and reach of federal power.

Over the years, more and more power has been assumed by the federal government under guise of the "Interstate commerce clause." Some breathtaking twisting and stretching has often been involved, and people like me who believe that the Constitution means something approximately in the vicinity of what it says, get extremely angry at this.

If the states have indeed become as irrelevant to the governance of the country as the ongoing federal power grabs seem to imply, they should be dissolved and the state bureaucracies demolished. As it is they seem to serve little purpose, and a few tax dollars might possibly be saved. All it would take is a Constitutional amendment to that effect, or simply the repeal of Amendment X.

At which point I'll go find someplace else to live, because this will have ceased to be the country I was born in. It's pretty far off now, and I'm not that damn old.

One major problem (1)

Dobeln (853794) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889580)

(is also non-USA-ian, but wth...) ...is illegal immigration. The major sponsors of illegal immigration*, primarily from Mexico, want to make sure that anti-ID theft measures, border control measures, etc. remain lax.

*
Read:
Various business lobbies (More profits)
Ethnic lobbies (More voters = more power)
George W Bush (More voters + God told me to)
Most of the Democratic party (More voters)

states challenging (3, Interesting)

Ankou (261125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889096)

I think that this has less to do with "protecting your rights" than it does with states keeping their archaic way getting you licenced. If you have ever moved from one state to another, you know the total nightmare process it is to move your licence and register your car. Every state has some crazy multi level state process for doing this. Oh no, it would be too obvious to get ALL that stuff done at the DMV, no its to the tax office, then to the department of transportation (not the dmv), then to the court house, then if you are unlucky enough to go to a state that will reject your previous state's driver's licence, you need to take their set of tests etc etc. The processes is so old and confusing, and these people have had these jobs position for years, the above government standardization will make these people jobless and ruin their money shuffling games. The last state I came from still was using PAPER for these registration processes, and it was MY responsibilty to check after a few months that my previous state had actually processed my move. I have had friends who made a similar move where the state they came from STILL had them registered in the previous state, their licence expired in that state and it was a big pain to get it all straightened out.

Re:states challenging (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889336)

I think that this has less to do with "protecting your rights" than it does with states keeping their archaic way getting you licenced.

Not to mention the dollars they would lose having the feds taking the fees involved with drivers licenses and renewal fees.

What's the problem with having a national ID card? (1)

El Gigante de Justic (994299) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889136)

So just curious, what exactly is most people's concern about having a National ID card? It's not like your name isn't already in a dozen databases that are either owned by the national government (Social Security, IRS, Selective Service), available to corporate entities nation wide (Credit reports) or can be linked up between states (DMV, criminal records, etc). People can cry about Big Brother all they want, but the fact of the matter is, if the government wants your info, they can find it.

      If a national ID card could be created that was truly impossible to counterfeit, that couldn't be used for identity theft, and that you could use for your driver's license, banking, passport, employment identification, and various other situations that require some other form of legal documentation (such as birth certificate, etc), I'd rather just have that than have to carry a dozen other things. The card could carry an electronic hash code that gets sent to a central database to retrieve data, so any really important data, such as SSN, wouldn't be stored directly on the card itself. For added security in some scenarios (like banking), biometric data of some sort could be stored in the central database as well. The central database could be cut off from any network to eliminate (or minimize) hacking and it could occasionally be connected to a shadow database with a down stream only connection. The shadow database would be the one actually accessed for data requests and it would be auto-updated multiple times a day, so even if it were hacked somehow it would be corrected automatically and any changes could be reported.

      Maybe I say this because I work for a healthcare IT company, but I see one of the greatest uses of a national ID card to be for the establishment of national electronic medical records. If you show up in the ER, they could just swipe your card and pull up your entire past medical history within minutes. (Note: in the current world of EMRs it's virtually impossible to pull almost all data from one healthcare organiation to another, because various settings or lists of data objects will never match and most databases don't store literal strings for all data because the amount of storage required would be even more ridiculous than it already is. However, essential information such as historical problems, allergies, medications, etc can be shared readily, even if they aren't in a format that can be dumped into the local database.)

     

Re:What's the problem with having a national ID ca (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17889432)

My problem is I can't get one.
Tennessee is "previewing" the system; I recently moved here, and tried to get a local drivers license.
However, I couldn't. They require a birth certificate as ID; all I have, have EVER had, is a certificate of live birth.
which, by the way, was adequate to get me into the miitary. and wasn't required to pay into social security. I'm a disabled vet, receive social security disability, have blonde hair & green eyes. if they insist I have a birth certificate to get my travel papers for the new reich, they can damn well pay for them.

