Single Government ID Moves Closer to Reality

NewbieV writes "The Washington Post is reporting that "federal officials are developing government-wide identification card standards for federal employees and contractors to prevent terrorists, criminals and other unauthorized people from getting into government buildings and computer systems." The project is known as the Personal Identity Verification Project, and is being managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)."

Comments

Oh?

[mythosaz]

Wow, similar IDs for government employees? This might prove as dangerous to our freedom as, say, Military IDs.

Re:Oh?

[Alabama_Man]

Dangerous to our freedom? Our freedom is already in the toilet. Hell, even the future isn't safe anymore,it's being sold! So much for all your plans of a "unified id card".

Re:Oh?

[Staplerh]

Wow, similar IDs for government employees? This might prove as dangerous to our freedom as, say, Military IDs.

Oh, give me a break, who modded this 'Flamebait'. Give me a break, he had a valid point.

If you don't want a Federal ID card for employees/contractors, don't join the Federal government? This is more akin to a Military ID card than a 'national ID card'. I think this is a great analogy, and if I had meta-mod points I'd mod that unfair.

Re:Oh?

[SubTexel]

Funny how the parent is marked flamebait. This doesnt affect the general population and has been under way for quite some time (CAC cards anyone?).

Re:Oh?

[JavaMoose]

Parent should be insightful.

We've had Military IDs for some time now. These new Federal IDs are no different - and are a good idea to boot!

Re:Oh?

[The Snowman]

Wow, similar IDs for government employees? This might prove as dangerous to our freedom as, say, Military IDs.

Exactly. This is not a federal ID for the masses, it is a combination ID card and access badge for secure facilities. It provides a single ID so checking IDs is easier.

Checking IDs at public places is retarded. Checking IDs at restricted access places like military bases, NASA, NSA, etc. makes a hell of a lot of sense. Joe Blow should not be allowed in the CIA headquarters. As it stands right now, each agency has its own ID card. Let's say the FBI is investigating a military member. The gate guard has to know what an FBI ID looks like if he is to provide effective entry control. By creating a common ID across the government, the gate guard knows where to look on the ID for the relevant information and what should be there.

I have one of the new military IDs. Military, civil service civilians, contractors, everyone uses the same damn ID but certain words are different, color coding is different (e.g. civil servants have a green stripe), etc. It has a microchip built in with RSA keys unlocked by a PIN. I can use it to log in to Windows NT and Solaris boxes with card readers. If this is the future of IDs for government workers, the government finally did something right for once.

Re:Oh?

[Vitamin P]

I have a huge problem giving up my SS# which when I was in the military was also one of the 3 things I had to disclose to an enemy... name,rank serial # which also happened to be my SS#. A smart enemy [wc]ould store that information to defeat the opponents when that information is used to open bank accounts,home mortages,rolexes,or penis enlargent pills. My military service required a Confidential Security Clearance therefore having being investigated by the FBI I "really" had no problems with my fingerprints being put into the national database along with my military information but today when any 11 year kid with a script kit can access that info all of a sudden my information can't be trusted to be only viewed by people with similiar Security Clearances but also by the geek that lives in his parents basement who has an uber elite group of friends that could make EVERYONES life miserable. Identifying someone by an "Universal" number/RFID/National Identity card is akin to drawing a bullseye on the back of my neck so some asshole knows that I am important enough to have a connection with the government. If I was a "terrorist" I would attack the infrastructure of a nation that I wanted to defeat. That is a helluva lot easier than attacking the military (which is trained to handle that kind of situation). People need to realize that if our railroads could be attacked your next trip down to the 7-11 might end up with shelves being empty. Yes I am dreaming a bit here but so was Tom Clancy when he described a 9/11 attack about 5 years earlier.

Re:Oh?

[deathazre]

key word: contractors.

I work for the Caterpillar dealer here in Maryland (well, I will when I get out of school). We do a lot of work on government sites. Which means I'll need one of these.

Although, I kind of see it as helpful-- would probably take away a lot of the pain of getting clearance to work on a job. I remember a lot of problems with a job we had in the Pentagon over the summer because the guy who was cleared to work on it was stuck on another jobsite for a few months.

Re:Oh?

[timeOday]

This might prove as dangerous to our freedom as, say, Military IDs.

Coincidentally, have you noticed that military personnelle have very little freedom? As a friend who was in the infantry put it, it's ironic that to defend freedom you must give up your own. When in the military, you can be involuntarily moved around the world, and you may or may not be able to bring your family. You often cannot choose your own line of work. You have restricted freedom of speech. You can't choose your own clothes. You cannot quit. Once your committment is over, you can be called back to service for a number of years. In other words, you are treated for the most part like a piece of property stamped with a bar code.

I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons for the military to be run this way. But how can use offer that as an example of Big Brother's disinterest in running our lives!?

Re:Oh?

[timeOday]

If you don't want a Federal ID card for employees/contractors, don't join the Federal government

Oh goody, in your world the government is controlled by market forces and voluntary participation. That means I can choose not to pay taxes or follow the laws if I don't like them.

Sorry, but our government isn't a corporation that can dictate rules on a whim and tell citizens to go away if they don't like it. Not yet.

Re:Oh?

[Xoro]

Oh goody, in your world the government is controlled by market forces and voluntary participation. That means I can choose not to pay taxes or follow the laws if I don't like them.

You pinhead.

The system is for government employees. Surely you can decide if you want to become a government employee or not?

Re:Oh?

[Z00L00K]

I'm surprised that a standardized ID hasn't been used yet, but better late than never...

The important thing is to make the ID as flexible as possible to allow for future security enhancements/variations to easier detect fraudulent ID:s

---
"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once." - Lazarus Long

Re:Oh?

[ifwm]

Amazingly, since we in the US have an all volunteer army (this is where someone attempts to claim a draft is coming) none of your points matter at all. You don't like the rules, don't play the game.

I think the gp was making the point that ID cards for government employees are COMPLETELY UNRELATED to ID cards for private citizens. They were right. I saw no reference to "Big Brother's disinterest in running our lives".

In fact, I'm not sure why "big brother" and "running our lives" are even valid topics of discussion. You do realize no one is being forced to get these ID cards.

Maybe if you tried less of the chicken little stuff, you'd be taken more seriously.

Re:Oh?

[iamacat]

You don't like the rules, don't play the game.

And increasingly people are not playing. The army has a huge problem recruiting, largely because people heard of conditions outlined by your parent. I thought about national guard when I was a bit younger. You know, being a hero you always see in the movie during a natural disaster without having to kill people or live in barraks for extended time. Fucking liers!

Do you really want other federal jobs to lose appeal as well because they do so many invasive background checks in return for meager pay? That said, I don't see a problem with carrying a badge of my employer's choice as long as I am not required to show it off work.

Re:Oh?

[Dun Malg]

And increasingly people are not playing. The army has a huge problem recruiting, largely because people heard of conditions outlined by your parent.

Actually, that's not true. They've exceeded the ever-increasing yearly quotas for years. The specific category of recruiting for the national guard has had a hard time of it lately because they can no longer say with a straight face that it'll be only one weekend a month and 2 weeks a year, and they usually recruit outgoing regular military folks looking for a reduced commitment. If you like, I can provide lots of links to boring sites with lots of numbers that lay it all out. To start with I offer this, a good synopsis of the specific trouble the ANG is having, and here are the details of FY2004's recruitment goals for the regular army and reserves.

I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[Ckwop]

Oh dear jesus god no. If you're going to put all your eggs in one basket at least guard the basket well! The problem is that by unifying all the ID card systems they don't defend the basket as much as they should.

This point can be illustrated well with Safes. If it costs fifty pounds to break into a safe and only put forty pounds worth of valuables in the safe my safe is secure. If I get ten of these safes, each with forty pounds in them then the total of four hundred pounds worth of valuables is secure. Now let's say I decide to replace my ten safes with a single safe! A safe that only takes three hundred and fifty pounds to break in to is no good; I need a safe that is secure in the face of a four hundred pound attack or more.

The problem with centralising identifications systems is that the new scheme is rarely more secure than numerous schemes it replaces. Except, Except, this time this one ID acts as identification for many types of service and this makes everything less secure. Just for the sake of argument. Let's suppose I choose to attack the system in a certain way. Let say I want to obtain a real "fake"; that is, a card that is authentic but I've paid an employee that produces the cards to put bogus information on to the card. Rather than finding two friends in two different branches of government to supply me with a real card in a fake name I only have to find a single person. This type of weaking isn't just true for this limited type of attack - this weaking is there across the board.

Having different IDs is a simple security mechanism. It's the same reason that Microsoft's Passport technology is dying. Yes it might be more convient to have a single "sign in" but it means that you've produced a single global failure point for the entire system. Such systems are brital so please, I ask these people: hire some security professionals to make these decisions. Silly politicians making "security" decisions is about as helpful as putting a football coach in control of skyscrapper construction.

Simon.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[floodo1]

single system = single point of failure
which means when a single point fails, it ALL fails.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[kun]

I agree, a single point of failure is just asking to be taken advantage of. However, a single well-secured standard is much better than several well-secured standards, since the latter gives more points of possible attack. I.e a well defended main gate or several gates with the security spread amongst them... Sadly, it looks like those who designed the system are going for the single point of entry which is secured in a "let's get this done as soon as we can" fashion... Just take a look at this maze of a flow diagram! http://csrc.nist.gov/piv-project/PIV_model.pdf If their plan is to confuse people with respect to the actual usage of the card... thus foiling false identification attempts with a spaghetti bolognese of verification methods then I think they're succeeding!

