6 ms·

The US functionally has it. Your driver’s license goes into a national database, as do your license plates and social security number. I can drive through Oklah

The US functionally has it. Your driver’s license goes into a national database, as do your license plates and social security number. I can drive through Oklahoma (several states away) and their system will automatically read my plates at a toll road and a bill will arrive at my home. Our licenses now need a federal registration for us to board a plane. I think states have dropped issuing the ones that don’t. The NSA probably has everyone’s cell number, text messages, and metadata (including location) stored. With tech being what it is these days anonymity doesn’t exist.

rootusrootus 2y ago
> I think states have dropped issuing the ones that don’t. Some have. Oregon, as a single example, will let you opt for a non-Real ID card.
- jackson1442 2y ago
  Washington doesn’t even officially offer a RealID. Instead they have the “Enhanced ID” which functions as a passport card but does not have the security features required on a RealID (though it does have some additional features like RFID).
  - _caw 2y ago
    Can you expand on that? The Federal Government[0] seems to think the EDL[1] is a RealID. [0] https://www.dhs.gov/real-id https://www.dhs.gov/real-id [1] https://dol.wa.gov/id-cards/real-id https://dol.wa.gov/id-cards/real-id
    - joecool1029 2y ago
      All EDL's are RealID complaint, not all drivers licenses are. NJ issues 'not for Real ID purposes' drivers licenses still with the option to get the realid yellow star licenses DHS shows on your first link. They keep pushing back the enforcement date due to various ACLU and state lawsuits as well as COVID-19 backlog.
      - bobthepanda 2y ago
        sure, but saying that EDLs are Real ID compliant directly contradicts the grandparent comment saying that WA does not issue a Real ID.
  - Spooky23 2y ago
    Not true. Proof of citizenship for Enhanced ID meets and exceeds the RealID requirement.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  RealID requires a social security card and is mostly about making it difficult for poor people to vote. Data exchange between DMVs or for other non-law enforcement purposes is coordinated through AAMVA. You can see what states exchange data here: (https://www.aamva.org/it-systems-participation-map https://www.aamva.org/it-systems-participation-map). There are loopholes that people exploit - for example NJ registered trucks won't be subject to registration action in NY... so you can accumulate lots of tickets in NYC with no consequence. Some Canadian provinces exchange data between individual states as well. A system called Nlets connects every jurisdiction for law enforcement purposes.
  - jonathankoren 2y ago
    > RealID requires a social security card and is mostly about making it difficult for poor people to vote. Bruh. If you don't have a social security number, you can't even work legally. Also, 99% of people born in the US[0] get them at birth. What are you talking about? [0] I on the other hand, didn't get one until I was about 8 years old, because my parents wanted to hide me from the draft, but that's now the draft works, and you need a social security number for all sorts of stuff now, like tax deductions.
    - Spooky23 2y ago
      There’s a difference between having a social security number and a social security card. You need a number to work. You need the card for real id. Replacement of a lost card is onerous. For a minor, incredibly onerous - you need a healthcare provider to sign a statement identifying the minor. (Good luck with that)
      - elcritch 2y ago
        I got a real id compliant drivers license last year and didn’t need my SS card.
        Muromec 2y ago
        Maybe you are not in the target demography for this particular enforcement bias if the agenda mentioned by the person bringing up the theory is legit.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lotsofpulp 2y ago
> I can drive through Oklahoma (several states away) and their system will automatically read my plates at a toll road and a bill will arrive at my home. I’ve driven a car with USA license plates through tolls in Canada and gotten a bill at home. Also, passports have existed forever.
- InCityDreams 2y ago
  Good history here (and, you're not incorrect) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport : modern passports 1920s. "While the United Nations held a travel conference in 1963, no passport guidelines resulted from it. Passport standardization came about in 1980, under the auspices of the ICAO. ICAO standards include those for machine-readable passports. Such passports have an area where some of the information otherwise written in textual form is written as strings of alphanumeric characters, printed in a manner suitable for optical character recognition. This enables border controllers and other law enforcement agents to process these passports more quickly, without having to input the information manually into a computer."
  - skissane 2y ago
    A lot has changed about passports even in my lifetime (I’m in my early 40s). I remember my mother showing me one of her old British passports, which had my younger brother on it. The UK abolished family passports in 1998, so since then it has been impossible for a person to add their spouse or minor child to their British passport, your spouse/child needs a British passport of their own-even a newborn baby Whereas, our other nationality, Australian (I, my mother and my siblings are all dual Australia/UK citizens), I’m not sure if it ever had family passports, but if it did, it must have abolished them significantly before the UK did
Spooky23 2y ago
We have it explicitly as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_passport_card https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_passport_card
- joecool1029 2y ago
  I wouldn't FUD the passport card, it's a good alternative for age proofing that doesn't include home address information. Unless you like businesses collecting that information....
  - Spooky23 2y ago
    It’s not FUD! Personally, I don’t think it’s a negative thing at all.
bigbacaloa 2y ago
[dead]
notepad0x90 2y ago
Think of the basic needs of a human being. Buying food and water, paying for shelter and living in a safe environment. For these things, proving one's identity should not be required, nor should a person be required to do business with a 3rd party (banks and credit cards) or have their activity tracked and surveilled. A person's right to exist and to pursue continued existence is inalienable and beyond the authority of a government or society to regulate. Other things like transportation, certain types of employment and participation in government, I can see why a national id would be required for those. Does the government (any government) have the authority to require identity proof from a person, simply because that person exists?
- SiempreViernes 2y ago
  Funny how you describe the basic need as "the right to buy", what about those without enough resources to buy on their own such?
  - mattmaroon 2y ago
    Then you get into positive vs negative rights. We’re very much a negative rights society and you can’t square the two. Negative rights feel good because they don’t infringe on anyone else, whereas a positive right always does. Your positive right is someone else’s lack of a negative right, the opposite isn’t true. For someone to have a positive right to shelter, for instance, you have to take shelter from someone (or, as we typically do, money from someone to pay for it). Taxation is the one way we’ve managed to get people to at least someone accept positive rights here, but if you ask anyone under 30 who is a Republican why they are, they’ll almost always cite positive rights like welfare. It’s so uncomfortable feeling to us that it becomes the basis of our political philosophy frequently. It’s never felt comfortable to me to call things like that a right. Public health care is the only sane option, IMO, and we should do it, but calling it a “right“ always feels wrong to me and I think most Americans agree because we’re so strongly in the negative rights camp.
    - StockHuman 2y ago
      > Negative rights feel good because they don’t infringe on anyone else, whereas a positive right always does. The lack of positive rights infringes on a society’s own fabric, however. The right to a lawyer or legal counsel is a positive right born from the ideal of fairness under the law; I’m not sure framing the American (conservative?) character as so staunchly against positive rights is correct. Police protection is very popular with the right, and that necessarily involves the labour of others. Society ensuring some minimum standard of health so that one may properly navigate life (and enjoy the rest of their rights) is framed as a right as health is a general precursor to everything else: it’s not that odd a framing, no? “You have the right to vote, but not to live long enough to get to the polls” is the outcome of categorizing essential societal functions as somehow out of scope of what society should do. I think the average Republican gets that, though a lower tax bill is always the priority.
soco 2y ago
From what the comments added to this, I would say the best (only?) privacy-favoring aspect in the States is that personal identification is in chaos. Not that you wouldn't have some identification features, but every little corner handles them differently. Nevertheless, the security organs seem to have found effective ways around this chaos, so I'd say that with or without national ID those who need to know know, and the only ones left in chaos are the regular people.
blendergeek 2y ago
> I think states have dropped issuing the ones that don’t. A lot of states still issue the non-federal ones. They are much cheaper and easier to obtain (at least where I live).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
seethishat 2y ago
How much storage would you need to store every text message ever sent by everyone on earth indefinitely? Has anyone done the math on that? I'm not sure it's possible without some infinite storage system (that obviously does not exist).

