Driver's Licenses to Become National ID Cards 976
XorNand writes: "Time is reporting that the Dept of Transportation, acting on instructions from Congress, is in the process of linking together states' drivers' license databases. They figure that it'll be cheaper and easier to slip under the radar of civil libertarians and privacy watchdogs. Wonder if Larry is a bit peeved that he's not getting his cut?"
Excellent! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Excellent! (Score:5, Interesting)
Won't work for me here in OR, though.. Already don't drive. tried to explain to cop why no license (car == 2000 # steel + 15 gallons volitile liquid intention caused to combust in a contained fashion) and no ID card.. Told him it's not against the law.
they told me that THEY could arrest me if I didn't have an ID. I laughed at the time, until I found out it was true.
end of story.
Re:Excellent! (Score:2)
Re:Excellent! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Excellent! (Score:5, Informative)
On the grounds of the 4th Amendment, you may not be punished for refusing to identify yourself, unless they have reasonable suspicion that you engaged in criminal conduct. So if you're stopped for a traffic violation, you do have to identify yourself if requested.
Re:Excellent! (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, driving is actually a right, not a privilege, upheld by the US Supreme Court and other courts numerous times. They are still free to regulate driving however, including requiring a license to drive. It just means that they can't arbitrarily revoke your license for no reason. Similarly, your right to vote or own a firearm can't normally be revoked, but can if you commit a felony.
Here's a good explanation of the right to drive:
Re:Excellent! (Score:3, Informative)
In CA, if you cannot produce identification you can be arrested and held until they figure out who you are.
Luckily I have left CA and I am screwing up WA now with my other Angelino refugees. I don't think that is the law here but I honestly don't know for sure.
Re:Excellent! (Score:2)
Re:Excellent! (Score:2)
I know going over the border into Canada thru VT or NH you don't even need a passport, a drivers license or birth certificate will work just fine. I've done it many times myself.
Re:Excellent! (Score:3, Insightful)
- Proof of Citizenship
- Proof of Identity
A drivers license serves as proof of identity, but not as proof of citizenship.You would need something else (such as a birth certificate) that proves citizenship (a birth certificate proves citizenship, but not identity).
A passport proves both citizenship and identity, so it's the easiest solution if you want to make sure you don't get held up at the border.
Re:Excellent! (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know what kind of cop you were talking to, but you don't need a piece of paper to prove your identification. Stating your name and a way for them to check is just fine.
Either that, or your part of Oregon is different than my part of Oregon.
They CAN detain you, if they have probable cause, and hold you until they figure out who you are. That is NOT the same as an arrest, and you MUST be released in a certain amount of time, unless you give them good reason to not.
For those interested, the Oregon Revised Statutes are located here [state.or.us].
not quite (Score:4, Informative)
You have been a number for years. Now it's overt. The technology has made invasion cheap, we can fight it or roll over. Any ideas on how to fight?
Re:not quite (Score:5, Interesting)
As soon as the dog get's a drivers license with the dog's actual picture.... I'll be really impressed... but creating a fake persona and hiding your real identity is not that difficult to those that really want to and need to.
Oh and the credit reporting? that is the worst database in terms of accuracy I have ever seen. After recently cleaning my credit of 5, yes 5 incorrect and plain false reportings and findong out that the rate of incorrect and plain wrong reportings on individuals credit reports and even their criminal reports is horribly high. (my ex wife still has it showing outstanding arrest warrents in different databases, even though this happened 3 years ago it has all been settled and cleared up..... I feel sad for her that when pulled over by police outside her home area she has to carry a court paper stating that the warrent is invalid..... (sad as in
Re:not quite (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is exactly why real criminals won't be hindered by these new invasions but the rest of us will live with that background fear that "THEY" will screw up our data (with no accountability) and the result will be that we get our lives totally screwed over. I just read that a special collectors edition DVD of "The Net" is due for release soon. The story is weak, but it makes a great cautionary tale.
Re:n credit reporting... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:n credit reporting... (Score:3, Informative)
He has yet to go to trial, where is his innocence before proof of guilt?
Re:not quite (Score:5, Insightful)
Our world changed on 9/11/01 and it will never ever be the same. We are doing exactly what our enemies wished us to do, we are giving in?
Here's the deal: there have always been businesses and lobbyists waiting in the wings for something to happen that will allow them to get what they want, total control/knowledge of our daily lives. These people, for various reasons, want all this data in one place. They don't care about privacy, they don't care about civil liberties, they only care about their agenda.
Now that the majority of Americans are scared shitless they are getting their laws passed with ease. And they have the greatest reason in the world to shred the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The problem with the average person is that they lack vision. They lack the ability to see beyond their fears and beyond their own problems. They want tax cuts because that $300 will be great for a downpayment on a new tv. They don't mind giving up alittle privacy because they aren't doing anything wrong, not yet.
