Yep. Both sides are bluffing and it's just a question of who's going to blink first. And the IRS tie-in is just weird. OK, so they might refuse to issue you a passport if you have more than $50,000 in unpaid federal taxes. They put people in prison for that sort of thing, saying you're not allowed to fly is pretty minor by comparison.
The whole article has a breathlessly conspiratorial tone.
"The Real ID Act created a national standard for state-issued IDs. Some states initially refused to comply, fearing that the federal government would make a national database of citizens."
Aren't Social Security numbers precisely that already? Not asking this question facetiously. Genuinely curious as to the distinction here.
I just generally assume the federal government has a database of citizens, and perhaps several databases. Not stating a political opinion on this one way or the other; just saying that it seems laughably naive to assume they don't, or that they don't already have the means to create one.
In theory, yes. Though SSNs aren't unique. Which was a problem for me, though I guess the other holder of my SSN has passed since I haven't had any issues in years.
> The Real ID Act created a national standard for state-issued IDs. Some states initially refused to comply, fearing that the federal government would make a national database of citizens.
Indeed. I'm not quite sure why people think the government doesn't already a "national database of citizens" between social security (theoretically assigned to every citizen) and taxes (ties SSN to address yearly).
The initial draft of the Minnesota State House's ban on Real ID compliance [0] specifically objected to a few aspects of the law:
- "the security and well-being of the people of Minnesota," which I believe references long-standing American objections to national identification schemes. Some context in [1].
- "to avoid unneeded expense to the people," referencing the fact that the federal government offered no funding to offset the cost of implementing Real ID.
- "to preserve the principles of federalism embodied in the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution," which speaks to concerns that the federal government was usurping rights reserved for the states, and thus challenging the fundamental, federated structure of the nation.
The final text of the bill [3] omits those specific complaints, but I found they shed light on the political context around the bill. Ultimately, it was passed 133-0 in the Minnesota House, and 64-1 in the Minnesota Senate.
The issue wasn't/isn't databases as much rather creating a compulsory national ID card. Requiring a federal ID that people have to carry at all times for many purposes is the concern..."your papers please" echoes totalitarian regimes.
I get the impression it is not at all about security but security theater, as Bruce Schneier would say.
It makes the govt appear to be doing something against a perceived threat.
But more importantly, it acclimates people to needing permission to travel and being observed while they do so; to being accountable to the government instead of having the government being accountable to the people; and to having a police presence in the most mundane aspects of their life.
We've seen this before in history and it didn't end well.
I get your point (and it's a good one), but I don't think it's even possible to get 100% effectiveness in screening for weapons. The government can't even keep cell phones and drugs out of jail. From a Bayesian standpoint, having the ability to look out for certain individuals and subject them to more scrutiny should at least in theory (if it's done correctly) lead to better outcomes.
The devil's advocate would point out that it makes the country more safe by keeping known terrorists out and/or limiting the mobility of criminals. For example, if someone just murdered their family, the easiest way to distance themselves from the scene of the crime would be to get on a plane for L.A.
They can't, and they know they can't. The TSA failing their own tests is in the news every now and then. So they pile on more layers of security.
Also worth noting, they care about the appearance of security in addition to the actual level of security. And boondoggle projects are great cover for otherwise unsavory projects.
A lot, if not most, of the security surrounding flights happens behind the scenes before you even get to the airport. If the name on the ticket is not the person getting on the plane, then all of that background work is worthless.
There are all kinds of reasons the tsa and the airlines want to make sure you are who you claim you are.
Most obvious would be checking to make sure you're not someone on the 'no flight list' for example.
The EU does passport checks on many internal travel services. It's not that there truly are no ways to travel without showing passports, but there's very few. Well on the continent you can just take a car, although with the refugee crisis there's many checks.
E.g. taking the train from London's King's Cross to Paris you will be subject to a full security screening and passport inspection. Faster than getting on a plane. Same for taking internal flights (even within a country. Paris to Marseille ... you need a passport) and I'm sure that's not the last list.
I contend that despite this there are many differences between the EU and the USSR, even with both being led by "commissars" (or is it commissioners ?)
That's because their passport was a universally accepted ID and just about everyone had one issued once they turned 16 (I think it was mandatory to have one actually).
Except that in the USSR the checks existed because many people simply weren't allowed to travel, you can still take other modes of transportation without a passport, and this passport requirement has a roughly zero chance of actually happening.
I'm no fan of the airline security apparatus, but let's be realistic.
