posted April 23, 2005 06:33 PM              

******

March 14, 2005
Real ID Act Debate Continues
Federally regulated driver's licenses are being debated in the Senate, after passing in the House under the title "Real ID Act." The bill requires each state to demand proof of residency from every driver's license applicant, in order to be valid as a federal ID. If the bill passes, it would mean that millions of undocumented aliens won't be able to apply for a driver's license. Critics of the bill say that allowing illegal immigrants access to a driver's license increases national security by collecting personal data from applicants. Advocates of the bill state that allowing illegal aliens to obtain a driver's license obliterates the distinction between a legal and an illegal immigrant. Some states like Utah and Tennessee are offering a "lite" version of a driver's license: one that allows illegals to drive and obtain insurance but cannot serve as I.D. or be used for any other purpose. The license looks different than a regular driver's license and the bill is being supported and criticized by members of both parties. There is no party-based opinion on the matter.

The House of Representatives approved a bill on February 10, 2005, called the Real ID Act, that would force the states to issue electronic ID cards and driver's licenses approved by the federal government, along with stricter asylum rules and the erection of a fence along the San Diego-Mexico border area. The bill will be presented to the Senate, where several members announced they would consider it only in conjunction with a larger immigration package.

The new ID cards and driver's licenses would have to include "machine-readable technology," a digital photograph, maybe a magnetic strip. The details will have to be worked out by the Department of Homeland Security. These new cards would be required in order to enter airplanes, trains, government buildings and other federally controlled areas. While the bill intends to minimize the chance for terrorists to slip into the country and get access to vulnerable areas, many pro-immigration advocates and Democrats oppose the bill, saying it would make it harder for genuine asylum seekers to enter the U.S., together with the Gun Owners of America who fear that the bill would "empower the federal government to determine who can get a driver's license--and under what conditions."

posted May 15, 2005 08:33 PM            

Here are some more examples to the Real ID act:

What Is 'Real ID'?

On Tuesday, May 10th, 2005, the US Senate voted on the implementation of a national ID card system without ever debating the issue. The Real ID Act is nothing less than a Real National ID Act. The only thing left to the individual states is which pretty picture they will choose to put on the card: everything else will be controlled by Washington DC bureaucrats.

>> Browse the archive of faxes sent to Senators from this site...

What does this mean for America?
1. Dead Cops.
The Real ID Act requires that you give your permanent home address: no PO boxes; no exceptions. What about judges, police, and undercover cops? Oops!!! Hey Senators, let's endanger our police and judges!!!

2. Stolen Identities.
Our new IDs will have to make their data available through a "common machine-readable technology". That will make it easy for anybody in private industry to snap up the data on these IDs. Bars swiping licenses to collect personal data on customers will be just the tip of the iceberg as every convenience store learns to grab that data and sell it to Big Data for a nickel. It won't matter whether the states and federal government protect the data - it will be harvested by the private sector, which will keep it in a parallel database not subject even to the limited privacy rules in effect for the government.

3. Government Spying.
Real ID requires the states to link their databases together for the mutual sharing of data from these IDs. This is, in effect, a single seamless national database, available to all the states and to the federal government.

4. Papers, Please.
If Real ID passes the Senate, our nation will join the ranks of the old Soviet Union, Communist China, and Vietnam by issuing its citizens a national ID card. The Machine Readable Zone may come in the form of a 2-dimensional bar code - but the Department of Homeland Security, which will be crafting the regulations implementing Real ID, has made clear that it would prefer to see a remotely readable RFID chip. That would make private-sector access and systematic tracking even more easy and likely.

This national ID card will make observation of citizens easy but won't do much about terrorism. The fact is, identity-based security is not an effective way to stop terrorism. ID documents do not reveal anything about evil intent - and even if they did, determined terrorists will always be able to obtain fraudulent documents

5. Unsafe Roads.
Once upon a time, a driver's license was a license to drive a motor vehicle. Turning driver's licenses into national identity cards will actually make our roads more dangerous: by barring illegal immigrants from getting a driver's license, Real ID means more illegal immigrants will now drive without any training or certification. Your insurance company is certain to be understanding.

What's wrong with the Senate?
The Real ID Act has never been debated on the US Senate floor. They've never talked about it in any committee. Heck, most of them haven't even read it! Yet they're planning to vote on it on Tuesday, no questions asked.

