Real ID. Senate goes for it tomorrow, Tues 10th.


PDA






dog3
May 9, 2005, 03:25 PM
So, H.R.418 moves to the Senate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.418:

Assume it passes, that's pretty much it.

National ID. Done. Finished.

Without even touching on the whole "He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand, , , " part of the whole fun, let's just take a look.

This is it people.

And no one is even paying attention.

I find it remarkable.

Sad, yes, but remarkable none the less.

Good day brothers. It's been fun.
But the end of privacy is the end of freedom.

Take that to the bank. It's a sure bet.

---me

If you enjoyed reading about "Real ID. Senate goes for it tomorrow, Tues 10th." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mons meg
May 9, 2005, 03:32 PM
http://www.unrealid.com/


They will take your comments and actually FAX them to your senators. Get on the horn!!!

fjolnirsson
May 9, 2005, 03:35 PM
It is sad. Nobody wants to hear it. Nobody cares. They have their cable, and the newest, biggest SUV's, so they figure everything's ok.
Ah, well. write your congressthings, boys and girls. Call them.

Third_Rail
May 9, 2005, 05:58 PM
Well, dang. :(


We'll see what happens.

Dionysusigma
May 9, 2005, 06:09 PM
Assume it passes, that's pretty much it.

National ID. Done. Finished...This is it, people.

And no one is even paying attention. I find it remarkable. Sad, yes, but remarkable none the less.

Good day brothers. It's been fun.
But the end of privacy is the end of freedom.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=24487

"That's it, man! We're finished! We're done! Game over, man! GAME OVER!"

We've had National IDs for a long time now. This just makes it official. ;) :rolleyes:

Third_Rail
May 9, 2005, 06:15 PM
:scrutiny:


I can walk around without an ID of any kind. With the national ID, if I was asked by a police officer to present it, I'd have to.

I think that's a big difference, even if it's a small one compared to the rest.

Old Dog
May 9, 2005, 06:32 PM
Okay, I've read the bill ... and gone back over the driver licensing requirements for my state (RCW 46.20) ... Frankly, I'm not seeing that anything is changing other than the federal government requiring the few remaining primitive states to upgrade their driver license databases and start using the same standards for issuance that most states already use.

With the national ID, if I was asked by a police officer to present it, I'd have to. This is not a national ID, it's simply your state-issued (albeit to new federal standards) driver license; for heaven's sake, where does it state in HR 418 that you now have to present it (assuming you have not been driving a motor vehicle)?

But the end of privacy is the end of freedom.
Does anyone really think they have privacy now? Where have you guys been?

Ben Shepherd
May 9, 2005, 06:59 PM
It's simple really-FEDERAL control over a STATE issued form of ID.

Right now not to much of a biggie-
But wait 'til big brother wants biometric info as one of the "federal" standards. OK you're a bad boy, so you say "screw 'em!!!! I won't do it!!"

That's all well and good-
But now you have no "official" ID. Now stop and think what for and when you have to use official ID.

Think it's far fetched? Hell, we have one state that wants to serialize individual bullets!!!!!! :banghead: :banghead: :cuss:

edit:
BTW: E-mail sent, phone call made!!!

nico
May 9, 2005, 07:46 PM
I don't really see what's so bad about this bill either. If a driver's license is accepted as a universal form of identification, which it is, then why not have some universal standards for issuing one? I admit I'm not completely educated on the bill, and I'm perfectly receptive to having my mind changed. But, I see nothing wrong with things like requiring that a person be here legally to get a driver's license.

dustind
May 9, 2005, 07:59 PM
All a drivers license should have is a picture of the person and a rating as to what they are be able to drive. No names, SS numbers, DOB, address, and so on.

This will make it harder to secure privacy in the future. I expect more "your papers please" in the future. Sadly most people do not even remember why everyone was against "your papers please" in the past. For that matter, when was the last time someone said "its a free country?" I have not heard that one in many years. All I hear now is, "we are better than China/Iraq."

jefnvk
May 9, 2005, 08:12 PM
All a drivers license should have is a picture of the person and a rating as to what they are be able to drive. No names, SS numbers, DOB, address, and so on.

I'll go with you on the SSN. No reason for that to be on there. I could probably go with you on telephone number too.

However, having no name, no address? When the cop pulls you over, how do you expect him to write tickets? Suspend licenses?

As for DOB, what else would be used to prove age? Do you want me to carry around my birth certificate (which would be pretty useless, if the picture id has no name on it). Maybe we can issue another form of ID?

gc70
May 9, 2005, 08:56 PM
Hmmm...

The bill does not make any mention of telephone numbers.

Verification of SSAN is required as part of the issuance process, but the SSAN is not listed as one of the items on the license.

cfabe
May 9, 2005, 09:06 PM
The real probelm with the bill is that it establishes a master database of all ID information, and requires states to submit all of their information into the master database. The protections of use of this data are weak at best. It will only be a matter of time before your insurance carrier drops you because you visit the local bar too often (since they'll be scanning your new ID to verifiy your age, regardless of how old you are)

Selfdfenz
May 9, 2005, 09:23 PM
For those that think this will be no more than a federally controled set of standards for drivers licenses you are just being foolish.

We've had National IDs for a long time now.
Not in the context this will be usued. Not hardly!

Gents I will just refer you to a history lesson that begins with the words "Social Security".

Please point me in the direction of one single federal program of any kind that didn't morph in a CF of one sort or another and I will rethink my position.
Prepare to start living a darn clean life fellas cause you will not be ble to outrun a $2 parking ticket or a library fine in the near future. Without your "card" you may not be able to write a check or use a credit card let alone get on a plane.

Biometrics in 5 years tops. Chips in 7 but not manditory at first....just offered as a convenience.

Here is the eternal irony of it all. Those BGs in foreign lands that what to kill us ....the ones this program will keep at bay.....those guys will pretty soon be living freer lives than us. Their countries and their governemnts are imposing none of this. These programs are all about the government controlling >YOU<.

In a program advertised as trying to save us and our wonderful way of freedom and life, Scrub Inc is doing more harm to our freedoms and way of life than the BGs ever have or ever could.

The BGs will go away some day, all on their own, but what Bush leaves behind will only get worse, especially if the wrong man or woman ends up in the WH and given the recent candidate choices, how far down the road can that be?
S-

saltydog
May 9, 2005, 09:23 PM
Like I said. People turn their heads and move on. :(

Alex45ACP
May 9, 2005, 09:43 PM
It's only a matter of time until these are implanted. It will be voluntary at first, and everyone will laud the "safety", "security" and "convenience" of them... :barf:

Then, it will become mandatory, and anyone who questions it will be labeled a "traitor" and a "terrorist" :rolleyes:

Those BGs in foreign lands that what to kill us ....the ones this program will keep at bay.....those guys will pretty soon be living freer lives than us.

I'm starting to wonder if there even are any BGs...

Chris Rhines
May 9, 2005, 09:46 PM
I'm starting to wonder if there even are any BGs... There are. Most of them hold public office.

- Chris

Joejojoba111
May 10, 2005, 04:52 AM
"I can walk around without an ID of any kind. With the national ID, if I was asked by a police officer to present it, I'd have to."

Do you really think that officers need to see your ID to confirm you are licensed to operate the vehicle you are in? They haven't for a long time, information revolution. In the old days that piece of paper was the only timely way to confirm that you passed the driving test, now it's not.