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[Talrias]

A safe's security does not depend on its contents if the contents are hidden (which most safes are, and so will ID cards). A locked box containing the Crown Jewels is no less safe than a box locked with the same type of device, containing 10 euros.

I think you are confusing the consequences of having the safe broken into with the ability to break into the box.

Chris

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[mcg1969]

This is a very thoughtful analysis, and yet I still think it's a bit flawed, for two reasons.

First of all, 10 security systems are not necessarily more secure than a single system if a successful breach is defined as breaking into any one of them. That's because now there are 10 times as many possible methods for compromise. In other words, if there are 10 security systems, and a terrorist wishes to compromise just one of them, he is now free to analyze all ten and choose the weakest. Granted, with a single security system the terrorists have only one to focus on. So I can't say one system is certainly stronger than ten, but I don't think ten is a clear winner either.

Secondly, I think it's important to differentiate between a unified identification system and a unified security system. It's not enough for someone to forge the badge if he wishes to enter a secure building. That's because the building's security system limits access to only those badges pre-cleared for access. So the forger must now duplicate the valid ID of one of that building's occupants.

The point being that while the identification system is indeed centralized, the security for each building need not be.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[complete loony]

But, a manager in building A should only be able to grant access to builing A, and query if you have permission to access building A, not the entire government. And anyone should be able to query the system to confirm your identity. Of course the system might be vulnerable to attacks that elevate privliges.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[umbra_dweller]

The safes security is dependent on the conents if the thieves in question knows the safes content. Then the crown jewels become much less safe than the euros, because which is the obvious choice to break into?

Anyone who would fake a government ID knows the value of the alias, being whatever they plan to do with it

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[John Harrison]

hire some security professionals to make these decisions

Having been involved in the process for the TWIC card, I can tell you that security experts are involved. I can also tell you that a well-designed smart card based ID system is much harder to crack than the exisiting government ID badges, since the smart card can have all the same security features that dumb plastic card has plus the cryptographic protections of a smart card. Also it will be much easier to train people to verify the cards since there will only be one type of card to verify and it can be done electronically in addition to visually.

Of course as you point out, it might become more worthwhile to find a way to obtain a legitimate through fake breeder docs or simply bribery. However in a well designed system the smart card will only have permissions for accessing the agency that issued it, so a card from one agency will verify your id at another, but won't let you do anything that you couldn't do with a fake dumb card currently.

In short, I fail to see the downside if the system is implemented by someone with the slightest of clues.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[Kjella]

Yes, because we all know that people protect their own valuables... they don't ever gather them up in order to build very trusted places, such as bank vaults. Just to tell you that you're analogy doesn't work all to well.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Except that this isn't about protection from terrorists at all, its about control-freakism on a rampage.

The terrorist that defeats this, will be one with a valid ID as janitorial staff. Not someone trying to fake an ID as a junior senator. Duh.

Don't you wonder a little bit, that they're rushing to protect all the official buildings, when people like you and I will still be unsafe in public buildings? Do they think this will have protected us at the airport prior to 9/11, or in the towers? Even the pentagon, that was attacked, wasn't infiltrated with a fake ID, but with a 757 hellbent for the ground. Duh.

Centralization is a fetish for the elected nazi wannabees. It won't do a damn bit of good for you and me, and only a fool can't dream up at least one way for it to be abused...

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[SilverspurG]

In short, I fail to see the downside if the system is implemented by someone with the slightest of clues.

Oh Lord. MOD THIS FUNNY.

You have seen the people who've been hired as security screeners at airports, haven't you? You are familiar with the perfection of implementation that DC is famous world-wide for, aren't you? You are familiar with the first rule of thumb which every 18-year old learns if they have to do any sort of real labor,"Good enough for government work."

And, again, what is a 1024-bit cryptographic signature going to give me at work that the security guard at the front desk wouldn't have caught to begin with in terms of identification? In the hiring process new employees are paraded around for everyone to see. Some unknown can't just walk in with an ID card and pretend he's worked there for years. Even visitors from off-site, who legitimately work for our company, are introduced to the front desk and escorted around.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[mcg1969]

The terrorist that defeats this, will be one with a valid ID as janitorial staff. Not someone trying to fake an ID as a junior senator. Duh.

Umm, I never said someone needed to impersonate a senator. In fact, a janitor is exactly the kind of thing I'd imagine, too. And yet, even janitors don't have access to every building in the government. My comment still applies.

Don't you wonder a little bit, that they're rushing to protect all the official buildings, when people like you and I will still be unsafe in public buildings?

Umm, no, I don't think they believe this would have stopped 9/11. In fact I'm hoping they go on the assumption that the terrorists are exploring different ideas as well. Besides, you sure do have some interesting logic: don't bother to protect anything because you're not protecting everything.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[John Harrison]

I am not yet familiar with the PIV card standards. I am very familiar with the use of the TWIC card. The card is issued to those that work in the transportation sector after a more extensive background check than was previously done. It is not tied to their job. They use it to prove their identity when they go to a new job so that the effort of an extensive background check does not need to be repeated. They are then issued credentials for the facility that they work at, which may be electronic credentials on the TWIC card or might be a dumb card, depending on the facility. In other words, you can't just show up some place and use your card. You still have to go to security, they verify that you have a legitimate reason to be there (such as a new job) and issue the appropriate local credentials.

And, again, what is a 1024-bit cryptographic signature going to give me at work that the security guard at the front desk wouldn't have caught to begin with in terms of identification?

You answered your own question. If you don't want to go over your post again, I'll tell you. The system has no concept of "good enough for government work". So you don't have to worry about the guy at the front desk sleeping on the job. This way you get all the benefits of the guy at the desk (he'll still be there) and don't have the drawbacks that he brings with him.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[SilverspurG]

You still have to go to security, they verify that you have a legitimate reason to be there (such as a new job) and issue the appropriate local credentials

And the new system provides which benefits over the existing to justify the cost of implementation?

So you don't have to worry about the guy at the front desk sleeping on the job

You're spreading doubt for the sake of doubt. If the guy at the front desk is sleeping on the job, the people don't get in--no matter what their credentials are.

Even though the politicians never acknowledge my existence except when they want my vote, I'm going to pretend that this nation actually stands up for freedom and democracy and allows me to vote with my paycheck. I'm going to take the same stance with money that my parents would've taken for a computer upgrade I wanted when I was 12: Justify to me that this new system will do something more than the old _AND_ that it's worth the cost.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[hrvatska]

I doubt that a standarized government ID is going to grant access to everything in the government. I work for a large global company. I have a standard company ID card. It does not grant me access to every location within the corporation. Sites at which I have not been previously authorized require me to sign in with security each time I enter. Once security at the site level is confident of my identity, my ID card is activated for the site. Access to secure areas within the site require that not only has my identity been verified at the site level, but that a person authorized to grant access to the secure area has authorized access. Obtaining a fake ID is the easy part. Getting through the authorization process for each site and secure area would be much more difficult.

I've done work for US government agencies that are security conscious, and they have a similar implementation. Just because I had the standard agency ID card did not mean I had access to everything. I still needed to obtain a separate authorization for each secure area I accessed.

I don't see how your scenario of paying one indvidual to obtain an ID card is going to grant access to all the secure areas that require local validaton and authorization. Even with a standard ID card, well implemented real world site security is like having safes within safes. Each safe must still be cracked separately.

Identification and authorization are two separate processes. Security professionals are aware of this. I suspect that it's government security professionals who are pushing for a single government ID.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[SilverspurG]

Everything you've said sounds reasonable... so...

Tell us again which flaws in the current system are so grave that they justify the cost to the taxpayers to replace with this new system?

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[trimbach]

An identity card system is not the same as a security system; in fact, the governmental standards for single ID specifically preclude its use as a privilege system. The proposed ID's have the capability of identifying the individual as a government employee/contractor, and, combined with some other security systems, will grant or deny access to different assets (buildings, computer systems, etc.) But the card is not a magic golden ticket to let you do whatever you want. Just because I'm a fed and can walk into a Federal courthouse in Dallas doesn't mean I can walk into the Federal Reserve Building in New York.

That said, though, most government employees can enter most non-sensitive federal buildings with the ID's they already have. Federal employees from lots of different agencies need to do business with other agencies, and there's so much crossover that it's not practical for building access to be defined on an employee-by-employee basis. It's easier to say "no" to those few high-security buildings and areas than it is to say "yes" to the umpteen zillion buildings with minimal security concerns.

This is really a non-issue... for physical access this system is just a consolidated, unified approach to a system already in place. For electronic access (i.e., computers) this is just a varient of the secure smart card system already used by numerous private industries. The only real "universality" is that the ID's will look the same and the tech will come from a few contractors, instead of many. It will certainly save money as it replaces smaller, localized contracts that do the same thing. But it will not open the government to a single point of attack as many posters are implying. We will not be worse off than before, and will probably be better off.

Paranoia is fun, but this is not a big deal.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[The Snowman]

And, again, what is a 1024-bit cryptographic signature going to give me at work that the security guard at the front desk wouldn't have caught to begin with in terms of identification?

