Real ID is racist. It specifically prohibits people who can’t prove citizenship from traveling. It provides zero improved security and moves our country towards restrictive racist practices. I can’t believe it’s not more vigorously opposed.
State issued ID card is not enough anymore for domestic flights because it's pretty easy to clone/copy (just google it ...). Not sure why you are trying to tie it to racism.
Part of the problem IMO is that there are too many designs in circulation.
Even once we filter to "Real ID compliant documents", we have 50 states + a grab bag of territories, each issuing at least a driver's license and a non-driver's identity card, possibly other variants (different formats for under-21, learner's permits, etc.), along with military and tribal issue documents. Now assume each of these will be redesigned every few years, whether it's changing the governor's signature or a full restructuring of the security features. I could see the number of valid documents-- for citizens and permanent residents alone-- easily approaching 1000 types.
There's going to be confusion and people are going to be either unfairly hassled for having a unfamiliar but valid document, let through with bogus documents, or both. If you're a TSA agent in Maine, will you correctly recognize a two-generations-old-but-still-valid identity card issued by New Mexico on the spot?
What we need is the full-on Mark of the Beast nightmare of having a federal Department of Identity. One standard document, with only a few designs in circulation. States can attach endorsements to the card number for things like driver licensing. Hell, if it's a smart card, they could probably store a signed certificate on the card itself to appease the crypto nerds.
> What we need is the full-on Mark of the Beast nightmare of having a federal Department of Identity.
Why stop at federal when you can go global?
The question is, will Apple's digital driver's license / state ID support[0] be considered Real ID-compliant, and will this form the basis of a global identity standard?
I'd prefer it be government infrastructure myself. Insert UN-as-world-government conspiracy theories here if you want, but probably even nation-state is enough for that crowd.
If nothing else, a government-backed plan will have armies of stakeholders coming out of the woodwork with a lot of very relevant "...and how does this work after a hurricane causes a week-long power outage and there's nothing resembling a cell tower standing in 100km?" questions.
For something like identity, you want a maximally-passive device, probably close to today's current smart and contactless cards, that relies on external readers for any sort of display and interactively. The goal needs to be physical durability-- you don't want someone wading through flood waters, only to find out their iDentity device shorted out in their pocket, or replacing devices that get bent if someone does bends over with it in their pocket, or develop Spicy Pillow Syndrome after 3 years.
Does Apple even know how to handle this sort of really minimal design? Didn't their credit card actually physically break down if you put it in a jeans pocket?
TBH, that's the sort of thing government is INTENDED for: it's not supposed to be sexy and innovative (and inevitably doomed to sharding into squabbling competitive fiefdoms), it's supposed to be a boring, universally available background service that lets people do other, more interesting things on top of it.
With all due respect, why does anyone need to know where you are traveling? Do the authorities need to know if you have explosives in your bag? Sure. But honestly, what's with showing ID to enter an airport, or to fly domestically?
I can think of several reasons: wanted persons fleeing arrest, kidnapping of a child from another parent, guilt by association (you visited Xxxx when the neo Nazi convention was in session?)
No, these aren't valid reasons. The fact that a person wants to go visit their relatives (by plane only, not by bus, car or train), or take a vacation, or a business trip, doesn't qualify them as a potential kidnapper or criminal.
The conflation of “document proving one is a citizen, or at least a legal resident” and “document proving one has a basic grasp of traffic safety” is unfortunate and not a must. These are separate functions in many countries.
According to this definition everything that requires a passport is racist. We need to agree on some very basic level of how we participate in a society, not to give up because a few people can't prove their citizenship. Instead of focusing on criticizing the new document type that is presumably much harder to forge, let's focus on how people can prove their citizenship.
People without a real id that want to travel will get a real id, and by the way, this is not a requirement. You don't even NEED an ID to fly. Try in one time. Just tell them you don't have an ID with you, and they will take you into a room, and call up a phone number and ask you some questions about yourself. They know everything about you. If you answer correctly, and aren't on any lists, you'll be able to fly just fine. You won't, though, be able to go to the bar after this and have a shot of whisky. You'll definitely need an ID for that. So have your ID ready, just tell the screeners you don't have one.
As far as I'm aware, the public has still never gotten a reasonable answer as to through what legal authority the TSA demands this. Yet another loss of liberty thanks to the godforsaken "PATRIOT" Act.
There is quite a bright line between "needing to spend a significant amount of money to be allowed to fly somewhere" and "needing to spend a significant amount of money to be allowed to vote".
