ForumGarden

This ALERT is regarding the MORPHING of REAL ID in to the PASS ACT. The REAL ID as you may or may not know was the failed law that snuck through congress in May of 2005 that would require all Americans to Carry a standardized FEDERAL ID card with an embedded trackable chip.

NOW we need to contact our senate committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs IMMEDIATELY to STOP THE PASS ACT – S.1261

Special interests groups are trying to force Democrats, Independents and Republicans to support this legislation. States have been and are working to ensure drivers licenses are secure documents and have document integrity. The federal government, in spite of the states, wants to set international standards that are not needed. The federal government wants control of your state drivers license. The federal government is bribing states to go along with its plans.

Our freedom and our rights are not for sale!

Some governors want to take the bribe money.

The senate committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will be considering the legislation very soon.

The PASS Act does not repeal the Real ID Act. It does repeal provisions of the Real ID Act; those provisions that are included in Title II of the Real ID Act 2005. The Real ID Act is still intact and is federal law.

The PASS Act contains many of the most egregious aspects of the Real ID Act; including the requirement for a digital facial image/photograph that will be mandated to be internationally facial recognition compatible.

There is not a federal law that prohibits the simultaneous use of CCTV/surveillance cameras and facial recognition technology in real time.

The PASS Act will do nothing to provide a higher level of National security. Under the provisions of the PASS Act the documents used to obtain a drivers license are not authenticated. These documents are called breeder documents.

Although requirements for new databases and the linking of databases are not part of the PASS Act the fact remains through aamva.net and NLETS states can still have information contained in their state Department of Motor Vehicles made available to both federal and international law enforcement agencies without a court order.

Two international agencies (AAMVA and the ICAO, an agency of the United Nations) were involved in U.S. policy and law – the Real ID Act 2005 and the newly proposed PASS Act. DHS has called AAMVA the hub and backbone of the Real ID Act. On AAMVAs own web-site it proclaims it is an international organization that serves law enforcement and motor vehicle administrators.

Both the Real ID Act and the PASS Act result in Americans being enrolled into a single global biometric identification system that links a persons body to their ability to buy and sell.

WE ARE ASKING EVERY AMERICAN TO CALL EACH OF THE SENATORS in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee AND SAY:

We are opposed to the Real ID Act and the PASS Act

We are opposed to being enrolled into a biometric identification system

We do not want our social security numbers in state DMV databases

We do not want RFID chips in our drivers licenses

We are opposed to the federal government intervening in the issuance of state drivers licenses

TAKE ACTION RIGHT NOW AND CONTACT call these numbers:

Senator Lieberman (20… Chairman

Senator Collins (202) 224-2523

Senator Akaka (202) 224-6361

Senator Bennet (202) 224-5852

Senator Burris (202) 224-2854

Senator Carper (202) 224-2441

Senator Coburn (202) 224-5754

Senator Ensign (202) 224-6244

Senator Graham (202) 224-5972

Senator Landrieu (202) 224-5824

Senator Levin (202) 224-6221

Senator McCain (202) 224-2235

Senator McCaskill (202) 224-6154

Senator Pryor (202) 224-2353

Senator Tester (202) 224-2644

Senator Voinovich (202) 224-3353

The First, Fourth and Tenth Amendments are under attack. The Second Amendment will follow. This is not a partisan issue. All Americans must take action now. 16 calls per American, 16 minutes (one minute per call) for a Lifetime of Freedom.

This Alert has been provided by the STOP REAL ID COALITON and Restore the Republic.

Please forward this ALERT to all you know, embed it on your favorite blogs and forums, and take action now to preserve freedom in America!

YouTube - Emergency Alert Stop the NEW Real ID S.1261 The PASS Act

Video: Emergency Alert – Stop the NEW Real ID – S.1261 – The PASS Act

It's a simple matter of reducing crime by increasing the likelihood of detection. The one thing which increases the rate of crime is the belief by the perpetrator that detection isn't certain. In an environment where the potential perpetrator is convinced that detection would be inevitable, crime rates drop (and rather pleasingly detection rates rise in consequence, there being fewer crimes to detect).

