[bastawhiz]

We do have to show ID. But the federal government said it's not enough to use a normal state driver's license or passport. You need a special "Real ID" that's somehow allegedly better. Your old driver's license that you can pay for booze with, open a bank account with, and you know, drive with, isn't proof enough of who you are to ride on a plane.

Edit: I should note that I have one. But lots of people don't, because most people never replace their driver's license card.

[dboreham]

Passport works. You don't need real ID. Its only purpose is to deal with states where the normal driver license issuing process isn't up to whatever standards the feds dictate.

[bastawhiz]

A passport is just as tedious to get as a real id. As far as I'm aware, there's no compelling security benefit that the government has articulated about how standardizing licenses improves security.

[asdf_snar]

I think this is where my confusion lies. It seems like many people are saying no ID of any kind -- passport, "real ID", driver's license, ... -- should be provided, period. So ostensibly a 10 year-old could show up at the airport and decide to travel on their own (and if we only ID "young-looking people" then we get into a similar discussion as to why one should always ask for proof of age when buying alcohol).

To be clear, I'm refraining from judgment on this (despite what the downvotes seem to suggest), I just want to make sure I'm understanding the distinction is not plain driver's license vs. Real ID. I don't like it very much that I have to show my ID (such as passport or European ID card) when I'm on a train in Switzerland. It seems like the majority perspective is that we shouldn't _at all_ be controlling the ID of people who get on a plane, and that's just interesting to me (it would force me to articulate what the difference is between a plane and a train ride).