In case you hadn't noticed, there are places in the US where the process of applying for and receiving a government-approved ID is much harder (in terms of time and money) for some groups of people than for others, and (not coincidentally) the groups most likely to be disproportionately burdened are the groups who are more likely to vote for the party in opposition to the one that introduced these rules.
Anywhere that ID is required to vote offers free options for ID. That is by law, due to poll tax restrictions, so what you're saying is not true.
Also, in states that require voter ID there are no "groups" who are under-represented, so the idea that it prevents people from voting is demonstrably false.
I think you're underestimating the ingenuity of the restrictions that can be put in place. By making the ID require a long journey (by car), and spending hours waiting in a line, it can cause people to miss a day of work or education (whereas retirees aren't as impacted).
Also, assuming people can skip this onerous process if they have a driver's license, that means that people who can't afford a car are more affected by this requirement. You might think that everyone in America owns a car, or at least has access to one they can drive, but only "61 percent of 18-year-olds in the U.S. had a driver’s license in 2018".[0] A similar bias can be found in states which accept gun licenses but not state student ID cards as valid for voting.
If you really think there are no groups who are under-represented in these states, you should really provide some statistics on voter turnout for different age groups and demographics. Do you really think that homeless people are as likely to have a valid form of ID as people who own a million dollar home?
Every state offers State ID's, you don't need a drivers license. And since you need an ID for countless different things other than voting, it's not absurd to ask for one. Also, as mentioned, EVERY state that requires ID to vote is required by law to provide free voting ID options. Every single one.
Also, as I have already said, there are a number of states that require ID to vote and have for Years and there is not suppressed voter turnout in any demographic in any of those states.
> EVERY state that requires ID to vote is required by law to provide free voting ID options. Every single one.
I didn't dispute that. All I'm saying is that for people of reduced means or reduced mobility, getting these "free" ID cards is disproportionately more difficult. I'm not claiming to be an expert in these matters, but you really need to consider what 'just getting a free voting ID' looks like in practice:
"For example, the office in Sauk City, Wisconsin is open only on the fifth Wednesday of any month. But only four months in 2012 — February, May, August, and October — have five Wednesdays."[0]
"voters may be particularly affected by the significant costs of the documentation required to obtain a photo ID. Birth certificates can cost between $8 and $25. Marriage licenses, required for married women whose birth certificates include a maiden name, can cost between $8 and $20. By comparison, the notorious poll tax — outlawed during the civil rights era — cost $10.64 in current dollars."[0]
"I will never forget the Navajo grandmother who spoke only Navajo and could not vote after Arizona passed its voter ID law in 2004. She tried several times to obtain an Arizona ID on her own but was denied because she was born at home in a hogan, and the boarding schools changed her Navajo name to English."[1]
> there is not suppressed voter turnout in any demographic in any of those states.
I'd love to see your data on this. The research I've found says quite the opposite:
"Using this tool, the researchers confirmed what voting rights advocates already know to be true—that black voters are more likely to lack adequate identification under voter ID laws. According to the study, 3.6 percent of registered white voters had no match in any state or federal ID database. By contrast, 7.5 percent of black registered voters were missing from those databases."[2]
Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome. I don't know why you find it so unbelievable that a party with the power to introduce partisan-biased voter suppressing laws, and with every incentive to do so, might in fact pass such laws. To assume that they wouldn't do so flies in the face of everything we know about government corruption and human nature.
28 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 93.1 ms ] threadEven once we filter to "Real ID compliant documents", we have 50 states + a grab bag of territories, each issuing at least a driver's license and a non-driver's identity card, possibly other variants (different formats for under-21, learner's permits, etc.), along with military and tribal issue documents. Now assume each of these will be redesigned every few years, whether it's changing the governor's signature or a full restructuring of the security features. I could see the number of valid documents-- for citizens and permanent residents alone-- easily approaching 1000 types.
There's going to be confusion and people are going to be either unfairly hassled for having a unfamiliar but valid document, let through with bogus documents, or both. If you're a TSA agent in Maine, will you correctly recognize a two-generations-old-but-still-valid identity card issued by New Mexico on the spot?
What we need is the full-on Mark of the Beast nightmare of having a federal Department of Identity. One standard document, with only a few designs in circulation. States can attach endorsements to the card number for things like driver licensing. Hell, if it's a smart card, they could probably store a signed certificate on the card itself to appease the crypto nerds.
