the downside of Real ID Act

A

alan

New member
Readers might find listening to this 7 or so minute pod cast worth while. Your choice.

Today's Daily Podcast (www.cato.org)

"The Reality of Real ID," featuring Jim Harper
 
Down side

It's the tracking chip in your wallet that chaps my hide. It will be hacked too, by identity thieves. I will not be chipped like a cow . If I have to, I'll give up my rights to drive, fish, hunt and work instead of being tracked like an animal. I think we ought to chip the sponsors of this bill, so we know what they are up to. What do I have to hide? My Freedom.
 
buckster writes:

It's the tracking chip in your wallet that chaps my hide. It will be hacked too, by identity thieves. I will not be chipped like a cow . If I have to, I'll give up my rights to drive, fish, hunt and work instead of being tracked like an animal. I think we ought to chip the sponsors of this bill, so we know what they are up to. What do I have to hide? My Freedom.
--------------------------

Chipping the sponsors, seems like the best idea I've heard in quite some time, which sort of reminds me of the following. It was an overly large bumper sticker, perhaps a "tailgate sticker" would be a better description.

In any event, it read, re "gun control" as follows. Given that I'm a law abiding citizen, exactly what might it be that you have in mind Mr. Politician, that you are so concerned regarding the number and type of firearms I might possess.

I will note, in passing, that the inherent question has yet to be honestly answered by Mr., Mrs., or Ms. Politician
 
It wasn't a bad idea to begin with??

They are trying to do this by 2008!!! Forget it! The people MUST tell their officials this is NOT acceptable to the American people.


Epyon

P.S: Am I and a few other people the only ones fully aware of the rights that we are losing because day by day the American people are being turned into cowardly sheep?
 
Epyon;

You wrote, "it wasn't a bad idea to begin with". Might I disagree, it was a terrible idea to begin with and unlike red wine sometimes does, it has not improved with age.

One thing that troubles me about objections raised by several states is this. Their objects seem based on the fact that this baloney amounts to an "unfunded mandate", which they find objectionable not on principle, but rather on the basis of dollars. I assume that were the congress to provide the dollars, notwithstanding the source thereof, everything would be hunky-dory. It ain't so, for bad is bad, no matter where the money comes from.

WeedWacker:

I saw your comment., and I spent a few minutes searching through the Cato site. Sad to say, I cannot find either the podcast I referenced nor can I find any reference to it. Sorry about that, you might have found it worth listening to, I did, but that's just me. Possibly another person could offer some help.
 
Just wait till you have to pay for the card with the chip in it...you really will be chapped. The federal government mandates it, the states will pass the cost to the people.

Not having a real ID has already caused some controversy because of folks being denied the right to vote if they don't have a "government issued" ID.
I already have a retired military ID and a VA id with no chips in them. Plus I don't have to renew my license till 2013.

A chip in an identity card will not prevent identy theft of forgery. It will make it an easier proposition since the data will be in one place. The only near foolproof system is biometrics.
 
Wouldn't it be sort of invasion of privacy though? I don't see how the government could legally do this, like GWB recording phone calls. I know that if it comes to pass there are some people out there with paranoia disorders that will have a fit.
 
States must comply or lose federal funding.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting if a large number of states just gave the fed the finger and lost their highway funding. As the roads got worse and worse the economies of the whole country would suffer. The states could rightfully claim the feds are demanding unreasonable things and are holding the peoples tax money hostage to these demands.

If you seriously think about it, who is more likely to suffer, the state represenatives or the federal represenatives? I seriously believe that the state represenatives would have a much easier time gathering support for their side of the issue. The feds would be seen as killing the economy by keeping money that the PEOPLE paid to maintain those roads.

As for the economic downturn as the interstate system fell into disrepair, the states would be able to outlast the federal government since the states would likely have popular support against "the people in Washington" and be willing to endure the hardships created. (Would be interesting to see if the states could/would sieze the federal gas taxes.) If 10-15+ states did this I would think the feds would have a hard time stopping it without lossing any remaining support in those states as well as the nearby states.

Such a downturn would not be limited to the states that lost funding. The other states would feel the effect as the national system became fragmented.

Just throwing out ideas. I can dream can't I.:rolleyes:
 
Doesnt this "Real ID" chip sound alot like the "mark of the beast" to you of the Christian faith out there?

Just the idea of being chipped is scary enough to me. I for one dont want any govt. entity keeping up with me 24/7
 
Downside? Hell, what's the upside of the "Real ID Act"?
Click to expand...

