Federal ID plan raises privacy concerns

[Guest echtrae]

Federal ID plan raises privacy concerns

Americans may need passports to board domestic flights or to picnic in a national park next year if they live in one of the states defying the federal Real ID Act.

Papers please. (sounds like something from a WWII movie )

The Department of Homeland Security insists Real ID is an essential weapon in the war on terror, but privacy and civil liberties watchdogs are calling the initiative an overly intrusive measure that smacks of Big Brother.

More than half the nation's state legislatures have passed or proposed legislation denouncing the plan, and some have penned bills expressly forbidding compliance.

This is good.

The cards would be mandatory for all "federal purposes," which include boarding an airplane or walking into a federal building, nuclear facility or national park, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the National Conference of State Legislatures last week. Citizens in states that don't comply with the new rules will have to use passports for federal purposes.

A passport to travel within the country?

The Department of Homeland Security, which estimates state and federal costs could reach $23.1 billion over 10 years, is looking for ways to lessen the burden on states, he said. On the recent congressional front, however, Chertoff could point only to an amendment killed in the Senate last month that would've provided $300 million for the program.

That $300 million is a drop in the bucket of this would likely require. If this is anything like the other programs that the government has introduced lately, their estimate is probably a fraction of the actual cost.

Here is something to keep in mind.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Guest Agaib]

I don't entirely oppose the existence of an ID. There's certainly a value in the ability to identify people. However, with the existence of an ID there exists a temptation to abridge citizens rights during times of fear. It's certainly risky...

[Guest echtrae]

Personally, I would rather not run that particular risk.

[Guest Agaib]

I'd have to know what the exact details of the specific law were before I made any judgments. We already have drivers licenses which we use for IDs as well as social security cards and such. Don't we already require the use of some card or another for getting on a plane? Usually its a driver's licenses. I'm not entirely sure what another "Federal ID card" would be necessary for.

[madlodger]

The next step is the Mandatory National DNA Bank.

[Guest Evil_Labs]

From a comic I read.

"You papers! Vacation bound scum!"

[foeofthelance]

Actually, they said they planned on "weaving" the Federal ID onto the State issued ID cards. So figure either a bar code or some SSN like tag added to your current license, with the likely option being SSN related.

Honestly, I can understand it. The article quoted "there are more than 8,000 acceptable IDs" to allow entry. I can understand them trying to cut that number down by making a single ID form mandatory, with a few exceptions.

[Guest Big Samurai]

The Constitution says no. Therefore, I say no, too. Did Congress forget that the bad guys tend to be outside the country?

[Leonhart29]

The whole thing is getting out of hand. My Ginny-Ma always told me that by the year 2020 we'd all have our SSN's tattooed on out asses. She's not far from it is she?