In order to make a single irresponsible Congressman with totalitarian leanings happy, the Senate leadership let him write the bill and then slipped it into a another bill, one that would keep our fighting men and women taken care of in Iraq and Afghanistan. Supporting our troops means making sure they come home to a free nation, not a surveillance state.

posted May 15, 2005 09:09 PM              

quote:

---

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy"-- James Madison

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." --
James Madison

---

Last-minute attempts by online activists to halt an electronic ID card failed Tuesday when the U.S. Senate unanimously voted to impose a sweeping set of identification requirements on Americans.

The so-called Real ID Act now heads to President Bush, who is expected to sign the bill into law this month. Its backers, including the Bush administration, say it's needed to stop illegal immigrants from obtaining drivers' licenses.

If the act's mandates take effect in May 2008, as expected, Americans will be required to obtain federally approved ID cards with "machine readable technology" that abides by Department of Homeland Security specifications. Anyone without such an ID card will be effectively prohibited from traveling by air or Amtrak, opening a bank account, or entering federal buildings.

After the Real ID Act's sponsors glued it to an Iraq military spending bill, final passage was all but guaranteed.

posted May 15, 2005 11:10 PM            

The big news of the past two days is the impending passage of the Real ID act. I'm going to spare you any kind of detailed analysis of the ID and database aspects of this bill for two reasons a) they're already covered very well in sources I'll list below, and b) this bill contains a truly bizarre provision that caused a run on tinfoil hats in the blogosphere when it was first introduced, but has now dropped out of all coverage of this bill that I've read so far. (You'd think a clause that uses an obscure and never-before-invoked part of the Constitution to place the secretary of DHS above both the Supreme Court and the Constitution itself would get more coverage, but more on that in a moment.)

First up, the database and "national ID" portion of the bill. Bill Scannell of JetBlue privacy scandal boycott fame has launched a new site, where you can go and get last-minute information on how to fight a bill that goes up for a Senate vote tomorrow. Realistically, there's not a lot we can do at this late hour, so just hit Bill's site if you're on a manic swing and you need to come down off of it. Also of interest is this Techdirt post, which contains a good, brief summary of what's wrong with the bill, along with a link to this article on the bill's worrisome implications for ID theft. Finally, there's the EFF homepage, where you can read up on the bill and email your senator about it. While you're at it, you'll also want to check out this summary and analysis of the bill, courtesy of the Congressional Research Service.

Now to the fun stuff. If you click on the last link above (the summary and analysis PDF), and you read through the document, you'll see that the bill contains the following, seemingly harmless provision (emphasis added):

II. Waiver of Laws to Facilitate Barriers at Border44
Section 102 of the IIRIRA generally provides for construction and strengthening of barriers along U.S. land borders and specifically provides for 14 miles of barriers and roads along the border near San Diego, beginning at the Pacific Ocean and extending eastward. IIRIRA § 102(c) provides for a waiver of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)45 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)46 to the extent the Attorney General determines is necessary to ensure expeditious construction of barriers and roads...

H.R. 418 [the Real ID Act of 2005] would provide additional waiver authority over laws that might impede the expeditious construction of barriers and roads along the border. H.R. 418 would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any and all laws that he determines necessary, in his sole discretion, to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads under IIRIRA § 102...

Section 102 of H.R. 418 would amend the current provision to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any law upon determining that a waiver is necessary for the expeditious construction of the border barriers. Additionally, it would prohibit judicial review of a waiver decision or action by the Secretary and bar judicially ordered compensation or injunction or other remedy for damages alleged to result from any such decision or action.

To understand what this business about prohibiting judicial review means, you have to know two things. First, you have to know a bit about the contested history of judicial review. Depending on who you talk to, the Federal judiciary's power to overturn a law or to put a stop to an official act of government on the grounds that the law or act is unconstitutional and/or a violation of basic rights is either a core constitutional principle that ensures the rule of law and protects the rights of minorities from the "tyranny of the masses" (e.g. from Brown v. the Board of Education to Roe v. Wade) , or it's an affront to democratic governance and the chief enabler of left-wing "judicial activism."

