So since Oklahoma is one of 17 states listed on the new Real ID program as "unacceptable", we're going to be in a heap of trouble when we try to fly or enter a federal building.

I really don't feel educated enough on the subject to offer commentary right now, but would anyone want to fill us in more on some details. I wasn't sure if the federal mandate actually made it into law yet since it was only created by homeland security and not the actual government.

What is "unacceptable" is that Oklahoma can't make a tamper proof id. 33 states managed to pull it off but somehow for Oklahoma and some others it seem to be impossible. congress did make it a law but laws are left up to the inforcing agency (in the case homeland defense) to determine how to comply with law. This is what HD did but OK has not made the necessary changes to comply. So you better get you passports ready if you want to fly.

I am lost. Point of reference please? What new law, what do we need to do, and what are you talking about?!

I'm actually in the process of getting a replacement passport (urgently) because I had plans to go to London a week from Friday and I can't find my passport anywhere. I will be guarding it for dear life for now on. (not that I was careless before)

Here is the new story as told by the Oklahoman.

NewsOK: New ID Rules May Complicate Air Travel (http://newsok.com/article/3191316)

If you read the article I think you will agree that this is pretty much all common sense stuff. In fact, I assumed that most of it was already being done and I am a little surprised that it isn't. Maybe it is just me but I don't think you should be able to have multiple driver's licenses from different states at the same time.

This sounds silly to me. What good is it going to do? Are they really serious in thinking that they just walked into a dmv and ordered a fake id through the system?? It won't create a new safeguard, just a hassle to get a legitimate id for the rest of us. If you are going to go through all the trouble to be a terrorist or do terrorist activity - you obviously are going to find a way to get what you need to do what you want to do. Technology will never stop this. Sad, but realistic.

This will die by Jan 20, 2009. Real ID will be an issue in this election on both sides. Certainly a Dem will not support this, and most of the GOP feels its unfair without federal funding.

Real Nightmare (http://www.realnightmare.org)

Part of what is driving this is that the 9/11 Commission Report found that several of the terrorists were given legitimate IDs from... I believe it was Virginia. This was because whichever state it was had very low standards on granting licenses.

I see the program as being injurious to both terrorist activity and the activities of illegal aliens. Right now, a 15 year old with a laminating machine and an exacto knife can make a pretty decent ID in many states. I doubt illegals would have a tough time with Oklahoma's ID. Now, in order to work/ get government benefits/travel, we'll have to have IDs which are *much* more difficult to reproduce.

It'll throw up yet another significant barrier to illegal activity. I'm all for it.

I think the REAL ID is just another step toward authorararian rule. This is the stuff of the old Soviet Union I grew up with. I think we have to reject these attempts at tracking our every move all in the name of "security". One thing is clear: The "Real ID" would not be just an ID card, but a complete tracking system with states being required to include ready-to-be-activated information gathering bar codes and other means of tracking. That is unacceptable in a free society.

The following, from a Real ID opponent, is well worth reading and thinking about:

Many people and organizations have sharply criticized the "national ID" aspects of the REAL ID Act. Even before REAL ID, the National Academy of Sciences recognized that a system of national ID not only poses a "wide range of technological and logistical challenges," but has "serious potential for infringing on the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens." ID system proponents seem to think that the security problem lies in being unable to verify identity. But as security expert Bruce Schneier puts it, “much of the utility of the national ID card assumes a pre-existing database of bad guys. We have no such database.” Thus, a basic issue is that "national ID" is not a card, but an entire system of databases, information gathering activities, and human beings making fateful judgments about individuals based on that overall system. The obvious implication is that the idea of a national ID carries with it a powerful commitment to databases of "bad guys," which in turn seems to bring the commitment to widespread social surveillance in order to try to distinguish the suspicious from the ordinary.

