3 ms·
I don't see any issue presented here that is exclusive to Real ID. The arguments presented here seem to logically argue against any government identification.
by 1shooner 2y ago
I don't see any issue presented here that is exclusive to Real ID.
The arguments presented here seem to logically argue against any government identification. Real ID isn't required for domestic travel, it's required for federally-regulated air travel. According to DHS, it doesn't create new databases, it's a credentialing standard.
I'm not familiar with Real ID, but this article doesn't present substantive arguments against it. It comes off a bit histrionic:
> And if you lose a Real ID—or it malfunctions—get ready for bureaucratic nightmares that would make Kafka blush. Newspapers will carry stories about people with Real ID problems who can’t access government offices to resolve them, because they don’t have Real ID.
- xienze 2y ago> Real ID isn't required for domestic travel, it's required for federally-regulated air travel. What’s the distinction here? I would think flying with any commercial airline domestically is considered “federally-regulated air travel.”
- kemayo 2y agoI believe they're pointing out that flying isn't the only way to travel domestically. You can drive or take the train without needing to have a Real ID. (You can certainly quibble about relative practicality of that in a country the size of the USA.)
- 1shooner 2y agoThe article called Real ID a North Korea-style domestic passport. That is not what it is. There is no categorical control on domestic travel. Commercial aviation is regulated by the federal government. If you believe that no ID should be required for air travel, that is one thing, but if you accept the need for a credential to fly, of course you'd expect it to use a standard defined by the entity requiring it.