Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[t'Sade]

news.com

REAL ID is a law that past a couple months ago, mainly by leeching on a military spending bill. The gist of the law is that there will be a single ID card that is universal across all states. And, if the states want the money, they have to give the information into a centralized database.

I don't like the idea of a national id card. They claim it isn't, but I would think a card with a universal way of reading it, a centralized database, and the right for any office to demand identification from anyone, even if they aren't breaking the law, is a national ID card. Isn't it?

Also, what you "DO" with the data is a different thing. I've seen too many things where data is lost or stolen by someone and sold off. A good example is the letter from my mortgage provider telling me that my records were stolen from a truck and someone may have my SSN, address, relative, credit check, and all the information they track. A couple months ago, my friends had someone break into their credit card provider. Three months before that, MY bank sent me new cards because someone broken into them.

And people want to centralize the data even more? We already have a problem with personal information being "lost" in the world, to the highest bidder who might sell it off as identity theft. And now, it will be a one-stop shopping.

Of course, it will be secure, because no one ever steal data when they are offered millions. Nope, never. Not to mention the government would never use it for profiling, they are far beyond that.

Governments are run by humans.

Humans fail.

[t'Sade]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/26/0136221

This article is about Maine voting not to implement the REAL ID. This seems to be good news.

[KK]

I have to say that in Germany we always had a "Personalausweis" which seems to be what this ID card is about.
It really is no problem here so far, but it is a pice of paper and not a computerreadable plastic card (yet).

So it can hardly be used to steal IDs or whatever.
I also see no problem with the IDs of every citizen stored in a central database.

I realize that the USA has a quite different bureaucratic infrastructure than Germany, so it is probably hard to compare. But for us this works very smoothly and I dont feel "watched" by giving most basic personal data about myself to the state. And that data so far is nothing anyone can really use against me.

To avoiv confusion: there is no requirment in Germany to carry your ID with you at all times, but it is an easy method to at least make a basic check by authorities if you are who you claim to be.

The more interesting question is: What other data is stored in connection with name, date/place of birth, eye color, height, photo and last address? I am certainly against storing anything that is not required for identification or that gives someone clues beyond identification. With the data stored on our ID, even if someone copied them, it'd be useless to them. Of course, if these IDs stored things like social security no., medical history or anything like that - yes, that'd be a problem and certainly not justified for the purpose of having IDs.

[t'Sade]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act

According to this article, everything that the states stores on their driver's license is required to be submitted to the government. This does include Social Security number, your entire driving history (probably for the last seven years). An interesting point is that federal agencies do not have to accept any other form of ID other than this. This means that driver's licenses, state ID's, or anything else will be turned down whenever you try to fly, open a bank account, or anything else. So, the states that are making laws to fight REAL won't be able to travel from state to state.

http://www.diamondconsultants.com/PublicSite/ideas/perspectives/downloads/INSIGHT%20-%20Real%20ID.pdf

According to this PDF, it talks about the cost of implementing. There are some interesting points, like when you move states, you have to wait for the last state to finalize their shutdown of your card before you can get a new one. This means, of course, you can't legally drive until that process is done. Also, most states aren't ready for handling this. Another intresting point is being no longer allowed to renew your DL over the Internet or phone for being a "good driver". I've done that for some time now, mainly because it saves me 2-3 hours, but that isn't allowed under the new system.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-5554.pdf

According to this lovely little ruling, basically we have to show ID whenever asked. Which means, we can be arrested if we don't have it on us.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html

Schneier has a pretty godo blog on what national id's don't really work, mainly when dealing with identity theft, but also when you have a single form of ID, people don't question them as much. They assume that they are correct, which means once they are broken or someone can make a counterfeit, there is less reason to check for validity.

Beyond that, I think the my country has abused its privileges of having centralized databases. It gives them to people who call me for money, which is where much of the telephone sales calls came from for a while. Private data is stolen (I've written about that before) and this makes it just a "one-stop" shopping for identify theft but also to gain more information on people. Also, while the ID cards are being centralized that means that everyone is going to start using the national ID's as identifiers, which seems kind of opposite from using SSN as identifiers. And, since the ID numbers are going to be public (driver license information is public information in some states), that means that it will be easier to basically invade my privacy.

I believe that a national ID system can work, but not in the way this is being implemented. It also comes down to the state verses federal argument and I've been pretty much in favor of states, since the federal is just too damn big.

