Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Real IDs to Become Real in 2010

By Tim Conneally, BetaNews

March 2, 2007, 8:11 PM

US Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced today that states will be given an additional two years past the original May 11, 2008 deadline to comply with the directives of the controversial Real ID Act. Originally enacted into law in 2005, the Act contains many contentious directives, such as state agencies scanning of personal documents into a nationally-accessible database, giving a uniform appearance to each state's personal IDs, and implementing RFID tagging.

Today, in announcing the new deadline of December 31, 2009, Sec. Chertoff stressed that the process of tightening identification security strictly involves common sense.

Once the deadline has passed, applicants for driver's licenses will need to prove five items to their local DMV: name, birth date, legal status, social security number, and address. These can all be confirmed with birth certificates, passports, permanent resident cards, Social Security cards, or W-2s; and for addresses, a recent utility bill or similar document.

This is all essentially the same process US citizens had to endure 20 years ago to verify their new address for the Postal Service, although now documents will be scanned or copied and stored in the DMV's database. According to Chertoff, some states have already begun doing this.

In addition, states will be required to prepare security plans for DMV offices, license storage and production facilities, databases, and systems.

Chertoff today addressed fears that the federal government was accumulating a central database of citizens' identities - one which would inevitably become the target of attack from malicious users.

"We at the Department of Homeland Security in the federal government will not build, will not own, and will not operate any central database containing personal information," he told reporters. "The data will continue to be held at the state level as it has traditionally been since they began to issue drivers’ licenses."

As for the RFID tagging, Chertoff said: "The magnetic strips, these aren’t RFID. You’d have to actually take the strip and run it into a reader."

While Chertoff's comments do address the state of affairs at present, he did not decisively say whether the magnetic strips will be replaced with RFID by the January 2010 implementation date. He repeated several times, however, his belief that technology makes these IDs better.

Add a Comment (97 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Druidictus

edited Mar 6, 2007 - 11:18 PM

Most Countries have Constitutions that protect against promotion and limiting people to carry out their religion. Therefore you can deny using a ID type Card on religious grounds. Example, mark of the beast.

Also citizens have a right to deny Non Government Organisations to their private details so you can restrict Government departments using so called provider companies to heard you, be it Social-Security/employment expectations or other means used to limit your recourse and their responsibility to be within unalienable rights.

Always read contracts and scribe out terms you don't agree with.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Mar 7, 2007 - 12:57 PM

Name 2 countries that have it in their constitutions.

Druid... isn't that a Troll?

Score: 0

By Druidictus

posted Mar 6, 2007 - 11:10 PM

Numbering the Goyim.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Mar 6, 2007 - 3:40 PM

Every one of you with a passport that is complaining are all hypocrites. Every one of you who has a driver's license, and somehow believe your info isn't federally collected has their head buried in the sand.

Score: 0

By Sojourner49

edited Mar 5, 2007 - 6:27 PM

Corraling their own citizens and letting the illegals roam.
So much for the "Land of the Free"

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 6, 2007 - 9:16 AM

This would actually stop the illegals from being able to legally drive in the US.

applicants for driver's licenses will need to prove five items to their local DMV: name, birth date, legal status, social security number, and address

...kinda hard to do without a social security number.

Score: 0

By DonQuixote

edited Mar 8, 2007 - 2:17 PM

I have seen elegals buying drivers licenses and social security numbers for about $50.00 each. It may go up in price as it becomes harder to get but it will still go on.

Read about Nazi Germany during the 30's and compare to what is going on in the good ol'e USA and it will make your hair stand on end.
Hail Busch! Ihren papieren bitte! (Your papers please.)

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Mar 7, 2007 - 7:35 AM

Yeah, doesn't make sense...

Actually, states IN THEORY retain the right to license non-resident aliens:
Many states allow the following...
as far as major ID--
1. With a letter from SSN stating applicant is not eligible for a #, a Federal EIN can be substituted.
2. Foreign passports, consular & other foreign ID's can be accepted.
and for supporting ID...
3. even foreign school id, international license, etc. can be submitted.

IN PRACTICE's another story:
even if The Supremes were to strike down most of the draconian directives...say- as an intrusion of individual states' rights, or whatever other compelling reason... IF the directives get tied in to Federal funding eligibilities, then the end result won't vary.

I hope common sense prevails-- some folks pay as much as 50K to be smuggled in here-- so why not get a piece of that pie.
ALL that the Feds accomplish by denying folks sufficient documentation to prevent them from studying, driving, working, going into business legally/openly, banking, purchasing insurance/medical coverage/vehicle/home/etc. is create an underground economy that kills substantial tax revenues, encourages our dollars to flow out & thus hurt local economies, AND creates extra burden for them as well: someone eventually has to pay the piper when undocumented aliens with scarce resources get sick or hurt, conceive offspring that need schooling & medical care, resort to crime to make ends meet, etc.

EVERY SINGLE person in this country should get an SSN # issued to them.

Score: 0

By Druidictus

posted Mar 6, 2007 - 11:12 PM

The US Government isn't taking illegals serious and are using them to divide the Nation and to bring in laws like these.

Score: 0

By ladylust

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 7:00 PM

..... just one more reason for the libs to cry and wet their pants --- oh I love to watch them so much ....

