This is a very good pledge to have all humans to sign up for anywhere on the globe.
>>We are choosing to stand in solidarity with Muslim Americans,
This particular word, with no other specifc identities after that, takes the air out of this massive effort and gives the impression it is a localized effort.
Do you understand that you're basically pulling an "All Lives Matter" right now?
This statement was about the specific incoming US administration that was anti-immigrant, and especially anti-Muslim. It is a localized effort, because not every place has the same problems and needs the same solutions, and hyper-generalized statements that don't call out any particular instances of a problem are meaningless.
The author is concerned that the feds could subpoena the data from the company that it's being submitted to. Wouldn't this same concern apply to the feds serving a subpoena to the state? Once the data is out there, it's out there. If one level of government has it, all the peer/higher levels will have access of they want it.
It sounds like this database is the one that feeds license data to NCIC. The bigger question here is if we should be compiling and using data in the NCIC suchbas driver licenses and carry permits.
The author pointed out that one potential problem is feds subpoenaing data from the AAMVA and not notifying the state of California that it had done so. Given it's such a short article, I can't think of a good reason for why you would have overlooked this.
I didn't overlook it, it's simply not a relevant point. The state won't do anything about a individual subpoena wether it's against the state or a company.
I'm not fully understanding what this means or how to react to it because I just don't know. Can someone with a deep understanding of this and what this means to us regular folks please explain?
The article doesn't seem to go into any discussion or reasoning why Gavin Newsom would want to cooperate with this, seemingly against his own party?
What are the downsides of not cooperating? What is his motivation or benefits for capitulating?
Edit: Oh, ahhh I see: "Governor Gavin Newsom agreed to upload driver's license data to a national database primarily to comply with the Real ID Act of 2005 and avoid federal threats that would prevent California IDs from being accepted at airports and other federal facilities. This decision was finalized through a budget compromise with the state legislature following intense pressure from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security"
It was a strategic move by Newsom to comply with giving your data to a historically unpopular fedgov led by a historically unpopular president at a time when resisting would have been supported by his base and would have raised his political capital (and national profile). Very smart move.
States can choose not to comply, in fact the lack of compliance is why the deadlines keep getting pushed back. CA joining removes a huge roadblock for full implementation given its population.
States can implement Real ID without sharing the data with the Federal government. The only mandatory part is the standardization. States can (and do) share this data with each other directly.
The Federal government can't constructively require States to share the Real ID data with them, only ask politely, as that would go against existing Constitutional case law. Many States have declined to share Real ID data with the Federal government while still implementing Real ID. It is a bit surprising that California would agree to this.
See my comment elsewhere in this post, unfortunately once a state joins it is possible for AAMVA to compel the addition of all license data to the database, if the state wishes to remain Real ID compliant. AAMVA is a private entity that can change requirements without oversight.
These issues are really complicated because they aren’t left versus right. Conservatives and progressives both tend to be ideologically skeptical of enhancements/sharing of ID.
From a state perspective, there’s a lot of benefit to exchanging this type of information across state lines through AAMVA. It reduces a lot of fraud, avoids a lot of insurance issues that cost the state taxpayers a lot of money. It has a lot of benefits to things like commercial motor carrier safety that have a direct benefit to the public.
For example, New York does direct entity to entity sharing of many driving records with Ontario and Quebec. The Canadians benefited because I don’t allow people with DWIs to enter Canada, New York benefited by keeping unsafe truckers off state highways, who were exploiting certain pools in Canadian regulations.
It’ll take a bit of time, But the long game here is that the United States will have a national ID system.
The big conflict is that states issue licenses (AB 60 in California, “green light” in other places) without regard to the ability to provide legal documentation of legal residency. Advocates fear that the sharing will be used by the hypervigilant immigration bureaucracy. States don’t enforce immigration law, but every resident of a state is at risk if people are driving around without insurance or without being subject to driving licensing laws. This also allows populations like the homeless to get IDs, But it’s being used as a punching bag by right wing commentators, rallying against illegal alien truckers and other nonsense.
Maybe if both left and right weren't just puppets for the capital that finances their superPACs it would be more believable that they're different things
How does sharing drivers license information help "capital"? Sure you can probably handwave some stuff about how sending that information helps the surveillance state which can be used to stop occupy wall st style protests, but it's not clear how that's more convincing than the other common refrain, which is that immigration (legal or otherwise) helps "capital" because it drives down labor costs.
Every piece chipped off of our right to privacy and freedom from surveillance is another strike against civil society; it normalizes data-collection further and gives any government contractors (Palantir et. al) a bigger database to profit off of.
Should voter ID requirements (a la "SAVE America" act or similar) become law, constitutional prohibitions on poll taxes will lead towards every citizen getting an ID at no charge.
