[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: REAL ID, REAL TYRANNY? Though it may come as a surprise, the true effects of the tragedy that occurred on September 11, 2001 have not yet been felt. The Bush administration´s plan for a safe America (and everywhere else) continues to unfold with the REAL ID Act. This act, passed in 2005, establishes a directive for a tamper proof ID system, hence the birth of a national identification card coming to your wallet very soon. After years of careful deliberation, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a decree to all states: participate by May 11, 2008 or your residents will be denied the use of a driver´s license to board an airplane or enter a federal building. (States can request an extension to the deadline.) This legislation, while seeming to protect U.S. citizens from terrorists, illegal immigrants and would-be con artists, further complicates the already hassled experience of travel, even if you don´t venture abroad. Such legislation stemmed from the purported fact that 18 of the 9/11 hijackers held fake driver´s licenses and identifications with 364 aliases. Under the rules of the Act, any American born after December 1st, 1964 will be required to get a driver´s license with enhanced security measures in the next six years. The cards will contain three layers of security features chosen by each state from a menu of multiple security measures. However, a radio frequency identification (see resources: Asset Tracking, June 2006) microchip will not be part of the regular menu selection. An RFID chip may be added as part of the Enhanced Driver License option, provided by Digimarc. The states of Washington and Virginia are moving forward with RFID implementation. Are three security features enough? Many state licenses have more than that already, and are compliant with REAL ID, such as New York, Virginia, North Carolina, and California. "Ideally, there should be 12 to 20 separate security features on a license," says Reed Stager, Executive Vice President, Digimarc Corporation. This company supplies 32 states with secure state licenses and has advised DHS on security enhancements. Nevertheless, by 2014, any person wishing to board an aircraft (or enter a federal building) will need a piece of identification that complies with the REAL ID Act requirements. An exception is made for those who will be 50 years or older by that time, as they are deemed less of a threat. It also gives more time to states to comply with the regulations, which will include everyone by the year 2017. If three features are not enough, as expressed by the security experts I have contacted, then what is going on? The true reality, REAL ID requires states to check immigration status and Social Security Numbers of applicants for driver´s license. The government states that such a check against government records ensures the validity of information. This is an attempt to prevent false documentation from breeder documents, such as foreign passports and birth certificates, which is the real problem. Objections to REAL ID and such procedures have come from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and numerous states, as well as several websites, such as www.unrealid.com. There is also a blog: stoprealidnow. Seventeen states, including Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Nevada, and Hawaii, have objected to the measures required by REAL ID, mostly due to the financial burden the Act places on a state´s budget. The initial expected costs associated with REAL ID compliance were $14 billion, though that has since been cut to $3.9 billion. The ACLU´s opposition is much more critical (www.realnightmare.org) and centers around the sharing of information required under the Act between governmental departments and between state bureaucracies, which could leave many exposed to greater risks of identity theft. "[REAL ID] is the first-ever national identity card system," according to official ACLU documents. The enactment of the REAL ID Act by the Bush Administration could be the first overt act of tyranny. This same administration states the U.S. military presence in Iraq is to help establish a democracy. Yet, under the guise of national security, which includes the National Security Agency spying on its own citizens (see Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), REAL ID could be directly undermining one of the key tenants that once made the U.S. a great nation—right to privacy. So, will the citizens of the U.S. be safer, and yet less free? In the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Resources: American Civil Liberties Union. www.aclu.com. Department of Homeland Security. www.dhs.gov. (January 11, 2008) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa Benjamin Franklin. 1759. Historical Review of Pennsylvania. Geoffrey M. Gluckman. June 2006. "Asset Tracking" www.geoffreygluckman.com (as published in Credit Union Business Magazine) Reed Stager. 2005. Digimarc Corporation, Beaverton, OR. www.digimarc.com www.secureidnews.com (March 14, 2008) Other Sources: Ira Glass, 29 March 2008. NPR: This American Life: "Audacity of Government."
Poster Comment: Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: robin (#0)
Many that have liberty deserve tyranny. Some that suffer tyranny deserve liberty. Can you give it to them, Franklin? Then be not so eager to deal out tyranny in judgment. Gandalf had it all over Benjamin Franklin.
No thanks. No SS# and No REALID Card.
California is NOT on that list yet. California is the state that forced DHS to extend it's date. All states must call Chertoff's bluff. That's all it is. The gov of Montana called his bluff and DHS backed off.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Too bad we can't divvy it up properly; liberty I mean: to those who have fought, lost family and work for it, and keep it from those who are so willing to give it all to Comrade Chertoff.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
As Franklin also said, you can't divvy it up: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
damn
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||