(no subject)

[usernamenumber]

On the subject of the Real ID thing (thanks to those who replied), the most interesting discussion that I've seen on the subject is here at security guru Bruce Scheiner's blog (which I found via Wil Wheaton-- sometimes I just love the internet). The article is Scheiner's arguments against the bill, which are a lot more coherant than the stuff at unrealid, but the really interesting stuff is in the comments where there are a number of well thought out back-and-forths by proponents of both sides. In particular the comments by Jarrod, Cypherpunk and Henning Makholm (insert grumbling about not being able to link to specific comments here) all tended to echo my thoughts from the previous post so the responses to them were interesting (and surprisingly civil!).

I'm still convinced that this is hardly the totalitarian power play it's being made out to be, but the practical concerns raised, like the cost of implementation, whether it provides any real security enhancement (even if it doesn't, though, it would still make IDs harder to fake), the possibility of later mandating RFID for the IDs and the lack of privacy guidelines for retained proof-of-identity documents, make it easier for me to think of this as a bad idea.

I just read another disturbing bit here, which I was linked to by dfn_doe. It's in an earlier section, so I hadn't paid it as much attention, but it bascially says that the Secretary of Homeland Security can, at his sole discression, waive any laws that he deems "necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section". Umm... the hell? Please someone tell me that doesn't actually mean that the secretary can say "I deem it necessary to repeal Roe v. Wade in order to construct this road". I mean, it's ludicrous of course, but with "sole discression", who's to stop him? It doesn't help that the very next clause prohibits judicial intervention of any kind in the Secretary doing exactly what he wants persuant to the previous clause. Now that's scary (I wrote the bit about being convinced that it's not a toalitarian power play before reading it).

So yeah, someone please tell me I'm misunderstanding this. Maybe my dad's right. Maybe I should go into law. Sometimes I think it's the only way I'm ever going to understand what the hell is going on.

Oh, and I'm _still_ totally confused as to whether or not this thing is still attached to the emergency spending bill.

...which, I just read in trying to find the answer to that question, has passed by a landslide even though everyone was saying the vote would be on Tuesday. Maybe it's a different spending bill. For what it's worth, the text of the passed bill seems pretty to-the-point and ammendment-free.

*sigh*. Two nights in a row spent researching this stuff. Why is it that the more open and transparant our system is the more powerless I feel? I know the answer to that is "because you've never lived under the thumb of a truly opressive regime", but it still feels good to ask.

Comments

[manana.livejournal.com]

the Secretary of Homeland Security can, at his sole discression, waive any laws that he deems "necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section". Umm... the hell? Please someone tell me that doesn't actually mean that the secretary can say "I deem it necessary to repeal Roe v. Wade in order to construct this road".

It doesn't mean that. Worry not. Our government is deliberately set up so that it's hard to accomplish anything, much less anything significant. First of all, even if that were what the law said, Congress doesn't have the jurisdiction to overrule the Supreme Court except by Constitutional Amendment (and that's a bitch-and-a-half process in itself). Secondly, that's not what that clause says; it says he/she/it can waive any laws that he deems necessary. Roe v. Wade is a judicial ruling, and, as I said, only a constitutional amendment can change that (or, in the executive branch, refusal to enforce it, but that's pretty extreme and would get *anybody* booted during the next election). In any case, the law can say whatever it wants, but the constitution takes precedence, so in actual fact they would be subject to judicial review and could very quickly have those powers retracted if they were abused. The "no jurisdiction" clause there is (I'm pretty sure) to cut away the bureaucracy so that it can actually fulfil its duties in a timely manner, and does not excuse the office from following the constitution (because, as I said earlier, no "normal" law can supercede the constitution).

[usernamenumber.livejournal.com]

That's a good perspective to have, thanks. And, just so I don't look like a complete doofus, I knew about Roe v. Wade not being a law and all, but was getting tired and couldn't think of a better <insert unrelated, but would-upset-people-if-changed thing here> to use. =:)

[dfn-doe.livejournal.com]

*warning warning warning, this is not a troll, this is just a questions, I'm not trying to start a religion debate*

Uhm, I'm just curious, but, are you saying you support the "right to choose"? I thought abortion was like not part of the whole mormon bit...

[usernamenumber.livejournal.com]

Well, I was mainly just using it as an example. As for my personal feelings, I can't get around the fact that conception is the beginning of a process that invariably (barring miscarriage and such) culminates in the creation of a human being. It doesn't matter whether "humanity" is bestowed as a zygote, embryo, or infant, the process is the process. It behaves independantly of the will of either parent and the result of its interruption is the same no matter where it gets interrupted. As such, at the risk of sounding inflamatory, I have never seen a way to rationaly distinguish between abortion and murder.

