No need for remote retinal scans
-
A national ID card for the US was passed into law and part of a spending bill yesterday. It failed to pass a year ago but this time it was tacked on to Iraq's funding. It may have a RFID - which is a small pasresponder An Attack on Liberty, 100-0[^] (The author is a software engineer) The possibility of RFID on the card is what really raise my hackles. Wikipedia: RFID[^]
-
A national ID card for the US was passed into law and part of a spending bill yesterday. It failed to pass a year ago but this time it was tacked on to Iraq's funding. It may have a RFID - which is a small pasresponder An Attack on Liberty, 100-0[^] (The author is a software engineer) The possibility of RFID on the card is what really raise my hackles. Wikipedia: RFID[^]
Easy there, don't get your knickers in a twist. :) My guess is that if you're a citizen of the U.S. and have a driver's license that was issued in the last 5-10 years (maybe more), you've already got an ID that meets these criteria. All Real ID stipulates is that there is "machine readable" information. This could be a bar code, a magnetic stripe, or some kind of smart card (RFID or contact). My guess is that most of you out there already have a license with a bar code and/or magnetic stripe. Smart cards have yet to take off in the U.S. one of the main reasons is that they are very expensive - several dollars for the card itself as opposed to cents. Plus, there's the whole reader infrastructure. Oh, and don't get concerned about being able to be tracked by an RFID card, all the ones I've seen have a reading range of <6". Oh, and they're surprisingly secure (not to say that any security is perfect). BTW - If you're concerned about the fact that all state DMVs need to now be linked together, let me give you a hint - they already were. The FBI and presumably all forms of federal intelligence have been able to search all state DBs for a long time. I think this is a good thing when you're trying to find some sleezeball criminal. The other main focus of Real ID is to prevent illegal aliens from getting driver's licenses and IDs. Since they're already ILLEGAL aliens, I really don't have a problem with this.
-
Easy there, don't get your knickers in a twist. :) My guess is that if you're a citizen of the U.S. and have a driver's license that was issued in the last 5-10 years (maybe more), you've already got an ID that meets these criteria. All Real ID stipulates is that there is "machine readable" information. This could be a bar code, a magnetic stripe, or some kind of smart card (RFID or contact). My guess is that most of you out there already have a license with a bar code and/or magnetic stripe. Smart cards have yet to take off in the U.S. one of the main reasons is that they are very expensive - several dollars for the card itself as opposed to cents. Plus, there's the whole reader infrastructure. Oh, and don't get concerned about being able to be tracked by an RFID card, all the ones I've seen have a reading range of <6". Oh, and they're surprisingly secure (not to say that any security is perfect). BTW - If you're concerned about the fact that all state DMVs need to now be linked together, let me give you a hint - they already were. The FBI and presumably all forms of federal intelligence have been able to search all state DBs for a long time. I think this is a good thing when you're trying to find some sleezeball criminal. The other main focus of Real ID is to prevent illegal aliens from getting driver's licenses and IDs. Since they're already ILLEGAL aliens, I really don't have a problem with this.
another reason to be concerned about moronic judges[^] - this one wants to protect illegals. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
A national ID card for the US was passed into law and part of a spending bill yesterday. It failed to pass a year ago but this time it was tacked on to Iraq's funding. It may have a RFID - which is a small pasresponder An Attack on Liberty, 100-0[^] (The author is a software engineer) The possibility of RFID on the card is what really raise my hackles. Wikipedia: RFID[^]
I never take anyone seriously when they only express concerns for "erosion of liberty" when republicans happen to be in power. The national ID card, as bad as it may be, is a rather minor example of a 70 year long trend to destroy American liberty coming from both political extremes. Anyone who is concerned about it needs to be willing to overturn every piece of legislation and judicial decision past since the days of FDR. Otherwise, they are nothing more than little leftist hypocrites. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
A national ID card for the US was passed into law and part of a spending bill yesterday. It failed to pass a year ago but this time it was tacked on to Iraq's funding. It may have a RFID - which is a small pasresponder An Attack on Liberty, 100-0[^] (The author is a software engineer) The possibility of RFID on the card is what really raise my hackles. Wikipedia: RFID[^]
even better was the little add-on about strengthening barriers along the US-Mexico border near San Diego. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886.html?96720[^]
II. Waiver of Laws to Facilitate Barriers at Border44 Section 102 of the IIRIRA generally provides for construction and strengthening of barriers along U.S. land borders and specifically provides for 14 miles of barriers and roads along the border near San Diego, beginning at the Pacific Ocean and extending eastward. IIRIRA § 102(c) provides for a waiver of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)45 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)46 to the extent the Attorney General determines is necessary to ensure expeditious construction of barriers and roads... H.R. 418 [the Real ID Act of 2005] would provide additional waiver authority over laws that might impede the expeditious construction of barriers and roads along the border. H.R. 418 would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any and all laws that he determines necessary, in his sole discretion, to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads under IIRIRA § 102... Section 102 of H.R. 418 would amend the current provision to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any law upon determining that a waiver is necessary for the expeditious construction of the border barriers. Additionally, it would prohibit judicial review of a waiver decision or action by the Secretary and bar judicially ordered compensation or injunction or other remedy for damages alleged to result from any such decision or action.
