Slashdot Log In
Real ID: You Can Still Fight It
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon May 09, 2005 11:13 AM
from the fight-the-man dept.
from the fight-the-man dept.
toupsz writes "Bill Scannell has created a website where anyone and everyone can fax their senators regarding the Real ID Act. Note that the act is up for vote on Tuesday, May 10th!
All those against the Act might want to go to Bill's site: UnrealID.com.
Thanks, Cory from BoingBoing!"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Bruce Schneier on RealID (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bruce Schneier on RealID (Score:5, Insightful)
???
Peer pressure is exactly the mechanism being used to get this act passed. Seriously you don't expect us to believe that its inclusion into a "support our troops" bill is an unintentional side-effect of an absent minded congressman? No sane congressperson would dare to vote against the troop funding omnibus because all of his peers would immediately label him an enemy of the troops. If that's not peer pressure, I don't know what is.
Parent
Re:Bruce Schneier on RealID (Score:5, Interesting)
Sane congresspeople vote against military and defense spending all the time. They vote to close military bases all the time - putting hundreds of people out of work. There is nothing at all magical about 'troops' or 'military'. It is simply an issue where people focus heavily on the times when military spending is accepted and ignore the times when it is denied.
This is a reply to a topic of peer pressure. Peer pressure is used to invoke inflamtory concepts, such as the Reds are invading Hollywood and we must blacklist all the dang Communists! Peer pressure tells you that you must believe the inflamatory concept at face value. Do not do research. Do not go to the US Congress' website. Do not look up military bills that have been voted on. Do not look at the voting history on those bills. Do not get the facts. Just believe what you are told - oh, and tell it to everyone else. If enough people say it, it must be true.
Parent
Re:Bruce Schneier on RealID (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Worldwide (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Worldwide (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting back to topic, a National ID is just one more step away from a group of independent states who are members of a federation with strictly limited powers, and one more step towards a strong central government which flaunts the document supposedly limiting its extent. Look: You out in the rest of the world don't like the US federal government getting too much power, especially when it's mismanaged as badly as it is. Us here in the US don't like our Federal government taking too much power, either, when that power would better be left closer to home where we have more influence -- in our state governments.
Parent
Re:Worldwide (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about the above three things, and then tell me you want public healthcare.
This is one of the perplexing paradoxes of a pro-capital-punishment society. You people think the government lacks the competence to run schools or hospitals, yet you put your faith in its ability to conclusively determine a person's guilt with enough certainty that you're willing to execute someone when that same government has concluded is "guilty." Mind-boggling.
Parent
Re:Worldwide (Score:5, Interesting)
There have been any number of "investigative reports" in recent years on the issue. Almost all the reporters express dismay and shock at the shoddiness they find when they look into capital-crime cases. They report that the cases they examined were absolute horrors of blatant injustice, with incompetent lawyers (usually publicly funded because the defendants are almost always very poor), arrogant and dishonest police and prosecutors, and juries that systematically exclude anyone with the slightest doubts about the rightness of capital punishment. They get across the idea pretty clearly that, no matter what their prior beliefs, they now believe that death sentences are essentially random, and reforming the system is hopeless.
The public reaction to this? A big yawn. Well, yes; there's the half of the population that pays attention, and doesn't want the death penalty. The other half of the population doesn't care, and doesn't read such activist, liberal reports. Why not? Their attitude is simple: A crime was committed. They want someone punished. If the defendant is guilty, so much the better. But all that really matters is that someone dies for the crime.
This becomes especially clear when you look at the reactions to the recent exoneration via DNA analysis. Overwhelmingly, people react by being very upset that the criminal was set free. There is political pressure to block such DNA analysis after the case is "settled".
A couple of years back, there was an interesting situation in Texas. After several such DNA exonerations, the state went through their frozen evidence from previous convictions, and destroyed them. This got the point across about as clearly as possible: They didn't care whether those prisoners had been wrongly convicted, and they weren't about to allow any re-examination of the evidence using new forensic technology.