I'm entirely in favour of it. Spurious cries of "Freedom!" are trivial in a context where people are damaged by the refusal to take effective action against crime.

spot;1213893 wrote: It's a simple matter of reducing crime by increasing the likelihood of detection. The one thing which increases the rate of crime is the belief by the perpetrator that detection isn't certain. In an environment where the potential perpetrator is convinced that detection would be inevitable, crime rates drop (and rather pleasingly detection rates rise in consequence, there being fewer crimes to detect).

I'm entirely in favour of it. Spurious cries of "Freedom!" are trivial in a context where people are damaged by the refusal to take effective action against crime.


Wrong!

Allowing the Government so much control over the population is never a good idea. Better a degree of lawlessness than giving the powers that be an unassailable position where they can detect and control every citizen's activities.

Bryn Mawr;1213918 wrote: Wrong!

Allowing the Government so much control over the population is never a good idea. Better a degree of lawlessness than giving the powers that be an unassailable position where they can detect and control every citizen's activities.


I like your answer better.

How many criminals would actually have their ID card in possession when committing a crime? They would simply leave it at home or give it to someone else then they would have an automatic alibi. Stupid idea. It would only keep track of the law abiding citizens.

YZGI;1214187 wrote: How many criminals would actually have their ID card in possession when committing a crime? They would simply leave it at home or give it to someone else then they would have an automatic alibi. Stupid idea. It would only keep track of the law abiding citizens.


Perhaps you need to read a little about Biometric identification and the use of CCTV. The point of putting that onto the driver's license isn't to have it on his person when a crime's committed, it's to have measured it beforehand. The card's an irrelevance, the automatic cross-check into an international Biometric database to filter down to a core of matches is what makes it so effective as a police tool.

YZGI;1214187 wrote: How many criminals would actually have their ID card in possession when committing a crime? They would simply leave it at home or give it to someone else then they would have an automatic alibi. Stupid idea. It would only keep track of the law abiding citizens.
Which is the real goal, imo. Only then can they squash the only real threat they care about: popular uprising.



BTW, TB, are you sure about the bill number?

spot;1214195 wrote: Perhaps you need to read a little about Biometric identification and the use of CCTV. The point of putting that onto the driver's license isn't to have it on his person when a crime's committed, it's to have measured it beforehand. The card's an irrelevance, the automatic cross-check into an international Biometric database to filter down to a core of matches is what makes it so effective as a police tool.
Does this sound like the "Matrix" to anyone else?

YZGI;1214263 wrote: Does this sound like the "Matrix" to anyone else?


It's rather a different tale to the one you started with, isn't it.

spot;1214195 wrote: Perhaps you need to read a little about Biometric identification and the use of CCTV. The point of putting that onto the driver's license isn't to have it on his person when a crime's committed, it's to have measured it beforehand. The card's an irrelevance, the automatic cross-check into an international Biometric database to filter down to a core of matches is what makes it so effective as a police tool.


spot;1214276 wrote: It's rather a different tale to the one you started with, isn't it.
Depends on if the use of CCTV is incorporated.



There is not a federal law that prohibits the simultaneous use of CCTV/surveillance cameras and facial recognition technology in real time.

I see from the above that there is no law against CCTV but don't see in the bill where it is incorporated.

It's fine for a country that values security over liberty. It's not right for the US, thanks.

Interesting topic and an issue that was raised in Australia. The Australia Card was a controversial proposal for a national identification card for Australian citizens and resident foreigners. The proposal was made in 1985 by the then Labor government and abandoned in 1987. I was actually for it though I didn't vote for that government.

Accountable's post inspired me to google Liberty and the wikipedia summary isn't bad as a reminder of the many ways of interpreting this concept

Liberty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

YZGI;1214295 wrote: Depends on if the use of CCTV is incorporated.



There is not a federal law that prohibits the simultaneous use of CCTV/surveillance cameras and facial recognition technology in real time.