I would consider myself "pro-life" in that sense, then. But there are practical issues with legislating against abortion which, in the end, leave me at an impasse. In cases where there is physical danger to the mother or in cases of rape I would never be against an abortion. It would be a sad thing, but the alternative would be worse (if I'm even qualified to judge "worse").

As for the rest, though, I would like for adoption to be a viable alternative to abortion. I would like it if, in the event of abortions being outlawed, people did not treat unsafe "back alley" abortions as a viable alternative and that there would never be a woman driven to such a thing by circumstances or a selfish "partner". I would like it if the prevailing attitude of men was to accept the obvious fact that pregnency is as much the responsibility of a man as that of a woman, so that "reproductive rights" could be treated as a human issue rather than a women's issue. I would like to see teenagers taught that responsible sex includes accepting the consequences of sex rather than just doing "due diligence" with contraception and absolving themselves of responsibility beyond that.

Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that any of these things are the case and so I don't think I could, in good conscience, see it outlawed either. It's a very difficult situation, wherein I've just had to accept that there is no good solution.

So, umm.. yeah. I hope that answers your question.

[usernamenumber.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I should add that (and I hope I've demonstrated this) my position on abortion isn't a Mormon thing, it's the result of conclusions that I've reached personally. There are a number of social issues on which I disagree with the church. My spiritual identity (which, to my shame, I haven't maintained with the vigor I did in the past) has always been centered around the theology more than the politics of Mormonism.

[dfn-doe.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the insightful and well worded response :) I'm glad that people like you exist to provide a moderate voice to a debate that seems to have foamy mouthed fundamentalists on both sides framing the debate.

I too find myself as being generally anti-abortion and at the same time pro-choice for many of the reasons you sited...

[ryca.livejournal.com]

I'm glad that people like you are paying attention. Personally, I'm terrified.

Also, if I'm ever required to get a national id, I'll go to jail first. Viva Thoreau!

[fsckitall.livejournal.com]

well one, yes the dept of defense/homeland security can repeal whatever they want, as screwed up as that is.

Also, you're looking at out of date materials. You have to DIG through recent articles at CNN to find anything on it -- but you will. The text of the act hasn't been published (obviously) because it (1)has not been passed as of yet and (2) would cause a public upheaval.

Also, the department of defense/Homeland Sec has definately stated that if its issued that they WANT an RFID chip on it. That'd change american lives for sure. Anyone with access would be able to tell where you went to dinner that night (if you ordered a beer, say), where you bought your cigarrettes, etc etc. And it is just like the Nazi "May we See zie paipaz?". Because while it isn't actually paper, its an electronic passport if you will that more or less makes it necessary to have with you.

One thing that concerned me was talk of adding the ID to the banking system so you would no longer need a bank card, etc -- but the ID itself would work as your credit/debit. How ridiculous is that!? If you want to find talk on that topic, google it and make sure you put in message boards in your query. I found that quite interesting and disturbing nonetheless.

And what..

[fsckitall.livejournal.com]

And what "Manana" said is true -- they can't repeal a judicial ruled precedent. But a law or ammendment they can. Technicality? Yes. But don't think they'd get away with it -- technicalities are the easiest way to win a case in the court system.

[usernamenumber.livejournal.com]

I'm fairly certain that in order to be submitted in Congress an act must have its text published. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/search.html has the text of everything since 1989, at least as far as I know. They can't pass or even debate a bill that hasn't been published.

As for the RFID, yeah, as I've said before that worries me. The question is whether or not the vagueness in the law could really allow that to be mandated. If they tried, the states would throw a fit. Even if they weren't concerned about the privacy issues (and I'm sure some would be) implementing RFID would be immensely more expensive than using a barcode or magstripe for little practical gain.

Also, I'm not convinced that even if they did use RFID someone could tell where you'd eaten just by reading your card. It seems technically infeasable, besides just impractical, to actually store purchase statements and whatnot on the card its self. It seems much more likely to me that the card would contain name, addr, etc (which, don't get me wrong, I would not like random strangers to be able to get either) and some sort of id number that could theoretically then be cross-referenced with eg your bank's id. However, even that scenario would require that the person scanning your info have access to the bank's db, which would be a catastrophe in its self for any number of other reasons.

What concerns me far more is the prospect of identity theft. If the card is meant to prove that you are who you say you are and all of the authentication tokens (whatever info about you is used to constitute "proof" of your identity) is available via rfid then it could be possible, if not trivial, to gain that information and, with the right equipment, create a duplicate ID. You're never asked to swipe your driver's license, which is good for exactly this reason. So why make it easier for a card to be "swiped" without the owner's knowlege? At least with a barcode or magstripe the victim could think back to all the places he/she had allowed the card to be scanned or taken out of sight.