http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/11/real.id.ap/index.html

Now the federal government is regulating personal ID's that were under the discretion of the individual states. So much for the 10th amendment.

Quote :

""first-ever national identity card system," which "would irreparably damage the fabric of American life.""

What is going to be next; every American will be implemented at birth with microchips that makes them transmit to a tracking data base within the DHS in the name of "national security".

It is funny that in the effort to thwart terrorism we are actually undermining and discrediting our democratic institutions that the enemies of America fight against, as well as eroding the morale high ground.

Quote :

"While a democratic nation espousing civil liberties may claim a sense of higher moral ground than other regimes, an act of terrorism within such a state may cause a perceived dilemma: whether to maintain its civil liberties and thus risk being perceived as ineffective in dealing with the problem; or alternatively to restrict its civil liberties and thus risk delegitimizing its claim of supporting civil liberties. This dilemma, some social theorists would conclude, may very well play into the initial plans of the acting terrorist(s); namely, to delegitimize the state"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/11/real.id.ap/index.html

1/11/2008 9:37:02 AM

I am gonna cry about this

1/11/2008 9:46:11 AM

sounds like you would only need one of these REAL IDs when boarding an airplane or entering a government building

as far as boarding an airplane, it would almost be like a passport that you needed for a domestic flight which doesnt seem like that big of a deal...as far as entering government buildings, well you'd have to get one for that

doesnt seem like you'd need one for just a traffic checkpoint or buying something with a credit card and showing ID, etc...why so much outrage?

i see what you're trying to say about the 10th amendment since it wouldnt be the states issuing these IDs and therefore thats bigger government...i just don't see why anybody is getting so outraged at this, please explain

1/11/2008 9:51:08 AM

In the article it states that there are certain security measures that have to put in place, like checking social security numbers and immigration status of people, before they issue IDs (which, correct me if I'm wrong) makes complete sense. Also says that they take the picture for the ID before they run the check on immigration and SS status, so that they can keep a log if they're denied for one reason or another.

Neither of those two things sound all that bad, and honestly, neither do some of the other things that they're trying to do.

Being from VA, one of the states mentioned that already has strict standards, its really not that bad.

Just my opinion though

1/11/2008 9:54:39 AM

because it's not supposed to be in the federal governments power to do this, and they're basically ignoring it....just another step in the wrong direction....There have been a lot of those in the past 7 or so years.

1/11/2008 9:54:54 AM

but arent you also for the federal government providing healthcare? that would also go against the 10th amendment, and would be much much more expensive than this ID program

but 10th amendment aside, whats so bad about this program? i dont get all the outrage

1/11/2008 9:57:01 AM

hell no, i wouldn't trust the gov to provide healthcare...I' don't even like SS.

1/11/2008 9:57:38 AM

arent passports already vioalting the 10th amendment? granted you only need them for international travel, but they're federal...still trying to find out whats the huge deal...cause contrary to HUR's doom and gloom scenarios, the REAL ID's do not have any type of tracking microchips in them...and your information from your NC license is already accessible by police departments in other states..in other words the process of maintaining your record and giving out drivers licenses is a state process, but you immediately go into a federal database already

1/11/2008 10:00:58 AM

^so your argument is: "Our rights are already being violated, so we shouldn't care if they're trampled a little more"?

it's not practical to have a different passport for every possible state you might fly into from out of country....but the state issued licenses worked quite well. Imo one of the most important reasons the states should reserve their rights is that it gives individual states' citizens greater say in how their state operates.

[Edited on January 11, 2008 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

1/11/2008 10:13:53 AM

no thats not my argument...my argument is how are my rights being violated? the states toes are being stepped on but i dont see anything different from passports in that respect

i guess what im asking is convince me why this is bad for me...aside from having to eventually get one and show it when i board a plane or enter a govt building, instead of showing a state's id which could more easily be counterfeited, how am i being inconvenienced? maybe i just dont think whether its state or federal government who are producing the ID cards really matters cause they all have your information anyway

1/11/2008 10:15:35 AM

Quote :

"my argument is how are my rights being violated"

because everytime the feds take control of something like this, you are losing your say as a state citizen....when this starts, even if the vast majority of north carolinians come to disagree with it, there is nothing we can do. Whereas if it was a state operation (as it is supposed to be), it would be able to be corrected when the majority of the citizens disagree.

