Homeland Security Offers Details on Real ID

pr0nqu33n writes "C|Net is running an article on the DHS's requirements for the Real ID system. Thursday members of the Bush administration finally unveiled details of the anticipated national identification program. Millions of Americans will have until 2013 to register for the system, which will (some would argue) constitute a national ID. RFID trackers for the cards are under consideration, as is a cohesive nation-wide design for the card. States must submit a proposal for how they'll adopt the system by early October of this year. If they don't, come May of next year their residents will see their licenses unable to gain them access to federal buildings and airplanes. The full regulations for the system are available online in PDF format. Likewise, the DHS has a Questions and Answers style FAQ available to explain the program to the curious."

Comments

Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

"Where are your papers?"

Land of the free^wregistered, home of the brave^wslave.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

You carry your "papers" with you every day in one form or another.

Yes. And this is a step beyond those, sometimes several steps beyond. Are you OK with that? Are you OK with the fact that the government decides where and when you can go, if you drive, if someone else drives? It used to be that a transportation ticket for any destination within the USA had the following information: Where you got on (sometimes), and where you're supposed to get off. In the case of the NY subway, an ID-less token got you on, and you got off when and where you pleased. You could ride all day. And I often did. I'm old enough I've had plane and train tickets w/o personal identity information; got on in NYC, getting off in Washington. Nothing else. Could have handed it to my girlfriend, it would have been perfectly valid. Didn't used to be the government's business where you were, who you were, or where you were going except in the case where your skills were a safety issue, or in other words, when you drive. In that case, the state has a compelling interest in your competence, and that is what a driver's license is supposed to attest to, not what your real name is or anything else - just that you can drive; the fact that it identifies you is peripheral to its purpose, not the other way around. These days, that's no longer true, but I submit that it is not a good thing at all.

In short, I agree, you're right in the technical sense, they are asking for more and more papers. I firmly believe that's 100% the wrong way to go, and that whatever good you might get out of it, it'll never make up for the enormous bad that it brings. I am not a criminal; I absolutely resent being treated like one. If someone is determined to be a criminal, hang a fucking GPS/RFID/venomous bracelet 'round their ankle if you must let them wander in public, otherwise incarcerate them or exterminate them, but do not bring the presumption of guilt onto the head of every warm body in the country.

I hate this whole "mommy" government thing, top to bottom. We don't need it, there are better ways to go, and getting it is going to hurt us a lot, count on it.

Re:Gettng Godwin's law over with (appropriately!)

[fyngyrz]

That's interesting because I live in a country where ID is mandatory and yet I rarely have to show it

You're in danger of losing your geek card here. RFID means you don't have to show the card; it means that it can be read if you're within a few meters without you having to take it out of your wallet. Very... convenient. Old tech ID in another country has no relevance to the RealID program getting under way here; RealID mandates biometric identification details (retina scan, something along those lines) as well as photo and statistical data (height, age, etc.), and most importantly "undisclosed additional technologies." With RFID, if I am standing at a checkout or a toll booth, and you approach, everything on your RealID card will pop up on my display I need to verify you, including the biometric data, arrest history, and anything else they deem interesting (perhaps the prescriptions you take, or your tendency to stutter. Your location and activity can then (still automatically) be passed along to a larger network for use in tracking, privacy invasion, feedforward to entities like insurance providers, banks, various police agencies, and so forth. No one need lift a finger. You just buy your booze or copy of playboy (you filthy bastard!) and go on your way. Later, when they make a law against playboy, they'll just come and get your ass. They already have numerous "punish previous legal behavior with new law" programs running, as well as numerous "add to your sentence after conviction" programs, both the very definition of ex post facto law, which are forbidden by the constitution. Of course, they're not paying any attention to the constitution any longer; another reason to compound our worries.

In the US - traditionally - we have held that our privacy is something we hold dear. This program can erode privacy significantly; that's the general basis for resisting it. But there are others. I don't want my insurance agency to be deciding to change my insurance rates if they find that I am out in the woods from time to time (I collect rocks.) They may decide I am in the same group with hunters or dirt bikers and so pose a higher risk, when in fact, I don't. This is the kind of thing where information about you can be used against you; and like "no-fly" lists, once someone has made a decision that you are an undesirable, they are not generally going to turn around and reverse that decision without a lot of work on your part; work that would be unnecessary if they had simply kept their nose out of your business.

I hope this falls flat

[El Cubano]

States must submit a proposal for how they'll adopt the system by early October of this year. If they don't, come May of next year their residents will see their licenses unable to gain them access to federal buildings and airplanes.

I hope that enough states refuse to participate that it makes the federal legistlature repeal the law. Of course, congress will likely do as they've always done and threaten to pull federal highway funding or education funding until the states in question comply.

Re:I hope this falls flat

[bockelboy]

Sometimes I think states depend too heavily on the federal government loan shark.

For example, take Colorado. Their land-grant institution, CSU, is supposed to be the premier state-run school. However, only about 8% of the budget is provided for by the state. The rest of it is mostly provided by student loans (in turn, provided by the government) and federal government grants.

