Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government United States News Your Rights Online

National ID Cards Mandated in the US, If You're Under 50 869

charleste writes "CNN is reporting that the US Homeland Security Department has mandated Real ID for drivers licenses. According to the article, this will not include a 'chip', but a list of options by state. Despite legislation passed in various states and objections by groups such as ACLU, this appears to be a done deal. Without one of the new IDs you will be unable to board a plane after 2014 if you are under 50."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

National ID Cards Mandated in the US, If You're Under 50

Comments Filter:
  • Papers please (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chairboy ( 88841 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:06PM (#22001612) Homepage
    1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
    • by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:13PM (#22001722) Journal
      Yeah, and just think what this is going to do to counterfeiting!

      Man in Black Coat in Alley: "Would you like a real fake ID or a fake Real ID?"
      Citizen: "Well, I'm only 18 so I need both."
      Man in Black Coat in Alley: "Very good, sir. Now, remember when you're buying alcohol, you're a 22 year old student named James Huffington from Rhode Island. When you're boarding a plane, you are Agnes Krakaour, age 51 ... you winter vacation in Florida and enjoy shuffle boarding and watching Matlock."
      Citizen: "Thank you so much!"
      • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) * on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:32PM (#22002104)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Re:Papers please (Score:5, Insightful)

          by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:44PM (#22002324) Homepage Journal
          "Or better yet: Perhaps we should stop all of this Orwellian nonsense to begin with and just accept the fact that we live in a dangerous world and I'd personally rather have my civil liberties and live with that basic fact then trade them in for the illusion of security."

          Thank you!

          I gotta say, I dunno where all this fear comes from. Personally, I'm more afraid of the govt. screwing me over or a glitch in the system, preventing me from doing something (flying, entering public building, banking) than a terrorist blowing me up.

          I mean, the odds of something happening wrong with the govt. that I deal with quite a lot throughout my life is much greater than Habib lighting a fuze somewhere near where I'm standing at any given time.

          • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

            by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) * on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:52PM (#22002470)
            Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by BobMcD ( 601576 )
            What amazes me is the assumption that we're not at risk from this kind of threat is LAUGHABLE at the highest level. Last night's GOP debate brought up the issue of the speed boats that approached our destroyers. Ron Paul thought it was ridiculous to assume that the world's most powerful navy should feel threatened by speed boats. Everyone else thought it was a good reason to go to war with Iran...

            We, the American public, have been duped. Lucky us that it wore off it before the politicians realized it.
        • Re:Papers please (Score:5, Informative)

          by Andy Dodd ( 701 ) <atd7@ c o r n e l l .edu> on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:48PM (#22002374) Homepage
          "I don't recall reading that any of the 9/11 hijackers used fake IDs to get onto the airplanes. They obtained them quite legally. Perhaps we should be looking into reforming who can obtain a drivers license, rather then reforming the drivers license itself."

          Based on reading the article, it looks like most of the changes being made are not changes to the license itself, but to the process of obtaining them.

          It appears to me that this is not a "federal ID", but consists of the following:
          1) Requirements levied on the process of granting a person a drivers' license, in terms of verifying that that person is who they say they are.
          2) Requirements levied on the anti-counterfeiting features of that license.

          TFA states that a number of states already issue licenses that meet all of these requirements. For example, California residents will apparently not notice any difference except the point at which their picture is taken during the process of obtaining a license. From the looks of it, this will also not affect me, as my state (New York) already implements all of the process and anti-counterfeiting requirements levied here.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Skreems ( 598317 )
            That's true. California citizens probably won't notice the new behind-the-scenes checks between every government agency in existence the next time they renew their licenses.
          • Re:Papers please (Score:4, Informative)

            by ContractualObligatio ( 850987 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @02:35PM (#22003330)
            RTFA: "The American Civil Liberties Union has fiercely objected to the effort, particularly the sharing of personal data among government agencies. The DHS and other officials say the only way to make sure an ID is safe is to check it against secure government data;"

            That is a federated system - this is a federal ID. Putting quotes around "federal ID" is being either dismissive or ignorant of the ACLU's concerns.
          • Re:Papers please (Score:4, Interesting)

            by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @02:41PM (#22003464) Homepage Journal
            " TFA states that a number of states already issue licenses that meet all of these requirements. "

            One big change for me...from what I read, it will now have my Social Security number contained in it. My current license does not. I never showed my SS# when applying for it, and my number does not appear on the front of the license.

