The federal government passed a "Real ID" act that would require states to comply with federal standards for issuing drivers licenses. The standards would be set by the head of the Dept of Homeland Security - an unelected official. All documents used to create the ID would be scanned and put into a national database. This means birth certificates, banking statements, etc. This national database, of course, could be hacked into, posing a great security risk for all Americans. This is a gross violation of our right to privacy. Plans for the ID's down the road include using radio-frequency ID chips (RFID). Thankfully legistlature in N.H. voted overwhelmingly to reject the RealID (passed the House 268-8) - see the protest. There are as many as 30 states pursuing similar legislation. This was a bill that was passed 100-0 in the U.S. Senate !!!!
This large discrepency between what the federal government will do, and how strongly the states oppose them shows how out of touch the Federal government has become with our desire for personal freedom. In the first Republican debates, many candidates mentioned that we needed a tamper-proof id card with biometrics (fingerprints, etc). But when Dr Paul became outraged at this, saying it was a violation of privacy, the others back-peddled and said the cards would only be for immigrants.
Dr Paul voted against the RealID. Sen Clinton voted for it. Obama was not in office at the time, and rumour has it that he is opposed, but that is untested by any votes. How's your favorite candidate on this issue?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 6
Exactly - and I should know, I've spent time in the Soviet Union. Real ID did NOTHING to make it harder to get an id, it just made it more intrusive on our privacy, and opened the door to get worse and worse.
Thank you for this article
This is an issue that I hope will come up again and again. With all the resistance to Real ID in New Hampshire, candidates should expect tough questions about Real ID when they come to our state.