[Edited on January 11, 2008 at 10:19 AM. Reason : .]

1/11/2008 10:18:52 AM

but my point is, each of the 50 state governments, and the federal government, all already have access to our information based on our current drivers' licenses...so while the feds would technically be giving out these cards, the information has always been accessible to them...so states versus federal rights aside, how is the storage of the information, the accessability by various local, state, fed govt agencies, the overall act of showing an ID card, how are any of those things going to be different?

aside from actually having to get one of the cards by 2014 or whatever, how else am i going to be inconvenienced?

1/11/2008 10:22:46 AM

Quote :

"Most states currently check Social Security numbers and about half check immigration status. Some, like New York, Virginia, North Carolina and California, already have implemented many of the security measures envisioned in REAL ID."

Doesnt seem like NC citizens will be affected that much by the measure.

And just to be clear, its not like you're going to have to go somewhere different to get the ID, or carry one different from your license. Its the same license, just with more of a background check before you're able to have one.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/11/real.id.ap/index.html
Same story as linked above....

[Edited on January 11, 2008 at 10:26 AM. Reason : added link]

1/11/2008 10:25:51 AM

Quote :

"because it's not supposed to be in the federal governments power to do this, and they're basically ignoring it....just another step in the wrong direction."

exactly

Quote :

"arent passports already vioalting the 10th amendment?"

Yes and No

I do not think so as far as international travel goes. As a NC citizen I can fly into the UK direct from RDU. Then lets say my return flight has a layover in NY. It would be really tough for the NY customs officer to have knowledge of all 50 states passports. On the other hand for domestic flights I think having to show a passport versus a state issued ID is a violation of the 10th. Due to obvious reasons being able to validate authenticity of an ID is much more critical for international travel. Much like I do not have to show ID when i drive to S. Carolina but do have to stop when I cross the US border to Canada.

1/11/2008 10:29:27 AM

^^^by losing your say in the matter (or at the very least, having it severely diluted)

and I agree, the info is already accessible. Imo that means there is no real reason for this...they say they'll make it harder to get fake ID's, but, unless these ID's are actually scanned for info every time you have to present it, I don't see how it'll help much (especially for terrorism, where they have a lot of resources at their disposal).

and if they are scanned (which they probably will be eventually), we've got a whole new set of problems. As said before, this is yet another step in the wrong direction.

[Edited on January 11, 2008 at 10:34 AM. Reason : .]

1/11/2008 10:33:46 AM

well you still wouldnt have to show your REAL ID if you drove into another state

i get the point about why passports make more sense...i guess i just think this isnt a big dal...not necessarily with the constitutional issues...but just that its not really going to affect my life much

and i think the extreme end of this, ie microchips in arms, etc....that shit is never going to happen...everybody and their brother will get outraged at something like that...the REAL ID thing isnt nearly as invasive

seems like the people truly concerned about this would be the same type of people to never have a bank account, credit card, etc, or anything else with any type of mention of them in the system

1/11/2008 10:34:23 AM

Quote :

"that shit is never going to happen...everybody and their brother will get outraged at something like that...the REAL ID thing isnt nearly as invasive"

2014- REAL ID

20??- new ID with tracking systme (assured by the gov it will not be abused)

20??- chip implantation

they don't totally strip you of your rights at first, they're smarter than that...you have to breed a little apathy first.

1/11/2008 10:38:13 AM

theres a massive difference in people caring about which branch of government issues them an ID card, and for anybody to implant a microchip in them...we already have IDs and need them for various things...we're simply getting them from a different govt branch with REAL IDs...we dont already have computer chips implanted in us...seriously...the majority of people would flip out if anything like that was proposed

1/11/2008 10:55:06 AM

were not getting them from anyone else!!!!!!!!

they're still coming from the DMV they just have to enact the security measures that the DHS says!

1/11/2008 10:56:24 AM

i understand that

1/11/2008 10:57:09 AM

the DHS sucks

1/11/2008 10:57:56 AM

Quote :

"sounds like you would only need one of these REAL IDs when boarding an airplane or entering a government building. i dont get all the outrage"

The outrage is coming from people who are considering the unintended consequences of expanding federal power.

