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!

Washington State To Try RFID Drivers Licenses

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the chipped-again dept.

Privacy 153

tverbeek tells us about a program the state of Washington has approved, to issue RFID-equipped drivers licenses to facilitate cross-border traffic. The idea is to load the drivers license with information proving citizenship, so that (with Department of Homeland Security approval) the bearer doesn't need to carry a passport — which otherwise will be required to re-enter the US from Canada beginning in 2009. The "enhanced" licenses will require applicants to submit to an in-person interview and to show proof of citizenship. A pilot program in Washington begins January 2008. Officials hope for DHS approval of the program before the Vancouver Olympics in 2010 causes a spike in cross-border traffic.

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

Scary (2, Funny)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 6 years ago | (#18481801)

Friday's announcement comes on the heels of last week's federal checkpoint set up outside of Forks for those driving south on U.S. Route 101, who were required to prove their U.S. citizenship.

Or what?

Re:Scary (4, Informative)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 6 years ago | (#18481841)

I was curious, so I looked it up myself: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/20 03628279_danny21.html?syndication=rss [nwsource.com]

Starting at 8 a.m. last Thursday, federal Border Patrol agents blocked the highway outside town. For four hours, every car, truck and bus driving south on Highway 101 was pulled off the road and all passengers questioned. seven undocumented workers, who were shipped to a detention center in Tacoma.

Carted off 160 miles to not even a jail, but a detention center.

Re:Scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18481877)

Yeah, but does anything happen to them [bostonherald.com] after that?

Re:Scary (3, Informative)

essence (812715) | more than 6 years ago | (#18481943)

Carted off 160 miles to not even a jail, but a detention center.

We have detention centers in Australia too. They are full of refugees who try to come to australia via boat without permission. I refuse to call these people 'illegals' because no human being is 'illegal', they are fucken human beings.

Sad thing is, only a minority of people in Australia feel for the plight of these people. Most 'aussies' are racist, even if they don't admit it (or don't realize it).

Whats even sadder is that some refugees have been detained for years on end without being processed. Even sadder still, after years in detention, some get sent back from where they came. There was one case I think where someone was returned to Iran to be subsequently killed by the Iranian government.

Detetntion centers need to be abolished. There is no place for them in a free society.

Re:Scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18482013)

There's no place for government in a free society, either. Until you get rid of your government, expect these kinds of things frequently.

Re:Scary (1)

jmv (93421) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482101)

And your alternative is? Anarchy?

Re:Scary (1)

essence (812715) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482143)

Anarchy would be fantastic!

An-archy - without rulers.

Note that doesn't just apply to parliaments. A ruler can be many things - a mob, a corporation, a thug, a rapist.

Re:Scary (1)

jmv (93421) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482421)

Exactly. And that's why anarchy is a total utopia.

Re:Scary (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482633)

without rulers.

Would we be allowed to carry tape measures, or is any form of orderlieness or rational measure frowned upon in this utopia?

Truly Scary (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482647)

An-archy - without rulers.

So, no safety regulations. Nothing to stop bankers from making off with your life savings. No internet. No Thank You.

I like knowing that my food has passed mandated quality control measures. I like knowing that the rules that govern how vehicles use the roads are enforced, that planes are not going to be dropping parts on my head, that buildings can withstand a moderate wind without falling over, that the wiring is adequate, and that the bridges I drive over can handle the weight of my car, and hundreds of thousands of things that would just fall apart without any rules, and the authority derived from rulers to enforce them.

Re:Truly Scary (1)

essence (812715) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482741)

You misunderstand the quest for anarchy. The idea is that there is no tyranny of any sorts. The freedom to rule over other people doesnt count. Lets have a look at what you said..

So, no safety regulations.

Without some sort of safety regulations. Greedy property developers would rule over their workers, forcing them to work in unsafe conditions.

Nothing to stop bankers from making off with your life savings.

That would make the banker a ruler, therefore its is not anarchy

I like knowing that my food has passed mandated quality control measures. I like knowing that the rules that govern how vehicles use the roads are enforced, that planes are not going to be dropping parts on my head, that buildings can withstand a moderate wind without falling over, that the wiring is adequate, and that the bridges I drive over can handle the weight of my car, and hundreds of thousands of things that would just fall apart without any rules.

