New Federal Driver's License Regs Will Put Burden On States
New Federal Driver's License Regs Will Put Burden On States
[ Return To Senator Roy Dyson's Newsletter ]
Posted on July 13, 2007:
Another federal mandate is threatening to affect state legislatures all across the country including Maryland.
Federal legislation passed in 2005 states that after December 31, 2009, "a Federal agency my not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a state to any person unless the state in meeting the requirements" specified in the Real ID Act."
REAL ID as it is known seems like a good idea at first. But as they say, the devil is in the details. We all want to do everything we can to prevent terrorism, identity theft and fraud.
This legislation's intent was to do just that. However, it has become incredibly burdensome and difficult for state departments of motor vehicles to implement.
While Maryland is preparing to implement the REAL ID requirements, the General Assembly needs to pass legislation put some or all of these requirements into place. This is where the problem gets difficult. By law, Maryland's Motor Vehicle Administration must pay for such new systems through user fees such as increased driver's licenses, learner's permits or identification cards.
Our driver's license and registration fees for our motor vehicles are already too high. This federal mandate which would make it extremely inconvenient for all of us - especially the elderly to get the card for all of us, but it mostly affects the poor and the elderly.
The REAL ID act requires individuals to show up in person at their local motor vehicle office in person and present original identity documents such as Social Security numbers, birth certificates or other forms proving your identity.
One such scenario that was presented to me is that many senior citizens have no way to gain access to their birth certificates which may never have been recorded or lost for good because of bookmaking errors of a bygone error.
It is also difficult for seniors to get out to their local MVA office, much less spend a lot of time there which a lot of states that have already begin issuing REAL ID's are already doing.
If Maryland does not become fully compliant with this federal mandate by 2009, the already difficult, frustrating and aggravating trip to airport will become even more ponderous.
There is talk, generated by the states that this federal legislation,
One complaint people have about Maryland's MVA is one that I share.
But what has the homeland security czar been doing, besides monitoring his belly? While Chertoff was sharing details of his physical distress over the possibility of an al-Qaeda attack, a new congressional report showed how easy it was to fraudulently obtain a license to buy radioactive material. All it took for undercover investigators to flimflam the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was a post-office box at Mail Boxes Etc., a telephone, a fax machine and some fast talking.
http://somd.com/news/dyson/articles/272.shtml
'Big Brother' is almost here
Web posted July 13, 2007
'Big Brother' is almost here
In his eerily farsighted book "1984," George Orwell describes a society in which privacy is unknown, slavish obedience a given, and nonconformity the ultimate enemy of the state.
In a nation crawling with domestic spies, the image of Big Brother is seemingly omnipresent. His gaze of loving authority encourages a compliant populace to maintain its herd mentality. Interestingly, while his face is everywhere, in reality, Big Brother is faceless. No one ever actually sees him. They merely assume he is in charge, that he cares for them like a familial overseer, and that his version of society is the only correct one.
It's taken us a while, but we're beginning to catch up with Orwell's vision. The Bush administration's virtually unrestricted government surveillance of Americans has expanded dramatically in the past few years. And while we still lack Winston Smith's ultra-cool spying television set in our living rooms, by this time next year we're slated to have something almost as nifty. It's called REAL ID, and when it kicks in, well, (Big) brother, we'll have all the personal security we could want. Really.
On May 11, 2005, President George W. Bush signed the REAL ID Act of 2005, as an attachment to a military spending bill. In essence, the law, which goes into effect in May of 2008 (or a year later with certain caveats), will create a federalized driver's license, with standards to be set by the Department of Homeland Security.
Well, of course it's for our own good. We'd never be able to survive as a nation without it. We haven't so far. And only kooks, right-wing conspiracy theorists and the blatantly unpatriotic would balk at:
1. Providing an incredible amount of often difficult-to-obtain documentation proving they are who they say they are.
2. Either directly paying exorbitant fees for the new identification card or paying for it through ballooning taxation.
3. Submitting to the future possibility of biometric identifiers and radio-frequency identification within the card itself.
4. Being deposited in a massive database.
5. Being forbidden to travel freely in their own country by their method of choice.
6. Surrendering a whole lot more of their privacy and individuality.
But there is rebellion in the wind.
Montana, which as a state has always had the stomach for a good scrap, flatly refuses to implement the federal plan, stating that it is "inimical to the security and well-being of the people of Montana." New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch signed into law that state's official rejection of REAL ID, indicating that the unfunded federal mandate was "repugnant" to both the state and U.S. constitutions. Other states have expressed similar legislative opposition to what is rightly perceived as an egregious intrusion into the privacy of individuals, and a dismembering of states' rights. The National Governor's Association has also expressed opposition to the federal law.
While compliance with REAL ID is "voluntary," it is also "mandatory," since noncompliance will result in your being barred from flying on a commercial airplane, entering federal buildings, opening a bank account, and engaging in a variety of other daily activities currently taken for granted. What REAL ID amounts to is the creation of a de facto national identification card and internal passport. For Alaskans, whose dependence on commercial air transport is a fact of life, refusal to "voluntarily" participate in this program means a virtual cessation of travel to the Outside.
Supporters of REAL ID claim it will help weed out illegal aliens, but our government's arrogant refusal to seal our southern borders exposes that defense as nothing more than smoke and mirrors. This program is geared toward American citizens, not illegal aliens.
Alaska is embarrassingly slow in opposing REAL ID. Though not currently requiring implementation of the law, our state legislature's milquetoast stance is a far cry from vigorous and outright rejection. For a place that supposedly prizes personal freedom and independence, this reluctance to take a stand is pitiful.
The only two options at this point are equally dramatic: boot REAL ID into the legislative oblivion it so richly deserves, or roll out the welcome mat for one fearmongering British writer. His ideas have been looking for a home for a long time.
• Kevin Reeves is a freelance writer living in Haines.
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/071 ... d001.shtml
New ID system is 'lousy' technology but it's cheap
EE Times: Latest News
New ID system is 'lousy' technology but it's cheap
Junko Yoshida
Page 1 of 2
EE Times
(07/18/2007 9:12 AM EDT)
MANHASSET, N.Y. — For the next generation of technology choices for U.S. border security, the Pogo constant applies: "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Three different identification card programs under development in the United States will use three different technologies with no consistency, little long-term strategy and a virtually nonexistent regime of government coordination.
While the United States' new electronic passport deploys contactless smart card technology, the Real ID card (an enhanced driver's license) will use a 2D bar code. Meanwhile, the third form of identification, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative's PASS (People Access Security Service) Card, will employ RFID technology based on Enhanced Product Code Generation 2 (EPC Gen 2), originally developed for tagging products as part of supply chain management. The Pass Card was developed as an inexpensive alternative ID card to a passport, including U.S. citizens returning from Canada, Mexico, Panama, the Caribbean, and Bermuda.
The opportunity to go electronic with the Real ID card has already passed. The card will roll out over the next few years. But technology companies are making a last-ditch effort to convince Congress to change the implementation decision on the Pass Card. Members of the Secure ID Coalition and Smart Card Alliance including Texas Instruments, Gemalto and Infineon Technologies are in Washington Wednesday (July 18) to brief lawmakers on identification technologies. The briefing includes a real-time demonstration showing the differences between two types of automatic identification technologies for electronic ID documents: RFID and contactless smart card technologies.
Developers, many of whom provide both contactless smart card and RFID tags, are imploring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to at least conduct a trial to evaluate the performance of both technologies before going live with the new Pass card. When compared with RFID tags, they believe that a Pass Card system "designed using contactless smart card technology will fulfill the operation requirement for high throughput while also providing stronger security, protecting individual privacy, and leveraging the ePassport infractructure," according to the Smart Card Alliance's white paper.
