Identification in America: Has it Gone to Far

[RubySlippers]

REAL ID ACT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act#State_adoption_and_non-compliance

Okay this will be in three parts one is it proper for the country to set minimum standards to verify citizenship status?

The second is the REAL ID law to invasive as in violation of the principles of privacy and constitutional rights?

Is ID used far to much for to many things as it stands now?

I will start this with a recent situation I want to TARGET to buy Diablo II (lost my old set of disks) and went to buy it cash in hand and they required my ID to scan into the computer since it was rated MATURE. I refused on grounds it was not necessary and violated my privacy and got the manager. It was state law so I said fine, cancel the sale I'll put it back. I ended up taking my gift card and buying it online ,VISA print, from an out of state vendor. For me this brought up lots of thought on the whole issue.

Now I understand they need to verify my citizenship that is ,for me, the Birth Certificate and Social Security Card the former proof of I was born on American soil. The later that my parents registered me with the government for the ID when I was a child. That used to be enough to get the state ID with proof of residency in the state for the photo ID. I had no issues with that it was minimally invasive.

Now go to the REAL ID they want to keep my on file with these documents and bills or other added invasive requests to get the STAR on an ID, I'm seriously thinking of letting my current ID expire and not renewing it just out of protest. And there is no legal obligation I ever carry or show ID in most cased its far more custom and simplicity although there may be grounds for a few cases but I just don't have to lie to police if asked my name.

And the fact it is ,in my mind, to trusted and used to much. Lets say I get a hotel room there is no proof the ID is even real add to that even if it is that I live at the residence on the document so what safety is that if you pay cash? What about getting on a plane again a bad person could still get a fake ID or use one issued and still blow themselves up or do a crime. I could go on but its not safety or even that much use save to harass citizens who are law-abdiding being harassed.

I will end with the simple Constitutional issues violation of rights to privacy, access necessary public places like court houses (a few no ID protestors have not been allowed access to courts even though they were submitting to searches for weapons) and restricting ones right to travel. And that its also a violation of the principles of our democracy not having to "show ones papers" when asked like in certain sorts of nations.

I'm no radical but I'm again seriously concerned on this that its to invasive overall and violating my right to privacy beyond the legitimate need to prove citizenship and state residency, a simple standard that was easy to meet. But now its getting far to personal IMHO demanding more proof than I may be willing to give.

[Callie Del Noire]

I would say that the requirement by target to scan your ID is to prove maturity is a move to cover the company's behind. It might be a perforce action required by law or simply company policy. I'm not sure that is an invasive measure, but you are entitled to your opinion on it. I find it annoying that given I've been buying booze for 2 decades I'm still required to provide ID on request as well as for movies when the theater. (I find it flattering)

That being said, I fail to see how having an ID that can prove your citizen ship/nationality is a bad thing. Particularly given some of the snap actions in the Western states and South to people of ...shall we call 'Hispanic' origins. I've seen folks get hassled who I have known for years because they still spoke with a heavy accent.

Let's not forget that last year an AMERICAN of mexican descent was locked up and turned over to INS for a few days because while he had a valid ID he didn't provide a Social Security Card when asked by a law officer. Ironically, depending on which documentation you read from the Social Security Administration, you're not SUPPOSED to carry your social security card with you.

[Iniquitous]

As of now it is not illegal to go about without identification on you.

With that said, it should also be accepted that if you go about without accepted identification on you (this usually means a state or federally issued id card with picture and address) and you are stopped by the police, you can be detained for not having said proof.

Do I agree with more invasive IDs? No. However, before you go and start protesting, understand what you can expect. Not too mention, no ID does make it hard to do just about everything these days. I need my ID for everything from the bank to renewing my lease at my apt complex. Now is this the country the framers wanted? Hell no, but then again, they never wanted a democracy either, so we are so far off the mark it isn't even funny anymore.

[NotoriusBEN]

With the M rated games, they shouldnt be scanning your card. Yes, you show it to them to determine date of birth, and it should be a simple Y/N verification on the employee's part.

I was going to say something about ''big brother'' still getting your id with the game via payment method, but you paid cash so... yea.

[Callie Del Noire]

With the M rated games, they shouldnt be scanning your card. Yes, you show it to them to determine date of birth, and it should be a simple Y/N verification on the employee's part.