[KK]

Well, when I wrote that you're not required to carry your ID in Germany, that is only part of it.
Of course the police can arrest you to get you identified if you dont have an ID with you. On the other hand, a driver's license might also be enough to identify you, so an ID is not the only way to prove identity.
Of course an arrest requires that the cops state probable cause, i.e. a reason why they ask for ID in the first place.
Our cops are not allowed to ask just anyone for IDs without a reason.

Against the rest of what you wrote I can hardly argue as I dont know how the bureaucracy works over there.
But I think some issues are based on the problem that some states are against federal ID implrementation.

As this has always been solely under federal regulation in Germany, it was never a problem.

I also think the risk of identify theft is overrated. Out IDs cannot be easily faked and if so, then not to steal an identity but create a fake identity. I dont see how not having IDs makes a difference in trustworthiness; in fact it would simply base it on how convincing a person is. I prefer objective means. Also, under the assumption that someone who has the means to create counterfeits is probably also trained in deceiving people with words and behavour. Actually, I think to do the latter is easier than the former.


Again: I am not a friend of storing anything on an ID card that is not exclusively (and necessariiy) required for identification.

[t'Sade]

True, the possibility of it is pretty vague now, but identity theft is rising in the US and it is something to be concerned about. Its just something I'm worried about because I think it will be abused. Of course, other countries have add it and in itself, it is just a tiny minor little thing. I just think it coupled with other things are the bits to worry about. We have programs that are trying to coordinate every single person to other people, including who they live with and for how long. That program I think is on the third incarnation and trying to get through congress. With a centralized database, it means that they can determine if you lived next to someone who knows a terrorist. Yeah, it might mean you never met one, but is put into a computer to try getting everything related.

This same database is going to be tied into health records (which already use SSN and will now use the NID), credit reports (same thing again), and its data that the government can use. The step between state ID and NID (national ID) is a rather minor one, it just isn't something we've had really. And, the tremendous cost being inflicted on the states, the fact we'll have to pay $100 or more just to get an ID, and the fact that it is being centralized in a place that seems to abuse it all seems to be a bad idea to me.

One of the things I think would have been helpful, the law doesn't make which is a consistent format across all states. If we are being nailed with this, why not make it so everyone can identify the card. Maybe even give us a way of identifying all the police agencies we have to honor. A silly question: How many people actually know what a FBI identification is suppose to look like? DHS? CIA? TSA? NSA?

I think I'm less bothered by the federal having it if it wasn't for the fact that private companies are going to be used for it and we don't have any control on the information. Like many things, we really don't have a way of retrieving that information or correcting it. Same with our credit reports, getting new SSN, or handling identity theft. I've had a friend who found out someone was using her SSN to purchase things and she's still trying to get it ironed out after two years.

There is also the duplication. I have to keep my Social Security card around. I have my passport pretty much within a few hours of me in my normal day, my driver's license. And now a NID which will be swallowed by one, but not all of those.

I do think that part of it is a resistance to change. I think the REAL ID is poorly written, poorly designed, and rushed into production. I think that it will be years until we recover enough that everyone gets used to it. And, with DHS having free reign to add anything they want to it (RFID comes to mind), I'm just not happy with it. It was rammed through as a law, not reviewed, and we as a country have resisted national ID's for some time.

The primary sales is that it would have helped with 9/11, which it wouldn't have.

[t'Sade]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070204/D8N2UVDG0.html

A few more states are in the process of not getting involved with REAL ID. I talked about this with some of my friends and we all think that it is giving up our rights and privacy.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36936.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/30/AR2006043000906.html
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=120&Itemid=36

Its pretty obvious that people aren't happy with this. A really good quote though:

US Representative Ron Paul stated in a 2005 article, "One overriding point has been forgotten: Criminals don’t obey laws! As with gun control, national ID cards will only affect law-abiding citizens. Do we really believe a terrorist bent on murder is going to dutifully obtain a federal ID card? Do we believe that people who openly flout our immigration laws will nonetheless respect our ID requirements? Any ID card can be forged; any federal agency or state DMV is susceptible to corruption. Criminals can and will obtain national ID cards, or operate without them. National ID cards will be used to track the law-abiding masses, not criminals."

http://www.unrealid.com/comments.html?p=2
http://talk.ocregister.com/showthread.php?t=14622

Though, I don't like the Germany rant on this one. I don't know enough about history, but it seems like a large number of people seem to think this is going down the route of Germany. I wouldn't think that is exactly right, but I don't like that people use Nazi's as an excuse of why something is bad, instead of doing more research. Or at least, that is what it sounds like.

[KK]

This is indeed badly overreacting and counterproductive, as I dont expect anyone ranting like that be taken seriously.

