backtop


Print 221 comment(s) - last by christojojo.. on Jan 14 at 3:44 PM

A new ID system will make US citizens more secure, according to the government

Trust in government data responsibility is at an all time low internationally, following Britain’s lost of millions of citizens' personal data including addresses and bank information.  In the U.S., the sentiment is slightly better, as there have been no major publicly acknowledged data losses despite regular attacks on government systems by hackers.

Now the U.S. federal government is looking to put even more data in government hands, hoping that it can keep up its good record of responsibility.  The plan is part of ambitious post 9/11 rules passed by the federal government in order to make citizens "safer." 

All U.S. citizens born after Dec. 1, 1964, must obtain new driver's licenses within six years.  These driver's licenses will contain additional information and ways of extracting info quickly, and the citizen data will be shared between government branches; something that had not previously been done on this scale.

The basis of this development is the REAL ID Act, passed into law by Congress in 2005.  The system aims to thwart terrorists, illegal immigrants and con artists
by preventing them from manufacturing fake IDs.  The program has been met with skepticism from state officials both due to costs involved and privacy concerns.

Due to this resistance, the plan has been pushed back from more rapid adoption to about 6 years, with the key deadline being 2011 and additional measures being enacted within three years of that.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff worked on promoting the currently confidential set of rules for the project through a state and federal government advisory board.  He 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.  This is a win-win. As long as people use driver's licenses to identify themselves for whatever reason there's no reason for those licenses to be easily counterfeited or tampered with."

The Department of Homeland Security (DOHS) originally estimated a total cost of the program at $14.6 billion USD, the cost of which would be shared amongst the states.  Now, the DOHS is stating that it will only cost $3.9 billion USD total.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been vocally opposing the initiative, which they say violates citizens' rights to privacy.  Furthermore, they point to instances of what happened in Britain, and say that with more proliferated citizen data throughout the federal and state government, it will be far easier to lose citizen's valuable private information.  The ACLU says the initiative is effectively the
"first-ever national identity card system," and "would irreparably damage the fabric of American life."

The over 50 exemption was given to help give states time to adjust their older citizens to the law.  However, even the older folks will need one of the new IDs in order to board a plane by 2017.

The new licenses will include three additional security layers, but no microchips -- yet.  This will likely comfort some of RFID's vocal opponents.  Secretary of State offices will now take pictures for licenses at the start, instead of the end the application process, so upon rejection, the person will be put in the system in case they try to return or forge a license.  Additionally, it'll mandate all states to perform social security checks when licensing.

This program is representative of the major government drive in recent years to increase security, even at the expense of cost and privacy.  Many of the stateside logistics are already in place in some states; others will be forced to update their procedures.  Meanwhile on the federal level, the government must embark on the massive task of network citizen data between its branches and attempting to keep this data secure.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Brave New World?
By youdosuck on 1/11/2008 2:20:06 PM , Rating: 3
And So it Begins!!!!




RE: Brave New World?
By thejez on 1/11/2008 2:25:35 PM , Rating: 1
this is the kind of stuff that scares the crap out of me.. the government doesnt do hardly anything right... so less of my info they have the better... this is why Ron Paul has my vote.


RE: Brave New World?
By clovell on 1/11/2008 2:31:32 PM , Rating: 1
Dude, the government already has this information. We're talking about your driver's license, not your genetic code. And if you read the details, and bypass Jason's rhetoric here, you'll notice that the UK records loss was the fault of a contractor in the US, not the UK government.

I understand people's lack of faith in the competence of the government, but not not when it isn't warranted.


RE: Brave New World?
By thejez on 1/11/2008 2:36:43 PM , Rating: 2
drivers license is a state id... this is federal... i consider them different in scope AND application.


RE: Brave New World?
By clovell on 1/11/2008 2:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
It sounds more like a federal database of state drivers' coupled with a ferally-determined standardization of said licenses - not a second license.


RE: Brave New World?
By clovell on 1/11/2008 2:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
*federally

I lol'd at ferally...=D


RE: Brave New World?
By MrBungle on 1/11/2008 2:47:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The system aims to thwart terrorists, illegal immigrants and con artists by preventing them from manufacturing fake IDs.


I think the point is, what about the stated objective above warrants a move from state to federal control of licensing? Why can't states continue to manufacture (or begin manufacturing) more secure IDs by themselves, without the oversight of the federal government?

Why the need to centralize this data into a federal database, unless there are ulterior motives here? To me, it sounds like yet another opportunistic way to mold a legitimate problem (ID counterfeiting) into a means of centralizing power within the federal government.


RE: Brave New World?
By clovell on 1/11/2008 3:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
Being able to cut back on forgeries will help tighten the borders and sharing information across the country among law enforcement will help police. Terrorism isn't my area of expertise - so you've got me there.

States can't do this themselves because it's rather difficult to get 50 people into a room and make a collective decision, let alone 50 states.


RE: Brave New World?
By clovell on 1/11/2008 3:47:34 PM , Rating: 2
Stop equivocating, dude. The feds aren't taking control of licensing. They're asking states to meet a standard so that government agencies (state and federal) can have access to the licensing information.

Why the need? To aid law enforcement and cut down on forgeries.


RE: Brave New World?
By MrBungle on 1/11/2008 4:19:17 PM , Rating: 4
There's no "asking" in legislation. Mandating a standard, forcing the cost on the states and then having direct access to the results is taking control, is it not?

Aside from that, "to aid law enforcement" and to cut down on forgeries are two very distinct things. The latter is a preventative measure - one that the states can do, and are already doing, by themselves (e.g. magnetic strips on licenses) - whereas the former is a very vague, general statement that has historically shown to be ripe for abuse. The federal government hasn't had this kind of access to our information in the history of the U.S. specifically because they shouldn't have it. The ACLU has a very valid argument here.

I'm sorry, but we can't take this "government has our best interests in mind" attitude for granted anymore. Anyone who has followed the legal conquests of the Bush administration - and I'm not talking about what little gets reported through mass media outlets - knows that any more centralization of power with the federal government is a major cause for concern among private citizens. That's not Bush-bashing, either - I only use his administration as an example of what can happen when federal power goes unchecked. In my opinion, anyone who thinks that this information will be used for purely benevolent purposes is delusional.


RE: Brave New World?
By clovell on 1/11/2008 4:54:36 PM , Rating: 4
> Aside from that, "to aid law enforcement" and to cut down on forgeries are two very distinct things. The latter is a preventative measure - one that the states can do, and are already doing, by themselves (e.g. magnetic strips on licenses)

Not on this scale, they're not.

> The federal government hasn't had this kind of access to our information in the history of the U.S.

Yes, they have. IRS and Social Security. They have this information already. Are there men in black suits knocking on your door? No. QED.


RE: Brave New World?
By Alexstarfire on 1/11/2008 7:47:03 PM , Rating: 3
Well, it never says what information they are going to have on these cards. If it's the same stuff that's already on my driver's license then I don't see a problem. And it's true that they have access to this information, but it's all never been in one place. I'd rather have all my data scattered about so it's harder for hackers and such to acquire all my information. Sure, it might take the government a bit of time to get it all as well, but my privacy comes way before convenience.


RE: Brave New World?
By clovell on 1/12/2008 11:35:15 AM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind, though, that you live in one state right now, all this information is there.e


RE: Brave New World?
By eye smite on 1/11/2008 2:41:59 PM , Rating: 5
The thing you're seeing in most of the comments here is they are taking more of our freedoms away. This country was founded on the principles of freedom. Now days you're as free as you can afford to be in this country. Very soon freedom will be a delusion just like the locks on your front door that are supposed to keep intruders out.


RE: Brave New World?
By mdogs444 on 1/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Brave New World?
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 3:23:45 PM , Rating: 3
How about people who don't have sufficient documentation to obtain a national identity card? E.g., poor, homeless, elderly, mentally ill, etc.?

You see, the next step after this, is to mandate that any US citizen be able to produce an identity card, otherwise they can be detained by police. You see this already as part of the law in other countries such as Germany.

Is it too hard to understand how this would enable discrimination against certain classes of US citizens?

Look at our history, if you want to understand our future.


RE: Brave New World?
By mdogs444 on 1/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Brave New World?
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 3:38:27 PM , Rating: 4
It saddens me greatly to hear a fellow American advocating a police state. You and I obviously have different visions on what "being American" means. To me it is about reducing the power that the government has over its citizens, i.e., freedom. To you, the government should be a source of great power over all its citizens, and should the government run amok - LIKE IT HAS DONE MANY TIMES IN THE PAST ALREADY HISTORICALLY - you're okay with the government having that power. I just can't agree with that.


RE: Brave New World?
By mdogs444 on 1/11/2008 3:48:24 PM , Rating: 2
It has nothing to do with the government having increased powers - becuase I definately do not agree with everything they are doing, nor do i actually like the current administration.

But I do have a problem with them not enforcing the borders, i hate social welfare policies - and it irks me even more than illegals are able to benefit from these and use my tax dollars to go to school when they are not paying into the system. I also have a problem with people from other countries comign into the country undocumented and staying past their visas. that is why i would like a federal ID mandated. not for the power to control its citizens, but for the power to give the boot to people who are not citizens.


RE: Brave New World?
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 4:45:27 PM , Rating: 4
As I asked in other posts here, what is the logical argument between this legislation and immigration? After all, sufficient identity control already exists to "boot" illegals today. But the problem is that the laws against illegal workers and illegal employers is not being enforced.

To get more specific, did you know that employers are currently already required to verify identity before allowing an employee to start work, via form INS-9? And did you know that the federal government has the right to inspect the INS-9's for any company at any time, and can take actions against the company if they fail to follow these regulations? Well guess what, in reality, the government almost never checks these records, and therefore, many shady employers just ignore those laws and employ illegals anyway.

So again, please tell me how this legislation helps solve the problem of illegal immigration?


RE: Brave New World?
By bhieb on 1/14/2008 1:10:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To get more specific, did you know that employers are currently already required to verify identity before allowing an employee to start work, via form INS-9?

Not quite the employer is require to keep on hand a copy of several documents "proving" identity. However they are not required to verify identity, if a forged or bogus SS# is used the company has no liability there. Yes they need a copy of your Driver's licens and Social, but the company does not actually have to verify the validity of those documents. Most times (at least where I work), it will take months (or years) before the I9 is processed and we get a letter saying Joe's SS# is not valid. We tell Joe and Joe says "sorry must have been wrong card", then comes in tomorrow with a new #. The social security office does nothing about it and this cycle continues until Joe moves on.


RE: Brave New World?
By Spuke on 1/11/2008 4:49:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but for the power to give the boot to people who are not citizens.
Like the man said, historically, what you state is not what happens.


RE: Brave New World?
By Alexstarfire on 1/11/2008 7:55:18 PM , Rating: 1
Well, I don't have a problem with everyone getting an ID card. I mean, it's not so much so that the government or some company can prove it's you though. It'll help with people who have been killed, mainly people who can't drive. It is useful to show proof of ID when you don't have a driver's license. Like, my GF is 20, but has no driver's license. She simply doesn't need one, ATM. She does have a passport though, but carrying that thing around everywhere isn't a good idea. I know that we can get a state ID card for her though.

Like I said, giving everyone an ID card is fine, but forcing people to carry it on them at all times.... Might as well f*cking tattoo it on our skin. At least that way you can't lose it.


RE: Brave New World?
By rsmech on 1/12/2008 10:08:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
This shouldn't be the next step - this should be NOW. You should absolutely have to have proof of identification on you, no matter what your class is.


What about if I wear a "Brown Shirt" would that satisfy you? I see pros & cons with the ID, but your statement demonstrates the mentality I fear. I'm guilty until proven innocent. I forgot my wallet in my car so now I'm guilty. Remember one thing. I shouldn't loose any of my constitutional rights just to catch a criminal. This mentality make the innocent guilty. To leave my wallet at home today is legal but tomorrow it's not, sounds like a fast track down the wrong road.


RE: Brave New World?
By TwoCrows on 1/14/2008 1:22:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the next step after this, is to mandate that any US citizen be able to produce an identity card, otherwise they can be detained by police.


quote:
This shouldn't be the next step - this should be NOW. You should absolutely have to have proof of identification on you, no matter what your class is.


When Americans(really anyone) start thinking like this, all is lost.

The founders of this country died to make sure we would never hear the phrase "PAPERS PLEASE!!".

Although they wrote the constitution long before that phrase was ever uttered, it is clear by the language in that amazing document they understood that too much power by any government has and -always- will lead to oppression.