            From the article, it implies that the SS will be at least encoded on the bar code.

            I try not to give my SS out for anything but ss tax related things. Now...why are the Feds requiring it be part of my fscking drivers license?? What does a drivers license have to do with SS taxation?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Of course the 9/11 hijackers didn't have fake ID, they hadn't done anything wrong before that, 9/11 was the first terrorist thing they did. All an ID does is prove who you are, it does prove you aren't a terrorist. People who should be able to get a drivers licence are anyone who can drive, that's what drivers licences are for. All ID does is tell you who someone is, it doesn't tell you that they aren't a terrorist.
      • No problem (Score:3, Funny)

        by hawk ( 1151 )
        I'll just show my ID showing that I don't need to show my realid . ..

        hawk
    • by dazedNconfuzed ( 154242 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:13PM (#22001736)
      1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.

      Actually, the appendex in "1984" IS an instruction manual.
    • Hmmn, it says here your license was issued in
      Georgia. What is your business here in Moscow?

      --dave
    • Re:Papers please (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RobBebop ( 947356 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:30PM (#22002062) Homepage Journal

      1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.

      I believe you are off-base comparing Real ID to 1984...

      1984's rigid governmental controls were setup by the Inner Party to keep the rest of the Party in-line. The Proles were free to go about their lives more-or-less uninterrupted. Sure, they were spied upon and the government created nonsensical "shortages" for things like razors. The real spying, though, was upon members of the Party who were employed at the four Ministries (DoD (PEACE), Media (TRUTH), Prison (LOVE), and Wall Street (PLENTY)). These individuals were made to suffer until even the most basic mathematics was a lie. Meanwhile, the vast majority lived in ghettos outside of the insanity.

      Thus, to the point that it will constrain everybody... Real ID is very dissimilar to anything in 1984. If you *really* want to cast stones, simply knowing the main slogan of 1984 provides better insight.

      War is Peace,
      Freedom is Slavery,
      Ignorance is Strength

      And if you'd like to read utopian science fiction *WITH* Real ID... follow the link in my sig. It isn't done, but it is polished enough that you'll get an enjoyable story.

    • Re:Papers please (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pilgrim23 ( 716938 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:40PM (#22002252)
      "When a place gets crowded enough to require ID's, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere." -Robert Heinlein
  • OH NOES!! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hbean ( 144582 ) *
    THE BLACK HELICOPTERS ARE GOING TO GET US!

    Seriously people, I'm all for civil liberties, but theres nothing wrong with have a solid method of making sure people are who they say they are and verifying they are allowed to get the identification they are allowed to get.
    • Re:OH NOES!! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:14PM (#22001744) Journal

      Seriously people, I'm all for civil liberties, but theres nothing wrong with have a solid method of making sure people are who they say they are and verifying they are allowed to get the identification they are allowed to get.
      But what is the benefit? Remember that the 9/11 hijackers all had valid IDs -- identification would not have prevented that tragedy.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by stuntpope ( 19736 )
        The 9/11 hijackers had multiple driver's licenses from multiple states, and multiple addresses within states (such as Virginia). ReadID is supposed to enforce "one person, one license", to prevent this. The hijacker's IDs may have been valid in that they were official, not forged, government documents, but they were obtained fraudulently (they had friends provide them with proof of address, etc).
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Well, for one thing, some of the hijackers had driver's licenses for multiple states under multiple names. They were "valid" insofar as the hijackers were able to game the system to get the states to issue them IDs. Real-ID would have prevented them from doing that. I can't tell you that would have prevented 9/11, but obviously criminals can and do use weak state-issued IDs in commission of their crimes.
    • Re:OH NOES!! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by m0rph3us0 ( 549631 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:16PM (#22001796)
      Yeah, there is nothing wrong with a national ID card if people want one.

      When people are denied freedom of movement by the gov't when they don't have one is when it becomes a problem.