Many states already have required ID for voting, and indeed a state ID card can be obtained from the DMV for a nominal cost, probably free in need-based cases.
>These issues are really complicated because they aren’t left versus right. Conservatives and progressives both tend to be ideologically skeptical of enhancements/sharing of ID.
It's complicated within each party, but not overall. Idealogues prefer debating other idealogues because they use the same vocabularies and that preference is why they are always fighting, they like it. But the fat part of the curve in the middle is mostly made up of non idealogues who are quietly saying "can't you just shut up and compromise, let's be practical".
If they would ever shut up and compromise, there would be no need for their ideology. That's why advocates almost never really solve the issues they are advocating about, because to do so would be to eliminate the thing that gives them attention and power.
i'm not favoring any part of the spectrum, they all contribute, that's why they all exist in every society. Ideologies is where structured ideas come from, but they're usually embraced with religious fervor to the exclusion of reality, blind to the majority (the middle and the other side) who are not convinced, and the middle is where they are lived out. The trick is to not water the ideas down to meaninglessness against the grindstones of apathy and practicality.
I thought because of RealID made just after 9/11 all drivers licenses had to be in federal database anyway?
Not that it's acceptable but federal database of drivers licenses is smallest of privacy problems these days with federal overreach
NSA never ever stopped collecting phone calls, they have been storing that data in larger and larger databases in the deserts. Now "ai" can make all that into some insane level of datamining
> I thought because of RealID made just after 9/11 all drivers licenses had to be in federal database anyway?
At least Washington state still issues UnrealID in case the applicant is not willing to pay the extra fee or cannot or willnot provide the extra documentation. I don't think UnrealIDs have to be submitted?
As I understand it, most other states rolled the extra cost into the general fee for IDs, but Washington does not like to spread costslike that.
Unfortunately, the way the system is structured, once enough states are compliant then mandating the uploading ALL DLs to the system (Real ID or not) becomes possible without additional legislation. See https://papersplease.org/wp/2016/02/11/how-the-real-id-act-i...
> States aren’t (yet) required to upload pointers for noncompliant licenses or ID cards. There’s been no explicit announcement of the full live launch of S2S, but it appears that the first states are only beginning to use S2S (other than as a pilot project) this month. The DHS isn’t (yet) considering whether states have complied with the database access provisions of the REAL-ID Act when it makes its discretionary decisions whether to certify “material” compliance or “progress” toward compliance. But AAMVA, which determines the SPEXS standards, could add a requirement for upload of pointers for all licenses and IDs, not just “compliant” ones, to its specifications for system participation at any time. And the DHS will eventually have to assess actual compliance with the REAL-ID Act, not mere progress toward it. At that point, any state that wants to use S2S and SPEXS as the basis for a compliance finding will have to upload pointer records for all licenses and ID cards it has issued — even noncompliant or “opt-out” licenses or IDs.
This has the effect of creating a private national ID database, without transparency or accountability, which is kind of a worst-case scenario. (AAMVA is a private entity.)
This isnt just about drivers. That matters. Driving a car is not a fundamental right. But access to a state ID card, something you will need to access many services, probably is.
The US already has a national ID system. What the Federal government can't do is make it mandatory to have a national ID, either directly or constructively through regulation. This matter has been to the Supreme Court many times over several decades and it is a matter of settled law that only the individual States have this authority.
It would require a Constitutional amendment to transfer this authority from the States to the Federal government. Congress can't just ignore the Constitution just because it is inconvenient.
Some of this is just the nature of American culture. Acceptance/rejection of federal authority is often irrational and leads to this patchwork. For instance, replace this statement with a national gun registry and watch people flip out.
Everyone with a passport wants that. I think the issue isn't so much the government having control (all governments in all countries have such control and the sky doesn't fall in) but rather the nature of the government the citizens of the US permit.
Not without an equivalent of the GDPR. Our current identification systems (DL#/SSN) are currently being flagrantly abused by the surveillance industry. This needs to be stopped before we go making identification even stronger.
Roughly 9 years ago: https://neveragain.tech/
This is a very good pledge to have all humans to sign up for anywhere on the globe.
>>We are choosing to stand in solidarity with Muslim Americans,
This particular word, with no other specifc identities after that, takes the air out of this massive effort and gives the impression it is a localized effort.
Do you understand that you're basically pulling an "All Lives Matter" right now?
This statement was about the specific incoming US administration that was anti-immigrant, and especially anti-Muslim. It is a localized effort, because not every place has the same problems and needs the same solutions, and hyper-generalized statements that don't call out any particular instances of a problem are meaningless.