I see from the above that there is no law against CCTV but don't see in the bill where it is incorporated.


it would be rather inflammatory for them to associate the PASS Act with surveillance, don't you think? What they don't have at the moment is mass raw Biometric data for the population, the PASS Act is intended to gather it. Once it exists it can be used for matching, and undoubtedly will be. Why would they need to declare that beforehand, it would just increase public resistance.

I'm all for biometric ID. I agree with Spot that if detection is inevitable, there is less chance of the crime being commited.

When you give up privacy or liberty, remember that you're giving up to future gov't officials who may not have the same priorities as today's officials.

Accountable;1214428 wrote: When you give up privacy or liberty, remember that you're giving up to future gov't officials who may not have the same priorities as today's officials.
And saving future lives and future victems?

Accountable;1214428 wrote: When you give up privacy or liberty, remember that you're giving up to future gov't officials who may not have the same priorities as today's officials.


Those officials, together with criminals, illegal immigrants, shoddy black economy profiteers, politicians and the longsuffering law abiding general public would - if their activities were less able to be concealed - become more accountable to the whole population, the population who democratically elect the government of the day, and any future governments. That was my thinking, anyway, in supporting the Australia Card, Accountable.

I'll bet $50 that both Spot and Oscar will end up changing their minds about this program, but that by the time they finally do, it will be too late for them.

I always found those who blindingly accept whats given to them are living in a false sense of security.

AussiePam;1214480 wrote: Those officials, together with criminals, illegal immigrants, shoddy black economy profiteers, politicians and the longsuffering law abiding general public would - if their activities were less able to be concealed - become more accountable to the whole population, the population who democratically elect the government of the day, and any future governments. That was my thinking, anyway, in supporting the Australia Card, Accountable.


How does giving that sort of power to the officials make them more accountable to the people?

Officials already have a large amount of information on me and the legal ability to marry much of it up. I'm relatively above board and law abiding, so unless you can think of a way to prevent anyone having all the info on me they already have, I'd like everyone here to be in the same boat. Why should I care if Australian officials have my fingerprints? American officials do. And my eye bio stuff too. I am not paranoid about the Australian government being out to get me, to continually be looking for ways to curb my liberty. The democracy I live in isn't perfect, but I do have a vote and use it. If the same info is kept on everyone, politicians will be motivated to set rules on fair and legitimate access and use.

Australia has a relatively independent judiciary system too, and the office of the Ombudsman (both federal and in the States and Territories) - a free service - for those who think the bureaucracy or officialdom is treating them unfairly

http://ombudsman.gov.au/commonwealth/pu ... ntent/home

At least that was my thinking, when the issue was raised in Australia. A majority of my countrymen didn't agree with me and the Australia Card idea was scrapped.

AussiePam;1214510 wrote: Officials already have a large amount of information on me and the legal ability to marry much of it up. I'm relatively above board and law abiding, so unless you can think of a way to prevent anyone having all the info on me they already have, I'd like everyone here to be in the same boat. Why should I care if Australian officials have my fingerprints? American officials do. And my eye bio stuff too. I am not paranoid about the Australian government being out to get me, to continually be looking for ways to curb my liberty. The democracy I live in isn't perfect, but I do have a vote and use it. If the same info is kept on everyone, politicians will be motivated to set rules on fair and legitimate access and use.

Australia has a relatively independent judiciary system too, and the office of the Ombudsman (both federal and in the States and Territories) - a free service - for those who think the bureaucracy or officialdom is treating them unfairly

Ombudsman, Australia - Home

At least that was my thinking, when the issue was raised in Australia. A majority of my countrymen didn't agree with me and the Australia Card idea was scrapped.


Sounds like you have bought into the lies that you have been spoonfed. The founding fathers in America never intended for the government to have this much power. Thats the bottom line. In fact, if they were alive today, they would have already started the revolution.

All I hear from people who are for this stuff is, why should I care? I don't care. Why should I care?

Man oh man are we ever going to take a stand against this stuff? Or are we just going to keep giving up your freedoms 1 by 1 because you just don't care?

