- Related Stories
-
Patriot Act redux?
October 18, 2004 -
Senators plan shakeup of spy agencies
September 7, 2004 -
Chip implant gets cash under your skin
November 25, 2003 -
Perspective: Closer to a national ID plan?
February 17, 2003
Under the rules, federal employees would reject licenses or identity cards that don't comply, which could curb Americans' access to airplanes, trains, national parks, federal courthouses and other areas controlled by the federal government. The bill was approved by a 261-161 vote.
The measure, called the Real ID Act, says that driver's licenses and other ID cards must include a digital photograph, anticounterfeiting features and undefined "machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements" that could include a magnetic strip or RFID tag. The Department of Homeland Security would be charged with drafting the details of the regulation.
Republican politicians argued that the new rules were necessary to thwart terrorists, saying that four of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers possessed valid state-issued driver's licenses. "When I get on an airplane and someone shows ID, I'd like to be sure they are who they say they are," said Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, during a floor debate that started Wednesday.
States would be required to demand proof of the person's Social Security number and confirm that number with the Social Security Administration. They would also have to scan in documents showing the person's date of birth and immigration status, and create a massive store "so that the (scanned) images can be retained in electronic storage in a transferable format" permanently.
Another portion of the bill says that states would be required to link their DMV databases if they wished to receive federal funds. Among the information that must be shared: All data fields printed on drivers' licenses and identification cards, and complete drivers' histories, including motor vehicle violations, suspensions and points on licenses.
The Bush administration threw its weight behind the Real ID Act, which has been derided by some conservative and civil liberties groups as tantamount to a national ID card. The White House said in a statement this week that it "strongly supports House passage" of the bill.
Thursday's vote mostly fell along party lines. About 95 percent of the House Republicans voted for the bill, which had been prepared by the judiciary committee chairman, F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican. More than three-fourths of the House Democrats opposed it.
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat from Washington, D.C., charged that Republicans were becoming hypocrites by trampling on states' rights. "I thought the other side of the aisle extols federalism at all times," Norton said. "Yes, even in hard times, even when you're dealing with terrorism. So what's happening now? Why are those who speak up for states whenever it strikes their fancy doing this now?"
Because an ID is required to purchase a firearm from a dealer, Gun Owners of America said the bill amounts to a "bureaucratic back door to implementation of a national ID card." The group warned that it would "empower the federal government to determine who can get a driver's license--and under what conditions."
See more CNET content tagged:
ID card, driver's license, bill, Real ID Act, Republican
The funny thing is this won't stop terrorist, but will cause all kinds of problems for Americans.
Good job Bush and Co.
Having to show my birth certificate every four years to drive, after being born here in conus is going to be a bother. All because the CIA ran an office out of the twin towers that the average citizen knew nothing about because it is illegal for the CIA to operate within CONUS. Tell that to the Arabs.
By the way, my space bar doesn't work so well. Why is that?
1939 or Russia circa 1960,70,80 or China 1990. I think I will
vote for the next liberal running for office even if it is a Clinton
or Kennedy.
http://news.com.com/2100-1041-5111637.html?tag=yt
Last I looked, this act wasn't exactly kosher either...
4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
While I'm not a lawyer it looks pretty plain to me that the Government cannot legally have access to my "papers" (ie licenses, bank records, identifications, etc) without a warrant and they can't legally get a warrant without probable cause...
Looks like its time to write some letters...
I saw it coming, you saw it coming and it came a rompin? and a stompin? all over our personal liberty and privacy.
Let me share a tweaked version of the e-missive I launched to politech today with the CNETizens reading this Declan ?Real ID Act Passes? News Flash article.
The U.S. House of Representatives passing the ?Real ID Act? brings to mind the philosophical question that still begs a real-world answer here in the post-9/11 21st Century U.S. Who owns my identity, me or the State [Congress, Supreme Court and President]? Is it I who determines and ?authenticates? who I am or is it the State who defines, certifies and ?authenticates? who I am?
The term ?Identity Theft? implies identity ownership. That is, for someone to steal something from someone, the target of the theft has to own the object-item stolen. If I own my identity it would be stolen from me. If the identity is government owned, it would be a theft from the State but not me.
Page 19 of the Executive Summary to the 9-11 Commission Report, recommends, ?Set[ting] standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification like drivers licenses.? Read ?Em and Weep, the U.S. House did just that today.
