Big Brother wants to know everything about you...... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Hardknock · 05-04-2005, 11:16 PM

They want to take away the freedom to move around in my own country. The want fingerprint, identification data and iris information in passports later this decade. They want to be able to use radio transmitting passports to keep track of everyone and their movements. Any state that doesn't comply with this automatically turns it's citizens into foreigners as the federal agencies won't accept a regular license after 2008. This is fucking insane!!!!! We're losing our freedoms by the day!!

This reminds me of Star Wars. The citizens of Courscant gave up their freedom in the name of security to defeat the seperaatists. But look what happened. One power hungry freak took over everything and then the empire rose and it took a rebellion to defeat it. Ok, Why do these actual events look freakishly similar to some movie?

Quote:

National ID cards on the way?
Published: February 14, 2005, 4:00 AM PST
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
TrackBack Print E-mail TalkBack

A recent vote in Congress endorsing standardized, electronically readable driver's licenses has raised fears about whether the proposal would usher in what amounts to a national ID card.

In a vote that largely divided along party lines, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a Republican-backed measure that would compel states to design their driver's licenses by 2008 to comply with federal antiterrorist standards. Federal employees would reject licenses or identity cards that don't comply, which could curb Americans' access to everything from airplanes to national parks and some courthouses.

The congressional maneuvering takes place as governments are growing more interested in implanting technology in ID cards to make them smarter and more secure. The U.S. State Department soon will begin issuing passports with radio frequency identification, or RFID, chips embedded in them, and Virginia may become the first state to glue RFID tags into all its driver's licenses.
News.context

What's new:
A recent vote in Congress endorsing standardized, electronically readable driver's licenses has raised fears about whether the proposal would usher in what amounts to a national ID card.

Bottom line:
Proponents of the Real ID Act say it's needed to frustrate both terrorists and illegal immigrants. Critics say it imposes more requirements for identity documents on states, and gives the Department of Homeland Security carte blanche to do nearly anything else "to protect the national security interests of the United States."

More stories on privacy and national security

"Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary," Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of the eight Republicans to object to the measure, said during the floor debate this week. "However, any state that opts out will automatically make nonpersons out of its citizens. They will not be able to fly or to take a train."

Paul warned that the legislation, called the Real ID Act, gives unfettered authority to the Department of Homeland Security to design state ID cards and driver's licenses. Among the possibilities: biometric information such as retinal scans, fingerprints, DNA data and RFID tracking technology.

Proponents of the Real ID Act say it adheres to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and is needed to frustrate both terrorists and illegal immigrants. Only a portion of the legislation regulates ID cards; the rest deals with immigration law and asylum requests. "American citizens have the right to know who is in their country, that people are who they say they are, and that the name on the driver's license is the real holder's name, not some alias," F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., said last week.

"If these commonsense reforms had been in place in 2001, they would have hindered the efforts of the 9/11 terrorists, and they will go a long way toward helping us prevent another tragedy like 9/11," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Now the Real ID Act heads to the Senate, where its future is less certain. Senate rules make it easier for politicians to derail legislation, and an aide said Friday that Sen. Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, was concerned about portions of the bill.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on a terrorism subcommittee, said "I basically support the thrust of the bill" in an e-mail to CNET News.com on Friday. "The federal government should have the ability to issue standards that all driver's licenses and identification documents should meet."

"Spy-D" cards?
National ID cards are nothing new, of course. Many European, Asian and South American countries require their citizens to carry such documents at all times, with legal punishments in place for people caught without them. Other nations that share the English common law tradition, including Australia and New Zealand, have rejected such schemes.

A host of political, cultural and even religious concerns has prevented a national ID from being adopted in the United States, even during the tumultuous days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that ushered in the Patriot Act.

Conservatives and libertarians typically argue that a national ID card will increase the power of the government, and they fear the dehumanizing effects of laws enacted as a result. Civil liberties groups tend to worry about the administrative problems, the opportunities for criminal mischief, and the potential irreversibility of such a system.

Some evangelical Christians have likened such a proposal to language in the Bible warning "that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." That mark is the sign of the "end times," according to evangelical thinking, which predicts that anyone who accepts the mark will be doomed to eternal torment.

Those long-standing concerns have become more pointed recently, thanks to the opportunity for greater tracking--as well as potentially greater security for ID documents--that technologies such as RFID provide. Though the Real ID act does not specify RFID or biometric technology, it requires that the Department of Homeland Security adopt "machine-readable technology" standards and provides broad discretion in how to do it.

An ad hoc alliance of privacy groups and technologists recently has been fighting proposals from the International Civil Aviation Organization to require that passports and other travel documents be outfitted with biometrics and remotely readable RFID-type "contact-less integrated circuits."

The ICAO, a United Nations organization, argues the measures are necessary to reduce fraud, combat terrorism and improve airline security. But its critics have raised questions about how the technology could be misused by identity thieves with RFID readers, and they say it would "promote irresponsible national behavior."

In the United States, the federal government is planning to embed RFID chips in all U.S. passports and some foreign visitor's documents. The U.S. State Department is now evaluating so-called e-passport technology from eight different companies. The agency plans to select a supplier and issue the first e-passports this spring, starting in Los Angeles, and predicts that all U.S. passport agencies will be issuing them within a year.

The high-tech passports are supposed to deter theft and forgeries, as well as accelerate immigration checks at airports and borders. They'll contain within their covers a miniscule microchip that stores basic data, including the passport holder's name, date of birth and place of birth. The chip, which can transmit information through a tiny included antenna, also has enough room to store biometric data such as digitized fingerprints, photographs and iris scans.

Battle near for PDF market?
Border officials can compare the information on the chip to that on the rest of the passport and to the person actually carrying it. Discrepancies could signal foul play.

In a separate program, the Department of Homeland Security plans to issue RFID devices to foreign visitors that enter the country at the Mexican and Canadian borders. The agency plans to start a yearlong test of the technology in July at checkpoints in Arizona, New York and Washington state.

The idea is to aid immigration officials in tracking visitors' arrivals and departures and snare those who overstay their visas. Similar to e-passports, the new system should speed up inspection procedures. It's part of the US-VISIT program, a federal initiative designed to capture and share data such as fingerprints and photographs of foreign visitors.

