National ID Cards will be Law Tomorrow

[Jabe Adaks]

I am just curious what everyone thinks of the national ID card or "Real ID" system that is about to be passed in to law tomorrow. I personally think there are no solid arguments that convince me to not have such a system but I can also agree it might not be worth the money (est'd 120 million per state).

For anyone out of the loop, the government will be passing a bill tomorrow that will mandate states to issue drivers licenses and state id's in a format specified by the federal government. This format mandates that you REAL physical address be on the card as opposed to PO boxes, etc. This information will be stored electronically on the card as well, which opens the potential for the card to electronically offer all your personal ID information it has stored.

Of course all of this is surrounded by the big brother zealots who think this is a scheme to get in to your life. Personally I think it could be a step in the right direction. It will make life tougher on illegal aliens, it will make forgeries of IDs nearly impossible and possibly be the start of a standardized security system so I don't have to carry a separate badge for every company I consult for.

I am curious what everyone else thinks of this change. Granted it won't actually happen for another three years, but can anyone offer a good argument for or against this system? Do you think its possible to securely store personal data via smart card or RFID tag?

Jabe

[Lok'i Vidaar]

Yes Yes and Yes Jaber...

I have a DoD/Uniformed Services Identification Card, (any current military guy has one) This is a smartcard/RFID, Your Personal Information is stored on it and is protected by a 6 - 8 digit pin number, and uses a PKI certificate to encrypt the data, which uses your fingerprint as a point for random data for the encryption.

I bet the new IDs use this technology, in which case it's about as secure as your PIN number. Which is secure as YOU make it.

[Seret Sajet]

I don't care how techinlogical ID treatments get, keep 'em coming. I get bored reading the big brother concepts. You know what.... let'em watch.

This is pretty much the same as my building ID card here at work. If they ever need to check, though they seldom do, the ID card will birng up my profile with a photo. So basically its a photo ID only the photo isn't actually printed on the card. No big deal there.

Just the other day I saw a fingerprint reader from Microsoft in the Best Buy ad. It retailed around $29 and it says you use it retrieve passwords, profiles and info. I have no practical need for this but I'll be damned if I didn't say, "I want one!"

[Krusshyk]

Not that I want to sound like a big brother theorist (because I am all about that kinda stuff...those wristbands with people's med histories stored on them are pretty fantastic), what happens if someone steals your wallet or you lose your license?

Call me old fashioned, but I want somone to have to really work to steal my identity...ya know...by gluing back together my dual shredded documents and such. Not some acne covered nerd who sits at his computer all day hacking electronic databases and such. Or maybe I am totally misunderstanding this thing.

[Novall]

Next thing you know they'll want us to stamp 666 on our forehead.

The government doesnt need to know everything about me. All they need to know is that I pay my taxes and honorably served my country. If they cant keep up with the bag guys in this country, its their own fault for having a judicial system that lets criminals off relitavely scott free.

[X'an Shin]

Not that I want to sound like a big brother theorist (because I am all about that kinda stuff...those wristbands with people's med histories stored on them are pretty fantastic), what happens if someone steals your wallet or you lose your license?

Call me old fashioned, but I want somone to have to really work to steal my identity...ya know...by gluing back together my dual shredded documents and such. Not some acne covered nerd who sits at his computer all day hacking electronic databases and such. Or maybe I am totally misunderstanding this thing.

I believe they said above that the information on your card is protected by an encryption algorithm based off of your thumbprint.

So if they get your card, they're also going to need to harvest your thumbs. So other than the hassle of getting a card replacement, you're still set.

[X'an Shin]

Next thing you know they'll want us to stamp 666 on our forehead.

The government doesnt need to know everything about me. All they need to know is that I pay my taxes and honorably served my country. If they cant keep up with the bag guys in this country, its their own fault for having a judicial system that lets criminals off relitavely scott free.

666 is actually the Typo of the Beast.

The real number is 616. I figured if you're going to stamp it, let's stamp it right!