What people fail to see is the impact on the country as a whole. They fail to see the fact that once these things start being implemented there is no turning back. Social Security numbers weren't meant to be your national ID number, but it turned out that way. Even if social security were abolished, we would still be issued a number xxx-xx-xxxx
I really think the terrorists won, it's over. The United States of America lost and it's over. I am truly saddened by this, I really am. Where can I live now, where is there a country that truly cares about it's citizens?
Re:not quite (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhh... so giving the government more money is a way to recapture our liberties?
Re:not quite (Score:3, Insightful)
As expressed by the thousands of idiots I hear on talk radio and read posts by on the internet? Yes, that has occurred to me.
That's why I'm worried.
Re:not quite (Score:5, Funny)
Was the repo-man friendly, at least?
you seek personal service from the feds! (Score:4, Insightful)
A national ID will just be another ID for people to steal. What makes you think the post office is going to detect fraud any better than a national bank? You delude yourself to think any kind of computer program can take the place of personal service.
Get to know the people you trust your money to. If you want to know your banker, go visit him! Open an account at some nice stable local bank and get to know someone there. If you want to be sure of ticket purchasing, get to know a travel agent. The local banker can offer you the same account and credit card insurnce that the national bank does but he might know your spending habits better than a computer program. Sure, it costs more but there's a trade off to everything isn't there? As a society, we get what we demand.
Identity theft is rampant because big institutions are irresponsible with their lending. The same fool that thought automatic executions of email attachments thought it would be a good idea to offer credit cards by mail. It just screams, screw me and everyone else, I don't care so long as I'm raking in the cash.
Most states will issue a non-drivers-license ID. (Score:4, Informative)
Essentially it's the same as a driver's license except it doesn't license you to drive. Use it to prove your identity, residency, and age, buy booze, cash checks, etc.
Let me guess... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Let me guess... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Let me guess... (Score:2)
Re:Let me guess... (Score:5, Interesting)
so as far as the government will be concerned, there's no difference between citizens and non-citizens in our new national id card system; the only difference will be drivers and non-drivers ("state id card" holders). that will surely fight off the foreign terrorists they're trying to protect us from.
Re:Let me guess... (Score:3, Interesting)
It wouldn't be so bad if the INS actually got off its butt and issued my greencard. It's been over a year now, I had to go down to Memphis and waste a day getting my passport restamped back in November (and then, even though my wife had called up a couple of days before to find out where/what/how, the damn stamping office was closed so we had to make a fuss until we got it stamped).
It's no wonder that terrorists are wandering around on expired visas. I bet half the visas that are expired in this country are because the INS hasn't renewed them when they should. No wonder they aren't chasing expired ones, it would show up their incompetance.
Rich
Re:Let me guess... (Score:2, Insightful)
I hadn't even noticed that. That really irks me. I mean really.
Did you happen to notice that almost all (something like 18 out of 22) of the hijackers were saudis? I wonder where all of saudia arabia's money comes from? Wonder where bin laden's dad's money came from?
Short hit : it's the damn oil we fuel our outdated transport system with.
What about an ID number? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What about an ID number? (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now the SSN is the key to a whole lot of information - one of the few things keeping the world from being 1984-like is the fact that the databases aren't readily accessible. The more the SSN becomes a commonplace number, the more someone can track/grab your identity.
Not to be paranoid or anything...
Re:What about an ID number? (Score:3, Insightful)
Iowa used to use your SSN as the DL number. You could "opt-out" when you got a license, and they would generate an ID. But, that was often quite a hassle as the generated ID had letters in it and many merchants had check clearing systems that flagged an Iowa DL with letters as invalid.
Of course, Iowa was also the only place I ever enountered Y2k problems. In 1997 I had a credit card that expired in 2000. Almost every place I tried to use it claimed it was expired.
Pretty much the standard as it is... (Score:4, Informative)
This makes perfect sense...it's a good thing (Score:3, Interesting)
You already have to show your license or something similar when flying. The chances of fraud will be reduced if we have common standards for all state ID cards.
I agree - needs dual key encryption of biometrics (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pretty much the standard as it is... (Score:2)
What I'm more worried about is the fact that my SSN is on my driver's license, and I want it OFF.
Lose my walet, and I can lose my idenity. (Yes, I know it could happen already, but when all the states are linked, it's going to be rough).
I also have to wonder if I'll still get confused with my father? Had a great credit record because I bought a house when I was 5.
Re:Pretty much the standard as it is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Wake up people, you already have a national ID system, now the government is just looking to consolidate it.
"Land of the Free". Beginning to sound a bit hollow these days.
Rich
Re:Pretty much the standard as it is... (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you lose it, or allow it to be destroyed, you will be subject to immediate de-resolution. That will be all." - SARK
Shouldn't it be... (Score:3, Insightful)
Shouldn't the national ID be uniform across the country? In the sense that the kind of info displayed on the card and the lay out. If it is not uniform, then it's harder to detect forgery on those ID, especially if the ID is out-of-state.
Then, the question on the on-card security add-on implies that we're effectively getting a new driver's licence ID. I dunno why don't they just enforce a single, uniform ID in the first place?
Just my 2c.
