New DHS Strategy On Real ID: We'll Just Pretend Everyone Implemented It
from the hell-no-means-yes dept
The Department of Homeland Security had been threatening that drivers' licenses in certain states wouldn't be valid federal IDs if states didn't promise by the end of March to implement the troubled Real ID rules. However, somewhere along the line (with a handful of states vehemently protesting the rules), it appears that Secretary Chertoff and the DHS simply decided that it would pretend every state agreed to implement Real ID and deal with reality later. DHS put out a press release claiming that all states had met the "initial requirements" for Real ID, and even painted its silly map green to show "compliance." The problem is that this simply isn't true. It looks as though DHS simply decided that any communication, even if it was to tell the DHS that there was no chance the state would implement Real ID, would be read as if it were the state agreeing to enact Real ID's rules. The whole thing is rather comical until you realize these are the folks who are supposed to be protecting the country.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dhs, homeland security, real id
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
New Dept of Newspeak and Painted Reality
Sometimes I think Bush interprets 1984 as a guide book, instead of a warning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New Dept of Newspeak and Painted Reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real problem
At least when it comes to Real ID, we find out that it is possible to fight back, and win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Real ID"
No matter what the system, there exists the potential to abuse the system to empower one's own position while subjugating the populace.
News Flash - !
Big Brother is already watching you. Watch your doublespeak and doublethink, otherwise you might disappear to somewhere where you have no rights.
Until there is another revolution, USA in her teen years is going continue to be a whoring teen bitch, set on dominating everybody. (She'll be sweet once she's all grown up though)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Real ID"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Real ID"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teen years
Okay, so maybe she likes to be on top. Of everyone...
I'm not worried about DHS being morons. It was obvious they were when I last flew. My 2 year old had to take his shoes off and they had us not have nail clippers. I also then bought one at the store in the terminal. I refuse to believe anyone can take over a plane with a nail clipper but I wanted to be armed to fight them if they tried, just in case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
seems appropriate enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
National Identity Cards
Many other countries have successfully implemented national ID card programs. Why can't we? Are we so distrustful of our government in general?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: National Identity Cards
And it is clear that those proponents have utterly, completely, miserably failed to answer that question. They have made many assertions, to be sure, such as "ID cards will prevent terrorism" or "ID cards will stop crime" or "ID cards will curtail illegal immigration" but that's all they are: assertions. They (and everyone else) have not been able to back those assertions up. They have simply kept repeating them in the hopes that ignorant sheeple will eventually presume, because they've heard it often enough, that it's true. (And they may be right.)
Moreover: the burden of proof also rests with proponents to make the case that the negative consequences of national identity cards do not outweigh their positive impact (if any) and that adequate thinking about those consequences has taken place, sufficient to mitigate them in whole or part. This is another area where they've totally failed, because instead of making this case, they have simply dismissed concerns as "unrealistic" or "inconsequential" or "minor". This is of course not true, as even casual observers are fully aware that there are severe problems with such ID card schemes.
Every engineer knows that "What problem are you trying to solve?" and "Will your proposed solution make it worse?" are basic questions that must be asked and answered before any project is tackled. National identity card proponents do not possess satisfactory answers to these questions, so their approach has been to pretend they don't exist. This is duplicitous and dishonest, at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: National Identity Cards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: National Identity Cards
Without one, you will not be able to travel - they say fly right now, but any transportation will have to be protected.
Without one, you will not be able to access federal government buildings - try addressing your grievences or suing a federal agency without going into a federal court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: National Identity Cards
In the spirit of this country and how it was formed, our nature is to be distrustfull of the goverment, it is our right to question and challange our goverment, but not only is it our right, it is our responsibilty AND its the only way to keep our freedom. already we have people losing there right to council when being accused of say terriosim (wich is becomming a catch all for anything illegal) this country is on the border of losing its independence and the republican bush (who is supposed to stand for less goverment, har har har) is taking us back to the england we fought so hard to break away. Let this go through and soon black water will be patroling our streets and kicking down doors looking for terriosim activitys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: National Identity Cards
That's bad enough. There's no good reason to make things worse.
