Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Government Politics

Congress Debating National Driver's License Rules 189

Posted by Hemos from the the-changing-of-the-times dept.
hamelis writes "The NYT [FRR: bugmenot]reporting on Congress' attempt to set national standards for issuing driver's licenses. The Secretary of Homeland Security could require licenses to contain fingerprints or retinal scans, and while states are not required to cooperate, if your license doesn't conform to federal standards, you can be denied "access to planes, trains and other modes of transportation." Additionally, the House version would require states to keep all license data in a linked database for quick access, and calls for "an integrated network of screening points that includes the nation's border security system, transportation system and critical infrastructure facilities." How is this functionally different from a national ID card?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congress Debating National Driver's License Rules More

Congress Debating National Driver's License Rules

Comments Filter:

  • Sad news (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Deanasc ( 201050 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:52AM (#10491764) Homepage Journal
    When the papers are more important then the man holding them we will all cease to be human.

  • The Sheep will gladly accept it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by UnixSphere ( 820423 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:02AM (#10491804)
    It is a national ID, just hidden under the cloak of security.

    When I first heard of this, it was only in its premature stages and only was going to be implemented for airports and other means of traveling so that passengers could go in the "express" lane because they were cleared to go.

    Some people might exclaim that it is a genuine attempt by the government to shed and protect the US public from terrorists and if everyone followed the rules, sure it would. Terrorists follow the rules? No chance in hell, documents are easy to duplicate and this will only make the terrorists spend a couple more bucks at their local document "manufacturer". Which is no problem at all for them considering they have thousands in their bank accounts.

    I seriously think the government underestimates the terrorists and well maybe they dont, they just take the US public for fools and yes the majority of the public are fools.

    • Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it (Score:4, Informative)

      by Scarblac ( 122480 ) <slashdot@gerlich.nl> on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:42AM (#10492039) Homepage

      Some people might exclaim that it is a genuine attempt by the government to shed and protect the US public from terrorists and if everyone followed the rules, sure it would. Terrorists follow the rules? No chance in hell,

      Also, let's repeat once again that all the 9/11 terrorists were travelling on perfectly valid, non-faked passports. This wouldn't have helped one bit.

      • Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it (Score:5, Informative)

        by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @09:33AM (#10492440) Journal
        Hitler's police power grab after the wake of the Reichstag Fire to defend against terrorists included a lot of unnecessary powers as well. Funny, that.

        One definite -- once you allow the federal government a power, they never release it -- they will have it forever.
        • One definite -- once you allow the federal government a power, they never release it -- they will have it forever.
          During Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War, the federal government took away the right of habeas corpus from KKK members and other non-loyals in the South. Does the federal government still use this power?

      • Re:The Sheep will gladly accept it (Score:4, Insightful)

        by pjcreath ( 513472 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @09:56AM (#10492653)

        Also, let's repeat once again that all the 9/11 terrorists were travelling on perfectly valid, non-faked passports. This wouldn't have helped one bit.

        I realize it's NYT, but upon actually reading the article, or say even the first sentence, you might find something that would have "helped one bit":
        Following a recommendation of the Sept. 11 commission, the House and Senate are moving toward setting rules for the states that would standardize the documentation required to obtain a driver's license, and the data the license would have to contain.

        Setting real minimum documentation requirements is a good thing -- that way someone can't just pick the state with the weakest requirements and get a valid ID there.

        The scary parts of this bill have to do with the data contained by the license, the database, and the integrated network. But trying to fight those by making erroneous assertions isn't going to get you very far.

      • What I don't get is why we're fighting the symptoms and not the disease. If America would stop pissing off the rest of the world we'd probably see a lot less people that want to kill us.
    • Some people might exclaim that it is a genuine attempt by the government to shed and protect the US public from terrorists and if everyone followed the rules, sure it would. Terrorists follow the rules? No chance in hell, documents are easy to duplicate and this will only make the terrorists spend a couple more bucks at their local document "manufacturer". Which is no problem at all for them considering they have thousands in their bank accounts.

      While I don't support the cards, your reasoning is terribly
    • I seriously think the government underestimates the terrorists and well maybe they dont, they just take the US public for fools and yes the majority of the public are fools.

