Friendly reminder that despite articles constantly saying "Real ID is required" as if no other option exists, the Real ID requirement only applies to using a driver's license or state issued photo ID. There is a long list of other acceptable forms of ID[1].
In particular, a passport remains the ultimate form of ID, usable for anything.
So is this a step towards everyone having an ID? I asked at my DMV when I was getting my Real ID what would happen if I could not afford it. There is an indigent program that pays for it. So at least in my state - everyone gets an ID.
AStonesThrow · 15h ago
So this is rather meta but I'm unsure how to address this sort of systemic issue.
There is currently another topic under discussion that is very local to Arizona, involving a court case there, yet the conversation has coalesced around a thread from theguardian.com, which is a UK news outlet.
Why are we letting foreign entities tell us what our local news is? This here article is ostensibly about travel within the U.S., from one state to another, because that's the major change with Real ID, yet again we're looking at a foreign entity's news article about it.
Why can't we use news articles that are most germane to the topic under discussion? The "AZ Road Rage" topic had someone posting a perfectly good link to ABC 15 News, which should be a local authority on the topic; I don't see why we needed to pivot outside the U.S. to The Guardian at all.
crazygringo · 13h ago
You seem to be making the assumption that local reporting is better in some way; i.e. that it will be more accurate?
You might be interested to know that the UK publication The Economist tries to have non-UK reporters covering the UK, and non-US reporters covering the US. The idea being that non-local reporters are both more neutral and have a wider perspective to bring.
The Guardian is one of the world's top newspapers, along with the New York Times, Le Monde, etc.
HN is international. And honestly I'll take reporting from The Guardian over a local ABC 15 affiliate any day. This is a national story. A random local affiliate has less resources to report the story, not more.
ccakes · 15h ago
I guess this is the result of the free market at work. A link to multiple articles was posted but the consumers (HN users) voted with their wallets (upvotes) and here we are
Is it not the system working as designed?
andrewmcwatters · 16h ago
I know this is an uninteresting aside, but the name "Real ID" is odd, because you'd think there was some sort of obvious meaning behind "real" like maybe it's an acronym associated with the "REAL" in REAL ID Act of 2005, but nope.
It just makes it sound like all of the government and international identification us citizens carry isn't real enough. What a dumb name.
kyleee · 15h ago
It’s similar to when a pro athlete / famous person could not get the username they wanted, for instance on twitter and chooses to prepend “real_” to their username.
What the government should do, is hire some xooglers to help with naming so in the future when Real ID is deprecated, they could transition to come up with some even better names like “Real ID (Official). Or they could launch a competing ID and use the same or similar name and then sunset one of them. That would be good.
superkuh · 17h ago
I guess I can no longer fly in commercial aircraft (unless I want to gamble and try the "have airport security call up Homeland Security in DC and have them grill me about my life" trick). Yikes. It's sad to see the states loose this battle against an ever increasingly authoritarian federal government. People said realid would be no problem because the federal government is reliable. Welp.
soupfordummies · 16h ago
Why is that? Do you not have the ID out of choice or you can't get one or what? Just trying to understand your comment
beardyw · 16h ago
Presumably the first step towards mandatory id cards you need to carry at all times.
bediger4000 · 15h ago
Agreed. Where are all the Christians loudly declaiming about the Mark of The Beast?
In particular, a passport remains the ultimate form of ID, usable for anything.
[1] https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification
There is currently another topic under discussion that is very local to Arizona, involving a court case there, yet the conversation has coalesced around a thread from theguardian.com, which is a UK news outlet.
Why are we letting foreign entities tell us what our local news is? This here article is ostensibly about travel within the U.S., from one state to another, because that's the major change with Real ID, yet again we're looking at a foreign entity's news article about it.
Why can't we use news articles that are most germane to the topic under discussion? The "AZ Road Rage" topic had someone posting a perfectly good link to ABC 15 News, which should be a local authority on the topic; I don't see why we needed to pivot outside the U.S. to The Guardian at all.
You might be interested to know that the UK publication The Economist tries to have non-UK reporters covering the UK, and non-US reporters covering the US. The idea being that non-local reporters are both more neutral and have a wider perspective to bring.
The Guardian is one of the world's top newspapers, along with the New York Times, Le Monde, etc.
HN is international. And honestly I'll take reporting from The Guardian over a local ABC 15 affiliate any day. This is a national story. A random local affiliate has less resources to report the story, not more.
Is it not the system working as designed?
It just makes it sound like all of the government and international identification us citizens carry isn't real enough. What a dumb name.
What the government should do, is hire some xooglers to help with naming so in the future when Real ID is deprecated, they could transition to come up with some even better names like “Real ID (Official). Or they could launch a competing ID and use the same or similar name and then sunset one of them. That would be good.