Quote from: articleBeginning May 2008, states will be required to issue federally approved driver's licenses or identification cards to those who live and work in the United States, due to an act passed by Congress in 2005 called the Real ID Act.
articletinkerbell :icon_chick:
I don't know why everyone is so afraid of this. Yes, it is a pain in the neck but if you have your drivers license now and you can prove that you are who you are, then what is there to be afraid of. If you think that the government will be into our business, well, it is too late for that now. We all enjoy the fastness of the computer and with that we are all under the microscope. The real ID act isn't here yet and from what I have seen it will cost a lot of money to implement this. Don't forget that we have a Democratic Congress now and Good old George will no longer hold office by then and it will probably go to a democrat. So it may not even happen. Where are the states going to get all this money that they need to put this into effect. Certainly not from the federal government, we have Iraq going and that is costing us billions of dollars. I think it is just a scare tactic and could care less about it. If it does happen then I will comply and that will be it.
Sheila
What is to be afraid of is that there are forces that are trying to leverage this to make it illegal to change ones' birth gender forever.
If they implement a reasonable procedure to change genders, I'll have a lot less problem with it. At least, when some miscreant or marketer violates my privacy, the personal data they offload and cross-reference will say [FEMALE], and I won't be as easily targeted should someone want to stage a little witch hunt.
Karen
QuoteP.O. boxes may not be used as addresses, which could cause problems for people who may fear for their personal safety, such as judges, police officers or domestic violence victims. People who do not have a permanent address, such as the homeless, may run into problems obtaining the Real ID, which could in turn de[t]er them from receiving Medicare and other benefits.
...
Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements, which could include "biometric identifiers" such as fingerprints or retinal scan.
...
"...I do think it may have risks, just like any other thing we can come across in life. For example, it could make identity theft easier," Allie Correa, sophomore family and consumer science major said.
Probably the biggest concern that sticks out is that this ultimately an identity theft risk. You will have lots of institutions that will be able to tap into large amounts of person data, and some of that data needs to be encrypted at a level that is essentially unbreakable for the lifetime of the person. And then you have be sure some moron doesn't abuse power within the system for personal purposes. So you have to simultaneously need to have oversight on the system, including something the public can use that doesn't compromise the system's security at the same time. And you also need to deal with lost IDs to keep other people from using them for unlawful behavior, and people need to be able to acquire replacements.
It's not that these issues haven't existed before; it's just the raw quantity of personal data one can acquire so easily in this system is staggering.
what people [don't understand] is that they [won't have to ask for your id]. Because of [rfid technology], they will be able to scan you with an [rfid reader] and know everything about you. before you think of calling me paranoid, do research into it and you'll find out what i'm saying is true. this means if you go to a political rally that they find controversial [maybe an anti-war rally, or a free speech rally] they will be able to scan the entire crowd and label them as [enemies] of the state. this technology is [truly scary] and people don't understand the [invasion of privacy] this includes.
I wonder if I really can prove I am who I am.... crap. My birth certificate has not been changed and I never have obtained a passport. I sure hope they take my current DL as proof.
Cindi
Quote from: Katia on February 13, 2007, 12:02:09 AM
what people [don't understand] is that they [won't have to ask for your id]. Because of [rfid technology], they will be able to scan you with an [rfid reader] and know everything about you. before you think of calling me paranoid, do research into it and you'll find out what i'm saying is true. this means if you go to a political rally that they find controversial [maybe an anti-war rally, or a free speech rally] they will be able to scan the entire crowd and label them as [enemies] of the state. this technology is [truly scary] and people don't understand the [invasion of privacy] this includes.
I don't remember where I saw them, but they're selling little holders for your ID that block RFID. You have to actually take the card out for it to be readable. I found it because the moment I heard about this, my first thought was to start making those and selling them. It was a bummer that someone had beaten me to it, because they're going to sell well, I think.
The Real ID act leaves it up to Homeland Security to decide on what is or is not valid for ID. Someone, say like Frist, could just decide that anyone with a gender change has something to hide and immediately nullify any ID that shows a gender marker has been changed. or they can decide that you are not allowed to change your gender marker at all, forever and ever. Or rule out any name changes that were not done for the safety of the individual. Pretty much HS can do whatever they want. Yeah, nothing to worry about just move along and wait to be tattooed.