      Also, exactly which problem is this designed to solve? And how is this the least intrusive method of the gov't achieving its goals.

      In 2014, about 40% of the US population will be over 50. Even better, Osama Bin Laden himself would be excluded from this requirement.

    • by Joe the Lesser ( 533425 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:23PM (#22001958) Homepage Journal
      I can think of other solid methods of identifying people, but I don't want to break Godwin's law. ...Unless I just did.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        You joke, but (from a story I've found many places, most recently here [reason.com]):

        The campaign for a national ID card is not new. It first got serious consideration early in the Reagan administration, when Attorney General William French Smith suggested it during a Cabinet meeting. At first there were murmurs of assent. Then presidential assistant Martin Anderson (husband of Annelise) spoke up.

        "Mr. President, I would like to suggest another way that I think is a lot better," he counseled. "It's a lot cheaper. It can't be counterfeited. It's very lightweight, and impossible to lose. It's even waterproof. All we have to do is tattoo an identification number on the inside of everybody's arm."

        Reagan snorted. "Maybe we should just brand all the babies," he jibed. The idea was never again taken seriously. Until now.

        For those who aren't aware, tattooing identification numbers on the inside of the arm was how prisoners were identified in the German concentration camps.

    • Seriously. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Irvu ( 248207 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:27PM (#22002018)
      Yes actually there is a problem with having that if, it is mandatory. Therein lies the problem. If the government or indeed any twit in a uniform can demand your "RealID" and keep a log of it then your activities can be logged, your participation in, say, an anti-war demonstration can be cataloged and perhaps come back to haunt you. Ditto for your other unpopular views or activities.

      The theory of valid ID may perhaps be arguable but the practice of what is done with it is very very different.

      Post 9-11 there was a push both for RealID and the idea that "for our protection" police should be able to demand id at all times. The place where this and other activities has been exploited the most is in watching anti-war groups. Google it and you'll find a host of nonviolent noncriminal groups that have been catalogued, followed, identified, simply because they oppose the war. I myself have watched the (not so subtle) undercover cops infiltrate gatherings I was at and have probably been videotaped a few times. Add to this the "right" for them to demand my papers at all times and all of a sudden we have national tracking that does nothing to actually protect us.

      This may sound like ranting to you but I assure you that it is not. The simple fact of the matter is that if the information is being gathered then it can be used against us by anyone in power or anyone with access. Leaving aside the fact that the biometric requirements of "RealID" are an invitation to identity theft (all info in one handy place).

      Let us not also forget that on 9-11 the hijackers had valid ID. Not forged, not illicit, they had the real thing and they would have easily qualified for RealID. When boarding the planes they took their ID, the made no attempt to hide themselves under false names. They were not on the "no fly" lists. They simply walked through security with real drivers licenses and killed thousands. No "beefed up" card will change that.

    • Give it time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RingDev ( 879105 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:37PM (#22002200) Homepage Journal
      First you get an ID.

      Then you need that ID to fly.

      Then you need that ID to leave the country.

      Then you need that ID to get into the country.

      Then you need that ID to vote.

      Then you need that ID to cross state borders.

      Then you need that ID to buy gas.

      Then you need that ID to be a legal citizen.

      Slowly but surely, it will become a 'Show me your papers' issue. Imagine just walking down the street, a cop sees you, maybe he's having a bad day, maybe you roughly match the description of a wanted criminal, he approaches you and asks for you national ID. You don't have it though, because you were just going for a walk. Next thing you know, you're heading down town, handcuffed in the back of a crown vic. Sure, they'll let you out, once you can get a friend to bring your ID in, or go through the red tape to get the State to produce the paper work, but by that point you've been printed, your arrest has been recorded, and you're out a few hours to a few days getting everything straightened out.

      Fear mongers will use it as a tool against illegal immigrants first. By requiring the national ID to be able to do the most mundane of things, they'll push aliens further out of the legal realm. Then all it would take is another attack to spur off a series of knee jerk reactions that lead to certain racial/ethnic groups having their cards pulled, leaving them as 2nd class citizens, virtually outlaws because they have no ID to prove their legitimacy in the US.