Score: 0

By mikeeberhart

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 2:11 PM

The only thing I look forward to is some sort of consistency with the Driver's License laws. I actually think the day of a *State* driver's license should be long gone now that many of us drive across State lines regularly. Just seems to me it'd save a lot of time and money if there was one USA-wide driver's license. Same with License plates.

I happen to live in a State where we already have to provide SSN, Birth Cert, or Passport to get a license. It's a pain, but what pains me more is knowing that if I happened to live in one of the States with relaxed rules, I'd never have to show the same proof. I find that a bit annoying, and I think it is a security concern. But, as many have stated, I am also concerned about a big database of personal information, especially given the gov's (in)ability to protect it.

Score: 0

By rbailin

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 11:48 AM

Just for the record, 20 years ago US citizens (and everybody else for that matter) had to endure the same method to change their address that we have today: You filled out an oversized change-of-address post card and mailed it to your old post office. You would get a confirmation letter at your old address a few days later. No proof of citizenship or residence required, no passports, birth certificates or driver's licenses to present to some counter clerk.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 1:11 PM

... and one time out of five they actually worked.

Score: 0

By Dev3lop3

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 11:03 AM

All of my personal information stored electronically in one easy to access place?

Thats a real good idea...to promote identity theft!

Score: 0

By ds0934

edited Mar 5, 2007 - 9:38 AM

We don't have any problem whatsoever handing over all our personal, financial and confidential information to foreigners when we outsource crap like health records maintenance, student loans, credit management, etc. etc. But we freak if one state wants to share it with another. Stupid.

Anyone who thinks their personal information is safe, secure and protected is fooling themselves.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 9:50 AM

The stupidity of people by sharing our personal data with other nations does not in any way give the government the right to force us to register in a national database, nor is this the only national database, just a very visible one.

States already share data and they do this with our consent. If I get a ticket in Texas my home state will find out. If I have an arrest warrant in one state, this goes out to many other databases. The difference here is that these only occur as part of an actual crime and not by default. Also they occur under state constitutions and not the federal. If I don't like a state's constitution I can move to another state and not give up the benefits of my citizenship. The same is true of local city charters. The federal constitution raises a higher bar because it gives no such powers to the government. If such power is not given it is therefore prohibited. It is not permissible to twist and parse in order to wrangle from it meanings that don't exist. If not clearly spelled out, the government does not have a power. If they take it anyway, they have violated the trust of the people and can be legitimately be removed...even with force. Of course we should use that only as a last resort, we are far from that at present but the more power they take and the more freedoms we lose the bloodier it will be if we don't turn it around now. Don't get me wrong, i don't call for violence, I think that we should all know our laws and constitution, we should ask the politicians the tough questions and we should VOTE. How many of those reading this really know the constitution, are there any articles you can quote from memory, how about the pre-amble, can you even paraphrase this? Do you know you state's constitution, your city charter, do you even know the name of your state representative, the city council member for your ward?. These are the people with direct control over your life and you don't even know who they are. Yet so many here push themselves forward and say "sure that is fine, you can have my liberty" when you don't even know who you are giving it to or why they have those rights in the first place. I will give you a hint...your rights are not based upon any document unique to this country.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 1:04 PM

My comment was aimed at how little objection seems to be raised over Bangalore having EVERYTHING about U.S. citizens at their disposal, yet we see fired up comments like these over interstate vs Federal oversight. This really no different than the events leading up to the Civil War (states rights, Missouri Compromise, etc.). No, I'm not implying we're heading for another Civil War, Americans are too lazy to fight. We'd rather blog, watch TV and mix Mentos with Pepsi to watch it blow up.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 2:36 PM

Mento's and Pepsi blow up?

Sweet!

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Mar 6, 2007 - 12:24 AM

Who said Mentos....

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 6, 2007 - 9:15 AM

I think you just did.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Mar 6, 2007 - 12:54 PM

Excellent. Let's get some Pepsi.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Mar 6, 2007 - 2:01 PM

Sounds like a plan to me.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

edited Mar 5, 2007 - 9:28 AM

Boy they are coming out of the woodwork on this one...and of course I could not resist either.

I oppose this law on the basis that I believe it violates human rights by forcing all to register ourselves in a national database in order to simply enjoy our rights as citizens. I see no tangible security benefits to this, even if such were a valid reason for this unconstitutional action (and it is not). The government cannot keep up with the data collected 10 years ago, what makes us think they can glean anything useful from orders of magnitude more data.

There have always been criminals, there always will be, guns and explosives have made them more efficient and now they call some of them terrorists but criminals they remain. These times and situations are no different from any we have faced before. Our nation is in no real danger from terrorists. Yes they can scare us and kill some of our people (tragic yes, but they pose no massive threat to the country's existence) but they cannot destroy the US except by scaring us into doing the job for them.

Taking away the freedom of those that obey the law has never been effective and never will. The only benefit long term of doing this is to protect the government from its people so that they can do as they wish. There is only one remedy for this. Power must be returned to the people, sometimes we can do this at the ballot box, sometimes it takes blood. Either way, it will happen. Which side are you on?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 9:37 AM

I oppose this law on the basis that I believe it violates human rights by forcing all to register ourselves in a national database in order to simply enjoy our rights as citizens

What human right is this violating? The right to not be a citizen? Nah, you still got that one.

