The Real ID Act (1 Viewer)

[Patrick_S]

Gees give it a rest this isn't a political forum. We could spend a lot of time discussing how the government has been slowly eroding the individual privacies we have historically enjoyed in this country but that would be a political discussion which is not appropriate for this forum.

 

[CRyan]

Here are three good examples of why it is business and not your representatives that are causing loss of privacy or personal freedoms.

1. Background checks - My wife applied for a second job at Target a year ago. The background check came back with a discrepency and she was blackballed there. Cannot get work at Target. Why? Her social security number was used once in another state to rent an appartment under a different name. So it looked to Target as though she was using an alias. There was no recourse. She contacted the backgroung check company Target uses and their response was we do not tell the employer how to use the information - We just supply the information. Nice. Come to find out it was probably a typo when entering the social at the time the apartment was rented. She could not get the issue resolved as we could not prove anything. There was no real recourse here. Please someone regulate this mess before it gets more out of hand!

2. Be glad the government stepped in with Equifax and others to make it relatively easy to get misinformation fixed. Otherwise, I really dont think they would give a shit. See number one above.

3. This one is a stretch but you get the point. Non-broadcast cable television programing is censored only because of advertisers and probably to some extent the executives own morals. They could present mainstream movies with all their naughty bits if they wanted. They are restricted because of advertisers fears of funding indecency. Of course, there are federal indeceny laws where most are crap, but mainstream movies are of no concern.


Anyway, just my thoughts on this.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

I would like to point out that the integration of government and business is one of the fundamental characteristics of fascism.

Also, RFID is so far from being secure that I have to wonder what kind of dope its advocates are smoking. An RFID tag can be scanned remotely, without the knowledge of the holder, thus opening up new possibilities for surveillance and tracking ; more interestingly, since anyone with the proper scanner can grab the code, it opens up new possibilities for fraud and other kinds of crime. I seem to recall that the Bulgarian Mob [Bulgaria is the world centre of counterfeiting these days] have actually had access to RFID scanners.

 

[Edwin-S]

I was writing an answer to this but after re-reading it I decided against posting it. Any explanation starts to read politically and would just get this thread closed. Suffice it say that I think attempts to create standardized national identity cards is just the thin edge of the wedge towards totalitarianism. Just call me paranoid.

 

[Francois Caron]

However, that can be curtailed under the right conditions. Here in Quebec, we have a TV station that, soon after its started broadcasting, was presenting blue movies late at night on weekends. Surprisingly, over time the movies got very decent ratings. The next thing you know, major corporations were buying a LOT of advertising space!

And this was a BROADCAST channel!

I think our main problem here is that we can no longer trust that the laws being proposed in our respective legislatures are truly designed to protect the general population. More often, we're left with the impression that laws are being created for the purpose of protecting the accumulation of wealth to the detriment of quality of life. So when someone proposes a law to introduce new security measures, we automatically ask WHO'S security is this law truly designed to protect.

 

[Randy Tennison]

Perhaps I am wrong, and if so, would a moderator let me know, but I believe it can be possible to discuss the government without discussing politics. I thought that is what the original poster was doing. Discussing how this new ID was erroding our rights, without getting into a partisan debate. I was merely responding to the statements that we are losing our rights by asking those rights to be identified. If I've lost rights I'm unaware of, I would like to know about it.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I propose a balanced solution. The government can know everything I am doing as long as I get to know everything the government is doing. If I'm not allowed to do anything without it being known, then neither should the government be able to. We all know that will never happen.

I agree that any security measure being proposed will likely be compromised by those whose interests demand it. Even with chips, if they can be manufactured, they can be forged, and the information gathered from legit ones can and will be used in ways they weren't intended for.

 

[Patrick_S]

I would suggest that perhaps you read a newspaper or two to find out some of the rights you have lost because it has been the focus of much debate on the Hill the past six months and of extensive new coverage. Beyond that it's kind of useless to say anything else here since this is not a political forum.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

Essentially the only positive right granted in the text of the Constitution itself, as opposed to the Amendments, reads as follows [Article 1 section 9] : The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.

During the Civil War, Congress passed an act to suspend the power of the Writ temporarily. President Lincoln used it but sparingly, and was castigated for going that far. That Act expired, and no new proclamation has been passed, but the Federal Government is currently holding or has recently held, within and outisde US territory, a number of people, including American Citizens [and the provision does not protect citizens only] and persons taken within the territory of the United States, without recourse to the Writ. I should note that neither invasion nor rebellion has occurred in this country.


Additionally, the fourth Amendment provides that : The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unwarrantable 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.

