Papers please: Real ID - coming to a police state near you!

[Silicon]

One step away from Soviet Russia, if you ask me.


I love it when laws this huge are automatically about to be passed without debate. It makes me so secure in our democracy.




http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html



What say we head this off at the pass, and seed the Rapture Ready folk with "mark of the beast" rumors.

[Upchurch]

This is the first I've heard of this. I've tried to Google an article that is for this bill, but I was unsuccessful. I'd like to hear the other side.

[WildCat]

Remember a few months back when the liberal pundits and the "Jersey Girls" were upset because they thought the President and Republicans in Congress were dragging their feet on implementing ALL the recommendations from the 9/11 Commission? From page 30: (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/911finalrpt/ch12.pdf)
Recommendation: Secure identification should begin in the United
States.The federal government should set standards for the issuance
of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers
licenses. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem
of theft. At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including
gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity
to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check
whether they are terrorists.

I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by WildCat
I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

If it's so sensible and above-board, why stick it into a military spending bill?

[crimresearch]

Business as usual..

Tying unrelated things to appropriations bills has been going on for quite a while...
come next election, anyone who voted against, is accused of 'Voting to cut needed supplies and ammunition to our young men and women risking their lives overseas'.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Upchurch
This is the first I've heard of this. I've tried to Google an article that is for this bill, but I was unsuccessful. I'd like to hear the other side.

Don't you worry your pretty head. It's already passed the House, and it's set to pass the Senate tomorrow. I'm sure the media will get around to covering it sometime before Big Brother shows up. ;-)


Try searching yahoo for "real id", I get half a million hits.




It sounds like it may have been a good idea were it thoughtfully implimented. This seems like a very rushed, rash move. Not discussed or debated. Security experts seem quite unanimously against this. That makes me very nervous.

Here's a link to the Electronic Privacy Information Center's page on Real ID.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/id_cards/

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Business as usual..

Tying unrelated things to appropriations bills has been going on for quite a while...
come next election, anyone who voted against, is accused of 'Voting to cut needed supplies and ammunition to our young men and women risking their lives overseas'.

Which suggests such actions are only necessary when the thing in question wouldn't pass on its own.

Like Janeane Garafelo getting a job without Ben Stiller.

[crimresearch]

Naahh..the ones they really want to hide, like Congressional pay raises, they sneak back into session in the middle of the night to pass.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Silicon
Don't you worry your pretty head. It's already passed the House, and it's set to pass the Senate tomorrow. I'm sure the media will get around to covering it sometime before Big Brother shows up. ;-)


Try searching yahoo for "real id", I get half a million hits.Yeah, 'cause I'm an idiot. :rolleyes:

I didn't say I couldn't find anything on this bill. I said I couldn't find the opinion of someone who was for this bill. The searches I did came up with either those against it or opinion neutral(-ish) informative pieces.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Yeah, 'cause I'm an idiot. :rolleyes:

I didn't say I couldn't find anything on this bill. I said I couldn't find the opinion of someone who was for this bill. The searches I did came up with either those against it or opinion neutral(-ish) informative pieces.

I didn't mean to imply anything negative or nasty.

I didn't get that you didn't find anything positive for the bill.

I'd love to hear the "other side" as well. Maybe we'll hear that after they've enacted this law, for our own good.

Again, I'm really worried that we've rushed into basically a big-brother papers please change in a fundamental freedom in America, without any debate at all.

It's the lack of debate that's the problem. That must be crystal clear in the fact that I can find thousands of articles against this law, you can't find ONE for it, yet it's set to pass today!

See you in the gulag!

[varwoche]

'Real ID' Act Could Help ID Thieves: (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1813660,00.asp) Security experts have expressed dismay about new legislation that will usher in the nation's first national ID system—citing a lack of confidence in the government's ability to employ the technology in such a way as to prevent citizens from being preyed upon by identity thieves.
How Real ID will affect you: (http://news.com.com/FAQ+How+Real+ID+will+affect+you+-+page+2/2100-1028_3-5697111-2.html?tag=st.num) The Real ID Act says federally accepted ID cards must be "machine readable," and lets Homeland Security determine the details. That could end up being a magnetic strip, enhanced bar code, or radio frequency identification (RFID) chips.

In the past, Homeland Security has indicated it likes the concept of RFID chips. The State Department is already going to be embedding RFID devices in passports Realize that with RFID, your personal information is broadcast for a range of ~ 40 ft. And with the new passports, it's unencrypted.


Two recent NPR pieces (audio):
The Real ID Act Raises Privacy issues (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4632952)
Impact of Standardizing License Requirements in U.S. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4628862)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Upchurch
This is the first I've heard of this. I've tried to Google an article that is for this bill, but I was unsuccessful. I'd like to hear the other side.

Took me less than a minute to find one: http://www.wrn.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=9B3C14A6-3C12-4FE6-B79E14D3D60B8333&dbtranslator=local.cfm

[Luke T.]