TruthBringer;1214527 wrote: Man oh man are we ever going to take a stand against this stuff? Or are we just going to keep giving up your freedoms 1 by 1 because you just don't care?


I quite look forward to the freedom of living in a more crime-free society. To have that I need far higher authentic clear-up rates for crime, far quicker detection and apprehension and conviction, above all I need far more effective rehabilitation of convicts. All of that is dependent on deploying automated mass surveillance. It's a very practical thing to care about, we merely have different priorities. Yours is somewhat theoretical, mine's extremely practical.

Bryn Mawr;1213918 wrote: Allowing the Government so much control over the population is never a good idea. Better a degree of lawlessness than giving the powers that be an unassailable position where they can detect and control every citizen's activities.


I agree with this post. It is a beacon on a rock in a sea of stupidity.

TruthBringer;1214527 wrote: Sounds like you have bought into the lies that you have been spoonfed. The founding fathers in America never intended for the government to have this much power. Thats the bottom line. In fact, if they were alive today, they would have already started the revolution.

All I hear from people who are for this stuff is, why should I care? I don't care. Why should I care?

Man oh man are we ever going to take a stand against this stuff? Or are we just going to keep giving up your freedoms 1 by 1 because you just don't care?


:yh_rotfl

I really don't care that much about your founding fathers, what you consider their original intentions or what you have decided they would do today. I'm an Aussie not an American.

As for Mr Mawr being a beacon on a rock in a sea of stupidity - I think that Mr Sikes' creative metaphor should receive this week's prize for wackiest whimsy.

AussiePam;1214555 wrote: :yh_rotfl

I really don't care that much about your founding fathers, what you consider their original intentions or what you have decided they would do today. I'm an Aussie not an American.



As for Mr Mawr being a beacon on a rock in a sea of stupidity - I think that Mr Sikes' creative metaphor should receive this week's prize for wackiest whimsy.


Wow ! You got me all jazzed up with that one. Its good. Id say something clever if I could think of something but this is the best Ive got at the moment.

You Rock !

oscar;1214471 wrote: And saving future lives and future victems?
You'll save far more by keeping your government in check.

AussiePam;1214480 wrote: Those officials, together with criminals, illegal immigrants, shoddy black economy profiteers, politicians and the longsuffering law abiding general public would - if their activities were less able to be concealed - become more accountable to the whole population, the population who democratically elect the government of the day, and any future governments. That was my thinking, anyway, in supporting the Australia Card, Accountable.
Who's to say that the information gathered by the government will always be available to the whole population??

I predict that in a few years someone will decide that it is an invasion of pivacy to let all be known to everyone, and that the government should decide what should and should not be made public, all the while maintaining the importance of the surveillance and that the cameras et al should keep working.



Or maybe your gov't will do what ours does already - everything's available to the public via the Freedom of Information Act. All you have to do is find out who keeps the information, find out exactly what it is filed under (title, short title, file number, or any number of more obscure things), properly fill out the proper forms, get those proper forms to the proper people (who may or may not be the same people who actually have the information), then wait 4 to 8 weeks for someone to find it. Oh and don't worry, the forms nearly almost NEVER get lost or sent to the wrong office. :rolleyes:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

[QUOTE=Accountable;1214668]

Or maybe your gov't will do what ours does already/QUOTE]



The democratically elected Australian government, in response to the wishes of a majority of the voting electorate, decided not to proceed with the Australia Card.

As has the UK.

The government has always insisted it would not make them compulsory for UK citizens without giving MPs a vote on the issue - and it would not be compulsory to carry them.

It had been planned to make them compulsory for all 200,000 airside workers from 2009 but instead the government announced there would be an 18-month trial, for airside workers at Manchester and London City airports only.

But the pilots union Balpa had complained that its members had effectively been forced into signing up for the cards.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Climbdown on compulsory ID cards

AussiePam;1214555 wrote:

As for Mr Mawr being a beacon on a rock in a sea of stupidity - I think that Mr Sikes' creative metaphor should receive this week's prize for wackiest whimsy.


Oi! I meant his *post*, not he's personally that, although he may of course be so. Why is it "whacky"?

