Real ID - real privacy problem?

[BAMAToNE]

I've been writing about Real ID in my Livejournal. I thought I'd just copy/paste the last post over here to get the ball rolling. It links to my first post on the subject in case you want a little more back story.

Posted here: http://bamatone.livejournal.com/198622.html

------------

I brought this up back in March, when Brian Schweitzer, the Democratic governor of Montana, told the federal government to "go to hell" over Real ID, which critics call "an unfunded mandate that passed with no formal debate in Congress, posing threats to U.S. citizens' privacy and states' authority."

This time it's the Republican governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, chiming in. It's good to see true bipartisanship in Washington!

The feds have now extended the deadline for compliance for all 50 states, which means the Bush administration will not actually be in charge of administering this program anymore. This is good news because it gives opponents of Real ID a better chance of shooting it down.

The department [of Homeland Security] has always characterized Real ID as voluntary, but when the rules kick in, state residents won't be able to board airplanes or enter federal buildings without a compliant identification card, driver's license, or U.S. passport.

That doesn't sound too "voluntary" to me.

South Carolina is one of eight states that has passed legislation prohibiting implementation of Real ID--and it also falls into the category of states that vowed to stick by that position, Sanford said. (Ten other states have passed resolutions opposing Real ID, and two more--Arizona and Alaska--may be joining the rebellion soon.)

You might wonder how Real ID, if it's such a bad thing, was even passed in the first place. It was "glued onto an emergency Iraq war spending bill that passed unanimously in 2005." Just another bill the Bush administration slipped by us in order to continue funding the Iraq war. And anyone who voted against it would have been labled un-American for not "supporting the troops."

I sure would like to see the feds make good on their threat and deny millions of people the right to fly, as well as denying them entrance to federal buildings. That should work really well for about a day - until the riots start.

------------

Thoughts on Real ID? IMO, it's pretty under the radar. MSM isn't reporting on it much, probably because they don't really understand it - the technology or the privacy threat.

[Charon]

I am in two minds on the whole ID thing.

On the one hand I understand it raises security issues and I'd love to see a real and secure solution to it.

On the other hand, I think it's a good idea. What has everyone got to hide that they are all so against ID cards? I have to renew my passport this year, a costly procedure. Not because I am leaving the country but simply because it's the only proof I have of who I am. Without that I can't buy alcohol, or rent a van, or other such activites I may wish.

I think the idea of a national ID card is fine. The french have them and I see them using them. I think I'd love one and the ONLY gripe I have against it is the security thing. I'd like to know my details are secure and available only to me and certain people who should have access, like medical staff and the police. But no system is free from corruption.

It's a paradox in a way. It can't ever really be secure enough to be viable I suspect and I certainly don't think they should be forced upon us until the government(s) have given security some serious thought!



Also, as a shop worker, it would really help with the whole age-restricted sales thing. Because as it stands over here, that is a nightmare. If everyone had an ID card it would save me risking ten years in jail every time I look at the offered driving licence and hope to god it's not fake as I hand over the beers. :P

I also know that there are a lot of people in England who shouldn't be there. I deal with Western Union money transfer service which is a sytem whereby someone in one country can wire funds to someone in another country. The amount of times someone comes in to collect money and this scenario happens.
Me: "Did you bring your ID with you?"
Customer: "No. What do I need?"
Me: "Passport?"
Customer: "I don't have one."

Really. You're clearly a foreign person.... in England... and you claim to have no passport. Hmmmm. HMMMMM...

¬¬

Things like that niggle me.

So there. ID cards can do a lot of good... provided they are secure. My two cents.

[BAMAToNE]

Ha, that last example just boggles the mind, Charon. I bet there are many such cases here, as well.

There are some pretty big pros and cons to the system. You use the French as an example, and that's fine. But one of the biggest issues here (and has been ever since the ratification of the Constitution, really) is the notion of states' rights that makes the U.S. kind of in a class of its own when compared to other countries. The only way to get the various states to sign off on the Declaration of Independence originally was to promise them that the new federal government would not usurp all of their powers. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution (the last in the Bill of Rights) was written specifically to appease the states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Essentially, if a power is not expressly granted to the federal government in the Constitution, then that power is the states' alone. A strict Contitutionalist would then argue that since no national ID was ever conceived of by the forefathers and made account for, then the federal government has absolutely no right to come up with this law and then impress it upon the states.

This is true of *many* laws cooked up in the last hundred years, so at this stage it's almost Constitutional theory (which is sad, in my opinion). A good example would be the speed limit on interstate highways. The federal government does not have the authority to set a federal speed limit. So instead they "suggest" to the states that the speed limit be 70 mph, and then if the states decide to make it any higher, the federal government witholds needed transportation grants/funds.

Sound like extorsion? It is!

Originally Posted by Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer

Well, we are putting up with the federal government on so many fronts and nearly every month they come out with another hairbrain scheme - an unfunded mandate to tell us that our life is going to be better if we'll just buckle under some other kind of rule or regulation. We usually just play along for a while. We ignore them for as long we can. We try not to bring it to a head. But if it comes to a head, we've found that it's best to just tell them to go to hell and run the state the way you want to run your state.

For anyone who isn't up on his U.S. history, the American Civil War was fought over this issue. There were two turning points in history when the federal government took the upper hand away from the states. Once was when the South lost the Civil War, and the other was FDR's expansion of federal programs in the early 1900s in an attempt to bring us out of the Great Depression.

