Real ID

[ducklite]

12 hours ago, clo said:

Don't you have to have a passport to get Global Entry?

Yes, you absolutely do.

[ducklite]

12 hours ago, clo said:

I need to get GE and my new Chase Sapphire Reserve card will pay for it.  Need to do the paperwork and see about getting it in Houston when we return from S. America in December.  Is it credit card size?

Yes.

[ducklite]

12 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

No, presenting an ID is not a substitute  for appropriate screening -but  such ID, along with such screening, has been deemed to be prequisite to boarding a flight.    If you do not like the existence of such procedures, write to your Congressman, there is no point in arguing about it on CC.

We aren't talking about boarding a flight, we are talking about being summoned to court through no fault of your own.

[navybankerteacher]

26 minutes ago, ducklite said:

You've obviously never been living at or below the poverty line where the cost of obtaining an ID that you don't need for any reason except to be called for jury duty could mean the difference between paying the electric bill and living in the darkness for a few weeks.

An irrelevant comment:  of course living below the poverty line means hardship — which is just one more reason why EVERYONE should have credible ID - to enable participation in programs which provide needed assistance - as well as to enable meeting obligations such as performing jury duty.

 

Or do you argue that people only have rights, and no obligations:  as so many are inclined to do—-while  ignoring the fact that no one can have any meaningful right if others do not have an obligation to observe that right?

Edited October 13, 2019 by navybankerteacher

[ducklite]

16 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

An irrelevant comment:  of course living below the poverty line means hardship — which is just one more reason why EVERYONE should have credible ID - to enable participation in programs which provide needed assistance - as well as to enable meeting obligations such as performing jury duty.

 

Or do you argue that people only have rights, and no obligations:  as so many are inclined to do—-while  ignoring the fact that no one can have any meaningful right if others do not have an obligation to observe that right?

Then perhaps our government should be paying for everyone to have the ID they require.  

 

Meeting jury duty requirements for someone who has a nice job with an employer who will continue to pay them and already has appropriate ID because they can afford the luxury of travel is not a problem.  But it is an undue and unjust hardship for others who don't have those comforts and luxuries in their lives.  For that demographic, a civilized government would find ways to assist them rather than asking them to go hungry.

[clo]

44 minutes ago, ducklite said:

civilized government

Operative words.

[lynncarol]

I think we may be getting off topic here. Back to obtaining a Read ID, at least in Pennsylvania, be sure you read carefully all the documents that you must bring when applying. For example, if you don't have a passport but only a driver's license which does not reflect your birth certificate name, you must also bring a copy of your marriage license. After sitting at the DMV for over two hours to get a Real ID, the poor woman ahead of me in line was sent home because she failed to bring a marriage license which justified her last name on her old driver's license.

[ducklite]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

An irrelevant comment:  of course living below the poverty line means hardship — which is just one more reason why EVERYONE should have credible ID - to enable participation in programs which provide needed assistance - as well as to enable meeting obligations such as performing jury duty.

 

Or do you argue that people only have rights, and no obligations:  as so many are inclined to do—-while  ignoring the fact that no one can have any meaningful right if others do not have an obligation to observe that right?

People living below the poverty line have ID's issued to them by the state or county/parish DSS.  That ID is all they need to receive their benefits.  They do not have to pay for the ID.  If the government is willing to accept this as ID for the receipt of benefits, it should also be accepted as ID to enter courthouses.

[sparks1093]

2 hours ago, ducklite said:

Not when the managers are in on it as well...

The most foolproof way is to have regional processing centers for all documents where they are mailed in like passports. It virtually eliminates the potential to pay someone off.  But that is probably not going to work well either, as people need to have their DL to drive, and if it needs to mailed in, it's a problem.

It is something that each state needs to consider and the problem is solved by the issuance of a paper DL that can used until the license is issued (which is what we get in Vermont when we renew, we don't receive the actual license until a couple of weeks later.

