It's Unreal Just How Awful 'Real ID' Is (2020)(zocalopublicsquare.org)
zocalopublicsquare.org
It's Unreal Just How Awful 'Real ID' Is (2020)
https://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/real-id-is-awful/
52 comments
I am from the US and my understanding is that we are one of the only (if not the only) Western democracy that doesn't require photo ID for voting. We do, however, need photo ID or at least a Social Security number for pretty much everything else (applying for loans, opening bank accounts, buying a house or car, starting a new job, getting married, etc). The amount of things you can do without personally identifying yourself in some way is so small that I'm also not sure what additional power a Real ID gives to the government.
> I am from the US and my understanding is that we are one of the only (if not the only) Western democracy that doesn't require photo ID for voting.
We are I think also the only one that both (1) has a significant number of eligible voters who do not have a photo ID and (2) in many states the party that controls the government and sets the rules for getting ID sets those rules to try to make it hard for people who tend to vote for the other party to get ID and make it easy for those who vote for their party to get ID.
> We do, however, need photo ID or at least a Social Security number for pretty much everything else (applying for loans, opening bank accounts, buying a house or car, starting a new job, getting married, etc).
There are a significant number of citizens who don't use credit, don't have bank accounts, don't have cars, work at off the record jobs that pay in cash or check (to cash a check all you need is someone you trust enough who has a bank account and then you can do a third party endorsement and let them cash it for you).
We are I think also the only one that both (1) has a significant number of eligible voters who do not have a photo ID and (2) in many states the party that controls the government and sets the rules for getting ID sets those rules to try to make it hard for people who tend to vote for the other party to get ID and make it easy for those who vote for their party to get ID.
> We do, however, need photo ID or at least a Social Security number for pretty much everything else (applying for loans, opening bank accounts, buying a house or car, starting a new job, getting married, etc).
There are a significant number of citizens who don't use credit, don't have bank accounts, don't have cars, work at off the record jobs that pay in cash or check (to cash a check all you need is someone you trust enough who has a bank account and then you can do a third party endorsement and let them cash it for you).
In a functional political situation all sides would rationally talk with each other and agree on something that makes it workable.
"National Id would be overwhelmingly positive, but here are the corner cases in which it doesn't work well, so let's have exceptions, alternatives, accommodations, etc. to make it work well for everyone. And "we're worried about this and that and that", so let's agree on some mechanisms to counterbalance it.
> There are a significant number of citizens who don't use credit, ...
They can still do that. But they would need an id. It's interesting however, what are their motivations. Are they just so poor that getting an Id is a burden? Is it a religious / ideological thing? Are they hiding from the government either due to distrust or some legal matters?
"National Id would be overwhelmingly positive, but here are the corner cases in which it doesn't work well, so let's have exceptions, alternatives, accommodations, etc. to make it work well for everyone. And "we're worried about this and that and that", so let's agree on some mechanisms to counterbalance it.
> There are a significant number of citizens who don't use credit, ...
They can still do that. But they would need an id. It's interesting however, what are their motivations. Are they just so poor that getting an Id is a burden? Is it a religious / ideological thing? Are they hiding from the government either due to distrust or some legal matters?
> There are a significant number of citizens who don't use credit, don't have bank accounts, don't have cars, work at off the record jobs that pay in cash or check (to cash a check all you need is someone you trust enough who has a bank account and then you can do a third party endorsement and let them cash it for you).
Do you know of any statistics on this? I knew a lot of people like this when I was growing up in the rural midwest in the 90s but it would have to be a lot more difficult to get by this way now.
Do you know of any statistics on this? I knew a lot of people like this when I was growing up in the rural midwest in the 90s but it would have to be a lot more difficult to get by this way now.
Here's some.
23% of people making less than $25k/year do not have bank accounts [1].
20% of Black households in the US do not have access to a car [2]. That one also says that 17% of Black households are unbanked. For Americans overall this [3] says 8.7% of households do not have access to a working vehicle.
> I knew a lot of people like this when I was growing up in the rural midwest in the 90s but it would have to be a lot more difficult to get by this way now.
It probably is. For example before 1996 flying on a commercial airline was about as easy as getting into a movie theater. If you had a ticket you got in. They didn't care if you were actually the one who bought the ticket. They stated caring after TWA Flight 800, and caring even more after 9/11.
I think hotels check ID more now too. I'm sure there are other things.