When you can be stopped at any time, without any other cause than the "officer" wants to, and ordered to produce "your papers", you are living in a police state. You are no longer a human and you have NO freedom.

From the point that is allowed to happen it always leads to the worst possible state of human condition. It would be better to live in a gutter in the worst 3rd world country than in a place such as this.

Under that kind of domination it is clear that you are now property of the state. What comes next? Simply look to the other police state utopias : Germany under hitler. Russia under stalin/lenin. Italy under mussolini. The list goes on and on.

No, not in my America. Since my familiy immigrated to America 4 generations ago, we understood from the moment we "got off the boat" what we had here, what this place meant, what it was. Every man in my familiy has served in the military, many of us for 20+ years.

We have served not just "for the flag", not just "for the land" but for that document many Americans have never read and don't understand or appreciate, the Constitution.

Just by virtue of "being here", people reap the rewards of all those sacrifices through the hundreds of years America has existed.

No, the phrase "Papers Please" will not be met with apathy or acquiescence, but with the same resistance that led to the boston tea party.


RE: Brave New World?
By TwoCrows on 1/14/2008 1:22:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the next step after this, is to mandate that any US citizen be able to produce an identity card, otherwise they can be detained by police.


quote:
This shouldn't be the next step - this should be NOW. You should absolutely have to have proof of identification on you, no matter what your class is.


When Americans(really anyone) start thinking like this, all is lost.

The founders of this country died to make sure we would never hear the phrase "PAPERS PLEASE!!".

Although they wrote the constitution long before that phrase was ever uttered, it is clear by the language in that amazing document they understood that too much power by any government has and -always- will lead to oppression.

When you can be stopped at any time, without any other cause than the "officer" wants to, and ordered to produce "your papers", you are living in a police state. You are no longer a human and you have NO freedom.

From the point that is allowed to happen it always leads to the worst possible state of human condition. It would be better to live in a gutter in the worst 3rd world country than in a place such as this.

Under that kind of domination it is clear that you are now property of the state. What comes next? Simply look to the other police state utopias : Germany under hitler. Russia under stalin/lenin. Italy under mussolini. The list goes on and on.

No, not in my America. Since my familiy immigrated to America 4 generations ago, we understood from the moment we "got off the boat" what we had here, what this place meant, what it was. Every man in my familiy has served in the military, many of us for 20+ years.

We have served not just "for the flag", not just "for the land" but for that document many Americans have never read and don't understand or appreciate, the Constitution.

Just by virtue of "being here", people reap the rewards of all those sacrifices through the hundreds of years America has existed.

No, the phrase "Papers Please" will not be met with apathy or acquiescence, but with the same resistance that led to the boston tea party.


RE: Brave New World?
By TwoCrows on 1/14/2008 1:24:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the next step after this, is to mandate that any US citizen be able to produce an identity card, otherwise they can be detained by police.


quote:
This shouldn't be the next step - this should be NOW. You should absolutely have to have proof of identification on you, no matter what your class is.


When Americans(really anyone) start thinking like this, all is lost.

The founders of this country died to make sure we would never hear the phrase "PAPERS PLEASE!!".

Although they wrote the constitution long before that phrase was ever uttered, it is clear by the language in that amazing document they understood that too much power by any government has and -always- will lead to oppression.

When you can be stopped at any time, without any other cause than the "officer" wants to, and ordered to produce "your papers", you are living in a police state. You are no longer a human and you have NO freedom.

From the point that is allowed to happen it always leads to the worst possible state of human condition. It would be better to live in a gutter in the worst 3rd world country than in a place such as this.

Under that kind of domination it is clear that you are now property of the state. What comes next? Simply look to the other police state utopias : Germany under hitler. Russia under stalin/lenin. Italy under mussolini. The list goes on and on.

No, not in my America. Since my familiy immigrated to America 4 generations ago, we understood from the moment we "got off the boat" what we had here, what this place meant, what it was. Every man in my familiy has served in the military, many of us for 20+ years.

We have served not just "for the flag", not just "for the land" but for that document many Americans have never read and don't understand or appreciate, the Constitution.

Just by virtue of "being here", people reap the rewards of all those sacrifices through the hundreds of years America has existed.

No, the phrase "Papers Please" will not be met with apathy or acquiescence, but with the same resistance that led to the boston tea party.


RE: Brave New World?
By TwoCrows on 1/14/2008 1:27:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the next step after this, is to mandate that any US citizen be able to produce an identity card, otherwise they can be detained by police.


quote:
This shouldn't be the next step - this should be NOW. You should absolutely have to have proof of identification on you, no matter what your class is.


When Americans(really anyone) start thinking like this, all is lost.

The founders of this country died to make sure we would never hear the phrase "PAPERS PLEASE!!".

Although they wrote the constitution long before that phrase was ever uttered, it is clear by the language in that amazing document they understood that too much power by any government has and -always- will lead to oppression.

When you can be stopped at any time, without any other cause than the "officer" wants to, and ordered to produce "your papers", you are living in a police state. You are no longer a human and you have NO freedom.

From the point that is allowed to happen it always leads to the worst possible state of human condition. It would be better to live in a gutter in the worst 3rd world country than in a place such as this.

Under that kind of domination it is clear that you are now property of the state. What comes next? Simply look to the other police state utopias : Germany under hitler. Russia under stalin/lenin. Italy under mussolini. The list goes on and on.

No, not in my America. Since my familiy immigrated to America 4 generations ago, we understood from the moment we "got off the boat" what we had here, what this place meant, what it was. Every man in my familiy has served in the military, many of us for 20+ years.

We have served not just "for the flag", not just "for the land" but for that document many Americans have never read and don't understand or appreciate, the Constitution.

Just by virtue of "being here", people reap the rewards of all those sacrifices through the hundreds of years America has existed.

No, the phrase "Papers Please" will not be met with apathy or acquiescence, but with the same resistance that led to the boston tea party.


RE: Brave New World?
By TwoCrows on 1/14/2008 1:28:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the next step after this, is to mandate that any US citizen be able to produce an identity card, otherwise they can be detained by police.


quote:
This shouldn't be the next step - this should be NOW. You should absolutely have to have proof of identification on you, no matter what your class is.


When Americans(really anyone) start thinking like this, all is lost.

The founders of this country died to make sure we would never hear the phrase "PAPERS PLEASE!!".

Although they wrote the constitution long before that phrase was ever uttered, it is clear by the language in that amazing document they understood that too much power by any government has and -always- will lead to oppression.

When you can be stopped at any time, without any other cause than the "officer" wants to, and ordered to produce "your papers", you are living in a police state. You are no longer a human and you have NO freedom.

From the point that is allowed to happen it always leads to the worst possible state of human condition. It would be better to live in a gutter in the worst 3rd world country than in a place such as this.

Under that kind of domination it is clear that you are now property of the state. What comes next? Simply look to the other police state utopias : Germany under hitler. Russia under stalin/lenin. Italy under mussolini. The list goes on and on.

No, not in my America. Since my familiy immigrated to America 4 generations ago, we understood from the moment we "got off the boat" what we had here, what this place meant, what it was. Every man in my familiy has served in the military, many of us for 20+ years.

We have served not just "for the flag", not just "for the land" but for that document many Americans have never read and don't understand or appreciate, the Constitution.

No, the phrase "Papers Please" will not be met with apathy or acquiescence, but with the same resistance that led to the boston tea party.


RE: Brave New World?
By eye smite on 1/11/2008 3:55:14 PM , Rating: 5
Umm, from when I was born 1970 to 1999 there was only one thing I can think of that was done for our security. Ronald Reagan put 10k U.S. Marshalls on domestic flights in this country to deter hijackings. In 1999 Bill Clinton removed said marshalls to save taxpayers some money. I can see where that decision has been very effective, I really do enjoy those tax savings each year don't you? Point is, there's far more things that can be done to secure the nation than persecuting us with possible descrimination over a variety of issues. This creates more problems than it solves.


RE: Brave New World?
By clovell on 1/11/2008 4:57:01 PM , Rating: 1
What problems? Can we get past the 'Big Brother' cliches and atcually discuss the issues here?


RE: Brave New World?
By Christopher1 on 1/12/2008 10:13:31 AM , Rating: 2
What problems? What if someone has lost their Social Security card or Birth Certificate in a disaster (large or small-scale)?
What if someone's birth was never put on record (one of my friends was born at home and his parents [very good ones] simply forgot to go to the state clerk and get a birth certificate or SS number until he was 13!)?
I could go on and on about the problems with mandating someone show a social security number or some other form of national ID, but I won't right now because I am leaving my home in a few minutes.


RE: Brave New World?
By BloggerRadio on 1/14/2008 12:32:45 PM , Rating: 2
Righties crack me up. They often point at Liberals as being the ones who are spineless and say that Libs claim the sky is falling. But, look who shakes in their boots and wants Uncle Sam to protect them from terrorists at all costs ... then look at the record; NONE of the domestic-spying and so-called safeguards have resulted in ANY successful prosecutions or SQUAT, so naturally the righty logic is to add even MORE of the stuff that isn't working. Gimmie a break. Sheep. Lemmings. Cowards.
quote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."--Ben Franklin

I'm stickin' with Ben, and you keep drinking the Kool-Aid mdogs444, lol! ;-)


RE: Brave New World?
By BloggerRadio on 1/14/2008 12:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."--Ben Franklin

I'm stickin' with Ben, and you keep drinking the Kool-Aid clovell, lol! ;-)


RE: Brave New World?
By mdogs444 on 1/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Brave New World?
By diablofish on 1/11/2008 3:45:25 PM , Rating: 3
Odd that someone so conservative would be a proponent of increased government. Conservatives typically want LESS government, not MORE government.

If you're not afraid of the government, remember this country locked Japanese AMERICANS into "detainment" camps during WWII. Our government has already proven it is capable of treating its own citizens in this manner, yet you're not the least bit concerned about giving the government MORE power?


RE: Brave New World?
By mdogs444 on 1/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Brave New World?
By diablofish on 1/11/2008 4:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
So all the other criminals (McVeigh, Nichols, Kaczinski, et al) not to mention Dahmer, Manson, and many more would somehow have not been able to commit their illegal crimes because they were legal citizens? I highly doubt a national ID system will prevent people from committing crimes in this country, whether they be legal citizens or otherwise.

And you haven't addressed the primary concern: this country has already shown it is capable of imprisoning (wrongfully) people who are here LEGALLY, and a national ID system would provide them with greater opportunity to abuse this power.

And yes, nationalizing an ID system creates more government as is demonstrated by the multiple billion dollar cost of this program.


RE: Brave New World?
By Spuke on 1/11/2008 5:00:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you're not afraid of the government, remember this country locked Japanese AMERICANS into "detainment" camps during WWII.
You can't use the past as an argument because everyone knows that the generations before the present one were ignorant and less educated. Those same mistakes cannot possibly happen again with our MUCH more intelligent, even worldly, class of citizens.


RE: Brave New World?
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 6:12:00 PM , Rating: 4
What scares me is that not everyone will recognize the sarcasm in what you said.

And I also worry that the current generation, many of whom are completely ignorant about anything that happened before 1980, are willing to accept these types of situations without even thinking about it or without realizing how things can go awry. The government absolutely cannot be trusted to run on its own without citizen oversight. It has run amok many times in the past.


RE: Brave New World?
By clovell on 1/12/2008 11:43:26 AM , Rating: 2
How can you compare action taken against people of a nationality that initiated a cowardly sneak attack and propelled us into WWII to a national ID program? I've got news for you here - there was no national ID program in place when we put japanese into detainment camps (so they wouldn't sabotage our planes, kill our citizens, and undermine the war effort) - and yet it still happened.

You may very well have a point - I'm not going to address it, but simply say that you're on the wrong soapbox in this thread.


RE: Brave New World?
By gdtaylor on 1/12/2008 9:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
we put japanese into detainment camps (so they wouldn't sabotage our planes, kill our citizens, and undermine the war effort)


Using this sort of logic we should have detained all persons of eastern European or Russian descent during the cold war, all Iraqis during the Gulf War and everyone of Middle Eastern descent during the War on Terror.


RE: Brave New World?
By Hawkido on 1/14/2008 12:04:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Using this sort of logic we should have detained all persons of eastern European or Russian descent during the cold war, all Iraqis during the Gulf War and everyone of Middle Eastern descent during the War on Terror.