As Prof. Daniel Solove has argued, we should fear such risks as “hasty judgment in times of crisis, the disparate impact of law enforcement on particular minorities, cover-ups, petty retaliation for criticism, blackmail, framing, sweeping and disruptive investigations, racial, ethnic, or religious profiling, and so on.” Let's not forget, btw, that "REAL IDs" will probably be more technologically "interesting" than the gov't ID cards we're familiar with (in the sense of the Chinese curse, "may you live in interesting times"). Not only are computer databases and networks a very different thing today than when, say, Social Security Numbers were introduced, REAL IDs appear closely tied politically to two general technologies -- RFID (radio-frequency ID) and biometrics -- that privacy advocates anticipate will radically alter the contingencies of individuals' control over their personal information and the association of one's identities with one's activities, affecting our ability to act privately and anonymously. So let me throw this out: A national ID system, especially one augmented by RFID and biometrics, is an expensive enterprise with many civil liberties risks and little prospect of success in fighting terrorism. As a security system, a national ID system is a form of thin perimeter security with many vulnerable links. Thus, a national ID system points in only two directions. It will either be meaningless (but expensive) because it will be easily penetrated at its weak points, or be effective because it is tough at every point — but at the cost of a free society.

What makes a free society free? You could try defining it but not come up with a better word than privacy; the right to be left alone.
Privacy=Freedom
Freedom=Privacy

Mark of the beast, people. Mark of the beast.

I oppose ANY form of national ID system. This country is supposed to be a loose confederation of states. This is a deal that will send us down a bad road, though I fear it's already too late.

I don't personally have anything against a national ID....IF that means that I can use it everywhere IN PLACE of the state ID. I don't really think it would be that bad to replace a state ID with a national one. Standardize all the crap that some states have and then no one can gripe about it not being secure.

Now find a way to fund that and make the necessary upgrade to all the systems to make it happen...then you'll find some support.

Anyone that thinks we don't already have our names in "the system" all over the country is a little nieve. So our info moves from OKC to DC or something. Personally, I juse see it as a way that we can move more easily from point A to point B and know for sure that someone is who they say they are. How many different ID's do law enforcement officers have to keep up with??? Someone could use a fake one and no one would know if it's even the right format.

I don't personally see any big-brother thing here...as long as I don't have to carry around 2 ID's.

-- at least I could buy beer in Texas without being harassed.

BomberMWC said: "I don't personally see any big-brother thing here....Anyone that thinks we don't already have our names in "the system" all over the country is a little nieve. So our info moves from OKC to DC or something. Personally, I juse see it as a way that we can move more easily from point A to point B and know for sure that someone is who they say they are."

The only problem with that is if it's being done to fight terrorism - forget it. The bad guys will always find a way around these things. Always. You know the old anti-gun control maxim: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". It's a similar thing here - when we try to track everyone's movements (like the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Communist block) only the bad guys won't be tracked. The bad guys don't play by the rules.

Knowing where someone is at any given time by the tracking mechanisms some are proposing with REAL ID is Big Brother personified. One could maybe honestly argue we need Big Brother (trading freedom for security), but nobody can truly argue that it's not a Big Brother tactic. It has always been seen as the ultimate Big Brother. Many of us never expected to ever hear in America, "papers please!" Tracking movement has the potential of opening up Pandora's Box of Horrors.

I don't think it will ever happen and go into effect anyway. Too many on the left and the right are opposed to the measure - and that's before talking about those opposed to it because it's an unfunded mandate on the states.

Solitude, you ALREADY have to show your "papers" upon request.

I think solitude hit a point though. The idea that this is what's going to help prevent terrorism is just dumb. If someone wants to do something bad enough, they will always find a way. What's to stop them from taking over an international flight from say, Mexico or something and then using that plane in an attack. Or who's to say they will even use an airplane again.

So now we get to the point, do we make the above statement and go with what we have, or do we try to do some things to TRY and counter it....even if those things are somewhat fleeting. I think for a lot of people, this sort of thing gives them a false sense of security, but i think that's what the public wants. A lot of people still run around scared that something is going to happen....can't really convince them otherwise. I don't really think a "real ID" will help any one way or another....but the standardization of state ID's would be great. We wouldn't have been able to have those crappy laminated ID's that we all knew a high school newspaper staffer could forge.