February 8, 2007 9:35 PM PST
State officials oppose repealing Real ID Act
- Related Stories
-
Maine rejects Real ID Act
January 25, 2007 -
Homeland Security chief defends Real ID plan
December 14, 2006 -
The Real ID rebellion
April 17, 2006 -
FAQ: How Real ID will affect you
May 6, 2005 -
National ID cards on the way?
February 14, 2005 -
House backs major shift to electronic IDs
February 10, 2005 -
National IDs for everybody?
October 4, 2004 -
Dean should come clean on privacy
January 26, 2004 -
Do we need a national ID plan?
July 22, 2002
The 2005 Real ID Act currently says that driver's licenses and other identification documents issued by state governments must comply with a stringent set of rules devised by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. But some state legislatures are weighing whether to stand up to the federal government and oppose federalized identifications, which Maine's legislature did two weeks ago.
"I have no problem with the Real ID Act," Paula Arcioni, the chief information security officer for New Jersey's Office of Information Technology, said during a panel discussion at the 2007 RSA conference here. She said that adding a microprocessor to the national IDs--thereby making them smart cards--would create "cost savings from an overall comprehensive strategic approach."
Arcioni's comments show that the Real ID rebellion, which began last April when New Hampshire's House of Representatives rejected the plan, has not reached critical mass. Although bills are pending in legislatures including Georgia, Massachusetts, Montana and Washington, it remains unclear whether enough opposition will develop in state legislatures to force the federal government to amend or delay the Real ID rules.
Sen. Daniel Akaka, a Hawaii Democrat, and John Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican, introduced a bill in December to repeal the Real ID Act. On Friday, Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, is expected to hold a press conference to announce similar legislation.
"We're certainly not the rabble-rousers out there trying to lead a rebellion," said Denise Blair, the assistant deputy director of the California Department of Motor Vehicles, referring to Maine's efforts.
Blair, who favors the Real ID Act, did say, however, that it will cause some administrative headaches for California when more than 3 million more people a year are visiting local motor vehicle offices.
Blair lauded better data-mining practices and sharing information between states, which is what Real ID is designed to encourage. If the Real ID had been in place six years ago, she said, data mining could have led to flagging some of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers before they boarded the planes: "The bulk of those could have been identified previously."
How it's supposed to work
The Real ID Act says that, starting on May 11, 2008, Americans will need a federally approved identification card--a U.S. passport will also qualify--to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. States will have to conduct checks of their citizens' identification papers and driver's licenses likely will be reissued to comply with Homeland Security requirements. State motor vehicle databases are also required to be linked together.
In addition, the national identification cards must be "machine readable," with details left to Homeland Security, which hasn't published final regulations yet. That could end up being a magnetic strip, enhanced bar code, or radio frequency identification (RFID) chips.
One audience member, who said he worked at a state criminal justice data center, said: "This Real ID isn't going to work unless there's some mandatory biometric involved." (Real ID permits, but does not require, Homeland Security to mandate biometric identifiers such as fingerprints, retinal scans, or DNA samples.)
"The biometric part, I absolutely agree, it ought to be in there," said Dan Combs, Iowa's former director of digital government. Combs is now president of Global Identity Solutions, which sells identification-related services to governments and corporations.
After other panelists made similar remarks, moderator Denley Chew, assistant vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said: "We seem to be in violent agreement."
Chew warned, however, that "the ACLU will be at the door." The ACLU has set up an anti-Real ID Web site called RealNightmare.org and has been lobbying state officials to oppose the plan.
Arcioni, the New Jersey state official, suggested implanting Real IDs with microprocessors, which would be required to access government services.
Even if the initial federalized ID doesn't have it, future versions will, Arcioni predicted. "Did they think it was going to be some stupid plastic card that didn't have any electronics putting some smart technology on it, a microprocessor?" she asked. "I can't even imagine Real ID not having smarts, at least as something that could be leveraged down the road."
Companies could also require the microprocessor-equipped IDs for authentication, Arcioni said. "That's useful when you're delivering services, whether it's the commercial sector or the public sector."
Identification cards implanted with microprocessors are commonly called smart cards. They generally have a processor, memory and a "tamper-resistant" mechanism to prevent unauthorized people from altering the hardware or software. Smart cards can rely on physical contact, like a mobile phone SIM, or feature RFID technology.
Smart cards aren't as popular in the United States as they are in Europe, where cryptographically protected smart cards are used for applications such as ATM cards and fuel cards.
See more CNET content tagged:
Real ID Act,
legislature,
state official,
Maine,
New Hampshire
---
http://privacy.emigrantas.com - all about web privacy
Those who support this measure must truly have complete confidence in government even though the feds have never given any reason to have such confidence. This act is everything that America is supposed to be against. However what do you expect from a Congress that approves measures without reading them , ie. Patriot Act.
First, if the airlines had been following their own security rules, the terrorists on 9/11 would have been arrested before boarding the planes since box cutters were already illegal for air travelers. And if our law enforcement & intelligence had been doing their jobs, the perps would have been incarcerated months & years before that day. This argument is completely bogus.
Those who say they have nothing to hide are illogical on 2 fronts. If the govt has nothing to hide, then why are they hiding so much? Paranoia or a hidden agenda? With a paranoid govt or one which has a hidden agenda, everyone will have everything to hide for very good reason. Re read Orwell & the histories of Nazi Germany & the Soviet Union
And finally there is the matter of security. Every form of foolproof security ever used has been breached numerous times in numerous ways. By requiring everyone to provide all their personal info on a single document, it will be so much easier to have your identity stolen, & impossible to clear you name once it is illegally used. It is nearly impossible now. Just ask anyone who has had their credit ruined, put on a no fly list, or lost a job opportunity due to a false criminal record.
I applaud the states who are refusing to follow this misguided Federal plan. If enough states do this, it will have the effect similar to a Constitutional Amendment - namely the states taking back the authority that is rightfully theirs to begin with. The Feds cannot rule a people who refuse to be ruled w/o drastic measures.
And finally, this law would require this ID in order to travel, leave the country, open a bank account, drive out of state, etc. WHEN, not if, enough people chose to opt out, that will mean the underground economy will become dominant. That , in turn would mean bankruptcy for the travel industry, banks, stock market, the government . . . Hey, maybe this would be a good idea, after all.
Consider this:
No form of ID is 100% safe from abuse and forgery. Not even biometrics.
No database on this planet is 100% secure.
Now consider the implications of those two facts. Then come back and tell us what a great idea it is.
I suggest that everyone should read Database Nation by Simson Garfinkel. Those who don't understand the technological and societal implications of bills like this will be rudely awoken.
The point of this is that no database is 100% secure. What happens if criminals get their hands on your DNA or retina scan info along with all your other personal data? Will you ever be able to prove you are innocent? How is this going to minimize ID theft? It won't! ID theft will increase. What happens if you lose your ID? What "ID" do you have to show to get a replacement?
This is not going to stop terrorism nor identity theft. The main concern noted by the states that don't support the Real ID Act is how expensive it will be. Once this issue is addressed they will be happy. They rarely discuss the fact that people will have no privacy and lose their civil liberties.
But who cares about that since the passing of the Patriot Act, the War Commissions Act and the John Warner Defense Act?
Most Americans probably aren't even aware of the above "acts" which will take away ALL your rights as free citizens. Bush (and all future presidents) now have the authority to do whatever they want, once these acts are implemented.
To the poster that said "why worry if you have nothing to hide"? Well in the near future when dissent is illegal ask yourself that question. Dissent is as American as apple pie. Why did the New England colonists fight the British for your sovereighty? Why did The US fight the Nazis in WWII and the Soviets during the Cold War if the good old USA is going to become like them anyway?
The Real ID Act, the Patriot Act, the War Commissions Act, the John Warner Defense Act and the war in the Middle East are all working together towards a New World Order as George H.W. Bush referred to in the recent past.
Once the US is bankrupted from it's illegal war in Iraq (and the future expanded war in Iran) it will have no choice but to implement the North American Union and to use the Amero as the only accepted currency. The Real ID Act is just one of the many steps in this direction.
The main focus here should be to stop the North American Union.
http://www.stopthenau.org/
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/
http://www.stopspp.com/
Dave
Note, even the folks who have been using this the longest and most actively in a number of different applications are not thick skulled enough to apply it to a national ID process.
For a good review on this program by someone who knows a heck of a lot more about this subject than 99% of our gov't officials involved in the process take a read at this:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/01/realid_costs_an.html
I oppose creating a card that may have potential for tracking all Americans activities in their daily activities whenever they present this Real ID card (I assume when this card is read or scanned it will create a record of when and where it was used). I also oppose this on First Amendment grounds as a person should be free to petition their government without first showing proof of their identity to some electronic verification machine and without fear of being tracked and monitored and branded as a potential threat.
A citizen should not be forced under penalty of law to obtain a Real ID card. As it stands now, it is our option to choose to obtain a drivers' license. As I understand the new law, we will be forced to obtain this new ID card whether or not we choose to drive (I assume there will be a required non-driver version).
Also, I am opposed to the cost of implementing this system.
Anti-terrorism federal grant money should be spent to protect infrastructure and secure our borders, and ports, and public transportation systems such as trains, etc. Re-certifying millions of drivers across the country may serve the interests of bureaucrats at DHS , but it is not in the best interests of "the people" of the United States and it diminishes their constitutional rights as a "free" people, guaranteed "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".
Many people say, well, if you are doing nothing "wrong", why should you care if the DHS is watching your every move? I respond using the words of the Revolutionary War General, John Stark: "Live Free or Die", he fought the tyranny of England over the colonies. I respond with the words of Benjamin Franklin who said those who trade liberty for security deserve neither. I respond with the words of Thomas Jefferson: "When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny."
Many people in government today seem to be abandonning the principles of liberty that our country was founded on. I respond to them with the words of from Alexis DeTocqueville as to why we should be true to those principles: "When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness."
Sincerely,
Linda Curry
- How long before an RFID chip?
-
by Jorj31
February 4, 2008 9:06 AM PST
- If we impliment this, it won't be 5 years before (for the sake of efficiency) we are all required to get an RFID chip--this will keep us from losing our wallets and our cards. Then we will be able to be tracked "for our own safety" in all public locations.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 22 Comments >>