According to this AP article, US citizens will need to have a Department of Homeland Security compliant REAL ID driver's license to travel by air beginning in May 2008. The full article is here:
I understand the need for national security, but doesn't this seem like a gross infringment of individuals' right to privacy?
I forgot to add that I know the right to privacy is not established in the Constitution. It is, however, established by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1879) and has been upheld since then.
It won't happen. As noted, it is a hollow threat.
I liked the line that people over 50 are less likely to be terrorists. Isn't that "profiling"? And who are they less likely to be a terrorist than? Perhaps male, Muslims in their 20s or 30s?
phillie phan wrote:
According to this AP article, US citizens will need to have a Department of Homeland Security compliant REAL ID driver's license to travel by air beginning in May 2008. The full article is here:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/01/11/us_unveils_new_drivers_license_rules/I understand the need for national security, but doesn't this seem like a gross infringment of individuals' right to privacy?
Osama is that you?
"ambitious post-9/11 security rules"
aka welcome to a police state
f*** 9-11 already!
california drivers license apparently already meet most of the specs.
Take that terrorists! I bet they quake in fear of getting their picture taken at the start of the process!!!!
--------------------------------------
Most states already check Social Security numbers and about half check immigration status. Some, like New York, Virginia, North Carolina and California, have already implemented many of the security measures envisioned in REAL ID. In California, for example, officials expect the only major change to adopt the first phase would be to take the photograph at the beginning of the application process instead of the end.
these motherfukers are just going to ride 9/11 all the way to a f***en sneak & peak, snitch & tell society where 95% of the public doesnt care because they've been dumbed down (thanks fox). 4% do care, but dont do anything about it. less than 1% do speak out and protest. and a fraction of a fraction of a percent take this random phrase to heart
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
and then maybe act upon it with this random phrase
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
recognize it? ask google if you dont.
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56).
or better known as USA PATRIOT ACT
the biggest piece of cowshit to ever fly out of capitol hill.
goodbye to civil liberties.
Satchs White Brother wrote:
phillie phan wrote:According to this AP article, US citizens will need to have a Department of Homeland Security compliant REAL ID driver's license to travel by air beginning in May 2008. The full article is here:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/01/11/us_unveils_new_drivers_license_rules/I understand the need for national security, but doesn't this seem like a gross infringment of individuals' right to privacy?
Osama is that you?
Sorry, not Osama. I admit to being a liberal, but if Osama were around, I'd be delighted to "take care of him," if you know what I mean. I'm not so sure that this is an "empty threat" as is suggested in the article and various state responses... While administration policy will undoubtedly change with a new president, our current C********* in Chief will certainly support the REAL ID. Since there doesn't seem to be as much debate as I'd hoped on this issue, I'd like to ask all of you pro-Bush, pro-Patriot Act folks to defend the compilation of private information to form a massive, all inclusive federal database for the use of the Department of Homeland Security. It's difficult for me to imagine how anyone supporting "less government" could support this measure, yet it clearly falls within partisan lines. I'm INTERESTED, NOT LOOKING FOR A RANT, about those of you who support this measure, and if you have any ideas besides the party line "the terrorists are out to kill us."
Maybe I\'m naive, but it seems like all you have to do is provide a social security number and a valid birth certificate. I\'m not sure how that\'s infringing on anyone\'s privacy, how else would you prove you were a citizen and therefore eligible for a driver\'s licence in the first place? Hell, California (it seems) already uses the system (we actually do take pictures at the beggining of the process)and frankly it's not a very big deal.
I liked the line about a real ID being required of everyone under 50. Since this is being instituted via driver licenses does that mean my 10 year old has to pass his driving test before he can board a plane?