The point you forget is that the government detained the americans of Japanese descent and Japanese immigrants at the behest of the population. People were mortified that the Japanese would have agents working at sabotaging CONUS instalations or even civilian utilities. Also, the mentality of the Japanese warrented suspicion due to their near suicical dedication to their mother country. I feel that the imprisonment of the Americans of Japanese descent was completely wrong. Those on Visa's should have been ejected, and those with green cards (not citizens yet, but in the pipe) should have been given the option of detainment or deportation. That would have been fair. If you are a citizen then you are a citizen and in no way can you be discriminated against for any reason. Otherwise, you are on probation or here merely on a whim. Remember, Battleship Row in Pearl Harbor was completely photographed by Japanese on Visas in Hawaii. The practice is not without merit. Just remember that citizens are CITIZENS and as such WILL be given the benefit of the doubt.


RE: Brave New World?
By TomZ on 1/13/2008 8:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You may very well have a point - I'm not going to address it, but simply say that you're on the wrong soapbox in this thread.

The OP's point is that the federal government cannot be blindly trusted to do what is right. The detainment of US citizens of Japanese descent during WWII seems to be a reasonable example of the government deciding to deprive citizens of their rights without strong justification.


RE: Brave New World?
By BansheeX on 1/11/2008 7:05:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Im as conservative as they come, but Ron Paul is a far right whackjob. He is full of conspiracies that are untrue - including a majority of his backers believe that 9/11 was an inside job.


Majority? Drinking some of the Fox News kool-aid are we? Ron Paul is a HIGHLY intelligent fiscal conservative and constitutionalist. Fox paints him that way because they want to marginalize him and get rid of him. He threatens the neo-conservative takeover of the party. But if you knew anything about Fox News or watched the latest debate, you would know this already.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-lxZmrqLxU


RE: Brave New World?
By mdogs444 on 1/11/2008 7:18:27 PM , Rating: 1
Actually I did watch the latest debate. Ron Paul preaches a form of isolationism, in which he believes we do not need allies, or to be concerned with any international quarrels. Im not questioning his view of fiscal conservation, but his foreign policy (or lack there of) is a joke. Also, you may call him a "constitutionalist", while others call him a "libertarian", but that does not garner the majority support of the public. There is a reason that Ron Paul only pulls single digits in the republican party - his extremist views in most issues do not cater to the majority of the party.

There is a reason a question was posed to him asking if he had any electability - because in the GOP &/or national polls, he does not. You call him "HIGHLY" intelligent, I say he sounds like a doped up grandpa.


RE: Brave New World?
By BansheeX on 1/12/2008 12:07:31 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Actually I did watch the latest debate. Ron Paul preaches a form of isolationism, in which he believes we do not need allies,


Guess his logic fell on deaf ears then. Non-intervention is not a "form" of isolationism. That is a complete misuse of the terms, whose definitions are explicit to themselves. Most of the problems we have today in the middle east are rooted in interventionist policies. We helped depose an elected prime minister in Iran in 1953 - that came back to haunt us. We radicalized the Afghanistan militants to fight the soviets - those weapons came back to haunt us. We were ALLIES with Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden at one point - those weapons and dealings came back to haunt us. We've given billions to an unelected military dictator - that has been a poor investment and has come back to haunt us. We give more aid to Israel's neighbors than we do to them - that has come back to haunt us. We are currently giving weapons to the enemies of our enemies, Saddam's old Sunni henchmen, and that will come back to haunt us.

quote:
Im not questioning his view of fiscal conservation, but his foreign policy (or lack there of) is a joke


Then you're awfully dumb or misinformed because the two are interrelated. Your failings are rooted in the idea that military action is the only policy or action worth taking. We spend a trillion dollars a year of money we don't have to fund a war that has enflamed the region and made us less safe. We declare an infinite war against a tactic and go out playing terrorist whack-a-mole in countries with hundreds of millions of people while our own borders are a hilariously unprotected (Ron Paul has the endorsement of the minutemen). Considering that the neo-cons are so concerned about surrogate exchanges, I'd think this would be rather important to them. We give no-bid contracts to a company that charges $100 per load of laundry and treats our soldiers like crap. Our economy is on the verge of a freefall because of the unconstitutional federal reserve fiat monetary system and the pointless spending overseas.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QeIxHQ-lkuM

Is it any wonder that Ron Paul has the most donations from active or off-duty military? The joke is thinking that blowback doesn't exist and that you can get people to believe in your system when you conduct yourself like a bully around the world. Envy and diplomacy are the only effective means to get people to want to be like you, and you should only attack a nation when that nation attacks you or immediately threatens your life and liberty. Trading our lives and wealth for the lives and wealth of strangers somewhere else makes no sense, and that's why we don't get involved in Chechnya and other internal disputes unless we ourselves are threatened.

quote:
There is a reason that Ron Paul only pulls single digits in the republican party - his extremist views in most issues do not cater to the majority of the party.


That's right, there is a reason. Because idiots like you have mush for brains and buy into the garbage Fox and other corporate owned networks spew out for you.


RE: Brave New World?
By retrospooty on 1/12/2008 12:24:17 AM , Rating: 2
Very well said. Especially the mush for brains part =) Very true.


RE: Brave New World?
By Christopher1 on 1/12/2008 10:17:13 AM , Rating: 1
I have nothing else to add to the post above. He hit on all the points about why I think that, absent someone else supporting someone who attacks us or attacking us themselves, we should not get involved in the world's troubles and I am an extreme liberal!

We just should NOT get involved in other countries problems with military force, it always come back to haunt us. We also should not help depose elected leaders because that always comes back to haunt us as well.


RE: Brave New World?
By clovell on 1/12/2008 11:56:25 AM , Rating: 1
You'd do well to take a page from Ron Paul's book of non-intervention and not attack those who don't agree with you.


RE: Brave New World?
By FS on 1/11/2008 2:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
I was expecting someone to mention 1984.

If you have read "The Giver" check the following link out: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/30/india....


RE: Brave New World?
By Siddeous on 1/13/2008 2:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
I think George Orwell was 30 years early.


Police State
By chadderson on 1/11/2008 2:37:30 PM , Rating: 2
First the patriot act... .... and now we are here, almost a full blown police state. Somebody's gotta act before we cant scratch our asses without having the man lookin down his scope at us.




RE: Police State
By clovell on 1/11/2008 2:40:53 PM , Rating: 1
Jesus people, please read.


RE: Police State
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 3:10:57 PM , Rating: 3
There is no question that the purpose and effect of this legislation is to expand the scope of the federal government, as the OP implied. Maybe not to the point of being a police state, but it would be one step in that direction - one step forward for big government, and one step back for the rights of individual citizens.


RE: Police State
By mdogs444 on 1/11/2008 3:27:08 PM , Rating: 1
If it takes a step towards bigger government to be able to stop illegal immigration, and quit wasting my tax dollars on people who are not, and should not be here. Then so be it. If it takes a step towards bigger government to be able to promise my security within my home, county, state, & country, then so be it.

Freedoms are worth nothing if you have no means of protecting them from the ones who want to take them away. And by this statement, I am not referring to the government.


RE: Police State
By retrospooty on 1/11/2008 3:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
"Freedoms are worth nothing if you have no means of protecting them from the ones who want to take them away. And by this statement, I am not referring to the government."

Do you not even see the total irony in your last sentence?

Do you not find it odd that you needed to use the disclaimer that the government is not the subject matter? Scary man, really scary.


RE: Police State
By mdogs444 on 1/11/2008 3:38:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you not find it odd that you needed to use the disclaimer that the government is not the subject matter?

Nope. Don't find it odd at all. In fact, the reason I did that was to add further details of my view on this topic. All liberals blame the Bush administration for everything thats wrong with the world. I, for one, am not a fan of the Bush Administration, however I feel that national security should be one of the most important aspects of our goverment. And that starts being able to show identification that you indeed are a citizen of the USA.


RE: Police State
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 3:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And that starts being able to show identification that you indeed are a citizen of the USA.

How will that protect you? Hint, your assumption is that illegals are responsible for all crime, which is clearly not even close to the truth. And you don't even seem to recognize that bad guys will simply forge the national ID card.

So again, how does this help solve anything?


RE: Police State
By clovell on 1/11/2008 4:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
Forgeries will be more detectable across the country. That solves something.


RE: Police State
By Christopher1 on 1/12/2008 10:24:11 AM , Rating: 1
FOR A SHORT PERIOD! There is not ONE license, including Maryland's, which has a lot of security features, that cannot be forged.

If someone wants to make a forgery, they will make it in a way that it will be INDISTINGUISHABLE from the real thing, like they are doing with social security cards now.


RE: Police State
By clovell on 1/12/2008 12:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I agree, but that's not what I said. I never forgeries would be impossible to produce. I said they'd be easier to detect. Having one standard would let law enforcement across the country know what to look for - no matter where the license came from.

Social Security cards really don't have much in the way of security - nothing like the barcodes and magnetic strips that many states are using now.


RE: Police State
By Blu2u on 1/11/2008 5:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hint, your assumption is that illegals are responsible for all crime, which is clearly not even close to the truth.


He didn't say or imply that *ALL* crime is committed by illegals. However, crimes committed by illegal aliens(beyond the crime of entering a country without permission) could be avoided by reducing illegal immigration, no?

There is no question that there is crime, some extremely violent and horrific crime, committed by people who should have never been here. Violent felons who already have records as criminals are indistinguishable since they enter the country illegally in the same way as those who aren't otherwise criminals. To make matters worse, it's quite common for illegals who have committed serious crimes to hop back over the border...after all, they weren't really 'here' to begin with.

A system of positive identification, more fraud resistant than current drivers licenses, is one way to address this problem.


RE: Police State
By retrospooty on 1/11/2008 4:02:55 PM , Rating: 2
"All liberals blame the Bush administration for everything thats wrong with the world."

Ya, thats not just a slightly prejudiced sentence at all is it? I can't argue that logic, since ALL liberals are exactly the same, and ALL those that disagree with you or any point you make are labeled as "liberals"...

You have once again check mated me with your well thought out debating skills.


RE: Police State
By mdogs444 on 1/11/2008 4:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, I wasn't aware this was a debate class - rather I was under the impression that it's sort of a "blog" in which we all can voice our opinions &/or views.
quote:
Ya, thats not just a slightly prejudiced sentence at all is it?

Referencing a political party's view does not necessarily infer that each person shares that view, but rather a popular view based off the majority of its members. Therefore, NO, its not prejudiced anymore than the liberal &/or democratic parties views are of the Bush Administration.


RE: Police State
By retrospooty on 1/11/2008 4:33:48 PM , Rating: 2
"Referencing a political party's view does not necessarily infer that each person shares that view, but rather a popular view based off the majority of its members. Therefore, NO, its not prejudiced anymore than the liberal &/or democratic parties views are of the Bush Administration."

You are all over the place today... What you said was "All liberals blame the Bush administration for everything thats wrong with the world." Which is really irrelevant to the topic at hand. Its as if I said ALL conservatives still blame Clinton for everything that is wrong in the world.

How are either of those statements relevant to any conversation, much less this one?


RE: Police State
By mdogs444 on 1/11/2008 5:16:58 PM , Rating: 1
The relevance occurs when posters start claiming the government of taking away civil liberties - more directly, the current administrations reactive measures to terrorism & crime committed by people who are not supposed to be here.

As for the statements directly be relevant to ID's, they do not have to be, as your post questioning my prejudice was what took it off topic.


RE: Police State
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 3:34:16 PM , Rating: 5
Identity cards will not solve the illegal immigration problem. All it takes to solve that problem is to enforce existing laws - WHICH ARE NOT CURRENTLY ENFORCED - and to especially focus on cracking down on employers who knowingly employ illegal workers.

By eliminating the illegal employment opportunities, you reduce or eliminate the incentive for illegal immigration. It's just common sense - which seems to be my only explanation as to why the government hasn't figured it out yet. Why won't our government enforce our laws?!?

I don't see how a national identity card helps solve that problem at all.


RE: Police State
By saiga6360 on 1/11/2008 3:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. Can't have a new system run by incompetents and expect everything to magically get better. First order of business is to get rid of the Bushies and their ilk.


RE: Police State
By mdogs444 on 1/11/2008 3:57:17 PM , Rating: 2
IN the case of illegals, getting rid of Bush would be a major request of even the republicans & conservatives. Bush wanted to grant amnesty....conservatives want to kick them the hell out, and put a stop to birthright citizenship.


RE: Police State
By diablofish on 1/11/2008 4:43:42 PM , Rating: 2
Send us your poor, your huddled masses. That way we can "kick you the hell out".

Ah, America. No longer the land of opportunity, apparently.

I don't have a problem with people wanting to come here and applying for citizenship. Nor do I have a problem with the people already here applying for citizenship. There are probably a lot more people in both groups who are looking to make a better life for themselves than cause crime and problems for the rest of us.

The majority of people in this country are descendants of those poor and huddled masses. Lucky for our ancestors (and consequently their offspring), Americans at that time didn't kick those poor and huddled masses from yesteryear "the hell out".


RE: Police State
By Blu2u on 1/11/2008 5:07:11 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The majority of people in this country are descendants of those poor and huddled masses. Lucky for our ancestors (and consequently their offspring), Americans at that time didn't kick those poor and huddled masses from yesteryear "the hell out".


Yeah, most of those ancestors came through Ellis Island, LEGALLY. There are hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants that respect the country by coming in legally. They follow the rules, they wait their turn, and they do it the right way. Instead, you are endorsing behavior that says 'You have no right to know who I am, and I can enter your country whenever I please'. What is the justification for that?


RE: Police State
By mdogs444 on 1/11/2008 5:26:13 PM , Rating: 3
And what you are referring to is the path to citizenship, by taking the legal route. Quite the opposite of what I am referring to.

I also do not have a problem with people wanting to take the legal path to citizenship in search of a better life. In fact, I encourage that. And by doing so, they also pay federal taxes, which pay for many of the social policies that, in most cases, benefit much of the country.

However, what I was referring to were the immigrants taking the illegal path, and not filing for legal citizenship. Instead, they live in the US under the radar, not paying federal tax, while benefiting from the social policies funded by tax paying LEGAL CITIZENS.

Personally, when there is a group of people who are essentially taking advantage of my hard earned tax dollars, it gives me the right to want to kick them the "hell out".


RE: Police State
By eye smite on 1/11/2008 4:17:30 PM , Rating: 3
Hehe, lets try and remember something. You're not guaranteed security by anyone. According to the good old constituion it is every citizens duty to defend themselves. The police that came along after that were to keep the peace, not defend you, hence the 2nd ammendment.


RE: Police State
By Donkeyshins on 1/11/2008 4:53:42 PM , Rating: 2
Let's not forget the bit about 'well regulated militia' in the second amendment. If that part was enforced, I think there would be a lot fewer gun owners.


RE: Police State
By Blu2u on 1/11/2008 5:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's not forget the bit about 'well regulated militia' in the second amendment. If that part was enforced, I think there would be a lot fewer gun owners.


You don't understand what you are reading. The issue has been settled by the vast majority of constitutional scholars (reluctantly by some who are pro-gun control, but who have conceeded the point nonetheless).

The second ammendment grants the right to bear arms to individuals. Period. Every article in the Bill of Rights refers to individual rights, not collective rights.

Luckily, the Supreme Court is about to put this issue to bed once and for all.

You want to kill the right to bear arms by individuals? Just pass a constitutional ammendment. There is a process that allows for that.


RE: Police State
By rcc on 1/11/2008 5:38:30 PM , Rating: 2
And wouldn't that be a shame. Then you really could form a police state.

Bear in mind that regulated is not synonomous with restricted.


RE: Police State
By tjr508 on 1/11/2008 7:43:39 PM , Rating: 2
The right belongs to the individual. Militias are basically illegal anymore anyway (Waco, anyone?).

The army and national guard are by no means militias since they are under government control.


RE: Police State
By eye smite on 1/11/2008 9:35:09 PM , Rating: 3
I don't know where you live but in this state there's a daytime and night time law. During the day you have to be able to clearly prove they intended you bodily harm before killing them, witnesses present would be best. At night, if they're standing on your property you have the legal right to blow their head off, and that's been around since this was a state. Reason being you can't see if they're armed or not and it's you're right and duty to defend yourself and family.

911 cannot get to your house fast enough if someone is out to do you harm unless you're one block over from a police station and even then it's unlikely they would. Now realistically most of us will never experience anything like that, but what if you do. Are you prepared to defend yourself, your wife, your kids against intrusion? In New Zealand the law says you are to leave the house, let them take what they want and call the police from else where. If you try to stop them or defend yourself they'll charge you as well and put you in jail. Is that what you'd rather see here?


RE: Police State
By andrinoaa on 1/12/2008 8:18:03 PM , Rating: 1
I sleep every night with ten guns under my pillow because you just don't know when the reds are going to attack.
How do you guys get this sense of paranoia? Ah, where is a shrink when you need one?


Real ID
By pomaikai on 1/11/2008 6:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
I dont see how this is giving up any freedom. Please explain what freedom is being given up. Freedom of speech? Freedom to walk down the street and buy whatever you want? What freedom are you refering to?

I am all for this. With as advanced as we are it is sad that people can just hop state lines to avoid crimes they commited. Or that someone can forge an out of state license and no will know it is forged. With a national id everyone in everystate will know exactly what it looks like. With this system lets say someone commits a crime in California and runs to Washington. If a cop pulls him over in Washington for speeding they will know immediatley that he commited a crime because of his national id.

Because people can cross state lines freely we should have a national id. I am sure a cop in Conneticut would have a hard time telling a fraudulent Alaska license.




RE: Real ID
By urosv on 1/12/2008 4:58:51 PM , Rating: 3
Freedom of privacy. You're so ignorant i yust can't believe it. Watch ZeitGeist and get back to life.


Uhhh...
By johnfale on 1/11/2008 4:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the U.S., the sentiment is slightly better, as there have been no major publicly acknowledged data losses despite regular attacks on government systems by hackers.


I seem to remember not only the IRS losing laptops with personal information, but the Veteran's Affair's also losing a laptop. Both of these situations put very person information (SS#'s, addresses, bank info, etc...) at risk.




RE: Uhhh...
By fic2 on 1/11/2008 6:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
I had to scroll through 3/4 of the posts just to find someone that also noticed this. I can't believe the statement that the gov't record on security is good.

Oh, from what I remember it was millions of peoples data lost.


I have a hard time believing this
By kattanna on 1/11/2008 2:45:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Department of Homeland Security (DOHS) originally estimated a total cost of the program at $14.6 billion USD , the cost of which would be shared amongst the states. Now, the DOHS is stating that it will only cost $3.9 billion USD total


since when has any government org been able to slash costs that much on anything?




RE: I have a hard time believing this
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 2:52:12 PM , Rating: 1
The federal government, quite frankly, has no idea, and nor do they care what the cost it, since the cost would be "shared amongst the states" -- in other words, the cost will be borne by the states, and of course passed along to citizens.


By PedroDaGr8 on 1/12/2008 10:27:37 AM , Rating: 3
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
-Benjamin Franklin

"A Democracy will vote away its rights."
-Benjamin Franklin

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people"
-Thomas Jefferson
This was written to prevent the power grabs we see today by the federal government.

"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'"
-Dosteovsky's 'Grand Inquisitor'




Have you not seen ZeitGeist?
By urosv on 1/12/2008 4:51:44 PM , Rating: 3
I yust can't believe how ignorant you people are. Watch the documentary ZeitGeist. It is free - the torrent is found on the internet. Just google up ZeitGeist (and yes it's in english).




I expect to see more of this
By ZJammon on 1/11/2008 4:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
With our national debt approaching 1 year's GDP how could the Federal Government pay for this? I'm sure the federal government sees it as a way to charge more income taxes in a sorta subverted method. Whether it's your fed income tax dollars or state the money is coming from the same place, the citizens .




By RogueLegend on 1/11/2008 4:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
Still seems like a stupid idea to me. Public transit is great in some parts of this country.

Plus, wasn't SSN the "Federal" solution for this stuff?




By Azzr34l on 1/11/2008 6:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
Jason Bourne, that is. ;P




By supremelaw on 1/11/2008 7:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
Watch and learn:

paulmitchell987654321

checkingacct987654321

paulmitchellcheckingacct987654321

driverlicense987654321

paulmitchellcheckingacctdriverlicense987654321

taxpayernumber987654321

paulmitchellcheckingacctdriverlicensetaxpayernumb er987654321

... and so on, permitting very rapid electronic
"collation" of all data on any given "individual".

For the rest of the story, see also:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/solid.gold.frien...

Cf. "mark of the beast" in The Revelation.

p.s. There is much additional (and free) reading
at the links below my name here ...

http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.atto...
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.ht...
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jura...
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.ht...
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm




By supremelaw on 1/11/2008 7:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
Watch and learn:

paulmitchell987654321

checkingacct987654321

paulmitchellcheckingacct987654321

driverlicense987654321

paulmitchellcheckingacctdriverlicense987654321

taxpayernumber987654321

paulmitchellcheckingacctdriverlicensetaxpayernumb er987654321

... and so on, permitting very rapid electronic
"collation" of all data on any given "individual".

For the rest of the story, see also:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/solid.gold.frien...

Cf. "mark of the beast" in The Revelation.

p.s. There is much additional (and free) reading
at the links below my name here ...

http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.atto...
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.ht...
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jura...
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.ht...
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm




THE NEW MILLENIUM
By tigz1218 on 1/11/2008 10:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
I think everyone is forgetting something. We are in the New Millenium and this is the United States. I mean come on everybody knows that means plans for a facist regime are impossible. Especially now that we have these great HDTV's that are super clear and tell us everything we need to do to live a perfect life. Speaking of which I need to go now, running this computer really puts a toll on my carbon tax.




Government Threat > Terrorism
By Machinegear on 1/12/2008 1:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
- Benjamin Franklin

Most of you learned nothing from history. It is really sad to see technically high skilled people post here with such strong faith in government, and equally no-faith in themselves to self govern. Pathetic.




Real vs. Fake?
By teckytech9 on 1/12/2008 4:32:01 PM , Rating: 2
This Real ID Act is really a guise to employ all State workers to spy for the DHS. It’s probable that all this ID nonsense is attributed to corrupt databases on both sides and is meant to verify the integrity of all records.

Truth is, only humans can verify this data (add, delete, view, modify, create, purge, and copy). Also, when the human factor is played out, there is greater potential for abuse and theft of this data from those who can access it.

The very nature of creating a query/response system to get this information, "all in one basket" will only aid in facilitating more ID theft and breaches. How many times have there been reports of laptops stolen and thumbdrives found containing personal data? Now throw in the potential of digital scanned copies of facial pictures, birth certificates, SSN cards with signatures, and Passports being included?

Let face it, the expiry of ID's are designed for verification and integrity purposes. The States, not the DHS, owns DMV data. Personal data has a greater chance of being compromised with the Real ID Act.




ID Cards and all
By andrinoaa on 1/12/2008 8:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
ID cards are one of those pressing universal (lol ) issues we have as a modern society. We seem to think its a good idea when its shown how it can be used constructively and a bad idea when we are shown how it can be not so good.
Id cards would not stop any 9/11 scenario. The FBI and CIA HAD all the info at their disposal, yet had no idea what they had! How are they going to handle X amount more info?
Its just a matter of weighing the plus and minusses. Personaly, I think they resolve some issues and then create others which makes it a neutral issue so I would ask the question, why bother? Who is proposing the issue, what is their agenda and how much does someone stand to gain financially.?
Nothing to do with communism or socialism or fascism.




Sounds like fun
By sgtdisturbed47 on 1/12/2008 8:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
As if this is going to stop or even slow the increasing rate of identity theft and illegal immigration? Once you change the standards, you just start forcing the criminals to learn new strategies. As the methods for "improving security" grow, so does the criminal mind. There is always a way around it, and it's better prevent in ways other than inconveniencing the citizens. Then again, Russia did fine with communism, right?...




Tax Credit
By Machinegear on 1/12/2008 9:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
This ID is ridiculous. If the government was serious about your safety they would give you a tax credit to go buy a gun.

This ID is -not- for your safety. Pull out your drivers license, point it at a madman with a box cutter, and see who wins.

This ID is for the safety of the State; to keep tabs on you. How can this not be obvious? Daily Tech readers seem to bend over too much and put faith in man even more.




By rsmech on 1/12/2008 10:18:41 PM , Rating: 2
One thing I find funny with all this worry about the gov't sharing my drivers license #, address, or social # with each other is that it's already happening and more. Right now what does someone get with my ID? Now compare this to what they get about me from the credit agencies or these online companies that make money by collecting as much personal information as they can collect & sell. If you can't trust the gov't with less information then the credit reporting companies have or these online people search companies why aren't you upset about these. I prefer neither, but I feel the gov't may do a better job securing my info. than these others.

Just my 2 cents.




Nothing wrong with it
By FITCamaro on 1/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing wrong with it
By FITCamaro on 1/11/2008 2:27:20 PM , Rating: 1
Ok was a little wrong. They are just plastic cards. But at least now states have to verify who you are before issuing one. Again, nothing wrong with that.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By FITCamaro on 1/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nothing wrong with it
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 2:44:31 PM , Rating: 4
Here's some information from the ACLU on REAL ID:

REAL ID consolidates every state's DMV databases into one massive and vulnerable database. The potential for identity theft is enormous. Any disgruntled, rogue DMV employee would have access to the driving records and personal identifiers, such as copies of birth certificates and social security cards, of all the drivers in the country. These rogue employees could sell this info to identity thieves and data aggregators.

REAL ID is also a massive unfunded mandate for the states. The Department of Homeland Security itself estimates the cost of implementing REAL ID throughout the country to reach $23 billion, and the states were told to come up with the money themselves. Many states have already updated their driver's license systems and implementation of REAL ID would mean they would have to start from scratch and pay for it out of their own pockets. Naturally, much of the cost will be transferred to the driver, so people will have to show more evidence to prove their identities, pay upwards of $100 to obtain or renew their licenses, and also wait in vastly longer lines!

This poses the most trouble for the elderly who may have lost track of their birth certificates, Native Americans who live on reservations and the homeless who do not have street addresses, adopted children, naturalized citizens, and victims of natural disasters. The list goes on and on.

The states have already recognized that this will all amount to a real nightmare for Americans. Thirty states have introduced legislation to reject Real ID, and three states Arkansas, Idaho and Maine have enacted resolutions to opt out of the program altogether. The release of the Department of Homeland Security's draft regulations, which included a two-year extension of the compliance deadline, did nothing to stop the wave of state rebellion against this unfunded, misguided law. In fact, opposition to Real ID in the states continues to grow with each passing week.


The ACLU is asking Americans to support S. 717, which will fix some of the problems with REAL ID:

The Real ID Act of 2005 is a federal law that would turn Americans’ driver's licenses into genuine national identity cards and impose numerous new burdens on taxpayers, citizens, immigrants, and our state governments while doing nothing to protect against terrorism. As a result, it is stirring intense opposition from many groups across the political spectrum and from all over the country.

S. 717, the “Identification Security Enhancement Act of 2007,” introduced by Senators Daniel Akaka of Hawaii and John Sununu of New Hampshire, reform the flawed REAL ID bill, which was passed without sufficient Congressional consideration. Please write your Senators on this issue and urge them to co-sponser S. 717.
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=hom...

Note, I'm not advocating ACLU's position, nor criticizing it. I'm just passing along this information FYI. I think it's an important issue to understand both sides of.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By FITCamaro on 1/11/2008 2:52:57 PM , Rating: 1
I'll agree that the states should not bear all the costs. But I am still in favor of the program.

The ACLU blows the vulnerability of this system out of proportion.

quote:
These rogue employees could sell this info to identity thieves and data aggregators.


A disgruntled DMV employee already has access to everyone in their state. So they can already do a lot of damage as it is. I don't believe they have access to birth certificates but they do to social security numbers. Heck you could even limit access to data for DMV employees to people within their scope of interest using the correct permissions.

The government is not all idiots. There are very smart people working for the government. And they are typically the ones designing these systems. The mistakes happen due to politicians who think they know more than the experts.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 3:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
In Michigan, there is no link between the state driver's license and your social security number. I don't know about other states, but I don't see why such a requirement would in general exist for driver licenses. After all, the stated purpose of SSNs is for taxation purposes (only).

Probably the #1 advocates of greater use of social security numbers would be identity thieves. I'm sure they are just drooling over the opportunity this new identity system would provide them.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By christojojo on 1/11/2008 3:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Probably the #1 advocates of greater use of social security numbers would be identity thieves. I'm sure they are just drooling over the opportunity this new identity system would provide them.


Its like that old saying, "fencing up the sheep so the wolves can find the easier."

I'm for security but usable security no let do something that looks like we are working. I'm tired of 'painting the house to fix the roof" mentality these things seem to be headed for.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By Ryanman on 1/12/2008 1:33:16 PM , Rating: 2
And on we march, to the place where war is peace and slavery is freedom.
But since I'm not a criminal, giving the government all my data is okay I suppose.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By diablofish on 1/11/2008 3:20:47 PM , Rating: 2
When you apply for your drivers license (or renew it), the state of MN asks for your SSN. Likewise when you file taxes, get married, etc. you need SSN's. I think the point the ACLU is making is that there is already enough trouble with ID theft due to SSN's being stolen so consolidating more SSN data in along WITH a national ID program creates MORE vulnerability to the system rather than LESS. I'm for a national ID system, but the system should SEPARATE SSN's from the ID's not combine the two as one. In essence, separating them would enable someone who has been a victim of ID theft a better safety than by combining the SSN into a national ID.

For example, your SSN wouldn't be needed for things like DL's and banking anymore - you could use your national ID thereby protecting your SSN (at least somewhat).

I think revising this Act is a good idea, but scrapping the national ID program altogether isn't necessarily a good one.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By clovell on 1/11/2008 3:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
Where are you getting this from? They're just going to run a check on your SSN before issuing you a license - your SSN doesn't even have to be stored.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By diablofish on 1/11/2008 3:47:57 PM , Rating: 5
Read the link provided my TomZ, for starters. From Page 6 of that report:

"Security expert Bruce Schneier, EPIC and others have explained that it decreases
security to have one ID card for many purposes, as there will be a substantial amount of
harm when the card is compromised. Using a national ID card would be as if you used
one key to open your house, your car, your safe deposit box, your office, and more. “The
problem is that security doesn’t come through identification; security comes through
measures -- airport screening, walls and door locks -- that work without relying on
identification,” therefore a national identification card would not increase national
security Schneier said.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By clovell on 1/11/2008 3:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'll get to that, meanwhile, try reading my post - it's a lot shorter than 6 pages, but you didn't address what I said.

There is no reason for your SSN to be stored when you get this new license - they only need it to verify your identity.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By diablofish on 1/11/2008 4:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
That's exactly my point. By using your SSN to get this ID card, it's tied to your ID card. In effect, there is no extra security. How about we use a birth certificate instead?

How did we know who citizens were before SSN's, which have only been around since the Great Depression? How did this country ever manage to surivive wars, the Depression, and all other sorts of issues without a national ID program?


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By clovell on 1/11/2008 5:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not following you here. The ID card wouldn't replace an SSN. It wouldn't even be stored with it. It's only tie to your SSN is that when you applied for your license, they ran your SSN and made sure your name on your license matched the name on your Social Security card.

There is no loss of security.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By Christopher1 on 1/12/2008 10:07:17 AM , Rating: 1
Actually, yes, there is, because they WILL be storing your social security number on a server somewhere. Not to mention that if someone manages to get into the governments system and set up a number logging program, they will be able to get your SS number if they know what they are looking for.

That is where the loss of security comes from, the fact that NO computer system is going to be totally secure.... the main reason why I say that we are moving into a dangerous future where someone's criminal history or other records could be hacked and make it look like they are a criminal, in some other way a bad credit bet, etc.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By clovell on 1/12/2008 10:59:51 AM , Rating: 2
> Actually, yes, there is, because they WILL be storing your social security number on a server somewhere.

No, they won't. It's unnecessary to do so.

> Not to mention that if someone manages to get into the governments system and set up a number logging program, they will be able to get your SS number if they know what they are looking for

That's already the case - the federal government has your SSN - they issued it to you. They use it often. I don't see you protesting Social Security - in fact, in another thread, you were promoting it. So, there is no logical reason why you should have security concerns about this information. It will be no less secure or insecure than it previously was.

> That is where the loss of security comes from, the fact that NO computer system is going to be totally secure.... the main reason why I say that we are moving into a dangerous future where someone's criminal history or other records could be hacked and make it look like they are a criminal, in some other way a bad credit bet, etc.

Yeah, identity theft and computerized criminal records are here. Social Security's security has no record here of falling victim to such attacks. Probably because its a lot easier to phish and hack people individually than try hacking the US Government. What I'm saying is this:

The government has had your SSN and your financial information for years. They won't even need to store your SSN. Their security with this information that they already have has been sufficient. Your info is already in a computer system - has been for years.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By DKWinsor on 1/12/2008 1:56:14 AM , Rating: 2
How often do you use your driver's license? Pretty often, right, certainly more than just for driving. You use it at the bank, when you buy beer, etc. So there is hardly anything "new" to "compromise". You literally already use your national [state] ID card [driver's license] to open your house, car, safe deposit box, and your office. You have to show it to buy, buy, enter and get employed, respectively. And let's not be picking about the difference between a national driver's license and a state driver's license.

This guy Schneier is mixing his analogies. I don't know, maybe he's being misquoted, as the only part I see in quotes attributed to him is true (security through measures). But to say that security doesn't come through identification, well that's as silly as saying walls and door locks work without a key. Of course the driver's license that you need to get on the plane is exactly the same as the key you need to open a lock -- the key is your identification. You really need both measures and ID; you need both a lock and a key and you need both a screening agent at the airport and a driver's license to pass said agent.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By christojojo on 1/12/2008 6:47:32 AM , Rating: 2
I think changing the perspective slightly may help you see what some of us are seeing.

Instead of home, house and vehicle with the same key (which in some ways sounds great until you loose it in the middle of a bad place); how about all your programs, your pc, and your network using the same ID?

Wouldn't that be pointless for PC security? Once someone found out that your password was "dirtydiapers37" they would have access to everything.

I know from experience with students that's on of the first things they try when logging in. I often hear one students saying to each other, "See if it (password) works on that (program, etc.) too."


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By clovell on 1/12/2008 11:10:10 AM , Rating: 2
What the above poster noted is that your concerns over having one 'key' should be just as applicable to state driver's licenses now as they are to state driver's licenses registered in a national database. Right now, a driver's license is the de facto form of identification - you use it at the bank, the grocery store, the mall, the hospital, when applying for any government programs, etc. It is the 'master key' in your analogy - which cuts both ways.

The difference being that we have little reason to believe the states' licensing databases are insecure. Likewise with those of the federal government. Were that the case, we'd have expected people to speak up about those concerns by now.

We're already past the Armageddon point here - and everything is fine.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By DKWinsor on 1/12/2008 5:43:49 PM , Rating: 2
First, I do reuse my password many times, but in a tiered fashion. I have my random string -it's not a word- that is the password for insecure things like the login to site. Then for slightly more secure things like email I have that string plus another appended on. And for more secure things (not Window's logon) I append yet another string to that. I have all the benefit of having just 1 password (easy to remember, can't switch one for another, each is as strong as you can make it), with little to lose when someone steals my password. Even if they steal my most secure password they might not guess my least secure one.

But no, changing the analogy from 'ID is like keys' to 'ID is like passwords' does not change anything. First of all, when I lose my driver's license, I do not have my bank account raided, my computer logged onto, my home entered, or anything of the sort. This driver's license has 0 new critical datums that could cause me harm if they were lost. Yes true, the database could be raided which might yield something like my SSN, but that hasn't happened yet at my state database.

I said this guy is mixing analogies and he is, and so are you. He's confusing national security with personal security. Having one national ID open many doors does not affect personal security. Having one personal key open many doors DOES affect personal security.

So his analogy and yours are offbase. What is true is that, all things being equal, there will be a slight decrease to personal security if they move from a state database to a national database. But I think the federalies deserve more credit than that.

After rereading your post, I thought you might have meant this: That losing your computer password and having 15 different bad things happen to you is analogous to someone hacking the database and stealing 15 different things like SSN etc. Both have one access point or key, and secure or store or lock many different things. Yes, this is a much better analogy, but the point that it argues breaks up under critical analysis.

For one thing, the driver's license has nothing new on it, and it follows that the database will have nothing new that the state databases don't already have. Second, no state database has been hacked, and "there have been no major publicly acknowledged data losses despite regular attacks on government systems by hackers".

If anything, the move from state to national would provide more personal security. With 50 different databases surely one is more easily hacked into.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By christojojo on 1/14/2008 3:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry for so long a time for a reply but here it is.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/TSA-Demands-Encr...

BTW: Analogies usually don't survive under intense scrutiny; they are analogies after all, not rules.