Even though a solicitation for Pass card is already out, and RFID technology forms a basis for the RFP, "This is still an important issue that needs to be discussed," said Tres Wiley, director of electronic documents at Texas Instruments. That's because Pass Card technology could "set a precedent" for any electronic documents of the future. "It's unfortunate that the government decided to go with a 'non-electronic card' for Real ID," he said.
n theory, as long as it meets the federal government's minimum requirement for a Real ID Card, each state could go with RFID or any other technology. According to TI, "we are not aware of any states that have said they will incorporate RFID in a Real ID card. Some border states have hinted they might, but there is not yet a definitive commitment or statement from any."
The smart card industry's argument against the use of bar codes for Real ID focuses on its technological inability to add future applications. Had a smart card technology been implemented, the Real ID could eventually serve also as, for example, a health card, library card and digital signature, said Wiley.
As for the Pass Card, the smart card industry objects to the government's choice of RFID technology because the EPC Gen 2 tags do not include extensive protection against cloning or counterfeiting.
Because the EPC Gen 2 allows cards to be read at a distance of up to 30 feet, the Department of Homeland Security regards it as efficient for processing people in vehicles quickly. However, while the RFID technology supports 32-bit passwords to protect data written on the tag, it does not use government-approved encryption algorithms. DHS plans to offer "privacy protection" by placing a unique ID number on the card and using the number to retrieve personal information (a photograph and demographic information) from a central database when the card is used at a border crossing.
This effectively means that Pass Card holders' identification number can be stolen from a distance with relative ease. A stolen ID number can be programmed on a blank chip or programmed in an RFID reader, with the reader then acting like a chip by spitting out the false ID number.
DHS has also opted for RFID technology due to the already available infrastructure in Canada. Wiley said those existing readers now need to be replaced by new readers compliant to EPC Gen 2. Besides, as ePassports adopt a contactless smart-card technology based on ISO/IEC 14443, borders checkpoints will eventually be equipped with new smart card readers. In deciding between Real ID, Pass Card and ePassport, the bottom line is cost. RFID tags cost 10 to 15 cents per tag. A smart card chip equipped ePassport costs $2.
According to Bruce Schneier, a security technologist, "Security is always a trade-off; it must be balanced with the cost." He added: "We all do this intuitively. Few of us walk around wearing bulletproof vests. It's not because they're ineffective, it's because for most of us the trade-off isn't worth it."
Schneier said the new identification card is "another lousy security trade-off." He added, "For the price, we're not getting anywhere near the security we should."
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/show ... =201001955
New ID system is 'lousy' technology but it's cheap
EE Times: Latest News
New ID system is 'lousy' technology but it's cheap
Junko Yoshida
EE Times
(07/18/2007 9:12 AM EDT)
MANHASSET, N.Y. — For the next generation of technology choices for U.S. border security, the Pogo constant applies: "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Three different identification card programs under development in the United States will use three different technologies with no consistency, little long-term strategy and a virtually nonexistent regime of government coordination.
While the United States' new electronic passport deploys contactless smart card technology, the Real ID card (an enhanced driver's license) will use a 2D bar code. Meanwhile, the third form of identification, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative's PASS (People Access Security Service) Card, will employ RFID technology based on Enhanced Product Code Generation 2 (EPC Gen 2), originally developed for tagging products as part of supply chain management. The Pass Card was developed as an inexpensive alternative ID card to a passport, including U.S. citizens returning from Canada, Mexico, Panama, the Caribbean, and Bermuda.
The opportunity to go electronic with the Real ID card has already passed. The card will roll out over the next few years. But technology companies are making a last-ditch effort to convince Congress to change the implementation decision on the Pass Card. Members of the Secure ID Coalition and Smart Card Alliance including Texas Instruments, Gemalto and Infineon Technologies are in Washington Wednesday (July 18) to brief lawmakers on identification technologies. The briefing includes a real-time demonstration showing the differences between two types of automatic identification technologies for electronic ID documents: RFID and contactless smart card technologies.
Developers, many of whom provide both contactless smart card and RFID tags, are imploring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to at least conduct a trial to evaluate the performance of both technologies before going live with the new Pass card. When compared with RFID tags, they believe that a Pass Card system "designed using contactless smart card technology will fulfill the operation requirement for high throughput while also providing stronger security, protecting individual privacy, and leveraging the ePassport infractructure," according to the Smart Card Alliance's white paper.
Even though a solicitation for Pass card is already out, and RFID technology forms a basis for the RFP, "This is still an important issue that needs to be discussed," said Tres Wiley, director of electronic documents at Texas Instruments. That's because Pass Card technology could "set a precedent" for any electronic documents of the future. "It's unfortunate that the government decided to go with a 'non-electronic card' for Real ID," he said.
n theory, as long as it meets the federal government's minimum requirement for a Real ID Card, each state could go with RFID or any other technology. According to TI, "we are not aware of any states that have said they will incorporate RFID in a Real ID card. Some border states have hinted they might, but there is not yet a definitive commitment or statement from any."
The smart card industry's argument against the use of bar codes for Real ID focuses on its technological inability to add future applications. Had a smart card technology been implemented, the Real ID could eventually serve also as, for example, a health card, library card and digital signature, said Wiley.
As for the Pass Card, the smart card industry objects to the government's choice of RFID technology because the EPC Gen 2 tags do not include extensive protection against cloning or counterfeiting.
Because the EPC Gen 2 allows cards to be read at a distance of up to 30 feet, the Department of Homeland Security regards it as efficient for processing people in vehicles quickly. However, while the RFID technology supports 32-bit passwords to protect data written on the tag, it does not use government-approved encryption algorithms. DHS plans to offer "privacy protection" by placing a unique ID number on the card and using the number to retrieve personal information (a photograph and demographic information) from a central database when the card is used at a border crossing.
This effectively means that Pass Card holders' identification number can be stolen from a distance with relative ease. A stolen ID number can be programmed on a blank chip or programmed in an RFID reader, with the reader then acting like a chip by spitting out the false ID number.
DHS has also opted for RFID technology due to the already available infrastructure in Canada. Wiley said those existing readers now need to be replaced by new readers compliant to EPC Gen 2. Besides, as ePassports adopt a contactless smart-card technology based on ISO/IEC 14443, borders checkpoints will eventually be equipped with new smart card readers. In deciding between Real ID, Pass Card and ePassport, the bottom line is cost. RFID tags cost 10 to 15 cents per tag. A smart card chip equipped ePassport costs $2.
According to Bruce Schneier, a security technologist, "Security is always a trade-off; it must be balanced with the cost." He added: "We all do this intuitively. Few of us walk around wearing bulletproof vests. It's not because they're ineffective, it's because for most of us the trade-off isn't worth it."
Schneier said the new identification card is "another lousy security trade-off." He added, "For the price, we're not getting anywhere near the security we should."
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/show ... =201001955
ACLU Warns Of Sucker Plot To Save Real ID Plan
ACLU Warns Of Sucker Plot To Save Real ID Plan
Posted on Friday, 20 of July , 2007 at 6:53 pm
WASHINGTON— The American Civil Liberties Union has warned that proposals afloat in Congress to provide limited funding to states for implementation of the Real ID Act would amount to nothing more than “sucker moneyâ€
Governors Call on Senate to Fund Real ID
Governors Call on Senate to Fund Real ID
Jul 23, 2007, News Report
During the National Governors Association Annual Meeting this weekend, Governors released the following statement regarding Real ID:
"If Congress is truly committed to transforming Real ID into a reasonable and workable law that actually increases the security of our citizens, it must commit the federal funds necessary to implement this federal mandate.
"As the Senate considers the Homeland Security Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008, the nation's governors urge senators to support Sen. Lamar Alexander's efforts to begin funding the mandates imposed by Real ID.
"States estimate the cost of Real ID will exceed $11 billion over five years, including $1 billion in up-front costs merely to create systems and processes necessary to implement the law and prepare to re-enroll all 245 million driver's license and identification card holders. To date Congress has appropriated only $40 million to assist states."
http://www.govtech.com/gt/127496?topic=117688
Crowd lashes out at state official
Posted on Sun, Jul. 22, 2007
Crowd lashes out at state official
BY ANNIE CALOVICH
The Wichita Eagle
A group of Hispanics shouted down state Secretary of Revenue Joan Wagnon on Saturday, some calling her a liar, as they protested a loss of driving privileges that took effect as new state law on July 1.
