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 Rebel Against Real ID Act

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the lonely-out-there dept.

Privacy 295

Spamicles writes with a link to a Lawbean post about more rebellion against the Real ID act. New Hampshire and Oklahoma have joined Montana and Washington state in passing statutes refuting the ID act's guidelines. "However, these actions could eventually lead to drivers licenses issued in these states to not be accepted as official identification when boarding airplanes or accessing federal buildings. In addition to these four states, members of the Idaho legislature intentionally left out money in the budget to comply with the Act."

cancel ×

295 comments

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

What it boils down to (4, Insightful)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19477971)

The Wisconsin State Journal has an incredibly good analysis of the mess. They write:

States have rebelled at the $14 billion in costs the act imposes on states, as well as worries that the new security system will invade residents' privacy and create what amounts to a national ID card.

Emphasis mine. That's what makes this so unpalatable to the states, just like "No Child Left Behind" or welfare reform. The United States Government is saying "we're going to create these standards and you are going to pay to implement them" and the states are naturally balking at having to foot the bill for Washington D.C.'s foolishness.

And states do it to municipalities (2, Interesting)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478155)

...at lest in my state. Unfunded mandates, as they are called, are definitely nothing new. And states are no saints in this matter if they are anything like New Jersey. (sorry, have to call out my home state)

Re:And states do it to municipalities (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478383)

Sadly, yes, not only is our Governor too stupid to wear his seatbelt, but he hasn't done much to stop the unfunded mandates, nor lower property taxes significantly.

Re:And states do it to municipalities (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478689)

While I am not wild about taxes, I would not mind as long it was wisely used. The problem comes in when we get taxed (wether at 1% or 60%) and it is wasted such as what the federal admin currently does.

Re:And states do it to municipalities (4, Informative)

Dausha (546002) | more than 7 years ago | (#19479273)

"Unfunded mandates"

Unfunded mandates is the natural effect of Congress' abuse of its Spending Power. Once upon a time, Congress' power to spend was limited to spending necessary to fund its other enumerated powers. Somewhere in time (1930s?), Congress began to expand its realm and the Courts acquiessed.

Now, it is generally believed that Congress can legislate anything provided it allocates funding first (barring some Amendment violation). So, for a while Congress started funding all sorts of crazy things so it could enact laws beyond its enumerated reach. Eventually, Congress' ability to legislate overreached its ability to fund. Thus, Unfunded Mandates.

What is needed is a concerted challenge in SCOTUS to return Congress to its legitimate role of legislating within its enumerated powers, and spending within those powers.

The net effect is lower federal taxes.

State legislatures, conversely, have no enumerated power limitations (in the U.S. Const. anyway). So, they can legislate all the social programs, etc. you want. Local officials locally responsible.

Perhaps Congress could legitimately advocate for certain policies (e.g. Real ID), but it could not use money or the scent of money to enforce it. States have successfully legislated uniform reforms (Uniform Commercial Code, for example); but this is not absolute uniformity. The proper answer is State actions to make things uniform, not Congress imposing beyond its legitimate reach.

Re:What it boils down to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19478245)

Don't be so sure that these states are sticking up for your privacy and for the 10th Amendment or whatever.
I have no doubt that if the feds ponied up umpteen billions of dollars in free* money to implement this, most, if not all, of these states would take it, then promptly bend over. They're not much different from prostitutes, after all....

Re:What it boils down to (5, Interesting)

Plugh (27537) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478337)

In New Hampshire, target of the Free State Project [freestateproject.org] , it is not just about money.
The Federal government can dump as much cash on us as they want and we still are bound by law not to comply.

The exact wording of the bill [generalcourt.org] that Governor Lynch is expected to sign this week or next says:
[T]he public policy established by Congress in the Real ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, is contrary and repugnant to Articles 1 through 10 of the New Hampshire constitution as well as Amendments 4 though 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America. Therefore, the state of New Hampshire shall not participate in any driver's license program pursuant to the Real ID Act of 2005 or in any national identification card system that may follow therefrom.

By the way, if click on the generalcourt.org link above, you'll notice that each legislator has a "liberty grade." Just like in school, from "A" thru "F" -- the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance [nhliberty.org] rates each and every one of the 400 State Representatives, based on how the actually vote on freedom-related bills, every year. Just one of the many things that become possible as a critical mass of pro-liberty activists concentrate on a single state.

By the way... one of the sponsors of the bill, Rep. Winters, is a Free-Stater -- check his acceptance speech [youtube.com]

Re:What it boils down to (1)

dougmc (70836) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478843)

By the way, if click on the generalcourt.org link above, you'll notice that each legislator has a "liberty grade." Just like in school, from "A" thru "F" -- the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance [nhliberty.org] rates each and every one of the 400 State Representatives, based on how the actually vote on freedom-related bills, every year. Just one of the many things that become possible as a critical mass of pro-liberty activists concentrate on a single state.
For the record, this sort of ranking doesn't require any sort of critical mass -- just a few people (or just one) to rate representatives, and a web page to put your results.

I'm not saying I disagree with the free state concept at all -- I love it, actually -- but merely ranking representatives, that can be done by anybody in any state.

Re:What it boils down to (1)

Plugh (27537) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478985)

Well, there were over 1,300 bills considered by the NH State legislature last year. What is "a few" volunteers? We had 50 people read all of those bills and rate them on a standardized liberty score. We then had people attending the public hearings of the highest-impact bills, and basically acting as pro-liberty advocates (or "unpaid volunteer lobbyists", if you like) The next step of course is to get tens of thousands of copies of the Report Card printed and have them placed by nearly every polling place in the State in Nov 2008. I maintain you just can't do that effectively with just 'a few' people. There really is a lot of value-add in having a concentration of people who appreciate freedom all in one place.

