So the US Gummit has finally decided everyone needs a US-approved ID, and it will prevent things like 9/11 as well as make everyone deleriously happy.
So what do you think? Is it the end of civilization as we know it, the end of the war on terror, or just a goddam hassle?
This is not the Pit. I’m interested in a (mostly) serious debate.
It’s about time. I am sick and tired of the rigamarole it requires to get your identification records transferred from one state to another. The police can pull up your complete criminal record from across the nation when they pull you over, but the DMV can’t check your driving record without a faxed form that of course the DMV on the other side will fax the wrong info and you’ll have to back and forth to the DMV multiple times.
“Show us your Identification Card” sounds nothing like “Show us your Papers”, so I’m not worried a bit. :dubious:
I predict false positives will be even harder to correct.
Here’s one thing I don’t understand. From the Wash Post link:
Has anyone done a study on the hijacker’s licenses? Were they in their names? If they could obtain licenses before, and this did nothing to prevent them from getting on the plane, how is a new form of license going to be different? It seems to me that a new, fake ID (and don’t tell me it will be impossible to fake, everything can, given enough time, incentive and money) will be more readily accepted than existing ones. So what will we have gained?
You already have an ID, and the police have access to national records databases now. In 1997, I had a cop in NJ ask me about some trouble I got into in NM in 96. A National ID would only streamline the process with benefits for you.
Having lived in four states over the last ten years, I don’t understand this statement–“get your identification records transferred”. 
Every new place I’ve gone to (be it with the DMV, county courthouse, etc.) I would essentially open a new file–analagous to opening a ‘new account’ at a bank–and they would ask for some form of identification. If they asked for something local, I would just mention to them that I’m moving into town and was in the process of doing just that. I have to ask, and I’m not trying to be snarky: what “identification records” do you mean? AFAIK, there is no ‘permanent record’ that follows you around in this country unless you’ve broken the law. We are a mobile society and people understand you have the right to move freely across state borders.
But to the OP–color me unimpressed. I do appreciate and support the fact the DHS wants to standardize criteria for state identification across the board. However, I think through some of the databases and methods they’re using already exist through one form or another (i.e. police databases already mentioned in this thread), and only add another cog in the bureaucratic machine to either be broken or misused. Just because you slap the adjective “Federal” on a policy or procedure does not magically make it better.
Prime example: look at airport security. The TSA is a joke, with no apparent increase in real security, but a definitive downturn in opinion of the service.
Tripler
Them’s my two cents.
Edited to add: I agree with Musicat: The benefit is virtually slim to none compared to the cost of inventing/creating this system, populating it with data, and maintaining the integrity of that data. What are we going to gain?
Upgrade the criteria and the quality of the data, but let the system-in-place adjust to absorb that criteria/better data. No need to invent a new layer of systems to interface with other systems. You have to ask yourself, “Is this good. . . for the Company?”
Tripler I lost my wallet after I moved back to New York. It had my New Mexico Drivers License in it. I go to the DMV in NY to get it replaced, that’s simple all they need is a copy of my driving record from New Mexico. No problem, I get one faxed over from NM. I take it to the DMV in New York to find out that it’s missing a relevant piece of info, the DL number. So I go back and have them fax me another, explicitly asking for one with the DL number. They send me back with an identical copy to the first one. So suffice it to say, I don’t have a driver’s license in NY State. I had plenty of ID to prove who I was, but the state DMV can’t just look it up in the database from the other state, even though a cop could do it in ten seconds.
You are already required to have an ID. I don’t see how making it uniform across the country is in any way a bad thing.
How about issuing “badges”? 
My papers? Hey, Man, I only use a pipe…
The hijackers HAD an ID. Several of them, and state driver’s licenses. Did this prevent them from getting on the plane?
Can you get a state driver’s license just by walking up to a counter and filling out a form?
First, I’m not sure that the first sentence is (unconditionally) true. Second, I don’t think the issue is “making it [IDs] uniform”; it’s not that the Act is simply a set of guidelines, but the mandates involved. It sounds to me like you are arguing from a view of mere convenience; if so, why enact that in law?
This law bugs me, and I can’t think of a better place to hash out my thinking on it. What I’ve read/heard is essentially fluff – Chertoff raising the spectre of terrorism to cajole support, the slippery slope of privacy violations from its detractors. I’ve not seen decent analysis from either side (not that I’ve really spent the time looking, so that’s my fault…but it does provide the impetus for this response).
