House approves National ID card

[rick_reno]

small snipet at end of article from GOA -

http://news.com.com/House+approves+...98.html?part=rss&tag=5568415&subj=news.1028.5

House approves electronic ID cards
Published: February 10, 2005, 5:46 PM PST
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

TrackBack Print E-mail TalkBack
The U.S. House of Representatives approved on Thursday a sweeping set of rules aimed at forcing states to issue all adults federally approved electronic ID cards, including driver's licenses.

Under the rules, federal employees would reject licenses or identity cards that don't comply, which could curb Americans' access to airplanes, trains, national parks, federal courthouses and other areas controlled by the federal government. The bill was approved by a 261-161 vote.

The measure, called the Real ID Act, says that driver's licenses and other ID cards must include a digital photograph, anticounterfeiting features and undefined "machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements" that could include a magnetic strip or RFID tag. The Department of Homeland Security would be charged with drafting the details of the regulation.

Republican politicians argued that the new rules were necessary to thwart terrorists, saying that four of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers possessed valid state-issued driver's licenses. "When I get on an airplane and someone shows ID, I'd like to be sure they are who they say they are," said Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, during a floor debate that started Wednesday.

States would be required to demand proof of the person's Social Security number and confirm that number with the Social Security Administration. They would also have to scan in documents showing the person's date of birth and immigration status, and create a massive store "so that the (scanned) images can be retained in electronic storage in a transferable format" permanently.

Another portion of the bill says that states would be required to link their DMV databases if they wished to receive federal funds. Among the information that must be shared: All data fields printed on drivers' licenses and identification cards, and complete drivers' histories, including motor vehicle violations, suspensions and points on licenses.

The Bush administration threw its weight behind the Real ID Act, which has been derided by some conservative and civil liberties groups as tantamount to a national ID card. The White House said in a statement this week that it "strongly supports House passage" of the bill.

Thursday's vote mostly fell along party lines. About 95 percent of the House Republicans voted for the bill, which had been prepared by the judiciary committee chairman, F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican. More than three-fourths of the House Democrats opposed it.

Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat from Washington, D.C., charged that Republicans were becoming hypocrites by trampling on states' rights. "I thought the other side of the aisle extols federalism at all times," Norton said. "Yes, even in hard times, even when you're dealing with terrorism. So what's happening now? Why are those who speak up for states whenever it strikes their fancy doing this now?"

Civil libertarians and firearm rights groups condemned the bill before the vote. The American Civil Liberties Union likened the new rules to a "de facto national ID card," saying that the measure would force "states to deny driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants" and make DMV employees act as agents of the federal immigration service.

Because an ID is required to purchase a firearm from a dealer, Gun Owners of America said the bill amounts to a "bureaucratic back door to implementation of a national ID card." The group warned that it would "empower the federal government to determine who can get a driver's license--and under what conditions."

 

[jefnvk]

 

[Dave R]

What's wrong with the SSN's and state drivers' licenses we're issued now?

Anyone know how much its going to COST to implement a new ID card?

Its the old "lets make a new law instead of enforcing the existing laws" syndrome.

 

[megatronrules]

How is this any differant than what we have now? so what if every state dmv office will only take a birth certificate and ss card as proof ID its what they do now. Also if i'am am driving in califorina and am pulled over with my florida drivers license the leo can simply check if its valid so isn't that a national ID card anyways? don't get me wrong I don't like this at all but I guess its the price we pay for living in the world we live in these days. Someone please correct me if i'am wrong on this.

 

[Omni04]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&u=/ap/20050210/ap_on_hi_te/tracking_students


seems like a trend nowadays you think these 2 stories are kind of similar?