Re:Shouldn't it be... (Score:2, Insightful)
(Ok, spare me the rhetoric about how we're no longer a republic, direct election of senators, yadda yadda yadda)
Re:Shouldn't it be... (Score:4, Informative)
For example, the Feds decided that they'd like the national speed limit to be 55 mph back in the seventies(?).
They couldn't mandate the speed limit on the interstates, but -could- withhold federal highway funds from states that elected not to enact the limits.
So you're correct when you say that the Feds don't have the power to mandate this - but they carry a pretty big financial stick to persuade states to play ball.
so now we'll be nationally known (Score:2, Funny)
Where does this leave Virginia? (Score:3, Insightful)
The danger is that such a bogus ID will be taken as valid in more places and for more things due to its "national scope", and it'll be easier to get into things and do more damage than it is now (difficult concept, I know).
Requiremts. for getting ID may be standard too (Score:2)
You also have to have proof of date of birth, which is the tough one. Basically you need a passport, military ID or birth certificate. I have no passport or military ID, so I have to somehow track down my birth certificate (an original, not a copy) before I can get my NY state license.
I believe all this is post-Sep.-11. It used to be much easier...
Wow, that's a lot of data (Score:2)
I'll let everyone else debate whether this is Big Brother or healthy law enforcement. But one thing's for sure: buy stock in face-recognition software companies!
non-photo drivers licenses (Score:2)
Uh-oh... (Score:2)
Seriously, though:
I'm gonna wait for the implants to come around before adopting this. Don't need my muggers getting free health care when they steal my wallet.
right to privacy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the privacy rights - if there really are such things - vulnerable to a nationalized ID card have already been trampled under the wheels of increased security, more efficient law enforcement and better business long ago.
And there lies the problem.
It's too bad that the 28th amendment will probably ban flag burning instead of doing something useful.
Saw on Dateline last night... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Saw on Dateline last night... (Score:3, Informative)
Sounds like it would be more secure than the current methods but it does create a huge Big Brother infrastructure by linking all of those databases. Also, I know how hard it was to get an error on my credit report erased. I imagine maintaining the integrity of this would be a mess. Still, the concept is interesting.
Re:Saw on Dateline last night... (Score:3, Interesting)
What I would envision for the future is the biometric info (e.g. fingerprint) is stored in that barcode. It's not a picture of your thumbprint on the card. Whoever wants to check it would have a piece of equipment that would take your thumbprint live, then swipe your card and compare immediately that way. It would be a pretty simple and quick check. So you'd need a machine that would produce a credit-card style hard plastic photographic id with all the pertinent ID information encoded on the magnetic strip.
I'm sure someone will be able to do it, but not your joe-schmoe college student running things out of his dorm room.
Smart ID cards (Score:3, Interesting)
Bruce didn't consider putting a fingerprint sensor in the card itself. That will rule out some breaks -- neither stealing the PIN by "wiretapping" (and European PIN keypads have some protection against that), nor stealing the card and beating the PIN out of you will get someone into your accounts. But other vulnerabilities still remain. If you build the keys and display into the card itself, you may be quite a lot more secure -- especially if the card does good enough encryption internally and talks directly to the server, which is the only thing outside of the card which knows the key.
But then you've got the case of the Saudi terrorist (say) with a German ID (say), at a traffic stop in Maryland. Will the police car be carrying equipment that can query a database in Germany? Will results come back in a reasonable time? And even if they do, why would a German database show that the FBI wants this guy?
There is also the big issue of how identity is confirmed when someone is first entered into the system. Anyone with my birth certificate and social security number could get an ID in my name, and the SSN is in all sorts of records while you don't have to prove identity to get the birth certificate. If I'm alive and in the system, it should notice the duplication, but there are plenty of dead people to choose from. Internationally, there are many nations where records got blown up or never were complete, so you've pretty much got to take people's word about their identity.
How are points going to work (Score:2)
Bush won't let this happen (Score:4, Funny)
:)
SIN-less (Score:2)
The scary part (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure which is the scarier part of the article- the way it blythely assures you that this isn't really a significant step because the civil liberties damage is already done, or the fact that this is probably true. As they point out, all this involves is linking together data that's already kept and making it a bit easier to access. The problem is that making it easier to access will make it that much more tempting to access it for more and more trivial reasons. If it's really possible to check any driver's licence just by scanning it, how long will it be until you have to scan your license to buy alcohol or tobacco, rather than just showing it (or here in California not bothering to show it because nobody seems to care)?
What if I... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just a thought...
But seriously, though, if information is property, how long will it be before everyday citizens claim their personal information as IP? How long will it be before we get a right to privacy? How much of Big Brother and Big Corp invading our lives does it take?Re:What if I... (Score:2)
"Big Brother and Big Corp" run the game. They set the rules. There is effectively nothing that private citizens can do to change this.