"The shield" for the proposed RFID passports will work as long as you never, ever open the ID up. So that means keeping it taped shut until it is time to present it to a security officer at the airport and never any other time. great that they decided to go with something that has already been compromised, saves them the trouble of trying to put on any appearance of being concerned about the safety and security of our identity.
The Real ID act is not something which a state has to participate in. If they do, they get federal funding, if they don't, they don't get the money. 11 states as of this week have already turned it down. The state of NC which I reside, is currently considering by-passing this as well and turning down the fed funds. Remember folks NC is a conservative state, and they are not likely to play ball in this game either.
There is a serious issue with this for people transitioning. You need TWO documents showing your identity as a US Citizen, a BC or a Pass Port are required along with your current DL to have a new one re issued. So in those states where they did not change the BC for people transitioning, or you simply never bothered to do it.... I highly suggest if you can you do, it is going to be a mess if your documents don't match up.
Peace
Taylor
I just checked with the vital records department in my "beloved" home state of Utah. They will not change my birth certificate. They will however provide an "ammendment" if I get a court ordered sex change (even though it happened 20 years ago) here in CA to do so. They did tell me that I would need to have this done if I am ever to collect Social Security but there is no other reason to do it immediately. It's funny that California changed all of my documents and ID years ago, with very little hassle.
Lovely. Now, I've got to go to court in my little town, get my name plastered as the local TS so I can get a court ordered "sex change" so I can get an "ammendment" to my birth record... the original birth certificate will always remain the same. Perhaps, I should wait on this item until I plan to move. I think that I'll go ahead and start work on a passport which should take care of everything else in the short term. Sometimes I hate this world.
Cindi
Cindi,
SSI can be changed without change of BC. Not sure if your aware of this, but thought I would point it out in case your not.
Peace
Taylor
Quote from: taylor on February 13, 2007, 02:00:56 PM
11 states as of this week have already turned it down.
Peace
Taylor
which states? do you know?
Quote from: taylor on February 13, 2007, 11:13:51 PM
Cindi,
SSI can be changed without change of BC. Not sure if your aware of this, but thought I would point it out in case your not.
Peace
Taylor
I changed my SSI identity 21 years ago. They send me reports every year to my legal name. Is that what you are talking about? I never wanted to confront the records office in Utah... at the time, they wouldn't even ammend certificates. I knew that it would be an exercise in futility.
I haven't had to travel outside the country since... so I've never worried about a passport. I think that if I ever want to do that, I could run down to San Francisco. Is CA on the list of states denying this opportunity to get federal funding?
Cindi
Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 14, 2007, 02:47:29 AMI changed my SSI identity 21 years ago. They send me reports every year to my legal name. Is that what you are talking about? I never wanted to confront the records office in Utah... at the time, they wouldn't even ammend certificates. I knew that it would be an exercise in futility.
My social security card was the first thing I changed. But they never changed the sex designation in their computers. It's the sole bit of legal information that's still out there identifying me as male. I'm told that it totally depends on the clerk you get when you walk into the office, but I tried having them change it in Santa Cruz, CA, and the woman there refused.
I could care less which marker SSI carries for me. I just don't want to lose my benefit because of it.... I suppose it could get tricky with Medicare. I don't know. I suppose that I'll find out down the road. I've got quite a way to go before that's an issue.
ReikRobin... do you have any experience with SSI or medicare?
Cindi
Quote from: Katia on February 13, 2007, 11:58:40 PM
Quote from: taylor on February 13, 2007, 02:00:56 PM
11 states as of this week have already turned it down.
Peace
Taylor
which states? do you know?
I've only been able to find real evidence that
Maine has definitely turned it down. But Georgia, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington are expected to (yay Washington!) from what I can see...I'll keep digging. Oh, and Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming have legislation against it or something to that exent.
This thing is a really nasty piece of work the administration has written up. I really hope it doesn't pass. If it is, I'm pretty sure states cannot reject it.
Nasty problem we have here, eh?