The government cannot keep up with the data collected 10 years ago

So why all the concern? Apparently they won't even know you registered until 10 years after the fact.


There have always been criminals, there always will be, guns and explosives have made them more efficient and now they call some of them terrorists but criminals they remain.

Ah...all the more reason to just give up and let it all slide, eh? Time to just stop trying?

Taking away the freedom of those that obey the law has never been effective and never will

Again, name one freedom you lose because of the ID card? How is this so incredibly different from your DL except that it is on the federal and not the state level?

The only benefit long term of doing this is to protect the government from its people so that they can do as they wish.

Nice. And how does a friggin' ID card let the government do whatever they want? Very dramatic.

wer must be returned to the people, sometimes we can do this at the ballot box, sometimes it takes blood. Either way, it will happen. Which side are you on?

lmao.. Come on, man. Listen to yourself. It's an ID card! Quick, grab yer torch and pitchfork!

10 for drama, but all I got from that was a warning by example to make sure your tinfoil hat ain't on too tight.

FWIW: I'm on you're side. I think the card is a bad idea. But my reasoning is a tad more practical. I just don't think the benefits will outweigh the costs. ;)

Score: 0

By Reap_r

edited Mar 5, 2007 - 10:18 AM

1. The human right to be free in the pursuit of happiness. A federal ID card will force us to be under search at all times (RFID will call out our location to any invisible readers we pass). The fourth ammendment deals with this but by no means is it comprehensive (it was not intended to be). A current state ID card can be discarded when you move to another state, you can effectively remove the government control without leaving the country. The new system prevents this.

2. The basis of my opposition is not the governments effectiveness of lack thereof, niether is my argument against this, I include this to put the lie to the weak rationalizations in favor of this law.

3. You are putting words here which I did not. This is beneath you, surely you have the intellect to stick to the point and not make up imaginary points to refute.

4. Ah the refuge of the tyrannists. Put the burden of proof on the citizen to prove his right to freedom or prove the infringement of a specific freedom. It does not work this way, perhaps I should not bait you so, but the way it works is that I have all freedoms I can think of unless they are limited by powers specifically called out in the constitution. The constitution does not list my freedoms, it lists government powers allowed to infringe on them. If the powers are not listed, they do not exist. So if I think that I have the freedom to dress like a racoon and the government has not coressponding power to restrict me...I have that freedom.

5. This one is especially dangerous though because a national ID database is essential to a tyrant. You cannot effectively restrict someones freedom unless you have identified them all. This accomplishes that. So the actual infringement is minor but the potential for abuse is HUGE. (in the last century a national ID was mandated in Germany, this greatly helped to identify certain ethnic groups and forced the people to identify themslelves in order to travel - do we want to go there?)

6. Putting words in my mouth again. I make no call to revolution, simply point out that if things go far enough it is not only inevitable but justified. This is only one step of many. In human history tyrants rarely take power all at once, they incrementally infringe upon rights until they hold all power. They slowly raise the temperature one degree at a time so that those of us in the pot do not realize the big picture until it is too late...by the time we ask "is it getting warm in here" we are cooked.

7. I am glad you like the drama, one tries.

My tinfoil hat is packed away, the satellites housing the government mind control rays have been improved, your hat wont work, you must live underground to escape them now.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 1:05 PM

"The human right to be free in the pursuit of happiness"

Wrong! Go back and read the original text. http://www.usconstitution.net/

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Mar 6, 2007 - 12:28 AM

From the doc you sorta quoted...

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Mar 6, 2007 - 2:24 PM

Without a graphic, who would understand all that gibberish? :)

Score: 0

By Reap_r

edited Mar 5, 2007 - 1:46 PM

Please don't post unless you can become less ignorant. I know that sounds insulting but it is not. I don't say that I am not ignorant in some ways myself. I just want to be able to discuss this without resorting to lectures.

That right exists because of the objective nature of reality. That right was not given to us by any human convention or law. You can reword it any way you want but it means that we have the right to live our lives as we choose. The documents we discuss here then go on to place limits on that, but only so that we can live together.

The constitution and the declaration of independence merely recognize the realty of the facts of our existence. It also recognizes that government needs some power over us in order to function.

The fact that you have not found this right written out somewhere means only that the writers of the document assumed that all rights are held by the people. The communicated the reasons for this assumption and wrote the document based upon that. You cannot interpret a document if you try to fit it into an entirely different context.

The context is that in your world, you only have the rights that someone has told you that you have. Please tell me you don't vote.

Americans in this generation are so mixed up about what rights are. They give up essential rights and lay claim to others that are not rights at all. For example, I could persuasively argue and convince many here that it is a human right to be able to eat. That is a false and dangerous idea. You do have a right to eat, but only what you can catch (that does not belong to someone else) or grow (on land that does not belong to someone else). You do NOT have the right to have someone else catch, grow, and prepare you food without you having to work for it. That would make those others your slaves if you had a right demand that from them. We use money for this transaction and pay for the food we need. We work in order to make money. If we fail to do this, we do not have a right to free food. Those who care about others will in many cases feed us, but this is not a right.

So while you have a right to nourish yourself with the work of your hands, you do not have the right to take anyone elses property becasuse you are hungry or to make anyone else feed you.