Re:What if I... (Score:2)
Cute, but it doesn't work (Score:3, Informative)
This was the subject of a lawsuit over phone books. One phone book produced sued another for copying the contents of the book, claiming copyright infringement. The court dismissed the suit, saying that the names and numbers in a phone book are factual in nature, and thus not copyrightable. If there were some novelty to the ordering, organization, or selection of the names -- some piece of "original" work -- then it would be copyrightable. But alphabetic ordering certainly fails this test.
Your name, address and personal data are all factual. So your idea doesn't really work. Cute, though.
It has been for awhile... (Score:2)
Try doing much of anything that matters WITHOUT a form of state issued ID, and for the most part, you will be SOL. National ID's are here, and have been here for quite some time. Get over it OR get used to it.
Watch your tone (Score:4, Insightful)
Driving a "privilege" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Driving a "privilege" (Score:2)
Here in the South, some people considered that blinkers are for girls only. And those rednecks thinks that they own the left lane just because they have an expensive car or a red pickup....
This is the end of the civilized world. From now on, I am staying home!
No objectivity (Score:2)
The plan, Congress hopes, will be cheaper and easier to implement, and less likely to incur the talk-show ire of civil libertarians and states' rights purists (the same type who squawked in 1908 when the FBI was born).
I'm not one to usually "squawk" about bias in journalism, but what kind of sorry excuse for objectivity is this? "Congress" hopes? since when did congress think all alike? "Talk-show ire"?
I feel genuinely ill.
What will be the death bill for that one? (Score:2)
The current situation is already terrible. Most americans think they have the right to have a driver license, and that's probably why the license is so ridiculously easy to get. But now, even the failures who couldn't pass the driving tests will have access to a driver license...
Insurance quotes will go up, up, UP !
Maybe I'm just naive, but... (Score:2)
Author's Assurance (Score:2)
Whew. I can go back to sleep now.
Insurance companies are going to love this. (Score:2)
I had a nasty no-no on my driving record (and lack there of for 3 months after it was revoked) in one state and moved away in 6 months of it happening. (it was because I graduated college
Nevertheless, in the new state I arrived in, they did a run of "my license" to see if I had any bad marks on it. Guess what
Now with this "new" systems, they will probably be able to back track all your offenses from state to state.
"Sorry John Doe, you received a speeding ticket 10 years ago and we consider you high risk."
Another thing
We are screwed
Re: (Score:2)
Get a DUI and vanish! (Score:2)
Re:Get a DUI and vanish! (Score:3, Funny)
If you REALLY want to disappear without a trace get yourself a sitcom on the WB network. Both you and your career will not be heard from again.
Actually, civil/privacy rights groups for it... (Score:5, Interesting)
- Decentralized database. States would be the only repository of the information associated with the DL. This as opposed to a large federal database (and at much added cost).
- Standardizing the info on the cards. This would include a photo id, signature, and a magbar for quick input into a computer. Instead of the mess in which some states don't have photo IDs, some require SSN, etc. This still leaves enough up to the states as to not trample their states' rights.
- Improved communication between databases. Because the system would be decentralized, there would need to be an easy way for government officials to request info from such DBs; because states would be required to at least store a minimum of information, it would be simple to define a query standard. This way, rules can be put in place that if information is requested without a warrent, only specific pieces could be sent. If the database was centralized, then this would be much harder to enforce.
The groups are not completely at ease; this plan would suddenly give several DMVs near-absolute power, and unless regulations are put in place, this might be abuse. They also do worry, as many have posted, that there are both legal and illegal reasons not to have a DL; those that legally lack one may be forced to get one despite not having to drive -- this may cause states to have to provide DLs with "No Driving" restrictions to be issued in general for those currently without one.Interesting (Score:2, Troll)
This will be expensive.... (Score:2)
The challenges in combining 50 states databases, all in different formats, containing different information, stored in different formats, etc. will be a very difficult and time intensive challenge.
And, I wonder if they will even be able to get many states to give up their databses?
Magnetic ID cards. my name is M19432-54781-69472 (Score:2)
All cops have a little computer in their cars where they can swipe your lisence and bring up your criminal and civil record. It's gotten to the point now where some dance clubs swipe licenses in order to check ID for age. There is already significant talk of uniting both of these card into a one piece that also contains the Social Insurance Number(Social Security for you americans).
Anyways my point is that this all managed to slip under the radar in Ontario about five years back and there was almost no public resistance to it(probably because the old two-piece driver's lisence was so damn ugly and inconvenient), and there is almost no public knowledge as to what kind of information is actually stored on that magnetic strip.
Don't let it happen if you can avoid it.
But I already _have_ a National ID card! (Score:2)
But yeah, not everybody has one of those like they do those blue cards that say "Social Security" on the front with a name and a random nine-digit number...
-JDF
This was set up by requiring social security #s (Score:2)
That happened when they changed the law to require the states to collect social security numbers and link them to the licenses in their databases.
(I believe the excuse used was tracking down absentee fathers who were delinquent in their child support payments.)
Frank doesn't get it.... (Score:3, Insightful)
But until Congress passes a law like that -- and until you can't enter a movie theater without the usher checking you for priors -- there isn't all that much to get exercised about.
