Slashdot Log In
Real ID Act Poses Technical Challenges
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jan 13, 2006 06:13 PM
from the sketchy-very-sketchy dept.
from the sketchy-very-sketchy dept.
segphault writes "Ars Technica has an article about some of the financial and technological challenges associated with implementing the Real ID Act." From the article: "Opposed by more than 600 independent organizations (including the National Governors Association) and hidden in the depths of a military spending bill in order to make passage easier, the Real ID Act has received heavy criticism from concerned citizens and state government agencies. Despite the fact that relatively sound and effective improvements to driver's license security had already been implemented as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, the federal government felt that it was necessary to go well beyond the recommendations of the 9/11 Comission Report by passing a costly and invasive law."
Related Stories
[+]
California Edges Toward Joining Real ID Revolt 211 comments
The Department of Homeland Security's Real ID program has a real challenge on its hands from California. DHS had said it will only grant extensions from the Real ID rules taking effect on May 11 to states that apply by March 31 and promise to implement Real ID by 2010. California requested an extension but would not make the latter promise. DHS buckled and said, in effect, "Good enough." Perhaps they realized that trying to slap giant California around is qualitatively different than doing the same to New Hampshire. In another crack in the wall. DHS has granted Montana a waiver it explicitly did not ask for. From Wired: "For a short moment Thursday, millions of Californians were in danger of facing pat-downs at the airport and being blocked from federal buildings come May 11... DHS had said before Thursday it won't grant Real ID extensions to states who don't commit to implementing the rules in the future. That meant Tuesday's letter looked like enough to join California to the small rebellion against the Real ID rules. For Californians that would mean enduring the same fate facing citizens of South Carolina, Maine, Montana, and New Hampshire... [A]fter Threat Level provided Homeland Security spokesman Laura Keehner with the letter, Keehner said California's commitment to thinking about commitment is good enough."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Real ID (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Real ID (Score:5, Funny)
IF WE DON'T HAVE REAL IDs, THE TERRORISTS HAVE WONfnord
Parent
Re:Real ID (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I think we should all take a moment to cross our fingers and hope that this new fangled thing called "common sense" will really catch on with the general public.
Parent
Making a buck out of dead New Yorkers again (Score:5, Insightful)
Also consider the wide variety of untested silicon snake oil being sold (eg. face recoginition doesn't work properly in the lab yet) by people making a buck out of a lot of dead people in New York. This is what you'll see again in the scramble to get methods to implement this ID system quickly - but it will all be for nothing if your local video library insists on using this ID for their records thus making it possible for others to use your ID for any purpose they wish.
Parent
Re:Real ID (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Consequences schmonsequences (Score:5, Interesting)
So the solution is to not get a license.
In any case, I can't see them possibly enforcing this, especially if you have multiple states or large states that don't meet the requirements. Frankly I think all states should just ignore the law. In a game of chicken between states and the federal government, the federal government can't win.
Re:Consequences schmonsequences (Score:5, Insightful)
The consequences for not meeting the law's provisions are severe: those holding licenses from States that fail to meet the requirements by 2008 will not be permitted to fly on airplanes or enter federal buildings.
Does anyone else remember when "Your papers, please, comrade" was always said in a foreign accent, and as a joke?
--MarkusQ
Parent
Illegal Immigration (Score:5, Interesting)
Luckily (Score:5, Funny)
Principles lost, or not there in the first place? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the inverse of damning with faint praise. So, blessing with faint criticisms, or some such. It's analogous to arguing with a poster by critiquing his grammar or spelling. Just as that implicitly states you agree with the argument, this implicitly states Real ID is a good idea.
Problem is, there's nowhere left to run.
Re:Constitutional authority (Score:5, Informative)
That's quite incorrect.
Read the 9th and 10th amendments:
In other words, according to the Bill of Rights, the fact that a right is not explicitly enumerated does not mean we don't have that right.
And, from the 10th Amendment, all powers that are not given to the government by the Constition and that are not prohibited by it to the states are reserved for the people or the states.
Thus, the Federal Government has no legal powers that are not explicitly set forth in the Constitution.
Parent
Re:Constitutional authority (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to be rude, but if you actually believe this, you really need to read the Constitution, with a specific focus on the 9th and 10th Amendments. I'm absolutely serious. You are perfectly, exactly, and 100% wrong about this. The Consitution explicitly states that the only things the fed.gov is allowed to do are those things enumerated in the Constitution; anything else is reserved to the people, or the states. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as an asshole, here; I'm not trying to. But, assuming you live in the US, it's apalling to me that you can be so fundamentally wrong about how our government works.