I hope you can see the distinction between rights and demands.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 11:22 AM

A current state ID card can be discarded when you move to another state, you can effectively remove the government control without leaving the country. The new system prevents this.

..and you get a new state ID card. If anything, this would simply allow one to skip that step. It surely wouldn't get you "off the grid".

4. Ah the refuge of the tyrannists. Put the burden of proof on the citizen to prove his right to freedom or prove the infringement of a specific freedom

Thanks for calling me a tyrant. Appreciate that. The government has the right to require identification. This is merely the replacement of one form of identification for another.

This one is especially dangerous though because a national ID database is essential to a tyrant.

Heh.. Back to that again. If a tyrant could use it to our detriment, we should not consider it. Here's a thought: Don't elect tyrants. :p

Putting words in my mouth again. I make no call to revolution, simply point out that if things go far enough it is not only inevitable but justified.

...Power must be returned to the people, sometimes we can do this at the ballot box, sometimes it takes blood.

Then why include that at all? It only serves to engender an emotional response. *shrug* You got it.

n human history tyrants rarely take power all at once, they incrementally infringe upon rights until they hold all power.

That's actually quite rare in recent (1900's) history. Most we're actually put into power via the bloody revolution you mentioned above.

My tinfoil hat is packed away, the satellites housing the government mind control rays have been improved, your hat wont work, you must live underground to escape them now

Heh...Underground? There be trolls, mate. :p

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 1:15 PM

Arg, at least leave me the illusion of anonymity by being able to skip the state when I need to. While we have nearly this effectively when you combine the current databases, it is not codified into law.

Where did I call you a tyrant? Please don't confuse my attacks on ideas with namecalling. I very seldom ever do that no matter how brainless the poster is.

Please show me in the constitution where the government has the right to require me to identify myself to anyone at any time. For that matter they can't even require me to learn how to read, or write. They can't require me to maintain an address or get a social.

The government has no rights, only powers that we give them. We did not give them this one.

It would be nice if all Tyrants were labeled with a Potential Tyrant tatoo on their forehead, but they are not. In many cases they begin as well meaning folks who think that they know how we should live, and are corrupted by power.

There have been tyrants put into place by revolution but in many cases it is incremental. The actual ruler may step into place suddenly but the reigns that they hold were put into place gradually. The laws that support and defend their power had to be passed by someone. Yes there have been sudden ones but there have been many that were not. In fact if you look at the sudden revolutions that emplaced a tyrant, in many cases simply exchanged one tyrant for another.

I am glad you agree that this is a bad idea, but if you opposition is merely based upon the logistics or competency with which this is put into place, it will never hold them back.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Mar 6, 2007 - 12:39 AM

"Please show me in the constitution where the government has the right to require me to identify myself to anyone at any time."

Article 1, Section 2.

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting
of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten
Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

Congress is directed to find out who lives here. The process of identification is part of the power given to the Congress.

If you want to get really obnoxious, I could also point out that even the Geneva Conventions require people to identify themselves to other governments in a highly limited manner.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted Mar 6, 2007 - 10:00 AM

Close, that is called a census and has never required identification. You can mail the thing in if you want. I actually worked for the census and helped track down those that did not send in their form for the 1990 Census. I could not even ask for ID. I just asked the questions and wrote down what they told me, unless they chased me off, which did happen, and in that case I just guessed on who they were and how many lived there and handed the form in.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Mar 6, 2007 - 12:58 PM

The census itself chooses not to do that simply because it wants to be accurate, but the government does derive its authority to identify those in it from that section. It's not clear-cut, but it doesn't have to be. Congress has that authority. Those powers not explicitly given shall be reserved to the States, but in this case, Congress does indeed appear to have every right to identify its citizenry.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Mar 5, 2007 - 2:33 PM

Please show me in the constitution where the government has the right to require me to identify myself to anyone at any time.

Please show me where it states in this bill/act/scene/part/whatever where it requires you to "identify myself to anyone at any time".

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here. This card is, according to my understanding, to be issued in place of our current drivers license.

The only differences being that it will serve as national identification instead of state, and the documents used to obtain the ID will be digitized.

There's no mention (other than a flat denial) of a federal database, no mention of a requirement other than those of getting an ID, and no mention of people being *forced* to get it.

Arg, at least leave me the illusion of anonymity by being able to skip the state when I need to.

Leave the card at home, tell 'em your dog ate it. :p

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 3:45 PM

Those seeking to get the card would be required to identify themselves. The states do this now but the state constitutions are written differently and are more restrictive. In this case you turn the state licensing bureaus into agents of the federal government and under the constitution they don't have the power.

If you think that this info will not be going into a big database then I need to sniff some of what you have got because it completely detaches you from reality.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 6, 2007 - 9:14 AM

In this case you turn the state licensing bureaus into agents of the federal government

By issuing a DL that is valid in all states?

I don't get it, man. I know where you're coming from, you don't trust the government, and to a certain degree, that is admirable. We need to keep our eyes open. But I think you're looking for gremlins that simply aren't there.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted Mar 6, 2007 - 10:04 AM

I have no great paranoia or distrust of the government, they are not evil.