Er, no Frank, that's when it's too damn late to start doing anything about it.
Once you get to that stage people start becoming afraid of resisting goverments attempts to be Big Brother in all aspects of life, as it becomes a lot easier for the government to make otherwise innocent peoples life difficult by 'accidently' putting false information on the cards.
Oops. We accidentally put that you've got a criminal history on your card...oh well better luck at the next job interview.
Most of the privacy rights -- if there really are such things...
Yes, Frank such a thing does exist in the rest of the world. Here's [dataprotection.gov.uk] the government body that protects my privacy and data.
For some, the real problem with smarter, more centralized ID cards is that they give bureaucrats a better chance to screw up more of your life
No there are lots of people who don't like the idea of either government or companies being able to see anymore information about them, than is absolutely necessary.
With the growth of the Internet it is getting far too easy for companies and governments to trade information about their citizens.
Re:Frank doesn't get it....getting OT (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact the only time there was a widespread to detain possible terrorists was the internment in the 1970's, which cause so much hatred of the UK government, that it recruited a whole new generation of terrorists for the Republican cause.
To prevent terrorists striking against you, a country has three options:
1) Stop the terrorists hating you so much that they will risk their lives or commit suicide to hurt you.
2) Have focussed intelligence agencies that can actually gather and act on intelligence data, rather than destabilising other countries.
3)Kill _everyone_ who might not like you.
The US is having a good go at number 3 (3,800 civilians [indymedia.org] so far and counting), but in the long run methods one and two are cheaper in dollars, lives lost and liberties given up in the name of freedom.
Fake Licenses? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all about trust relationships. At some point down the line you have to trust that somebody has verified who a person is and has done so accurately. As long as the system is dependent on trusting an underpaid, overworked, low level bureaucrat, people who want to get false identification will continue to do so. Heck, even if they are a well paid bureaucrat in a cushy position, they can still be bought, it just costs a bit more.
Ultimately the only people who this will effect is law abiding citizens who don't get fake ID's. Anybody who honestly wants to conceal their identity will continue to do so in any number of ways that are nearly impossible to prevent.
A look ahead to the nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
And once there are nifty little networked readers in all these places, it'll be incredibly trivial for Big Brother to track your movements-- hey, you had to give your SSN when you bought that prepaid cell phone after the PATRIOT II passed in 2003, right?
And, of course, Big Brother has lots of annoying minions working in the IRS, local law enforcement, and collections agencies, all of whom are going to have much easier access to records than the law would suggest.
This isn't the America I want to live in. I want to live in a country where the long arm of the law doesn't have the resources to pursue anyone but the real baddies, by conventional means like the ones we had five or ten years ago.
I want this for your sake. I want you to be able to escape bad debts, a warrant for your arrest on drug charges, the ex-spouse with an unfair judgement against you. Right now you could change your name, move to another state, pay cash, and live quietly, and thankfully, never screwing up again.
But once all this is in place, you'll be sickly aware that you'll never manage to avoid the little red light on the ID-card scanner that'll bust you in a moment. Then you'll be more prone to a violent solution to your desparate situation, once escape and disappearance are no longer a realistic option. That's worse for my own safety.
(Of course, it'll please the Feds-- more of an excuse to clamp down on gun rights!)
I want to live in a country with a little breathing room, without an omnipresent electronic nanny state.
Doesn't anybody else, in the country of Patrick Henry and Tom Paine? Isn't anybody going to fight this?
I know that some of you, for your "safety", want to have a national ID card, national ID number, surveillance cameras, and face recognition everywhere. But isn't there a place, actually otherwise a really nice place, that you could move to? I think it's called "Europe".
Re:A look ahead to the nightmare (Score:3, Insightful)
The slippery slope argument is perfectly valid when applied to a person or organization with a proven record of sliding down the slippery slope.
For instance, the fact that someone with a record of throwing firecrackers at cats and fighting dirty in schoolyard brawls does not necessarily mean that he's eventually going to kill or maim someone. However, nobody in his right mind would knowingly hire such a person to baby-sit their toddler.
Similarly, nobody in his right mind would trust the government that brought us COINTELPRO, political tax audits, Carnivore, etc. with the additional power that could be excersized under a "national ID" scheme.
Re:A look ahead to the nightmare (Score:3, Insightful)
Your classic error is assuming that any alarmist scenario is worthless. I'm sure there were once people like you telling the German Jews that things couldn't get any worse too!
The fact that the "slippery slope" is a cliche doesn't make it less worrisome. The end result may not be as far downslope as the previous poster stated, but since you can't prove that it won't be, why stifle conversation? How is it not a positive trait to anticipate the worst and design a solution to avoid it?
The real problem with a national ID (Score:3, Interesting)
Unifying the ID isn't really a big deal in and of itself. There's no danger to civil rights that people could more easily verify the validity of identification. The particular set of information they choose to standardize on is likely to be innocuous.