2) A national ID may not be the perfect "silver bullet" that kills terrorism once and for all, but it certainly would impose one more difficulty on terrorists.
Since the 9/11 terrorists were, prior to the attack, completely indiscernible from other, non-terrorist citizens, this is clearly a difficulty they have already overcome.
3) Identity theft can be done in a great number of ways today. A national ID, if properly implemented, could make identity theft much more difficult. Think about it, if someone shows a fake driver's license from North Dakota with your name on it, what are the chances that the bank teller will be able to detect the fraud?
As it currently stands, when someone breaks into, say, a credit card database, they get information on a couple million people. This proposes to set up a database with all the identifying information on everybody. If it breaks, the criminal has information on every single American citizen with a driver's license.
4) Why would a national ID be contrary to any principles the USA was founded upon? Do you think Washington and Jefferson were afraid to be recognized as themselves? There may be moments and places when I prefer to be anonymous, but when I need to show who I am I prefer to have a clear and unambiguous way to prove it.
Because, if you read the Federalist papers, you'll realize that the federal government was intended to have essentially no contact with the lives of the citizens, only with state governments. The average citizen was supposed to be able to go his entire life without even knowing or caring what the fed.gov was doing.
Anyway, you very, very much need to read the Constitution.
Parent
Re:Constitutional authority (Score:5, Insightful)
I would like to note that within the FBI Hoover building in DC are tons of fingerprint card records, and according to agents whom I worked with, there, they regularly catch people (agents) stealing information, which of course results in their being fired.
Point being, that among those with a power complex, the bastions of power are very attractive, and the call of abuse of power is also very strong.
If we have such a database, its very existance will ensure that it is broken into. Therefore, I take strong exception to your phrase, "If it breaks".
Parent
Re:Principles lost, or not there in the first plac (Score:5, Insightful)
Want to bet that federal highway funds will be tied to this if there's any indication that states are deliberately not complying?
Feh.
Regarding security versus liberty, I couldn't agree more. What's really depressing, though, is the Big Lie nature of the whole thing. It might not be so frustrating if we actually were getting security at the cost of liberty. But the real crime is we're not; we're pissing away our liberty at an ever-increasing rate, and we've got nothing to show for it (or at least, nothing even close to equivalent value).
Parent
Passports, State IDs, etc (Score:5, Interesting)
I suggest you go get yours renewed (or go get them if you don't have 'em) now, rather than when you need them.
Driver's licenses/State IDs are good for ~5 years and passports are good for 10 years.
Better do it now, before they institute radio tags, biometrics, or whatever other technology they plan to implement.
It's only a holding action, but I'll be happier knowing I put off the inevitable.
State of Arizona--ID for 40-50 Years (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Real ID? (Score:5, Funny)
Opposed by National Governors Association? (Score:4, Informative)
They seem to be stretching the truth on this one, the truth is that the official National Governors Association position is that they will happily make any kind of ID's requested as long as the federal government provides the funds.
Here is the official NGA statement:
http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.8358ec 82f5b198d18a278110501010a0/?vgnextoid=3f90d3add6da 2010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD [nga.org]
Policy Position
printable version
03/03/2005
EDC-18. Driver's License and Personal Identification Card Integrity
The motor vehicle driver's license, which is issued by each state, is used as an official identification document as well as a document that demonstrates an individual's knowledge and ability to operate a motor vehicle. States also issue personal identification cards that can be used as an official identification document. Most driver's licenses and personal identification cards have common elements displayed, such as a photo, a signature, a unique identifier number, and the individual's physical description. This has made the state-issued driver's license and personal identification card the most acceptable forms of identification in America.
Governors are concerned about the security and integrity of state driver's licenses, state personal identification cards, and the identification process. They are committed to working cooperatively with the federal government to develop and implement realistic, achievable standards that will enhance efforts to prevent document fraud and other illegal activity related to the issuance of driver's licenses and identification documents.
In making changes to the current system of issuing driver's licenses and personal identification cards, Governors believe that any rule or regulation requiring a change to the driver's license document or the personal identification card document should only apply to newly issued, renewed, and duplicate driver's licenses and identification cards produced by a state. Furthermore, any rulemaking body that is prescribing new standards for driver's licenses or personal identification cards must perform an assessment of the annual benefits and costs of its recommendations. The federal government should provide adequate funding to states to implement any required mandate stemming from the rulemaking. At no time should the rulemaking body propose an unfunded mandate on states.
