The author is concerned that the feds could subpoena the data from the company that it's being submitted to. Wouldn't this same concern apply to the feds serving a subpoena to the state? Once the data is out there, it's out there. If one level of government has it, all the peer/higher levels will have access of they want it.
It sounds like this database is the one that feeds license data to NCIC. The bigger question here is if we should be compiling and using data in the NCIC suchbas driver licenses and carry permits.
The article doesn't seem to go into any discussion or reasoning why Gavin Newsom would want to cooperate with this, seemingly against his own party?
What are the downsides of not cooperating? What is his motivation or benefits for capitulating?
Edit: Oh, ahhh I see: "Governor Gavin Newsom agreed to upload driver's license data to a national database primarily to comply with the Real ID Act of 2005 and avoid federal threats that would prevent California IDs from being accepted at airports and other federal facilities. This decision was finalized through a budget compromise with the state legislature following intense pressure from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security"
It was a strategic move by Newsom to comply with giving your data to a historically unpopular fedgov led by a historically unpopular president at a time when resisting would have been supported by his base and would have raised his political capital (and national profile). Very smart move.
These issues are really complicated because they aren’t left versus right. Conservatives and progressives both tend to be ideologically skeptical of enhancements/sharing of ID.
From a state perspective, there’s a lot of benefit to exchanging this type of information across state lines through AAMVA. It reduces a lot of fraud, avoids a lot of insurance issues that cost the state taxpayers a lot of money. It has a lot of benefits to things like commercial motor carrier safety that have a direct benefit to the public.
For example, New York does direct entity to entity sharing of many driving records with Ontario and Quebec. The Canadians benefited because I don’t allow people with DWIs to enter Canada, New York benefited by keeping unsafe truckers off state highways, who were exploiting certain pools in Canadian regulations.
It’ll take a bit of time, But the long game here is that the United States will have a national ID system.
The big conflict is that states issue licenses (AB 60 in California, “green light” in other places) without regard to the ability to provide legal documentation of legal residency. Advocates fear that the sharing will be used by the hypervigilant immigration bureaucracy. States don’t enforce immigration law, but every resident of a state is at risk if people are driving around without insurance or without being subject to driving licensing laws. This also allows populations like the homeless to get IDs, But it’s being used as a punching bag by right wing commentators, rallying against illegal alien truckers and other nonsense.
Should voter ID requirements (a la "SAVE America" act or similar) become law, constitutional prohibitions on poll taxes will lead towards every citizen getting an ID at no charge.
Many states already have required ID for voting, and indeed a state ID card can be obtained from the DMV for a nominal cost, probably free in need-based cases.
Maybe if both left and right weren't just puppets for the capital that finances their superPACs it would be more believable that they're different things
How does sharing drivers license information help "capital"? Sure you can probably handwave some stuff about how sending that information helps the surveillance state which can be used to stop occupy wall st style protests, but it's not clear how that's more convincing than the other common refrain, which is that immigration (legal or otherwise) helps "capital" because it drives down labor costs.
>These issues are really complicated because they aren’t left versus right. Conservatives and progressives both tend to be ideologically skeptical of enhancements/sharing of ID.
It's complicated within each party, but not overall. Idealogues prefer debating other idealogues because they use the same vocabularies and that preference is why they are always fighting, they like it. But the fat part of the curve in the middle is mostly made up of non idealogues who are quietly saying "can't you just shut up and compromise, let's be practical".
If they would ever shut up and compromise, there would be no need for their ideology. That's why advocates almost never really solve the issues they are advocating about, because to do so would be to eliminate the thing that gives them attention and power.
This isnt just about drivers. That matters. Driving a car is not a fundamental right. But access to a state ID card, something you will need to access many services, probably is.
The author is concerned that the feds could subpoena the data from the company that it's being submitted to. Wouldn't this same concern apply to the feds serving a subpoena to the state? Once the data is out there, it's out there. If one level of government has it, all the peer/higher levels will have access of they want it.
It sounds like this database is the one that feeds license data to NCIC. The bigger question here is if we should be compiling and using data in the NCIC suchbas driver licenses and carry permits.