Here's another one:

http://www.fairus.org/Legislation/Legislation.cfm?ID=2636&c=66

Just as the States expect the federal government to issue trustworthy, verifiable documents they can use for identification purposes, this legislation sets forth the federal government's expectation that the States do the same. This is not preemption; this is cooperation and common sense. We must have minimum standards of identity security, regardless of who issues the document.

[Luke T.]

And another one:
http://www.balance.org/alerts/alert05aa2.html

[Luke T.]

Silicon, exactly what is it you are afraid of with a "real ID" or "National ID Card"?

Your neighborhood supermarket has more information on you than Uncle Sam.

Hell, there are businesses in your town that you have never been to that have more information on you than Uncle Sam.

And if you travel, you already need papers. Papers for which you had to give up your birth date, SSN, address and phone number.

So what new horror will a "real ID" bring, exactly?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Silicon, exactly what is it you are afraid of with a "real ID" or "National ID Card"?

Your neighborhood supermarket has more information on you than Uncle Sam.

Hell, there are businesses in your town that you have never been to that have more information on you than Uncle Sam.

And if you travel, you already need papers. Papers for which you had to give up your birth date, SSN, address and phone number.

So what new horror will a "real ID" bring, exactly?

What information the supermarket has on me is, I think, immaterial to the question for the following reasons:

1: I decide whether or not to be anonymous in my dealings with the supermarket. I can pay cash and refuse a club card. My anonymity (say if I buy condoms or a copy of 2600 magazine or Gun Dealer monthly) is under my control. If I CHOOSE to surrender it, it is my private dealing with the company I am doing business. It is not compelled by the government.

2: The store cannot compel me to submit my personal information. The state can.

3: I can go to another store if I don't like their privacy policy.

4: Their information on me is spotty. Sure, they know I buy pampers, but they don't know that I drive a green camaro and that I live at X address.

The other things they know about me, I'd also like to cut out. I'm in favor of them knowing much less than they do. But that's another law to pass. Because the supermarket knows a lot about me isn't reason to gut my privacy more. Just because one horse got out doesn't mean you let the whole herd run free.



What new horrors would Real ID bring? A very sloppy law with huge security flaws.

A requirement that everyone provide their actual address, not a po box. Everybody? Including undercover police officers? Federal Judges? Yep.

A loophole that allows the head of the department of homeland security to set the requirements. So if he says RIFD, then we're all broadcasting our personal information.

Longer, much much longer lines at the DMV. Now you have to bring in lots of documents proving you're you. And those have to be verified by the DMV by contacting the halls of records to confirm them. Expect the wait for your new "federally approved" license to take a fair bit of time.

False security. If the Federal Government is accepting drivers licenses to let people into nuclear power plants, as sensenbrenner says, then it's time to STOP that. This is the worst way to control who gets into nuclear power plants. Don't put it on the state of Ohio DMV employees to decide who gets into nuke plants in Texas.

A driver's license is a license to operate a motor vehicle. It should not be a pre-requisite for travelling on an airplane, enter a nuclear power plant or any of that nonsense.

No security oversite for the DMV employees themselves. They do not have the security clearance to issue these keys to the kingdom. Ten bucks behind the back gets you a fake id in some states. This doesn't address that. It merely laminates the fake id in gold, and says "This person is secure."

Fake id's are still fake ids. Everyone has a cousin's old driver's license that kinda looks like them. It should not be assumed to be a golden key to the kingdom. That's false security.

Oopsie, I lost my license on the bus. Good thing they all have machine readable data on them. El-cracko, instant identity theft!


But the worst part of this whole thing is the rushed passing of this law. If it's SO GREAT, why can't we discuss this in a national dialogue? Why is every state governor in the union, including Republicans against this?

Can you really excuse the rushed fashion of this law, such that NO debate or conference was ever held on the subject?

[Silicon]

Some other points brought up in the follow up to the link I posted.

1: This is totally the opposite of Role-Based access Control.

http://csrc.nist.gov/rbac/

The idea that your driver's license should license you to drive, NOT board a plane, not enter a nuke plant. Not hunt or fish. This makes sense. If a state revokes my license to drive (say I'm old and can't pass the eye exam), that bears no relation to my ability to fly in a plane.


2: This is easily scammed, because a photo-id is not proof of who you are. It's just proof of the fact that you once had in your posession a birth certificate of who you claim to be.

3: A Driver's license is a convienent way to verify small transactions, like checks at a grocery store. It is a TERRIBLE way to verify people when the stakes are life and death.

4: This is really just a law that is meant to keep states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, couched in national security arguments. Arguments for this actually helping national security seem overblown.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Silicon
4: Their information on me is spotty. Sure, they know I buy pampers, but they don't know that I drive a green camaro and that I live at X address.

Actually, they do. My wife received an ad from a local vet within one week of our moving cross country. They knew we had a black lab and our new address. We started receiving children supply outlet ads within a week of our kids being born. Some of them congratulated us on the birth of our twins! My wife wasn't even home from the hospital yet!