The Government has been, for some time now, conducting searches and the equivalent of searches, without warrants of any kind [even secret, unsigned warrants issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court], based solely upon suspicion. It has even been conducting mass searches of airline travellers, which [despite large signs proclaiming that they are "voluntary" since you're not forced at gunpoint to travel by air] are certainly questionable. Thanks to a recent Supreme Court ruling, law-enforcement officers conducting a search are no longer strictly required to knock on the door and wait for an answer before breaking it down, which certainly diminishes the degree of security one enjoys in one's home.



There you have two Constitutional rights which have, wholly or partially, been abrogated at a fairly recent date. Hopefully this will be sufficient to answer the poster's question, without starting a political argument ; if not, the moderators should feel frere to remove or edit it. Some persons may feel that the facts I present represent justifiable acts of Government, and some may feel otherwise, but I expect the facts to stand.

 

[Eric_L]

I don't mind that they may be recorded - so long as it is with my consent and only I can detmine who can access them. That is not even close to what is in reality. As far as I'm concerned - screening my phone records - alone or 'in bulk' - constitutes improper search/seisure. Am I charged with a crime? Have I been served a warrant? So what that I have nothing to hide - THAT is not what the bill of rights is about. The fact that I call my mom three times a week is not public information...

 

[Randy Tennison]

No-knock warrants have been around for a long time. That hasn't changed. And the Supreme Court did not rule that the police don't have to knock and announce. They stated that the failure to knock and announce does not rise to the level of invoking the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained in that search. The requirement is still there. It is just no longer a "Get Out Of Jail Free Card".

I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I guess one persons "Loss of Rights" is another persons "Times Change". I still don't believe any of us posting or reading this thread have lost any "rights".

 

[Patrick_S]

Just an observation but that attitude of "times change" is the exact apathy that fascists’ states rely on.

If you are searching for a lost right or privilege that we are currently experiencing how about our right of privacy? I honestly don't see how anyone could be comfortable with the no warrant tapping of phone conversations that the government has been engaging in this past year unless of course your attitude is "times change."

Hay times changed in pre World War II Germany and that only resulted in the loss to a few lives in the concentration camps. What the heck, at least the state was providing a "safe and secure" society.

Moderators: If I have ventured too far into the political please delete this post. Thank you.

 

[Steve Felix]

I wrote my senators about this before it passed but it proved unstoppable.


It's true that the government can get all the information they want about even the privacy conscious. But without standardization, it will take a few hours. There's a big practical difference between that and having a standard database accessible in seconds. A uniform database is the difference between me being stopped on the street ("papers please") or being ignored because I'm not worth the time and money.

I like to do street photography, which is legal for the time being. If I'm hassled, there's not much authorities can do without a much bigger hassle for themselves. If I have a national ID, they'll have my life story as long as they come up with a pretense to have me turn it over.

I sadly accept that in exchange for modern convenience, my info is out there for the taking if somebody puts their mind to it. I don't accept that it be efficient, instantaneous, and free.

And Christopher beat me to naming the fourth amendment as a constitutional right that is simply gone.

 

[Randy Tennison]

To equate anything going on in the United States today with the Nazi extermination of the Jews is so far beyond belief that it almost borders on an insult to the people who lived through the Nazi regime (including my mother-in-law).

 

[ChristopherDAC]

Historically, an "enemy combatant" has been a foreign national taken in arms on the field of battle, and he is usually afforded the rights of a prisoner of war. American citizens and foreign nationals, taken within the United States, or abducted in secret from the the territory of their own or third nations, have been placed into this class via nothing more than an assertion of Executive power ; as this is controlled by no law, there is nothing to prevent any person from suffering the same fate. In that respect, the privelege of the writ of Habeas Corpus has effectively been suspended. I'll have to go back and see what was done in the case of the German saboteurs landed in New York by submarine ; I think they were treated as prisoners of war.

As for the assertion that warrantless wiretaps have only been performed on "international calls made by known Al-Qaeda terrorists", I believe you will find that this is not correct. In any case, there is a law in place which provides for the issue of secret warrants by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, in just such a case, and it appears that no such request was ever brought. As for thinking that "it is OK to kill these people", I cannot but remark that such a position is contrary to all concept of the rule of law among nations, and would be unworthy of barbarians, to say nothing of civilised men. Yes, that is my serious opinion.

In general, the assertion of a threat to the security of the State, and the introduction of emergency measures to deal with this threat, is the pattern of the rise of totalitarianism in democratic countries. From a political science viewpoint, it is both appropriate and instructive to compare present-day developments across the Western world with the situation in Germany in the middle 1930s. The same element of mass hysteria in the face of a real but exaggerated threat [remember that more people were killed by automobiles in America in September 2001 than by terrorism, foreign and domestic, since the end of the Second World War, although it is close once you count in things like Klan lynchings], the Strong Leader with a messianic vision of the future who promises to save the people from the Threat, the approval of his actions by the mass of the people who are thereby distracted from serious, real problems which affect their daily lives, the demonisation of groups of people related marginally if at all even to the Threat : all are present.

