What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
The "How To Meet Women" Quiz view!
doubleyourdating.com - Three attractive women are standing a few feet away from you at a bar. What do you do? Find out...
91 Comments
- Nate187, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34If the federal government wants a national id card for security reasons, then why do they leave the borders open?
It would appear that they want more control of the population.
I for one will not take a national id. - brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31 Yeah, they really shouldn't have even brought something like the Real ID to the table. The resistance to something like that would cause more problems then trying to implement. I as a American, I would not comply. But then again I'm sure there are millions of Americans waiting for there ID, which prolly can be comprised, goes against constitution and turns America into a big brother state . No, sir. Big bother, how about you ***** off. Its bad enough we get assigned social security numbers. We should have the choice whether or not we give up our information. Oh wait..... Now I remember, the constitution........
- Phearce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23@Nate -- Control over the population, or did you mean control over information.
@jivatmanx -- It's not that the corporations are necessarily more powerful than the government, it's that the two have merged.
The United States was founded largely on the premise of separation of Church and State. Historically, the churches played a large role in directing the government's actions. Many times they were the same organization. Today we're faced with a very similar conflict of interest: church has been replaced by corporations; religious freedom/persecution has been replaced by right to privacy/invasion of privacy.
Control of information is at the core of this new struggle. - crime_think, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Where are your papers? YOUR PAPERS!!!
(if only I could write in my German accent) - jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Of course this is great, and nobody wants to turn this into 1984, but, I think it's clear that corporations are already more powerful than the government, and already have acess to more information.
I think if this is to be kept from turning orwellian, privacy needs to start being specifically protected. There's a reason why we have a fourth amendment... - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22It is not required to present ID at airports, etc. That is a myth. That is the basic problem with Real ID legislation. For the first time in our history it will be mandatory to have ID (Real ID) to travel, open a bank account, collect social security... to live. Currently it is NOT mandatory to even have ID, much less present it. Though, it has become difficult to live in America without ID, it still not a requirement. And, no, a cop who's pushing an 85 IQ that attempts to say that you have to show an ID or be arrested does not make it a legal requirement. Also, the Feds reserve the right to require fingerprint and retinal scans.
In short, this is technology that is used on cattle, not humans.
@wbreim -- Exactly. Not that the Constitution is respected by the government anymore but, even for those that argue for total Federalization, change the Constitution first. - Bushlied, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20There is no way in hell I am going to be tagged like some rat in an experiment. No ID here.
- UglieJosh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I, for one, would be the first to be in line to get one...........
So I could be the first to go on Youtube and throw it into a small fire.
Then, of course, I would be the first to have the FBI know on his door. However, if enough people do it, I think the government would get the message. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16I can't speak to the income tax thing, but I'm with d00ley in one respect. The day that someone in uniform can demand my papers or arrest me in the street for no crime other than failing to identify myself...that's a day I never want to see come to pass.
- edstate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16These are not the droids you're looking for...
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Because YOUR security is not the priority. The government cares only for its own security.
- wbreim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Why is this a federal issue? Has anyone checked the bill of rights?
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. - nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I think you can just microwave the licenses . . . a hundred million people do that, and we can throw out the real ids.
- goeatsmsht, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Wo sind Ihre Papiere? Ihre Papiere!!!
- 4answer2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12 Papiere Bitte!
- inurb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12There are so many other things the government could be working on to give the appearance of security in this country. A real id act is pathetic at best. I have a passport, I have Driver license, I have social security card. There is no reason I need to register to anything else.
- zizzybaloobah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I guess I'm an irrational loonie.
Anyone that thinks Real ID is a good idea should read Bruce Schneir's blog: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/01/realid_costs_an.html
Quick summary for those too lazy or close-minded to read the article: Real ID will be a failure because the documents required to get a Real ID can too easily be forged or otherwise tampered with. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@ilyag -- I'll bite. Though you'll have to define what you mean by "income tax", which covers quite a broad spectrum, you are probably right in that I actually expect the government to obey the Constitution and the laws of Congress. I know that you might think this is "silly", and I'll wager your $50 that when you are confronted with the choice between "authority" and your fellow citizen, your loyalties lay with "authority" every time.
- mweflen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Ah, federalism. Go ***** the "Decider" a new *****, several states!
- Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9 Well good, bad and then good(?) news.
The good is that it is nice to see at least the States stand up for their citizens rights even if the Federal level won't.