      Yes, it's a paranoid delusion. But so was the idea that the US would use black site prisons, suspend habeas corpus, and invade a sovereign nation on manufactured intelligence. Given enough time, the system will be abused, and civil liberties will be eroded.

      And the whole time, this card will do nothing to make our country more secure.

      -Rick
    • Re:OH NOES!! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NullProg ( 70833 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:38PM (#22002232) Homepage Journal
      Seriously people, I'm all for civil liberties, but theres nothing wrong with have a solid method of making sure people are who they say they are and verifying they are allowed to get the identification they are allowed to get.

      There are several things wrong with this,

      - Adds another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy to the monstrosity that is the US federal government.
      - 10 years down the road the Federal government (needing health care funds) will sell/lease the database to the highest bidder.
      - The database is subject to abuse by Federal employees.
      - The war on the Islamic radicals is supposed to be temporary. Why restrict what your citizens can do permanently?
      - The Government workers will somehow screw up the identities of John Smith in Oregon and John Smith in Georgia. And neither John Smith will be able to clear his name.

      I was born here, I pay taxes (property, sales, federal), I own a home, I have kids. I think thats proof enough that I'm not a radical bent on destroying the United States. I should be able to go/do what I God dammed like without further proof. The Feds can kiss my Ass.

      Enjoy,
  • by ravenspear ( 756059 ) * on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:07PM (#22001632)
    Under 50 is not a permanent exemption. After 2017, those over 50 will have to have a Real ID license as well. The additional 3 years for them was added so the states would have more time to issue everyone new licenses.

    Regardless, if we don't want this then the states need to be firm in their opposition to it.

    If every state (or nearly every one) opposes it, the DHS can't really do anything, unless they want to be the agent of the economy's collapse because no businesspeople can travel. If enough states do not oppose it strongly, then the ones who do will be forced to capitulate eventually, similar to the 21 drinking age.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sierpinski ( 266120 )
      Under 50 is not a permanent exemption. After 2017, those over 50 will have to have a Real ID license as well. The additional 3 years for them was added so the states would have more time to issue everyone new licenses.

      They probably want to wait the extra time so more of the baby boomers will die off, thus saving them the extra expense of equipping them all with a Real ID. I can seriously see someone in the upper echelon of government suggesting that as a way of saving money.

      I won't even bother quoting Ben F
      • by Bud Dickman ( 1131973 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:33PM (#22002126)

        "That apartment in Canada is starting to look much better now."
        Here's the thing, I hear this stuff all the time from people who may or may not disagree with my point of view. My issue is that rather than fight to fix things, you're ready to pack it in and leave the country. What happens when you get to Canada and it's not perfect and you don't like something there - what country will you flee to? Or is that where you make your stand and actually try to bring about change?

        If someone tells me that they think the country is headed in the wrong direction and they're leaving, what reason do I have to listen to their thoughts on the matter? If they're so uncommitted to the country they're obviously not invested in the future of the country so their opinion means nothing to me.

        If the Vietnam War had been protested by this generation, it seems that the country would have emptied out and the war would have continued. Enough with the mindless talk of leaving because you disagree with what's going on. Either leave or start to do something about it.

        • by bogjobber ( 880402 ) on Saturday January 12, 2008 @11:06AM (#22014914)
          If the Vietnam War had been protested by this generation, it seems that the country would have emptied out and the war would have continued.

          That is ridiculous. Guess what? Between 50,000 and 125,000 people left the US for Canada alone because of opposition to the Vietnam War (source [www.cbc.ca]). Full-scale protests and majority opposition to the Vietnam War started in 1967, and the US withdrew in 1973. So looks like those protests did a hell of a lot of good.

          I apologize in advance for the flame, but I am so sick of this nostalgic backwards-looking bullshit from the baby boomer generation. Just because your generation talked about free love and had some protests while they were in college doesn't mean a goddamn thing. Most of the people gave up trying to change things, took a job with a multinational, became a born-again Christian, voted for Reagan 15 years later, and fucking ruined everything. And now they're buying mutual funds [youtube.com]. The only legitimately successful social change that came out of the 60's was the Civil Rights Movement. Everything else is self-congratulatory bullshit.