The funny thing is that those people who wanted police to relent on some old practices are Anarchists, and Anti-Authority, and of course they just hate cops. So if you suggested that people didn't need to carry licenses on them anymore you were 'out to make the officer's lives harder'. Instead of information technologies freeing us of budens, we handed control to the officers and the legislators, and they pushed even further. Now we're here.

All we had to do was stand up to their verbal harassment. So they called us names, we should not have let them get as far as they have. Whatever.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
May 10, 2005, 05:03 AM
What's the big deal?

All I see in the bill that is objectionable is the use of the Social Security Number.

Other than that, it just tightens the requirements for ID to acquire a Driver's License, and mandates a digital photo which is easily watermarked and hence harder to counterfeit.

Mark of the Beast? hardly.

dog3
May 10, 2005, 08:31 AM
Good ole Saltydog said;

"Like I said. People turn their heads and move on."

Wow, they really do, don't they?

I gotta admit, I'm a little suprised. But not really suprised.

roo_ster
May 10, 2005, 10:25 AM
Link to article. It has lots of links to other articles. (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html)

(All italics & bold in article are my additions--jfruser)

Why is it bad for Cops & Judges?
REAL ID requires that driver's licenses contain actual addresses, and no post office boxes. There are no exceptions made for judges or police -- even undercover police officers. This seems like a major unnecessary security risk.


May 09, 2005
REAL ID

The United States is getting a national ID card. The REAL ID Act (text of the bill and the Congressional Research Services analysis of the bill) establishes uniform standards for state driver's licenses, effectively creating a national ID card. It's a bad idea, and is going to make us all less safe. It's also very expensive. And it's all happening without any serious debate in Congress.

I've already written about national IDs. I've written about the fallacies of identification as a security tool. I'm not going to repeat myself here, and I urge everyone who is interested to read those two essays (and even this older essay). A national ID is a lousy security trade-off, and everyone needs to understand why.

Aside from those generalities, there are specifics about REAL ID that make for bad security.

The REAL ID Act requires driver's licenses to include a "common machine-readable technology." This will, of course, make identity theft easier. Assume that this information will be collected by bars and other businesses, and that it will be resold to companies like ChoicePoint and Acxiom. It actually doesn't matter how well the states and federal government protect the data on driver's licenses, as there will be parallel commercial databases with the same information.

Even worse, the same specification for RFID chips embedded in passports includes details about embedding RFID chips in driver's licenses. I expect the federal government will require states to do this, with all of the associated security problems (e.g., surreptitious access).

REAL ID requires that driver's licenses contain actual addresses, and no post office boxes. There are no exceptions made for judges or police -- even undercover police officers. This seems like a major unnecessary security risk.

REAL ID also prohibits states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens. This makes no sense, and will only result in these illegal aliens driving without licenses -- which isn't going to help anyone's security. (This is an interesting insecurity, and is a direct result of trying to take a document that is a specific permission to drive an automobile, and turning it into a general identification device.)

REAL ID is expensive. It's an unfunded mandate: the federal government is forcing the states to spend their own money to comply with the act. I've seen estimates that the cost to the states of complying with REAL ID will be $120 million. That's $120 million that can't be spent on actual security.

And the wackiest thing is that none of this is required. In October 2004, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 was signed into law. That law included stronger security measures for driver's licenses, the security measures recommended by the 9/11 Commission Report. That's already done. It's already law.

REAL ID goes way beyond that. It's a huge power-grab by the federal government over the states' systems for issuing driver's licenses.

REAL ID doesn't go into effect until three years after it becomes law, but I expect things to be much worse by then. One of my fears is that this new uniform driver's license will bring a new level of "show me your papers" checks by the government. Already you can't fly without an ID, even though no one has ever explained how that ID check makes airplane terrorism any harder. I have previously written about Secure Flight, another lousy security system that tries to match airline passengers against terrorist watch lists. I've already heard rumblings about requiring states to check identities against "government databases" before issuing driver's licenses. I'm sure Secure Flight will be used for cruise ships, trains, and possibly even subways. Combine REAL ID with Secure Flight and you have an unprecedented system for broad surveillance of the population.

Is there anyone who would feel safer under this kind of police state?

Americans overwhelmingly reject national IDs in general, and there's an enormous amount of opposition to the REAL ID Act. This is from the EPIC page on REAL ID and National IDs:

More than 600 organizations have expressed opposition to the Real ID Act. Only two groups--Coalition for a Secure Driver's License and Numbers USA--support the controversial national ID plan. Organizations such as the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, National Association of Evangelicals, American Library Association, Association for Computing Machinery (pdf), National Council of State Legislatures, American Immigration Lawyers Association (pdf), and National Governors Association are among those against the legislation.

And this site is trying to coordinate individual action against the REAL ID Act, although time is running short. It's already passed in the House, and the Senate votes tomorrow.

If you haven't heard much about REAL ID in the newspapers, that's not an accident. The politics of REAL ID is almost surreal. It was voted down last fall, but has been reintroduced and attached to legislation that funds military actions in Iraq. This is a "must-pass" piece of legislation, which means that there has been no debate on REAL ID. No hearings, no debates in committees, no debates on the floor. Nothing.

Near as I can tell, this whole thing is being pushed by Wisconsin Rep. Sensenbrenner primarily as an anti-immigration measure. The huge insecurities this will cause to everyone else in the United States seem to be collateral damage.

Unfortunately, I think this is a done deal. The legislation REAL ID is attached to must pass, and it will pass. Which means REAL ID will become law. But it can be fought in other ways: via funding, in the courts, etc. Those seriously interested in this issue are invited to attend an EPIC-sponsored event in Washington, DC, on the topic on June 6th. I'll be there.

Posted on May 09, 2005 at 09:06 AM

Third_Rail
May 10, 2005, 12:05 PM
Joejojoba111, I said walking. I would have to present this universal ID card to an officer upon request - I currently have no need to carry any ID around whereever I go - I don't drive.

atk
May 10, 2005, 01:43 PM
If there's anyone here who hasn't contacted their senators, please do so.

We even have Sen. Ted Kennedy voting against the bill. Sen. Kerry's office won't indicate which way he plans to vote.

Blackburn
May 10, 2005, 01:46 PM
How come they get away with attaching bills to each other to sneak things through?

That should be grounds for impeachment.

Sindawe
May 10, 2005, 02:03 PM
Done. Contacted both of my senators for Colorado, leaving polite opposition to this bill with live staff (who knows if it will get relayed to them).

Interestingly, some states are threatening legal challenge, and may even ignore this if passed.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050510/D8A061G80.html

ProGlock
May 10, 2005, 02:26 PM
Take a look at the bill status and summary link at Thomas. Check out who cosponsored this bill. Check out who votes for this bill. REMEMBER who votes for the bill and cosponsors it and vote them OUT of office come 2006 and 2008.

I strongly urge you when you vote to vote for a third party....just please for god's sake do NOT continue to vote for the Republican pukes who introduced this crap.

My own representative co-sponsored this BS. He will NEVER get my vote again even if he goes gung-ho for everything the NRA/GOA, etc. want introduced in Congress.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
May 10, 2005, 05:42 PM
Good ole Saltydog said;

"Like I said. People turn their heads and move on."

Wow, they really do, don't they?

I gotta admit, I'm a little suprised. But not really suprised.

So then you haven't read the bill, don't understand the technology, and are centent to go along with the herd's opinion rather than make up your own mind, elsewise you'd have some specific objection to some provision of the bill (eg. the use of SSN's in the license).