The danger of a national ID is in the way it is used. In particular, in the use of a magstrip or other machine-readable common format. Most states seem to have something like this -- Illinois has some sort of 2D bar code, for instance -- but because there's no standard you cannot reasonably expect to scan every person's card at some given point. So I've never seen anyplace where they actually use a machine to read the card.
If you have a national ID, then this would no longer be the case. It makes it very possible -- and likely inevitable -- that IDs will regularly be scanned in all sorts of locations. Courthouses, airports (whether or not you are flying), privately secured locations (office buildings, etc.)... and the next thing you know there's random road blocks (to catch drunk drivers, drug smugglers, terrorists, or whatever other justification they choose) and they'll scan your ID.
If these systems were one-way, even this wouldn't be too terribly bad. That is, if such scans only checked to see if there was an outstanding warrant or other legal restriction placed on you. However, this is unlikely to be the way these cards would be used by the government, and certainly not the way they'd be used by private security. It is all too easy to record every time you pass such a checkpoint, and in that way coming up with an extensive profile of every person's movement and associations.
Of course, much of this already exists with credit cards. And who knows... maybe they'll join them together.
Is this really new? (Score:3, Informative)
As though no one possessing a valid ID has ever committed a terrorist attack...
Is this really that bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is, just because they have a possibility to be used for evil, dosen't mean they will be. Look at Napster: it (in itself) is not illegal, it just has the possibility of being used for illegal purposes, yet we support it. Now switch the word "illegal" with "bad" and the word "Napster" with the phrase "National ID Card" and instantly our opinion chanages. Well-legislated IDs can be useful, and besides, most of you already have one; it's called a Passport (and if you don't have one you should). They can be well used in such things are preventing identity theft, reducing fraud, and miinimizing travel pains. The key to them is well-written and concrete legislation, crafted without the input of lobby groups or vested interests. In France, no bartender can ask for your National ID card, nor can an insurer, a municipal police officier, or a private company. In fact, I htink it may be a constitutional right that only the Feds can (not sure about that). Do they have a problem with it? No, because only (theoretically) responsible people have access to the card. Legislate well, and National IDs (be them in Driver's Licence form or whatnot) can be a Good Thing(tm).
Unintended Consequences (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the most important unintended features of our government is the amount of play between law and enforcement. It is widely understood (among law and philosophy students, anyway) that no society enforces its laws perfectly. Laws are usually written with the inherent limitations of the state in mind.
In many cases, a poorly or selectively enforced law is good for society - and I will take copyright as an example (albeit a hot button one). We currently have an impossibly strict and protectionist set of laws protecting authors (of books, software, etc). Yet these laws are rarely enforced at all, and when they are, typically against companies or large organizations doing what we would call "bootlegging" or "piracy" and hardly ever against "informal" violations. Person to person breaches of copyright happen with astounding frequency and, looked at objectively, constitute a massive act of civil disobedience, with just those acts we know about totaling millions per minute (napster, etc). This state of affairs, where enforcement lags behind the law, has two important effects it would have been difficult to achieve "head on:"
1) Artists do get paid, and they get paid quite well. Copyrightable media is a worldwide business estimable in the trillions of dollars. Most people who can pay the author, do.
2) Conversely, lower-income and disadvantaged users gain access to books, software, and other media for free (by violating the law without consequences).
Should this be stopped via systematic enforcement, a massive chilling effect would occur across all aspects of our society, as children, students, and low-income users could no longer learn on stolen $1,000 compilers, or depend on hundreds of "stolen" texts. Programmers lose their (illegal) access to the latest tools and work of the industry, slowing feedback and development overall. As copyrighted material represents our intellectual heritage, properly enforcing the tollbooth in front of it stymies our intellectual development.
Surveillance technology such as a national ID is dangerous because, aside from the obvious potential for abuse, it allows for enforcement which is too effective. Many of the laws in our country were written as copyright law is - to be enforced using traditional, 20th century law-enforcement techniques. In some cases these laws (copyright, taxes) have extravagant penalties by way of "intimidation" - since enforcement is expected to be difficult or impossible. While new technology may be effective in improving enforcement against violent criminals and other laudable activities (for which improved enforcement actually is better), it will have numerous negative effects as it surpasses legislative intent on good laws and reduces the "containment" of bad laws.
Of course, no discussion of federal or quasi-federal surveillance or information-gathering technology should pass without further acknowledgement of the general "chilling effect" on free speech and free expression these technologies create.
When people are aware that they are being observed (even in abstract, highly specific, or systematized ways), their behavior is altered - whether it is no longer stealing a kiss on a dark street corner for fear of the mute eyes of the surveillance camera on the traffic light, or altering the way they write their correspondence, choosing not to share an opinion in a debate, or choosing not to travel. This is an implicit and often unconscious reaction to authority, and it represents, collectively, the psychological weight of being observed. U.S. Courts have acknowledged that this kind of tacit "intimidation" sometimes constitutes a breach of our first amendment rights, as it makes us self-conscious and we work to avoid an implicit judgment. It is political dialogue on a primitive level - and where those in power are actively observing, "dissent" is stifled.