I simply refuse to give up my liberties. No matter how harmless some think it is or how great of a security improvement it may be. The liberties are mine. I have them by virtue of my birth and will not give them up. The "contract of citizenship" (constitution) already removes from me certain liberties in order to make our nation function. It is foolish to give up even more, especially when they give no advantage to us...and no real safety. There are ways around any authentication/identification system. Those with the motivation will accomplish their goals regardless of the limitations placed upon the rest of us. They will just have to try harder and take longer.

Why don't we instead of turning this country into a police state pull our military back here where it belongs and Defend our country.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Mar 6, 2007 - 1:04 PM

A power that can be interpreted to the States as unenumerated or a power that is Federal is still the capacity of your governance. Last I checked, DMV is a government agency. You aren't giving up a liberty if the Feds take that over.

Your logic is flawed, reap_r. I respect your argument, and generally feel the same way about other points, but in this case, changing the authority of who does this indeed has an advantage. Identification in other states often is a hassle. Whether it's law enforcement, buying a beer, whatever. A national ID will unify a fragmented system of more than 50 different state-level agencies into a unified design. This is standards, and also falls to Congress.

So reap_r, with all due respect, and similar feelings especially about the Fourth, I think this instance isn't one to make Custer's Last Stand, IMO.

Score: 0

By J23dog

edited Mar 5, 2007 - 2:11 AM

It's interesting that the Brass has picked the year 2010. If you follow some other seemingly "epocoliptic related" you will notice that some of them also share this similar deadline for a major part of their occurance. Interestingly, mid-2010 marks the half-way point of the current EU sponsored European Neighborhood Policy which strengthens or "enhances" the already established Barceloan Process, vehicles which attempt to establish political peace in the Middle East through regional economic partnerships. The ENP confirms Barcelona for a term of 7 years, a scenario not dissimilar to that in a book written about 2,500 years ago about certain events in this time.
If the two accounts do connect, watch for a man named Javier Solana to break the ENP contact somewhere around mid 2010 and enact his own self-serving agenda.

And then look for a number.

With a few 6's in it.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 9:32 AM

I am not with you on the whole prophecy thing here. There are a few things missing...like the Anti-Christ and the prophet and such. Unless you think it is this Javier Solana and I have never heard of him. I am thinking that the AC will be a household name pretty quick if he were here.

I oppose this based upon right and wrong not some prophecy that may or may not be playing out right now.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 9:28 AM

Let's leave the Fairy Tales to the kids, aye?

Score: 0

By phenomnaruto

posted Mar 4, 2007 - 5:30 PM

"Those Who Would Sacrifice Liberty for Security Deserve Neither." -Ben Franklin

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 9:27 AM

Exactly what freedoms (liberties) is this taking from you again? I seemed to have missed that part.

Score: 0

By Dev3lop3

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 11:05 AM

Right to Privacy.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 1:07 PM

There is NO law garanteeing U.S. citizens a blanket "right to privacy". You are mistaken and mislead. There are hundreds of variations on this notion as it pertains to U.S. and state law. More often than not, it is filtered through what is called "reasonable expectation of privacy". For example, while driving in traffic, I am free to video tape you doing something stupid, but I'm not free to poke my lens through your bedroom window. Read up. Learn.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 1:20 PM

Read up learn...

Good idea, get started.

Our rights do not come from laws. We the people hold all rights that we desire to and give up to the government those that we have decided were vital to running a country. We do this through the constitution. Any power not given to the government in this document is still held by the people including any right to privacy that we feel we should have.

This is the foundation upon which our republic rests. You and many others have believed the lie that we have only those rights that the government gives us through law. Remember what the government gives the government takes away. That road leads to tryanny.

Our rights are objective and rely not upon any government or law, but rather with the belief that each man is given rights by his creator (read the declaration of independence and the preamble of the constitution) - whoever you believe that creator to be is irrelevant.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 1:30 PM

I never said "right", I said "law". You have various "rights" to privacy depending upon what you're talking about. Telecom, Internet, banking, postal mail, window curtains, backyard fences, strolling on a beach. They are not treated the same. You do not have the same "rights" of privacy in each situation.

I agree, "privacy" is central to American rights, and it seems the boundaries are being cut away all the time by our courts and governmentn agencies. Usually, in the name of national security.

I found the comment by one poster that states already share information a bit humorous. I live in Virginia, arguably home to more federal government and military than any other state, yet it takes months for a traffic ticket to be reported from Maryland or NC. I know several friends who moved here from Tenn who have driving records that have yet to show up here in VA after years of living here. That's messed up. Giant holes like that invite malicious exploitation. What's more important: privacy or security? Nobody can agree on that.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 11:26 AM

You've lost that right already. Try again.

You already carry an ID, any transaction you make where you must produce that ID is no more, and no less than what is proposed under this measure.

Score: 0

By st0mp

posted Mar 4, 2007 - 12:25 AM

i don't think it will make it more bothersome then what we have to do now really. My biggest problem with it is. look at all the theft or lost items. that our government is in "control" of that goes on now.

i think actually it will make identity theft easy er in a big way because of this. Oops i lost my laptop with 40,000 vet's SS was on it or something like that. no way would i trust them with everything.

yes i could see them going with RFID but just like any typical technology. Its going to get hacked just as well. its part of nature.

Score: 0

By Opinion8r

edited Mar 3, 2007 - 8:26 PM

This new card is just another step towards totalitarianism. The govt. claims to be doing this to make it harder for the theft of IDs. How smart is it then to put the entire nations citizenry into one database. RFID smacks of tracking control. We are as free as a protected species in a protected wildlife reserve. Reserve ... sounds like reservation.