Pretty soon they will vote on surgically implanting ID cards in the back of all newbornes heads! Then they can scan us like a grocery store when we have to get on planes

 

[Zach S]

I've got my SSC, but havent seen my birth certificate in years. IIRC it got washed with my jeans not long after I got my learner's permit, I didnt bother replacing it because I didnt need it.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

And the big deal is? I swear some people love to make a big fuss over nothing. All this bill is doing is making sure that state issued ID cards are better and harder to forge. Most states around here have all those features on them already. NJ was one of the last states in the area to have a digital license, but we just switched. The whole purpose of an ID is to prove who you are....if that's what you are using it for why would you have any problem with this?

How many people here cried and moaned over illegal aliens being issued driver's licenses (I'll give you a hint I would be one of them)? I think this is an excellent way to prevent those people who shouldn't get D/L's from obtaining them fraudulantly.

Because an ID is required to purchase a firearm from a dealer, Gun Owners of America said the bill amounts to a "bureaucratic back door to implementation of a national ID card." The group warned that it would "empower the federal government to determine who can get a driver's license--and under what conditions."

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. When you fill out a 4473 you already have to show ID, put down your address, SSN and place of birth. What in the hell does having a better ID card change??

Take off the tin foil people......puh-LEASE.

 

[Old Dog]

I tend to agree with Dbl0Kevin on this one. The measure simply forces the few remaining holdout states to make use of existing technology ... the Democrats' opposition is merely for show (hypocrites, opposing this bill yet sponsoring and supporting every useless anti-gun bill ever created).

If the government wants to track any of us, we long ago gave it the means to do so.

 

[sterculius_number_II]

Why should I have to prove who I am? I know who I am. I was born right here in the United States, in the same state I still reside in, in 1957. I've lived right here in this town for all but ten of my 48 years. On one side of my family my ancestors have been here since the 1680s, *before* it was the United States.

This is not Iraq. I am not an Iraqi, or any kind of Moslem, or any kind of Mexican or other immigrant, legal or illegal. An American in his own country should not be treated like he's living under military or quasi-military occupation, and he shouldn't have to go around proving he's not a criminal or a terrorist all the time.

I wish I *didn't* have a Socialist Slave Number. I've been known, when asked for it, to tell people that I don't have one -- that the *government* might have some number it uses to designate and track me and the rest of the serfs by, but *I* don't have it, since if *I* had it, it would mine, to do with as I pleased, and it would please me to get rid of it.

I already know that I am not eligible for *any* sort of welfare or government benefits. I'm the wrong race, color, gender, etc. I will almost certainly never draw a *dime* of "Social Security" money, since I've been unemployed so long that I've hardly paid anything into it. Aside from about six weeks' worth of unemployment benefits in early 1980, the only money I've gotten from the government was student loans in the period 1989-1995, and those have all been repaid.

If someone who works for the government (federal, state, or local) wants to make my acquaintance, I will be happy to introduce myself. I'm even thinking of having some little calling cards printed up as soon as I can afford it, identifying me (quite truthfully) as a "Natural-born American," and "Reasonably good guy," and "Member of First Baptist Church." If that's not good enough for them I suppose I can burst into a rousing a capella rendition of "Born In the USA" as they drag me off in shackles for the crime of being -- an undocumented *American*.

Sterc

 

[RevDisk]

Feds and states already share DMV records for the most part. Using a name and SSN, they can get all the information already. This would just make it quicker and easier for them to violate your privacy.

As others have said, it's not that much of a surprise and the implications aren't too horrific. It's just another nick at freedom. One of hundreds.

 

[Slotback]

Your papers, please.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Ya know before coming to this board I always wondered why people would call gun owners "whackos" and "out there", but sadly after reading some of the thoughts from people on this board I now understand.

Why should I have to prove who I am? I know who I am. I was born right here in the United States, in the same state I still reside in, in 1957. I've lived right here in this town for all but ten of my 48 years. On one side of my family my ancestors have been here since the 1680s, *before* it was the United States.

Ok so you know who you are well that's great for you. Am I and everyone else supposed to know who you are? Welcome to the year 2005, where deals are not brokered on a simple handshake and name recognition. Do you honestly believe people are just supposed to take your word for it when you say who you are? Please let's get real here. If you were in any kind of business and were drawing up a contract that had a lot of money involved would you not ask for ID from the person you were dealing with? If not then you are very naiive and I doubt you'd make it very far.