That card will give you the ability to fingerprint communications and documents digitally the same way a web server signs SSL web pages. It will also give information that security guard does not know off the top of his head, such as which classified doors you are allowed to enter and which you are not. If you had to ask the guard, he would just look it up in a centralized computer system anyway. This is how security clearances are handled in the real world -- there are centralized databases showing who has what clearance. All this card does is automate the process one step further.

I have to agree with your point in a way, that the best security involves pairs of attentive eyes and a brain with common sense behind them. Mr. Bruce Schneier reiterates this point over and over in his writing, and people still don't get it. Sigh.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[SilverspurG]

That card will give you the ability to fingerprint communications and documents digitally the same way a web server signs SSL web pages

Information which is marked even as low as classified cannot be moved through usual channels anyway. This is irrelevant. I don't need my toaster to sing the Chipmunks.

such as which classified doors you are allowed to enter and which you are not

Existing systems are already capable of this.

All this card does is automate the process one step further.

Exactly what is it automating which isn't already automated?

The cost is not justified and, if this nation were really about freedom and democracy, our government would allow us to vote with our wallet rather than pandering to us once every 4-6 years. This new system, and all its associated costs of implementation and administration, has demonstrated no significant advantage over existing technologies.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[AlphabetMan]

You're really taking this out of context for someone who's not even in the country. Federal Employee != civilian

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[The Snowman]

Information which is marked even as low as classified cannot be moved through usual channels anyway. This is irrelevant.

This is not necessarily about security and moving information. It is about authentication. Who really sent that document?

Existing systems are already capable of this.

Existing system require multiple cards to work together. I have a military ID and an access badge for my building. They both have electronic mechanisms to interface with computers, but they both work differently. At my last base I had another card that worked a third way. Unifying these means I have fewer cards to carry around and everything works in a single way. That makes the system simpler and easier, which means fewer fuckups.

I understand that it sounds like a bad thing. While I do not have a card with the new system, my current military ID (Common Access Card, CAC) is basically the same. It has similar advantages and disadvantages. I know from experience that it makes security a lot easier. Maybe not better, but definitely not worse, and certainly easier.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[SilverspurG]

It is about authentication

You would've been authenticated long before you got in the same room as the information you'd like to transfer. Redundancy is good but it is still not shown that this particular form of redundancy solves any real problem. In debate, a disadvantage has a link (to the current system), a brink (at the point of failing), and the impact (of the failure). No where is a comprehensive disadvantage of currently available systems demonstrated. Therefore the cost of implementing and administering a new system is not justified.

Existing system require multiple cards to work together

Layered security is good.

Unifying these means I have fewer cards to carry around and everything works in a single way.

Convenience is not in any way a priority of security.

That makes the system simpler and easier, which means fewer fuckups.

I've not seen any mention of failures in current systems which will be solved by throwing more money into what amounts to featureware.

my current military ID (Common Access Card, CAC) is basically the same. It has similar advantages and disadvantages. I know from experience that it makes security a lot easier. Maybe not better, but definitely not worse, and certainly easier.

Excellent. Keep using the current system until the cost of the upgrade is justified. The taxpayers can't be milked for bleeding edge upgrades just because a group of senators on a subcommittee have a particular Wall Street technology company in mind to bestow the lucrative implementation and administration contracts to.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[hrvatska]

A standard ID system will save the taxpayer money. If all agencies are using the same system, security audits will be faster and more reliable. The taxpayer should get increased security at a lower cost. From an administrative perspective, standarization and centralization of processes usually lower overall costs.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[SilverspurG]

If all agencies are using the same system, security audits will be faster and more reliable.

Faster, maybe. More reliable? Arguable and definitely not certain enough to justify the expense.

From an administrative perspective, standarization and centralization of processes usually lower overall costs.

We've been standardizing and centralizing for over 200 years and at an accelerated rate since the 20s. Why do taxes keep going up if costs are lower overall? The answer is in administrative bloat, graft, and corruption. These things are certain.

I never saw a course titled "Money Laundering 101" in my registrar's list but I'm confident I've got a good handle on how it works.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[gumbi west]

Never, ever try to apply logic when trying to figure out how the government is run. Your assumption is wrong.

A contractor can only grant access to their facility, however, with a background check you can get access to a wide variety of facilities. The question is, how is your identity verified.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[Vitamin P]

Having been involved in the process for the TWIC card, I can tell you that security experts are involved. I can also tell you that a well-designed smart card based ID system is much harder to crack than the exisiting government ID badges And I believe that a few Franklins covertly given to the person can also be used for an almost complete verification.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[gumbi west]

Uh, you are talking out of your ass. 'classified' is not a marking. Look at executive order 13292 .

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[SilverspurG]

s/classified/confidential/g

Nitpicking troll.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[gumbi west]

Don't know what country you are talking about, but nominal taxes are falling in the United States. Over all outlays are increasing (and thus real taxes are increasing) but they were decreasing from 1993 to 2000.

I've looked for, " administrative bloat, graft, and corruption" and had a hard time finding it. For example, the Social Security Administration is lauded as one of the most efficient orginizations on Earth. They distribute massive amounts of money with almost zero overhead. They are well know for having incredibly dedicated and hard working staff.

Medicare is a health care system manager with only 3% overhead. No insurance company operates with less than 20% overhead. They are a model of efficiency.

I've worked with a lot of government agencies and have seen them all model efficiency on a variety of fronts, many credit it to effective management in the Clinton years.

True, I've never worked with defense and I've heard horror stories and read about the (still) thousand dollar nails.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[gumbi west]

Nice try.

PS, Your talking out your ass about this one too, "Exactly what is it automating which isn't already automated?"

Building enterance; controlled by a guard using visual inspection.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[Bret Tobey]

If you consider what they're coming from, almost anything is an improvement. In theory this might let them alleviate the "Little Orphan Annie Decoder Ring" ID schemes that are in place today. That "maze of a flow diagram! http://csrc.nist.gov/piv-project/PIV_model.pdf" actually is pretty clean considering they are attempting to add strong authentication to what previously would have been at least three IDs (logical, physical and payment) adding the dual headaches of biometrics and PKI. It's a tough job and no matter what /. says they will go through with it. I hope they get it right.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[mcg1969]

Of course they do. Who empties the trash, mops the floors, replaces the toilet paper inthe bathrooms, etc? Janitors.

Of course. But no single janitor has access to every building in the government. Obviously, each building needs a janitorial staff. Each janitor's badge can be tied to database entries that allow them access only to the buildings that they are cleared to work in.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[dark_requiem]

No, this isn't at all the problem. The problem is, America has become a police state. A pathetic victim of democracy (for all you stupid shits that think this is a nation of democracy, I urge you to consult both the dictionary and the constitution to correct your errors), not the great republic that could have been. The government has no right to tag you, as it has no right to tax you, as it has no right to invade your home. Very few left in America seem to realize that the reason their forefarthers created a system of limited central government is for the simple reason that Lord Akton was right: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. All the imbeciles in America are blathering about how we need to sacrifice this, that, and the other for the sake of "security". Did any of you stupid pieces of shit realize that you can't sacrifice freedom for security? Do any of you realize that by attempting this, you are merely sacrificing freedom, security, AND morality? Do any of you stupid shits realize that the checks and ballances in the constitution were meant to guard the people against the GOVERNMENT, not vice versa? A strong central government is paramount to weak individual freedoms. You pathetic fools would protect America at the expense of everything that makes it worth protecting. Welcome to 1984, you stupid fucks. I hope you enjoy everything you begged for all these years. Let them tag you, let them tax you, let them own you. If you take it, you deserve what you get. May you be damned for it. Call me a troll, call me flaimbait. This is what I believe. You have castrated personal freedom to create an absolute state. You have killed liberty. Now you complain about the police state you have created. Don't you like what you've been begging for all these years? Doesn't it suit your taste to be a number in a government database? Fight this, fight the central government, it will consume and destroy you. Fight for your rights, not as an American, not as a man or woman, black or white, but as a human. Your government would destroy you. Will you allow it? You've already been tagged, you've already been classified. Now break the mold they have created for you.

Each man and woman is responsible for their own lot in life. If you command fools to represent you, you will see war in your lifetime. If you live by enlightened self-interrest, you will see your progeny prosper as you never dreamed possible.

Flame all you want. I don't really care. I will awake one day, a free man. Enjoy your serfdom.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[dark_requiem]

How about this: the US government stops instituting "regime change" all over the world. The US put Saddam in power. The US put Noriega in power. The US is responsible for putting into power the most brutal and violent regimes in most of history. And now, when they say they are trying to put down a brutal dictatorship, which they themselves instigated, all the saps in the country rally behind them and wave their little American flags. The reason we had dictators like Saddam in power in the first place is a direct result of America's interference with the internal affairs of foreign nations. A policy of extremely limited (think near-common-law anarchy) central government, combined with a policy of political (not economic) isolationism would ensure that terrorists had no interrest in America. Of course, if you're one of those imbeciles that believe in a strong central police state (such as we currently have in the US), then you'll surely rally against my comments, in defense of the police state that currently exists in America, ensuring that it no longer represents anything worth defending.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[SilverspurG]

I've looked for, "administrative bloat, graft, and corruption" and had a hard time finding it.

Okay. That's all you needed to say. Either you live in an ivory tower or you're trolling.

For example, the Social Security Administration is lauded as one of the most efficient orginizations on Earth

Oh. That's why it's going bankrupt and needs to be overhauled. That's why the retirement age keeps getting bumped up a few extra years and benefits gets slashed on a regular basis.

