Homeland Security Offers Details on Real ID 227
pr0nqu33n writes "C|Net is running an article on the DHS's requirements for the Real ID system. Thursday members of the Bush administration finally unveiled details of the anticipated national identification program. Millions of Americans will have until 2013 to register for the system, which will (some would argue) constitute a national ID. RFID trackers for the cards are under consideration, as is a cohesive nation-wide design for the card. States must submit a proposal for how they'll adopt the system by early October of this year. If they don't, come May of next year their residents will see their licenses unable to gain them access to federal buildings and airplanes. The full regulations for the system are available online in PDF format. Likewise, the DHS has a Questions and Answers style FAQ available to explain the program to the curious."
It makes us less secure (Score:4, Interesting)
Because reading it off the front isn't good enough? Why would they need to scan my address unless they wanted to send me junk mail or make a database of my drinking habits? This is security theater at best.
we already have sufficient ID (Score:5, Interesting)
If big air-travel states opt out it's doomed (Score:3, Interesting)
The "ultimate" backup plan for the feds is to require passports for internal travel. Insert In Soviet Russia joke here.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:3, Interesting)
That is what Alberta threatened to do a few years ago during a Federal spat and the Canadian government backtracked very quickly. Of course it helps that Alberta is just about the only province that actually pays anything.
Another Alberta trick is to threaten to replace the RCMP with a provincial police force, which will throw thousands of Mounties out of work. Any state with a semi-intelligent governor can do things like this to force the Fed's hand. The Washington burocrats only have as much power as the states allow them to have.
Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!) (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes. And this is a step beyond those, sometimes several steps beyond. Are you OK with that? Are you OK with the fact that the government decides where and when you can go, if you drive, if someone else drives? It used to be that a transportation ticket for any destination within the USA had the following information: Where you got on (sometimes), and where you're supposed to get off. In the case of the NY subway, an ID-less token got you on, and you got off when and where you pleased. You could ride all day. And I often did. I'm old enough I've had plane and train tickets w/o personal identity information; got on in NYC, getting off in Washington. Nothing else. Could have handed it to my girlfriend, it would have been perfectly valid. Didn't used to be the government's business where you were, who you were, or where you were going except in the case where your skills were a safety issue, or in other words, when you drive. In that case, the state has a compelling interest in your competence, and that is what a driver's license is supposed to attest to, not what your real name is or anything else - just that you can drive; the fact that it identifies you is peripheral to its purpose, not the other way around. These days, that's no longer true, but I submit that it is not a good thing at all.
In short, I agree, you're right in the technical sense, they are asking for more and more papers. I firmly believe that's 100% the wrong way to go, and that whatever good you might get out of it, it'll never make up for the enormous bad that it brings. I am not a criminal; I absolutely resent being treated like one. If someone is determined to be a criminal, hang a fucking GPS/RFID/venomous bracelet 'round their ankle if you must let them wander in public, otherwise incarcerate them or exterminate them, but do not bring the presumption of guilt onto the head of every warm body in the country.
I hate this whole "mommy" government thing, top to bottom. We don't need it, there are better ways to go, and getting it is going to hurt us a lot, count on it.
the illusion of security and counterexamples (Score:1, Interesting)
Having traveled through countries that have actual, recurrent terrorism, I've encountered real efforts at security. These contrast markedly with the US "put a duffer in the airport to check that the name on my boarding pass matches my driver's license" policy.
Two examples stand out clearly in memory. Passing through Paris' Charles de Gaulle airport I was stopped and questioned by no less than 7 pairs of guards who wanted to see my passport and ask me some simple, relevant questions. Although the questions were simple, they studied my response intently looking for any indication that I was lying. It was polite, it was brief, but I was scrutinized. On one of those trips, I found that the luggage carousel had been locked off because an unattended bag had been discovered. Within minutes, that bag was taken outside, put under a bomb blanket, and had a primer bomb fired next to it. It turned out to be just plain luggage, but it was clear that they were taking no chances.
