Slashdot Mirror
Schneier on National ID Cards, Key Escrow Locks, E-voting
Schneier's Cryptogram newsletter this month touches on a lot of subjects near and dear to our hearts: national ID cards, TSA-approved luggage locks, a cost-benefit analysis of stealing an election via hacking evoting machines, a nifty credit with audible security, etc.
I don't thing that it is really necessary to have standardized national ID cards.. the money required to implement such a massive project would be substantial.. and the gain is not clear. Why would having national ID cards help TSA identify people any better than state ID cards such as drivers licenses, and government issued IDs such as military identification cards?
Nicholas Weaver has an interesting letter printed in the article where he makes the case for a need to assume that Microsoft's crown jewel, the Windows Source Code, has already fallen into the hands of black-hats, since both the Chinese and Russians have legit access, and the ease of which a determined group could steal it.
It's an intresting question. However, wouldn't we have seen more zero-day hacks in circulation from the black-hats who hold the code? Or maybe these exploits are being used, but with such infrequency that it's slipping under radars...
I think michael hit it right on the head in his post (oh to be both an author and submitter at slashdot!). Most of the topics in this Cryptogram (and the past few) we *have* seen before, here and in many other security news and blog sites. The only thing I hadn't heard before is the audio-credit-card-thing and I really doubt you'll be seeing consumers hold their cards up to their microphones. Heck, most non-techie folks I deal with don't even realize they *have* a microphone and the rest of them still have theirs in the original plastic shipping material it came in.
So, as Cryptogram becomes yet-another-blog, will it cause Schneier to lose relevancy? I hope not, since a large number of "security managers" hang on his every word and, in the past, this has been a positive thing for getting funding so we can get real work done.
Here's hoping for an influx of creative and incisive Cryptograms the rest of the year, otherwise I'll be on the lookout for Schneier with his WiFi laptop @ Starbucks or the next blog convention.
Mind the gap...
The "escrow key" model of lock that now being distributed in the form of lugage lock leaves interesting options for a traveler...
- Leave your suitcase unlocked. The TSA can get access, and so can anybody else who wants to try to open it.
- Lock your suitcase the old fashioned way. If the TSA wishes to check your bag, they'll bust your lock. Bad guys can also bust the lock. At least, if the contents are tampered with, you'll see a defeated lock when you recover your bag.
- Lock your suitcase with the TSA-compliant locks. Most people can't open your bag, but TSA key holders (both good guys and bad guys) can get into your bag without having to break anything.
Hmm.. which option to chose?
I was recently told that it's illegal for an adult to walk round in public without some form of government id such as a driver's license. I was in California at the time.
I have no idea if this is true, or (if true) which level of government is imposing this rule.
I'm not sure which is more disturbing to me. That I can't tell if it's true (and don't know how to find out), or that the US citizens I was speaking with considered it acceptable for citizens to be required to carry their 'papers' at all times.
plus-good, double-plus-good
How long is it until somebody buys up some of these TSA-unlockable locks and reverse engineers their way into a duplicate of the TSA key?
I lock my luggage more for the guarantee that it won't come open when being handled than the security.
There is simply no reason the TSA couldn't get the keys for the main styles of suitcase locks currently in use. Four or five keys would open probably 95% of luggage.
This is just a way for a company to make money solving something that shouldn't be a problem to begin with.
LordBodak's journal.
I'm curious about this too. It just can't be true.
What about bikini-clad rollerbladers with no pockets, purse, etc?
Yup, and there are a number of companies that are happy to provide them to bartenders for nearly free. Look closely and you'll find most have a modem port and a label with instructions on how to let it "phone home".
That kind of use needs to be made illegal reaaaal fast. I'm required by law to present my ID, but it'll get scanned and some company gets a number of pieces of personal information.
Please help metamoderate.
The guest essay says that one must assume that someone attacking the integrity of an election has at least a $100 million budget. While it is true that a lot of money is raised in elections, not all of that could be invested in a project to steal an election without anyone noticing. Therefore, the above estimate seems to be much too high.
