>> There’s nothing more that the government would like to do than track your every movement, and then tax it.
OK. So? I have a state ID in my wallet right now (and I’ve had one for well over a decade) ... and nobody in my state is tracking me.
ID requirements are neither unreasonable nor particularly intrusive.
H
The author omitted that Real ID will most likely be required for employment. Title 3 of the last immigration bill, which failed to pass, links Real ID with E Verify such that, if the bill had passed, Real ID would have been required for employment beginning in 2013.
And it is not just Real ID that is in play, it is the merging of federal databases. E-Verify has problems that can be solved only by merging the SS and DHS databases, which will ultimately lead to a single database. Real ID linked to E-Verify and E-Verify linked to the merged database.
Obviously there are problems and certain states as well as a growing number of Senators are opposing. This is why Chertoff made his recent pronouncements on changes. Those born before 1964 will not have to have Real ID. Bar Codes and not RFID, tho I'm certain that RFID will eventually be used.
That's because it's a STATE ID, and not linked to a central computer and database in Washington, DC. And it is precisely that abiltity to "track you" that they are adding, and which is the real danger.
ID requirements are neither unreasonable nor particularly intrusive.
They aren’t NOW but they certainly will be with what is being proposed.
I have no problem showing a picture id but I have a huge problem with having a card scanned and linked to some data base somewhere. 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.
If not, welcome to the new age. I have a real problem with it.