National standards for identification. May not seem like a huge deal, but when somebody can board a plane in Massachusetts and fly it into a skyscraper in New York, suddenly widely varying standards across states doesn't seem so swell.

Though I think this falls under "cures worse than the disease." Still, there are upsides.
 
Though I think this falls under "cures worse than the disease." Still, there are upsides.
Click to expand...

I am not sure a Natl. ID is the answer, but something is needed for those of us that are citizens.
I think the LEO or airport security etc should know what you are if your ask. Citizen,and or legal status or lack thereof.
 
Think about it. If we really had a "War On Terror" would the borders be wide open? If .gov really cared about ID-ing illegals, would there be "sanctuary cities" and would the cops be told not to question people they stop about their legal status? The "Real ID Act" is aimed at citizens, another way we can be tracked and controled.
Control is the reason, fear of attack or illegals is the excuse, "Real ID" is the answer. Gov creats the problem, plays on people's fears (reaction, i.e. "protect us, save us!"), and then provides the solution (Real ID Act). It's the Hegelian dialectic, thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis (problem, reaction, solution).

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
Click to expand...

badbob
 
JuanCarlos
Quote:
Downside? Hell, what's the upside of the "Real ID Act"?
National standards for identification. May not seem like a huge deal, but when somebody can board a plane in Massachusetts and fly it into a skyscraper in New York, suddenly widely varying standards across states doesn't seem so swell.

Though I think this falls under "cures worse than the disease." Still, there are upsides.

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

There is no upside to the screw-up that is this Real ID Act.

As to your reference to the hijacking of 4 airliners on 11 September 2001, and the inference that "national standards for identification" would have prevented that, doesn't hold water in my view, how about the following. Had the pilots of those airliners been armed, as airline pilots USED TO BE, the results obtained at days end MIGHT have been markedly different. Also, TSA is, to this very day, "slow walking" the arming of airline pilots, lately Federal Flight
Deck Officers (FFDO's), actually the REARMING thereof would be more correct. Why is this crap tolerated by the people of this country, and or their "elected things"?

badbob writes:

Think about it. If we really had a "War On Terror" would the borders be wide open? If .gov really cared about ID-ing illegals, would there be "sanctuary cities" and would the cops be told not to question people they stop about their legal status? The "Real ID Act" is aimed at citizens, another way we can be tracked and controled.
Control is the reason, fear of attack or illegals is the excuse, "Real ID" is the answer. Gov creats the problem, plays on people's fears (reaction, i.e. "protect us, save us!"), and then provides the solution (Real ID Act). It's the Hegelian dialectic, thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis (problem, reaction, solution).

Quote:
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

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

Interesting points there bob.

badbob writes:

Downside? Hell, what's the upside of the "Real ID Act"?

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

Very good question.

RedneckFur writes:

Doesnt this "Real ID" chip sound alot like the "mark of the beast" to you of the Christian faith out there?

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

I personally would rather not visit the question of religion, when what we see is bureaucratic over-reaching.

Crosshair
Quote:
States must comply or lose federal funding.

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

Some states are raising objections as well as actually, legislatively speaking, telling the feds to shove it. I wonder about the following re this. How many of the states are taking a stand on principle, as opposed to those merely objecting to what they describe as "an unfunded mandate". Should The Congress come up with the dollars, one wonders as to where they might come from, might their protests disappear, like winter's snow in July?
 
RedneckFur writes:

Doesnt this "Real ID" chip sound alot like the "mark of the beast" to you of the Christian faith out there?


Me says:
<><
 
As to your reference to the hijacking of 4 airliners on 11 September 2001, and the inference that "national standards for identification" would have prevented that, doesn't hold water in my view, how about the following. Had the pilots of those airliners been armed, as airline pilots USED TO BE, the results obtained at days end MIGHT have been markedly different. Also, TSA is, to this very day, "slow walking" the arming of airline pilots...
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to infer that national ID standards would have prevented the attacks, just that the attacks are an excellent example of how a "weak link" in one state could easily cause damage anywhere else in the nation.

I also agree that allowing crewmembers to be armed would also help prevent such attacks in the future. However, that only applies to airline attacks...a national ID standard could help prevent other kinds of attacks as well. And the two aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm still opposed to it, but I'm just putting forward the idea that there are positives. They are outweighed by negatives, but that doesn't mean they suddenly don't exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top