What struck me in this sentence of the 9-11 Commission Report recommendations was the peculiar way it was worded (peculiar to me, anyway). It uses the phrase ?sources of identification.? That combination of words struck me as odd. The sentence clearly was a well scrubbed, ?wordsmithed? and lawyered one.
It occurred to me that there is only a single PRIME SOURCE of MY IDENTITY, namely ME. I am ME, know I am ME and nobody else is ME. All other ?sources of identification? such as birth certificates, baptismal records, driver?s licenses, etc. are ancillary, and not MY IDENTITY, but rather only records or descriptive depictions of MY IDENTITY, and at best a recording of my geographical and temporal points-of-origin.
A few months back I wrote about this same personal identification subject in a discussion about Defense Science Board: Chairman, Dr. William Schneider, Jr., PhD, and his statements and opinions concerning ?Identity Authentication.?
See: http://news.com.com/5208-7348-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=2328&messageID=12688&start=-1
My personal belief is that I ?own? my identity, not the government. So having some Government Bureaucrat Gatekeeper ?mufti? sitting in judgment of IT, per some stipulation of this new ?Real ID Act,? doesn?t sit well with my free citizen, Jeffersonian ?small government, BIG PERSONAL LIBERTY, PRIVACY & FREEDOM? views.
If you want to ?know my identity,? ask me. I ?own IT,? I?ll tell IT to you. If I lie to you or misrepresent it, arrest me for lying to a law enforcement officer-agent or whatever. There are laws on the books to cover such things already.
Passage of H.R. 418, The Real ID Act, gives the federal government open-ended authority to determine who may and may not get a driver?s license and under what circumstances (i.e. Identity Control). If passed by the Senate and approved by the President, it will transform State driver?s licenses into de facto National ID cards. I?m personally troubled by this devolution of Personal Liberty and Privacy all done in the name of securing Citizen Liberty and Freedom.
President Wilson cautioned us about this when he said, ?We do not profess to be champions of Liberty, and then consent to see Liberty destroyed.?
I recently renewed my expiring U.S. Passport for another ten years, and upon looking at my new passport photo and personal identity data thought, ?Boy, I?m sure glad my photo image, surname, etc displayed therein, is of Northern European and not Mediterranean-Middle East geo-political-ethnic origins and heritage.? The bio-metrics of my passport photo should keep me off the computer generated ?looks foreign? TSA-DOS list, and a very, very low probability candidate for ?Hey you, please step out of line and come with us? ethnic profiling or person-of-interest special processing and handling of any sort.
With ?Real ID? forget about international passport issues. I?ll soon have domestic, pseudo-National ID issues to concern myself about. Before long, when boarding the Greyfield Inn Ferry to make the ?Border Crossing? from Florida-to-Georgia to take my Bride-For-Life true love to Cumberland Island?s Greyfield Inn for a romantic Week-End Get-Away, I and my wife will have to show our Nationally Certified ?REAL ID? Driver?s Licenses to board the Ferry going over and coming back.
Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.
They should make it open to Employers & "HR staff".
All those "I-9 forms" could be checked, by employers. "Juan Doe" couldn't be working in 6 or 7 cities; at the same time. His height & weight couldn't vary VASTLY between precincts {on election day}.
"Machine Politicians" will kill this Bill; or The Social Security System folks will.
The only complaint I might have is that I don't want to get pulled over for speeding and have the system show the cop minir traffic violations from when I was 17.
Other than that I have nothing to hide and am all for the system.
Headlines can never be as precise as the entirety of the article, but I think ours does a reasonable job. And the first two paragraphs of the article clearly say that states don't have to comply -- it's "voluntary."
But if you think that such a state's citizens will willingly go along with a situation in which they can't travel, register for Social Security, or go to national parks, you have a different view of life than I do.
The RIGHT to FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES.
The RIGHT to FREELY TRAVEL.
The RIGHT to ASSEMBLE.
And, the RIGHT TO FREELY ASSOCIATE without FEAR.
THESE ARE NOT "PRIVILEGES". They ARE the 'basic human rights' codified in the U.S. CONSTITUTION, "...ENDOWED UPON ALL MEN by their Creator", and legally-guaranteed by they very document which is, in the end, the ONLY real-authority for the United States Government's EXISTENCE, ...AT ALL.
And, when I think of all of the millions of men and women who have sworn to defend that document, using whatever FORCE was necessary, ...even unto DEATH, ...AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, both foreign AND "domestic", ...I AM ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTED by those TRAITORS TO AMERICA who would so readily SUBVERT the IMPORTANCE of those RIGHTS.