Medicare is a health care system manager with only 3% overhead

Even if you could cite a link to back this claim up I'm sure it's a product of a careful massaging of the numbers.

I've worked with a lot of government agencies and have seen them all model efficiency on a variety of fronts

Ivory tower, troll, or blindfold?

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[Albinoman]

Ill bet Tim McVeigh wouldnt have needed to use an access card for the Oklahoma City Federal Building either.

This isnt about fending on terrorists, its about information control. Its about knowing who is looking at what, and where they were at what time, and who is with them.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[hrvatska]

The figure of 3% overhead for Medicare is correct. Unlike most insurance programs Medicare doesn't pay for marketing and outrageous executive salaries, bonuses and perks. And yes, the SSA is considered a very efficient organization. Having worked with them as a consultant on an IT project, I found them to be as efficient as any large corporation that I've worked with. The problem with SS is due to demographics, not efficiency. The CBO produced a good report on this. The problem that needs to be solved is long term in nature. The real problem doesn't come until mid-century. At the point, if nothing is done, benefits would have to be reduced by 20%, since all past surpluses would have been consumed. It never goes broke in the sense that most people think of it. It would be reduced to paying out what it brings in each year, which would be 80% of projected benefits. Increasing SS payroll taxes by 2% of income, taxing income above the upper cutoff, or a combination of the 2 would eliminate the shortfall.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[Mudcathi]

I never said someone needed to impersonate a senator. In fact, a janitor is exactly the kind of thing I'd imagine, too.

Ubergeeks daydreaming about stealing a janitor's identity? Slashdot gets weirder every day, I tells ya...

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[John Harrison]

you are the one spreading doubt for the sake of doubt, bringing up the phrase "good enough for government work". Isn't it terrible when your own logic turns against you?

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[John Harrison]

Please provide details on your TWIC involvement and who you would bribe. Given that you called this an "RFID" card in another post I am guessing that you aren't in the industry. You don't use the terms properly.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[ifwm]

Hehe police state. Funny, I imagine you're some punk college brat who hasn't seen a REAL police state (don't lie and say you have troll, we all know you haven't).

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[crumley]

For example, the Social Security Administration is lauded as one of the most efficient orginizations on Earth

Oh. That's why it's going bankrupt and needs to be overhauled. That's why the retirement age keeps getting bumped up a few extra years and benefits gets slashed on a regular basis.

The problems you mention are problems of politics and demographics. They say nothing about the efficiency of the Social Security bureacracy. The Social Security Administration is very efficient at collecting and distributing money. It is the fault of politicians that there are structural problem in Social Security.

As for benefits and retirement age, I don't know where you are getting your information. Social Security benefits haven't been cut in ages. In fact they they have probably been rising too quickly due to the method of inflation adjustment that is used. The retirement age has been increased so that people born before 1937 could retire at age 65, while those born after 1960 can retire at age 67. If anything the retirement age should be increased more - to at least 70. When originally implemented, most people didn't live till retirement age. Now life expectancy is in the upper 70s and people are collecting benefits for way too long. That's why Social Security is in trouble, not the bureacracy.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[gumbi west]

I'm curious, what made you think that SS benifits have been slashed?

they only cut they have received in the last 30 years is when Regan changed the inflator (the amount the benifits increas by) from the CPI to a more accurate (but every so slightly lower) chain-weighted CPI. There was an outrage and he had to spend a lot of political capital to get it done. But that wasn't a decrease in benefits, and it was over 20 years ago.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[NetBlackOps]

Simon, the only problem with your analogy is that I, standing a security watch say at the front gate of Naval Air Station, North Island or on the quarterdeck of my (now sunk) US Navy Destroyer, don't have the least clue how to identify which federal identifications are valid, falsified, or fakes.

At no time while I was serving in our military was I trained on any of the various forms of identification currently extent. This from someone that was responsible for identifying and nuetralizing terrorists. Perhaps with one form of identification we, the people supposedly securing our federal installations, might have a clue when we are confronted with a falsified or fake identification.

This is not to invalidate your point. Any identification made by man can be duplicated by man (E. E. "Doc" Smith) and the technology only becomes increasingly sophisticated. Still I feel this is a step in something of a right direction.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[SilverspurG]

You're a twit. You've always been a twit and you'll always be a twit. You made me a foe? I give a hoot. Go blow it out your hind-end.

As for social security benefits. Mine are slashed by 12% already, and I won't be eligible to start collecting for another 35 years, wait, make that 38, wait make that 42. At this rate, the eligibility date will keep getting bumped up to the point where I'm dead before I can start collecting. Yet it still costs 12.5% every week.

I suppose you think "pyramid scheme" only refers to those hokey meetings where they give out free pizza.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[mlevin]

Umm, I never said someone needed to impersonate a senator. In fact, a janitor is exactly the kind of thing I'd imagine, too. And yet, even janitors don't have access to every building in the government. My comment still applies.

I'd expect it to be a janitor, too.

Um, who cleans the oval office? Who cleans the office of the director of the CIA? Not a janitor? (I really have no idea.) I can't imagine that these people clean their own office. And I can't imagine that some senior staff member with a high security clearance dusts the president's knick-knacks, either. Do they clean while some armed guard supervises? We're paying TWO people to clean each room? ;-)

Maybe someone who actually knows can explain...

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[mcg1969]

I honestly do not know but I'm guessing that they have a sort of "we trust you but we don't" strategy. That is, there are likely janitors on staff in the White House who have sufficient security clearance to be given access to the entire place. At the same time, there are likely a number of procedures in place to insure that those janitors don't access material they are not supposed to, and/or that it is easily detected if they do. (For example, classified documents are closely inventoried and kept under lock when not in use, copy machines are tightly controlled, etc. etc.)

As someone else pointed out there's an ambiguity in my sentence. I did not mean to suggest that there are some buildings, or even offices, where janitors are not allowed (though to be honest there very well could be). What I meant was that no single janitor has access to every building, only those to whom they are specifically assigned. The point being that if you were attempting to illegally gain entry into a building, is would not be enough to just forge or steal a janitor's badge, you have to forge or steal the right janitor's badge.

Re:I'm against this.. take three guesses why?

[gumbi west]

I asked you what made you think social security was cut. can you tell me?

Not so bad

[tirefire]

Doesn't sound too bad - a single ID card for federal employees would be very handy - you just need one key to get into everything you have access to, instead of fumbling around with multiple keys and passcards.

Until the gov't starts implanting RFID tags in our skulls to track our every move, I don't really see the danger.

Re:Not so bad

[Talrias]

You might want to read the United Kingdom government's proposals for identity cards to see how another country is planning to introduce them (for all citizens). Unfortunately, our government hasn't given them enough consideration on details yet.

I am for ID cards in principal, but as people have said, they need to be secure (and the recent UK government's history of choosing firms who can produce secure code is approximately 0%).

Chris

Or...

[Anonymous Coward]

A single ID can be forged and used by terrorists for access to any government building! Brilliant!

Re:Or...

[e9th]

Do you really think that anyone with a government employee/contractor ID will be allowed into "any government building?"

Re:Or...

[mcg1969]

Let's forget terrorists for a moment, do you really believe these badges would be designed so that an employee of the Department of Agriculture can gain access to an NSA building?

Re:Or...

[Gregg Alan]

I freaking hope so!

(my wife works for the DOA)

Re:Or...

[Zocalo]

Exactly. These things will almost certainly be like swipe cards on steroids with multiple levels of validation as to what and what isn't permitted. In a typical swipe card system you divide your secured areas into zones, then assign each swipe card access on a zone by zone basis. That covers the "something you have" aspect of security, and you can still add in the "something you know" (keypad or other password system) and "something you are" (biometic) if you wish. Hell, you can even keep the people standing around with guns too if the situation merits it.

I've been at large multi-building, multi-location sites that have implemented this kind of thing using smartcards. The obvious gains of increased convenience, cost savings through having a common system and ease of management are all there, but a loss in operational security isn't. It's not that such systems are invulnerable (they're not by a long shot), but they are no more vulnerable than individual systems and it's *much* easier to be sure ex-employees are completely locked out.

Re:Or...

[SilverspurG]

You'll get no argument from me about the merits of having a single unified security or identification system. My question is: if we have so many examples of the technology existing already, why are we hyping Yet Another System which will give no additional benefits at a drastically increased cost?

A new system will require new methods of making the IDs, new readers, new patents, new trademarks, new attorneys, new corporate entities. For the money that it's going to cost me I don't see any significant improvement over existing technology.

It's the same issue as upgrading a computer: if the computer does what you want why upgrade for the sake of bleeding edge alone? Bleeding edge on your dollar is fine, bleeding edge on mine is. No matter how bleeding edge you are there will always be another exploit.

Let's just admit typical political corporate graft and wholesale government welfare and be done with it.

Re:Or...

[jhobbs]

Let's forget terrorists for a moment, do you really believe these badges would be designed so that an employee of the Department of Agriculture can gain access to an NSA building?

True, true. But let's reverse that for just a moment. Do you think a valid NSA, or more practically, a valid FBI ID would grant the bearer unfettered access to the Dept. of Agriculture and other "low-level" agencies? Before you say, "Yeah, but what would terrorists care about in the DOA?", may I direct you to the MIPT's repository on Agri-Terrorism threats.