Question: Do prisons have only one key to go from the front door to the deepest cell? Would the key that let an inmate out of the cell, be the same one that opens the gun cabinet (armory)?


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By pomaikai on 1/11/2008 4:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
Isnt the point of protecting SSN because of banking and such. Whats the point of SSN theft if all they can do is pay your taxes or collect your SS. If banks start using a national ID for banking and such the con artists will be after the national id not SSN. And your national ID will be much easier to get. There will be to many valid reasons to show your national id, but very few reasons to show social security card. We need to keep them seperate and require both for banking/credit card, etc because it is harder to get both than just one.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By clovell on 1/12/2008 11:12:07 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. The program doesn't need to be scrapped, but there need to be strictly defined limits to its current and future use, and the feds need to pay for it.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By clovell on 1/11/2008 3:28:49 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks, Tom - it's good to get to the meat of the issue.

I agree with FITCamaro - the information is as much at risk of identity theft with the feds as it is with the states.

The colloquial 'National Identity Card' neglects that you're already carrying around a 'State Identity Card'. It also gives the impression that all people are required to have one. Not so. Only if you plan to be driving do you need one. Most states also have state ID cards, and while they are generally very similar to Driver's Licenses, I see no part of this law that has a mandatory phase-out clause for State ID cards, so the old ones should work indefinitely, thus solving the issue of the people who are too poor or old to make their way to the DMV over the next 3-4 years and get an upgrade.

Also, about those people. Where is it said that anyone applying for one of these new licenses who already has an old one will need to produce a birth certificate? It also neglects that if you lose your birth certificate, you can get a new one issued. The bill checks SSNs - not birth certificates. Sounds like a Red Herring from the ACLU.

I, furthermore, highly doubt that states would be passing on all costs directly to the driver. Most likely they'd be subsidized by the tax budget. I certainly don't agree that the States should pay for the program though - this is an area of jurisdiction that has historically belonged to the states, and unless the Federal Gov't. is willing to pay for the upgrades themselves, they deserve a one-finger salute. As a former 24-year resident of Louisiana, I get sick of the Federal government screwing with the states' budgets when they have no business doing so.

In all, the only thing to see here is the Feds pushing costs of new programs onto the states.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By Spivonious on 1/11/2008 3:40:37 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Why replace a system that already works fine? We already have federal IDs - they're called passports. Leave driving up to the states.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By clovell on 1/11/2008 3:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
> Why replace a system that already works fine?

To improve it.

> We already have federal IDs - they're called passports.

Which are useful, but not in the same way as the proposed plan.

> Leave driving up to the states

The feds are not taking control of licensing away from the states, they're standarzing and consolidating the information states hold on drivers.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By Spuke on 1/11/2008 4:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The feds are not taking control of licensing away from the states, they're standarzing and consolidating the information states hold on drivers.
Standardizing and consolidating. Wouldn't that be taking control of the licensing?


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By Christopher1 on 1/12/2008 10:09:58 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, it is. The federal government keeps on saying that it wouldn't be.... but in all honesty, it would be.

Secondly, to comment on another post..... just because they are changing things does not mean that they are improving them.
Hell, there have been MANY things that have been changed in this country and have turned out to be DETRIMENTS instead of improvements..... why would it be any different with a national ID card?


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By diablofish on 1/11/2008 4:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
If we want to improve it, let's link the states DL data to each other, rather than spend billions creating a national ID card.

Funny you denigrate a passport: when I moved from WI to MN, I needed a passport AND my valid WI DL in order to get a MN DL. My valid WI DL wasn't enough on it's own. And I couldn't use a birth certificate since it didn't have a photo.

This is, of course, silly on many levels since I used my WI DL to get my passport, for example.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By clovell on 1/11/2008 5:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
No, my point wasn't to denigrate passports, but to point out that they're used for different things. I'm all for linking the states' DL data together, but I think it'd be pretty difficult to do. I know some had already setup information sharing agreements, but getting all 50 states to agree would be quite a challenge.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By Spuke on 1/11/2008 6:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
Well so far 30 states already disagree here. Looks to be an uphill battle.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By djc208 on 1/12/2008 6:49:05 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not IT expert but I'm not sure why it would be so difficult. The federal government would provide the list of fields they want provided to them and the format and method of sending that data to the national system. Toss in a few million to each state for development for good measure and set a due date to have it up and running.

From my limited experience with databases it shouldn't be too hard to export the data and keep it synchronized. Most likely there are only a few companies that design the systems used by the states in which case the costs in development of the new functionality would be spread across multiple states.

The worst case would be that some state wasn't collecting a piece of the data required, in which case you set the completion date far enough out that most people will have to renew between now and then, at which time you collect the extra data.

The big expense would be setting up the national database, which would belong to the feds. If the states want access to the data in this national system then it can be up to them to fund that functionality in their systems.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By clovell on 1/12/2008 11:24:07 AM , Rating: 2
Good point, but the problems wouldn't be from the implementation stage, but rather the planning stage. As I've said, it's not easy to get fifty people with a wide array of biases and interests to agree - let alone fifty states represented by politicians.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By damncrackmonkey on 1/12/2008 6:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
Are you actually suggesting that (from an IT standpoint) it's easier (or at least about as easy) to implement 50 disparate systems and integrate them than it is to implement one?

I'm a big fan of everyone on this thread who's made a statement along the lines of: "My state implemented system X for only Y dollars, so a federal ID is stupid and a waste of money" where X is a feature that is completely useless when state lines are crossed and Y is an amount greater than $4 billion / 50


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By marvdmartian on 1/11/2008 4:07:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This poses the most trouble for the elderly who may have lost track of their birth certificates, Native Americans who live on reservations and the homeless who do not have street addresses, adopted children, naturalized citizens, and victims of natural disasters.


I love their examples. First off, the elderly won't have to worry about it initially, since the cutoff is for people born after Dec 1st, 1964, thus exempting them in the first wave. Add to that the fact that just because you're elderly doesn't mean you'll have a hard time getting ahold of your birth certificate (my mother is 80, and has hers). Native Americans born on reservations should have been issued a birth certificate anyways, and if they haven't, then the government will have to figure out a way for their tribe to issue one.

Honestly, how many homeless people do you know that drive???

The other examples at least have a touch of realism, but if I know the feds, they'll start out strong with this law, then listen to all the complaints, and issue a supplemental law that will take the teeth out of this one and make it simple for people to get what they need.

Sorry, but this sounds (again) like the ACLU complaining about something just for the sake of complaining about something. Bunch of prima-donna attention whores, imho.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By jconan on 1/11/2008 9:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
Another wasted 4 billion dollars. All they needed to do was tell the states here's the requirements and what is considered secure and let the states figure it out. It's another covert act just to squander billions tax dollars after being wasted in the Middle East to justify the existence of their agency.

As for control it'll slowly churn out to something like California we control your thermostats and we think your house is too hot or too cold. After that it'll be we control your tv, radio, media, internet, # of babies and slowly erode your freedom of choice. These will be the things to come with a paranoid power mongering government...


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By eyebeeemmpawn on 1/11/2008 3:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
I just don't see how this would protect us from terrorism. Seems like it will cost us all a great deal of money, but what real value would it ad? Just because there is nothing wrong with it, doesn't mean we should do it.

I suspect they already have the no-bid contracts lined up to put this plan into action, pure paranoid speculation on my part.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By Comdrpopnfresh on 1/11/2008 2:35:45 PM , Rating: 2
In Pennsylvania, there is a bar code on the cards. When you go into the bar, the real ones work when swiped. Forgeries don't.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By FITCamaro on 1/11/2008 2:44:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah Florida and SC licenses have a bar code on them as well. I really don't know what data (if any) is stored on it though.

Personally I think stuff like your emergency contact phone number and medical history should be encoded on your ID. That way say if you get in an accident, the hospital can just swipe your ID and know all those things to be able to treat you better. Also will be able to call your family.

I'd say traffic violation and criminal history as well but the problem is people would likely figure out how to erase those things so officers really couldn't rely on it anyway.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 2:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
I assume you guys are referring to mag stripes, not bar codes, right?


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/11/2008 2:57:09 PM , Rating: 2
Virginia has the bar code, Maryland has a mag stripe. Serves the same purpose. Scanners can determine if its real or fake. Shame it took so long to make this work.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By Kefner on 1/11/2008 3:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
I just got a new Maryland license, well a few months back, and it doesn't have a mag strip anymore. It is using one of those block bar codes, the kind that looks like some kind of digital distortion, a bunch of random blocks, with two small traditional bar codes on the left and right of this.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/11/2008 3:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
Ah ok, so Maryland has now copied the same system were using here in Virginia, probably due to how many commuters cross state lines each day here it must be easier to standardize the scanners. Custs cost, saves police hassle.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By Darnell021 on 1/11/2008 4:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
But what about all the people from out of state without that strip? Being a bank teller in Massachusetts for a number of years, I've seen all the different forms of DMV issued state IDS, and though the newer ones tend to be scannable, most adults these days keep their older IDs because they do not expire.

In regards to this article, I don't think this REAL ID is necessary or helpful in protecting against terrorism. Why not spend those billions of dollars on a better plan for naturalizing immagrants so they can be taxable citizens.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nothing wrong with it
By BansheeX on 1/11/2008 3:08:05 PM , Rating: 5
I think the opposing argument is that it sets a precedent that makes it easier for things like RFID, retinal scanning, etc to eventually become accepted. It's far easier to get people to accept small changes over time rather than one big one. The progressive justification improves, you use the logic yourself: "Hey, look what we're already doing, what harm could more do?" And then you make the inevitable point about criminals, without understanding that more dangerous than criminals on the streets are more powerful criminals subverting the government and possibly redefining criminal behavior to include people who speak and do certain things that they don't like. Have you read the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act?


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nothing wrong with it
By Spivonious on 1/11/2008 3:42:19 PM , Rating: 2
So what's the point of even having states anymore? We could just set a national sales tax, use national IDs, and pay national taxes.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By clovell on 1/11/2008 3:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
Has your point already been so diminished that you're resorting to the slippery slope fallacy? Seriously...


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/11/2008 3:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
Works for me. Realistically though it would be difficult to manage. The trickle down authority model we have now works well enough. Centralizing the government to that extent would be difficult and nothing would ever get done.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By Spuke on 1/11/2008 6:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I commit a crime all they need do is reference any evidence at the scene with DOJ records and I'm sunk.
Law enforcement doesn't have access to those records.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/12/2008 10:18:43 AM , Rating: 2
Local law enforcement no, federal yes.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By BansheeX on 1/11/2008 6:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your getting into the science fiction area here. This is not a police state, get off the soap box.


Alright, explain this then. A popular alternative currency called the liberty dollar, which is backed by precious metals, had their Indiana Office raided by the feds. Everything was stolen. No one was arrested in the ordeal, and there is nothing wrong ethically or legally with what they were doing. Police state? I think so.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7-aLJJ-_WYE

quote:
Having the equivalent of a USA License thats accepted in any state and serves the same purpose is nothing more than moving 50+ databases into one large database. I see no problem with this.


The difference is, local governments are easier to manage and keep in check than federal ones. The federal government's purpose is very specific and limited to certain things. As long as we continue to have states, we have friendly competition and customized governance for the type of people and resources in that particular area.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/12/2008 10:25:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Alright, explain this then. A popular alternative currency called the liberty dollar, which is backed by precious metals, had their Indiana Office raided by the feds. Everything was stolen. No one was arrested in the ordeal, and there is nothing wrong ethically or legally with what they were doing. Police state? I think so.

It was raided because people were trying to use them as alternative money and it's very easy to print your own "Liberty Dollars". Has more to do with people thinking they can use currency that is not legal tender than anything else. Bad example on your part.

quote:
As long as we continue to have states, we have friendly competition and customized governance for the type of people and resources in that particular area.

Friendly Competition for what? Your job and job market determine where you live, the state has little to do with it.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By BansheeX on 1/12/2008 1:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It was raided because people were trying to use them as alternative money and it's very easy to print your own "Liberty Dollars". Has more to do with people thinking they can use currency that is not legal tender than anything else. Bad example on your part.


Once again, there's nothing economically or legally wrong with it. It is a private barter currency, and there are no laws against that. They've been doing it for TEN YEARS Kenobi. The fed even commented at one time that what they were doing was legal. And the supreme law of the land, the constitution, says that we should only be using gold and silver as currency. Why aren't you making the same "illegal" criticism about the federal reserve as well?

quote:
Friendly Competition for what? Your job and job market determine where you live, the state has little to do with it.