    • If the tax-leeching baby boomers can figure it out, then the rest of the population will have no problems.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Andy Dodd ( 701 )
      "Regardless, if we don't want this then the states need to be firm in their opposition to it."
      Some states are not going to bother opposing this at all.

      The reason? It doesn't affect them in the slightest.

      Why? Because they already implement all of the requirements the law will impose.

      For example, apparently the only difference for California will be that the drivers' picture will be taken at the beginning of the license application process instead of at the end.

      For NYS residents like myself, it will apparen
  • It won't make a blind bit of difference, but it might make you feel a little better about your friday.

    Even more reason to get out and vote in November.
  • Great (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jameskojiro ( 705701 )
    So my current license expired in 2015, but thansk to this I have to get a new one a year early....

    sheeeesshhhh

    What a pain.
  • REAL ID In Its Death Throes, Says ACLU [slashdot.org] 315 comments

    Even so, I still think this will have to survive court challenges.
  • sigh (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Joe the Lesser ( 533425 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:09PM (#22001662) Homepage Journal
    Germaine Greer:

            Security is when everything is settled. When nothing can happen to you. Security is the denial of life.
    • Re:sigh (Score:5, Informative)

      by avandesande ( 143899 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:34PM (#22002152) Journal
      Here is the rest of the quote for those who care:

      "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

          -- C.S. Lewis
  • by edibleplastic ( 98111 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:12PM (#22001714)
    I'm very much against Real ID for all of the reasons discussed here on Slashdot: the possibility for ID theft, the possibility for inappropriate use of personal information, the possibility of tracking our movements, etc.

    But here's what's particularly egregious about this plan: nobody over 50 will have to get a Real ID for nearly 10 years! If Real ID is so unbelievably necessary to our national security, how can we allow this segment to not have an ID? Should we stop scanning older individuals at the airport because they are "less likely to be a terrorist"?

    The Bush administration has repeatedly refused to comment on waterboarding because they say they do not want the terrorists to know which interrogation techniques we use. Well, DHS is telegraphing to the world what sort of security techniques we use: Pssst! We only check people less than 50!

    Stupid stupid stupid! Hypocritical, hypocritical, hypocritical!
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Look, the reason they gave is just a lie anyway. The real reason is that the farther back you go, the harder it is to prove the identity/citizenship of someone via birth records. They made the exemption because if they didn't, they would have IMMEDIATELY gotten a civil-rights challenge similar to what is being done to prevent picture-ID voting requirements in some states, they want this to go through with as few challenges as possible.

      You can almost make a case for what the government is saying, there is a
  • by theGreater ( 596196 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:12PM (#22001716) Homepage
    It may be Godwin, but it's also Harper's Magazine... from 1941.

    http://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/0020122 [harpers.org]

    -theGreater.
  • under 50 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:13PM (#22001730)
    So basically almost all politicians in the legislation will be exempt.
    Nice...
  • ZOMG NINEELEVEN!!!! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by One Childish N00b ( 780549 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:13PM (#22001742) Homepage
    From the article:

    The September 11 attacks were the main motivation for the changes.

    First of all, I'd be willing to bet most people who lost someone dear to them in the tragedy of 9/11 is downright insulted by the constant abuse of the memory of their loved one as a tool to cudgel the American public into accepting laws which have no point other than to increase the power and pervasiveness of the Federal government. The 9/11 attackers all had legitimate IDs, so what possible purpose would this have served back then? We might have known the names of the guys that did it sooner after the fact? Yeah, I'm sure that would have come in real handy.

    Frankly, I know there's nothing anyone can do to stop the REAL-ID ball from rolling, so I'd just be happier if they came out and admitted they just want the power trip.
  • by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:15PM (#22001786)
    By 2014, anyone seeking to board an airplane or enter a federal building would have to present a REAL ID-compliant driver's license, with the notable exception of those more than 50 years old, Homeland Security officials said

    So how do you get on a plane or into a federal building if you don't have a REAL ID compliant license, like um ..
    • people without drivers licenses? You know .. the ones who haven't had a need for a car
    • Those pesky foreigners that keep visiting the US?


