Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Privacy United States Government Politics

Homeland Security Offers Details on Real ID 227

Posted by Zonk from the always-been-at-war-with-eurasia dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Homeland Security Offers Details on Real ID More

Homeland Security Offers Details on Real ID

Comments Filter:

  • Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) * on Saturday March 03, 2007 @03:35PM (#18219610) Homepage Journal

    "Where are your papers?"

    Land of the free^wregistered, home of the brave^wslave.

    • INDY: Fahrscheine meine Herr.
      VOGEL: Weg.
      INDY: Tickets please.
      VOGEL: (in German) Was?

      VOGEL glances up and recognizes INDY who quickly punches Vogel in the face, knocking him toward the window. In another quick move, Indy TOSSES HIM OUT THE WINDOW onto the tarmac below.

      (Shocked Passengers blink in bewilderment.)

      INDY: No ticket!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
      How does having the government know that you exist enslave you?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by lawpoop ( 604919 )
        The government 'knowing' that you exist ( i.e. driver's license, birth certificate) does not enslave you. Having to present identification to travel or go to the store puts serious restrictions on your freedom.

        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 t
    • Considering how Real ID is the USA's beta tagging program.
    • "Where are your papers?"
      Land of the free^wregistered, home of the brave^wslave

      when and where did you ever have the right to cross an international border, board a plane, enter a school or a courthouse without producing ID at some point along the way?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) *

        You know what bothers me the most? Not that you asked the question, but that you asked it as if you really thought it was a reasonable one. I am not often actually stunned by ignorance, but in this case, I admit it. I am floored.

        All those things were possible in my lifetime. All of them. I've been into Canada without ID; for Expo 67 (the world's fair), specifically, so that was 1967. I've been into and back out of Mexico without ID. I've been in and out of the Bahamas without ID. I've been on many aircr

      • when and where did you ever have the right to cross an international border, board a plane, enter a school or a courthouse without producing ID at some point along the way?

        Hate to turn this into a Constitutional law debate, but I think that's where the answer to your question lies. See, the premise behind the founding of the US was that we all have rights, and the exercise thereof is limited primarily only by those instances where they infringe upon the rights of others. The federal government's role in this is (supposed to be) limited to the narrow powers specifically enumerated in the constitution.

        So basically, we've had those rights all along, and the feds claiming they

  • I hope this falls flat (Score:5, Insightful)

    by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @03:37PM (#18219626)

    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.

    I hope that enough states refuse [wikipedia.org] to participate that it makes the federal legistlature repeal the law. Of course, congress will likely do as they've always done and threaten to pull federal highway funding or education funding until the states in question comply.

    • Which is what happened to the unlimited speed highways in the western us.

      OK, the limit was "reasonable and prudent" in those states, which in the plains and the deserts means "unless it's raining go for the rev limiter"

      *sigh*

    • Re:I hope this falls flat (Score:4, Informative)

      by bockelboy ( 824282 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @04:25PM (#18220052)
      Sometimes I think states depend too heavily on the federal government loan shark.

      For example, take Colorado. Their land-grant institution, CSU, is supposed to be the premier state-run school. However, only about 8% of the budget is provided for by the state. The rest of it is mostly provided by student loans (in turn, provided by the government) and federal government grants.

      So, if Colorado ever wanted to exert a state right over a federal right, Congress can easily cut education funding for the state and watch the state universities collapse.

      It's sad that states are so dependent on the teat of Uncle Sam. Of course, if they wanted to provide the services through the state, the resulting state tax increase (followed by no federal tax increase) would insure the whole government got voted out.