First off Chertoff said: "We worked very closely with the states in terms of developing a plan that I think will be inexpensive, reasonable to implement and produce the results,"

From past experience with federal programs, I would predict that this one will be MORE expensive, LESS reasonable to implement and NOT produce the results they want.

The idea might seem reasonable and not very intrusive right now...but that is how these types of programs are sold to the public. The income tax was originally only suppose to effect the super-rich...never the working man.

The new-deal politicians who pushed through the Social Security card promised it would never be used as a national ID card. And now the IRS routinely demands your SS number.

Imagine if national healthcare becomes a reality. Will you be denied medical attention if you cannot produce a REAL-ID? What if your REAL-ID card someday has a microchip added that contains the list of foods your are permitted to purchase at a store....you know to keep medical costs down.
What if in the interests of protecting the children, you must produce a REAL-ID card in order to buy anything that can access the internet?

We fear REAL-ID not because of what is being promised, but because of what it can become.

1/11/2008 10:58:38 AM

Quote :

"simply getting them from a different govt branch"

sorry, sounded like you were implying we're getting them from somewhere else.

1/11/2008 10:59:00 AM

One of my biggest qualms with the 16th amendment is not just the gov't stealing from my paycheck it is the fact that it gives them the coin purse to trump states rights and expand the power of the federal govt'.

1/11/2008 11:02:09 AM

^^^great post.

1/11/2008 11:03:20 AM

i just think some of the outrage tends to come from people who arent outraged at the cards or this process itself, but just scared of what MIGHT happen in the future

i mean maybe this will lead to the government implanting chips in newborn babies' brains at birth so they can control them their whole lives...but probably not

1/11/2008 11:11:05 AM

need this ID to board an airplane?

sounds like the road to:

1/11/2008 11:24:10 AM

If they want to thwart terrorism, I think offensive measures need to be implemented on foreign turf.
If they want to thwart illegal immigration, I think offensive measures need to be implemented at the border.

Defensive measures should not be implemented on it's own citizens. Fix the problem at the source. Of course, this is just my philosophy.

In football, they say a good defense is a good offense. So, somehow, we need to elect people who will provide good offensive measures.

1/11/2008 11:31:58 AM

Quote :

"If they want to thwart terrorism, I think offensive measures need to be implemented on foreign turf. If they want to thwart illegal immigration, I think offensive measures need to be implemented at the border."

i agree on both counts, but no system is perfect and a few are bound to slip through the cracks...hopefully this new ID will help keep track of them

i just dont think we should act like these are microchips implanted in our bodies cause they're not

1/11/2008 11:35:12 AM

Quote :

"hopefully this new ID will help keep track of them never happen"

1/11/2008 12:05:19 PM

Why the hell are we so dependent on a document whose original purpose is to prove that you're licensed to drive on public roads? State transportation departments really shouldn't be burdened with all this identity bullshit in the first place. If they really want to implement an identification card, do it through a local fatherland security office and let the DMV do what it's supposed to do - regulate motor vehicles.

I always use my US Passport for ID, since it doesn't show my address and the number is far less useful to an identity thief. The liquor store clerk doesn't have any right to know where I live. If we use passports to enter and leave the country, why the hell won't we be able to use them to board a plane?

It's really stupid that we require SSNs for drivers licenses in the first place. It started with a law intended to crack down on deadbeat parents owing child support, but now it's pushing the SSN way further into the realm of a national identification number (which FDR assured the American public it would never be).

Illegal immigrants getting licenses wouldn't be so bad if public roads were supported by sales taxes and license/retistration fees instead of income taxes. The immigrants would then be paying for roads just like taxpayers. If they're here, they're gonna drive, we might as well make sure they know how to drive safely.

There's really no point in verifying the identity of airline passengers, a terrorist by any other name would be just as dangerous. Thorough screening of passengers and luggage is the best way to prevent dangerous materials from being taken on board. I remember an episode of "Airline" where a passenger opted for more rigorous screening instead of providing ID, and the steward said they now knew more about him than they did about any of the other passengers.

As for banks, why not just go to the numbered account system like Switzerland used to use? It's no one's damn business how much money I have or where I spend it. I do have a bank account so that I can cash checks but I use cash, anonymous prepaid credit cards, or money orders for every purchase.