To actually debate this – and what seems to be left out of any/all news stories I’ve seen/read – requires knowing what the Act actually says. I think Wikipedia has fairly comprehensive information, which I recommend reading (I just did that and I’ll take what’s there as accurate; if there are errors, please inform me).
There are a few things that disturb me from the get-go:[ul]
[li]The bill was passed as a rider on a military spending bill, and thus underwent no discussion/examination in Congress[/li][li]Employers would no longer be able to accept, or ultimately hire, bearers of non-compliant documents for employment (no cite given in Wikipedia, so this point is suspect)[/li][li]Financial institutions would require compliant documents from all customers (no cite, also suspect)[/li][li]Any state that does not link its database, containing records on all drivers and ID holders, to the database of the other states loses its federal funding[/li][li]The “machine-readable” technology required is, as of now, undefined[/li][li]No mention of “error correction” (as Musicat points out)[/li][li]The protestations that this law does not establish a (de facto) national ID are simply false, given the above points; exactly the garbage that make me don my tin-foil hat in the first place[/li][/ul]Generally, I fall in with security researcher Bruce Schneier’s analysis (from 2005, which I’ve also just now read) that it’s a bad deal. But I’ll admit that it’s really not clear to me what the proposed benefits are, much less how they’re met and whether they outweigh the costs. As far as I can tell, here they are:[ul]
[li]Help screen out/identify terrorists[/li][li]Help screen out/identify illegal immigrants[/li][li]Streamline data sharing between (non-law enforcement) government agencies[/li][/ul]If that’s all there is, then I’m not seeing how this qualifies as a “good” thing, particularly when weighed against the costs (financial and otherwise). Seems like more “security theater” to me…
I know of no law requiring a person to get an ID. It sure makes things a lot more convenient, but if I don’t drive, I don’t need to get a driver’s license. If I don’t leave the country, I don’t need a passport…
And like others have said, the 9/11 hijackers were here legally and could have gotten these new IDs the same way they got the old ones. What is the point?
A few weeks ago, I saw a TV show on a major network – I forget the show’s name and the network – but it was about how easy it was to get fake documents such as passports. It illustrated the various levels of fakeness starting at pasted-over stuff that wouldn’t fool the experts all the way up to verifyable, in-the-computer-as-valid passports that passed all scrutiny.
These were obtained from South American sources. The best ones were apparently from inside-the-system personnel, and these worked to allow travel to other countries without a hitch. The show obtained US documents, but these were not tested in real air travel, probably because the danger was too great to risk it just for a news story.
So I have no doubt that a group of serious hijackers with serious money behind them, as the 9/11ers were, would not be stopped by such a plan. I’m just as sure that there will be innocents that are inconvenienced by it, some seriously (look at the brewhaha about voter ID currently in the US courts).
It reminds me of the gun control lobby. If there was a 100% sure way of preventing criminals from obtaining guns without making it difficult for non-criminals to defend themselves and their homes, I’d be all for it. Since there isn’t, I’m not.
And I’m wondering just how this will screen out terrorists. Did the 9/11 hijackers all have terrorist records? I don’t think so, so they could have just gotten a national ID like anyone else. Although I admit that a computer program could be made that flagged any flight that had more than 2 passengers from Iraq on it. Can you imagine how much trouble that would cause with legitimate travelers? (Especially when the hijackers were Saudis.)
My biggest problem with it–other than its very existence–is that it’s yet another unfunded mandate pushed by the Feds onto the states. If the Feds want a single ID, let them pay for it.
I never understood why some states didn’t use their driver license system as a form of legal identification. I remember visiting relatives in NY and when I went to buy beer I was amused at the transaction ahead of me. The guy was turned down because his NY drivers license wasn’t a valid form of ID but I was able to buy beer with my Ohio drivers license. This was back in the 70’s.
asterion The states already pay for ID services, this is just setting up a system of standards. Nothing to see here.
