Hacker News Reader

Comment by kylehotchkiss | Hacker News Reader

> state IDs are accepted, but not US passports and other federal identity credentials

Federal documents don't have authenticated addresses. The view seems to be that only state agencies are capable of verifying you actually live at the address on your ID (See Real ID for more context).

View on HN

> Federal documents don't have authenticated addresses.

I wonder why that matters. If I am provably who I say I am, why is the address important?

Also, not specifically for you, but generally what about states that don't reissue IDs when someone moves? (I suppose their answer to that is "get an updated ID and try again".)

Michael B. Jordan could try to be Michael Jordan. There are many popular names out there. Heck I'd change my name to Bill Gates.

"try" isn't even needed. Example: Two people, living at the same address, whose names differ only in the middle initial. One person moves, submitting the change-of-address form. They then start to get some (or all) of the mail for the other person.

Four generations of men in my family have the same name other than suffix. At times three of them lived at the same address. It has caused a number of issues over the years, including unintended cross access to bank accounts. Despite the problems it sometimes creates, they seem to be amused by the confusion.

For mail forwarding at least, there could be two John Smiths and requesting forwarding for the wrong one would let someone steal mail easily.

I can't imagine there is any state that lacks the option to update the address on your license after you move. Many will even send a sticker in the mail so you don't have to get a new card.

Yeah, my daughter tried to get into a bar, but they said she was only 19, so she put an Authentic Sticker over the birthdate, came back to the bouncer with the "update", and then had a great night out.

It's important to the USPS because the reason they want to know a person's identity is for the purpose of physically delivering mail to the correct address for that person.

> what about states that don't reissue IDs when someone moves

Do these exist? I'm not aware of any state that doesn't require you to update your address when you move.

It’s about moving inside a state. I told the DMV of my new address, but my drivers license still has the old one. Maybe I could get it reissued, but that seems like a pain. Many people move more frequently than the license expiration period.

Every time I moved in Georgia, they mailed me a replacement license with my new address. Don't know if all states are like that but given the increasing desire to know people's whereabouts, I would guess many do. Georgia does say it can impose a fee of you move too many times during a license's validity period but haven't seen that actually happen.

They just mailed me a new ID with the updated address in VA when I requested, was a lot less of a pain than having government documents that are wrong, imo.

In Australia, after you change your licence address, they mail you a small sticker with the updated addres, that is then stuck onto the back of your licence.

There's a small section marked on the back that is specifically for it.

I guess if you move multiple times within the expiry period, you can pull the old sticker off and replace it.

I've seen this in my area around metro Detroit as well.

California.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/online-change-of-address-coa-s...

> Will DMV send me a new DL/ID or registration card once my Change of Address is complete? No. New documents are not issued when you change your address. However, you can request a replacement DL/ID or replacement registration card after you confirm that your address was changed successfully.

I think that answers the question to “what about?” above. You request a replacement.

But you don't have to.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/california-driver-handboo...

  If you move, you must notify DMV of your new address within ten days. Submit a change of address online at dmv.ca.gov/addresschange or by mail. It is your responsibility to ensure DMV has your correct mailing address on record.

So, you are required to update your address, and DMV will have your correct address on file, but "you don't have to" update your license.

Whether it’s required or not, it’s rarely enforced.

In my state you're required to update your address, but they don't send you a new ID unless you pay for it.

So if you get pulled over and a cop runs your license it will show your new address. On the other hand the bars etc don't care they just look at DoB and expiration.

If you're purchasing a firearm though they do run the real address, and if it's not accurate you could be in trouble.

In Australia they'd just mail you a sticker to affix to the back of your license with the updated address until renewal.

That's how New Jersey IDs worked until 9/11 too.

Man, I know why it's a thorny topic but sometimes I really wish we had a single identity system in the states, just one card that had all your licenses on it, driving/boating/hunting/ccw, and one API to pull all that info. Our county is too cheap/lazy to reissue pistol/sar permits if you buy, sell, or transfer a restricted weapon, instead opts to give you a piece of printer paper to go with it. You have to have that paper addendum with you whenever you're handling a restricted weapon, and you're fucked if anything happens to it, and you get caught.

I'm not American, why is it a thorny topic?

For the same reason the UN telling every country they need a global ID for every citizen is a thorny topic. In the United States, the states are provided with fairly strong protections under the 10th amendment. This is the principle of federalism.

Not the person you are replying to, but... National ID cards tend to feel icky to people who live in countries that don't have them. People who already have them don't even seem to notice.

I think added to that is that Americans have a historical tendency not to trust any kind of federal govt oversight/information collection

The U.S. is rooted in freedom from overreaching governments. (Slavery, equality is a separate dimension). That's how we were formed. For a while we were nearly tribal and free. We got screwed over when we allowed a federal governemnt to "protect" us. The Bill of Rights was supposed to ensure we didn't lose our freedom. It should have kept us free but instead allowed key points of control like real estate tax incentives to enrich an oligarch class and now we have "corporotacracy." The recent/present leaders can not protect us without violating our rights to privacy... ...or won't.

Electric fences and RF food collars feel icky to cows in pastures that don't have them. Cows who already have them don't seem to notice.

Now im really curious what parts of this people disagree with?

They have a pathological fear of government overreach. An identity card issued by the government would lead to a slippery slope of something, not sure what. HN is fertile ground for such paranoia, so no doubt someone will explain exactly what will happen if all US residents received a free identification card.

Anyway, they get around this by using their Social Security Numbers everywhere. All residents have one. They use this in a novel way, where it’s both a username and a password, that you share with every corporation who asks. You’re supposed to keep it very secret because people can open financial accounts in your name with this number. But not that secret. Your utility company may ask for it and won’t provide service without it.

Since it’s both a username and password, it’s stored very securely. Except when it isn’t, breaches happen, and people have no recourse. It’s immutable, so they can’t do anything other than say “don’t process any credit checks for me” and hope that works.

Anyway, that’s the short version of why Americans are terrified of being assigned an ID, actually have an ID (SSN), but can’t use that ID because it’s super secret, but then use it everywhere anyway because they have no choice.

> Both Republicans and Democrats have opposed a National ID system. President Reagan likened a 1981 proposal to the biblical “mark of the beast,” and President Clinton dismissed a similar plan because it smacked of Big Brother. A National ID would not only violate privacy by helping to consolidate data and facilitate tracking of individuals, it would bring government into the very center of our lives by serving as a government permission slip needed by everyone in order to work. As happened with Social Security cards decades ago, use of such ID cards would quickly spread and be used for other purposes – from travel to voting to gun ownership.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/broad-coalition-urges-pr...

As an American, this is an excellent rundown.

A national ID would indeed have us quickly slipping toward… something… and of course it’s unsavory if it has “federal” or “national” anywhere in it.

I leave my identity management to the private credit bureaus, who are guided by the infallible hand of the free market, thank you very much.

As an European with all sorts of IDs issued by my government I’m so confused as to what that “something” is supposed to be honestly. So weird.

The "something" is a consolidation of federal power. The US is not a unitary state like most of the countries in Europe. The states hold a lot of power individually, and many want to maintain that as much as possible. The rules around identification are something that is significant to how people interact with their government and people do not want those rules to be decided federally when they can maintain that power locally instead.

> The "something" is a consolidation of federal power.

Ok but I still don't understand what power are you consolidating here.

If the federal government decided to issue an ID card valid for all citizens, what's the issue?

You already have something that work that way and it's the passport.

Now, I know that having a passport is not mandatory but if tomorrow the US government decided to issue passports, for free, to all citizens, would that be an issue?

A passport is only used for international travel, which was already under the purview of the feds. It is also only used for travel, which means that many people don't have one.

Drivers licenses (/IDs) are used for everything else pertaining to someone's daily life. In this way it affects how/who/where/when people drive, vote, buy and sell controlled things, engage in some financial transactions, travel domestically, obtain social benefits, etc.

It allows local authorities to be gatekeepers. A commonly used and carried federal ID would shift that gatekeeping authority to the feds. It could also enable additional gatekeeping which is not currently possible in the absence of this ID, which is a primary concern of the people who are against this.

Hidden deep in the fog of American politics, there is also a fear of triggering the folksy religious conservatives who fear/anticipate a literal "mark of the beast". To them, a national, compulsory ID number would signal the arrival of the Antichrist...

Yep, which is convenient as it can be (and is) applied to any act of national unity, for example vaccination efforts.

And yet for some reason that doesn’t apply to a state ID. It’s all just nonsense puppeteering of manipulable people because it’s profitable to have a dysfunctional federal government.

You have a charming way with words. Yes, national IDs and the right to bear arms are wrapped up in our national identity.

To paraphrase Charleston Heston, they can put a national ID in my wallet when they pry the AR15 from my cold dead hands. Never mind I am trusted traveler with global entry and I have a real ID state drivers license. Never mind the Chinese government hacked the federal Human Resources database all those years ago and have the data for anyone who took a paycheck from Uncle Sam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management...

^ yep. SSNs are also terrible to collect, as they are hard to verify if the user even gave you a valid number, as there's no self checking system like credit cards, you have to check against some 3rd party database that may know who that person is, but can't be sure, or just may not know who they are. Also, if you fuck up, you screw over a lot of people.

Fun fact, until 2011 SSNs were loosely based on where you were born. If you were a bad actor and wanted to use a fake SSN, just change a couple of numbers at the end and you could get a new number of someone that was born around when you were, in the same hospital as you.

This is probably the most rational description of what is clearly an insane system that I have seen. Thank you.

In many very important fundamental aspects, the USA is 50 different countries standing on top of each other wearing a long trench coat and pretending to be one country.

> Federal documents don't have authenticated addresses. The view seems to be that only state agencies are capable of verifying you actually live at the address on your ID (See Real ID for more context).

Real ID isn’t about this. Federally issued IDs like passports and NEXUS or Global Entry cards can be used in every context where the REAL ID Act’s requirements apply to state-issued driver licenses and non-driver IDs, without any exception I’m aware of, even though these federal documents are not proof of address.

But sure, your explanation might well be the justification behind this USPS / Login.gov policy.

> The view seems to be that only state agencies are capable of verifying you actually live at the address on your ID

Cue state system "fun" for military folks who have a home of record they're legally-entitled to keep, despite not being resident.

The US also follows its citizens everywhere like Eritrea.. Being resident in a State has nothing to do with being a US person.

> Federal documents don't have authenticated addresses

Huh.. that's interesting. In India it's mostly the other way around. Federal document addresses are mostly verified but state level ones are not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com