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 which provides a list of states where legislation against Real ID is currently active.  Hope it helps.


tinkerbell


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
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]

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

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.

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.pdf


i didn't mean iirc though.  i was talking about rfid [radio frequency identification], something more sinister and invasive than facial recognition. 

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

Forced out: A real ID problem for trans people

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?   
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!

Ricki