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
May 10, 2005, 05:47 PM
http://www.geocities.com/mjloundy/chick2.jpg
One day Chicken Little was walking in the woods when -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell on her head

"Oh my goodness!" said Chicken Little. "The sky is falling! I must go and tell the king."

alan
May 10, 2005, 05:52 PM
Yes, it is sad, but I will sleep well, given that I personally did what I could.

I wrote some posts, wrote to and called my congress and senate critters, I've also spoken to some people.

An old saying comes to mind. You can Lead a horse to water, you cannot make him drink.

All else being said, I believe that that sums the thing up. As for those who simply did not understand what is involved in this fiasco, or who simply didn't care, may their chains rest lightly on their shoulders.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
May 10, 2005, 06:16 PM
All else being said, I believe that that sums the thing up. As for those who simply did not understand what is involved in this fiasco, or who simply didn't care, may their chains rest lightly on their shoulders.

Wow, imagine having to provide 4 forms of id instead of the current 3, and have a DIGITAL photo taken instead of the present analog one (which is immediately scanned (digitized) into a database) when you go get a driver's license.

Truely we are living in the Gulag now, the mark of the beast is upon us. Undoubtedly the Southland Corp. with is teams of Cryptanalysts and banks of super computers will be able to decrypt watermarked glyph from the digital image on these licenses every time you get a Slurpee and find out what brand of diswasher detergent your wife uses.

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/munch/munch.scream2.jpg

Ian
May 10, 2005, 06:26 PM
Forced presentation of ID has already been approved by the Feds; US vs Hiibel. The Supreme Court decreed that it is a-ok for a state to pass a law requiring anyone to present ID to a cop whenever requested. Only a few states have chosen to do so at this point, but any that wish to already have Federal sanction.

atk
May 10, 2005, 06:29 PM
http://thomas.loc.gov/r109/r109d09my5.html
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act Conference Report: A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, at approximately 10:45 a.m., on Tuesday, May 10, 2005.

Page S4794



The five versions of the bill can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.+1268:


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d109:./temp/~bdadU3e:1[1-257](Amendments_For_H.R.1268)&./temp/~bd968z
120. S.AMDT.429 to H.R.1268 To establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence.
Sponsor: Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] (introduced 4/14/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/20/2005 Proposed amendment SA 429 withdrawn in Senate.

I don't see anything later than that update, regarding this issue.


Now, I've never looked at Thomas before, so I could be very confused. Does this mean that the ammendment has been killed?

Also, I'm trying to find out how the debate/vote actually went. Can anyone anyone help an interested citizen figure it out?

BryanP
May 10, 2005, 06:29 PM
I find it amusing that most of the people who are poo-pooing this, saying "Oh, what are you so upset about?" would be the ones screaming the loudest if it was introduced by Democrats. You'd hear all the same 1984'ish arguments from them in that case, but since it was introduced and passed by Republicans it must be ok. :rolleyes:

Old Dog
May 10, 2005, 06:46 PM
Holy cow! 28 posts before someone used this phrase:
may their chains rest lightly on their shoulders.
Think I'll take my Schlumberger Access 32K card (with the RFID chip, bar code and magnetic strip) out of the slot on my keyboard now and get ready to leave work ... maybe stop on the way home and make sure I get the "Preferred Shopper" price on a six-pack of Sam Adams for the game tonight by using my Albertson's Preferred Shopper Card ...

Joejojoba111
May 10, 2005, 08:05 PM
CoolHandLuke"Wow, imagine having to provide 4 forms of id instead of the current 3, and have a DIGITAL photo taken instead of the present analog one (which is immediately scanned (digitized) into a database) when you go get a driver's license.

Truely we are living in the Gulag now, the mark of the beast is upon us."



What CoolHandLuke says when they open the first gulag;

(sarcasm)"Wow, imagine having to perform simple labor in a prison environment instead of it being just optional to perform labor. And have a sentence imposed for not carrying your ID instead of just having a sentence imposed for not carrying your ID while operating a vehicle.

Truely we are living in the Gulag now, the mark of the beast is upon us."(sarcasm)



Lol I don't know why some people try to reason with people like this. No need to call them names, but let's refer to them as, 'avid supporters' of pretty much anything. Oh oh here's a good one, 'enablers'. See it's a good term, they're enabling stuff to get done. Danmit someone has to make the trains run on time! And to hell with those multinational mediation bodies that condemn our little foreign excursion.

Man now that I think about it people comparing police states to Germany have been all wrong, 1930's Italy is where things are going. Damn the resemblance is uncanny! I might have to start doing some deeper research to see what is in store.

Third_Rail
May 10, 2005, 10:03 PM
We'll see where this goes. I bet the Jewish population (that cares, anyway) is a bit annoyed.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
May 10, 2005, 11:03 PM
Lol I don't know why some people try to reason with people like this. No need to call them names, but let's refer to them as, 'avid supporters' of pretty much anything

You folks are beginning to remind me of the shrill, strident, advocates of global warming or Kerry supporters from the DU forum. I imagine you must be typing red faced, the veins sticking out on your necks, spittle flying as you shriek: DOOM DOOM DOOM WE ARE ALL LOST. WHY WON'T THEY LISTEN!!!???

So apparently by not buying into this breathless, overblown alarmist line from you people about how this paltry change to driver's license i.d. requirements is the advent of the anti-Christ I am in favor of the institution of a Soviet Gulag. Right. :rolleyes:

The only significat change is the added requirement of a SSN number to the license application. That's it. And as I said, I object to that.

God, what a joke this non-issue is. :D

OH MY GOD, THEY'RE ASKING FOR FOUR FORMS OF I.D. NOW,

IT'S THE RAPTURE FOR SURE!!!! :D :D

El Rojo
May 10, 2005, 11:47 PM
Prepare to start living a darn clean life fellas cause you will not be ble to outrun a $2 parking ticket or a library fine in the near future.If I were a fence sitter on this issue, the above quote sure doesn't make me want to object to this. If your argument against this is so petty that you have to justify it by not being able to hide from $2 parking tickets and library fines, I could care less if it passes. Just some honest feedback about how rediculous you sound when you try and position yourself agaisnt this by saying you can't committ petty crimes against society anymore. I understand the bigger context, so you don't have to call me a sheeple or anything like that.

I have a SS#, DL #, all of my gun transactions go through the PRK DOJ, I have a Costco card, Albertson's card, and we have biometrics to clock in and out at work already. I think it is a little too late to claim the sky is falling, it is already below us. Oh and don't forget your IP address is linked to this post. :neener:

bjbarron
May 11, 2005, 12:03 AM
How do you cook a frog....

Heat the water slowly so he doesn't hop out of the pot.

How do ya feel, froggy?

I find it strange that everyone on this forum can quote chapter and verse of every affront to their right to keep and bare arms since 1934. Everyone can debate endlessly about how our gun rights were stolen a little bit at a time un-noticed, until some of us living in places like Washington DC or Chicago have no right to firearms.

Ain't you feeling a bit froggy about this RealID thing. I am. Think about the next logical step, just a tiny one, and then the next step after that.

Not too many years from now you'll have RFIDs buried in your 'papers'. Everyplace you go can be tracked. Will they have the means to track everybody, no. Will they have the means to track anybody, yep. It isn't called paranoia if it's your future.

Ribbit

insurgent
May 11, 2005, 03:23 AM
Yea, it's a completely harmless bill. Just making sure all DL's look the same and have the same information.