      I think what it comes down to in many ways is that the government is more concerned with looking like they're doing something. I was going to add "than actually doing something" but I don't think that's fair. But, yes, they need to cover their bases, and they think/hope/pray that the masses are too clueless/paranoid/apathetic to rea

  • passports (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tsrimovsky ( 60498 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:08AM (#10491833)
    why can't we just use passports for this? Some sort of ID/tracking is a cost of travel any more. I just don't see why the feds need to get involved with state issues, since this doesn't really have anything to do with driving.

    • Re:passports (Score:5, Insightful)

      by user no. 590291 ( 590291 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:27AM (#10491945)
      Because requiring passports to travel within the United States would be doing the same thing totalitarian governments like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia did. But requing an internal passport and calling it a driver's license is somehow different enough that those behind it aren't facing a hue and cry for impeachment.

      • Re:passports (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jspayne ( 98716 ) <jeff@p a y nesplace.com> on Monday October 11, 2004 @09:04AM (#10492202) Homepage
        Oh, and if there was a federal ID, the feds would have to pay for the infrastructure to distribute and support it. By mandating conformance for local ID's, the states get to pick up the bill.

        Jeff

        • By mandating conformance for local ID's, the states get to pick up the bill.

          That's a good point. And of course this would mean that driver's license fees will increase accordingly.
      • Those are the ID cards, not passports (which are international).

        but yep,

        the IDs are one of those things that government forgot to abolish after 1945 and everybody has to have with him in Europe. Except the UK of course, they still have to carry their passport whenever they go abroad.

        We on the other hand have a double system, a European standardised (more or less) ID card and a passport for extra-european travel.

        Our drivers license is some piece of paper, and it's funny that some places in the US only ac

        • Re:passports (Score:2, Informative)

          by russint ( 793669 )
          Except the UK of course, they still have to carry their passport whenever they go abroad.

          The Swedes have to do that as well.
      • But requing an internal passport and calling it a driver's license is somehow different

        So what happens to people that don't drive and thus don't own a license for whatever reason?

        • Re:passports (Score:3, Informative)

          by yarbo ( 626329 )
          At least in CA, you can get an identification card from the DMV. AFAIK, you go through the same identification procedures that you go through when you get your drivers license, you just don't take any of the driving test stuff.

    • May I See Your Papers, Please? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:40AM (#10492017) Homepage Journal

      Decades ago we Americans would decry the authoritarian governments around the world, such as the former Soviet Union for the specific practice of requiring citizens to show papers for travel internal to their country.

      If fear of terrorism and a mode of law enforcement that takes the "what's easiest for us?" mentality makes America into a police state, then the terrorist win and we'll be proven to both weak and stupid.

    • You can already use your passport for 'basic' identification. Mostly they are talking about making a common format for the state issued Id's (including Driver lic).

      Have you ever seen an Id book which is carried in most bars? It's a pain in the butt. Every state has a different form factor and security features. Sometimes just finding the date of birth can be a 'finding Waldo' experience, not to mention the expiration date.

      Orwellian concerns aside, this would be a great boon for security personel (inc

  • Godwin in 3... (Score:2, Informative)

    by geminidomino ( 614729 ) *
    Papers, please?

  • Whew (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Good thing the terrorists didn't win, eh?

    • Re:Whew (Score:4, Insightful)

      by node 3 ( 115640 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @09:32AM (#10492428)
      Is that what Bush means when he says the terrorists only have to be right once? As bad as 9/11 was, there's only been one (and I'm sure there'll eventually be another one, if the terrorists are angry enough), but since then, we've been continuously defeating ourselves without another shot being fired from the enemy.
  • The best way for the average guy to protest this is to vote Third Party across the board on Election Day and deny the people responsible for this any perceived mandate they may have for this course of action.

    Any vote cast for Kerry or Bush is interpreted as support, no matter the voter's actual reason for doing so - to stop one or the other from winning, etc. A vote for either of them is a vote legitimizing these policies.

    I am voting Libertarian, but I hope you will vote Green, Constitution, Libertarian

  • I am frightened (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sofakingon ( 610999 ) *
    And I quote, "The provision would allow the Homeland Security Department to require use of the license, or an equivalent card issued by motor vehicle bureaus to nondrivers for identification purposes, for access to planes, trains and other modes of transportation."