States can and do resist federal subpoenas and have more leeway in doing so. They also have enormous legal resources.
Roughly 9 years ago: https://neveragain.tech/
This is a very good pledge to have all humans to sign up for anywhere on the globe.
>>We are choosing to stand in solidarity with Muslim Americans,
This particular word, with no other identities after that, takes the air out of this massive effort and gives the impression it is a localized effort.
The article doesn't seem to go into any discussion or reasoning why Gavin Newsom would want to cooperate with this, seemingly against his own party?
What are the downsides of not cooperating? What is his motivation or benefits for capitulating?
Edit: Oh, ahhh I see: "Governor Gavin Newsom agreed to upload driver's license data to a national database primarily to comply with the Real ID Act of 2005 and avoid federal threats that would prevent California IDs from being accepted at airports and other federal facilities. This decision was finalized through a budget compromise with the state legislature following intense pressure from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security"
It was a strategic move by Newsom to comply with giving your data to a historically unpopular fedgov led by a historically unpopular president at a time when resisting would have been supported by his base and would have raised his political capital (and national profile). Very smart move.
(There is only one team in US politics.)
I think many people will assume you're historically unpopular president and fed gov are the current ones.
Since the federal law requiring this was passed in 2005, it's another historically and unpopular president and fedgov.
(I am of course referring to Abraham Lincoln and the 1861 federal government)
These issues are really complicated because they aren’t left versus right. Conservatives and progressives both tend to be ideologically skeptical of enhancements/sharing of ID.
From a state perspective, there’s a lot of benefit to exchanging this type of information across state lines through AAMVA. It reduces a lot of fraud, avoids a lot of insurance issues that cost the state taxpayers a lot of money. It has a lot of benefits to things like commercial motor carrier safety that have a direct benefit to the public.
For example, New York does direct entity to entity sharing of many driving records with Ontario and Quebec. The Canadians benefited because I don’t allow people with DWIs to enter Canada, New York benefited by keeping unsafe truckers off state highways, who were exploiting certain pools in Canadian regulations.
It’ll take a bit of time, But the long game here is that the United States will have a national ID system.
The big conflict is that states issue licenses (AB 60 in California, “green light” in other places) without regard to the ability to provide legal documentation of legal residency. Advocates fear that the sharing will be used by the hypervigilant immigration bureaucracy. States don’t enforce immigration law, but every resident of a state is at risk if people are driving around without insurance or without being subject to driving licensing laws. This also allows populations like the homeless to get IDs, But it’s being used as a punching bag by right wing commentators, rallying against illegal alien truckers and other nonsense.
Should voter ID requirements (a la "SAVE America" act or similar) become law, constitutional prohibitions on poll taxes will lead towards every citizen getting an ID at no charge.
Many states already have required ID for voting, and indeed a state ID card can be obtained from the DMV for a nominal cost, probably free in need-based cases.
Maybe if both left and right weren't just puppets for the capital that finances their superPACs it would be more believable that they're different things
How does sharing drivers license information help "capital"? Sure you can probably handwave some stuff about how sending that information helps the surveillance state which can be used to stop occupy wall st style protests, but it's not clear how that's more convincing than the other common refrain, which is that immigration (legal or otherwise) helps "capital" because it drives down labor costs.
>These issues are really complicated because they aren’t left versus right. Conservatives and progressives both tend to be ideologically skeptical of enhancements/sharing of ID.
It's complicated within each party, but not overall. Idealogues prefer debating other idealogues because they use the same vocabularies and that preference is why they are always fighting, they like it. But the fat part of the curve in the middle is mostly made up of non idealogues who are quietly saying "can't you just shut up and compromise, let's be practical".
If they would ever shut up and compromise, there would be no need for their ideology. That's why advocates almost never really solve the issues they are advocating about, because to do so would be to eliminate the thing that gives them attention and power.
Article has bad title.
"about all driver’s licenses and ID cards"
This isnt just about drivers. That matters. Driving a car is not a fundamental right. But access to a state ID card, something you will need to access many services, probably is.
That is fitting: "Error establishing a database connection"