Full Version: Real ID Act
QUOTE
The Real ID act started off as H.R. 418, which passed the House and went stagnant. It was then attached as a rider on a military spending bill (H.R. 1268), by Representative Sensenbrenner ® of Wisconsin (the author). It was signed into public law (109-13) on May 11, 2005.
In the United States, driver's licenses are issued by the states, not by the federal government. States also issue identification cards for non-drivers. States set the rules for what data is on the card and what documents must be provided in order to obtain one. States also maintain databases of licensed drivers and ID-card holders.
After May 11, 2008, "a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a State to any person unless the State is meeting the requirements" specified in the Real ID Act. (States remain free to also issue non-complying licenses and ID's, so long as these have a unique design and a clear statement that they cannot be accepted for any Federal identification purpose. This requirement would preclude any individual presenting only the non-compliant document from passing through the security check-point of airports in the United States; Esentially barring them from boarding an airplane in the US; Seeing how the Federal Government's Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration is responsible for security at all airport in the United States )
The national license/ID standards cover:
What data must be included on the card;
What documentation must be presented before a card can be issued; and
How the states must share their databases.
Strictly speaking, many of these requirements are not new. They replace similar language in Section 7212 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458), which had not yet gone into effect before being repealed by the Real ID Act.
In the United States, driver's licenses are issued by the states, not by the federal government. States also issue identification cards for non-drivers. States set the rules for what data is on the card and what documents must be provided in order to obtain one. States also maintain databases of licensed drivers and ID-card holders.
After May 11, 2008, "a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a State to any person unless the State is meeting the requirements" specified in the Real ID Act. (States remain free to also issue non-complying licenses and ID's, so long as these have a unique design and a clear statement that they cannot be accepted for any Federal identification purpose. This requirement would preclude any individual presenting only the non-compliant document from passing through the security check-point of airports in the United States; Esentially barring them from boarding an airplane in the US; Seeing how the Federal Government's Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration is responsible for security at all airport in the United States )
The national license/ID standards cover:
What data must be included on the card;
What documentation must be presented before a card can be issued; and
How the states must share their databases.
Strictly speaking, many of these requirements are not new. They replace similar language in Section 7212 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458), which had not yet gone into effect before being repealed by the Real ID Act.
Do you feel that this is going to impede on our privacy? If you haven't heard of the Real ID Act, what do you think of the fact that it hasn't been brought to the attention of US Citizens?
More information can be found here:
Real ID Act
Do you feel that this is going to impede on our privacy?
Since this is simply a national codification of existing procedure (i.e. all states have driver's licenses) I don't think so. States already have all of the information present here. If anything, this will speed up the process of modernizing some states, assuming there are some that don't have magnetic strips on them.
You already need an ID to board a plane in the US. This law simply states what constitutes a valid ID.
If you haven't heard of the Real ID Act, what do you think of the fact that it hasn't been brought to the attention of US Citizens?
Since it represents virtually no change to the status quo, this is a yawner
for me.
Of course, others disagree. The ACLU has a neutrally named website on the subject : http://www.realnightmare.org
The ACLU cites a survey of DMV personnel who think implementation is a going to be a problem. For example, many states do not have procedures in place to verify that the Social Security number given is accurate. Hello!! No wonder ID theft is a problem in this country.
Almost all states complain that they can't check with anyone to verify birth certificates.
States complain that they can't digitally store scanned copies of documents for the required 10 years. Someone should tell these guys how cheap scanners and storage media are these days.
Some states complain that they have no system in place to check that applicants are legally permitted to be in the United States!!
If the complaints by the state DMVs don't get you thinking about what is going on and wondering why we have millions of illegal ("undocumented") workers in this country, many with drivers licenses.
Since this is simply a national codification of existing procedure (i.e. all states have driver's licenses) I don't think so. States already have all of the information present here. If anything, this will speed up the process of modernizing some states, assuming there are some that don't have magnetic strips on them.
You already need an ID to board a plane in the US. This law simply states what constitutes a valid ID.
If you haven't heard of the Real ID Act, what do you think of the fact that it hasn't been brought to the attention of US Citizens?
Since it represents virtually no change to the status quo, this is a yawner
for me.Of course, others disagree. The ACLU has a neutrally named website on the subject : http://www.realnightmare.org
The ACLU cites a survey of DMV personnel who think implementation is a going to be a problem. For example, many states do not have procedures in place to verify that the Social Security number given is accurate. Hello!! No wonder ID theft is a problem in this country.
Almost all states complain that they can't check with anyone to verify birth certificates.
States complain that they can't digitally store scanned copies of documents for the required 10 years. Someone should tell these guys how cheap scanners and storage media are these days.
Some states complain that they have no system in place to check that applicants are legally permitted to be in the United States!!
If the complaints by the state DMVs don't get you thinking about what is going on and wondering why we have millions of illegal ("undocumented") workers in this country, many with drivers licenses.
If you haven't heard of the Real ID Act, what do you think of the fact that it hasn't been brought to the attention of US Citizens?
