Good Evening, From roughly 1985 to ~1997, I was a resident of Missouri (USA). Now, Missouri may well be a poster child for backwater living, but they had an unusual thing to recommend them: they understood that a "Driver's License" was somthing you got to prove you knew how to drive a car, rather than something you got to drink beer and vote. Presumable due to this revelation, Missouri did not actually *require* either a photo or a social security number for the issuance of a driver's license. Anyone who had objection to the social security number was given a different encoded "license number", and anyone who objected to the photo had a red box in the corner with the words "PHOTO NOT REQUIRED" emblazoned across it - you needed only to fill out the form which described the basis of your objection(s). Even better was the State of New York, up until ~1983: no photo on any license. Just a piece of paper (no plastic at all) that said you knew enough to drive. Proving that the license belonged to *you*, and not someone else, required actual *ID*! It's time we get back to the reality standard on these... -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org
I remember my drivers license from WI was just a piece of paper, black with white printing, no photo at least up to '74 (when we moved to MN) but can't recall if MN had photo then or not. Not sure when WI changed, but they had the photo when we moved back in '88. On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 06:23:10PM -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Good Evening, From roughly 1985 to ~1997, I was a resident of Missouri (USA). Now, Missouri may well be a poster child for backwater living, but they had an unusual thing to recommend them: they understood that a "Driver's License" was somthing you got to prove you knew how to drive a car, rather than something you got to drink beer and vote. Presumable due to this revelation, Missouri did not actually *require* either a photo or a social security number for the issuance of a driver's license.
Anyone who had objection to the social security number was given a different encoded "license number", and anyone who objected to the photo had a red box in the corner with the words "PHOTO NOT REQUIRED" emblazoned across it - you needed only to fill out the form which described the basis of your objection(s).
Even better was the State of New York, up until ~1983: no photo on any license. Just a piece of paper (no plastic at all) that said you knew enough to drive. Proving that the license belonged to *you*, and not someone else, required actual *ID*!
It's time we get back to the reality standard on these...
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org
-- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
From: "J.A. Terranson" <measl@mfn.org>
Anyone who had objection to the social security number was given a different encoded "license number", and anyone who objected to the photo had a red box in the corner with the words "PHOTO NOT REQUIRED" emblazoned across it - you needed only to fill out the form which described the basis of your objection(s).
You can wear a head covering for religious reasons in some states. Are there any religions that forbid ugly driver's license photos? You cannot, however, refuse to give your SSN anymore. This is because people have sex in cars, I think. I can't see any other connection. "States must inform individuals that the disclosure is mandatory, that it is based on section 466(a)(13) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 666(a)(13)], and that it will be used under the State's child support enforcement program to locate individuals for purposes of establishing paternity and establishing, modifying, and enforcing support obligations...." http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/dcl-00-38.htm
participants (3)
-
BobCat -
Harmon Seaver -
J.A. Terranson