Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Politics Government Your Rights Online

Massachusetts Joins the Real ID Fight 330

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the may-8-last-day-to-say-no dept.
In the battle against big government and the infamous Real ID, Massachusetts has hopped on board. In the words of State Senator Richard T. Moore, D-Uxbridge, "Historically, Americans have resisted the idea, which totalitarian governments have tended to do, of having a national ID. That's the broad philosophical issue. I don't think it's a good move and I would be reluctant to see why we are going to that step." And State Attorney General Martha Coakley thinks "it's a bad idea." Should be interesting to see how it gets voted.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Massachusetts Joins the Real ID Fight

Comments Filter:
  • Sadly... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fyngyrz (762201) * on Monday May 07, 2007 @03:06PM (#19026387) Homepage Journal

    I have a nagging feeling that the real reason this is being resisted is because congress expected the states to bear the cost. If they ran it through again, 100% federally funded, I doubt there would be any significant resistance.

    • Re:Sadly... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hsmith (818216) on Monday May 07, 2007 @03:09PM (#19026447)
      Actually it is two fold. They are making the states implement it, but the money they steal from the citizens in the form on national taxes are being used to blackmail the states into implementing the ID. So if the states don't go along with their fascist idea of a national ID, the fed keeps the money and spends it in other states. Thus, your freedom is being sold off for your own taxes.

      God bless the government and legalized blackmail
      • Sadder still (Score:2, Insightful)

        National IDs really don't offer the powers that be any more control over your life than a drivers license etc which you need to show for many transactions etc. Face it: the real reason you don't have a national ID is because you don't need one and the Feds can do fine with what they have.

        What this issue does really provide is an inflammatory diversion to attract the attention away from something else.

        • Re:Sadder still (Score:5, Insightful)

          by fyngyrz (762201) * on Monday May 07, 2007 @03:41PM (#19027035) Homepage Journal
          National IDs really don't offer the powers that be any more control over your life than a drivers license etc which you need to show for many transactions etc.

          That remains to be seen. One of the things that RealID has (legislatively) plugged into it is an as-yet unspecified standard for technologies such as RFID. This would provide a nationally uniform means to track individuals each and every time they came into range of an RFID reader, which in turn provides the incentive to create such a network. Once you're pegged as being located in any particular place, that same network could be used to deliver all manner of specific information about you (and database integration is also part of the legislation.) I find this both likely and unsettling; I think liberty requires privacy, freedom to travel, and some measure of limits upon the government - if you're not currently being hunted as a criminal, punished as a criminal, or under post-release, sentence-imposed limits as a criminal, I can't see that they have any right or need to know where you are, what you are doing, or why you are doing it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by gad_zuki! (70830)
      Yeah, its not like these "totalitarian governments" already have me:

      1. Registering for the draft at voting age.
      2. Getting a drivers license (barring that a state ID)
      3. Registering my car and license.
      4. Maintain a passport if I want to travel.
      5. Maintain a social security number.
      6. File state and federal taxes.
      7. Maintain a FOID card.
      etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

      I like the national ID because it arguable can fold services 1, 2, 4, and 7 into one stupid card and cut the bureaucracy. Instead the sta
      • ... that the government always EXPANDS their requirements.

        So, in order to avoid being REQUIRED to have a National ID, you have to go to the extra effort of maintaining (how much effort is that?) a few extra forms.

        Sounds like a great deal to me. But then I'm philosophically opposed to "papers, please" becoming common in the US.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by rtb61 (674572)
          The only way to have a national ID in a free democracy is to make a legally and permanently voluntary, not only for obtaining one but also for displaying one.

          A typical petty abuse of a compulsory ID is quite simply for enforcement officer to request it and simply flick it into the street drain when you present it and then again demand that you show failure to do so means a trip to the station and a few hours wasted attempting to prove your identity and obtain a temporary internal passport, combined with a

      • by garcia (6573)
        I like the national ID because it arguable can fold services 1, 2, 4, and 7 into one stupid card and cut the bureaucracy. Instead the states are busy protecting the jobs of their inane traffic/records bureaucracy and are afraid of the cost of modernization.

        I want to travel but I don't want to travel internationally. I have absolutely no desire (especially with the unnecessary idea of RFID embedded passports) to obtain a passport. Why should I bend to the Federal Government and get something that is 100% p
      • by Kadin2048 (468275) * <[slashdot.kadin] [at] [xoxy.net]> on Monday May 07, 2007 @03:41PM (#19027043) Homepage Journal
        I like the national ID because it arguable can fold services 1, 2, 4, and 7 into one stupid card and cut the bureaucracy.