Well, also, to have all the information into a nationtional database too. But that's ok. It's completely harmless.

Well, except they specifically shot down a proposed provision that would have prevented the RealID database from being used as a national database of gun owners.

But, yea, it's harmless.

dloken
May 11, 2005, 03:41 AM
It's all good in the minds of people like Cool Hand Luke because it doesn't directly affect them, yet. Who else spoke about this sacraficing liberties for safety?

heypete
May 11, 2005, 03:46 AM
Hmm. Interesting. I just got an emailed notice here indicating that the emergency spending bill that the RealID act was attached to passed the Senate 100-0.

I oppose the bill for reasons I choose not to debate here (it's late, after all), and I find it alarming that totally unrelated bills can be ammended to another bill. Kinda like the AWB put on the lawsuit-immunity protection bill from last year...each bill should be voted on its own merit, rather than being attached to "must-pass" legislation.

Selfdfenz
May 11, 2005, 04:25 AM
If your argument against this is so petty that you have to justify it by not being able to hide from $2 parking tickets and library fines,

El Rojo...chill

I was shooting for irony. They must not have irony in Cali.
My point is a simple one. While this "thing" is being sold as a way of establishing stands of DLs, making in safer for us all in a World full of jet flying BGs bla bla...etc, etc...what on Earth makes >you< think the government will stop at that level or resolution or at that minimized functionality.

I have a SS#, DL #, all of my gun transactions go through the PRK DOJ, I have a Costco card, Albertson's card, and we have biometrics to clock in and out at work already.

And that is all tied into what db???? hmmmm? What exactly is it .gov can can track thru (in your mind) what appears to be that pretty sophisticated ID matrix? The answer is nada. Not Jack---t. If you will think about it you're not asked for your Cosco card when you hop a flight and there is a reason for that. It's not an ID.

Actually .fedgov isn't even satisfied with you Cali DL anymore. They want something much more capable and they will sure have it in this new item. It's not about 2$ parking tickets it's about adding another layer of control over the average citizen(s) and I'm unconvinced where the end use of that technolgy will be.

It's all about the tools, their power and how they are used. This new system and the db it ties too could be used to cause you and I some genuine discomfort. Come to think about it, there would be nothing to keep the powers that be from drawing funds from or even closing your checking account over a 2$ parking ticket if they get everything lined up correctly. They can't do that now because the system is comprised of many parts and each has it's own margin for error. I can't help but think the fewer dbs the feds have the better off society is.

BTW...isn't Cali one of the states considering putting people in the DNA database for being arrested, not convicted, but simply arrested?

S-

Joejojoba111
May 11, 2005, 05:47 AM
Sorry Coolhand, didn't mean to imply you support gulags! I meant to illustrate how the logic that something isn't bad, because it is similar to something we already have, how that logic can (and will) be pushed further and further.

How about this then - Since no-one in their right mind would admit to being a liberal, let's assume everyone here is conservative. Does that not apply to the most important aspect of conservatism, fiscal conservatism? HOW many BILLIONS will this new piece of plastic cost?! BILLIONS! HOW is it justified when there isn't enough money to pay for granny's medicine or even her rent? When there isn't enough money to up-armor all the hmmwvs, when there isn't enough money to cut back on the deficit spending? It seems that with money in such short supply, someone must REALLY want to ID everyone in America for some reason, I mean the Really want to do this. That alone is worth suspicion.

Then how about this - do you like junk-mail? NO? Then why would you want even more of it? Government information is often sold to demographic plotters, who perform services for commercial enterprises (Where is a good place to open a jewelry store? Ok thx.) Perfectly legit. But now when you start centralizing all your info into billion dollar databases, which NEED to make money, they'll be selling your COSTCO information to SAFEWAY, and so on. Maybe it'll be a good thing, the government will be able to track the eating habits of Americans to better combat obesity. Look at all the good uses, all the good that can be done. Look at how much more efficient businesses will be as they further direct their advertising to those most effected by it - that means lower costs for them, and thus you. Good good good.

Uh oh, I just thought of one little problem, you're going to need this super-card for voting. Uh-oh, I just remembered the new voting systems are also being digitized, so it'll probably be pretty easy to tell who voted for what. (8:15 Joe Blow used his card to activate booth 17. 8:18 booth 17 registers a vote for Senator Smuckberger, and a yes to this and a no vote to that. Hmm, maybe unscrupulous people looking over this information later might connect that Joe Blow, who was in booth 17 voted for Smuckberger.

And I'm not a genius, if you have a genius and another geniuses thinking of these things, and helping to draft the legislations that are passed, and working in the companies with voting machines, then they can really come up with good stuff.

Uh oh, yea someone just mentioned that this new super-ID card will be used to identify and highlight and track all firearm owners. Maybe that's a good thing, because you never know when one of these guys is going to flip out in a McDonalds. As a bonus you know to keep an eye out for them, in case they break some technical safety rule. Like when those vans with cameras on their roofs (that everyone here thought were A-OK) that the police have, when those camera vans see your license plate and it registers to you, and your name flashes brightly as a firearm owner - when the guy gets out of the van and performs a visual inspection just to see if you have an unsecured firearm visible, or paraphanalia. What's to worry about? And those vans everyone here thought were A-OK that have microphones and monitor the conversations of people walking down the street, when they park outside of the range and record people's conversations, no-one here has every said anything at all, even in bad humor, that could cause the listening officers to put a red X beside your name, already highlighted for firearms ownership.

Nope, no potential to drastically alter the shape of society, none at all. And it's definately NOT like each new invasive technology will compile upon the rest to create a mechanism greater than the sum of its parts. Not a chance. It's just mandatory ID, a van with cameras that tracks and records license plates, and hidden microphone public surveillance cars. That's all.

What you are worried? THEN PAY THE DAMN $2 LIBRARY FINE! JESUS if you just don't do anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about! God damn paranoid bastards, with tin-foil hats, all worried just because social-security numebrs are used on national-IDs and there are vans monitoring people's vehicles and hidden microphones when you walk down the street. Paranoid bastards.

Biker
May 11, 2005, 07:29 AM
Well said, Joe.
Biker

dog3
May 11, 2005, 09:55 AM
From the bill that passed;

`(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.'.


So long to the out-dated concept of "separation of powers".


"The advance of civilization is nothing but an exercise in the limiting of privacy"
--Issac Azimov, Foundation's Edge

RealGun
May 11, 2005, 10:05 AM
If ones race and the cultural stereotype implications cannot be asked, let alone recorded, as a potential source of discrimination, officially considered irrelevant, then I would propose that gun ownership not be recorded either. Any need to know is based upon a belief that a citizen, heretofore innocent of any wrongdoing, is a potential criminal. Meanwhile criminals simply don't volunteer that they have a gun or 5 or 10.

I just think the government can't have it both ways when it comes to discrimination, whether race, gender, age, religion, or whatever source of discrimination. There should be a true need to know, and there should be questions that are politically incorrect to ask, if not constitutionally prohibited outright. Sometimes it takes a law change to ensure that one can freely withhold information.

It's all still a question of where the line in the sand might be or even if there is one.

This all becomes a more urgent concern given the potential of searches on comprehensive databases. To me, if they can't ask about race or religion, etc., they can't ask about gun ownership. I wouldn't care to be discriminated against until I have done something wrong. I wouldn't want a record of gun ownership to increase the chances of getting shot by some trigger happy traffic cop with a bad attitude. Until I become a criminal, I don't want to be treated like one.