Anybody can Google your name and find out everything about you, anyways.
That statement demonstrates a woeful ignorance of the amount of information the government is collecting. That level of information is not available through a Google search on a name. No wonder you don't see anything wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hahahahahah
why just a couple inches above your post is an example of the government LYING
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
National Identity cards
This has nothing to do with National ID. It simply is a standard whereby all government-issued IDs from any government source will be issued the same way with the same requirements. That's all. NO requirement that everyone have an ID, NO requirement that you get tatooed or implanted with an RFID chip. If you don't want an ID or license, don't get one! You know, there are plenty of other reasons for a reliable ID besides boarding an airplane - for instance, when that moron runs a red light and hits your car, don't you want the assurance that the fool is really who he says he is? Or when you take a check from someone, or you hire someone, or before you let that kid date your daughter.
Lighten up and look at the big picture. It's too bad that we cannot trust everyone to present themselves as who they really are, but that's the price we've paid for "progress."
(BTW, I used the name that I did to be sarcastic. Get it?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: National Identity cards
They're not.
Moreover, as has been repeatedly discussed at great length (I would recommend Bruce Schneier's blog as one location for these discussions) the creation and dissemination of national identity cards would make it much easier to fake identities, those not only failing to achieve the goals you list, but actively working against them. I realize that this is counter-intuitive to many people, but "many people" are not qualified, experienced security experts, so this is not surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: National Identity cards
That's rather misleading. No, technically, one doesn't have to have an ID. You could always just go hang yourself. But under this program, if you want to freely travel and participate in society, you would have to have one of these IDs.
...NO requirement that you get tatooed or implanted with an RFID chip.
More of your misleading rhetoric. No one here has claimed that those things are included in this program. Do you work for the government or something? You sure sound like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: National Identity cards
Come January 20, 2009 -- Buh-bye!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
States/Federal
Many of our own citizens don't understand it, as well. The reaction to 'lack of response' during hurricane Katrina indicates that. Certain functions of government are assigned to the states, and the Federal government has neither the right nor the responsibility to act in those areas. Identification cards are one of those areas. As are elections, incidentally; there is no national election in the U.S., only a large number of state elections that are held on the same day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
REAL ID
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two points
Second, once a national ID program gets started, how long will it be until we're required to carry "papers" everywhere? You know, just in case some cop on the street wants to stop and question us? After all, we might be a terrorist or he might want to "protect the children".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Non-Standard Standards
With the currently proposed system, if some DMV department decides to make a capacious change it could affect every US citizen's REAL ID.
Since the didn't standardize how each department issues the ids, or more importantly cost, which should be free. The Real ID program is a failure before it gets out the gates.
I repeat what the opponents have stated numerous times; WHY EXACTLY DO WE NEED NATIONAL ID CARD!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Large error" guy: no, not a national ID, a properly-issued state ID.
"Hang yourself" guy: Sorry, I didn't realize the level of paranoia surrounding this topic would preclude anyone from recognizing sarcasm.
This is very simple. I have not seen a thing emanating from DHS that says that travel would be forbidden without an ID. I also have not seen a thing that calls for a US Gov't issued ID. What I have seen is a proposed requirement for all the states to utilize the same tamper-resistant format and have people provide proof that they are who they say they are. That's pretty much all there is to it.
Yup, DHS is certainly a candidate for the "Gang that couldn't shoot straight" club. But establishing national standards is what is expected of federal agencies (i.e., the national standards for CDL issue from DOT.) Are "we" paranoid that a truck driver can only have one CDL, or that all states utilize the .08 BAC standard, or that interstate highways are all marked with the tricolor shield? Sorry, but I don't buy into the whole "fear of gov't, black helicopters, secret underground UFO bunker" mentality, partly because I think that's loony, and partly because these "secret overreaching gov't dynasty out to get you" theories give the gov't too much credit. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Large error" guy: no, not a national ID, a properly-issued state ID.
"Hang yourself" guy: Sorry, I didn't realize the level of paranoia surrounding this topic would preclude anyone from recognizing sarcasm.