The concept of judicial review is actually the very thing that's at stake in the current controversy over the Senate filibuster rules and Bush's judicial nominees, and it has been a major bone of contention in the culture wars for the past few decades. One side says that judicial review allowed five unelected officials in black robes to strip prayer from public schools, while the other side says it allowed the judicial branch to do its job by enforcing the constitutionally mandated principle of separation of church and state; Or, one side says that judicial review could potentially enable five unelected officials in black robes to force the states to recognize gay marriage, while the other side says that it will allow the judicial branch to enforce the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution that mandates that contracts made in one state (like, say, marriage contracts made in Massachusetts) be recognized in all fifty states; and so on and so forth.

So if judicial review is the basic mechanism that enables the Federal court system—from the Supreme Court on down—to rule on the constitutionality of laws and government actions, then how could it be possible for Congress to pass a law that includes language prohibiting judicial review for the law in question? In other words, if Congress could somehow exempt a law from judicial review, then the principle of judicial review would be completely gutted because they could just exempt from judicial review any law they wanted to, even if that law is blatantly unconstitutional or it violates basic human rights. Surely this isn't possible?

Opponents of the concept of judicial review appeal to an obscure and cryptic article of the Constitution, the (in)famous Article 3, Section 2 (A3S2 for short), which states:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

That last sentence is the kicker, because it looks for all the world like language that would enable Congress to wave a magic A3S2 wand over any piece of legislation no matter how outrageous and have it be completely exempt from review by the courts. The implications for the system of checks and balances if Congress actually invokes this provision are about as profound as it gets, which is why no Congress in American history has ever opted to open that particular can of worms... until now.

You can read more on the tinfoil hat implications of this here if you're interested, but I'll sum it up for you: Congress has crafted a completely unprecedented provision that guts the principle of judicial review by granting the DHS secretary complete and total immunity from the courts when it comes to the construction of "barriers and roads" in this one specific geographical region, and they've buried this provision inside a national ID card act which is itself attached to a large military appropriations bill that no Congressperson in their right mind would vote against (money for the troops and all that).

Obviously, if this passes, it'll set a precedent. First, some obscure border region outside of San Diego, and then on to bigger and better things? As the present bill stands, if DHS built a road through an endangered wetland and committed four murders in the process, nobody could take the government to court over it. Is this the kind of unchecked power that we want Congress to have? The sky's the limit, once the A3S2 can of worms is opened tomorrow.

posted May 16, 2005 01:13 AM            

Rep. Ron Paul | March 24, 2005

I rise in strong opposition to HR 418, the REAL ID Act. This bill purports to make us safer from terrorists who may sneak into the United States, and from other illegal immigrants. While I agree that these issues are of vital importance, this bill will do very little to make us more secure. It will not address our real vulnerabilities. It will, however, make us much less free. In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty.

What is wrong with this bill?

The REAL ID Act establishes a national ID card by mandating that states include certain minimum identification standards on driver's licenses. It contains no limits on the government's power to impose additional standards. Indeed, it gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to unilaterally add requirements as he sees fit.

Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist. It is absurd to call this voluntary.

Republican Party talking points on this bill, which claim that this is not a national ID card, nevertheless endorse the idea that "the federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver's licenses.

So they admit that they want a national ID but at the same time pretend that this is not a national ID.

This bill establishes a massive, centrally-coordinated database of highly personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their name, date of birth, place of residence, Social Security number, and physical and possibly other characteristics. What is even more disturbing is that, by mandating that states participate in the "Drivers License Agreement," this bill creates a massive database of sensitive information on American citizens that will be shared with Canada and Mexico!

(Gee, that's nice to know over the fact that a terrorist doesn't have to even enter this country to actually attack us, all he or she has to do is break into one of the databases in either Canada or Mexico to kill, rob or dub info on Americans for Allah! And whose side is this US government on?!)

This bill could have a chilling effect on the exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. It re-defines "terrorism" in broad new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including such information in the database as information about a person's exercise of First Amendment rights or about a person's appearance on a registry of firearms owners.

(I've changed my mind, I'm not going to move to a "small populated red state in order to knock off the votes for 2008. I'm just gonna hack into a database and register 250 people in the state of Nebraska all sharing the same name as me, but you can rest assure that America will always have "all of me"! hELL, I've always said that this world is in need of more Ozonefillers!)

This legislation gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand required information on driver's licenses, potentially including such biometric information as retina scans, finger prints, DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio tracking technology. Including such technology as RFID would mean that the federal government, as well as the governments of Canada and Mexico, would know where Americans are at all time of the day and night.