I agree and am very concerned about the issues this law (or any like it) bring up. Too much information too easily accessible to any and all government employees...I would guess all the way down past your local police department to just about anyone who gets a paycheck from the city or county and can provide any kind of reasonable excuse. Add in the track record the Feds already have about losing identity information, and don't forget those tricky little hackers...ugly. And, believe it or not, I'm not one who sees government intrusion everywhere.
As far as the states not being required to follow the law, but losing Federal funding...that was the same thing they did when the speed limit was lowered to 55 MPH. The Feds said "lower the speed limit or we will cut off your Federal Highway funds." I don't recall many states (if any) where they said "we don't want your money", but the list of states seriously considering saying "no" to the Real ID Act is encouraging.
I haven't read the details on this law...are they mandating RFID technology in the ID? If so, that is exceptionally bad. As far as the concern about being identified if you go to a political rally or something...too late. Facial Recognition technology already exists (though imperfect) and there was a big controversy a year or so ago when the police wanted to scan everyone in the stands at the SuperBowl.
On the flip side, there really needs to be a way to identify those who have a legal right to be in the country and those who don't. This is not about the immigration discussion, but rather to point out that we live in a world where there are people who will do anything to hurt innocent people if they think it will harm our country. While there have been native-born American citizens that have performed attacks against the US (remember the government building in Oklahoma City?) so it is no guarantee that a terrorist will be from outside the US, there is a strong possibility.
So, how do you provide some semblance of national security without trampling the heck out of individual rights or privacy? Beats me, but the Real ID Act scares the crap out of me, and I don't like it one bit. Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." These words are as true now as they were then.
.....Laurie
Well... so far, we haven't even tried to figure out what pisses people off about us enough to kill themselves over it. Until now, we haven't even cared.
I do have friends from various foreign countries... and the US is not well liked for many, many reasons. We do not treat our neighbors very well. We don't even care enough to figure it out. I would think that would be first on the priority list. You know.... fixing the problem instead of tending to the symptoms. But hey... what do I know?
Cindi
Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 14, 2007, 10:36:32 PM
Well... so far, we haven't even tried to figure out what pisses people off about us enough to kill themselves over it. Until now, we haven't even cared.
I do have friends from various foreign countries... and the US is not well liked for many, many reasons. We do not treat our neighbors very well. We don't even care enough to figure it out. I would think that would be first on the priority list. You know.... fixing the problem instead of tending to the symptoms. But hey... what do I know?
Cindi
You hit the nail on the head, Cindi. You know lots.
Dennis
Cindi:
You have to change those records ASAP; things are getting very complicated now, and IMO it is best to be prepared...
Quote from: geocites.comSSA (Social Security Administration) records
Prior to 2002, some pre-ops were able to change the sex marker on their Social Security record. Having an orchiectomy seemed to improve the odds that the clerks would be willing to change the sex marker, and some were even lucky enough to encounter a clerk who was kind enough to change the sex marker without any surgery at all.
But on October 3rd, 2002, the Social Security Administration changed their rules and now refuses to change the sex marker until you have had the complete SRS surgery. Some pre-ops who managed to change their sex markers before October 2002 have even reported that the SSA changed those markers back to M.
The SSA spells out their policy for changing data in their records and specifies that sex reassignment surgery must have been completed before changing the sex marker. Although this policy states that only a physician's letter stating completed sex reassignment surgery is required, some recent post-ops have reported needing a court order for gender marker change or an amended birth certificate.
While your Social Security card does not list your sex (it displays only your name and Social Security number), the SSA does keep other data on record including sex and your birth date. Unfortunately, they can and sometimes do disclose your sex to your workplace.
Does the SSA change the sex marker after having only an orchiectomy? I have found out for myself that the answer is no. I began my RLE in December 2002, only two months after SSA implemented the new policy, and I did let the clerk know I had the orchiectomy, but the SSA still won't change my records until I have my SRS.
and this is the link for the
SSA policy.US PassportsU. S. States and Canadian Provinces:
Instructions For Changing Name And Sex
On Birth CertificateIMO you will save yourself a lot of migraines if you do it now. :)
Quote from: Katia on February 13, 2007, 11:58:40 PM
Quote from: taylor on February 13, 2007, 02:00:56 PM
11 states as of this week have already turned it down.