Lenz Blog
I know for a fact that in the state of Virginia (where I live), you are required to present your driver's license for examination upon the request of any bona-fide law officer. Now, I am not sure if that only applies to driver's licenses or if the actual wording of the code is broad enough to include DMV-issued identification. Virginia tends to be a bit strict on this type of issue, especially since 9/11. But, I am sure other states have similar requirements. It all falls back to the "driving is a privilege, not a right" deal. I am looking for the actual code on Virgina's LIS now. I will post it if I find it.
But, with more than a hundred formats for the best ID system we have, it's impossible for anybody to be an expert on what security measures to look for and be able to notice when they're absent.
That's why these exist. When in doubt, check the book.
Then again, someone could use these guide to ensure their fakes are up to snuff-- I used one of them many moons ago when I was under 21, to perfect the counterfeit NJ driver's licenses that I used to make for fun and profit. I was turning out passable fakes (mine were MUCH better than the one shown at that link) as a broke college student with 1992 technology consisting mainly of a Mac LC, a StyleWriter, a Polaroid camera, and a can of gold spray paint for the hologram. Hell, back then I even forged verifying documentation-- for female customers I did a completely fabricated student ID from a ficticious college, complete with official-looking dignified logo and a magstrip made from a piece of old VHS videotape. For my male customers I did phony Selective Service cards that were meticulously duplicated with Aldus Pagemaker, and printed out on an inkjet using an ink cart that I flushed out and filled with green ink that matched what was used on the real thing.
Those days are over, but sometimes I do find myself wondering what kind of marvelous forgeries I could turn out with the kind of high-tech toys available to me now.
They're just musicians folks.
Because several states now allow illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses using two very insecure forms of Identification: A consular identification card issued by foreign consulate offices, or the ITIN Number supplied by the IRS to people who can't qualify for a social security number.
The consular card is recognized by the FBI as an insecure document. The only reason they are needed is because the recipient entered the U.S. illegaly and does not possess a valid visa, passport or other identification provided through legal channels. There have been cases where people have been arrested carrying multiple copies of this ID, with the same picture and differing names.
The ITIN number can be obtained by calling a 1-800 number and providing a name and address. The IRS does nothing to verify the information given and has stated multiple times that this tax number should ONLY be used for paying taxes. This is not meant to be an Identification number, especially for obtaining a drivers licenses. They sent out a letter this past December to all governors and heads of the driver license division in each state to ask them to stop this practice. Despite this request, states like Utah refused to modify their laws to fix this security problem. This combined with the "motor voter" laws can lead to other problems such as voter fraud.
Because the drivers license is used for many other purposes other than proof that an individual knows the basic driving rules, we either need to go back to only issuing it for people with verified documentation, or creating a national ID that is only given out to citizens. The national ID would be used instead of a drivers license for employment, boarding planes, voting, etc....
God we got the worst of the security systems in the world. I can check in at Soeul with full baggage check (I mean FULL!) and get to my plane in under 1 hour.
Coming into the country, they check all bags. If it is locked, it is marked for customs to open.
All this with the matching passeranger in front of them.
TSA servers no meaningful need except job creation for the administration.
and if they are convinced they have ACCURATE code, are probably waiting for such a time as a massive coordinated attack is launched, cyber attack just being one of the facets. Small exploits for training and practice, sure, anything really spiffy they might find they will hold in check until needed-if they trust the sploit that is.
China has even created an entire new military wing of the PLA devoted entirely to cyber warfare, and they are giving it a long range importance equal to air force, land forces, navy, etc.
Now, to be fair, we don't know that MS gave them accurate code, they could have well given them some NSA (whoever, don't matter) doctored stuff that has a lot of nifty backdoors in it as well, we just don't know. I would guess that the state intel agencies in those two countries would be suspicious of it and audit heck out of it anyway before assuming it's completely legit. In fact, even if they hacked in and stole it they would still need to be suspicious of it, as letting it get "stolen" could be a variation on the false flag dodge as well, it's a great way to instill credibility in something if you can be persuaded you have aquired the real deal, so it's equally credible to think of offering the false deal as bait-sort of a honeypot kinda- and letting it get "stolen".
I live in California and it pretty much seems like you can't go anywhere without your papers. (So whether it's a law or not, I think for a lot of people it's accepted as being a requirement.)
This might be encouraged by television shows like "Cops" where in a lot of instances, when the officers on this show stop people and they do not have ID, the officer almost invariable retorts "You gotta have ID".