Well, let's see, it was attached as a rider, enacted with no publicity, and it is for the purpose of "increased Homeland
Security... I would say it likely has the fingerprints, palm prints, and footprints of the Bush Administration in the way that it was passed without any explanation to the general public. It's bad enough that we're going to need to spend money for a passport if we want to visit Canada. For nearly 2 centuries, it has been the "longest undefended international border in the world." Now, are we suddenly going to need a passport to travel to the next state?
Do you feel that this is going to impede on our privacy?
Yes, of course it will! As it is, we hardly have any privacy left to impede on. We were in a tee shirt shop today. If we wanted to enter a portion of the store, we were told that we would need to show a valid photo ID. It's bad enough that the library has to keep a record of the books I check out, I find it totally bizarre that Homeland Security needs a record of the fact that I wanted to browse in a tee-shirt store. I refused to present an ID and left the shop!
Well, let's see, it was attached as a rider, enacted with no publicity, and it is for the purpose of "increased Homeland
Security... I would say it likely has the fingerprints, palm prints, and footprints of the Bush Administration in the way that it was passed without any explanation to the general public. It's bad enough that we're going to need to spend money for a passport if we want to visit Canada. For nearly 2 centuries, it has been the "longest undefended international border in the world." Now, are we suddenly going to need a passport to travel to the next state?Do you feel that this is going to impede on our privacy?
Yes, of course it will! As it is, we hardly have any privacy left to impede on. We were in a tee shirt shop today. If we wanted to enter a portion of the store, we were told that we would need to show a valid photo ID. It's bad enough that the library has to keep a record of the books I check out, I find it totally bizarre that Homeland Security needs a record of the fact that I wanted to browse in a tee-shirt store. I refused to present an ID and left the shop!
QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Feb 25 2006, 12:23 AM)
[For nearly 2 centuries, it has been the "longest undefended international border in the world." Now, are we suddenly going to need a passport to travel to the next state?
With the likes of Ahmed Ressam meandering in from the north I'm personally glad we tightened things up a bit
QUOTE
I find it totally bizarre that Homeland Security needs a record of the fact that I wanted to browse in a tee-shirt store.
I am somewhat reluctant to believe Homeland Security has anything to do with the some shop's requirements. If so they need less money, not more.
Most likely they have something in the shop that could be construed as sexually explicit and are covering their rear ends from potential liabilities from having minors "exposed".
That being said, I'm kind of split on this one. The Libertarian streak in me says no, but the Republican side of me says anything that may help avoid security breeches, reduce voting abuse, or or otherwise help in any way to contain the illegal alien problem is not necessarily a bad thing. It's just too bad that some states aren't responsible enough to require little more that a note from their mother from people to get a drivers licenses and/or voter registration.
I said no, but once I read the post I did know about it.
It's just a way of making all IDs similar which is a good idea, IMHO.
One problem with multiple IDs is a person can jump from state to state and avoid the law.
I don't think it invades privacy any more than we already are. I get confused why people are so up in arms that the gov't wants to ID people when marketing firms, credit firms, people search companies etc. etc. have reems and reems of information about you that they are willing to sell.
If you fear the gov't, go to Zabasearch.com or type "people search" in google and try to find someone. You can find phone numbers, locations, people that lived together, etc. etc. Now that is some scary stuff.
Check it out if you haven't. If you ever own a home or have any public records, these scum track you down and file that information away.
It's just a way of making all IDs similar which is a good idea, IMHO.
One problem with multiple IDs is a person can jump from state to state and avoid the law.
I don't think it invades privacy any more than we already are. I get confused why people are so up in arms that the gov't wants to ID people when marketing firms, credit firms, people search companies etc. etc. have reems and reems of information about you that they are willing to sell.
If you fear the gov't, go to Zabasearch.com or type "people search" in google and try to find someone. You can find phone numbers, locations, people that lived together, etc. etc. Now that is some scary stuff.
Check it out if you haven't. If you ever own a home or have any public records, these scum track you down and file that information away.
Do you feel that this is going to impede on our privacy? If you haven't heard of the Real ID Act, what do you think of the fact that it hasn't been brought to the attention of US Citizens?
No, this seems like a non-issue to me. If you need a state ID for the way you live your life (i.e. like most normal, non-paranoid people), then a federal ID that has the same information doesn't seem like a violation of privacy. However, if they start linking this to your library preferences, your shopping preferences, what websites you frequent, well, then there is a ral discussion to be had.
Frankly, it's probably just as well the American public hasn't been alerted to this. This knee-jerk mentality gonig on right now of jumping on any legislation or action (usually in a partisan fasion) is not doing anyone any good.
QUOTE
Do you feel that this is going to impede on our privacy? If you haven't heard of the Real ID Act, what do you think of the fact that it hasn't been brought to the attention of US Citizens?
No and as Amlord points out above it does no go nearly far enough. How can we possible think we are secure when millions of illegal aliens are in the country some with driver’s licenses? And more pouring across our porous borders every day. What we need is a “real” ID that has real data behind it even if that is a government issued ID. The very fact that the states are unable or unwilling to do this may force the government to do something – hopefully sooner rather than later.
Do you feel that this is going to impede on our privacy?