All valid points that I agree with. The idea of anarchy is 'rules without rulers'.

So how do we enforce these things without becoming a ruler? Good question, I think the answer lies in free association, mutual aid, co-operativism. That is, when people freely associate to get a certain job done, then they are less likely to build something shoddy for their community. Take open source Vs. Micorsoft. Who makes the better OS? The people who do it as volunteers, or the people who do what they are told by Billy boy.

Re:Truly Scary (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482751)

So how do we enforce these things without becoming a ruler?

How about some kind of representative system where the people are polled about who they would like to be represented by? And some sort of "separation of powers" to make sure no sub-group of said system gains control over the others?

Re:Truly Scary (1)

essence (812715) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482795)

i dont think so. Thats what we have now in most places. It's called representative democracy, and its become corrupt as hell.

The key to getting rid of rulers/tyrants is to decentralise power, and abolish hierachy. That is, abolish nation states and their governments/presidents, and let all power go to the local community. Orgnaisation of the world would become a network of local communities. Kind of like peer-to-peer self government, instead of a hierachy of beaurocrats which gain ever more power. This model works for open source software development and it has worked for the self organisation of society in some parts of the world, such as in Chiapas.

Re:Truly Scary (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#18483535)

i dont think so. Thats what we have now in most places.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. In fine form tonight, I see.

Now tell me, how does your system deal with large corporations that can just move around operations as it pleases them, and wield far more power than any single decentralized community?

Re:Truly Scary (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#18483967)

With lots and lots of wishful thinking.

Re:Truly Scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18484041)

Elected rulers are still rulers. Read a newspaper for examples.

Re:Truly Scary (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18483147)

I don't know whether you're brain-damaged naive, or just another selfish asshole who doesn't care that people would suffer, as long as it means he can do whatever the hell he wants. Those are the only kinds of people I've ever met who seriously advocate anarchy.

They say that communism is a great theory that sucks in practice... but compared to anarchy, it's downright pragmatic.

Re:Truly Scary (2, Funny)

celkin (1077635) | more than 7 years ago | (#18483259)

So let's see...

article about driver's licenses == coments about anarchy

Intersting chain of events. I look forward to reading more.

Re:Scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18482241)

Holy shit! You're right! For lack of any better idea we hold people without charge or due process for years at a time for only following survival instincts. Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that?

Re:Scary (4, Insightful)

TheSkyIsPurple (901118) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482185)

>I refuse to call these people 'illegals' because no human being is 'illegal', they are fucken human beings.

If they are from somewhere else, they are an alien.
If they are enterring illegally, they are an illegal alien.
And it's natural to shorten a long phrase like "illegal alien" to simply "illegal" when the context is clear.

The person themself is not illegal, but their status in that location is.

I don't see a problem with calling them illegals.

Now, treating them as less than human is a whole other ball o' wax.

Re:Scary (1)

EinZweiDrei (955497) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482317)

Language tends to dictate action. Not everyone who considers it alright to apply the epithet 'illegal' to individual human beings will be as thoughtful about it as you. Most won't.

Re:Scary (4, Insightful)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482587)

We have detention centers in Australia too. They are full of refugees who try to come to australia via boat without permission. I refuse to call these people 'illegals' because no human being is 'illegal', they are fucken human beings.

There are laws defining how non-citizens are allowed to enter the country. These people have broken those laws. They're illegal immigrants.

This does not mean they are "illegal people". They are free to leave - and go back to their point of origin - whenever they want.

Sad thing is, only a minority of people in Australia feel for the plight of these people. Most 'aussies' are racist, even if they don't admit it (or don't realize it).

Believing in immigration control is not racist, it's sensible.

If you're so gung-ho about this, can you give me your address ? I want to come over to your house, eat your food and sleep in your bed for a few weeks. Or are you some racist hypocrite who locks his door at night ?

Whats even sadder is that some refugees have been detained for years on end without being processed. Even sadder still, after years in detention, some get sent back from where they came. There was one case I think where someone was returned to Iran to be subsequently killed by the Iranian government.