This is not Iraq. I am not an Iraqi, or any kind of Moslem, or any kind of Mexican or other immigrant, legal or illegal. An American in his own country should not be treated like he's living under military or quasi-military occupation, and he shouldn't have to go around proving he's not a criminal or a terrorist all the time.

No you're right this is not Iraq thankfully. However, given that the US has become a target for terrorist radicals all over the world some simple security measures are definately prudent and wise. If you think that having to carry an ID that is not easily forged to show who you are is living under military occupation then you are delusional. Why don't you do some reasearch on what people who REALLY lived under military occupations went through before you open your mouth and put your foot in it again. Calling our country a military occupation is an insult to the masses of people who actually DID have to live under such harsh conditions.

I already know that I am not eligible for *any* sort of welfare or government benefits. I'm the wrong race, color, gender, etc. I will almost certainly never draw a *dime* of "Social Security" money, since I've been unemployed so long that I've hardly paid anything into it. Aside from about six weeks' worth of unemployment benefits in early 1980, the only money I've gotten from the government was student loans in the period 1989-1995, and those have all been repaid.

Angry white man syndrome much? First you moan about how dare the government force you to carry a little card that shows who you are, and now you're complaining that you're not eligible for any sort of government benefits. Try getting rid of the rage and being happy....you might find life is much more enjoyable that way.

If someone who works for the government (federal, state, or local) wants to make my acquaintance, I will be happy to introduce myself. I'm even thinking of having some little calling cards printed up as soon as I can afford it, identifying me (quite truthfully) as a "Natural-born American," and "Reasonably good guy," and "Member of First Baptist Church." If that's not good enough for them I suppose I can burst into a rousing a capella rendition of "Born In the USA" as they drag me off in shackles for the crime of being -- an undocumented *American*.

No comment really needed. You really should save getting all worked up over more important things then someone asking you to identify yourself.

 

[Art Eatman]

Sterculius & DblO: My attitude has long been, "I don't need ID; I know who I am."

But we live in a "real world"--unreal as it may seem at times. Non-forgeable ID is a necessity in this world that all of us of whatever age have contributed to creating. "All" meaning citizens, legal aliens, illegal aliens, honest people and identity-theft crooks.

So let's sorta hold it down to a dull roar.

, Art

 

[flatrock]

Another portion of the bill says that states would be required to link their DMV databases if they wished to receive federal funds. Among the information that must be shared: All data fields printed on drivers' licenses and identification cards, and complete drivers' histories, including motor vehicle violations, suspensions and points on licenses.

This part bothers me. The federal government should be barred from taking away federal funds from states that exert states' rights.

I can see the federal government being able to require certain specifications on identification used to gain access to federal benefits or to be identified in federal programs.

I don't think that the federal government has the right to demand access to the information the state has on it's citizens when no federal law has been broken.

I would be just fine with my state telling the feds to shove it on that issue. I have a passport I can use for identification on those occasions I need to deal with federal employees.

I do like the requirement that proof of legal residence being required to attain a state driver's license, but I think that needs to be implemented by the states, not by mandate of the feds.

 

[sterculius_number_II]

"Terrorist radicals from all over the world" wouldn't get an inch if this were still a truly free country where the Constitution and Bill of Rights were stilll respected and followed, and if actual *Americans" still enjoyed the full, free *exercise* of all their rights, all the time -- in fact, not in theory; in deed, not in word.

The September 11 attacks could not have succeeded if air travel had not *already* long before become a neo-fascistic, Orwelian-dystopian, police state nightmare, unfit for a free people. Free -- that is, *armed* people -- can't be hijacked by some clowns with boxcutters. I haven't flown since the Seventies, and it's not because I'm afraid of flying. It's because I wasn't willing to put up with all the gross violations of my rights anymore.