1/11/2008 12:39:20 PM

Quote :

"There's really no point in verifying the identity of airline passengers, a terrorist by any other name would be just as dangerous. Thorough screening of passengers and luggage is the best way to prevent dangerous materials from being taken on board. I remember an episode of "Airline" where a passenger opted for more rigorous screening instead of providing ID, and the steward said they now knew more about him than they did about any of the other passengers. As for banks, why not just go to the numbered account system like Switzerland used to use?"

Big Brother wouldn't like this.

1/11/2008 12:48:51 PM

Quote :

"as far as entering government buildings, well you'd have to get one for that"

Quote :

"why so much outrage?"

Because you shouldn't need to register with the government to get your day in court or get your voice heard.

1/11/2008 12:49:58 PM

^you're already registered with the govt if you have a court date

1/11/2008 12:50:01 PM

If hooksaw and ouerve had their way we'd be fueling our tanks up to take over our evil enemies of N. Korea, Iran, and Venezuela by the end of 08

1/11/2008 12:51:09 PM

hopefully it gets stalled long enough for some democrat to cancel this fucking shit

1. This will have a more dangerous unintended consequence -- unlicensed people driving and running from cops, accidents, etc. More importantly, most people are too fucking dumb to realize that illegals are a net benefit for the country.

But hey, it's an election year, the economy is down, the country is becoming too brown, and lazy slobs always want to blame others for their life's ills.

2. 911 terrorists got valid IDs through legal means. In the future, see 3

3. This shit is only a speed bump in identity theft. It may even make it easier since you have a monolithic, single point of failure. Counterfeiters will definitely figure out how to copy the card. People have been counterfeiting more complicated smart cards for years. As long as the financial incentive is there, thieves are going to figure out a way.

4. Now the government has a record of your airline travel to which it doesn't have a right. If it wants to know my travel history, get probable cause, go to a fucking court, get a subpoena. Spying on 300 million people is not worth the sub-marginal increase in security.


[Edited on January 12, 2008 at 3:42 AM. Reason : PAPERS PLEASE]

1/12/2008 3:39:18 AM

its a brave new world.....

the terrorists won 9/11 fundamentally....

1/12/2008 4:28:45 AM

another point from another site

Quote :

"The idea is that a single, unified ID is subject to single, unified flaws. Rather than identity theft just affecting credit, it will affect credit, ability to travel, employability, and so on. The diversity of ID currently in use in the US is a good thing. Killing that off in the name of one huge database just means that when government screws it up, which they will, all of us will be entirely screwed."

I don't know about you, but I've frequently had things in various records incorrect because some low paid tool made an error (hopefully just an honest error).

-----

There needs to be a court ruling or amendment stating that joining databases and data mining them violates privacy. When the constitution was made, the writers obviously did not consider the data analysis capabilities we would have today and how it would affect privacy. It's time to take advantage of the amendment process to update the constitution to match the times.

To protect privacy at the same level it was back in the day, either the government can't join databases or it can't collect as much information. Any information the government collects has to be voluntarily given up or retrieved using court order with probable cause. Then, once this information is collected, there have to be clear limits on how long the government can hold on to this information before it is required to destroy it. Entering a federal building does not entitle the government to know about that fact forever.

The government, by default, has no right to any information about people. You simply can't trust the government to responsibly use information. The government does not get the benefit of the doubt. There's too much room for corrupt, incompetent, or malicious government functionaries to fuck you over. There's also too much room for 3rd parties to game the system in order to fuck you over.

[Edited on January 12, 2008 at 5:12 AM. Reason : .]

1/12/2008 5:10:27 AM

I'm with Twista in that I really don't see anything invasive about these new REAL IDs in regards to my personal life... I don't feel violated by it, actually it seems to me like it would make all the bullshit we go through in things involving IDs (such as airport checks) much more efficient to be a single card. As for the argument that it is taking away from states rights and thereby our rights to have a say in the matter... I really don't see any scenario in which my opinion would matter to our state government either... excluding of course the existence of politicians working for the good of the people, which we all know never happens.

