Remeber the RFID thread? Well, looks like the House means to make it somewhat more official a lot faster than I had originally thought it would be. Coming to a drivers license in your possesion sooner rather than later.

INC.....

RFID License (http://news.com.com/House+approves+electronic+ID+cards/2100-1028_3-5571898.html?part=rss&tag=5568415&subj=news.1028.5)

PS... Can someone tell me how to post a link as a word so it doesn't show these hideously long URL's please? My HTML abilities are, as some of you may have gathered, lacking. TIA

im not gonna say it....

ok maybe i will..

i told you so =p

you put in front of the text you want to make a linky...{url=longass:/urlgoeshere}text that becomes a link{/url}

However, replace the curly braces with square braces.

Under the rules, federal employees would reject licenses or identity cards that don't comply, which could curb Americans' access to airplanes, trains, national parks, federal courthouses and other areas controlled by the federal government.

Can't do anything if you're not a properly licensed individual. Better be nice to those authorities.

Can't do anything if you're not a properly licensed individual. Better be nice to those authorities.You can't anyway, electronic IDs notwithstanding.

I imagine anyone is allowed into train stations, courthouses, and national parks without id at the moment. After all, it's a free country.

Free-ish!

For now.

I imagine anyone is allowed into train stations, courthouses, and national parks without id at the moment. After all, it's a free country.Read what you quoted. It says federal employees can reject non-conforming IDs. It doesn't say they will suddenly ask for IDs in all sorts of new places. So wherever they ask for them now, they'll continue to ask. The only difference is that it will be harder to fake your identity.

Thanks Panamah.

Preview is my new best friend... lol :banghead:

Read what you quoted. It says federal employees can reject non-conforming IDs. It doesn't say they will suddenly ask for IDs in all sorts of new places.

That's irrelevant. You could give the police the power to put everyone under curfew by that reasoning.

Here's a great consumer private site

http://www.nocards.org/

Wow, it seems to me that we were just involved in a long conflict with a huge nation because they wanted to make the world into a totalitarian state.

So now we'll do it to ourselves.

How long before permissionistic people like Tudamorf begin using the classic "Only the Enemies of the State would wish to hide their Identity".

That's irrelevant. You could give the police the power to put everyone under curfew by that reasoning.They're just changing the <i>form</i> of the identification, not the manner in which it is used -- i.e., before it was a driver's license, and now it will be a driver's license with a magnetic strip.

Sure, the government could start requiring identification everywhere, but they can also do that now, magnetic strip notwithstanding. Changing the <i>manner</i> of the ID has little to do with doomsday scenarios of totalitarianism. It just makes it harder to forge your identity.

And some forms of ID may not change at all, depending on the details. My driver's license has a 2D bar code that appears to store 960 bytes of information (counting any redundant data to allow for error correction), and my first license close to 10 years ago had the same thing. Bar codes certainly count as "machine-readable technology"...

It just makes it harder to forge your identity.

How, exactly, does it do that? All it does is change the skillset required to create the physical piece of identification, from "low tech" skills of paper and photo forgery to higher tech skills of cryptography and computer programming - almost easier, really, because any monkey can run a program and plug in a magnetic stripe encoder (commercially available hardware) and write out the necessary codes that could have been created and worked on thousands of miles away by a handful of criminal experts and transmitted with zero chance of tracing. The data in the system is no more secure with these new "security" measures than it was before. It's *easy* to set up another identity that looks totally valid to the system, and all the airport retinal scans and rfid drivers licenses in the world arent going to change that fundamental fact.

How, exactly, does it do that?Well, they could use some form of standard encryption. It will eventually be broken but at least it will make it a little harder to forge IDs, for a time.

Just like our currency. We keep changing it to keep the counterfitters busy.

You people never cease to amaze me.

First the Patriot Act.

Then HIPAA.

Now this.



Why not just install the ****ing subcutanous transmitter chips in your necks now, and get the whole thing over with, already.