Wagnon came to Wichita for a public meeting called by Sunflower Community Action's Hispanos Unidos Chapter at Horace Mann school, 12th and Market. The chapter asked Wagnon to "mandate" a return to an affidavit process that had allowed immigrants who have visas and are in the process of being legalized but who do not qualify for Social Security numbers to renew their driver's licenses. Under the new law, anyone who does not have a Social Security number and cannot provide proof of citizenship is not allowed to have a license.
About 200 people turned out for the meeting. Several talked about the hardships of no longer being able to legally drive. Wagnon told the gathering that she had no power to overturn the law and that the state law was passed in response to federal law. But the crowd booed her for what they said was her support of the law, and some shouted at her to provide a solution.
Alonzo Quintero took the microphone at the meeting and said that Wagnon had met with Hispanics in February and told them that the driver's license issue was an administrative one and that she would help the Hispanic community with it. He said they thought Wagnon "was part of us." Now he thinks she lied. He said after the meeting that he thought Wagnon was in a position to help because her office is over the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Wagnon told the group that she was "personally sympathetic" to their plight "but as the secretary of revenue I do not have the power to ignore a law."
Chapter president Lore Quintero interrupted Wagnon and led chants, while voices from the crowd yelled out.
"Did you help pass this bill?" someone demanded.
"Do you want to hear what I have to say?" Wagnon answered.
"Tell us the truth!" another person yelled.
"And you shall have it," she said.
"There is only one solution, and it is a political solution" to change immigration law, Wagnon said.
Pointing out that they pay taxes -- including Wagnon's salary -- some of the Hispanics at the meeting referred to no longer having a "right" to a driver's license.
"Do you think this is a secure city when people are driving around without a license?" one person asked.
"You're a liar!" a man yelled at Wagnon.
Yells interrupted Wagnon's statements several times before she said, "I'm not going to be shouted at. I'll talk to you as long as you want, but as long as the federal law remains, there's no solution to it. Organize the way you're doing now and go to the Legislature and ask for an exemption for people who have been here" a certain number of years, she said.
"Did you support the bill?" someone yelled
"I had no choice but to support it," she answered.
"She's lying to us!" one man yelled.
She added, "I'm sorry, but I do not lie."
"She's lying," another man said, adding that his license was taken away before the law was passed.
"I am not on trial," Wagnon finally told the crowd. "I'm here because I believe you have a problem." She then thought she heard translator Emira Palacios misquoting her words, and Palacios changed what she was saying in Spanish.
Wagnon went on to say that for the first three years she was secretary of revenue the state accepted a tax identification number for driver's license applicants, but then Congress passed the Real ID Act of 2005 that prohibited it.
"We are stuck with the law we have now," she told the crowd. "Go and change the law."
Asked Palacios: "Have you seen how many of us have marched?"
After the meeting, Wagnon said she was not surprised at the anger but was irritated by the personal attacks on her.
"If I were in their position I would be really angry also," she said, but added that the people had to understand that "there's nothing to negotiate."
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/story/128501.html
ACLU Cheers Failure of Real ID Sucker Money Proposal (7/26/2
ACLU Cheers Failure of Real ID Sucker Money Proposal (7/26/2007)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@dcaclu.org
Washington, DC - The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded the failure of an amendment offered to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill that would have authorized $300 million of federal funding for states to implement the Real ID driver’s license program, which has been estimated by DHS to cost $23.1 billion. The ACLU deemed the proposal "sucker money" because it aimed to entice states to accept a paltry amount of funding for a flawed program that would ultimately cost millions more in state taxes and licensing fees.
The amendment was killed when a motion to table it passed 49 to 45, after both the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senators Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Thad Cochran (R-MS), respectively, spoke passionately against the funding proposal. The death of this amendment means the states will receive no additional federal funding to implement Real ID, dealing a crushing blow to the viability of the unworkable program.
"Real ID is dead in the water, and it is clear that no amount of money can save it," said ACLU Legislative Counsel Tim Sparapani. "The only solution to Real ID is to scrap and replace it, and Congress has caught on. With seventeen states opposed to this program and the U.S. Senate standing behind them, this is the beginning of the end of Real ID. $300 million does not even come close to covering the costs of the program, and it is not enough to lure Americans to give up their privacy."
Real ID poses serious privacy threats. The federally mandated IDs would hold machine-readable data of every American. That information would be stored in a national database available to government employees at all levels, putting every American at risk of identity theft and security breaches.
Ultimately, Real ID could pave the way for a society that tracks Americans’ movements and warehouses personal information in centralized databases that are rife with errors and highly enticing to identity thieves. Because Real ID promises to be such an integral part of our lives, from boarding a plane to opening a bank account to verifying your eligibility to work, a small glitch could have disastrous consequences.
Seventeen state legislatures have passed laws rejecting the program, with seven of those states passing binding legislation refusing to implement it. Never before in modern history has a federal mandate been so vehemently rejected by the states.
"The American people are not suckers and they won’t be duped by attempts to dress up a bad proposal with a little federal funding," said Director of the ACLU Technology and Liberty Program Barry Steinhardt. "Throwing money at Real ID will not fix anything because the program is fundamentally flawed and fundamentally unworkable. There are only two options: Scrap Real ID altogether, or replace it with something that works. Americans don’t want a national ID, and they shouldn’t be forced to pay for one."
For more information about Real ID, visit:
www.realnightmare.org
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/31 ... 70726.html
Efforts should be redirected from funding to act's repeal
Friday, 07/27/07
Efforts should be redirected from funding to act's repeal
Today's Topic: Unfunded Real ID awaits
Our View
Sometimes, an idea is so bad that it just will not go away.
Such is the Real ID Act. Passed by Congress in 2005 without the normal degree of floor debate and despite stated opposition of more than 600 organizations, the measure represents a lapse among the otherwise sound recommendations of the Sept. 11 Commission on preventing terrorist attacks.
If implemented next year as the law currently dictates, Americans will have to get new licenses replacing their state driver's license or other state ID. The IDs would list the individual's name, address, date of birth, citizenship or legal status in the U.S. and Social Security number. Without the ID, you would not to able to board airplanes or enter federal buildings, among other things.
Most alarming about Real ID are the threat to individuals' privacy and security and the astronomical cost of the program, estimated at as much as $23 billion. The lawmakers who voted for Real ID wanted the political rewards for appearing to be tough on homeland security, but did not actually pay for it.
U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, an outspoken opponent of the Real ID Act, nevertheless on Wednesday proposed putting $300 million toward funding the law, on the principle that, if the federal government imposes a law on states, it should at least pay for it.
However, the allocation would have been a small drop in the bucket. As little as $6 million to $7 million would have come to Tennessee, where officials say $100 million will be needed to implement Real ID.
Alexander's amendment failed by two votes Thursday, and implementation of the Real ID Act remains unresolved.
The Tennessee Republican is right to describe this law as a "bad idea," and his commitment to find a consensus is admirable. However, any attempt to fund this law only prolongs its life. The U.S. Senate should be lining up to repeal Real ID before it has a chance to take effect.
Lawmakers need only to consult their constituents to know what to do. Sixteen states, including Tennessee, have passed resolutions or laws calling for its repeal. At least 22 others are considering similar moves.
On June 25, Gov. Phil Bredesen signed a joint resolution of the General Assembly. Eighty-eight representatives and 30 senators voted to urge repeal, arguing Real ID would:
• Cost $100 million the state doesn't have.
• Enable ID theft by linking national databases, making personal information accessible from "tens of thousands of locations."
• Endanger undercover security personnel, since no exception is made for information printed on their Real ID cards.
• Force state motor-vehicle staffers to become de facto federal immigration agents, by expecting them to determine applicants' U.S. citizenship or legal status.
• Impose much higher fees for IDs, as much as $20-$40, and clog already overburdened motor-vehicle departments with more paperwork, long lines and longer delays.