I wonder if police are allowed to lie like this (the way they are allowed to lie about a lot of other things when confronting suspects.)
I also wonder if this is a state law which is common in a large set of states, but not all. (Perhaps what is causing a lot of the confusion.)
It seems to me that a national ID would be an additional form, not a replacement for a state ID. Don't qualifications for a driver's license differ between states (in such things as vision testing, vehicle classifications, and so on)? In fact, it seems likely that a state ID would be one of the accepted identifiers when you apply for your NID.
Schneier's article hints that he expects such an ID system to be mandatory if implemented. That brings to mind the interesting case of Dudley Hiibel, currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Is one obligated to identify oneself at all, if one chooses not to?
The database for such a system would necessarily provide online access to state and local law enforcement, rendering it a prime target for hackers and other criminals. And can we really be certain that the Sheriff's Office or the Department of Finance of Bugtussel County can't be bribed for direct access?
A side note: The little item about license plate shields questions whether these would be legal. The last I knew, even most of the little plastic frames that carry a car dealer's name are illegal in my state, although there are millions of them - they obscure a small part of the lettering on the plate.
I figure by 2030 or so my 6-digit UID will be something to brag about.
This has been one of the more interesting threads I've seen in a while. I mean, this is something I actually know about: I do security in a bar.
I've seen cards from pretty much every state in the Union as well as quite a number of ones from many European nations. Recognizing what is and what is not a valid I.D. card is a hard task that I've found a lot of people who do what I do simply don't know enough to deal with.
The great number of state I.D.s, their variations in the quality of their anti-counterfeiting features. The scanner, the color copier, the laminating machine and the simple willingness of people to lie to your face make it hard to be sure that what you're looking at is real.
The current series of California Driver's license/I.D. card is, IMHO the most secure driver's license in the U.S. in terms of anti-counterfeiting features; the series immediately preceding it is a piece of crap.
The new current series of New Jersey Licenses that I've seen, maybe, five of in the last two months is *very* secure if the person looking at it has an ultraviolet light on him and is actually aware that there is a new series to look at while the preceding series is the most easily and most convincingly counterfeited I.D. I've ever seen, and I see it over, and over and over.
A national I.D. card would certainly eliminate the problem of having to have real expertise to spot fakes and anyone who says otherwise is engaging in wishful thinking.
The most current version of the the United State's green card has anticounterfeiting features that I don't even know the names of, but I know their absence would be easy to spot.
Couple this with mag-strip technology to store information and you could standardize one or more pieces of equipment that any bar or other place that had to determine age or identity would have present that would instantly and permanently remove the guesswork. Put biometric data on the card and give me a thumbprint scanner and underage drinking is pretty much over until counterfeiting technology gets better.
That's how good the current green card, or some variant of it would be as a national I.D card. It would make my job ridiculously easy.
Now here's why I hate it.
First off, the article makes one really interesting point: for a really determined person, someone who wanted to hijack planes or steal a million or what have you, no card will be completely secure everywhere up the line to the point where you get one.
Someone with enough cash, or enough juice with the right people, or willing to put in enough work will be able to get either a valid I.D. in a false name, a borrowed/stolen card or a relatively convincing forgery if it is important enough to them.
Viewed this way, a national I.D. card can be said not to provide greater national security but greater control for people with access to the information that a national I.D. card would provide. In terms of anything important, really important--a real, immediate threat like the 9/11 attack--a national I.D. card would be useless.
In terms of centralized information processing, a national I.D. card would be an enormous Christmas present to big brother, providing governments with a key to interweaving databases, giving anyone in authority all the power they need to pressure anyone who isn't into being a more perfect citizen.
Under the current system, a kid with a really, really good fake I.D. can get past me and that's fine. It's a game. I win most rounds. I'm sure the kids win a few and that's the way things should be.