So, if Colorado ever wanted to exert a state right over a federal right, Congress can easily cut education funding for the state and watch the state universities collapse.

It's sad that states are so dependent on the teat of Uncle Sam. Of course, if they wanted to provide the services through the state, the resulting state tax increase (followed by no federal tax increase) would insure the whole government got voted out.

I wonder if the founding fathers would be saddened by how state governments basically only have the rights and duties the federal government doesn't care to control. Look how easily ID systems just went from state control to federal control - barely any fighting that Joe Q Public even noticed! What state right is next?

Smoke and mirrors

[Wind_Walker]

Next time you're going through airport security and being forced to show your Photo ID and boarding pass, remember this:

All 19 of the 9/11 hijackers had valid photo ID and a valid boarding pass.

Re:Smoke and mirrors

[penguinrenegade]

MOD PARENT UP.

This is absolutely true and D.C. is trying to get the rest of the people to become sheep and give up their rights. If no new information is being collected, no new requirements are being mandated, then exactly why is this necessary?

9-11 was cited as the reason for this in the FAQ (for those who RTFAQ) and it is complete and utter bull.

States that are trying to reject this (so far) include:
Maine (passed)
Georgia, Massachusetts, Montana, Washington, California, and Texas)

This is EXACTLY a national ID card, and we already have the right to board aircraft. The problem is that we LET D.C. regulate states! Mod parent up - this is "national security" at its worst.

Your papers, please.

[rantingkitten]

What, exactly, is this supposed to do to "fight terror"? The only thing I'm terrified of is how easy it would be for an invasive, looming government with no regard for privacy and individual rights -- such as the one we have now -- to abuse this. "The terrorists" aren't getting ID cards. The law-abiding citizens are. And the citizens are the ones who will pay the consequences.

Re:Profit

[FuMoDi]

just go and make sure you have yours...After you have yours then you can freely debate Debate within compliance is just lip service, isn't it? We can debate until we're blue in the face but it won't make a bit of difference in terms of profit as the money has already been allocated and spent.

Write Your Representatives

[pyro_peter_911]

Downsize DC has an ongoing campaign to repeal the REAL ID Act. Go visit their site then send your Senators and Representative a message. It only takes a couple of minutes. Let your idiot representative know that you're watching and you'll hold them accountable for their actions. It doesn't take long. Just go do it.

Peter

It's worse than that.

[khasim]

"The terrorists" aren't getting ID cards. The law-abiding citizens are. And the citizens are the ones who will pay the consequences.

Actually, most terrorists in the US have had authentic identification issued by the US government (or accepted by it).

The real terrorists will have no problem complying with this law.

Not only that, but it will be run by people. And people can be corrupted. A single ID card that is accepted as valid anywhere in the US becomes very valuable. So some low grade government paper pusher decides that he can make a bit of money on the side by approving fake requests. So the illegals in Texas are getting ID cards issued by a corrupt guy in New York.

Yeah, if you wanted to help crime NATIONWIDE, you really couldn't come up with a better plan than this.

Mod him up ?

[DrYak]

Who did mod him troll ?

I mean, it's true : those terrorist had valid non-counterfeit IDs, linking them to the identities they used in the states and with which they didn't have any problem. Serious terrorist are supposed to keep low profile until last moment and ID linking to central database will be no help having a centralized national database won't bring any new information. (Except if "Al Qaida" provides a database of all identity of their terrorist. But as Al Qaida is more a "franchise" used by small groups [and used by the media to scare people] rather than a real well organised corporation, that not possible even in theory...)

Politicians should stop pretending that the ID is some magical problem that'll definitely fix the terrorism problem for sure. Here in Europe, almost every country has ID, but *that* isn't what will stop some of them of being targeted by attacks.

An ID card is just a convenient and standardized way for quickly showing who you are, for all those moments where you need it (before entering in nightclubs. while buying alcohol, when going to the administration, to prove you are the owner when using credit card). And that is the only thing politician should ever pretend. All the rest are lies. An ID card will never show what people *intend to do* and will never ever stop terrorists.

It makes us less secure

[Original Replica]

From the article:which means that businesses like bars and banks that require ID would be capable of scanning and recording customers' home addresses.

Because reading it off the front isn't good enough? Why would they need to scan my address unless they wanted to send me junk mail or make a database of my drinking habits? This is security theater at best.

we already have sufficient ID

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't the federal government simply require its existing Federal ID for anyone who boards a plane? It's called a passport, and it's already (presumably) secure, or can easily be legislated as such. People who don't take airline flights needn't bother to get one, and no additional (read: expensive) requirements need to be imposed on the states. The fact that this isn't being considered (or even discussed) tends to corroborate the real purpose of the REAL ID Act: a complete database of everyone, forever. Your papers, please.