So it's not that this half of the population believes that the government can determine guilt accurately. The real truth is that they don't care about justice. They just want vengeance and it doesn't matter if they get the right guy. It's the Hollywood approach to justice.
We should note the surveys that show this to be only around half of the American population. The other half shouldn't be blamed for their attitude. And there is a political fight (which the media calls a "culture war"
[Just doing my bit to explain the complexities of American culture to the rest of the mind-boggled world.
Parent
Re:Worldwide (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, we are all aware that this was paid for out of the taxes of Finnish workers. But when you compare, they don't pay much more in taxes than we do here in America. They sure do get a lot more for it.
OTOH, they don't get the fun of watching their nation's troops expending large quantities of munitions in another country. But if they're into that, they can follow the news of American troops, and cheer them on. I did meet a number of Finns who rooted for the French or English or Italian soccer teams; I suppose this wouldn't be much different.
Parent
And before you fax your Senator... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And before you fax your Senator... (Score:5, Informative)
I always wanted to be above the law. Now, to become Secretary of Homeland Security...
Parent
Peeing in the wind (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, but thats as simple as it can be put.
Don't bother with unrealid.com (Score:5, Interesting)
- First, any site with a Matrix fetish loses all credibility.
- Second, clearly the site is designed to spread FUD. The fake image of the "Real ID" card indicates that the card will contain information such as Religion and Occupation. It will not. Read the bill. FUD.
- The site says cops will die. Right. Because when cops are working under-cover they will be carrying their real ID cards. Just like today, when under-cover cops are required to carry their badge and drivers license. Oh, wait, no they aren't. FUD.
- "every convenience store learns to grab that data and sell it to Big Data for a nickel" Right. Because every time I got to the convenience store I have to present my license. Oh, wait, no I don't. FUD.
Anyway, the site goes on with a bunch of rambling, random conspiracy nonsense (We'll turn into a communist state! Oh no! The highways will run red with blood!). There may be good reasons not to support this bill, but this web site doesn't give you any.Read the bill yourself [loc.gov]. Don't trust this unreal.com guy.
After you decide if you want to support the bill or not, contact your senator through www.senate.gov [senate.gov].
Re:Don't bother with unrealid.com (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, clearly the site is designed to spread FUD. The fake image of the "Real ID" card indicates that the card will contain information such as Religion and Occupation. It will not. Read the bill. FUD.
Granted, their 'mock ID' is designed to spread fear with lines such as religion and occupation, however the text of the bill itself grants the power for other information to be added to the ID as the government sees fit. Most people assume this will be retina or fingerprint, but it could include anything, including religion! FUD is FUD, but their example is illustrating one of the key points why myself, and many others, are opposed to the bill - the fact that it hands the government arbitrary and vastly expandable powers of information collection and tracking. If Big Brother says your new ID must carry and display your political party affiliation, your stance on abortion, and if you've bought a 'support the troops ribbon magnet' then that info will be collected and added for anyone reading it to see. They could add your 'terrorist score' to the card, they can add your campaign contributions info to the card, anything!
Also in regard to your comment about your data being scanned and sold by convenience stores being FUD, I think that's very likely to happen. Right now, at least in MA, if you look under the age of 27 - which is a totally objective evaluation by the store clerk - you must present ID to purchase tobacco or alcohol. In most of the stores around here they not only check your birthdate listed but they scan the drivers license to make sure it's real and not forged. Guess what? You want to make that transaction, you have to let them scan it or they won't accept it as a valid ID, and once they scan it they have your ID and all your data and it can be sold. It's bad enough you have to scrutinize privacy policies for every webstore you buy from, but now I need to find and read the privacy policy of every 7-11 or liquor store I want to make purchases from? Yes, consumers can vote with their wallet for those establishments but a majority of the populace either is unaware, or doesn't even care most of the time. Do you really think you and a handful of morally conscientious (sp?) geeks boycotting the 7-11 will affect their bottom line when 2000 other Joe Publics will buy smokes from them regardless?