Sometimes, bad ideas become law (such as Prohibition), and citizens and elected officials rise up to correct the mistake. This is such a time. If Congress is not persuaded to reverse this act, Tennessee government will be forced to find tens of millions of dollars next year to launch this program. The only way to get such money would be to divert funds from education, health care and other vital state services — all in support of a program that threatens your privacy and your savings while doing nothing for your security.
Tell your representatives in Washington to listen to reason, and repeal Real ID.
http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/ ... 813193.txt
Pay amendment gives states false impression
Friday, 07/27/07
Pay amendment gives states false impression
By HEDY WEINBERG
An amazing drama has been playing out over the Real ID Act, a national ID scheme that was passed by Congress in 2005. And for the second time, Tennessee is playing an important role in that drama.
A sweeping measure that was enacted without any debate, Real ID requires states to produce new, federally standardized driver's licenses, restructure their computer databases, and create an extensive new document storage system. The program is expected to cost $23 billion (Homeland Security's estimate). States and ID applicants will have to shoulder most of the burden.
Real ID would become an "internal passport" that would be used to track and control law-abiding Americans' movements and activities. We will be required to use them to board planes and enter federal facilities. Legislation has also been proposed that would make showing a Real ID a requirement to work, vote and obtain government benefits. Security experts say that despite all this, it's not likely to make us any safer — in fact, because it consolidates personal information from all 50 state DMVs into one massive federal database, it's likely to make us more vulnerable to identity theft.
This past June, Tennessee became the 16th state to revolt against Real ID. Our state House and Senate both unanimously passed legislation opposing Real ID, and ACLU-Tennessee is proud to have worked with legislators on both sides of the aisle on the anti-Real ID initiative. The unprecedented states' revolt against this measure demonstrates the breadth of the opposition, from both the left and the right, to this misguided and unworkable program. Congress is beginning to get the message, and several measures to fix Real ID have been proposed.
This week, however, Sen. Lamar Alexander introduced an amendment to allocate $300 million to the program. Among all the complaints about the act, one of the biggest has been that it's an unfunded mandate. While the amendment failed Thursday, the danger of such proposals is that they will neutralize that argument by giving state legislators and others the false impression Congress will actually pay for this boondoggle.
Drain on other state priorities
In reality, $300 million would come nowhere near the actual costs of implementing Real ID. If Tennessee receives a share of Alexander's allocation in proportion to its population, for example, it would receive a mere $6.5 million, while Tennesseans would be forced to pony up the remaining $310 million the program would cost here. That's less money for schools, law enforcement, tax relief and other vital programs.
While Sen. Alexander's bill would provide a limited subsidy, the financial burden would still fall on Tennesseans.
Not that it would be smart for Congress to fund the full $23 billion. Any way you look at it, the Real ID scheme is a bad law that needs to be fixed or scrapped. It is enormously expensive, offers little security benefit, places our personal information at risk to identity theft, and violates our constitutional right to privacy.
Sen. Alexander should support efforts to reform or repeal this expensive, dangerous and ultimately unworkable program.
REAL ID SCHEME OPPOSED BY SENATE
REAL ID SCHEME OPPOSED BY SENATE
BIOMETRIC NATIONAL ID CARDS, WHICH SOME FEAR COULD LEAD TO 'CULTURE OF ACCESS', SAID UNRELIABLE, THREAT TO LIBERTIES
30 July 2007
The Democratic leadership in the Senate has garnered support to refuse funding for promoting a Republican-backed scheme whereby all US citizens would be forced to carry "national ID cards" by 2013. The vote cut a funding amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill; an amendment added by staunch opponent Max Baucus (D-MT) bars states from using any funding from the Homeland Security bill to enact the national ID card plan.
When Britain's then PM Tony Blair tried to force a 13-point biometric ID card, computer experts, civil rights groups, legal experts and even Microsoft, formally complained it would create a massive black market in identity theft, and the possibility of life-long persecution of innocent people whose biometric ID had been stolen. The technology has to date never proven consistent or reliable enough to use on a massive scale for public services. And many fear that both the British plan and the US plan could lead to the state having too much power over what people can do or what locations access in their everyday lives.
The bill will leave some funding for Real ID, which is after all, a federal initiative enacted in law by the previous Congress. According to ZDNet News, "The votes leave just $50 million in additional Real ID grants for states in the the final bill, which passed by an 89-4 vote late Thursday and is now headed to the president's desk. President Bush has previously vowed to veto the entire measure, but it was not immediately clear whether that was still the case."
Earlier this year, a major bill on immigration reform was defeated in part because of widespread disagreement over requirements to expand the use of electronic ID cards, and members of both houses have presented legislation that would repeal the Real ID Act of 2005 entirely. Civil liberties groups and opponents in Congress are pushing for a different strategy which would allow for security and anti-counterfeiting enhancements while privileging card-holder privacy and ensuring constitutional liberties are not eroded.
ZDNet: "Senate rejects extra $300 million for Real ID"
ZDNet: "Senators skeptical of Real ID Act rules"
Thomas:"H.R.1645: To provide for comprehensive immigration reform, and for other purposes ['The Strive Act']"
Wired: "National ID: Biometrics Pinned to Social Security Card"
RELATED STORIES:
BIOMETRIC DEVICES MAY UNDERMINE INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
AS GOVERNMENTS SCRAMBLE TO IMPLEMENT TECHNOLOGICALLY UNSTABLE, UNPROVEN SYSTEMS, INDIVIDUALS LIKELY TO SUFFER FRAUD, LIMITS ON MOVEMENT
26 October 2006
In the wake of major terrorist attacks against densely populated civilian centers in several countries across Europe, Asia and America, governments and private industry are looking at ways of using biometric scanning technology to determine who should or should not have access to certain locations and services. The technology is complicated and highly advanced, but unproven, and potentially highly flawed. [Full Story]
UK NATIONAL ID CARD SCHEME: FARCE OR BIG BROTHER?
CARDS NOT ONLY SURRENDER MASSIVE AMOUNT OF INTIMATE DATA TO STATE, THEY ARE SHOWN TO BE SEVERELY INSECURE
18 October 2005
The British government's plan to implement a national biometric identification system by 2007 is seen by some as a farcical if dubious exercise in futility. For others, it heralds the final phase in technocracy's closing its grip on the open society.
The plan as currently envisioned will use 13 biometric features, registering, measuring and comparing physical traits of individual citizens, to match human beings to their ID cards, thus, in theory, proving their identity. By the year 2013, Parliament is required to vote on whether all people in the UK should be required to carry some form of biometric identification. [Full Story]
http://www.casavaria.com/sentido/usnews ... eal-id.htm
The Worst Technology Laws
The Worst Technology Laws
Five ways legislation has made a mess of technology, plus five problems that desperately need a legal solution.
Anush Yegyazarian, PC World
PC World
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; 1:19 AM
Given how much technology affects all parts of our lives these days, it's scary to think about how often Congress gets regulation of tech issues wrong. Sometimes it passes laws, like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that make things worse. Other times it ignores vital issues such as online privacy, leaving us at the mercy of companies and whatever their privacy policies say this week.
Here's my list of the five technology laws most in need of an overhaul, along with five areas in which, well, there ought to be a law.
Few people argue that copyright shouldn't exist--after all, the creators of the music, art, video, and other content we enjoy should be able to profit from their work and control its distribution. But 1998's Digital Millennium Copyright Act (as well as that same year's Copyright Term Extension Act, which protects copyrights virtually indefinitely) goes too far.
By making it illegal to break the encryption that may protect a work, the DMCA takes away the ability that we used to have before the digital age to freely move around our own content for personal purposes. The law also hinders research into new technologies and prohibits accepted software practices like reverse engineering. Court rulings have mitigated some of these issues, but researchers and consumer advocacy groups both say they can still feelthe chilling effect.
There's another problem: The complex copyright system best serves big corporations, which can hire experts to navigate its myriad rules. But average Joes are creating lots of new content--YouTube videos, podcasts, blogs, and more. Mashups allow people to easily take content created by others, mix it up, and produce something new. Copyright rules are too complex for most amateur creators to apply to their own works, or even to follow as they borrow and remix existing products.