[Skorixor]

I say bring it on...

there's nothing on that card than an intelligent hacker can't get off your computer or the internet anyway...

what are they going to do, ruin my already shitty credit rating?

doubtful

the most they could do is sign me up for some adult catalogs to come in the mail...


besides, since 9/11 i've been through more fbi background checks, piss tests, metal detectors, xray machines, than anyone else...if they haven't found it by now, it aint gonna be found...

[warsloth]

666 hmmm you mean

VI S A ???

[Dwilah]

It seems to make sense to me. My mom freaks out when I don't shred my address on junk mail labels because somebody might steal my identity...but like I tell her, if they really want to get my address, it's in a lot of places...obviously, because the junk mail people got it. Plus, if you watch your statements and stuff carefully and are an aware person, you'll at least catch things early if they do happen and not put yourself in positions where you make yourself more vulnerable (like giving out info to bogus places online). Really that goes for everything in life...don't be afraid, just be aware.

As for fancy tech ID cards...well, I'm still oogling over the moving menus at the local Rave theater because they look like something out of Minority Report. Bring on the future.

[Keer]

The two main conditions that I believe this system should be held to maintain are:

- maximum protection of the constitutional rights of the citizen holder.

- maximum burden on criminals attempting to exploit the possession of the document.

I see no real problem with the national identification measure as long as it's used for just identification accompanied by a photo on the card and not financial transactions. Under those conditions I don't see why both of the caveats above wouldn't be heeded.

Also, I think that the federal government might be aware that any fumbling on this issue might open them up to what could potentially be the largest class action lawsuit in history. The civil liberties clique will be watching and waiting for them to drop the ball.

[Jerrel]

Considering how my state, California, gives out drivers licenses to anyone that wants one (I know this guy down the street that's an illegal and he was able to get one with no problem). I'm all for national standards. To all thoughs Big Brother nuts out there just ask them what exactly will the government have that the state doesn't have with a normal drivers license. The only difference is that the government will make sure the info is accurate.

Oh and one more kick to the hornets nest, there is no constitutional right to privacy. The right to privacy is an assumed right (some judge ruled that even though the constitution dose not give the people the right that it is implied) and is not specifically given by the constitution.

[Krusshyk]

Considering how my state, California, gives out drivers licenses to anyone that wants one (I know this guy down the street that's an illegal and he was able to get one with no problem). I'm all for national standards. To all thoughs Big Brother nuts out there just ask them what exactly will the government have that the state doesn't have with a normal drivers license. The only difference is that the government will make sure the info is accurate.

Oh and one more kick to the hornets nest, there is no constitutional right to privacy. The right to privacy is an assumed right (some judge ruled that even though the constitution dose not give the people the right that it is implied) and is not specifically given by the constitution.

Neither is Income Tax.

Spirit of the law...not the letter.

[Jerrel]

Considering how my state, California, gives out drivers licenses to anyone that wants one (I know this guy down the street that's an illegal and he was able to get one with no problem). I'm all for national standards. To all thoughs Big Brother nuts out there just ask them what exactly will the government have that the state doesn't have with a normal drivers license. The only difference is that the government will make sure the info is accurate.

Oh and one more kick to the hornets nest, there is no constitutional right to privacy. The right to privacy is an assumed right (some judge ruled that even though the constitution dose not give the people the right that it is implied) and is not specifically given by the constitution.

Neither is Income Tax.

Spirit of the law...not the letter.

/shrug

I'm a strict constructionist (meaning that the federal government should not be given powers that are not granted by the consitution). However, I do give some lean-way when it is to better govern and police the nation. For example the constitution does not give the government the right to create a bank and a national currency, but the system works much more smothly when there is a standardized form of money. However, I disagree with federal taxes beyond the sales tax. I do understand the government need money to fund the millitary and what not but the consitution does not give them the right to tax income. You could go as far as to say that federal income tax is siesure of private property without due process...BUT I'm digressing form the subject so I'll be quite now.

[Krusshyk]

And the right to bear arms. The second amendment states it be only for the maintenance of a "well regulated militia, being neccesary for the security of a free state..."

Strict constructionism kills that one, too.