A "Trojan horse"
The legislation approved by the House last Thursday follows a related measure President Bush signed into law in December. That law gives the Transportation Department two years to devise standard rules for state licenses, requires information to be stored in "machine-readable" format, and says noncompliant ID cards won't be accepted by federal agencies.

But critics fret that the new bill goes even further. It shifts authority to the Department of Homeland Security, imposes more requirements for identity documents on states, and gives the department carte blanche to do nearly anything else "to protect the national security interests of the United States."

"In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse," said Paul, the Republican congressman. "It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty."

Unlike last year's measure, the Real ID Act "doesn't even mention the word 'privacy,'" said Marv Johnson, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union.

"What I think the House is planning on doing is attaching this bill to tsunami relief or money to the troops," Johnson says. "When they send it to the Senate, the Senate will have to either fish or cut bait. They can approve it or ask for a conference committee, at which point the House can say 'they're playing games with national security.'"

In response to a question about a national ID card, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters on Friday that "the president supports the legislation that just passed the House." McClellan pointed to a statement from the White House earlier in the week that endorsed it.

Another section of the Real ID Act that has raised alarms is the linking of state Department of Motor Vehicles databases, which was not part of last year's law. Among the information that must be shared: "All data fields printed on drivers' licenses and identification cards" and complete drivers' histories, including motor vehicle violations, suspensions and points on licenses.

Some senators have indicated they may rewrite part of the measure once they begin deliberations.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., chairman of a terrorism subcommittee, is readying his own bill that will be introduced within a few weeks, spokesman Andrew Wilder said on Friday. "He has been at work on his own version of things," Wilder said. "Senator Kyl does support biometric identifiers."

CNET News.com's Alorie Gilbert contributed to this report.

scout · 05-05-2005, 02:13 AM

Ironic that such a "conservative" party could vote in good conscience {sp?.. hey it's early}what appears to be the precursor to the "mark of the beast". Who woulda thunk the religous base of the Republican party could have actually voted in the people who will contribute so heavily to their own demise so to speak. Talk about a "wolf in sheeps clothing". Pretty scary.

samcol · 05-05-2005, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

Ironic that such a "conservative" party could vote in good conscience {sp?.. hey it's early}what appears to be the precursor to the "mark of the beast". Who woulda thunk the religous base of the Republican party could have actually voted in the people who will contribute so heavily to their own demise so to speak. Talk about a "wolf in sheeps clothing". Pretty scary.

This is so scary. I wonder what non belivers will do if we actually get a chip in our right hand or forehead to buy and sell. All signs are pointing in that direction and this national ID thing is just one step closer.

superiorrain · 05-05-2005, 06:34 AM

You're bloody right, peoples so called fear to terrorism is forcing us to give up our liberties on a daily bases. I don't mind carrying id around on me as long as all it contains is my name, address and d.o.b. Thats all, nothing more for me please, the day they want my finger print will be the day i join the government and try and eliminate myself from their records.

ObieX · 05-05-2005, 06:59 AM

Most people aren't really afraid of terrorism. At this point it's just an excuse to get crazy stuff passed. If you vote against it you are accused of hating America and working witht he terrorists. Vote against something like this and you're tagged as "unAmerican"... whatever that means. Imprison half the country and tag everyone.. that'll solve everything, sure.

What follows this will be - requirement to carry this at all times, if you don't then say hello to jail/fines/prison. Then this will be used as an excuse to make things even more strict... people refuse to carry their trackers around? Well then, we'll just have to implant them.

kutulu · 05-05-2005, 09:02 AM

I think this belongs in Paranioa. There is no evidence pointing to them forcing biometric data or any other crap in there. All it currently does is replace 50 individual DL's with one card. This 'article' is short on fact and long on speculation.

I am usually quick to protest what I see as an invasion of privacy but as long as this only contains the information listed on a current DL I think it's a great idea. We cannot expect people from govt workers to bar bouncers to be able to tell if a specific ID card is in fact valid. This would make ID validation much easier.

maryjane · 05-05-2005, 09:11 AM

Very simple....vote libertarian, or democratic at the very least.

host · 05-05-2005, 10:45 AM

The "Real ID Act" will be passed next week, pointing out again to people who voted for this administration and legislative represenatives that you are complicit and culpable for the damage it does in this country and in the world. Please reevaluate what you want your government to do, because it is our government, too, and it is destroying the principles that it is supposed to stand for.

Quote:

http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story...5-04-05&cat=AN
By BILL STRAUB
Scripps Howard News Service
May 04, 2005

WASHINGTON - A bill endorsed by the Bush administration that would set rules for states that issue driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants could come to a vote in the House Thursday and appears well on its way to becoming law.

Under a compromise between House and Senate negotiators, states would be limited to providing special permits that identify the holder as an illegal alien. Anyone possessing the license would not be permitted to proffer it as identification to board an airplane or enter a federal building.

Proponents assert the change is necessary to further bolster U.S. security while addressing what they view as a growing crisis in illegal immigration.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., the House Judiciary Committee chairman and the measure's prime sponsor, said it will, if passed, protect U.S. citizens from terrorists, drug smugglers, alien gangs and violent criminals.

"This legislation is aimed at preventing another 9/11-type attack by disrupting terrorist travel and bolstering our border security," he said. "Giving driver's licenses that can be used as identification to anyone, regardless of whether they are here legally or whether we know who they really are, is an open invitation for terrorists and criminals to exploit."

But Angela Kelley - deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington-based, pro-immigrant advocacy organization - said the bill is "misguided, ineffective and distracts the immigration debate from what we really need to be doing, which is fixing the broken system comprehensively."..

............. Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims, said during a Wednesday hearing that "our nation's immigration policy has not operated in the best interests of American workers, at least over the last few years."

"Native-born Americans have not seen any increase in employment in recent years," Hostettler said. "In fact, the number of jobs they hold has decreased. At the same time, the number of employed immigrants has risen substantially."

