Am I wrong to be disturbed about this?

[Primula Baggins]

The RealID itself will also be a driver's license. That's how they're approaching it: applying nationwide uniform standards to drivers' license requirements and the information the card must carry. I assume state IDs that are not licenses will also become RealID cards.

Standardizing requirements is not a bad thing in itself: if I remember correctly, until fairly recently there was one state that did not even include a photo on its driver's license. The problems I see are the RFID chip; the information the card will carry, encoded but available to anyone who steals the card; and the fact that the concentration of critical data people must present to get the card will be stored in state databases in a way that's accessible to the government and any hacker or criminal who can gain access to it. None of this has been true before.

[vison]

The government is not supposed to "tell people what to do". I find that to be an extremely odd interpretation of the government's function and purpose.

The people are supposed to tell the government what to do.

As for laws, laws don't tell you what you must do or are allowed to do, but are, basically, a list of things you can't do. Civil law codifies how certain activities ought to be performed, such as contract law, marriage, etc.

A citizen owes very little in duty to the government, and the government owes everything to the citizen.

[Erunáme]

The issue isn't the id in itself.
The id is a mere tool or smokescreen for the real purpose behind all of this.
Tighter control.
The ability to keep an eye on the public at large.
All in the name of safety.

While the motivation is a noble endeavor, most people that have been around the block know all too well by past experience, that the tool will be misused.

It is too much power residing in too few hands.
That could be a recipe for disaster.

What Holby said, especially the bolded part.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There are a couple of reasons why it is hard for me to get too bent out of shape about this RealID issue.

First of all, frankly I'd rather see the government be upfront about keeping tabs on people than to do it surrepticiously, like with the secret warrantless wiretapping program, or things like the covert monitoring of people's library use. The truth is the government (and a lot of corporations) already have a huge amount information about people. To my way of thinking, the more out in the open that gathering of information is, the less chance there is of using it in an abusive, illegal, unconstitutional manner.

Secondly, there is so much else going on to be concerned about that it is hard for me be too worried about something that, by itself, just doesn't strike me as that big a deal, when compared to things like our government sanctioning torture.

[yovargas]

It's not hard to be against both. The "at least it's not torture" POV could let the feds get away with nearly anything.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I figured someone would say something about like that.

The ID card thing still doesn't bother me much, though.

[nerdanel]

Honestly, V, I have the same reaction as yov.

1. It's possible to be upset about both at the same time, as you know.

2. This strikes me as somewhat fallacious: "To my way of thinking, the more out in the open that gathering of information is, the less chance there is of using it in an abusive, illegal, unconstitutional manner." That is, simply because the government is open about the fact that it IS collecting information does not in any way guarantee openness as to its uses of the information - and whether they are abusive, illegal, or unconstitutional. Even with FOIA requests, it's uncanny how difficult it can be to get sensitive information - how it can be "misplaced" or suddenly never known to have existed.

3. Even if we assume that OUR government will play benevolent dictator - and I remember stating on b77 that that is the one entity in which I'm not willing to place that trust - it opens the doorway for a different set of "wrong people" to gain access to a massive composite of information. Should our government ever be displaced by enemy forces (and our government itself would have us believe that is a live, significant concern in this "age of terrorism"), said enemy would gain access to a massive repository of information, and the infrastructure to use it less benevolently.

4. "The government (and a lot of corporations)" is a key point. Right now, the information is decentralized. I'm much less concerned if City Lights realizes that I purchased a book decrying capitalism, US Airways knows the date and times of my last domestic flight, Visa knows where I purchased my last meal out, my cell phone provider knows who I spoke to over the past day and for how long, and the federal government knows when I am traveling out of the country (although frankly, beyond the fact of my US citizenship, I don't feel that they should have much to check even there.) Now, Big Brother may know more of these things than I would like or even that I'm aware of. But that is no reason to support, or be neutral, to a measure that would greatly facilitate that task.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Believe me, nel, the government has that massive repository of information whether or not this RealID program goes through or not. There isn't any getting around it.

Edited to add: It's not a question of being able to be concerned about both. For me it is a question of one thing being something that concerns me a lot, and the other being something that doesn't.

[nerdanel]

Believe me, nel, the government has that massive repository of information whether or not this RealID program goes through or not.

That's a pretty serious contention. Are we to assume that the government is secretly requiring all businesses in the country to provide it with the types of information I describe? Or, is the government spying on the businesses themselves and the private transactions, at such a detailed level? How long has this been going on and kept secret? (At what point did technology advance sufficiently to make this massive repository possible? Odds are that it wasn't when the Founders were alive. So when did it commence?) Which administration initiated it? To what purpose? Who has knowledge of and access to the repository (if it is so massive, a fair number of people must be needed to administer it), and how is the government ensuring that not a single person will become disgruntled and go public with their knowledge? - particularly given changes between administrations.

