So what do you all think about the Real ID (The National ID Card)

Nesagwa

Beard of Zeus,
20 Year Member
Joined
May 17, 2002
Posts
21,322
States are gaining ground and actually defying the federal mandates that they adopt the system.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89100041

Residents of states that don't comply with a new federal ID law by next week could face extra scrutiny when they try to board an airplane. Three states — South Carolina, Maine and New Hampshire — have yet to comply or seek an extension in the deadline for meeting secure driver's license standards. But it looks like the standoff could be resolved soon — at least temporarily.

There's a bit of Alice in Wonderland in the debate over deadlines in the Real ID program. The Department of Homeland Security says residents of states that don't get an extension by Monday will have problems when they try to use their driver's licenses. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has been pressing the point since early this year.

"Let me be clear about this. This is a statute. We are required after May to no longer accept these licenses at airports. We're going to obey the law. I'm not a bluffer," he said.

But some states have been prepared to call that bluff. They complain that the new driver's license requirements are unnecessary and too costly. Several have passed laws banning participation in the program, including seeking an extension.

But on Friday, Homeland Security and the state of Montana — one of the strongest Real ID opponents — reached what can only be called a creative solution. The state got an extension — without requesting one.

"We're not in the business of asking states to say Uncle. We're in the business of trying to improve drivers' license security," said Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Stewart Baker.

Montana's attorney general Mike McGrath sent Homeland Security a letter listing everything the state has done to make driver's licenses more secure, while reiterating its refusal to implement Real ID.

Baker replied that because Montana is doing so much, he would consider the letter a request for an extension and that the extension was granted.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer said DHS blinked. Baker says otherwise.

"We got what we were most interested in, which is a binding assurance from the state that they were going to improve the security of their driver's license. They said that it was a coincidence, and we're prepared to let them say that. We're only interested in what they're doing," Baker said.

But it was an opening other states were looking for.

"We were all a little pretty surprised last week when suddenly Montana was granted a waiver," said Matt Dunlap, Maine's secretary of state. "And after Gov. Schweitzer's comments on your network, we were pretty impressed. We hadn't heard rhetoric like that in many a year."

Montana's governor told NPR's All Things Considered this month that Real ID was a harebrained scheme, and that sometimes it's best to tell the federal government to "go to hell."

So on Tuesday, inspired by Montana, Maine sent its own letter to Homeland Security — in the hope that it, too, will get an extension without asking for one. New Hampshire did the same, and South Carolina is considering it.

Maine's Dunlap says everyone wants more secure driver's licenses, but there are questions about what some see as a national ID card.

"I think what Mainers are concerned about is their privacy. You just had the high profile incident at the State Department with people peeking into presidential candidates' passport records. And this is what I've heard right down the line, is that you're going to have the ability of some unknown official, in an unknown place for an unknown reason looking at your records," Dunlap said.

Homeland Security officials vehemently deny that's the case, but they've been negotiating with the states and have made some adjustments in the program.

Chertoff is adamant that Real ID is needed to prevent criminals and terrorists from using fake driver's licenses to cause harm.

Several states say they still won't participate. Montana's McGrath says his state plans to do what it intended all along.

"The fact is, our driver's licenses are secure, and we're doing a number of things. We don't need the federal government to tell us how to do this," he said.

But that's bound to be a topic for more debate. States now face a new deadline for Real ID — December 2009.

Im pretty surprised theyre even fighting it, but at least our state governments havent lost all of their spines yet (unlike our Senators and Congressmen)
 

Marek

Banned
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Posts
1,075
The government will just refuse lots of federal funding and the state resistance will fold immediately. Woo hoo!
 

taitai

Genbu's Turtle Keeper
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Posts
2,393
Brian Schweitzer went on NPR and pretty much made me wish he was running for national office.
 

qube

Canadian Moderator
20 Year Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2003
Posts
9,109
taitai said:
Brian Schweitzer went on NPR and pretty much made me wish he was running for national office.

No kidding. It's nice to see that some states have leaders who will stand up to the Fed's bullying tactics.
 

aria

Former Moderator
Joined
Dec 4, 1977
Posts
39,546
I listened to that piece on the way to the gym this morning.

I saw more power to Montana --and I hope Maine, NH and SC can follow up with them.

Then again, I think everyone should have a passport which isn't very different from having a national ID card.
 

Nesagwa

Beard of Zeus,
20 Year Member
Joined
May 17, 2002
Posts
21,322
Bobak said:
I listened to that piece on the way to the gym this morning.

