California legislature agrees to upload driver's licenses to national database

https://papersplease.org/wp/2026/06/27/california-legislature-agrees-to-upload-drivers-licenses-to-national-database/

by iamnothere • 25 days ago

138 66 25 days ago

Sjeiti• 25 days ago

That is fitting: "Error establishing a database connection"

johng• 25 days ago

The article doesn't seem to go into any discussion or reasoning why Gavin Newsom would want to cooperate with this, seemingly against his own party?

What are the downsides of not cooperating? What is his motivation or benefits for capitulating?

Edit: Oh, ahhh I see: "Governor Gavin Newsom agreed to upload driver's license data to a national database primarily to comply with the Real ID Act of 2005 and avoid federal threats that would prevent California IDs from being accepted at airports and other federal facilities. This decision was finalized through a budget compromise with the state legislature following intense pressure from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security"

iamnothere7• 25 days ago

It was a strategic move by Newsom to comply with giving your data to a historically unpopular fedgov led by a historically unpopular president at a time when resisting would have been supported by his base and would have raised his political capital (and national profile). Very smart move.

(There is only one team in US politics.)

readthenotes1• 24 days ago

I think many people will assume you're historically unpopular president and fed gov are the current ones.

Since the federal law requiring this was passed in 2005, it's another historically and unpopular president and fedgov.

(I am of course referring to Abraham Lincoln and the 1861 federal government)

Spooky233• 25 days ago

These issues are really complicated because they aren’t left versus right. Conservatives and progressives both tend to be ideologically skeptical of enhancements/sharing of ID.

From a state perspective, there’s a lot of benefit to exchanging this type of information across state lines through AAMVA. It reduces a lot of fraud, avoids a lot of insurance issues that cost the state taxpayers a lot of money. It has a lot of benefits to things like commercial motor carrier safety that have a direct benefit to the public.

For example, New York does direct entity to entity sharing of many driving records with Ontario and Quebec. The Canadians benefited because I don’t allow people with DWIs to enter Canada, New York benefited by keeping unsafe truckers off state highways, who were exploiting certain pools in Canadian regulations.

It’ll take a bit of time, But the long game here is that the United States will have a national ID system.

The big conflict is that states issue licenses (AB 60 in California, “green light” in other places) without regard to the ability to provide legal documentation of legal residency. Advocates fear that the sharing will be used by the hypervigilant immigration bureaucracy. States don’t enforce immigration law, but every resident of a state is at risk if people are driving around without insurance or without being subject to driving licensing laws. This also allows populations like the homeless to get IDs, But it’s being used as a punching bag by right wing commentators, rallying against illegal alien truckers and other nonsense.

tough• 24 days ago

Maybe if both left and right weren't just puppets for the capital that finances their superPACs it would be more believable that they're different things

fsckboy2• 24 days ago

These issues are really complicated because they aren’t left versus right. Conservatives and progressives both tend to be ideologically skeptical of enhancements/sharing of ID.

It's complicated within each party, but not overall. Idealogues prefer debating other idealogues because they use the same vocabularies and that preference is why they are always fighting, they like it. But the fat part of the curve in the middle is mostly made up of non idealogues who are quietly saying "can't you just shut up and compromise, let's be practical".

rectang2• 24 days ago

Should voter ID requirements (a la "SAVE America" act or similar) become law, constitutional prohibitions on poll taxes will lead towards every citizen getting an ID at no charge.

jandrewrogers2• 24 days ago

States can implement Real ID without sharing the data with the Federal government. The only mandatory part is the standardization. States can (and do) share this data with each other directly.

The Federal government can't constructively require States to share the Real ID data with them, only ask politely, as that would go against existing Constitutional case law. Many States have declined to share Real ID data with the Federal government while still implementing Real ID. It is a bit surprising that California would agree to this.

QGQBGdeZREunxLe• 24 days ago

Which states have declined to share data?

iamnothere7• 24 days ago

See my comment elsewhere in this post, unfortunately once a state joins it is possible for AAMVA to compel the addition of all license data to the database, if the state wishes to remain Real ID compliant. AAMVA is a private entity that can change requirements without oversight.

m-hodges• 25 days ago

Roughly 9 years ago: https://neveragain.tech/

chopete3• 24 days ago

This is a very good pledge to have all humans to sign up for anywhere on the globe.

>We are choosing to stand in solidarity with Muslim Americans,

This particular word, with no other specifc identities after that, takes the air out of this massive effort and gives the impression it is a localized effort.

ang_cire• 24 days ago

Do you understand that you're basically pulling an "All Lives Matter" right now?

This statement was about the specific incoming US administration that was anti-immigrant, and especially anti-Muslim. It is a localized effort, because not every place has the same problems and needs the same solutions, and hyper-generalized statements that don't call out any particular instances of a problem are meaningless.

HDBaseT• 24 days ago

neveragain.tech has had signgatures from thousands of engineers/developers/etc, yet ctrl+f 'Palantir' and many Palantir employees have signed that document.

twohaibei• 24 days ago

They "pledged" not to do it, which is much easier to do than take a real action. As they say, money doesn't stink.

giantg26• 25 days ago

The author is concerned that the feds could subpoena the data from the company that it's being submitted to. Wouldn't this same concern apply to the feds serving a subpoena to the state? Once the data is out there, it's out there. If one level of government has it, all the peer/higher levels will have access of they want it.

It sounds like this database is the one that feeds license data to NCIC. The bigger question here is if we should be compiling and using data in the NCIC suchbas driver licenses and carry permits.

iamnothere7• 24 days ago

States can and do resist federal subpoenas and have more leeway in doing so. They also have enormous legal resources.

giantg26• 24 days ago

This is pretty rare. I find it unlikely the state would fight against basic driver license records released under a subpoena.

anigbrowl2• 24 days ago

The author pointed out that one potential problem is feds subpoenaing data from the AAMVA and not notifying the state of California that it had done so. Given it's such a short article, I can't think of a good reason for why you would have overlooked this.

giantg26• 24 days ago

I didn't overlook it, it's simply not a relevant point. The state won't do anything about a individual subpoena wether it's against the state or a company.

sandworm101• 24 days ago

Article has bad title.

"about all driver’s licenses and ID cards"

This isnt just about drivers. That matters. Driving a car is not a fundamental right. But access to a state ID card, something you will need to access many services, probably is.

ck2• 24 days ago

I thought because of RealID made just after 9/11 all drivers licenses had to be in federal database anyway?

Not that it's acceptable but federal database of drivers licenses is smallest of privacy problems these days with federal overreach

NSA never ever stopped collecting phone calls, they have been storing that data in larger and larger databases in the deserts. Now "ai" can make all that into some insane level of datamining

toast0• 24 days ago

I thought because of RealID made just after 9/11 all drivers licenses had to be in federal database anyway?

At least Washington state still issues UnrealID in case the applicant is not willing to pay the extra fee or cannot or willnot provide the extra documentation. I don't think UnrealIDs have to be submitted?

As I understand it, most other states rolled the extra cost into the general fee for IDs, but Washington does not like to spread costslike that.

iamnothere7• 24 days ago

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-i...

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 is a private entity.)

FireBeyond• 24 days ago

I don't have a RealID driver's license, and in my state I cannot, because I am not a citizen.

wat100002• 24 days ago

We should switch to a national ID system and be done with it. The patchwork we have is getting more ridiculous by the day.

CharlesW• 24 days ago

Agreed, this would be a great way to streamline our country's government-controlled digital panopticon.

wat100002• 24 days ago

I don’t get the impression that the current system is really getting in the way of that.

Eufrat• 24 days ago

Some of this is just the nature of American culture. Acceptance/rejection of federal authority is often irrational and leads to this patchwork. For instance, replace this statement with a national gun registry and watch people flip out.

mindslight• 24 days ago

Not without an equivalent of the GDPR. Our current identification systems (DL#/SSN) are currently being flagrantly abused by the surveillance industry. This needs to be stopped before we go making identification even stronger.

devmor2• 24 days ago

I don’t want the federal government to have control or oversight on my ID. Why would anyone want that?

dboreham• 24 days ago

Everyone with a passport wants that. I think the issue isn't so much the government having control (all governments in all countries have such control and the sky doesn't fall in) but rather the nature of the government the citizens of the US permit.

jandrewrogers2• 24 days ago

The US already has a national ID system. What the Federal government can't do is make it mandatory to have a national ID, either directly or constructively through regulation. This matter has been to the Supreme Court many times over several decades and it is a matter of settled law that only the individual States have this authority.

It would require a Constitutional amendment to transfer this authority from the States to the Federal government. Congress can't just ignore the Constitution just because it is inconvenient.

throwaway858252• 24 days ago

The federal government could just scrape the data through the many data sharing programs. It's more political posturing that policy.

thraway3837• 24 days ago

I'm not fully understanding what this means or how to react to it because I just don't know. Can someone with a deep understanding of this and what this means to us regular folks please explain?

belZaah• 24 days ago

It’s a sign of a badly designed system. In a well-designed one (have seen one, have helped to improve several) the drivers license database only has a personal identifier and the class of license identifier. Which is private information for sure but it would hardly be an end of the world if the feds learned I have the right to operate a motorcycle.

Perversely, this is the consequence of misguided privacy initiatives. Government agencies are discouraged or even forbidden from sharing data. Nobody has a reliable identifier. As a consequence, every single database out there will contain your name, dob, address and probably a photo. Oh, and because there’s no identity, they need to store a bunch more data to make sure you are not a fraudster. Also, in absence of a sensible electronic identity (because there’s no identity at all in the system), all of this data is used as a shared secret. Which makes it immediately commercially useful for identity theft, once obtained. And, of course, any of these giant piles of personal data can and will be breached in some way or another by both local and remote state actors.

It’s all because “identifiers are bad” and “no sharing information”. Are you guys satisfied with the privacy situation yet?

nullc• 24 days ago

How does this differ from what they already sell to LexisNexis?

California legislature agrees to upload driver's licenses to national database

Related Stories