Do not think that I am so naive as to not admit all of this as a possibility. I am simply not willing to bridge the gap between "possibility" and "reality," without more. And so long as it is a mere "possibility" that it's true now, it seems worth resisting something that would bring it closer to "reality."

Let me give you this hypothetical: (1) IF it was possible to establish that the government currently does NOT have the massive repository of information you believe, and (2) IF it could be shown that RealID substantially increases the likelihood that said repository would exist (or even makes it unavoidable), would it then concern you? (I'm trying to understand whether this only doesn't concern you because you believe it is inevitable, or has already occurred.) If it would still not concern you, why not? Is it because you believe that it would not likely be used for any evil purpose, by any administration, ever? Or that that possibility is too remote? I'm probing because for whatever reason - given your often-expressed distrust of government, especially ours, this feels like a maverick position from you. (Why am I not surprised? )

[The Watcher]

Heck, nel, the government has already been caught getting huge lists of all sorts of information from corporations ust by asking for it, or threatening them with subpoenas, or misusing the already highly loosened up types of warrants that the federal government has approved itself as "needing" to have. It is not merely terrorism, it is anything from seeking out pedophiles to checking up on illegal aliens to IRS purposes to where your charity dollars are given. More and more, PRIVATE corporations are supplying all sorts of vital and supposedly private information to both state and federal level agencies for fees, and the same services are available to employers, credit services, etc. The only way consumers can opt out of these databases, if they can at all, is to ASK to be withdrawn, which seems a bit backwards to my way of thinking.

What this will ultimately do is link up everything to one vast federally controlled centralized database, and it will not ONLY be used for travel and access to federal buildings and the like, it will ultimately be required when you do anything - rent an apartment, apply for credit, file your taxes, cash a check, etc.

Of course, REAL ID does not suggest that it will do anything of the sorts, but how many corporate entities now require you to provide your SS number, for example, to establish a phone line or cable television account?
Does SS have anything to do with these types of things? Of course not, but they still require them.

I am all ready fed up with my local "discount" card at my area grocery store which uses records of my purchases to provide me with coupons for future use, even if I did not buy any such things on THAT particular visit to the store. For example, I regularly get pet food coupons printed out, never mind that on that particular visit, I bought no pet foods of any type, even though I may have bought them on previous visits. The same for merchant credit cards, it is often times annoying to get things sent to me because I went shoe shopping last month or bought school supplies another time, stating that these things are now on some sort of special sale.

I can only shudder with horror to think of what a federally controlled and dictated citizen ID system could potentially be abused for. Seriously!!

edit for clarity and typos.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Let me give you this hypothetical: (1) IF it was possible to establish that the government currently does NOT have the massive repository of information you believe, and (2) IF it could be shown that RealID substantially increases the likelihood that said repository would exist (or even makes it unavoidable), would it then concern you? (I'm trying to understand whether this only doesn't concern you because you believe it is inevitable, or has already occurred.) If it would still not concern you, why not? Is it because you believe that it would not likely be used for any evil purpose, by any administration, ever? Or that that possibility is too remote? I'm probing because for whatever reason - given your often-expressed distrust of government, especially ours, this feels like a maverick position from you. (Why am I not surprised? )

It's hard for me to respond to that hypothetical, nel, because I do believe that the government has a massive repository of information, and that it will continue to grow regardless of whether the REAL ID program exists. I think that the more upfront they are about gathering the information, the less likely it will be that the information will be be misused, partly because of the very fact that they openly possess the information, and partly because I think it will help ensure that the information is accurate, thus making it less likely to cause false arrests and those types of abuses.

Do I think it is possible that this information can be used for "evil purposes"? Of course I do. Not just possible, but likely. Do I think that it also will be able to be used for positive purposes? Also yes. Do I think that the REAL ID program itself is going to make things significantly worse than they already are? No, I don't. Do I think that it will make things better? Probably not, but maybe.

(And yes, I have avoided answering your specific quetion. If this were a deposition, I would object that the question contained an "incomplete hypothetical" and instruct my client not to answer. )

[Holbytla]

There are a couple of reasons why it is hard for me to get too bent out of shape about this RealID issue.

First of all, frankly I'd rather see the government be upfront about keeping tabs on people than to do it surrepticiously, like with the secret warrantless wiretapping program, or things like the covert monitoring of people's library use. The truth is the government (and a lot of corporations) already have a huge amount information about people. To my way of thinking, the more out in the open that gathering of information is, the less chance there is of using it in an abusive, illegal, unconstitutional manner.

Secondly, there is so much else going on to be concerned about that it is hard for me be too worried about something that, by itself, just doesn't strike me as that big a deal, when compared to things like our government sanctioning torture.

Speaking to the bolded section.......

The phrase tip of the iceberg comes to mind.

They are purportedly being up front about this, but that makes me wonder how much they aren't telling us.

Is this a case of plead guilty to a lesser offense?

[The Watcher]

There are a couple of reasons why it is hard for me to get too bent out of shape about this RealID issue.

First of all, frankly I'd rather see the government be upfront about keeping tabs on people than to do it surrepticiously, like with the secret warrantless wiretapping program, or things like the covert monitoring of people's library use. The truth is the government (and a lot of corporations) already have a huge amount information about people. To my way of thinking, the more out in the open that gathering of information is, the less chance there is of using it in an abusive, illegal, unconstitutional manner.

Secondly, there is so much else going on to be concerned about that it is hard for me be too worried about something that, by itself, just doesn't strike me as that big a deal, when compared to things like our government sanctioning torture.

Speaking to the bolded section.......

The phrase tip of the iceberg comes to mind.

They are purportedly being up front about this, but that makes me wonder how much they aren't telling us.

Is this a case of plead guilty to a lesser offense?

Speaking to the bolded section of Holby's post, where on earth did the federal government get the right to "keep tabs" on citizens who frankly have done nothing to warrant having tabs kept on them? Isn't THIS the gist of the whole conversation here? The fact that they are already doing it is a huge issue. No, I am not naive to think that it will go away, but I will damn well fight against any ridiculous demand by a federally created bureaucracy that is not accountable to ANY oversight at the moment to let them dictate what is sufficient information on all citizens to keep them happy. I do not see anything like that even remotely mentioned in the Constitution...

[vison]

Um. The thingy won't let me post. Will send it to a PTB.

[Frelga]

I figured someone would say something about like that.

The ID card thing still doesn't bother me much, though.

I wonder if this is perhaps because you are a lawyer. I deal with databases and linking databases, and the prospect scares the crap out of me. The amount of error in any one publicly or privately maintained database is staggering and linking them multiplies the chances of error exponentially.

[Griffon64]

I wonder if this is perhaps because you are a lawyer. I deal with databases and linking databases, and the prospect scares the crap out of me. The amount of error in any one publicly or privately maintained database is staggering and linking them multiplies the chances of error exponentially.

*raises hand*

As a programmer, I've seen helluscary things myself when peeking into databases. The amount of personal info lying around, often with nothing more than a flimsy corporate firewall to keep the nasties out, and even worse, the repercussion of errors in these databases, as Frelga points out, is nasty.

IT people tend to run shrieking in the opposite direction when people start talking about a "linked database" of "information". Often they don't mean what we mean when using those terms, for starters.

Why, used to work for a company that stored credit card information. Encrypted, of course. At least in the database.

And then they sent it plain text over an unsecured FTP connection ( or was it an IT port? I forget. Plain text, anyway. And unsecured. ) to third party clients for the "linked" bit

[Holbytla]

I received several letters from the Veteran's Administration awhile back.
One was stating that a laptop had been stolen that contained personal/military records, including mine.

Another stated that they found the laptop, and had no reason to believe my files were tampered with in any way or was the information in any jeopardy.

They did however suggest, just in case mind you, that I enroll in some type of identity theft program.

Why is my info on a laptop in the first place?
I retired nearly 20 years ago.

Yeah I trust government agencies.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I figured someone would say something about like that.

The ID card thing still doesn't bother me much, though.

I wonder if this is perhaps because you are a lawyer. I deal with databases and linking databases, and the prospect scares the crap out of me. The amount of error in any one publicly or privately maintained database is staggering and linking them multiplies the chances of error exponentially.

But compiling the information surreptitiously adds yet another layer of error into the mix, compounding that exponential increase.

[Primula Baggins]

But, Voronwë, with all respect, it doesn't need compounding. It will be bad enough without that additional error, more than bad enough.

We already hear stories of people mistakenly put on "Do Not Fly" lists, wrecking their travel plans for business or family or vacation. When I imagine that on a much larger scale, and affecting much more than getting onto an airplane, I can't help but cringe.

And why do they need it? Can't they make the ID requirements more strict and more uniform without keeping all the added information?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Of course it doesn't need compounding, Prim. That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that it will be compounded. It would be nice to say that the government should not gather information about the people, but the fact of the matter is that the government is gathering information about the people, and it is going to continue to do so. I'd rather it be upfront about it and do as accurately as possible than do it secretly, with that very secrecy compounding the inevitable errors.