I would suspect that someone who looked "official" and had a convincing story would get pretty far with a reasonable fake. Point is, if there are many differnt types of IDs out there you will need many differnt fakes and correlating stories. When presented with IDs from other agencies guards will typically look up sample IDs they are not familiar with and/or verify stories. By creating one Universal ID(tm) you create a dangerous comfort level. IDs begin to all look the same and it becomes easier to overlook small discrepancies that would scream fake.

Ask a Police Officer which fake IDs are missed at clubs the most often. Yet another in-state ID that passes a glancing inspection. Or an out-of-state ID that requires the checker to read the card trying to locate name and date of birth.

Re:Or...

[Zocalo]

Do you think a valid NSA, or more practically, a valid FBI ID would grant the bearer unfettered access to the Dept. of Agriculture and other "low-level" agencies?

No. What it *will* do is establish that the bearer is probably a member of the NSA/FBI to the DoA building's reception/security. How they handle it from there will depend on the DoA policies and proceedures in place at the site concerned. That could easily entail phoning a field office/superior if the person had simply turned up without prior arrangement. In any event, it's highly unlikely that those proceedures would extend to allowing unrestricted access to sensitive areas without some form of escort no matter who they claimed to work for.

Re:Or...

[mcg1969]

True, true. But let's reverse that for just a moment. Do you think a valid NSA, or more practically, a valid FBI ID would grant the bearer unfettered access to the Dept. of Agriculture and other "low-level" agencies?

Actually, no, I would not. I doubt it works that way now, either.

I would suspect that someone who looked "official" and had a convincing story would get pretty far with a reasonable fake.

Looks don't mean squat to an automatic card reader. I do agree with you that the more a security system relies on human evaluation, the less secure it will be. Nevertheless, just for convenience and efficiency sake more than anything else, a lot of places are moving to fully automated access controls (card-readers at doors or turnstiles, etc.)

Re:Or...

[mcg1969]

You'll get no argument from me about the merits of having a single unified security or identification system.

Umm, yes we will. Or was that your other personality?

Re:Or...

[SilverspurG]

I didn't feel the need to restate the obvious since the parent seemed to be of reasonable mind.

Re:Or...

[Artifakt]

Could a valid seeming FBI or NSA ID get someone enough access at INS to alter someone's immigration records? Could it get someone a look at when the Dept. of the Interior schedules park ranger fly-overs or walk-throughs along the undeveloped parts of the US/Canadian border? Could it get unfettered access to many of a state or local government's files?
Can it be used to find out things indirectly - for example, can someone find out whether DEA has found their hidden dope plantation in a national park by watching for the warnings DEA gives the park service before raids?
Agencies like the Dept. of Transportation, Office of Management & Budget, or HEW all have information or tools that could be highly useful to criminals, while not having the high profile of DOD, DOE or one of the 17 or so smaller police/intelligence related agencies (BATF, OSR, DEA, FEMA, etc.). These civil oriented agencies mindset re. information or physical security is usually lower than a small town sherriff's office, even though they may have a budget 50 times as high.
A single standard ID might help if it was part of a general security upgrade of these agencies, but now we're talking about even more funding, to fix the holes that would otherwise allow not just ID spoofing, but many other tricks. Without that, consolidating ID systems isn't likely to help much, if at all.

Re:Or...

[chill]

No, I believe one of those badges given to a sub-contracted janitor would get them into an NSA building. Or do you believe the super agents scrub their own toilets at work?

It also depends on how they are implemented. I believe a stolen smart chip from card A, implanted into easier-to-get card B would be a major threat.

The devil is in the details.

Re:Or...

[mcg1969]

No, I believe one of those badges given to a sub-contracted janitor would get them into an NSA building. Or do you believe the super agents scrub their own toilets at work?

What do you mean? If a janitor is assinged to a DoA building, he's not going to be able to enter an NSA building, even if the same contractor is used for both agencies.

Yes I'm assuming a minimal level of competent implementation but I think a reasonable amount, even for a government agency.

Re:Or...

[mcg1969]

Then perhaps you need a lesson in idioms: "you'll get no argument from me" implies agreement. Or are you reading his post differently than I? He seems pretty supportive of a centralized ID system, whereas in the post I liked you seemed otherwise.

Re:Or...

[chill]

If an agency like the NSA or CIA requires security clearance for their cleaning staff, and some do, then it is very likely that the same staff will be used for multiple locations and rotated around.

Getting clearance is expensive and it isn't just done on a whim. Once they have someone with clearance, that person is going to be used as often as possible.

If a person temporarily loses clearance, they will be rotated to a non-clearance required position until their clearance is reinstated. It happens all the time with military contractors.

Re:Or...

[TheCabal]

What makes you think this ID system is going to be anything like the traditional system the states are using now for drivers licenses? Ever hear of a smartcard?

Re:Or...

[mcg1969]

I have no doubt that janitors with high levels of clearance will be used as much as possible---where that clearance is required. But I'm talking about the Department of Agriculture here. There's no way a janitor with the clearance to roam the halls of the CIA is going to be wasted in the DOA (that is, unless he loses his clearance as you state).

I have a feeling we may be crossing paths here. My original illustration was simply to point out that it takes far more than just a badge to get into a building. I think you agree with that, actually. The original poster seemed to suggest that all a terrorist would have to do is forge a single badge and he could get into whatever government building he wanted.

Re:Or...

[finkployd]

So you understand the concept of authentication but seem to be completely drawing a blank on the concept of authorization.

Think of it like a slashdot ID. By logging into the system any old user cannot post stories to the front page. Only certain users can do that. This is how most security works. A combination of authentication (are you really who you say you are?) and authorization (ok, you are who you say you are, what are you allowed to do?)

Finkployd

Re:Or...

[Dun Malg]

Could a valid seeming FBI or NSA ID get someone enough access at INS to alter someone's immigration records?

No, how could it? There isn't just a locked door and then an open Wyse terminal that allows you unfettered access to the records.

Could it get someone a look at when the Dept. of the Interior schedules park ranger fly-overs or walk-throughs along the undeveloped parts of the US/Canadian border?

No, because those things are usually coordinated at the local level. Access to the State Highway Patrol headquarters won't tell you when officer Smith plans to patrol the westbound side of highway 23 either.

Could it get unfettered access to many of a state or local government's files?

No, because such access is NEVER unfettered, even for people who ARE allowed in the building.

(BATF, OSR, DEA, FEMA, etc.). These civil oriented agencies mindset re. information or physical security is usually lower than a small town sherriff's office

You're kidding, right? BATF and DEA have the security of a small town sheriff's office?

A single standard ID might help if it was part of a general security upgrade of these agencies, but now we're talking about even more funding, to fix the holes that would otherwise allow not just ID spoofing, but many other tricks. Without that, consolidating ID systems isn't likely to help much, if at all.

I'm sorry, but your blind assertion that they have lax security at the BATF and DEA renders that judgement laughable. A consolidated ID system brings all the various individual systems up to the same level. It doesn't give the holder blanket access to all government facilities. You think they just have to flash a card and the gard lets them in? Doesn't work that way, and it never did.

Re:Or...

[Artifakt]

Tell me, if I had said, "unlike lions (big carnivorous things) rabbits can't bite harder than a typical 2 year old.", would you have misquoted me to claim that I was saying lions can't bite any harder than 2 year old humans? Before you start throwing around terms such as "blind assertion", you need to learn to read.

Re: your earlier remarks - Dept. Interior patrols of much of the border are carefully scheduled and recorded in advance, as they are not matters of simply driving along a road for a normal day's work. Actual border hike patrols take place in some locations less than 1x/year, and in some cases are 2 weeks plus operations requiring planned reprovisions by airplane.

reaching?

[sailforsingapore]

This is a ways away from a "single government ID". That makes it sound like we are all going to get barcodes on our necks, this is simply a way to streamline the process of verifying federal employees, just as corporations have for years...this is not a problem. It becomes an issue when the ID starts to become mandatory for the non-governmental public, where the potential for abuse is.

Re:reaching?

[SilverspurG]

this is simply a way to streamline the process of verifying federal employees, just as corporations have for years...this is not a problem.

And won't be a problem until when...? We remember that counterfeiting isn't nearly as difficult as particle physics. Until we remember that the people who manufacture the ID cards are just as easily bribed as the people who check them?

Online single sign on

[SilverspurG]

Does anyone really think that you should have a single sign on name and password for every online service, site, e-mail account? Would you want that single sign on to be linked with all of your bank accounts? Why is it bad to have everything linked together? What makes identity theft easier?

Forget trolling about tin-foil hats or paranoid people who have nothing to hide. Let's get back to the nuts and bolts of why, from the very beginnings of nature, squirrels put nuts in many different places.

Re:Online single sign on

[mcg1969]

Squirrels can still put nuts in many places with this system. This is a standardized, centralized identification system, not a centralized access system. In other words, the information that controls who is allowed into what building can still be decentralized.

Re:Online single sign on

[SilverspurG]

This is a standardized, centralized identification system, not a centralized access system

We already have passports if we're interested in idnetification. Is there any particular reason why we (taxpayers) are interested in giving a government handout to Yet Another Proprietary Card Reader?

Or is this just another one of those bills that we're supposed to pay without asking? Hell, my parents wouldn't let me buy so much as a stick of gum without proof that the old pack of gum was empty and no longer useful. Last I checked, passports were the single most trusted form of ID at DMVs, BMVs, for security clearance, at airports, and worldwide.