It makes for interesting watching, but I wish I were watching it from a safe distance. And I apologise to the Moderators for any trouble which comes from this post, which is meant to be more analytical than anything. I have expressed my opinions, but I think I have given more time to fact and theory.

 

[Patrick_S]

I will repeat, "times change" is the exact apathetic attitude that fascist and totalitarian states rely on to gain power. I have several friends who survived the camps and none of them would agree with your comment. In fact all of them are very concerned with the apathetic attitude towards the loss of individual liberties that you and so many others seem so willing to allow because they saw the same things happen in Germany.

To a person they all believe that if more people had stood up and said, "NO TIMES DON'T CHANGE!" perhaps many lives could have been saved.

 

[Lew Crippen]

There are many versions of this--and it was not first written by the Pastor, though is is associated with him:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller


A little different I think, than "times change".

 

[Randy Tennison]

So many people have jumped on my use of the phrase, "Times Change", I guess I need to better establish what I am saying.

For much of the first part of the 20th century, police were respected, and in some cases, feared. Then, with more and more crime, police were faced with more aggressive criminals. Times changed. They responded by trying new tactics in crime prevention. A detective in Cleveland witnessed three men acting in a suspicious manner, walking by a store 24 times, and looking in the windows. Feeling that they might be casing the store, he approached them, identified himself and asked their names. One mumbled something. The detective turned him around, and patted him down. He found a revolver. One of the other men also had a revolver. They were arrested for carrying concealed weapons. The Supreme Court decided that times had changed, and that the pat down of the outer clothing of a person did not constitute an illegal search. The court decided that it was reasonable for officer safety.

Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping, rape and robbery. The police interrogated him, and used his confession. The courts determined that Miranda was not aware of his constitutional right against self incrimination. Therefore, they reversed his conviction, and placed a requirement on police that they must inform suspects of their constitutional right against self incrimination. Times changed. Since that date, subsequent court decisions have changed that initial decision. When I went through the academy, you were trained to Mirandize everyone you talked to, if they were a suspect. Now, the courts have determined that the true test of Miranda is custody. If a person is not in custody, and has the ability to leave, Miranda does not apply. Times changed.

Prior to PanAm 103, Airline Security was a contradiction in terms. The airlines supplied their own security, so the guy xraying your bag was employed by the low bidder. After 103, security was heightened a bit. But, still, it was a joke. Then, September 11, 2001 ended the joke. Times changed. Suddenly, it became important to safeguard our air travel, something that should have happened long before. Times Changed, and so did our process of boarding a flight.

It is wrong to believe that times don't change, and that our society and laws don't change with them. I've pointed out three examples that quickly popped in my head. One of them is one that some could argue resulted in less rights, and one could be argued to have resulted in more rights. Change is not always bad. If times had not changed, there would be no 13th or 19th amendment.

It is often stated that the Constitution is a living, breathing document. It ebbs and flows, but over the course of it's history, it maintains an even keel.

One last example. Many people speak of the Constitutional Right to Privacy. Pick up your copy of the Constitution, and find me that phrase anywhere in it. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Not there, is it. The Right to Privacy was espoused by the Supreme Court in Griswald v. Connecticut , in 1965. You see, two people wanted to open a birth control clinic. That was not something that was acceptable to many people back then. They were arrested, found guilty, and fined $100.00. They appealed, and the case went to the Supreme Court. The court determined,for the first time, that the Constitution guaranteed a right to privacy. Now, Griswald and Buxton could run their clinic. Times had changed.

It is not apathetic to recognize that our society is in a continuous state of change, and that change must often be met with an adjustment in our laws and actions. What is apathetic is to say that as a society, we can continue on as we have always been, never acknowledging or responding to issues, problems, or opportunities. That is the kind of apathy that allowed our current problem to grow to the state it is now.

I also trust that we will never allow this country to become a fascist or totalitarian state. Why? Because, while I may be more willing to bend in response to problems, you, my friends on the other side of the see saw, will fight against it going too far. And vice versa. That's what makes this country great. I speak for you, you speak for me, and together, we stand proud.

Thanks everyone for the enjoyable debate.

 

[Kyle McCabe]

Nevermind. I'm retracting all of my statements in an effort to be a PC chump.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

From the NY Times: "While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands since the program began, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials. And more specifically: "In the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney and his top legal adviser argued that the National Security Agency should intercept purely domestic telephone calls and e-mail messages without warrants in the hunt for terrorists, according to two senior intelligence officials." Forgive me for not being comforted.

That said, to me, the requirements Colton listed in his first post make perfect sense. In fact, the fine state of New York sent me an ugly new replacement license a few months ago that meets all of those requirements. The idea that five years after 9/11 people are still boarding aircraft using only easily-forgible identification is frankly riddiculous.