Bill Sikes;1214789 wrote: Oi! I meant his *post*, not he's personally that, although he may of course be so. Why is it "whacky"?
As the post also contained that a degree of lawlessness is better. Try telling that to the mother of a murdered child or the victems of the London Tube bombings.

oscar;1214793 wrote: As the post also contained that a degree of lawlessness is better. Try telling that to the mother of a murdered child or the victems of the London Tube bombings.


Since when does "a degree of lawlessness" encompass condoning murder and terrorism?

There is a balance to be struck between the power held by the government and the freedom of the people. A lot of the proposals being put forward over the past few years take that balance far to far towards the government to the extent that future incumbents could, as has happened in the past, abuse their power by oppressing the people.

Bryn Mawr;1214798 wrote: Since when does "a degree of lawlessness" encompass condoning murder and terrorism?

There is a balance to be struck between the power held by the government and the freedom of the people. A lot of the proposals being put forward over the past few years take that balance far to far towards the government to the extent that future incumbents could, as has happened in the past, abuse their power by oppressing the people. I just happen to believe that anything that saves innocent lives is worth it.

Bryn Mawr;1214798 wrote: There is a balance to be struck between the power held by the government and the freedom of the people. A lot of the proposals being put forward over the past few years take that balance far to far towards the government to the extent that future incumbents could, as has happened in the past, abuse their power by oppressing the people.


The people - or a subset of them. Well said, Mr. B.

oscar;1214800 wrote: I just happen to believe that anything that saves innocent lives is worth it.


Then ban every vehicle from our roads, trains from the tracks and plains from the sky and force people to walk everywhere.

Anything less puts innocent lives at risk and therefore is not worth it.

Bryn Mawr;1214810 wrote: Then ban every vehicle from our roads, trains from the tracks and plains from the sky and force people to walk everywhere.

Anything less puts innocent lives at risk and therefore is not worth it. That is being ridiculous. With any mode of transport there will be tragic accidents. Criminals on the other hand could be stopped before they hurt some-one intentionally.

oscar;1214833 wrote: That is being ridiculous. With any mode of transport there will be tragic accidents. Criminals on the other hand could be stopped before they hurt some-one intentionally.


Let's be fair. Three thousand deaths a year in the UK at the hands of incompetent amateur car drivers is four times higher than the total deaths at the hands of criminals. Banning the private ownership of cars on the roads makes a lot of sense.

oscar;1214833 wrote: That is being ridiculous. With any mode of transport there will be tragic accidents. Criminals on the other hand could be stopped before they hurt some-one intentionally.


It is the logical implication of your statement that "anything that saves innocent lives is worth it".

Either you spoke for effect rather than from true belief or you must accept the statement I made as true.

spot;1214532 wrote: I quite look forward to the freedom of living in a more crime-free society. To have that I need far higher authentic clear-up rates for crime, far quicker detection and apprehension and conviction, above all I need far more effective rehabilitation of convicts. All of that is dependent on deploying automated mass surveillance. It's a very practical thing to care about, we merely have different priorities. Yours is somewhat theoretical, mine's extremely practical.


I think it's the other way around. Yours is entirely theoretical, which is to say that you believe 100% in the reasons you are being told that you NEED this extra security, and you have 100% faith that the people who are going to be in control of it are only looking out for your best interest.

I don't believe that they have our best interests in mind at all. I believe they are lying to us. I believe that the real reason for these measures being implemented is to tighten their control upon the citizenry.

Thats where we differ on our priorities.

AussiePam;1214555 wrote: :yh_rotfl

I really don't care that much about your founding fathers, what you consider their original intentions or what you have decided they would do today. I'm an Aussie not an American.


Then do all of us Americans a favor and don't comment on anything American. Deal?

Why you decided to have a discussion on American policy when you don't even care about the people who founded the country and what their intentions were - AKA - The American Constitution - is what I would really like to know.

Or are you just trying to offer an opinion on a subject you don't even care about?