It’s odd to me that a mere bureaucratic tweek designed to bring us into the 21st century is so controversial. If the government wants to invade your privacy they can and have for years. This changes nothing. The only legit gripe I’ve ever heard about this is in regards to protecting a person against identity theft. Depending on how they do it, it could make id theft easier or much much harder. I’d love to have a single one size fits all card that I could link my credit cards to so I can stop carrying cards around except for the one. Hell put an RFID chip in it so I can just walk onto the subway without swiping, that’d be awesome.
Only quoting the items on which I have comments:
No, the SSN was never meant to be an ID. In fact, IIRC, there are laws that specifically prohibit that. And it’s purpose is not identification; it’s so that the government gets its “fair share” of your money.
No, that’s not the point of my objection. The point is losing federal funding. Since it’s essentially an unfunded mandate, I’m pretty sure that we’re not talking about losing implementation money. Rather, I suspect it’ll be akin the highway funds that are used to gain state compliance for things totally unrelated.
Again, you miss the point (although you allued to the issue later in your post): ID theft. Without presenting the protocol, format, and security, my guess is that it will implemented in a piss-poor and easily hackable way (but cheap!).
The fuss is simply a manifestation of my tin-foil hat wearing tendencies. Which rests purely on the fact that I am not willing to (unjustifiably) give up an ounce of liberty.
No, it’s not. It’s not simply an RFC or a published ISO standard that can freely be met or ignored. There are mandates involved.
So, how do we fight this? It seems a fait accompli.
Digital Stimulus 7 is the point of our disagreement. I see this as increasing my freedom as I see ‘stupid bureaucracy’ as being 90% responsible for the oppression in my life. You see this as a privacy issue, whereas for me, my computing and cell phone usage is far more relevant. I expect them to be able to track me somewhat using internet/cellular/credit transactions. The only difference I see here is in terms of processing time. Right now it takes longer for them to navigate the bureaucracy in order to achieve the same result. At the same time, it requires me to take longer to navigate the bureaucracy to achieve the same result. I feel like the superficial loss of privacy is worth the theoretical decrease in bureaucratic nonsense when dealing with state agencies. I’d also be perfectly happy with a standard national medical database.
On the one hand, I don’t like the idea at all. Society and the Supreme Court disagree with me, but I feel that if I don’t want to identify myself, it’s my business and anybody who thinks otherwise can fuck off. Of course, they are free to not sell me the beer, or refuse to let me on their airline, but that is ok. The requirement that I have and show compliant ID is the sticking point.
OTOH, all California has to do to become compliant is move the photo stage at the DMV from the end to the beginning. No huhu.
I don’t feel any safer.
And this is where you and some of us disagree. You believe it is a superficial loss, whereas some don’t see it so trivially. I see it as just another avenue for exploitation for criminals to either steal your identity, or another way for the government to lose that data (i.e. all those missing laptops).
There are some standards that universally make sense–the National Electric Code, vehicle safety laws, etc. because they all are derived from the same source of legal authority–the federal government. States are have their own sovereignty in determining identities, so a ‘federal database’ isn’t going to help much. It’s just putting a band-aid on the crack in the Hoover Dam. What will help is plugging that proverbial hole on the inside of the dam, through stricter requirements for data collection and verification.
So, if the DHS wants to make sure states are using appropriate methods and procedures to confirm the applicants’ claims, great. I support that. I have the freedom to choose which state I want to move to, and I have a choice in who I want to identify myself to.
However, having a magical database in the sky will not help anyone, and is more of a hinderance and threat to anyone. My personal data ought not be tied to some SkyNET device where some cheesedick teenager in Oregon can hack into a database, steal my identity, and order me forty subscriptions to Vibe. The police already have the power to verify somewhat limited information (i.e. when they pull me over), and that’s about all I care to have in place.
I see a new system unnecessary, an invasion of privacy, and another open avenue to abuse, just like your national medical database–I shudder at the thought.
Tripler
Even worse: SkyNET becomes self aware and orders me forty subscriptions to Vibe. :eek:
I agree fully. Private companies are free to refuse me service, but there is no way I should be obligated to fall in line with some government identification mandates just to live and work and travel freely. I really don’t care about the threat of terrorism; my privacy as a citizen is more important. I don’t want to be at the mercy of some vast federal bureaucracy at whose whims I can be denied the right to work or travel, just because it will allegedly make me “safer.”
Likewise. When my freedom is in peril, I am in peril. My physical safety is my own responsibility, and I feel safest when that is left to me.