        Hahahahahaha(snort)hahha ... ha. .. ha.

        Okay, I'm done.

        Seriously, do you really think that's going to happen? Have you ever worked with the government? What you'll end up with is one gigantic new Federal agency, which contains all the bureaucracy of the agencies it was supposed to replace, plus a lot of administrative overhead, plus the added cost of high-level management ... it'll be a total shitshow. That's what the government does. They don't "cut bureaucracy," they are bureaucracy.

        And none of this ID crap would change the state drivers' license procedure, so you'd still have all the same crap at the state-level DMVs. No elimination there. And this ID wouldn't replace Passports, so you still have that separately, under the State Department -- that's not going away any time soon.

        There's no "reduction" of anything happening here. All it's going to do is create a new layer of bureaucracy on top of what already exists in the form of your state drivers license.

        It'll be a few hundred million dollars of taxpayer dollars down the drain, and the end result will be a whole lot of personal data siloed in some giant database run by a brand-new agency in Washington.*

        * Probably not actually in Washington; it'll probably get an office somewhere out on the fringes somewhere.
        • * Probably not actually in Washington; it'll probably get an office somewhere out on the fringes somewhere.

          In the UK for instance.
      • by pilgrim23 (716938)
        "...and cut the bureaucracy." Sorry, that will NEVER happen. There is an old old joke of a fellow walking the hall at the BIA, seeing a case worker in his office weeping at his desk. He asks: "What is the problem?" the case worker replies: "My Indian Died!".

        Bureaucracy needs no reason, needs no purpose other then to grow and gain fiefdom. Adding a new level will in NO WAY reduce the old level.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by dlenmn (145080)

          "...and cut the bureaucracy." Sorry, that will NEVER happen.

          Look, in general I'm as skeptical as anyone about government bureaucracy getting smaller, but it's not like there's a physical law stating that it's impossible -- I've seen it happen. It used to be when you wanted to get a passport in my area, you'd have to go to this tiny office in the county government center/court house that had bad hours and was always busy. Now you can go to any one of numerous post offices to do the same thing (with less waiting in line) -- some of them even do passports on weekends.

      • Re:Sadly... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by lawpoop (604919) on Monday May 07, 2007 @03:46PM (#19027147) Homepage Journal

        Yeah, its not like these "totalitarian governments" already have me [seven different items].

        I like the national ID because it arguable can fold services 1, 2, 4, and 7 into one stupid card and cut the bureaucracy.
        The whole idea behind Totalitarianism is to get rid of the bureaucracy and centralize power so that when the dictator says "jump", everyone jumps. The United States was founded on the concept of separation of powers, so that no part of the government would become overly powerful and tyrannical.

        Sure, everyone hates to see their tax dollars wasted on duplication and inefficiency. But the opposite is *much*, *much* worse -- a totally efficient, effective government, where one strong, charming person who comes into power could send millions to their death with the stroke of pen. When you have a powerful government with little bureaucracy to slow down the functioning of governments, a tyrant can easily increase his own powers without anything slowing him down. Layers of government, separation of powers, the insanity of various forms and departments, are the boring, mundane details that protect us from concentration camps.
        • by Dan Ost (415913)
          Either extreme is unsustainable. There has to be a sweet spot in the middle somewhere.

          When the redundancy is obvious, the processes should be refactored.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ihandler (209589)
        I guess I am getting tired of this argument since both sides are missing critical functional specs (so to speak). A national ID will never furnish any "security" and will, at best, marginally improve government ability to track individuals (assuming they can actually competently implement a system of the size needed). Our privacy has already been compromised by the government and zillions of corporations, opposing the national id protects nobody. The right wing nut cases in intelligence and law enforceme
        • national id (Score:4, Informative)

          by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_2000.yahoo@com> on Monday May 07, 2007 @06:51PM (#19029481)

          the id is useful for delivering services to citizens...
          such as national health insurance...

          Forget that! I don't want any national healthcare! All that leads to is rationing. I'm all for affordable health insurance for everyone but I oppose mandated nation healthcare run by the government.

          at least consolidating one's health records so that you never have to fill out the same idiotic form every time you visit a new doctor

          I don't want anyone to be able to see my medical records unless I authorize it. When I go see a new doc I'll bring my medical records from the last doc I saw.