From experience quite a lot of HN commenters are in support of reactionary policies, unfortunately
The author is concerned that the feds could subpoena the data from the company that it's being submitted to. Wouldn't this same concern apply to the feds serving a subpoena to the state? Once the data is out there, it's out there. If one level of government has it, all the peer/higher levels will have access of they want it.
It sounds like this database is the one that feeds license data to NCIC. The bigger question here is if we should be compiling and using data in the NCIC suchbas driver licenses and carry permits.
States can and do resist federal subpoenas and have more leeway in doing so. They also have enormous legal resources.
This is pretty rare. I find it unlikely the state would fight against basic driver license records released under a subpoena.
The author pointed out that one potential problem is feds subpoenaing data from the AAMVA and not notifying the state of California that it had done so. Given it's such a short article, I can't think of a good reason for why you would have overlooked this.
I didn't overlook it, it's simply not a relevant point. The state won't do anything about a individual subpoena wether it's against the state or a company.
I'm not fully understanding what this means or how to react to it because I just don't know. Can someone with a deep understanding of this and what this means to us regular folks please explain?
The federal government could just scrape the data through the many data sharing programs. It's more political posturing that policy.
The article doesn't seem to go into any discussion or reasoning why Gavin Newsom would want to cooperate with this, seemingly against his own party?
What are the downsides of not cooperating? What is his motivation or benefits for capitulating?
Edit: Oh, ahhh I see: "Governor Gavin Newsom agreed to upload driver's license data to a national database primarily to comply with the Real ID Act of 2005 and avoid federal threats that would prevent California IDs from being accepted at airports and other federal facilities. This decision was finalized through a budget compromise with the state legislature following intense pressure from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security"
It was a strategic move by Newsom to comply with giving your data to a historically unpopular fedgov led by a historically unpopular president at a time when resisting would have been supported by his base and would have raised his political capital (and national profile). Very smart move.
(There is only one team in US politics.)
I think many people will assume you're historically unpopular president and fed gov are the current ones.
Since the federal law requiring this was passed in 2005, it's another historically and unpopular president and fedgov.
(I am of course referring to Abraham Lincoln and the 1861 federal government)
States can choose not to comply, in fact the lack of compliance is why the deadlines keep getting pushed back. CA joining removes a huge roadblock for full implementation given its population.
States can implement Real ID without sharing the data with the Federal government. The only mandatory part is the standardization. States can (and do) share this data with each other directly.
The Federal government can't constructively require States to share the Real ID data with them, only ask politely, as that would go against existing Constitutional case law. Many States have declined to share Real ID data with the Federal government while still implementing Real ID. It is a bit surprising that California would agree to this.
See my comment elsewhere in this post, unfortunately once a state joins it is possible for AAMVA to compel the addition of all license data to the database, if the state wishes to remain Real ID compliant. AAMVA is a private entity that can change requirements without oversight.
Which states have declined to share data?
These issues are really complicated because they aren’t left versus right. Conservatives and progressives both tend to be ideologically skeptical of enhancements/sharing of ID.
From a state perspective, there’s a lot of benefit to exchanging this type of information across state lines through AAMVA. It reduces a lot of fraud, avoids a lot of insurance issues that cost the state taxpayers a lot of money. It has a lot of benefits to things like commercial motor carrier safety that have a direct benefit to the public.
For example, New York does direct entity to entity sharing of many driving records with Ontario and Quebec. The Canadians benefited because I don’t allow people with DWIs to enter Canada, New York benefited by keeping unsafe truckers off state highways, who were exploiting certain pools in Canadian regulations.
It’ll take a bit of time, But the long game here is that the United States will have a national ID system.
The big conflict is that states issue licenses (AB 60 in California, “green light” in other places) without regard to the ability to provide legal documentation of legal residency. Advocates fear that the sharing will be used by the hypervigilant immigration bureaucracy. States don’t enforce immigration law, but every resident of a state is at risk if people are driving around without insurance or without being subject to driving licensing laws. This also allows populations like the homeless to get IDs, But it’s being used as a punching bag by right wing commentators, rallying against illegal alien truckers and other nonsense.
Maybe if both left and right weren't just puppets for the capital that finances their superPACs it would be more believable that they're different things
How does sharing drivers license information help "capital"? Sure you can probably handwave some stuff about how sending that information helps the surveillance state which can be used to stop occupy wall st style protests, but it's not clear how that's more convincing than the other common refrain, which is that immigration (legal or otherwise) helps "capital" because it drives down labor costs.
Every piece chipped off of our right to privacy and freedom from surveillance is another strike against civil society; it normalizes data-collection further and gives any government contractors (Palantir et. al) a bigger database to profit off of.
Should voter ID requirements (a la "SAVE America" act or similar) become law, constitutional prohibitions on poll taxes will lead towards every citizen getting an ID at no charge.