This is not a personal attack, and I am against FUD. But I think people need to be shown examples of what this ID allows and - lets face it - things this government will probably get around to trying to track with these cards. They want a nationally standardized ID? Fine, but it should outline all the info and a new bill should have to be passed (to allow for public input to their reps) to change what that card tracks. Simply giving the government un-checked, unmonitored ability to add info as they see fit is dangerous to freedom!
I recommend everyone follow the parent poster's lead and read the text of this bill in full, think about it, read some arguments for and against, then send your opinion to your senator. Informed decisions people! Basing your choice on kneejerk reactions from any source (esp /.) would be just as bad as the people trying to fly this under the radar by attaching it to must-pass legislation!
Parent
Libertarian Fantasies (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait - Republicans have controlled the White House, Senate and House of Representatives for years? The WTC planebombers and OK City bombers all had legitimate ID? I'll have to wait for the next Fox News cycle to get ny updated talking points.
Lazarus Long said it best: (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, I have still not been able to figure out the whole "privacy" debate. All the information that is on these cards, as far as I can tell, including address, is information that can be publicly observed. Of course, this raises the question "should it be legal for someone to follow someone around to determine where they live?"
Where you live isn't necessarily a private piece of information, but I can understand the desire people have to not make that information easily available to anyone who might want it. The plain fact of the matter is, there isn't really any such thing as privacy except where there is no possibility of observation.
The dilemma faced by legislators - and the average citizen - is how do you know if people are telling the truth? How do you ensure "trust"? It's a pain in the rear in modern society - it used to be that you lived your life in a small town where you knew the entire town, and when outsiders came in they were treated with suspicion until they were around for long enough with demonstrated character to be trusted.
That is, in fact, the only way to build trust: continued demonstration of certain behavior. This isn't even a guarantee of future behavior, which is the nasty caveat. So, as far as I see it, at best any new type of ID will be a neutral thing. In reality, it will probably carry some nominal fee and so not be good, and it will also probably be abused by certain people or organizations.
The thing is, society is based on trust, and all this type of thing demonstrates is that people are less likely to trust than in the past. The other interesting thing is that you really cannot legislate trust, or behavior for that matter. You can only build trust, and you can only punish or reward behavior. Those are the only controls in society: reward and punishment. It's the unfortunate reality of the world in which we live.
here is why this is bad with Excerpts: (Score:5, Informative)
`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--
`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.
Secretary of Homeland Security can do what he wants, and nobody has any recourse at ALL. He wanst to put in land mines, nothing we can do about it. Wants to spend 80 Billion dollars a year patrolling our borders, nothing he can do about it.
It errods Attorney General position by giving the Secertary of Homeland security the same power. Bear in mind the attorny general has checks and balances that the Secretary of Homeland Security does not.
NO judicial review??? (Score:5, Informative)
How completely, absolutely UNAMERICAN this Sensenbrenner person is. Has no grasp of the long term impact things like this will be to the US. Has no place in our government.
Yah buddy, I said it, get out of our country since you obviously don't respect what made our country great.
------------------
SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.
Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Waiver-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--
`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.
Re:What's so bad? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:What's so bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that's some REAL good insight.
Parent
Re:What's so bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
It happens already. I got hit head-on on a one-way street by an illegal alien driving a stolen van with no license and no insurance in Houston, Texas. Fortunately, a cop was driving right behind me. Unfortunately, the cop let her go because she is illegal. At the time (March 2003, I don't know if it's still true), the police were under orders from city council not to arrest illegal aliens unless they do something like murder, rob, or rape. It was part of then-mayor Lee Brown's plan to make Houston a safe haven for illegals so he could boost census numbers and bring in more money from the federal government. Since the city signs the cops paychecks, not the federal government, they do what council wants, not what the law is -- and that means letting people who have broken the law go free. I'm so glad I moved to the north.