Getting stopped by the cops for taking a desperation leak on a wall at five A.M. and having them know everything about you from whether or not you did your last round of jury-duty to your cholesterol is not something I'm looking forward to.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
I really don't see the point of his cost benefit analysis of stealing an election. There is no correlation between the campaign budgets and the value of, or resources available to steal an election. If you are to look back at the last couple of years its pretty obvious that controlling the U.S. government is worth trillions of dollars to the party that wins. There is usually at least a thousand to one payoff from the largesse of the U.S. treasury for large campaign contributors when your candidate wins. Just a few examples, in the case of the Bush administration they've given:
- hundreds of billions in tax cuts to their wealthy benefactors
- $55 billion a year in the so called Medicare reform plan much of which is going in to the pockets of insurance and drug companies, key Republican benefactors. The drug companies have been given a bonanza in that the U.S. government will be buying billions in drugs for seniors, but are precluded by law from negotiating fair prices, so drug companies can charge as much as they dare. This is the antithesis of a free market, purchasing without negotiation.
- $18 billion dollars of no bid cost plus contracts have gone to Halliburton for Iraq
- the list goes on
- Koch oil was facing a $500 million in pollution fines under the Clinton adminstration, when their man Bush won over Gore the fines were reduced to $20 million.
The fact is the Republican's have an enormous financial incentive to do whatever it takes to retain the presidency and the house, and to achieve the holy grail, a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate. Gaining a fillibuster proof majority will be hard but it is the holy grail to the Republicans because they could then pass any legislation, no matter how extreme, as long as they can keep their party's legislators in line through deceit, intimidation and bribery (like they did to pass the Medicare reform bill).
Its also an unfortunate fact that the Republican's have two key resources at their disposal that are priceless:
First, they control the resources of the Federal government, especially in the shadowy world of Defense, Intelligence and law enforcement. For example the DOD's recent efforts to gain electronic control of the vote of soldiers and oversees American's would allow whomever control that system, which is by definition the President and the Secretary of Defense to control millions of votes for next to nothing.
The Republicans, as has been pointed numerous times, disproportionately control the companies that control electronic voting machines. This inside track gives the Republican's a huge advantage should they decide to try and rig the upcoming election.
You might think this far fetched but having watched Bob Woodward on 60 minute tonight I'm thinking anything is possible from the people who currently occupy the White House. Dick Cheney in particular appears to be pulling the strings of a President who is in over his head intellectually and FREQUENTLY setting policy based on prayer, divine guidance and the manipulations of people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and Wolfowitz, because he is simply not up to the job that faces him intellectually.
One of many disturbing things Woodward listed was that Tommie Franks at one point spent $700 million dollars on Iraq war preparations before Congress was consulted on a war with Iraq or had approved any money. They apparently took this money from an Afghanistan authorization, without telling Congress, which is both unconstitutional and an impeachable offense. Only Congress can allocate money.
At this weeks press conference the President was repeatedly asked if he'd made a mistake. He either couldn't think of anything, or denied any mistakes had been made, which is pretty implausible. The many failures in failing to stop 9/11 and in the mess that is no Iraq have led to no one in the administration being held accountable. Its as if they make no mistakes. Infallibility is a leading indicator of a a couple kinds of leadership, a dictator
@de_machina
You got it, it's called conditioning or brainwashing. they do it to the cops and military until they are conditioned them selves, then they pass it on to "civvies".
The special forces are all getting chipped soon, then the nations police forces, so when it comes your turn, they will say "WE got chipped, it's legal and you must do it!!" Might take a few years, but it's coming.
Right up above, in another post the oft repeated by thoroughly wrong "driving is a privelege and not a right". That's BS, but the entire nation got conditioned into it, now it's accepted that you DON'T have a freedom to travel without their permit or "permission". Ridiculous? Nope, just the one step at a time deal. Would you apply for your "speech" permit? Ridiculous? Most states you need a "permit" for your second amendment "right". Well, if you need the state's permission, it sure ceased to be a "right", yet it's "the law" almost everywhere in some form or another, only one state, vermont, has followed the "born-with right" concept there. What's the difference? The numbering in the constitution? 1-2-3-4, the order in which they strip them doesn't matter as much as they HAVE been doing it and once gone, it stays gone. The goons will just take the easier ones first, that's all. That's what they have been doing. A "permit" to travel, to drive your property on a public road, a road you partially own by being the "public" and pay for via fuel taxes anyway, yet you need a "permit" for your "born-with right to travel" and everyone eats it up, because that right got stripped gradually and turned into needing "their permission".