  • Wow (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:16PM (#22001804)
    When I got on the list for US citizenship (I'm a Brit with an American father) the US was a cool, open, free country that was somewhere that I couldn't wait to get too. In less time than it takes the INS to process a form, all of the above have been crapped on.

    Mind you, I have been on the list for four years and in that time they have processed six months of applicants. Maybe by the time I get to the front of the queue the country will be cool again, who knows.
  • Done deal? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DragonWriter ( 970822 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:17PM (#22001820)

    Despite legislation passed in various states and objections by groups such as ACLU, this appears to be a done deal. You won't be able to board a plane after 2014 if you're under 50 without one.


    An executive action (a set of regulations) that doesn't have its first deadline until near the end of the next presidential term, doesn't have its main effect until a year into the following term, and doesn't have its full effect until the end of that term is hardly a fait accompli.

    There is plenty of time to push for executive modification of the regulations or legislative modification (or outright repeal) of the underlying law, and elections in between to focus that pressure around.
  • by hawks5999 ( 588198 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:18PM (#22001848)
    "In the past week, the civil liberties debate has exploded in Sweden, with numerous mainstream politicians finally having understood the issue. Last week, seven Swedish MPs wrote a prominent opinion piece saying that removing national ID is not just the best solution, it's the only solution. Now their number has increased to 13, and the issue continues to grow. Good summaries at www.aclu.org and ID Consortium. Original opinion piece in English here." One can dream, can't he?
  • Oh , the irony. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bill, Shooter of Bul ( 629286 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:27PM (#22002022) Journal
    Airport Security : Id Sir?

    Me: Here you go

    Airport Security : This is not a real ID, sir

    Me: But I'm over 50.

    Airport Security : No, you're not. You look like you are 15, not 50.

    Me: But, my Id says I'm 50.

    Airport Security : But its not a Real ID, could be a fake we only trust Real IDs.

    Me: So I need to get a Real Id saying I'm 50 in order to prove to you that i don't need a Real Id?

    Airport Security : Please Sir, step into this room and remove all clothing.
  • Who cares (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jmdc ( 1152611 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:30PM (#22002052)
    I honestly don't understand what the problem is. There seems to be a hysterical "Show me your papers! OMG 1984!" knee jerk reaction whenever federal laws about driver's licenses are discussed. Why? Licenses exist in all states already. The set of things that licenses are required for is not changing. The states are just agreeing to make their licenses more similar. What's wrong with that?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I honestly don't understand what the problem is.
      OK.
      The set of things that licenses are required for is not changing.
      Well, yes, it is.
      Once upon a time, driver's licenses were for driving (and social security numbers were for social security.)
      In Hiibel v Nevada, Hiibel was arrested for not showing his standing-by-the-side-of-the-road license.
      In Indianapolis, they won't let me vote anymore, because I won't show my voting license until they get a warrant.
      They like to pretend that you need an airline passenger l
  • Misleading Title (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ArcherB ( 796902 ) * on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:44PM (#22002316) Journal
    The title states:

    National ID Cards Mandated in the US, If You're Under 50
    But the summary states:

    US Homeland Security Department has mandated Real ID for drivers licenses.
    While a driver's license is an ID, an ID is not necessarily a driver's license. Will they mandate Real ID for passports? Passports are ID. Will they mandate it for library cards? Those can also act as ID.

    Nowhere does this plan call for citizens to carry ID, nor does it affect anything other than driver's licenses.

  • by lewp ( 95638 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @03:01PM (#22003830) Journal
    Fortunately the calendar stops at 2012.
  • No (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Unlikely_Hero ( 900172 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @03:29PM (#22004370)
    I will not get one. I will continue leading my regular life. I will avoid airplanes if I must and get to my destination some other way.
    I will never carry one of these things. Their intent is evil.
    I would rather be dead than live my life as a slave, even a tiny bit.
  • by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @04:30PM (#22005438) Homepage Journal
    What is it about being 50+ in 2014 that makes you a security nonrisk? Well... it makes you a Baby Boomer, since you'd have to be born before 1964, and since the life expectancy is about 75, probably dead if you're from the previous generation.

