Originally posted by KharmaDog
You're an idiot.
Better to be just an idiot than BOTH an idiot and afraid of the truth about conspiracys like yourself and your other two troll buddies above me 😄 gotcha. 😄 😛 😛 😄 at least Im not so desperate for a certain posters attention that I go on talking to myself posting to them long after they tell me im on their ignore list like you do with me.LOl.Now THATS pathetic.You must have a truely sad life since your so desperate to keep posting to me.I only read your post THIS time for the first time in SEVERAL months cause I knew it had to be something directed at me since that other troll kram3r is here and never visits the conspiracy section.have fun talking to yourself some more. bye and have talking to yourself as always. 🙄
Originally posted by Mr Parker
Better to be just an idiot than BOTH an idiot and afraid of the truth about conspiracys like yourself and your other two troll buddies above me
First, you need to investigate the meaning of "troll" when it comes to forums and psoting, because you obviously misunderstand. Secon, do you realize that you just admitted to being an idiot?
Originally posted by Mr Parker
at least Im not so desperate for a certain posters attention that I go on talking to myself posting to them long after they tell me im on their ignore list like you do with me.LOl.Now THATS pathetic.You must have a truely sad life since your so desperate to keep posting to me.I only read your post THIS time for the first time in SEVERAL months cause I knew it had to be something directed at me since that other troll kram3r is here and never visits the conspiracy section.have fun talking to yourself some more.
This is so sad, yet so entertaining, that I couldn't stop reading it. By the way, thank you for not only conceding to my point that you are an idiot, thank you ever so much for proving it with the above rant.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
Better to be just an idiot than BOTH an idiot and afraid of the truth about conspiracys like yourself and your other two troll buddies above me 😄 gotcha. 😄 😛 😛 😄 at least Im not so desperate for a certain posters attention that I go on talking to myself posting to them long after they tell me im on their ignore list like you do with me.LOl.Now THATS pathetic.You must have a truely sad life since your so desperate to keep posting to me.I only read your post THIS time for the first time in SEVERAL months cause I knew it had to be something directed at me since that other troll kram3r is here and never visits the conspiracy section.have fun talking to yourself some more. bye and have talking to yourself as always. 🙄
you put people on ignore because you're incapable of debating with them after they make you look foolish...then continue to insult people...thus
reported for trolling...ironically
I realized we were in a lot of trouble when I asked my mom about it and see had NO IDEA what I was talking about, and when I asked my dad, he was like, "It's an ok idea, not great, but ok"...
Ben Franklin said it best with this quote:
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security."
This and eavesdropping on people are the lowest of the low...
Shame on the government for proposing this, and shame on the people for eating it up...
Keep it civil in here, folks. Parker, stop pressing your opinions on others. Just because we don't buy into conspiracies doesn't make us sheep or idiots or any of that nonsense. Keep it up and you'll find yourself with a warning.
Parker just happens to be the most blatant, but please, everyone, respect the opinions of others.
A review of U.S. state laws on privacy and driver's licenses shows that there is an enormous variety in the statutes that are on the books in the various states. This has two important implications. First, it is clear that many states do not have adequate protections in place to combat the type of privacy invasions that Real ID will spur, such as the ability of private businesses to grab all your data off the new, standardized "machine readable zones" that Real IDs will be required to contain.
Second, for Real ID to take effect, a lot of states that do have privacy laws and other laws governing driver's licenses will have to scrap or revise those laws. That process will often be complicated, controversial, and time-consuming, and is another of the many practical obstacles that this most impractical Act must overcome.
The following is a chart that provides an overview of the relevant state laws that will require change as a result of Real ID. It was prepared by Min-Jae Lee, Lauren Gelman and Jennifer Granick of the Cyberlaw Clinic of Stanford Law School. It provides state-by-state information based on the following five criteria:
Any mention of liberty or privacy in the state constitution. Real ID is likely to conflict with these fundamental protections.
Any controls over what type of information can be included on a driver's license. That in turn may govern what information can be contained in cards with machine-readable zones, such as bar codes, RFID chips, or magnetic strips. Where they exist, such provisions may need to be harmonized with Real ID - and where they're absent, they could allow the machine-readable zone to expand to contain an ever-growing amount of information about the cardholder.
Any privacy protections that the state currently mandates for the technology employed in the driver's license, such as digital image capture or magnetic strips. For example, some states bar inclusion of social security numbers, or data not on the face of the card, from current magnetic strips to prevent them from expanding into all-encompassing digital dossiers.