Re:What's the problem with having a national ID ca (2, Insightful)

finkployd (12902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889544)

If a national ID card could be created that was truly impossible to counterfeit, that couldn't be used for identity theft, and that you could use for your driver's license, banking, passport, employment identification, and various other situations that require some other form of legal documentation (such as birth certificate, etc), I'd rather just have that than have to carry a dozen other things.

In a perfect world, yes. However in this world what will happen is that it will be counterfeitable (I think I made that word up), but everyone will believe it is not. So rather than do anything productive about identity theft, it will simply place the burden of proof on the victim.

"You have a government certified ID card which we are assured cannot be counterfeited, so your little claim about identity theft must be false, all those charges must have been by you, so pay up or go to jail."

That is the best case, the worst case is that something illegal is done in your name and you have no way of defending yourself, because a foolproof ID card was used. Believe me, the financial institutions would LOVE to be able to blame everyone else for identity theft and not have to eat the costs of it on their own. The government just wants people to think they are doing something productive about both identity theft and terrorism, but as usual this does absolutely nothing for either.

Finkployd

It's about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17889140)

I'm glad to see that happening. The way this bill was passed in the first place was just despicable. A national ID database would be costly, time consuming and mostly ineffective.

Bruce Schneier has a great write up about this very subject:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/01/real id_costs_an.html [schneier.com]

Check closely (2, Interesting)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889144)

This is based on a problem that some states started fighting at least 10 years ago. I has nothing to do with protecting your privacy, it's about money. This is just another "unfunded mandate" from Washington. Congresscritters pass a law requireing the states to do something but don't supply the funds to cover it. The states are supposed to come up with the money out of already tight budgets, sometimes when the legislature is not in session so there is no way to alter the budget until the next session. During the Clinton era many states passed their own bills stating that any law like this would be enforced only when Washington paid for it. In other words: Don't tell us how to waste our money, we are already very good at that and don't need your help!

If half the money taken in taxes was actually spent wisely, most people would quit complaining.

It's not a "privacy thing" (4, Informative)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889240)

It's a money thing.

According to a report [ncsl.org] from the National Conference of State Legislatures, it'll cost states 11 billion dollars to comply with the Real ID act. There was no money put aside in the bill for states to comply, just a mandate to do so. California is looking to spend between 500 and 700 million dollars alone.

I'm not saying that the fine people from the states that are holding back are less than honest - some of them probably feel that privacy is important. But when your state's already facing a budget deficit - as most are - yet another unfunded Federal mandate is going to get a less than warm reception.

highway funding (3, Informative)

JimBobJoe (2758) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889258)

For what it's worth, the original slashdot discussion had a lot of people incorrectly assuming that Maine was giving up highway funding in order to reject the REAL ID Act.

The REAL ID Act doesn't affect funding at all, and promises no money to states in order to meet REAL ID Act requirements.

Maine's decision only means that Maine licenses after the deadline will not be REAL ID Act compliant and will not be accepted for identification by the Department of Homeland Security (which, for all practical purposes, means a slight change on how one travels by air.)

Having said that, the REAL ID Act also allows for mixed issuance systems--where a state would issue both Real ID Act compliant license documents, and non-compliant documents, with the requirement that the non-compliant documents indicate their non-compliance.

First we get national ID numbers (4, Insightful)

Goose3254 (304355) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889438)

Then we track all purchases via national ID numbers (we just got an alert that a licensed driver purchased 4 drinks in an hour, and the master control programs reports his GPS phone is moving outside the public transportation grid, better dispatch a pursuit car)...
Then we socialize medicine...
Then we use the info from the purchases to determine if you get healthcare (cigarettes and fast food, no doctor for you my friend)...
Then we see who are buying fast expensive new cars...
Then we investigate them cause they're obviously not paying enough in taxes or insurance...
Then we start tracking all gun and ammo purchases, cause anyone with a gun is obviously a terrorist...

The modern push for federal control in what is and should be states rights started in the modern day with the speed limit...at the time it seemed sensible, there was an energy crisis. Then helment laws, it only affected a small part of the population so what's the difference, next drinking age, it makes sense after all to protect the children. But the real starting point was in the mid-1800's and tarrifs on cash crops from the south...the northeastern states wanted the products but the overseas market was paying more. How to solve the dilemma? Get the House (populated by the densely concentrated north) to pass a tarrif that canceled out any profit.

Next we'll hear how cool it is to have an RFID implant that makes accessing your now national information so fast and easy...Not hard to do if you think about it...we require newborns basically to have a social security number now when they are YEARS from being on the tax roles...

Don't be a Real ID Hater! Passport Replacments (1)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 7 years ago | (#17889514)

Without Real ID Congress will never authorize replacing Passports with Driver's Licenses. In most some instances now and within the next year no-one will be able to enter the US without a passport, at at $80-$100 [state.gov] per person, this pretty much blocks low income folks from leaving the country even for Mexico/Canada/Cruise Ship visits.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?