Money Money Money (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478399)

Emphasis mine. That's what makes this so unpalatable to the states, just like "No Child Left Behind" or welfare reform. The United States Government is saying "we're going to create these standards and you are going to pay to implement them" and the states are naturally balking at having to foot the bill for Washington D.C.'s foolishness.

You're right and wrong. *Some* states are not balking at the concept, only the price. Montana and Washington State are treditionally independent. But most states simply don't want to pay for it, "foolishness" has nothing to do with it.

Re:What it boils down to (1)

phillipsfamily_01969 (235211) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478485)

So you're saying that nobody should have to implement security standards that the government issues? What would happen if the airlines or other vulnerable operations refused to follow security standards, or just came up with their own? I don't think unfunded mandates are the real problem. It's more an issue of setting unrealistic goals and vastly underestimating the costs involved.

As long as the costs are realistic, it's actually better to have unfunded mandates since there's less levels of government that the money has to go through!

Re:What it boils down to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19478651)

The cost are never realistic. Esp when dealing with the government. Also how does having an id make anyone more secure? Remember the hijackers all had id cards. If we make a 'more secure' id card it will just get a little more expensive for them.

Re:What it boils down to (2, Interesting)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478659)

I didn't say anything of the sort. I'm saying the states are balking at picking up the price tag. I for one wouldn't mind the standardization of license information for the purposes of making it easier to identify drivers within the United States. I draw the line at turning it into a nationalized ID system for the purposes of tracking people. And frankly, if the US Government thinks this up, then they should foot part of the bill for its implementation, since this is a national program. The money in the Federal budget comes from we the taxpayers, and I don't see why my local taxes need to be driven up just so Washington can stroke its ego.

Re:What it boils down to (5, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478821)

What would happen if the airlines or other vulnerable operations refused to follow security standards, or just came up with their own?
Then we might be able to get on a plane without being treated like a fucking criminal for having a cigarette lighter or a bottle of water.

Re:What it boils down to (3, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478517)

I remember the time when Republicans complained about unfunded mandates back before they took power of the legislatures in the early 90's, now it looks like they are happy with making them.

Re:What it boils down to (2, Interesting)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478553)

Although I agree in principle, one of your examples is dead wrong. No Child Left Behind is NOT an unfunded mandate. The Feds supplied a shitload of money to states, under the condition that they meet certain standards, which teh states themselves got to set. The states took the money, and are now bitching that they have to comply with the conditions.

There may be plenty of problems with NCLB - complaints I've heard include that it encourages "teaching to the test" (solution - get a better school administration) and that there isn't "enough" federal money to meet the mandate (no duh - it was never intended to be 100% funding).

My opinion is that the local school districts, having failed students for over 40 years, have decided to go into survival mode and are throwing out whatever arguments they can to keep from having to change their bloated bureaucracies and airy-fairy "learning strategies". There are good arguments to be had, but the "unfunded mandate" one is a red herring - the funding was there BEFORE the mandate came into effect.

And thinking the locals and states are pristine islands of goodness faced with a sea of federal bureaucracy and corruption is flat out naive - the feds have nothing on the states, and especially school districts, when it comes to flat out, cash in hand corruption (although they are catching up - I'm looking at you, Jefferson)

Re:What it boils down to (2, Insightful)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478771)

While that may be true on the surface, in fact the Federal government has under-funded the programs that are supposed to work to support the act, leaving the states to foot the bill, using already stretched school budgets (Note: they are stretched because frankly a lot of that money is being wasted... but I digress).

It isn't enough for Washington to come up with ideas -- they have to make the ideas practical and easily fundable. But when it comes to money, Washington is a town full of amnesiacs.

Re:What it boils down to (3, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 7 years ago | (#19479243)

The United States Government is saying "we're going to create these standards and you are going to pay to implement them" and the states are naturally balking at having to foot the bill for Washington D.C.'s foolishness.

Although you make a good point, you need to dig one layer further to see that some states object on moral (or at least, autonomy) grounds rather than merely due to funding issues...

You can break states up into "welfare" and "SugarDaddy" states (This has a very high correlation with red-vs-blue, incidentally, but I don't mean this post to start a partisan flamewar). The states that have so far objected to Real Id, almost without fail, fall among the SugarDaddy states, the ones with a net outflow of money vs federal taxes.

If your hypothesis (that most objecting states do so primarily for economic reasons) held true, then you would expect to see the exact opposite pattern among objectors/SugarDaddies. As the funding comes from the states anyway, whether directly or via the federal government, having each state pay their own way would cost the SugarDaddies less, overall.

Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, your hypothesis appears false... Though I would still applaud you for raising the point, since regardless of whether the states or the feds pay, we the people still get stuck with the bill at the end of the day (or April 15th, in this case).

Re:What it boils down to (1)

xENoLocO (773565) | more than 7 years ago | (#19479299)

Papers, sir? Can I see your papers?

Airlines (1, Informative)

ktappe (747125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19477975)

these actions could eventually lead to drivers licenses issued in these states to not be accepted as official identification when boarding airplanes
Which the airline industry, because it usually gets what it wants, will probably keep from happening.

Re:Airlines (3, Insightful)

wytcld (179112) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478251)

I'm perfectly willing to carry my passport when boarding airplanes or visiting the White House. What I don't want is to have a driver's license that ends up all RFID'd (and you know they'll ask for that next if they aren't already), so that I can be easily spied on when I'm going about my business on the ground and outside the precincts of the Feds. My driver's license already is cross linked with all sorts of stuff - bank accounts, insurance policies, &c. - that my passport isn't (at least the firms only ask for driver's license # not passport). It works well enough as is for my purposes, and the purposes of those I do business with.

And if you can afford an airline ticket, you can certainly afford a passport - which is a lot better than making even people who never fly pay more for a passport-level driver's license. As a side benefit, holding a passport may even lead more people to get out and explore the wider world, and get beyond the parochial American point-of-view on a few things.