    This scares the SHIT out of me. Would i need to show my national ID before I get on my city bus? How about when I cross state lines? Or get on a ferry?

    PLEASE visit the Liberty Committee [thelibertycommittee.org] (Headed up by Congressman Ron Paul, who is a member of

  • national id v. driver's license (Score:3, Informative)

    by duffbeer703 ( 177751 ) * on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:49AM (#10492086)
    Driver's licenses are not compulsory.
    • Sure, but the Supreme Court recently said that failure to produce valid ID upon request can be grounds for arrest. That does seem to imply that it's compulsory...
    • So we can safely conclude that you do not write checks at your local QuickyMart; all of your transactions are via debit card or cash withdrawn from an ATM, since no merchant will take a check without a drivers licence (or State ID; which is the same thing save an 'x' in a field on the green screen).

      We know the government doesn't track ATM transactions [abc.net.au], so you're safe.

    • For a country of so much supposed freedom, why is a very common argument for any intrusion something like "if you don't like the requirement, you don't have to do the activity." That's freedom?

      What's it going to take before you realize you're wrong?

      Living is not compulsory.

    • Driver's licenses are not compulsory.

      Damn straight. I mean, everyone has a job that they can walk or bike to, right? If I want to go meet my friends downtown to see a concert or a ballgame, I can just pay $50 to hire a cab, right? My kids' private school provides them with a bus, so that I don't have to drive them, right? And the local grocery store delivers everything I need straight to my front door, right?

      Bull fucking shit that drivers' licenses are not compulsory. At least not if you expect to be a pro

  • Here's what you can expect : (Score:3, Informative)

    by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @09:08AM (#10492244) Journal

    The UK is being used as a testbed for biometric ID cards.

    Soon we will be issued them [theregister.co.uk] with our Passports & Driving Licences

  • The first time I am walking down the street minding my own busisness and some cop tells me to show some ID or go to jail is the last time I ever carry ID on my person.

  • Driver's licenses are already a national ID card. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @09:53AM (#10492621) Homepage

    From the story: "How is this functionally different from a national ID card?"

    It isn't different. The driver's license name is the kind of lying with which many things are sold to U.S. citizens. Other examples are: 1) The "Patriot" Missile [umn.edu], as though you are not patriotic unless you are in favor of a particular weapon of mass destruction. 2) The "Patriot" Act [aclu.org], as though you are not patriotic unless you are in favor of laws that most congress people passed without reading. And, 3) The "Peacekeeper" Missile [fas.org], which tries to give people the idea that a nuclear weapon keeps the peace.

    This kind of lying takes advantage of the fact that most U.S. citizens have to trust their government because they simply don't have time [askmen.com] to understand what their government is doing.

    Most media exists to make money. Advertisers are understandably careful not to alienate anyone. It is not possible to develop an accurate opinion of government activities only by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one policy over another.

    Books are the major media that are not ad-supported. Have a quick look at the reviews of 3 movies and 35 books that try to tell you a little about U.S. goverment corruption: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org]. If you don't read about the subjects mentioned, you are not informed. If you don't like the books listed, pick your own.

    Even though most people simply don't have time to understand their government, it is still amazing how much distrust U.S. citizens have of their government, and yet they don't take control.

    There is good reason not to trust a more efficient national driver's license, because it would be used by the government to suppress political dissent. For example, see the New York Times article, F.B.I. Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies [commondreams.org]. Here's a quote: "Critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, for instance, have sued the government to learn how their names ended up on a "no fly" list used to stop suspected terrorists from boarding planes." There are many people whose jobs depend on their ability to fly. They may be forced to stop any analysis of government activity if they are harassed when they try to fly.

    That article discusses a few of the other abuses. If you didn't like the Vietnam War, and demonstrated against it, the FBI would go to your neighbors and friends and "investigate" you. Merely the investigation caused enough fear to discourage most people; they could not afford to lose friends and the support of neighbors. People would think, "If someone is being investigated, that person must have done something wrong."

    (Note that you can read that article at the New York Times web site, but only under extremely adversarial conditions. You can pay more than the entire cost of the newspaper in which the article was originally printed. Or, you can get a discount under plans which cause you to lose your money in a short time if you don't use the plans quickly enough. No one should underestimate the self-destructive rapacity of managers of ad-supported media.)