They all get their information from the same source. I know this because I called the vet and asked them how the hell they knew so much about us already. There is a company which collects every bit of personal data on you there is and makes it available to every retailer in America.

You would have a hell of a time avoiding that situation. You would have to live in a non-utility-connected shack in the woods like the Unabomber to avoid it. You have no privacy. You have no choice.


Longer, much much longer lines at the DMV. Now you have to bring in lots of documents proving you're you.

And how is this a bad thing? It is precisely because anyone can find out anything they want about you and steal your identity that demands we need you to prove you are you for your own protection.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Luke T.
And how is this a bad thing? It is precisely because anyone can find out anything they want about you and steal your identity that demands we need you to prove you are you for your own protection.

And if you have a fake Real ID, it will be accepted as proof you are someone else.

The problem with making impeccable credentials is that the fake credentials, if good enough, will receive all the trust granted to the real ones. It's like having all the keys in the building interchangeable--yeah, that one key is now really convenient and grants the user access to everything, but now all the villains have to do is copy one key and they get it all.

[Silicon]

Shorter Luke T. :

"Stop worrying and love the Bomb."


Again you fall back on, "You've got very little privacy left. What're you going to do with that last bit anyway?"

Why are you ignoring the security concerns given? Those are salient points. What Tragic Monkey said is true, and it's what security experts are very concerned about.

Privacy is only one part of the puzzle, security is the other.

Here we give up some measure of both, for PRETEND security. Not a good bargain.

Care to defend the rushed way this is going through congress? Or should I just stop worrying and trust Dear Leader?


I'm not sure if you're a knee-jerk Republican or not, but I would ask any knee-jerk republican this question, "Would you trust Janet Reno with the unchecked powers this allows?"

[thaiboxerken]

They should just tattoo newborns with UPC symbols at birth.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Silicon
Some other points brought up in the follow up to the link I posted.

1: This is totally the opposite of Role-Based access Control.

http://csrc.nist.gov/rbac/

The idea that your driver's license should license you to drive, NOT board a plane, not enter a nuke plant. Not hunt or fish. This makes sense. If a state revokes my license to drive (say I'm old and can't pass the eye exam), that bears no relation to my ability to fly in a plane.


2: This is easily scammed, because a photo-id is not proof of who you are. It's just proof of the fact that you once had in your posession a birth certificate of who you claim to be.

3: A Driver's license is a convienent way to verify small transactions, like checks at a grocery store. It is a TERRIBLE way to verify people when the stakes are life and death.

4: This is really just a law that is meant to keep states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, couched in national security arguments. Arguments for this actually helping national security seem overblown.
So you're against showing an ID to board a plane? You also don't think the DMV should know who you are?

And you won't need a drivers license to board a plane or any of those other things you worry about. A state ID also works just fine. And what other country grants drivers licenses to illegal immigrants?

As for #3 - would you rather have retinal scans and DNA samples before boarding a plane?

I really just don't see what the big deal is about all of this. None of those "the sky is falling" web sites make a bit of sense to me. ID thieves have a pretty easy time now, and I don't see how this will make it any easier. Most states already have magnetic stripos on their licenses, after all. Many (if not most) states already meet the proposed requirements. And it was recommended by the infallible 9/11 commission, right?

[thaiboxerken]

My problem with the real ID act is that it will cost more money to enact. What will be the benefits of real ID?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Silicon
Shorter Luke T. :

"Stop worrying and love the Bomb."

Yeah. And Sieg Heil and all that. That's me. :rolleyes:


Again you fall back on, "You've got very little privacy left. What're you going to do with that last bit anyway?"

I'm saying that what you think you have, you don't. What you think this ID will do, it won't.

thaiboxerken makes the best argument of all:

originally posted by thaiboxerken
My problem with the real ID act is that it will cost more money to enact. What will be the benefits of real ID?

About the only benefit I can see is that those states which are slack on ID security will have to meet a higher standard.

What this is really is a states rights issue. Not a privacy issue. Another solution might be for Uncle Sam to say which states it thinks meets a level of security which Uncle Sam likes. Then blackball those states that don't meet federal guidelines and not allow airlines and other federally regulated organizations to accept ID from those states as valid enough to board an airplane, etc.

Yeah. So if you are from Mississippi, you can't fly. Bummer. But at least Mississippi will have maintained their sovereignty.

[Silicon]

No, I don't think you should have to show id to board a plane.

Check my body and my luggage for weapons. Give me a full screening if you have to. Extra scrutiny if I don't show ID.

But once I'm cleared, there's no reason they need to know who I am. Why does the government keep that data? Why do they continue to track my movements?


I fail to see how a driver's license is proof of zero ill intent. Tim Mc Veigh had a legal driver's license, and still would under Real ID.

Real ID does nothing to protect us from terror.

