I always thought this was more of a NWO brainchild top down control scheme. Why is Trump resurrecting it?
A National Real ID, as envisioned under the REAL ID Act, raises concerns about privacy, bureaucratic burdens, and potential for misuse. While proponents argue it enhances security, critics point to the risk of creating a centralized database accessible to various entities, increasing the likelihood of data breaches and identity theft. Additionally, the Act's implementation could lead to higher costs and administrative hassles for both states and individuals.
Here's a more detailed look at the potential implications: Privacy Concerns: Data Consolidation: REAL ID would create a national database of personal information, potentially making it easier for both government and private entities to track and access individuals' data. "Machine-Readable Zone": The act mandates unencrypted "machine-readable zones" on ID cards, allowing anyone with a barcode reader to skim personal information. Expanded Use Beyond Security: The Act's proponents claim it's for security, but there are concerns that REAL ID cards could be used for various purposes, potentially expanding government surveillance. Administrative and Economic Burdens: State Implementation Costs: States would face significant costs to redesign driver's licenses, update databases, and train personnel, with little federal funding support. Higher Fees and Hassles: Individuals could face higher fees and longer wait times at DMVs, as well as bureaucratic difficulties related to obtaining and using REAL ID cards. Increased Identity Theft Risk: The creation of a large, centralized database could make it an attractive target for identity thieves. Potential for Misuse: Surveillance Society: REAL ID could contribute to a surveillance society by facilitating routine tracking and monitoring of individuals. Private Sector Data Collection: Businesses could collect and sell data from REAL ID cards, potentially creating for-profit databases without the same privacy protections as government data. Weakened Security: While proponents claim improved security, critics argue that REAL ID could create vulnerabilities in the identification system and may not effectively deter criminals or terrorists. Other Considerations: Constitutional Concerns: Some argue that REAL ID infringes on states' rights and the principle of federalism. Lack of Benefit: Critics question whether REAL ID will actually enhance security or create unnecessary costs and burdens without a significant benefit. In conclusion, while proponents tout the potential for improved security, critics raise serious concerns about privacy, administrative burdens, and potential for misuse of the REAL ID system. The Act's implementation could have far-reaching consequences for individuals and state governments alike.
It's not the tool, It's about who's using it and for what purpose.
In the wrong hands, it's exactly what you fear.
I don’t see the purpose of it either way. My drivers license should be fine to travel with.
Here in NY, any new driver's license is "Real ID" compliant. I wonder how many states will have that automatically done.
All 50 have implemented it. I forget what the date is that it has to be complied by,
May 07 2025
https://www.dhs.gov/real-id/real-id-faqs
Thank you u/DRan.
For what it is worth, I've had a REAL ID Driver's License for many years now.
I understand all of the concerns, and they are all valid.
My PSA on this is simple.
Your smartphone already does way more than a REAL ID will ever do. Not only does everyone's smartphone have all of the personal information everyone is worried about being shared via REAL ID, everyone's phone is already hacked. Every single retail phone that everyone owns already has backdoor software installed for the gubmint to grab whatever they want.
In addition to having personal info, our "smart" phones also record everything from mics, cameras, IPs, GPS, and personal health info.
We've already given our privacy away for all of these things.
Rhetorically...
Did you install any apps or games on your device? If you read the terms of use and privacy policy, then you already know you gave all your rights to your personal info away to zombify yourself with the games on your phone.
They’re pushing it hard in KY, but for now you can choose to stay with the old style.
In Washington state it's called an "enhanced driver's license (or ID)", I got one 5 years ago.
Same here in CA.
Edit: that said, driver’s licenses are purely for commerce. If you aren’t carrying people or goods for profit there is no need to have a driver’s license to travel privately in your automobile, or whatever the correct legal term for a non-commercial car is these days. SCOTUS tested and true. You can travel privately with only a passport. Extra knowledge and UCC steps required if you don’t have your citizenship status in order but still 100% doable.
BTW, DMV registration is also only for commercial use. A license plate on your car is only necessary for doing business not private travel.
My car is NOT a "Motor Vehicle"
USC Title 18, § 31 9(6) - Definition of "Motor Vehicle": "The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers and property, or property or cargo."
USC Title 18, § 31(10) - Definition of "Commercial Purposes": "The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of the persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking for profit."
So your car, SUV, or motorcycle is only a "commercial vehicle" if you are getting paid to "drive" it. If you are only using it to travel around to go to work, school, groceries, or any other private reason then it IS NOT A "MOTOR VEHICLE".