Parent
Re:ALL of this begs the question... (Score:5, Insightful)
What if these so-called illegals aren't stupid enough to apply for a state ID or driver's license? What then? [That sensation that your soul is being pierced is from the blank stare you'll get when you ask any politician for an honest answer to this question.]
Obviously, the guy wants to cut down on the potential terrorist threat. But who in HELL says that a terrorist needs a driver's license? Or a state ID?
So who suffers? The criminals and terrorsts? Hell no- they'll just route around it. That leaves only one other class...the vast, vast majority of people who are neither terrorists nor criminals.
Parent
Re:ALL of this begs the question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:ALL of this begs the question... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is inscribed on what may be the most famous symbol of the USA. The statue of liberty. She stands in NY harbor, welcoming the immigrants since being given to the USA by France, in 1886.
Should we just take the old girl down, then?
Parent
Re:What's so bad? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What's so bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What's so bad? (Score:5, Informative)
Last May, I went to a family friend's house on a small private island off the Florida Keys for Memorial Day. (The owner went to boarding school with my Dad, became a banker, grew to be super-rich, all years before I was born.) Because the island was outside US territorial waters, I had to show my passport at airport customs to get back in, even though the entire island where we went was privately owned.
Passports are required by the United States when a US citizen crosses the border inbound, no matter where you're coming from.
Parent
Re:What's so bad? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:What's so bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think in the old days you were right. But now it's more like this:
- Democrats: For any problem the poor and middle class have, the solution is bigger government.
- Republicans: For any problem the ultra rich have, the solution is bigger government.
- Libertarians: For any problem, the solution is smaller government.
That looks about right for the year 2005.Parent
Re:What's so bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care about the Big Brother side, I care about the part where our officials are enacting pointless legislation that won't solve anything but will create a whole new department of bureaucracy that you and I get to pay for. Hell no.
Parent
Reasoning (Score:5, Interesting)
I would like to see more enforcement along the borders. Both of them. But one positive benefit will be that illegal immigrants won't be taken advantage of by heartless money grubbers who could afford to pay a decent wage if they wanted too. [walmart.com]
Most of those crossing the border are just looking to better themselves and their families. We need a legal way to help those who want "the American Dream" and kick those listed above out.
Parent
Re:What's so bad? (Score:5, Informative)
How Real ID will affect you
By Declan McCullagh [com.com]
What's all the fuss with the Real ID Act about?
President Bush is expected to sign an $82 billion military spending bill soon that will, in part, create electronically readable, federally approved ID cards for Americans. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the package--which includes the Real ID Act--on Thursday.
What does that mean for me?
Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards. News.context
What's new:
The House of Representatives has approved an $82 billion military spending bill with an attachment that would mandate electronically readable ID cards for Americans. President Bush is expected to sign the bill.
Bottom line:
The Real ID Act would establish what amounts to a national identity card. State drivers' licenses and other such documents would have to meet federal ID standards established by the Department of Homeland Security.
More stories on this topic
The Real ID Act hands the Department of Homeland Security the power to set these standards and determine whether state drivers' licenses and other ID cards pass muster. Only ID cards approved by Homeland Security can be accepted "for any official purpose" by the feds.
How will I get one of these new ID cards?
You'll still get one through your state motor vehicle agency, and it will likely take the place of your drivers' license. But the identification process will be more rigorous.
For instance, you'll need to bring a "photo identity document," document your birth date and address, and show that your Social Security number is what you had claimed it to be. U.S. citizens will have to prove that status, and foreigners will have to show a valid visa.
State DMVs will have to verify that these identity documents are legitimate, digitize them and store them permanently. In addition, Social Security numbers must be verified with the Social Security Administration.
What's going to be stored on this ID card?
At a minimum: name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address, and a "common machine-readable technology" that Homeland Security will decide on. The card must also sport "physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes."
Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements--such as a fingerprint or retinal scan--on top of those. We won't know for a while what these additional requirements will be.