Another time, on business travel ending in Heathrow, I was asked questions relevant to my journey by someone as polite and as assiduous as in Paris. He finally asked me "why did your firm send you and not someone else?" which caught me quite off guard. I have little doubt that he was expecting me to fish for an answer to that question, and might have been moved to further questions if I replied more facilely.
An ID card is junk compared to civil servants like those.
Re:Gettng "smack the US" over with (appropriately! (Score:3, Interesting)
No. I didn't say that, imply it, or bring up other countries at all. Strawman.
The US is my country. It is my own backyard. Strawman.
Selective service. You bring this up, why? Are you trying to point out that the issue of having your name in a database somewhere already exists in various forms and degrees? I know; I didn't say otherwise. However, this is a different problem. Signing up for selective service - or not - did not restrict your ability to travel freely. This will do that, and where restrictions already exist, it will make them worse.
If you meant something else, by all means, enlighten me. I'm paying attention.
Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!) (Score:3, Interesting)
I fully expect the answer to that to be RFID or something more advanced.
Yes, I do.
No, the database and the systems that monitor the database will do that. No need for the store to do anything but collect your ID automatically.
Loophole (Score:2, Interesting)
"DHS is proposing to limit the official purposes of a REAL ID license to those listed by Congress in the law: accessing a Federal facility; boarding Federally-regulated commercial aircraft; and entering nuclear power plants. DHS may consider expanding these official purposes through future rulemakings....."
Yeah. That's a loophole on a par with those job descriptions that end with the phrase "and such other duties as may be required..."
Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!) (Score:3, Interesting)
The US constitution does not specifically mention Freedom of Movement [wikipedia.org] (though the Supreme Court has ruled that it necessarily exists), it is in the UN declaration of human rights and the constitutions of other Western nations. Wikipedia says this:
"Freedom of movement, mobility rights or the right to travel is a human rights concept which is respected in the constitutions of numerous Western states. It asserts that a citizen of a state, in which that citizen is present, generally has the right to leave that state, travel wherever the citizen is welcome, and, with proper documentation, return to that state at any time; and also (of equal or greater importance) to travel to, reside in, and/or work in, any part of the state the citizen wishes without interference from the state."
Currently, I can travel from Ohio to California without having to prove my identity. If I choose to drive a car, various law enforcement officers might want to see that I am licensed to drive a vehicle, but if I walk, hitchhike, or ride a bike, I won't need to identify myself.
In Soviet Russia, if I wanted to travel to or live and work in another state or town, I would need an internal passport [wikipedia.org]. Wikipedia says this under the Propiska [wikipedia.org] article: " Under the Soviet rule, a valid propiska was required to apply for jobs, to get married, to receive medical treatment, and in many other situations. At the same time, it was almost impossible to get a local propiska in a major city without having a job (constituting a sort of Catch 22) or having relatives living in the city."
If we move to a system of internal passports here in the US, does that sound like we will have (a.) more freedom or (b.) less freedom than the current state of affairs?
Re:I hope this falls flat (Score:2, Interesting)
The system of federal bribery and funding extortion is typically (though not exclusively) applied to evade responsibility and bypasses rights reserved to the *people* under the Constitution, explicitly or otherwise, in any case. As in the present example. This is the first time I've seen access to Federal jurisdictions threatened. Presumably some kind of exception will be made for Federal detainees. One hopes the same consideration will be extended to plaintiffs from non-complying states suing the govt in Federal court, because there will be some.
However, RealID amounts to a major jurisdictional as well as bureaucratic (and contractor) turf war, so we may yet see states's rights legitimized once again. The states haven't lost them, they just haven't mustered the backbone to exercise them enough in the past. Even the most pliant state legislatures can see the menace in RealID, though. It really amounts to turning ths States into mere provinces. They've allowed themselves to be treated that way for some time; now Congress is just deciding to go ahead and make it official, albeit using it's patented, behind-its-ass-to-get-to-its-elbow, indirect approach in order to duck accountablity, as usual.
Definitely one for the Supremes. And the voters.