The DMV should know exactly who you are, IF you CHOOSE to be licensed to drive. But the amount of background check the DMV does should be proportional to the amount of damage you do to other drivers if it's wrong. It's not the same as an FBI background security check, or a Secret Service vetting, etc.

The DMV is really good at telling if you can drive or not. They're not really good at telling if you are a national threat, or even if you are who you say you are.

What's to stop a terrorist from going to the DMV with a forged birth certificate, or a stolen one? Nothing.

What's to stop a terrorist from stealing people's wallets who look kind of like them?

If I were Mohammah Atta, I'd hang out in an arabic neighborhood and nip people's wallets who looked just a little bit like my friends.

Feel safe?


Bad security makes people complacent. They will think the ID's are secure, rather than today, assuming they're not.

Very dangerous.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Silicon
False security. If the Federal Government is accepting drivers licenses to let people into nuclear power plants, as sensenbrenner says, then it's time to STOP that. This is the worst way to control who gets into nuclear power plants. Don't put it on the state of Ohio DMV employees to decide who gets into nuke plants in Texas.


I agree with you that if you only need a driver's license to get into a nuclear power plant, that needs to be stopped. But I am not so sure Sensenbrenner wasn't talking out of his ass.

I agree with Sensenbrenner that we need to stop giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Luke T.

I'm saying that what you think you have, you don't. What you think this ID will do, it won't.


Argument by assertion.

Care to address my points?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Silicon
No, I don't think you should have to show id to board a plane.

Hi, I'm Silicon, where is my seat?

Check my body and my luggage for weapons. Give me a full screening if you have to. Extra scrutiny if I don't show ID.

And none of this is an invasion of privacy, right? :rolleyes:

But once I'm cleared, there's no reason they need to know who I am. Why does the government keep that data? Why do they continue to track my movements?

They don't need to track your movements. You think the FBI gives a sh*t about your movements? No pun intended. You think they have the time to track every little Sillicon's movements? This is paranoia.

I fail to see how a driver's license is proof of zero ill intent. Tim Mc Veigh had a legal driver's license, and still would under Real ID.

Would any of the 9/11 terrorists have a Real ID?

Real ID does nothing to protect us from terror.

The 9/11 commission seems to feel differently. Should Bush ignore the warnings from them and go fishing instead?

What's to stop a terrorist from going to the DMV with a forged birth certificate, or a stolen one? Nothing.

Why make it easier?

What's to stop a terrorist from stealing people's wallets who look kind of like them?

If I were Mohammah Atta, I'd hang out in an arabic neighborhood and nip people's wallets who looked just a little bit like my friends.

And of course no one who had their wallet nipped would report it.

Feel safe?


Bad security makes people complacent. They will think the ID's are secure, rather than today, assuming they're not.

Very dangerous.

So you are saying that less secure IDs are better!

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Silicon
Argument by assertion.

Care to address my points?

Care to prove your claims?

[TragicMonkey]

I just can't believe so much power is attached to the birth certificate. Mine, being issued by a Mississippi hospital in the seventies, looks about as professional as something made by an underfunded Sunday school printing out "Certificates of Participation" for a Field Day on an oldfashioned mimeograph machine. Unless someone tracks down the doctor who signed it and asks him to identify me from his memory of me as a baby, what the heck does it prove? That someone was born somewhere at a particular time in a particular place, not that I am that person.

And yet I can use that, together with my lovely unlaminated Social Security card, which is looking the worse for wear after a couple of decades, to "prove" I am who I claim to be. Now I'll be able to use those to get this new fancy ID, which will be accepted completely, because it's based on the old IDs...which are not as great as the new one predicated upon them? How does that work, the more trustworthy ID is born of the less trustworthy, the new from the old, the techno-wonder from the photo-less paper? Is it magic? "We can't accept your cruddy old ID as proof of who you are! Take it to the office, and they'll accept it to issue you the new ID that we will accept!"

I feel safe!

[thaiboxerken]

Would any of the 9/11 terrorists have a Real ID?

What leads you to believe that they wouldn't?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Silicon
Oopsie, I lost my license on the bus. Good thing they all have machine readable data on them. El-cracko, instant identity theft!

Your current driver's license has your address on it. And some states use your SSN as the license number.

So what new information does a Real ID have on it to aid in identity theft?

Exactly what electronic data will a Real ID have on it? Could be nothing more than a keycode. Doesn't have to be your SSN, address, etc.

If you lose it, a phone call to the issuer and it can be cancelled immediately, just like a hotel key. And even if the thief cracks the code, he has a useless keycode.

edited to add: Come to think of it, that would give a Real Id a real edge over current driver's licenses. There is nothing on a current driver's license that would let you immediately know it is invalid/stolen.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I just can't believe so much power is attached to the birth certificate. Mine, being issued by a Mississippi hospital in the seventies, looks about as professional as something made by an underfunded Sunday school printing out "Certificates of Participation" for a Field Day on an oldfashioned mimeograph machine. Unless someone tracks down the doctor who signed it and asks him to identify me from his memory of me as a baby, what the heck does it prove? That someone was born somewhere at a particular time in a particular place, not that I am that person.