But a lot of those things are things that poor don't actually do much of.
Another thing that probably makes it still feasible to get by that way is that people who don't have credit, cars, bank accounts, etc often live in communities with many other people in the same situation. Such a community is likely to have a significant underground economy that has developed to handle that.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/02/23percent-of-low-income-amer...
[2] https://www.cbcfinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/NewRoutes...
[3] https://www.thezebra.com/resources/research/car-ownership-st...
23% of people making less than $25k/year do not have bank accounts [1].
20% of Black households in the US do not have access to a car [2]. That one also says that 17% of Black households are unbanked. For Americans overall this [3] says 8.7% of households do not have access to a working vehicle.
> I knew a lot of people like this when I was growing up in the rural midwest in the 90s but it would have to be a lot more difficult to get by this way now.
It probably is. For example before 1996 flying on a commercial airline was about as easy as getting into a movie theater. If you had a ticket you got in. They didn't care if you were actually the one who bought the ticket. They stated caring after TWA Flight 800, and caring even more after 9/11.
I think hotels check ID more now too. I'm sure there are other things.
But a lot of those things are things that poor don't actually do much of.
Another thing that probably makes it still feasible to get by that way is that people who don't have credit, cars, bank accounts, etc often live in communities with many other people in the same situation. Such a community is likely to have a significant underground economy that has developed to handle that.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/02/23percent-of-low-income-amer...
[2] https://www.cbcfinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/NewRoutes...
[3] https://www.thezebra.com/resources/research/car-ownership-st...
It's about not giving more info to the government than is necessary. There should be a minimal amount of info sharing from citizens to governments, ideally. The way some EU countries require citizens to register an address even if they don't have a license, and just 'in general', is super sketchy to me.
The government already has all your information which makes this even more stupid.
It's a bit like IRS already knows exactly how much you own, but you have to tell them.
It's a bit like IRS already knows exactly how much you own, but you have to tell them.
Not every agency has access to every other agencies data, and that's how it should be. There is nothing stupid about implementing principle of least privilege at the government level in the context of data access.
It is kind of stupid to advocate for just giving everything carte blanch to the government when they don't need it, as Europeans tend to be so eager to do.
Yes, the government has access, but let then get a warrant if some agency has a reason to access it.
It is kind of stupid to advocate for just giving everything carte blanch to the government when they don't need it, as Europeans tend to be so eager to do.
Yes, the government has access, but let then get a warrant if some agency has a reason to access it.
>The acts of forcing people to submit more identification and then putting that personal information in databases actually introduces new risks.
That is all well and good, but with all the big breaches we have had it really does not matter. Your info is out there already if you ever applied for a loan due to that large credit agency breach(s). I forgot the name of the companies, but that alone was probably enough. Then tack on that the various Health Insurance breaches, Real ID is a non-issue at this point.
Now of course we have DOGE mining Social Security Data, so here we are.
That is all well and good, but with all the big breaches we have had it really does not matter. Your info is out there already if you ever applied for a loan due to that large credit agency breach(s). I forgot the name of the companies, but that alone was probably enough. Then tack on that the various Health Insurance breaches, Real ID is a non-issue at this point.
Now of course we have DOGE mining Social Security Data, so here we are.
Plus, most of what Real ID does is increase the documents that you need to show to get your ID. The state generally isn't then putting all those documents online somewhere -- it's just requiring that you show them to an employee at the time of application. So in terms of what's stealable by hackers, nothing has changed.
Edit: I’m wrong, the state is required to keep copies. It’s not required to keep digital copies, but that’s probably simplest and so…
Edit: I’m wrong, the state is required to keep copies. It’s not required to keep digital copies, but that’s probably simplest and so…
It has been a while since I read the full text of the law, but I believe the Real ID Act requires states to store copies of all documents for 7 or 10 years.
Hm, looks like you’re right. It doesn’t require digital copies, but does set various lengths of time that the state has to hold onto things based on whether they keep paper, microfiche, or digital.
Your passport is perfectly valid ID for flying.
You can also get a US passport card. I used to carry one when I was in Japan. Anytime I had to show ID, the person would say "oh, diplomat!" because its looks more like a US federal ID card than a passport.
But it should also work in place of a "Real ID", and is easier to carry than a full passport.
You can also get a US passport card. I used to carry one when I was in Japan. Anytime I had to show ID, the person would say "oh, diplomat!" because its looks more like a US federal ID card than a passport.