Why did these ID requirements get attached to an "emergency" military spending bill? Because it's difficult for politicians to vote against money that will go to the troops in Iraq and tsunami relief. The funds cover ammunition, weapons, tracked combat vehicles, aircraft, troop housing, death benefits, and so on.
The House already approved a standalone version of the Real ID Act in February, but by a relatively close margin of 261-161. It was expected to run into some trouble in the Senate. Now that it's part of an Iraq spending bill, senators won't want to vote against it.
What's the justification for this legislation anyway?
Its supporters say that the Real ID Act is necessary to hinder terrorists, and to follow the ID card recommendations that the 9/11 Commission made last year.
It will "hamper the ability of terrorist and criminal aliens to move freely throughout our socie
Parent
Re:What's so bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this substantially different from the situation today, where I need to present a state-issued driver's license and/or a federally-issued Social Security number in order to do any of those things?
I'm sure there are some pretty nefarious riders attached to this bill, since that's the case with almost all legislation. But the basic concept of a national ID card is not anything that I have any objection to.
Parent
Big Brother is BAD (Score:5, Interesting)
For more information, look into the MATRIX [google.com] and TIA [google.com] programs, their connections [google.com] to identity leakers like ChoicePoint, and the seriously real threat all this Big Brother "crap" poses to Americans.
Parent
Re:Stll (Score:5, Funny)
Complaining about
Parent
Re:Stll (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The article assumes a lot (Score:5, Insightful)
I, on the other hand, don't give a flying expletive who they are or what their visa status is, as long as they don't have a weapon.
(It would be a distinct bonus to know that they also don't have a communicable disease!)
You've satisfied yourself that Yet Another ID card won't be issued and obtained fraudulently? To paraphrase the patron saint [starwars.com] of the current administration, "I find your excess of faith disturbing."
Parent
First, (Score:5, Insightful)
It will also not stop another Timothy McVeigh, who as far as I understand was never busted for anything prior.
What it will do is create more red tape, and the perception that government is doing SOMETHING so it must be making us safer. It will probably INCREASE terrorism as well. Why?
Because as the government continues to push more draconian laws, they will begin to piss "patriots" here in this country off. It may very well create a positive feedback loop.
I value what little privacy I have remaining, and I should not have to carry a piece of plastic just to fricking travel.....
If we were serious about stopping terrorism, we would stop playing world policeman. The arrogance of my fellow countrymen just amazes me sometimes. It's as though americans believe we have a god given right to intervene around the world if we don't like a certain government, etc.
The Republic is Dead. Long Live the Empire...
Parent
Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
I not only have a right, but an OBLIGATION as an American Citizen to question the actions of my government.
"I'm not saying that we do it perfectly... there's plenty of intervention that i think we could stay out of and not be the worse for it, and at the same time I know there are plenty of circumstances that the US could intervene that it doesn't"
That is just it, the USA intervenes ONLY when it is in its interests, i.e. OIL, or geopolitical games.
"If you can live with the ridicule and guilt of your nation NOT doing something that was considered so "wrong" to the rest of the world when you COULD HAVE... fine, I can't"
Hmmmm.... Why haven't you volunteered to go fight for "freedom" in Rawanda, or Darfur yet? Oh that's right you are perfectly happy to say "we" have a duty to fix the world, as long as YOU don't have to risk your life for it. I just love people who talk about how we need to fix the world, as long as the potential cost is someone else.
Frankly we do not have a responsibility to any other nation or people. We have no obligation to send our soldiers to die for someone else, nor do we have an obligation to spend our taxes upon them.
That said I have no problem if you or any other private citizen voluntarily donantes your money, or volunteers to fight for the cause of freedom in another country.
As for Patriotism I offer this quote
Theodore Roosevelt:
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (1918)
Parent
Reread your history books (Score:5, Informative)
We entered WW I because the Germans sank the Lusitania. Even though they published a full page ad in American Newspapers warning people sailing to Britain that any ship carrying war goods was subject to sinking, (which the Lusitania was), when it was sunk with americans onboard we got sucked into the war.