Now, here you actually have something approaching a valid point. The time taken to process these people *is* something that needs to be improved. Of course, if they didn't destroy all the documentation proving who they are, that would expedite the process far more than anything that can be done on Australia's end.

Detetntion centers need to be abolished. There is no place for them in a free society.

So how *should* we deal with people who enter the country illegally, that we know nothing about ?

Re:Scary (1)

essence (812715) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482667)

There are laws defining how non-citizens are allowed to enter the country. These people have broken those laws. They're illegal immigrants.

Well actually no. These people are refugees. Under international conventions which australia is signatory to, refugees have the right to seek asylum in Australia.

They are free to leave - and go back to their point of origin

Well not always. There is a reason these people left their country. Often it is because they are a political dissident, and fear for their lives

So how *should* we deal with people who enter the country illegally, that we know nothing about ?

Do you like being able to travel freely across your own country without having to prove yourself when crossing state lines?. Yes? Apply the same rule here. You're not scared of people from another state are you?

On the topic of racism. The Australian government spends millions trying to keep out refugees (which are mostly from middle eastern countries). On the other hand they do fuck all about British tourist who have overstayed their visas

Re:Scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18483297)

Starting at 8 a.m. last Thursday, federal Border Patrol agents blocked the highway outside town. For four hours, every car, truck and bus driving south on Highway 101 was pulled off the road and all passengers questioned.

How is this even remotely legal? (e.g., Ybarra v. Illinois [findlaw.com] )

Or did they count on the kind of people they were looking for not knowing how to say "Do you have a warrant?"?

Or maybe the officers thought there was probable cause that every car driving through Forks [wikipedia.org] (!) had criminals in it?

Washington already has a law [dumblaws.com] which says "It is mandatory for a motorist with criminal intentions to stop at the city limits and telephone the chief of police as he is entering the town". So it's not like they wouldn't have heard about things well in advance, anyway.

Re:Scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18483915)

This sounds familiar...

Nazi Gestapo: Show me your papers!
Citizen: But I don't have any papers.
Nazi Gestapo: Then send him to the death err... detainment camp.

Re:Scary (1)

So IL Banker (948601) | more than 6 years ago | (#18481853)

With the 'enhanced' system a terrorist need only steal your identification surreptiously or kill you and take your ID, and nobody at the border will stop them! Great plan!

Re:Scary (3, Informative)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#18481939)

The thing about this is that Forks isn't near any border crossing points, and is in fact in the middle of the Olympic Peninsula. More likely they where trolling for illegals migrant workers. But it really stinks like a "police state" sort of mentality.

More here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/20 03628279_danny21.html [nwsource.com]

Re:Scary (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482269)

Maybe the people in the government in Washington just got around to watching Dark Angel.

Now, where's my Jam Pony ID...?

The Man Luvs You. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18481813)

Do what the man tells you - for god, country, and family

argggghhhhhhh (0, Flamebait)

Joseph_Daniel_Zukige (807773) | more than 6 years ago | (#18481815)

One of my teachers in college. lo, these twenty years ago, warned me this would happen.

Of course, we already had seen it in Micro$oft's say 80/20 to excuse any level of functionality.

Re:argggghhhhhhh (1)

Larry Lightbulb (781175) | more than 6 years ago | (#18481907)

That you'd need a passport if travelling between two countries?

Papers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18481817)

Papers Please!

Re:Papers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18482267)

You are missing the point -- with RFID, you'll never hear the phrase "paper please!" They'll just silently scan you. If you are found wanting, they'll throw a bag over your head and haul you away.
The citizens of the country won't be inconvenienced in the least. Have a good day Citizen!

Non-citizens? (1)

BluedemonX (198949) | more than 6 years ago | (#18481837)

What would permanent residents and H1-B types have on their "enhanced" papers in lieu of proof of American citizenship?

Re:Non-citizens? (2, Informative)

Larry Lightbulb (781175) | more than 6 years ago | (#18481941)

If you're a permanent resident or a H1-B holder you're not am American citizen, so you'd still need to have your passport and green card or whatever a H1-B has.