Re:Airlines (1)

JustNilt (984644) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478775)

The one problem with this is that not everyone has a passport. It's not the sort of thing we traditionally go out and get unless we're planning to travel abroad. In addition, don't felons have their passports taken away or something? I could be wrong but I think a passport is one of those things felons lose. I know each state is different but that'd be a difficult thing to handle as felons don't lose the right to travel within their own state.

Domestic flights are extremely common. How's someone supposed to board a domestic flight if they've got no passport? Should I wait 12 weeks (the current wait-time) to be allowed to travel within my own state? Passports are a requirement for international travel, not for domestic travel. I can't see that changing easily.

The real problem with RealID is once a tool exists that government and corporations can use exists, it's rarely given up. Typically it's use is soon extended to other, previously unrelated, areas. Witness the abuse of the Social Security Number in our modern age. I, for one, have little to hide from the government but I still don't want my everyday life linked so easily for all the world to access.

The simple fact is our government's agencies have shown themselves to be incapable of properly managing technology and data in a secure way. Why would I want all of my data assembled in one place for the wrong folks to steal or misuse? I certainly don't want my driver's license tied to any more than it already is. This is just a bad idea all around and won't really solve the problem they claim it's supposed to solve.

Re:Airlines (1)

goaliemn (19761) | more than 7 years ago | (#19479177)

I've had a passport since I was a baby. My parents always considered it a worthwhile expense, just in case its ever needed. Its less than $100 for 10 years. Its not expensive. There's acouple of years until REAL ID is supposed to go into effect. Make getting a REAL ID compatible license optional. Those that don't want to spend the money for a passport are welcome to get the RFID/encoded/everything on it drivers license.

Re:Airlines (1)

natet (158905) | more than 7 years ago | (#19479209)

Perhaps you've forgotten the fact that all US Passports will eventually (within the next few years) contain an RFID chip, so you'll already be tracked wherever you go with that.

Re:Airlines (1)

tclark (140640) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478795)

Is there actually a standard for what sort of ID's an airline will accept? I seem to remember a newspaper story in which the reporter printed up her own official-looking id and used it to fly without difficulty.

Good! (2)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478003)

Enough of the federal government spitting on the 10th amendment in the name of the WOT...

Re:Good! (5, Insightful)

Aqua_boy17 (962670) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478291)

While I agree with you in principle, the unfortunate reality is that the federal government will probably wind up blackmailing non-compliant states into submission.

I'm old enough to remember the country-wide 55 mph. federal mandate that was put in place durng to the last energy crises. States that did not comply with the mandated maximum speed limit (I think Wyoming was one) lost their federal funding for highways and transportation.

OTOH, we already have a federal ID. It's called a passport. Washington can (and has) changed regulations and requirements for passports. They should leave drivers' licenses and state issued ID's alone.

Re:Good! (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478395)

I'm old enough to remember the country-wide 55 mph. federal mandate that was put in place durng to the last energy crises. States that did not comply with the mandated maximum speed limit (I think Wyoming was one) lost their federal funding for highways and transportation.

We're all old enough to remember lowering the DUI limit from .10 to .08 because if your state didn't they would lose that same federal funding.

Re:Good! (3, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478511)

I think this is a scenario in Game Theory. And the states played it wrong.

Scenario: Big guy tries to coerce the little guys into doing something they don't want to do by offering them a competitive advantage. This type of coercion cannot work if all the little guys agree not to acccept the advantage. They remain on equal footing. But if one of them does, they all must do so or be left at a competitive disadvantage. The mafia works the same way, and it only works because of human greed. The states were accepted the "federal funding" deals from the government. This happens on highways, schools, etc. Now they are stuck - they can't go back now, but they don't want to comply with the ever-increasing dirty deeds they must perform. It's exactly how the mafia works. If nobody paid the protection money in the first place, we would all be better off.

Re:Good! (1)

spikedvodka (188722) | more than 7 years ago | (#19479153)

Problem with that theory as applied to this. (It's a variation of "The Prisoner's Dilema") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma [wikipedia.org]

Obviously the Ideal scenario for both criminals is neither talks, but if they don't talk and the other does, they get the slammer forever and a day. The logical result is for the criminal to talk (state to accept the "federal Funding" deal) Because that way they know they get at least a lighter sentence, and have no chance of maximum time.

In fact, (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478649)

I suspect that the airlines will shortly require Passports to travel with. They will allow for one of the licenses to work as well, but more than 50 states implement the license, then almost certainly, they will again use tax dollars as a wedge. After all, if it is not going to 49 states, then it can go to their state.

Passport != National ID (2, Informative)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | more than 7 years ago | (#19479085)

we already have a federal ID. It's called a passport. ...and nobody is required to have one unless they are entering the country (even then, there are alternate options), and nobody is expected to carry it everywhere and produce it on demand.

By the Constitution, nobody is required to produce ANY paperwork (IDs included) for the feds unless a judge specifically says a specific person has to under specific conditions. "Real ID" grossly violates the Constitution.

States should refuse the federal income tax. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19479217)

> I'm old enough to remember the country-wide 55 mph. federal mandate that was put in place durng to the last energy crises. States that did not comply with the mandated maximum speed limit (I think Wyoming was one) lost their federal funding for highways and transportation.

Why don't states just then make the federal income take unconstitutional in their state. If the federal gvt withholds funding taken from federal taxes, then why should citizens of state X pay the federal income tax? States could pass a constitutional amendment making it illegal for the fed to collect income tax in their state and illegal for companies to withhold income or report it to the IRS. Put in a "succession clause" if the fed tries to subvert the state constitution and see what happens.

Re:Good! (2, Informative)

bender647 (705126) | more than 7 years ago | (#19479353)

New Hampshire already passes on some Federal funding (bribes), being the only state in the union that has refused to pass a seat belt law at the expense of highway funding.