There are no limits on what happens to the database of sensitive information on Americans once it leaves the United States for Canada and Mexico -- or perhaps other countries. Who is to stop a corrupt foreign government official from selling or giving this information to human traffickers or even terrorists? Will this uncertainty make us feel safer?

What will all of this mean for us? When this new program is implemented, every time we are required to show our driver's license we will, in fact, be showing a national identification card. We will be handing over a card that includes our personal and likely biometric information, information which is connected to a national and international database.

H.R. 418 does nothing to solve the growing threat to national security posed by people who are already in the U.S. illegally. Instead, H.R. 418 states what we already know: that certain people here illegally are "deportable." But it does nothing to mandate deportation.

Although Congress funded an additional 2,000 border guards last year, the administration has announced that it will only ask for an additional 210 guards. Why are we not pursuing these avenues as a way of safeguarding our country? Why are we punishing Americans by taking away their freedoms instead of making life more difficult for those who would enter our country illegally?

H.R. 418 does what legislation restricting firearm ownership does. It punishes law-abiding citizens. Criminals will ignore it. H.R. 418 offers us a false sense of greater security at the cost of taking a gigantic step toward making America a police state.

I urge my colleagues to vote "NO" on the REAL ID Act of 2005.

posted May 16, 2005 10:22 AM            

Woe to the ones that always need further documentation now from this. And woe to the ones that worship God, but have voted for these false prophets that are in more of allegiance to the beast and his name, for you have elected the ones that have used you all and will put you to DEATH!

Revelation 13

11Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. 12He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. 14Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
18This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.

Revelation 14

6Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people. 7He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water."
8A second angel followed and said, "Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great, which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries."

9A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." 12This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.

posted May 16, 2005 06:54 PM            

By the NEWS-REGISTER

President Bush is likely to sign into law the "Real ID Act," which would set some reasonable standards for state drivers' licenses, the de facto form of national identification in the United States. The Real ID Act technically does not force states to do anything about lax standards that have allowed hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to illegally obtain drivers licenses. But it would require a state to beef up its standards if its license is to be valid identification for any federal purpose, such as clearing airport security or applying for Social Security benefits.

Plenty of whining and yelping can be heard from so-called "progressive" quarters that the new law will somehow discriminate against illegal aliens. But shouldn't the law discriminate against those who break the law?
Secure identification is vital not only to national security, but also to ordinary commerce. It is far too easy for criminals to obtain seemingly valid drivers' licenses, which provide a pathway to other forms of identification, credit and other commercial transactions. It seems reasonable to require an identification system secure enough to ensure that the person, say, presenting a check at a grocery store really is who the license says. What's "progressive" about undermining this very basic element of daily commerce?

States worried about coddling illegal immigrants can continue to coddle them in other ways. A state still could issue alternative forms of identification, including special drivers licenses if desired. That's not good policy, but reckless states can do it.

Meanwhile, the Real ID Act provides an additional line of defense against ID fraud and illegal acquisition of identification needed to carry out interstate commerce and to travel freely throughout the country - exactly the sort of thing that the law ought to prevent.

http://news-register.net/edit/story/0516202005_edt02.asp

--------------------------------------------

Oh yeah? Then why should other countries throughout the rest of the world can obtain an American's personal information, for what reason?

What would happen if Mexico all of sudden broke ranks with the US for some reason and they're government knows exactly whose an American and where to find any of them.

Or better yet, the illeagal immigrant is angry of what the US is doing and obtains your personal information, then displays it freely on the internet! Whose going to stop them from doing so?!

If any country outside of the US wanted to launch an attack on the US, they're not going to go after the US Government, they're target will be directly the US citizens!

posted May 17, 2005 04:10 PM            

I. Overture

And the meek shall inherit the earth...

II. Temples of Syrinx

We've taken care of everything
The words you hear, the songs you sing
The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes.
It's one for all and all for one
We work together, common sons
Never need to wonder how or why.

We are the Priests of the Temples of Syrinx
Our great computers fill the hallowed halls.
We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx
All the gifts of life are held within our walls.

Look around at this world we've made
Equality our stock in trade
Come and join the Brotherhood of Man
Oh, what a nice, contented world
Let the banners be unfurled
Hold the Red Star proudly high in hand.

We are the Priests of the Temples of Syrinx
Our great computers fill the hallowed halls.
We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx
All the gifts of life are held within our walls.