You can argue that the goals--increase security and get a better handle on immigration by instituting a national identity card--are good. The card is supposed to replace your driver's license and would be issued only after a stringent check of your identity and residency status. And data from the cards would be used to create a national database of identity information easily shared across state lines. But 2005's Real ID Act--enacted without debate--has a number of significant flaws.
It mandates that all the identity cards include some technology to make them machine readable so that companies and agencies can easily get at the information they contain. But the act gives only a bare set of guidelines for this technology and doesn't require that all states use the same system. It also neglects to specify even a minimum standard for the security of this highly sensitive information. Each state can choose its own level of security, but since everything is linked, the data is only as safe as the flimsiest system. Nothing in the law specifies how the data will be shared in practice--it may be reasonable, for example, for your bank or employer to have access to your Social Security number and residency status, but should the liquor store clerk who's checking your age have it too?
The IDs are supposed to debut next year, though there are some moves in Congress now to delay the implementation or repeal the act entirely.
Patently Absurd
Ever wonder why each day seems to bring news of another patent-infringement lawsuit? Or why U.S. cell phone networks are so slow? Or why so few cities offer wireless Internet service? The answers lie, at least in part, in these lousy government decisions.
The patent system is broken. Even Congress knows that, andcontroversial effortsto overhaul it are under way. The Patent Office has acrushing backlogof hundreds of thousands of patent review requests, a rigidly defined time limit in which to do those reviews, and little extra time to keep up with the rapidly changing tech field. Is it any wonder thatsilly patentsget approved?
Bad patent grants lead to frivolous lawsuits that can cost millions of dollars even if they're settled early on--and you and I end up footing the bill in the form of higher prices. The throng of pointless patents also makes it hard for companies to find the legitimate ones that they may unknowingly violate. And all the lawsuits create uncertainty for buyers and a veritable nightmare for users of a product embroiled in a patent battle--something devotees ofRIM's BlackBerry devicesknow all too well.
Once upon a time, our government decided that we didn't need a cellular technology standard. The cost of that strategy has been slower networks, spotty coverage, and more limited services than in many other countries.
The United States has four major cellular carriers--AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon--which use two base technologies (GSM/GPRS and CDMA) and at least four upgraded technologies (EDGE, UMTS, EvDO, HSDPA) to handle their users' traffic. Coverage areas vary by vendor because each one has to build its own network, but even users of the same carrier will get different network speeds depending on where they are, since vendors deploy faster technologies in stages.
Because of these competing and incompatible technologies, when you switch carriers you often must get a new phone even if you don't want one. And it's easier for carriers to lock in a popular cell phone model (iPhone, anyone?). Moreover, since hardware makers must create models to support each of these different technologies, their development costs go up as well, and that eventually gets passed on to consumers.
Many European and Asian countries, whose governments have chosen a single cellular technology standard, have services that simply don't exist here or have been slow to debut, such as cellular payment systems (which are made easier by use of a single tech standard) and live TV broadcasts (which require ubiquitous high speeds).
This one varies by region, but it's a bad idea no matter where you are. Certain states, such as Missouri and Pennsylvania, havemade it illegalfor individual cities and towns to offer broadband, video, or wireless services to their residents. Yes, private companies do often provide those services to the cities in question, and such companies may be able to maintain the networks required for these services more cheaply than a government agency. It's also true that not all residents of a given area would want their tax dollars used this way. But why shouldn't local governments compete with their own offerings if that's what the majority of residents want?
If my town wants to offer free or low-cost wireless access with my tax dollars and it can do so efficiently, why shouldn't it? Given the importance of an always-on connection in today's society, and the high value we place on competition, having an extra player willing to step in and offer greater choice--and sometimes the only choice--should be encouraged, not prohibited.
Errors of Omission
It's not just the laws Congress has passed that get us in trouble. Sometimes the problem lies with the major technology issues that our senators and representatives have ignored. On the next few pages are five technology problems desperately in need of a law.
As our world grows ever more connected, the amount of data any one company (or government agency) collects about us also increases, as do thenew threats to your privacy. But outside of a few heavily regulated fields such as the financial and health-care industries, few rules exist to govern the collection, storage, sale, accuracy, and security of that data.
Google knowstremendous amounts about us, and it's only going to learn more as increasing numbers of users sign up for its services and as itsproposed acquisition of advertising firm DoubleClickgives it access to a huge new treasure trove of databases. Nothing but Google's own goodwill can keep the company from storing that data until your grandchildren have kids or selling that data to all and sundry. (Sure, Google's privacy policy promises some protections, but only until the company decides to change its policy.)
GPS services know where you are anytime you have your device on, and could be used to tell how fast you're traveling--a fact your auto-insurance agent would likely want to know. And mobile marketers want access to your location information so they can send you ads for restaurants and shops in your immediate area. Again, no rules exist to spell out what these companies can and can't do with the data they're collecting about you.
We need a comprehensive set of standards for how these different companies handle our data and what they can do with it. We also need laws that allow us to review and challenge data about us, just as we can with financial data now. And we should have a national lawrequiring companies and government agenciesthat collect and store sensitive information to notify us quickly if our data is lost or stolen.
When we buy a song, a video, or any other piece of entertainment, we should be able to move it around to our various devices, take it with us when we travel, and share it within our homes. Such capabilities used to fall under the concept of "fair use," but with the DMCA and Hollywood's fears about peer-to-peer piracy, fair use has come under attack.
Congress should end the debate once and for all, by giving consumers a clear set of guidelines about what they can and cannot do with content they have bought. Andthose rulesshould preserve the commonsense minimum set of rights that we used to have, and not require us to pay every time we want to enjoy our media on a different device. 'Nuff said.
Just Make It Fair
Three priorities for Congress: Keep the Internet a level playing field, make monthly bills from service providers simple to read and dispute, and ensure that electronic voting is secure and free from interference.
This should be a no-brainer: Big companies shouldn't be able to pay to have the data from their Web sites and services travel more quickly along the Internet than those of smaller companies or individual users. But many people in government--most recently the folks at theFederal Trade Commission--don't seem to get the concept.
Allowing unequal service leads to anan Internet imbalancethat ultimately will hurt innovation and competition. And that means we, the consumers, lose out.
There should be a prioritization of traffic, but it should look only at what kind of data is being transferred, not who sent it. Data that requires fast, uninterrupted service, such as streaming video, should get priority, whether that video is ESPN's game highlights or footage of your Hawaiian vacation.
Take a look at your cell phone, telephone, and cable bills. Odds are, you'll spot an item or two that you know little about, or perhaps can't identify at all. Maybe your spouse ordered a new service or your child downloaded a ring tone or game. But the abbreviated jargon on most of these bills makes it hard to know for sure.
That's why consumer groups are mobilizing to get Congress or individual states to set a billing standard so that you know exactly what you're being charged for, andby whom.
That latter point has become increasingly important as cell phone carriers work with third parties to provide customers with services ranging from games to daily jokes. It's too easy to sign up for something--sometimes without even knowing it--and way too hard to figure out how to unsubscribe. Theproblemextends to ISPs and Web services, which often have partnership deals and may share your credit card information when you sign up for special offers.
Congress should require companies that bill you to include a plain-English description of the service you're being charged for, along with a phone number you can use to cancel. That would go a long way toward helping consumers make sure they can control their finances and prevent fraud.
After the fiasco of the Florida presidential election count in 2000, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002, allocating hundreds of millions of dollars to get states to update their voting systems and, presumably, to reduce errors and fraud. While e-voting machines have certainly made things easier for voters and county officials for the most part, they've also beenplagued by so many identified security problems, and software and deployment errors, that some states (including Florida) are banning them altogether.