          It will also be important if you end up unconscious in the ER and are allergic to the drug they think they need to give you immediately.

          There are alert bracelets and Medi Alerts [my-healthkey.com] people can get identifying allergies or other medical conditions for healthcare personel.

          I believe it is more important to fight for legislation that demands that information is used properly for the right reasons and that all use of personal information be audited and available for individuals on demand.

          Once collected, the info will be ABUSED!!!

          Falcon
  • Passport? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KermodeBear (738243) on Monday May 07, 2007 @03:07PM (#19026393) Homepage
    Isn't a passport essentially the same as a national ID? It is physical proof of citizenship (and records where you've been, via stamps). Why not just issue everyone passports? What benefit would a new card/system have?

    I'm probably missing something important, so I'm not trying to troll here.
    • Re:Passport? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gstoddart (321705) on Monday May 07, 2007 @03:19PM (#19026635) Homepage

      Isn't a passport essentially the same as a national ID? It is physical proof of citizenship (and records where you've been, via stamps). Why not just issue everyone passports?

      Cause you're not required to walk around with your passport to prove who you are at all times when you're within the country.

      You're not supposed (at least according to that pesky Constitution) to be required to show ID everywhere you go within the US. But, that has largely been trampled upon since 9/11.

      Cheers
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by garcia (6573)
      I'm probably missing something important, so I'm not trying to troll here.

      Yes, it's another tax to apply to the citizenry in order to keep them under the Federal Government's illegally far reaching arms. Sadly only a few of the states in this country are standing up to the Federal Government (regardless of the reason) in any way (medical marijuana, Federal ID, and in the past waiting till they forced DUI limits to be lowered).

      Sadly most of the public has NO historical memory of the atrocities committed by
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Kadin2048 (468275) *
      Why not just issue everyone passports? What benefit would a new card/system have?

      Because people might realize how creepy and fascist the government has become, when they need an actual "internal passport" to travel within their own country, like the Soviet Union, China, or North Korea [wikipedia.org].

      But you're right in thinking that there's no difference; it's effectively the same thing. It's just that this way, it sounds nicer.
    • The idea is that the National ID card will "Certify Identity" whereas a passport "Certifies Citizenship"

      Ever try getting a Drivers License? You have to prove your identity before they will issue the License. For example, In NY, They have a formula... You need 6 points to Prove Identity, an Exisiting NY-state ID card, Learners permit or License counts as 6 points, a Passport only counts as 4 (a military ID card is only 3, a High School ID with Report Card is 2 points A social Security Card is 2 points, if yo
      • Re:Passport? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by fyngyrz (762201) * on Monday May 07, 2007 @04:40PM (#19027981) Homepage Journal
        Ever try getting a Drivers License?

        What you need to realize is this is a brand new set of circumstances that you are accepting as "normal." I am 50, and I have had many drivers licenses in many states and several countries. Only in the last couple of decades has it been standard procedure for them to worry about your identity details; they used to be primarily concerned with your ability to drive, as absurd as that may seem to you. They used to ask (ask, mind you, not, demand papers proving) your age, your name, test you, and issue you a license if you didn't scare a year off the examiner's life (or maybe sometimes if you did... I used to live in south Florida, and I swear, the one thing you really had to watch out for was a little grey fuzz just barely sticking up over the steering wheel in front of you... the entire concept of "right of way" instantly became a fiction.) Anyway, there was no photo on the license, the number was an arbitrary one issued by the D/L department or equivalent, the name and birth-date were issued as described, and that was it. The issue was "can you drive" and nothing else. That is reasonable. What you accept as normal is what we used to use to laugh and point our fingers at the Soviets over. There are other issues peripheral to this; you can even find old references to them in pop culture. Watch "Hunt for Red October" and ponder when the sub's second officer asks the captain if you can drive "state to state" without papers. RealID is an internal passport. Nothing less.

  • by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Monday May 07, 2007 @03:07PM (#19026405) Homepage Journal
    Knowing who people are is the first step towards knowing how to truly protect people from fraud and invasion. Privacy as we knew it is dead. Get over it, and let's get ONE card that identifies us down to the DNA level so that we don't have to keep a bazillion cards in our wallet. Only luddites and con artists would be against this- as it would make identity MUCH harder to steal....
    • I'm not against my STATE ID doing exactly what you said. I'm against a FEDERAL one though. If the Feds want to connect the states together, so be it. But screw them if they want to start blurring the line between State and Federal. We have states for a reason.
      • I want one of two situations:
        1. State's right to protect that state's borders and an end to interstate commerce and immigration that isn't already ok'd by the state the goods are going to or transversing, or that the people are moving to.
        2. A federal ID.