I *wish* all these mandatory I.D.s were *more* easily counterfeited. I wish I knew how to get really good, solid phony I.D.s, the kind that would stand up to close, high-tech scrutiny. But I have no clue where to go for that, and I doubt I could afford it. Since that's out, I guess the next best thing would be to find a way to live where you didn't need any I.D., perhaps someplace where there was nobody or hardly anybody empowered to demand it, or much of anything else.

When I had to renew my drivers license almost a year ago, and the new one had some kind of bar code on the back of it, it just about made me physically sick to go along with it. I wish I knew a good way to screw up that barcode so nobody could "swipe" it or scan it or "machine-read" it or whatever -- a way that would work but could still be plausibly called "accidental." ("My dog chewed it," "My grandkids played with it," "Gee, I don't know how that whiteout fluid got spilled on it," "I left it in my pants when they went in the clothes dryer, and it sort of got warped from the heat," etc.)

Frankly, even regular drivers' licenses ceased to have anything to do with traffic safety a pretty long time ago. For some time now they've been an all-purpose carrot-and-stick, used to punish "deabeat dads" and kids for leaving the government school system, and so forth.

Just like a Socialist Slave Number, I've got a perfectly valid state driver's license -- and I wish I didn't. I don't think I should have to have either one. I believe driving is a *right*, not a privilege. My "implied consent" was obtained under duress. I "must" drive in order to fulfill certain family obligations. If I had no such family obligations, and could afford a suitable piece of land somewhere, I'd just go live there and seldom if ever leave it.

I mentioned those government benefits because everybody who has been in favor of this measure so far has been justifying it in those terms -- as a way to keep some undeserving wretches from getting something for nothing. It's not that they're getting punitively taxed that bothers them, or that the government is doing all kinds of things it was never constitutionally authorized to do that bothers them -- but that somebody somewhere might be getting something for nothing.

I don't want anything from the government. I don't want anything to do with the government at all, on any level. I wish I could just sort of internally secede from its authority. I mentioned my own near-certain ineligibility for any Social Security or any other benefits to drive home the point that none of this I.D. crap can be construed as being in any sense for my benefit. It's not going to entitle me to a darned thing, and it's not going to make me one bit safer. On the contrary.

Sterc

 

[Control Group]

This part bothers me. The federal government should be barred from taking away federal funds from states that exert states' rights.

Well...I'm all for states' rights, but the argument that the feds shouldn't withhold funding from states exerting their rights doesn't hold water. In a properly federalist world, the states wouldn't be accepting funds from the feds in the first place.

It's a measure of how poorly-run our supposed federal system is that the states have been so completely dependent upon suckling from the feds'...er, milk ducts...that this is a completely effective threat.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Sterc,

I'm not going to go through your whole post, but if that's truely the way you feel then you need to go find some deserted island somewhere and live there. Otherwise you need to adapt to the way society functions here in the U.S.

I will comment on this, however.

I believe driving is a *right*, not a privilege.

Driving clearly IS a privilege and not a right. If you wish to drive on land owned by you then you have that right. However, if you wish to drive on public highways and land that is not owned by you then you have no RIGHT to do so.

 

[flatrock]

sterculius,

When I had to renew my drivers license almost a year ago, and the new one had some kind of bar code on the back of it, it just about made me physically sick to go along with it. I wish I knew a good way to screw up that barcode so nobody could "swipe" it or scan it or "machine-read" it or whatever -- a way that would work but could still be plausibly called "accidental." ("My dog chewed it," "My grandkids played with it," "Gee, I don't know how that whiteout fluid got spilled on it," "I left it in my pants when they went in the clothes dryer, and it sort of got warped from the heat," etc.)

It being possible to read it by a machine seems to be a little outside the issue to me. However, I used to work for a company that made bar code labelers. One thing I found interesting is that some inks that were opaque (black) in normal light, did not absorb the frequency of the light the scanner was using well.

That mean that the ink wasn't useful for bar codes.