Re:Non-citizens? (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482215)

H1-B holders have a visa(that is, that's the way their status is documented).

Re:Non-citizens? (2, Interesting)

The Vulture (248871) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482413)

As I've been told by many pedant border crossing officials (in Toronto), an H-1B is not a visa.

My immigration attorney actually addressed this situation with me, because he knows that I like to travel, and I mentioned that I'd like to head to San Diego sometime soon. His advice is to carry your I-94 form (which should be stapled in your passport), and you should be fine.

On Interstate 8, where it's close to the border, they apparently do checks every now and then, especially if they see a broken-down car.

-- Joe

Re:Non-citizens? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482815)

It's a visa. It just isn't a travel visa, which sort of makes my comment stupid.

Re:Non-citizens? (2, Insightful)

JimBobJoe (2758) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482921)

What would permanent residents and H1-B types have on their "enhanced" papers in lieu of proof of American citizenship?

Permanent US residents don't need an enhanced license because they already have a Green Card. The Green Card is accepted by Canada for entry and it's accepted by the US for return. (Permanent US residents are, in effect, treated by Canada as if they were US citizens.)

Non-permanent residents are not treated the same way, and are evaluated by their citizenship and other credential issues--so they'll need their passport anyway.

Re:Non-citizens? (1)

JimBobJoe (2758) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482947)

If you're a permanent resident or a H1-B holder you're not am American citizen

Though this reply sorta contradicts another reply I made to the parent, US Permanent Residents are treated by Canada as if they were American citizens, so it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to have an enhanced license indicating they were a green card holder.

My contention on that is they don't need it because they already have a green card--which is sufficient for crossing into Canada and back.

Re:Non-citizens? (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482027)

What would permanent residents and H1-B types have on their "enhanced" papers in lieu of proof of American citizenship?

I imagine that they'd already have passports and/or other papers to show their legal status.

LK

Re:Non-citizens? (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482035)

For going to Canada I think that matters what citizenship you are and what your countries deal with Canada is. I attend a large university in Michigan, and when making trips to Canada I have friends that can't go due to restrictions on their visas or a few can go if we give them about 6 weeks for the Canadian visa application process, and others just need a stamp in their passport or just have to show their passport.

Re:Non-citizens? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482237)

Some probably can't go because the US wouldn't let them back in.

Re:Non-citizens? (1)

Jerry Rivers (881171) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482719)

Permanent Residents have a Permanent Resident Card (A.K.A. a Green Card or Alien Registration Receipt Card) which is already encoded with all sorts of information, so they don't need any other I.D.. Not even a passport.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_2223.ht ml [state.gov]

I'm moving there soon (3, Insightful)

giminy (94188) | more than 6 years ago | (#18481843)

I'm moving to Washington State soon. I wonder what their reaction will be when I apply for one of these and during the interview state that I'm a security researcher interested in breaking it. :).

Reid

Re:I'm moving there soon (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18481909)

Then one of two things will happen:

Either your interrogator will be "you better love the USA or else" type of asshole, in which case youll be labeled a traitor.

Or, your interrogator will be a underpaid, overworked person who could care less. Ill vote for this one.

Re:I'm moving there soon (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#18481969)

Or, your interrogator will be a underpaid, overworked person who could care less.

So what does that mean? That the care enough to care less if they wanted? Or that they don't care at all? I don't understand...

Re:I'm moving there soon (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482131)

I know what you're getting at, but I think that more likely they could care less, but it would really screw up their nap schedule.

Believe me, not caring at all about something really takes a lot of energy.

Re:I'm moving there soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18482565)

Usually what is meant by the phrase is "couldn't care less," which has the clearer meaning "couldn't care any less because they are currently at the minimum level at which they could possibly care," but the phrase is often passed on as the erroneous "could care less".

Re:I'm moving there soon (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482167)

I think you better look into it a little more before doing it. Most states have strong laws about creating false IDs or screwing with security measure on it. You could probably get a permit and have your research watched but if you release something to the public that could allow someone to bypass the security, your could be in as much trouble as whoever did it.

Anyways, Good luck with it. Just don't end up being the next guy that someone is crying about on slashdot because they don't understand your a white hat hacker and no9t a terrorist.