Why stop at federal when you can go global?
The question is, will Apple's digital driver's license / state ID support[0] be considered Real ID-compliant, and will this form the basis of a global identity standard?
[0] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/03/apple-launches-the-fi...
If nothing else, a government-backed plan will have armies of stakeholders coming out of the woodwork with a lot of very relevant "...and how does this work after a hurricane causes a week-long power outage and there's nothing resembling a cell tower standing in 100km?" questions.
For something like identity, you want a maximally-passive device, probably close to today's current smart and contactless cards, that relies on external readers for any sort of display and interactively. The goal needs to be physical durability-- you don't want someone wading through flood waters, only to find out their iDentity device shorted out in their pocket, or replacing devices that get bent if someone does bends over with it in their pocket, or develop Spicy Pillow Syndrome after 3 years.
Does Apple even know how to handle this sort of really minimal design? Didn't their credit card actually physically break down if you put it in a jeans pocket?
TBH, that's the sort of thing government is INTENDED for: it's not supposed to be sexy and innovative (and inevitably doomed to sharding into squabbling competitive fiefdoms), it's supposed to be a boring, universally available background service that lets people do other, more interesting things on top of it.
But it's in everyone's interest that people get licensed, legal status or otherwise.
Either you need a dictionary or a reality check.
https://papersplease.org/wp/
As far as I'm aware, the public has still never gotten a reasonable answer as to through what legal authority the TSA demands this. Yet another loss of liberty thanks to the godforsaken "PATRIOT" Act.
In case you hadn't noticed, there are places in the US where the process of applying for and receiving a government-approved ID is much harder (in terms of time and money) for some groups of people than for others, and (not coincidentally) the groups most likely to be disproportionately burdened are the groups who are more likely to vote for the party in opposition to the one that introduced these rules.
Also, in states that require voter ID there are no "groups" who are under-represented, so the idea that it prevents people from voting is demonstrably false.
Also, assuming people can skip this onerous process if they have a driver's license, that means that people who can't afford a car are more affected by this requirement. You might think that everyone in America owns a car, or at least has access to one they can drive, but only "61 percent of 18-year-olds in the U.S. had a driver’s license in 2018".[0] A similar bias can be found in states which accept gun licenses but not state student ID cards as valid for voting.
If you really think there are no groups who are under-represented in these states, you should really provide some statistics on voter turnout for different age groups and demographics. Do you really think that homeless people are as likely to have a valid form of ID as people who own a million dollar home?
[0] https://www.statista.com/chart/18682/percentage-of-the-us-po...
Also, as I have already said, there are a number of states that require ID to vote and have for Years and there is not suppressed voter turnout in any demographic in any of those states.
I didn't dispute that. All I'm saying is that for people of reduced means or reduced mobility, getting these "free" ID cards is disproportionately more difficult. I'm not claiming to be an expert in these matters, but you really need to consider what 'just getting a free voting ID' looks like in practice:
"For example, the office in Sauk City, Wisconsin is open only on the fifth Wednesday of any month. But only four months in 2012 — February, May, August, and October — have five Wednesdays."[0]
"voters may be particularly affected by the significant costs of the documentation required to obtain a photo ID. Birth certificates can cost between $8 and $25. Marriage licenses, required for married women whose birth certificates include a maiden name, can cost between $8 and $20. By comparison, the notorious poll tax — outlawed during the civil rights era — cost $10.64 in current dollars."[0]
"I will never forget the Navajo grandmother who spoke only Navajo and could not vote after Arizona passed its voter ID law in 2004. She tried several times to obtain an Arizona ID on her own but was denied because she was born at home in a hogan, and the boarding schools changed her Navajo name to English."[1]
> there is not suppressed voter turnout in any demographic in any of those states.
I'd love to see your data on this. The research I've found says quite the opposite:
"Using this tool, the researchers confirmed what voting rights advocates already know to be true—that black voters are more likely to lack adequate identification under voter ID laws. According to the study, 3.6 percent of registered white voters had no match in any state or federal ID database. By contrast, 7.5 percent of black registered voters were missing from those databases."[2]
Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome. I don't know why you find it so unbelievable that a party with the power to introduce partisan-biased voter suppressing laws, and with every incentive to do so, might in fact pass such laws. To assume that they wouldn't do so flies in the face of everything we know about government corruption and human nature.
[0] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/chal...
[1] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...
[2] https://www.wired.com/story/voter-id-law-algorithm/