You may also be able to find some form of ink that is transparrent to visible light, but interferes with the frequencies used by the scanner well enough to interfer with the bar code being read properly.

I'm not sure what good it would do, considering that if they're scanning your DL, they can also read the information off of the card.

It's not that they're getting punitively taxed that bothers them, or that the government is doing all kinds of things it was never constitutionally authorized to do that bothers them -- but that somebody somewhere might be getting something for nothing.

We can have long discussion on what the government does that is or is not within the powers granted to it under the constitution. I suspect we will agree on many items and disagree on others.

We live in a republic. We vote for those we put in office. I can vote, I can try and influence my representatives, I can do a number of things to try and influence the laws that our government passes. I also have the ability to take the government to court if I disagree with their laws or actions.

I can't force the government to do things the way I think they should do them.

The government entitlement programs exist. They aren't going away any time soon. If I can't prevent my income from being siphoned off to pay for them, I at least want the government to work to make sure the money isn't being given to people fraudulently.

To do that they need to be able to identify people.

To keep voting fair in the United States, they need to make sure those voting are elligible to vote where they are voting. To do that they need to be able to identify people.

I recognize that there are valid reasons for our government to be able to verify we are who we say we are.

I disagree with a number of situations where the government feels that we should identify ourselves.

I disagree with fighting against a standardized and effective identification.

I agree with fighting against abuses of where and how we can be forced to provide that identification.

 

[Old Dog]

"Terrorist radicals from all over the world" wouldn't get an inch if this were still a truly free country where the Constitution and Bill of Rights were stilll respected and followed, and if actual *Americans" still enjoyed the full, free *exercise* of all their rights, all the time -- in fact, not in theory; in deed, not in word.

Whoa ... pretty strong statement there. Have you ever, by the by, traveled to some countries where people really do suffer great losses of freedom? I would suggest a few trips for you (but, oh, wait -- you don't fly) for some experiences to provide real comparison to our system.

By no means do I intend to imply that we are not presently experiencing a number of unsettling movements within our governments that can reasonably be construed as infringements on our Constitutional (and some basic civil) rights -- and much of this results from the un-checked advances in our technology. However, at some point, we do need to sit back and take a more pragmatic view on things ... Not every use of technology is leading us "down the slippery slope" or represents a slice of a larger government conspiracy to give itself the ability to track our every movement.

I'm far more concerned about the curriculum being taught in my childrens' schools, the frightening and almost total bias on the part of the news media, the crap presented to us as entertainment by television, the movie industry and the music industry ... than I am in benign use of technology that will be pretty transparent to most of us in our daily comings-and-goings -- and actually, may in fact contribute more to the public good than it "strips away rights."

 

[Mr. James]

This part bothers me. The federal government should be barred from taking away federal funds from states that exert states' rights.

If I read this bill correctly, and I did read it, the only funds that might be withheld under this measure are grants specifically to comply with this bill. In other words, this is not like the push for lower DWI limits of 0.08 nationwide of a few years ago. In that case, if memory serves, the fed.gov was promising all manners of draconian retaliation (loss of federal highway construction funds) if states didn't toe the line and lower their limits to the mandated 0.08.

Of course, I'm sure that will come to pass on this measure, too - if any state holds out.

 

[WT]

I don't know why this would help. The illegal immigrant who mows my lawn and prunes my bushes has been in the USA for 10 years and has never paid a cent of federal income taxes. He doesn't even have a drivers license. He does have an immaculate beautiful black Ford PU with tandem wheels.

Now he is talking about buying rundown houses, fixing them, and renting them to fellow illegals.

The guy is a real capitalist. Who needs papers?

 

[Rebel Gunman HK]

Right on sterculius_number_II! You tell them!

 

[sterculius_number_II]

Who needs papers, WT? Apparently just real Americans. They're also the only ones who really, really need to be metal-detected, X-rayed, dog-sniffed, body-scanned, frisked, cavity-searched, etc., to get on an airplane.