Common sense can tell you that to live in a state of "freedom" we must be free of the specter of observation.
The story of government is the story of uneasy compromise between freedom and conformity necessary for a healthy society. America has had its success on the foundation of personal freedom's default supremacy; here, our homes, our persons, and our daily business are meant to be sacrosanct and immune from invasion by both each other and the state, as evinced by many of our strongest legal edicts (the Bill of Rights is preoccupied extensively with personal sovereignty, and it is - theoretically - the highest legal doctrine in our country). Our lives were meant to be lived outside the view of the government, which must be absent unless it has "probable cause" - and by and large, this is true... at least for the moment.
This is not an accident, but by design. Our government's success is based on its distrust of itself. We could still have a monarchy if we believed people in power always know what's best, or do the right thing. Instead, we have a complicated, subdivided, cynical democracy; one which, even now, functions in spite of itself, its wheels greased with millions of illegal yet necessary actions every moment. In all of human history, Government has never, ever walked it's talk, but with new technology, it might soon be ready to try.
there is nothing wrong with national ID cards (Score:3, Insightful)
Problems arise when the "card" isn't just a card, but a set of back-end databases and records that are exchanged in non-transparent ways and that you have no control over. Problems also arise when the "cards" and ID numbers are designed and used poorly (e.g., when knowing your semi-public social security number potentially can be used to get access to your bank accounts).
The problem with using driver's licenses and all the other bogus ID documents and numbers that exist in the US is that they don't work well and are being used for things they were never designed for. Self-proclaimed civil libertarians are at fault here: we won't get any good, secure ID cards and numbers as long as any such effort is immediately torpedoed.
What we should do to protect our civil liberties is to design a robust, secure system of identification, and create privacy legislation that lets us get control of who stores what data about us. Or, in different words, the complete opposite of the agenda of the libertarians and the conservatives.
Well, take this as a counterexample... (Score:3, Informative)
All German citizens are required to have a national ID card. The card is about the same size as a passport (see below for why). It has a photo, place of birth, ID number (which is not the Social Security number -- since the national ID has its own number, there is no need for using the pension fund number for everything as in the US), physical description and city/state of current residency.
The ID card also is used in the German passport (which is why the size is what it is), thus killing two birds with one stone.
The card must be renewed every few years, with a new photo and so on; any time you move, you must also get a new card or have the current one updated with the new place of residency. You have to show proof of residency -- a rental contract, a lease or a deed for land, for example. (Foreigners have to do a lot more -- proof of right to work, proof of employment or place of study, proof of income, statement of renouncing of rights to social services, no prior criminal record, in some cases an affidavit from a German sponsor, etc.)
The thing is, the whole infrastructure of making this work is missing in the US. Not only is there a lack of legislation regulating the use and defining abuse of the ID card (privacy is actually strictly protected in Germany, at least against private individuals), but a lack of people to manage that information.
Every German city and county (Landkreis or Gemeinde) has a residency office, or Einwohnermeldeamt, where all residents (citizens and foreigners) are required to register (and unregister if you move), along with showing documentation for previous places of residency, next of kin and so on. It is a serious offense to lie on any of those forms or to have a false ID; it is a minor offense to not carry an ID at all times (driver's license doesn't count).
Because the national ID is not directly linked to the retirement system (or anything else), there is a greatly reduced danger of identity theft WRT the pension or health insurance system. (Cashing checks almost never happens in Germany -- checks are rarely used -- and for an ID at the bank, you use your bank card anyway.)
The information stored is decentralized -- meaning, while the authorities can quickly access it if need be, it's not all in one spot waiting to be abused; and no one but the government and the inidividual may access that individual's information. Anyone caught trying to misuse or hand over that information to third parties is in deep doo-doo.
What I want to know is, why not have such a system in the States, rather than this half-arsed idea with driver's licenses? As many have pointed out already, it's vastly open to abuse or chaos and won't do a thing to identify people out-of-state...
Anyway...
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Privacy doesn't exist if you function in society (Score:3, Insightful)
Own a credit card? How about a driver's license? A checking account? If you answered yes to any of these, you have already sacrificed a significant amount of your privacy for the sake of convenience.
None of these things are mandatory. You don't have to get a credit card and no one is holding a gun to your head making you drive. Any (and especially all) of those 3 things gives the state an enormous amount of information. They know where you get your money from, what you spend it on, probably where you live, what kind of car you drive, where you got this car, what you do with it, and can practically learn everything about you without ever meeting you in person.
So, why do we do it? Simple. Try to survive without a credit card. Pretty doable, but it rules out most e-commerce, and makes staying at hotels pretty difficult. No driver's license? Sure, but if you don't live in a city, you're probably fucked without a car.
No checking account? You're going to have to go far out of your way just to perform basic life functions. You expose yourself to great personal risk by mailing cash (and many companies will flat out refuse it). You have to get money orders for everything, and you could never accept money orders because cashing them requires ID. You'll probably fail most credit checks (which are done for everything nowadays; mobile phones, apartment leases, etc)
Beginning to see a trend? To function in society, you need to have some degree of accountability. You forfeit quite a lot of your freedom just so you can function. It's no coincidence that many ultra-privacy/paranoid people are drifters.