III. Discovery

What can this strange device be?
When I touch it, it gives forth a sound
It's got wires that vibrate and give music
What can this thing be that I found?

See how it sings like a sad heart
And joyously screams out its pain
Sounds that build high like a mountain
Or notes that fall gently like rain.

I can't wait to share this new wonder
The people will all see its light
Let them all make their own music
The Priests praise my name on this night.

IV. Presentation

I know it's most unusual
To come before you so
But I've found an ancient miracle
I thought that you should know
Listen to my music
And hear what it can do
There's something here as strong as life
I know that it will reach you.

Yes, we know, it's nothing new
It's just a waste of time
We have no need for ancient ways
The world is doing fine
Another toy will help destroy
The elder race of man
Forget about your silly whim
It doesn't fit the plan.

I can't believe you're saying
These things just can't be true
Our world could use this beauty
Just think what we might do.
Listen to my music
And hear what it can do
There's something here as strong as life
I know that it will reach you.

Don't annoy us further!
We have our work to do.
Just think about the average
What use have they for you?
Another toy will help destroy
The elder race of man
Forget about your silly whim
It doesn't fit the Plan!

V. Oracle: The Dream

I wandered home though the silent streets
And fell into a fitful sleep
Escape to realms beyond the night
Dream can't you show me the light?

I stand atop a spiral stair
An oracle confronts me there
He leads me on light years away
Through astral nights, galactic days
I see the works of gifted hands
That grace this strange and wondrous land
I see the hand of man arise
With hungry mind and open eyes

They left the planet long ago
The elder race still learn and grow
Their power grows with purpose strong
To claim the home where they belong
Home to tear the Temples down...
Home to change!

VI. Soliloquy

The sleep is still in my eyes
The dream is still in my head
I heave a sigh and sadly smile
And lie a while in bed
I wish that it might come to pass
Not fade like all my dreams...

Just think of what my life might be
In a world like I have seen!
I don't think I can carry on
Carry on this cold and empty life

My spirits are low in the depths of despair
My lifeblood...
...spills over...

VII. The Grand Finale
Attention all Planets of the Solar Federation
Attention all Planets of the Solar Federation
Attention all Planets of the Solar Federation
We have assumed control.
We have assumed control.
We have assumed control.

- Neil Peart

posted May 17, 2005 05:06 PM            

"We're moving towards a one-party system, with Democrats rubberstamping most Republican legislation," said David Cobb, the Green Party's 2004 presidential candidate.

Senate Democrats and Republicans, unanimously and virtually without debate, approved the 'Real ID Act.' This legislation mandates electronic ID cards for all Americans in accord with Homeland Security Department specifications.

Greens called the Real ID Act, which was slipped into an otherwise uncontroversial spending bill, a major step towards universal surveillance, a violation of the right to privacy and freedom of mobility, an ineffective security measure, and a vicious attempt to blame undocumented immigrants for the nation's problems. (Many Greens have supported other provisions in the bill, especially the increases in death benefits, life insurance, and payments for traumatic injury for U.S. service members.)

The Senate also voted unanimously on May 10 in favor of $82 billion in emergency appropriations for military expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Greens have called for an immediate end to the occupation and are urging defeat for HR-1268, the National Defense Authorization Act, but predict overwhelming support for the bill from both Democrats and Republicans.

Green Party leaders noted that mainstream Democrats have long agreed with Republicans on numerous major issues, favoring antidemocratic supranational trade authorities (NAFTA, WTO, etc.), the war on drugs, the 1996 Antiterrorism and USA Patriot Acts, the death penalty, the 1996 Telecommunications Act, welfare reform that penalizes the poor, expanded drilling for oil in Alaska, bills privileging credit card and other financial corporations over working Americans <http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_04_21.html>, and surrender of Congress's constitutional power to declare war to the White House. Last month, Democratic Party national chair Howard Dean endorsed the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq. (Greens take the opposite position on all these issues.)

Democratic Party leaders have also rebuffed attempts within their own party to introduce national health insurance, repeal Taft-Hartley restrictions on workplace organizing, and grant statehood to the District of Columbia.