Bait. Switch.

[Muttonhead]

I suspect the government will continue floating these id schemes until its ready to introduce the real system its got waiting in the wings whatever that is.

Re:Bait. Switch.

[human bean]

Somebody mod the parent up. This is exactly how federal security works. You don't know, and thus you can't tell.

If it came from a government source or press release, then it is smoke and mirrors.

interesting

[LBArrettAnderson]

I'm assuming that with the incredibly intelligent slashdot editors we have here, that the part we should be paying attention to is "contractors." Well, no, i still don't see why this is important news, let alone have anything to do with my rights online.

I'm not a government employee, and I don't plan on sneaking in to any government building that i'm not supposed to be in. Are you trying to say that we have a right to have illegal access to all government property?

Re:interesting

[SilverspurG]

Are you trying to say that we have a right to have illegal access to all government property?

National security and everything else aside I usually like to think of property as belonging to the people who paid for it. Obfuscating the owner by distributing the cost just makes it look more like a scam.

Am I the only person who's suspicious of a group of people who take my money by force and refuse to involve me in decisions that they make with that money past the obligatory gesture of voting once every few years? If everyone else is comfortable with that I'll be more than happy to take your money today and spend four years coming up with a voting scam that looks good to 90% of the participants.

Re:interesting

[LBArrettAnderson]

yes, i agree with your statement. Just remember the "National security and everything else" part. They can't let anyone and everyone look at everything that they're doing. There is not an efficient screening process to allow honest citizens such as yourself the ability to go places like that to know what you're paying for. They don't know that you're not going to use what you observe for malicious purposes, so they can't let you see it. It's a fact that we all have to live with.

Mixed bag

[wapanesechick]

It seems innocent the way it's being presented now. Yeah, this does run the risk of making it easier for terrorists to forge the ID because there's only one kind instead fo many, but I could see how it can be convienent. The only problem is that if this is suscessful, who's to say they aren't beyond a National ID for everyone, like some people were reading into it?

Re:Mixed bag

[damiangerous]

Yeah, this does run the risk of making it easier for terrorists to forge the ID because there's only one kind instead fo many

No it makes it harder. With only one type of identification one can be assured that all guards and even employees are thoroughly familiar with it. When there are many different types of valid ID it's very easy for a guard to not be trained in how to spot a forgery of that type or for a regular employee to simply think "must be a new type".

It's why in Massachusetts you may be refused alcohol if you don't have an in-state drver's license or a special Massachusetts Liquor ID (or a Federal ID). Most of the time, at least in college, fake IDs are from out of state because no bar can be familiar with all the various forms of state ID out there. Accepting only one of those forms of ID means a liquor merchant "exercised due care" in determining age and it limits his liability.

The only problem is that if this is suscessful, who's to say they aren't beyond a National ID for everyone

I have one. It's called a passport. Sure, there's no law saying you have to have one, but there's no law saying I need to have any sort of state ID either. It just makes things a lot easier.

Re:Mixed bag

[SilverspurG]

With only one type of identification one can be assured that all guards and even employees are thoroughly familiar with it.

Familiarity breeds contempt.

It's called a passport

Why not require all federal employees to have passports, then? Why are we wasting tax money on Yet Another System?

Feel free to admit to graft between Wall Street and DC any time.

Re:Hey Slashdot,

[Gentlewhisper]

Given the recent articles today, do they put in a GPS transponder and a personal laser defense system on each of these?

I like it

[neXus_umr]

As a government employee I have to say this would be kinda nice.

Re:I like it

[neXus_umr]

How does this get me marked as a troll? I said I'm a gov't employee and I like the idea. What is wrong with that? There are lots of reasons I like this: 1. I like the idea of building security, I don't want someone to walk off with the server I've been working on for the last 6 months. 2. I like the idea of not having to carry around multiple IDs. 3. I think its a better approach then some of what has been implemented over the years. If some asshole modded me as a troll because I like the idea of a gov't securing certain things then they should think about it for a little bit. If the buildings that the US holds data in aren't at least relatively secure then what sort of security does it provide the citizens? There is plenty of personally identifiable information that needs to be secure. And, if someone tries to throw a conspiracy theory spin on it I'm referring to things like your social security number and other numbers that while you should have access to it Joe Blow down the street shouldn't.

Re:I like it

[neXus_umr]

At the time I considered it a view point from someone it actually affected.

Government-issued IDs are already here.

[Pendersempai]

Drivers' licenses are ubiquitous and necessary. They are marked with identifying data and a unique number. They have your picture. Authorities are allowed to ask for it, and in general citizens are expected to cough it up. They must be checked by private parties in certain circumstances (to prove your age, for example), and in other circumstance private parties insist on checking your drivers' license as a prerequisite to doing business with you (Blockbuster, e.g.)

Granted, each state keeps track of its own citizens' licenses, so I suppose that's one difference between the status quo and the ballyhooed National ID Card. But really, what else are we afraid of? Why don't we just bite the bullet and make citizens' identification cards necessary? The states can take care of issuing them and tracking the relevant data, and we can have laws about when authorities are not allowed to ask for identification, or when a citizen is not obligated to identify himself, just like we do with licenses. But not arbitrarily tying our ID cards to driving would be much more efficient. Why should it be harder for a blind man to identify himself at will simply because he cannot drive?

So to everyone terrified of national ID cards, wake up: that reality arrived long ago.

Re:Government-issued IDs are already here.

[SilverspurG]

So to everyone terrified of national ID cards, wake up: that reality arrived long ago.

Fair enough. Then I am within my rights to ask why someone else is voting to use my taxpayer money to start yet another ID system? The DC boys are always free to admit that it's nothing more than pork-barrel rollouts for their prospecting Wall Street friends.

At least that'd be honest.

Re:Government-issued IDs are already here.

[JJahn]

"Why should it be harder for a blind man to identify himself at will simply because he cannot drive?"

It is not, at least in Wisconsin. Here you can get a state ID card which is the exact same as a drivers license, except its cheaper (if I remember right, $8 as opposed to $35) and doesn't allow you to drive. You even keep the ID number if you do happen to get a driver's license in the future.

Re:Government-issued IDs are already here.

[xmundt]

Greetings and Salutations.
I am fine with using a STATE issued card (driver's license, etc) as an identity tool. My concerns are more with the continued erosion of state's rights by the federal government. A "national id card" is just another way for the Feds to weaken the states...and, IMHO, that is a really bad thing.
A big chunk of America's strength comes from the diversity of strong states and a weaker federal government, and, in order to maintain our
liberty and autonomy, we need to keep this state
of affairs.
Regards
Dave Mundt

Re:Government-issued IDs are already here.

[ifwm]

I've heard you make this argument (that it's about the money) several times. Mostly, I think, because you have been refuted on everything else. Let me say you are perfectly within your rights to ask where your money is going.

Now, since this card potentially saves cost by eliminating several systems and replacing them with one (I'm assuming it is cheaper, but that information will be available) your last point is invalid as well. You will most likely be saving money, so save your outraged taxpayer crap (you're not really upset about the money, you just can't think of any other way to knock this down).

Single gov't ID?

[lime1304]

As it is being worked by NIST, there will be no need for changes, cost effective, and implemented perfectly. Too bad it'll take 10 years to get to reality.

Stop the presses!

[mcg1969]

Wait a minute! Are you saying that the federal government is instituting a standardized system for identifying people who work for the federal government?

Oh, no, what's next? Will this spread to privfate companies? Will I have to hold a little magnetic badge up to a card reader in order for it to unlock the door to my office building? The horror!

Security is related to competence, not plastic

[t_allardyce]

Im pretty sure most break-ins come from things like "can you swipe me in? i left my card in the car" or "i work for bob but they havnt put me on the system yet" and "hey can i just use your computer for a minute to print this?"

The innocent man has nothing to hide

[Nine Tenths of The W]

That's why I'm eargerly awaiting the forthcoming release of data by the politicians pushing for ID:their funding, their horse trading, why they voted on every particular issue, how much money each lobbyist gave them and what they wanted for it, which election promises they actually plan to keep, etc etc

Re:I don't see a problem

[SilverspurG]

They make chow hall lines quicker because we don't have to sign

What a wonderful justification. As an addendum, college cafeterias had this problem licked years ago without the need for a chip or a magnetic strip--just a bar code.

I'm not going to put on a tin-foil hat and try to point out potential abuses. I'm just going to say that unified tracking sounds both suspicious and exploitable. I'm sure you guys know how to get your girlfriends through the chow line. As a private citizen I'm allowed to be suspicious of an entity that acknowledges that I exist only when they want my vote once every few years. Too bad I'm not allowed to vote with my paycheck during the interim.

Yeah, right.

[audacity242]

I work for the VA, and one of my duties is to make ID cards...Somehow I doubt this is gonna happen anytime soon. I mean, heck, IDs aren't even standardized throughout the VA, each medical center has its own format. About a year ago they told us we'd have a new system in place "soon." Still don't have it.

Re:Not so bad - Not for EBAY

[jackb_guppy]

Ebay just jumping Passport, so why would we want a simular thing in goverment?

One ID means only one thing to conterfiet. Look at how well it is to get any corpate office wuth the same badge.

Threat analysis

[TrumpetPower!]

Let's say you're a terrorist. And, further, let's say you want to hurt Americans. What will you do?