But it should also work in place of a "Real ID", and is easier to carry than a full passport.
> And by making Real ID a requirement for travel within the country, the American government is effectively creating an “internal passport” of the sort that oppressive regimes (including North Korea) use to limit their people’s freedom of movement, and to create distinct classes of citizens.
That's some serious hyperbole. A requirement to board a plane != "a requirement for travel within the country."
That's some serious hyperbole. A requirement to board a plane != "a requirement for travel within the country."
Also, it's not required. You can get through a TSA checkpoint without ID, it might just take a bit longer. They'll take you aside and validate your identity. [1]
[edit] > In the event you arrive at the airport without acceptable identification (whether lost, stolen, or otherwise), you may still be allowed to fly. The TSA officer may ask you to complete an identity verification process which includes collecting information such as your name and current address to confirm your identity.
[1] https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification
[edit] > In the event you arrive at the airport without acceptable identification (whether lost, stolen, or otherwise), you may still be allowed to fly. The TSA officer may ask you to complete an identity verification process which includes collecting information such as your name and current address to confirm your identity.
[1] https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification
> You will not be allowed to enter the security checkpoint if you choose to not provide acceptable identification, you decline to cooperate with the identity verification process, or your identity cannot be confirmed.
It used to be that you absolutely could fly without an ID, but that's not the case anymore. Now it's at a discretion of a TSA officer.
It used to be that you absolutely could fly without an ID, but that's not the case anymore. Now it's at a discretion of a TSA officer.
WARNING: Old man about to say "Back in my day..."
As a child, we were taught that "America is better than the USSR because $REASONS." One reason given was we didn't need identification to travel around the country (this included flying). And when I saw "taught" I mean "this was taught to us in a public school."
Back in my day (There it is!), you would see newspaper want-ads like "Vegas bachelor party canceled. Two airline tickets avail this weekend. $200 OBO." You'd meet the guy, buy the tickets and get on the flight. ID was more for proving you were old enough to fly alone than anything. Tickets were not made out to the buyer, they were just assigned seating. Airlines were losing money and they knew it but couldn't figure out a way to stop it cheaply enough.
Metal detector screenings started in the 70's because back then airplane hijacking was a thing.
Then, 9/11. Metal detector screenings became mandatory. The airlines got the government to do the identity checks (TSA) and tighten the security the airlines did/could/would not pay for. State IDs (driver's licenses, for example) were sufficient. No more want-ads for a Vegas bachelor parties! The buyer might get a refund, might not, and the airline got to resell the seat either way. And we still take our shoes off to get on a plane decades later.
Fast forward to today, you (will) need a federal ID to travel on airplanes domestically, either a REAL ID or a passport. Sure, it's not hard to get, and there are ways around it if you forget or lose yours. Besides, what's the harm, right?
And every step along the way, it was a perfectly cromulent thing to do.
Now excuse me, I need to change the onion on my belt. That's still the fashion, right?
As a child, we were taught that "America is better than the USSR because $REASONS." One reason given was we didn't need identification to travel around the country (this included flying). And when I saw "taught" I mean "this was taught to us in a public school."
Back in my day (There it is!), you would see newspaper want-ads like "Vegas bachelor party canceled. Two airline tickets avail this weekend. $200 OBO." You'd meet the guy, buy the tickets and get on the flight. ID was more for proving you were old enough to fly alone than anything. Tickets were not made out to the buyer, they were just assigned seating. Airlines were losing money and they knew it but couldn't figure out a way to stop it cheaply enough.
Metal detector screenings started in the 70's because back then airplane hijacking was a thing.
Then, 9/11. Metal detector screenings became mandatory. The airlines got the government to do the identity checks (TSA) and tighten the security the airlines did/could/would not pay for. State IDs (driver's licenses, for example) were sufficient. No more want-ads for a Vegas bachelor parties! The buyer might get a refund, might not, and the airline got to resell the seat either way. And we still take our shoes off to get on a plane decades later.
Fast forward to today, you (will) need a federal ID to travel on airplanes domestically, either a REAL ID or a passport. Sure, it's not hard to get, and there are ways around it if you forget or lose yours. Besides, what's the harm, right?
And every step along the way, it was a perfectly cromulent thing to do.
Now excuse me, I need to change the onion on my belt. That's still the fashion, right?
