WindAqueduct

Here's a script you can send to your state legislators and governor:

I demand a state medical privacy law at least as strong as the Minnesota Health Records Act (Minnesota Statutes 144.291-.298). Here are seven types of disclosures that HIPAA permits without patient consent or knowledge, but which generally require patient consent in Minnesota:

1. Disclosures of health information for treatment purposes, unless consent is not possible due to a medical emergency.
2. Disclosures of health information to other providers for healthcare operations purposes. [Note: healthcare operations includes over 60 nonclinical activities, including business activities. According to Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 134, July 14, 2010 (see pages 40872, 40906, 40907, 40911), your medical data can be shared with over 2.2 million entities, including 1.5 million business associates, without your consent or knowledge.]
3. Disclosures of health information to payers for payment purposes.
4. Disclosures of health information to outside researchers for medical research purposes. [That's right, non-consensual medical research is explicitly allowed by HIPAA, but greatly limited in Minnesota.]
5. Consent of a patient’s authorized family or legal representative for disclosures of health information to funeral directors.
6. Disclosures of health information for military or national security purposes unless the disclosure is specifically required by federal law.
7. Disclosures of health information for law enforcement purposes, unless the disclosure is in response to a valid court order or warrant. [That's right, under HIPAA, medical providors are permitted to share sensitive health data without a warrant.]

Source: Mayo Clinic's Notice of Privacy Practices (link: https://www.primarycareondemand.mayoclinic.org/notice-privacy-practices)

Minnesota is the only state to have a comprehensive medical privacy law stronger than HIPAA. [State] should be the second.

Relevant article concerning this topic: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/can-the-u.s.-government-compel-states-to-enforce-immigration-law

This neglects states where it is illegal to have both a state ID and a driver’s license, people who can’t afford both, people who can’t afford a passport etc.

I did only say state id in my original post, because I personally don't have a driver's license, but I really meant any form of state identification. Sorry if that was unclear. I have edited the post. As for "people who can't afford a passport", well, there's also the option of getting a passport card for $65 ($30 for the card, $35 for the processing fee if getting a card for the first time. When renewing the card, you only pay $30) and the card lasts 10 years, so it's pretty inexpensive. But also a passport isn't terribly expensive when you consider the fact that it's valid for 10 years. Lastly, I wanna say that I am not neglecting people who can't afford passports; it's the federal government who's doing that by requiring a real id. Also, I said in another comment that if you absolutely need a real id right now, then you should keep it. Just consider getting rid of it as soon as you can.

You’re also neglecting that plenty of states haven’t enacted a mandatory Real ID program yet or it hasn’t gone into affect yet, however that may happen in a year, two years etc and so not getting a Real ID upon renewal will end up costing them more money they don’t necessarily have.

I'm not sure what you mean. In another comment I listed the five states that only have real ids and said that the residents there should protest to their state legislators and governor. I never said that you shouldn't go without an id at all.

Your reasons for not getting a Real ID aren’t even particularly clear and you didn’t answer any clarifying questions.

What makes the Real ID more dangerous than a State ID or Passport?

How are my reasons unclear? I explicitly said why in my post: the secretary of homeland security has unilateral authority to expand the official purposes of the real id. Can the secretary of state do that for passports? Can a state executive officer do that for a state id? Additionally, in another comment, I said that there are plans to make real ids digital and accessible remotely and in real-time according to AAMVA testimony: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM07/20231205/116640/HHRG-118-HM07-Wstate-GrossmanI-20231205.pdf. This would allow the government to revoke your digital real id in real time if you say or do something the government doesn't like. A digital real id would also make it much easier for the government to track you. Passports, by contrast, are probably immune to digitalization for this century, as the US would have to convince 150+ nations to accept a digital passport. (I should have mentioned this in my original post, but I thought it would make my post too long.)

Is there a reason to believe that this regime or one in the future will preclude Real ID from being used to prove things like citizenship status or voting rights?

There is no reason to believe that, which is why we must fight back now, before 90%+ of Americans have a real id, making it easier to do what you said. We have proof that we actually can resist. Because of efforts from state legislatures and people around 2008-2010, the DHS's real id rule from that time was largely ignored. The ACLU even declared in 2012 that the real id was "dead" (source: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/real-id-dead-new-mexico-ids-will-continue-be-valid). That's proof that we can resist this.