Re:I'm moving there soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18482753)

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to our new episode of "Famous Last Words"

Great idea! (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#18481875)

Because we know that Canadians and other undesirables who want to visit the USA illegally will find these so hard to fake.

Re:Great idea! (1)

jmv (93421) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482145)

Actually, they won't even bother faking it. They'll just cross the border at one of the many border points that have no officer there. Or they'll cross in the middle of the woods, or by crossing a lake/river, or through an indian reservation... I still haven't figured out why they're pushing these stupid measures. It's bad for the US even economically since Americans can still easily enter Canada, but Canadians have a harder time spending their money in the US. Then again, I'm Canadian, so what do I care...

why RFID? (3, Insightful)

Allison Geode (598914) | more than 6 years ago | (#18481881)

why can't they just keep a database and have barcodes? wouldn't that be, essentially, the same as this, only less prone to RFID's insecure nature?

Re:why RFID? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#18481933)

toll roads use an RFID based system fro ETC and you don't hear about people copying the tags.

Re:why RFID? (1)

malkir (1031750) | more than 6 years ago | (#18481973)

Yes, probably because you'd rather just pay the 75 cents and be on with it rather than taking your time to hack the RFID?

Re:why RFID? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482729)

In IL tag uses pay less and they can use the high speed lanes.

Re:why RFID? (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 6 years ago | (#18481961)

Now there's an idea. If only there was a way to make the barcode impossible to lose...

Re:why RFID? (1)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482037)

If only there was a way to make the barcode impossible to lose...

...tatooed on the back of your neck of course.

Re:why RFID? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18482191)

Ooh ooh ooh... How about this... We could tatoo the barcode on the foreheads and wrists of people and list a number like... uhh... 666.

Wait... that may be too Biblical.

Re:why RFID? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18482221)

and how much harder is it to fake barcodes? or magnetic strips? we need a smart tool to protect the data and it must not be dumb enough to broadcast unnecessarily.

Re:why RFID? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18482937)

Oh, that's easy. They already have a database, and our licenses (I'm in WA) already have barcodes.

I suspect it has something to do with money exchanging hands. The RFID salesmen said that making new RFID cards would totally be simpler and cheaper than adding a new boolean field to the existing database. (Or asking people leaving the country to have passports.)

Re:why RFID? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18483717)

Barcodes are essentially too small to track individual people. The fields that make up a barcode are limited in the amount of information they can carry. You can tell a bar of soap apart from a 6-pack of Cokes using a barcode, but you couldn't tell one bar of Dove soap from another. When you start talking about tracking people, you simply run out of unique identifiers... With RFID you have plenty of tracking capability (in terms of available numbers), easily tracking more people than are currently alive on the planet.

As far as security goes... don't pay attention to the tin-foil hat crowd. The type RFID they would use on a passport/drivers license will have a strong (probably 128 bit) encription engine on the tag. Any concerns of reading an RFID tag from a distance (and becoming a target etc.) are easily engineered around. It's not difficult to limit read distance to a few centimeters if desired (and a simple piece of foil wrapped around the license would make it unreadable by anyone.)

This Doesn't Make Sense (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 6 years ago | (#18481959)

So if you are a legal citizen entering the country legally, this will track your movements and information.

If you are not a legal citizen and do not have legal documentation and you are entering the country, this won't affect you. (There are MANY points where entry into the united states is completely unhindered by any enforcement whatsoever - in fact one place has an HONOR system where you are supposed to stop at an unmanned shack and call the authorities and give them your information before continuing... and sometimes they don't even answer the phone!).

So again... exactly how does this help? This sounds a lot like those idiots who get their children fingerprinted and swabbed for DNA at the mall or their child's school, with some sort of warped idea that if their child is kidnapped, having their fingerprints on record will somehow magically return them.

Just an excuse to acquire more data on citizens. Period.

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482071)

This sounds a lot like those idiots who get their children fingerprinted and swabbed for DNA at the mall or their child's school, with some sort of warped idea that if their child is kidnapped, having their fingerprints on record will somehow magically return them.

People do that so in a worst case scenario, they can identify their child's remains.

Most people have never thought about it, most likely because it is a horrible thing to think about, but not knowing that the body that the police just found is your child can be worse than knowing. [amazon.com]

LK

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense (2, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482137)

People do that so in a worst case scenario, they can identify their child's remains.
That isn't the reason the parents do it. These services are done in shopping malls and grade schools and they are promoted as ways to keep your child safe. Not identify your child after they've been raped, murdered and then chopped up. People just don't put any though into it and they honestly believe that by giving the government a record of their child's biometric information they will somehow receive increased safety out of it.

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482197)

That isn't the reason the parents do it. These services are done in shopping malls and grade schools and they are promoted as ways to keep your child safe. Not identify your child after they've been raped, murdered and then chopped up.

Because you can't have a sign up that say that. Reasonably intelligent people know that this won't keep their kids safe. Reasonably intelligent people know that it's a way to identify the remains. I concede that it's quite debatable, how many people out there are stupid, but it's a euphemism. No one would visit a booth marked "Identify your child's dead body with our help!"

LK

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482251)

(There are MANY points where entry into the united states is completely unhindered by any enforcement whatsoever - in fact one place has an HONOR system where you are supposed to stop at an unmanned shack and call the authorities and give them your information before continuing... and sometimes they don't even answer the phone!).
You do exactly as your suggest. If your one of these illegals (terrorist/whatever) coming into the states, you will feel reasonable comfortable in large crowded passages were you could slip by more easily then the less known and less secure places. So we make it more difficult and now the illegals want to go through the less secure areas to get away from this tech that will flag them every time for not having it. So the smaller crossings have increased surveillance and either grab you on this side but far enough away or watch were you go and get the lot of you later.

It is the same thing as when hunting deer or something and you put up fallen trees or some others obstruction in an attempt to funnel the heard into a set pathway. We used to mow tall fields and place cross backs on them because the animals would take the easiest paths until they got scared. This isn't much different but costs a lot more, has a much larger geographical span and has potential failure points that are different he with an animal. But if they were getting buy in the first place, the there were already points of failure.

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18482403)

If my child is kidnapped, I think I would like a record indicating that I'm the parent. When he escapes and goes to the cops saying "I've been kidnapped", what's to stop the kidnapper from saying, "Oh, he just says that when I make him do his homework"?

Granted, getting them fingerprinted doesn't inherently make them safer, it just makes them traceable back to me should something happen to them.

What would happen should they end up at the hospital unable to communicate, though? Children don't carry IDs, so the only way they'll be able to contact me is via their fingerprints.

dom

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense (1)

DavidMarquis (1059470) | more than 7 years ago | (#18483581)

You're damn right and if poeple can't accept it, we, or they, are all doomed. you're damn right, period. And im not being cynic or anything im serious, I live in canada and from an outsider point of view, this seems totally abusive from the government to me... The poeple should be the ones deciding and in power, but we allow ourselves to be rules by some rich ass politicians who do not really care about providing some truth, just mass manipulation... this is sad times for humanity.

And the terrorists greet this news with ? (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#18481967)

Counterfeit drivers licenses for 'Olympics visitors' to use to enter the US in
3....
2....
1....

Re:And the terrorists greet this news with ? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482295)

Counterfeit drivers licenses for 'Olympics visitors' to use to enter the US in

You are aware that Vancouver is in British Columbia, Canada, right?

Re:And the terrorists greet this news with ? (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482365)

'You are aware that Vancouver is in British Columbia, Canada, right?'

There is also one in Washington state [wikipedia.org] , although it is a very much smaller city.

Re:And the terrorists greet this news with ? (1)

Jerry Rivers (881171) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482615)

It looks as if you have misinterpreted the OP's post. I do believe he meant to say that visitors to the Vancouver Olympics may be able to purchase phony Washington State licenses in B.C., for the purposes of illegally entering the US.

I think it's more likely that there will be problem with illegals entering Canada from the US than rather than the other way around. Though from what i understand about the new enforcement capabilities of border guards on sides, illegal crossings are far less likely to happen than past years.

Yes, actually. The cat does got my tongue. (0, Flamebait)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 6 years ago | (#18481983)

Investigator: So why did New York just blow up again?

RFID License Plate Politician: Our system was flawless except for someone stealing a good one.

Re:Yes, actually. The cat does got my tongue. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18482551)

"Who the f*** decided that sentences on the Internet shall no longer be formatted with two spaces after a period?!"

Probably the same one who decided there shouldn't be two spaces after a colon, or that following a question mark with an exclamation mark actually means something.

Why not just get a damn passport? (1)

sulli (195030) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482007)

I've never understood the problem with just getting a passport to cross the border.

Re:Why not just get a damn passport? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18482127)

This save you $$$ not having to have a passport if all you do is drive past the US/Canada border.

Re:Why not just get a damn passport? (1)

Larry Lightbulb (781175) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482373)

The only figure I've seen for the 'enhanced' license is a $40 fee - I'm assuming you'd get that, then pay the same amount to renew it every five years, like the current regular license. So if the prices don't change the 'enhanced' would be $82 cheaper than the passport and regular license when buying them, and then $4.40 a year cheaper in renewals.

Re:Why not just get a damn passport? (2, Informative)

value_added (719364) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482271)

I've never understood the problem with just getting a passport to cross the border.

I think this program is targetted more specifically at cross-border car travellers. That said, here's a few reasons:

1. Most Americans will never travel outside the state they live in let alone outside the country, and see little use in obtaining one, notwithstanding the general native distrust of things associated with federal government.
2. The passport application requires submission of original documentation. Most American don't even have a copy of their birth certificate.
3. Obtaining a passport can take anywhere from a few weeks to a few months.
4. The fee for the passport alone is $67 [usimmigrationsupport.org] . See No. 1.
5. Driver's licenses are the de facto Identity Card in the U.S. If you try getting into a bar with a passport alone, you could fill a blog describing the looks on people's face when you present it, let alone the different reactions you'd get.
6. Everyone (presumably) already has a driver license so there is a strong incentive by everyone involved to make use of them.
7. Passports don't fit into your wallet which makes them more subject to loss or theft.
8. Passports need to be renewed.

Re:Why not just get a damn passport? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18483527)

BS.

1. I don't know where you're from, but I certainly don't know anyone here that never leaves the state, and many of us here make the trip to BC a lot more often than Oregon or Eastern Washington.
2. Passports applications require proof of citizenship, nothing more. ( http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_1738.htm l [state.gov] ). Same as the new "enhanced" licenses.
4. The fees are about equal, given how often each needs to be renewed.
5. What does this have to do with crossing into Canada. Do you think bouncers in a foreign country are more likely to trust a Washington state driver's license, or a US passport?
6. But no one has an enhanced license yet, and seeing as they will be optional and more expensive, this argument of convenience doesn't make sense.
8. Driver's licenses (in Washington state) need to be renewed twice as often as passports.

Are they really gonna check these? (1)

eggman9713 (714915) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482025)

Are the border guards on both sides actually gonna check these RFID chips? I mean, the few times I have driven into and out of Canada over the Blaine border crossing north of Seattle, the Canadian, yes, Canadian border guards grill you worse than the American ones. The last time I went into Canada in October 2006, I gave the guard my passport, and he asked me where I was going, for how long, and asked me to recite some of my passport information from memory.

Two days later, when I came back (in the middle of border rush hour) I gave my passport to the American border guard and he asked me where I was going. I told him I was going to x-town. He didn't even care that x-town was not anywhere near where my residential address was. (going to college in a different area of the state).

Makes me wonder if the guards have the scanners for the chips in hand rather than a gian car-size one, if they will even care if any information is mismatched.

Re:Are they really gonna check these? (1)

MntlChaos (602380) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482111)

I think border guards care less about citizens of their country than others. Thus the USA Border Patrol will let you off easier than a Canadian and vice versa.

Re:Are they really gonna check these? (1)

Jayemji (1054886) | more than 7 years ago | (#18483197)

I've found quite the opposite. The US boder patrol has generally been more strict on me than the Canadian one ever was.

Proof of citizenship? (2, Insightful)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482121)

This will help security how?