    Driver's licenses are already a national ID card. The U.S. government is only trying to make the data gathering more efficient. The fundamental problem is not whether or not a national ID card is a good idea, the problem is that, although the U.S. government functions well in many ways, the government is corrupt in many other ways.

    If you truly love your country, you will not just enjoy the advantages, you will be there for your country when there are problems.

    • the kind of lying with which many things are sold to U.S. citizens. Other examples are: 1) The "Patriot" Missile, as though you are not patriotic unless you are in favor of a particular weapon of mass destruction.

      False. Naming something Patriot does not automatically mean you must support it. If you root for the opposing team instead of the New England Patriots, does it make you un-American? Missiles have all sorts of names, some of which are meaningful, others of which are just catchy (Polaris, Tride


      • It was only a Slashdot comment, posted at 6:53 in the morning. The major point is correct. Many bills before Congress are given misleading titles. I could only think of 3 that early in the morning. If you don't like the ones I picked, choose others, like this one: Congress Degrades National Parks [greenjournal.com]. Here's a quote: "The National Park Enhancement and Revitalization Act, HR 4158, sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), has an appealing but deliberately misleading title."

        --
        Bush borrows [brillig.com] money to kill Iraqis [iraqbodycount.net]

        • On that point, I agree completely. Congress gives bills titles that divert attention from the legislation's real purpose or make it politically dangerous to go against it.

          This is why my disagreement was entirely with regard to the naming of missiles. With weapon systems, it's more a matter of giving your side's stuff impressive names (Patriot, Eagle, Phantom, Aegis, etc.) and code-naming the other guy's stuff with dubious names (Fishbed, Backfire, Satan, Scud).

          As far as Congressional legislation though,

  • To Answer the Original Submitter (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wolf31o2 ( 778801 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @09:56AM (#10492651)
    How is this functionally different from a national ID card?

    Simple. I am not required by law to have a driver's license. In many urban areas it is perfectly fine to not have one, as public transportation is good enough for getting around. As for getting on an airplane, I've travelled internationally, so I have a passport and I've not met an airline company that would not take one of those as a valid form of identification.

    • In many urban areas it is perfectly fine to not have one, as public transportation is good enough for getting around.

      And what's great about public transit is that you can booze up and get to wherever you're going. Now.. how am I to buy booze without an ID? Oh right.. booze is optional too, I guess.

      Soon, everything will be optional.. available only to those who submit their lives to the State and the Corporation. I hope you like it, but liking it is optional, too. :)

      • And what's great about public transit is that you can booze up and get to wherever you're going. Now.. how am I to buy booze without an ID? Oh right.. booze is optional too, I guess.

        You must be young. I haven't shown ID to buy booze in years.

        Soon, everything will be optional.. available only to those who submit their lives to the State and the Corporation.

        I certainly agree with your sentiment. Driving should be a right, not a privilege. Driver's licenses and license plates should be optional, not

  • But I already carry my fingerprints and retinas! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Andy_R ( 114137 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @10:39AM (#10493027) Homepage Journal
    Why do I need to carry a piece of paper that has scans of my fingerprints and retinas? I always carry the real things with me!

    If the purpose it to store other information linked to the scans/prints, isn't it ridiculously vulnerable to store that data on a forgeable, able-to-be-mislaid or stolen piece of paper in my pocket rather than in a secure database inside a locked building?
    • The real purpose of fingerprints on drivers licenses is simply to put them in a database. That way if we find fingerprints at the scene of a murder, we can cross check them with the DMV. Linking them to other databases is just a side benefit for the authoritarians. That the cheapass thumbprint is pretty much useless for criminology is another matter...

      Everyone who works with children has had to sumbit full and complete fingerprints to the FBI for decades. But no one ever stopped to think that mandatory fin
  • Are you taking it seriously yet?
    • it's revelation. the plurality is wrong. and if you think I typed this in you're out of your mind. CUT/PASTE is your friend, and pasted here for the lazy.

      CHAPTER 16

      God pours out plagues upon the wicked--The nations assemble for Armageddon--Christ comes, islands flee, mountains cease.

      1 AND I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.

      2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell
  • Before everyone is 'chipped' at birth with some sort of non-removable multi-purpose chip which among other tasks tracks your position at all times.