I had to show id card for the Barcelona - Madrid rapid train. Spain is as far from USSR as possible.
In Europe the system with population wide government mandated and granted id works very well, is not burdensome and is not a big deal. And I have no idea why the US has not implemented one yet.
Isn't this against the constitution? I thought not restricting interstate travel and avoiding a Holy Roman Empire situation was part of the reason for having a federation.
ID requirements are changing, but there will be options other than US Passports or Real ID for domestic travel.
I live in Minnesota, a state which does not comply with Real ID, and which specifically passed legislation prohibiting compliance with Real ID [0]. There was a lot of sabre-rattling about this from the federal government last year, and the reaction is generally overblown.
First, stating that "passports may be required" is misleading. Many documents are acceptable for domestic travel, including "Enhanced Drivers Licenses," Global Entry / NEXUS / SENTRI cards, and others [1]. An EDL costs an extra $15 in Minnesota, while membership in a Trusted Traveler Program like NEXUS is $50 / 5 years (which, incidentally, includes both PreCheck and Global Entry, each of which is more expensive.)
Second, the TSA explicitly states [2] that all state-issued IDs will be acceptable until January 22nd, 2018, and that non-compliant states may be able to get extensions until October 1st, 2020.
Third, after October 1st, 2020, travelers must present "a REAL ID-compliant license or another acceptable form of identification," per the list in [1]. It's not Real ID, Passport, or nothing.
$50k in taxes can be a surprisingly low threshold. If you run a retail business you might do a couple million in sales to clear $100k for yourself. A simple misclassification of your labor or materials can put you $50k in debt to the IRS. In the scheme of how much money passes through a small business owner's hands, $50k isn't a lot of money even if $50k income is.
I had someone classify some non real property purchase from me as a service (personally taxable). I had completed all tax forms correctly. The IRS had accepted the taxes I paid on the profit of the property. But the people I sold it to claimed it was a service, so the IRS thought I had $15k income that I hadn't reported. I wasn't anywhere near the $50k mark (closer to $5-6k), but all it took was one person claiming something sketchy to make me delinquent in the eyes of the IRS, even when I had done my taxes correctly.
But isn't it the land of freedom? Is easier for me to travel to most countries of south america than for an us citizen to travel inside his/her own country.
Except the headline is wrong. TSA is, as a consequence of the REAL ID Act, going to require REAL ID compliant IDs in 2018. These are predominantly state issued identification cards (typically a drivers license). Passports are an alternate, valid ID.
No problem for me, New York has been issuing Real ID's for a long time, it is nice to have a driver's license that is good for Mexico and Canada. Much cheaper and useful than a CLEAR card.
In fact, New York is one of the states NOT issuing real IDs by default, so good luck flying to any other state with a NY license. You'd need to get the other version of the license, which I suspect most people wouldn't get (I know I haven't in the past).
It's not just the Real ID that makes you able to go to Mexico and Canada without a passport. It is that the ID is an 'Enhanced Driver's License.' Currently this only applies to licenses issued in Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, South Dakota, Vermont and Washington.
Florida is Real ID compliant, but not an Enhanced Driver's License, so you cannot use it to cross international borders. For that, I use a passport card.
You're talking about the "Enhanced License" which cost almost as much as a passport and is just as much of a hassle to get, so you might as well just get a passport and cover world travel. I live 20 minutes from Canada, when they started requiring that, I stopped going there.
[+] [-] patio11|10 years ago|reply
The TSA isn't even allowed to blanket ban people from traveling without ID documents in the status quo. (Surprised? https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification)
[+] [-] mikeash|10 years ago|reply
The whole article has a breathlessly conspiratorial tone.
[+] [-] pjc50|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Grue3|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonnathanson|10 years ago|reply
Aren't Social Security numbers precisely that already? Not asking this question facetiously. Genuinely curious as to the distinction here.
I just generally assume the federal government has a database of citizens, and perhaps several databases. Not stating a political opinion on this one way or the other; just saying that it seems laughably naive to assume they don't, or that they don't already have the means to create one.
[+] [-] Jtsummers|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diminoten2|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] furyg3|10 years ago|reply
The US is a weird place...
[+] [-] jdmichal|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callahad|10 years ago|reply
- "the security and well-being of the people of Minnesota," which I believe references long-standing American objections to national identification schemes. Some context in [1].
- "to avoid unneeded expense to the people," referencing the fact that the federal government offered no funding to offset the cost of implementing Real ID.
