Deadline For Saying "No" To National ID

cnet-declan writes "If you don't like the idea of a federalized ID card, you have only have an hour left to let Homeland Security know your thoughts: the deadline to file comments on the Real ID Act is 5:00 pm EDT on Tuesday. Probably the best place to do that is a Web site created by an ad hoc alliance called the Privacy Coalition (they oppose the idea, but if you're a big Real ID fan you can use their site to send adoring comments too). Alternatively, Homeland Security has finally seen fit to give us an email address that you can use to submit comments on the Real ID Act. Send email to oscomments@dhs.gov with 'Docket No. DHS-2006-0030' in the Subject: line. Here's some background on what the Feds are planning."

Comments

Need help writing a letter / more info?

[MobyDisk]

If you are rushing, check out the EFF's page on the Real ID act. They have a summary and a sample letter. Join them while you are there!

Re:I fail to see...

[owlnation]

as a quick summary:

1. It's bureaucratic and expensive.
2. It's open to abuse of power
3. It's only one thing to forge / steal - makes faking your ID and ID theft much simpler
4. It leads to all sorts of data mining privacy issues - one ring to rule them all - get the ID card, get everything else.
5. It's easy to stay outside the system - unless there are regular checkpoints and official stop and searches.

I used to live in Germany and I've seen every single one of these be a problem at some point. Biggest issues are 1. the expense - this is serious money for something that is very ineffective, and 2. the abuse of power - ask anyone who looks Turkish in Germany how often they are stopped and asked for ID. It's pretty much daily in some areas.

That said, there is a huge number of people living illegally in Germany that have no ID, and have been doing so for many years. It is an inconvenience to the law abiding, and no hassle to a criminal, possibly even an advantage.

Re:I fail to see...

[jdp]

The basic question is whether any security benefits outweigh the costs in terms of security, identity theft, civil rights, and privacy.

Bruce Schneier and Richard Forno's National ID card a disaster in the making discusses some of the many problems with Real ID.

In a nod to states' rights advocates, DHS declares that states are free not to participate in the Real ID system if they choose--but any identification card issued by a state that does not meet Real ID criteria is to be clearly labeled as such, to include "bold lettering" or a "unique design" similar to how many states design driver's licenses for those under 21 years of age. In its own guidance document, the department has proposed branding citizens not possessing a Real ID card in a manner that lets all who see their official state-issued identification know that they're "different," and perhaps potentially dangerous, according to standards established by the federal government. They would become stigmatized, branded, marked, ostracized, segregated. All in the name of protecting the homeland; no wonder this provision appears at the very end of the document.

As does the Wall Street Journal's Real ID Revolt:

Americans are rational. And in a post-9/11 world, they are willing to trade some freedom and convenience for more security. But it's not at all clear that Real ID will make us safer. Deputizing motor vehicle office clerks, who would be entrusted with sensitive information and access to a national databank, also entails considerable privacy risk. Fraud and security lapses at DMVs today are hardly uncommon. Just last month, a DMV official in North Carolina was arrested in connection with issuing fraudulent drivers licenses. And if the goal is to stop the next Mohammed Atta, it's worth noting that, even under Real ID, people would be permitted to fly with identification other than licenses.

In terms of the concept of National ID in general, Jim Harper describes it well in his excellent (long!) deconstruction of Real ID:

U.S. policymakers have long rejected a national ID as inconsistent with American freedom. Ordinary people, it has long been believed, should not have to carry a card as if they are criminal suspects and they should not be asked to account to authorities for their whereabouts or activities.

jon

PS: more on this on the Stop Real ID Now! blog.

Re:I fail to see...

[RobNich]

(I'm giving up moderator status by replying. Worth it, I hope.)

Travel between the colonies was common, especially for those who signed the Declaration and Constitution. I doubt that it is much more common today. While the number of people traveling has increased, so has the population.

The driving force of the creation of the Union was to remove the power that the centralized government of England had over the colonies. The government had too much power and was using that power to keep itself established. In doing so it was oppressive.

You're right, providing the nation with a variety of legal options was not the goal, it was a side effect. In order to keep a centralized government from taking control of the country, the States were given the power to make those decisions. Creating mass opinion is not difficult, but by keeping each decision in a smaller area (the state) large society-changing laws would be limited in scope (to the state).

Unfortunately the tide turned leading up to and because of the Civil War, which the southern states rightly call the "War for States Rights". Unfortunately they are right. The states that were trying to enforce slavery were wrong for doing so, and it's fortunate that slavery was abolished. However, it was not necessary for the federal government to take over the way it did, and I hope that the pendulum swings back soon.

Mind you, not because I agree with slavery, but because the Federal government is making decisions that have far broader consequences than were intended, and there's no way out for citizens. When some states wanted a different president, they were forced by a slight majority to have another. The President's office was not supposed to be so powerful that that would be a problem. The state governors are supposed to be more important to the individual.

The Federal government has made regulations regarding various drugs, for instance, that some states disagree with. When a state opposes a federal law, is that allowed? Constitutionally yes! But there are those who want federal funds to be pulled from that state. Where are the federal funds coming from? Each individual in that state!

If the government wasn't so big on making new laws, it wouldn't be such a large a problem, but don't get me started on that.