Competition is the driving force behind quality increases in almost everything. If a neighboring state has better education and lower crime, why wouldn't that be an incentive for a state government to do better in those areas in order to retain its residents? Why wouldn't it be easier to vote out someone who was doing a poor job with the state budget? If federalized education wants to lower passing grades, is the resulting uneducated populace going to be able to stop them? Look at the Department of Education, a superfluous and inefficient bureaucracy that appropriates billions of dollars in taxpayer money that could be better spent at the local level.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By AntiM on 1/11/2008 3:42:02 PM , Rating: 2
I see a few things wrong with it. It's federally mandated, so it should be paid for by federal money. If the federal government was truly concerned about illegal immigration, we would be patrolling our borders right now and accounting for every person that crossed. For all we know, 100 terrorists per day are crossing our southern border.
Also, I see this as the beginning of some kind of Nazi state where you must present the proper papers to be able to travel or even make a purchase. There's also the potential that you can be easily tracked. I like the idea of the US having some type of effective ID program, but I don't want it tied to my SSN. A persons SSN shouldn't have anything to do with their identification. That's what needs to be fixed. The practice of using SSNs for identification should be outlawed. I hope there's enough protest to keep this from going forward.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By clovell on 1/11/2008 3:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
> A persons SSN shouldn't have anything to do with their identification.

Unless, of course, you'd like to recieve Social Security when you hit 65 rather than have your neighbor get it. That makes no sense.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By FITCamaro on 1/11/2008 4:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
It's already been passed.

Stop watching so much TV. Comparing our government to the Nazi's is an insult.

We would like to patrol our border more. Democrats though don't want to appear too harsh on illegal immigration though because it'd cost them votes so many measures to counter it are shot down. If you read the news they are preparing to build 700 more miles of fences along the border. Unfortunately a few people don't want to give the government access to their land (I'm not a total eminent domain supporter but I do believe in this case, the government needs access to the land) so that's slowing progress down.

And your SSN has everything to do with your identity. It's the one ID number that doesn't change for your entire life and doesn't match anyone else's. Your drivers license number can change. Your birthday cannot distinguish you. You name is not unique. Your SSN has this purpose. If we don't use it, we just have to come up with something else.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By Spuke on 1/11/2008 4:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We would like to patrol our border more. Democrats though don't want to appear too harsh on illegal immigration though because it'd cost them votes so many measures to counter it are shot down.
It's the border patrols job to patrol the border not the Democrats. If the law enforcement officials would simply do their jobs, the Democrats nor anyone else for that matter couldn't do anything about it.

In other words, the border patrol doing their job would effectively put the ball in the politicians court. If the Democrats wanted to really press the issue then they would have to pass a law to limit the duties of the border patrol. A bit too obvious for a politician.

But no, the border patrol decides to play politics instead.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 4:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, but border enforcement is mainly under the Bush Administration. Unfortunately it is politically unpopular to either (a) send illegals back home en masse (i.e., enforce the laws), and (b) to crack down on employers who knowingly employ illegals (i.e., enforce the laws).

So, basically, in conclusion, enforcing the laws is unpopular.

But somehow a new identity system is going to solve this problem. NOT.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By Spuke on 1/11/2008 4:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're right, but border enforcement is mainly under the Bush Administration.
quote:
So, basically, in conclusion, enforcing the laws is unpopular.
Doesn't matter. All the border patrol has to do is their jobs.

quote:
But somehow a new identity system is going to solve this problem. NOT.
Those of us that live in reality know this. It is obvious but some us ONLY learn the hard way.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By FITCamaro on 1/12/2008 10:49:38 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that the border patrol doesn't have the manpower to police the entire border. You speak as if the border patrol is just sitting around instead of patrolling the border.

I mean those guys get shot at on a nearly daily basis in some areas. And two are now sitting in jail for shooting a drug smuggler in the ass as he tried to run away instead of complying with their order to stop. They were doing their job. And look where it got them.

So get a clue before you spout crap.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By TomZ on 1/12/2008 12:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
It's true that the Border Patrol is not funded enough to deal with the current level of illegal immigration. But it would be smarter to spend additional resources in employer law enforcement rather than border patrol. That reduces the incentive for illegals to cross the border - if they can't find jobs.


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By Donkeyshins on 1/11/2008 4:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
But if we go to one ID standard, how on earth will McLovin be able to buy alcohol?


RE: Nothing wrong with it
By INeedCache on 1/12/2008 4:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
I do believe there is something wrong with it. Our Constitution does not give the federal government any explicit rights in terms of regulating state driver's licenses. All powers not expressly given to the federal government are to be left to the individual states. So how does Congress get to pass this garbage? For those of you who do not fear our federal government, let me just say that you should. They do not have your best interests at heart. A lot of you people are sounding just the way the Bush administration wants you to - like you're in fear, and the government will take care of you.


Where's the beef?
By clovell on 1/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Where's the beef?
By FITCamaro on 1/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Where's the beef?
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 2:50:02 PM , Rating: 4
The problem with simply moving it to the federal government is that it ignores the Constitution itself. The Constitution expressly states the responsibilities that Congress and the President has, and then grants remaining responsibilities to the states. This is the reason driver licenses have been the responsibility of the state for all these years.

I do see the practical benefits of a common federal system, but I fail to see how this can help protect us from terrorist attacks. This seems like another "land grab" by advocates of big government beaucracies in the name of protecting us from terrorists.


RE: Where's the beef?
By FITCamaro on 1/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Where's the beef?
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 3:08:25 PM , Rating: 4
This will not present any realistic impediment to terrorist activities in the US. The game may change a little, but it is still easy to work around it. Bad guys will just create fake federal identity cards instead of fake state ones. What's the difference?

At the end of the day, the net effect of this is to increase the scope/power of the federal government at the expense of the states, while forcing the states and citizens to bear the additional cost. And at the same time it allows the federal government to greatly increase its ability to gather and cross-correlate personal information about citizens - to build more of the "big databases" that privacy advocates fear.

And there is no question our government should be feared - the actions our government takes must always be questioned and analyzed. Anyone who doesn't believe this has not looked at the history of this country and of the federal government's actions.


RE: Where's the beef?
By Noya on 1/11/2008 3:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly what I was going to write.

Is FITcamaro a shill? His posts seem to blindly, almost fanatically agree with the US Gov. on every related topic I've read.


RE: Where's the beef?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Where's the beef?
By FITCamaro on 1/11/2008 4:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you Kenobi. I value my freedoms as an American. I also recognize the reality of the world we live in today. It's not as simple as it used to be. In the 50's you didn't need a college education to get a good job, didn't need a credit score to get a loan, etc. Now you do. Personal identification must also keep up with the times.

I will fight as hard as anyone against true violations of my liberty. This is not one of them. Do I wish it wasn't necessary? Of course. Unfortunately, it is.


RE: Where's the beef?
By Christopher1 on 1/12/2008 10:21:23 AM , Rating: 1
No, it isn't necessary. Name one way that this would have kept the terrorists of 9/11 from carrying out their attacks?

You cannot name one, because it would not have done that! All the terrorists of 9/11 were in the country legally before 9/11 and just overstayed their visas. We weren't even LOOKING AT THEM AS TERRORISTS, we just noticed "Hey, these guys are getting flight training.... they're students? Why would they need that?"

That was the ONLY red flag that came up until AFTER the 9/11 terrorist attacks (the one that was admitted until recently, anyway).

So this 'Real ID' would not have stopped the 9/11 attacks. They will not stop other attacks because most acts of violence done on American soil are done by..... DUN DUN DUN!!!!!! AMERICANS THEMSELVES! NATURALIZED AND BORN-HERE!


RE: Where's the beef?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/12/2008 10:33:17 AM , Rating: 3
This has nothing to do with 9/11. This has everything to do with criminals within the USA, as well as Illegals inside the USA. All white collar employers require Credit, SSN, and Criminal background checks, which is why you don't see Illegals in white collar jobs. We just need to enforce laws that punish companies that do give illegals jobs. Then start deporting illegals that we find. Problem Solved.


RE: Where's the beef?
By FITCamaro on 1/12/2008 10:53:47 AM , Rating: 3
Actually if we just enforce the laws that already exist (as it is slowly starting to happen), we won't have to deport a damn one of them. They'll go home on their own. I read a news article about how in Arizona they're being fired left and right. They talked to one and he said he's gonna have to go back to Mexico because he can't find work.

That's problem solved.

And if they don't and instead turn to crime, then they'll be punished by our justice system.


RE: Where's the beef?
By Spivonious on 1/11/2008 3:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how the protests of the 1960s would be handled today. Would Martin Luther King be labeled a terrorist and sent to Guantanamo Bay?

The federal government keeps getting bigger and bigger. It's starting to get really scary.


RE: Where's the beef?
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 3:42:37 PM , Rating: 4
Well, with a new national identity card and associated databases, it will be much easier for protesters to be tagged in the database for later identification and detainment.

It sounds crazy, but it wouldn't be the first time the government has operated in this way.


RE: Where's the beef?
By clovell on 1/11/2008 5:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
How would it be easier than say - taking all their driver's license numbers down? Easy, it wouldn't. Let's drop the strawman, eh?

While you're at it, let's drop the equivocation, too - this isn't a national ID program. If you don't have a driver's license, you won't be affected.

Your idea sounds crazy because it is crazy. Just the facts, sir - we're full on crazy.


RE: Where's the beef?
By Spuke on 1/11/2008 6:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your idea sounds crazy because it is crazy. Just the facts, sir - we're full on crazy.
Even though OUR government has demonstrated in the past that they are quite capable of craziness, you still really think that a national ID program can't be abused?


RE: Where's the beef?
By clovell on 1/12/2008 12:06:33 PM , Rating: 2
No, I don't think it can't be abused, but I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater without thinking about what's actually going on and how it compares to what we already have.


RE: Where's the beef?
By clovell on 1/11/2008 3:43:39 PM , Rating: 2
Tom, I have to disagree with you here. The ability of a cop in FL to run a CA license instantly and know that it's fake will help. This isn't the solution to fogery, but it will go a long way.

I've also got to call shens. The IRS (reas as: federal government) already has all this information and more - name , address, SSN, place of employment, etc.


RE: Where's the beef?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/11/2008 3:54:55 PM , Rating: 2
Problem is the IRS is part of treasury, not the Department of Justice, which is where it needs to be for the local police departments to access it. These places don't update information with the DOJ either, they just request it so there is very little collaboration going on. Unless it ended up in your federal criminal record, chances are one state won't talk to another or it would take so long you could be long gone by the time it gets through.

Yes, the government (IRS) has a lot of this stuff on file, however I don't think people realize, that government does NOT talk to each other. DoD, DoJ, Treasury, DoE, none of these guys collaborate unless it stretches into their realm of control.

That's why I have to laugh when people say the government has them all on file and is going to arrest all these people because they answered the census, haha, they need to work a government contract sometime, then the government would be the least of their fears.


RE: Where's the beef?
By clovell on 1/11/2008 4:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
Right. I was overcoming the objection of data security there. The government has this information already, so having this new program in place wouldn't increase the security risks.

Also, as you pointed out, since this information isn't shared across agencies, there is a reason to consolidate it across the states.


RE: Where's the beef?
By DKWinsor on 1/12/2008 1:25:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This will not present any realistic impediment to terrorist activities in the US.


Yes it will. Quote from third link
quote:
The hijacker-pilot who flew into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, had a total of four driver's licenses and ID cards from three states. The DHS, which was created in response to the attacks, has created a slogan for REAL ID: "One driver, one license."


In the new plan, to board a plane or enter a federal building you need a new REAL ID compliant driver's license, and to get one you need a SSN AND immigration status check. Hani Hanjour should not have gotten all those driver's licenses. Of course, some Democrats want to hand them out to everyone...

quote:
At the end of the day, the net effect of this is to increase the scope/power of the federal government at the expense of the states

Hardly. This new form of driver's license is not a new and seperate ID card. It is meant to replace your driver's license. You go to a bank and instead of showing your old driver's license, you show your new driver's license. It's that simple.


RE: Where's the beef?
By diablofish on 1/11/2008 3:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I think they probably did know a little bit more than you realize. Heard of the Whiskey Rebellion? Or the Crusades for that matter? Invasions or "acts of war" with "terroristic" attributes have been occurring all over the world for more many more years than just the past 7 years.

And keep in mind terrorists aren't necessarily foreigners. Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Ted Kaczinski, certain PETA members, etc. all performed terrorist attacks within the country and would have likely had a legal US ID since they were US citizens.