Yes, I know that SC police are aware that I have a CWP or can readily make the connection with driver ID, but I don't think they need that information or that having it solves anything.

El Rojo
May 11, 2005, 10:07 AM
:cool:

Control Group
May 11, 2005, 10:18 AM
Well said, El Rojo.

I recall a few years back reading a very interesting article regarding the inevitable increase in the ability of the government to track citizens. Unfortunately, I don't remember who wrote it, just that it was linked to from slashdot (ringing endorsement, I know). In any event, the point of the article was that there is no point trying to fight it. Technology will continue to improve, and there's no practical way to prevent the government from having it and using it.

What we should be focused on doing is keeping the process transparent, so we can at least monitor what the government's doing with the information, and call them on abuses. Frankly, the TSA and its practices don't bother me anywhere near as much as the fact that we don't get to know what those practices are, or the policies under which they operate.

Fighting technology is banging your head against the wall. Fighting to keep the technology used in an inoffensive manner might be effective.

dolanp
May 11, 2005, 10:21 AM
Passed the Senate 100-0 in case anyone hadn't heard.

RealGun
May 11, 2005, 10:51 AM
Fighting technology is banging your head against the wall. Fighting to keep the technology used in an inoffensive manner might be effective.

All fine, but I guarantee you that race or religion as examples will not be recorded. The issue is that gun ownwership is proposed as important to know. It is only important to know for the purpose of discrimination, other tendentious rhetoric notwithstanding.

BTW, I am a retired database and application designer. Many potential applications are recognized after the data is already collected.

2nd Amendment
May 11, 2005, 11:32 AM
I'm amazed at the number of people even here who can either not see an issue or even defend this. And the claim we have long had a NID is such an oft repeated bit of misrepresentation I don't know what to think. Do people actually believe that? Do they not recognize the differences?

I don't have to have any ID on me right now. I never have been forced to. Neither have any of you in your daily civilian lives. If I do have an ID it can be any of a variety of items and be perfectly acceptable. Any state DL is acceptable anywhere else even without standardization so the logic of standardization would be? Especially in light of the governmental refusal to enforce ID, licenses and deportation of Illegals?

And this has nothing to do with fighting technology. Just because technology exists does not mean it needs to be applied everywhere possible, nor does opposing certain applications mean one opposes technology. Nor does the fact this legislation does not immediately, specifically require a certain national ID to be on-person at all times mean this is not a National ID effort or that opposing it is opposing tech or wearing tinfoil(though not opposing certainly begs the question of whether someone has their head buried in the sand).

This is just another step. Not even a first but actually nearly a last one. It's another piece of the puzzle in that advancing police state issue centac is arguing doesn't exist in another thread. Accept it, believe it and then find a way to deal with it.

Third_Rail
May 11, 2005, 11:38 AM
Well, let's just hope that this won't be abused... the gov't wouldn't abuse an incredible amount of power, right?

2nd Amendment
May 11, 2005, 11:50 AM
They won't? Thank God, I feel a lot better now. :D *whew*

Igloodude
May 11, 2005, 11:57 AM
Well, except they specifically shot down a proposed provision that would have prevented the RealID database from being used as a national database of gun owners.

I'm trying to find who voted for/against that specific provision, can anyone help me out?

atk
May 11, 2005, 12:23 PM
Igloodude,

I know you already recieved a reply on TFL, but the questions you're asking should be answered in the links I provided in my previous post on this thread.

El Rojo
May 11, 2005, 02:17 PM
This is just another step. Not even a first but actually nearly a last one. It's another piece of the puzzle in that advancing police state issue centac is arguing doesn't exist in another thread. Accept it, believe it and then find a way to deal with it.Ok, it is another step. What are you doing about it? What is your plan to stop the great big conspiracy theory of complete New World Order? That is the thing that cracks me up about conspiracy theorists. There are all these gloom and doom predictions, but what is the point? It seems that the only reason some of this comes up is as a means of validating some people's personal self-worth. They talk about conspiracy theories and how this is going to happen and how that is going to happen and how they see it all coming! Yet, if you take them for their word on these things, it really boils down to that the powers to be are so powerful that they can make all of these things happen with so much control, what can you honestly do to stop them? Nothing. So if I am to buy into all of this conspiracy theory, I am also accepting that the government and the real people that control the government are so powerful, there is nothing we can do to stop them. So the conspiracy theorist really just want to talk about their theories as a means of showing how smart they are and how they know what is going to happen as the now famous "sheeple" continue to live in lives of enslavement and naivity.

My response? Why worry then? If we are screwed, then we are screwed. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. I have some grass to go eat and I have a wool shaving appointment after school.

Faithless
May 11, 2005, 03:56 PM
H.R. 418 [the Real ID Act of 2005] would provide additional waiver authority over laws that might impede the expeditious construction of barriers and roads along the border. H.R. 418 would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any and all laws that he determines necessary, in his sole discretion, to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads under IIRIRA § 102...

Section 102 of H.R. 418 would amend the current provision to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any law upon determining that a waiver is necessary for the expeditious construction of the border barriers. Additionally, it would prohibit judicial review of a waiver decision or action by the Secretary and bar judicially ordered compensation or injunction or other remedy for damages alleged to result from any such decision or action...

So if judicial review is the basic mechanism that enables the Federal court system—from the Supreme Court on down—to rule on the constitutionality of laws and government actions, then how could it be possible for Congress to pass a law that includes language prohibiting judicial review for the law in question? In other words, if Congress could somehow exempt a law from judicial review, then the principle of judicial review would be completely gutted because they could just exempt from judicial review any law they wanted to, even if that law is blatantly unconstitutional or it violates basic human rights. Surely this isn't possible?

copy/pasted from (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886.html)

Joejojoba111
May 11, 2005, 04:07 PM
"Yet, if you take them for their word on these things, it really boils down to that the powers to be are so powerful that they can make all of these things happen with so much control, what can you honestly do to stop them?"

People leave California and other anti-firearm states specifically because of their rules. As long as there is still freedom to relocate you're not living in a sci-fi movie. Whether you'd be allowed to take your wealth with you, that's questionable.

Remember that thread where they're bribing Atlanic City residents to snitch on each other for firearms ownership? LOl just a funny thought, but how much do you think they'd offer, or more to the point how much would people require, to snitch on each other for ID card infractions? $100? $50?

"Psst, I don't think Jimmy Lang has his ID card anymore. So i get the money now?"
later that day
"Mr. Lang? Of 312 Birkenstock Rd.? Please show us your ID. Failure to comply is tantamount to..."

Old Dog
May 11, 2005, 04:57 PM
Wow, some real stretches here:
LOl just a funny thought, but how much do you think they'd offer, or more to the point how much would people require, to snitch on each other for ID card infractions? $100? $50?

I submit that all you conspiracy theorists out there cannot see the forest for the trees. The central argument seems to be that latest technology makes it not only easier for the government to control citizens, but also makes it inevitable. What you are not seeing is that, with all the technological advances, government will not be able to control the technology. Advocates for privacy will win out in the end, for a couple of reasons (1) our form of government will not be completely corrupted, and (2) constantly evolving and emerging technology will continue to keep what government does visible to its citizenry ...

Third_Rail
May 11, 2005, 05:34 PM
Old Dog, I'll agree with you on the second point that we'll always be able to see into what the government does... to a point. What about their disconnected from the civilain Web internet? How exactly do we see that? There are no hardlines from this internet to that one.

You have more belief in our government than I do to think that the majority won't be corrupt after a while. Too many people are simply power hungry.

2nd Amendment
May 11, 2005, 05:56 PM
Ok, it is another step.

I'm unsure if that is sarcasm or an admission.

What are you doing about it?

People keep asking that. I keep telling. people keep accusing me of tooting my own horn. So suffice to say everything I can that I think of that probably won't get me immediately arrested and thus render me utterly useless.

What is your plan to stop the great big conspiracy theory of complete New World Order?

And there we go. That's it. Dialog over. Some people just can't have a discussion without immediately trying to bias things towards their own perceptions.

There is no conspiracy theory. The "New World order" is nothing more than the eventual outcome of advancing technology and human nature/greed IF we do nothing to control it. There's nothing conspiratorial about that. Power congeals and the most amoral pursue it. When some new whatsit comes along that makes controlling the herd easier they utilize it.

My plan to stop it? I have no plan. Can it be stopped? How many powerful nations in history have avoided eventual collapse? How many power grabs by wealthy elites(or wannabe wealthy elites) have been "stopped" as opposed to sort of just falling apart? In the meantime I'll make a lot of noise and part of that noise includes posts like this one, when people, for good motives or bad, throw around conspiracy and paranoia and tin foil labels. That's not what it's about and when people get past the labels the staunchest defenders of what appears to be the "status quo" often become its loudest detractors. Been there, done that.

That is the thing that cracks me up about conspiracy theorists. There are all these gloom and doom predictions but what is the point...

If you're stuck on conspiracy and can't see beyond your own definition of paranoia then, yeah, might as well curl up in a ball with a beer and a ball game. If you actually take the time to look at what's really going on then trying to make a difference makes sense, even if it does seem overwhelming at times.

Yet, if you take them for their word ... what can you honestly do to stop them? Nothing.

Horse-feathers. There is no conspiracy. There's just technology and mankind's nature. That nature likes playing with all the new toys and it can't help but see how they can be used for another aspect of man's nature: Making money and gaining power and telling other people what to do. You can beat that...unless you refuse to accept it even exists.

So if I am to buy into all of this conspiracy theory, I am also accepting that the government and the real people that control the government are so powerful, there is nothing we can do to stop them.

You're words. Based on your views and concepts. Nobody really thinks these things can't be beaten. They are just people and technology and instinct and all it takes is enough people who oppose them, and aren't being undercut by other people who insist it's all black and white and conspiritorial, to gradually even things out. Problem is for too damn long most people have been quiet and happy with their paycheck and cable TV and those of us who aren't quiet have to keep spending our time arguing with you other ones that aren't quiet but think we're nuts. Quit it, dangnabit.

My response? Why worry then? If we are screwed, then we are screwed. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. I have some grass to go eat and I have a wool shaving appointment after school.

Stop it, you're frightening the billy goats.

EDIT: I thought of something while in the john(yeah, my best thinking and all that), I want to summarize the above rant a little better so there's no mistaking what my long-winded self is trying to say.

I don't believe in Conspiracy Theories. I believe that it's all just some people doing what some percentage of people do by nature. I believe whether they succeed or fail is entirely dependent on what good, moral people do. If they sit back and ignore it, or let other things distract them then, yeah, Bad wins. If they, the "good guys" stand together then bad loses, because bad seldom has the numerical advantage and is usually too stupid and/or lazy to mount a good conspiracy anyway. And lastly I believe that one of the best things "bad" can hope for along its road to possible victory is that people like us will sit around and argue about if they exist, what they are doing and whether one of us is a conspiracy nut and the other is just plain nuts. Division is the best technology they got.

The short Cliff's Notes version any better?

RealGun
May 11, 2005, 06:13 PM
I don't know that I want to be tagged a conspiracy theorist on a gun forum if I was tipped off in Februrary by GOA, warning of where such a law may take us.

This was received as the bill came up in the House. It has since passed, of course.

National ID Cards Coming Up For A Vote This Week
-- Threats to gun owners' privacy are a huge concern

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, February 9, 2005


The National ID card is back in the news, as Congress is getting set
once again to debate the issue.

You will remember that late last year, Congress passed (and the
President signed) legislation which starts us down the road to a
National ID card. In the name of preventing alien terrorists from
operating in this country, the so-called Intelligence Reform bill
gave federal bureaucrats unprecedented new powers to force changes in
state-issued driver's licenses -- including, possibly, the addition
of computer chip technology that can facilitate the tracking of all
U.S. citizens.

Now, the House will be debating new legislation, H.R. 418, that was
recently introduced by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). In
considering this bill, the U.S. House will vote on whether to empower
the federal government to determine who can get a driver's license --
and under what conditions.

Since you need a driver's license to purchase a gun from a dealer,
this will give BATFE the expanded ability to impose even greater
forms of gun control -- something which it has long coveted. This
will become even more apparent if an anti-gun Democrat like Hillary
Clinton wins the presidency in 2008.

H.R. 418 is, unfortunately, supported by many Republicans who believe
that repealing our liberties will somehow make us "secure."
But GOA
joined a large coalition of citizen-activist organizations this week
in opposition to H.R. 418. In a letter to Congress, the coalition
stated:

"Standardization of driver's licenses has long been recognized as a
bureaucratic back-door to implementation of a national ID card. With
its required linking of databases and ability of the Secretary of
Homeland Security to require a prescribed format, HR 418 takes us
well along that road. Concerns are further heightened when the bill
fails to even provide lip service to privacy concerns, and proposes
to share all of our data on the driver's license database with Canada
and Mexico."

Realizing government's tendency towards mission creep, no one should
be surprised if this database grows to contain far more information
than that which is relevant to driving. HR 418 requires that the
database shall contain "at a minimum," all information contained on
the driver's license as well as driving history. There is no limit to
what other information may eventually be contained in the database --
something which should definitely concern gun owners.

H.R. 418 is being touted as a way of cleaning up some of the problems
with the law that was enacted last December. But this bill is still
an attack on states' rights. It still takes us down the road to a
National ID card. And it would still do nothing to keep real
terrorists from operating in our country.

ACTION: Please contact your Representative and urge him or her to
oppose H.R. 418. You can use the pre-written message below and send
it as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers
are also available).

-----Pre-written letter-----

Dear Representative:

H.R. 418 would give the federal government open-ended authority to
determine who may and may not get a driver's license -- and under
what circumstances.

Since I need a driver's license to purchase a gun from a dealer,
BATFE would finally have its long-coveted tool to impose gun control
on targeted groups -- particularly under a liberal anti-gun
administration.

If you believe in the Second Amendment, please vote against this
anti-gun monstrosity.

Sincerely,

KCMO
May 11, 2005, 09:19 PM
Do you guys who support this bill really want the DHS to be exempt from Judicial review?

I sure do NOT!

Good summary (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886.html)

So if judicial review is the basic mechanism that enables the Federal court system—from the Supreme Court on down—to rule on the constitutionality of laws and government actions, then how could it be possible for Congress to pass a law that includes language prohibiting judicial review for the law in question? In other words, if Congress could somehow exempt a law from judicial review, then the principle of judicial review would be completely gutted because they could just exempt from judicial review any law they wanted to, even if that law is blatantly unconstitutional or it violates basic human rights. Surely this isn't possible?
Congress has crafted a completely unprecedented provision that guts the principle of judicial review by granting the DHS secretary complete and total immunity from the courts when it comes to the construction of "barriers and roads" in this one specific geographical region, and they've buried this provision inside a national ID card act which is itself attached to a large military appropriations bill that no Congressperson in their right mind would vote against (money for the troops and all that).

Disclaimer: I'm 51% Libertarian / 49% Republican (the small-government version), so this may affect my opinion slightly :)

El Rojo
May 11, 2005, 10:39 PM
Horse-feathers. There is no conspiracy.Then why are you worried? This bill is just a bill that will standardize the state driver's licenses and it is not a step towards a national ID system. Right? You can't have it be both ways. Either this is just one isolated incident and not a conspiracy to subject us to more government control or it is the first step towards the national ID system and the planned gun database. You see, there is a conspiracy theory going around. You just don't want to admit to it. Either this is what it is or it is a step towards their eventual plan of creating a national ID system and gun owner database. Which is it? And who has made the connection between these two events? It wouldn't be the paranoid anti-government types that often come up with compelx conspiracy theories would it? Nah.

Section 102 of H.R. 418 would amend the current provision to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any law upon determining that a waiver is necessary for the expeditious construction of the border barriers. Additionally, it would prohibit judicial review of a waiver decision or action by the Secretary and bar judicially ordered compensation or injunction or other remedy for damages alleged to result from any such decision or action...
This is probably the best part of this whole bill. Lets see this one not make it to the Supreme Court and lets see the Supreme Court give up its judicial review powers. This is the built in self-destruct mechanism right here. It won't stand up to judicial review. The Congress does not have the power to do this. Sorry.

And actually I was just reading the whole bill, this section 102 does not apply to the ID section which starts at section 201. Wow, I think I forgot how much total garbage our congresscritters sneak into legislation. HR 418 has already gone through the house hasn't it? Contacting my Senators is a waste of time, but contacting my Congressman might be worth it. So answer me this, has HR 418 passed through Congress yet? Nevermind, my Congresscritter sponsored it. But of course he would so he could increase his congressional power. Gotta love it.

2nd Amendment
May 11, 2005, 11:12 PM
It appears we just have a different definition of conspiracy theory then. To me, when I look at past government consolidations of power and sneaky manipulations for control it's not conspiracy to expect the same from legislation that looks just like past efforts. And i don't share your faith in judicial review. The Incumbent Protection Act survived, didn't it?

alan
May 12, 2005, 01:32 AM
Old Dog and anyone else who might be interested:

Re H.R. 418, from which the DL rider attached to Emergency Military Spending came, did you happen to take notice of the very broad powers granted to The Secretary of Homeland Security, whomever that worthy might be at any given time? If you didn't, look at it.

So far as I know, H.R. 418 lies in Senate Judiciary Committee, where who knows what might happen. Othwerwise, your privacy and other things sseem to have bdeen offered up as sacrifices to the graven image of Rep. Sensenbrenners ruffeled feathers, which strikes me as one hellish way to do THE PEOPLE'S BUSINESS. What do I know though?

Jeff White
May 12, 2005, 02:54 AM
What a bureaucratic nightmare. The clerks at the DMV will have to call and verify your four forms of ID. What a mess....Wanna bet they don't get this online in 3 years? Did anyone in the Senate bother to read this before they voted for it???
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/58B2A22A1E32DDA586256FFF00131D81?OpenDocument
'Real ID' has states scrambling
By Elisa Crouch
Of the Post-Dispatch
05/11/2005

People impatient with long waits at drivers license bureaus had better brace themselves for even longer ones.

President George W. Bush signed legislation Wednesday aimed at denying drivers licenses to illegal immigrants and increasing homeland security. But some Missouri and Illinois officials predict it will create bigger headaches for motorists.

The Real ID Act, which takes effect in three years, will turn drivers licenses into national identification cards. To renew a license or get a new one, motorists will have to prove their identification and residency in four ways. Even then, state workers will have to contact the issuing agencies to make sure the documents are valid before handing the motorist a license.

The renewal process in Missouri and Illinois involves surrendering the old license, and sometimes showing a Social Security card if there's a name change. The new legislation means drivers will have to prove their name and date of birth, probably by showing a birth certificate. Applicants also will have to show proof of citizenship, a Social Security number and proof of residence, such as the street address on a utility bill.
Advertisement


States will have to keep the information for 10 years and join a computer network that shares the information. Supporters of the bill estimate it will cost states and counties about $100 million over five years.

State workers can verify Social Security numbers on a computer network, but there is no national database for county birth records.

"The bill has kind of caught the local people by surprise," said Mark Von Nida, the Madison County clerk, who oversees birth records. "Everybody's scrambling to catch up with what's happening."

The Illinois secretary of state's office established a committee to research how the bill will affect it and the 136 drivers license offices it oversees statewide, said Dave Druker, a spokesman for Secretary of State Jesse White.

"We're undoubtedly going to have to expand to include the county clerks from around the state of Illinois," Druker said. "Some situations, there really aren't answers for right now. Where we see problems is that this is an unfunded mandate."

Some county officials in both states say they're waiting to take their state's lead.

The Missouri Department of Revenue oversees the 182 drivers license offices in the state. It is holding internal discussions on the requirements and how to fulfill them, said spokeswoman Maura Browning.

Among other things, states must work out staffing issues, how to verify birth records from foreign countries and how to verify addresses to prove residency.

Now that Bush has signed the bill, Browning said, state officials will speed up discussions on how to implement the measure.

The Real ID Act was folded into a $82 billion emergency spending bill to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, provide relief to tsunami victims in Asia and beef up border security. Both houses of Congress have approved it.

Supporters say the Real ID provision will make the nation safer. Some of the hijackers on Sept. 11 used drivers licenses to board planes, even though their visas were expired.

"This legislation mandates important steps that will force all the states to step up the issuance of tamper-proof licenses," Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., said in a statement Wednesday. "It will make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to get IDs and most importantly, it will make it harder for terrorists to fake their identification and blend into society while they plan their crimes."

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, said the license measures became part of a bill that had to be rushed through, which is why it won unanimous approval.

"I wanted to debate this," he said, but no hearings were held.

Durbin called the requirements "burdensome" for some people, especially legal immigrants from countries where birth certificates aren't issued, or from places such as Yugoslavia that no longer exist. He predicted that long lines will result and that states will have to cough up millions of dollars.

The legislation does not specify whether a motorist would need a certified copy of a birth certificate. Missouri counties charge $15 for a certified copy from anywhere in the state. They are only available for people born in 1920 or later.

The costs in Illinois vary from county to county. And residents can only get a copy from the county in which they were born.

"They'll have to establish some standards about how to do it," Durbin said. "If you live at home and have a utility bill in the name of your father, and you're the daughter, is that good enough?"

If states can't meet the federal requirements, it's possible that drivers licenses from those states won't be recognized by the federal government. For example, the licenses could not be used to board a commercial flight or enter a federally protected building.

Illinois issues between 2.1 million and 2.2 million drivers licenses each year, and has about 8.5 million in circulation, Druker said. Missouri has 4.2 million active licenses. Browning was uncertain how many the state issues each year.

What's required now in Illinois, Missouri

Illinois drivers licenses must be renewed every four years. To renew, motorists must surrender their old licenses. Social Security cards are required when there's a change in a name or an initial.

New Illinois drivers must provide a certified copy of a birth certificate, something listing an Illinois address, proof of signature and a Social Security card. Only the Social Security number is verified.