      I wonder if the founding fathers would be saddened by how state governments basically only have the rights and duties the federal government doesn't care to control. Look how easily ID systems just went from state control to federal control - barely any fighting that Joe Q Public even noticed! What state right is next?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) *

        Hmm. Revolution: Maybe states ought to make a law that all fuel/road/highway taxes stay in-state, and cannot be "fed" to the feds; then they can build their own highways. Of course, it wouldn't work here in Montana; too much land, not enough taxpayers. Same thing for edumactionisming; figure out the portion of the federal taxes that go to education, and take them before the fed does, and indemnify the taxpayer - by force against the feds if need be - from paying the fed, then handle your own education cost

        • by force against the feds if need be

          At which point the federal government will respond with force and, having a larger army at its disposal, win. The same way it happened the last time [wikipedia.org].

          The time when US was a loose federation are long past. With modern communication and transport methods, not to mention information technology, there are no empires so large they couldn't be centrally controlled effectively. Better forget fantasies about matching central government with force and instead trying to affect

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) *

            No, that is entirely wrong. That wasn't the feds; that was one group of states against another. This would be the states - all of them - against the feds. Recall the citizens to the guard; the feds wouldn't even *have* an army. Trust me, a real revolt would work. The civil war was not a revolt; it was an almost equal polarizing of the states, which is something else entirely.

          • At which point the federal government will respond with force and, having a larger army at its disposal, win. The same way it happened the last time [wikipedia.org].

            Yeah, not likely. There was a specific divide between the north and the south that made for a "perfect storm" of civil war. There is no such clearly delineated divide when it comes to federal overreach. If it ever gets to the point where the feds have to call out the Regular Army to put down a revolt, you can bet that the Regular Army will more likely than not be in against the feds. Thing is, the military is trained to fight foreigners, not shoot fellow civilians. Only the cops are instilled with that par

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by jbdigriz ( 8030 )
        We don't speak of "states' rights" too much here in the South, anymore. That became a code word for segregationism, so it's too easy to be marginalized as a racist crank or an Uncle Tom if you invoke it.

        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 ju

    • Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)

      by localroger ( 258128 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @04:27PM (#18220078) Homepage
      Back when the Feds were twisting everyone's arms to raise the drinking age to 21 Lousiana refused. We had a damn good reason; our state constitution forbids it, very directly saying that at 18 a person has "all the rights and privileges" of adulthood. (It's from the Napoleonic Code, and survived the big overhaul of 1974). So the lege started by floating a constitutional amendment, which fell flat with the voters. So then they passed the law anyway, and the state supreme court struck it down. So then, with weeks left on the deadline they passed the exact same law again and this time the state supreme court did a back flip and a twist and said that the constitution doesn't really say what it says and upheld the law. And that is how Louisiana became the very last state where an 18 year old can't buy a beer.

      It will go down the same way with Real ID, just watch. It might be the Mormons or some blue state that stands up but they'll be told fine, pay for your own highways (though we'll still take your tax money) and good luck to any of your citizens who want to fly. And conversations will be had behind closed doors about the way things have to be and it will be done.

      • (though we'll still take your tax money)

        Look at your proportion of tax dollars paid to the feds vs your state. That's the same amount of control your state has over it's own "state" law. When a stae lowers it's income tax or property tax to attract residents, it loses some autonomy. Imagine what a diverse country we would live in if States had equal power and money to the Fed.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by flyingfsck ( 986395 )
        The states can tell the Feds that they will collect all taxes themselves and then go slow on handing it over to the Feds - Two years later: Yeah, yeah, cool down, the cheque is in the mail...

        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 wil

        • 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.

          Uh, no. You might have heard of this little thing called the Civil War, wherein it was determined, after a few million casualties, that Washington has more power than the states would like it to



    • 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.

      I hope that enough states refuse to participate that it makes the federal legislature repeal the law. Of course, congress will likely do as they've always done and threaten to pull federal highway funding or education funding until the states in question comply.

      Except, in this c

  • Smoke and mirrors (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Wind_Walker ( 83965 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @03:40PM (#18219662) Homepage Journal
    Next time you're going through airport security and being forced to show your Photo ID and boarding pass, remember this:

    All 19 of the 9/11 hijackers had valid photo ID and a valid boarding pass.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) *

      Troll? Fucking troll? For crying out loud, mods, fix this - that is anything but a troll comment! It is topical, relevant, true and thought provoking. /P.