I think this is a good idea. I think the US needs a good way to identify who people are and whether or not they should be here. I don't see it is an invasion of privacy that people need to be able to properly identify themselves to take advantage of government issued benefits.
If you haven't heard of the Real ID Act, what do you think of the fact that it hasn't been brought to the attention of US Citizens?
I hadn't heard that it has passed but I'm glad that it has. The government doesn't have to announce everything that it does at a press conference. The information is available for those who are interested. Announcing things often creates an uproar among the ignorant.
I think this is a good idea. I think the US needs a good way to identify who people are and whether or not they should be here. I don't see it is an invasion of privacy that people need to be able to properly identify themselves to take advantage of government issued benefits.
If you haven't heard of the Real ID Act, what do you think of the fact that it hasn't been brought to the attention of US Citizens?
I hadn't heard that it has passed but I'm glad that it has. The government doesn't have to announce everything that it does at a press conference. The information is available for those who are interested. Announcing things often creates an uproar among the ignorant.
Do you feel that this is going to impede on our privacy?
It probably will, in that it will consolidate a lot of "personal" information at yet another layer of government. It will increase risk of "ID theft", through card loss/theft and its inherent transmission of personal/private information. It may make ID theft worse in that the card apparently may be a gateway to more personal/private data held by all kinds of "others".
If you haven't heard of the Real ID Act, what do you think of the fact that it hasn't been brought to the attention of US Citizens?
I hadn't heard. And I greatly appreciate knowing and that it's being debated here on AD.
I don't like the fact that it hasn't been brought to the attention of US Citizens, because:
1. It's a citizen identification problem we're facing that is much larger than just an ID card format/content issue. It will be misused and abused unless more widely examined and debated! Like: a) How many ways can it be misused and what is the cost impact to the "general welfare"?
How does one establish the legality of citizenship by being born in the US. Is an illegal presence birth acceptable to all of us? (Very explosive question huh?) c) etc.
2. Making that card a state driver's license, is a Fed scam. Don't lay it on the states like this! Feds pay please! States rights is still to be protected, to my mind.
3. Citizenship "proof" generally has not been defined or debated adequately yet. My understanding is that there are only three initiating documents:
a) a state birth certificate, which should only give one state citizenship, right?! (I don't know about birth at sea, on international flights, at overseas military bases, etc., so my argument may be weak here.) a valid proof of completed military service, i.e. a DD-214 form. c) a naturalization certification.
4. The anti-forgery issues of any "document" is a tech problem that is not easy. The Feds have most of the relevant info, so they should do it by economy arguments. (I'm thinking of money, mil/Fed ID's, passports, etc., anti forgery.)
It probably will, in that it will consolidate a lot of "personal" information at yet another layer of government. It will increase risk of "ID theft", through card loss/theft and its inherent transmission of personal/private information. It may make ID theft worse in that the card apparently may be a gateway to more personal/private data held by all kinds of "others".
If you haven't heard of the Real ID Act, what do you think of the fact that it hasn't been brought to the attention of US Citizens?
I hadn't heard. And I greatly appreciate knowing and that it's being debated here on AD.
I don't like the fact that it hasn't been brought to the attention of US Citizens, because:
1. It's a citizen identification problem we're facing that is much larger than just an ID card format/content issue. It will be misused and abused unless more widely examined and debated! Like: a) How many ways can it be misused and what is the cost impact to the "general welfare"?
How does one establish the legality of citizenship by being born in the US. Is an illegal presence birth acceptable to all of us? (Very explosive question huh?) c) etc.2. Making that card a state driver's license, is a Fed scam. Don't lay it on the states like this! Feds pay please! States rights is still to be protected, to my mind.
3. Citizenship "proof" generally has not been defined or debated adequately yet. My understanding is that there are only three initiating documents:
a) a state birth certificate, which should only give one state citizenship, right?! (I don't know about birth at sea, on international flights, at overseas military bases, etc., so my argument may be weak here.)
a valid proof of completed military service, i.e. a DD-214 form. c) a naturalization certification.4. The anti-forgery issues of any "document" is a tech problem that is not easy. The Feds have most of the relevant info, so they should do it by economy arguments. (I'm thinking of money, mil/Fed ID's, passports, etc., anti forgery.)
QUOTE
Lek
It probably will, in that it will consolidate a lot of "personal" information at yet another layer of government. It will increase risk of "ID theft", through card loss/theft and its inherent transmission of personal/private information. It may make ID theft worse in that the card apparently may be a gateway to more personal/private data held by all kinds of "others".
It probably will, in that it will consolidate a lot of "personal" information at yet another layer of government. It will increase risk of "ID theft", through card loss/theft and its inherent transmission of personal/private information. It may make ID theft worse in that the card apparently may be a gateway to more personal/private data held by all kinds of "others".
The info that would be on a card like this would be the same info the state and federal people have now - probably a lot less actually. The ability to encrypt the data is many years old and would be at least as secure as any credit card that we all use almost daily. If fact the ability to add “biometrics” like a fingerprint to an ID has been used for years as well and would make identity theft (nearly) impossible.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.