In your or on your hand? How much longer?

Score: 0

By ladylust

posted Mar 3, 2007 - 5:34 PM

I'm for this.... As is most of America...

Score: 0

By robster2001

edited Mar 3, 2007 - 11:59 PM

The fact that most of America is so terrified that they're willing to give away their rights because power-hungry politicos tell them "we'll keep you safe" doesn't make it right.

Real ID is another example of government as nanny... as the saying goes, I don't know that I want my government to protect me as much as I want to be protected from my government...

Score: 0

By Uncle Sam (indignamt)

edited Mar 3, 2007 - 5:09 PM

http://www.eff.org/Priva...e/nationalidsystem.html
Since September 11th, the nation has struggled to come up with new ideas to prevent such a catastrophe from ever recurring. Disturbingly, many old and repeatedly rejected ideas have reentered the national discourse as well. Among them is the proposed introduction of a national identification card system. EFF opposes any such scheme:

* because no compelling case has been presented for its utility or effectiveness as a crime-fighting tool,
* because of its inevitable costs (in dollars, privacy, and liberty), and
* because of its high potential for abuse, by entities in both the public and private sectors.

Score: 0

By 8800GTXer

posted Mar 3, 2007 - 4:00 PM

No... Let's be totally honest. Chertoff is a fuggin zionist jew with duel Israeli citizenship. He looks like Vladimir Lenin's long distant relative. Take a look at the AIPAC and all the jews that are controlling our government. It's basicly the Boshevik Revolution Part 2. It all part of their plan to get the GOYIM to submit to their communist regime that's quietly taking over this great nation of America. The Founding Fathers would have never settled with this.. My ancestors fought and bled to make this nation FREE and stupid politically correct morons that occupy the internet think that giving up liberty for more security is a good thing... Screw all of those that believe that.. They deserve neither liberty or security...

Score: 0

By ds0934

edited Mar 5, 2007 - 1:18 PM

If you're going to rant like this, at least run a spellcheck.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Mar 4, 2007 - 10:57 AM

I wish they had an award for racists like you.

I wish that award was a haircut. Real close to the shoulders, like.

I can't believe I share oxygen with people like this.

Score: 0

By 8800GTXer

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 12:27 PM

wish all you want... you're the typical communist douchbag A.K.A. anti-racist. Only communist, liberal douchbags give the usual outcry of racism. You people are f**king wastes of space.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 2:21 PM

*gasp*

He called me an "anti-racist"!!!

Ooh, the humanity!

How will I ever recover???

Too bad you're real. Otherwise, you'd just be a joke. As it stands, your just a sad example of hatred, intolerance, and stupid.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 1:09 PM

*sigh* The one place I thought I'd never see skinheads open their mouths. Too bad. It was a nice forum too.

Score: 0

By TIM

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 11:09 AM

A GWAR quote on Betanews!!!!!!!!!!!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 11:24 AM

*grin*

Thought someone might catch that. :p

Score: 0

By realdeal07

edited Mar 4, 2007 - 3:51 AM

I'm assuming you consider yourself a Christian. I'm assuming your family has deep roots in America. I'm also assuming that you believe the founding fathers were Christians who believed the Bible as well.
Let me point out the error of your thinking by using Scripture. In Gen 12:2-3 God says to Abraham about the Jews, "I will bless those that bless you and curse those that curse you." There's no such thing as replacement theology, because if there was, then God could break his promise to us Gentiles as well. You forget that God doesn't change, therefore he can't break his promises. You need to take a good hard look at Scripture and see the error of your anti-Semetic thinking. Don't forget that we Gentiles are just lucky to have been a branch 'grafted' to the fig tree with strong roots (the jews) through Jesus Christ. The Jews are, and always have been, God's true and favored people. By hating the 'Zionists' and Jews, you're conciously going against God's very will. He wills for Israel and Jerusalem to be ruled by the Jews, that's been his plan all along. In fact, it was the Romans who took it from the Jews and gave it to the Palestinians. Anti-Semetic movements like the ones you probably support are the reason this once great country will be smited by God into non-world-player status. "I'll bless those that bless you, and curse those that curse you." By hating Jews and Zionism, you're telling God he's stupid for still loving his chosen people.
Also, why would the Jews, who have been endlessly persecuted by them, support a Communist regime or be involved in one? Communism (Russia,China), and it's relatives Socialism (Nazis) and Totalitarianism (Rome), have oppressed the Jews for the better part of a few Millenia when all put together. It'd be like the Jews supporting the Roman Catholic overthrow of the government in lieu of Papal rule.
Many great jews keep this country running, as do many great Christians. It's the extreme liberals in the country who are sacrificing liberties for 'protections'. It's the irony that the ACLU's of this nation are in fact the ones speeding up our loss of basic civil liberties. The groups fighting and tying up our courts to allow gay marriage, but not allow a sermon in a small church to express opposition to that. It's the movements that allow white pride rallies who openly speak with hate, but condemn the preacher who speaks out against "gay rights" and abortion, calling it "hate speech" of the worse kind.
These are the gears that are turning to bring about the events in Revelation, Daneil, and Ezekiel in the bible. The world will never end, but these are the people who bring it dangerously close. But, it's all written in the bible for thousands of years. It's God's will shaping this geo-political landscape to what it is.
It's all part of his plan, so...I encourage you to think about the things you just said 8800GTXer (which you're obviously a computer gamer, naming a vid card in your name...age 13 maybe?), and ask yourself "how does what I said about the Jews really make sense?", "Why would they benefit from a Communist regime when history proves it to be against any of their goals?"
Read your bible son, we Gentiles will never be God's people. We're just lucky to be saved by Grace through Jesus. We owe the Jews everything for what Christianity is. They're the foundation. You wouldn't build your house without one, right?

