On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:39:28AM -0800, Neil Schneider wrote: > * The law gives the Dept of Homeland Security the power to set > requirements for drivers licenses. This is similar to a bill that we > discussed last year. An excerpt from a column I wrote about it: > > http://news.com.com/2010-1028_3-5395386.html > "A Senate bill introduced last month in response to the 9/11 > Commission's report would give the Department of Homeland Security > unfettered power to regulate state drivers' licenses and ID cards. The > House version takes a similar approach. Both measures say federal > agencies will only accept licenses and ID cards that comply--a > requirement that would affect anyone who wants to get a U.S. passport, > obtain Social Security benefits, or even wander into a federal > courthouse. States would be strong-armed into complying."
States are already strong-armed into setting the "correct" drinking age, among other things. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. If the Federal guidelines were just to ensure a common denominator, to make sure that someone who shouldn't have "real" ID can't just cross a state border, then I'm fine with it. Of course, we already know that making sure that illegal aliens can't get licenses has been thrown out of this bill, so it seems moot to me... there's already a huge, gaping loophole. > * This bill requires "a common machine-readable technology, with > defined minimum data elements" and the presentation of a Social > Security Number before a license can be issued. It's only a matter of time before our SSNs are tattooed on our foreheads in barcode form... > * States get $$$ from the feds if they share their data in a national > database that provides "electronic access by a state to information > contained in the motor vehicle databases of all other states" that > includes "motor vehicle drivers' histories, including motor vehicle > violations, suspensions, and points on licenses." I thought they already had this? The days when a speeding ticket in another state was simply cause for a good chortle are long gone. > * In another section, the Dept of Homeland Security receives the > blanket authority to waive "all laws" that could stand in the way of > erecting more barriers at borders. But since they don't intend to "erect more barriers at the borders"... what's the effing point??? > * Federal immigration law is changed to bar aliens who have "engaged > in a terrorist activity" -- they now would be unable to enter the > U.S. legally. I'm A-OK with that! > * The definition of terrorist activity is broadened (for starters, it > includes the PLO). It also covers anyone providing "communications" to > a organization the U.S. dislikes. Should ISPs be worried? Hmmm... this is a very good point. If DHS suspects that Ahmed and Achmed are terrorists, and they're exchanging encrupted emails... I could see some bureaucrat coming down on the ISP saying "You better give us access to what they're saying pursuant to this list of wiretap laws!" "We *can't*, you moron!" "Then you're aiding and abetting terrorists! Off to Guantanamo Bay with you!" I really think, bottom line, that this is just more smoke and hot air to feed yet another burgeoning Federal bureaucracy. As menacing as some of the provisions seem, they'll stumble over their own feet trying to implement and enforce, while the terrorists keep doing as they've always done. A few people may be caught in the labyrinth, but none of these measures will really accomplish anything. Just like the TSA! -- *********************************************************************** * John Oliver http://www.john-oliver.net/ * * * *********************************************************************** -- KPLUG-List mailing list [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