Why not just install the ****ing subcutanous transmitter chips in your necks now, and get the whole thing over with, already.You mean like <a href=http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=423320&highlight=bello+AND+4260>this</a> school:<i>Sutter, Sutter County -- Angry parents, saying their children's privacy rights are being violated, have asked the board of the tiny Brittan School District to rescind a requirement that all students wear badges that monitor their whereabouts on campus using radio signals.

Located between the massive silos of Sutter Rice Co. and the Sutter Buttes, this small town has 587 kindergarten through eighth-graders who are the first public school kids in the country to be tracked on campus by such a system, which is designed to ease attendance taking and increase campus security.

The badges contain a photo of pupils, their grade level and their name. On the back is a tube roughly the size of a roll of dimes.

Within it is a chip with an antenna attached. As the chip passes underneath a reader mounted above the classroom door, it transmits a 15-digit number, which then is translated into the student's name by software contained in a handheld device used by teachers to check attendance.</i>Face it, built-in electronic ID is in our future, one way or another. Instead of fighting the technology, think of fair ways to use it -- for example, encryption and who has right of access.

If I can sell you on the idea that something will protect or give security to your children, I can take away every right that you have.

Just follow the Mothers Against Drunk Driving model, using empathy and sympathy for children who may be harmed, and every right you have can be taken away from you. Not only with your permission, but you will ask for it.

Let us just get it over with.

The government can(is able to) track your alcohol consumption through your grocery store cards(right now), and imprison you because you drink too much and threaten others(children).

How much fat you consume, let's enact a FAT tax. Whatever your BMI is currently, you pay that percentage as a tax on top of all of your consumer items and gasoline. Because we all know that Obesity Kills!. And they can monitor all that on your little magnetic strip.

The government already tracks your perscriptions, your pre-existing conditions, if you have Diabetes, CHF, COPD, CRD, and what STDs you may have, thanks to HIPAA. Because if you have chlamydia or herpes, we need to keep you away from our children. You may harm them, we need to know that kind of information.

Not only are you all just walking into it, you are holding the door open.

And forty years from now, when all of your rights(or rather what is left of them now) are gone, just remember that you asked for it.

Thankfully, I will be dead.

And forty years from now, when all of your rights(or rather what is left of them now) are gone, just remember that you asked for it.By embracing technology? Technology doesn't take away our freedom; <i>we</i> do by the laws we make. Centuries ago we had none of this technology but far less freedom, with slavery, religious tyranny, non-democratic governments, ethnic cleansing, and so on. I don't buy the argument that we need to be tossed back into the low-tech middle ages in order to regain our freedom.

Centuries ago we had none of this technology but far less freedom, with slavery, religious tyranny, non-democratic governments, ethnic cleansing, and so on.

I don't think that's exactly true. We just have different freedoms. Just think what freedoms the original American settlers had when travelling across America and starting new lives wherever they liked. They could harvest, make, and sell whatever they wanted with almost no regulation, licensing, taxation, etc other than what they thought they needed. In fact, almost every time we advance the complexity of our society we reduce the freedom in our society.

Technology doesn't take away our freedom as such, but technology pushes our society towards organised systems with less chaos. We should design our world to suit human desires instead of computer needs, unless perhaps you'd like to be replaced by a predictable and easily managed Tuda-bot?

Just think what freedoms the original American settlers had when travelling across America and starting new lives wherever they liked. They could harvest, make, and sell whatever they wanted with almost no regulation, licensing, taxation, etc other than what they thought they needed.On the contrary, as invaders, they had to fend off attacks from natives and had no comforts like roads, cars, modern medicine, and air conditioning through the desert, severely limiting where they could go. They had no <i>right</i> to travel among the 50 states freely, as you do today under the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. They had little or no police to protect their ownership of land, as you do today. And while they had a lot more land to "claim" (i.e., conquer/steal) than you do today, you still have the right today to claim land that is unowned or abandoned.

Anarchy goes both ways: it can empower you to do more things (expanding your freedom), but since that applies to everyone, it also empowers others to do more things to you (limiting your freedom).

I am surprised that you're all freaking out over something that already exist. A standardized format, ohh no!

What scares me about this article is the face that the feds are using extortion to force this upon the states. If my state tells them "no" does that mean I still have to pay taxes?

