OT Re: [ale] Big Brother Wins, We lose... From /. Real-ID Passes U.S. Senate 100-0

[James Baldwin]

On May 11, 2005, at 11:33 AM, rhia wrote:

> So, true, it's not a REQUIREMENT, any more than the Mafia  
> "requires" you
> to pay protection fees. But, if you want something from either, you  
> have
> to participate in areas you probably would rather not go.

That is a poor analogy. The Federal government should be in a  
position to decide which identification meets its acceptance  
standards. It should not be required to accept any identification as  
binding simply because a State deemed it acceptable within that  
State's boundaries.

It is hypocritical to demand that States be allowed to produce  
whatever identification they wish based on whatever requirements they  
defined and have these accepted everywhere while refusing the Federal  
government be allowed to require that specific identification meet  
its requirements. So, they are not requiring the States do anything  
more than they wish. It will require the citizens of that state to  
secure other forms of identification if they choose to elect  
officials who wish to not meet these _reasonable_ minimum requirements

On May 11, 2005, at 11:52 AM, Mike Murphy wrote:

> Arguing with me about this will be fruitless for those on the right  
> anyway (and anyone on the left that agrees with it).

I prefer not to identify myself with either side, neither encompasses  
my opinions.

> Driver's licenses should be just that: driver's licenses. They  
> shouldn't be national id cards, anymore more that SSN's should be  
> used for our natioinal id numbers for everything.

If driver's licenses should not be used for anything beyond a license  
to drive, what form of identification to you propose for such events  
where it is necessary to prove your identity?

For better or worse, State issued driver licenses have become the de  
facto standard for identity verification. I see this bill as an  
alternative to a national identification card, or any other form of  
State issued identification card which would be necessary if the  
driver's license were to only be used as a license to drive.

> REAL ID might be a good idea, but it doesn't matter, really, does  
> it, since the ruling party allowed *no debate* on it in either  
> house of congress.

Please read the legislation. Its very short and very terse in the  
section concerned with identification. I think you'll see that there  
is very, very little that should have spawned any sort of debate. As  
it is now, all the objections I've heard have very little to do with  
the actual legislation and more to do with overcoming FUD.

 From Schneier's comments:
"The REAL ID Act requires driver's licenses to include a "common  
machine-readable technology." This will, of course, make identity  
theft easier."

Many State issued IDs already do this. Texas does, I'm not positive  
about the Georgia license as I've never cared about decoding it.  
Also, the information included on your license is already a matter of  
public record in many places. Unless they make the mistake of using  
RFID as opposed to a magnetic stripe, they are still in a position of  
physically stealing your ID, in which case they can just read your  
identity information.

"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."

Similarly, if someone is in a position to physically steal your ID,  
then they most likely have access to other equally easy means of  
finding out where you live.

"REAL ID also prohibits states from issuing driver's licenses to  
illegal aliens."

Real ID does not prohibit the state from doing anything. The State  
retains the right to issue a license to an illegal alien. It cannot  
be used in Federal transactions.

"REAL ID is expensive."

Agreed. Funding is always an issue, but no one is strenuously  
objecting to funding.