Naturally centralized databases can be potentially abused by potentially abusive governments.
But the problem is not the potential abuse but allowing a government coming into existence that actually thinks about abusing the stored data.

I think this is the real problem: That the US govt has destroyed too much trust in it by the people.
Naturally you're reluctant to give stuff to someone you don't trust.

I wouldn't really mind if Germany made a law that required everyone to carry their IDs everywhere, neither would I worry too much about storing DNA samples of every citizen. Because I trust my govt enough that this information wouldn't be abused. Of course, there can always be a corrupt official who sells this data to someone. But that's not the govt but a criminal PERSON who just happens to work in a govt position. And I trust that if that becomes public the person will be prosecuted.

I understand that this "big brother" feeling makes people wary and I think that's a good thing, too, because some healthy scepticism is helpful to keep debates in perspective.

But I really think that everything eventually comes down to how much trust in a democratic system and political system someone has. That said, if I had to live in the US, yes I would probably be more worried than here in Germany.

[t'Sade]

Yeah, I think that is the crux of it. Trust.

I think it is also that many people still believe that we are a country of freedom, the shining example of what is done right and how to do it properly. Its obvious from our external politics that we think our way is the best way, given how we tell smaller countries to respond.

But, in many ways, we aren't. Freedom is slowly wandering off. Outside of my office, I have a camera watching the street and it bothers me. Not because it is for "traffic safety" but because some politician thinks that it will do go to have someone watching mind-boggling-boring videos for most of the day. I know the camera data is deleted after a few days, mainly because it isn't even remotely interesting. I also see it as a small step, they are already talking about using computers to identify "suspicious" behavior in some parts of the country. If that happens, then the police get an alert of something to check it out. On the radio, there is a mayor who is planning on enforcing complete stops. Yeah, you should stop, but many people just do a rolling stop when there is no one there. I suspect, they are trying to see if they can set up the traffic cameras to detect a stop (where the car goes backwards slightly). I have no doubt that the same technology that handles automated speed radars could do the same with stop sign processing.

It isn't freedom, per se, its more of automated enforcement of the populace. We need computers to handle so many people now, mainly because we don't spend money on officers or education. Instead, we just find ways of enforcing laws. Mainly because the "system pays for itself" by bringing in enough tickets to pay for it. And I don't trust that.

I... also don't trust my current president. Its two more years of his policies and I have found very few of them I agree with. Both me and my mate are saddened that he got elected a second time, mainly because we think that he honestly doesn't have our country's long-term health in mind. But, you can't talk too badly about him otherwise the Secret Service comes wandering up at your door.

[KK]

I have another vaguely related bit of information:

Yesterday our supreme court decided, that the police is not allowed to remotely check into suspicious computers using trojans.
I am not surprised. I was pretty much expecting that the DA offices who opted for that use got... well... smacked one left and right by the court.

Their idea was that a search warrant issued by a judge would also allow remotely on a suspects computer, because technically that is also a search.
The supreme court did not like the idea, saying that a search warrant is no legal basis for remote spying. The court argued that a search has to be performed with the knowledge of the suspect and that it has to be a "public" measure. A secret search isnt due process.

Well, it makes my job harder, but I am also happy that the court displayed once more good common sense.

[t'Sade]

Apparently, this 162 page PDF are the proposals and rules for the REAL ID. I'm still reading through it. I got distracted reading various blogs and trials of getting into the country and people who are deported for various reasons that seem to be trivials.

[t'Sade]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/18/1942200
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/04/18/news/state/54-legiid.txt

"Montana's governor signed a bill yesterday in defiance of the Real ID Act. House Bill 287 [PDF] requires the Montana Motor Vehicle Division to not implement the provisions of the Real ID Act, and to report to the governor any attempts by any agent or agency of the Department of Homeland Security to attempt to implement the bill. Montana is the first state to implement such a law."

Interesting clauses.

[der Wandersmann]

I haven't contributed anything to this discussion, mainly because Our Hostess seems to be expressing my thoughts pretty well, and (hey, it's free!) she's the one doing the research.

That last posting she made, however, seems to be indicating that there is hope. And yes, the clauses are very interesting.

State's Rights all over again. 'Bout time!

[t'Sade]

http://www.privacycoalition.org/stoprealid/

Just a bit more on REAL ID, including a few things of "if you do implement it, you really have to obey ALL the privacy laws"

[t'Sade]

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/05/more_on_real_id.html

Today is the last time to give a comment on some parts of REAL ID. Please, say something to them, even if you agree. Its just a matter of importance that you SAY something. Anything.