        Unfortuneately #1 is banned by current court interpretation of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. #2 is the next best thing.
      • But screw them if they want to start blurring the line between State and Federal. We have states for a reason.
        Start? Start blurirng the line? What is left of State sovereignty is a joke, since any state that doesn't toe the line gets funding pulled from it. Sure, there is variety allowed on some issues, until the nation comes to a consensus, but the federal/state power ratio is pretty nicely summed up by the federal/state tax burden ratio.
    • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Monday May 07, 2007 @03:20PM (#19026663)
      Besides the privacy issues there is another reason to be afraid of ONE database that all identification is based on. Right now there are multiple ways that any individual can be idnetified. When one of those databases gets corrupted, it is possible to appeal to an alternate, independent database to provide information to correct the corrupted database. With one database (or several interdependent databases, which is ultimately what this system will become), if an individuals data becomes corrupted there is no place to get evidence that the data in the database is inaccurate. "I'm sorry, but John Doe is dead." "I'm John Doe and I'm standing right in front of you." "The database says John Doe is dead. You must be a criminal trying to steal John Doe's identity." There are a lot of other scenarios that could also happen, this is just a similar to things that have happened to people already. The system thought they were dead, they had to jump through hoops to prove that they were who they said they were and that they were still alive. What happens when the only system for proving who you are says that you aren't you?
      • Now that's a good reason- nobody else had given me one quite this good yet. Here's my answer- a national ID card does NOT neccessarily imply a single national database. It just means a single primary key that allows us to link tables in disparate databases together to autocorrect such mistakes. What good does it do you to claim to be John Doe- when there are 50 others?

        And no, thanks to fraud over the last several years, your Social Security Number is not neccessarily unique.
        • Here's my answer- a national ID card does NOT neccessarily imply a single national database. It just means a single primary key that allows us to link tables in disparate databases together to autocorrect such mistakes.

          More likely to auto-replicate the errors.

          A single database is more efficient.

          Eventually, the other departments will just stop maintaining their databases and use the database that has the most information in it. Then you have the one big database with whatever errors anyone has put in.

          Fascism

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by operagost (62405)

        "I'm sorry, but John Doe is dead." "I'm John Doe and I'm standing right in front of you." "The database says John Doe is dead. You must be a criminal trying to steal John Doe's identity."
        Sounds right to me. Every time I've encountered a John Doe, he's been a corpse!
    • by rossz (67331)
      Knowing who people are is the first step towards controlling their freedom.

      "In the name of security" and "To better protect you" are tired old excuses for implementing draconian laws.
      • Freedom is a dream that failed when the corporations took over our economy. You aren't a person anymore, just a resource to be used and abused, like everybody else. We haven't had freedom in the United States since the 1950s.
    • by Chris Burke (6130) on Monday May 07, 2007 @03:23PM (#19026751) Homepage
      Unless you're suggesting that I'll be giving blood at the car rental place so they can run the dna analysis and prove who I am, I have a hard time understanding how this would make identity theft harder. Not having a bazillion cards in our wallet means there's only one document that needs be stolen.
      • This could easily be tied to some sort of biometrics much simpler than DNA, such as fingerprints (fairly easy to implement most places) or retinal scans (a bit more expensive and difficult to implement). Now I know the Slashdot crowd tends to get all up in arms about having a database with everyone's fingerprints, but I personally don't see what the concern is. If "Big Brother" really wants to screw with me, they certainly could do so without already having my fingerprints in a database or really knowing
    • Even if I agreed with the idea of a national ID (I don't). Taking all of the government assumptions at face value, the plan still won't touch identity theft. Why not?

      1) Base documents. How will you get a Real ID? You will have to present base documents (driver's license, birth certificate, passport, social security card, proof of address, whatever) to prove your identity. These can already be forged and already are to get perfectly valid driver's licenses. Without fixing the base documents, there is no foundation for Real ID. Someone can quite happily get the fake documents they need to get a very real document which will be accepted for a gold standard. What does someone do when they go to the government to get their Real ID, and someone says "Can't, someone's already got one."?

