Slashdot Mirror
Driver's Licenses to Become National ID Cards
XorNand writes: "Time is reporting that the Dept of Transportation, acting on instructions from Congress, is in the process of linking together states' drivers' license databases. They figure that it'll be cheaper and easier to slip under the radar of civil libertarians and privacy watchdogs. Wonder if Larry is a bit peeved that he's not getting his cut?"
It's already the standard photo ID. It makes sense for the feds to require standardization of state IDs, so that all states have to meet the same requirments. E.g., I've lived in NY for a few years, and my wife has an NY state license...but my 4-year-old Florida license is much higher tech (plastic, digital photo, holograms) than the low-tech laminated paper NY state licenses.
You already have to show your license or something similar when flying. The chances of fraud will be reduced if we have common standards for all state ID cards.
How incredibly easy it was for them to get fake drivers licenses, SS Numbers and Birth certificates. So now if you get a driver's license in California under a fake name, you can create a person that exsists in every single state. I don't see how this will help.
Nice thought.
Won't work for me here in OR, though.. Already don't drive. tried to explain to cop why no license (car == 2000 # steel + 15 gallons volitile liquid intention caused to combust in a contained fashion) and no ID card.. Told him it's not against the law.
they told me that THEY could arrest me if I didn't have an ID. I laughed at the time, until I found out it was true.
end of story.
Having moved from OH to KS a while ago, and then purchasing a vehicle on a visit back to OH, I can share an anecdote regarding this.
In Kansas, they clipped the OH license upon handing me my KS license and told me to keep the OH license around in case I never needed a new KS license (it'd make it easier to do so should I ever lose my KS license). They told me that this began my new legal residence in KS and that the OH license was no longer valid.
In OH, when transferring the title on my new vehicle, they said as long as I don't try to use my OH license in OH (or anywhere, for that matter) I was OK. This is because I now hold primary residence in KS, and using the OH license as ID would be fraud.
Right now, driving is considered a "privilege" (If you ask me, it's pretty much a requirement nowadays), which makes it real easy for states to take away your driving "privileges" for accumulating too many points, etc... If this becomes a national ID card, what is going to happen to that "privilege" philosophy?
The neat thing is that you don't have to be a citizen to have a driver's license, and --as far as i know-- it's not even legal for them to ask for that information when you apply for one.
so as far as the government will be concerned, there's no difference between citizens and non-citizens in our new national id card system; the only difference will be drivers and non-drivers ("state id card" holders). that will surely fight off the foreign terrorists they're trying to protect us from.
"Mister Potato-head --MISTER POTATO-HEAD! Backdoors are not secrets!" (War Games, 1983)
- Decentralized database. States would be the only repository of the information associated with the DL. This as opposed to a large federal database (and at much added cost).
- Standardizing the info on the cards. This would include a photo id, signature, and a magbar for quick input into a computer. Instead of the mess in which some states don't have photo IDs, some require SSN, etc. This still leaves enough up to the states as to not trample their states' rights.
- Improved communication between databases. Because the system would be decentralized, there would need to be an easy way for government officials to request info from such DBs; because states would be required to at least store a minimum of information, it would be simple to define a query standard. This way, rules can be put in place that if information is requested without a warrent, only specific pieces could be sent. If the database was centralized, then this would be much harder to enforce.
The groups are not completely at ease; this plan would suddenly give several DMVs near-absolute power, and unless regulations are put in place, this might be abuse. They also do worry, as many have posted, that there are both legal and illegal reasons not to have a DL; those that legally lack one may be forced to get one despite not having to drive -- this may cause states to have to provide DLs with "No Driving" restrictions to be issued in general for those currently without one."Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
As a paranoid, personal identity protecting kind of guy, I was thinking about this the other day. The difference between a state level driver's license and a national driver's license isn't that big a deal, in and of itself. The fear is always what else the card can be used for. Feature creep could have dire, but hard to avoid, consequences for personal privacy. All you can do is set limits on how much you're willing to take and accept the consequences when the time comes. For me, the day carrying an ID becomes required is the day I burn every form of ID I possess.
Your less likely to be thrown out of a club in another state for having an ID they don't recognize
I wanted to comment about this. This is the best pro to having a national ID card system. I live in Massachusetts and here they have three different ID cards: liquor ID, state ID, and drivers license. I don't have a drivers license so I went out and got a state ID card. Even in Mass., I can't get into bars or buy liquor with a state ID. "But this is a STATE ISSUED ID! My birthdate is RIGHT THERE!," I say. They want a liquor ID, however, and I refuse to go spend another $50 on an ID card that I ALREADY have.
This is in my own state, so you can imagine what the parent post means by out-of-state. It's madness folks.
This is close to the truth, ut not completely accurate. Insurance information is horribly innacurate (hell they lose my children on a regular basis and have my daughter in twice with 2 different SS numbers. I also have a friend I met in college that has sucessfully created a persona that doesn't exist from simple social engineering over a few years... (Hey it's a hobby) His dog has a credit card, a ham radio technician class license, a legitimate (as in filed with the county) birth certificiate and he recently scored a Forign service record for his dog...
