Wash. state to test 'enhanced' licenses

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Wash. state to test 'enhanced' licenses

By Curt Woodward, Associated Press Writer | March 24, 2007

SEATTLE --High-security driver's licenses aimed at letting
U.S. citizens return from Canada without a passport could be
adopted elsewhere if Washington state's experiment works,
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said.

The pilot project, signed into law by Gov. Chris Gregoire
and formally approved by Chertoff on Friday, calls for
Washington to begin issuing new "enhanced" driver's licenses
in January.

They will look much like conventional driver's licenses, but
will be loaded with proof of citizenship and other information
that can be easily scanned at the border.

Radio frequency ID chips and other advanced security features
also would make the enhanced licenses less vulnerable to
forgery. At about $40, they also would be less expensive
than a $97 passport.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/24/wash_to_test_enhanced_licenses

[Gman]

1. Oh sure. Try it out in Washington rather than South Texas

Canada has a lot of white people so it's safe to try this thing out there. Can't be doing this in Rio Grande City or Mission or Laredo. Never know who might come back across the river. Want to go have dinner in Progresso? Nope, can't do that anymore. You're gonna need a passport to do it now.

[keopeli]

2. I'm pissed as hell that our Gov. approved this fascist plan.

I do NOT want to carry my life and medical history on a chip in my driver's licence.

And who will pay the $40? You guessed it - WE WILL. I'm not paying a cent to give up my liberties.

Gov. Gregoire, you'd better watch yourself. I'm liable to vote for your opponent next time.

PISSED!

[dsc]

5. It would be nice if you actually read the article

or presumedly the several articles your state's papers would have had. Here, in black and white, it states.

The enhanced licenses will not be mandatory for Washington drivers. Those who want to get the enhanced version will go through an in-person interview, and will have to show proof of citizenship, Gregoire adviser Antonio Ginatta said.

end of quote

Not mandatory means you wouldn't have to get one.

[keopeli]

8. Please refrain from insults - they are unbecoming. And I'm well aware of the program, thank you.

Speaking in insults is just a horrible way to communicate. I can't understand why any person would choose this path.

I am well aware of the "optional" clause. I have been following this topic for months. Of course they are making it optional - the cost of replacing everyone's licence would be astronomical for a pilot program. All of this is beside the point.

This is a test program. If it is a success, it will no longer be optional. That means that you, too, (assuming you live in the US and drive a car) would have to get a licence with all your data stored on an imbedded chip. Everyone in the whole country would have to have one. I'm opposed to this on so many levels.

But to actually test this program in my state is anathema to me. I don't want us testing fascist programs here or anywhere else. But, in my state, I get more of a voice. And I will use my voice to strongly oppose this program. I worked to help Gregoire get elected and I'll work to unseat her if necessary.

I hope that clears the air for you a bit. Thanks for reading my post.

Peace.

[dsc]

9. I didn't insult you

I re read your post and no honest reading of that post would make one think that that program was voluntary as it clearly is. I am sorry you didn't like being called on your dishonest post. But the simple fact is your post was, evidently, intentionally dishonest. Frankly, that is worse than what I had said you did. I wouldn't want this to become a mandatory program but it isn't and you should have stated that in your post.

[keopeli]

10. "It would be nice if you actually read the article" is not an insult? hmmm

Friend, I'm not obliged to include all of the contents of the article in my post. Now you claim that I'm "intentionally dishonest" and that you claimed as much in your response. I don't know why you are picking a fight. Like me, you have been at DU for many years. Your avatar indicates that you support gay rights and are a Christian, also like myself. I'm befuddled by your accusations and tone. You misinterpreted my original post and lobbed an insult in your rebuttal (accusing me of speaking out of ignorance is an insult). I took the time to respond to you as politely as I could, and now you say I should have made some disclaimer about the fact that a trial program is voluntary (a fact that is both implicit and explicit). You continue by lobbing a second insult, now saying that I'm also "intentionally dishonest," a claim you say yourself is worse than your first insult.

Do you still fail to comprehend my meaning? Let me be as clear as I can. I do not want my government forcing me to carry any digital identification that discloses my private information without my direct consent. I do not even want a trial program to see if it would work, which would inevitably lead to mandatory enhanced licences. Perhaps we disagree on this matter, which is fine. I can have a discourse on the topic if you like, and I can even change my mind if you convince me otherwise.

But, how will you ever persuade someone by casting insults at them? If you thought my post was misinformed, you could simply have said as much without the insults and we might have had an open exchange of ideas. Respecting others is a principle of civil debate and a cornerstone of Christianity and civil rights. I appreciate your honest reaction. I appreciate you asking me to clarify my OP. I appreciate your perspective on the topic.

However, I don't appreciate being called "intentionally dishonest" or suggesting that I didn't bother to read the article. In editing your original response to tone down your rhetoric, you still maintain that I didn't read the article or even "presumedly the several articles your state's papers would have had." (Because of how quickly this topic has developed, there is very little in print on the topic - even locally.)

I can not allow you to call me "intentionally dishonest" without a retort. I suggest to you that I am well read on this topic, that I read the article at hand, that I did not intentionally lie or mislead in my response and that your accusations are baseless.

All that being said, I hope we can move on to more important things and that, in the future, you will choose your words more wisely. I, in turn, will try to do the same.

Peace to you

---

Some inks on this topic from local papers:

http://www.theolympian.com/125/story/71822.html

"The optional new license will incorporate proof of citizenship and Washington residency and allow search of federal databanks, including criminal records."

http://www.komotv.com/news/6553007.html
March 17, 2007

www.whistlerquestion.com
"The State of Washington initiative will see citizens there pay some $40 extra for a drivers’ licence with a biometric chip..."

[ProudDad]

11. It's still screwed

two tiers of Citizenship. Bothers the hell out of me...

[Skink]

3. What if you are caught without your RFID chip?

[lutefisk]

6. If you have nothing to hide, why don't you have your RFID?

Of course if they just implant them under our skin, it would be much more convenient. And the homeland would be so much more secure!

[AX10]

4. This is a back door to national ID cards.

Gregoire is not that much better than Don, I mean Dino Rossi. Gregoire is a Democrat, but she is a dismal governor. Hell, Cantwell is better than Gregoire.

[merwin]

7. IMO, Gregoire's been a great governor to me.

I don't understand the problem with this. It's not like by saying "No, we're not going to do this", the federal government is just going to revert back to letting people across the border without proof of citizenship.

There are a TON of people who commute daily for work across that border, and whatever will make it easier is a damn good option to me. Now, if those RFID chips give out your personal information, that's another story... but I'm pretty sure that they'll just give out the barcode that's on the license.

Do you have any other reasons for declaring her a dismal governor?