Re:Good! (1)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478467)

I cannot recall the exact quote but knowing this crowd, I am sure it is but a post away: Robert Hienlien once said something like: "When a government gets to the point where it requires identity papers, it is time to move off planet"
Similar to the old Daniel Boone line: "when you can hear the sound of your neighbor's axe, it is time to move to the next valley"

Re:Good! (1)

natet (158905) | more than 7 years ago | (#19479157)

Just to set the facts straight, the bill this was attached to was an immigration reform bill, not a War On Terror (WOT) bill.

I'm of two minds on the RealID act. On the one hand, there are some serious privacy concerns that need to be addressed. IIRC, RFID is also mandated for the cards, which I really don't like. However, unlike many of the supposed security measures that have been implemented lately, there are actually some tangible benefits to this system. Better information sharing between states, harder to forge drivers licenses, better tracking for sex offenders, and those are just the things I could think of in 2 minutes.

I think this is going to go the way of many unfunded mandates. The states will refuse, and the feds will bluster a bit, then eventually back down. Though it would really suck in those states that refuse if the feds don't. Federal money for road maintenance is tied to the implementation of the RealID act.

Re:Good! (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 7 years ago | (#19479361)

They may have attached it to immigration for precedural purposes but it is no secret why they support this bill. Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 418 - REAL ID Act of 2005: "The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 418, to strengthen the ability of the United States to protect against terrorist entry into and activities within the United States. In particular, the legislation tightens procedures for non-citizen entry into and presence in the United States, facilitates the building of physical barriers where appropriate to protect U.S. borders, and facilitates the strengthening by the States of the standards for the security and integrity of drivers' licenses." "The Administration will also work with Congress to consider biometric screening of individuals who cannot otherwise satisfactorily demonstrate citizenship or lawful immigration status. Biometric screening, which is applied to most entering classes of aliens through the US-VISIT program, would be a valuable tool in identifying possible links to terrorism."

My senator never heard of it. (1, Offtopic)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478043)

Got this letter from one of my senators a while back.

Thank you . . .

. . for contacting me about the electronic surveillance of people in the United States by the National Security Agency (NSA). I share your serious concerns about this program.

I am pleased that pressure put on the President by the newly-elected Congress, as well as the American public, made clear that our Constitutional rights aren't negotiable. In January 2007, Attorney General Gonzales announced that after an internal investigation, the administration would end electronic surveillance of American citizens unless it received a warrant. This means that the administration must petition the FISA Court if it wants to electronically monitor U.S. citizens.

It is critical that we relentlessly pursue terrorists who seek to do us harm. However, we must make sure that we do not undermine the very rights and way of life that we are seeking to protect. While I do not sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will continue to relay your concerns to my colleagues. I will continue to support strong congressional oversight and closely monitor any new developments on this issue.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to do so again whenever I can be of assistance to you and your family.

Sincerely,

Debbie Stabenow

United States Senator

DS:jm
I wonder which Washington she's been spending her time in.

Re:My senator never heard of it. (5, Interesting)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478071)

Ah, crud. I are an idiot. I pasted the wrong letter. The one I meant to paste was the one where she didn't believe there were any national ID programs planned.

This is the one I meant to paste:

Thank you . . .

. . for contacting me regarding your opposition to a national identification system. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue and I share your concerns.

There are currently no plans in place to institute a national identification system, although some people have suggested this idea as a measure to combat terrorism. Any such system would face serious legal and constitutional challenges. For example, implementing a national identification system would potentially infringe upon recognized privacy rights and the right to travel within the United States. Like you, I am very concerned about protecting our civil liberties from unnecessary government intrusion. I am aware of this concept, and will continue to monitor this situation closely.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Please do not hesitate to do so again whenever I may be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Debbie Stabenow

United States Senator

DS:jm

Re:My senator never heard of it. (1)

paleo2002 (1079697) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478317)

I think its good to see both letters. Yeah, obviously that second one is from Lala Land, but the first letter is a good contrast. Its good to see that some people are working and some institutions and ideals are still being upheld.

As long as letters to your senator or congress person result in a polite response rather than a SWAT team visit, things can't be all that bad.

Re:My senator never heard of it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19478321)

Ahh, good old Michigan.

Don't worry about it, there's no way that Michigan could pony up any kind of real cash to meet the requirements of the RealID anyway. Kwame Kilpatrick would probably use his share on a new escalade, or hiring more of his jailhouse baddies anyway.

Big deal. (0, Flamebait)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478055)

They change their license format every 5-10 years anyway. Having a unified repository of ID's is something that should have been done to begin with. They didn't say the changes had to be done tomorrow, and the pros outweigh the cons.

Passports are the same throughout the states, license plates are the same.. social security numbers are the same... What's the big deal? Who is it hurting? Basically immigrants and those who don't want to be followed by "the man".

Re:Big deal. (5, Insightful)

Baba Ram Dass (1033456) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478073)

Who is it hurting?
Everyone who thinks the government should obey the Constitution, for starters.

Re:Big deal. (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478119)

So, civil services and social security are non-constitutional because they're not run by each state?

Re:Big deal. (2, Interesting)

Baba Ram Dass (1033456) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478145)

When the federal government passes laws regarding issues not enumerated in the Constitution, they are ignoring the 10th amendment. Pretty cut and dry, you would think...

Re:Big deal. (1, Interesting)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478167)

I see what you're saying.

Aside from all the legalities, do you think that having a unified ID across the states is a bad idea?

I'm just saying that rather than fighting it, it should have been something that was done a long time ago.

Re:Big deal. (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478237)

Next up: the National Barcode Tattoo Act. Should have been done a long time ago. You have no objections, do you, citizen?

Re:Big deal. (0, Troll)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478303)

Fight the man! Wooohoo! Because tattoos and ID's are the same when we're talking politics! Right on BRUTHA, YOU MAKE THAT POINT!