.... HAHAHAHAHAHAH)
As soon as the dog get's a drivers license with the dog's actual picture.... I'll be really impressed... but creating a fake persona and hiding your real identity is not that difficult to those that really want to and need to.
Oh and the credit reporting? that is the worst database in terms of accuracy I have ever seen. After recently cleaning my credit of 5, yes 5 incorrect and plain false reportings and findong out that the rate of incorrect and plain wrong reportings on individuals credit reports and even their criminal reports is horribly high. (my ex wife still has it showing outstanding arrest warrents in different databases, even though this happened 3 years ago it has all been settled and cleared up..... I feel sad for her that when pulled over by police outside her home area she has to carry a court paper stating that the warrent is invalid..... (sad as in
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Unifying the ID isn't really a big deal in and of itself. There's no danger to civil rights that people could more easily verify the validity of identification. The particular set of information they choose to standardize on is likely to be innocuous.
The danger of a national ID is in the way it is used. In particular, in the use of a magstrip or other machine-readable common format. Most states seem to have something like this -- Illinois has some sort of 2D bar code, for instance -- but because there's no standard you cannot reasonably expect to scan every person's card at some given point. So I've never seen anyplace where they actually use a machine to read the card.
If you have a national ID, then this would no longer be the case. It makes it very possible -- and likely inevitable -- that IDs will regularly be scanned in all sorts of locations. Courthouses, airports (whether or not you are flying), privately secured locations (office buildings, etc.)... and the next thing you know there's random road blocks (to catch drunk drivers, drug smugglers, terrorists, or whatever other justification they choose) and they'll scan your ID.
If these systems were one-way, even this wouldn't be too terribly bad. That is, if such scans only checked to see if there was an outstanding warrant or other legal restriction placed on you. However, this is unlikely to be the way these cards would be used by the government, and certainly not the way they'd be used by private security. It is all too easy to record every time you pass such a checkpoint, and in that way coming up with an extensive profile of every person's movement and associations.
Of course, much of this already exists with credit cards. And who knows... maybe they'll join them together.
Yeah, just what I want, to have to carry my passport around every time I have to step out the house.
It wouldn't be so bad if the INS actually got off its butt and issued my greencard. It's been over a year now, I had to go down to Memphis and waste a day getting my passport restamped back in November (and then, even though my wife had called up a couple of days before to find out where/what/how, the damn stamping office was closed so we had to make a fuss until we got it stamped).
It's no wonder that terrorists are wandering around on expired visas. I bet half the visas that are expired in this country are because the INS hasn't renewed them when they should. No wonder they aren't chasing expired ones, it would show up their incompetance.
Rich
In TN, it's optional. I opted in because back in the UK, I had to use my NI (Like SSN) number so infrequently that I could never remember it. I even actually wrote it on my (paper) driving licence (which doesn't have a photo by the way) so I would at least have it somewhere that I accessed frequently. But here, I have been called to use my SSN so often that within 2-3 months, it has been burned permanently into my brain.
Wake up people, you already have a national ID system, now the government is just looking to consolidate it.
"Land of the Free". Beginning to sound a bit hollow these days.
Rich
Having had a few deep breaths and calmed down a bit, I'd like to add that despite 30 years of terrorist attacks (sponsored by US citizens), the UK hasn't seen it necessary to introduce ID cards.
In fact the only time there was a widespread to detain possible terrorists was the internment in the 1970's, which cause so much hatred of the UK government, that it recruited a whole new generation of terrorists for the Republican cause.
To prevent terrorists striking against you, a country has three options:
1) Stop the terrorists hating you so much that they will risk their lives or commit suicide to hurt you.
2) Have focussed intelligence agencies that can actually gather and act on intelligence data, rather than destabilising other countries.
3)Kill _everyone_ who might not like you.
The US is having a good go at number 3 (3,800 civilians so far and counting), but in the long run methods one and two are cheaper in dollars, lives lost and liberties given up in the name of freedom.
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
...and not only is it going to get harder for US citizens who lose their license, but it will become harder for non-US citizens who are visiting.
Like when I went into a bank in south Texas, to get a cash advance off my temporary/replacement VISA (due to having been pick-pocketed in Pisa, Italy a couple od days beforehand). I explained to the cashier that I couldn't use the ATM because it was a temp card, and I needed a cash advance. She asked to see my drivers license. I explained I wasn't a US citizen, and so I didn't have a US license, and my NZ license went with the lost VISA. But here is my Passport, I said. I'm sorry, the teller said, I need a driver's license. A careful re-explanation including a reminder that a passport was a legal identification document that was good enough for US Customs, and a query as to what about people who didn't drive resulted in no joy. My US guide, an uncle, lamented about droids behind tills in small town banks who weren't encouraged to think for themselves and so we went to the San Benito Bank to the Bank Of America in Harlingen. Explained my circumstances again, and was asked "Can I see your passport please?" Ah, someone with a future, someone who was helpful! Bigger bank, maybe someone who was encouraged to think for herself.