    • It is relevant. The government is trying to sell this ID idea using the good old and worn out excuse of "curbing terrorism", but indeed, all the "allegedly" 9/11 terrorists had valid IDs. Despite of the fact of National IDs working in a lot of places (Europe and Brasil, from the top of my head), it doesn't really fits in the U.S. concepts of freedom.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mikael ( 484 )
        Look at recent history in the past 50 years, in particular World War II identity cards [objectlessons.org]

        During World War II the government kept a central register of everyone in Britain. Names, date of birth and address were listed in this national register. It held the information needed for issuing national identity cards and food and clothing ration books, and for identifying children eligible for evacuation and adults eligible for call-up into the armed forces.
         ...

        The police, army and Home Guard checked identity cards fo

    • How is that a "Troll"? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by khasim ( 1285 )
      Read the "Questions and Answers" section.

      What is REAL ID?

      REAL ID is a nationwide effort intended to prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the reliability and accuracy of identification documents that State governments issue.

      So pointing out that the terrorists had authentic identification does contradict the premise of Real ID.

      Do not confuse terrorism with identification. These cards will NOT carry the "may be a terrorist" stamp when they are issued.

      • REAL ID is a nationwide effort intended to prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the reliability and accuracy of identification documents that State governments issue.
        Government at all levels is well known for its magnificent record when it comes to reliability and accuracy.

        Only Government approved terrorists and fraudsters will receive REAL ID.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
        How does an ID reduce terrorism? Do they plan on putting an evil bit on these things that terrorists will have to set?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Marillion ( 33728 )

        In the wake of 9/11, the people at the DHS are under enormous pressure to do something about security.

        What's been lost is the difference between doing something about it is and doing anything about it. Read ID is the later.

    • Re:Smoke and mirrors (Score:5, Insightful)

      by penguinrenegade ( 651460 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @03:52PM (#18219774)
      MOD PARENT UP.

      This is absolutely true and D.C. is trying to get the rest of the people to become sheep and give up their rights. If no new information is being collected, no new requirements are being mandated, then exactly why is this necessary?

      9-11 was cited as the reason for this in the FAQ (for those who RTFAQ) and it is complete and utter bull.

      States that are trying to reject this (so far) include:
      Maine (passed)
      Georgia, Massachusetts, Montana, Washington, California, and Texas)

      This is EXACTLY a national ID card, and we already have the right to board aircraft. The problem is that we LET D.C. regulate states! Mod parent up - this is "national security" at its worst.
      • Holy cow. California is actually doing something right for a change. That's impressive.

        I bet they fold first.

    • Mod him up ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DrYak ( 748999 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @03:56PM (#18219822) Homepage
      Who did mod him troll ?

      I mean, it's true : those terrorist had valid non-counterfeit IDs, linking them to the identities they used in the states and with which they didn't have any problem. Serious terrorist are supposed to keep low profile until last moment and ID linking to central database will be no help having a centralized national database won't bring any new information. (Except if "Al Qaida" provides a database of all identity of their terrorist. But as Al Qaida is more a "franchise" used by small groups [and used by the media to scare people] rather than a real well organised corporation, that not possible even in theory...)

      Politicians should stop pretending that the ID is some magical problem that'll definitely fix the terrorism problem for sure. Here in Europe, almost every country has ID, but *that* isn't what will stop some of them of being targeted by attacks.

      An ID card is just a convenient and standardized way for quickly showing who you are, for all those moments where you need it (before entering in nightclubs. while buying alcohol, when going to the administration, to prove you are the owner when using credit card). And that is the only thing politician should ever pretend. All the rest are lies. An ID card will never show what people *intend to do* and will never ever stop terrorists.
      • I mean, it's true : those terrorist had valid non-counterfeit IDs, linking them to the identities they used in the states and with which they didn't have any problem.