One at a time freedoms get stripped, people excuse it, they get wishy washy on it, society wimps out, eventually like in all other despotic regimes down through history, you wake up one day and you have no more rights, you are their chattel, and you wonder why it happened, how it snuck up on you. "You" being a generic of course. It's because people just REFUSE to follow through with a normal extrapolation of causalities, events, and provocations. They will not put 2+2 together, they fall into the now cliched "cognizant dissonance" state. It's not that they can't see it, they don't WANT to see it, they pull a turbo ostrich head in the sand, if it's pointed out to them they will vehemently deny the obvious, all the way into absurdity.
Just since I've been a kid we've have lost a TON of rights, now we even put up with "random checkpoints" stuff I was taught in school was only done in places like soviet union or east germany. It was something to revile against,. to thank ourselves and congratulate ourselves we didn't live under such a regime and culture of brutality and exploitation. but now we put up with it, every excuse in the book, but the fact remains, it's now "the LAW" and the US public meekly submits. We wimp out.. Now it's "normal" and the dudes in blue (or black) willingly just "follow ze orders" and "swear an oath to the constitution", yet hardly any of them know it, understand it, or see how they are being used to force the people into obedience to the state.
And this "the people"? More concerned with entertainments mostly, and way too scared to do much about it, they will even put up with obvious vote hijacking and fraud, and with having a controlled parroting media mostly. They put up with hijacked money, stolen labor, rigged elections, wars created by a single tin pot dictator, "executive orders" and never ending and overlapping "national state of emergency" decrees, confiscation of property on a whim, the denial of even a right to property in a lot of cases, obvious and overt bribery being how the nations political business is done, and on and on and on.
It all happened one step at a time, though, not all at once, never enough to get the people alarmed and disgusted enough to "just say no" back at them.
It's sorta sad, but really, you can sort of understand it when you see they will make an example of anyone who dares actually say "no" to illegalities being
Yes, and /. covered the story. It is legal, by California law, for a policeman to demand ID. This is not the same thing as requiring you to have one on your person.
If you do not have one on your person the police officer, again by California law, is legally empowered to take you into custody to determine your ID.
So carrying ID may save you a night in the pokey, but it isn't required.
The idea that you can even be required to produce ID, or be taken into custody for refusing to present it, is the issue currently on the docket of the Federal Supreme Court. The very fact alone that have decided to hear the case is evidence that the consider the issue has real Constitutional merit, at least to the extent that it requires federal review (the Supreme Court is only required to hear those strictly federal cases delineated in the Constitution itself. They can, and do, simply refuse cases that they don't consider worth their time).
As a general rule (there are, of course, certain exceptions, but they are exceptions) one does not have to provide a police officer with anything other than nonresistence to arrest.
When a bartender asks for ID he is doing so because the law requires him to certify legal age. He is not required to check your ID, he is only required to check your ID if you order a drink, and you are free not to order one. (It is a myth that those who are under the legal drinking age cannot legally go into a bar. Think about all the restaraunts and diners that serve alchohol. No problemo. Some bars refuse entry to those underage because it makes life simpler for them, and because many local law enforcement agencies don't understand this point themselves. Some bars I know only card on the weekend and the rest of week only card when a drink is actually ordered. There's no accounting for the behavior of people).
In the past anything that could serve as a legal document showing age was accpetable. On my eighteenth birthday I bought a bottle of wine with my birth certificate ( I poured the wine down the drain. I wanted the bottle to put a ship in. It was crappy Mogan David anyway. Just the right bottle though). I have also used my passport.
The sticky wicket is the lack of a photo on the birth certificate (not that it would do any good if one were included), thus the ease with which one person's ID can be used by another.
We're getting really frickin' paranoid about all this ID shit, and according to my bank my federally issued passport no longer, in their interpretation of the law, qualifies for photo ID according to the PATRIOT Act.
And, in theory at least, your passport is certified and issued to you by the frickin' Secertary of State.
In future I suppose I'll also need, along with my driver's license (technically this cannot be required for any purpose other than operation of a motor vehicle. Well, that idea seems to have gone by the boards. In my state you cannot get a nondriver's ID is you already have a driver's license. You may keep an expired driver's license (with a hole punched in) as a "nondriver's ID" if you wish. Yeah. Right.), a federal ID card, a note from my mayor, the President himself; and my mommy.