And yet I can use that, together with my lovely unlaminated Social Security card, which is looking the worse for wear after a couple of decades, to "prove" I am who I claim to be. Now I'll be able to use those to get this new fancy ID, which will be accepted completely, because it's based on the old IDs...which are not as great as the new one predicated upon them? How does that work, the more trustworthy ID is born of the less trustworthy, the new from the old, the techno-wonder from the photo-less paper? Is it magic? "We can't accept your cruddy old ID as proof of who you are! Take it to the office, and they'll accept it to issue you the new ID that we will accept!"

I feel safe!

Okay, TM. Make up a SSN and a name and date of birth and try to pass them off at the DMV. See you in ten years when you get out of prison.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Okay, TM. Make up a SSN and a name and date of birth and try to pass them off at the DMV. See you in ten years when you get out of prison.

My point is that they can successfully check to see whether the date of birth, the name, and the Social Security number exist and all match up to the same person. What the documents cannot do, however, is prove the person standing there holding them is that person.

Anyone my age, race, and gender could claim to be me, and if they had my birth certificate and Social Security card, or forgeries of them, would get away with it.

Impersonation of a real person, not a nonexistent one, is the danger I was talking about.

[Checkmite]

No, there will be no "police state national ID card". All the Real ID Act does is establish what types of information a state-issued ID card or driver license must have on it in order to be considered acceptable identification for entry into Federal facilities and the like. The Act doesn't even force states to put the designated information on its cards - it just requires non-complying cards to have a notice saying "this card can't be accepted by a Federal agency" or something like that.

Ohio already had all the "necessary" information on its cards before the bill was even introduced. I'd be willing to bet your state already does, too.

I debunk this little bit of paranoia here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52519).

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Ohio already had all the "necessary" information on its cards before the bill was even introduced. I'd be willing to bet your state already does, too.


So, in other words, we'll be as safe from terrorists as we already were? Oh, good, then.

[gnome]

It seems to me the security problem of accepting a driver's license as an ID remains the same whether they are issued by separate state offices or homogenized by federal policy.

What aspect of having different methods by state, causes it to be more secure? It seems the problem has more to do with the philosophy of driver's licenses and ID's, than the change that is being proposed.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by gnome
It seems to me the security problem of accepting a driver's license as an ID remains the same whether they are issued by separate state offices or homogenized by federal policy.

What aspect of having different methods by state, causes it to be more secure? It seems the problem has more to do with the philosophy of driver's licenses and ID's, than the change that is being proposed.

Unless the whole thing isn't really about security, but about making sure some wacky states don't let illegal aliens have driver's licenses. Yeah, which would be called "a security issue" by some---bearing in mind how many Mexican illegals fly planes into buildings. Oh wait, that would be none.

[gnome]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Unless the whole thing isn't really about security, but about making sure some wacky states don't let illegal aliens have driver's licenses. Yeah, which would be called "a security issue" by some---bearing in mind how many Mexican illegals fly planes into buildings. Oh wait, that would be none.

I'm not terribly anti-immigrant... I certainly sympathize with the illegals that are just looking for a better life here. Actual hostility would be better directed at companies that choose to hire illegally (and by and large mistreat the alien workers).

However, I don't really have a problem with an illegal alien who tries to get a driver's license winding up under the attention of INS. To have it be any different, is tantamount to the state being aware that someone is committing a crime and choosing to do nothing about it.

[epepke]

My driver's license already has a magnetic stripe on it, and it doesn't seem to have had any ill effects so far, so I'm not terribly worried about that. I will point out, though, that it is a lot easier to go buy a surplus or removed-from-equipment card stripe writer (even the one with the "special" tracks) than it is to make a really good fake ID that will fool the visual cortex in an experienced brain. So I don't see much security here, unless they use strong encryption, which ain't gonna happen because every nightclub is going to want a reader to check people at the door.

The RFID tags in passports, however, are really worrying. There are still a lot of places in the world where an American passport fetches a high price, and I don't want to be drinking tea in some cafe with some thug with a detector walking up and down the street.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Silicon, exactly what is it you are afraid of with a "real ID" or "National ID Card"?

Your neighborhood supermarket has more information on you than Uncle Sam.

Hell, there are businesses in your town that you have never been to that have more information on you than Uncle Sam.

And if you travel, you already need papers. Papers for which you had to give up your birth date, SSN, address and phone number.

So what new horror will a "real ID" bring, exactly? You're totally wrong about this. My supermarket thinks that i'm Tom Sullivan of 666 Lucifer Lane. Did you learn NOTHING from the Columbia Record and Tape Club?

If they stick RFID in the National ID card, it is very similar to just running around saying in a loud voice "My name is John Doe, my SS number is 555443322, my address is 42 Adams Road..."