Being unknown is entirely your right, but fat lotta good it'll do you. A National ID card is entirely voluntary, so if you want the convenience of speedy airport checkout, you'll do it. And if not, no biggie. Get on the other line.
Re:In the worst possble German accent I can manage (Score:2, Insightful)
-
Re:Yeah, a license to drive (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, a license to drive (Score:2)
And the lack of it (via suspensions) is a good indication that you *shouldn't* be continually endangering other people's lives... why is it that the local police blotter always has several "Joe Schmoe was stopped for [tail light/reckless driving/running a stop light] and the officer found that he was driving with a suspended license from a DUI. This is Joe's fourth offense while suspended" kind of items... I still don't buy into the drug legalization thing yet, but won't someone lock up (or heavily fine) the fools who continue to endanger people's lives with heavy, powerful machinery? [/rant]
Sorry about that... I feel better now... but if you know anyone who was broadsided by a drunk who already had his DL suspended twice, I'm sure you can sympathize.
Re:Constitution (Score:2, Informative)
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Elastic Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
9th and 10th Amendments Explained (Score:5, Insightful)
The 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" is one such reassurance. All it's saying is "don't worry if you don't see one of your rights explicitly spelled out in the Constitution - just because it isn't in there doesn't mean that the Constitution gets rid of it."
The 9th Amendment has been brought up as an argument for the right to privacy, but to my knowledge a court has never accepted that argument. However, the Supreme Court has said that a right to privacy does exist as an implication of some of the other amendments (specifically in the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment.)
The 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" is another amendment that you could say doesn't really do much. The authoritative word on the matter was set down by none other than John Marshall (who is probably most famous for articulating the theory of judicial review in Marbury vs. Madison). In Marshall's decision of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he said two things - 1) the people who wrote the amendment didn't mean for it to limit the powers of the Federal government because they wrote it to read "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution..." instead of "The powers not [explicitly] delegated to the United States by the Constitution...". It might seem somewhat absurd to parse the sentence so much, but for the most part members of the First Congress, which submitted the amendment in the first place, agreed that the court was interpreting their intent correctly. 2)Marshall pointed out that any document that explicitly enumerated every power of government would be too large, convoluted, and cumbersome a document to even be understood. Remember, we have the Constitution was written by a group of men who considered the Confederation too weak to fix.
What may be confusing, though, is that the history of the 10th Amendment isn't as simple as that. Even though the authoritative decision was made in 1819 the Courts would occasionally use the 10th Amendment to curtail the powers of the federal government. It's generally accepted that the court wasn't doing this because it had stumbled upon a more correct interpretation of the Constitution (after all, James Madison himself agreed with Marshall, and he wrote the Bill of Rights, so he should know!) No, the Court was curtailing Congress's power for political reasons, specifically the fact that most members of the court believed in laszie faire economics. The fact that the Court tried to cut the legs out from under Congress is a great example of the way the 3 branches fight amongst each other, and the reason we need checks and balances. Anyway, speaking of checks and balances, the practice of using the 10th Amendment to cripple Congress came to an end when FDR enacted all those government programs that he's so famous for. Think about it, the Depression era programs have to be the greatest expansion of Federal powers in our history - how was he able to get it past a Court that wanted explicitly wanted a weak federal government. In 1937 FDR checked the power of the Supreme Court by threatening to expand the Supreme Court and to add members who would give him the results he wanted. It's an amazingly dirty tactic, but it did restore the interpretation that is regarded to be the correct interpretation. This interpretation was reiterated by the 1941 case United States v. Darby.
So, what was the point of the 10th Amendment? Just like the 9th amendment it was a statement intended to reassure the people, but not to alter the functioning of the Constitution - it was simply a statement of a truism.
I have to admit though, that the argument isn't 100% dead. Why? Because in 1995 the conservatives of the Supreme Court (the same political types that were invoking the 10th Amendment before FDR) invoked the 10th Amendment again (US vs Lopez) - now, so far this seems to be a fairly limited ruling (because it hasn't affected any laws outside of the original law yet), but it may be that politically inspired use of the 10th Amendment is coming back in vogue. (Mostly depends on if more conservatives get added to the court, the decision to invoke the 10th was one of those 5-4 affairs.)
So, in summary, there's a chance that the Supreme Court would agree with you as far as the 10th Amendment goes, but 1)I doubt they would be correct in so agreeing, and 2)cynically speaking they probably won't do that to a law enacted in this environment by a Republican President. For better arguments than mine, I suggest reading the remarks of the Justices for the cases I've mentioned.
IANAL, but I was a history major.
Re:Hypocracy (Score:2)
If it were, anyone could drive, even people who aren't fit to drive! And there are definitely people who aren't.
Blind people, comatose people, etc, etc....
Re:Anyone who thinks this isn't a national ID card (Score:2)
Already national commercial database (Score:4, Informative)