Peace
Taylor
which states? do you know?
Hi Katia;
I found
this link which provides a list of states where legislation against Real ID is currently active. Hope it helps. :)
tinkerbell :icon_chick:
P.S. I am bummed! no legislation in Utopia. I am sure that the terminator has a lot to do with it. >:(
One of my issues with this so called national id, is that we already have one, its called a passport.
I really hope this gets deep sixed
"The act was originally voted down, but then it was reintroduced and tacked onto the 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, the Global War on Terror and Tsunami Relief."
This inserting an unpopular issue into a group that has popular issues is done all the time in Washington. Something is introduced and voted down so some clever politician inserts it, without identifying it in the name of the bill, and it gets passed. Let's face it, most politicians are ego-maniacs and they all want to introduce bills, acts, etc. that get passed so they can claim it to their name.
The problem I have is if The Real ID act was initially voted down when presented on it's own, why was it inserted in a "package deal" later on? Does someone have plans to abuse it? There are plenty of narrow minded people who would like nothing better than to rid this country of undesirables, or at least expose them or make their lives miserable.
With all the requirements listed in this act a TS would have to seriously jeopardize their privacy (safety) in order to comply. When we give away our liberties, we never get them back. I'm all for security but we can't prevent EVERY attack on this country. When we have to subject ourselves to being scanned just to do the simpliest things, we've gone too far. And this act has done just that. It needs to be eliminated.
Julie
Quote from: Tinkerbell on February 16, 2007, 03:23:36 AM
Hi Katia;
I found this link (http://www.realnightmare.org/news/105/) which provides a list of states where legislation against Real ID is currently active. Hope it helps. :)
tinkerbell :icon_chick:
P.S. I am bummed! no legislation in Utopia. I am sure that the terminator has a lot to do with it. >:(
that's terrific! thanks tink.
Quote from: Katia on February 13, 2007, 12:02:09 AM
what people [don't understand] is that they [won't have to ask for your id]. Because of [rfid technology], they will be able to scan you with an [rfid reader] and know everything about you. before you think of calling me paranoid, do research into it and you'll find out what i'm saying is true. this means if you go to a political rally that they find controversial [maybe an anti-war rally, or a free speech rally] they will be able to scan the entire crowd and label them as [enemies] of the state. this technology is [truly scary] and people don't understand the [invasion of privacy] this includes.
This is correct Katia. I understand it perfectly and fight against it daily.
Quote from: togetherwecan on February 16, 2007, 11:30:27 PM
Quote from: Katia on February 13, 2007, 12:02:09 AM
what people [don't understand] is that they [won't have to ask for your id]. Because of [rfid technology], they will be able to scan you with an [rfid reader] and know everything about you. before you think of calling me paranoid, do research into it and you'll find out what i'm saying is true. this means if you go to a political rally that they find controversial [maybe an anti-war rally, or a free speech rally] they will be able to scan the entire crowd and label them as [enemies] of the state. this technology is [truly scary] and people don't understand the [invasion of privacy] this includes.
This is correct Katia. I understand it perfectly and fight against it daily.
how do you fight against it? can i help you fight against it? tell me how.
From the NY times comes this GEM...
QuoteFebruary 17, 2007
Driver's License Emerges as Crime-Fighting Tool, but Privacy Advocates Worry (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/us/17face.html?ei=5065&en=36580b4653017e9c&ex=1172293200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)
By ADAM LIPTAK
BOSTON, Feb. 12 — On the second floor of a state office building here, upstairs from a food court, three facial-recognition specialists are revolutionizing American law enforcement. They work for the Massachusetts motor vehicles department.
Last year they tried an experiment, for sport. Using computerized biometric technology, they ran a mug shot from the Web site of "America's Most Wanted," the Fox Network television show, against the state's database of nine million digital driver's license photographs.
The computer found a match. A man who looked very much like Robert Howell, the fugitive in the mug shot, had a Massachusetts driver's license under another name. Mr. Howell was wanted in Massachusetts on rape charges.