This is very simple. I have not seen a thing emanating from DHS that says that travel would be forbidden without an ID. I also have not seen a thing that calls for a US Gov't issued ID. What I have seen is a proposed requirement for all the states to utilize the same tamper-resistant format and have people provide proof that they are who they say they are. That's pretty much all there is to it.
Yup, DHS is certainly a candidate for the "Gang that couldn't shoot straight" club. But establishing national standards is what is expected of federal agencies (i.e., the national standards for CDL issue from DOT.) Are "we" paranoid that a truck driver can only have one CDL, or that all states utilize the .08 BAC standard, or that interstate highways are all marked with the tricolor shield? Sorry, but I don't buy into the whole "fear of gov't, black helicopters, secret underground UFO bunker" mentality, partly because I think that's loony, and partly because these "secret overreaching gov't dynasty out to get you" theories give the gov't too much credit. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
these "secret overreaching gov't dynasty out to get you" theories give the gov't too much credit.
All it takes is one inspector with a nipple fetish and a pair of pliers and your life will be ruined.[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The plan would restrict commercial air travel for those without the ID. Now that's certainly a restriction on being able to freely travel. So you're either very ignorant about the subject or are being deliberately deceptive. Either way, I'm not buying your bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can go put your strawman back in the closet now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeez.
BTW, AC, no, it doesn't restrict travel. Get a grip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After 2011, 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 IDs, so long as these have a unique design and a clear statement that they cannot be accepted for any Federal identification purpose. The federal Transportation Security Administration is responsible for security check-in at airports, so bearers of non-compliant documents would no longer be able to travel on common carrier aircraft WITHOUT ADDITIONAL SCREENING.
This DOES NOT say that a person without an approved ID CANNOT fly. It DOES say they will go to the selectee lane with all the others singled out for additional attention, after which they may go to their plane.
I fail to see why or how anything else can be read into this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Despite your claims, that seems like an obvious additional restriction to me.
This DOES NOT say that a person without an approved ID CANNOT fly.
Who ever said it did? Oh wait, I see you've gotten your strawman back out again. You really love that thing, don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"They have simply kept repeating them in the hopes that ignorant sheeple will eventually presume, because they've heard it often enough, that it's true."
the speaker / sound system company BOSE comes to mind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As fo your "strawman" comment (and the other guy's "fascist"), that's typical "Shut up, conservative idiot. Liberals know better" insults designed to control the tone of the conversation, intimidate the opposition, and give the person offering those comments a (rather immature) sense of superiority.
As for the topic: While I certainly agree that demanding an unreasonable amount of information for the purpose of granting access to mass transportation certainly seems like an intrusion on privacy, the real question is where do you draw the line between making travel as safe as possible while allowing access to be as free as possible? Do you err on the side of caution or on the side of unfettered access? Do any of us really want to be in the position of responsibility for deciding?
The bottom line seems to be that those who would do harm to large groups of us at once have taken advantage of our freedom to travel about unquestioned. I hate that. I hate that the "answer" our gov't wants to put in place involves restrictions. I hate that they are forced to consider these measures to bow to political correctness rather than common sense. But I accept that it's the lesser of two evils, at least as long as non-politically correct measures are off the table.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One doesn't, as you have proven.
Who ever said it did? Uh, you guys.
Care to point out where?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
#22 said freely, not cannot. Again, big difference.
Of course, it's hard to tell when there are "secret" laws involved and DHS’ mis-truths printed on signs at airports. Go look up the story on what happened to John Gilmore when he tried to fly without an approved ID.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We can certainly agree on "secret" laws and "mis-truths." People do get stopped every day for nothing as more than an expired ID or for not having their liquids in a freakin' plastic bag. Do I agree with that? Absolutely not!! What I do know (from observation, not inside info or anything like that) is that all major decisions by TSA have to be ok'd by their bosses in DC...and that the local reps tend to err on the side of what they think DC would do vs. common sense, especially if they are a bit weak in the intestinal fortitude dept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or whether you like to redefine terms to suit yourself.
I guess we'll just leave that to the reader. Whether "proposed" is the same actual and whether not being able to do something "freely" is the same as not being to do it at all. I think I know what most people would say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]