The forthcoming REAL ID Act isn’t a privacy nightmare, says a Department of Homeland Security official. In fact, it will improve your privacy and protect the security of your personal information.
Stewart Baker, assistant secretary for policy, made these bold claims to the Homeland Security Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee at its public meeting this week.
This isn’t the first time Homeland Security officials have made the perverse claim that REAL ID would protect Americans’ security. Secretary Michael Chertoff said the same thing March 1 while announcing the regulations states will have to follow in order to make their driver licenses and ID cards compliant with the act.
“Our standards actually promote personal privacy,” Chertoff said, “because we all know that stolen and phony driver’s licenses are a powerful tool in the hands of identity thieves, and that affects the personal privacy of every single American.”
Chertoff also cited the draft regulations which would require state motor vehicle employees who handle personal information to undergo criminal background checks as a privacy-protecting measure. As if that would really help.
Identity thieves and corrupt bureaucrats, of course, are only two of many privacy worries with REAL ID. The largest security threat to ordinary Americans, of course, is the government itself.
And, of course, having a REAL ID is going to be, if not required by law, very nearly so. Government bureaucrats like senior policy adviser Jonathan Frenkel claim that it’s “utter nonsense” that the government will ever use the system to track Americans. He gets worse, though.
“Since no one is ever required to carry a Real ID…it makes no sense that the government would track something that (a person) doesn’t have to carry,” he said. (Many nations do require their citizens to carry such documents, and some Real ID critics view the law as the first step toward such a system.)
It also isn’t true that only a Real ID card will allow a person to board an airplane or enter a federal building, Frenkel said. A U.S. passport issued by the State Department–new ones have RFID tracking chips embedded–would also qualify.
Privacy groups took issue with the agency’s assertions. “It is not ridiculous to say that Real ID will create a national identification system that will allow people to be tracked,” said Melissa Ngo, director of the Identification and Surveillance Project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “Real ID is ostensibly voluntary, but that just isn’t true.” — CNET News.com
It’s pretty obvious that in order to simply go about your daily business, you will be required to have one of these REAL ID cards, or alternately, a passport, which the government might not want to give you if you have done something that really ticks them off. Either way you’re eminently trackable. That the laws do not require any particular person to walk around the streets every day with a REAL ID card or passport is a distinction without a real difference.
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Karl Marx would love the popular moves among politicians in various state governments and the federal government to ban so-called "junk" food in schools, and to "put healthy food in" convenience stores and on the tables of those they define as poor. It's a very elitist and arrogant mindset that promotes this ideology, and it needs to be addressed.
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Joseph C. M.
Mar 22, 2007
D.H.S. is being Deceitful! they will have control over just how much privacy you are allowed to have.
Jason King
Mar 22, 2007
So then what are your suggestions to fix the driver’s license framework that we all know is broken?
Comments like, “As if that would really help,” do nothing to encourage a productive dialogue on the issue.
Perhaps you’ll be posting comments to the federal docket on the issue?
To be sure, you are not satisfied with the status quo?
I am all ears.
JDK
John R.
Mar 22, 2007
WHY THIS CONSERVATIVE TENNESSEAN OPPOSES REAL ID:
1. REAL ID is a de facto national identification card. At least Lamar Alexander, in recent, comments was honest enough to admit this. Has America sacrificed so much for freedom only to create a “papers please” society?
2. REAL ID does an end-run around the 4h Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
It is unreasonable to give the central government the power (potential) to track individuals in real-time. If the government needs to search the lives of a citizen, let it get a search warrant. We should not have to be monitered. Is not this the essence of freedom? REAL ID, and its future additions, will make life subject to the good-will of the government in a software maze of “red light, green light.” This is not freedom.
3. REAL ID reduces God-given rights of the individual to a string of digits, subject to the good-will of software and/or bureaucrats. It makes Americans get “permission” to live and move in the basic functions of society: banking and travel. The permission we need to do this (and more) is God-given. We shouldn’t have to ask permission to be functioning citizens within our own country.
4. REAL ID may require biometrics at the state level or at the federal level. Why should Americans be “booked” like criminals even if they’ve committed no crime?
5. REAL ID compiles much personal information into one place. With the ease of internet access, this information is vulnerable to anyone on the globe with the ability hack.
6. REAL ID is a move towards the centalization of more power. In an age of terror, the country should operate on a philosophy of de-centralizing as much of our lives as possible–so that if an attack handicaps one part of the country, the rest of the country can still function.
7. The burden of proof lies on promoters of REAL ID. Show us exactly HOW this significantly new and immense power to the government is NOT a threat to freedom. FREEDOMS ARE LOST IN THEORY/PHILOSOPHY LONG BEFORE THEY’RE LOST IN PRACTICE. Conservatives are threatening freedom and promoting “big government” with the REAL ID Act.