Furthermore, I am not so STUPID as to, actually, believe that ANY of this has ANYTHING to due with "illegal-aliens", or "terrorists", or REAL "criminals". This is CLEARLY a matter of the 'IMPOSITION OF POWER and CONTROL" over the American People, pure and simple.
So, to all those that don't have a problem with consigning MY basic RIGHTS. to the TRASH-HEAP of history, I have a simple question:
Are you honestly SO GROTESQUELY IGNORANT of The "United States Constitution", ...American-history, or 'world-history' that you can't realize just how WRONG THIS IS, ...or how much CORRUPTION THIS TRULY REPRESENTS, ...or, just how much FORCEFUL-RESISTANCE, we AMERICANS, are willing to launch against this type of OUTRIGHT-ASSAULT on OUR BASIC RIGHTS?
...If so, you'd better be ready for the biggest fight of anyone's life.
I have a right to drive my car anywhere I want to; the ONLY legitimate purpose for a license is to prove I know how to operate it; definitely NOT as a carrot for good behavior.
We had a case in Florida where a person had 30 some social security numbers and the same number of driver lisences, got lots of food stamps.
Would think the state departments that issue birth certificates would link the parents ID also.
Well isn't that just too bad! Imagine that...denying criminals who have entered our country illegally the "right" to a driver's license. How terribly insensitive of us. Why not just let them have all the rights and privileges afforded a citizen of our country. After all they earned it, right?
What a load of crap! This is a great idea. Round the illegals up; place a subdermal chip on them to track them; send them home; and shoot them if they come back. I am sick to death of this issue. My wife, an Asian, had to dot all her i's and cross all her t's to get her greencard, and we had to shell out a generous amount of money for all the paperwork. Why the hell should these illegals receive the same treatment as those who have done the right thing? Sure, there is complacency in corporate America, and I am all for holding those idiots accountable too. This should be a none issue.
Those who aren't here legally should be made to leave. Thats a given. If they want to live and work in this country. Do it the right way. And if ID cards are needed to control that, then thats what has to be done.
If you want something, work for it and earn it.
Maybe when people understand that, we won't have such problems.
What happens when a Government Official scans your wife's arm only to find out that you missed crossing a solitary "T" on her paper work rendering it invalid? Will you be happy when they include her in the "Round up"?
Hmmmm... come to think of it. We have had "round ups" in the past now haven't we.
Whether its a RFID chip or a Gold Star on your chest its the same thought process.
Published: February 10, 2005, 5:46 PM PST
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
The U.S. House of Representatives approved on Thursday a sweeping set of rules aimed at forcing states to issue all adults federally approved electronic ID cards, including driver's licenses.
Under the rules, federal employees (Now there?s a quality dilemma, now private business will need a federal employee to check you out for hiring?) would reject licenses or identity cards that don't comply, which could curb Americans' access to airplanes, trains, national parks, federal courthouses and other areas controlled by the federal government. (So, like what happens to South West Airlines ad: your free to move about the country) The bill was approved by a 261-161 vote.
The measure, called the Real ID Act, says that driver's licenses and other ID cards must include a digital photograph, anti-counterfeiting features and undefined "machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements" that could include a magnetic strip or RFID tag. The Department of Homeland Security would be charged with drafting the details of the regulation.
Republican politicians argued that the new rules were necessary to thwart terrorists, saying that four of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers possessed valid state-issued driver's licenses. (They had valid drivers licenses?Hummm, just like you and me, so can?t they get a valid new ID to comply. Its not the ID, its not the Gun, Its not the Car that does the damage, it?s the people. How is an ID going to stop the mind of the person from changing?) "When I get on an airplane and someone shows ID, I'd like to be sure they are who they say they are," said Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican,(Hey Virginia are you listening, time for him to be replaced, The ID is an assured deal, I don?t think so.) during a floor debate that started Wednesday.
States would be required to demand proof of the person's Social Security number (Since social security is voluntary program and one can?t be required to get a number, and with the present proposals in congress and by the president regarding social security?I wouldn?t even consider the program if I were 18 now. Learning the saving ways on ones own can far out reach the hand out by the politicians) and confirm that number with the Social Security Administration. They would also have to scan in documents showing the person's date of birth and immigration status, (Maybe that?s why Bush Budget Dumps 9,790 Border Patrol Agents) and create a massive store "so that the (scanned) images can be retained in electronic storage in a transferable format" permanently. (Isn?t this to protect the Banks, and the people in power? It has nothing to do with the good people out there who go about there daily lives making ends meet day to day.)