We entered WW II because of Pearl Harbor.
Before BOTH incidents the majority of people here in the US were Isolationalist. Doing the "right" thing, had nothing to do with our entrance into either war.
"and if we were in iraq for the oil, we sure as hell wouldn't be paying opec's prices for it."
I'd suggest you read Wolfowitz's papers for the Project for a New American Century [sourcewatch.org] to understand why we invaded Iraq. Iraq not only has the 2nd largest oil reserves, but being centrally located in the middle east it is the perfect place to have permanent military bases.
Keep in mind this was written in the 1990's long before 9/11 and the whole preemptive strike/WMD
tale.
Parent
Re:Line Item Veto? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Hurrah! Real ID is bound to fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Everybody knows its rooms full of cash that count.
Parent
Re:Hurrah! Real ID is bound to fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Moral of the story:
The vocal minority often rule. The silent majority are the ones who take it in the kiester. Sites like this are often seen in the wrong light. It serves as an easy way to get people to take an active part in government, and to have a say (even if it is miniscule) in largers issues that may end up affecting the way they live.
I sent a fax, did you?
Parent
Re:Hurrah! Real ID is bound to fail (Score:5, Informative)
1. Hand-write a letter (that means in handwriting - I know, low-tech, but it works) stating your opposition and the reasons.
2. A polite phone call stating the same.
In both cases, be sure to mention that this an issue you care about strongly and will remember it during the next election.
Parent
Re:But... but... (Score:5, Funny)
That's ok, I have two. You want one of them?
Parent
Re:Why Bother. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Why Bother. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
It will, however, provide a false sense of security which is dangerous.
Parent
Re:Better than what we have! (Score:5, Insightful)
What's going to stop the next batch of terrorists from having perfectly valid ID? Nothing.
What will this prevent? Nothing.
Remind me again what the point of this bill is then?
Parent
Re:THE HORROR! (Score:5, Interesting)
An adress of current residence
Here in Ohio I worked my ass off and got a legislator last year to introduce a bill that would allow any Ohio license to be issued without an individual's address. [state.oh.us]
The address is an awful anachronism, and unnecessary today. If you're an attractive 22 year old, would you want to show ever bouncer in town your home address simply to get into a club? For people who use their ID's a lot, it doesn't make so much sense to show everyone and their grandmother where they live. (Keep in mind, this doesn't remove the address record from DMV files, and if the DMV wants proof of address before issuing the license, that doesn't change anything either.)
North Carolina currently issues address-less licenses to individuals who are domestic violence or stalking victims.
I've also pointed out that the address is a huge key toward identity theft, should your license fall into the wrong hands.
(You'll note that the legislation also allowed you to have a license issued without date of birth, also on privacy grounds, for individuals who do not use their license for age verification activities.)
A signature (oh, no!)
There is something to be said about your license not having the signature of the bearer, in case the license finds itself in the wrong hands, and then someone can use that signature for nefarious purposes.
A photograph (the horror!)
Approximately 16 states have codified relgious objector's non-photo driver's licenses. All states are technically supposed to issue them under federal case law.
Keep in mind however, you've left out the bigger requirement regarding the photo. It must be a *digital* photo. I guess that's not necessarily a huge thing because all states now are on the digital license kick.
However, this legislation technically requires that every single american over the age of 16 be photographed and that photograph be put into a national photograph database (since the state databases must be combined.) While that's basically in place, it wasn't being done with federal requirement.
Think about it this way, essentially, every American is being required to show up at their local police station and be photographed. Since it's part of the natural licensing process that's been created no one noticed. (My Ohio BMV, when they brought out the photo license in 1974, promised that there would be no central photo archive...which they introduced in 1995 and hoped no one was paying attention.)
and... wait for it... a DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER.
Did this legislation require a permanent driver's license number? If so...that's basically another SSN, with all its disadvantages and baggage.
Parent