I saw more power to Montana --and I hope Maine, NH and SC can follow up with them.

Then again, I think everyone should have a passport which isn't very different from having a national ID card.

Why would you need a passport for state to state travel.

A national ID card is a very bad idea.
 

jro

Gonna take a lot
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2004
Posts
14,429
You can fight the federal government all you want. And then when it denies your state federal dollars for transportation programs, well, see where that gets you.

Regardless of who's right or wrong, that's what's going to happen.

That's what always happens.
 

abasuto

Orgy Hosting Mod
15 Year Member
Joined
May 26, 2004
Posts
22,221
You already have to own some form of state issued ID as proof of who you are and I don't hear people saying that is NWO. In Georgia you have to submit a finger and thumb print to get a driver license.
 

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Posts
34,074
Great...

Get secure Driver's Liscences and issue them to Illegals.
 

aria

Former Moderator
Joined
Dec 4, 1977
Posts
39,546
Nesagwa said:
Why would you need a passport for state to state travel.

A national ID card is a very bad idea.

If you're going to voluntarily board a plane, instead of driving, walking, bicycling or any other form of travel, you are willfully restricting your own rights by taking this option. It's just a trade-off.

The passport, especially the new ones, are essential to international travel; it's a bit presumptuous to assume domestic air travel is inherently safer. After all, the 9/11 hijackers didn't fly in from outside the country.

Heck, if they had the CLEAR program in MSP or LAX I would totally sign up for it.
 

SouthtownKid

There are four lights
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Posts
26,968
Aren't the national ID cards the ones that contain some kind of satellite-trackable chip, or have I been watching too much tv? I choose neither to confirm nor deny my opposition of these IDs, as to do so would no doubt put me on some type of government watch-list.
 

qube

Canadian Moderator
20 Year Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2003
Posts
9,109
SouthtownKid said:
I choose neither to confirm nor deny my opposition of these IDs, as to do so would no doubt put me on some type of government watch-list.

You're an author, you're already on one.
 

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Posts
34,074
Best reason to carry a passport is so you have an extra ID when your wife holds your liscence when you hang out with friends.
 

lithy

Most Prominent Member of Chat
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Posts
22,052
I'm not in favor of the RealID.

Bobak said:
If you're going to voluntarily board a plane, instead of driving, walking, bicycling or any other form of travel, you are willfully restricting your own rights by taking this option. It's just a trade-off.

The passport, especially the new ones, are essential to international travel; it's a bit presumptuous to assume domestic air travel is inherently safer. After all, the 9/11 hijackers didn't fly in from outside the country.

Heck, if they had the CLEAR program in MSP or LAX I would totally sign up for it.

Why is flying somehow different from driving? I pay a company to fly me around in their plane, and they (not the government) should be able to put whatever restrictions on me that they want.

The FAA is bullshit lie. The McNary-Watres Act is also bullshit lie.

For that matter driver's licenses are bullshit lie.
 

Nesagwa

Beard of Zeus,
20 Year Member
Joined
May 17, 2002
Posts
21,322
Bobak said:
If you're going to voluntarily board a plane, instead of driving, walking, bicycling or any other form of travel, you are willfully restricting your own rights by taking this option. It's just a trade-off.

The passport, especially the new ones, are essential to international travel; it's a bit presumptuous to assume domestic air travel is inherently safer. After all, the 9/11 hijackers didn't fly in from outside the country.

Heck, if they had the CLEAR program in MSP or LAX I would totally sign up for it.

:spock:

I am NOT willing to give them this. It isnt a fair trade off and that is why so many are against it.

If theyre going to force you to show a national ID at airports to travel within your own fucking country whats to stop them from setting up checkpoints at state borders like they do on the Mexican and Canadian borders.

What about busses? Youre opting not to drive, would we have to show the new ID there?

How would having a new ID to show stop a terrorist? Citizens can just as easily blow up a plane as a foreigner. Anyone would be able to drive a bomb to wherever they need to blow up what they needed (ie. Oklahoma City among the myriad of other bombings that have taken place in the US.)

Come on Bobak. This is causing more problems (and opening even more security risks for citizens) than its helping.
 

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Posts
34,074
I have been reading up on this...

As far as I can tell...

The federal goverment isn't telling any individuals to do anything...

They are just setting acceptable standards for the states.

They won't recognize any state issued ID that doesn't meet the proper criteria.

It is up to the states to decide if compliance is in the best interest of it's citizens.
 

aria

Former Moderator
Joined
Dec 4, 1977
Posts
39,546
lithy said:
Why is flying somehow different from driving? I pay a company to fly me around in their plane, and they (not the government) should be able to put whatever restrictions on me that they want.

The FAA is bullshit lie. The McNary-Watres Act is also bullshit lie.

For that matter driver's licenses are bullshit lie.

We, as a society, accept drivers licenses because we agree that driving a car is inherently more dangerous than walking or riding a bicycle. I don't know if this is the slogan everywhere, but I remember the CA DMV had the statement "Driving is a Privilege, not a Right". We control who can drive to make sure there is some control over these dangerous devices.

While being a passenger on a plane certainly isn't the same as piloting it, there is much more potential for problems on a commercial air carrier --with a notable record of attempted/successful hijackings, bombings, etc... if you look at the history of air travel, you'll see that most of these restrictions we deal with now were phased in (or strictly enforced) as people started to exploit air travel for nefarious reasons (esp. starting in the 1960s and 70s; then wave 2 after 9/11).

You really need federal regulation of the skies, and its something large commercial carriers certainly agree on: if a city/state/jurisdiction (like, say, New York) wants much stricter air security measures, but a town like Portland, ME doesn't, you have a problem because planes flying out of Portland wouldn't likely be accepted in an NYC airport unless they follow the NYC requirements on boarding the plane. This creates a whole interwoven mess of disparate state and local laws that would cause air carriers a lot of financial problems trying to follow and sort through, not to say anything about the security concerns (e.g. lax security at the hypothetical Portland airport leads hijackers to take control of a plane and then fly it into a skyscraper in nearby Boston).

Nesagwa said:
:spock:

I am NOT willing to give them this. It isnt a fair trade off and that is why so many are against it.

If theyre going to force you to show a national ID at airports to travel within your own fucking country whats to stop them from setting up checkpoints at state borders like they do on the Mexican and Canadian borders.

What about busses? Youre opting not to drive, would we have to show the new ID there?

How would having a new ID to show stop a terrorist? Citizens can just as easily blow up a plane as a foreigner. Anyone would be able to drive a bomb to wherever they need to blow up what they needed (ie. Oklahoma City among the myriad of other bombings that have taken place in the US.)

Come on Bobak. This is causing more problems (and opening even more security risks for citizens) than its helping.

You're already required to show a driver's license or passport to board a commercial plane for any domestic flight in the United States.

My opinions isn't entirely pro-Homeland Security; I personally think the stuff they make us do in the security line is a complete joke: "the appearance of safety is more important than actual safety" kind of stuff.

However, I think this could do at least something for keeping security more uniform. There are some really bad drivers licenses out there (I remember seeing a real one in college that just looked like a laminated library card with a picture on it), so I think there's something to be said about bringing in all into at least a baseline form; or simply having a national card.

As for the bus analogy: a bus is inherently less dangerous than a plane. You can't kill nearly as many people as a large aircraft or hijack it and fly it into a building and hope to do nearly the destructive power of 9/11.

I don't see the added problem other than another database for people who want to fly --and I don't think there are nearly as many frequent fliers against this program. If people don't want to fly, Greyhound and Amtrak go more places, anyway. Commercial air carriers are just a convenience we're taking for granted.
 

Nesagwa

Beard of Zeus,
20 Year Member
Joined
May 17, 2002
Posts
21,322
So are twinkies, but we dont need to get on a government database to use them.
 

aria

Former Moderator
Joined
Dec 4, 1977
Posts
39,546

aria

Former Moderator
Joined
Dec 4, 1977
Posts
39,546
Just to pull something out of my previous long post, I'd like to know how the new rules are all that different than the current rules requiring a passenger to show a driver's license or passport to board a commercial plane for any domestic flight in the United States.

Is it really that different to have a database that might be interconnected with other states? If you have a lesser known ID (like Wyoming) and you fly out of JFK, don't you think it would be safer to have some kind of universal standards for ensuring a driver's license... if not for terrorism, then for general criminal tomfoolery.
 

abasuto

Orgy Hosting Mod
15 Year Member
Joined
May 26, 2004
Posts
22,221
The pocket on a pair of jeans is enough space to carry something capable of wiping out half the population of a crowded town.

Nesagwa said:
So are twinkies, but we dont need to get on a government database to use them.

Bobak said:
A twinkie can't be flown into a building, blown-up with hundreds aboard, or hijacked and flown to Cuba.

This is one hell of an exchange if you stand back and admire it.
 
Last edited:
Top