I was going to say something about ''big brother'' still getting your id with the game via payment method, but you paid cash so... yea.

Well in Target's defense, they might be wanting documented proof of age due to law suits by folks like 'Wacky' Jack Thompson and others in the past.

[Caela]

With the M rated games, they shouldnt be scanning your card. Yes, you show it to them to determine date of birth, and it should be a simple Y/N verification on the employee's part.

I was going to say something about ''big brother'' still getting your id with the game via payment method, but you paid cash so... yea.

**Actually, she said she ended up buying it online so she didn't pay cash. Still could have used a gift card or some such but you can't actually buy with cash online...well you might be able to manage a COD, but I've never seen it.

As for the ID, I admit I haven't read through the whole article yet, just through the part pertaining to Driver's Licenses and all I can say is that there's nothing on there that my state doesn't ask me for already when getting one. All the info they want on it is already on my current License and has been since I started getting them 16 years ago so I don't find it particularly invasive. Now I don't know if we just have stricter standards than average but, thus far, it doesn't seem particularly invasive.

Some good things I could see in it are the streamlining of the system between the states. Yes lots of fake ID's are out there, but if a person is dumb enough to keep using the same fake ID (and lets face it there are LOTS of criminals that are idiots) this would make tracking them far easier as it got scanned for various reasons from state to state.

If it's considered good as a federal ID then it should make replacing it when you move to a new state easier as well. All your records will already be right there, no need for a wait time for things to get there.

And, really, lets face it, unless you're entirely "off the grid" there's not a damned bit of information out there on you the gov't can't get anytime they like. To think otherwise is simply naive. Have a bank account and make too large a transaction and it get's reported. Don't remember the number and am too lazy to look it up. Hell there are tons of things that get flagged all the time and the more computerized we become, the easier it is to flag and report things.

As for the video game itself, that's just the store covering it's butt.

[RubySlippers]

VISA Gift Card I don't leave home without it. :)

Back on topic its just for me this will not stop criminals like I said a wacko could get the official ID and still blow up a train, so what is the point to make us think we are safer? And the best security for airports are break-in resistant cockpits, proper airport screening and maybe an armed Air Marshal on the plane. And by screening I mean actual physical scans of you and your baggage/purse. The ID requirement unless flying on a passport seems outright silly.

The only other use is proving who you are and one can still get fake ID cards good enough to pass casual inspection as far as I know the best defense is either know who your doing business with (know the local bank people from being a customer) or guts to trust the person since most people are honest. The ID card at best makes one feel better in most cases.

So what is the point of REAL ID save more government control over us as citizens?

[Oniya]

Viewing my ID card, fine.  Scanning my ID card?  That's where we get into dicey territory.  I'll trust certain people to do that: employers scan your documents for HR records, banks scan them for account creations, and I'm willing to bet that gun stores scan them for Brady Law reasons - but Joe Schmo at WallyWorld?  That's identity theft waiting to happen in my book.

[Callie Del Noire]

VISA Gift Card I don't leave home without it. :)

Back on topic its just for me this will not stop criminals like I said a wacko could get the official ID and still blow up a train, so what is the point to make us think we are safer? And the best security for airports are break-in resistant cockpits, proper airport screening and maybe an armed Air Marshal on the plane. And by screening I mean actual physical scans of you and your baggage/purse. The ID requirement unless flying on a passport seems outright silly.

The only other use is proving who you are and one can still get fake ID cards good enough to pass casual inspection as far as I know the best defense is either know who your doing business with (know the local bank people from being a customer) or guts to trust the person since most people are honest. The ID card at best makes one feel better in most cases.

So what is the point of REAL ID save more government control over us as citizens?

How about a few counter points?

-Like the ability to have a standardized format ID providing the same info throughout the country.
-An interlinked ID system would keep chronic offenders from moving from state to state as they lose license after license.
-An interlinked ID system would allow you to more easily transfer license from state to state.

Not everything the government does is for 'big brother evil' plots. Sometimes standardizing things it to streamline 'government bureaucracy'

[RubySlippers]

What about my right to privacy, unreasonable searches and due process as a citizen. And all state ID's had the same information on them for years just without the Federal government shoving our private information into databases. I just don't feel making it easy for the government is as important as my right to privacy regarding personal records and sensitive information with this on a central database that can be hacked.

