Deadline For Saying "No" To National ID

cnet-declan writes "If you don't like the idea of a federalized ID card, you have only have an hour left to let Homeland Security know your thoughts: the deadline to file comments on the Real ID Act is 5:00 pm EDT on Tuesday. Probably the best place to do that is a Web site created by an ad hoc alliance called the Privacy Coalition (they oppose the idea, but if you're a big Real ID fan you can use their site to send adoring comments too). Alternatively, Homeland Security has finally seen fit to give us an email address that you can use to submit comments on the Real ID Act. Send email to [e-mail] with 'Docket No. DHS-2006-0030' in the Subject: line. Here's some background on what the Feds are planning."

Need help writing a letter / more info?

[MobyDisk]

If you are rushing, check out the EFF's page on the Real ID act [eff.org]. They have a summary and a sample letter. Join them while you are there!

Re:I fail to see...

[owlnation]

as a quick summary:

1. It's bureaucratic and expensive.
2. It's open to abuse of power
3. It's only one thing to forge / steal - makes faking your ID and ID theft much simpler
4. It leads to all sorts of data mining privacy issues - one ring to rule them all - get the ID card, get everything else.
5. It's easy to stay outside the system - unless there are regular checkpoints and official stop and searches.

I used to live in Germany and I've seen every single one of these be a problem at some point. Biggest issues are 1. the expense - this is serious money for something that is very ineffective, and 2. the abuse of power - ask anyone who looks Turkish in Germany how often they are stopped and asked for ID. It's pretty much daily in some areas.

That said, there is a huge number of people living illegally in Germany that have no ID, and have been doing so for many years. It is an inconvenience to the law abiding, and no hassle to a criminal, possibly even an advantage.

As someone who works on police RMS systems

[Anonymous Coward]

at various levels from Mayberry, PD, up to the federal forces for some large government sites, I get a kick at the conspiracy angle of this.

Seriously, don't worry about any big-brother like data mining at this point. These guys cant find a big fat "CLICK HERE DUMMY" icon on their desktop.

None of the interfaces ever work. Dickheads constantly change protocols for whatever internal political reasons they have. XML is the latest flavor of the week, so now *everything* has to be XML-'ed up.

What you would really want is a system at the federal level. There's so much beurocracy at the federal level, it's truly mind-numbing. The system would never work the way you guys think it would.

Your local PD may be really on-the-ball, and have a good IT guy, and are definately much more "in-touch" than many federal agents I've worked with.

Re:Before you have your day, consider the alternat

[lawpoop]

If there is no national id card, then what will happen is that a "virtual" national id card will be created. It could take a number of forms, from collecting drivers license ID information from the states, to building biometric databases.

Do you mean something like the Total Information Awareness [wikipedia.org] program?

The giant unified database of all our electronic records ( bank, phone records, internet logs, credit card purchases, medical records, court records, magazine subscriptions etc. etc. ) was officially killed in 2003, but what happened is that all of the separate functions were farmed out to smaller, separate programs. Wikipedia says "An unknown number of TIA's functions have been merged under the codename 'Topsail'."

Re:I fail to see...

[jdp]

The basic question is whether any security benefits outweigh the costs in terms of security, identity theft, civil rights, and privacy.

Bruce Schneier and Richard Forno's National ID card a disaster in the making [blogspot.com] discusses some of the many problems with Real ID.

In a nod to states' rights advocates, DHS declares that states are free not to participate in the Real ID system if they choose--but any identification card issued by a state that does not meet Real ID criteria is to be clearly labeled as such, to include "bold lettering" or a "unique design" similar to how many states design driver's licenses for those under 21 years of age. In its own guidance document, the department has proposed branding citizens not possessing a Real ID card in a manner that lets all who see their official state-issued identification know that they're "different," and perhaps potentially dangerous, according to standards established by the federal government. They would become stigmatized, branded, marked, ostracized, segregated. All in the name of protecting the homeland; no wonder this provision appears at the very end of the document.

As does the Wall Street Journal's Real ID Revolt [wsj.com]:

Americans are rational. And in a post-9/11 world, they are willing to trade some freedom and convenience for more security. But it's not at all clear that Real ID will make us safer. Deputizing motor vehicle office clerks, who would be entrusted with sensitive information and access to a national databank, also entails considerable privacy risk. Fraud and security lapses at DMVs today are hardly uncommon. Just last month, a DMV official in North Carolina was arrested in connection with issuing fraudulent drivers licenses. And if the goal is to stop the next Mohammed Atta, it's worth noting that, even under Real ID, people would be permitted to fly with identification other than licenses.