Good luck with that

[localroger]

Back when the Feds were twisting everyone's arms to raise the drinking age to 21 Lousiana refused. We had a damn good reason; our state constitution forbids it, very directly saying that at 18 a person has "all the rights and privileges" of adulthood. (It's from the Napoleonic Code, and survived the big overhaul of 1974). So the lege started by floating a constitutional amendment, which fell flat with the voters. So then they passed the law anyway, and the state supreme court struck it down. So then, with weeks left on the deadline they passed the exact same law again and this time the state supreme court did a back flip and a twist and said that the constitution doesn't really say what it says and upheld the law. And that is how Louisiana became the very last state where an 18 year old can't buy a beer.

It will go down the same way with Real ID, just watch. It might be the Mormons or some blue state that stands up but they'll be told fine, pay for your own highways (though we'll still take your tax money) and good luck to any of your citizens who want to fly. And conversations will be had behind closed doors about the way things have to be and it will be done.

zero to lawsuit

[superwiz]

This smells like zero-to-lawsuit in less than .1 second. It would mean that residents of the states that don't adapt DHS' guidelines would be discriminated against in Fed Gov employment as well as interstate travel. First of these is probably unconstitutional and the second of these is definately unconstitutional.

So, let's actually read the article...

[Jeian]

Since /. readers have a tendency to start screaming about national ID cards and identity databases without (apparently) actually reading the documents in question, I will provide the relevant quotes for you.

http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/laws/gc_1172767635686 .shtm

"In the proposed rule, DHS is proposing to limit the official purposes of a REAL ID license to those listed by Congress in the law: accessing a Federal facility; boarding Federally-regulated commercial aircraft; and entering nuclear power plants."

"Is this a National ID card? No. The proposed regulations establish common standards for States to issue licenses. The Federal Government is not issuing the licenses, is not collecting information about license holders, and is not requiring States to transmit license holder information to the Federal Government that the Government does not already have (such as a Social Security Number)."

"Will a national database be created that stores information about every applicant? No. The REAL ID Act and these regulations do not establish a national database of driver information. States will continue to collect and store information about applicants as they do today. The NPRM does not propose to change this practice and would not give the Federal government any greater access to this information."

"DHS is proposing minimum standards that will appear on the face of the card. The proposed regulation would require each of the following on the face of REAL IDs; space available for 39 characters for full legal name; address of principal residence; digital photograph; gender; date of birth; signature, document number; and machine readable technology."

"What is the Machine Readable Technology specified in the NPRM? The regulations propose the use of the 2-D barcode already used by 46 jurisdictions (45 States and the District of Columbia). DHS leans towards encrypting the data on the barcode as a privacy protection and requests comments on how to proceed given operational considerations."

So, let's see. What we're *actually* looking at is federal standards on what information needs to be displayed on state ID cards, and how identity needs to be proved prior to the issuance of a state ID card.

Gee, that's actually a lot less threatening then all the comments are making it sound. Hmm...

Re:How is that a "Fake ID"?

[Talgrath]

Except, again, the 9/11 terrorists had VALID, LEGAL IDs; they weren't fraudulent, they didn't lie about who they were. The 9/11 terrorists were here on perfectly valid visas, and all their IDs were obtained through perfectly legal means; which means, even if the "Real ID" system flies, it still won't stop terrorists from getting a valid ID. Somehow people have gotten it into their head that the 9/11 terrorists did things illegally before they attacked us, but this simply isn't the case; the 9/11 terrorists were normal, law-abiding individuals until their actions on 9/11.

If big air-travel states opt out it's doomed

[davidwr]

If even 2 or 3 states with lots of air travelers opt out, er, "just say no," the feds will be forced to adopt another way for these people to board airplanes or the airline industry will have a fit. If it's inconvenient or expensive expect a hew and cry from the voters.

The "ultimate" backup plan for the feds is to require passports for internal travel. Insert In Soviet Russia joke here.

Interstate Commerce covers everything

[bigtrike]

If the interstate commerce clause can be used to regulate the growing and consumption of a plant which is never sold and never leaves the owner's property, then it can cover just about anything else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

I disagree

[KKlaus]

You're right about any potential terrorist getting IDs themselves, 9/11 being obvious evidence to that fact. But the whole "single ID card" as asking for a huge exploit is silly. All states already honor all other states driver's licenses. I'm living in CA right now, with a NH license, for instance, and I'm treated exactly the same in all instances as someone with a CA license. As security is only as strong as its weakest link, a National ID would be (maybe will be) much harder to exploit. This is because the situation as it is now is that the weakest ID is all you need to exploit to get full privileges. We've already seen this with the 9/11 guys getting Virgina IDs. They did that for a reason.

With a national ID, ideally it would have the resources behind it to be stronger than any single state ID. However, any fraud protection is useless when you can just pay off a DMV employee, again as some of the hijackers did. The problem with national ID is not that it's in any way worse at IDing people. It's not. The problem is that is does nothing to deter or hinder terrorists, and that trying to know who everyone is at all times (and where they are if you are checked frequently enough) is extremely unamerican. It's a papers-please society, and its very bad. But it _is_ efficient, and that's unfortunately not an argument against it.