Here is the dilemma, when the government started requiring the commercial vehicles to be registered and licensed it made that a regulable activity for that purpose. They made everyone else believe it was the same for the general public. The police, you and all your friends are taught that you are always 'operating' a 'motor vehicle' which are both commercial regulable activities.
May the state change the definition of a word or term (MOTOR VEHICLE) from the original meaning (USC Title 18, § 31 (6) to another definition to fit their own needs? NO:
CRAIG v. MISSOURI, U S 29, 410 The state cannot change the meaning of “motor vehicle” and “driver” to fit their own needs: "Is the proposition to be maintained, that the constitution meant to prohibit names and not things? That a very important act, big with great and ruinous mischief which is expressly forbidden by words most appropriate for its description; may be performed by the substitution of a name? That the constitution, in one of its most important provisions, may be openly evaded by giving a new name to an old thing? We cannot think so.” […The State] cannot change the name of a thing to avoid the mandates of the Constitution.]"
What the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, says here is that the state cannot change the meaning of “person traveling” to “driver”, and they cannot change the name or term of “private car,” “pickup” or “motorcycle” to “Motor Vehicle”. C
U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”
American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”
International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”
City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”
Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”
(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,
Shaprio v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’
Please link to the SCOTUS case. Would be useful for educating normies.
Just like Florida...Real ID "MIGHT" be cumbersome to some, HOWEVER, the "GOLD STAR" in the UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER IS WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR ALONG WITH a picture and a holograph picture...THOSE CANNOT BE FAKED IN ANYWAY!!!!!
Your drivers license IS NOT SUFFICIENT because illegals can get them, along with a free register to vote application
then maybe ILLEGALS shouldnt be able to get drivers licenses, or theirs should have a star on it !!
That's what I wish would c9me of all of this!
Because we are Citizens of the State in which we reside. Not US Government Property , as the 14th amendment & "Our Democracy" would have you believe.
Except for the fact that any illegal can get a driver's license (and then go vote.) You have to prove who you are before you can get a Real-ID. There's something to be said for this.
its just another way to convince you to give up your rights to privacy for the greater good, why not just make it so illegals cannot get licenses? or make their license some real id bs
Really, there isn't any data that they don't already have:
Birth certificate, Social Security data, current driver's license data, Marriage License, Tax records, Passport data...
I remember when I didn’t need an ID to travel maybe prior 1990ies still wonder what Fucking business is Uncle Sam to know what I’m doing especially when Uncle Sam has allowed so much of our tax dollars piss away
Sometimes the tool is the purpose; i.e. there can't be any other purpose than the tool.
The purpose is to decrease liberty, full stop. That it is also intended to provide "security" is a secondary effect. There are other things we can do to keep illegals from voting in our elections. That this loss of liberty is being explained away to "keep illegals from voting" is, according to my research, exactly what Controlled Opposition looks like.
In other words, that we are losing personal liberties for increased securities, but are being told it's "for a good reason," is pure Cabal.
From my perspective, this is some fucked up shit.
It’s also easy to get one by accident, even for people who are aware of this act and dislike it.
I could say the same about a regular old driver's license.
In fact, I do say that
Full stop
You're not wrong. Even the Birth Certificate is fuckery. As is the SSN. The SSN, for example, was created by Rockefeller to control the population, part of the Eugenics program.
One of the methods I was thinking about for requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote is paring the requirement of the presentation of a United States permanent resident card (Green Card) for persons who lawfully migrated into the United States and for those who born in the United States, their own birth certificate that is issued in the United States or one of its territories and in addition, their parent's birth certificates (if they were also born also in the United States) or a green card for both of their parents in the event the parents lawfully and legally migrated to the United States.
Having a green card does not give you the right to vote. It allows you to live in the US as a legal immigrant. Once you obtain citizenship, they take your green card away and give you Naturalization Papers.
we have an Awakening, folks!
I won’t except that excuse. It’s the same thing with neural link. Sure it’s in elons hands and he might be a good guy but you simply cannot make the tech secure enough to insure it doesn’t get used by “the wrong hands”. Real ID infringes upon privacy and as such should be discarded end of story.
And somehow access to all databases eventually falls into "the wrong hands". Please tell me you're not this obtuse.
Can you fucking read?
Where did I say it won't end up in the wrong hands, or isn't already?
The broader point- I could direct you towards hundreds of products invented in just the last 20 years that are far worse but you happily lap them up without a moments consternation.
Isn't Government wrong hands to begin with ?
You don't think drivers licenses and state IDs AREN'T in a database subjected to the wrong hands? Wake up!
In the right hands, is national voter ID
Correct, and Congress just passed the SAVE Act which requires ID that proves citizenship (Real ID) to vote… Convenient timing.