- "to preserve the principles of federalism embodied in the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution," which speaks to concerns that the federal government was usurping rights reserved for the states, and thus challenging the fundamental, federated structure of the nation.
The final text of the bill [3] omits those specific complaints, but I found they shed light on the political context around the bill. Ultimately, it was passed 133-0 in the Minnesota House, and 64-1 in the Minnesota Senate.
[0]: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF1438&vers...
[1]: https://epic.org/privacy/id_cards/
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
[3]: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2009&type=0&doctype=Ch...
[+] [-] mobilefriendly|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bickfordb|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imglorp|10 years ago|reply
It makes the govt appear to be doing something against a perceived threat.
But more importantly, it acclimates people to needing permission to travel and being observed while they do so; to being accountable to the government instead of having the government being accountable to the people; and to having a police presence in the most mundane aspects of their life.
We've seen this before in history and it didn't end well.
[+] [-] spacehome|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CaptainZapp|10 years ago|reply
This certainly applies for Zurich, Vienna, Düsseldorf and Warsaw.
You just scan your bording pass, or barcode on the phone and enter through an automated gate. Same, mostly applies, when you enter the plane.
This is not a recommendation not to carry an id, because there's always the possibility that some official, or airline staff wants to see it.
[+] [-] 13of40|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forgottenpass|10 years ago|reply
Also worth noting, they care about the appearance of security in addition to the actual level of security. And boondoggle projects are great cover for otherwise unsavory projects.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jdmichal|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChemicalWarfare|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emodendroket|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Torgo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gallerytungsten|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iofj|10 years ago|reply
E.g. taking the train from London's King's Cross to Paris you will be subject to a full security screening and passport inspection. Faster than getting on a plane. Same for taking internal flights (even within a country. Paris to Marseille ... you need a passport) and I'm sure that's not the last list.
I contend that despite this there are many differences between the EU and the USSR, even with both being led by "commissars" (or is it commissioners ?)
[+] [-] ChemicalWarfare|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|10 years ago|reply
I'm no fan of the airline security apparatus, but let's be realistic.
[+] [-] venomsnake|10 years ago|reply
In Europe the system with population wide government mandated and granted id works very well, is not burdensome and is not a big deal. And I have no idea why the US has not implemented one yet.
[+] [-] philipov|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callahad|10 years ago|reply
I live in Minnesota, a state which does not comply with Real ID, and which specifically passed legislation prohibiting compliance with Real ID [0]. There was a lot of sabre-rattling about this from the federal government last year, and the reaction is generally overblown.
First, stating that "passports may be required" is misleading. Many documents are acceptable for domestic travel, including "Enhanced Drivers Licenses," Global Entry / NEXUS / SENTRI cards, and others [1]. An EDL costs an extra $15 in Minnesota, while membership in a Trusted Traveler Program like NEXUS is $50 / 5 years (which, incidentally, includes both PreCheck and Global Entry, each of which is more expensive.)
Second, the TSA explicitly states [2] that all state-issued IDs will be acceptable until January 22nd, 2018, and that non-compliant states may be able to get extensions until October 1st, 2020.
Third, after October 1st, 2020, travelers must present "a REAL ID-compliant license or another acceptable form of identification," per the list in [1]. It's not Real ID, Passport, or nothing.
[0]: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2009&type=0&doctype=Ch...
[1]: https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification
[2]: https://www.tsa.gov/travel/frequently-asked-questions#realid
[+] [-] tedchs|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emodendroket|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] supercanuck|10 years ago|reply
Sounds like rich people problems to me.
[+] [-] LanceH|10 years ago|reply
I had someone classify some non real property purchase from me as a service (personally taxable). I had completed all tax forms correctly. The IRS had accepted the taxes I paid on the profit of the property. But the people I sold it to claimed it was a service, so the IRS thought I had $15k income that I hadn't reported. I wasn't anywhere near the $50k mark (closer to $5-6k), but all it took was one person claiming something sketchy to make me delinquent in the eyes of the IRS, even when I had done my taxes correctly.
[+] [-] 13of40|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leojg|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hathym|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway21816|10 years ago|reply
And now the airlines will get even less money
[+] [-] Jtsummers|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] th0waway|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] PaulHoule|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aioprisan|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ececconi|10 years ago|reply
Florida is Real ID compliant, but not an Enhanced Driver's License, so you cannot use it to cross international borders. For that, I use a passport card.
[+] [-] jasonkostempski|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] solutionyogi|10 years ago|reply
http://dmv.ny.gov/driver-license/about-federal-real-id