I for one think ID should be legally required only for important activity: government services, banking, prescribed narcotics, international travel (passports) and employment records plus age restricted (not scanned by checked). And some things related to these levels of activity. If an officer wants to see my ID he better have proper cause and preferably have a court order beyond me giving my name which is legally allowed as part of questioning. I feel right to respectfully refuse showing ID unless they are charging me and standing by might right to unreasonable searches and violation of my privacy.

I will likely get the new ID just not use it when I feel its stupid to be asked to flash it.

[Callie Del Noire]

What about my right to privacy, unreasonable searches and due process as a citizen. And all state ID's had the same information on them for years just without the Federal government shoving our private information into databases. I just don't feel making it easy for the government is as important as my right to privacy regarding personal records and sensitive information with this on a central database that can be hacked.

I for one think ID should be legally required only for important activity: government services, banking, prescribed narcotics, international travel (passports) and employment records plus age restricted (not scanned by checked). And some things related to these levels of activity. If an officer wants to see my ID he better have proper cause and preferably have a court order beyond me giving my name which is legally allowed as part of questioning. I feel right to respectfully refuse showing ID unless they are charging me and standing by might right to unreasonable searches and violation of my privacy.

I will likely get the new ID just not use it when I feel its stupid to be asked to flash it.

What about the people who game the system in place? It's easier to get an Arizona license and never get another. (which is at 65, then every 5 years after?)

You don't think we should consolidate and organize things so that states can commucate better to avoid deadbeat spouses hiding in plain sight, track purchases of firearms, and keep hazardous drivers from jumping states to get another one.

I had a friend whose brother was killed by a 'jumper'. The woman had lost her license FIVE times by bouncing from state to state and capitalizing on the lack of communication and disorder in the system. She got off with vehicular manslaughter by the way. In a couple years she could be back on the road AGAIN.

I don't think the government needs to put ALL that info into a driver's ID database but some of it will have to.

Or do you agree with the lady down here in Florida that insisted to her right to get an ID with her face covered by a veil because she was a muslim (had been for five years, she also by the way.. had a criminal record)

There should be limits.. and I'm still on the fence with the Scanning of ID by Target.. but a standardized ID isn't the beginning of the end.

[gaggedLouise]

Getting on the first of the three posed questions - so far, most of the comment has been on the second one - I'd say it's okay for a country to pose some minimum requirements for citizenship, not just the applicant having lived in the country for five years or whatever it is. Being able to read and speak the main language/s (at least one of them, if there is more than one official language) with at least some fluency is a legit demand for adults - you can get nowhere today if you don't know the language of the place you live in,  and, seeing this as a non-U.S. person, knowing English but nothing of the local tongue isn't quite enough. Most adult people in my neck of the woods have picked up some fluency in English, from basic to practically bilingual, it's been that way for decades, but on the job, taking the train or in stores you'd still be pretty much considered a cypher if you're a local, steady resident, clearly not an immigrant who arrived one or two years ago, but insisting on always speaking English, and not responding to any replies in Swedish, the national language. This shouldn't be controversial (at present there is no such rule or law where I live; there is next door in Denmark though): in the U.S. one also has to show some knowledge of English, among other things, to become a citizen. Some minimum bar of understanding of the principles of democracy, free media and of a secular justice system would be fine too.

Certain serious crimes committed during the time the applicant has lived in the adopted country, or very serious crimes that surface from their past, should constitute a bar against citizenship as well. No country wants to become a haven for murderers, war criminals, major druglords or illegal weapon merchants. Or convicted, hardcore terrorists - I mean people who have directly taken part in terrorist acts or personally supported such acts with money, sheltering active terrorists, setting up transports for them, faking passports or the like,  that's something I suspect most Americans here on the forum would agree with.