KFG
I understand the worry some people have about hacked systems, but what I don't understand is the response to it.
Instead of being so worried about it, why not simply close the loop with the voter to make fraud detection easy?
What I mean is, suppose after I vote, I enter a password/PIN which is used to encrypt a random number used to identify my vote. The machine records both my random number and my votes, but not my pin. This encrypted information is then printed for me before I leave. When I get home, and after the votes have been counted, I hop online and download a JAVA applet which lets me decode my random identifying number in private. I can then punch this number into the net (which let's me see any vote I want since the information isn't tied to anyone) -- and tells me who I voted for. If the information doesn't match, I call 1-800-voter-fraud and turn the matter over to the FBI.
Ok, I haven't exactly fleshed out the whole thing here, because you need some way of making sure people don't claim they've been a victom of fraud when they haven't been, but I suspect given a few bright people, some public encryption algorithsm, and some time, we could probably solve that problem.
The point is, if 10% (or some other threshold) of a voting district says their vote doesn't match up correctly while the rate in the rest of the nation is 1%... you know theres a problem and can call for a revote in that district.
As a slightly off topic aside, I really wish I could vote for MULTIPLE people in the order I wanted them elected. Thus, when I vote for some third party person who is obviously not going to get elected, I can still throw my weight behind my #2 candidate who might otherwise be hindered by my real vote -- and at the same time, I get my voice heard with reguard to my true desires.
-Chiem
Well, in the California case in question the law does actually require that the police officer have some just cause for suspecting you of a crime, and in this case he had an actual complaint and witness and made the request in investigation of that complaint. Mind you that's a pretty big hole you can drive through, and anybody can make any complaint against anybody else. That's one of the reasons we have judges, juries, and a presumption of innocence until found (not actually proven mind you, found. This is a bit of tricky legal philosophy.IANAL. I am accused of being a philosopher. By lawyers.) guilty.
Again in the case in question the person was formally arrested and convicted of commiting a crime (that's why it can be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court), not the one at issue in the complaint, but rather the crime of obstructing justice for not showing his ID, a rather blatent misapplication of law in order to be able to charge him with something if I've ever seen one, and I rather suspect the Supremes will jump on this issue to overturn the conviction, rather than deal directly with the Constitutional issue of requiring ID (they like to do that sort of thing. They will, as a rule, always look for the lowest level they can overturn a ruling with, even in those cases where they know it is overturnable on Constitutional grounds).
Note also that in some states it is legal to detain people for up to 48 hours just because (or at least it was the last time I looked. Things change session by session. Even lawyers have to recheck every law for every case, just in case), perhaps "for your own protection." ( Take heart though in knowing that in such cases you will be treated just as fairly as any other person taken into custody, in other words, just like a bank robber. "Alright, bend over and spread your butt cheeks.").
The cynical might have a hard time differentiating this practice from governmental endorsed kidnapping. I've been accused of being a cynic.
There is a fine point of legal philosophy here as to just what being taken into custody means, and what it does not necessarily mean is that you have been accused of some crime.
It's also perfectly legal to throw you in the slammer for merely violating some code or other, which is not technically a crime at all. Say, a parking ticket you picked up while visiting Podunk.
And, of course, being accused of a crime has no direct bearing on whether you have actually commited one, or might be found guilty of same (as per above these are not necessarily the same thing. See also the O.J. case, which rather reverses the issue. Just because you have been found not guilty doesn't mean you didn't do it, and provision that you should be treated as innocent until found guilty only applies to the law, and not private opinion. "Guilty" is a legal state, not one of fact).
KFG
I was recently told that it's illegal for an adult to walk round in public without some form of government id such as a driver's license.
If the person who told you that was any kind of government official, then you should make as big a stink about it as you possibly can. Charge the thug with "Conspiracy to Deprive of a Constitutional Right under Color of Authority" (nominally carries a penalty of up to ten years in a federal pen.)
Demand a public apology and retraction of the statement, and proclaim to the world that you won't tolerate any such attempt at intimidation. In short, such a claim should be a career-limiting move for anyone in a government job.
It is not yet the case that you are required to carry an ID if you're not doing something that requires a license. (EG, if you're not driving a car, cutting someone's hair , giving a massage, working on their plumbing, etc. for money).