      2) Existing identity theft. Issuing a new ID won't straighten out the existing tangled records. Which fraudulent credit lines go to which real person? How about income taxes and criminal records? You can't fix IDs that have already been stolen with a new document based on the already bad information.

      3) Electronic transactions. An ID won't help you in electronic communications. You can't present your ID to a web page. They might start collecting Real ID numbers, but, like SS numbers, they can be stolen.

      4) Lack of verification even in person. Right now, businesses and agencies are not required (and don't have the ability) to check the information that is there, like the fact that a given Social Security number belongs to a two year-old girl, not a thirty year-old man applying for a job. This is the source of a lot of fraud.

      What you *might* be able to do is focus on fixing base documents, like fixing birth certificates, Social Security cards, and voter registrations. If those were harder to forge, easier to verify, it would be harder to get a fake ID of any kind. Once you had a significant chunk of the population with good base documents, people who currently have ****ed identities will eventually die off. Then, maybe, *maybe* a Real ID would make sense, but I think there are still better ways.

      Right now, they're focusing on the wrong end of things. Probably because a real solution takes time, care, and won't be done before they leave office. A bad solution looks good now, and won't be discovered bad until long after they care.
    • by k1e0x (1040314) on Monday May 07, 2007 @03:43PM (#19027071) Homepage

      Knowing who people are is the first step towards knowing how to truly protect people from fraud and invasion. Privacy as we knew it is dead. Get over it, and let's get ONE card that identifies us down to the DNA level so that we don't have to keep a bazillion cards in our wallet. Only luddites and con artists would be against this- as it would make identity MUCH harder to steal....
      You bring up some points here and all of them are flat wrong.

      * Invasion? How will your little card protect you from an invasion? An armed and well regulated militia does this best, or the national guard.

      * Fraud? You want the government who is not liable for anything they do wrong to protect you from fraud? There is a private company LifeLock http://lifelock.com/ [lifelock.com] that already does this, better and cheaper than the feds could, if they screw up you can sue them, AND they can't throw you in jail if you loose your lifelock card.

      * Security? ID is NOT security.. they are not the same thing. The 9/11 hijackers had ID, Timothy Mcvay ID, Cho Seung-Hui had ID. The Washington snipers had ID. What can we assume from this? ID makes us NO safer.

      * Theft? How does they government tracking you physically and digitally help against theft? I can SILL steal your lawn mower if you don't lock it up and your little card does nothing. Maybe you mean ID theft.. see lifelock above.

      *wallet? Right now you don't have to carry any card in your wallet if you so choose.. You can still get on air planes without ID. This is freedom. It's how it should be.

      We can't secure our schools, we cant secure our shopping malls, hell... we cant even secure our prisons and that's about as secure as I can imagine. I'll have you know that I am a honest small business owner and I will not accept this card. I flat out refuse to do so even if they have to throw me in Jail.. is that fair? for me to go to jail because you want to *feel* secure in your Police state? This is my breaking point. I will not be traced and tracked and have every action purchase and message I send analyzed by the state.

      Will you be willing to destroy my life because I don't want to be tracked? How many more like me are there? 100? 1,000? How about them? At what point does using force on others in your aims become ok?
  • by dazedNconfuzed (154242) on Monday May 07, 2007 @03:07PM (#19026417)
    National IDs are basically a license to exist.
    If you can't show one on demand, you are detained (to wit: your participation in society is suspended) until your license to exist or one is issued, or you are removed from society.

    Not exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when creating a free country.
    • FTA:

      The Real ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005 and signed by President Bush, requires all U.S. residents without a passport to obtain a new state-issued type of driver's license or ID card in order to board commercial airplanes, enter federal buildings, get Social Security benefits or get into other federal government programs, starting next May.

      As I read that, I can freely walk down the street without carrying an ID and not fear being detained. You may argue that it may grow into something more in th
      • Agreed the ID itself is no problem, it is the enforcement it facilitates. But this appears to require ID to enter Federal Courts. Do they record spectators? What about open courts?

        The real problem with the ID is it is hard to see any justification beyond the feared extention-of-law (ID at all times).

      • Read your own quote. Without a RealID... ...you can't enter federal buildings. You can't participate in your own government's processes, even if required to (insofar as entering federal buildings is involved). ...you can't travel by air, train, or long-haul bus. ...you can't receive federal benefits, even though the money involved was compulsarily taken from your pocket.

        In many areas, police CAN stop and ask for ID, and detain you if you don't comply.

