Schneier on Security

welcome to the inevitable. National ID is coming.

It won't be so bad after things even out within the next 10 years. Perhaps then America will be much safer... and safer for All.

Israel Torres

If I were an abusive husband (or lover) whose spouse had fled, I would expect the real ID to make it a lot easier for me to find her.
- Precision Blogger

"REAL ID also prohibits states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens. This makes no sense, and will only result in these illegal aliens driving without licenses -- which isn't going to help anyone's security."

Most of them already drive without licenses, so this isn't going to change much. If they could get legitimate US ID, illegal immigrants have that much more reason to come here, because they can blend in that much more, and do so legally. We do not need any more encouragement to add to the one- to three-million immigrants illegally crossing the border every year.

What RealID will do, among other things, is require that documentation (such as birth certificates and Social Security numbers) be checked for authenticity. In addition, the act allows the DHS to provide money grants to states to assist them in implementing the provisions.

But as you mentioned, there is no requirement that the states do this. A passport is just as valid for flying, opening accounts, or filling out an I-9 as would be one of these licenses.

Unlike many people against this, I actually have read text of the act as passed by the House and referred to the Senate. It is far less onerous than many of them claim. And while there are some things that are mildly worrisome to me (the linked databases providing single-point-of-failure for grand access and the possibility of RFID-enabled cards), those are issues that can be dealt with in follow-up legislation.

I really don't see why this is such a problem. A lot of nations -- including those in the free countries of Europe -- have national ID cards. Perhaps someone can put in clear terms why this is such a bad idea, instead of just yelling that it's just another aspect of 1984?

Quote: "REAL ID also prohibits states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens. This makes no sense, and will only result in these illegal aliens driving without licenses -- which isn't going to help anyone's security."

This seems to be the same kind of fallacy Bruce is exposing a few paragraphs earlier.

If I can identify someone, who says their intentions aren't evil?

Conversely, if someone doesn't have an American driver's license, who says they don't know how to drive?

People can drive without driver's licenses as it is, and they can drive badly with or without them.

The material costs of national ID cards aren't so bad. The security costs aren't so bad either. As Bruce wrote earlier, identity cannot be stolen, it's systems that can be abused. Everyone's personal data is already out there as it is.

The real cost of a national ID is a psychological one. It used to be, at least in the US, in the beginning, that the government was there for the people. With stuff like national ID it starts to seem more like the people are there for the government, and it becomes easier for people to start seeing themselves as subjects of the state, rather than its free citizens.

It's a mind trick, but then again, it may actually be a useful (and working) mind trick.

Locks do not help us as much as civilized attitudes embedded in everyone's heads. A national ID is a mind trick attempting to influence those attitudes. And it might actually work.

"Perhaps someone can put in clear terms why this is such a bad idea, instead of just yelling"

The above poster Jarrod is invited to actually read the blog post and perhaps even follow some of the links.

"Perhaps someone can put in clear terms why this is such a bad idea, instead of just yelling that it's just another aspect of 1984?"

The two links at the beginning of the post, to the essays where I talk about national ID cards in general, do just that. I don't yell, and I don't mention 1984.

I thought the House voted this down last week.

Have these folks not seen "Minority Report"?

Glad Mr. Schneier is writing about this. It's like electronic voting machines - "hey hi-tech will solve everything"! "The higher the tech the less it will break!" "The cuttinger the edge the further ahead we'll be!!!"

Justin,

I did read the post. I did follow the links, here and elsewhere. I cannot yet find a reason that it's a bad idea that isn't seriously overblown. I've seen suggestions that the linked databases will make ID theft easier, with the many recent examples of massive thefts as examples, except that the examples are all corporate. I've seen complaints that it will require RFID, when all it says is "machine-readable" and where magnetic or 2D barcode readers are cheaper and more reliable.

Has anyone here actually sat down and read the provisions of the act, or is everyone letting others make their opinions for them?

Jarrod,

I read the text of the bill. Setting aside the efficacy of RealID in general (and I am not convinced it improves anyone's security) there are several problems with the requirements as defined. Here's one:

Protecting source document information. The Bill requires issuing agencies to retain copies of source documents (those you are required to produce to get the ID) for 7-10 years, however there are no protection requirements for them. The RealID's themselves (and their components) must be protected, but your source documents (birth certificates, SS ID's, naturalization documents, passports, etc.) do not even have the protection that HIPAA grants to medical information.

There are other flaws, which is why this requires debate. It seems prudent to also debate the need for it in the first place.

Thanks for the heads up, Bruce.

Giving illegal immigrants a driver's license is bloody wrong. You should not encourage illegal immigration, you discourage it! Handing out driver's licenses encourages it, which is not safe for anybody, the illegal immigrant included. I could care less about higher prices for food or any of the other stupid excuses people give for ignoring (or encouraging) illegal immigration.

"Has anyone here actually sat down and read the provisions of the act, or is everyone letting others make their opinions for them?"

Of couse I read the text of the bill. And I included the link in my essay, so that others can too.

I recommend that people read it. There are other abominations in the bill that I didn't talk about here.

@Precision Blogger: I don't quite follow your reasoning: if my spouse fled me, she doesn't have to, nor will immediately change the ID to reflect her new address.

I live in a country where we do have mandatory governement ID. It boils down to the fact that governement has one address which supposedly is in some relation to one's real address. My "official address" is another city 200 kilometers away and people who live (my family) here usually don't know where I live really. I rent a flat (apartament) in another city where I currently live, and I'm not registered as living there, the contact is my entitlement to the place, not the registered address on ID card in my pocket (but this depends, for example to get a land telephone line you need to be registered there). Technically this is a minor violation of the law, but for most of the people I know, the registered address is some form of plationian idea, that becomes reality only when a tax-related paperwork or a draft card arrives. Even on a tax form there are two places: "official address" and address to send mail to. I usually leave the other one empty.

One needs the official address to make official business, like getting a credit line, buy a car. Using the real address in everyday business greatly decreases the chance of the identity theft, since it is more difficult to collect all the credentiuals required.

"I did read the post. I did follow the links, here and elsewhere. I cannot yet find a reason that it's a bad idea that isn't seriously overblown."

Jarrod, I don't care if it isn't as absolutely bad as some of the critics say. If it will cost many tens of millions of dollars to implement X, there had better be a LOT of very GOOD reasons to do it.

Tell me, what's wrong with this thought process: "Hmmm... I think I'll pay $10,000 for this large rock; after all, I can't think of any problems the rock will cause."

The National Rifle Association (NRA) also opposes a National ID card.

Utah is planning on producing 2 types of drivers license. One that complies with RealID, one that is just for driving and which explicitly is not for use as an ID. Of course, the latter will be used by many as an ID.

Bruce:

Your link to the text of the act is dead.

A reply to "Posted by: Jarrod at May 9, 2005 10:36 AM":

Quote "I really don't see why this is such a problem. A lot of nations -- including those in the free countries of Europe -- have national ID cards. Perhaps someone can put in clear terms why this is such a bad idea, instead of just yelling that it's just another aspect of 1984?"

I am from one of those free countries in Europe. We have national identity cards. But we also have a strong legal framework for data protection and privacy protection. We don't have silly 'everyone must show id to prove age before they can buy alcohol' laws in bars. The US has no legal framework for data protection, or even just basic privacy legislation. That is why introducing a national ID in this country would be a very different story from Europe, and a true danger to the freedom of society. The US needs to do something about data protection first...