Despite the potential deleterious impact on American jobs, President Bush continues to push for the creation of a guest worker program that would permit undocumented immigrants to hold a job and even apply for American citizenship.......

Last november, Florida voters by a margin of 7 to 3, passed a referendum that refuted Bush's efforts to keep wages depressed via his immigration policies. Bush's immigration policy is unAmerican, and anti worker. Grass roots organizers had to bypass Bush's bro and the Fla. legislature to make progress.

Quote:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...home-headlines
An estimated 399,000 workers _ less than 5 percent of the state's 8.5 million-person work force _ will benefit when Florida's minimum wage jumps to $6.15 an hour, a dollar above the federal minimum wage. The minimum wage will be indexed to inflation each year.

Seven out of 10 voters in November approved the constitutional amendment boosting the minimum wage. The change was led by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now and marked the community organization's first major statewide victory since starting operations in Florida three years ago. The group plans to operate a hot line for workers to call if their employers aren't adjusting to the wage increase.

Quote:

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Safe...ID=18112&c=206
.......The House sent the Real ID Act to the Senate as part of a "must pass" appropriations measure for the war in Iraq and tsunami relief. Despite objections from Senators that such sweeping changes should not happen without thorough review, House Republican leaders are pushing to keep Real ID in the final conference report. The ACLU noted that neither chamber has held hearings or held thorough discussions on the measure.

The ACLU has been joined in opposition to the Real ID act by a myriad of groups, including the National Association of Evangelicals, the Ancient Order of Hibernians, the National Council of State Legislatures, the National Governors Association and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.

The act goes against international law and allows government officials to demand written "corroboration" from those seeking asylum. For instance, a Chinese woman seeking asylum after being forced to have an abortion could be required to obtain proof of her abuse from the doctors who performed the procedure.

Additionally, the Real ID Act would waive all state and federal laws to give the Department of Homeland Security unconditional authority to build barriers along the entire border -- placing private property in the hands of federal agents for a "land grab" for national security purposes.

The act also takes us one step closer to a national ID, and a "show us your papers" society by forcing states to link their databases -- containing every licensed driver’s personal information -- with other states and with Canada and Mexico. The act includes no guidelines as to who will have access to that information.

"The Real ID Act would undermine the changes made to drivers’ licenses last year by the intelligence reform legislation," said Timothy H. Sparapani, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Even now, an independent panel is examining the issue of drivers licenses. Their work would be in vain if Real ID passes. Congress must reject it."

Quote:

http://www.theunionleader.com/articl...?article=53899
THE REAL ID Act, passed 261-161 in the U.S. House in February, includes a complex array of provisions its sponsor says are designed to catch terrorists, but which seem more pointedly focused on curbing illegal immigration. That’s not a bad thing, but this bill goes about it the wrong way.

One provision states: “Before issuing a driver’s license or identification card to a person, the State shall verify, with the issuing agency, the issuance, validity, and completeness of each document required to be presented by the person. . .”

Those required documents are: a photo ID, proof of one’s date of birth, proof of one’s Social Security number or proof of ineligibility for one, and proof of residence.

Most states already require proof of citizenship and residency before granting a driver’s license. But under this provision, DMV clerks would have to presume that all documents showing citizenship and residency are invalid, then spend as long as it takes to verify them. More than half of New Hampshire residents were born in other states. DMV clerks here would have to contact other states to verify birth certificates, then contact landlords, mortgage companies and utility companies to verify proof of residency. Think lines at the DMV are bad now? Just wait.

Under current law, state and federal officials have about three-and-a-half years to develop and make operational a set of standards for verifying the identity of driver’s license applicants. The REAL ID Act would replace that law with a set of mandates from Washington with no input from the states, and require that it all get done in three years — just a few months earlier than the collaborative effort that involves state officials...............

superiorrain · 05-05-2005, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

I think this belongs in Paranioa. There is no evidence pointing to them forcing biometric data or any other crap in there. All it currently does is replace 50 individual DL's with one card. This 'article' is short on fact and long on speculation.

Biometric is being spoken about alot, especially here in the UK and for that matter it has been said here at least, that in the future, if i wanted to enter your great land then i would need some kind of biometric passport. Do not dismiss it as 'unlikely' to happen. Because it will, and i assume it will happen soon 5-10 years. Outlook not rosey.

kutulu · 05-05-2005, 11:51 AM

National ID card or not doesn't matter. If they want to include biometeric data they will do so and it won't make a difference if it's required on state issued ID cards or fed issued id cards so again, how does a national id card change things?

Hardknock · 05-05-2005, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

I think this belongs in Paranioa. There is no evidence pointing to them forcing biometric data or any other crap in there. All it currently does is replace 50 individual DL's with one card. This 'article' is short on fact and long on speculation.

I am usually quick to protest what I see as an invasion of privacy but as long as this only contains the information listed on a current DL I think it's a great idea. We cannot expect people from govt workers to bar bouncers to be able to tell if a specific ID card is in fact valid. This would make ID validation much easier.

Read the article again. It talka about using biometric data to track all of us. If you think that this is just an "improved" DL and the government have all out best intentions in mind, then I don't know what you've been smoking really.

kutulu · 05-05-2005, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

Read the article again. It talka about using biometric data to track all of us. If you think that this is just an "improved" DL and the government have all out best intentions in mind, then I don't know what you've been smoking really.

No it mentions that biometric data could be used for identify verification and SPECULATES that the govt will require it. Biometric data cannot be used to 'track' you. It's not as if we'd have some satellite system that everyone is plugged into. This is exactly why this belongs in paranoia.

I think you are the one who needs to RTFA without the alarmist bias. Here are a few quotes:

Quote:

The congressional maneuvering takes place as governments are growing more interested in implanting technology in ID cards to make them smarter and more secure. The U.S. State Department soon will begin issuing passports with radio frequency identification, or RFID, chips embedded in them, and Virginia may become the first state to glue RFID tags into all its driver's licenses.

That is regarding passports and Virginia STATE issued IDs, not federal ids.

Quote:

Paul warned that the legislation, called the Real ID Act, gives unfettered authority to the Department of Homeland Security to design state ID cards and driver's licenses. Among the possibilities: biometric information such as retinal scans, fingerprints, DNA data and RFID tracking technology.