The guys with the long beards and red headbands with Koranic verses on them, ululating and doing the whirling dervsih dance, just get waved right on through, while octogenarian WW II flying aces have their Congressional Medals of Honor mistaken for ninja throwing stars and confiscated by professional TSA "security" people whose first language isn't even English

Mr James: Ah, yes, the "DUI exception" to the Constitution.

Old Dog: I want to be free and live in a free country so much that I am willing to put up with the existence of certain types of disreputable entertainment and even a lot of bad and stupid behavior. I'm willing to accept the fact that in a truly free country, some knuckleheads will abuse their freedom, at least until they win some kind of Darwin Award. So be it. I'd rather live in a howling anarchy than a police state. Better by far the potential dangers of freedom than the certain dangers of it's lack.

Not so very long ago, the "leave us alone" coalition saw most threats to individual liberty (including the freedom to practice one's religion) as coming from the secular Left. And they were mostly right.

But there's something new in the air now -- a new willingness and even eagerness of the formerly anti-government, "leave us alone" types to embrace and extoll any amount of government intrusion as long as it seems to be in support of whatever they think "wholesome family values" are. I used to be perfectly willing to seek alliances with the anti-abortion people, for instance, against the sort of overweening government that labeled and prosecuted them as "racketeers," and gun owners as "terrorists."

I'm a Christian believer myself, if not an especially devout one, but I have lately grown wary of many on the religious Right, who actually give me the impression that they would be perfectly happy to embrace a police state-type situation (including really draconian gun control/population disarmament) as long as it promised to abolish abortion, get rid of gays, outlaw R-rated movies and questionable cartoons like Sponge Bob Squarepants, criminalize cuss words, stamp out sex, drugs, and rock-'n'-roll, and -- most especially -- bring back alcohol Prohibition and ban beer.

I don't have any kids, but if I did, they sure wouldn't be in the public school system.


Yes, an island would be nice, DoubleOKevin. Or perhaps just a mountain somewhere with only one steep, narrow, winding road to the top, a road plagued by unpredicatably falling rocks, and with a bridge or three prone to mysteriously go "out" on short notice when armed bureacrats showed up wanting to check I.D.s. or demand some other form of "compliance." Unfortunately neither an island nor a mountain is within my financial reach at the moment. Maybe someday.

I wonder how people managed to get around -- clean across continents, even -- before they had to have a license to exercise that privilege? The wholesale carnage must have been dreadful to behold.

Sterc

 

[Old Dog]

Sterc, I will admit that at times in the past, I've shared some of your cynical views... To me at least, some of your thoughts bespeak of a certain lack of faith in the American people, but mainly to a distinct lack of faith in the durability of our Constitution.

For those who share your views -- that the preponderance of our populace are "sheeple" who will go along with whatever our esteemed government authorities come up with next and that our Constitutional rights are being taken away from us, right under our very noses in incremental chunks ... well, I'm just a little more optimistic than that.

Yes, we have reason to be concerned, and we should have watchdogs checking government's abuses of authority ... but I'll take our system (warts and all) over "howling anarchy" any day. I've spent some time in police states, witnessed firsthand virtual anarchy in one or two countries ...and I simply can't see that things here are as bad as you'd have us believe.

We ARE a free country, and we'll stay a free country. As I noted previously, you may want to get some traveling under your belt and perhaps you'd appreciate things here a bit more.

 

[alan]

First, might I suggest that people read H.R. 418, in it's enterity, at www.thomas.loc.gov.

Then with respect to those who are whining here, and perhaps at other sites too, how many of you took the very small trouble to contact, in any way at all, your congress critter BEFORE passage, whatever good that might have accomplished? Any of you planning to contact your U.S. Senators?

Then, respecting the "openendness" of H.R. 418, as with the "minimum standards" mentioned, read the damned bill, as memory serves, the GCA'68 contained some interesting prose, including therein the following. "and The Secretary or his delegate shall promulgate regulations .....".

Does that ring a bell, possibly an alarm bell??