[ducklite]

Just now, sparks1093 said:

It is something that each state needs to consider and the problem is solved by the issuance of a paper DL that can used until the license is issued (which is what we get in Vermont when we renew, we don't receive the actual license until a couple of weeks later.

You are missing the point.  The paper ID is given once the documents are reviewed.  The problem is with the person reviewing the documents being in on the scam to obtain a license or ID without the appropriate documentation.  If the documentation is approved, it doesn't matter if the ID is given that visit or mailed.  You will argue that the mailing address has to be their address.  The mailing address can be the local oil change place where the applicant has a deal set up with the owner to accept mail for him--if the person "checking" the info to begin with is being paid to look the other way, it's all irrelevant.  

[sparks1093]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

An irrelevant comment:  of course living below the poverty line means hardship — which is just one more reason why EVERYONE should have credible ID - to enable participation in programs which provide needed assistance - as well as to enable meeting obligations such as performing jury duty.

 

Or do you argue that people only have rights, and no obligations:  as so many are inclined to do—-while  ignoring the fact that no one can have any meaningful right if others do not have an obligation to observe that right?

Of course the credible ID being discussed only pertains at the federal level, presumably the non-REAL ID compliant IDs are still valid for obtaining benefits if needed. One could still perform one's civic function/obligation on a local jury (I don't recall being asked for an ID the last time I served on a jury, but it's been a while and I might have been asked).

[sparks1093]

1 minute ago, ducklite said:

You are missing the point.  The paper ID is given once the documents are reviewed.  The problem is with the person reviewing the documents being in on the scam to obtain a license or ID without the appropriate documentation.  If the documentation is approved, it doesn't matter if the ID is given that visit or mailed.  You will argue that the mailing address has to be their address.  The mailing address can be the local oil change place where the applicant has a deal set up with the owner to accept mail for him--if the person "checking" the info to begin with is being paid to look the other way, it's all irrelevant.  

I presume that the documents receive a secondary review and are double checked in the requisite databases and if not then such a review should take place. In any event each state will need to determine the best way to avoid this and take the appropriate measures.

[nascarcruiser]

1 minute ago, sparks1093 said:

Of course the credible ID being discussed only pertains at the federal level, presumably the non-REAL ID compliant IDs are still valid for obtaining benefits if needed. One could still perform one's civic function/obligation on a local jury (I don't recall being asked for an ID the last time I served on a jury, but it's been a while and I might have been asked).

You will need a Real id to enter the courthouse.  Therefore people who can't afford it can enter the courthouse for jury duty

[sparks1093]

1 minute ago, nascarcruiser said:

You will need a Real id to enter the courthouse.  Therefore people who can't afford it can enter the courthouse for jury duty

If it is a federal courthouse, yes, and as I said several posts ago they very well may make an exception for someone called to jury duty who doesn't have a REAL ID compliant ID. If they don't make an exception then they will have to excuse that person from jury duty, I don't see any other option since having a REAL ID compliant ID is completely voluntary.

[ducklite]

2 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

I presume that the documents receive a secondary review and are double checked in the requisite databases and if not then such a review should take place. In any event each state will need to determine the best way to avoid this and take the appropriate measures.

I have a Florida REAL ID.  My documents were reviewed by a single person at my local DMV.   Although it wasn't REAL ID, after September 11th, NJ tightened up their requirements to obtain a DL or DMV issued ID to be the strictest in the country at that time.  And within a year DMV workers had been arrested for helping unqualified people obtain ID's.  That situation has been ongoing ever since, and has not been limited to NJ by any means.  It's happened in Florida even after we began issuing REAL ID's.  So guess what?  The system is flawed and just like the TSA, it's only an illusion hellbent on making life difficult for law abiding citizens while allowing criminals to circumvent the system through any number of loopholes--as we saw in Florida a couple weeks ago.

[RocketMan275]

On 10/11/2019 at 9:13 AM, navybankerteacher said:

Dismissal “for cause” keeps a lot of people off juries — a bank officer is rarely seated on a civil liability case, and a former collateral duty  shore patrol officer rarely sits on a criminal case.

In this area, the chances of being dismissed are in direct proportion to your level of education.  Attorneys do not like well educated people who can think for themselves.

 

Happens in other areas too.  The person with the highest level of education on the OJ Simpson jury had a GED.  The defense knew the trial would revolve around some very technical areas like DNA.  The defense wanted jurors who would be easily confused and discount all that technical stuff.

[sparks1093]

1 hour ago, ducklite said:

I have a Florida REAL ID.  My documents were reviewed by a single person at my local DMV.   Although it wasn't REAL ID, after September 11th, NJ tightened up their requirements to obtain a DL or DMV issued ID to be the strictest in the country at that time.  And within a year DMV workers had been arrested for helping unqualified people obtain ID's.  That situation has been ongoing ever since, and has not been limited to NJ by any means.  It's happened in Florida even after we began issuing REAL ID's.  So guess what?  The system is flawed and just like the TSA, it's only an illusion hellbent on making life difficult for law abiding citizens while allowing criminals to circumvent the system through any number of loopholes--as we saw in Florida a couple weeks ago.

In Vermont copies of the presented documents are retained and the license is mailed to the person, which allows time for the verification of all of the documents presented. Whether they do such a review or not I don't know but wouldn't be surprised to find out that such a review occurs. No human system will ever be perfect but we do have the capacity to learn from such failures. As flawed as the TSA is I, for one, am glad they are on the job (while recognizing that they can and should get better).

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, sparks1093 said:

Of course the credible ID being discussed only pertains at the federal level, presumably the non-REAL ID compliant IDs are still valid for obtaining benefits if needed. One could still perform one's civic function/obligation on a local jury (I don't recall being asked for an ID the last time I served on a jury, but it's been a while and I might have been asked).

It’s been a couple of years, but I recall having to empty my pockets, open my briefcase - pass things through a scanner, and show ID - regular CT drivers license - when entering a local court. Haven’t entered a Fedeal court building in many years.

[CPT Trips]

On October 12, 2019 at 10:01 AM, navybankerteacher said:

The REAL ID is the available alternative to Global Entry, travelling with a passport or with birth certificate and supporting documentation. 

 

At at some point, there needs to be some standard — and for travelers posting here who resent the necessity for paying for that standard, how about an arrangement for some no-fee alternative -perhaps funded by a small tax added to every flight fare?

 

 

 

Do you ever wonder why there needs to be a standard ID to get on an airplane or enter a public building? What purpose it serves?

 

Admission of a public building should be for the public. If, as you say in another post, you empty your pockets, open your briefcase or have it xrayed, and walk through a scanner, how does showing ID (that isn't verified against a date base) add anything to security?

 

Now a navy base, a school, or a bank aren't public buildings. The owner/operator can deem whatever they determine is needed as an acceptable admission criteria.

 

An airline sells tickets, that ticket should be the document that allows access to the aircraft. If the airline wants to restrict that access to a named individual that's their business and they should bear the cost of enforcing the restriction.

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, CPT Trips said:

 

Do you ever wonder why there needs to be a standard ID to get on an airplane or enter a public building? What purpose it serves?

 

Admission of a public building should be for the public. If, as you say in another post, you empty your pockets, open your briefcase or have it xrayed, and walk through a scanner, how does showing ID (that isn't verified against a date base) add anything to security?

 

Now a navy base, a school, or a bank aren't public buildings. The owner/operator can deem whatever they determine is needed as an acceptable admission criteria.

 

An airline sells tickets, that ticket should be the document that allows access to the aircraft. If the airline wants to restrict that access to a named individual that's their business and they should bear the cost of enforcing the restriction.

In the 1960’s there were a number of flights diverted to Cuba  by apparently valid ticket holders;  on 9/11/2001 a number of flights were diverted into buildings by apparently valid ticket holders.  Some reasonable responsible authorities decided that certain steps should be put in place to minimize the risk of repetition.  I am not in a position to confirm or challenge the efficacy of those steps - but I cannot help thinking that attempting to know who is getting on planes is one reasonable step- and having a standard (ie understandable and enforceable ) way of knowing who they are (and, perhaps more importantly, who they are not) is such a step.

 

I hope you do not really believe that individual airlines should be in complete control of all aspects of their operation - with no government oversight.

[clo]

4 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

certain steps should be put in place to minimize the risk of repetition.

And the existence of those things is likely, IMO, a deterrent.  I've said about TSA that they can strip search me if it deters one person from doing something bad.

[sparks1093]

19 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

 The person with the highest level of education on the OJ Simpson jury had a GED.  

This statement strained my credulity just a little so when I had a moment I did a little research. "The Jury By Education: 2 College Graduates, 9 High School Graduates, 1 Without Diploma"  is taken from the website https://famous-trials.com/simpson/1989-jurypage#final. And of course that doesn't change the fact that having a GED doesn't mean that one can't understand complex issues.   

[sparks1093]

19 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

It’s been a couple of years, but I recall having to empty my pockets, open my briefcase - pass things through a scanner, and show ID - regular CT drivers license - when entering a local court. Haven’t entered a Fedeal court building in many years.

Every jurisdiction is no doubt different. When I served on a jury in my county I entered the courthouse through a side door designated for jurors. There wasn't a security checkpoint to go through. I presented myself to the clerk, told her my name and signed in. I may have had to show an ID but I don't remember if I did or not. The last time I was in an actual courtroom was in South Carolina where I was a witness in family court for my son's divorce. We did empty our pockets at the door and went through security. To enter the courtroom the bailiff came out of the locked courtroom when the attorney announced our presence, verified that we were on the list of parties/witnesses and let us in (I may have had to show my ID at this stage, but memory fails me). The only people in the courtroom were my son's lawyer, my son, me, the court reporter, the bailiff and the judge. I'm not sure how they handle regular civil trials and criminal trials. I do understand the security screening of emptying pockets, etc. but do not see how showing an ID enhances security of a building (and I see the distinction between a building and boarding an airplane).

[CPT Trips]

19 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

In the 1960’s there were a number of flights diverted to Cuba  by apparently valid ticket holders;  on 9/11/2001 a number of flights were diverted into buildings by apparently valid ticket holders.  Some reasonable responsible authorities decided that certain steps should be put in place to minimize the risk of repetition.  I am not in a position to confirm or challenge the efficacy of those steps - but I cannot help thinking that attempting to know who is getting on planes is one reasonable step- and having a standard (ie understandable and enforceable ) way of knowing who they are (and, perhaps more importantly, who they are not) is such a step.

 

I hope you do not really believe that individual airlines should be in complete control of all aspects of their operation - with no government oversight.

 

The hijackers on 9/11 had valid tickets and possessed valid ID. They also used items that were permissible, at that time, to carry onto an airplane to carry out their crimes. Being stricter about what could/couldn't be brought on board was a reasonable effective step in increasing security. Examining an ID document in minute detail without doing any real time data matching accomplishes nothing.

 

Reread what I wrote about airlines. No where did I mention anything about airlines operating without government oversight as you imply. Let me restate my point, perhaps clearer this time. Matching airline tickets/boarding passes to ID allows the airline to prevent resale of tickets and pocket the money if you bought a ticket and can't use it. You can't sell your ticket to me, you eat the cost of your ticket and I have to buy mine from the airline. That's a revenue issue, not a security issue.

[CPT Trips]

2 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

This statement strained my credulity just a little so when I had a moment I did a little research. "The Jury By Education: 2 College Graduates, 9 High School Graduates, 1 Without Diploma"  is taken from the website https://famous-trials.com/simpson/1989-jurypage#final. And of course that doesn't change the fact that having a GED doesn't mean that one can't understand complex issues.   

 

That absurd dog whistle post did more than strain my credulity. Thank you for the fact finding.