When it comes to ID controls leading up to citizenship, the data that end up in the records and on the new guy's passport, if it's let's say a refugee from Africa or the Middle East, or someone who has adopted a new identity somewhere along the way and acquired papers for that id - those data are ultimately the ones offered by the applicant. Europe accepts far more refugees and asylum seekers than the US - both because we're more exposed, closer to the trouble spots, and because policies of immigration, intake of refugees and asylum seekers etc are different - but the problems with ID data, at root, are the same. If an extended family of a dozen arrives in a trailer, having travelled 2.500 miles over a timespan of a year, with stops on the way, and they say they are so-and-so from Pakistan or Libya, fleeing from oppression, gangster rule with no police presence or simply intolerable living conditions, and the seven juniors all say (in Arabic, interpreted to the local language) that they are the children of the central couple of the family, how can we know they are who they say they are? Some of the kids might be some neighbours' kids, some of the names and places of birth may be fake.

Immigrants often burn their passports or they're confiscated from them by the people who smuggle them along, so the people at the border crossing might be in no position to determine with certainty who these people are. Showing up without a passport or any really trustworthy documents is a way to pose a fait accompli to the border guards, and it works in countries that don't have a hardline policy of refusing entry outright to everyone seeking asylum unless they can prove who they are and prove they have actually been persecuted (some will be rendered out of the country anyway according to policy in many countries here, but then only after an inquiry into whether they should be allowed to stay).

Obviously you can get in on a fake identity, and ultimately become a citizen on such an identity, getting a legal passport. What if it turns out, after you've become a citizen, that the original story was a fake? It used not to be a big overall issue - illegal migration was limited during the cold war: it was plainly hard to get from southern Asia or Africa to Western Europe unless you had resources and decent papers. Controls, checkpoints and especially the iron curtain stood in the way (many people these days travel through Turkey or Russia). Also, some states had laws that provided for repeal of citizenship if the data given had been faked or if someone had committed really serious crimes after settling in their new country. Now those kinds of laws are rarer, they're seen as troublesome. I personally think a country should have the option to withdraw citizenship if it's proven that the original data were fake (and the real identity seems to be something more disturbing) or if the applicant has committed some specified, really grave crimes, but well that's a controversial view. I know high-ranking political people (who do not belong to any kind of ultra-right party) who have demanded such measures here in northern Europe and who have been accused of sleeping with the racists; it happened only the other week in a big city ten miles from here. But the real risks of having such lax checks on who is getting in weigh heavier than that, I reckon.

[RubySlippers]

I wanted to bring up the other wrench in the REAL ID in most states ,some have a state use only ID they don't count, the Homeless. I work with a local homeless program and mostly with homeless that do have an income usually under the table for cash and shun shelters which is not uncommon and the huge issue is they cannot get an ID now. The requirements exceed what they can do most have no residence they have a mailing address usually a mailbox store, they don't have bills, bank accounts, often no government mail, no shelter address and frankly save for a birth certificate and social security card can't provide what is needed at all. And no ID the homeless cannot even vote stripping them of a foundational right of a citizen.

Without an ID they lose out of programs, some food shelters, can't hold a job proper if they get one and are subject to police detainment for not having an ID among other major issues. Some are even military vets now besides being homeless are outside even the vet programs since you have to show ID.

As for the other issues I have no problem with a state ID being standardized to some degree its the loading my information much of it sensitive into a central database I find offensive. And I will note under the rules when my ID comes up for renewal I won't have the documents needed either I no longer have a bank account, I don't get bills or government mail and so will have only one of the two pieces of identification needed. I have a SS Card, Birth Certificate and a Voter ID but need something more. And so am not sure what to do at this point but I have time to work on this. Alot of homeless don't.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I think we need some reciprocity on the part of the Powers That Be.  They want me to have to have an ID card to blow my nose, fine.  But then they need to drop their pants and bend over for an anal probe right alongside me.  We need to require everyone in government: the President, all members of Congress, their state equivalents, and all CEOs of the Fortune 500--to post their credit reports, income tax statements, bank and credit card statements, and background checks online.

[Zakharra]

I think we need some reciprocity on the part of the Powers That Be.  They want me to have to have an ID card to blow my nose, fine.  But then they need to drop their pants and bend over for an anal probe right alongside me.  We need to require everyone in government: the President, all members of Congress, their state equivalents, and all CEOs of the Fortune 500--to post their credit reports, income tax statements, bank and credit card statements, and background checks online.

