[HN Gopher] Do you need ID to read the REAL-ID rules?
___________________________________________________________________
Do you need ID to read the REAL-ID rules?
Author : greyface-
Score : 104 points
Date : 2024-11-25 20:40 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (papersplease.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (papersplease.org)
| dcminter wrote:
| https://archive.is/paqb8
| ezfe wrote:
| While I completely agree that any individual should have access
| to the laws and texts that govern us, I have a problem with:
|
| > "Access procedures are especially critical with respect to this
| proposed rule because 'the class of persons affected' - the
| relevant category pursuant to 1 CFR SS 51.7(3), as quoted above -
| obviously includes individuals who do not have ID deemed
| compliant with the REAL-ID Act.
|
| These laws "apply" to platform makers who are attempting to
| create Real ID mDLs, not people who want a REAL ID in the
| abstract. Someone without a REAL ID cannot get an mDL, regardless
| of the text of these rules.
| Glyptodon wrote:
| Someone (with or without ID) may very much suspect that there
| are legal issues with gating any federal or governmental
| behaviors behind real ID, or not allowing open source Real ID
| mDLs or various similar things.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| 1 CFR SS 51.7(3) [0] is laying out the requirements by which a
| reference is eligible for being included in rulemaking?
|
| The 5 U.S.C. 552(a) [1] it modifies notes that _" Except to the
| extent that a person has actual and timely notice of the terms
| thereof, a person may not in any manner be required to resort
| to, or be adversely affected by, a matter required to be
| published in the Federal Register and not so published."_
|
| Which seems to be a pretty broad definition of affected person.
|
| I'd certainly consider myself to be affected if in order to
| avail myself of one option of TSA identification for air travel
| I had to use an app that did... (reference not openly
| available)
|
| [0]
| https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1/part-51/section-51.7#p-...
|
| [1] https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/5/552
| akira2501 wrote:
| These laws "belong" to the citizens. If the government is not
| applying it's rules correctly who is there to monitor that? Do
| I not have that _basic right_?
| munchler wrote:
| I really admire these folks for standing on a worthy principle. I
| also dig the performance art vibe of showing up at the TSA
| headquarters without an ID to read a deeply nested tree of paper
| documents about IDs. If you're going to joust windmills, these
| are some good windmills to joust.
| changoplatanero wrote:
| Why does the TSA building itself need so much security? Are
| they expecting it to be the target of an attack?
| emilamlom wrote:
| Well, they are the best at security theater, so it makes
| sense their headquarters is too.
| echoangle wrote:
| Is that surprising? It's a federal agency representing the
| security apparatus of the US. That's a good target for
| terrorism.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| To be honest, I am genuinely surprised an attack never
| materialized. But then I also remember mentioning my
| thoughts on the matter to my wife, who was aghast that I
| would even consider such a scenario. Maybe, on average,
| people are actually decent and it is people like me, who
| come up with weird hypotheticals.
| harrall wrote:
| ~60 airplane hijackings per year in the 70s.
|
| Now it's down to <4 per year.
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/airliner-hijackings-
| and-f...
| woodruffw wrote:
| Depending on your perspective on security theater, it might
| be appropriate to observe that a TSA building as _exactly as
| much_ security as the TSA is capable providing itself.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Kudos to Mr. Hasbrouck, who I assume is the narrator, for putting
| feet to ground to demonstrate the lack of open access to
| executive branch law.
|
| You can't have a law, and also keep it secret.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| If there's any one lesson to draw from the last several years,
| it's that the executive branch can do anything they goddamn
| well please.
| freedomben wrote:
| > _These mobile driver's licenses (mDLs) will be issued by state
| driver's license agencies, but the standards incorporated into
| the TSA rule require that they be deployed through smartphone
| platforms (i.e. Google and /or Apple) and operate through
| government apps that collect photos of users and log usage of
| these credentials._
|
| This is really disturbing in a number of different ways. It's bad
| enough to have the government requiring you to have a government-
| approved smart phone, but on top of that it's the logging and
| data analysis wet dream that authoriarian governments the world
| over could have only dreamed of.
| miohtama wrote:
| It's not a dream. China and India have been doing it for a
| while.
|
| Discussed earlier
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41608810
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Even worse, the whole thing is a cash cow for Idemia and a
| couple of other companies, who probably alt wrote the secret
| rules to benefit their company and prevent competition.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| It gets worse. In US most of the bigger corps institute some
| sort of means to authenticate you via cellphone, which means
| that if you want to be remote, phone is effectively a necessity
| ( which one usually does ). Only a year ago, it was still
| possible to avoid having to have a cell ( although that meant
| you had to be in person -- an interesting trade off in itself
| ).
|
| Anyway, I hate the now.
| henryfjordan wrote:
| Work with your IT dept.
|
| A company I previously worked for had a policy that if you
| had any company data on your phone, they had the right to
| force you to unlock it and look through it (not sure if they
| ever actually did but it was in the employee handbook). When
| IT tried introducing a system that required me to Auth with
| my phone I refused, citing the policy, and they helped me
| setup a workaround Yubikey.
|
| Might not be possible everywhere but worth a shot. Also
| always helps to make friends in IT.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| At my last workplace, I somehow managed to get away with only
| Microsoft Authenticator on my phone, with no actual remote
| management capabilities enabled. That's pretty much exactly
| where I draw the line: if I _have_ to have a device to
| perform work functions, the workplace needs to supply it. I
| 'm not going to put work data on my personal machines, and
| I'm _definitely_ not letting a third party root my phone for
| me "for sekhurity", and apply _work_ policies on my
| _personal_ device. I 'm okay with work 2FA on my phone, but
| only without MDM, as an exception for where otherwise there's
| no reason for me to have a work phone.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _It 's bad enough to have the government requiring you to
| have a government-approved smart phone_
|
| The government isn't requiring that.
|
| It's not forcing you to get a mobile ID.
|
| Your physical ID continues to be just fine. Mobile device ID's
| are simply for people who want the convenience of not carrying
| the physical one.
| philistine wrote:
| Think long-term. In 40 years, when the last paper IDs are
| discontinued, we'll all be tracked, but the time to complain
| was now.
| SuperNinKenDo wrote:
| Until they aren't.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-25 23:00 UTC)