I've been using my passport to fly ever since 9/11, because I saw where the wind was blowing. We've been falling into a "papers please" state for a long time.
My dream is that the government abolishes the TSA and we return to pre-9/11 security. Recently, this was proposed in Congress. [1]
> The hijackers responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were carrying U.S. driver’s licenses and state IDs.
That’s bothered me about so much airport (and elsewhere) security after Sept 11… few of the new rules would have prevented the disaster that triggered them.
So now everything is a constant hassle / expense, and seem to prevent nothing.
The combination of lockable bulletproof cockpit doors, and everyone realizing that a hostage situation on a plane means that everyone dies, helped make sure that 9/11 would not be repeated. The rest of it is security theater.
And remember the median number of flights taken by an American in a year is zero. The majority of the population is never affected by it, so they can happily vote and support anything that makes them feel more secure or like they're helping, with no downside they ever feel.
A few times a year I end up in a TSA line where one TSA person is shouting instructions to everyone, and 20 feet away the next is countermanding those instructions and seems exasperated that everyone is doing the wrong thing.
It's such a bad joke.
A few years ago I went through an airport that had a dog checking everyone. The handler was struggling to get the dog to do his job, people were not being checked, dog / puppy just wanted to play.
This is the thing that irritates me most. If I get in one line, I don't have to do anything. If I get in the other I have to unpack my laptop, take of my shoes, accessories, whatever.
Once there was a woman in front of me who asked why we take our shoes off and the response was "Once someone put a bomb in there shoes."
1. I don't love remedies to problems that happened once.
2. We had an international pandemic once... by your logic shouldn't we always mask at the airport?
If you really pay attention to all of these laws, you’ll notice most of them use these tragedies as an excuse to infringe upon our rights. Most gun control laws are the same way.
You’re deliberately dodging my question. Your point is also true of most gun control laws. Short of full confiscation you will not stop people from obtaining guns illegally via straw purchases or theft. Gun control will also not prevent law abiding citizens that suddenly become homicidal with no priors.
So again, what specific gun control laws would actually make a difference that aren’t already on the books?
The point that they are making is that this 9/11-inspired law would not have, even in theory if one assumes perfect enforcement, prevented 9/11. They are saying that they can conceive of gun control laws that would have, in theory if one assumes perfect enforcement, prevented 9/11. Coming up with a specific intention of such is not relevant to their point.
I’ll answer your question to hopefully illustrate the point: no guns in US airports. That law, in theory, at least would have had a chance of preventing the attack, which is not something that can be said about this one.
> that in America there is a constitutional right to bear arms that shall not be infringed.
That's not clear-cut. The language of the amendment is more nuanced than that, and the interpretation you're using is a modern one. In the not-so-distant past, it was interpreted as meaning that states could have well-regulated armed citizen militias, not that everyone has a right to carry a firearm.
> The second amendment was always intended as an individual right.
Well, I disagree. However, this underlines that the issue isn't so easy. It's one of several areas where the constitution isn't nearly clear enough in its meaning and can be reasonably interpreted in contradictory ways. That's the very essence of not being clear-cut.
We don’t have to guess or interpret the founders intentions on this. There are several quotes from them that affirm this as being intended as an individual right from the very beginning of our founding…
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
-Thomas Jefferson
“The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.”
-James Madison
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
-Alexander Hamilton
By most estimates we have more guns than people in this country and a not insignificant amount of people would refuse to willingly turn over their firearms to the government. The toothpaste is already out of the tube.
In a world where the second amendment was repealed, what gun control laws would you like to see passed and what would you expect them to accomplish?
Also, how would you account for the increased violent crime rate due to average citizens being unable to defend themselves against armed criminals?
Additionally, how would you propose that we the people keep our government from becoming tyrannical in the absence of our right to bear arms? It seems particularly absurd to give up our right to firearms when so many people are expecting our current president to become a tyrannical, fascist dictator.
With no second amendment, you could plainly ban firearms altogether.
Demonstrate that there would be an increase in violent crime without guns.
The current government was elected in a society with guns. The best way to prevent tyrannical governments is an educated populace that doesn’t vote for tyrants.
> With no second amendment, you could plainly ban firearms altogether.
Banning them doesn’t get rid of them. As the saying goes, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
> Demonstrate that there would be an increase in violent crime without guns.
As a corollary to my previous point. Criminals will still have guns because they are criminals and they don’t have any respect for the law. They will be emboldened by knowing that every potential victim they come across will be unarmed.
> The current government was elected in a society with guns. The best way to prevent tyrannical governments is an educated populace that doesn’t vote for tyrants.
What is preventing a government from declaring marshal law and suspending elections as soon as the citizens are disarmed? You greatly underestimate how afraid the elites are of an armed populace.
Most rural communities will not be willingly surrendering their firearms under any circumstances. They are heavily armed, yet they have very low rates of gun violence, at least until tyrants come for their guns that is.
Contrast that to urban areas where extensive gun control laws are in place. The issues are social and cultural and are not something that a gun ban will solve.
We are not Western Europe or Australia.
Also, like I said in another comment, guns are everywhere here and that toothpaste is already out of the tube. Most guns are not registered. No one knows for certain how many there are and who owns them. There will at best be no cooperation with forced confiscation, and most likely there will be active resistance against such a tyrannical incursion upon the rights of free people. Even law enforcement and large swaths of the military are unlikely to cooperate with confiscation efforts.
> The issues are social and cultural and are not something that a gun ban will solve.
Citation needed. Where have gun bans failed and why? Mexico, central, and South America, primarily because it’s so easy to obtain weapons in the U.S. and smuggle them down.
> There will at best be no cooperation with forced confiscation, and most likely there will be active resistance against such a tyrannical incursion upon the rights of free people.
Citation needed. There are absolutely nut jobs that won’t follow the law, but that’s true of any law. The solution isn’t to not pass laws. These folks will be dealt with like any other criminal.
You make a lot of assertions that seem to stand up to even the tiniest bit of scrutiny. You don’t back any of it up with any data.
Except you don't need an ID to fly, at least according to the TSA lawyers who secretly briefed the Court in Gilmore v. Ashcroft. The TSA assured the Court that anyone without an ID could just submit to a more stringent security check so they didn't need to decide the constitutionality of requiring an ID.
That was the case a number of years ago to my surprise (had somehow managed to lose my license between the car and the airport door). These days I use my Global Entry card so always have license as backup. No idea if it’s still true or will be after RealID kicks in.
I thought I’d read somewhere that Kansas wasn’t real ID compliant but apparently you can request a non Real ID but by default I got a Real ID compliant driver’s license. The fact that I had to Google it and read the KS department of revenue’s website to verify is worrying for the general public though. It’s gonna be a bumpy ride for the new several months/years.
In Virginia, it;s the opposite -- you need to request a REAL ID. "A REAL ID is an optional, upgraded version of your driver’s license or ID card that has a star in the right corner. ... Since REAL ID is optional in Virginia, you may not need one if you already have another federally accepted form of ID, like a valid U.S. passport or military ID, or don’t travel by plane."
Many of the most wealthy and powerful people in the country hate the government and try to sabotage it or suborn it, so its not surprising when the quality of government services suffers.
I seriously doubt that people are petitioning their secretary of states to keep online documentation terrible. If I had to guess, the explanation is probably something much more boring, like their employees not being incentivized to do the work.
I’ve held a valid passport since some international travel in 2008 (oh boy there were some adventures then) and I renewed it through 2028, despite not having any future intentions to leave the USA.
I also hold a valid driver license despite not owning a vehicle (I do rent once every few months.)
When I lost my wallet 3 years ago, I ordered a replacement online; it promptly arrived without the Travel ID designation. So I quickly decided that this was my opportunity to upgrade it (my passport would eventually expire naturally) and they required me to show up in person in order to obtain that Travel ID-enabled document.
The DMV is a lot easier in modern times because of several aspects: third-party service (although these are for the poor and suckers in bad neighborhoods), appointments to bypass “take a number” or long queues, and plenty of online service if you’re tech-savvy.
Last week I replaced my license again, with the .gov website service portal, and skipped the in-person appearance entirely, except a phone call and manual agent intervention was required due to some sort of bug/glitch in their backend.
My state has also implemented a very robust Mobile ID program, although the reader equipment is slow on limited deployment and you’re still legally required to carry the physical document anyway.
I tried to figure out the same, it seems to me that the issue is that US drivers licenses have historically been kinda shitty, with very little validation done to ensure the identity of the person that the licens is issued to. There's also some requirement about the drivers database being available across states, which apparently it wasn't previously.
Without knowing, my take is that it's one of those cases where each state has behaved more like individual countries, rather than a subdivision of a larger nation. So you drivers licens isn't really worth much out of state, at least not for validating your actual identity.
I could be wrong, it seems very unclear what Real ID actually is.
It's trying to solve a bunch of different, slightly overlapping problems. Some examples:
* provide an identity document that's hard to forge. Some states, Hawaii famously, had IDs that were ridiculously easy to forge.
* reduce expiration times so that identifying details aren't decades out of date. Some states (e.g. Arizona) issued IDs with 50+ years of validity.
* require actual verification of identity at issuance
* include SSN details. I have no idea why this was a thing and it's since been removed from the actual federal requirements, but most states require original social security documents to be provided during application.
* to establish residency at a particular address.
If it were just identity and residency, states would accept things like voter registration as sufficient. Yet many states (e.g. California) do not.
The SSN details weren’t true in MA. My card was lost at some point in college and I never bothered to replace. Probably should one of these years.
Not sure what proof of voter registration would look like here though. Proof of resident address can actually be non-trivial for a lot of even housed people. I probably have some online bills and statements but would have to dig them up.
The state level variability is fun. I know it's required for CA from personal experience, and checked TX, FL before posting. Also checked NY (talk about bad documentation). All require it currently.
Some states also don't like accepting online bills. That's the reason I wasn't able to ever get one in CA.
I suspect it became more standardized than it used to be. My original PA drivers license was a bit of index stock with no photo. Things have obviously changed but states, as I understand it? Still had significantly different verification requirement and varying degrees of information sharing. RealID isn’t quite a backdoor to an (unacceptable to most)national ID but it probably comes close.
This is the typical US confusion of a license and an ID. Licenses were not originally intended to be ID.
Until someone decided that only people over 21 could drink, and that we needed strong controls over ID. And most people had drivers licenses, so that is what they said they would need for a document
Real ID is more about standardization of the minimum bar than a specific new improvement. What the actual changes are from before depends on the state/territory you look at and what they used to do. You can read about the specific checks required here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act#Provisions
The main difference is that the record is added to a federal database. The actual ID is pretty much the same. There is some effort to make all the states' IDs look similar in terms of layout. At low-traffic airports if you're from a low-population state the person looking at your ID might not have seen one today.
The thing that's irritating about Read ID (at least in Ohio) is that the BMV would let you get an Ohio ID cheaper than a Real ID. Seems like a money grab when you know that people are eventually going to need a Real ID to fly.
Washington charges more for a Real ID than an Unreal ID too; I assume because it costs more to issue a Real ID and WA likes to push costs of services onto users of services more than other states I've lived in.
I think I priced it out and getting a passport card should have less fees than getting a Real ID here. But then I didn't get around to getting a passport card; I'll just use my full passport for flying and keep my Unreal ID.
Personally, I'm surprised this deadline hasn't been pushed back yet, given that every other deadline has been pushed back, and the original plan was 2008(!)
The most alarming thing I have seen recently in regards to the push for Real ID, is in the Election EO that came out recently, either a passport or Real ID will be required to vote in federal elections.
> If you’re in doubt, your passport will get you on a plane, whether it’s a domestic or an international flight.
That's my approach, since I keep a current passport I'll just carry that if I need to fly, and get the Real ID the next time my license expires in a few years.
A passport card is valid for all domestic flights, as well as land travel to Canada and Mexico. I prefer it to my passport book when appropriate as it's sturdier and easier to carry.
It's also nice on international trips as proof of U.S. citizenship (though you'll usually need your book at border crossings)
>In the event you arrive at the airport without acceptable identification (whether lost, stolen, or otherwise), you may still be allowed to fly.
>The TSA officer may ask you to complete an identity verification process which includes collecting information such as your name and current address to confirm your identity. If your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint, where you may be subject to additional screening.
>You will not be allowed to enter the security checkpoint if you choose to not provide acceptable identification, you decline to cooperate with the identity verification process, or your identity cannot be confirmed.
>TSA recommends individuals without acceptable identification arrive at least three hours in advance of their flight time.
Yes. This happened to me in 2019 flying from Minneapolis to Denver with family when I forgot my wallet (stupid, I know). I was taken aside and someone from homeland security in DC called on their phone and asked me a handful of questions about my life. Like what the church across the street from my apartment was called (I didn't know!). They eventually let me through the security check. I was really worried the entire trip but on the return flight I didn't have to do it again.
But that was completely unintentional. I'd never intentionally try to fly when I don't have the required ID.
There's going to be de-facto enforcement of street-level ID requirements in the US very soon, as more and more power is handed to ICE with less accountability.
gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/travel/real-id-deadline-w...
https://archive.ph/910Ez
I've been using my passport to fly ever since 9/11, because I saw where the wind was blowing. We've been falling into a "papers please" state for a long time.
My dream is that the government abolishes the TSA and we return to pre-9/11 security. Recently, this was proposed in Congress. [1]
[1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/118...
The entire Patriot act should be repealed.
> The hijackers responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were carrying U.S. driver’s licenses and state IDs.
That’s bothered me about so much airport (and elsewhere) security after Sept 11… few of the new rules would have prevented the disaster that triggered them.
So now everything is a constant hassle / expense, and seem to prevent nothing.
The combination of lockable bulletproof cockpit doors, and everyone realizing that a hostage situation on a plane means that everyone dies, helped make sure that 9/11 would not be repeated. The rest of it is security theater.
It's absolutely security theater.
And remember the median number of flights taken by an American in a year is zero. The majority of the population is never affected by it, so they can happily vote and support anything that makes them feel more secure or like they're helping, with no downside they ever feel.
> the median number of flights taken by an American in a year is zero.
This doesn't sound possible to me. Do you have a source?
It means that less than half of Americans fly each year. Sounds very likely to be true. How many people fly at least every other year?
A few times a year I end up in a TSA line where one TSA person is shouting instructions to everyone, and 20 feet away the next is countermanding those instructions and seems exasperated that everyone is doing the wrong thing.
It's such a bad joke.
A few years ago I went through an airport that had a dog checking everyone. The handler was struggling to get the dog to do his job, people were not being checked, dog / puppy just wanted to play.
This is the thing that irritates me most. If I get in one line, I don't have to do anything. If I get in the other I have to unpack my laptop, take of my shoes, accessories, whatever.
Once there was a woman in front of me who asked why we take our shoes off and the response was "Once someone put a bomb in there shoes."
1. I don't love remedies to problems that happened once.
2. We had an international pandemic once... by your logic shouldn't we always mask at the airport?
Probably yes, even before the pandemic. Packing thousands of people into a tight space is a great way to spread disease.
Post-pandemic it's become a highly political thing now and depending on where your at you may get some unfriendly looks.
[flagged]
Really the only meaningful change was locking the cockpit during flight from the inside.
If you really pay attention to all of these laws, you’ll notice most of them use these tragedies as an excuse to infringe upon our rights. Most gun control laws are the same way.
Most gun control attempts that I see would at least in theory possibly prevented the tragedy that inspired them.
The real id, would not have done anything.
What specific gun control laws do we not already have on the books that would actually prevent a determined individual from getting a gun?
The fact that anyone might get around a law doesn't prevent us from having laws.
My point being a key 9/11 inspired law would not prevent even the event that inspired it, even in theory.
You’re deliberately dodging my question. Your point is also true of most gun control laws. Short of full confiscation you will not stop people from obtaining guns illegally via straw purchases or theft. Gun control will also not prevent law abiding citizens that suddenly become homicidal with no priors.
So again, what specific gun control laws would actually make a difference that aren’t already on the books?
They're not dodging your question. They engaged your point with a point of their own and you asked a non sequitur question in reply to that.
duxup said…
> Most gun control attempts that I see would at least in theory possibly prevented the tragedy that inspired them.
…yet when asked about specifics, they declined to provide any. So they did in fact dodge my question.
> at least in theory
The point that they are making is that this 9/11-inspired law would not have, even in theory if one assumes perfect enforcement, prevented 9/11. They are saying that they can conceive of gun control laws that would have, in theory if one assumes perfect enforcement, prevented 9/11. Coming up with a specific intention of such is not relevant to their point.
I’ll answer your question to hopefully illustrate the point: no guns in US airports. That law, in theory, at least would have had a chance of preventing the attack, which is not something that can be said about this one.
Guns were not used in the 9/11 attacks, box cutter knives were. It is also already illegal to bring firearms past TSA checkpoints.
Why is "prevent a determined individual from getting a gun" the bar?
What specifically do you propose for effective gun control that isn’t already on the books?
Also remember that in America there is a constitutional right to bear arms that shall not be infringed. So please keep your proposal constitutional.
> that in America there is a constitutional right to bear arms that shall not be infringed.
That's not clear-cut. The language of the amendment is more nuanced than that, and the interpretation you're using is a modern one. In the not-so-distant past, it was interpreted as meaning that states could have well-regulated armed citizen militias, not that everyone has a right to carry a firearm.
That’s a common misconception. The second amendment was always intended as an individual right. District of Columbia vs Heller simply reaffirmed this.
It is the final check and balance against a tyrannical government.
> The second amendment was always intended as an individual right.
Well, I disagree. However, this underlines that the issue isn't so easy. It's one of several areas where the constitution isn't nearly clear enough in its meaning and can be reasonably interpreted in contradictory ways. That's the very essence of not being clear-cut.
We don’t have to guess or interpret the founders intentions on this. There are several quotes from them that affirm this as being intended as an individual right from the very beginning of our founding…
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson
“The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” -James Madison
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” -Alexander Hamilton
https://quotesanity.com/quotes-from-founding-fathers-of-the-...
Repealing the 2nd.
What would that actually accomplish?
By most estimates we have more guns than people in this country and a not insignificant amount of people would refuse to willingly turn over their firearms to the government. The toothpaste is already out of the tube.
It would allow for more stringent laws. The number of guns relative to population is irrelevant.
In a world where the second amendment was repealed, what gun control laws would you like to see passed and what would you expect them to accomplish?
Also, how would you account for the increased violent crime rate due to average citizens being unable to defend themselves against armed criminals?
Additionally, how would you propose that we the people keep our government from becoming tyrannical in the absence of our right to bear arms? It seems particularly absurd to give up our right to firearms when so many people are expecting our current president to become a tyrannical, fascist dictator.
With no second amendment, you could plainly ban firearms altogether.
Demonstrate that there would be an increase in violent crime without guns.
The current government was elected in a society with guns. The best way to prevent tyrannical governments is an educated populace that doesn’t vote for tyrants.
> With no second amendment, you could plainly ban firearms altogether.
Banning them doesn’t get rid of them. As the saying goes, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
> Demonstrate that there would be an increase in violent crime without guns.
As a corollary to my previous point. Criminals will still have guns because they are criminals and they don’t have any respect for the law. They will be emboldened by knowing that every potential victim they come across will be unarmed.
> The current government was elected in a society with guns. The best way to prevent tyrannical governments is an educated populace that doesn’t vote for tyrants.
What is preventing a government from declaring marshal law and suspending elections as soon as the citizens are disarmed? You greatly underestimate how afraid the elites are of an armed populace.
> Banning them doesn’t get rid of them.
Check historical instances of gun bans. They don’t line up with this assertion.
> They will be emboldened by knowing that every potential victim they come across will be unarmed.
Check historical instances of gun bans. They don’t line up with this assertion.
> What is preventing a government from declaring marshal law and suspending elections as soon as the citizens are disarmed?
The same thing that prevents this in countries with gun bans.
Most rural communities will not be willingly surrendering their firearms under any circumstances. They are heavily armed, yet they have very low rates of gun violence, at least until tyrants come for their guns that is.
Contrast that to urban areas where extensive gun control laws are in place. The issues are social and cultural and are not something that a gun ban will solve.
We are not Western Europe or Australia.
Also, like I said in another comment, guns are everywhere here and that toothpaste is already out of the tube. Most guns are not registered. No one knows for certain how many there are and who owns them. There will at best be no cooperation with forced confiscation, and most likely there will be active resistance against such a tyrannical incursion upon the rights of free people. Even law enforcement and large swaths of the military are unlikely to cooperate with confiscation efforts.
> They are heavily armed, yet they have very low rates of gun violence
Citation needed. Per capita, those in rural areas are more likely to die from suicide by gun than urbanites from gun homicide. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/280...
> The issues are social and cultural and are not something that a gun ban will solve.
Citation needed. Where have gun bans failed and why? Mexico, central, and South America, primarily because it’s so easy to obtain weapons in the U.S. and smuggle them down.
> There will at best be no cooperation with forced confiscation, and most likely there will be active resistance against such a tyrannical incursion upon the rights of free people.
Citation needed. There are absolutely nut jobs that won’t follow the law, but that’s true of any law. The solution isn’t to not pass laws. These folks will be dealt with like any other criminal.
You make a lot of assertions that seem to stand up to even the tiniest bit of scrutiny. You don’t back any of it up with any data.
[flagged]
You can bring food. You’re right about drinks though. Albeit it’s not very hard to find free water in airports.
Except you don't need an ID to fly, at least according to the TSA lawyers who secretly briefed the Court in Gilmore v. Ashcroft. The TSA assured the Court that anyone without an ID could just submit to a more stringent security check so they didn't need to decide the constitutionality of requiring an ID.
That was the case a number of years ago to my surprise (had somehow managed to lose my license between the car and the airport door). These days I use my Global Entry card so always have license as backup. No idea if it’s still true or will be after RealID kicks in.
It should remain true.
I thought I’d read somewhere that Kansas wasn’t real ID compliant but apparently you can request a non Real ID but by default I got a Real ID compliant driver’s license. The fact that I had to Google it and read the KS department of revenue’s website to verify is worrying for the general public though. It’s gonna be a bumpy ride for the new several months/years.
In Virginia, it;s the opposite -- you need to request a REAL ID. "A REAL ID is an optional, upgraded version of your driver’s license or ID card that has a star in the right corner. ... Since REAL ID is optional in Virginia, you may not need one if you already have another federally accepted form of ID, like a valid U.S. passport or military ID, or don’t travel by plane."
Isn't it incredible how low quality government documentation can be?
Many of the most wealthy and powerful people in the country hate the government and try to sabotage it or suborn it, so its not surprising when the quality of government services suffers.
I seriously doubt that people are petitioning their secretary of states to keep online documentation terrible. If I had to guess, the explanation is probably something much more boring, like their employees not being incentivized to do the work.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
I’ve held a valid passport since some international travel in 2008 (oh boy there were some adventures then) and I renewed it through 2028, despite not having any future intentions to leave the USA.
I also hold a valid driver license despite not owning a vehicle (I do rent once every few months.)
When I lost my wallet 3 years ago, I ordered a replacement online; it promptly arrived without the Travel ID designation. So I quickly decided that this was my opportunity to upgrade it (my passport would eventually expire naturally) and they required me to show up in person in order to obtain that Travel ID-enabled document.
The DMV is a lot easier in modern times because of several aspects: third-party service (although these are for the poor and suckers in bad neighborhoods), appointments to bypass “take a number” or long queues, and plenty of online service if you’re tech-savvy.
Last week I replaced my license again, with the .gov website service portal, and skipped the in-person appearance entirely, except a phone call and manual agent intervention was required due to some sort of bug/glitch in their backend.
My state has also implemented a very robust Mobile ID program, although the reader equipment is slow on limited deployment and you’re still legally required to carry the physical document anyway.
What is the big security improvement of the new id's? The article makes no mention of that.
I tried to figure out the same, it seems to me that the issue is that US drivers licenses have historically been kinda shitty, with very little validation done to ensure the identity of the person that the licens is issued to. There's also some requirement about the drivers database being available across states, which apparently it wasn't previously.
Without knowing, my take is that it's one of those cases where each state has behaved more like individual countries, rather than a subdivision of a larger nation. So you drivers licens isn't really worth much out of state, at least not for validating your actual identity.
I could be wrong, it seems very unclear what Real ID actually is.
It's trying to solve a bunch of different, slightly overlapping problems. Some examples:
* provide an identity document that's hard to forge. Some states, Hawaii famously, had IDs that were ridiculously easy to forge.
* reduce expiration times so that identifying details aren't decades out of date. Some states (e.g. Arizona) issued IDs with 50+ years of validity.
* require actual verification of identity at issuance
* include SSN details. I have no idea why this was a thing and it's since been removed from the actual federal requirements, but most states require original social security documents to be provided during application.
* to establish residency at a particular address.
If it were just identity and residency, states would accept things like voter registration as sufficient. Yet many states (e.g. California) do not.
The SSN details weren’t true in MA. My card was lost at some point in college and I never bothered to replace. Probably should one of these years.
Not sure what proof of voter registration would look like here though. Proof of resident address can actually be non-trivial for a lot of even housed people. I probably have some online bills and statements but would have to dig them up.
The state level variability is fun. I know it's required for CA from personal experience, and checked TX, FL before posting. Also checked NY (talk about bad documentation). All require it currently.
Some states also don't like accepting online bills. That's the reason I wasn't able to ever get one in CA.
Well you probably have some national suppliers like Verizon or Xfinity but I’d mostly have to login and print out a bill assuming it had my address.
I suspect it became more standardized than it used to be. My original PA drivers license was a bit of index stock with no photo. Things have obviously changed but states, as I understand it? Still had significantly different verification requirement and varying degrees of information sharing. RealID isn’t quite a backdoor to an (unacceptable to most)national ID but it probably comes close.
This is the typical US confusion of a license and an ID. Licenses were not originally intended to be ID.
Until someone decided that only people over 21 could drink, and that we needed strong controls over ID. And most people had drivers licenses, so that is what they said they would need for a document
Real ID is more about standardization of the minimum bar than a specific new improvement. What the actual changes are from before depends on the state/territory you look at and what they used to do. You can read about the specific checks required here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act#Provisions
The main difference is that the record is added to a federal database. The actual ID is pretty much the same. There is some effort to make all the states' IDs look similar in terms of layout. At low-traffic airports if you're from a low-population state the person looking at your ID might not have seen one today.
It's not necessarily a "big" security improvement but there are somewhat more stringent requirements for identity verification.
https://www.dhs.gov/real-id/real-id-faqs
The thing that's irritating about Read ID (at least in Ohio) is that the BMV would let you get an Ohio ID cheaper than a Real ID. Seems like a money grab when you know that people are eventually going to need a Real ID to fly.
Washington charges more for a Real ID than an Unreal ID too; I assume because it costs more to issue a Real ID and WA likes to push costs of services onto users of services more than other states I've lived in.
I think I priced it out and getting a passport card should have less fees than getting a Real ID here. But then I didn't get around to getting a passport card; I'll just use my full passport for flying and keep my Unreal ID.
Personally, I'm surprised this deadline hasn't been pushed back yet, given that every other deadline has been pushed back, and the original plan was 2008(!)
Apparently there is a RFID chip and antenna in the Real ID. Or at least Washington state asked me if that was OK when I signed up.
In theory it costs them more to issue because your info has to be submitted to the federal database.
The most alarming thing I have seen recently in regards to the push for Real ID, is in the Election EO that came out recently, either a passport or Real ID will be required to vote in federal elections.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/pres...
> If you’re in doubt, your passport will get you on a plane, whether it’s a domestic or an international flight.
That's my approach, since I keep a current passport I'll just carry that if I need to fly, and get the Real ID the next time my license expires in a few years.
A passport card is valid for all domestic flights, as well as land travel to Canada and Mexico. I prefer it to my passport book when appropriate as it's sturdier and easier to carry.
It's also nice on international trips as proof of U.S. citizenship (though you'll usually need your book at border crossings)
Same, I just use my Passport Card when flying, which is a Real ID.
I guess I'm not flying then.
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification
>Don’t Have Your Acceptable ID?
>In the event you arrive at the airport without acceptable identification (whether lost, stolen, or otherwise), you may still be allowed to fly.
>The TSA officer may ask you to complete an identity verification process which includes collecting information such as your name and current address to confirm your identity. If your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint, where you may be subject to additional screening.
>You will not be allowed to enter the security checkpoint if you choose to not provide acceptable identification, you decline to cooperate with the identity verification process, or your identity cannot be confirmed.
>TSA recommends individuals without acceptable identification arrive at least three hours in advance of their flight time.
Yes. This happened to me in 2019 flying from Minneapolis to Denver with family when I forgot my wallet (stupid, I know). I was taken aside and someone from homeland security in DC called on their phone and asked me a handful of questions about my life. Like what the church across the street from my apartment was called (I didn't know!). They eventually let me through the security check. I was really worried the entire trip but on the return flight I didn't have to do it again.
But that was completely unintentional. I'd never intentionally try to fly when I don't have the required ID.
[dead]
There's going to be de-facto enforcement of street-level ID requirements in the US very soon, as more and more power is handed to ICE with less accountability.