@Bruce:

That $120 mil cost figure strikes me as optimistic. I just don't see how the "average state" can overhaul one of its key processes for less than $3 mil. Google tells me that National Conference of State Legislatures agrees (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-05-dmv-changes_x.htm)
-- they put the tab at $500 mil. Not that the price is the main reason not to do this, but if a realistic assessment is to be made, it'd be nice to have decent numbers about things that are relatively easily estimated. Sigh.

@J. Alex Urbanowicz:

In many (if not all) U.S. states, driver's license holders are legally required to notify the issuer if they move. In my state, such notice must take place within 30 days.

I agree with Jarod. Let's have the debate about the merits of national ID, without the hype.

And without cloaking it in a measure supposedly designed to limit illegal immigration, buried deep within an appropriations bill.

Please note that people are not risking their lives crossing our borders in the back of semi trucks because of an abundance of driver's licenses. Let's assume that this measure actually did something to prevent immigrants driving, do you really think they wouldn't take a bus to work? Or walk?

This so-called solution has absolutely no relation to the problem. Nothing in this bill passes the test. It doesn't look, walk, or quack like a duck. Calling it a duck doesn't make it one.

Another problem with this bill is its effect on the system of government set forth in Constitution of the United States.

One of the virtues of a federal system of government is that each of the states can choose which system of licensing it wants to use based on the prevailing attitudes of the citizens of those states. Those states with systems that function better will eventually be copied by other states.

In terms of the effects on collateral issues, like immigration, this is exactly what you want to do. If, for example, California chooses to allow illegal immigrants to have licenses because the Legislature believes the benefit to California citizens will outweigh the costs associated with illegal immigration, other similarly situated states will take notice. Texas can watch the California experiment, and if the results are good, it will be easier to implement there. And, if it's a disaster, Texas can avoid doing the same.

The security problem, which is supposedly the main issue, is not a uniquely federal problem. States have traditionally been responsible for providing for the safety and welfare of their own citizens. The federal government was supposed to operate to work in areas traditionally thought to be unsuitable, unsafe, or insane for separate states to regulate. But in this case, the offensive portions of the bill are transparently made to interfere with the power of local governments and not for any purpose related to immigration.

Alas, the politicians are now deaf to the federalism they championed for so many years.

Comparing the text of IRATPA and RealID, I find that there are very, very few differences. Both require specific, identical minimum data be included on the card. Both require cards to be machine-readable. Both require anti-forgery and anti-tampering technology in the cards. Both require that supporting documents be authenticated.

What RealID adds is the linking of the databases; tying of the expiration dates of such cards to the expiration dates of a foreigner's visa; tightens the definition of what is acceptable documentation; the storage of submitted documents for specified periods of time; and the requirement to verify that the applicant is in the country lawfully.

Neither act allows for exceptions of address listings for law enforcement, and yet I don't recall an uproar about it when IRATPA was signed into law. IRATPA does require that regulations "include procedures and requirements to protect the privacy rights of individuals who apply for and hold driver’s licenses and personal identification cards." Every state in the nation already has HIPAA-compliant systems which can be duplicated to protect this information.

Bruce, I respect you greatly in your field, and I do see your points on IDs. I would much rather see things like random screenings, but people complain loudly about being randomly picked out for this when they know they're innocent. Trained personnel can watch for suspicious activities, but such people are accused of racial profiling. However, checking IDs isn't going to go away as a security measure, regardless of its efficacy. Because of this, securing the process to get the IDs in the first place is an important part of the process.

When you were invited to participate in Secure Flight, did you not say that while you disagreed with it, you were taking part to make the best of it that you could? This *is* making the best of a situation that isn't going away.

RealID is, first and foremost, an immigration bill. It's intended to close loopholes and block incentives for people to come to the US illegally. I would like to have seen a provision mandating training of all of the 2000+ additional Border Patrol agents authorized by Congress last year to help better secure the borders, but disincentives for illegal immigration are also high on my list.

Thomas was able to help me find the text:

There are 3 versions of Bill Number H.R.418 for the 109th Congress
1 . REAL ID Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)[H.R.418.IH]
2 . REAL ID Act of 2005 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.418.EH]
3 . REAL ID Act of 2005 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)[H.R.418.RFS]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.418:

"Utah is planning on producing 2 types of drivers license. One that complies with RealID, one that is just for driving and which explicitly is not for use as an ID. Of course, the latter will be used by many as an ID."

I just learned that Tenessee has been doing that since 2001. This is an excellent idea.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010632.html

"That $120 mil cost figure strikes me as optimistic. I just don't see how the "average state" can overhaul one of its key processes for less than $3 mil."

I agree, but it was the only number I found in my research. Thank you for the other number, and the reference. My guess is that it is still too low.

"When you were invited to participate in Secure Flight, did you not say that while you disagreed with it, you were taking part to make the best of it that you could? This *is* making the best of a situation that isn't going away."

You make an excellent point, and one that I have been thinking about a lot: if we're stuck with a national ID, how to we make them as good as possible? I think we need to do both, actually. We need to fight a national ID, and we need to answer that question.

I don't have an answer for you, but I hope to write about it soon.

@mjk

Illegal immigrants aren't the only non-Americans who need to drive cars in the USA. There are many valid reasons why a given person may need to legally travel to the USA for an extended period and use a car; even if that person has never driven a car back home.

Bruce, I see you came across the Tennessee implementation. I live in TN and I am a foreigner living here legally. I was issued one of these driving certificates.

There are two problems with it as it stands at the moment.;
1. I automatically get treated as an illegal when I produce this. (Including ridiculously enough at the DMV when I registered my vehicle.) This also makes flying a real pain as the moronic TSA employees equate foreigner with evildoer.

2. If I was here illegally then I would proceed to do everything illegally and I would buy myself some "legal" documentation.

" I've seen complaints that it will require RFID, when all it says is machine-readable"...true, but it gives the Attorney General the authority to determine what tech will be used for that, and multiple sources have reported that he favors RFID.

I recently moved to North Carolina which has an extremely high number of immigrants from central and South America. As the son of an immigrant, I welcome all people who also wish to share in the potential of the American dream.
While sitting in the DMV (last year) I noticed many Latinos also applying for a driving license and being told that they must have an electric or gas bill as proof of residence! I read later in our local paper that North Carolina was specifically being targeted by immigrants because of its lax identity requirements for obtaining a drivers license. I believe that those requirements are now finally being firmed up.
It seems to me that a consistent set of federal requirements and standards would go a long way to mitigating this type of problem. While you are certainly right about the ‘security’ of this proposal, I don't believe that any act intended to strengthen immigration policies should automatically be interpreted as a “power grab�

J. Alex Urbanowicz, my concern is that credit verifiers like CHoicePoint (and lots of other insecure DBs) will generally have my spouse's Real ID and her current address. The law seems to create a dichotomy: either you're in the FBI witness protection program, or I can easily find you if I know your ID.

If it becomes easy to change real ID numbers over time, I think the total expenditures will be truly useless.
- precision blogger

None of this matters, because our border security is bloody joke.

What we really need is better physical security at our borders, including dual fences, minefields and military patrols.

While I don't see the main reason for this ID card, I wouldn't mind it so much if it did not contain my personal information. Why can it not have another number that just proves the card is real, along with my drivers license # to prove that it is me? That makes it two factor authentication and theoretically much more secure, right?

I do not see a reason to have my personal info on the card.

"None of this matters, because our border security is bloody joke. What we really need is better physical security at our borders, including dual fences, minefields and military patrols."

I'm not convinced that we can secure our nation against terrorism through border controls, just like we can't secure computer network thrrough good firewalls. Remember that terrorists like Timothy McVeigh were born in this country.

@Matt

The information databases already exist. You just really need the NID to be associated with your database number.

Unfortunately such as we see with some banking cards. Even though they have all of our information, they still don't know if we speak English when presented at an ATM.