(my emphasis) why would anyone need to exempt the DHS from any judicial oversight on a little project like this (it's only 14 miles of border, after all) ? what could the DHS possibly be planning to do that they would need to be able to violate the constitution without being punished for it ? my guess: nothing big. but they'll do something that forces a lawsuit; and, after much legal wrangling, if it turns out they really can excempt laws from judicial oversight, they'll have proved that the courts can't decide on the constitutionality of specific laws if Congress tells them they can't. and that'll be the end of legal abortion, the end of attempts to keep the 10 Commandments out of t
-
even better was the little add-on about strengthening barriers along the US-Mexico border near San Diego. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886.html?96720[^]
II. Waiver of Laws to Facilitate Barriers at Border44 Section 102 of the IIRIRA generally provides for construction and strengthening of barriers along U.S. land borders and specifically provides for 14 miles of barriers and roads along the border near San Diego, beginning at the Pacific Ocean and extending eastward. IIRIRA § 102(c) provides for a waiver of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)45 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)46 to the extent the Attorney General determines is necessary to ensure expeditious construction of barriers and roads... H.R. 418 [the Real ID Act of 2005] would provide additional waiver authority over laws that might impede the expeditious construction of barriers and roads along the border. H.R. 418 would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any and all laws that he determines necessary, in his sole discretion, to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads under IIRIRA § 102... Section 102 of H.R. 418 would amend the current provision to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any law upon determining that a waiver is necessary for the expeditious construction of the border barriers. Additionally, it would prohibit judicial review of a waiver decision or action by the Secretary and bar judicially ordered compensation or injunction or other remedy for damages alleged to result from any such decision or action.
(my emphasis) why would anyone need to exempt the DHS from any judicial oversight on a little project like this (it's only 14 miles of border, after all) ? what could the DHS possibly be planning to do that they would need to be able to violate the constitution without being punished for it ? my guess: nothing big. but they'll do something that forces a lawsuit; and, after much legal wrangling, if it turns out they really can excempt laws from judicial oversight, they'll have proved that the courts can't decide on the constitutionality of specific laws if Congress tells them they can't. and that'll be the end of legal abortion, the end of attempts to keep the 10 Commandments out of t
Chris Losinger wrote: and that'll be the end of legal abortion, the end of attempts to keep the 10 Commandments out of the courtroom, the end of really anything that could formerly be challenged on constitutional grounds - as long as a bill has a "Not Subject To Judicial Review" clause. Good. Chris Losinger wrote: i'm sure i'm the only one who is concerned about that. since most people, especiallly conservatives, trust the government completely. No, we just tend to trust the democratically elected branches more than the one that is appointed for life and habitually ignores the very constitution it was created to protect in order to push through its own narrowly defined moral agenda. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
even better was the little add-on about strengthening barriers along the US-Mexico border near San Diego. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886.html?96720[^]
II. Waiver of Laws to Facilitate Barriers at Border44 Section 102 of the IIRIRA generally provides for construction and strengthening of barriers along U.S. land borders and specifically provides for 14 miles of barriers and roads along the border near San Diego, beginning at the Pacific Ocean and extending eastward. IIRIRA § 102(c) provides for a waiver of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)45 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)46 to the extent the Attorney General determines is necessary to ensure expeditious construction of barriers and roads... H.R. 418 [the Real ID Act of 2005] would provide additional waiver authority over laws that might impede the expeditious construction of barriers and roads along the border. H.R. 418 would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any and all laws that he determines necessary, in his sole discretion, to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads under IIRIRA § 102... Section 102 of H.R. 418 would amend the current provision to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any law upon determining that a waiver is necessary for the expeditious construction of the border barriers. Additionally, it would prohibit judicial review of a waiver decision or action by the Secretary and bar judicially ordered compensation or injunction or other remedy for damages alleged to result from any such decision or action.