Re:Big deal. (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478535)

Fight the man!
That's the first intelligent thing you've said this whole thread. Rather than (further) facilitating a national "show us your papers" environment, we should all be manning the barricades to prevent any further loss of our civil liberties. Big Brother is already running this country (and a few others) - you just haven't noticed yet.

Re:Big deal. (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478609)

No that I don't notice it, I just don't care. I have nothing to hide, yet the rules protecting me also protect those who want to kill our families. I'm not going to fight the government because of a political view, rather than what I feel is right in ways, ya know?

Re:Big deal. (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478825)

So you really are espousing the idea that honest people have nothing to fear from their government. Me, I'm a big fan of the 2nd Amendment, you know, the one where the founders of a country created through revolution against a legal government basically stated that the governors had to rule at the consent of an armed populace.

Re:Big deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19478323)

All I can hear in my head when I read about this national ID program is "Paper's please"...
which is quickly followed by a vision of my freedoms and rights being flushed down the toilet
Which is finalized but a vision of Bush on a giant stage yelling (complete with the flying spit)
"I'm an protecting your freedom, I am protecting you from terrorists, I am winning the war on terror
I have passed the laws to prove it! I will stay in office as long as it takes to protect the American way of life.
Your freedom is in my hands, now get out of my way and let me win at everything!
Then I pass out for a few hours and have to drink myself to oblivion to blot out the repeat, Bush is winning the war on American Citizens...

Re:Big deal. (2, Interesting)

Applekid (993327) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478409)

Ah, but then there's Article One, Section 8. Congress has been exploiting this by broadly interpreting "General Welfare", "Interstate Commerce", and "Necessary and Proper" for the past 150 years.

They're sure as hell not going to throw all that extra power away.

Re:Big deal. (1)

Peter La Casse (3992) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478919)

When the federal government passes laws regarding issues not enumerated in the Constitution, they are ignoring the 10th amendment. Pretty cut and dry, you would think...

Their reasoning goes something like this: people sometimes engage in interstate commerce. Therefore, any law that affects people affects interstate commerce.

Re:Big deal. (5, Insightful)

bar-agent (698856) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478253)

So, civil services and social security are non-constitutional because they're not run by each state?

Yes, they are, but at this point it is too late to end those programs at the federal level and replace them with state programs. Which is too bad. I, for one, would like to see some states take a more Canadian approach to public services while other states take a more free-market approach, and compare and contrast the results. States have a powerful function as "laboratories of democracy," as I believe someone said. And once a few states work out the initial bugs in their plans, other states can implement the best solutions, and everyone would be better off.

Re:Big deal. (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478525)

States have a powerful function as "laboratories of democracy," as I believe someone said

That would be Louis Brandeis [wikipedia.org] , Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor [wikipedia.org] had a similar thought process in her dissent in Gonzales v. Raich: "Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

Where are those justices when you need them?

Re:Big deal. (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 7 years ago | (#19479225)

Thanks I had never heard that one but I agree with the concept whole heartedly.. Its why I am against national health care.

Re:Big deal. (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478673)

"So wait, who protects the people from their government?"
"Terrorists."
"...oh."
Interesting sig. Good point.

Re:Big deal. (1)

dualkarnain (812478) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478829)

This is an excellent point that highlights possibilities provided by the intended spirit of our Constitutionally-limited federal government. We're stuck with a self-perpetuating economic-political machine that has diminished states' rights of self-determinism. The federal government should assess and recommend domestic standards. Not dictate and enforce. I'm glad to see Dr. Paul getting media time to put these ideas out to sheeple who sway with the wind blowing.

Re:Big deal. (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478393)

Actually yes. Please point out where in the Constitution that the Federal goverment has the power to implement such programs. Unlike what Bush would like you to believe there is no such thing as 'implicit' powers. Just the opposite. Unless the Constitution says the Federal government has the right to do something, they expressly DO NOT have that right.

Re:Big deal. (5, Insightful)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478183)

"Having a unified repository of ID's is something that should have been done to begin with."

Why? the delegation of identification is not, constitutionally, the purview of the federal Government and as such it falls under the 10th amendment. Just because something might be a good idea and might be useful does not mean it should be forced on the states despite clear constitutional roles. The more money and or information you give the federal government the more power you hand them.

They didn't say the changes had to be done tomorrow, and the pros outweigh the cons.

I don't think letting the federal government continue to push unfunded and unconstitutional mandates is any small measure of 'bad'.

Passports are the same throughout the states

Passports are not issued by the states

license plates are the same

No they are not EG California has a format of 1ABC234 and Minnesota has ABC-123

social security numbers are the same

Not issued by the states, they are issued by the fed for federal taxing purposes.

What's the big deal? Who is it hurting?

Evidently the states who have to let the federal government make decisions for them and the force the states to pay for it.

Basically immigrants and those who don't want to be followed by "the man".

Oh yea cause if you don't have anything to hide why would you be against repealing the unlawful search and seizure provisions of the constitution. I am assuming you mean illegal immigrants who don't want to be tracked and if they are already here illegally why in the heck would this stop them.

Re:Big deal. (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478269)

Passports aren't issued by the states... was one of my points. They're universal. License plates across the states are the same, and DON'T carry a different format such as european plates. As far as illegal immigrants go, they can still get ID's locally and not be tracked throughout the nation, only locally if THAT. They can also board planes after that point.

Pick apart everything I say because of your beliefs on fighting the man. Having a unified set of ID's, just like the military, is not a bad idea. People are fighting this shit because of politics, not because it's a good or bad idea.

Re:Big deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19478357)

Your sig became quite appropriate when I read your post.

Re:Big deal. (3, Informative)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478371)

Passports aren't issued by the states... was one of my points. They're universal.

Because they are intended for use with foreign entities. Passports are not a required form of ID to have in the US, only if you wish to travel outside the US.

License plates across the states are the same, and DON'T carry a different format such as european plates.

Again, no they are not!