Score: 0

By CopFost

edited Mar 6, 2007 - 3:18 PM

realdeal07:

You're only wrong about one thing: We are not "lucky" to be saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus, WE ARE BLESSED!

This column seems to be full of young, shallow people...I was once one of these 25 years ago.

Because I answered the basic questions of Life: Who am I? Why am I here? Where am I going? How do I get there?, I have met with much success and happiness.

How did I get there? The Bible answered all of my questions, so I accepted the free gift of salvation by following and believing in Jesus Christ.

How does this tie into the Real ID discussion? Simple...the Real ID is another step toward the "Mark": That's right, Mark of the Beast.

Revelation 13:16-18

16He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

18This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.

Did you know that three 6's are already on all the bar codes?
See it here: http://brettfoster.net/666.html

Realdeal07, we will be persecuted as Christians, but Jesus said the world hated Him before it hated us.

I invite the unbelievers, scoffers, persecutors, and those people, that hate us for loving Jesus, to go here, to a least understand why we believe: http://www.brettfoster.net/

I am an American with German heritage, but I love the Jews. It is easy since Jesus was a Jew.

It is a wonderful feeling to know that we are assured a place in Heaven. Let not your hearts be troubled: John 14

Score: 0

By thebigwee

posted Mar 4, 2007 - 8:49 PM

PIMPL!! I love it, ....youre trying to prove someone wrong and show them the error of their ways by quoting verse from a fairy tale comic book. Yep, that sure set him straight. LOL

Score: 0

By 8800GTXer

posted Mar 4, 2007 - 6:36 AM

you sir or maam are a brainwashed neofite judeo christian.. The jews you wish to claim are `God's Chosen' are the wrong damn people for one. 95% or more all all modern day jews are NOT semitic. They are Ashkenazi and Shepardic. You make up part of the deluded masses from your prostitute preachers like John Hagee and Pat Robinson who are Zionists. Furthermore, you are too ignorant to realize that jews are Edomites and were not called jews until about the 17th century A.D. How about reading Rev.2:9 and 3:9 for starters. You really need to take your head out of your a** and do some research, rather than parrot what your judeo christian has told you to believe. But then again you go ahead and believe your tripe... You will soon realize that your rapture will never happen and that you were lied to about a great number of things. Communism is a Jewish creation. Read up on the Boshevik revolution and all the past leaders of communist Russia. Lastly, I am not a Gentile as you have been brainwashed to believe. I am a remnant of the lost tribes of Israel, (Anglo-Saxon or also known as sons of Issac). His flock is yet but a tiny flock, so back with the goats you heretic.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 12:10 AM

Here's proof that man and hogs can have viable offspring!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 9:26 AM

Your definition of viable is a bit generous, don't ya think?

Score: 0

By hiyoag

posted Mar 3, 2007 - 4:51 PM

Wow.
Your post lost some of its punch. Could you post it again in its original German form?

Score: 0

By robster2001

posted Mar 3, 2007 - 3:35 PM

Let's be realistic -- this delay is designed to allow the next President to make the final decision on Real ID. This way the current incumbent looks strong for his constituency (and what he thinks his legacy should be), and his replacement can then dismantle this offense against the privacy of the American public.

Score: 0

By ladylust

posted Mar 3, 2007 - 5:31 PM

It will never happen. States are not about to upgrade to this ID system - only to throw it all away. Most people are in favor of this.

Score: 0

By zenarcher

posted Mar 3, 2007 - 3:35 PM

The stock government answer to every measure gathering data on citizens is, "it makes us safer." Likewise, the blind followers of government always add, "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." Sounds great in a simplistic sense, I suppose.

However, when you think about it, is it really a matter of "trust" in the government? No, it's trust in each and every nitwit who works for the government...every one who as access to your information or documents.

Therein lies the "trust." Trust that not one of them is incompetent enough to lose the information. Trust that not one of them is dishonest enough to sell the information, give the information to another person involved in identity theft or other illegal practice.

And, as we do, we'll rest in a false sense of security that anyone with one of these new ID's, is a certified American. Yeah....just like everyone with a Social Security card and driver's license is a legal resident. Driver's licenses and Social Security cards have been sold by employees of these same government offices before and it will happen again.

Trust the government if you will, but remember that trust extends to every nitwit in their employ, as well. And trust that the government would never unknowingly employ an evildoer or "terrorist" allowing them access to creating or using these "secure ID's."

Score: 0

By AlphaBetaGamma

edited Mar 3, 2007 - 6:59 PM

Whether you trust government or not, they have a lot of power over you. They can throw you in jail, and even execute you. If you don't like the procedures or the level of competence, then your choice is to vote for better people or put up with it. Trying to turn the clock back 100 years won't do it.