You also might think it horrible of me to say this, but I also think that it would be a great idea to have a tracking chip placed into these REAL ID cards. Granted, the government would be able to find out where you are (or where your ID is) at any time, but when compared with all the potential benefits of this, its really not that harmful. First of all, it would become significantly easier to track down missing persons and in some cases kidnapped persons, potentially saving lives. Also, while some might think that the government will use this to watch your every move and pin something illegal on you... how could they possibly do this within the law? Not only is there no way to prove that you took any illegal actions simply by knowing your location (without additional evidence, anyway... unless you were breaking a restraining order or something), but given the population that would own these cards, it is hardly viable for them to even store previous locations... only detect the location at the present point in time.

As for the original post, I hardly think that a national ID card would "irreparably damage the fabric of my life". If anything, it'll make life easier for everyone involved.


^The quote from another site does make a good point. There would indeed be a major risk inherent in this ID system that might cause a person's entire life to be stolen. This could be overcome by people being responsible and calling the appropriate service as soon as they find their ID is missing (assuming also that said service is readily available), and/or a slightly more strict check on ID legitimacy.
Of course, the quote also fails to note that most people carry the cards that they use daily in some form of wallet, anyway, and if the wallet gets stolen then the exact same thing has the potential to happen.

[Edited on January 12, 2008 at 5:19 AM. Reason : .]

1/12/2008 5:14:53 AM

so little kids touring the white house in 2014 will have to present ID at the door?

^and i'm not the biggest privacy freak in the world, but i can EASILY see how the gov't could and would abuse a tracking chip. hell they might not be able to track 300 million people all the time. but they could easily track and store a few hundred thousand who they think might-maybe-at-some-point-perhaps do something they don't like.

[Edited on January 12, 2008 at 5:20 AM. Reason : .]

1/12/2008 5:16:15 AM

they already have to get background checks...

1/12/2008 5:19:10 AM

Will the ID even be issued to children, or only those old enough to get a drivers license and such?

^^The key is that I said "within the law". If the government is going to illegally track you, they're probably going to do it with or without a card in your posession... if anything this gives you a better opportunity to ditch said illegal watchdog simply by leaving your ID at home when you go do something suspicious.

[Edited on January 12, 2008 at 5:22 AM. Reason : .]

1/12/2008 5:20:35 AM

and as far as "making the airport id check more efficient": i just spent the better part of two days in and out of airports in the past week and all they EVER did with my id was make sure that my name matched the name on my boarding pass.

1/12/2008 5:21:56 AM

If you like the convenience of the new system and the new database, fine. Make it opt-in for dumbasses like^^. I'll take the inconvenience of disjoint, non-electronic ID any day of the week. The inconvenience of the old system is worth the trade off.

To steal a page from libertarian fags, suppose we assign property rights to our personal privacy (it's interesting to consider privacy another form of intellectual property?). The idea that information has monetary value certainly makes sense considering that data mining companies pay good money for any of it. People like ^^ will give up their information to these companies rather cheaply, while I would charge these companies a higher price.

Once you establish a privacy property right, you can establish monetary value, which you can then use to quantitatively weigh whether the government is adequately compensating us for stealing our privacy rights.

Hell, if we really want to see the actual cost-benefit of the government taking private information, just require the government to employ private companies to distribute real ids rather than legislating it. The companies would then have to go out and market the real ids and convince (free ipod?) people to use them.

The government would get the bill for these efforts. I suspect that we'd find out that people really do value privacy a hell of a lot more than ^^. We'd be able to see the cost of giving everyone a real id would outweigh the cost of performing solid investigative work and using the courts to get information.

[Edited on January 12, 2008 at 5:52 AM. Reason : .]

1/12/2008 5:32:36 AM

Quote :

"how could they possibly do this within the law"

u rly think Cheney gives a shit about the law??? according to him he's the mysterious 4th branch of gov't.

1/12/2008 12:58:06 PM

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution ... or have failed their purpose ... or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty, and in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

-Barry Goldwater

1/12/2008 1:22:36 PM

this wont make it past the Supreme Court.

1/12/2008 1:30:57 PM

it wouldn't be the first thing that's slipped through the cracks of the Court over the last, oh, 75 years.

1/12/2008 1:33:39 PM

well to be fair they can't make up a case

someone has to bring it.


so when it offends you enough and injures you enough to bring an action, then file your writ, argue it, and get it changed.

1/12/2008 2:24:59 PM

Hail Bush!

1/12/2008 6:17:57 PM