Missouri drivers are good for two to six years, depending on the driver's age. The old license is required for renewal, and sometimes a Social Security card if there's a discrepancy.

New Missouri drivers need to provide a Social Security card and out-of-state drivers license.


Reporter Elisa Crouch
E-mail: ecrouch@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 314-340-8119

Sindawe
May 12, 2005, 03:01 AM
Did anyone in the Senate bother to read this before they voted for it??? Of course not. Congress-critters don't have time to read the actual legislation they vote on. They are FAR too busy being wined & dined by PAC operatives and chasing the cute interns to be bothered reading the laws they will impose on us revenue generating units.

Brian Dale
May 12, 2005, 03:13 AM
Every data thief in the world is happy tonight.

dustind
May 12, 2005, 06:18 AM
If this is just standardizing drivers licenses then why do I need to prove anything other than the fact that I can drive?

Also why was congress so fanatical about passing it and spending so much of our money on it if it was no big deal.

I am also not against technology. I love technology. I just do not like it used against non-convicted criminals. I do not care if it is pointed stick technology, camera technology, or database technology.

Also how do people that do not have SSN get drivers licenses now? Tjis is a serious question because I know seveal people that do not have them.

RealGun
May 12, 2005, 07:37 AM
Quote:
Section 102 of H.R. 418 would amend the current provision to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any law upon determining that a waiver is necessary for the expeditious construction of the border barriers. Additionally, it would prohibit judicial review of a waiver decision or action by the Secretary and bar judicially ordered compensation or injunction or other remedy for damages alleged to result from any such decision or action...

This is probably the best part of this whole bill. Lets see this one not make it to the Supreme Court and lets see the Supreme Court give up its judicial review powers. This is the built in self-destruct mechanism right here. It won't stand up to judicial review. The Congress does not have the power to do this. Sorry.

Although I think the scope should be clearly stated so that it can't be readily expanded, I believe this power is just to keep the Greens from getting in the way with lawsuits to stop expeditious building of border barriers. No jurisdiction...no lawsuit. My understanding is that Congress DOES have the power to determine jurisdiction of lower courts.

RealGun
May 12, 2005, 07:40 AM
Quote:
Did anyone in the Senate bother to read this before they voted for it???
Of course not. Congress-critters don't have time to read the actual legislation they vote on. They are FAR too busy being wined & dined by PAC operatives and chasing the cute interns to be bothered reading the laws they will impose on us revenue generating units.

All they have to do is attend the party caucus meeting and be told how to vote. If they have a question, then they can read what they want to. Let's hope that collectively it all gets proper scrutiny. They are still accountable for their individual votes.

cracked butt
May 12, 2005, 10:28 AM
Uhoh, looks like the Freemasons, Space aliens, the Rothchilds, Elvis, and JFK have gotten together to produce the biggest conspiracy theory yet to get the tin hatters in a tizzy :neener:

RealGun
May 12, 2005, 11:31 AM
Also how do people that do not have SSN get drivers licenses now? Tjis is a serious question because I know seveal people that do not have them.

SSN isn't relevant to current regulations. All it demonstrates is that someone of that name MAY BE reporting taxable income from a legitimate employer or MAY BE self employed. What it really does is assign a unique number to each person, something an indexed database would really require.

armoredman
May 12, 2005, 11:32 AM
Gee, darn, AZ drivers licenses are good for 25 years....this will be overturned long before mine expires....

alan
May 13, 2005, 01:05 AM
A minor point if I may, something that I have mentioned somewhere before.

When your state driver license and vehicle registration fees go through the roof, a result of the UNFUNDED LIABILITY UPON THE STATES IN THIS LEGISLATION, as likely they will, just think about the following. If, BEFORE passage, the sheeple, perhaps including some who read this, but didn't or couldn't be bothered, had raised enough hell with their federal elected things, the bastards might have been scared off, maybe.

Monday Nite Football, or March Madness could not be disturbed by such mundane a consideration, and then there was Survivor whatever and Desperate Houswives in addition.

Oh hell, it's late and I'm tired.

bg
May 13, 2005, 03:20 AM
I believe Lou Dobbs said the Pres signed this into law late Weds night the
10th.

RealGun
May 13, 2005, 07:28 AM
When your state driver license and vehicle registration fees go through the roof, a result of the UNFUNDED LIABILITY UPON THE STATES IN THIS LEGISLATION, as likely they will, just think about the following.

What should we call it? The Immigration tax? The Terrorism tax? The Show Me Your Papers tax? John McCain's "national solution" for Arizona, fronted by Sennsenbrenner? What?

As far as what I or anyone should do about it, I would suggest automatically voting against an incumbent in the primaries unless they have explicitly demonstrated that Washington has not turned them into partisan mush. I would have to question why a person would even want to run again, somehow proud of what he or she does.

The quality of candidates will not get any better, because a smart person wouldn't want to waste that much time and effort or undergo brutal personal scrutiny, and for what? Laws and taxes people hate? A procedural process that is a collosal waste of time and not respected? Yikes!

It is a more respected job trying to keep these congress critters in line.

If I had to pick a name for a political party, it would be Reform Party, but the irony would be the intent to restore government that resembles constitutional principles. You can bet that States would recover some power, would collect most taxes, and that Courts would rule based upon existing law or not at all.

HKGuns
May 13, 2005, 09:07 AM
Its called setting a national standard and all states must meet certain minimum requirements.

P
A
R
A
N
O
I
D............Look it up.

2nd Amendment
May 13, 2005, 09:54 AM
Always simpler for those who don't want to look at an issue or deal with it to insist those who do are paranoid tin-hat conspiracy nuts. The only bright spot in all this is that those are generally the same people who will get burned first by what they don't know. At least we'll get to laugh at them...

RealGun
May 13, 2005, 11:24 AM
I am reminded of the concept that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I find all this recent paranoid labeling rather spurious. We are, after all, naturally defensive about why we might carry a gun. Are we paranoid? Some would insist that we are. My point of view is paying attention to reality and choosing to increase my chances of being a survivor. Can one go too far with it? Maybe, but who is going to say exactly when they will need to be prepared? Who can say when a gun is definitely not needed? Is it wisdom or paranoia?

pax
May 13, 2005, 11:37 AM
Okay.

There will be NO MORE name calling on this thread.

You got something worthwhile to say, say it.

You think the guy on the other side of things is stupid, in denial, or paranoid -- keep it to yourself.

Capiche?

pax

Dionysusigma
May 13, 2005, 07:30 PM
With respect for Pax and Art's Grammaw, I won't post what I think of those flipping out about this "National Mark of the Beast."

What I will post, however, is a retort to those who say that we're not paying attention. We are. It's just that it's way too late to get freaked out about this.

Remember this: Exactly what did you submit to the state when you got your CCW? What did you tell the bank when you opened your bank accounts? Are you on Medicare? What about last time you bought a car? When's the last time you took a survey over the phone or internet? What about your IP? What about your insurance company? Credit cards? Did you tell the cashier at Borders Books your email address? Does your car have a GPS or OnStar?

My point is, it doesn't matter what's on a federally-mandated ID.
They already know. All this bill does is just make it easier.

If you want to worry about something, worry about the government taking over banks. Worry about OnStar, and how they can unlock your doors (or lock them) and know where you are (even when you don't). Or heck, worry about the JFK assassination. Or the finer points of the AR-15 vs. AK-47 argument. Or 9 vs. 45.

If you enjoyed reading about "Real ID. Senate goes for it tomorrow, Tues 10th." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!