I was reading Slashdot this morning and ran across the article about Maine rejecting the Real ID act. In the article they linked to the ACLU's anti Real ID website.

Some interesting opinions are listed under the "opposition voices" section. The main arguement is that this system will be costly to implement and will provide a false sense of security. They also touch on trust: where a fraudulent ID would now open doors that before required supporting documentation.

I'm personally opposed to the Real ID. It will become a national ID card tied into a federal database. I don't believe ID makes you safe. The potential abuses of this database far outweigh any purported safety benefits.

Recommended reading: Your Papers Please, an oped from the 2/22/2004 Washington Times about Dudley Hiibel's case. He's the guy in Nevada who was accosted by police and asked to identify himself. When he refused, it sparked a case that when through Nevada's Supreme Court, and ultimately the US Supreme Court. Final verdict? There is nothing wrong with police asking people for their name "because in this case disclosure of his name presented no reasonable danger of incrimination." So much for the right to remain silent.

A more Real ID favorable counter opinion can be found here: Government Technology: Papers Please (Nov 4, 2005) Admittedly, I have not read the whole article. The parts I skimmed were counterarguements to the premise that this legislation was originally doomed, so that's why it was tacked onto a war spending bill. Who would vote against the troops? Also good talk about how many states are already ahead of the curve with ID technology, and they are being looked to for guidance with the program.

So what do you think?

Real Nightmare? Or much ado about nothing?