    This fake Terror War is really just Baby Boomers attacking the next generation even harder than they did the previous generation when they first started to grab power in the 1960s. Now that they've got all the power, they're the worst tyrants the country has ever had.

    If they're so afraid, they should just stay home.
  • by vanyel ( 28049 ) * on Friday January 11, 2008 @04:47PM (#22005748) Journal
    ...it's perfectly reasonable to set a standard for how id is verified and secured. The only part that is unreasonable is anything that causes the info to get moved up to the federal level. Though even that's really a lost cause: ssn already provides that, and with the requirement to have passports even to go to canada and mexico, the vast majority of us already have our "papers".

    I wonder if it would be possible to do a physical equivalent to openid?
  • Chicken Run (Score:4, Insightful)

    by smoker2 ( 750216 ) on Saturday January 12, 2008 @04:30AM (#22012418) Homepage Journal
    While I'm not a US citizen, the situation is similar in the UK. I am against any form of all pervasive ID monitoring system. Many people cannot see the reasoning behind it, but freedom is not just the ability to go about your life in peace and do what you want, but also to do things that others don't want.

    Why would I want to commit criminal acts ? Well, I don't know, *yet*. What is criminal tomorrow may be something that is perfectly legal to do today. Even if it is illegal today, I may find myself in a situation where I am compelled to commit a criminal act, for whatever reason, be it for my own safety or liberty. Laws, after all, are formulated for the masses, they are not suitable for imposing on 100% of the people 100% of the time. That sounds elitist, but every person is an elite of one.

    Take drugs for instance. (I don't want to get into specific examples, because they detract from the main principle, but)- If I grow and smoke my own cannabis, who exactly am I harming ? I am not financing terrorists, I am not financing columbian warlords or the Taliban, and as I consume all I grow, I am not corrupting schoolkids, by hanging around the playground trying to push it on others. The only "crime" is that I am not paying tax on my pleasure. But because the law works in respect of the masses, I am penalised for a purely personal action, because you can't trust everybody to be so honest and responsible. Why should I suffer the loss of my freedom because others can't be trusted ? (This is why I don't want to get into examples, there will be loads of posts spouting crap about we all have to give up certain freedoms for the good of society).

    To get back to the main point, my ability to break the law. Freedom includes the ability to break the law, if I so choose. If we are to have a moral society, it must be at the choice of that society, not imposed upon it. I don't murder, steal, rape etc, not because they are illegal, but because I have no inner drive compelling me to do so. I don't need a law to tell me not to do these things. The law is not designed to prevent me from doing these things either, it exists to provide a framework in which those who do commit such acts can be punished. Remember that part, it's important - Law provides a framework for punishment.
    Now while I may not commit murder, I do quite often break the speed limit, or watch a downloaded movie. These are not unspeakably evil acts, but they are breaking the law. There are other situations in which I could conceive of breaking more serious laws. The point is, until I reach a situation, I have no way of knowing what I might have to do. To voluntarily submit to laws which restrict my freedom of action now, without knowing how that will affect my future freedom would be dumb.
    I use Linux. One of the main reason for that choice is, Linux is not Microsoft. If there were a law passed which made the use of unauthorised operating systems illegal, then you can bet MS would be the legal choice. Windows is already one of the most controlling environments available, so if it were influenced by govt. then all sorts of horrible scenarios present themselves. Under such a system, Linux (or another free OS) would be the only sane choice. But of course it would be illegal. Oh dear, I'm a criminal.

    Now we come to REAL ID and other such governmental record keeping. This kind of lawmaking serves no purpose other than to make the lives of those in power easier. That is to say, they get to consolidate their power over the rest of us, by closing off all avenues of escape or evasion. Well if you haven't paid taxes for 5 years and the govt. is chasing you, then the law makes sense. But if you just want to remain quietly anonymous, the the law works against you. You are part of the system, whether you are a criminal or not. And don't give me any of that "if you've got nothing to hide" crap. That's a childs argument to trick you into showing your hand. How many people who use that argument walk around naked ?

    Maybe I'm getting old, but

"I shall expect a chemical cure for psychopathic behavior by 10 A.M. tomorrow, or I'll have your guts for spaghetti." -- a comic panel by Cotham

Working...