RE: Where's the beef?
By Spuke on 1/11/2008 4:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You really think those who wrote the Constitution could foresee the future and know what kind of world we live in today?
Well, what kind of Constitution would you suppose we have since the one we have is so antiquated in your estimation? I don't live in fear so it's not necessary for me to vote away my rights for more perceived safety.

I actually think it's a good idea to make the drivers license process more stringent but I don't think it's a good idea to turn it over to the federal government. I'm happy there are 30 states that have decided to dissent.


RE: Where's the beef?
By retrospooty on 1/11/2008 2:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
"It's not like they're putting a GPS chip in your drivers license or anything."

baby steps... thats several years down the road. George dubbya would do it now if he thought he could get away with it.

Someday if they do try it, or something similar, there will always be ultra-paranoid conservative's like you willing to toss out the constitution (do you remember the priciples this great country was founded on?) saying "The only people this will negatively impact are criminals."


RE: Where's the beef?
By FITCamaro on 1/11/2008 3:09:47 PM , Rating: 2
No. I would be against something like that. Vehemently. That actually would be an invasion of privacy.

Linking your drivers license to your social security card is not. It has many benefits. Decreased ability of criminals and illegals to gain access to forged identification. Easier process for citizens to get new state IDs when moving. Better ability for law enforcement to track individuals with criminal pasts across state lines.

Does any of this sound like a bad thing? Other than the potential for data theft (which already exists), can you name one downside? Name one way it infringes on someone's privacy.


RE: Where's the beef?
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 3:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
You might want to read some of the arguments against national ID cards:

http://epic.org/privacy/id-cards/

Use google - there are lots of other sites that lay out that side of the argument.


RE: Where's the beef?
By mdogs444 on 1/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Where's the beef?
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 3:29:22 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry, but I for one reject your argument that, because we were the victims of a terrorist attack, that we should just submit to any kind of new regulations that the government comes up with, as long as they are presented as a "possible" solution to the problem of terrorism.

It's funny you bring up the Constitution, since any reading of the Constitution clearly leaves the power to issue identity cards with the states, not in the hands of the Federal government. But the threat of terrorism trumps all, right - including the Constitution!

I would argue that the "sheep" mentality we have adopted post-9/11 is the most significant change that the terrorists were responsible for. We walk around in fear all day long and we allow the government to do anything it pleases, whether it makes sense or not, regardless of the cost, and regardless of the implications it might have in terms of our civil liberties. Heck, it is even considered "un-American" these days to even question the government - how did we get to that?!?


RE: Where's the beef?
By retrospooty on 1/11/2008 3:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I am tired of all of these chicken shiz cowards allowing the govt. to use the fear of terrorism to pass their agenda's. Red state voters need to grow some huevo's and man up, fast.


RE: Where's the beef?
By DKWinsor on 1/12/2008 2:15:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's funny you bring up the Constitution, since any reading of the Constitution clearly leaves the power to issue identity cards with the states, not in the hands of the Federal government


And it still would be. All 50 states and only the 50 states would still issue driver's licenses. In fact, to enter a federal building, you would show a state issued REAL ID driver's license -- as opposed to a federally issued ID card. Imagine that, states having power over the federalies? (yeah it's actually a non issue)

I reject your arguement that because the federal government defines what minimum security measures are implemented, that it then becomes a federally issued ID card. Federally used yes, federally issued no. I never heard anyone complain that a driver's license is bank issued just because you use it as a form of ID at a bank.


RE: Where's the beef?
By TomZ on 1/13/2008 8:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
But where does the constitution give the federal government the authority to dictate such standards to the states?


RE: Where's the beef?
By retrospooty on 1/11/2008 3:38:06 PM , Rating: 4
"Go complain about losing your freedoms to the ones who took a 120 story free fall from the towers."

Umm... hellooooooo , that loss of freedom, and fear mentality it created is EXACTLY WHAT THE TERRORISTS WANTED TO DO . Nice job playing right into their hands. You are about as bright as our current prez. You are too scared to even deal with rationally. Grow some balls and be a man.


RE: Where's the beef?
By mdogs444 on 1/11/2008 3:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are too scared to even deal with rationally. Grow some balls and be a man.

Nice, another false liberal quote to jot down in my black book....right next to "stop driving and walk to work instead" and "OMG the world has increased .3 degrees, run for the hills!"


RE: Where's the beef?
By retrospooty on 1/11/2008 3:56:18 PM , Rating: 3
Dont lump me in with those enviro pansies. I am not into any of that, nor do I fear global warming at all and I live in Arizona. By the way, that has nothing to do with this thread.

You and those like you willing to give up our freedoms for a false sense of security are very misguided and afraid. Sad really.


RE: Where's the beef?
By mdogs444 on 1/11/2008 3:59:23 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, thats not entirely true. What makes me afraid is when the liberal left cries that our freedoms are being taken away - yet wants to put a liberal president in place (Obama) who wants to essentially disarm our nation.

Talk about a double negative.


RE: Where's the beef?
By retrospooty on 1/11/2008 4:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
Obama does not want to disarm our nation. I challenge you to show me where he said that.

He does want to TALK to Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Its called diplomacy and diplomacy is used to avoid endless quagmire wars like we have now.

I guess that does make you afraid, because Bush has hosed things up so badly beyond repair that there is no way in hell the republicans will win the presidency. The dems could put up a monkey and it would win.


RE: Where's the beef?
By eye smite on 1/11/2008 9:47:38 PM , Rating: 2
No, what scares me about Obama is he's of Arab decent. He will not put his hand over his heart when the national anthem is played. His reasoning for this is that he does not respect this country for it's dealings over seas. I don't know where you're from, but to me just those things alone compels me to say he's not even a marginal american. Oh well you reap the seeds you sow, guess you haven't paid enough yet for 8 yrs of Clinton.


RE: Where's the beef?
By retrospooty on 1/11/2008 10:15:23 PM , Rating: 1
Keep your underinformed racist rhetoric to yourself. Obama isnt Arab, his father is from Kenya - that is in Africa (of course to you "it aint white it aint right" right?), and his mother is from the midwest.

I guess you don't understand me or where I am from because I would give anything to bring Clinton back, and the fiscal prosperity and respect we had internationally under his leadership. Too bad Hillary is NOT Bill.


RE: Where's the beef?
By eye smite on 1/12/2008 9:27:49 AM , Rating: 1
Regardless of where his ancestry is, he doesn't salute the flag. I don't give a fuck if he's purple or aquamarine you stereo typing asswipe. He gets my full contempt just as much as you've earned it here. Ask your Mother why she bothered to suffer through 9 months of carrying you. I'm betting cause abortions were too expensive. You want to sling mud or debate civil like. It's up to you, but calling me racist because he doesn't salute the flag.....you suffer from perception issues.

As for Clinton, I can think of a half dozen reasons why the country has been like it has for the last 8 yrs because of him. Oh yeah, let's talk about him trying to cover up his blow job scandal instead of taking care of world problems.


RE: Where's the beef?
By retrospooty on 1/12/2008 10:31:18 AM , Rating: 3
First off, I called you an underinformed racist because you posted "what scares me about Obama is he's of Arab decent" in my sentence, "underinformed" was due to the incorrect assumption of his ancestry, and "racist" was due to the fact that you think his ancestry matters at all... That is not me stereotyping, that is YOU stereotyping. That is NOT what this country is all about. America is a multi-racial country, it always has been. It is about people living toward an ideal of freedom and how to live life, not a common ancestry.

As for not saluting the flag, I agree its not the best way to show contempt for our foreign policy. He should speak out against it, not use a gesture like that. Bush has made a complete mess of our foreign policy, and dont even try to bring Clinton into this. He did a 10x better job than Bush, BJ or not. The ONLY thing that took his time away from his day job as president was the rediculous witch hunt the republicans put on him because of his personal life.

You would seriously rather have an idiot like Bush in charge, that has made a complete mess of our foreign policy, and made us lose virtually all international credibility than Cliston who did a fantastic job, and had an extramarital affair? What the hell. I guess you, and the other 49% that voted for Bush deserve what you get...


RE: Where's the beef?
By gaakf on 1/12/2008 8:13:45 AM , Rating: 3
That has got to be the most racist post I've ever read on Dailytech. Americans are an extremely diverse group of people who have decent from all over the world. I'm baffled by your logic, thinking Americans of Arab decent are not true Americans.

And what exactly are we "paying for" from eight years of Clinton? How can you even begin to compare the flaws and mistakes made in that administration with the current one?

Bill Clinton lied about oral sex and was impeached by the House of Representatives. Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction, taking our country to war and gets REELECTED! Someone besides me has got to see the absurdities in the reasoning of Americans as a whole.

It's people like you, who honestly believe that someone of Arab decent is not a "real" American that make me sick to my stomach.


RE: Where's the beef?
By andrinoaa on 1/12/2008 8:07:49 PM , Rating: 2
Now everybody knows why the rest of the world thinks the USA is full of nutters!! lol lol lol


RE: Where's the beef?
By andrinoaa on 1/12/2008 8:35:26 PM , Rating: 1
Liberals want to improve the world because they see it has issues, neo cons want to dominate and keep it as it is because, because, well, we don't know why really. At least Clinton got a blow job from a willing wanna-be. As other people have stated, what has been the biggest blow job? And which one has come down the hardest?


RE: Where's the beef?
By FITCamaro on 1/11/2008 4:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
You view it as loosing your freedom. I view it as protecting mine.

I think the likelihood that someone can steal my identity with this system goes down as now states will have access to each others info. If someone tries to steal my identity and goes to another state to get a license, they'll see that "Hey, it shows you've got a license in this state. And there it says you're this tall, this color, this heavy, this color eyes which you don't match." (unless someone who looks sufficiently like me steals my identity which is less likely to happen).


RE: Where's the beef?
By Spuke on 1/11/2008 4:42:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If someone tries to steal my identity and goes to another state to get a license, they'll see that "Hey, it shows you've got a license in this state.
It already does that. You just have to look at it.


RE: Where's the beef?
By FITCamaro on 1/12/2008 11:02:54 AM , Rating: 2
No. It doesn't. Most state license systems are completely different from state to state. There is no sharing of information unless there's reason to. Someone at the DMV in California cannot type my SSN in and see my past driving history and what not from Florida. It is also unlikely that they will know if I've committed any crimes in Florida. Because there is no way for them to access Florida's systems. They would have to call Florida and inquire into my previous record, which they don't do for getting a license.

If you've got a horrible driving record in one state and decide to move, that history will likely not follow you to the new state.


RE: Where's the beef?
By 1prophet on 1/12/2008 11:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
45 states and some provinces of Canada already share some information.

Interstate Driver’s License Compact

This is an agreement among 45 participating states to share information regarding certain types of convictions, including drunk driving offenses, such as DUI or DWI. Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Tennessee, and Wisconsin are the only states not belonging to the compact. Under the agreement if a person gets convicted of a drunk driving offense in another state in which he or she resides, the person’s home state will be advised.

The agreement essentially means that, in the 45 member states, there is one driving record for an individual person. This means that if your license is suspended in one of the member states, it is suspended in the other member states as well. Driving privileges cannot then be reinstated until, the privileges are reinstated in the convicting state, or a hearing is held in one of the non-convicting states, and a hearing officer authorizes reinstatement.

For example, if your license is suspended or revoked in another state, you cannot get an Illinois license. When you apply for a Illinois license, you are asked if your license is suspended or revoked in another state. If it is, you cannot legally get a license in Illinois until one of the following occurs: (1) You are reinstated in the other state; (2) You are authorized to reinstate and obtain a license after having a hearing with a Department of Revenue Hearing Officer.


RE: Where's the beef?
By 1prophet on 1/12/2008 11:17:21 PM , Rating: 2
Non Resident Violator Compact

This is an agreement between some 44 states designed to achieve enforcement of penalties for traffic offenses in the various states. The only states that have not joined the compact are: Alaska, California, Michigan, Montana, Oregon, and Wisconsin. Under the agreement, a person who has not paid fines, or taken care of penalties for traffic offenses in another state, can have his license taken away, and/or suspended in the state in which he is driving—until the person’s obligations in the aggrieved state are met.


RE: Where's the beef?
By Nik00117 on 1/11/2008 4:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, its merely one more step to the gov having more control over us. Watch they wait for the majority to clam down, well quitelly silencing the protestors, then they will take it a step furthur.

I don't like this idea at all.