Surrendering to Hitler would have saved lives too -- sure he might have finished exterminating Europe's Jews, but most of the hundreds of millions that died fighting and defeating him would have survived. It all depends on whether you think we should sacrifice a few lives in order to protect our freedom, or if we should sacrifice our freedom in order to protect a few lives.

This is something that many people simply can't comprehend - infringement is not the same as denial.

My argument against the over the top search methodologies used by TSA, such as full-body rubdowns with genital contact, and the original version of the NoS with a perv box, and the ever-popular cancer box, not to mention illegal detainment, theft of personal property, and illegal interrogations, has always been that they present us with a false choice - surrender our 4th Amendment rights, or have our right to freedom of movement infringed.

The counter argument is typically, "So then don't fly! You can still travel, they haven't taken anything away from you!" But that's a straw-man argument; they're not denying your your right so freedom of movement, they're merely infringing upon it. But they're infringing upon it in such an egregious manner that it's no longer useful or practical to use the alternative means that are available (like walking, driving, or taking the bus or train), which amounts to a de facto denial of the right.

I like to compare it to a fairly common piece of the civil rights movement, when real estate brokers would only show houses to families of the same color as the existing neighborhood, thus preventing black families from living in predominantly white neighborhoods, and vice versa. Of course, those real estate brokers weren't preventing black families from buying a house, they were just preventing them from buying a house in the wrong neighborhood, steering them toward their own kind. That practice was struck down, IIR, because infringement is just as egregious as total denial.

I'd love to see what would happen if there were laws proposing federal background checks to buy alcohol, get a driver's license, become a reporter, or organize a political protest movement - effectively infringing upon freedoms of speech, press, movement, religion, association, and assembly. Or, and this would be hilarious, if the government forced everyone who wants to run for any sort of elected office to get a Politician License first. They'd go through the same background check as you do for a Top Secret security clearance, and be re-checked and re-certified every couple of years to hold that Politician License. Ditto for a Reporter License, or a Pastor License. None of those things would deny people their rights - they would only restrict and regulate and infringe upon them.

I had one of the very last NJ licenses without a photo. It expired in 2008 IIRC. They gave me a very hard time about issuing it as when I checked the 'non-photo' box they corrected it for me and sent me to the photo line. I pr:ptested and was told that 'non-photo licenses are not accepted.' I asked whether the police accepted them and they grudgingly said yes. After some further discussion they relented and issued me my non-photo renewal.

FWIW, the waiver has now been extended for two m:)re years. The new deadline is January 22, 2018.

Statement By Secretary Jeh C. Johnson On The Final Phase Of REAL ID Act Implementation:
I don't expect much to change over the interim.

DHS blinked again. :D

Have Phases 1, 2, 3 and 3a been implemented or have they been pushed back as well?

NYS DMV is actually expecting to be given an extension until 2020.

They should. Every state refusing to comply will keep getting an extension unless and until REAL ID is repealed or otherwise rendered meaningless.

Made my day! ^

NYS has begun issuing EDL (Enhanced Drivers Licenses), which are in compliance with REAL ID [so they say:)].
They have a "check-list" of what documentation is needed to get a NYS EDL; it has two major components, proving (1)you are a citizen, (2)you are a NYS resident. With the current non-EDL licenses, you could keep renewing them, by just paying the fee and getting an eye test (from approved locations: eye doctors, pharmacies).
Why do EDLs require proof of residency, but (normal) DLs do NOT.:confused:

In addition, to the documents above, which can be, of course, be fraudulent, states offering enhanced DLs or compliant REAL ID DLs, must run facial recognition software on all applicants.

Many states, including Vermont, claim that they do this to "protect your identity from being stolen." A bunch of crap; they need to be honest. New York state doesn't say a word about FRT, at least no word that I can find on line.

NJ doesn't say anything unless you ask. Apparently, the reason NJ is still non-complaint is:

:rolleyes:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/01/...y-real-id-act/

Anyway, come 2018 DHS will blink again.

But FRS would only be useful in identifying KNOWN criminals. Someone planning on doing "BAD THING" with NO previous interactions with the legal system wouldn't be flagged.:confused:
NYS is using EDL (not REAL ID), so the license CARD is more tamper proof--which NYS notes is "federally compliant".

PS: US Passports (and I assume others), are permitted to be used at TSA checkpoints (for ID purposes), yet FRS is not run on the associated pictures; I don't think Walgreens uses FRS for their passport photos.:p

FRS is used even against people who had never before even been suspected of committing a crime.

How is NYS EDL not REAL ID compliant?

It IS compliant--at least NYS says it is, but (from other posts in this thread) they don't use FRS [would that make it non-compliant.:confused:]

That is an interesting phrasing. FRS/FRT is not used "against" someone - it is used "on" someone - actually, lots of someones.

FRT is used by both government and non-government organizations, at many airports, at major sporting events (Super Bo- er, dagnabbit NFL, the "Big Game," Olympics, F1, Copa Mundial) and other entertainment events (Oscars and others) as well as in casinos and many other places.

FRT is essentially no different than license plate readers used on highways and in parking lots - it merely compares characteristics against a database of characteristics for known and unknown persons.

FRT is not adversarial nor dispositive of anything. Would you similarly characterize APHIS [an automated fingerprint database] as being "used against people who have never before even been suspected of committing a crime"?

There are, of course, lots of highly charged issues regarding how all that data will be used (tracking of travel) and stored.

I would characterize APHIS as being 'used against people who have never before even been suspected of committing a crime' if the government starts covertly collecting fingerprint information for everyone in the population.

It's a small but very slippery step from scanning a crowd and populating a database with the faces; it's something else entirely when that data is then used as 'proof' of some kind of suspicion - you were spotted in the Boston Marathon, ergo, you must have some kind of of connection to the Tsarnaev brothers.