Israel Torres

@Isreal

Thats true, its just a join away from all of our information, as it currently is with our drivers license and card PANs.

I guess what I'm saying is that I do not see why the info needs to be on the card, making it that much easier to get.

The truth is, we already have de facto national ID cards, in the form of our state driver's licenses. DLs from all 50 states are accepted throughout the nation for identity purposes, including at federal agencies.

It baffles me why a security expert like Bruce cannot see the problem here. It is identical to a PKI system where there are 50 different, independent CAs that all cross certify one another. The problem is that the security is only as strong as the WEAKEST certifier!

Several of the 9/11 hijackers had acquired DLs in Virginia, for example, because it had an especially thriving market in fake IDs due to lax enforcement. This is an inevitable consquence of accepting ID documents from a variety of different issuers each with its own independent policies and validation procedures, and then treating them all equally.

Given the reality of the situation today, with state ID cards being cross certified to form de facto national ID, it seems obvious that rationalizing and harmonizing the requirements for the ID documents can only be a step forward for security.

Above all, hysterical rhetoric about national ID cards and Nazi Germany only serves to cloud the issue. We have national IDs in the U.S. today. They are our state driver's licenses. Accept it and start thinking rationally about how to improve the security over the present hodgepodge of inconsistent requirements and variation in checking procedures. Real ID sounds to me like a step in the right direction.

@Jarrod-- What does RealID do to prevent illegal immigration (which the bill it is attached to claims to do)?

This is a poor security measure, which does nothing to increase our security, but does enable easier monitoring of our activity, while pushing the costs onto the states.

If in fact the United States wants to go down the path of having a National Identification card (and I'm not convinced we are) let it be *federally funded*, be completely state independent (a true nationally issued, nationally generated ID), and debated in a public forum. You asked why some have characterized this as a "power grab"- I would counter, if it isn't, why was it part of an immigration bill tacked as a rider on a military funding bill? Where I come from, that isn't the way good ideas become law, but is exactly the way that bad ideas slip through the cracks.

The biggest problem I see is the combination of two forms of ID in one.

In Germany, where I grew up, in essence you have two IDs: A Passport (good for 10 years) and a personal Identification Card (Personalausweis) which includes more detailed information about your person, height, weight etc.

The latter one in Germany was introduced in the early 70s if I remember correctly as an "answer" to the RAF bombings / kidnappings. Did it work? I am not aware that they ever caught any of the terrorists because they were producing an ID.

Legally, you are also required to register yourself at the new address within 3 weeks of moving there, how they check I don't know, but I guess the GEZ (the guys who collect the "radio tax") will surely find a way to track you down, after all it's all about (their) money.

The drivers license though is a completly seperate document. It is only used to show that you are allowed to drive / ride a vehicle and has no expiration date, no address etc. As a form of ID it is pretty much useless (though if you want to get into a bar / club that is 18 and above it'll do, as you don't get one until you're 18).

The only time I can remember that I ever needed to present my ID was to the cops when they stopped my car to make sure that it was mine, and that I didn't jack it (well, what can I say, I look younger than I am :) ).

>>Already you can't fly without an ID
It is possible to fly without ID on commercial airlines, and I have done it. In my case, I misplaced my wallet and passport. I approached passenger check-in (United Premier Executive) and explained the situation and that I needed to make the flight. The helpful lady said "no problem". While I did get SSSS on the boarding pass so I received extra scrutiny, I did fly without ID and I had checked baggage.

The Timothy McVeigh excuse is next to worthless. Just because our own people can sabotage us doesn't mean that we should leave the borders wide open so that the whole world can sabotage us too.

That's not even taking into account the issue of illegal aliens in general being unwelcome in the country.

Real ID is going to stop 13 states from issuing licenses to illegals; whether that makes us 'safer' is not really the point. The race is on to Do Something about illegal aliens. If the Real ID Act is not the right thing to do, the least that you can do is start supporting effective border patrols and employment enforcement.

It is the failure of all these other things that has brought the Real ID Act to us.

"None of this matters, because our border security is bloody joke. What we really need is better physical security at our borders, including dual fences, minefields and military patrols."

I suggest to this reader that s/he go drive around the border of the U.S. and see the size of the problem. If that sounds expensive, following that suggestion would cost a hundred times more. Apart from the whole question of a "free nation" inside a cage.

Here's something I don't get:

It is a basic fact that a member of a modern society sometimes needs to identify himself. When I vote, I need to convice the polling official that I am somebody who is on his list of voters. When I buy a house on credit, the lender wants to be sure who he is going to sue if I default. When I borrow books from the library they need to know whom to harrass if the books are not returned.

The "solutions" usually employed to this problem are rather pathetic, based on checking that I know my social security number, my date of birth, or that I possess plausibly looking utility bills bearing the name I claim as mine, or in certain cases that I am able to intercept mail sent to the address some database lists for me. I assume that all who read this will agree that these solutions are pathetic, criminally unreliable and amount to begging for abuse.

A government-sponsored identification device of some kind would seem to be a step forward -- it does not even have to be very effective in order to be a net improvement over the voodoo people practice today. Yet the very thought seem to be anathema to most citizens of countries that do not already issue such devices. Why is that? Is it simply because anything the government does is evil by axiom? I notice that most of the opposision seems to be targeted at the pure idea of government-issued identification rather than at specific flaws of any concrete proposed system.

Bruces's anti-ID essays all seem to boil down to the fact that they are not any help against terrorists. I completely agree that they are not. Herding people into a line simply to have a bored official check that they have _some_ identity is nothing but stupid and pointless.

However, the criticism seems to miss the target entirely. Of course identity cards are not good at keeping terrorists out of your vulnerable-target-of-choice. That's not what they are for! It is not what they are _meant_ to be for. They are meant to help prove one's identity to somebody who has a reason to care who you are (i.e. NOT the bored security screener who does not care a bit who the majority of non-evil people who passes by him are).

It would appear to be a valid criticism of a particular card (or any identifying device) that it does not sufficiently accurately demonstrate the identity of somebody who tries to use it to prove whom he is. But what seems to be the argument here is that government-issued IDs are bad and we don't even need to explain why.

Except passports. Passports somehow seem to be okay.

(For the record, I'm from a European country that does not issue national ID cards other than passports.)

(How the issuing agency would check that the one they are giving a card is actually who the card says he is, is another problem. Me, I got my passport by showing up at the police station and presenting my birth-and-baptism certificates. No questions asked.)

How long before businesses that check ID are encouraged or required to verify these machine-readable IDs against a central database before they can be accepted? The verification transactions would form a nice audit trail of ones location and activities. Make the ID cards readable by the same POS devices used for credit cards and we already have an extensive, installed infrastructure.

A combination of legistation and financial incentives could make this happen. A couple of scenarios spring to mind.
-Banks and credit card companies could require such checks or claim that a merchant did not perform 'due dilligence' in cases of check or credit card fraud.
-Businesses that are required to check ID for proof of age (e.g. bars, nightclubs, stores selling alcohol or tobacco) could be required by law to validate against the database in order to 'protect our youth by cutting down on fake ID'.

Slippery slope...

OK, going to go and finish wrapping my wallet in tin-foil now...

@Nations without Borders--
Again, how exactly is this going to help with illegal immigration?

Is your claim that the lack of a legal ID card is going to prevent illegal aliens from coming into the United States, and that American companies, both large and small, are going to ignore that labor pool simply because they don't have one? Unless we as a nation are willing to become MUCH more militant in our law enforcement, this will do little to combat the problem that it claims to fix, and do much more toward harming (through Identity theft, easier tracking, etc.) the lawabiding.