So if I am reading you right, you are saying that for you have an ID card, the President, all members of Congress, their state equivalents, and all CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies need to post their credit reports, income tax statements, bank and credit card statements, and background checks online? All that information so you will get an ID card? 

  0.o    That seems a little excessive...

[RubySlippers]

All I want is a state-use only ID available under the old rules or close to them in Florida. That is they have an officer verify the documents in person and not scan them handing them back and verify i'm a citizen, with a social security card and one proof of address like my voter registration card. For a state ID not drivers license. Then under oath sign the form.

To renew I had to take my ID in and get it renewed, if I moved they would just change the address and you signed under oath it was true.

Funny that was enough for many years and not what has changed to force REAL ID on people?

[gaggedLouise]

So if I am reading you right, you are saying that for you have an ID card, the President, all members of Congress, their state equivalents, and all CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies need to post their credit reports, income tax statements, bank and credit card statements, and background checks online? All that information so you will get an ID card? 

  0.o    That seems a little excessive...

I think he is implying, rather, that the kind of crimes and abuses which a national ID card system and the various in-house databases of information linked up with it are supposed to fight, those abuses, crimes and frauds are committed on a daily basis by the big guys, by politicians and corporations, within the media, and within police, CIA and other agencies - and those people have a much easier time wiping out the traces or protecting themselves from getting exposed. They have both deniability and the tools needed to hide their dirty laundry.

Look at the phone hacking scandal playing out in England with the (American) Murdoch clan and their papers at the centre - it might soon break in American courts, by the way. It looks more and more clear that the phones of tens of thousands of people were hacked to listen in on their phone calls and voicemail inboxes. Film stars, celebrities, victims and witnesses of crime, news anchors, military people, ordinary people - and other journalists. What's coming up in testimony is just the tip of the iceberg: most of those who were likely tapped can't or won't punch the papers on the head, even if they'd do it from the witness stand of a court inquiry. It would cost too much, both in the money they'd have to spend on subsequent lawsuits, six-figure sums they might spend and ultimately lose, and in the way the celeb papers are able to make them half invisible to their fans, by denying them publicity, or make them come across in a bad light long after the phone hacking trial business has faded.

So you get a number of people who are not really hot celebrities at present, who don't share anything much of their daily lives with the media, haven't done so for a long time, and who feel they have little to lose. Celebrity/popular culture commentator Marina Hyde in the Guardian: The real big game are absent from this hugely publicized enquiry - absent because they have underwater trade-offs between media exposure and star power, earnings or good names to keep an eye on, so they are not free to stare the papers down. If it had been neighbours, school kids from the local area or petty gangsters that had been doing the same activities that the journalists and their cronies have been into, no one would have tolerated it. The difference between those up top and the ordinary Joes.

Many countries get along well with national ID cards, but it takes a good deal of cooperation between the agencies and communities that are involved, and with the U.S: states being fiercely aware of how "we do it our own way in this state" I can see there could be a batch of problems.

[Callie Del Noire]

Look at the phone hacking scandal playing out in England with the (American) Murdoch clan and their papers at the centre - it might soon break in American courts, by the way. It looks more and more clear that the phones of tens of thousands of people were hacked to listen in on their phone calls and voicemail inboxes. Film stars, celebrities, victims and witnesses of crime, news anchors, military people, ordinary people - and other journalists. What's coming up in testimony is just the tip of the iceberg: most of those who were likely tapped can't or won't punch the papers on the head, even if they'd do it from the witness stand of a court inquiry. It would cost too much, both in the money they'd have to spend on subsequent lawsuits, six-figure sums they might spend and ultimately lose, and in the way the celeb papers are able to make them half invisible to their fans, by denying them publicity, or make them come across in a bad light long after the phone hacking trial business has faded.

Blofeld..er.. Murdoch's actions aren't tied into the ID crisis, and I'm of the opinon that a national ID (with proper restraints) could do a lot of good. For one.. my friend's relative would still be alive because the woman wouldn't that killed her would never been able to jump state lines to get another license after losing her license to a DUI charge.

His actions in the UK were bad and I'm glad they finally stuck to him. Unfortunately his Damage Control teams in the US have reminded people who owe him to keep the investigation from jumping the pound to splatter him again. Considering he owns as much as 40+% of certain markets (news media wise), it would take someone with MASSIVE balls o' steel to do anything.