Speculation. These are all things that are possible to do, nobody has officially said that any of these WILL be used.

Quote:

Some evangelical Christians have likened such a proposal to language in the Bible warning "that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." That mark is the sign of the "end times," according to evangelical thinking, which predicts that anyone who accepts the mark will be doomed to eternal torment.

That isn't alarmist fearmongering?

It never states that any RFID or biometric data WILL be required or that there will be some sort of national ID card. Because neither is strictly forbidden, critics SPECULATE that one or all may happen but it IS speculation.

Now, again, assuming that both cards have exactly the same information; what is exactly WRONG with having a national id card instead of 50 different state issued ids?

arch13 · 05-05-2005, 02:30 PM

No government has the right to demand my fingerprints, iris data, or other biometrics.
There is no law that says I must provide this information, and quite frankly, it's a violation of my natural rights to live free of any governments controll.
I direct you to amendment X to remind anyone objecting to my view that this power was never given to the federal government.

Edit
Kutulu: The objection is that if the government issues the crad, then the government maintains the database from which the card's information is stored. The belief is that the government should not be able to access this information without a court order, which the current status qou maintains. If the fedearl government controlled the database, the information would be availible without having to gain a judges permission.

Hardknock · 05-05-2005, 03:34 PM

Well said arch13

We all know that the Bush administration has already been working trying to bypass the judicial branch since the judges (who are conservative by the way not the evil liberals that the Republicans always claim when something doesn't go their way), keep ruling against them. Recent examples are: Terry Schaivo, gay marriage, and now this. The problem with a national ID card is that all our data will be in a centralized location. Just ripe for the pickin' for abuse by identity thieves and the like. (If you believe that this database will be totally secure you're dreamin') Right now, the government has to subpoena to get information. And if it doesn't, they have to go to multiple sources to get it.

I'll reiterate, THERE IS NOW LAW SAYING THAT THIS IS REQUIRED! (Yet, unfortunately) We are a free nation. Not to be under the microscope of a government that wants to "protect us" under the fear of terrorism. Do you think the bad guys are going to go to the DMV to get a ID card?!? Only to be met with "gosh, you're a terrorist, we can't give you an ID card." This won't keep any of them out of the country either, because THEY'RE ALREADY HERE!!!

I'm sick of Bush playing the "terrorism" card and instilling fear in everyone just so he can get his shit passed. This country needs to wake the fuck up look around and see what is happening to ourselves!! We're letting them do this to us!

This is bullshit, Bush is going too far, he needs to be impeached and I want my country back!!

samcol · 05-06-2005, 07:07 PM

Well it looks like the Real ID act will definetly pass now (368-58 in the house). It will pass through that military spending bill. Please realize that both parties failed here. The Republicans sneaked it through the appropriations bill, and the Democrats went ahead and voted for it. This is the kind of thing I've been trying to get at lately. The Republicans are doing the wrong thing, and the Democrats are at the least complacent with it. Only 57 Democrats voted against it.

When will the Democratic base realize that its leaders aren't doing anything for it? They cave in on almost every major issue. Then you have the Republicans proposing this type of Orwelian legislation? Supporting either major party at this point seems foolish to me.

moosenose · 05-07-2005, 07:52 AM

I hate to tell y'all this, but the information to be on the ID cards has been kept by the government for years. Don't believe me? Send a FOIA request to your State Police requesting all information in their databases about you. You'll be SHOCKED to see what it returns, even if you've never been arrested.

arch13 · 05-07-2005, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

I hate to tell y'all this, but the information to be on the ID cards has been kept by the government for years. Don't believe me? Send a FOIA request to your State Police requesting all information in their databases about you. You'll be SHOCKED to see what it returns, even if you've never been arrested.

Do me a favor moosenose, take your foor out of your mouth while you still can.
State databases are not accessable by federal authorities without a court order. As it has been pointed out, this is one step closer to the Federal gov maintaining a database. Right now all Washington knows about anyone is their name, age, and social. Social has no location information attatched to it, nor does name and age. In fact everytime Uncle Sam needs to know where you live he has to call up the IRS and ask them what the address is on your W2.
I beleive in the real America, the one free of government intervention in the name of "saftey". Where the government is never allowed to know more than it barely needs to function and not one peice of information more. A small government is a good government. A small constrained government chokes power from Washington. Becuase our country is founded only on the basis that our government will do what is needed to continue, and not a damn thing more.
When you show me how this isn't a violation of Amendment X on the basis that this has always been delegated to the state as a right, we'll talk. Until then it's a violation of our founding principals and is simply waiting for the supreme court review on the baisis of violating states rights.

moosenose · 05-07-2005, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arch13

Do me a favor moosenose, take your foor out of your mouth while you still can.
State databases are not accessable by federal authorities without a court order.

Really? Are you sure about that? If that's the case, how does the national NICS system know who has been convicted of STATE crimes? How does AFIS get routine access to State fingerprint databases?

The Federal government can not access certain databases without a court order, that's true. But those databases are TAX databases. Anything involving items of public record (like criminal convictions, addresses, et cetera) can be accessed by the Feds, just as they can be accessed by private citizens.

You HAVE heard of FOIA, haven't you?

arch13 · 05-07-2005, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

Really? Are you sure about that? If that's the case, how does the national NICS system know who has been convicted of STATE crimes? How does AFIS get routine access to State fingerprint databases?

The Federal government can not access certain databases without a court order, that's true. But those databases are TAX databases. Anything involving items of public record (like criminal convictions, addresses, et cetera) can be accessed by the Feds, just as they can be accessed by private citizens.

You HAVE heard of FOIA, haven't you?

First Moosenose, I would like to apologize for telling you to take your foot out of your mouth. The TFP is about civil discussion and the first sentance of my last post was not in that spirit. I was frustrated with some of your comments, and that is no excuse.

As for your post:

The NICS (Which I admit I had to look up) system dependes on state cooperation. Any state may deny a request to it's database at any time for any reason, and require an (court) order to reinstate access. While this never happens in practice, that safeguard exists for a reason, to prevent abuse to the system. The FBI or other federal agencies do not have unfettered access for this reason. Federal access is considered "In good faith" and is not enshrined in laws requiring said access. In other words, crime databases are shared at will because it is in the best interest of everyone to do so.

As for the state fingerprint records, here is a little known fact: Anyone exonorated (sp?) of a crime may have their fingerprints removed from these databases. Fingerprinting when arrested or charged are not considered to be a willing action on the part of the indivigual to provide that information. That does not apply to those pardoned or commuted sentences, but does apply for anyone found not guilty after a trial. They must request it, but it is expected upon request. Only fingerprints of those convicted (who through conviction abdicate some rights) or those that "donate" their fingerprints (for example to help prove innocence) may be kept indefinatly.

Addresses are public record, though some address databases are not. Selective services does not provide access to any gov agancy of it's database of 18-24 year old males. (Though I know that advertisers would love that information). Not even the armed services can access the database without congressional approval (interesting side note in my research: The executive branch is not empowered to ever view that database). That's why the military does not contact people who do not provide their information freely for recruitment.

FOIA may only be exercised (freely) by citizens and NGO's. Federal agency's most get departmental approval to file an FOIA.

My point is that each system has safeguards, and no governmental organization has unfettered access.
For example, these new cards would contain Iris data or DNA data. These are two dangerous peices of information. As I cannot legaly be compelled to provide a fingerprint for access to governmental functions as a citizen, I suspect that these will be defeated on the basis that these peices of information can also be defined as personal information not subject to government requirement.

I cannot as a citizen accept the idea of having to provide such information, and the courts have set precedent as such.

I would not and will not provide my DNA or genetic makeup to any gov agency, as a matter of personal private right.
To illustrate my point, even if a murder had occured (like on Cape Cod) and the police where asking for DNA samples to solve the case, I would still not provide it without a signed agreement that all DNA not matching would be destroyed, along with all testing records. The police did not provide this is in the Cape Cod case, and many refused to provide their DNA because of it.

moosenose · 05-08-2005, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arch13

While this never happens in practice, that safeguard exists for a reason, to prevent abuse to the system. The FBI or other federal agencies do not have unfettered access for this reason. Federal access is considered "In good faith" and is not enshrined in laws requiring said access. In other words, crime databases are shared at will because it is in the best interest of everyone to do so.

When the government decides it's in the best interest to share information, they do it, unless there are criminal penalties for doing so, such as with tax information. Even with tax information, they often get around the restrictions if they really want to.

Quote:

Only fingerprints of those convicted (who through conviction abdicate some rights) or those that "donate" their fingerprints (for example to help prove innocence) may be kept indefinatly.

Heh. I've never been criminally fingerprinted. I have been "voluntarily" fingerprinted dozens, if not hundreds, of times, for reasons as diverse as getting a CCW permit to getting a job.

Quote:

FOIA may only be exercised (freely) by citizens and NGO's. Federal agency's most get departmental approval to file an FOIA.

Lots of agencies people think of as being governmental are technically not. For example, NPR and Public broadcasting are not considered to be governmental organizations. Strange, but true. And they CAN make FOIA requests, which the government must comply with.

Quote:

As I cannot legaly be compelled to provide a fingerprint for access to governmental functions as a citizen, I suspect that these will be defeated on the basis that these peices of information can also be defined as personal information not subject to government requirement.

Try and buy a firearm regulated by the National Firearms Act. No fingerprints, no approval. Hell, try and cash a friggin CHECK with a value over a couple of thousand dollars, and you'll most likely be required to provide the bank a fingerprint, which they can and do GIVE to the government. Also, locally, the CLEO has "asked" (but actually requires) all pharmacies in town to get a fingerprint of people who have certain perscriptions filled. Those fingerprints are "voluntarily" turned over to the police every week. Pretty fucking scary, eh?

BTW, I'm not saying I SUPPORT ANY of this. I'm just telling you how things actually are already.

flstf · 05-08-2005, 11:40 PM

I think Bill Gates wrote in his book "The Road Ahead" back in 1996 that one day we would have wallet PCs (the size of credit cards) with built in GPS. The information would be fed into government computers for storage and the government would know where each of us was within a few feet at any time in our lives.

It has been a while since I read the book but I believe he thought this was a good thing since the information could be used to prove you were elsewhere when a crime was commited, etc...

It's a brave new world,

Hardknock · 05-08-2005, 11:53 PM

Or it could be used to frame you to put you in a place where a crime was THOUGHT to have been committed so they can close the case and lock you away. This is the US government we're talking about after all.

One of the reasons why this is unconstitutional and shouldn't happen.

DoubleK · 05-09-2005, 02:07 AM

I find no end of amusement in people coming online and freely, with no fear of consequences, becomming eccentric about having their freedoms stolen.

Spoiled people in this country cry "stolen rights" at the drop of a hat. What right do you actually lose by having a national ID card? The right to be held up in another state when some seventeen year old clerk is trying to figure out if your out-of-state ID is valid? The right to be an illegal immigrant? The right to break the law with reckless abandon? "They're stealing our rights" is the wolf of the digital age.

samcol · 05-12-2005, 05:40 AM

If you can't beat them join them. I guess that's the new motto for the Democrats, as the Senate passed the Real ID act 100-0. When will the Democrats realize that their leaders are doing nothing for them. The Democrats will talk all day long about how bad Bush is with the Orwellian legislation, but they go ahead and vote along with it. I think the votes show where they really stand.

frogza · 05-12-2005, 06:02 AM

I don't see a problem with this, but then I don't have anything I feel I need to hide.

In regards to a standardized DL code, that would be wonderfull. After looking at the different drivers license laws in all the states it looks like D.C. is the only place where they actually thought things through before enacting the law. So hopefully that is the one that becomes national.

Mondak · 05-12-2005, 06:04 AM

I have been trying to stay away from Tilted Politics, but it is roughly a year since I have been here so I will pipe up.

We really have to be worried about things that pass 100-0 in the senate. If this was such a wonderful idea that is completely unopposed, then it begs the question, why wasn't it done sooner? These fools that run our country just don't think for themselves and get caught up in things like this. They are such a bunch of pathetic followers, I can't believe it.

I don't like this National ID one bit. Not at all. They keep chipping away at things and get bolder with every bite.

Dwayne · 05-12-2005, 06:26 PM

From what I understand the reason this act passed was because it was attatched to another Bill that gave more bennifits to soldiers. So if anyone voted nay, then they would be called Unpatriotic. I will see about finding the article I read this in. I am scared shitless though of the ramifications of what could happen with a National ID. When they start putting rf chips on my person im buying a rf jammer.

jbw97361 · 05-12-2005, 08:06 PM

mondak, when both parties agree on something, we are definitely being screwed over.
That being said, I am somewhat against the idea of a national ID system. We already have a national ID, its called the social security number. The reason why this has such support among "republicans" is the whole illegal alien issue. Currently in my wonderful state of oregon, you don't really need to prove that you are a US citizen to get a drivers liscence, and by extension, voting rites. That said, its also possible under the current bass ackwards system in my state to get multiple drivers liscences and voter registration cards. In fact, it is fairly easy; I seem to remember a local radio host doing it just to prove a point.

The only sort of bill that I would support would be one that establishes basic guidelines by which drivers liscences are issued.

*SIDE NOTE* I think the system of lumping on unattractive appendages to show pony bills is crap.

Willravel · 05-13-2005, 11:37 AM

I want my ID card to read "Brown eyes and loves long walks on the beach...", but not too much beyond that. I'm not a number, just I'm some dude. Good Star Wars comparison, too. (Episodes 1-3 are supposedly about modern politics, according to an interview I read last year)

Elphaba · 05-13-2005, 05:39 PM

I am curious. What exactly do you or I need to fear about a unified DL code? Granted, I never bought into the UN black helicopters with jack booted invaders conspiracy thing, so perhaps I am just naive.

Interstate cooperation on DL information has kept me from hiring liars, and "road criminals." Frankly, I consider that an asset.

smicer · 05-13-2005, 05:54 PM

Everyone that lives in America already has a National ID. Its called a social security number.

arch13 · 05-13-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I am curious. What exactly do you or I need to fear about a unified DL code? Granted, I never bought into the UN black helicopters with jack booted invaders conspiracy thing, so perhaps I am just naive.

Interstate cooperation on DL information has kept me from hiring liars, and "road criminals." Frankly, I consider that an asset.

I think the answer to your queston lies here:

Quote:

Paul warned that the legislation, called the Real ID Act, gives unfettered authority to the Department of Homeland Security to design state ID cards and driver's licenses. Among the possibilities: biometric information such as retinal scans, fingerprints, DNA data and RFID tracking technology.

This would not be raising alarms if the introducing legislature of this bill had not already suggested that we should create a national DNA database and that IRIS scans should be recorded of every citizen for the purpose of "national security"
The problem here is twofold. The statement "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is used by some to explain this as a needed security measure. I remember that sentance. From Animal Farm. For people who believe in small government that does not intrude, this is offensive and a violation of the country they love.
The second problem is much more direct. I should not ever have to give up that information. While it de facto does, I should never be compelled to allow the government to track me. Our founding documents talk of freedom of movement, but the possability of RFID tracking and and having to surrender my identity data means I did pay for my movement in exchange for said data.
A police officer should always have to ask me for my ID and not ever be able to read it via RFID from 15 feet away. I could care less if that makes their jobs more difficult and decreases the security of our country (Do you perceive it as insecure right now?

, Becuase that is what this amendment say it is).

I belive that a DL is a states right issue and that this is the oppisite of small government. I also beleive that no public official should ever be able to know the identity's of those around them simply by reading the wireless signal from their ID's. And I beleive that the government has no legal basis to ever compel me to submit any biologicaly identifying data just for the basic right of free movement.

Elphaba · 05-13-2005, 08:53 PM

I agree with you on many levels. This new version of the Republican party isn't anything I have seen before; ie. fiscal responsibility, small government, etc. The Patriot Act has had my hackles up since it manifested itself days after 9/11.

But you are speculating on what may come with a unified DL code when it is nearly in place among all 50 states now. HSD can't even get our borders protected by requiring passports without being second guessed by the administration. Do you actually believe that we will go from a digital photo that seems perfectly reasonable to me, to transmitting our presence to anyone with a receiver?

It is not my intention to be rude or offensive to you. I simply feel very comfortable with a unified DL code. I honestly don't think individual state's would balk at the proposal, but I agree that it is their right to do so.

thingstodo · 05-15-2005, 08:12 AM

It's all about control. That begins with being in power. The next step of the equation is getting elected. Add in getting re-elected. Repeat, rinse, repeat.

So, it only follows that these folks will do whatever it takes to remain in control. Because if they remain in control, they remain in power and the cycle continues. Anything that is good for everyone is pretty much done to maintain the illusion.

That's my simplified version of all this that has been discussed.

Hardknock · 05-15-2005, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smicer

Everyone that lives in America already has a National ID. Its called a social security number.

Can the gov't pull state records with just that SSN alone?

I didn't think so. Not without justification. That's called a warrant. With a national database, the gov't won't have to have justification to do any of this stuff anymore. It's all about centralization.

analog · 05-31-2005, 10:51 PM

It's interesting how some would call this a knee-jerk reaction, or how it belongs in paranoia when the people talking about the bill so loosely and frequently invoke the Holy 9/11. I must have seen 9/11 and "terrorist" more than a dozen times each in any justification for such a national ID.

If you really believe that, given the power to do so, they will not use biometrics, fingerprint, retinal scan, etc., then I believe you are naive. If they are allowed to do it, they will do it. There is no question in my mind about that point. Can you seriously tell me THIS administration would pass over an opportunity for power or control? Please.

Mantus · 06-01-2005, 07:38 AM

I see this as a total waste of taxpayer money. I can imagine that this system will take billions of dollars to implement and quite a bit to maintain.

It won't stop illigal imigrants from working here because companies WANT them to work here. It won't stop terrorists because any technology can be hacked, stolen or manipulated. Infact I can't see a single good reason why this new technology is beneficial other then to give us a false sense of security.