The bad news, is it won't matter. Americans will not have a chioce about this and it will be rammed through. ANyone caught defacing their card will probably go to jail for being a suspected domestic terrorist.
The good news, is that when/if the above happens than maybe the majority will be angry enough to stand up and fight back, because short of guns and conflict, nothing is going to stop the overall plan. - Jolls, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@Phearce
Dugg for excellent analogy. I hadn't heard that before. Digg me down for not actually contributing to the comments, but I just wanted to show a little appreciation - fangorious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"surreptitiously added to an appropriations bill that nobody was going to vote against?"
This is one of the biggest weaknesses in politics. Our representatives need to have the balls/***** to vote against something in these cases, and rediculously publicize why before anyone else has a chance to say "they voted against the food for starving kittens bill! OMGWTFBBQ!" I am ashamed to think we would need a law in place to prevent reps from lumping umpteen unrelated and inpassable items to Feel Good bills. - johndi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Just like the war on drugs cut down on drug use? Oh wait, it didn't drug use has skyrocketed since they started it.
- zizzybaloobah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7If Real ID was such a good idea, why was it not up for debate and furthermore was surreptitiously added to an appropriations bill that nobody was going to vote against?
If there's one thing I'd like to see the new Congress tackle, it's sneaking in these amendments and other items which are not germane to that particular legislation. I'm not holding my breath though.... - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Aww come on. Be a good slave.
- newworldodor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Exactly, why even talk about a real ID if the borders are open? The borders are still wide open, and they want to force this ID on normal citizens! It is obviously not about security, and more about tracking movement of citizens. I for one will not stand for this, no way I am getting one of these. For those people who are for this ID, just remember the same id cost $200 in england. Do you really want to pay that much money for some stupid ID?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"It might put a dent in illegal immigration, which will mean higher wages for the working poor."
Right, 'cause nobody falsifies identification, like driver's licenses, passports, or SS cards. Nope, that never happens. - vypergts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"And I heard that he doesn't even have his tattoo."
[crowd boos]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhvOja6QfkA - unicronband, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I like how only politicians use the word "boondoggle".
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5There are an enormous number of issues with this. First, the federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to mandate this, yet it is attempting to do so anyway. This alone is a very dangerous issue. Though you might think otherwise, ID is not currently mandatory to have or show when traveling, even on airplanes. This is one of the fundamental aspects of a free society, the ability to travel freely and anonymously. The Real ID Act changes this to where we will be mandated to show our papers for almost everything. We will not be free.
It confounds me that people do not seem to understand that grown men and women having to submit, be tagged, and show that tag to simply BE ALLOWED to physically move is not freedom. Please. If somebody could please explain to me how an adult having to receive permission from others to simply move about is freedom, I would be very interested in hearing you reasoning. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Can you actually be charged with anything? I'm honestly curious as to what grounds they have to arrest you.
- Duston, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5In many states (including mine) if you refuse to show ID (Drivers License) to the cops on request you can be detained (jailed) until the determine your identity.
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5http://news.com.com/FAQ+How+Real+ID+will+affect+you/2100-1028_3-5697111.html?tag=st.num
You should be concerned and take the issue seriously, if only because your fellow citizens feel threatened by it. - vr6stress, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@nate187
If the federal government wants a national id card for security reasons, then why do they leave the borders open?
It would appear that they want more control of the population.
I for one will not take a national id.
ever wonder why we have to register guns? i mean it's backing purpose was to catch criminals right? make it harder for criminals and such to get weapons, right? ever heard of a criminal following laws? criminals don't register weapons...only law abiding citizens do. you're right on the government wanting to control it's citizens, and has absolutely nothing to do with controling borders or terrorists or anything else...they don't use them anyways...
as far as microwaving them (RFID chips) it'll probably be like it is now on these new passports, if they suspect you tampered with it (burn marks) you'll get in trouble - but as wired pointed out, hit it with a hammer instead...
this is from a different article but, what i don't like is seeing something like this "Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements--such as a fingerprint or retinal scan--on top of those. We won't know for a while what these additional requirements will be." or "Paul has warned that the Real ID Act "establishes a national ID card" and "gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to unilaterally add requirements as he sees fit."
it was nice though to see that it had to be added to a emergency war spending bill because i doubt it would pass on it's own. and like anything else, it'll be cracked within weeks and we'll see terrorists and illegals with fake id cards not long after, but by that point we'll have given up freedoms and be unable to remove this power held by the government! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's not just the fact that you carry the card. It's the fact that you HAVE TO carry the card. Add on top of that the redundant gov't waste it creates, the fact that it's a useless false sense of security (it'll be faked before it's even released), and that it doesn't address any real concerns (like the border), and there are plenty of ways that it affects your life. They're just not obvious, that's all, which is why no one's paying any attention.
