Reply #14: Just hysteria as far as I'm concerned. [View All]

The bill requires that all states include on their driver's licenses

"(1) The person's full legal name.

(2) The person's date of birth.

(3) The person's gender.

(4) The person's driver's license or identification card number.

(5) A digital photograph of the person.

(6) The person's address of principle residence.

(7) The person's signature.

(8) Physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes.

(9) A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements."

Big effin' deal! With the exception of the last item, which I can't see as objectionable, my driver's license already includes all of that and more and has for years and I daresay that most states include most of that info already, as well. It's a matter of consistency.

And before anyone gets all nuts about #4, there is nothing whatsoever in the bill that requires anyone to get an "identification card". This refers to the picture IDs that the states already issue as an alternative to driver's licenses to non-drivers. You know, so non-drivers can purchase alcohol, enter a casino, or board a commercial airplane. They're voluntary and nothing in this legislation changes that.

Speaking of airplanes, when was the last time that anyone here was able to access an airport boarding gate anywhere in this country without showing a picture ID? This is nothing new, it just helps to provide uniform information on the licenses and/or IDs that most of us already have. I fail to see how this is such a desperately terrible thing.

And while it does not limit what else might be required in the future, it would make virtually no difference if it did. If they were to decide at some future date that they want to expand the required information, they'd just amend the law, so limitations would have little if any effect.

But the most glaring error in the premise of this thread is the assertion that any of this is "now LAW". H.R.418 was passed in the House last week and sent to the Senate where it was referred to committee for review on Wednesday. Who knows if it'll ever be passed or what it's provisions will ultimately be if it is? Why waste all this energy and chest thumping over something that hasn't happened yet? Or, more to the point, why paint is as having happened when, in fact, it hasn't? Those who, for whatever reasons they might have, object to minimum uniform information being required on driver's licenses in all states should contact their senators and voice their concerns. That would seem to be a whole lot more productive than portraying it as a done deal and generating a bunch of premature hand wringing, in my opinion.