Any controls over who has access to the information contained on the physical license or in the MRZ. With a standardized national machine-readable zone, it will become easier than ever for a wide variety of peopl - from police officers and security guards to store clerks to bartenders - to access whatever data is on that license.
Any controls over what data can be collected from driver's licenses, where and for how long that information may be stored, and who is authorized to access that information. Where restrictions are lacking, private-sector companies, for example, will be tempted to begin compiling license data they grab into valuable databases that will be sold or traded.
As the chart demonstrates, many of the statutes crafted by individual states to protect the safety of their roads and the privacy of their citizens will be swept under the rug in favor of an unfunded mandate poised to do little to protect the nation from terrorism. The laundry list of state laws that will need to be revised in the face of the federal statute represents not only an enormously daunting feat for legislators, but also an arrogant, big government rebuke of states' rights.
Overall, it is clear that the Real ID Act's attempt to impose a rigid uniformity upon state licensing practices will have a sweeping impact on state laws protecting citizen and consumer privacy.
In a few states legislation has been introduced that tries to move the states closer to overall compliance with the Act. The fact that each of these bills is distinct in its aims indicates a lack of clarity about what Real ID will actually require.
Despite differences in the individual bills, however, there are several reasons why all these bills are a bad idea:
Real ID isn't a sure thing. As states begin to realize the huge price tag and administrative burden associated with Real ID, more and more are calling for Congress to revisit the Act. With such criticism mounting, it is far from certain the Real ID will take effect in its current form. States that attempt to comply now risk wasting vast sums of money on a misguided law that isn't set in stone.
They are premature. The Department of Homeland Security has yet to issue final regulations describing precisely what states must do to comply with the Real ID Act. The draft regulations that have been published are deeply problematic. Until final rules are in place, it is impossible to know exactly what steps must be taken to comply fully with the Act, and even after carrying out this kind of legislation, motor vehicle departments would not necessarily come into proper compliance.
It is unwise to buy a "pig in a poke." As the old saying goes, it is foolish to pay for something when you don't know what you're getting. Similarly, it is not smart to invest a large amount of state money in a Real ID bill without knowing how far this money will go toward actual compliance, and how much full compliance will ultimately cost.
They are incomplete. All the current bills that attempt to comply with Real ID leave out many required provisions of the Act. For example, many of the systems for document verification are either in their infancy or do not yet exist. Until the final regulations are released, it is impossible for states to draft complete legislation for Real ID implementation.
Passage of any legislation enabling the federal REAL ID Act of 2005 is premature. REAL ID forces almost every American over the age of 16 to carry a common identity document and use it for all federal purposes including flying or entering a federal building. In short it is a National ID. REAL ID law represents a grave danger to the privacy of citizens and lawmakers should be cautious in implementing any of its provisions.
REAL ID will represent an enormous administrative burden. States will likely have to copy, store and verify as many as four different documents in order to grant every drivers license. This will mean long lines for consumers and increased costs, either in the form of higher taxes or license fees. The DMV will also have to change the composition of their license and the way that information is stored in a machine-readable format. The Act also calls for the creation of a system to link all state motor vehicle databases. The cost of these changes is likely to run in the billions of dollars. Currently no federal funds have been appropriated to implement REAL ID.
The Federal Trade Commission estimates that 10 million Americans are victims of identity theft annually. The drivers license contains valuable information for an identity thief including date of birth, gender, driver's license or identification card number, digital photograph, address and signature. Identity thieves recognize this and are increasingly targeting state Motor Vehicle Departments. REAL ID will make drivers license information accessible from tens of thousands of locations across the country.
Requiring the machine-readable elements of the drivers license to be standardized enables the private sector to collect and save this information. Bars swiping licenses to collect personal data on customers will be just the tip of the iceberg as every convenience store learns to grab that data and sell it to data aggregators like ChoicePoint. This data will become part of existing private sector databases not subject even to the limited privacy rules in effect for the government.
In the days after 9/11, President Bush and others proclaimed that we must not let the terrorists change American life. It is now clear that despite its lack of effectiveness against actual terrorism we have allowed our security agencies to push us into making a deep, far-reaching change to the character of American life. Identification is already necessary to board a plane, open a bank account or participate in many routine activities that are part of living in a modern society. REAL ID dramatically expands the use of identification and its intrusions. It was passed without hearing or stand-alone vote on its merits in Congress. The federal government has already abdicated its responsibility to consider the serious issues raised by REAL ID.
REAL ID requires the capture of a digital photograph that lays the groundwork for a sophisticated biometric system that allows for electronic storage and easy comparison against other facial images. The new system envisioned under REAL ID warrants a rethinking of this open access by law enforcement.
Legislators have a duty to see that whatever state level legislation passes regarding REAL ID addresses these real and serious concerns. Moreover, if none of these issues are addressed the state must consider the possibility that, in order to protect the rights of Americans, the states must reject REAL ID and attempt to force Congress to repeal or amend it.
What are the States saying about REAL ID? Not good things:
ALABAMA
Alabama's attempt to take Real ID for a test drive has been a disaster.
"Legislator Says He Will Oppose National License," The Times Daily, February 9, 2007. http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar.../702090328/1011
"Real ID Intrusive, Says State Lawmaker," Tuscaloosa News, February 7, 2007. http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/2007...341/1010/NEWS05
"Driver's License Woes Expected to Get Worse," Tuscaloosa News, November 5, 2006. http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...389/1007/NEWS02
National survey of motor vehicles administrators uncovers deep concern over Real ID across the nation.
"Documents Show Alabama Department of Public Safety has Serious Concerns About New Driver's Licence Law," ACLU Press Release; http://www.aclualabama.org/News/PressRelea...ghts/011306.htm
Mark Harrison, "License confusion possible," [Fort Payne, Alabama] Times-Journal, October 1, 2005 http://times-journal.com/story.lasso?WCD=4641Online >
Alabama officials' response to national survey of DMV's on problems posed by Real ID is available here. http://www.realnightmare.org/images/File/Alabama.pdf
Watch this space for actions you can take to stop Real ID in Alabama
For more information http://www.aclualabama.org/
ALASKA
"Lawmakers Consider Whether to Oppose National ID Card," Associated Press, February 15, 2008. http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=7876038
"Lawmakers Oppose National ID by Opposing Funds for it," Juno Empire, February 15, 2008. http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/021508...247185977.shtml
"Senator Calls Real ID Law an Intrusion," Anchorage Daily News, February 15, 2008. http://www.adn.com/front/story/315722.html
"The Answer Still is No," Anchorage Daily News Editorial, January 18, 2007. http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/286462.html
"'Real ID' Meets Opposition from State Lawmaker," KTUU News, January 12, 2008. http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=7617024
"National ID Card Proposal a Bad Idea," Anchorage Daily News Editorial, September 10, 2007. http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/091007...070910001.shtml
"Big Brother is Almost Here," Juneau Empire, July 13, 2007. http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/071307...esoped001.shtml
"Real ID Act has some concerned," KTUU Anchorage, March 4, 2007. http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=6175984&nav=menu510_2
Jo Dee Pederson, "Yes, I really am Jo Dee. Still. Really." Anchorage Daily News, November 1, 2006. http://dwb.adn.com/opinion/compass/story/8...p-8260700c.html
Alaska refuses to go forward with national ID system: SB-189 dies in committee. http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_sch...80000&comm=HSTA
ARIZONA
"Arizona GOP Lawmakers Vow Fight Against 3-in-1 License," The Daily Dispatch, December 17, 2007. http://www.douglasdispatch.com/articles/20...74691979267.txt
"Unlikely Allies Unite to Fight Enhanced-ID Plan," Arizona Republic, December 13, 2007. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/l...icense1213.html
"Senate Bill on Path to Ignore Real ID," Tuscon Citizen, March 8, 2007. http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/44228.php
"Arizona Senate OKs Complaint About ID Law," Tuscon Citizen, February 20, 2007. http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/42508.php
"Bills Would Protect Arizona's Wallets, Privacy," Arizona Daily Star, February 13, 2007. http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/168921
"Feds Need to Add Reality to Real ID," East Valley Tribune Editorial, February 11, 2007. http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/83929
"No One Certain What Real ID Act Will Cost Arizona," Yuma Sun, January 12, 2006.
Arizona legislation prohibiting the Real ID Act. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/48leg/2r/bills/hb2677p.htm
Originally posted by Bat Dude
I realized we were in a lot of trouble when I asked my mom about it and see had NO IDEA what I was talking about, and when I asked my dad, he was like, "It's an ok idea, not great, but ok"...Ben Franklin said it best with this quote:
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security."
This and eavesdropping on people are the lowest of the low...
Shame on the government for proposing this, and shame on the people for eating it up...
very well spoken my man. 👆