        Just because the totality of the potential of this "licen
        • Read your own quote. Without a RealID...

          I don't mean to sound disagreeable, but I did read my own quote. It outlines specific activities that can and cannot be done. This is *not* a license to exist, I do *not* need to show one on demand save the special cases listed.

          Just because the totality of the potential of this "license to exist" groundwork hasn't been finished doesn't mean now isn't the time to start resisting it. They've learned to phase things in gradually, a la "boiling the frog".

          Then for
      • Re:Not quite.... (Score:4, Informative)

        by jcr (53032) <jcrNO@SPAMmac.com> on Monday May 07, 2007 @03:53PM (#19027247) Journal
        I can freely walk down the street without carrying an ID and not fear being detained.

        Legally, that's correct, and you can thank Edward Lawson for fighting all the way to the supreme court to establish the precedent. Lawson was illegally arrested for declining to show his ID when a police officer decided that he was the wrong color for the neighborhood he was walking through.

        -jcr

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gad_zuki! (70830)
      >National IDs are basically a license to exist.

      No, social security numbers are a license to exist. That along with yoru state ID and birth certificate. You're not getting too far in society without these. Lets not pretend that this is a new idea. If anything its a consolidation of the stuff that's already out there.

      Also, my passport is my right to exist in other countries.
    • The only time I normally ever have to show my state ID is to get on a plane. It's not that big of a deal, and I don't see why the national card is such a big deal. My state ID has not proven to be a "license to exist."

      A national card can combine the functions of social security card, birth certificate, citizenship certificate (for naturalized citizens), and driver's license. It is likely you will only have to use it in circumstances where you would otherwise have to use a social security card and birth cert
    • >>Not exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when creating a free country.

      Some of the Founding Fathers, after they were in power and no longer rebels, passed the Sedition Act which allowed them to throw you in prison for simply criticizing the president or congress or any member of congress. (Jefferson, notably, did oppose this.)

      In this regard, I would think these same founding fathers would be very much in favor of a national identity card. They were worried about foriegn agents as well at the
  • Do we know who it was that snuck the language into that bill at the last minute that allowed the Government to require these cards?
  • "Historically, Americans have resisted the idea, which totalitarian governments have tended to do, of having a national ID.

    Not to be pedantic, but isn't he saying that totalitarian governments have tended to resist the idea of having a national ID card? And he's happy cause Americans are resisting it too? Proper use of language for the win.
    • The guy is clearly having trouble forming coherent sentences.

      He means to say that totalitarian governments have historically tended towards having a national ID, while Americans resist the idea.

      Chalk this up to the poor state of politics in the US. We r teh smartxz lawmayhkers!

      TLF
  • The only reason I see no need for a National ID type system is that there's no reason we can't efficiently connect the state systems together and keep our unique state images. Also, I personally like the fact that when I go to the Lower 48 and show my Alaska ID it spurs conversation. And vice versa, when people come here and show theirs.

    I don't want to look just like everyone else. I may not be a unique snowflake (thx Tyler) but I'll be damned if I am going to let some politicians force me into a Federal
  • by SonicSpike (242293) on Monday May 07, 2007 @03:28PM (#19026835) Homepage Journal
    Libertarian leaning US Congressman Ron Paul who finished first in the MSNBC poll following the GOP primary debate last week absolutely opposses a national ID. 6:33 into this clip from the debate shows what he said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo [youtube.com]
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by griffjon (14945)
      To be fair, Ron Paul rejects *everything* - he's nicknamed Dr. No for a reason. It's almost like he believes in small, unobtrusive government (he's actually a libertarian). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul) He also voted against the PATRIOT act, the Mil. Commissions act and the Iraq war... You've gotta respect the guy for having clear, thought-out views and sticking with 'em. I agree with him strongly on about 50% of his issues, and disagree strongly with the rest, but I can respect his position, a
      • by inviolet (797804)

        I agree with him strongly on about 50% of his issues, and disagree strongly with the rest, but I can respect his position, and think it's a valuable voice to have in our Congress, which is more than I can say for... well, most of Congress, sadly.

        No one wants to give up their favorite federal program in exchange for a 0.002% reduction in their taxes... but would you give up your favorite program if everyone else gave up theirs, in exchange for an 80% reduction in your taxes?

        That's what it amounts to, and t

      • by Guuge (719028)

        You've gotta respect the guy for having clear, thought-out views and sticking with 'em.