The key thing to understand here is to make the value of the ID card *go DOWN* not up-- if everything depends on one, then the desire to acquire one, legally or not (and they WILL be acquired, forged, etc) will be great, and the black market for one will boom.

One of the things that really irritates me about this bill is that we're going to have a large number of commercial organizations now clamoring for our RealID (just like they ask for our SSN's now), and unlike a SSN, it won't be illegal for them to ask. Welcome to the future.

@Bruce:

When I made my comment about how it'd be nice to have even half-decent numbers, I was criticizing the administration (which has tended to be wildly optimistic on cost estimates for many things). I was not criticizing you (at all) for reporting their figure. I see now how my remark was not clear in that regard, for which I apologize.

Bruce, the link to the text of the bill doesn't work for me. I get an error page that says temporary file not found. Apparently the URL was the result of a query at Thomas, but I don't know how to recreate it.

The text of the bill is here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00418:

I'll update the post when I get a chance.

"Overall, I write meaningless things in a poetic way. Glittering generalities.
Every once in awhile I say something of slight interest to anyone other than myself.
Unfortunately, I am too busy putting my name all over Bruce's blog, trying to increase the hits to my own blog, so no one notices the good comments in the chaff.

Israel Torres
"
Excellent obvservations oh anonymous clone. Sincerely I am very touched by your persistence to follow me around. I mean you really put effort into familiarizing yourself with me. That really means something deep down.

Remember that bruce and his "moderator" would be the only ones to konw your true identity, obviously it bothers them not... such it is.

Israel Torres

The debate is clouded over when people use rhetoric such as "You should not encourage illegal immigration, you discourage it! Handing out driver's licenses encourages it, which is not safe for anybody, the illegal immigrant included" ("mjk" quoted here) passes for legitimate comment.

No one will be "handing out" drivers licenses to illegal immigrants if this legislation fails to pass, nor will it be any easier for illegals to get licenses. Passing it may make it harder for some, but will make it impossible for none.

Jarrod,

If you haven't seen examples of how ID theft has been assisted by government agencies, I could point at the Social Security employee who issued a duplicate SScard to the person who stole my wife's identity. GRanted, not on the massive scale like the recent corporate data losses are, but it's still happening.

And those corporate databases will be getting bigger. Go to a restaurant and get carded? *swipe* thanks for your personal info. Go to the subway? *swipe* all 'citizens' can just swipe and avoid the search. Public event with a dignatary? *swipe* independent security firm now has your info.

It's a bad idea.

Nobody noted this, but HR418 s202.c.1.C requires every citizen to have a social security account in order to get a driver's license. Wasn't social security originally opt-in? It's a bad investment, at the least.

204.b.1 requires a database of people who have used false drivers' licenses at airports so the security screeners can watch these people. How are they going to be identified? By name? They'd just use a false license, fercrissakes. By some sort of identifying mark? Unless you use fingerprints, you'll get so many false positives that the screeners won't pay attention. And it's possible to fake fingerprints with a valid set that isn't yours and some wood glue.

I can't seem to find USC18 section 1028.a.8, which will be altered according to this bill. Does anyone have it? WAIS Document Retrieval has only subsections 1-7 on 1028.a, and that's a government repository.

"No one will be 'handing out' drivers licenses to illegal immigrants if this legislation fails to pass, nor will it be any easier for illegals to get licenses."

Legislators in several states, California included, have wanted to allow illegals to get driver's licenses using Mexican consulate-issued Matricula Consular cards, which are far less trustworthy than passports. In California's case, they were refusing to allow such licenses to be changed in color or labeling to indicate that they were issued with less-than-ideal documentation, the idea being to allow them to blend in with society, including opening bank accounts and traveling via airliner. This would have been a huge incentive to cross the border. Gov. Schwarzeneggar has been able to veto the bills when they have reached his desk so far, though there have been concerns that legislators would eventually give into his demands and provide the version that he said would be required, forcing him to sign it or lose a great deal of credibility with those lawmakers.

This bill, so long as California went along with it, would prevent that from ever happening, as verification of legal status would be required, and documents verified. Will it prevent all those who want a false but legitimately-issued ID from getting them? No, of course not. It's always a matter of resources. But with such verifications in place, it will make it more difficult to achieve, and more likely for those seeking such to be caught.

"Nobody noted this, but HR418 s202.c.1.C requires every citizen to have a social security account in order to get a driver's license. Wasn't social security originally opt-in?"

Social Security numbers for citizens has been a requirement for years.

Your question about 18USC1028.a.8 is a good one. Perhaps it references a law that is not yet in effect?

I used unrealid.com and eff.org to submit my comments to my Senators and I actually received a response.

Senator Feinstein, (or at least her staff's canned answer), seem more interested in making sure the law doesn't go unfunded thereby forcing the states to pay for it then the privacy and security issues involved with a national id.

"Can I see your papers, comrade?"

I've attached her response.
-------------------------------------
Thank you for your letter regarding the "REAL ID Act of 2005"
(H.R. 418). I welcome the opportunity to respond.
As you know, Congressman Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 418
in the House of Representatives earlier this month, and the bill passed the
House of Representatives on February 10th. Generally, I support the
thrust of the bill, which I am in the process of reviewing. I would hope
that there will be hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee and that we
will follow Senate procedure. I may have some changes to recommend
and believe there needs to be a thorough analysis and discussion of its
provisions.

I believe that the Federal government should have the ability to
issue standards that all state-issued driver's licenses and identification
documents should meet. The issue is how should this be done, phased in
and paid for. And I think that the Senate needs to examine these issues
and help ensure it is not an unfunded mandate on the states.

Finally, I also am a strong supporter of Operation Gatekeeper
and completion of the border fence, which is one of the bill's provisions.

Again, thank you for writing, and please know that I will keep
your comments in mind as the Senate considers this legislation. I hope
you will continue to keep in touch. If you have any further questions
please contact my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224-3841.

You asked why some have characterized this as a "power grab"- I would counter, if it isn't, why was it part of an immigration bill tacked as a rider on a military funding bill? Where I come from, that isn't the way good ideas become law, but is exactly the way that bad ideas slip through the cracks.
@ Loyal_Citizen: this isn't exactly what they taught onSchoolhouse Rock, is it?

http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=12041&hed=Senate+Votes+on+ID+Card+Plan

>You asked why some have characterized this as a
>"power grab"- I would counter, if it isn't, why was
>it part of an immigration bill tacked as a rider on
>a military funding bill?

this is an excellent argument for line item veto

@Bruce

"I'm not convinced that we can secure our nation against terrorism through border controls, just like we can't secure computer network thrrough good firewalls. Remember that terrorists like Timothy McVeigh were born in this country."

Sorry Buce, but I find this to be a specious argument. Obviously physical border security is not enough just as, in your example, firewalls are not enough.

That being said, just because it's not enough that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. There's no magic bullet for securing our nation against terrorism but physical border security is an obvious piece of the solution.

@TJ

"I suggest to this reader that s/he go drive around the border of the U.S. and see the size of the problem. If that sounds expensive, following that suggestion would cost a hundred times more. Apart from the whole question of a "free nation" inside a cage."

So, if I follow your argument here, we shouldn't secure our borders because it's too expensive to do so?

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned it but along with all the other reasons this is a bad idea it is also another example of the federal government overstepping its bounds. Licensing is a power reserved to the states according to the constitution. The feds have no business passing laws in this area. I guess since the politicians in DC have no problem ignoring the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments then this isnt really a problem for them.

In Schneier's book Secrets and Lies, Bruce goes into situations where the truly weakest link in a security chain are not the algorithms or the protocols; it's the people. Not because any of them are malicious. Some of them just want to get the job done. They might let something slide because the person they're dealing with is in a hurry (an above poster mentioned how he flew without an ID). Maybe it's something insignificant, a mistake the ID-holder made, that any human being could make and is easily excuseable. In cases like this, where people handling even the current driver's liscences are lax, that $120 million has gone down the drain.

Many are forgetting that the people who will eventually execute this bill—the airport security personnel, police officers pulling over drivers, and border security officers—are all human beings. From time to time, they will make mistakes. Requiring extra data on the card, and requiring certian verification before printing the card, will not make any of these human beings less human—they will still make mistakes here and there.

With that in mind, I believe a real cost-benefit analysis is in order. It certainly won't happen, but it would be nice if it did. Then we might see what the cost of illegal immigration has been to the country, the cost of terrorism, how much a standardized ID will actually mitigate both costs, and how different a national ID system will actually be from our current one.

Many of the above posts have argued that aside from computer chip identification the ID really isn't that different from a normal driver's liscence system, so we shouldn't be worried. But why bother paying $120 for something that's so similar to what we already have? And ontop of that, why pay $120 for something that will be just as often misused by human beings as current driver's liscences are? A friend of mine was pulled over once for speeding. He didn't have his ID on him, but he had memorized his ID number. He gave that to the cop. The cop had on his computer all the identification information, including the photo. This sounds a lot like the system already in place.

If we're paying a lot of money, shaving off a bit of freedom down the road, and possibly affecting the psychology of the nation, what are we really getting in return?

Positively identifying and linking a person to some 'number' can really only be done with DNA. Photos don't work, and neither do fingerprints or eye scans - they both can be altered or simulated.

See Majority Report, the movie, for the nightmare that DNA ID will cause in the long run.

I'm very sceptical that the good outcomes of a national ID with the proposed technology won't be overcome by the bad outcomes, including identity theft - which scares me a lot.

As for the idea of drivers licenses for illegal aliens, about 3 years ago I had a couple of men working in my yard. They took off so that one could get his drivers license. Then the next week he would drive so that his partnet could get his license. They drive anyway. Supposedly they have insurance, but in California there are many without insurance. It assures nothing except that one can cram for the written test, a no-brainer, and that one can drive. If the point is to stop terrorists crossing the border, then it is a dumb idea, passed into law instead of thinking of how to do something real. Ahmed XX just flies into some Central American city, puts on native dress, he studied enough Spanish to get by, and hires a "coyote" to smuggle him across the border. His buddies who arrived the same way, hold the "coyote's" family hostage until old Ahmed XX confirms his arrival. Tell me it isn't already happening.
CBS

This is what happens when you try to bring this message to a younger audience that's more concerned about how Real ID will help them get into bars without any hassle.

http://www.livejournal.com/community/ljdemocrats/1720532.html

Jarrod wrote:
"I really don't see why this is such a problem. A lot of nations -- including those in the free countries of Europe -- have national ID cards. Perhaps someone can put in clear terms why this is such a bad idea, instead of just yelling that it's just another aspect of 1984?"

Yes Jarrod you are right European countries have national Id cards. But we have two cards a driver licence and a national ID card. You don't need to learn how to drive to get an ID.

Also these cards doesn't help US against terrorism neither against illegal immigration. Just read the some news papers in UK and you'll see how illegal immigration is an issue in this country and how UK have hard time fighting against terrorism (specialy in Ireland).

"Social Security numbers for citizens has been a requirement for years."

They certainly weren't a requirement when I lived in the U.S. a few years ago. A tax ID, if you earn any income, yes. But not a social security number.

It's not about security.

It's not about security.

It's not about security.

It's about control.

But if sattelite TV cards are being hacked and duplicated, these will too. It will just cost the perps some more than a driver's license today. I'm pretty sure not a lot more, though. And since it's the ultimate in identification, it will be trusted more, so the perp with the hacked RealID card will feel more safe from capture. So it is about security after all.

-- Arik

"Sensenbrenner", burner of senses.
How fitting...

@Tobias: You really didnt't understood what I wrote.

Quote: "My concern is that credit verifiers like ChoicePoint (and lots of other insecure DBs) will generally have my spouse's Real ID and her current address. The law seems to create a dichotomy: either you're in the FBI witness protection program, or I can easily find you if I know your ID."

You are missing a point. Assuming the fleeing wife scenario - I don't quite get why a fleeing wife or anyone else really would give a current address to any credit verification company.

I remind - I live in a country with mandatory governement ID (and strict data privacy) law. When I applied to credit card I had to give them my official address. They send me CC statements to another place that has no relation with the place I live. I could set my bank to deliver them to me electronically as PDF and this would make the mailing address irrelevant at all. The same with another bank statements.

To sum up: when there is mandatory ID and mandatory registered address, you give the registered address to do business, and not necessarily the real address.

@egeltje: "Sensenbrenner" --> burner of scythes.

Like it or not, a national ID system is the only way of getting control of immigration and borders. To do so, however, requires splitting the ID card and the identification database. In that way falsification would require corrupting the database which would be easier to guard against than myriad individual cards.

This is a tradeoff. It has always been recognized as so, since it was proposed. Specifically, if you think that this would be so injurious to civil rights, why was it the principal proposal of the commission headed by the late Barbara Jordan in the early 90s. There was no greater proponent and guardian of civil rights for all than Ms. Jordan.

Turning drivers licenses into ID cards is the stupidest of many stupid ideas which have been proposed to get to ID cards without calling them ID cards and reflects yet again the moral and intellectual bankrupcy of Republicans. Either do the thing right or admit that immigration cannot be controlled.

It is interesting how much stiff opposition any National ID proposal in the US creates. More than 70 comments and dozens of references in just one day, hardly any article of Bruce's creates so much discussion. Why is that so? Maybe Bruce is right and national ID is a bad idea (although many countries have it and people there simply aren't bothered by such a supposedly repressive measure), but why is there so much more opposition to national ID than, say, to
* Patriot Act
* Massive restrictions on lawful demonstrations for "security" reasons
* passenger data databases
* finger printing of foreigners
* no-fly-lists
* imprisonment of foreigners or "enemy combattants" without trial
* Systematic torture in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, deportation of prisoners to countries like Syria to have them tortured there
* Longtime imprisonment for consumers of illegal drugs
* Criminalization of oral and anal sex (abolished only in 2003 by the supreme court!)
* Life sentences for minor offences under "Three strikes and you are out" laws
* etc. etc.?
Please think a moment about that. The USA is nowadays one of the most repressive among democratic societies. It has the highest prison population of any country in history. If you oppose power abuse and government oppression, there are a lot of other things to direct your energy against than that old hat the national ID.

Could it be that Americans need the ID discussion in order to prove themselves how free they still are, while their civil liberties are being eroded at an ever faster pace with almost nobody paying attention?

A few corrections on your post, piglet...

First of all, the no-fly lists have existed for many years. They were just much smaller.

Sodomy laws were overturned by the Supreme Court, but most states had either done away with them, or else simply were not enforcing them.

While I cannot speak for most states, the concept of a 25-to-life sentence for a minor crime in California is a myth perpetrated by those who would like to see that law overturned. Both prosecutors and judges have, and always have had, authority to block a 'third-strike' trial/conviction.

Turning driver's licences into a national ID is counter to Role Based Access Control...

...as suggested by this government body - http://csrc.nist.gov/rbac/

Granted, RBAC is usually positioned as part of "computer security", but the model here should be the same. Drivers' licences should show that you are an accredited driver - nothing more. In an ideal world, it would not even reveal your identity, only that you are sufficiently trained to drive a vehicle on a public roadway, and that you are authorized to drive the vehicle you currently control.

This also means that you can revoke a driver's licence without revoking an identity statement. If a driver's licence is a de facto national ID, does this make it harder to revoke the driving credentials because of the side effects in other systems?

If you want a National ID, then put through a law titled "For the Creation of a National ID", and debate the benefits and costs - both monetary and to society - of that.

The process as it is happening is so far away from that model, it's actually hard to provide constructive criticism.

The most likely impact on illegal/undocumented immigrants is that they drive without a license and insurance. All legal drivers will fund their driving with higher insurance premiums.

The next most likely scenario is that undocumented immigrants will purchase Mexican or other national drivers licenses and an International drivers license translation of said license. As the US is a signatory to the UN driving compact, the foreign licenses must be accepted for driving in the US or else our citizens will be unable to drive outside the US.

So in addition to the standard pack of identification being sold to undocumented immigrants, add two more docs -- a Mexican drivers license and an International drivers license.

Highways aren't any more safer and the US isn't any more safer.

"What RealID will do, among other things, is require that documentation (such as birth certificates and Social Security numbers) be checked for authenticity."

That's a bogus argument for REAL ID. I had friends in college who acquired *real, legitimate* driver licenses by using a sibling's birth certificate. Here's how it works:

0. Prerequisite: you have an older sibling, or other person who is willing to lend you their documentation for illicit purposes. (You want to pass for 21+ in the college version of this scam.)
1. You get your older sibling's birth cert.
2. Go to the state DMV.
3. Tell them you lost your license and need a new copy.
4. The DMV checks the documents you're providing, verifies that they are legitimate, and issues a new license with the other person's information and your picture.
5. Go to your local bar. When asked for ID, present your *REAL ID*, which has a *REAL* mag-strip/barcode/RFID/whatever and will validate.

It's a version of identity theft in which you have the "victim's" permission...

I'd be curious as to what level of underground protest activity springs up to render Real ID a farce.

I could see some bars collecting drivers licenses to swipe at the bar and then changing the encoded information without the customers knowledge.

With all the anti-government organizations and thousands of sympathetic individuals running around, this wouldn't be hard to implement. Most of the positions with access to drivers licenses are low wage, low skilled positions that almost anyone who can pass a drug test can get.

I recall a number of people swapping grocery cards to protect their privacy.

Also, a secondary market might arise reselling valid drivers licenses from recently deceased individuals. As there is no requirement to notify DMV of deaths, secondary licenses are a way of gaining a temporary identity, until the license expires or the associated SSAN is listed as deceased and compared.

With overdependence on technology for security, both of these scenarios blow a big gaping hole in the "benefits of Real ID".

@Jarrod:"First of all, the no-fly lists have existed for many years. They were just much smaller." I don't see how that corrects what I said. My point is that *other countries don't have no-fly-lists".

"Sodomy laws were overturned by the Supreme Court". I wrote that. Again, my point is that no other "free people" would allow the government to dictate them how to practice sex, at least not in the 21st century.

"While I cannot speak for most states, the concept of a 25-to-life sentence for a minor crime in California is a myth perpetrated by those who would like to see that law overturned." No, it's not a myth. The whole point of the law is to be able to hand down life sentences in cases where the crime committed doesn't warrant such a severe punishment. This is a travesty of justice that, in my country, would be overturned by the courts within 5 minutes.

Here's a quiz. Which democratic countries have recently introduced imprisonment without trial for terrorist suspects, and which of them have a national ID? Answer:

- The USA, Britain and Canada. Britain even declared the state of emergency and opted out of the European Human Rights Convention to suspend habeas corpus. That's right, Britain is under Emergency since 2001!
- None of those countries has a national ID but whenever it is proposed, passions go high. Sure, allowing the government to imprison without judicial process is nothing against the outrageously despotic idea of carrying an ID card. That's what freedom really is about!

america is the modern rome, and just like the original it transitioned from a republican form of government to a dynastic, authoritarian empire. the cognitive dissonance i see in so many of the previous posts is the posters' failure to appreciate that the america they were taught about in school when they were young no longer exists. america was a set of principles, most but not all enshrined in our constitution and bill of rights, and we have permitted our government to discard these principles for expediency, leaving only the hollow words still on the books to mock us. we have already lost the immigration battle because just like the original romans, we lost our collective identity, our self perception as americans in favor of the new hyphenated shards, and we lost the collective will to protect what was ours. it's every man for himself in our corporate theocracy, and you can still protect your privacy after realid like i do, mostly with advanced techniques involving passive-aggression and cash.

@Bruce, very nice article. Let's hope it does some good. Perhaps it's time to fire up your own grass-roots lobby, similar to moveon.org?

Speaking of IDs, I know someone who recently flew into Canada and had nothing more than a basic Drivers License. Believe it or not it was fairly easy to move through Immigration both directions. I obviously can not reveal how/why this worked, but suffice it to say a national ID would make things more interesting but certainly not more difficult to travel (without proper ID). Even senior TSA agents do not seem to realize that access to a "definitive list" or other "trusted" information can actually work both ways -- for or against them...so I'm in absolute agreement with your assessment about the security trade-offs.

@piglet
Excellent points. I like your suggestion that we should move ahead, not backwards, but this type of thinking runs counter to the Christian Right-wing party that most now say has influence over the Senate, House and White House. Like any fanatical branch of any religion, the Christian Right is stepping in to drive the US backwards in time; we hear that judges are told how to vote, women are told they will lose liberties, children are force-fed strict values, etc. Take a look at Kansas for a sense of what could happen to the whole country...first any opposition is “demonized� and discredited until they flee. Then “mock trials� are held to legitimize the decline of civilization. For example, the Kansas state school board has now demanded scientists must justify evolution in court or have it removed from school instruction. Ironically there is no comparable disclaimer or proof required for the bible.

It's sad to think that the settlers escaped religious persecution by sailing to North America and here we are witnessing the Christian Right trying to tag and persecute Americans...anyway, I guess it all comes down to the fact that the US will become increasingly unattractive to citizens, let alone illegal immigrants, not because of a national ID program but because of fundamentalist religious values eroding democracy and destroying freedoms.

My point is not to pick on America, or any particular nation-state, as much as think about universal human rights in a more global and historic context. For example when people point to England as an example of justice, I try not forget that the English are credited by Amnesty International with originating the concept of concentration camps (suspected criminals, and sometimes convicted ones, were corralled and left to die on barges on the Thames). Bad security that cloaks human rights violations is just that, regardless of the flag draped over the coffins.

@J. Alex Urbanowicz
I remind - I live in a country with mandatory governement ID (and strict data privacy) law.
------

Unfortunately here in the US we don't have strict data privacy laws. The collector of the information owns it not the person who's information it is.

"I like your suggestion that we should move ahead, not backwards" - I'm not aware of having suggested that... anyway. Your remark, Davi, about the christian right forcing their views and values on the nation and thus endangering civil liberty is correct. I would mention the new Florida (?) law requiring medical personnel to report on the sex behavior of youngsters. Incredible, and until recently unimaginable anywhere west of Tehran. For the moment, the law has been suspended by the courts.

So many people are capable of getting in a rage because of a relatively minor issue such as ID, while at the same time gross injustices are happening, the checks and balances that once were invented to protect against abuse of power are not working any more, civil liberties are scrapped on a daily basis. And there are still people who think the requirement to show ID when boarding a plane is the worst assault on liberty since 1776.

(As a parenthesis, I recently read Gore Vidal. He writes that the assault on liberty started in the 1960s. So slavery, segregation, internment of the Japanese etc. were not so bad after all, what really killed American liberty was - you guessed it! - the federal government's hunger for ID).

"Cognitiva dissonance", that's an accurate description, thanks another_bruce!

Unfortunately the U.S. doesn't have a rational debate about identification, security, and data privacy. Since we don't and won't, I say:

* we should be doing away with the social security number, not further embedding it into our systems (Unlike other data it often serves both to identify and authenticate the person, which violates good security logic.)
* the implementation of Real ID should be flexible. The Federal govt. has guidelines for e-authentication that agencies are in the process of implementing, but that seems to be a separate line of discussion/development from Real ID. It's going to be expensive to implement both; we ought to be doing them logically.
* RealID ought to include restrictions on the state databases, including provisions for audit trails and transaction logs, encryption of data, provision for review and access.

@piglet

You said "Again, my point is that no other "free people" would allow the government to dictate them how to practice sex, at least not in the 21st century."

I took that to mean that the US is having trouble adjusting to the present century, and instead is backpedaling towards the culture/habits of the 19th or earlier.

I've heard it put another way: the US has more in common now with Nigeria and Russia (corporate fraud intermingled with public service and policies focused on religious and social intolerance instead of justice and economic freedoms) than any of the more modern nations in the world.

Incidentally, here is a laugh from the Onion and CraigsList (two bastions of American freedom) regarding the Amish:
http://www.craigslist.com/about/onion.party.html

UPDATE: The bill was passed, 100-0.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050510/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_spending

Various Congressional members are touting this as a sound decision for helping the war efforts... and there's barely any mention of the RealID aspect of the vote.

Now what?

"we shouldn't secure our borders because it's too expensive to do so?"
No, because it's impossible to do so.

"allow the government to dictate them how to practice sex, at least not in the 21st century"
They didn't. These laws were passed decades ago and remained on the books only because almost nobody knew they existed. Had there been widespread public knowledge of these laws, they probably would have been repealed in short order. Perhaps the solution to this problem is as easy as requiring all laws to come up for reapproval every so often (10 years maybe, to avoid swamping the system) so the voice of the people can be heard.

My personal preference for stopping theft of personal information is to simply stick electrical tape over the barcode and refuse to remove it except for the police. Of course, I also refuse to let anyone take it out of my sight. If a bar, for instance, won't let me in because they can't steal my private data, then they're just costing themselves business. I haven't finished reading the bill yet, but I can foresee only 2 provisions that would raise issues with this: RFID and forbidding obscuring the barcode. If RFID is an issue, then perhaps there is some way to make a transparent RFID-blocking container for these licenses. If obscuring the barcode is banned, I plan to do it anyway, because I can remove the tape before handing the card to an official capable of punishing me.

Jarrod: I live in Calif., and while the option to prosecute, or nor, under three strikes law is the option of the DA's office, it is not a myth that people are going to prison for minor offenses.

It may not be automatic, but that, in it's way, makes it worse, because it is capricious. It has also been used to manufacture a basis (by interpreting a single act as multiple felonies) to put someone away for life, because the prosecutor felt this was, "in the public interest".

Given the nature of our prisons, and the huge (both in absolute, and relative numbers) of people we keep in them, combined with lack of discretion on the part of judges; by way of mandatory sentencing laws, like the Three Strikes provision, defending liberty in the US because the abuses aren't mandatory, but rather optional, seems a tad slim.

Esp. since one of the abominations Bruce didn't mention was the carte blanche this law gives to the Secretary of Homeland Security to set aside any law he thinks interferes with protecting the border; such actions to be immune from judicial review.

TK

(yes, I have read the text of the law).

@Davi: I'd put it differently. Americans have a reputation of cherishing individual freedom and treating government power by default with suspicion; that's how they usually describe themselves. Given that, I find it amazing how much government intrusion they are ready to swallow. The "sodomy" laws abolished in 2003 are just one telling example. They were not only discriminating against gays, in fact, those laws in some cases outlawed oral and anal sex, regardless the circumstances. It should be obvious that this is simply not the business of the government. It's hard to imagine any European parliament passing such laws, and even less any European court letting them stand. (*)

Yet four of the supreme court judges opposed overturning the law. They said that the states had every right to interfere in the sexual life of their citizens, and they could even prohibit adultery and masturbation if they liked. And worse, it seems that about half the American people share that view. They say the courts have no business defending citizens' individual freedom against the power of the state (or if you prefer, against the rule of the majority). And the same people are convinced to live in "the land of the free". "Cognitive dissonance"!

(*) The german constitution states very clearly, in its first articles:
"1. Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority. The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world. The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary as directly applicable law.
2. Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law."

@Quadro: In addition to my last post, two remarks. First, several state legislatures didn't repeal the laws because they didn't want to. They could have, but they chose not to. Second, the real point here is not that those laws are outdated but that there must be constitutional limits to the power of the state. Even a democratic majority is not entitled to impose its will on the minority. Even if the majority doesn't like gays, or jews, or leather fetishists, or communists, or whatever, they have no right to infringe upon the liberties of those who don't share their view. The courts are there to protect individual rights, and it is worrying that they are being insulted for fulfilling their noble task (if they fulfill it).

I suggest that our nation tries this first as a pilot study, limiting the Real ID to all government employees, from the President of the US to the city dogcatcher, thus including all IRS employees, judges, district attorneys, police officers, and corrections officers, to mention a few. Give the pilot study a test period of perhaps five years. If it works like the government hopes, and avoids the pitfalls critics warn about, then the people the government is there to serve and protect can be brought into the system.

Compulsory participation by government employees would be mandated, but I cannot imagine any reason a government employee could have for refusing to volunteer for the pilot study.

Terry:

I also live in California, and there was a lot of time spent last fall debunking the "life sentence for a piece of pizza" myth. (That one, Jerry Williams, was sentenced to six years in prison because the judge dismissed a prior strike in his consideration, and I think Williams is actually out of prison now.) Prosecutors in California have used discretion somewhere between 20% to 40% of the time; judges use it more than a quarter of the time, and are far more likely to use it if the offense is minor, or if there is no prior conviction history of violence or weapons use.

As to the lack of judicial review, I will admit that this part troubles me somewhat, but I see the reasoning for it. And Congress may actually have the right to block this kind of review, under Article III, Section 2. Kind of depends on how one sees the wording, and how the courts handle traditional understanding of balance of power.

"Prosecutors in California have used discretion somewhere between 20% to 40% of the time; judges use it more than a quarter of the time, and are far more likely to use it if the offense is minor, or if there is no prior conviction history of violence or weapons use." Watch the wording: they are "likely" - but not certain! - *not to condemn people to a life in prison for minor and nonviolent offenses*. Let's add that the likelihood is of course greater if the offender can afford a good defense.

In a civilized country, governed by the rule of law, the punishment is always in proportion with the gravity of the offense. What happens nowadays in California and other US states is arbitrariness, perversion of justice. A backslide to barbarianism.

NO REAL I.D. Enough is enough, I am a honorably discharged, served 4 years veteran.
REVOLUTION REVOLUTION REVOLUTION NOW!!!!!!!!
NO TALK ACTION ACTION ACTION

SUA SPONTE

GOVERMENT HAS POWER ONLY AT OUR CONSENT

IT IS TIME TO TAKE IT ALL BACK

HOWEVER NECESSARY

J. Alex: "I don't quite follow your reasoning: if my spouse fled me, she doesn't have to, nor will immediately change the ID to reflect her new address."

In the state I currently live in, one must correct the address within 30 days. To ensure that it is valid and correct, your ID/License is mailed to you. Even if you lost yours, even if you are heading out of the country for a vacation. The actual licenses are manufactured by a contractor, even though state employees take your picture.

In this state, as well as the last one I lived in, if your insurance is cancelled, your driving license gets cancelled as well. Since I pay my insurance monthly, and electronically at the last minute, I get about 10 letters per year from the State Driving License office notifying me that my license is about to be suspended. I then have to call up the insurance company and have them fax a copy of the insurance to them. This insurance company is very fast at complying with the law, but rather slow at processing renewals.

Why is this an issue? Let me give you a denial of service example: Let us presume that my spouse is fleeing me for whatever reason. I could cancel my insurance policy, or just fail to pay for the current one. I could sign up for a new policy with a new insurer (to maintain mine) and leave off my spouse (we're now separated, you know). As a result, her driving license gets suspended, and as the letter I get about 10x per year informs me, it will be confiscated should I fail to surrender it on time. Next time she tries to board an aircraft, or enter a courthouse, or some other government controlled facility, it gets taken away from her.

So because this "Real ID" is not just a driving license, but an identity document that everyone will be looking at/demanding, I can get her's revoked because it is being used for a purpose for which it was not designed to be used, namely proof that I/her/you am/are legally allowed to drive.

I remember when Billary was in office and SHE proposed a socialized healthcare program. Under her plan every citizen would get a National Healthcare Card to use to pay for health services. As a right-wing conspirator I was so opposed to this plan that I nearly got fired for being so vocal against it at the office place. The problem, as I saw it, was that this was just the first step toward a National ID card. If you'd told me then that 10 years later my fellow repubs would be pushing for REAL ID I'd have laughed in your face. Now, all I can do is hang my head and shudder with fear. This is just unREAL. And all my fellow right-wing conspirators are applauding Bush's efforts to make us safer. It's just surREAL, is what it is.

Anon: "As to the lack of judicial review, I will admit that this part troubles me somewhat, but I see the reasoning for it"

Not to read too much into this, but the implication is you think the reasoning is justified (esp. as you say it troubles you somewhat).

It troubles me, a lot. That single clause, more than any other (combined with your later statement implying you think such an exclusion from the courts... which reading is not consonant with either the writings in the Federalist papers, nor a tad more than 200 years of precidential jurisprudence, to be acceptable, from a very narrow interpretation of the article (and honestly, I can't see it. For reference:

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Now, you may have meant to say the power to establish courts gives the Congress the power to limit them, but even so the specific powers given to the Supreme Court extend precisely to the powers granted to the SecHomDef in this bit of legislation. That office has been given absolute liberty to ignore any, and all, laws under the rubric of securing the borders.

There are no limits to his power. One may argue that such abuses won't be committed, but the door is open.

Some improvement to our security.

TK

Here in California we have several legislators who seem to be unclear on which country they represent. They keep trying to give DLs to illegal aliens. There are similar people in other states.

See:

Yet another attempt by Gil Cedillo to keep illegal aliens driving
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/003071.html

"California legislators ask Mexican Senate to intervene [in driver's licenses for illegal aliens]
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/001957.html

U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/002116.html

If we didn't have people who sometimes act like they're Mexican agents things like this wouldn't be necessary. I'm not a big fan of REAL ID, but I'm even less a fan of letting "liberals" and ethnic demagogues decide to give out DLs to anyone who shows up.

Oh, but a National ID card can be a useful security tool. That's the problem. For example, I use an electronic card to get into my workplace. Without it, the doors to the building won't even open. And who decides which doors are opened? Whoever issued the card. There are some doors that my card won't open. And what would happen to someone who got caught in the building without the proper access card? They'd be arrested. What if they only followed me into the building looking for a restroom? What if they were just lost and needed help in finding their way? It wouldn't matter. They'd be held until the authorities arrived and their innocence was proven.

Now, let's make this a National ID card. In order to enforce it's use, absolute, draconian measures would be needed. You want to purchase something at the store? You better have your card. In fact, with some biometric included, the card could be required before you could even swipe your debit card to pay for gas. In fact, why require two cards? Let's just use one card - put your financial data on it as well. Oh, we could deal with fraud easily enough - make the card reader a thumbprint reader instead. Store the digital equivalent on your card and require a match at the checkout before funds are transferred. Yes, it could still be hacked, but with a little education and enforcement the risks could be minimized. Debit card use today carries certain risks.

But back to my workplace analogy. How would you get into the country? By presenting your card. How would you get into your workplace? By presenting your card. Who determines which doors are opened by the card? The entity that issued the card in the first place. What if I get caught without my card EVEN IF I'M NOT BREAKING THE LAW? What if I just accidentally stumbled into the wrong location? What if I just needed to relieve myself? It wouldn't matter. I'd be arrested and held until my innocence was proven. Guilty until proven innocent?

And keep in mind, they don't have to enforce it's use now. Just get everyone to agree to carry it. World terrorism being what it is, another attack will eventually hit close enough to home to make people incensed that the use of the card isn't being enforced. Then we'll all just lay down and take it again. Even without an attack, introduce the card to this generation and the next generation to come won't think twice about conforming to its use. Look at social security.

Does this not sound like a bad idea, now?

I've started a blog to track stories about RealID. Please check it out and email suggestions:
http://realIDsucks.blogspot.com/
- precision blogger.

I am in favor of a 'National ID Card'. Why? Because I am annoyed at having to go to different dumb-ass DMV's every time I move to a new state, with their arbitrary rules and tests, etc. It is time to move into the 21st Century people! Yes, we are all going to be identifiable. So what? I don't care if it makes me more 'secure'; I care if it makes my life more CONVENIENT. Which it will.

I checked out the last link, and he had a post about REAL ID's effect on those poor undocumented immigrants who we all need to be here. Awww.

All of you who are opposed to REAL ID on privacy grounds should concentrate your efforts on minimizing the impact of those who support illegal immigration.

Without them, REAL ID would have much less support.

Again, I ask where all these cries were when the provisions for the driver's licenses were passed into law in 2004 as part of IRATPA.

Terry:

Allow me to clarify my view. The California Coastal Commission has been able to block the completion of the border fence along about three miles (some say five miles) of the US-Mexico border. They have done this through their own legal power over the California coastline, as well as state and federal legal action. The reasoning is that the border should be protected, and states should not be allowed to get in the way, and I can agree with that to some extent. This is an attempt to allow the fence to be finished without the CCC interfering once more.

As to the exception point, the second sentence in Clause 2 reads, "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." One possible reading of this allows Congress to make exceptions as to what the Supreme Court can review, because if the Supreme Court cannot review it, then all tribunals inferior to that court are barred from reviewing it.

This provision does make me uneasy, because the one branch which I believe consistently does (for the most part) the right thing is the judicial branch. I wouldn't trust a lifetime appointment to president or congressperson, but the judges are, for the most part, carefully vetted by president and Senate, and actually do interpret the law and Constitution as they are bound by oath to do, whatever the complainers on both sides of the aisle may think. I don't always agree with the decisions, but I doubt most of them have any real political agenda, and so I feel comfortable with the current system, with the 2-3 layers of appellate review, filtering out the laws that should not be.

So, in summary, I understand *why* it was worded that way, and I can see the *logic* used in removing judicial review. However, I do not agree that it is the case that the judicial branch should be removed from the picture, nor do I believe that the tradition of the judicial branch will completely block attempts to get a review. I am wondering, though, what the ultimate technical interpretation will be.

You know, I thought we had an ID -- it's called a passport. Get one and use it to travel between states. *That* would be the answer. A driver's license is for driving. A passport is for travel. Why don't we call a spade a spade and say "no travel without identification papers, your passport is your identification papers"?

Land of the free, indeed...

-S