        They also had multiple "valid" drivers licenses, and expired visas. On top of that, the initial visas some of them were issued were invalid, in that they were issued under the table, by a relative who worked in the issuing office.

        Saying that their 'papers' were in order is flat out wrong.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tbo ( 35008 )
      All 19 of the 9/11 hijackers had valid photo ID and a valid boarding pass.

      I know we all like to think the government is pure stupid with a touch of evil, or vice versa, but DHS has actually done better than you give them credit this time.

      Many of the terrorists had IDs obtained either by bribing DMV officials or by using forged "primary" ID documents. If you read the proposed DHS rules, you'll see that they contain measures to require additional security checks for DMV employees, and measures to improve ver

  • Your papers, please. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rantingkitten ( 938138 ) <kitten@NOSpAM.mirrorshades.org> on Saturday March 03, 2007 @03:47PM (#18219724) Homepage
    What, exactly, is this supposed to do to "fight terror"? The only thing I'm terrified of is how easy it would be for an invasive, looming government with no regard for privacy and individual rights -- such as the one we have now -- to abuse this. "The terrorists" aren't getting ID cards. The law-abiding citizens are. And the citizens are the ones who will pay the consequences.

    • It's worse than that. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Saturday March 03, 2007 @03:55PM (#18219812)

      "The terrorists" aren't getting ID cards. The law-abiding citizens are. And the citizens are the ones who will pay the consequences.

      Actually, most terrorists in the US have had authentic identification issued by the US government (or accepted by it).

      The real terrorists will have no problem complying with this law.

      Not only that, but it will be run by people. And people can be corrupted. A single ID card that is accepted as valid anywhere in the US becomes very valuable. So some low grade government paper pusher decides that he can make a bit of money on the side by approving fake requests. So the illegals in Texas are getting ID cards issued by a corrupt guy in New York.

      Yeah, if you wanted to help crime NATIONWIDE, you really couldn't come up with a better plan than this.

      • I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)

        by KKlaus ( 1012919 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @07:42PM (#18221534)
        You're right about any potential terrorist getting IDs themselves, 9/11 being obvious evidence to that fact. But the whole "single ID card" as asking for a huge exploit is silly. All states already honor all other states driver's licenses. I'm living in CA right now, with a NH license, for instance, and I'm treated exactly the same in all instances as someone with a CA license. As security is only as strong as its weakest link, a National ID would be (maybe will be) much harder to exploit. This is because the situation as it is now is that the weakest ID is all you need to exploit to get full privileges. We've already seen this with the 9/11 guys getting Virgina IDs. They did that for a reason.

        With a national ID, ideally it would have the resources behind it to be stronger than any single state ID. However, any fraud protection is useless when you can just pay off a DMV employee, again as some of the hijackers did. The problem with national ID is not that it's in any way worse at IDing people. It's not. The problem is that is does nothing to deter or hinder terrorists, and that trying to know who everyone is at all times (and where they are if you are checked frequently enough) is extremely unamerican. It's a papers-please society, and its very bad. But it _is_ efficient, and that's unfortunately not an argument against it.

  • Write Your Representatives (Score:5, Informative)

    by pyro_peter_911 ( 447333 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @03:48PM (#18219744) Homepage Journal
    Downsize DC [downsizedc.org] has an ongoing campaign to repeal the REAL ID Act. Go visit their site then send your Senators and Representative a message. It only takes a couple of minutes. Let your idiot representative know that you're watching and you'll hold them accountable for their actions. It doesn't take long. Just go do it.

    Peter

    • The website has prominent names with proven records in real results for the taxpayers and citizens. Best of luck in their efforts.
    • Can someone tell me when we voted on this?