Many states already have required ID for voting, and indeed a state ID card can be obtained from the DMV for a nominal cost, probably free in need-based cases.
Don’t assume that. There’s a MAGA bro movement advocating against direct election of senators.
The Supreme Court will do backflips to make the determination that they’re paid to make.
>These issues are really complicated because they aren’t left versus right. Conservatives and progressives both tend to be ideologically skeptical of enhancements/sharing of ID.
It's complicated within each party, but not overall. Idealogues prefer debating other idealogues because they use the same vocabularies and that preference is why they are always fighting, they like it. But the fat part of the curve in the middle is mostly made up of non idealogues who are quietly saying "can't you just shut up and compromise, let's be practical".
If they would ever shut up and compromise, there would be no need for their ideology. That's why advocates almost never really solve the issues they are advocating about, because to do so would be to eliminate the thing that gives them attention and power.
i'm not favoring any part of the spectrum, they all contribute, that's why they all exist in every society. Ideologies is where structured ideas come from, but they're usually embraced with religious fervor to the exclusion of reality, blind to the majority (the middle and the other side) who are not convinced, and the middle is where they are lived out. The trick is to not water the ideas down to meaninglessness against the grindstones of apathy and practicality.
I thought because of RealID made just after 9/11 all drivers licenses had to be in federal database anyway?
Not that it's acceptable but federal database of drivers licenses is smallest of privacy problems these days with federal overreach
NSA never ever stopped collecting phone calls, they have been storing that data in larger and larger databases in the deserts. Now "ai" can make all that into some insane level of datamining
> I thought because of RealID made just after 9/11 all drivers licenses had to be in federal database anyway?
At least Washington state still issues UnrealID in case the applicant is not willing to pay the extra fee or cannot or willnot provide the extra documentation. I don't think UnrealIDs have to be submitted?
As I understand it, most other states rolled the extra cost into the general fee for IDs, but Washington does not like to spread costslike that.
Unfortunately, the way the system is structured, once enough states are compliant then mandating the uploading ALL DLs to the system (Real ID or not) becomes possible without additional legislation. See https://papersplease.org/wp/2016/02/11/how-the-real-id-act-i...
> States aren’t (yet) required to upload pointers for noncompliant licenses or ID cards. There’s been no explicit announcement of the full live launch of S2S, but it appears that the first states are only beginning to use S2S (other than as a pilot project) this month. The DHS isn’t (yet) considering whether states have complied with the database access provisions of the REAL-ID Act when it makes its discretionary decisions whether to certify “material” compliance or “progress” toward compliance. But AAMVA, which determines the SPEXS standards, could add a requirement for upload of pointers for all licenses and IDs, not just “compliant” ones, to its specifications for system participation at any time. And the DHS will eventually have to assess actual compliance with the REAL-ID Act, not mere progress toward it. At that point, any state that wants to use S2S and SPEXS as the basis for a compliance finding will have to upload pointer records for all licenses and ID cards it has issued — even noncompliant or “opt-out” licenses or IDs.
This has the effect of creating a private national ID database, without transparency or accountability, which is kind of a worst-case scenario. (AAMVA is a private entity.)
I don't have a RealID driver's license, and in my state I cannot, because I am not a citizen.
That is fitting: "Error establishing a database connection"
Article has bad title.
"about all driver’s licenses and ID cards"
This isnt just about drivers. That matters. Driving a car is not a fundamental right. But access to a state ID card, something you will need to access many services, probably is.
We should switch to a national ID system and be done with it. The patchwork we have is getting more ridiculous by the day.
Agreed, this would be a great way to streamline our country's government-controlled digital panopticon.
I don’t get the impression that the current system is really getting in the way of that.
Instead we get a private panopticon that the government just rents.
The US already has a national ID system. What the Federal government can't do is make it mandatory to have a national ID, either directly or constructively through regulation. This matter has been to the Supreme Court many times over several decades and it is a matter of settled law that only the individual States have this authority.
It would require a Constitutional amendment to transfer this authority from the States to the Federal government. Congress can't just ignore the Constitution just because it is inconvenient.
Some of this is just the nature of American culture. Acceptance/rejection of federal authority is often irrational and leads to this patchwork. For instance, replace this statement with a national gun registry and watch people flip out.
I don’t want the federal government to have control or oversight on my ID. Why would anyone want that?
Everyone with a passport wants that. I think the issue isn't so much the government having control (all governments in all countries have such control and the sky doesn't fall in) but rather the nature of the government the citizens of the US permit.
Not without an equivalent of the GDPR. Our current identification systems (DL#/SSN) are currently being flagrantly abused by the surveillance industry. This needs to be stopped before we go making identification even stronger.