Whats the big deal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ike
Non-compliance as the solution (Score:4, Informative)
Fortunately the act was written so states could decline to comply, and not have to deal with losing funding (which is unavailable to help states comply anyway.)
As I point out, on a day to day basis most people don't need a federally accepted ID card. It's cheaper for the states to tell people who need a federal ID card to just get a passport (which about 25% of Americans already have.)
If worse comes to worst, the occasionaly traveller can just travel ID-less. The airline will decide what to do with the ID card, and if it's not accepted, the passenger will become a selectee (which is the normal procedure for a passenger without ID.)
Senator Conrad's Response to my Letter (Score:5, Interesting)
All typos herein are mine, not the letters'. Further, I made points about the Real ID leading to a de facto national ID. That's not especially clear here.
"Dear Jarrett:
Thank you for contacting me about a national identification (ID) card. It was good to hear from you.
You mentioned your thoughts about the national ID card. Specifically, you mentioned your concern that a central database created by a national ID would be difficult to create, maintain, and protect. As you may know, there is no legislation that would specifically create a national ID card. However, some groups and individuals are concerned that the REAL ID provisions included in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, would in effect, create a national ID. The REAL ID provisions would impose federal standards on state-issued identification. Opponents of this legislation fear that it infringes on their privacy rights. Supporters of this legislation argue that it is needed to make drivers' licenses, which are used to board aircrafts at airports, secure from fraud.
The Senate version of the supplemental appropriations bill did not contain the REAL ID provisions. However, in negotations to resolve the differences between the two versions of the bill, the House of Representatives insisted that the REAL ID provisions be included in the final version of the bill. As a result, the final version of the supplememntal appropriations bill includes the so-called REAL ID provisions. Under Senate rules, there was no opportunity to amend the final version of the bill. On May 5, 2005, the House of Representatives passed this version of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act by a vote of 368-58. The Senate also passed this legislation on May 10, 2005, and the President signed it into law on May 11, 2005. Please know I will keep your thoughts in mind should the Senate consider a national ID card.
Sincerely,
Kent Conrad
United States Senate"
Re:Wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Also ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
Parent
Re:Wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so long ago, I moved from Michigan to California because of the weather and because the job opportunities in California were a better fit for my training (bio-tech). Basically, I just decided that I wanted to live in California and I moved there. Eventually I had to get a California driver's license and the California DMV is understaffed, inefficient and bureaucratic but on the whole it was an easy process.
The assumption seemed to be that whatever reasons I had for wanting to live in California were valid reasons. I didn't have to fill out endless paperwork proving that I thought that the State of California had a superior form of government or that I was of desirable minority status or that I would not be a drain on the state's resources or that I was favorably disposed toward the people of California or anything.
Furthermore, I wasn't stopped at the border of California to have all my possessions inspected for drugs or bombs. I didn't even have to stop at the California border to prove my identity and that I wasn't on some terrorist watch list.
Now, if California did carefully control its borders and if it carefully screened people to determine who was allowed to live in California then that would probably lead to at least a small decrease in crime and other social problems.
Personally, though, I'm glad I wasn't stopped at the California border and I'm glad I didn't have to prove to some California bureaucrat that I had the right reasons for moving to California. But that's just me. I personally value individual freedom more than the incremental increase in safety.
In fact, I would go even further and say that I would like to live in a world where anyone can live where ever they want and cross any border without restriction. The United States would probably see an increase in terrorism (more large buildings getting knocked down, etc.) but I would personally be willing to accept that in exchange for the freedom to travel and live anywhere in the world without government interference.
Obviously if every border in the world was opened all at once that could create some problems but there is no reason the United States couldn't open its borders gradually: first Canada, then Mexico, etc. Some people think that closing the borders protects US jobs but the reality is that, since corporations can cross borders with ease, if the cheap workers don't come to the corporations then the corporations will go to the cheap workers with the same loss of US jobs. Furthermore, most of the people in the world have never even used a telephone and it will be a long time before they have the resources for the intercontinental travel that it would take to get them to the USA.
Anyway, there really isn't a right answer to how controlling a government should be. It just depends where the people's values are. Each level of government control will results in certain levels of freedom and certain levels of security. Sometimes there is a trade off between freedom and security and sometimes there isn't. When there is a trade off, the people need to decide which is more important to them.
Parent