If you *are* carrying a california DL, then you do have to show it, since the legal theory is that it belongs to the state, not to you. If you're carrying any other ID, and a state officer asks to see it, it's your prerogative to refuse.
I can't emphasize enough the importance of refusing unreasonable intrusions on our privacy. The more unpleasant it is for a cop to do so, the less it's going to happen.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
As an experiment, whenever I fly I try to use a non-standard ID card. It was issued by the federal government (not a state government), so technically it should be legal. It is accepted about 80% of the time. The disturbing part, though, is that I can guarantee that they're accepting it in order to cover their own shame at not recognizing it. In fact, usually the conversation is something like:
At least here there is a branch of government that can protect our liberties--and look at the social history of the twentieth century to realize how much the Court has done before an obstinate Congress.
If you want to find out what the law is, there are great web resources all over [www.oyez.org] but since this particular issue hasn't been decided by the Supreme Court yet, you'll have to go to a legal library or ask a lawyer on the phone. Such is the harsh reality of living in a federalist government, where localities decide their own laws [/sarcasm].
It's called the "Documento Nacional de Identidad". You go to a government office when you reach the age of 14, are fingerprinted and issued with the card. It must be renewed every five years and it has to be used all over the place.
The problem is that it made absolutely no difference to the effectiveness of the bombers who killed 200 people when they blew up that train in March. It hasn't even been particularly effective in the long running fight against the domestic ETA terrorist organisation and the other argument about immigration, well Spain is the gateway to Europe for Moroccan imigrants.
So, there's no particular evidence that identity cards make any difference at all to the security of a country.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
ID cards in Spain did not stop the bombings.
Governments must think all the public are intellectually challenged morons.
ID Cards are a Red Herring - something that draws attention away from the central issue.
FACT: it will be very simple to identify you absolutely anywhere with a portable eye/finger scanner - without your ID Card.
Once data is transmitted to base they can have your identity within seconds.
The ID Card itself is totally irrelevant - it is a means to an end.
You could be stopped anywhere and authorities would know everything about you - they would not need your ID card.
They will have effectively branded a number on every person.
Just like in 1942, when Nazi's began tattooing numbers on the left forearm of all prisoners.
Find ANYBODY in Government to deny that you can be read like a barcode on a bag of peas at the supermarket till.
They are treating us all like criminals - putting everybody's fingerprints and eye scans on file.
The ID Card propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
It is clear that Governments want a surveillance society.
Don't most driver's license cards have barcodes on the back that liquor stores, etc. can scan?
Yes, but they're useless out-of-state. Witness: I have a New York State driver's license (have for eight years now), and it has two different barcodes on the back. Very nifty, and when I'm visiting my parents I can swing by the liquor store, have them scan the card, and walk out with a six-pack of Guinness no problem. I can also do the same thing where I live in Pennsylvania, except the clerks here can't scan the NY cards-- their scanners are only set to read PA cards. So theoretically I can waltz in with a fake ID and nobody would be the wiser.
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
Bruce Schneier wrote: My argument . . . centers around the notion that security must be evaluated not based on how it works, but on how it fails.
... And even if we could guarantee that everyone who issued national ID cards couldn't be bribed, initial cardholder identity would be determined by other identity documents... all of which would be easier to forge.
The first problem is the card itself. No matter how unforgeable we make it, it will be forged.
Looking at the failure mode of the current hodge-podge of IDs in the U.S., we see that the current system is only as secure as the weakest state ID. This is true both as to the forgeability of the ID itself and as to the level of other documentation required to acquire it.
This situation does not provide a reason for preferring the current hodge-podge over a national ID. To the contrary, a national ID is more secure than the current system if (a) the new ID is made less forgeable than the weakest current ID and (b) the new ID requires more establishing documentation to acquire than the current weakest current ID.
The current diversity of IDs and their associated databases does not add to security because a forger need only defeat one such ID to win. That is, where a national ID would present a single point of complete failure, the current diversity presents many points of complete failure. Surely, it is easier to defend one system than dozens or hundreds.
Of course a national ID cannot be made perfectly unforgeable. However, it would be more secure. Whether the increased security costs too much in individual liberty is another question entirely.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)