"When John Kerry scolds his fellow Democrats for supporting same-sex marriage and Howard Dean hopes that Bush's Iraq policy is 'incredibly successful', it's painfully clear that the U.S. lacks opposing leadership," said Pat LaMarche, Green candidate for Vice President in 2004. "Democracy demands an opposition party to challenge and debate the direction of our nation. The U.S. is in grave peril with no voice but that of the administration, amplified by the Democrats. That's why the Greens are the fastest growing political party in the country."

CONTACT: Green Party of the United States
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, mclarty@greens.org
Nancy Allen, Media Coordinator, 207-326-4576, nallen@acadia.net

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0517-13.htm

posted May 18, 2005 02:13 PM            

Real ID Act mostly helps identity thieves

Mercury News Editorial

Something as important to America's security and way of life as a national identification card ought to be thoroughly and thoughtfully debated. At a minimum, lawmakers would hear expert testimony and consider the costs and the impact on states, on privacy and on civil liberties.

Instead, a bill that creates a de facto national ID was rammed through Congress without debate, attached to a spending measure for the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's called the Real ID Act, for real identification -- but real idiotic is more like it.

President Bush is expected to sign the law. The only remaining hope is that the nation's governors and state legislatures, who overwhelmingly oppose it, will persuade Congress to reconsider.

On the surface, the Real ID Act seems reasonable. It creates strict standards that states must follow to grant driver's licenses. State motor vehicle departments will be required to verify at least four pieces of identification, and only U.S. residents and legal immigrants will be allowed to get licenses. If a state doesn't comply with the act, its licenses won't be accepted for access to airplanes or federal buildings or for opening a bank account.

There are good reasons to make driver's licenses more secure. But contrary to claims by its supporters, this law will do little to prevent terrorism. Instead, it will dramatically increase the danger of fraud and identity theft, already a serious and escalating crime for which law enforcement has inadequate remedies.

The rules wouldn't have stopped the Sept. 11 hijackers, who were in the United States legally. And they do nothing to combat the sale of fake licenses, which often are produced by insiders at state DMVs. In fact, it will make fake IDs more valuable, creating a greater incentive for DMV workers to turn bad.

The people who will benefit most from this law are snoops and identity thieves. The requirement that all personal information be encoded in a machine-readable form will be a gift to them. Already bars, athletic clubs and other commercial establishments swipe driver's licenses. With a national format, every retailer will swipe the IDs to collect valuable information that will be sold to data aggregators, such as ChoicePoint. They, in turn, will resell the information to marketers and other customers.

Pretty soon, not just the government but scores of private businesses will have databases packed with information about every adult in America. Identity theft will become so common that virtually everyone's personal information could be compromised.

The irony is that the Real ID Act was wholly unnecessary. Just five months ago, Congress approved a bill that required the federal government and states to work together on sensible national standards for driver's licenses. That work, which has already begun, now will be scrapped.

Congress reversed itself once. It has to do so again.

Posted on Wed, May. 18, 2005

posted May 20, 2005 04:32 PM            

Counterfeit Movies Hit Web, Streets

By BRIAN ROSS and JILL RACKMILL

NEW YORK, May 19, 2005 — Within hours of the world premiere of "Star Wars," an ABC News investigation found counterfeit versions could be bought on the streets of New York City, and downloaded off the Internet for free.

Studio executives had feared and Internet analysts predicted that exactly this would happen.

I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner," said Xeni Jardin, a contributing writer to Wired magazine. "A lot of people were expecting this and there are actually Internet betting pools as to exactly how fast this would happen."

The Internet copy of the final installment of the "Star Wars" saga, "Episode III — Revenge of the Sith," showed up on BitTorrent, a popular file sharing site used by thousands every day, much to the chagrin of Dan Glickman, president and chief executive officer of the Motion Picture Association of America.

"There is no better example of how theft dims the magic of the movies for everyone than this report today regarding BitTorrent providing users with illegal copies of 'Revenge of the Sith,' " said Glickman in a statement. "My message to illegal file swappers everywhere is plain and simple: You are stealing, it is wrong and you are not anonymous. In short, you can click, but you can't hide."

And law enforcement officials say the burned-in time code across the top suggests the source was a studio print, perhaps the work of an industry insider.

A Multibillion-Dollar Problem

The movie piracy business is a worldwide multibillion-dollar enterprise that shows no sign of being stopped, said officials familiar with the problem.

"These are individuals are very sophisticated," said Marcy Forman, director of the Office of Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "They have the latest technology and they are able to make very good counterfeits."