rootusrootus 2y ago

> I think states have dropped issuing the ones that don’t. Some have. Oregon, as a single example, will let you opt for a non-Real ID card.

jackson1442 2y ago
Washington doesn’t even officially offer a RealID. Instead they have the “Enhanced ID” which functions as a passport card but does not have the security features required on a RealID (though it does have some additional features like RFID).
- _caw 2y ago
  Can you expand on that? The Federal Government[0] seems to think the EDL[1] is a RealID. [0] https://www.dhs.gov/real-id https://www.dhs.gov/real-id [1] https://dol.wa.gov/id-cards/real-id https://dol.wa.gov/id-cards/real-id
  - joecool1029 2y ago
    All EDL's are RealID complaint, not all drivers licenses are. NJ issues 'not for Real ID purposes' drivers licenses still with the option to get the realid yellow star licenses DHS shows on your first link. They keep pushing back the enforcement date due to various ACLU and state lawsuits as well as COVID-19 backlog.
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      sure, but saying that EDLs are Real ID compliant directly contradicts the grandparent comment saying that WA does not issue a Real ID.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  Not true. Proof of citizenship for Enhanced ID meets and exceeds the RealID requirement.
Spooky23 2y ago
RealID requires a social security card and is mostly about making it difficult for poor people to vote. Data exchange between DMVs or for other non-law enforcement purposes is coordinated through AAMVA. You can see what states exchange data here: (https://www.aamva.org/it-systems-participation-map https://www.aamva.org/it-systems-participation-map). There are loopholes that people exploit - for example NJ registered trucks won't be subject to registration action in NY... so you can accumulate lots of tickets in NYC with no consequence. Some Canadian provinces exchange data between individual states as well. A system called Nlets connects every jurisdiction for law enforcement purposes.
- jonathankoren 2y ago
  > RealID requires a social security card and is mostly about making it difficult for poor people to vote. Bruh. If you don't have a social security number, you can't even work legally. Also, 99% of people born in the US[0] get them at birth. What are you talking about? [0] I on the other hand, didn't get one until I was about 8 years old, because my parents wanted to hide me from the draft, but that's now the draft works, and you need a social security number for all sorts of stuff now, like tax deductions.
  - Spooky23 2y ago
    There’s a difference between having a social security number and a social security card. You need a number to work. You need the card for real id. Replacement of a lost card is onerous. For a minor, incredibly onerous - you need a healthcare provider to sign a statement identifying the minor. (Good luck with that)
    - elcritch 2y ago
      I got a real id compliant drivers license last year and didn’t need my SS card.
      - Muromec 2y ago
        Maybe you are not in the target demography for this particular enforcement bias if the agenda mentioned by the person bringing up the theory is legit.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lotsofpulp 2y ago

> I can drive through Oklahoma (several states away) and their system will automatically read my plates at a toll road and a bill will arrive at my home. I’ve driven a car with USA license plates through tolls in Canada and gotten a bill at home. Also, passports have existed forever.