I'll bet who ever is chearleading for these changes has his hand in the pocket of the company that will be making all the technology.

05-05-2005, 06:34 AM	#4 (permalink)
superiorrain Psycho Location: London	You're bloody right, peoples so called fear to terrorism is forcing us to give up our liberties on a daily bases. I don't mind carrying id around on me as long as all it contains is my name, address and d.o.b. Thats all, nothing more for me please, the day they want my finger print will be the day i join the government and try and eliminate myself from their records. __________________ "The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible." - Arthur C. Clarke

05-05-2005, 06:59 AM	#5 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Most people aren't really afraid of terrorism. At this point it's just an excuse to get crazy stuff passed. If you vote against it you are accused of hating America and working witht he terrorists. Vote against something like this and you're tagged as "unAmerican"... whatever that means. Imprison half the country and tag everyone.. that'll solve everything, sure. What follows this will be - requirement to carry this at all times, if you don't then say hello to jail/fines/prison. Then this will be used as an excuse to make things even more strict... people refuse to carry their trackers around? Well then, we'll just have to implant them. __________________ We Must Dissent.

05-05-2005, 02:30 PM	#13 (permalink)
arch13 Loves my girl in thongs Location: North of Mexico, South of Canada	No government has the right to demand my fingerprints, iris data, or other biometrics. There is no law that says I must provide this information, and quite frankly, it's a violation of my natural rights to live free of any governments controll. I direct you to amendment X to remind anyone objecting to my view that this power was never given to the federal government. Edit Kutulu: The objection is that if the government issues the crad, then the government maintains the database from which the card's information is stored. The belief is that the government should not be able to access this information without a court order, which the current status qou maintains. If the fedearl government controlled the database, the information would be availible without having to gain a judges permission. __________________ Seen on an employer evaluation: "The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead" ____________________________ Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11. -Nanofever Last edited by arch13; 05-05-2005 at 02:34 PM..

05-06-2005, 07:07 PM	#15 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	Well it looks like the Real ID act will definetly pass now (368-58 in the house). It will pass through that military spending bill. Please realize that both parties failed here. The Republicans sneaked it through the appropriations bill, and the Democrats went ahead and voted for it. This is the kind of thing I've been trying to get at lately. The Republicans are doing the wrong thing, and the Democrats are at the least complacent with it. Only 57 Democrats voted against it. When will the Democratic base realize that its leaders aren't doing anything for it? They cave in on almost every major issue. Then you have the Republicans proposing this type of Orwelian legislation? Supporting either major party at this point seems foolish to me. Last edited by samcol; 05-06-2005 at 07:22 PM..

05-12-2005, 06:04 AM	#26 (permalink)
Mondak Industrialist Location: Southern California	I have been trying to stay away from Tilted Politics, but it is roughly a year since I have been here so I will pipe up. We really have to be worried about things that pass 100-0 in the senate. If this was such a wonderful idea that is completely unopposed, then it begs the question, why wasn't it done sooner? These fools that run our country just don't think for themselves and get caught up in things like this. They are such a bunch of pathetic followers, I can't believe it. I don't like this National ID one bit. Not at all. They keep chipping away at things and get bolder with every bite. __________________ All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed Second, it is violently opposed and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

05-05-2005, 02:13 AM	#2 (permalink)
scout Psycho	Ironic that such a "conservative" party could vote in good conscience {sp?.. hey it's early}what appears to be the precursor to the "mark of the beast". Who woulda thunk the religous base of the Republican party could have actually voted in the people who will contribute so heavily to their own demise so to speak. Talk about a "wolf in sheeps clothing". Pretty scary.

05-05-2005, 09:02 AM	#6 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I think this belongs in Paranioa. There is no evidence pointing to them forcing biometric data or any other crap in there. All it currently does is replace 50 individual DL's with one card. This 'article' is short on fact and long on speculation. I am usually quick to protest what I see as an invasion of privacy but as long as this only contains the information listed on a current DL I think it's a great idea. We cannot expect people from govt workers to bar bouncers to be able to tell if a specific ID card is in fact valid. This would make ID validation much easier.

05-05-2005, 09:11 AM	#7 (permalink)
maryjane Upright Location: Burnt Mattress, Arkansas	Very simple....vote libertarian, or democratic at the very least.

05-05-2005, 11:51 AM	#10 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	National ID card or not doesn't matter. If they want to include biometeric data they will do so and it won't make a difference if it's required on state issued ID cards or fed issued id cards so again, how does a national id card change things?

05-05-2005, 03:34 PM	#14 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	Well said arch13 We all know that the Bush administration has already been working trying to bypass the judicial branch since the judges (who are conservative by the way not the evil liberals that the Republicans always claim when something doesn't go their way), keep ruling against them. Recent examples are: Terry Schaivo, gay marriage, and now this. The problem with a national ID card is that all our data will be in a centralized location. Just ripe for the pickin' for abuse by identity thieves and the like. (If you believe that this database will be totally secure you're dreamin') Right now, the government has to subpoena to get information. And if it doesn't, they have to go to multiple sources to get it. I'll reiterate, THERE IS NOW LAW SAYING THAT THIS IS REQUIRED! (Yet, unfortunately) We are a free nation. Not to be under the microscope of a government that wants to "protect us" under the fear of terrorism. Do you think the bad guys are going to go to the DMV to get a ID card?!? Only to be met with "gosh, you're a terrorist, we can't give you an ID card." This won't keep any of them out of the country either, because THEY'RE ALREADY HERE!!! I'm sick of Bush playing the "terrorism" card and instilling fear in everyone just so he can get his shit passed. This country needs to wake the fuck up look around and see what is happening to ourselves!! We're letting them do this to us! This is bullshit, Bush is going too far, he needs to be impeached and I want my country back!!

05-07-2005, 07:52 AM	#16 (permalink)
moosenose Banned	I hate to tell y'all this, but the information to be on the ID cards has been kept by the government for years. Don't believe me? Send a FOIA request to your State Police requesting all information in their databases about you. You'll be SHOCKED to see what it returns, even if you've never been arrested.