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_license _plates_in_the_United_States) "For example, the small states Delaware and Rhode Island are able to use formats of 123456 and 123-456, respectively, while California uses the seven-character format 1ABC234, and several other populous states use the seven-character ABC-1234 format." and "In some states, information such as county of registration or month of expiration is incorporated into the number. The last number on a Massachusetts license plates indicates the month the bearer's registration expires (1234 AB would expire in April, the fourth month; zero is used for October expirations"

As far as illegal immigrants go, they can still get ID's locally and not be tracked throughout the nation, only locally if THAT. They can also board planes after that point.

Right because our real problem with illegal immigrants is that they fly!

Pick apart everything I say because of your beliefs on fighting the man.

Has nothing to do with an innate distrust of authority but thanks for bringing your straw man to the chat, he might make for better conversation than you are.

Having a unified set of ID's, just like the military, is not a bad idea.

Never said it was a bad idea I said it was unconstitutional. We dont jsut do things because they are, at the time, a good idea. I also said granting power to those who in the future might abuse it is not a good idea either. That the kind of thinking that lets you elist in the military at 18 but not celebrate it with a drink until you're 21.

Re:Big deal. (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478503)

Why? the delegation of identification is not, constitutionally, the purview of the federal Government and as such it falls under the 10th amendment. Just because something might be a good idea and might be useful does not mean it should be forced on the states despite clear constitutional roles. The more money and or information you give the federal government the more power you hand them.

However, regulation of immigration is in the federal governments purview, per Article 1 section 8 paragraph 4.
Coupled with Article 1 section 8 paragraph 18,

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Congress has the right to establish laws concerning national standards for ID cards as it would be a means of identifying citizens, immigrants, and aliens, both legal and illegal, which falls under laws concerning naturalizations (USCONS Art1 Sec 8 Para 4).

In fact, using Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the right to create a national ID card, because it would be a law created under paragraph 18 to support paragraph 4.

Perhaps you should learn the Constitution before trying to interpret it.

Re:Big deal. (2, Informative)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478675)

However, regulation of immigration is in the federal governments purview, per Article 1 section 8 paragraph 4. Coupled with Article 1 section 8 paragraph 18,

Yes that would be why states don't issue green cards. How does that contradict what I said?

"Congress has the right to establish laws concerning national standards for ID cards as it would be a means of identifying citizens, immigrants, and aliens, both legal and illegal, which falls under laws concerning naturalizations (USCONS Art1 Sec 8 Para 4)."

Identify Citizens (Passport), Immigrants (Green Cards), and this license scheme is aimed at citizens not aliens.

Perhaps you should learn the Constitution before trying to interpret it.

Perhaps you should RTA and my opinion before trying to garner what I think about national ID. We have one and its called a passport what section 8 does not say is that the id can be compulsory that is for the courts to decide and it certainly has nothing to do with making states format their ID to match the federal standards.

Re:Big deal. (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478855)

Bravo. Beat me to it. Someone give the parent a mod point.

National ID is not at all meant to deal with naturalization. As was said, we've got the green card. Plus, since current citizens would have to get this ID as well, that supercedes any naturalization argument and becomes a generic 'ID' argument, which is not explicitly enumerated.

Thus it falls on Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Re:Big deal. (1)

NateE (247273) | more than 7 years ago | (#19479043)

I hand my current State drivers license for identification. The picture is given a glance and returned to me. I'm on the plane.

I hand my new, Real ID State drivers license for identification. The picture is given a glance, they swipe it. I submit to fingerprint or retinal scan and it matches whats on the card. I'm on the plane.

Also think of going through this on your first day at a new employer.

Seems to me that there are security and citizenship verification reasons behind Real ID. However, its an unfunded mandate. Congress needs to be brought up short on their financial irresponsibility.

Re:Big deal. (2, Informative)

thebdj (768618) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478259)

Passports are the same throughout the states
Yes, because those are issued by who? The correct answer is: The Federal Government. States are not footing that bill, nor have they ever footed that bill.

license plates are the same
*BUZZ* Oh, sorry that answer is incorrect. Some states list counties on their plates, others require two plates, while some only one. Some states have specialty plates that others do not. The way the tags and registration are charged is different by state or municipality. About the only way they are similar is in the fact that the identify a state and have numbers (or letters or both) on them.

social security numbers are the same
Please see my statements on the passport discussion above. You cannot compare federally issued identifications (which have their own myriad of uses) to the driver's license.

What's the big deal? Who is it hurting? Basically immigrants and those who don't want to be followed by "the man".
This is a violation of civil liberties? It violates the 10th amendment, for which we already fought one civil war. (Trust me, the American Civil War was about more then just slaves.) It hurts all Americans. It has nothing to do with being monitored, but everything to do with privacy over security. It happens the two are really mutually exclusive and you cannot achieve both at the same time. I think you will find that we are creeping up to the line where people are not willing to cross.

Also, this is a lot more about money. States do not want to foot the bill for a government project. If the feds really wanted "National ID cards", then they should setup the infrastructure and absorb the costs to do it; unfortunately, they do not know how and it would be a disaster, just look at the time it takes to get a passport.

Re:Big deal. (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478359)

We're going to find out that our "civil liberties" are going to start costing lives. Because of politics and PC thoughts, we won't be able to do shit to stop what people trying to make a point have caused. It's not about right or wrong... it's about politics and rules that were set back before the country was so fucked up.

Re:Big deal. (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478521)

If your life is the first to be lost, that in turn will save uncounted lives, as well as preserve liberty for the rest of us. Your kind of thought let Hitler implement his policies.

All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing.

Re:Big deal. (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478559)

Yes Civil Liberties cost lives, thats the first correct assertion you have put forward. The first lives were in the revolutionary war. Seems to me to be cowardly to give up those hard fought liberties in the name of security.

Re:Big deal. (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478571)

We're going to find out that our "civil liberties" are going to start costing lives.

Civil liberties have never cost nearly as much lives as the lack thereof. Could, say, 9/11 have happened in the USSR? Probably not, but I don't think that would have been much comfort to the folks in the gulag.

Because of politics and PC thoughts

Oh, yes, damn those PC thoughts! Dumb politics like "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ..."

it's about politics and rules that were set back before the country was so fucked up.

The rules you're complaining about were set by people who had recently won their independence from the world's largest and most ruthless empire, in a country that was barely sure of its own continued existence, under constant threat of being wiped out by warring imperial powers and/or or thrown back into the sea by local powers, and beset by constant internal violence. The idea that Constitutional rules were created in a naive world where things were less fucked up than they are today is absurd. Americans are safer today than they have ever been, and the only real threat to their continued well-being is their propensity to imagine themselves under some unique threat from outside.

Important question (1)

Lockejaw (955650) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478831)

How many lives does it take for you to give up freedom?

Re:Big deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19478333)

Having a unified repository of ID's is something that should have been done to begin with.

So now, instead of having to forge 50 different license formats in order to satisfy the thousands and thousands of college students with hundreds of dollars who want a beer, the criminal faction only has to learn how to forge one?

Excellent plan there, focus all of the criminals' resources on one target and hope that when the lobbyist insists that it can't be forged, they actually mean it.

Re:Big deal. (1)

cbeaudry (706335) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478345)

Please detail these pro's you are talking about.

We are all very interested, because I have not heard ONE single pro to having a unified ID system.

Re:Big deal. (2, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478389)

Passports are the same throughout the states,


Passports are a federal document, not state. I would hope they were the same.

icense plates are the same..

No they're not. There are a minimum of 500 different license plates for the states. More than likely, double that number due to the specialty plates once can get. I know in PA there are fourteen different license plates one can get not including the generic one.

social security numbers are the same...

Again, that's a federal issue, not a state issue.

What's the big deal? Who is it hurting? . . . those who don't want to be followed by "the man".

You answered your own question. I distinctly remember when I was younger, people would talk about how the folks in the Soviet Union and their satellite states would spy on their own citizens, track their movement, who they talked to, etc. In fact, my dad told me that as a ham radio operator, regardless of where in the Soviet Union you talked to someone, you sent your QSL card to one central box number in Moscow.

Forcing a national ID card on people is nothing less than doing exactly what Reagan and others harped about what was wrong in Russia for over five decades. Why would we want to follow that example?

Re:Big deal. (1)

triskaidekaphile (252815) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478437)

Passports are not up to the states. States are not allowed to restrict travel.

License plates are up to the states, but the automotive industry makes the cars and they don't want to make 50 different types of license plates mounts.

Social security numbers are assigned by the federal government.

Immigrants are not the only ones who don't want to be followed by "the man". Any freedom-loving individual wants the same.

Call Your Senator Now : +1 (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19478065)


To support [huffingtonpost.com] the impeachment of the biggest recipient [whitehouse.org] of weapons bribes.

Pax,
K. Trout, C.E.O.

religious reasons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19478085)

I have a 5 cult following, and if I want to make a state for one of my groups, does this mean I have to get a different ID for each of my identities in each of the 5 cults? If I'm in a state that accepts this new federal law...I guess not. I win when privacy loses!

I can see an issue here. (3, Interesting)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478093)

Not too long after they stop accepting IDs from those states that refuse to take part in Real ID I can see something of a Civil rights thing happening.

Just how long have we got to wait until the Neo conservative ruling class get deposed?

I'm something of a fan of Pulp SF, particularly the early stuff, your EE 'Doc' Smith and the like. His worlds were full of the kind of people who would love this stuff. Fanatically loyal, good clean white folk, ready to believe, and die for, anything a government told them. They were also undeniably Aryan in nature.
When it comes to fiction, especially fiction of such historical importance to the world of SF I am willing to dismiss such concepts as products of a different age and enjoy traversing the early history of SF. However, to see people trying to change America in such a way that only the fictional American Aryans of the 1930's would accept it as is, is a frightening thing indeed.

Re:I can see an issue here. (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478419)

Not too long after they stop accepting IDs from those states that refuse to take part in Real ID I can see something of a Civil rights thing happening.

Ok, fair enough, with you here.

Just how long have we got to wait until the Neo conservative ruling class get deposed?

A little weird now... "deposed?" The answer is, "until you vote them out," by the way. Then we get a new ruling class of bleeding-heart pinkos.

I'm something of a fan of Pulp SF, particularly the early stuff, your EE 'Doc' Smith and the like. His worlds were full of the kind of people who would love this stuff. Fanatically loyal, good clean white folk, ready to believe, and die for, anything a government told them. They were also undeniably Aryan in nature.

Uh... ok... you're losing me now.

When it comes to fiction, especially fiction of such historical importance to the world of SF I am willing to dismiss such concepts as products of a different age and enjoy traversing the early history of SF. However, to see people trying to change America in such a way that only the fictional American Aryans of the 1930's would accept it as is, is a frightening thing indeed.

And, bam, there it is. Totally lost.

If I'm understanding you right, you're saying that Aryans of the 1930s would accept reading 'Doc' Smith fiction? Or something?

The more states that rebel, the merrier ! (1)

RedneckJack (934223) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478277)

So far, it is mostly small states that are rebelling but bigger states need to rebel like California, Texas, NY. Unfortunately, CA is looking at going along to get along.

On the unfunded mandate, you will get abused and pay for the privilege thereof !

Re:The more states that rebel, the merrier ! (1)

bk2204 (310841) | more than 7 years ago | (#19479113)

The Texas Legislature just recessed until January 2009; by the state constitution, the legislature can only meet for 140 days every two years, unless called into special session by the governor. Since there was no enabling legislation in Texas, Real ID won't be implemented here; it would violate parts of the Government Code permitting people to view and correct errors on information about them, among other laws.