Want to hear a joke? The USSR allowed people to travel on airplanes without showing any documents, except for some closed and border towns. This only changed towards the end of the 80-s.
Train tickets remained completely anonymous in the USSR up until its dissolution.
Train tickets remained completely anonymous in the USSR up until its dissolution.
Not surprised at all. Then again, ten yo me hadn't been introduced to the concept of propaganda yet even though it was all around me in retrospect.
Doesn't that require bringing someone else who knows you to vouch for you? It's not exactly a smooth process that you'd want to regularly go through.
Or they can "One Plus One" you where they ask you verification questions from your credit profile to verify you are who you say you are.
I edited to include the process as written by the TSA on their website. It's definitely going to be less fun if you don't bring ID, and they suggest you arrive early.
It's certainly annoying but it's not all that big of a deal. Tens of thousands of people lose IDs and wallets every year and manage to get on the plane home anyways. I've seen people go through it they use common sense means to verify you.
I don't see any issue presented here that is exclusive to Real ID.
The arguments presented here seem to logically argue against any government identification. Real ID isn't required for domestic travel, it's required for federally-regulated air travel. According to DHS, it doesn't create new databases, it's a credentialing standard.
I'm not familiar with Real ID, but this article doesn't present substantive arguments against it. It comes off a bit histrionic:
> And if you lose a Real ID—or it malfunctions—get ready for bureaucratic nightmares that would make Kafka blush. Newspapers will carry stories about people with Real ID problems who can’t access government offices to resolve them, because they don’t have Real ID.
I'm not familiar with Real ID, but this article doesn't present substantive arguments against it. It comes off a bit histrionic:
> And if you lose a Real ID—or it malfunctions—get ready for bureaucratic nightmares that would make Kafka blush. Newspapers will carry stories about people with Real ID problems who can’t access government offices to resolve them, because they don’t have Real ID.
> Real ID isn't required for domestic travel, it's required for federally-regulated air travel.
What’s the distinction here? I would think flying with any commercial airline domestically is considered “federally-regulated air travel.”
What’s the distinction here? I would think flying with any commercial airline domestically is considered “federally-regulated air travel.”
The article called Real ID a North Korea-style domestic passport. That is not what it is. There is no categorical control on domestic travel. Commercial aviation is regulated by the federal government. If you believe that no ID should be required for air travel, that is one thing, but if you accept the need for a credential to fly, of course you'd expect it to use a standard defined by the entity requiring it.
I believe they're pointing out that flying isn't the only way to travel domestically. You can drive or take the train without needing to have a Real ID.
(You can certainly quibble about relative practicality of that in a country the size of the USA.)
(You can certainly quibble about relative practicality of that in a country the size of the USA.)
I have a Real ID and this if all bogus.
Could you explain which elements of the article you believe are bogus, and how your individual experience with having a Real ID informs that stance?
It is all hyperbolic BS. I have a Real ID and don't even recall the process being different. Show a birth certificate and get an ID. Not a big deal.
-Real ID will make it easier for hackers and terrorists to steal our identities, and for governments and corporations to discriminate against us.
-the American government is effectively creating an “internal passport” of the sort that oppressive regimes (including North Korea) use to limit their people’s freedom of movement
-Real ID will abet the federal government’s already out-of-control discrimination against immigrants and their families.
-Real IDs have been called “hacker bait,” since they would give criminals and others another supposedly trusted identification to penetrate. *your neighbor who can’t find her certified birth certificate can’t fly Southwest to Phoenix to watch spring training baseball.
-Real ID will make it easier for hackers and terrorists to steal our identities, and for governments and corporations to discriminate against us.
-the American government is effectively creating an “internal passport” of the sort that oppressive regimes (including North Korea) use to limit their people’s freedom of movement
-Real ID will abet the federal government’s already out-of-control discrimination against immigrants and their families.
-Real IDs have been called “hacker bait,” since they would give criminals and others another supposedly trusted identification to penetrate. *your neighbor who can’t find her certified birth certificate can’t fly Southwest to Phoenix to watch spring training baseball.
> Show a birth certificate and get an ID. Not a big deal.
It’s apparently a bit more complicated for a lot of women since they have to show all the supporting documentation for name changes. For instance, my mother is divorced and remarried, so she had to bring a birth certificate and two marriage licenses (plus name change applications) as supporting documentation showing progression of her last name from birth until present day.
It’s apparently a bit more complicated for a lot of women since they have to show all the supporting documentation for name changes. For instance, my mother is divorced and remarried, so she had to bring a birth certificate and two marriage licenses (plus name change applications) as supporting documentation showing progression of her last name from birth until present day.
Another very common thing in the US is having to validate your dependents for employer-provided health insurance. Since most married couples use just one of the spouses' insurance for cost reasons (even if both of them have jobs that provide it), this involves submitting copies of your marriage license as well as birth certificates for all children. This has been a thing for years and I've had to do it a few times. Like getting a RealID, it's a bit of a hassle but not that big of a deal for 99% of people.
I have an "Enhanced Driver's License" from the state of NY and it is (1) a RealID and (2) gets me into Canada by land.
My wife and I both got Real IDs this past summer. Our teenage kids have passports. They were all fairly simple to get. I don't understand what the issue is.
A passport card is easier to obtain (with or without the passport book). Get that instead.
It isn't easier to get a passport. Same basic documents required, but passport takes longer, is more expensive, and you have to provide the photos yourself.
In my state (Washington) it is actually cheaper to get a non-Real ID driver's license plus a passport card if you take your own photo.
A passport card is $65 and good for 10 years. That's $6.50/year.
A Real ID driver's license driver's license in my state is $42 dollars more to renew for 6 years than a non-Real ID license. That's $7.00/year. It can also be renewed for 8 years for for $56 more than a non-Real ID license, which is again $7.00/year.
In addition to being cheaper a passport card can be used both as an ID and to show citizenship. A Real ID is only an ID.
A passport card is $65 and good for 10 years. That's $6.50/year.
A Real ID driver's license driver's license in my state is $42 dollars more to renew for 6 years than a non-Real ID license. That's $7.00/year. It can also be renewed for 8 years for for $56 more than a non-Real ID license, which is again $7.00/year.
In addition to being cheaper a passport card can be used both as an ID and to show citizenship. A Real ID is only an ID.
I have both. I remember having to get the passport, and remember each renewal (getting pictures, collecting the documents, finding the forms, sending them in, waiting to get them back). I have Real ID as well and have no memory of actually getting it, which makes me think it wasn't very hard.
Having to carry a passport card within the US sounds harder than just carrying my license. Especially when the passport card has all sorts of warnings about keeping it in the paper sleeve it comes with. It acts like it needs to be treated with kid gloves, and not just thrown in a wallet, like a license.
Having to carry a passport card within the US sounds harder than just carrying my license. Especially when the passport card has all sorts of warnings about keeping it in the paper sleeve it comes with. It acts like it needs to be treated with kid gloves, and not just thrown in a wallet, like a license.
I/we have the opposite problem. My wife paid extra and got a REAL ID, I resisted. I just got a passport instead (as did she).
My wife, when she renewed her DL this time, got a drivers' license stamped "NOT FOR REAL ID PURPOSES" because she didn't bring in her identity documents AGAIN to the DMV.
Screw that. The passport lasts twice as long as a driver's license, and we're going to carry those anyway, so...why pay extra and have to remember all these documents? Passport renewal is easier.
My wife, when she renewed her DL this time, got a drivers' license stamped "NOT FOR REAL ID PURPOSES" because she didn't bring in her identity documents AGAIN to the DMV.
Screw that. The passport lasts twice as long as a driver's license, and we're going to carry those anyway, so...why pay extra and have to remember all these documents? Passport renewal is easier.
The passport is only easier if you already have a driver's license. Otherwise the requirements are just as onerous.
That's not the point. The passport card is an alternative.
But your comment about the need to get the passport in the first place and it being expensive is entirely valid.
But your comment about the need to get the passport in the first place and it being expensive is entirely valid.
The passport card is slightly larger than a credit card and thus doesn't fit properly in most wallets. Otherwise I wouldn't mind having it on my all the time.
I have never seen a wallet that won't take a passport card. Also, my passport card is precisely the same dimensions as every other card in my wallet. Maybe you got a weird one?
Are you sure? In the US, the Passport Card is pretty much exactly the same size as any US credit or debit card
I went back to check because I was second guessing myself now and it turns out it fits just fine. I think I was being silly because it comes in this little piece of paper that says it is a "protective sleeve" so I was trying to keep it inside the paper.
[deleted]
I believe in personal freedom and I am cautious of government overreach, etc. but the benefits of ID is just so huge, and I don't think it really changes much w.r.t. government ability to messes with you if they want to.