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
You're totally wrong about this. My supermarket thinks that i'm Tom Sullivan of 666 Lucifer Lane. Did you learn NOTHING from the Columbia Record and Tape Club?

If they stick RFID in the National ID card, it is very similar to just running around saying in a loud voice "My name is John Doe, my SS number is 555443322, my address is 42 Adams Road..."
So you're cool w/ it so long as it has no RFID?

[shecky]

I still can't figure out how this would actually make anything more secure, if states won't be forced to comply. If it only follows the Minimum Document Requirements, it won't be any real improvement over current State drivers licenses. So why did they even bother?

And it seems my birth certificate and SS card would be very trivial things to forge in order to get a bogus Real ID card.

So illegal aliens getting driver's licenses is such a problem that warrants federal legislation?

[Ed]

For the moment all you have to do to get a phoney Birth Certificate is to pay a visit to a local cemetary and find a kid who died shortly after birth. Many places don't cross reference birth and death certificates so you can apply as the dead kid. For some time, SS numbers haave been assigned at birth so that could be pretty easy. Absent other documents, there is a procedure where another person can attest to your identity. The point is that even overweight, key pushing, gnomes like us could get phoney ID pretty easily (if we could self motivate enough to put down the Frito's and Diet Coke to do it). n.b. the idea of obtaining phoney ID was treated quite nicely in Day of the Jackle by Fredrick Forthyth.

While I do not have references at hand, I am pretty confident in asserting that any major enterprise (like a national ID database) that is administered by the Government will have so many holes as to be useless.

Given the virtually complete lack of soverignty with regard to border control in the US it seems to me that all of this stuff is armwaving smoke.

So why do it?

Because another attack is inevitable and the polititions, who would sell out the US quicker than AUP, want to be able to point at all of this useless crap if something bad happens so they can get reelected. That is it, that is the whole story.

Anyone doubt that?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
You're totally wrong about this. My supermarket thinks that i'm Tom Sullivan of 666 Lucifer Lane. Did you learn NOTHING from the Columbia Record and Tape Club?

Yes. And so have the supermarkets. Many of them have you fill out a form and then mail the discount membership card to you. So if you give them bad info, no card.

If you fill out a "free raffle" postcard at the local mall to win a Jeep, you are in the database available to nearly every retailer in America.

If you have purchased a car, taken out a loan, have a bank account, joined Blockbuster, ordered anything over the internet, you are in the database.

If they stick RFID in the National ID card, it is very similar to just running around saying in a loud voice "My name is John Doe, my SS number is 555443322, my address is 42 Adams Road..."

Please show me that RFID transmits your SSN.

[Alkatran]

Originally posted by varwoche Realize that with RFID, your personal information is broadcast for a range of ~ 40 ft. And with the new passports, it's unencrypted.

Would it matter if it was encrypted? All you have to do is grab what was broadcast and copy that. You don't even need the original information.

I mean let's say you want to get on a place. I'm reasonably sure airport don't ensure that people aren't on planes twice... You could potentially record a guy going through 30 minutes before you then get on yourself.

(A good encryption system would therefore have to include time and possibly position)

[Silicon]

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.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886.html

Yeah, so the Secretary of Homeland security gets to waive any law, and puts him ABOVE judicial review!

You'll tell me when to don the tinfoil hat for this one, right folks?

What a bunch of crap this law is. It's a candy store for the power-hungry.

Good thing we have an independent judiciary.... oops, was that another death threat against Judges by the Good Senator from the State of Texas?

[kalen]

I think one of the big problems highlighted here is the rider. This is where a bunch of legislation (not even necessarily related) gets lumped together and is voted on all at once - an all pass/fail proposition.

Personally, I think this process takes away from the democratic nature of the system significantly. The ID bill was "attached" to another bill that was wholly unrelated legislation that really "needed" to be passed thus, in my opinion, undermines the democratic process. Why can't laws be passed individually? Why/how can something controversial be attached to something that really must go through? Is it a matter of practicality? Why can't bills that are sure to be controversial be singled out and voted on separately? Thoughts? I wouldn't mind hearing them.

[Sushi]

I wrote this on a topic on another message board, but a moderator, who agreed with the REAL ID act because he is a socialist fascist (literally) locked it. So here it is:

It has passed in the Senate. A National ID card is now a very big.. "Real"al"ID"ty. (har har)

This is an EXTREMELY important bill because it will drastically effect all American citizens. It will impede on personal privacy, will create huge hassles, gives the federal government large control and leeway over what the ID card can store, and is a huge security risk for your average Joe.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05...unds/index.html

See that? Hmm, war spending. Hefty price, too, $82 billion. WAIT, WHAT THE ****, REAL ID? Then it other crap like aid money and such-- hey, it's not your money, it's the government's rightful property because they said they can have it.

Anyway, that's not what this is about. This is about the media not talking about it at all. Military spending is rather ho-hum, sure, our fiscal policies are getting to be apocalyptic, nothing new. But a national ID card is. And they don't even say that in the article, they just say "REAL ID immigration provisions".