Another portion of the bill says that states would be required to link their DMV databases if they wished to receive federal funds. (Its all about the money) Among the information that must be shared: All data fields printed on drivers' licenses and identification cards, and complete drivers' histories, including motor vehicle violations, suspensions and points on licenses. (We?ll be carrying small computers, hope you carry a spare battery)
The Bush administration threw its weight behind the Real ID Act, which has been derided by some conservative and civil liberties groups as tantamount to a national ID card. The White House said in a statement this week that it "strongly supports House passage" of the bill. (So Bush has to be checked each time he gets on airforce one, those guard are federal employees, what good for the goose is good for the gander. All congressman and women will do the sme before enter any of the federal buildings.)
Thursday's vote mostly fell along party lines. About 95 percent of the House Republicans voted for the bill, which had been prepared by the judiciary committee chairman, F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican. More than three-fourths of the House Democrats opposed it.
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat from Washington, D.C., charged that Republicans were becoming hypocrites by trampling on states' rights. "I thought the other side of the aisle extols federalism at all times," Norton said. "Yes, even in hard times, even when you're dealing with terrorism. So what's happening now? Why are those who speak up for states whenever it strikes their fancy doing this now?"
Civil libertarians and firearm rights groups condemned the bill before the vote. The American Civil Liberties Union likened the new rules to a "de facto national ID card," saying that the measure would force "states to deny driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants" and make DMV employees act as agents of the federal immigration service.
Because an ID is required to purchase a firearm from a dealer, Gun Owners of America said the bill amounts to a "bureaucratic back door to implementation of a national ID card." The group warned that it would "empower the federal government to determine who can get a driver's license--and under what conditions." (Do they mean other than be qualified to drive a car?)
No matter how hard I try, I cannot see a downside to this. Illegal or "undocumented" immigrants can't get a drivers licence? Oh my... that is so horrible. Why should anyone who is here illegally be able to have the same priveledges as I do? I would feel safer knowning that when I am on a plane or otherwise, the people that are on the plane with me, have been identified as being safe to fly with. And no, I'm not talking about just muslim terrorists - all people. A terrorist can come from any walk of life.
I'm sorry, I see no downside what so ever.
"Those that will give up their liberties for security deserves neither."
-B. Franklin
If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
So many people talk about our RIGHTS but no one every mentions our RESPONSIBILITIES. When people get sworn in as citizens they take oaths of responsibility. Just because you were born here and never had to take those oaths doesn't mean that you don't have the same responsibilities. Here's the oath:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
It's interesting to me that the Constitution is only mentioned once (and no specific rights are mentioned), but that there are many responsibilities mentioned. They all say "when required by the law," not "when required by the law and it doesn't interfere with my supposed rights." It also mentions that you have no mental reservation about taking this oath. All those "minor" violations (traffic or otherwise) seem to me to be evidence of reservations about following the laws of the U.S.
Only those who have always fulfilled their responsiblities (obeying all laws--even traffic laws, serving on a jury when asked, being honest at tax time, voting at all elections you're eligible to vote at, etc.) have a RIGHT to complain about their rights being trampled on. If this isn't you, then change yourself before trying to change others. Consider this an opportunity to start with a clean slate. After you've done your part, then see if you don't feel differently.
government sit on their collective duffs and allow millions of
people to pour over the border. This is first step in throttling the
massive illegal immigration problem you myopic conspiracy
theorists continue to ignore.
Or is it the very idea of them "illegal immigrants" that make you angry? Is it because of the label the press has stuck them with? Would "undocumented visitors" cause you as much consternation?
The right to travel freely is a right because it is not earned, it is a given. Although the US Constitution is supposed to ensure our rights are considered in the making of laws and public policy, it is not the constitution that provides those rights. Our Creator provides those rights. The constitution is a guardian of those rights. They are not to be extended as priveleges that can be tarrifed or taken from us.
Likewise, even those who are not Americans deserve those rights, regardless of their place of birth, their licensing status, their economic status, or the length of time they have been in this country. They have a right to walk the earth, to go where their lives and opportunities lead, regardless of state and national boundaries, as do you and everyone else who lives and breathes. This is what the founders of this nation wanted to preserve - liberty.
