From Oct 1, 2021, you will need a REAL ID-compliant license to fly in the USA | Hacker News Reader

From Oct 1, 2021, you will need a REAL ID-compliant license to fly in the USA

tsa.gov

28 pointsedward54 comments

Open articleView on HN

The 'new's here is that the deadline was pushed a year further out due to Covid.

"Is a passport my only other option if my driver's license or state ID is not acceptable?

No. TSA accepts and will continue to accept other forms of identity documents"

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification

Misleading title.

Having tried to fly with the TSA TWIC card - which ironically is issued by TSA and required endless hoop jumping to get including biometrics, TSA denied it as a valid ID. I had to use my regular DL.

I've always wondered if the agent was clueless or just govt as a whole - why issue these worthless IDs if your own agency can't use them.

> I've always wondered if the agent was clueless or just govt as a whole

yes.

Neither of them have an incentive to do better.

On problem - the software / template they used was so unprofessional looking I wouldn't be suprised if a fake version looked better than the real thing.

http://3kbo302xo3lg2i1rj8450xje-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-c...

Is an example. The photo alignment here is how mine was / lettering etc.

The agent must have been clueless since TWICs are on the list of approved forms of identification.

Oregon does not even have REAL ID compliant driver's licenses. In theory, "Oregon will begin issuing Real ID cards on July 6, 2020.": https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/Pages/Real_ID.aspx. But I suspect that with the DMV being mostly unavailable for nearly 3 months now, even that will not be happening quickly.

Thus, anyone from Oregon without a passport will not be able to fly?

That's likely a part of the extension, I'm sure.

I'll believe it when I see it. They have been continuously setting and extending that deadline since 2014.

The original deadline was May 11, 2008. The implementation timeline of Real ID has been long to say the least.

What annoys me about this is that even the TSA is being coy about things.

> Adult passengers 18 and over must show valid identification at the airport checkpoint in order to travel.

No. What is happening here is "must show proof of residency/citizenship, or definitive exclusionary proof (foreign passport with tourist visa, etc.".

Apropos of the validity of the argument of "should undocumented people/immigrants be required to prove residency to travel domestically", which is and can be a separate debate, couching it behind "some states IDs don't meet federal requirements" is disingenuous.

In case anyone else has Global Entry, the Global Entry ID card is Real ID compliant.

In what case would you use the Global Entry ID card over a passport?

EDIT: Thanks for the replies everyone, TIL! Will have to see if TSA can use my GE ID card to lookup my boarding pass (like they can do with a driver's license, passport, or DoD CAC) next time I fly.

My global entry card conveniently fits in my wallet, unlike my passport which is otherwise not needed for US domestic travel.

Passport is presumably harder to replace if I lose--and hoses any upcoming international trips. You don't really need your Global Entry ID for anything so it's a good card to use for ID while keeping the cards you may really need later in the trip (or even just at the gate) somewhere safe.

The only time you need the Global Entry card is when crossing the land borders with Canada or Mexico where that card will let you use the special lanes while your passport doesn't. But for air travel, it isn't needed.

I always travel with two forms of ID, carried separately, in case one gets lost or damaged. Usually my NEXUS card and (real-id) drivers license. Passports are a bit more awkward to carry and can't go in a wallet (usa has passport cards but I'm not a us passport holder)

They can use it to lookup a boarding pass if you use the Known Traveler ID number from the card when booking.

When traveling (not currently) I started carrying and using my Global Entry card after managing to lose my license between the curb and security a couple years ago. This way I keep my license safe in my wallet and just get a card out at a time when I'm usually tired and juggling stuff that doesn't really matter much if I lose and have a backup in my bag.

I'm not American, but I really don't understand Americans.

Have a single, universal national ID. Issue it for free, or for a low fee ($5). Have town halls issue it to everyone.

How hard can it be? Almost every country in the world has it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_document

On the other hand many countries get by just fine without one, including mine (New Zealand), Canada and the United Kingdom.

I have never heard anyone suggest we need a national ID in New Zealand.

Considering how many problems they have with SSNs, Equifax, voter disenfranchisement, and the patchwork of pseudo-IDs they have, they badly need a single ID.

And "many" countries is basically the 10 or so English/British-derived countries. Look at the list I linked :-)

The Wikipedia page you linked to disagrees with your assertion that almost every country in the world has it.

"In many countries – especially English-speaking countries such as Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States – there are no government-issued compulsory identity cards for all citizens."

I think the key word there is compulsory - I've lived in a couple of those places and it was pretty easy to get a drivers-license level of ID document without too much trouble (and without having a drivers license of my own).

Dude, it's just English speaking people, basically.

So yes, everyone else has it. And it's not like everything else is a nightmare dystopia...

So it's pretty much the common law countries vs the rest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#/media/File:Map_of_...

You say you "don't understand Americans" but your comments suggest that your goal isn't to understand Americans. Instead you seem aimed to convince them you are right.

As an American who has lived all over the country, i'd say every American subculture has a strange relationship with our government. The prospect of nationalizing, much less requiring, anything causes some cohort of the public to complain of government overreach or the trampling of liberties or that they didn't go far enough.

There is an argument to be made for whether or not a national id constitutes any real harm, and i'm sure our hesitation seems foolish to people in other nations. For me, i consider it to be a healthy, if inefficient, debate. Our government moves very slowly with this stuff. Depending on your personal beliefs, you can thank/blame the general public for that.

“In the event you arrive at the airport without valid identification, because it is lost or at home, you may still be allowed to fly.”

From https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification

From my pre-RealID experiences grannies in wheel chairs will get a reminder to get a State ID and able bodied middle age folks will get the third degree while they grill you with data from some databases (When was the last date you entered the country? On which flight? Etc)

I really hope we can use REAL-ID and make a push for e-ID similar to what Estonia and many other govts have and use it as the cornerstone of online accessible government systems and eventually towards replacing social security numbers

I thought the whole point of americans not having anything like an identity card, is that they don’t want to be tracked by the government, freedoms, liberties and all that.

Getting an e-ID will be very much against that.

Sure, but when you have a Facebook page, a drivers license, a passport, and a bunch of records that mean the government can identify you pretty easily anyways why not just get over it and get the benefits of having an e-ID

I'm opposed to all of those as well.

In practice, we already suffer all of the surveillance, usability, and identity theft downsides with none of the additional upsides of being able to digitally sign contracts.

There are always tons of Americans who claim they don't want to give the government more "power", but misunderstand that it already has this power. An e-ID would just make the experience of dealing with the government less of a hassle.

This does skip over the fact that the US government is terrible at procurement, so the RFP would likely have bad requirements and the contract would likely be one large waterfall iteration and inevitably be way late and over budget.

There is not much that a national-ID-based cryptographic contract signature provides over a standard "electronic signature" today, other than the ability to discriminate against undocumented immigrants.

> provides over a standard "electronic signature" today

What is that standard, praytell?

Can you use Docusign to buy a house (maybe), pay your taxes (no) and open a banking account (no). There are thousands of IAM silos, not one "standard".

I'm not interested in holding back progress on government efficiency or preventing identity theft in an increasingly online world because the two big political parties have irreconcilable differences about a wedge issue.

The problem with a single, standardized, nationwide way of identifying citizens and permanent residents vs, well, those who aren't either of those things means that it's a turnkey step to denying basic human rights to free movement and equal application of the law to those in the second group.

Most things don't require ID from a practical standpoint, flying included. The government has mandated it so, and in the process is setting up a framework for discriminating hardcore against anyone who can't obtain the requisite federal identity paperwork.

It's just more systemic racism.

Slipped yet another year. It was supposed to take effect October 1, 2020.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com