One of the chief problems with the machines is that they offer no paper trail to check against electronic tallies if a glitch crops up. If the machine crashes or a discrepancy in voter counts surfaces, you're out of luck. Mandating a paper trail would help to resolve such conflicts when they arise. Some states already demand such verification, but it's important enough that we should have this requirement nationwide. We also need stricter oversight of the machines' software and physical security, so we can be sure that any election-eve patches are legitimate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00065.html
AMA's Report on Medical Use of RFID
July 20, 2007
AMA's Report on Medical Use of RFID
The American Medical Association (AMA) Releases RFID Report. The AMA's report Radio Frequency ID Devices in Humans came as a result of a resolution "RFID Labeling in Humans." The report focused on the ethical consequences surrounding the use of RFID implants in humans. The report outlined potential risks with the technology: physical risk to patients; confidentiality; patient privacy; effective informed consent; and security of the information contained on the device. The report recommends that the medical community support investigation of the technology to be able to make informed medical decisions regarding the use of these devices.
Posted by EPIC at July 20, 2007 1:55 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.privacycoalition.org/cgibin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/136
U.S., E.U. Partner on New Security Measures
U.S., E.U. Partner on New Security Measures
by Corrie Dosh
01 August 2007 divider Boston - Transatlantic travel has rebounded to pre-Sept. 11 levels, but security measures enacted during the past six years have created both friction and cooperation between the European Union and the United States, said panelists during a session on international travel security challenges last month at the National Business Travel Association's conference here.
This year, a new approach to border security by the E.U., enhancements to the U.S. Visa Waiver Program and a transatlantic Open Skies agreement promise to facilitate more travel than ever before between Western Europe and North America. But increased travel begets a greater need for new security technology--including deployment of new U.S. Transportation Security Administration systems expected by the this fall--and for greater cooperation on programs such as an agreement reached at the end of June to share data on air passengers.
According to OAG, airlines in March operated 21,833 flights between Western Europe and North America, marking the greatest transatlantic flight frequency volume reported by OAG for that month since 2001.
"We need to find a way to speed travelers through while still finding those needles in the haystack," said panel moderator C. Stewart Verdery Jr., partner and founder of Washington, D.C.-based Monument Policy Group and former first assistant secretary for policy and planning at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Verdery spearheaded the DHS deployment of the U.S.-VISIT program for foreign visitors and the E.U.-U.S. data-sharing agreement. The data-sharing agreement had raised concerns over privacy rights, so regulators agreed to reduce the amount of data collected on each passenger but to store the information longer. A key factor in the agreement was the establishment of the Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP), with which "several thousand" travelers have cleared names from no-fly or security lists, Verdery said. The average redress process through TRIP takes about three weeks, he added.
"It gave assurance to travelers that, should cases of misidentification happen, there is a system of redress," said panelist Telmo Baltazar, political justice and home affairs counselor at the Washington, D.C. office of the European Commission.
Europeans and E.U. authorities have been "concerned with the U.S. response to 9/11" and how new security measures affect travel, Baltazar said. "It was an absolute critical thing to establish communication channels," he said.
As the U.S. was tightening security measures, the E.U. was rolling out a new border initiative that eliminates security checkpoints for intra-European land border crossings and sections off international travelers in airports. By the end of the year, E.U. states will have open borders with other E.U. members, as do U.S. states with one another, and focus will be redirected to external borders and ports of entry. E.U. has also started feasibility studies on programs like U.S.-VISIT and the registered traveler initiatives in the United States, Baltazar said.
The U.S. is looking to emulate some E.U. security measures, too, such as the establishment of what some critics call a national ID card. Called the Real ID card, the U.S. program was initiated in 2005. Beginning in 2008, with compliance dates varying by state, travelers may need a federally approved, electronically readable ID card to board an airplane. DHS has been charged with determining which state drivers' license cards do not meet criteria for the Real ID card, Verdery said.
The U.S. Congress on July 26 also approved enhancements to the country's Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens of pre-approved nations to stay in the U.S. for up to 90 days without a visa. Though E.U. had pushed for visa waiver status for all of its member states in one block, U.S. authorities insisted on evaluating countries on their own, Baltazar said. To qualify for visa waiver status, a country must have a U.S. visa refusal rate of less than 10 percent, compared to a previous threshold of 3 percent, and must actively work with U.S. officials on intelligence and counterterrorism initiatives.
Panelist Dave Breillet, general manager of the commercial airlines unit in TSA's transportation sector network management, said the administration beginning this fall would roll out advanced X-ray scanners at airport security checkpoints and ramp up "visible intermobile response teams" that use scientifically based observation techniques to screen for potentially dangerous passengers.
"We're putting a web of security in place with the checkpoint at the center," Breillet said.
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport is in the midst of testing full-body X-ray machines using "backscatter" technology that critics say executes a virtual strip search. Eight other airports, including those in Miami, Newark, Boston and Los Angeles, are testing new liquid explosives detectors.
TSA also is attempting to focus on the most significant threats, Breillet said, noting that common lighters would no longer be banned from carry-on luggage as of 4 Aug.--freeing security officers to focus on other threats.
http://www.thetransnational.travel/news ... .Aug-07.01
US Real ID card plan starved of funds
US Real ID card plan starved of funds
Anne Broache, CNET News.com
30 July 2007 10:34 AM
The fate of a Bush-backed national identification card is up in the air after the US senate rejected providing US$300 million in funding for the plan.
By a 50-44 vote mostly along party lines, the chamber set aside a Republican-backed amendment to a homeland security spending bill that would have spread US$300 million across the states to help them implement the so-called Real ID Act.
The Senate also agreed unanimously to adopt an amendment, proposed by vocal Real ID critic Max Baucus, which prohibits the use of any of the spending bill's funding for "planning, testing, piloting, or developing a national identification card."
The votes leave just US$50 million in additional Real ID grants for states in the the final bill, which passed by an 89-4 vote late Thursday and is now headed to the president's desk. President Bush has previously vowed to veto the entire measure, but it was not immediately clear whether that was still the case.
The remaining grant figure appears unlikely to satisfy state officials, many of whom have blasted Real ID as an "unfunded mandate." The Department of Homeland Security projects the cost of Real ID for states and taxpayers over the next 10 years at more than US$23 billion. Seventeen states have already enacted statutes or resolutions registering their opposition to the new requirements, according to the American Civil Liberties Union's RealNightmare.org. (Not all states, however, feel that way.)
The Real ID Act, which was enacted in 2005 after being glued to an emergency war spending bill, is designed to carry out a proposal suggested by the 9/11 Commission, which reported that some of the September 11 hijackers had fraudulently obtained state driver's licenses. But critics argue the plan is misguided, insufficiently privacy-protective and prohibitively expensive.
The law dictates that, starting on May 11, 2008, Americans will need a federally approved, "machine readable" ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments or take advantage of nearly any government service. Before issuing the cards, which would have to adhere to Homeland Security standards, states would be required to verify electronically that identification documents, such as birth certificates, presented by their citizens are authentic. (States that agree in advance to abide by the rules would be given until 2013 to comply.)
In remarks on the Senate floor earlier this week, Senator Lamar Alexander, one of the failed amendment's sponsors, said he offered up the funding increase because "if the Congress requires the states to adopt REAL ID or something similar to REAL ID, then the Congress ought to pay for it".
But even he voiced doubts about the structure of the mandate and said he would be working with his colleagues to revisit the requirements. "I think insofar as REAL ID goes," he went on, according to a written transcript of his remarks, "we should either fund it or we should repeal it."
Critics -- including the American Civil Liberties Union, the free-market Cato Institute and Citizens Against Government Waste -- had likened Alexander's proposal to "sucker money," arguing it would do little to help states with the estimated multibillion-dollar implementation costs.
Thursday's vote indicated "Real ID is dead in the water, and it is clear that no amount of money can save it," ACLU Legislative Counsel Tim Sparapani said in a statement. "The only solution to Real ID is to scrap and replace it, and Congress has caught on."
It wasn't the first time that senators have used pivotal bills in recent months to rebel against the new requirements.