[By the way, if you're curious about the reasons why Real ID was able to survive past 2012, it's because 1) around 2016, the federal government started saying that you would need a real id to fly, while acknowledging in a small footnote that there are 15 other acceptable ids that the TSA accepts, including passports. So people started pressuring their state legislators to comply. 2) The Real ID office at the DHS colluded directly with state DMV chiefs to prepare for real id implementation: "Nevertheless, it is telling that despite what was happening at the higher level, DMV chiefs were largely cooperative with the REAL ID Office. One interviewee said that although some governors prohibited their states from becoming compliant with REAL ID, those states still implemented perhaps 95 percent of the Act’s requirements. State DMVs would use the language of being 'consistent' with the Act’s requirements, rather than 'compliant,' thereby avoiding embarrassing their governors, while at the same time making the licenses more secure" (source: Magdalena Krajewska's 2020 journal article, “Implementing the REAL ID Act: Intergovernmental Conflict and Cooperation in Homeland Security Policy”, https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjaa010).]

Is the process to receive a Real ID in some way more of a risk to personal privacy?

If it is a risk, what are the risks to personal privacy while getting a State ID or Passport?

One risk is that it makes it easier to create a national id database. Now, the real id act doesn't explicitly create a national database. However, what the federal government did do is it offered federal funding to each state to cover the costs of implementing real id, but "to be eligible to receive such grants, states shall provide electronic access to their databases to all other states" (source: same journal article as above). Meaning that if Texas and New York both accepted federal funding and the federal government wanted access to New York's database, it could just ask Texas.

There are indeed plans to create a digital id that can be updated in real time according to AAMVA testimony: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM07/20231205/116640/HHRG-118-HM07-Wstate-GrossmanI-20231205.pdf

Suppose the Secretary of Homeland Security says you need a real id to vote or receive medical care. And suppose we now have digital real ids. What's gonna happen to you if you do something the government or corporations don't like? Well, your real id will be revoked in real time and you won't be able to access medical care.

We must stand up to this now. Passports will generally be safe this century from digitalization because the US would need to convince 150+ countries to accept a digital passport.

That'll only true once over 95% of Americans have a real id. Right now, 50-60% of Americans have a real id, and that number needs to go down. Again, the DHS cannot enforce anything if the majority of Americans refuse a real id; the proof of this is the fact it's taken 20 years to begin "initial enforcement". With resistance, we can change those 20 years to "never".

Yeah, I've heard that from other people as well. What you should do: if you live in Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, or Wyoming, you can only get a real id. Contact your state legislators and governor to demand a state id. If you don't live in those states, specifically request a state id and only bring what you need for a state id. In Illinois for example, you can prevent a real id from being issued to you by mistake by bringing only 1 proof of address instead of 2.

If you need a real id right now, absolutely keep it. I am not asking anyone to justify themselves for having one if they need it for personal reasons. I will however encourage you to get a passport with your correct gender as soon as it becomes possible (possibly in 4 years or sooner if the courts strike down trump's executive order).

Ok, I did not tell people to not have a license at all. If you live in a state where you can only get a real id (Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, Wyoming), absolutely renew it. However, if you don't live in those states, you can turn in your real id for a state one, and I'm recommending that everyone do that.

As for "not being able to readily identify yourself", it is my opinion that no one should be required to carry their id and that if the police stop you, you should only provide what is legally required of you. Illinois for example is a no id state, and the police cannot just ask you to identify yourself (excluding traffic stops). However, I also recognize that there are dangers to asserting your rights against law enforcement. If you fear for your life, then of course there is no shame in complying with what is requested of you.

You do not need a real id to fly. See here for a list of acceptable ids for TSA: https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification

"are far from the worst they can do"

I beg to differ. First, you should know there are plans to make real ids digital, possibly placed on your phone, and real-time and remotely accessible according to AAMVA testimony: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM07/20231205/116640/HHRG-118-HM07-Wstate-GrossmanI-20231205.pdf

Now suppose that real ids are digital and required for medical care. Now, what's gonna happen if you say something, or attend a protest etc., that the government or corporations don't like? Well, in real time you will be denied your real id and consequently be unable to receive medical care.

This won't happen today or even this decade. Right now they're laying the groundwork for implementing this in maybe 20 years. That's why we must fight back NOW.

Purchase a california virtual mailbox/pmb service

You don't need a driver's license. You can get a non-driver state id. The reason so many Americans have a drivers license is because the US has terrible public transportation.