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156147,00.html

Again, just talk of immigration, but no national ID card!

MSNBC shows little else on this. It, from a search I did, shows talks about the immigration issue and little else.


A website I found on the issue of the Real ID card:
http://www.unrealid.com/index.html

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Sushi
This is an EXTREMELY important bill because it will drastically effect all American citizens. It will impede on personal privacy, will create huge hassles, gives the federal government large control and leeway over what the ID card can store, and is a huge security risk for your average Joe.[/url]
I still don't get it, maybe I'm just thick. The Illinois Secretary of State's office already has my SS number, height, sex, weight (when I was 16 anyway! :D ), address, birth date, and any driving infraction I was ever convicted of. What will change w/ the new standards? My guess is nothing, and nothing in this tgread has shown anything else.

The whole point of this is because in states like Virginia a note written in crayon from Epstein's mother is all you need to get an official ID card. It's not a cure-all, and not represented to be. It's just a small extra layer of security.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by WildCat
The whole point of this is because in states like Virginia a note written in crayon from Epstein's mother is all you need to get an official ID card.

Actually, Virginia, the state where several of the 9/11 terrorists had driver's licenses, does require a good bit of documentation.

http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/citizen/drivers/applying.asp

The problem is that documentation can be forged.

[Sushi]

Originally posted by WildCat
I still don't get it, maybe I'm just thick. The Illinois Secretary of State's office already has my SS number, height, sex, weight (when I was 16 anyway! :D ), address, birth date, and any driving infraction I was ever convicted of. What will change w/ the new standards? My guess is nothing, and nothing in this tgread has shown anything else.

The whole point of this is because in states like Virginia a note written in crayon from Epstein's mother is all you need to get an official ID card. It's not a cure-all, and not represented to be. It's just a small extra layer of security.

The machine-readable part allows for fraud. There's a reason you are not supposed to carry your social security card around with you in your wallet. This adds another possibility (an even larger one!) for security issues.

Also, it is just a hassle in general. An extra, big-government hassle.

[crimresearch]

And, as anyone who has actually gotten a license in Virginia can tell you, there is at least one additional hurdle you have to overcome, before you are even allowed to go through the front door of the DMV.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Sushi
The machine-readable part allows for fraud. There's a reason you are not supposed to carry your social security card around with you in your wallet. This adds another possibility (an even larger one!) for security issues.

Also, it is just a hassle in general. An extra, big-government hassle.
My DL is already machine-readable. I don't see how this legislation would affect Illinois in any way whatsoever, and probably most other states also.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by crimresearch
And, as anyone who has actually gotten a license in Virginia can tell you, there is at least one additional hurdle you have to overcome, before you are even allowed to go through the front door of the DMV.

Um, I've gotten a driver's license from Virginia twice. What's the hurdle?

[Sushi]

Originally posted by WildCat
My DL is already machine-readable. I don't see how this legislation would affect Illinois in any way whatsoever, and probably most other states also.

Apparently they're thinking about making it RFID.

Also, this is blatantly unconstitutional and the government can apparently decide at any time what kind of information they want to keep in their big database.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Actually, Virginia, the state where several of the 9/11 terrorists had driver's licenses, does require a good bit of documentation.

http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/citizen/drivers/applying.asp

The problem is that documentation can be forged.
That pdf is dated 2004. I believe it was much easier in VA before that, seems they were a bit embarrassed about the whole hijackers w/ VA identification thing.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Sushi
Apparently they're thinking about making it RFID.

Also, this is blatantly unconstitutional and the government can apparently decide at any time what kind of information they want to keep in their big database.
How is it unconstitutional? There's no requirement for anyone to get such an ID, but you will need one to fly a commercial airliner or drive a car.

Who says it will be RFID?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by WildCat
That pdf is dated 2004. I believe it was much easier in VA before that, seems they were a bit embarrassed about the whole hijackers w/ VA identification thing.

I got my last Virginia license in 2000. I had to bring my Social Security card and my Georgia license, and a copy of my birth certificate. There might have been more required, except I had previously had a Virginia license and was still on file.

The only changes I can see from then are that if your Virginia license expires, you'll need to bring the original birth certificate. I think a copy was okay before. And they've added a bunch more options for acceptable documentation, to take care of legal aliens, naturalized citizens, and others who don't have US birth certificates or Social Security numbers.

[Sushi]

Originally posted by WildCat
How is it unconstitutional? There's no requirement for anyone to get such an ID, but you will need one to fly a commercial airliner or drive a car.

Who says it will be RFID?

Where does the constition give the federal government the authority to institute national IDs?

Also, there has been talk about it being RFID, but I can't point out where. Perhaps a google search?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Sushi
Where does the constition give the federal government the authority to institute national IDs?

The same place it gave it the authority for the No Child Left Behind education stuff, and to prosecute people for using drugs that are legal in their state.