Score: 0

By zenarcher

posted Mar 3, 2007 - 8:42 PM

Government has as much power over people as people are willing to give it.

Maybe turning the clock back 100 years isn't such a bad idea. One hundred years ago, citizens were much more aware of what people running for office were all about and took voting more seriously than they do today.

Today, we have a society more concerned about candidates for "American Idol" than those running for political office. That's not the fault of government, but rather the fault of the citizens.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 9:48 AM

I hope you're being sarcastic. 100 years ago was not the "good ole days" you might think it was.

Score: 0

By zenarcher

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 11:12 AM

Every age has it's good points and bad points, to be sure. Certainly ALL we have now is not necessarily better than what we had 100 years ago.

My comment was primarily aimed at the idea more citizens in the past were aware and concerned about the issues and candidates for public office than they seem to be today. At least based on my personal observations, which cover a fair number of years more than I suspect the average poster here can remember.

There was a post regarding whether people actually had read the Constitution or could even paraphrase the Preamble. I know that when I was in school, until you passed a Constitution test, which included writing the Preamble, word for word and being able to name the Amendments, in order, you just didn't move beyond the eighth grade. Citizen involvement in the workings of government was urged and considered an important part of being a citizen of a nation. I don't see that today.

Certainly we have advantages today which did not exist one hundred years ago, or even fifty years ago. Likewise, attaining the "American Dream" is much more difficult to attain today.

While I look forward to advancements we will see in the future, there are many facets of those "good old days," I miss and feel sorry that many younger people will never have an opportunity to know them.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 1:10 PM

gotcha. :)

Score: 0

By ptksr

posted Mar 3, 2007 - 1:51 PM

Honestly, I can see no need for this, at all. This won't make us "safer"; this adds more hassle to most peoples lives (true, it's only when getting Licenses, but still); and puts way too much info into easy reach of the government. And yes, I know they have it already, I just don't like them having it in a few key strokes.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Mar 3, 2007 - 2:53 AM

Great, there goes about 3/4 of the restaurant and agricultural workforce. No, but really, the ONLY problem that I have with all of this is the fact that these people don't have their sh%^ straight. Hearing about the FBI losing 11 laptops a month and all that kind of crap doesn't bode well. Lord ye knows the state of data at the dmv and such. For all we know they're are hundreds, maybe thousands of breaches daily. I mean, we already know that many of these agencies already have people willing to sell data (as I'm pretty sure that's how 'news agencies, etc.' get their data on celebs so very personal details). To amalgamate even more of someones personal information into one place just doesn't feel like a smart thing to do, regardless of the positive results. This is going to backfire somehow, guaranteed.

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Mar 3, 2007 - 10:41 AM

God forbid we should discourage illegal aliens from being here ..er, illegally. Why even bother with an immigration policy in the first place if you're not going to try and track these people? I'm not for a huge government database btw, but I object to the idea that we need these people here which I think is what you're inferring.. Let some of the welfare bums get a job and pay them proper wages. So a lettuce costs a few cents more, big deal.

Score: 0

By pickchevy

posted Mar 3, 2007 - 11:27 AM

Wow...I agree!

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Mar 3, 2007 - 12:43 AM

Big government republics want to track your every move. Way to go, and this from the same guy who won't spend a dime to rebuild New Orleans. Oy.

Score: 0

By ladylust

posted Mar 3, 2007 - 5:33 PM

Yes thats it! They want to watch all the hippy libs smoke weed and make cloths out of hemp! Its a republican ploy!! Big Brother is watching! Hooga-Booga!

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Mar 4, 2007 - 11:43 PM

If you want the republican government to control your life and you can't live for yourself, why not just check yourself into the nearest prison? The essence of liberalism is liberty; for conservatives, it's fundamnetalism, dogma, and state-control. Admit it: you would love to have lived in Stalin's Russia.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 5, 2007 - 9:25 AM

If you want the republican government to control your life

Check: Google Hillary Clinton ESRB.

..and you can't live for yourself..

Check: Google Democrats Social Welfare and Immigration.

Sorry, but you guys aren't exactly pushing for much liberty here...unless you don't have kids and live on welfare.

Welcome to Stalin's Russia indeed.

Score: 0

By Ramhound

posted Mar 2, 2007 - 10:36 PM

I want to feel more secure, I want illegal residents not to be able to get a drivers license, a more secure identification system would help with that I am sure. However, do I want to give my own freedom, considering the only rights I care about are myself and other americans.

There has to be a secure place for this sort of thing, that would allow us to have some sort of real identification system. So we know who is and who isn't an american citizen.

Actually lets just eletronicaly track those people that want to become citizens, lets track everybody else, if we know everyone else is that will make me feel more secure.

Score: 0

By J23dog

edited Mar 5, 2007 - 1:47 AM

Yes, a nice, cozey police state.

Welcome home Lenin.

Score: 0

By cory1492

edited Mar 3, 2007 - 12:59 AM

Feel "more secure" knowing that an identity theft means they get _all_ your identity in one go? How's that work?

All in a country that is willing to wage "war" on it's own citizens for essentially misdemeanor offenses. Yeah, right... "trust me" :P

Score: 0

By PostDeals

edited Mar 2, 2007 - 10:21 PM