    The chip will be your ID, your method of payment, and will interact with chips embedded in other humans and products so that everything you do will be documented in real-time.

    Perhaps the chip will enable the overlo.., um, government to 'correct' you if you're doing something wrong, such as getting into a high speed chase, or using p2p software.

  • A foreign perspective. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Elamaton ( 771817 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @11:11AM (#10493282)
    The "slippery slope" arguments associated with national ID's for the US always amuse me to some extent. I live in Finland, where everyone has some sort of "national ID" (or a multinational ID, even, for those of us with the new style EU driver's licenses), not biometric or RFID equipped, though. The same goes, I believe, with all of Scandinavia and at least most of Europe.

    Sure, our country, its associated government, and the life and people here in general are in many respects very different from the USA, but no one here ever even thinks to protest the existence of national ID's. It simply doesn't cause any problems here in anyone's daily life (and no, it's not intellectual laziness or submission to the Big Brother, either - people here like complaining about the tiniest "issues" and are very keen on bashing the government when necessary). Quite the contrary, it's considered a good thing to be able to verify who you are when you want to, as well as to be able to know with reasonable (not perfect) certainty that the person you are in contact is in fact who you think he is.

    I mean, sure you have to present the ID from time to time, like when opening bank accounts, or when buying alcohol and looking like you're underage, or making purchases over 50 euros in value with a credit card or a creditless "bank card" (I don't know an equivalent English term for that one, that's a direct translation), or somesuch. There simply is no tracking or snooping into our lives through ID cards. You can walk the streets and interact with people with near-total anonymity, pay in cash, etc. The driver's licenses in our pocket don't change that.

    A much worse form of espionage are the regular customer membership cards for various large retail chains - now there's efficient tracking for ya. And they're by no means alien to the USA, but I haven't seen much hubbub about those, even though they are solely a tool for consumer behavior analyzation.

    The fact that everyone has a nationally standardized means of identifying themselves doesn't automatically lead to all these worst-case scenarios presented in this thread and who knows how many others in past threads on the subject.

    Then again, maybe even average US citizens have some valid reasons to actually fear the emergence of national IDs, dunno. I suppose this thread will bring them out.

  • Unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)

    by booch ( 4157 ) <slashdot2010@cra ... m ['k.c' in gap]> on Monday October 11, 2004 @11:39AM (#10493554) Homepage
    Not every train and airplane trip is interstate. The federal government has no jusrisdiction over intrastate transportation.

    • Re:Unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)

      by RobertB-DC ( 622190 ) * on Monday October 11, 2004 @01:59PM (#10495209) Homepage Journal
      Not every train and airplane trip is interstate. The federal government has no jusrisdiction over intrastate transportation.
      I got mod points today, but since there's no "+/1, Idealistic", I'll just reply.

      Not every car trip is interstate, either... most aren't. But when Florida tried to use color-coded highway signs [caltech.edu], a federal agency said no:
      Florida's Department of Transportation is switching from its "color coded" U.S. highway signs to the standard black-and-white signs, under pressure from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Florida DOT argued that drivers could simply follow the color of the sign to their destination, but the FHWA said it would be forced to "withhold certain monetary funding if the state of Florida continued to use their color coded markers."
      It's the Golden Rule: whoever has the gold makes the rules.

      This Federal ability has been a mixed bag. OSHA can only enforce worker safety statutes because of the broad interpretation of "interstate commerce". Same with auto safety, and even most of the civil rights we take for granted (thanks to those who went to jail for us, or worse, in the '60s). On the other hand, it's also brought the drinking age of 21 (a law of dubious usefulness, IMHO) and now, possibly, "standardized" driver's licenses.

      My thoughts: use Federal regulation to enhance freedom for individuals and restrict activities of corporations. But I'm just Green [votecobb.org] like that.

    • The federal government has no jusrisdiction over intrastate transportation.

      LMAO! From Wikard v. Filburn to Heart of Atlanta Model v United States to Katzenbach v McClung to Daniel v. Paul the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that there need be very little tie-in to interstate commerce to regulate a wholly intrastate activity. United States v. Lopez has stemmed the tide a bit, but I highly doubt a case can be won against a law which regulates the intrastate portions of an interstate transport

  • How will this affect California's plans? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GQuon ( 643387 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @12:02PM (#10493813) Journal
    How will this affect the glorious plans to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants in California?