States' rights? That's just for states who choose the right way, like saying "no" to gay marriage. Those states have proven themselves worthy of having rights. The rest haven't. Especially Vermont and Massachusetts, and sometimes Hawaii. And Oregon with that whole physician-assisted suicide thing. And California with the pot. Lousy hippies. Why can't they all be more like Missouri?

[Sushi]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
The same place it gave it the authority for the No Child Left Behind education stuff, and to prosecute people for using drugs that are legal in their state.


DEMOCRACY TO THE EXTREME

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Alkatran
Would it matter if it was encrypted? All you have to do is grab what was broadcast and copy that. You don't even need the original information. True. Still, if you are walking around broadcasting your name, age, and other personal information -- as is the case with the new US passports (though not ss#) -- this enables on-the-spot con artists.

If this matters to you, renew your passport immediately before the new ones go into effect.

There are arguments pro & con for a strong ID system. My .02 is this is something I would have strongly opposed before 9/11, but now I accept it with great reservation -- but only with the strongest possible security and laws governing use of data, neither of which appears to be the case with Real ID.

RFID is another matter. If Real ID uses RFID, there soon will be a structured database (partitioned, but so what) that knows where you are and where you have been more or less at all times (assuming the data collection becomes as pervasive as security cams).

[varwoche]

Originally posted by WildCat
Who says it will be RFID? My concern is that it might be, based on the new US passport.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Sushi
Where does the constition give the federal government the authority to institute national IDs?

Um, Article I, section 8, clause 1?

That whole "General Welfare" bit leaves a lot of room.

[jj]

Originally posted by crimresearch
And, as anyone who has actually gotten a license in Virginia can tell you, there is at least one additional hurdle you have to overcome, before you are even allowed to go through the front door of the DMV.

For those of us who haven't gotten a license in Va, what is the deal?

[crimresearch]

Lyndon LaRouche's people won the right to set up tables in front of the door to Virginia's DMV offices...no visit would be complete without being harangued by a couple Larouchies.

[Sushi]

Originally posted by gnome
Um, Article I, section 8, clause 1?

That whole "General Welfare" bit leaves a lot of room.
I can't imagine that "general Welfare" means "do anything as long as you say that it is good for everyone".

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Lyndon LaRouche's people won the right to set up tables in front of the door to Virginia's DMV offices...no visit would be complete without being harangued by a couple Larouchies.

Haven't seen them yet, but I'm not really in a hotbed of politics in my area.

[jj]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Lyndon LaRouche's people won the right to set up tables in front of the door to Virginia's DMV offices...no visit would be complete without being harangued by a couple Larouchies.

ecch.

Yeah.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally posted by WildCat
So you're cool w/ it so long as it has no RFID? So far, yes. I will show you my information if I WANT to show it to you. I don't think a national ID should replace a driver license, though - I mean, it won't replace a gun, hunting, fishing, vendor's or marriage license, so why should it replace a driver license?

[Dorian Gray]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Yes. And so have the supermarkets. Many of them have you fill out a form and then mail the discount membership card to you. So if you give them bad info, no card. 1) P.O. Boxes
2) Even if PO Boxes are disallowed, all they have is your address. Or the address of your workplace, your friend, your family member, or any other address where you have access to the mail.

If you fill out a "free raffle" postcard at the local mall to win a Jeep, you are in the database available to nearly every retailer in America. That's voluntary, not passive.

If you have purchased a car, taken out a loan, have a bank account, joined Blockbuster, ordered anything over the internet, you are in the database. That's voluntary, not passive.



Please show me that RFID transmits your SSN. The National ID - now with RFID inside every card! - does not exist yet, but it is possible. RFID does transmit numbers and letters.

[drkitten]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WildCat
So you're against showing an ID to board a plane? You also don't think the DMV should know who you are?


I don't see any particular reason why an airline should know (or care) exactly who I am, any more than a local bus or a movie theater should know or care. They have legitimate concerns about plane safety -- but knowing my name and address will not make the plane any more safe. Put me through a metal detector if you like, to make sure I'm not carrying a weapon. But you don't need my name for that.

Similarly, the airline has no reason to know the mortgage balance on my house, or the type of car that I drive, or the number and age of my children, or the movies I have recently rented.

Part of successful design for security is separation of powers and role-based access control (as hinted at above). If I can successfully impersonate you in one context, that impersonation should not be able to automatically transfer to other contexts.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Sushi
I can't imagine that "general Welfare" means "do anything as long as you say that it is good for everyone".

Good, nor do I. But I do think it means that the federal government can pass public interest legislation that representatives vote for, as long as it's not otherwise prohibited.

They are not accountable just to claim so, but also at the voting booth, and to constitutional restraints.

Bear in mind, I am no huge supporter of this specific act, or of sneaking it onto another bill... but I don't think your objection holds.

[crimresearch]

I can't imagine that "general Welfare" means "do anything as long as you say that it is good for everyone".

And I doubt that the other extreme. 'do nothing unless everyone agrees' applies either.

So what?