InCityDreams 2y ago
Good history here (and, you're not incorrect) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport : modern passports 1920s. "While the United Nations held a travel conference in 1963, no passport guidelines resulted from it. Passport standardization came about in 1980, under the auspices of the ICAO. ICAO standards include those for machine-readable passports. Such passports have an area where some of the information otherwise written in textual form is written as strings of alphanumeric characters, printed in a manner suitable for optical character recognition. This enables border controllers and other law enforcement agents to process these passports more quickly, without having to input the information manually into a computer."
- skissane 2y ago
  A lot has changed about passports even in my lifetime (I’m in my early 40s). I remember my mother showing me one of her old British passports, which had my younger brother on it. The UK abolished family passports in 1998, so since then it has been impossible for a person to add their spouse or minor child to their British passport, your spouse/child needs a British passport of their own-even a newborn baby Whereas, our other nationality, Australian (I, my mother and my siblings are all dual Australia/UK citizens), I’m not sure if it ever had family passports, but if it did, it must have abolished them significantly before the UK did

Spooky23 2y ago

We have it explicitly as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_passport_card https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_passport_card

joecool1029 2y ago
I wouldn't FUD the passport card, it's a good alternative for age proofing that doesn't include home address information. Unless you like businesses collecting that information....
- Spooky23 2y ago
  It’s not FUD! Personally, I don’t think it’s a negative thing at all.

bigbacaloa 2y ago

[dead]

notepad0x90 2y ago

Think of the basic needs of a human being. Buying food and water, paying for shelter and living in a safe environment. For these things, proving one's identity should not be required, nor should a person be required to do business with a 3rd party (banks and credit cards) or have their activity tracked and surveilled. A person's right to exist and to pursue continued existence is inalienable and beyond the authority of a government or society to regulate. Other things like transportation, certain types of employment and participation in government, I can see why a national id would be required for those. Does the government (any government) have the authority to require identity proof from a person, simply because that person exists?

SiempreViernes 2y ago
Funny how you describe the basic need as "the right to buy", what about those without enough resources to buy on their own such?
- mattmaroon 2y ago
  Then you get into positive vs negative rights. We’re very much a negative rights society and you can’t square the two. Negative rights feel good because they don’t infringe on anyone else, whereas a positive right always does. Your positive right is someone else’s lack of a negative right, the opposite isn’t true. For someone to have a positive right to shelter, for instance, you have to take shelter from someone (or, as we typically do, money from someone to pay for it). Taxation is the one way we’ve managed to get people to at least someone accept positive rights here, but if you ask anyone under 30 who is a Republican why they are, they’ll almost always cite positive rights like welfare. It’s so uncomfortable feeling to us that it becomes the basis of our political philosophy frequently. It’s never felt comfortable to me to call things like that a right. Public health care is the only sane option, IMO, and we should do it, but calling it a “right“ always feels wrong to me and I think most Americans agree because we’re so strongly in the negative rights camp.
  - StockHuman 2y ago
    > Negative rights feel good because they don’t infringe on anyone else, whereas a positive right always does. The lack of positive rights infringes on a society’s own fabric, however. The right to a lawyer or legal counsel is a positive right born from the ideal of fairness under the law; I’m not sure framing the American (conservative?) character as so staunchly against positive rights is correct. Police protection is very popular with the right, and that necessarily involves the labour of others. Society ensuring some minimum standard of health so that one may properly navigate life (and enjoy the rest of their rights) is framed as a right as health is a general precursor to everything else: it’s not that odd a framing, no? “You have the right to vote, but not to live long enough to get to the polls” is the outcome of categorizing essential societal functions as somehow out of scope of what society should do. I think the average Republican gets that, though a lower tax bill is always the priority.

soco 2y ago

From what the comments added to this, I would say the best (only?) privacy-favoring aspect in the States is that personal identification is in chaos. Not that you wouldn't have some identification features, but every little corner handles them differently. Nevertheless, the security organs seem to have found effective ways around this chaos, so I'd say that with or without national ID those who need to know know, and the only ones left in chaos are the regular people.

blendergeek 2y ago

> I think states have dropped issuing the ones that don’t. A lot of states still issue the non-federal ones. They are much cheaper and easier to obtain (at least where I live).

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

seethishat 2y ago

How much storage would you need to store every text message ever sent by everyone on earth indefinitely? Has anyone done the math on that? I'm not sure it's possible without some infinite storage system (that obviously does not exist).