05-08-2005, 11:40 PM	#21 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I think Bill Gates wrote in his book "The Road Ahead" back in 1996 that one day we would have wallet PCs (the size of credit cards) with built in GPS. The information would be fed into government computers for storage and the government would know where each of us was within a few feet at any time in our lives. It has been a while since I read the book but I believe he thought this was a good thing since the information could be used to prove you were elsewhere when a crime was commited, etc... It's a brave new world,

05-08-2005, 11:53 PM	#22 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	Or it could be used to frame you to put you in a place where a crime was THOUGHT to have been committed so they can close the case and lock you away. This is the US government we're talking about after all. One of the reasons why this is unconstitutional and shouldn't happen.

05-09-2005, 02:07 AM	#23 (permalink)
DoubleK Upright	I find no end of amusement in people coming online and freely, with no fear of consequences, becomming eccentric about having their freedoms stolen. Spoiled people in this country cry "stolen rights" at the drop of a hat. What right do you actually lose by having a national ID card? The right to be held up in another state when some seventeen year old clerk is trying to figure out if your out-of-state ID is valid? The right to be an illegal immigrant? The right to break the law with reckless abandon? "They're stealing our rights" is the wolf of the digital age.

05-12-2005, 05:40 AM	#24 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	If you can't beat them join them. I guess that's the new motto for the Democrats, as the Senate passed the Real ID act 100-0. When will the Democrats realize that their leaders are doing nothing for them. The Democrats will talk all day long about how bad Bush is with the Orwellian legislation, but they go ahead and vote along with it. I think the votes show where they really stand.

05-12-2005, 06:02 AM	#25 (permalink)
frogza Registered User Location: Right Here	I don't see a problem with this, but then I don't have anything I feel I need to hide. In regards to a standardized DL code, that would be wonderfull. After looking at the different drivers license laws in all the states it looks like D.C. is the only place where they actually thought things through before enacting the law. So hopefully that is the one that becomes national.

05-12-2005, 06:26 PM	#27 (permalink)
Dwayne Crazy Location: New England	From what I understand the reason this act passed was because it was attatched to another Bill that gave more bennifits to soldiers. So if anyone voted nay, then they would be called Unpatriotic. I will see about finding the article I read this in. I am scared shitless though of the ramifications of what could happen with a National ID. When they start putting rf chips on my person im buying a rf jammer.

05-12-2005, 08:06 PM	#28 (permalink)
jbw97361 Tilted	mondak, when both parties agree on something, we are definitely being screwed over. That being said, I am somewhat against the idea of a national ID system. We already have a national ID, its called the social security number. The reason why this has such support among "republicans" is the whole illegal alien issue. Currently in my wonderful state of oregon, you don't really need to prove that you are a US citizen to get a drivers liscence, and by extension, voting rites. That said, its also possible under the current bass ackwards system in my state to get multiple drivers liscences and voter registration cards. In fact, it is fairly easy; I seem to remember a local radio host doing it just to prove a point. The only sort of bill that I would support would be one that establishes basic guidelines by which drivers liscences are issued. SIDE NOTE I think the system of lumping on unattractive appendages to show pony bills is crap. __________________ JBW

05-13-2005, 11:37 AM	#29 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I want my ID card to read "Brown eyes and loves long walks on the beach...", but not too much beyond that. I'm not a number, just I'm some dude. Good Star Wars comparison, too. (Episodes 1-3 are supposedly about modern politics, according to an interview I read last year)

05-13-2005, 05:39 PM	#30 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I am curious. What exactly do you or I need to fear about a unified DL code? Granted, I never bought into the UN black helicopters with jack booted invaders conspiracy thing, so perhaps I am just naive. Interstate cooperation on DL information has kept me from hiring liars, and "road criminals." Frankly, I consider that an asset.

05-13-2005, 05:54 PM	#31 (permalink)
smicer Tilted	Everyone that lives in America already has a National ID. Its called a social security number.

05-13-2005, 08:53 PM	#33 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I agree with you on many levels. This new version of the Republican party isn't anything I have seen before; ie. fiscal responsibility, small government, etc. The Patriot Act has had my hackles up since it manifested itself days after 9/11. But you are speculating on what may come with a unified DL code when it is nearly in place among all 50 states now. HSD can't even get our borders protected by requiring passports without being second guessed by the administration. Do you actually believe that we will go from a digital photo that seems perfectly reasonable to me, to transmitting our presence to anyone with a receiver? It is not my intention to be rude or offensive to you. I simply feel very comfortable with a unified DL code. I honestly don't think individual state's would balk at the proposal, but I agree that it is their right to do so.

05-15-2005, 08:12 AM	#34 (permalink)
thingstodo A Storm Is Coming Location: The Great White North	It's all about control. That begins with being in power. The next step of the equation is getting elected. Add in getting re-elected. Repeat, rinse, repeat. So, it only follows that these folks will do whatever it takes to remain in control. Because if they remain in control, they remain in power and the cycle continues. Anything that is good for everyone is pretty much done to maintain the illusion. That's my simplified version of all this that has been discussed. __________________ If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves. Stangers have the best candy.

05-31-2005, 10:51 PM	#36 (permalink)
analog Banned	It's interesting how some would call this a knee-jerk reaction, or how it belongs in paranoia when the people talking about the bill so loosely and frequently invoke the Holy 9/11. I must have seen 9/11 and "terrorist" more than a dozen times each in any justification for such a national ID. If you really believe that, given the power to do so, they will not use biometrics, fingerprint, retinal scan, etc., then I believe you are naive. If they are allowed to do it, they will do it. There is no question in my mind about that point. Can you seriously tell me THIS administration would pass over an opportunity for power or control? Please.

06-01-2005, 07:38 AM	#37 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	I see this as a total waste of taxpayer money. I can imagine that this system will take billions of dollars to implement and quite a bit to maintain. It won't stop illigal imigrants from working here because companies WANT them to work here. It won't stop terrorists because any technology can be hacked, stolen or manipulated. Infact I can't see a single good reason why this new technology is beneficial other then to give us a false sense of security. I'll bet who ever is chearleading for these changes has his hand in the pocket of the company that will be making all the technology.