1) try to get into a government facility with a faked ID to do your terrorizing;

b) get a job at said government facility and then do your terrorizing with legitimate access;

or III) strap a bunch of explosives to your body, go to a movie theatre, buy a ticket, sit down, and blow yourself up halfway through the opening credits?

Cheers,

b&

Re:Threat analysis

[Zocalo]

Options "1" "b" and "III"? I'm guessing that you may have said "Cheers" a few times already this evening... ;)

Re:Threat analysis

[Tim Browse]

I'd go for:

iv) Suggest that the US wasn't solely responsible for defeating Germany in WWII.

That always seems to hurt /. Americans the most :-)

Re:Threat analysis

[Sloppy]

strap a bunch of explosives to your body, go to a movie theatre, buy a ticket, sit down, and blow yourself up halfway through the opening credits?

And then get sued by the MPAA? Give me a break, no terrorist is that brave.

Re:Threat analysis

[mickyflynn]

yeah... the brits helped, too. but we did do Japan 95% on our own, with a liberal jesture to the alleged importance of the fight in Burma by the Brits.

I refuse to recognize Soviet help in the defeat of Germany because I would rather have had the Nazis destroy the Soviet Union before Communism leaked into China and South East Asia, thereby keeping us from having a Cold War. Postponing Normandy by 6 months would have gotten the Germans a nuclear weapon. It would have been "dirty," but still a nuclear weapon. We would have had the fission bomb anyway. After Nazi vicotry on the Eastern front, a B-29 run on Berlin and a jump by the 82, 101, and the British units would have ended the war and avoided Korea, Vietnam, et cetera. The lack of Soviet Union to invade Afganistan would have meant no CIA backing of the Mujahadeen and one Osama Bin Laden. No proping on the Sha in Iran and pissing off muslims there either. Hey, guess what? Nazi victory over Russia means no War On Terror. No real reason for the National ID Card.

Cruzchev said, "we will burry you from within!" -- i'd rather take the chance with the Nazis, personally. But I really hate Communism.

Re:Threat analysis

[gabbarbhai]

You're assuming that the Soviets could have been defeated by the Germans at that time. Where did you learn your history, boy? :-)

Re:Threat analysis

[mickyflynn]

I just typed about 4 paragraphs of ramblings to answer this, leading myself to a senario in which either we enter cold war with the nsdap, or a vague win or lose which depends on hypothetical data which i'll want to say favoures the US because i'm ultra-jingoist, but probably favores the Germans and their "America Bombers" launched from the Canary Islands.

Still, I like to think the Nazis would have trampled the commies. I'm not so sure it wouldn't have been of benefit to us to have gone to war on the side of the axis before pearl harbor against the soviet union. then again, i'm operating from 20/30 hindsight (i know the history but i have slanted views. at least i admit it which is 1-up on most slashdotters).

It's late (or early) and i'm probably hallucinating from sleep deprovation, so you can probably just ignore me.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Single Point of Failure

[dotslashdot]

The problem with this scheme is it also introduces a single point of failure. If "evildoers" (other than cheney, bush, rove, rummy & company) figure out a hole, the entire system is in jeopardy--like that whole problem with a homogenous computing environment. If the system is unmanageable for the government as it is, imagine how difficult it is for the "evildoers" to "do evil" with it.

Re:Single Point of Failure

[mcg1969]

I do not agree that this is a single point of failure. Just because a terrorist succeeds in forging a government ID doesn't mean he's succeeded in gaining access to any building he chooses. The access controls for each government agency are likely decentralized.

Re:Single Point of Failure

[Tarwn]

I'm not sure I seee your "single point of failure". Knowing a card design does not necesarally equate to being able to duplicate a card that will allow you access to specific places you would like to go.

Right now there are multiple (and when I say multiple I'm guessing in excess of 100) differant card designs for various departments, contractors, etc. If I was going to set out to duplicate an ID card my first step would be to gather up 30 or so of these and start trying to make my own copies of the easiest ones.
Additionally, these cards will likely be tied into a main system somewhere, not on the card. This means that in order to make yuour own card you would need to copy an existing card. But, the additional capability of biometric signatures, etc mean that you also have to convince the card reader/camera/whatever that you are the peson who's card you stole. Granted very low security buildings probably won't have biometrics, guards, etc, but what are you doing trying to get into a low security building? Might as well just take the guided tour.

The fact that the current system is virtually unmanageable by the government does not necessarally make it that much harder for "evildoers" to "do evil" with it. It in fact provides multiple points of penetration or weak links. The fact that it is virtually unmaneagable means that there are that many more ways to break it. Or, in other words, it has many, many points of failure because any one will give you access to at least one or two buildings (at which point you can start clubbing your way to the top to get other badges, walk to other buildings, etc).

This also seems to be a bootstraping argument to me. It is not, in fact, like a homogenous network. With a homogenous network, any point of failure (i'm thinking viruses) can take the whole system down. Trying to find a hole in the system (we're talking about a single door access system I'm guessing) means your already going to have found a hole in firewalls, etc that allowed you access to this locked down computer, as I highly doubt they are going to put a webserver on it and let it announce to the world "Hi, I'm the point of failure for the whole card system, hack me to add a card id and access level". I'd be surprised if it was on a network that was externally accessible at all.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Already here?

[Quila]

How is this different from the current CAC card (government version of standard smart card) currently issued to soldiers, civilians and contractors?

Re:Already here?

[SilverspurG]

How is this different from the current CAC card (government version of standard smart card) currently issued to soldiers, civilians and contractors?

New patents on manufacturing and reader technologies which give the politicians avenues to favor particular sets of investors, particular CEOs, particular attorneys, particular judges...

I never saw a course called "Money Laundering 101" in college but I'm pretty sure I've picked up the finer points just by watching DC.

Shareef don't like it but Christians don't care...

[MsGeek]

The fact that no Christians squealed when the FDA approved subcutaneous implantable ID chips in humans makes me think that in real life if we ever get a "Mark Of The Beast" most Christians will take it along with the rest of the sheeple.

Then again, did the Dems take advantage of the info? Nope. Such a shame, because if this had been approved by Clinton Karl Rove would have been all over this in 2000.

And you thought Metal Gear was unrealistic...

[noidentity]

...with generic numbered cards letting you into all the enemy's buildings! Maybe they'll be named "Card 1", "Card 2" etc.

The truck have started to move!

Re:I don't see a problem

[stratjakt]

It's not. They're worse, if you ask me.

And my University used mag stripes, which were readable by vending machines on campus.

You'd have to custom design your own vending machine if you wanted it to read barcodes.

They can't even do fingerprints!

[IO ERROR]

Considering all the trouble the U.S. has putting together even a simple fingerprint database, I think this project is going to go nowhere fast.

Oh, and this story is a duplicate.

Re:Christians won't like it

[gmhowell]

Largely correct, except that you must replace "Christian" with "fundamentalist Christian" in every instance.

The Rapture also has little to do with not dying. Christ's appearance on Earth ca. 2000 years ago meant that none of us will 'die', but will live forever through Christ.

Not sure why the fundies can't grasp that.

business lobbies have impeded national ID

[Cryofan]

we should have had a national ID long ago,but no doubt business lobbies have impeded its development. The longer they can keep importing and exploiting cheap illegal labor, the more money for them, and the more wages are driven down for citizens.

It's criminal, IMHO.

i would support this only...

[St. Arbirix]

if they also implement a system where you have to step into a giant glass tube (a la The Jetsons or Futurama) and if your ID is incorrect it tubes you off to the nearest holding cell.

That would be kinda neat.

Re:Not so bad - Not for EBAY

[The Snowman]

One ID means only one thing to conterfiet.

Not really. First of all, IDs with biometrics and RSA key signatures (like my military ID) provide a level of security that protects against counterfeiting. Keys are issued at approved facilities and locked down with a PIN. To counterfeit such a card you would need to recreate the card, embed the smart chip, enter a key on it, and hack the central database with the same key.

Mexican Bandit says

[cpt_rhetoric]

Badges...We don't need no stinkin badges!

Sure.

[Dirtside]

federal officials are developing government-wide identification card standards for federal employees and contractors to prevent terrorists, criminals and other unauthorized people from getting into government buildings and computer systems.

Yeah. I'm sure that this new ID card will "prevent terrorists, criminals and other unauthorized people from getting into government buildings and computer systems."

I smell someone trying to convince people that security can be had in a product, rather than requiring constant vigilance, like it really does.

Ways around that.

[agent]

http://www.libertydollar.org
Or I can just hor my body.
http://www.biolifeplasma.com

Re:Christians won't like it - defining christian

[spcrbt5]

Just for the sake of nitpicking as theologians are inclined to do....

Even the phrase "fundamentalist Christian" is not an accurate title in this case. It is actually the classic or "old school" dispensationalists like Tim LaHaye - the author behind the popular books of the Left Behind series. In fact many fundamentalist christians (which is normally synonymous with the word evangelical, in the US) do not seem to be adequately represented by the craze created by the Left Behind series.

Not only is classic dispensationalism dead (hence the rise of neo-dispensationalism) but even the new view is not as widely held in the theological circles as many other views (hell, how do we even know Revelation is a linear book aaaaand how can we take one verse from Daniel and interpret the rest of the Bible from that? - that's how it was with classic dispensationalism, in a general sense, though that probably does injustice to many off shoots of dispensationalism).