AussiePam;1214781 wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1214668]

Or maybe your gov't will do what ours does already/QUOTE]



The democratically elected Australian government, in response to the wishes of a majority of the voting electorate, decided not to proceed with the Australia Card.


Until they figure out how to push it through that is.

oscar;1214833 wrote: That is being ridiculous. With any mode of transport there will be tragic accidents. Criminals on the other hand could be stopped before they hurt some-one intentionally.


Criminal activity will never be stopped by any government in the World. There is no country in the World that has ever been able to curb criminal activity 100%. The American government can't even secure it's own borders. They simply won't do it. And yet their solution is to mandate new IDs to law abiding American citizens.

IDs won't stop killing. You could have your ID in your hand, and so could a killer, and the killer would still kill you. A killer kills. It's what they do. And they do it until they are caught. And no killer has ever been stopped in the act by someone's ID. Perhaps by someones gun, but definately not by their ID.

TruthBringer;1214988 wrote: Then do all of us Americans a favor and don't comment on anything American. Deal?

Why you decided to have a discussion on American policy when you don't even care about the people who founded the country and what their intentions were - AKA - The American Constitution - is what I would really like to know.

Or are you just trying to offer an opinion on a subject you don't even care about?


Not a deal. This topic is in the general chit chat discussion area - and therefore open to all including non Americans who have something to say. I did and have.

AussiePam;1214991 wrote: Not a deal. This topic is in the general chit chat discussion area - and therefore open to all including non Americans who have something to say. I did and have.


After what you said about you not caring about our founding fathers and their ideals, I doubt you will have more support from my fellow Americans than I do.

You can say whatever bad things you want to about America now, but I guarantee you that because of your previous comment you won't be taken as seriously. And most any american who loves the history of his or her country would have lost alot of respect for your opinion because of what you said.

And the smug attitude doesn't help. Especially the fact that you didn't even feel bad about your comment.

Oh wait, I forgot I'm sorry, you don't care.

By the way, don't expect me to say something bad about Australia and the most important parts of it's history, because I won't stoop to your level. I have no problem with Australia or it's people. Or it's history. I do care about it though, and I am happy that you are still currently able to use the internet without restrictions over there. I hope we can continue to do the same over here. Up until the day that I take my last breath. And hopefully beyond that.

TruthBringer;1214996 wrote: After what you said about you not caring about our founding fathers and their ideals, I doubt you will have more support from my fellow Americans than I do.

You can say whatever bad things you want to about America now, but I guarantee you that because of your previous comment you won't be taken as seriously. And most any american who loves the history of his or her country would have lost alot of respect for your opinion because of what you said.

And the smug attitude doesn't help. Especially the fact that you didn't even feel bad about your comment.

Oh wait, I forgot I'm sorry, you don't care.

By the way, don't expect me to say something bad about Australia and the most important parts of it's history, because I won't stoop to your level. I have no problem with Australia or it's people. Or it's history. I do care about it though, and I am happy that you are still currently able to use the internet without restrictions over there. I hope we can continue to do the same over here. Up until the day that I take my last breath. And hopefully beyond that.


Your Founding Fathers were founding a long time ago, Truthbringer. It was your interpretation of their ideals I was questioning, not the fact they had ideals. As for saying bad things about America - I challenge you to find a single instance of this in any of my posts in FG or anywhere else.

Please feel free to take me as unseriously as you wish, and I'll do you the same courtesy.

Can't we all just get along? And all that other liberal BS.

TruthBringer;1214987 wrote: I think it's the other way around. Yours is entirely theoretical, which is to say that you believe 100% in the reasons you are being told that you NEED this extra security, and you have 100% faith that the people who are going to be in control of it are only looking out for your best interest.

I don't believe that they have our best interests in mind at all. I believe they are lying to us. I believe that the real reason for these measures being implemented is to tighten their control upon the citizenry.You've heard a government say what I've been saying? I haven't. Not yet, anyhow. My notions are home-grown from first principles, built from the bedrock of what I've read and the ideas of others. I certainly don't know of any government that wants to go where I want government to go. They'll only get there if I popularize my opinions, they've no desire at all to do what I want, not yet.