Everybody is missing the states rights issue (3, Interesting)

Danathar (267989) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478283)

Separate from this issue is the precedant of states refusing to follow the orders of the Federal Government. What will be REALLY interesting is if these states succeed and then try the same strategy with other federal statutes the states don't like.

Re:Everybody is missing the states rights issue (1)

Stalin (13415) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478625)

Precedent: an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

In this case, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

civil war (1)

uepuejq (1095319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478355)

i guess we're headed that'a way.

There are a few solid if not often reviewed (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478417)

standards that apply to government: Once it's made into law, it's very difficult to change it. Once it's written down, getting it taken off is nearly impossible, and that applies to names on lists as well. Once a program is implemented, the inertia is difficult to stop or reverse, for all the political and financial reasons that it is difficult to get rolling in the first place. If there is an opportunity for big business or big government to abuse something, they will, sooner or later. The ONLY way to prevent the inevitable abuses of national IDs is to never have them at all. No matter what minor benefits it might be believed they would bring, the opportunity for abuse is far greater. If that opportunity exists, it WILL be exploited. This program needs to be stomped to death and never repeated.

The States are getting uppity! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19478429)

Quick! We must elect President Lincoln to a 3rd term!

Right... (1)

tthomas48 (180798) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478569)

"However, these actions could eventually lead to drivers licenses issued in these states to not be accepted as official identification when boarding airplanes or accessing federal buildings"

Yeah, cause entire states are not going to be able to buy plane tickets or enter federal buildings. I see that happening... I mean after all it's not like the airline industry has any lobbyists in Washington, and it's not as though the federal government will notice if suddenly all their employees in a given state stop showing up for work. I think we'll see that law either repealed or changed before we see entire states being told they can't fly...

Oklahoma (3, Interesting)

Ian McBeth (862517) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478601)

I am from Oklahoma.

One of the reasons we don't want to spend all the $$ to comply with RealID, is that
we just completely redid our driver's licenses in the last 4 years, at a significant cost.
The new ones are much harder to fake, and have both index finger's prints electronically bar coded on them.
Our ID's have plenty of info about us now, no more is necessary.

The Fed, just needs to mind its own broken fences, instead of telling us how to keep ours from falling.

Thoughts.... (2, Insightful)

Stanislav_J (947290) | more than 7 years ago | (#19478695)

So the feds are going to tell a few million residents of these states that suddenly as of such and such a date they can no longer fly? Sure, like that's going to happen. We're already at or near the tipping point on this -- if even a few more states say "no thanks" it could hopefully sabotage the whole thing. This could turn into a major federal power vs. states rights battle -- after all, licensing is a function traditionally assigned to the state level.

Realistically, though, I think sooner or later the Real ID monster will be unleashed, but after some additional delays and perhaps a grace period tacked on. At the very least, I want to see this debacle delayed until after July 2010. Cos that's the earliest that *I* can renew my license by mail for another seven and a half years (I can renew 18 months prior to expiration plus 6 full years beyond that). Then I'm set until January 2018, by which time I'll be 60 and too old to give a shit any longer.....

Re:Thoughts.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19479187)

Yeah - right. You think that'll work? They pulled this shit in New Zealand a while back - we originally had paper licenses without any identification other than your signature and eye colour, and they were issued for life. When they introduced the new photo-ID card licenses, you had a year. Then your "lifetime issued" license was no longer valid. Do you really think they'll do any different anywhere else? IF they introduce it, it'll be over a short period so that they can start demanding them for everything.

Either that or they'll just stop accepting the old forms of ID - you'll have to carry your passport to buy booze and cigarettes...

Has nothing to do with tech... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19478717)

This is just more slashdot whining!

I can hardly wait for Civil war 2.0 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19478921)

The next decade is going to get REAL interesting, here in the states, and everywhere else in the world, too.

What a time to be alive!

Fuck the real ID.

did not one person mention (1)

SQLz (564901) | more than 7 years ago | (#19479005)

The privacy concerns or the fact the the US Government has no right to issue us all "papers". This should be handled at the state level, like it is now.

IDs are for commercial airplanes. (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 7 years ago | (#19479059)

...drivers licenses issued in these states to not be accepted as official identification when boarding airplanes...

Or rather, commercial airplanes. I don't believe such rules apply to private or chartered planes, such as in which them rich peoples fly...

Put this to bed (1)

Cracked Pottery (947450) | more than 7 years ago | (#19479097)

A stupid law that was never debated, that will line up people outside DMV offices is every state, should be killed. I have an aging notarized copy of my birth certificate, but I am not sure that it would be accepted. I dimly suspect that this is intended to screw a lot of people out of their right to vote.

Who might not be able to produce the needed proof of citizenship? Old folks and poor folks. It is like the voter picture ID law on steroids.

Problem is, is that it doesn't add much to security, since professional terrorists will have the document manipulation down pat.

Awesome (1)

Phoenix666 (184391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19479307)

I'm quite proud of my home state for rebelling on this. Washington D.C. is lost to the American people as an instrument for sensible government. The state houses are the only avenue left to us if simply by virtue of being within a day's drive, and of our legislators as being mostly people with day jobs who aren't trapped in a beltway bubble.

I once turned the tide for a crucial state reform bill by grabbing four friends and handing out flyers for 3 hours in front of supermarkets in certain legislators' districts. Inside of two days their offices received calls from ~150 constituents demanding to know why they weren't going to require members of the state legislature to show up for work. They usually get 5 calls on any issue, so they were taken aback and promptly decided to support the bill.

You can't do that with Senators and members of the House of Representatives. They don't give a crap what you and I think, unless we can threaten/promise 1000's of $$$/votes.

So Far (1)

Derosian (943622) | more than 7 years ago | (#19479349)

So far my state, Texas, has been rather silent on the subject of RealID. Link [dailytexanonline.com]

But I do hope they do stand against it, not just for privacy or any of the other, but for the concept that the states would stand up for a cause. Against the federal government.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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