  • It makes us less secure (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Original Replica ( 908688 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @04:02PM (#18219858) Journal
    From the article:which means that businesses like bars and banks that require ID would be capable of scanning and recording customers' home addresses.

    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.

    • From the QA:

      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.

      You are safer on a bus and outside of nuclear power plants than you are on an airplane or inside a nuclear power plant. See, big brother is watching out for you after all.

      Getting spammed by bars, and crushing political opposition, free speech and the American way, are an unfortunate side effects

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cdrguru ( 88047 )
      The key is the address on the front is printed and can be faked easily. The encrypted bar code on the back is much, much harder. So you can fake the front and copy a seemingly valid bar code from some other license. Obviously, when the bar code and front of the license aren't the same you have fake.

  • we already have sufficient ID (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03, 2007 @04:14PM (#18219936)
    Why doesn't the federal government simply require its existing Federal ID for anyone who boards a plane? It's called a passport, and it's already (presumably) secure, or can easily be legislated as such. People who don't take airline flights needn't bother to get one, and no additional (read: expensive) requirements need to be imposed on the states. The fact that this isn't being considered (or even discussed) tends to corroborate the real purpose of the REAL ID Act: a complete database of everyone, forever. Your papers, please.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Phroggy ( 441 ) *
      Because then everyone would have passports, and then everyone could visit another country more easily, and we can't have that!
  • If you need fly, use federal buildings, work at the airport, work at a federal building?
    • Remember that Federal buildings are staffed by local citizens. If the local area doesn't like RealID, it won't be enforced there. Airlines are likely to be a different matter entirely, though.

  • zero to lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by superwiz ( 655733 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @04:28PM (#18220098) Journal
    This smells like zero-to-lawsuit in less than .1 second. It would mean that residents of the states that don't adapt DHS' guidelines would be discriminated against in Fed Gov employment as well as interstate travel. First of these is probably unconstitutional and the second of these is definately unconstitutional.

  • Air travel? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by imunfair ( 877689 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @04:30PM (#18220124) Homepage
    Shouldn't the states have control of the airports within them? If that were the case then you could fly to any other state that had rejected the Real ID as well.

    I'd be curious to know exactly what law gives the federal government control over who can fly, instead of the airlines or the airport. If there is such a law, is it constitutional? Interstate commerce is the only federal juristiction I can think of that's close - but that doesn't apply to civilian passengers with nothing to sell...

    • Interstate Commerce covers everything (Score:4, Informative)

      by bigtrike ( 904535 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @06:17PM (#18220924)
      If the interstate commerce clause can be used to regulate the growing and consumption of a plant which is never sold and never leaves the owner's property, then it can cover just about anything else.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cdrguru ( 88047 )
      What law? How about being the insurer of last resort?

      You see, if there is a "security failure" the airline does not have to solve the problem. The federal government almost certainly has to clean up the mess. The airlines have pretty much disclaimed responsibility and washed their hands of it. So, it clearly is the responsibility of the federal government.

      The other alternative would be for the airlines to be responsible for security and any lapses. The airlines pretty much collapsed after 9/11 and most
  • I read one of the other articles about it here on /. a while back, when it was in the "idea" stage. Now it's all but basically implemented? I got a few..questions here so mod me down if you wish cause, I gotta ask;

    So, we have until 2013 to become registered and with card right, what if we don't register? Are we just not admitted into federal buildings and airplanes as the article says? Or can businesses start not allowing customers entrance to their places without a card? Will businesses be able to shut

  • So, let's actually read the article... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Jeian ( 409916 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @04:43PM (#18220230)
    Since /. readers have a tendency to start screaming about national ID cards and identity databases without (apparently) actually reading the documents in question, I will provide the relevant quotes for you.

    http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/laws/gc_1172767635686 .shtm [dhs.gov]

    "In the proposed rule, 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."

    "Is this a National ID card? No. The proposed regulations establish common standards for States to issue licenses. The Federal Government is not issuing the licenses, is not collecting information about license holders, and is not requiring States to transmit license holder information to the Federal Government that the Government does not already have (such as a Social Security Number)."

    "Will a national database be created that stores information about every applicant? No. The REAL ID Act and these regulations do not establish a national database of driver information. States will continue to collect and store information about applicants as they do today. The NPRM does not propose to change this practice and would not give the Federal government any greater access to this information."

    "DHS is proposing minimum standards that will appear on the face of the card. The proposed regulation would require each of the following on the face of REAL IDs; space available for 39 characters for full legal name; address of principal residence; digital photograph; gender; date of birth; signature, document number; and machine readable technology."

    "What is the Machine Readable Technology specified in the NPRM? The regulations propose the use of the 2-D barcode already used by 46 jurisdictions (45 States and the District of Columbia). DHS leans towards encrypting the data on the barcode as a privacy protection and requests comments on how to proceed given operational considerations."

    So, let's see. What we're *actually* looking at is federal standards on what information needs to be displayed on state ID cards, and how identity needs to be proved prior to the issuance of a state ID card.

    Gee, that's actually a lot less threatening then all the comments are making it sound. Hmm...
    • Take a good hard look at what your SSN is _supposed_ to be for. Now look at what all it gets used in.

      Also, bear in mind that the RealID card is already being played up to have big restrictions to what people can do that the SSN never did. Extrapolate from there, and MAYBE you'll see why people are worried. Or you can continue to wear your blinders and take what the government says at face value.
    • Yet...

  • I'm being totally serious here. Please don't flame. I just would like someone to carefully explain why a National ID is bad. We already have State IDs (Driver's Licenses) which are are required for virtually everything. We also have Passports, which some may argue are optional, but they are certainly not optional if you want to leave the country. We also have Social Security numbers and cards which you have to present if you want to get a job anywhere. The SSNs are presumably primary keys to a big database

    • Moding this post flamebait is a perfect example of the misuse of the moderation system. As I understand it, moderation is not there simply so you can push your own politial point of view. The moderation itself is a flame. Hopefully others will mod it back up--NOT for its point of view, but because of the injustice. Or perhaps meta-moderation will ctach it. It's really unfortunate slashdot has become so politically correct that you can't have a reasonable discussion with encountering this nonsense. Just for
    • A lot of us view this as bad simply because it gives the federal government more power, and any time the feds get more power it means that either the states or the people are losing it. Sometimes both. The 10th ammendment to the US constitution is getting walked on, at any rate.

      Others view that it is a bad thing because it offers a central point of failure. Some will argue this, stating that it has specific uses. Practically, though, that argument is pretty lousy. The same thing could be said about SSN's, b
  • 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.

    I hope my state doesn't comply. It will be interesting to see how the feds are planning to staff their buildings with 100% out-of-state employees. I can see it now: "Sorry, Judge! Even though you were elected to serve in California, you can't enter the building...because your id is from California."

  • If big air-travel states opt out it's doomed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @05:31PM (#18220540) Homepage Journal
    If even 2 or 3 states with lots of air travelers opt out, er, "just say no," the feds will be forced to adopt another way for these people to board airplanes or the airline industry will have a fit. If it's inconvenient or expensive expect a hew and cry from the voters.

    The "ultimate" backup plan for the feds is to require passports for internal travel. Insert In Soviet Russia joke here.
  • The feds requiring consistent documentation standards is not THE issue, but they should let the states work it out. THE issue is the sharing of data. The feds want to share the DL data with Canada and Mexico. Mexico?!?! Mexican law enforcement is owned by drug dealers for Christ's sake! Who's next ... Venezuela or Columbia?
  • What's this new ID going to accomplish that the driver's license, social security card, birth certificate, passport, and credit card didn't accomplish?

  • Loophole (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Stanislav_J ( 947290 )

    "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..."

  • Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment IX
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X
    The powers not

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close