In terms of the concept of National ID in general, Jim Harper describes it well in his excellent (long!) deconstruction of Real ID [smallgovtimes.com]:

U.S. policymakers have long rejected a national ID as inconsistent with American freedom. Ordinary people, it has long been believed, should not have to carry a card as if they are criminal suspects and they should not be asked to account to authorities for their whereabouts or activities.

jon

PS: more on this on the Stop Real ID Now! [blogspot.com] blog.

Re:Actually I Support A National ID

[quantaman]

If you don't like the idea of a federalized ID card,I love how the editors and submitter think that everybody on slashdot should hold the same stance as they do on this issue.

I happen to believe Real ID is a very good idea, and that it would make society better.

We already have national IDs in the form of passports, Social Security cards, etc.

I'm all for cracking down on states to make their IDs more secure and lessen counterfeits. I don't believe our privacy would change markedly than what we have today.

Verifying someone's identity is a lot tougher then just issuing them a card, in fact it could even backfire by giving people a false confidence in the authenticity of documents that are based on faulty information.

To see the drawbacks of real id I'd take a look at http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/05/real _id_action.html/ [schneier.com]. Schneier knows a lot about these kind of issues and unlike the government he has an excellent track record when it comes to evaluating security systems.

Re:I fail to see...

[RobNich]

(I'm giving up moderator status by replying. Worth it, I hope.)

Travel between the colonies was common, especially for those who signed the Declaration and Constitution. I doubt that it is much more common today. While the number of people traveling has increased, so has the population.

The driving force of the creation of the Union was to remove the power that the centralized government of England had over the colonies. The government had too much power and was using that power to keep itself established. In doing so it was oppressive.

You're right, providing the nation with a variety of legal options was not the goal, it was a side effect. In order to keep a centralized government from taking control of the country, the States were given the power to make those decisions. Creating mass opinion is not difficult, but by keeping each decision in a smaller area (the state) large society-changing laws would be limited in scope (to the state).

Unfortunately the tide turned leading up to and because of the Civil War, which the southern states rightly call the "War for States Rights". Unfortunately they are right. The states that were trying to enforce slavery were wrong for doing so, and it's fortunate that slavery was abolished. However, it was not necessary for the federal government to take over the way it did, and I hope that the pendulum swings back soon.

Mind you, not because I agree with slavery, but because the Federal government is making decisions that have far broader consequences than were intended, and there's no way out for citizens. When some states wanted a different president, they were forced by a slight majority to have another. The President's office was not supposed to be so powerful that that would be a problem. The state governors are supposed to be more important to the individual.

The Federal government has made regulations regarding various drugs, for instance, that some states disagree with. When a state opposes a federal law, is that allowed? Constitutionally yes! But there are those who want federal funds to be pulled from that state. Where are the federal funds coming from? Each individual in that state!

If the government wasn't so big on making new laws, it wouldn't be such a large a problem, but don't get me started on that.

Re:Not so bad

[Jimmy King]

3) There's no requirement to use a REALID-compliant license for anything except a) Airplanes, b) Federal facilities, c) Nuclear power plants. I'll gladly get a REALID passport for those purposes (which I keep in an RFID-resistant bag) and lobby my state to provide non-REALID licenses.

So far, anyway. [dhs.gov] The answer to the third question there says "DHS may consider expanding these official purposes through future rulemakings to maximize the security benefits of REAL ID." I'm pretty certain that can be translated as "DHS has already decided it is going to expand the official purposes for the Real ID as soon as it has passed because it appears fairly harmless at the moment."

4) The federal government isn't providing funds to states, but that's good. The states SHOULD be paying for it so they (and in turn, their voters) maintain control. If we raise local taxes and lower federal taxes, or local governments will have more power and, in turn, each of us will have more power since our votes are part of a smaller state and local pool. How many of us can even name the mayor of our city? Why? Because he's not that important.

So the federal government is going to set rules for how a state ID must be and require that the ID which is supposedly completely state determined and maintained meet those requirements for use in several places, but the states are going to pay for it. That's good? Where is this control the voters are maintaining that you speak of? The only control is to have one or not and based on the quote above, it's quite likely it will be nearly impossible to not have one in the near future.

To be fair, I'll take off my tinfoil hat. Let's say that nothing bad comes of this. What good comes of it? We've already got state ID's and several other forms of ID that are considered to be valid and secure forms of identification. Why would I want to have my taxes go to having another one instead of something useful (not that I really think that money would otherwise go to something useful).

Re:International disquiet

[Alioth]

If you don't want national ID, don't vote for Labour at the next election. At least one party has said it will simply cancel the national ID register and associated cards if it wins the next election.