As I see it, if driver's licenses become the defacto ID, then it'll be harder for people like travellers (without them) to get by, because droids like my first bank teller seem to vastly outnumber thinking-people-with-a-future like my second teller. Most people get given by their boss this party line of "ask for a driver's license as ID" and they then stick to that rigidly without any common-sense flexibility. This can only be exacerbated by having d/l's as *standard* and *official* mechanisms for identification, because then it will become esconced in the minds of millions of droids that a d/l is the one and only means of identification.
*sigh*
Welcome to America, where you're innocent of a crime until proven guilty, but all I have to do is say you owe me money and the burden of proof is on you to prove you don't and get it erased from your credit report.
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
When you're pulled over for DUI in one province/state, they take your licence away for that place.
You'd think Canada could adopt something like the US's Interstate Compact on Traffic Offenders. It's an agreement among about 30 or 40 of our states to coordinate enforcement of traffic laws.
What the compact provides is that any violations committed in one state are reported to a driver's home state Dep't of Motor Vehicles. That means that if I write a Colorado speeding ticket to a driver with a Kansas license, the points are assessed by Kansas DMV. If I pop an Illinois driver for DUI, then I can seize his Illinois license and Illinois DMV revokes it. And when Illinois revokes his license and he drives again in Nebraska, a Nebraska officer can arrest him for driving on a revoked license.
In other words, our state governments can share information amongst themselves. Therefore, it doesn't really matter where a license is issued.
And we can query that information fairly easily. If I have someone's name and his state of residence, I'll have the status of his driver's license in about a minute. That comes with an address which he gave DMV. It can also give his criminal and driving history, aliases used, and that in turn...
Maybe if you are a twenty-something instant dot-com lottery winner and can afford private banking, you can get personal service. The rest of us have to make do with ATMs, telephone banking, and computers. Many banks now charge if you see a teller.
Besides, personal service doesn't work reliably either. I have been a victim of fraud twice, once when I was with a very reputable bank which offered personal service, and once with Internet banking. In both cases, lack of a secure authentication method was at the root of the problem.
A national ID will just be another ID for people to steal.
No, it will be the only ID for people to steal, and if the national ID is done right, it will be a lot harder to steal than what we have now.
The same fool that thought automatic executions of email attachments thought it would be a good idea to offer credit cards by mail.
Because that's what we are stuck with, we might as well make it as secure as we can.
Here is a discussion of smart card security by cryptographer & computer security expert Bruce Schneier. It's pretty hard reading, but the main point is that, by depending on an external keypad and display, the smart cards allow a lot of new security breaks. For example, a hacked ATM terminal may steal your PIN and also divert the money -- the screen says your deposit is going to your account, but actually it's going to the somewhere in Belize, from which it will be untraceably transferred before you find out you've been robbed.
Bruce didn't consider putting a fingerprint sensor in the card itself. That will rule out some breaks -- neither stealing the PIN by "wiretapping" (and European PIN keypads have some protection against that), nor stealing the card and beating the PIN out of you will get someone into your accounts. But other vulnerabilities still remain. If you build the keys and display into the card itself, you may be quite a lot more secure -- especially if the card does good enough encryption internally and talks directly to the server, which is the only thing outside of the card which knows the key.
But then you've got the case of the Saudi terrorist (say) with a German ID (say), at a traffic stop in Maryland. Will the police car be carrying equipment that can query a database in Germany? Will results come back in a reasonable time? And even if they do, why would a German database show that the FBI wants this guy?
There is also the big issue of how identity is confirmed when someone is first entered into the system. Anyone with my birth certificate and social security number could get an ID in my name, and the SSN is in all sorts of records while you don't have to prove identity to get the birth certificate. If I'm alive and in the system, it should notice the duplication, but there are plenty of dead people to choose from. Internationally, there are many nations where records got blown up or never were complete, so you've pretty much got to take people's word about their identity.
Also, driving is actually a right, not a privilege, upheld by the US Supreme Court and other courts numerous times. They are still free to regulate driving however, including requiring a license to drive. It just means that they can't arbitrarily revoke your license for no reason. Similarly, your right to vote or own a firearm can't normally be revoked, but can if you commit a felony.
Here's a good explanation of the right to drive:
The American Civil Liberties Union and other liberal think tanks are getting in the way of what is important, and they don't realize that we have to sacrifice a certain amount of privacy in excange for national security.
Cool, then I guess that means that you won't mind surrendering your right to keep and bear arms in the interest of fighting crime and domestic violence either?
Oh, wait, sorry I forgot. That's a conservative think tank issue, we can't possibly do without our guns.
John Ashcroft was talking about the need to have wiretaps to catch terrorists, and a reporter asked him if he was planning to look through gun purchase records to find terrorists. He replied that it was illegal for the FBI to use those records, and that he had no interest in pursuing a change in that law with congress.
The law didn't seem to stop him from interfering with attorney client priviledge, why are gun records different?
I think that sacrificing our liberties to have more security is a red herring. It's just an excuse for the FBI or whoever to have to be less careful in how they exercise their power. They have the tools they need now to do the job, that's not the issue. There were indications that something big was being planned for 9/11, why was there no follow up on these???