ABC News bought a copy at a store in Chinatown for $5.

"They told me they had a huge shipment and had been burning them all day," said ABC News' Aaron Selverston.

Preventive Steps

Across the world in China, which some consider the center of movie piracy, the movie industry scheduled a "Star Wars" premiere last night attended by top American studio executives in Beijing in part to ward off DVD piracy.

"The more movies that come here that people can see on the screen like this, there is less reason they will have to go buy the pirated movie later on, because the movie will come here," said Glickman.

Huge numbers of high-quality counterfeits are produced and shipped around the world from China, according to law enforcement officials.

And studio executives say the counterfeits and free downloads off the Internet threaten to undercut their industry, as it did with the music industry.

But not everyone agrees.

"George Lucas and Fox are still going to make a ton of money off this film," said Jardin. "People who love this film, people who love what 'Star Wars' means are still going to go see it in the theaters."

--------------------------------------------

And then government wants the Real ID Act enacted for our protection?!

Imagine what hackers will do to the DMVs!

They better find out what exactly can technology do today, none the less three years from now!

posted May 24, 2005 08:04 PM              

Newt Gingrich sorry for comments about Canada
Last Updated Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:28:44 EDT
CBC News
WASHINGTON - Outspoken American conservative Newt Gingrich has apologized for saying this week that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers entered the United States from Canada.

Gingrich, a former Republican speaker in the U.S. House of Representatives, retracted the comments on Wednesday after Canadian Ambassador Frank McKenna sent him a letter.

Newt Gingrich, former Republican speaker in the U.S. House of Representatives. (AP file photo)
"Please accept my apology to the Canadian people for perpetuating the error; one I am sure that has been very painful to them," said Gingrich in a reply to McKenna.

He told the ambassador he "deeply regrets" what has become a "widespread inaccuracy."

Speaking Tuesday on the Fox News political show Hannity & Colmes, Gingrich said: "Far more of the 9/11 terrorists came across from Canada than from Mexico."

None of the 19 hijackers entered the U.S. from either Canada or Mexico, information confirmed by former U.S. attorney general John Ashcroft and the 9/11 Commission investigating the attacks, wrote McKenna in his letter to Gingrich.

Frank McKenna (CP file photo)
The comments "perpetuate an urban legend that can take on a life of its own, especially when repeated by people whose opinions are deeply respected in the United States," he wrote.

"Canadians and Americans are great friends. And great friends can tell it like it is," he said. "In the interest of that friendship and to set the record straight, I ask that you retract your statement."

posted June 01, 2005 02:19 AM            

Banks Suck!
A Rant About the People Who Hold Our Money Hostage
I have been banking for many years. I even used to work at a bank. This is why I think banks suck: They forgot whose money it is! They did! Let me tell you my story...
My first bank account was with some [Something]America Attached to it. I was 8 years old, and had gotten a $100 check from my grandmother. Man, I was 8, had a $100, it was he 70's, and I was cool. I got a passbook savings, and planned to save money there. But the lady there was mean. First, to make life difficult, I did not have Social Security number until I was 15. I was born overseas, and things were left behind, and my father said I was never to become a government number. Well, the late 1970's, the computer revolution was gaining ground, and you had to have a number of some kind for tracking purposes. I will give this bank some credit (ha ha) in the fact they hated I had no SS#, and I had to fill out a form and my passbook did not have my SS#. But when I became a teen, and had accumulated a fair bit of money, my bank was bought out but Washington Lee FSB, which in turn was bought out by Prudential[Something]. They didn't like the fact I had no SS# either. In fact, until the IRS made it a law that you kid had to have an SS# if you want a tax break, I doubt my father would have ever let me get one. The final insult was that I was told that $350 was not enough to have a passbook savings, and they closed the account. Not that they told me or anything. Imagine my shock when I tried to deposit some baby-sitting money, to be told my passbook was no longer valid! I lost $350! Which nowadays is not much, but it was all my money, then! Oh, they didn't like me one bit and I had to get my parents to fight to give it back. They took about $100 of "nuisance fees", which made us even angrier, and then they turned around and got bought out by Riggs, which handles the most important money in the world: rich people's. I never got that $100 back, either.