(my emphasis) why would anyone need to exempt the DHS from any judicial oversight on a little project like this (it's only 14 miles of border, after all) ? what could the DHS possibly be planning to do that they would need to be able to violate the constitution without being punished for it ? my guess: nothing big. but they'll do something that forces a lawsuit; and, after much legal wrangling, if it turns out they really can excempt laws from judicial oversight, they'll have proved that the courts can't decide on the constitutionality of specific laws if Congress tells them they can't. and that'll be the end of legal abortion, the end of attempts to keep the 10 Commandments out of t
Chris Losinger wrote: and that'll be the end of legal abortion murder Probably, but don't confuse this with that abhorent practice of the death penalty. Chris Losinger wrote: since most people, especiallly conservatives, trust the government completely. as long as conservatives dominate elective office. Chris Losinger wrote: what could the DHS possibly be planning to do that they would need to be able to violate the constitution without being punished for it ? I think they're building a fence, but the 9th district court might see it as an infringement of Mexico's soverign right to displace Americans. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: and that'll be the end of legal abortion murder Probably, but don't confuse this with that abhorent practice of the death penalty. Chris Losinger wrote: since most people, especiallly conservatives, trust the government completely. as long as conservatives dominate elective office. Chris Losinger wrote: what could the DHS possibly be planning to do that they would need to be able to violate the constitution without being punished for it ? I think they're building a fence, but the 9th district court might see it as an infringement of Mexico's soverign right to displace Americans. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
Mike Gaskey wrote: as long as conservatives dominate elective office and when they don't ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: as long as conservatives dominate elective office and when they don't ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: and when they don't ? I am bookmarking all of our discussions. I'll just flip'em then. I'm really no poopooing (that a word?) the issue though and agree that we all need to honestly stay vigilant regarding freedoms. I do, however, believe the situation is out of control with the judiciary who create law instead of administer it. Once that is back where it belongs, legislatures legislate (create law) and the judiciary administers it or honestly weighs it in the context of the constituition - then I'll be on your side. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
another reason to be concerned about moronic judges[^] - this one wants to protect illegals. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
The DMV lacks the expertise and the statutory authority to act as "an enforcer" for the Department of Homeland Security, a state Supreme Court judge, Karen Smith, wrote in a decision released yesterday.
yep. the DMV should be able to do whatever it wants, regardless of whether or not it actually has the authority to do it. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris Losinger wrote: and when they don't ? I am bookmarking all of our discussions. I'll just flip'em then. I'm really no poopooing (that a word?) the issue though and agree that we all need to honestly stay vigilant regarding freedoms. I do, however, believe the situation is out of control with the judiciary who create law instead of administer it. Once that is back where it belongs, legislatures legislate (create law) and the judiciary administers it or honestly weighs it in the context of the constituition - then I'll be on your side. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
Mike Gaskey wrote: I am bookmarking all of our discussions. I'll just flip'em then. I'm really no poopooing (that a word?) the issue though and agree that we all need to honestly stay vigilant regarding freedoms. I do, however, believe the situation is out of control with the judiciary who create law instead of administer it. Once that is back where it belongs, legislatures legislate (create law) and the judiciary administers it or honestly weighs it in the context of the constituition - then I'll be on your side. But if they do that, Chris won't have a side. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Chris Losinger wrote: and when they don't ? I am bookmarking all of our discussions. I'll just flip'em then. I'm really no poopooing (that a word?) the issue though and agree that we all need to honestly stay vigilant regarding freedoms. I do, however, believe the situation is out of control with the judiciary who create law instead of administer it. Once that is back where it belongs, legislatures legislate (create law) and the judiciary administers it or honestly weighs it in the context of the constituition - then I'll be on your side. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
Mike Gaskey wrote: Once that is back where it belongs, legislatures legislate (create law) and the judiciary administers it or honestly weighs it in the context of the constituition - then I'll be on your side. loopholes don't close themselves. if "No Judicial Review" applies in 2005, it'll probably apply forever after. who can close it, if Congress has put itself out of reach of the checks and balances of the Judicial branch ? that little clause effectively trumps the Constitution. if you think it won't be exploited by politicians of all stripes, you're being woefully short-sighted. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Once that is back where it belongs, legislatures legislate (create law) and the judiciary administers it or honestly weighs it in the context of the constituition - then I'll be on your side. loopholes don't close themselves. if "No Judicial Review" applies in 2005, it'll probably apply forever after. who can close it, if Congress has put itself out of reach of the checks and balances of the Judicial branch ? that little clause effectively trumps the Constitution. if you think it won't be exploited by politicians of all stripes, you're being woefully short-sighted. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
And if the judicial branch would show the slightest respect for its own mandate we would not need the legislative branch to concern itself with things like "No Judicial Review". The judiciary has only itself to blame for this (well, except for the entire democratic party,they're also to blame ) "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
The DMV lacks the expertise and the statutory authority to act as "an enforcer" for the Department of Homeland Security, a state Supreme Court judge, Karen Smith, wrote in a decision released yesterday.