Republican politicians argued that the new rules were necessary to thwart terrorists, saying that four of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers possessed valid state-issued driver's licenses. "When I get on an airplane and someone shows ID, I'd like to be sure they are who they say they are," said Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, during a floor debate that started Wednesday.

Way to use logic there champs, they had VALID STATE ISSUED DRIVER'S LICENSES (that didn't have RFIDs), yet RFIDs suddenly say "HAY GUYS I'M A RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND I'M GONNA BLOW YOU UP!!!1!!1!!11one"

The Actual bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109YJs1BT:e3296:


TITLE II--IMPROVED SECURITY FOR DRIVERS' LICENSES AND PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION CARDS

SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

In this title, the following definitions apply:

(1) DRIVER'S LICENSE- The term `driver's license' means a motor vehicle operator's license, as defined in section 30301 of title 49, United States Code.

(2) IDENTIFICATION CARD- The term `identification card' means a personal identification card, as defined in section 1028(d) of title 18, United States Code, issued by a State.

(3) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Homeland Security.

(4) STATE- The term `State' means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States.

SEC. 202. MINIMUM DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS AND ISSUANCE STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

(a) Minimum Standards for Federal Use-

(1) IN GENERAL- Beginning 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, 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 of this section.

(2) STATE CERTIFICATIONS- The Secretary shall determine whether a State is meeting the requirements of this section based on certifications made by the State to the Secretary. Such certifications shall be made at such times and in such manner as the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, may prescribe by regulation.

(b) Minimum Document Requirements- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall include, at a minimum, the following information and features on each driver's license and identification card issued to a person by the State:

(1) The person's full legal name.

(2) The person's date of birth.

(3) The person's gender.

(4) The person's driver's license or identification card number.

(5) A digital photograph of the person.

(6) The person's address of principle residence.

(7) The person's signature.

(8) Physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes.

(9) A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements.

(c) Minimum Issuance Standards-

(1) IN GENERAL- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall require, at a minimum, presentation and verification of the following information before issuing a driver's license or identification card to a person:

(A) A photo identity document, except that a non-photo identity document is acceptable if it includes both the person's full legal name and date of birth.

(B) Documentation showing the person's date of birth.

(C) Proof of the person's social security account number or verification that the person is not eligible for a social security account number.

(D) Documentation showing the person's name and address of principal residence.

(2) SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS-

(A) IN GENERAL- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall comply with the minimum standards of this paragraph.

(B) EVIDENCE OF LAWFUL STATUS- A State shall require, before issuing a driver's license or identification card to a person, valid documentary evidence that the person--

(i) is a citizen of the United States;

(ii) is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent or temporary residence in the United States;

(iii) has conditional permanent resident status in the United States;

(iv) has an approved application for asylum in the United States or has entered into the United States in refugee status;

(v) has a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant visa or nonimmigrant visa status for entry into the United States;

(vi) has a pending application for asylum in the United States;

(vii) has a pending or approved application for temporary protected status in the United States;

(viii) has approved deferred action status; or

(ix) has a pending application for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States or conditional permanent resident status in the United States.

(C) TEMPORARY DRIVERS' LICENSES AND IDENTIFICATION CARDS-

(i) IN GENERAL- If a person presents evidence under any of clauses (v) through (ix) of subparagraph (B), the State may only issue a temporary driver's license or temporary identification card to the person.


It's worth noting that Massachusetts already complies with each and everyone of these points.


http://www.mass.gov/rmv/license/

It's also worth metioning that Mass is an overwhelmingly Democratic state. The Governer may be republican, but the State house and senate are filled by Democrats. Republicans make up about 10% of the total legislative body. And on the Federal Level.... Well, the people representing my area are Kennedy, Kerry, Frank, Meehan.

The areas in bold seem to be what some groups are making noise over. I'm, personally, 100% in favor of doing this. If you want a US divers license you need to be here legally. Go figure...

If you want a US divers license you need to be here legally. Go figure...

I am already PADI (http://www.padi.com/) certified, than you very much.

By embracing technology? Technology doesn't take away our freedom; <i>we</i> do by the laws we make. Centuries ago we had none of this technology but far less freedom, with slavery, religious tyranny, non-democratic governments, ethnic cleansing, and so on. I don't buy the argument that we need to be tossed back into the low-tech middle ages in order to regain our freedom.

I don't buy that argument either.

I am sure forty years from now, when your children look back, they will think of us as barbaric too. And they will enjoy the securities that your freedoms, sold today, have bought them.

Just as you enjoy the securities, today, that have already been bought through freedoms your grandparents sold.

Just because John Savage and Bernard Marx did not like their Brave New World, did not mean that everyone else did not love it.

I'd agree that the bill quoted only tightens the current administration of drivers licenses, unless there are special situations (that I'm not aware of) when people need identified access to federal services. The bill doesn't seem to change the circumstances where identification is required.

I'll blame misleading media sensationalism for my earlier posts ;).

I am sure forty years from now, when your children look back, they will think of us as barbaric too. And they will enjoy the securities that your freedoms, sold today, have bought them.

Do you appreciate the extra security the North Korean populace received when they traded away their freedoms 50-60 years ago? Not all cultural progress is positive and a perfect future shouldn't be taken for granted.

Looks to me that all this means is my 8 year purchase I just made on my driver's license renewal will be for naught as I am sure they will have some fee involved in fixing my driver's license to comply with the new law. Of course it is going to take forever for all the beuracracy to filter down to that point and if the Aztec's were right, the world will end just before I need to renew anyway.

Do you appreciate the extra security the North Korean populace received when they traded away their freedoms 50-60 years ago? Not all cultural progress is positive and a perfect future shouldn't be taken for granted.

Anka,

I think you misunderstood my points.

I am a strict Libertarian. Definately as close to a functional Anarchist here on this board. Probably moreso than anyone you know.

I am usually clear and distinct about separating myself from the rest of the docile mush-head sheep I share this country/globe with. If you had not yet gathered that from my past posts, I need to work on my communication skills.

If my countrymen and women want to put on their tranmitter collars now(with apologies and rationales to back up their motives and actions), all I can really do is say "I told you so" and "You really DO deserve what you get, morons; Go For It!".

I am old enough to I have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of freedoms, that I once had, traded away for security of others and to protect people too stupid to protect themselves. And, I am old enough to have had smart intelligent people argue and try to convince me that I am better off because of it.

I usually direct people to this quote...

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." -- Benjamin Franklin

FWIW, I am not willing to trade my freedoms, at least those I have left, for security.

I usually direct people to this quote...<a href=http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin><i>"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."</i></a> Yes, we've all seen the "quote" rephrased dozens of ways.

However, repeating it will not change two basic facts: (1) with this bill, you aren't giving up any liberty at all, let alone an "essential" one and (2) the "safety" (or security as you call it) is far from temporary. It's a permanent technological leap forward to help bring state identification systems out of the early 20th century and into the 1980s.

The bill, as I see it, does nothing new or radical on the surface. It does, certainly, have the potential to be used to build up an environment that Fyrr suggests.

For now, it is nothing. We just should remain vigiliant that it isn't made into something more. I won't be wearing a transmitter collar, thank you. If anyone tries to make me wear one, I'll be moving in with the survivalists. (Oh nos, has my name been added to another list?)

I usually direct people to this quote...

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." -- Benjamin Franklin

FWIW, I am not willing to trade my freedoms, at least those I have left, for security.


So what freedoms are we trading for a ensuring licenses meet a set of minimum standards? A standard that most states are already meeting.

No freedoms are lost on the license issue, driving is a priviledge and not a right. If the government came out tommorow and stuck the speed limit at 55 MPH everyone would be bound by law to obey it. States hate loosing their federal highway funds by telling fedco to shove off.

My comment was a side comment to Fyyr Lu'Storm's statement, I suppose I should have quoted it. I was lazy with the actual quote to as I didn't remember it exactly.

"I am old enough to I have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of freedoms, that I once had, traded away for security of others and to protect people too stupid to protect themselves. And, I am old enough to have had smart intelligent people argue and try to convince me that I am better off because of it."