Not to mention all the forces of NewsCorp will be unleashed to make it look like the 'big bad Obama/whoever' government is picking on an 'honest' businessman. Particularly his minions at FoxNews.

[Callie Del Noire]

On the Rupert Murdoch bit.. I stand corrected. Apparently the FBI started an investigation on the 14th of July and the DoJ the next day. Maybe 'Blofeld' will get caught out too. I'm remaining cynical though, given how much NewsCorp has bought they way in the US in the past.

[RubySlippers]

What about people that can't get the REAL ID and whose states ,there are very few exceptions, offer no in-state alternative under lighter rules?

No ID lets see then no banking, work, getting housing, renting a motel room, social programs, use of many shelters and you can't even get a library card or vote.

I'm simply pointing out the law is forcing alot of people to go without ID, therebye forcing them to get a fake ID and break the law OR disenfranchise them from the system and most of these people are barely in the system now.

[Callie Del Noire]

What about people that can't get the REAL ID and whose states ,there are very few exceptions, offer no in-state alternative under lighter rules?

No ID lets see then no banking, work, getting housing, renting a motel room, social programs, use of many shelters and you can't even get a library card or vote.

I'm simply pointing out the law is forcing alot of people to go without ID, therebye forcing them to get a fake ID and break the law OR disenfranchise them from the system and most of these people are barely in the system now.

Well I didn't say there weren't problems with any program rushed to press (which is a symptom of measures done since 9/11 sadly) but we need a national level ID system in place. There are literally too many loopholes in the state by state system we got now.

BUT it needs to be thought out and plotted out better. Do I fear about too much intrusion? yeah, a little but I also think a national ID system is about fifty years too late in being implemented already.

[RubySlippers]

Why? We had the old system in place and it had issues but law enforcement had tools to act I just don't see the need of a Federal ID which is what the REAL ID law enacted. A terrorist could just cross the border now without ID and there is no law one ,if a citizen, has to carry ID at all it just is very limiting. Florida has a detention law for verification only if an officer has probable cause of a crime and you don't have ID a fairly high bar.

[Iniquitous]

A national ID would cut the time it takes to hunt down information on someone across state lines. That right there is a pretty big incentive to start a national ID system.

People have already pointed out different ways a national ID and database would help things along. Stopping people from jumping state to state to get drivers licenses after them yanked in one state. Checking background history of people pulled over in police stops/at airports/federal buildings. Making it easier to check background history to get jobs (instead of having to pay a company and fill out a paper of every place you’ve lived in the past x number of years). Stopping dead beat parents from being able to run out of state to avoid paying child support (sadly, my ex husband has done this to the two women he has children with. He is wanted on state warrants in PA so he just moved to WI to avoid being arrested.).

Like Callie, I do worry a little about too much information being taken for such, but then all I do is look at Twitter/Facebook/Google+/etc. People put a LOT of information up on social media sites without a second thought - all information that anyone with the know how can hunt down. How would it be any different? I mean seriously, I’ve worked as a student loan debt collector and I can tell you for a fact that unless you live completely off the grid - no job, no bank account, no lease in your name, no bills in your name, no social security or disability, no online presence at all - you CAN be found. Part of my job required me spending four hours a day combing the internet (myspace, face book, google, whitepages.com, etc) finding people and/or their family members. I never - and I mean never failed at finding out information on the person I was looking for.

So where is the difference?

[RubySlippers]

Sort of the achilles heel in the identification issue if you don't live like everyone else the system can't handle you, I right now haven't done one thing that required my SSN in four years and have nothing in my name to tie me to where I live. Even my current state ID is from an address from two places ago.

If it expired I could opt not to use one I really don't do anything that demands it, and not having ID is not in and of itself illegal although I do have my orginal birth certificate among my papers.

I don't really care one way or another its just not something I am worried about but there are people that need it and now can't due to being homeless or living odd lives.

[Craz]

I'm all for a national ID system. It's the cost of doing business in the modern world. Say, over the course of five years, theoretically, this would be able to put it in place. Not only would it standardize a lot of stuff that needs to be, but it would allow an enormous deal of cooperation between state and federal agencies. As tech progresses, and information is made more public, I'd almost say we're behind the times in terms of ID.