backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 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.