        Except when it comes to abortion, of course, where he's as far from a libertarian as he could possibly be. No one is perfect, but it's bad news when you start compromising your ideals in the name of religion.

        I'm not saying he's selling out to the Religious Right. It's likely that he doesn't even recognize the contradiction in his views. However, it is undeniable that he wants to increase the power of the State on this

        • Wrong answer.

          Libertarians are split on the abortion issue. Some libertarians think that the right of a women to choose what to do with her body is paramount (I agree to an extent), and other libertarians think that the individual unborn child is also sovereign and is deserving of the same human rights as everyone else (this is what I fully support). In other words you don't have the right to kill your child because the child is a sovereign individual.
          • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Monday May 07, 2007 @04:48PM (#19028095) Journal
            ... other libertarians think that the individual unborn child is also sovereign and is deserving of the same human rights as everyone else...

            However not just libertarians but people of a large number of other political persuasions recognize the concept that a slave has a right to be free - even if the slaveowner's must be killed to accomplish this liberation.

            By this argument a woman would have an uncontested right to terminate a pregnancy at any time, despite the "unborn child"'s state as a "sovereign individual".

            Once the child is capable of independent viability it can be argued that its own rights mandate the MEANS of terminating the pregnancy might be limited to those that attempt to preserve the child's life - within the constraint of not adding risk to the life of the mother.

            = = = =

            Non-libertarian arguments based on the "personhood" of the fetus/unborn child bring up the question "when does it stop being anonymous tissue and become a person". My own preference for that time is "when the brain begins to function in a human fashion". (Before that you're dealing with either religious arguments over souls or claims that genetic potential = actuality which could justify rape and give cancers human rights.)

            A slippery slope that would lead to infanticide and euthanasia of the mentally "sub-par" can be avoided by pushing the cut-point back to the date when the nerve cells of the brain begin to interconnect. (Before that the brain is no more a "person" than a kit of chips and boards is a "computer".)

            Interestingly, this occurs about a week into the third trimester - just about the point where the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, put the cutpoint between the sovereign interests of the mother and her doctor/patient relationship on one hand and the state's interest in preserving the life and rights of a new citizen on the other.
  • by groschke (1095723) on Monday May 07, 2007 @03:43PM (#19027069)
    I'm a lawyer at the Electronic Privacy Information Center [epic.org]. There are just about 24 hours left for the public to submit comments against REAL ID. A broad coalition [privacycoalition.org] is urging individuals to speak up. They have links to portals [privacycoalition.org] that accept comments online, and sample comments [privacycoalition.org] like:

    "The plan will create a massive national identification system without adequate privacy and security safeguards. It will also make it more difficult for people to get driver's licenses. And it will make it too easy for identity thieves, stalkers, and corrupt government officials to get access to such personal information as a home address, age, and Social Security number."

    Slashdotters should offer their perspective. REAL ID was approved without Congressional hearings, and this is the last 24 hours for the public to comment on this proposal!

  • As far as i can tell, no one will require anybody to show ID upon request except where they are already being asked to show ID: at the airport, during a traffic stop, in court, at the DMV, to open a bank account, etc. So it doesn't look to me like this will impact when we have to show ID and when we need to carry it.

    Furthermore, there already exists one national ID number that is, according to nearly all expert opinions, completely broken: our SSN. Open a bank accout? Get a credit card? Get hooked up to ele
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Coraon (1080675)
      I think the real issue people are having here is that you would HAVE to have this ID to be considered a citizen under the law. In otherwords if you dont have it on you then you arnt american and do not enjoy the protection that offers. Theres a RPG called shadowrun that kinda explored this, their were 2 tiers of socity those with SIN numbers that could goto and use goverment programs, welfare, ect. and the SINless who the cops could effectivly jail forever and no one could say anything. Think about some ra
  • is if the majoirty of the states take this stance. Otherwise, congress will punish those states that do not join in.
  • If BillG were here (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ksd1337 (1029386) on Monday May 07, 2007 @03:50PM (#19027207)
    That's the dumbest fucking idea I've heard since I've been at Microsoft.
  • In the words of State Senator Richard T. Moore, D-Uxbridge, "...I don't think it's a good move and I would be reluctant to see why we are going to that step."

    Is it just me, or is this barely even English?

    I know that we all sound funny when quoted verbatim, but I'd like to think most of us can form a coherent sentence, especially when it's really a prepared sound-bite for the media.

<<<<< EVACUATION ROUTE <<<<<

Working...