As I recall, they used either their real names and addresses or known aliases.
"When I get on an airplane and someone shows ID, I'd like to be sure they are who they say they are," said Rep. Tom Davis.
Airport security knew exactly who these people were. And they let them board anyway.
A more logical justification would be to focus on terrorists who got onboard using *fake* IDs. All this incident supports is that we need to pay better attention to who we let through the gate *after* they're identified.
Why, then, are we changing the meaning and intent of the Constitution that has served us well for over 200 years? Every American school kid, and every naturized citizen, and many foreign people (American wannabes) take the Constitution to be THE PROMISE TO AMERICANS, and includes specifically, the BILL OF RIGHTS.
The political noise machine seems to relish the practise of making bogus claims about the need to change things, and bases their ideas and urgency on what's turning out to be a bogus notion of what happened on 9/11.
Let's figure out what happened on 9/11 first, and *then* make some serious adjustments, if need be, rather than follow the imprecise principle of "ready, FIRE, aim".
Dave
in St. Louis
Anyway: I recommend that those who so adamanetly favor this national ID card/system idea read Jeremy Levin's "This Perfect Day", George Orwell's "1984", or view Stephen Spielberg's "THX 1138" or Tery Gilliam's "Brazil". And then see if you still love this idea.
Yes, we need a way to filter out the terrorists (and other "bad guys". But (a) at what expense to oir own rights and heritage, and (b) isn't there perhaps a better, more well-thought-out, way to do it?
I am a Libertarian who proudly supported Michael Badnarik in 2004.
The police state is here. If it wasn't before, it will be now when this monstrosity goes into effect.
The biggest problem is not only that lawmakers do not read bills before they vote. The biggest problem is that the people do not think for themselves any more, do not question authority any more. We need to start, *now* to do that, and dig in our heels against the demise of our liberty.
- For those unaware or just plain sheep....
- by February 11, 2005 11:14 PM PST
- For over 70 years now has the government been trying to develop "legal" ways to spy on the citizens of this country since such activity is illegal under the search and seizure and right to privacy portions of our constitution. All federal,state and local law enforcement agencies are required by law to obtain a court order in order to do any surveillance on any citizen of the US residing in the US. The only area where this currently does not apply is the internet since it is considered "public domain".
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- FEMA WEBSITE
- by Soularddave February 13, 2005 10:37 PM PST
- Mark,
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (93 Comments)The reason the government would like to spy on its citizens is not so much to protect us citizens as to protect the institution of the government itself from us citizens. Hence the reason that there have been so many secret bunkers and control systems developed and special training in the military and certain law enforcement agancies strictly for the purpose of "civilian control". There is also a plan developed and instituted under FEMA so that under martial law, no constitutional rights are valid to any citizen. Period! This plan allows FEMA to take control and to essentially run the country without any regard to constitutional laws nor right to due process. (kinda like the SS of Germany in WW2)
The treaty with Britain from WW2 allows that Britain may spy on our citizens and we theirs. The compromise was in the sharing of intelligence section which set up that we would then share back any intelligence gained on each others country. This network was developed on the phone conversations being analyzed for certain keywords that would be "flagged". This is as close to being able to legally spy on citizens as our government has ever been able to do... till 911 and Homeland Security.
Now, out of our own fear of death, a condition you will not escape from anyway, the government has finally found the key to subvert your constitutional rights. Now, because you are afraid, they can finally develop the legal means to monitor and gain control of the citizens. Now, because you are afraid and ignorant, you have given them permission to do so. To become a central government controlled country, like China, Thailand, Hitler's Germany, the former USSR, to name a few.
In all the above comparisons, the initial and essential means of developing and maintaining control has been thru government issued id. And the means of "checkpoints" so as to control travel and monitor the movement of citizens who might assemble for the purpose of overthrowing the control of the government over the people.
Don't believe this? Then you'd better become a history buff so you can foresee your future and your childrens future.
Speaking of FEMA, their website had pictures of their response to the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. Those pictures included views of parts of the jet engines of the "object" that caused all the damage. They apeared to be about 24-30 inches in diameter, NOT 10 feet in diameter, as one would expect those of a boeing 757 to be.
Those pix are one of those things that make me go "Hmmmmm". Put "9/11 conspiracy theory" in your search engine and see what falls out. There are many sites, and tons of pix. You too, may want to go "Hmmmm".
Dave