Its a shame that christianity is characterized by one opinion per issue. There is a wide variety of thought concerning these matters in christendom and *gasp* each person is still a Bible believing christian, after all they do conform to the creeds developed by the early church councils. Its like saying all christians support the crusades or for a relevant example, George W. Bush.

I think I am a bit of a fundy, but apparently by many standards not a very good one. I don't like killing people, I support social programs and I'm not a Republican... then again nor am I much of a Democrat either. But now I am getting tangential...

Basically what I am saying in summary is that dispensationalists are not even a majority. I am not yelling to say, "Hey, look me - a minority." What I am saying, is that this view that many people see christianity as does not even enjoy the position of majority in a grand sense.

- David
Bible/Theology Major
History Major

Suprise! Already here

[TheCabal]

OK, apart from the fact that all of you who drive are already carrying a form of government-issued ID, the Department of Defense is already using something like this. It's called a CAC card. It's a combination identification and smartcard. It gets me onto the base, into the PX and helps decrypt my email. It's a straw-man argument to say that "the terrorists" are going to mass producing these and getting in and out of Ft. Meade at will. Just as it is not with my CAC card, I get get to every place on post. The level of effort is going to be far too difficult when there's so many other software targets to hit.

Re:Suprise! Already here

[Infonaut]

So you're saying that terrorists don't have infinite time, resources, skill, and knowledge?

Polyanna!

Re:Suprise! Already here

[TheCabal]

So you're saying that terrorists don't have infinite time, resources, skill, and knowledge?

That is correct.

Why try attempting something that takes infinte resources when it's a hell of a lot easier to commandeer a couple of airliners and crash them into tall things?

Re:Suprise! Already here

[Infonaut]

Why try attempting something that takes infinte resources when it's a hell of a lot easier to commandeer a couple of airliners and crash them into tall things?

Indeed.

That's also the same logic that explains the "hunker down, let the Americans roll over you, then pop out and retake control of the area" strategy being employed by the insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Not really "new" and it might just work...

[Bret Tobey]

Things like this have been kicking around the federal government for years and this particular initiative dates to August when the President issued HSPD12, http://csrc.nist.gov/policies/Presidential-Directi ve-Hspd-12.html, basically saying IDs ought to be issued in a standard way. So much for the Washington Post scoop.

Flamebait aside, this has a good chance at increasing security, if done right. NIST is the right agency to handle this. It's not intended to be a centralized national ID, but a standard way of defining what IDs look and act like. Basically, a guard doesn't have to remember all the different agency and vendor ID cards no matter what door he gets transferred to.

Since every dorm has a kid that "can make it look real" verifying that ID is the key. Here's where the folks at NIST and the rest of the Feds really need to earn their pay. If you can't verify who issued the ID and how, it doesn't have much security. The Smart Card Alliance sponsored a good white paper on the "Chain of Trust" concept, http://www.smartcardalliance.org/alliance_activiti es/secure_id_systems_report.cfm These IDs can't be issued by one entity so unless the effort includes a easy, fast and secure method to verify both the identity and how it was issued, they are just setting up a beauty contest between the forgers.

Re:Why?

[mickyflynn]

Control, extorsion et cetera. "Citizen, your papers please?" The same with standardized testing -- identify strenghts and weaknesses, assign occupations thusly. You can't get away with any of that subversive crap if they know where you are. Like Santa Clause only far less dastardly.

Spain had ID cards

[permaculture]

UK Parliamentary Committee Releases Report Damning ID System http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml? cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-63601

Spain has ID cards, but that didn't prevent the Madrid train bomb: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3500452.stm

The British Parliament has abandoned their new ID cards for the Houses of Parliament despite the recent security breaches, as some hundreds have 'gone missing'.

Reasons against ID cards: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ican/A2319176

------------

ID cards might well:

* Worsen harassment of ethnic minorities: They'll provide another pretext for stop-and-search, often directed at ethnic minorities

* Have little impact on counter-terrorism: Sophisticated terror networks would soon be able to produce counterfeit cards or papers enabling people to get legitimate cards

* Have little effect on illegal working: Employers who are already willing to break the law won't be put off by identity cards

* Lead to 'function creep': The functions of the card will grow over time as it stores more personal information. More people could demand to see it, effectively making it compulsory to carry one

* Lead to loss of privacy: There will be a massive database containing an unprecedented amount of personal information on people

* Be costly and impractical: There is scepticism about the cost and operability of the scheme, as well as the government's ability to manage the technology

----------------

Doubts over ID card scheme http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2688697.stm

The human factor

[parvati]

What proponents of high-tech IDs tend to overlook is the importance of having people involved. A few years ago, I worked in a hospital/research center in NYC that had very tight security (for example, everyone was finger-printed before being issued an ID). The ID itself would presumably not be impossible for someone--especially someone motivated--to fake, but the security guards were another matter. They lived at the entrance to the building, and they pretty much recognized everyone who worked there. If they didn't recognize you, they stopped you, checked your ID, and called up to wherever you said you were going. This isn't a system that would work for a bulding accessible to the general public, but the majority of government buildings are only frequented by the people who work there ... for these buildings, attentive security guards are at least as important as fancy IDs.

Re:secure code

[zmollusc]

Now that is just unfair! If The recent history of lucrative government contracts *cough* EDS *cough* is anything to go by, the government will pay hundreds of millions to a company to develop something which will never work and be scrapped before it reaches roll-out. The most secure code is that which is never run (failure rate 0%). Any bureaucrat can see the logic of this.
Seriously, there will be a national ID in britain soon, probably implanted rfid. It fits so well with government policy of hugely inconveniencing everyone who isn't in power (If you are in power you can erase all that troubling data that have acculmulated in the huge Database of Everything and Everyone."David? Hi, it's Tony. Listen, the wife is going ballistic because the nanny can't take the boys shopping in manhatten . Could you have a word with records about her clearance? Thanks").

different attack vectors

[geoff lane]

All buildings will need a guest system so that's one obvious attack vector.

Alternatively, you attack the card issuing system or the people who run it. That way you get a valid card and gain access as needed.

There will have to be a system to deal with lost cards, that's another good way to attack the scheme.

Why not?

[zagmar]

Why not? Most of the contractors are foriegners, and they all look alike anyway. Maybe with ID they'll stop bombing us and just fucking do their jobs...

Not really

[Safety Cap]

Checking IDs at restricted access places like military bases, NASA, NSA, etc. makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Every single one of the 9/11 hijackers had IDs.

Timothy McVeigh had ID, too.

IDs do nothing for security at all, except lure gullible people into believing they do something to promote security. The proposed Federal IDs can tell you if a known terrorist is trying to get a job in the government. If a person is a "known terrorist" why in god's green earth hasn't she/he been picked up yet? Oh wait...

Re:Not really

[crawling_chaos]

Passwords can be cracked. Should we stop using them? Locks can be picked. Do you leave your house door open?

Properly handled IDs do contribute to security, but they are not a panacea. Nor is anything else for that matter. Security is a process, not a technology, but dismissing a unified government employee ID as "totally useless" is just disengenous. At a minimum, it increases security by lowering the training burden on the officers responsible for checking on access rights. Can it be defeated? Sure. Is it harder to defeat than the hodgepodge of identification systems currently in use by federal agencies? Yes, it is. The current FDA IDs are a joke, for example. I would bet any talented forger would have no trouble producing a reasonable copy of one with today's technology.

What a crock

[sl4shd0rk]

See how that homeland security act get used for blanket coverage of just about anything? Besides, what's stopping Terrorist Habib from "Give me your card or I cut off your nutsack"

" difficult to use by anyone other than the rightful card-holder if lost or stolen." -- however it does not say impossible.

How, exactly?

[jazman]

When will govts stop just saying that it will prevent terrorism and start saying how exactly?

Recently the UK government discussed returning motorbikes to having front number plates, which were removed because they were mounted on the front wheel sideways and in collisions with pedestrians the latter ended up with bits sliced off. The basis for the discussion was that it would stop terrorists and drug barons (and of course had nothing to do with the fact that front facing cash, er, safety cameras cannot identify motorbikes).

Now I don't know about anyone else but I really can't see how returning front number plates to motorbikes will do anything about drugs and terrorism. Perhaps they're hoping that drug barons and terrorists won't think to put front number plates on their motorbikes, and that therefore anyone without one must be one of these people?

It will of course make the whole policy completely ineffective when terrorists and drug barons start putting front plates back on their bikes. After all, it was a real bummer when they stopped going around in sandwich boards that had printed front and back I AM A DRUG DEALER, GET YOUR DRUGS HERE, and I HAVE A BOMB, PLEASE DON'T RUN AWAY.

Re:Not so bad - Not for EBAY

[jackb_guppy]

Unless everyone is carring a reader you have one thing to conterfit. That is the problem.

Now copying a card is generally easy. I worked in hotels for years, once you have a inside source or phone tap, the informarion is avaialble and a CRcard can be dupilicaed in less than 1hr. Remember the cards MUST BE readable.

Here we are talking about adding a picture id. Yes it is alot harder, not.

Depends on the movie

[Just Some Guy]

If the terrorist accidentally picked "Gigli", then

1. The terrorist would probably surrender, and
2. By that point in the movie, half the crowd would already have left.

Criminals?

[metamatic]

"federal officials are developing government-wide identification card standards for federal employees and contractors to prevent terrorists, criminals and other unauthorized people from getting into government buildings and computer systems."

So how will Bush-appointed felons like John Poindexter get into their offices?