Civil liberties advocates and Senate opponents of Real ID credited the death of a contentious immigration bill late last month to disagreements over proposals to broaden required uses of the digital identification cards. The debate included an unsuccessful attempt to kill off an amendment that would have barred employers from compelling new hires to present Real ID-compliant documents.
Politicians in both chambers have also proposed bills this year that would repeal the original Real ID Act and replace it with what civil liberties groups view as more flexible, privacy-protecting requirements.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/s ... 640,00.htm
A lack of federal funding for Real ID leaves states in the l
08/06/07; Vol. 22 No. 14
Mixed signs
A lack of federal funding for Real ID leaves states in the lurch
By Alice Lipowicz
Two years after enactment of the Real ID Act to create national driver’s license standards, the long ride toward implementation has been slow and bumpy, and the road ahead still has some potholes to dodge.
Recent developments suggest that deployment of the controversial Real ID national identification program still faces significant obstacles related to its $11 billion cost and its privacy and security risks.
Legislatures in 17 states have taken action opposing the act, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. What’s more, the Senate recently took a stand against funding it. An amendment submitted by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) to provide $300 million toward Real ID implementation costs failed July 26.
Real ID “is a massive, unfunded federal mandate on the states,â€
Jack Blood denied passage on Delta to attend Bowman Event in
Jack Blood denied passage on Delta to attend Bowman Event in Atlanta
9/11 Blogger
Thursday, August 9, 2007
I often wish that I was born 100 yrs earlier. In fact I have had the nagging feeling that I was birthed into the wrong time channel most of my life. Back in 1999 a disciple of Edgar Cayce wrote a book about reincarnation, in which she contemplates if I was a 19th century French Poet. Possibly Charles Baudelaire. I never took much stock in it and never had the proof I needed to be sold on reincarnation. I shrugged it off. Still I couldn't feel more out of place in the Brave New World of 2007.
Today I tried to catch a flight from Austin TX to Atlanta GA and was denied by a chubby Chinese Delta airlines supervisor (I will call him Harry Fong) because I didnt have a "Government issued ID" . I have flown many times in the past without ID, but never on Delta who for whatever reason have a non negotiable policy on flying without ID. Fong seemed a bit too happy about the outcome, and his eyes lit up a little to much when saying "Government Issued ID."
I assume that since having an ID is a matter of choice and it is technically unconstitutional to force someone to have one, that Delta caved to federal pressure to enforce the rule or policy. Delta has been in bankruptcy for years and counts on Federal subsidiaries (welfare) to stay in business. Years ago I heard that the Rockefeller family owned 60+ % of all airlines. They are the railroads of the modern era. A basic search for stockholders yielded nothing.
There is a legal precedent for this of course in Gilmore v. Ashcroft -- FAA ID Challenge
This case evolved into Gilmore v. Gonzalez with a "No decision" being the outcome. Gilmore contended that there is no law, or rather there is a "secret" law requiring ID to fly on commercial airlines, and that this non law or secret law violated his 4th amendment right to privacy. Because of profiling and data basing I might have argued that this non law violated his 5th amendment right to self incrimination as well.
Here is a section of the suit:
"...in regards to the right to travel issue which
counsel argues they should not be liable for, again, this goes
right back to the secret law issue, as to whether or not they
have the right to demand id or not. we do not know what that
law is because it's not been published. the government has
stated, as we mentioned in our addendum that the airlines are
not mandated to demand, merely request it."
So it seems that the Non Decision due to jurisdiction is an admission that there is indeed NO LAW requiring us to show ID. So it is a matter of 'policy' constitutional or otherwise for the airlines to 'require' ID. I have learned this because I have successfully traveled on other airlines without ID, as I have successfully navigated TSA without ID, although I did get a virtual anal probe by gleeful TSA agents.
This of course all due to 911.
The fact is, this requirement does NOTHING to stop terrorism! Terrorists are perfectly capable of obtaining fake IDs and would have no problem getting on a plane if they so desired. "Four of the hijackers ... had valid Virginia driver's licenses. . . . They were not American citizens. They didn't even live in Virginia.
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Michael Springman, former head of American Visa Bureau in Jeddah:
In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level State Department officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. Theses were essentially people with no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their home country. I complained bitterly at the time there, I returned to the US, I complained to the State Department here, to the General Accounting Office, to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and to the Inspector Generals Office. I was met with silence.
So what really is behind all of this? CONDITIONING!
The Federal Government wants to identify all Americans at all times. They want to make it such a hassle to move about and conduct business that we will give up and comply to their every wish. Hence the Real ID Act 2008. Hence the use of social security (control) numbers integrated into everything we do now. Hence massive personal data basing which is particularly rabid on travelers. Hence the Registered Travel Program or CAPPS 2. Hence lie detector kiosks at our airports Why are you REALLY traveling today? Do you belong to any terrorists groups? Do you love the constitution? Hence TSA to Screen for Terrorists by Reading Palms. Hence, Jack Kerouac turns in his grave.
Do Illegal Aliens need to show ID to travel by air? That I cannot tell you but my bet is that they either have a Matricula card from their home embassy, or they drive.
I fear that too many of us will give in and those of us who hold out will undergo a zealous raking as the heat continues to be elevated.
It's a beautiful day in Texas, and right about now I should be landing in Atlanta preparing to host a conference with Dr Bob Bowman. I will not be doing that now.
I would like to stage a call to action and will you the reader to protest by Boycotting Delta Air, and any other airline that requires ID. I would like to tell you that if enough of you would stand with me, and get others to stand with you, that we could put an end to this illegal practice before we are all chipped and tracked like dogs. But I know that most of you will not be inconvenienced, nor will you take the required steps to preserve privacy and freedom. Harsh words I know but I have become a realist.
Therefore I will erase my line in the sand. A line I have sacrificed for these past 8 years being battered like a keg cork on Oktoberfest. I give in. I will be getting my ID and will join the cattle careening across the wide open in stuffed aluminum tubes. I will because I cannot live like this anymore, alone, Mr. Gilmore and I.
This is of course a sign of our times, as we know. "everything changed after 911" and this is the price I must pay for not being a 19th century French Poet. My Bad.
Facts about DELTA relevant to my rant:
Delta was one of the airlines targeted in the failed Operation Bojinka plot: the conspirators planned to bomb a Delta MD-11 flying from Seoul to Bangkok via Taipei on January 21, 1995.
Delta is seeking approval for a daily flight from Atlanta to Shanghai starting March 25, 2008
On September 14, 2005, Delta filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for the first time in its 76-year history. The company cited high labor costs and record-breaking jet fuel prices as factors in its filing. At the time of the filing, Delta had $20.5 billion in debt, $10 billion of which accumulated since January 2001.
Delta and its financial advisor, the Blackstone Group, (The Blackstone Group has deep ties to the Carlyle Group. Deltas previous financial advisor was now defunct Arthur Anderson (Enron)
Prisoners of our passports
ID Card: Password to the Police State
Article Found at : http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/au ... _blood.htm
The vanishing right to travel
The vanishing right to travel
By Ezekiel Jones
Online Journal Guest Writer
Aug 20, 2007, 01:23
The freedom to travel has joined habeas corpus and freedom from unwarranted searches on America's endangered rights list. Over the last 10 years, a combination of federal legislation, court decisions and new federal regulations have greatly reduced the rights of U.S. citizens to travel internationally and domestically.
As old as the Magna Carta
The right to go where one wishes is among the most fundamental and ancient of freedoms in the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. Article 42 of the Magna Carta provided:
"It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above."
Despite its long tradition, the right to travel has been under attack at other times in American history. During the Red-baiting '50s, Congress enacted a law requiring that American citizens possess passports in order to leave or enter the country and delegated the authority to the secretary of state to determine the criteria for issuing passports. Shortly thereafter, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles denied a passport to Rockwell Kent on grounds that he was a Communist. Kent challenged the refusal in court, and the case eventually reached the U. S. Supreme Court. Justice William O. Douglas wrote the opinion for the majority that ordered the State Department to issue the passport:
"The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta. Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. 'Our nation,' wrote Chafee, 'has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.' (citations omitted)
Whatever happened to love it or leave it?