8. We should be moving away from an identification society. This kind of atmosphere promotes suspicion and fear. Are Americans innocent until proven guilty or are we suspicious until properly identified?
9. Programs like REAL ID never remain static. The private sector will seek to use this identification system as well. One bad application will lead to others. How can we remain an “open” society with this kind of philosophy?
10. Some folks say we already have a national id–Social Security. But if REAL ID is only a lateral move, why are we doing it? We are doing it because it is indeed an increase in the government’s ability to track its citizens. If we’re on the wrong road, the soonest way to progress is to turn around.
We don’t have to do anything stupid. Just because we “can” doesn’t mean we “should.”
Tennessee Should Just Say NO to REAL ID.
Verbos
Mar 22, 2007
France and Germany were among the earliest countries to require mandatory driver licensing, right at the start of the 20th century. As automobile-related fatalities soared in North America, public outcry provoked legislators to begin studying the French and German statutes as models.
On August 1, 1910, North America’s first driver licensing law went into effect in the U.S. state of New York, though it initially applied only to professional chauffeurs. In July of 1913, the state of New Jersey became the first to require all drivers to pass a mandatory examination before receiving a license.
Because a large number of countries, including Australia, Canada and the United States have no national identification cards and because of the widespread use of cars, driver’s licenses are often used as the standard form of identification. In such countries, driver’s license bureaus also issue identification cards for non-drivers.
[wikipedia]
The driver’s license was not originally for identification. It has become a de facto standard. Not long after that we got our SS#. Now they want to combine these two with our passport. After we’ve accepted the National ID, the chip is the obvious next step.
Jeff Hoyt
Mar 22, 2007
I must be out of the loop somehow; I was completely unaware that the driver’s license “framework” is broken. I haven’t read or heard this claim before. Are you suggesting that yet another Constitutionally illegal federal program is required to solve this problem, whatever it is? Please expand on this.
Comments such as “As if that would really help.” are not intended to promote dialogue; They are intended to put across a particular reaction to a statement; in this case, the head-shaking that a thinking person might do when he hears the egregious idea that background checks on nominally honest DMV employees would mitigate the intrinsic danger of the Real ID Act. Dialogue does not need promoting; it happens here and in countless other places daily. If there is a problem with dialogue, it is simply that it goes on too long with no commensurate action, such as an armed march on Washington.
Actually, a visit to the FDMS isn’t a bad idea, but one wonders about the efficacy of going to a bartender to complain about all the liquor that’s being sold.
I won’t attempt to speak for Michael – he does that pretty well for himself – but I will say that I am certainly not satisfied with the status quo. I see a Congress completely dominated by people of poor character and low intelligence. I see a nation that allows people on welfare to vote. I see an electorate that is so ignorant of its own Constitution that it believes the citizens vote directly for Presidential candidates. Hell, I see people who think “peruse” means the same thing as “scan”, so no, I am certainly not satisfied with the status quo.
So then, I’ve taken up plenty of your time with this post; let us hear your thoughts. That is what I think would be called dialogue.
Jason King
Mar 23, 2007
Jeff,
Surely you know that government, in most cases, is reactive by nature. So, I doubt government would move to correct a problem, if a problem had not been aired publicly.
With that said, I am amazed that you didn’t know our driver’s license framework is broken. Groups like ACLU and EPIC have done wonders to heighten American’s attention to the issue. On numerous occassions, and in numerous editorials, these groups have pointed out glaring problems that first became publicly evident with 9/11. And there fight goes on today.
Now, motor vehicle administrators had known about inconsistencies and loopholes in the driver licensing process for years. But for the most part, their cries went unheard. Studies conducted by AAA have shown that each year there are at least 4,000 people who die in a motor vehicle crash involving an improperly licensed driver–a driver who obtained a driver’s license through a legal (or illegal loophole).
Happy to dialogue with you even more on the issue.
JDK
Richard Hueftle
Mar 23, 2007
I have concerns about the REAL-ID act. Does the government (DHS) really expect senior citizens, 60, 70, 80 (or more) years of age, to stand in long DMV lines and PROVE that they are citizens. Many of our older population cannot tolerate such an endeavor (wheelchair confined, some debilitating condition, or just old and tired) just to secure an ID that they will need in order to do any banking, driving to the doctors and the food stores. These people have already proven their citizenship by either receiving social security benefits and/or have obtained security clearances in their working years. To ask these individuals to prove that they are citizens at this stage of their lives is a direct slap in the face and is just plain ridicules, also actually redundant. This act should be repealed or amended, with some common sense, so that people at this stage of life are not grossly inconvenienced.
Bulldog23A
Mar 24, 2007
There are cost-effective ways for states to create secure identification cards. Why is the Federal Government involved in what is obviously personal buisiness? I am willing to accept a secure id at a state level, but a national id card with tracking capabilities is just too Orwellian for my comfort.
Verbos
Mar 25, 2007
Hey! Check this out. This is the next step in government privacy violations.
Verbos
Mar 25, 2007
Here is another one.
Mar 26, 2007
Washington state accepts REAL ID, gets bonus - Homeland Stupidity
Mar 27, 2007
DHS Claims RealID Protects Privacy | The Privacy Guy
Jeff Hoyt
Apr 05, 2007
Jason,
Travel and spending money I shouldn’t spend has kept me out of touch for a bit. I did troll around a bit for some of the problems in driver licensure. Stopped after finding stories about sale of personal information leading to stalkings and even killings. Will go further as time allows.
Jeff
Apr 12, 2007
Washington state pretends to reject REAL ID - Homeland Stupidity
May 02, 2007
Who wants a national ID? - Homeland Stupidity
peacekeeper
Jan 08, 2008
I currently am working on a Federal Project that involves the deployment of a new system that works much the way RealID would anticipatedly work, utilizing biometrix and smart-card technology for access and control of sensitive information in government facilities. In my quest for information I have stumbled upon this site and was quite impressed with the intelligent and thought provoking comments expressed. I think John R.’s comments especially were intriguing. In addition, I could totally understand his concerns and issues with RealID. I do find though that no-one as yet, as far as I could tell, has really addressed the fact that while RealID seems incredible invasive and contrary to our Constitutional Rights, God-given rights, etc.; it is in reality not much different than the freedoms we have already sacrificed in the name of convenience.
take for example your cell-phone. Do you own one? Do you carry it with you most everywhere you go? Guess what, you’ve been tagged. Yes, your cell phone emits a constant signal to nearby receivers that with very little effort can be used to pinpoint your exact location. How about this one; do you own a vehicle made in this country equipped with On-Star, or any type of GPS Navigational system? You’ve been tagged.
We can all sit here and worry and fret about the possibilities of being hunted out as we see in Hollywood features, and talk about conspiracy theories and the corruption and misuse of information all day; but the reality of the matter is this.
1) What are you doing that makes you so fearful that others might discover what you are doing? I have been in trouble with the law before. I have screwed up by thinking I was a rock-star during my adolescence and for many years, it was near impossible for me to get the type of job I have now because as the government and security agencies saw it, I was a risk. But I came to realize, my problems were self created. I cleaned up my act, stopped doing things that made me appear “shady” and associated with people who lived by a principal of honesty, respect and love for their neighbor. For me this was easily found in the Christian circle and to be honest it matters not whether you believe in Christ, God , Buddha, Allah, or whatever; you cannot argue that you would not prefer to be treated in accordance and be surrounded by people who truly live out the values expressed in the Bible. Try it, I dare you. You might find you become less concerned about what someone may find out about you if you have nothing to hide.
2) If privacy is of a true concern and you are truly worried about not being able to be found, or have your whereabouts potentially known, I encourage you to go on the lamb. that means give up all of your luxuries and conveniences. Do not associate with anyone, for they may tell someone they have seen you. Do not use electricity or public utilities, for you can be tracked by your usage. Do not live in the middle of the woods, and try to cook by fire, as everyone will know your there. Don’t walk around in public spaces, someone might see you. Do not purchase anything, for the serial information on currency can be traced. Don’t work for any currency or wages or anything for that matter cause your employer / receiver of your goods will likely remember you. I could go on but I think the point is made.
As I said, I think the issue is real, that the information age is upon us and the concerns are real of the possibility of the information being used improperly. However if it is your government you are concerned about using it improperly the only way you can fix it is to change it to be people you trust. In 11 months we have that opportunity. Myself, I’ll base my decision not on party affiliation, who’s cute, what gender they are, where they’re from, how much money they were able to spend on they’re campaign, or anything of that nature. I’m going for the one who claims to have the values I want in my leader. Values that support my ability to worship as I wish, one who agrees I should have civil liberties and rights, but not at the cost of another’s. One who is likely to promote and encourage myself and my fellow citizens to live by the principals and values laid out in the Bible, and encourages love and respect amongst all mankind. I will listen to each of their words carefully, I will research their words of the past, and I will follow the one who has a track record of doing as they have said they would do. Oh, they may have a few blemishes in their past, I know I do; but did they learn from them and fix them openly, or are they still trying to play duck-n-cover?
Michael Hampton
Jan 08, 2008
Let’s see. I openly criticize the federal government. The occupational hazard here is that occasionally (such as last October) I get six U.S. Marshals and ATF agents banging on my door and interrogating my roommates and me for an hour and a half. I told them to come back with a warrant and then publicly embarrassed them by posting on this site exactly what they did.
They haven’t been back, and probably won’t be coming back. But you never know.
As for political change, that happens not in 11 months, but right here in New Hampshire, this very evening. Or it doesn’t happen at all. Vote for Ron Paul in your upcoming presidential primary.