Anyway, back to Real ID... Your point about not being able to spot fake IDs is well taken, and it's a real problem here. In the U.S., your drivers license is the most common form of ID. Living in Alabama, we can recognize Alabama state licenses (of course), as well as the surrounding states pretty easily (Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, Arkansas, Tennessee, etc.). But how are we supposed to know what an Oregon or Missouri or North Dakota or Arizona license looks like?

A national ID card is an easy way to fix that problem. I think my biggest problem (besides the potential security risks of a national ID card) is way the federal government has threatened the states that do not comply. As I mentioned at the end of my original post, those who do not have a Real ID card would be denied air travel and entrance to federal buildings. What kind of b.s. is this? An American citizen denied the right to fly within his own country's borders because of fear he might be a terrorist. This is taking things too far, in my opinion.

I already don't like the fact that my new passport has an RFID chip in it. I've (more than) half a mind to keep my passport in a safe deposit box at the bank so as not to alert the government to my every move. A national ID card just tightens the screws a little more.

I know the answer isn't a simple one, though. But this whole thing rubs me the wrong way.

(My longest post ever? )

[Charon]

I think I'm in agreeance with all of that. Ultimately it's a nice idea that will only get abused. >_< A pipe dream if you will.

It's definitely more complicated for you guys as you are essentially 51/52 different countries with one kinda basic law between you all and then each state for itself. :P I can see how that leads to more issues than it solves. Not so much the United States of America as the Loosely Connected States of America hmmm?

A lot of people seem to worry that the government might track their every move through a chip in the card...
Well... you all have cell phones. If they really wanted to they could track you already.

But yeah, I wouldn't want to think I was being tracked either. I want an ID card for uniform identification over anything else. Just something that proves I am me and you are you. The French, Dutch, Belgians I think and possibly some other European countries have simple laminated ID cards without a chip. It's a start!

As for your points about Federal threatening. I think they have every right to deny you entry into Federal buildings without ID. Air travel though, that's just mean... But on the other hand... you can understand them not wanting a repeat of 9/11.

Here's a simple little story about how useful ID can be.

A couple of days ago, my Muslim friend Moin (who is of Bangladeshi origin) found police banging at his door early in the morning. They demanded entry and explained they had been told of possible terrorist activities in the house by an anonymous informer. They did a full search of the house and asked to see the passports of everyone inside at the time. They showed their passports, the police apologized for the inconvenience and left. Moin wasn't even pissed off. As he said to me, "They have to check such things out. I'd rather they slightly inconvenience me just to be safe than let a possible terrorist go uninvestigated."
Now just imagine the trouble if they didn't have passports, or if they had expired or something. A lot of hassle saved with just one legal document, the humble UK passport. My passport has expired. I am however lucky enough to be white so it's unlikely I'd get raided on suspicion of terrorism, but still, I currently have no way to prove who I am or my right to belong here. It's not impossible that that could lead to trouble.

Anyways, that's ID working in a positive manner for you.

[baron]

I personally am not apposed to national ID cards (I'm in Canuck land btw) simply because it would save on so many costs. Now when I say that I mean one card that acts as ID, Passport, drivers liscence, age of majority card (as needed), health cards etc. My wallet would be lighter

[Charon]

Yeah. Clearly it would need to cover you for stuff like that.

[BAMAToNE]

Something that's been in the back of my head in regards to the federal building thing: What happens when a man is summoned to appear before the court in a federal case, but has no Real ID card? He is required by law to appear, but by law he cannot enter the building without this specific ID.

And that's only one example I can think of off the top of my head.

As for your Muslim friend, I am glad he came out of it all right. I know that if I were non-white (citizen or not), I'd be very sure to keep all of my documents up to date.

The cell phone thing - I don't have one with a GPS tracker. They can trace my phone when I'm talking on it, but I'm not sure they can track me down when it is on but in standby. I could be wrong, though. I think they've done this in 24. The law probably requires a warrant to track me down by my cell (and by my passport, if that is possible with the RFID chip), but President Bush has made it painfully clear that the government doesn't need a warrant if they don't feel like it. (Which is a good topic for another thread. )

[BAMAToNE]

This might be in the same vein as Real ID: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10789_3-9975122-57.html

However, there are "still too many user names, too many passwords," said Kim Cameron, an architect of Identity and Access at Microsoft. "There's this endless digital baptism of filling in forms and logging in everywhere, and it creates a wonderful environment for the criminal element through phishing attacks and what have you because on the Internet no one does know you are a dog."

On the flip side, my identity is much harder to steal if you have broken only one of my dozen logins. There's something to be said for fragmented login information.

I don't know what to think about this particular kind of ID card, though. This is the first I've heard of it.

[Charon]

I like the fact that most websites require me to login as my email address, ie: username - charon333@hotmail.com
Otherwise I have to remember which sites have me as Charon, charon333, charonicus, Lord_charon, majin_charon, chibi_charon and god knows how many other variants cos people keep stealing my name.
From there I keep three passwords. My low level, alphabetical, I don't care if this gets hacked, password. My slightly stronger, I might not ever use this site again but better safe than sorry password, and then my 8 digit alpha numeric, try breaking this if you dare password.
I find this system works, 'cos if my username is always my email addy then I really only have to remember which of three passwords I'm using, and if I can't, it's not too hard to trial and error it.

Ironically, RPGN uses my least secure password. ¬¬

[BAMAToNE]

Not about Real ID, but still about states' rights:

http://bamatone.livejournal.com/273570.html