U.S. may soon reject some driver’s licenses as air travel ID

  • metta

    Posts: 44230

    Dec 30, 2015 2:59 AM GMT
    U.S. may soon reject some driver’s licenses as air travel ID

    Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article52022280.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2015 1:19 PM GMT
    I live in Oregon, and I heard about this being a possibility a while back. I got a passport card so it doesn't matter for me, but it'll be retry obnoxious for everyone else if that happens.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2015 2:59 PM GMT
    Marc Rotenberg, the president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said he agreed with some provisions of the law, which were meant to make driver’s licenses more tamper-proof and less likely to be counterfeited. But he is concerned with all the information being available on the cards in a way that makes it more shareable.

    “That’s exactly what we should not be doing,” he said.

    Instead, he said, linking all of the nation’s driver’s license records together would increase the vulnerability and potentially expose the information to more risk.

    The recent theft of millions of private records from the Office of Personnel Management did not inspire confidence in the government’s ability to maintain secure databases, he said.

    “You create more risk when you connect databases,” he said. “One vulnerability becomes multiple vulnerabilities.”

  • FRE0

    Posts: 4942

    Dec 30, 2015 7:58 PM GMT
    I live in New Mexico and our drivers' licenses do not meet federal standards. When those standards are enforced, I may need to use my passport to fly.

    The NM legislature is considering having two types of drivers' licenses. One would meet federal stands by being acceptable proof of legal residency and the other one would not meet federal standards. That may be the best solution.

    Here in NM, a decision was made to permit undocumented immigrants to get drivers' licenses. The reason was that we know that they will drive without a license if they cannot get one since many of them cannot get along without driving. To get a license, they have to be tested; therefore, they are more likely to know the road rules and to drive safely. Also, if they have a license, they can get insurance and are less likely to drive without insurance. Thus, it is seen as in the best interests of the public to permit undocumented immigrants to be licensed.

    No doubt some people will disagree with the above reasoning, but that is what it is. No one has attempted to prove objectively that it is contrary to public interest and that is what matters, not attitudes towards undocumented immigrants.
  • IgnatiusReill...

    Posts: 168

    Dec 30, 2015 9:51 PM GMT
    Minnesota is another state that currently has opted to not issue drivers licenses containing a computerized chip. The objection to the chip is that it allows access to too much personal information which hackers can use to access information about an individual's personal and financial history. Residents will be required to use passports for identification. Currently the fees for processing a passport book are $110 application fee and $25 acceptance fee, or for the passport book and card, $140 application fee and $25 acceptance fee. The U.S. Department of State recommends that an applicant allow 4-6 weeks for processing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2015 2:07 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidIt's all part of the Democrat plan to abolish the states so that everything can be run - by them - from Washington, DC. In many ways, under the Obama Administration, we have been living in "virtual states" over the past 7 years.

    My question is, how is it the Federal government's business if someone takes a flight from Miami to Orlando? It's not "interstate commerce" as the flight is intra-state, so where is the authority of the Federal government coming from in this case?

    Interesting (at least to me) constitutional question there.

    Uh, this is an anti-terror law that is, according to the article, 10 years old. That means it's a Bush thing, not an Obama thing. Care to stick that in your craw?