- nickj6282, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Here are individual stories from different states from non Fox News sources for those of you (like myself) who think that Fox News is the antichrist:
New Mexico - http://www.scsun-news.com/news/ci_5115589
Montana - http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070131/NEWS01/70131012 or http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-01-30-realID_x.htm?csp=34
Maryland - http://www.herald-mail.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=157659&format=html
Maine - http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/43026-1.html
Looks like I should move to one of these states! Maine is nice, but my wife would love Montana (horse ranches). My parents would be thrilled if we went to NM so they can come visit. Choices choices. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"it doesn't infringe on your rights". You state this as though it simply and undisputed fact. Whether you agree or not, you should at least be aware of the arguments and view points of those that feel believe otherwise. The reality is, many people do see this as infringing on our rights in a major way.
- rstarr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What ever you are smoking...please pass it on. It's been a hard two days for us in Boston.
Come to think of it, maybe that's what the BPD was also on...
It all makes sense now. - jkdrum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I was cool with it until I saw it would use RFID
RFID is bad, bad, bad, news! And I’m a radio guy. Imagine anybody being able to read who you are with a simple RFID transceiver even from meters away. I would buy a steel wallet. - Jolls, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://freeamerica.ws/
Beyond Bullets or Ballots: Creating a Free America - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How does this fall under interstate commerce? Also, please show the laws that ALL states require all citizens to carry IDs on them.
- kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4A country were Corporations owns everything is jsut as bad as a country were the government owns everything..
I mean atleast the government somewhat values your life.
Right now the United States is a Libertarian nightmare(meaning it goes against what libertarians want, but its the out come of what libertarians preached about ...Corporate domination over government.) - cprincipe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So embarassed that New Hampshire, the "Live Free or Die" state, caved to pressure from the federal Republican party on this issue.
- locojones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"there is absolutely nothing in the US Constitution regarding a "right to privacy" - in the 4th Amendment or elsewhere"
This is a common, although fallacious, argument put forth by pro-government sentiments. Though, when confronted with the need to support their argument, they have nothing further to add except to repeat "well, uh, it's just not in there."
The Fourth Amendment reads - "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Now, the traditional definition of privacy is "the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in one's private life or affairs." So if the Framers intended the people to be secure from intrusions into their houses, papers, and effects, then by definition they were including a right of privacy into the Fourth Amendment. It makes no sense to say that there is no right of privacy in those effects. If that were true, then there would be no need for the Amendment at all because no search would be unreasonable. - mahdaeng, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Lawmakers are stating in uncertain terms that the legislation is invasive and bad for both states and individuals"
they are stating in "uncertain terms"? so they're not sure? i would expect them to state in no uncertain terms. that would seem a little more effective to me. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@loboforestal - Are you just randomly citing this? How in the hell does this apply to anything that is being talked about? Seriously. "Congress is authorized to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization?" Do you understand that naturalization is "The process by which a person acquires nationality after birth and becomes entitled to the privileges of U.S. citizenship?" Really. I'm either dumbfounded by your randomness, or I am missing something. Please enlighten me.
- Niteryder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For 72 years the government cried foul at communism in the USSR and how they didn't allow freedom.
Now we are letting King Bush invoke communist practices in our so called culture of democracy.
National ID is an over reaction nurtured by hysteria about 45 Al-Qaeda terrorists who supposedly
have the entire population of the earth 6.25 billion people at their mercy.
The notion of that on the face value of it is socially retarded at best - kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hell no I don't want to pay 200 bucks for some stupid ID card!!! Lets protest this now since I can now see the personal cost..
That's how americans think anyway. We are all in our own little world. - marillion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There is a tremendous amount of Supreme Court case-law that supports a right to privacy through both the 9th and 14th amendments. The right to privacy through the 14th amendment was used to support the prevailing opinion in Roe vs. Wade.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As a law-abiding person, the government has no right to ask about my identity, my finances, or my communication. Any government official who thinks otherwise is a dangerous criminal.
-
Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is