The analysts passed that tip along to the police, who tracked him down to New York City, where he was receiving welfare benefits under the alias on the driver's license. Mr. Howell was arrested in October.
At least six other states have or are working on similar enormous databases of driver's license photographs. Coupled with increasingly accurate facial-recognition technology, the databases may become a radical innovation in law enforcement.
Other biometric databases are more useful for now. But DNA and fingerprint information, for instance, are not routinely collected from the general public. Most adults, on the other hand, have a driver's license with a picture on it, meaning that the relevant databases for facial-recognition analysis already exist. And while the current technology requires good-quality photographs, the day may not be far off when images from ordinary surveillance cameras will routinely help solve crimes.
Critics say the databases may therefore also represent a profound threat to privacy... [Read More] (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/us/17face.html?ei=5065&en=36580b4653017e9c&ex=1172293200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)
Another scary quote.....
QuoteAnne L. Collins, the Massachusetts registrar of motor vehicles, said that people seeking a driver's license at least implicitly consent to allowing their images to be used for other purposes.
So does this mean you have the right to explicitly refuse to allow your photo to be used for "Other purposes". Does this mean you have the right to refuse to have a photo or biometrics on your license at all.
You really need to read the full article and post your comments on it here!
Thank you, Susan, for posting that article.
Quote from: articleCritics say the databases may therefore also represent a profound threat to privacy.
Well, duh, of course it is. I understand that our government is concerned with National Security specially after the 9/11 attacks, but IMO this is way too much; it isn't only unconstitutional, but I also see it as a sick way to invade the privacy of so many Americans.
Quote from: article"One of the things a driver's license has become," Ms. Collins said, "is evidence that you are who you say you are."
The databases are primarily intended to prevent people from obtaining multiple licenses under different names. That can help prevent identity theft and stop people who try to get a second license after their first has been suspended.
Well, I can see their point, but IMO there are simpler ways that could be implemented to do exactly the same thing. What about fingerprinting? If they create a data base with fingerprints of all the people who possess a license and match that database every time a person applies for a new license, I don't see how such person could obtain a second fraudulent license if their fingerprints are already linked to records of another license. Besides, here in California, we are fingerprinted at the DMV, our DMV records have to match SSA records before they can issue you a license, and I don't see how someone could manage to obtain a "second" license with a different name if their fingerprints and SSN are already in the DMV database. Perhaps this example of "security" should be implemented nationwide instead of looking for excuses to "legally" nose around the lives of people. >:(
tinkerbell :icon_chick:
Here's the thing Tink on fingerprints... it's not an easy thing to make a match for any given set of prints. It can be a very subjective thing. It would cost a lot of money to search every print when someone applied for a license. Computer fingerprint recognition is not exactly what they portray on CSI. When it comes down to bio information to be used AS identification, we're a ways off to make it work the way THEY would like it to work. I'm scared of the additional information that they could collect... like my medical history. This could find its way to an insurance company for example, who would then deny coverage and not explain the real reason as to why.
Cindi
my opinion is that the real id act is a [bad idea], and is going to make us all [less safe]. it's also [very expensive] because it's an [unfunded mandate]. using identification as a security tool is a [fallacy] but it goes way beyond that. it's a huge power-grab by the federal government over the states' systems for issuing driver's licenses. i don't think there's anyone who would feel [safer] under this kind of police state.
Quote from: Katia on February 17, 2007, 11:36:46 PM...
i don't think there's anyone who would feel safer under this kind of police state.
Nice of you to presume to speak for me. :P
It is not a bad idea per se; Look at the fiasco we have currently with fake ids and such.
However, it CAN turn into exactly the nightmare that some are harping on about.
Which way things end up remains to be seen.
*shrug*
The whole thing is making me nervous. What authority will they have over gender on the ID? There was mention of it earlier in the thread, but not much... It reminds me of the mark of the beast, which is a very scary concept to me..
I wonder how well the biometric facial scanning would work on identical twins or somebody who gets into an accident and has a bad facial scar or somebody who has some kind of facial surgery. The thing is that any of the systems are going to be fallible and it just a matter of when and how they are exploited by a malicious person.
Melissa
Disclaimer: The extent of my knowledge is casual reading and one college forensics class. Anyone with far more knowledge please correct me.
IIRC Facial scanning primarily works with elements based on the underlying bone structure width/spacing of eyes vertical positioning of eyes, nose, mouth shape of head attributes that are hard to change on accident or purpose.
Quote from: Nikki_W on February 21, 2007, 09:19:01 PM
IIRC Facial scanning primarily works with elements based on the underlying bone structure width/spacing of eyes vertical positioning of eyes, nose, mouth shape of head attributes that are hard to change on accident or purpose.
FFS usually involves changing underlying bone structure, which will change the shape of the head and soft tissue surgeries can alter the mouth and nose.
QuoteReal ID Act causes controversy
I'll say, just look at the length of this
news thread.
Melissa
Quote from: biometrics.comFacial recognition systems are built on computer programs that analyze images of human faces for the purpose of identifying them. The programs take a facial image, measure characteristics such as the distance between the eyes, the length of the nose, and the angle of the jaw, and create a unique file called a "template." Using templates, the software then compares that image with another image and produces a score that measures how similar the images are to each other. Typical sources of images for use in facial recognition include video camera signals and pre-existing photos such as those in driver's license databases.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/DB396/DB396.pdfi didn't mean iirc though. i was talking about rfid [radio frequency identification], something more sinister and invasive than facial recognition. :o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID
"Place your finger here for blood sample."
Coming to a workplace, subway, or supermarket near you.
Cindi
...and the really scary part is that there are people who want that sort of thing.
QuoteThey, whoever They are, don't want you getting away with it, whatever it is.
Karen
who's [they]? ;)
Blog: National ID to Be Privatized, Activist Says He Has Docs (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,9506.0.html)
Forced out: A real ID problem for trans people (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,5906.0.html)
All very distressing to me and hunny.......... pretty soon darn pets will need photo id's
beg's the question why do cats not need a license and dogs do? :P
Watching out for it but that whole microchip id system is out there too!
I am not sure on this one.....
Do any of us have any real privacy? do we have any real security? do we have any real safety?
I do not know but i am indifferent in the sense that it's not something that impresses me. I do not necessarily feel that the government makes me safe but at the same time there should be a system (a measurable secure one) to keep us safe?
I am having a craving for popcorn now for some reason!
;D
Ricki
Quote from: Ricki on February 23, 2007, 07:41:15 PM
pretty soon darn pets will need photo id's
beg's the question why do cats not need a license and dogs do? :P
Actually I believe they do in my state at least. I have to register my pet smake for crying out loud. What are they going to do next, make you register guppies?
I can just imagine:
Aww look, my pet guppy had about 20 babies. I better go down to the post office and pick up 20 forms and get $400 out of the bank. :P
Melissa
A few Monty Python sketches pop into mind. Do not forget to register your pet halibut, Eric. ;)
In case you are wondering how these work, they have unique numbers on the chip and the address, name and phone number are stored in a database that you can update on the internet if you ever move or the pet comes under a different owner.
Melissa
We're headed down the wrong branch arguing against high-tech records and identification. Photo recognition, DNA, satellite photo surveillance, ultra-fast computer and other communication intercepts, all that is here now, and in use now.
What is needed, and needed desperately, is a constitutional amendment providing strong, slip-proof legal guidelines and protections overseeing the use of all these methods, protections that a totalitarian government like we have now or even worse, (yes, that is possible), can not override or by-pass. This requires obtaining court orders to access and use any of this type of data, from judges charged with protecting rights, not asses. When it's claimed the immediate release of this information to the public could cause problems, there should be an iron-clad requirement to provide timely and complete release of all court findings, along with a time-line to do so, and appointing someone to see that that happens.
Any violation of these protections should by a high level felony that requires prison time for any violator - citizen, police, prosecutor, judge, congressman or administration member - no immunity. Covering up any violation should require the same level of severe punishment. Oops should never be an excuse to violating these protections. Good faith exemptions should stand the smell test, and don't let it happen again should mean just that.
It is now and becoming more so a very high tech world. These methods are not going to go away. It is obvious that not nearly enough protections exist, and those that do are not respected. That respect should be required.
Susan Kay