The Unibomber and Oklahoma City bombers were US Citizens, the 9/11 attackers had real, not forged documents, the vast majority of illegal immigrants are probably nice folks... since when does lack of proper ID portend terror?

If someone is planning a complex plot to attack the US, they probably won't let it fail because a key member has a badly forged ID card.

Perception != reality (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482297)

The security organisations get their power (and money for toys) through fear. They need to keep the fear alive and they can do that by coming up with new security measures at airports/borders/whatever. These all help to build the perception that there is a dangerous world full of hippies/commies/rag-heads/$MONSTER_OF_THE DECADE.

Also, being politically driven, these organisations must pander to perceptions rather than reality. They respond to, and help fan, the perceived external threat rather than deal to the more real internal one.

Re:Proof of citizenship? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 7 years ago | (#18483947)

This will help security how?

It's not intended to help security - it's intended to make the lives of thousands of WA state residents that cross the border daily much, much easier. (Especially when the traffic levels spike in 2010 - the residents won't be impeded by the touristas.) Heck, it'll make my life easier. I used to go to Van or the Lower Mainland 2-3 times a year, but had to give it up because of the hassle. I'll be applying for one as soon as I can.

What's going on with my state? (2, Interesting)

FirstTimeCaller (521493) | more than 6 years ago | (#18482171)

First they want to tax internet purchases, now they want to put RFID tags on my license. I think our legislators are hopped up on too much StarBucks... I liked it better when they didn't do anything.

Re:What's going on with my state? (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#18484025)

"I own I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." -- Thomas Jefferson

Cattle (1)

SnappyTurtle (1080079) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482391)

Like teh subject says.

Re:Cattle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18482481)

brilliant insite. Just brilliant.

What a nasty hack (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18482549)

It seems that the underlying problem is that the US passport system is not meeting the needs of the citizens of Washington. I wonder why Washington feels the need to solve this problem by tacking additional functionality on a system that is meant to ensure that one is capable of operating a vehicle instead of directly addressing whatever shortcomings exist with the passport system.

Uhhhh..... (1)

Premo_Maggot (864012) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482817)

-goes to buy anti-rfid wallet- (http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/security/8cdd/)

Re:Go directly to jail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18482855)

Do you really think such wallets will be legal to use if this scheme goes through?

Re:Go directly to jail (1)

Premo_Maggot (864012) | more than 7 years ago | (#18483533)

If I have to I'll rap the card in tin foil.

Already approved? (3, Informative)

Rentiak (835443) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482823)

According to this CNN article, the initiative appears to already have been approved by DHS.

"The pilot project, signed into law by Gov. Chris Gregoire and formally approved by (DHS Secretary) Chertoff on Friday"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/03/24/border.crossi ng.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories [cnn.com]

worthless (2, Interesting)

deblau (68023) | more than 7 years ago | (#18482835)

The idea is to load the drivers license with information proving citizenship
Driver's licenses are not authentication, they are evidence of a license to drive on State roads. They were not designed to satisfy strong authentication [wikipedia.org] protocols. They can only properly be used* once a person has been authenticated in other ways**. To see how massively ineffective they are at authentication, see here [msn.com] .

For the love of all that is right in the world, stop trying to use them for more than they were designed.

* By used, I mean to offer evidence to the person 'using' it that the possessor has permission to drive on the roads. It's only evidence, it's not conclusive. Using it for other things (e.g. checking age at a bar) is foolish.

** For instance, checking the car's registration against the DMV database to see if the driver's name, address, tags, and VIN line up.

NICE!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18483041)

All of your information belonging to me!

And now I don't even have to get out of my vehicle to steal all of your info!

hacked from your wallet (1)

theatrecade (1080063) | more than 7 years ago | (#18483233)

washington just made it easier for id thieves to steal your info from your wallet without you taking it out

show proof of citizenship (1)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18483847)

show proof of citizenship

Well, and I thought it's the state's job to know about a person whether (s)he's a citizen or not. If I show a whatever ID they issued I expect them to know my status and be that ID enough proof of my citizenship. Enormous amounts of tax payers' money is spent of countless forms of identification methods and cards issues, on systems storing these information, so use the damn thing.
 
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?