A year later, my mother opened a joint checking account with me. I had a SS# by this point, and a real job where this FICA guy stole money from my paycheck every two weeks. My account started to grow. I even got interest, and nary a hassle. When my mother died, the account was changed to solely my name, and it was my account for the next four years.

Then I started to work for Dominion Federal Savings and Loan Bank (not to be confused with Dominion Bank). They required all my transactions be changed to their bank for security reasons which made sense. I closed my account at Providence Savings, and opened at DFSLB. Then the worst job I ever had in my life started. I had a pregnant boss who didn't know who the father was, but the boyfriend she lived with knew it wasn't his, and so she hated men, and backed that up with unstable hormones common to pregnancy. She watch patronizing, mean, back-stabbing, gossipy, and a real, real ***** ! But she wasn't the only thing wrong there. There were "under the table" dealings, "hidden files not to be shown to the auditors", and computers that went down more than a two dollar ***** . It seemed that people of certain races also did not get the same interest rate of other races, so to speak. I was appalled, and the worst sign I got was my first day where a customer asked me if this was a training branch, since there was never the same tellers there from month to month. Oh, what a bad place. FDIC rules were merely suggestions in this horrible place. And training? Imagine being taught Algebra for the first time, condensed into two weeks, with outdated textbooks, and taught out of sequence. Brilliant, college graduates failed that course.

Two months into this hell one of our owners ran off with a lot of the company's money to "an undisclosed South American Country". Man, Talk about lack of confidence in your customers! I jumped off ship there as soon as I could, with a bizarre and interesting job working at Chesapeake Knife and Tool. When you quit a bank, the FBI does a follow up report to which I exposed everything. Their response? "Yeah, we've had a lot of comments about that branch..." Great.

That bank ironically changed it's name to "Trustbank," but it still didn't do well. I withdrew my money from there to go to Crestar after mysterious ATM Fees started popping up on my statement, one that was $187.56. When I pointed this out to the branch manager, she said it was an ATM withdrawal, but since I had worked there, I knew the codes, and said, "Aha! No it isn't, your machine says it's a service charge, see, it's a code 111..." After a lot of arguing, I got some of my money back, but my account got "flagged" for some reason, and they refused to cash my checks even though I had money to cover it! I just withdrew my money one day after I opened up a Crestar Account.

Did that end my woes? Au contraries, my friend, they just began. After a few years with Crestar, our checkbook was stolen. It was stolen on a Sunday evening, so we reported it Monday morning. "Fine," they said, all smiles and grins, "we'll just close the account, and put your money into your savings." Agreed. Then the checks started rolling in. $100, $200, even $600 checks that were written to Giant, Safeway, People's Drug, and check-cashing places. As the stolen checks started coming in, you could see the trail that this person was making: Reston, Herndon, DC, Silver Spring, Columbia, Baltimore, and the last ones were in small truck-stop towns in Philadelphia. Did Crestar report them as stolen? Oh, no... they sent them back as "account closed." So suddenly, all these places started calling us for the money. We said the checkbook was stolen, but they said the bank said otherwise. Many calls were made. Some companies took us to court for check fraud. Luckily, the thief was so bold that he (and a she, we found out later) didn't even try to fake our signatures, so not only didn't these places take ID, they didn't even check to see if the signatures matched the names on the check! We won most cases on face value, but our names and SS#'s were entered into some mega-check database, and now, to this day, 5 years later, no one will accept our checks! It took us three years just to open up another checking account! And, get this, Crestar, like most banks, went through management like tissue paper, and so we'd have to explain all over again to all these head office muckety-mucks which changed weekly, and each time, their foreign accents got thicker and thicker. They screwed up so much, that when we finally demanded a letter to state we didn't owe them money and that we hadn't bounced checks, it took us one year and seven department heads to get it. And since that time, they "recycled" our old account number with that of a major car loan. So when we called back, they would tell us, "you are paying on your car loan, you still have an account with us for a Lexus you bought last year!" What morons!

So far, we are settling with First Virginia Bank. They have a made quite a few errors, but since our previous lessons taught us to document everything to death, we have been able to catch every one and make them fix it. Luckily, they are not "fully automated," and so their tellers tend to be a bit smarter, and don't stare stupidly at a dumb terminal going, "Duh... my screen is blue... I have to get my manager to make it green again... dhoy...."

Think I'm bitter? Is it that obvious? Isn't that obvious? I swear, these moguls are cretins to look out for. Look at how they are gouging you: