Papers, Please!

Unfortunately, the way the system is structured, once enough states are compliant then mandating the uploading ALL DLs to the system (Real ID or not) becomes possible without additional legislation. See https://papersplease.org/wp/2016/02/11/how-the-real-id-act-is-creating-a-national-id-database/

> States aren’t (yet) required to upload pointers for noncompliant licenses or ID cards. There’s been no explicit announcement of the full live launch of S2S, but it appears that the first states are only beginning to use S2S (other than as a pilot project) this month. The DHS isn’t (yet) considering whether states have complied with the database access provisions of the REAL-ID Act when it makes its discretionary decisions whether to certify “material” compliance or “progress” toward compliance. But AAMVA, which determines the SPEXS standards, could add a requirement for upload of pointers for all licenses and IDs, not just “compliant” ones, to its specifications for system participation at any time. And the DHS will eventually have to assess actual compliance with the REAL-ID Act, not mere progress toward it. At that point, any state that wants to use S2S and SPEXS as the basis for a compliance finding will have to upload pointer records for all licenses and ID cards it has issued — even noncompliant or “opt-out” licenses or IDs.

This has the effect of creating a private national ID database, without transparency or accountability, which is kind of a worst-case scenario. (AAMVA…

> If it took a powerful senator weeks or months to fix the problem, I knew it was hopeless for us mere mortals.

I see there've been a few references to the no-fly list and Judge Alsup, in this discussion, but I find this quote to be pertinent enough to warrant highlighting:

"At this point, Judge Alsup interrupted to ask a hypothetical question about the process. Suppose there’s some wrong information in a file that suggests that someone is a Communist, and as a result they get put on a watchlist. They apply for redress, and say, “I’m good person. I’ve never done anything wrong.” If they don’t know that they’re on the watchlist because they have been accused of being a Communist, how do they know to say, “And by the way, I’m not a Communist”?

“I can see that DHS TRIP would clear things up in the case of misidentification.” But how does the TRIP process allow the aggrieved party to address the secret information. “How does a person know that there is an improper reason that they would need to try to rebut?”"

Taken from the summary at:
http://papersplease.org/wp/2013/12/07/no-fly-trial-day-5-part-1-closing-arguments/

Discussed on hn:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6868845

>or on punishing foreigners who say inconvenient things

I wonder how many people are/will be affected by current DHS policy…[0].

Also like another comment here said, with the passage of the CLOUD act (which mostly legalizes behavior that of which was already being engaged in), the US can get foreign powers to act on their behalf if they so choose.

As an US citizen who has been living abroad for almost two years now, I'm not here to point out equivalencies, but state that technology will be leveraged by those who see fit regardless of the country or if one believes in their "foremost defender of the modern rules-based order".

>This difference is essential.

Only if one believes it to be so (and I suspect many people do), though the ones who seem to suffer most will be the poor and the marginalized, and will continue to be so long after when the war drums eventually stop and the battles breakout…

[0] https://papersplease.org/wp/2018/01/05/new-dhs-policy-on-demands-for-passwords-to-travelers-electronic-devices/

> While the article says “many jurisdictions,” and I cited only one specific jurisdiction, the onus is on the claimant to prove that there are, in fact jurisdictions that prohibit security exceptions. It’s unlikely that security exemptions don’t exist in every relevant executive order, yet the article requires accepting that premise in order to make the claim that this is “illegal.”

The beginning of the sentence you quoted has a link to the information you're looking for but it seems the quote you've pulled has cut that off. The word "noted" in "As we’ve noted previously" is a hyperlink pointing here[1] which itself links to an example order[2] that doesn't contain any such exception.

[1]https://papersplease.org/wp/2020/06/08/tsa-to-take-mug-shots-of-domestic-air-travelers/#comment-3574618

[2]https://www.smchealth.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/ho_order_c19-8b_face_covering_revised_final.pdf

I'm one of the subjects of the article. Regarding the 2009 incident at ABQ: I was acquitted of all criminal charges by a jury in 2011. The trial ran two days, during which I did not testify and presented no evidence. Bizarrely, the prosecution presented the [video I made of the incident](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc5DBUK1K8M) (that he police erased and I recovered) as evidence against me. The jury deliberated just one hour to reach their decision.

Later that year, I filed a related civil rights lawsuit. March of this year, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on dismissal of that suit. There's no set timeline for a response from the court.

For details, see:
- [FAQ: State of New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek](http://papersplease.org/wp/mocek/)
- [FAQ: Phillip Mocek v. Albuquerque et al.](http://papersplease.org/wp/mocek2/)

Unbelievably disgusting behavior.

"Unlike the government of Qatar, however, the US government hasn’t apologized, said that what happened was illegal (or would be illegal if the complaint is proven to be true), or referred the TSA checkpoint staff for investigation and possible prosecution.

The TSA hasn’t even tried to dispute the truth and factual accuracy of the complaint.

Instead, the TSA has argued that, even if all of the allegations in Ms. Leuthauser’s complaint are true, the TSA and its employees have absolute impunity. Regardless of what “torts”, even rape, TSA checkpoint staff commit against travelers, the government claims that Federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear lawsuits or consider claims against them."

https://papersplease.org/wp/2022/12/06/tsa-argues-for-impunity-for-checkpoint-staff-who-rape-travelers/