    Even without these new standards, were states allowed to not accept the driver's licenses of other states? This is similar to the issue of states accepting marriage licenses from states with some really kick-arse definition of marriage.
    • ...which is why foreigners driving on our roads, otherwise legally or not, should have drivers' licenses. Licensing enables insurance, driving records, and general management of the driving population, wherever they may come from.

      California does fingerprint, BTW.
      • ...which is why illegal immigrants driving on our roads, with or without a California drivers' license, should be given car ferry tickets. Tickets enable accounting, calculating the number of passengers in case of an accident, statistics and so on.

  • 2004-10-05 17 National ID (rejected) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by isotope23 ( 210590 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @12:26PM (#10494112) Homepage Journal
    2004-10-05 17:44:39 National ID and backend database is on its way (Your Rights Online,Politics) (rejected)

    Dont you love it when /. rejects your stories only to have them appear a week later?

    I had a great doublespeak quote from the congressional record by john mccain on this.
    Of course i didnt bookmark it DOH.

    but he said something like this
    1.st sentence "with this bill we are not making a national id"
    next sentence "but we recognize that drivers licenses have become a defacto national id."

    here is another part of the congressional record on this from Joe lieberman :

    "Our lenient border policies with our neighbors to the north and south today constitute a vulnerability. Travelers may now cross these borders with no other proof of U.S. citizenship than a verbal statement. Individuals claiming to be Canadians enter our country from Canada without showing a passport. The policies are evidence of our good relations with our neighbors, but in the age of terrorism, that friendship must allow for better security for the benefit of both.

    Our amendment would require biometric passports, or an identification document just as secure, for everyone crossing into the United States, even U.S. citizens and our closest neighbors
    "

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r108:1:./t em p/~r108wRaE7b:e176936:

  • More than one attempt at national ID (Score:3, Informative)

    by blamanj ( 253811 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:11PM (#10495359)
    I submitted a similar story last week [2004-10-05 18:44:25 National ID Card proposed (Index,Privacy) (rejected)] and when I saw this headline, I assumed it was about the same bill. Turns out it's not.

    There is another bill [com.com] proposed by three Republicans and a Texas Democrat that would make the Social Security card [loc.gov] a national ID, one that would also be linked to a country-wide database containing information about your "employability."

    However, since our SSNo. is also required for banking, tax, and medical records, the potential for database linking and tracking is even higher.

  • It will be one of several nationl ID cards (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    We already have one called a Social Security Card. Its not supposed to be a National ID card, but it is many circumstances. I wonder how many posters refuse to show their Social Security Card when asked by a medical facility for insurance, or gettting a job. How about credit application, or a loan?

    When a cop pulls you over do you refuse to show your drivers license? Its already used as ID now!

    We will have a Social Security Card as nation id for medical, and job related issues.

    We will have a state i
  • Forgive my speeding, sir! Yes, sir! I am aware that I ran a red light three years ago, sir! Yes, sir! I have apologized for chewing gum in class in the third grade, sir! Yes, sir! Very insensitive of me, sir!

    Local and federal authorities should be answering to the people--not the other way around. I was once stopped for speeding. I asked the officer, "When was the last time your radar was calibrated?" It's my right to ask--but the cop went ape-shit. "Are you questioning me, sir?!" I said, "No,
  • "How is this different from a national ID card"? How is this a *driver's license*? This is worse than an ID card: it's an internal passport! The Department of Fatherland Security has turned the completely useless operation of validating identity into the extremely oppressive operation of denying freedom of movement within our country to any who are excluded from those allowed. This doesn't keep us safe from any terrorists, like the 9/11/2001 planebombers all carrying valid and checked national IDs (passport

  • already been done (Score:4, Informative)

    by dangermouse ( 2242 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @10:51PM (#10499872) Homepage
    Federal driver's license standards were actually enacted in 1997 (and set to go into effect in 2000), but in 1998 South Carolina successfully challenged the constitutionality of federal regulation of state drivers' licenses. It was different law, but the same principle, and in 1999 the Congress repealed the 1997 law.

    More detail here [supercat.org], under the "Constitutional Issues" section. (References are given.)

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close