yep. the DMV should be able to do whatever it wants, regardless of whether or not it actually has the authority to do it. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: yep. the DMV should be able to do whatever it wants, regardless of whether or not it actually has the authority to do it. So does the federal judciary, and that doesn't seem to bother you. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
I share your concerns. Seems odd that this baby passed unanimously (100-0) through the Senate. :suss: "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: Seems odd that this baby passed unanimously (100-0) My understanding is that Senators know how the vote is going to go long before it is called and if it is going to pass by a wide margin they will all vote in favor so as not to spend time analyzing it too deeply.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Seems odd that this baby passed unanimously (100-0) My understanding is that Senators know how the vote is going to go long before it is called and if it is going to pass by a wide margin they will all vote in favor so as not to spend time analyzing it too deeply.
JWood wrote: if it is going to pass by a wide margin they will all vote in favor so as not to spend time analyzing it too deeply. ...and in doing so they make it impossible for the electorate to analyze their voting records. Grrrr! As a rule, I hate politicians with every fiber of my being. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Easy there, don't get your knickers in a twist. :) My guess is that if you're a citizen of the U.S. and have a driver's license that was issued in the last 5-10 years (maybe more), you've already got an ID that meets these criteria. All Real ID stipulates is that there is "machine readable" information. This could be a bar code, a magnetic stripe, or some kind of smart card (RFID or contact). My guess is that most of you out there already have a license with a bar code and/or magnetic stripe. Smart cards have yet to take off in the U.S. one of the main reasons is that they are very expensive - several dollars for the card itself as opposed to cents. Plus, there's the whole reader infrastructure. Oh, and don't get concerned about being able to be tracked by an RFID card, all the ones I've seen have a reading range of <6". Oh, and they're surprisingly secure (not to say that any security is perfect). BTW - If you're concerned about the fact that all state DMVs need to now be linked together, let me give you a hint - they already were. The FBI and presumably all forms of federal intelligence have been able to search all state DBs for a long time. I think this is a good thing when you're trying to find some sleezeball criminal. The other main focus of Real ID is to prevent illegal aliens from getting driver's licenses and IDs. Since they're already ILLEGAL aliens, I really don't have a problem with this.
The RFID component, I would say if implemented, is outrageous. As to remotely ID'ing, the RFID technology in the RealID card is the passive component. The active component, the reader, can be as advanced as they want to make it. Anti-shoplifting technology is certainly more than 6 inches, more like 6 feet, and that is already implemented and mature technology. I understand the illegal argument, but my question why they are a million aliens freed, is this really their priority? Why are many states considering giving services to illegal immigrants? And the judiciary - not all one group certainly - but I can't imagine that a judge like in Mike Gaskey's reply, would do something like that without some kind of support. Authorities free 1 million aliens amid proceedings[^]
-
Chris Losinger wrote: and that'll be the end of legal abortion murder Probably, but don't confuse this with that abhorent practice of the death penalty. Chris Losinger wrote: since most people, especiallly conservatives, trust the government completely. as long as conservatives dominate elective office. Chris Losinger wrote: what could the DHS possibly be planning to do that they would need to be able to violate the constitution without being punished for it ? I think they're building a fence, but the 9th district court might see it as an infringement of Mexico's soverign right to displace Americans. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
Mike Gaskey wrote: I think they're building a fence AFAIK, that's correct: the DHS wants to extend a border barrier. The problem is that the remaining length of it goes through an environmentally sensitive region and some people are concerned about the impact of the construction, etc. on the flora and fauna there. The clause in the bill is an attempt to get around environmental impact laws. 'til next we type... HAVE FUN!! -- Jesse
-
The DMV lacks the expertise and the statutory authority to act as "an enforcer" for the Department of Homeland Security, a state Supreme Court judge, Karen Smith, wrote in a decision released yesterday.
yep. the DMV should be able to do whatever it wants, regardless of whether or not it actually has the authority to do it. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
The DMV certainly is bothe empowered and oblicgated to verify that drivers licences are only issued to people that are qualified to hold them. No state law permits a person in the country illegally to receive a drivers license. In this context, it is acting only as an enforcer of the rules it is chartered to operate under. The judge is full of Crap. I don't think there is any other country that will issue you a drivers license if you are in that country without valid documenation, nor should they. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: I think they're building a fence AFAIK, that's correct: the DHS wants to extend a border barrier. The problem is that the remaining length of it goes through an environmentally sensitive region and some people are concerned about the impact of the construction, etc. on the flora and fauna there. The clause in the bill is an attempt to get around environmental impact laws. 'til next we type... HAVE FUN!! -- Jesse
assuming the arsTechnica article is correct, the immigration law already exempts the DHS from environmental laws. this "no judicial review" is on top of that. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker