Posted on 01/22/2008 12:28:56 PM PST by BGHater
Welcome to Amerika. With its recent issuance of rules for implementing the “Real ID” law - the requirement that states issue driver’s licenses according to federal dictates and link the information to a nationwide database - the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has taken another page from the Soviets’ playbook. Stalin required Russian citizens to carry an internal passport ostensibly because “counterrevolutionaries” posed a threat. Amerikans will be required to show their papers to prove they aren’t terrorists or illegal immigrants.
Because an internal passport is the hallmark of totalitarianism, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff is trying to play Americans for fools. He insists that Real ID, which must meet federal standards and be used for federal purposes, is not a federal identity card because the states will be the issuing agents. That‘s like your employer trying to convince you he has no control over your salary because the checks come through the payroll department.
Seventeen states have passed legislation or resolutions opposing Real ID, and 19 other states have such actions pending because they recognize what Congress did not: If this law is actually implemented, it will mean the end of privacy and freedom.
That is inevitable because the amount of information required to be imbedded on the card will increase, as will the places where its presentation is required. Congress originally suggested that the card would be necessary to enter federal buildings, board commercial aircraft, open a bank account, or access nuclear power plants - but allowed expansions “for any other purposes that the [DHS[ Secretary shall determine.” Secretary Michael Chertoff already has added entry to national parks to the list.
And don’t forget that Congress foolishly gave the Secret Service authority to control national events such as Super Bowls and presidential inaugurations. Merely to watch a football game, Amerikans will have to show their papers.
Privacy will be non-existent because the DHS dictates that identity cards must have bar codes readable by common technology. So not only will tens of thousands of government employees have access to your Social Security number, date of birth, residential address, etc., but every private facility that requires you to present ID will capture that information as well. Identify theft will be child’s play.
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of Real ID is that it transfers to the government ultimate control over citizens’ movements. The ID card of a citizen not in good standing could have a hold put on it, just like a credit card can. If your ID card is declined, you will be unable to travel, access your money, get a job, enter buildings, or go about the basic routines of life until you have restored favor with your government.
Think that’s hyperbole? Driver’s licenses already are used for such purposes. In Texas, a driver's license can be suspended for failure to provide requested medical information to the government. In Florida, a license can be revoked for "an immoral act in which a motor vehicle was used." Wisconsin residents can lose their driver's licenses for failure to pay library fines, shovel the snow off their sidewalk, or trim a tree overhanging a neighbor's property. Montana residents are not allowed to drive if they default on college loans. Many states punish those who fail to pay child support, taxes, court judgments, or parking fines by revoking their driver's licenses.
Effectively "grounding" adults is cheaper than sending them to jail, and a national ID card linked to a central database would allow the government to be all that more efficient. Want to board a plane in North Carolina? Not until you pay those library fines in Wisconsin.
The real travesty is that it is all for nothing because it won’t make anyone safer. Establishing someone’s identity does not reveal their intent. In a pathetically vapid defense of Real ID, Chertoff asks, “Should banks cash checks from people who cannot prove who they are? Should parents hire baby-sitters they know nothing about? Should airlines let passengers on board without validating their identity?”
Well, knowing that the babysitter is, in fact, Suzy Smith, says nothing about her skill with children. A bank needs to know whether a check is good, not the bearer’s immigration status. Knowing a traveler’s Social Security number doesn’t tell an airport screener whether the individual is carrying a bomb.
National identity cards don’t make anyone safer; they only make citizens less free. Real ID is a real bad law that Congress ought to repeal. Real soon.
Examiner Columnist Melanie Scarborough lives in Alexandria.
Agreed!
I do!
>> Especially if its someone like a bank who has no need for access to such information. How about grocery stores who want to scan your id...no problem with that? And they will because they can.
Since when do banks and grocery stores have access to federal databases?
I suspect they’ll check IDs just as they do now — visual inspection. And, if scanning occurs (banks can already scan state IDs in Texas for faster entry of information), it still won’t be connected to an FBI database ... it’ll be connected to “name and address” information which already appears on the face of the ID.
H
Anybody that writes “Amerika” should be shot.
It is INCREDIBLY annoying and childish.
As for Real ID, we finally have a national ID. A few years ago, everyone wanted it.......now many of the same people just have to find something to criticize by screaming “no privacy.”
Give me a break.
You are right.
Any state now has the full capability of identification without federal integration.
Illegal immigrants can already be identified through internal state operations and denied any benefits, voting, employment etc. UNLESS the federal government finds it in itself to apply it's leverage in denying state options.
If a state, like Oklahoma, invokes proper legislation than that state can be illegal free. The illegals will go elsewhere, including back home, just like they got here, once shown to be unwelcome in that state. Whereby any US citizen can settle in a state where responsible taxpayers are respected. You can bet in the long run who reaps the consequent prosperity. All this UNLESS, of course the federal government finds it in itself to to apply it's leverage in denying state options.
That is not saying the federal government should not build the fence, national borders is their job, but it is totally within the resources of individual jurisdictions to decide their fate. Through GWB's tragic agenda this has become a federal versus states' rights issue. This is why states are taking up the issue as discussed in the article.
Does anybody here,anybody, trust the United States Senate or the current, or next, President to use the federal ID integration to exclude illegal Mexican immigration? On the other hand does anybody here trust Hillary not to take a political enemy's identity (through "mistakes" in a database)?
These people are really naive.
I've been reading up on this Real ID for a few minutes and this caught my eye: Before a card can be issued, the applicant must provide a photo ID or a non-photo ID that includes full legal name and birth date.
Now unless I'm mistaken, this says you can present an ID that the government says isn't good enough in order to get a Real ID that is considered fool proof and will carry a tremendous amount of gravitas.
LOL, only in America....
Sorry, but I do NOT believe that for a minute. Out of state LEO's might be able to call and ask the in-state guys to do a check, but I do NOT believe that all the state systems are linked.
We simply do not need any such nation-wide system.
Excuse me, but you need to learn some real history. Certainly the Nazis had exactly such plans, and sent in at least one team to carry them out.
"There was certainly infiltration of operatives and sympathizers — but this is entirely different.
In what way?? I submit that it is NOT different in any signficant aspect. The only difference is that the Nazis were pagans, and the Muslims are monotheists (though they "might" be considered pagans, too.
"Additionally, illegal immigration is a wholly different problem requiring a wholly different solution."
But "REAL ID" isn't it. Close the borders, build the fence, and link up employers with Social Security is all that is necessary.
FR needs a sheep herder.
If the check is valid, yes. Too much anonymity lost on this front already.
Should parents hire baby-sitters they know nothing about?
No, but the information to be gained from this isn't really all that helpful in that scenario, and/or the full information won't be available to us serfs anyway, and/or it's way more detail than anyone should have to give to get a babysitting gig.
Should airlines let passengers on board without validating their identity?
Yes. I miss the days when you could sell an unused plane ticket without giving the airline another bite at the apple. That's what's really behind them wanting to know who you are anyway. Besides, why should they be able to know everything about you, just so you can do business with them? I get pissed when the grocery store tries to pull that crap; I don't want an airline to do it to me either. Especially if they stop making us travel disarmed.
I wish I lived in your happy little world. I sincerely do.
*shrug* I have real ID, it surely ain't my driver license, it's my Passport.
It's not the document I object to, it's the uses a malevolent government could put it to.
Never give a government any power over you you wouldn't give your worst enemy.
My son is only 6, but he already knows PHP and SQL. I am making sure he learns all the tricks of the hacker trade so we can defeat Nazi technology such as RealID. I highly suggest if you have several kids, to try and make sure one is a hacker and another is a lawyer, to future-proof your family.
That's funny. I always figured double-fencing and landmines would do the trick. Israel had ZERO invaders cross their fences last year.
Homeland Security is basically a subsidy to airports & airlines that want to shift risk and don’t want to cover the costs of their own security.
Thanks to lazy interest groups such as this, we get heavy-handed government (and loss of privacy rights).
If these companies (e.g. airlines) want to ask people to VOLUNTARILY give up their privacy with a retina scan for the convenience of getting through bag check more quickly, that’s fine. People should be able to sell their privacy for convenience, but — it’s THEIR CHOICE. The govt should not force them to give up privacy in travel, business trips, etc.
A private businessman may not want his competitors (who gave campaign contributions to a politician in exchange to access to this large database) to KNOW exactly where he is traveling and what he is doing. He needs alternative arrangements, screening methods that may be a bit more time consuming — but preserve his privacy, and protects him from corporate “espionage”.
The airlines will have to provide safe — & anonymous — ways to process such business people on to planes, if they want to keep the business of small firms, start up companies and inventors/entrepreneurs, such as these folks.
....Businesses “will find a way” — if it is profitable.
“Homeland security” is just corporate welfare to travel industries too lazy to take on the commercial liability (economic responsibility), and “do it right” - read: offer choices & different services, depending on the passenger & his preferences.
“TSA” is corporate welfare — and it violates essential privacy rights to boot.
Maybe by then people will have found enough collective testosterone to get mad and act.
And of course, it will be far too late.
blahdiddee blah-blah.
Listen, moron, life isn't all about mexican landscapers.
Holy smokes, anyone with his head this deep in the sand really needs to be on someone's leash.
Some people just cannot handle liberty.
Mark of the damn beast...!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.