Unfortunately, William O. Douglas is no longer on the Supreme Court.
American jurisprudence has always recognized two, somewhat distinguishable, aspects of the right to travel. The Kent case dealt with a citizen's freedom to leave the U. S. and return. Since 9/11, that right has been severely restricted. Prior to January 1, 2007, the U.S. had reciprocal agreements with Mexico, Canada and several Caribbean nations that allowed U.S. citizens to come and go from these countries with nothing more than a picture ID, like a driver's license, or a birth certificate, citizenship papers or a permanent residency card.
This year, however, Homeland Security issued new regulations requiring Americans to show a passport in order to return by air from these countries. The result was a huge rush for passport applications that swamped the State Department and forced many to cancel their vacations when their new passports did not arrive in the usual six weeks' processing time.
Next year, these requirements will apply to all travel outside the United States, whether by plane, boat or land.
A right has become a privilege
The U. S. government has also breached the ancient Magna Carta principal that all citizens are free to travel abroad unless they have been convicted of a crime. Under "welfare reform" passed by the Republican Congress and signed by Bill Clinton (newspeak name--Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act), the State Department's Passport Denial Program began to refuse passports to American citizens based upon a report that they owed back child support.
Have the federal courts shown up again to slap down the State Department and protect the right to travel? Hardly. Eudene Eunique, a non-custodial parent who had been denied a passport because she allegedly owed $20,000 in back child support, challenged the law and the case reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The three-judge panel ruled in favor of the State Department. Writing for the majority in the 2-1 decision, Judge Fernandez distinguished the Kent case by claiming that Eunique might be violating federal law if she left the U.S. to evade child support payments. There was no allegation that her purpose was to effect such an evasion nor any hearing on the issue of her motivation. Suffice it to say that the court's ruling, Justice Douglas' opinion in Kent were shown scant respect.
Dissenting Judge Kleinfeld was frank about it: "In this case, unlike those in which the Supreme Court has upheld restrictions on travel, the government has not offered a foreign policy or national security justification for the restriction, the government has not narrowly tailored the restriction to its purpose, and the apparent purpose of the restriction is to penalize past misconduct rather than to restrict travel as such. Thus the travel ban in this case is unconstitutional under controlling Supreme Court precedent. That Court can revise its approach if it so decides, but we can't."
The initial trigger was set at $5,000, but it was recently reduced to $2,500, and the State Department recently issued a press release bragging about how much cash they had collected from passport applicants.
While it may be hard to feel much sympathy for deadbeat parents, the Magna Carta principle that citizens have the right to travel internationally unless they stand accused or convicted of a crime has been abrogated. What's next? Passport refusals on the grounds that one's student loan payments are delinquent? Denials of passports because of mortgage defaults? It's a bit ironic that a nation which historically has been a refuge for the destitute seeking a new start could become one big debtors' prison with the combination of provisions like the Passport Denial Program, oppressive bankruptcy laws and a failing economy.
See the USA in your Toyota (as long as you carry your passport)
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is unhappy. It seems there are several states that are resisting the federal effort to make them upgrade their state-issued drivers' licenses to meet the standards for a new national personal ID card.
His response? Issue threats that residents of those states that don't go along with the national ID will be required to show U.S. passports to enter federal buildings, national parks and monuments, even board an airplane for a domestic flight.
"This is not a mandate. A state doesn't have to do this," he said. "But we've been very clear and the law is very clear, if the state doesn't have at the end of the day, the end of the deadline, Real ID compliant licenses, then that state cannot expect that those licenses will be accepted for federal purposes."
The systematic destruction of a precious right
Middle-aged Americans remember how our leaders, parents and teachers distinguished our country from the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies by pointing to the pictures and films of desperate East Germans and Hungarians who were forced to risk their lives just to move to a new country. In those days, there were people like William O. Douglas who had both the inclination and the power to defend Americans' right to travel, but today, with so many fundamental liberties under assault at once, the more subtle attack on freedom of movement has received little attention. It would be tragic if some Americans finally come to the conclusion there is no option but to leave their repressive homeland only to find that they have already lost the right to do so without risking a dangerous, illegal run across a border.
Ezekiel maintains a website with American expats living in Croatia, Belize, Portugal and Uruguay with information about emigrating from the U. S. Go to sheltersfromthestorm.org.
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish ... 2321.shtml
DHS Announces Changes in SSA Employment Verification
August 21, 2007
DHS Announces Changes in SSA Employment Verification
The Department of Homeland Security announced changes in the process that employers must follow should the Social Security Administration report a no match with agency records. Each person seeking employment in the US is requested to fill out an I-9 form which asked for certain documents related to identification. Many employees provide a social security card, drivers license, or other government issued document both as proof of identity and a right to work. The new rule will bypass protections for workers and force employers to collect much more personal information on the behalf of the government under the "safe harbor" provisions.
Posted by EPIC at August 21, 2007 4:27 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.privacycoalition.org/cgibin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/141
Americans must protest U.S. plan REAL ID ACT
REAL ID ACT »
Americans must protest U.S. plan
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" Many years ago in school, while studying communism and the U.S.S.R., I remember being taught that one of their defining hallmarks was the internal passport.
Well, welcome to the U.S.S.A. (United Socialist States of America). I am referring to the Real ID act. CNN's article at http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/16/ real.id/index.html gives more detail on it. The gist of it is that you will have to have this I.D. to travel, visit federal property and basically do anything. And if your state refuses to go along with this Orwellian idea of giving up freedom to remain free, too bad, so sad, say our government officials.
Write, call, e-mail, scream at your state and federal senators and representatives to let them know that enough is enough! End the back-door tyranny. Benjamin Franklin said it best: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Curtis Joseph Everett Conway
http://www.news-leader.com
Feds look at ID for entry
Feds look at ID for entry
By BRODIE FARQUHAR
Star-Tribune correspondent Tuesday, August 21, 2007
It's May 12, 2008. A Casper resident is headed for the Dick Cheney Federal Building. Someone else is headed to Natrona County International Airport to catch a flight. And perhaps a Jackson Hole school bus is headed for Yellowstone National Park on a field trip.
What document, if any, do citizens or students have to present to gain entry?
If you answered a federal Real ID or a U.S. passport, go to the head of the line. Americans may need those documents for all future “federal purposes,â€
The Principles of Freedom vs. Public/Private Partnerships:
Freedom 21 National Conference: NO TIME TO HANG OUR HEADS
The Principles of Freedom vs. Public/Private Partnerships:
By Tom DeWeese, American Policy Center
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Part One: Two Way Partnerships
Part Two: Corporate Social Responsibility
We indeed face difficult times, dealing with issues and policies no Americans before us have had to face. The double speak, the deceit and the betrayal have left us all exhausted and depressed.
And my friends, I think that is the greatest obstacle you and I face in the battle to truly restore the Republic. It's not the power elite, or the force of government or hidden conspiracies. It's our own attitude.
So many in the freedom movement are quick to accept the idea that we cannot win against the forces of tyranny. We are dragging our chins on the ground and sit in despair.
Darned if I understand why.
2007 and the Democrat-controlled Congress has been one of the greatest tests for the ideas of limited government and preserving the Republic.
Forgive me for sounding like Pollyanna, but so far, we are winning a lot of battles. Frankly, this Congress has failed to pass a single significant piece of legislation to hurt us. Of course that can change quickly, but we can face that when it comes. For now, stop fretting and look at the bright side.
First, the defeat of the Senate Immigration bill is without question, the greatest victory for the Republic in several decades. While many have lamented that the American people are asleep, paying no attention to issues of the day, the fact is a full 80% of the American people opposed the guest worker scheme and saw it was truly amnesty for illegals. They saw the threat and said no.
The Senate and the White House, not used to an enflamed electorate, continually tried their usual flimflam tactics of ignoring the will of the people.
Not this time. Americans hated this bill and said so. The Senate got more phone calls and more letters than on any issue in recent memory. The Senate switchboard was shut down. And it DID NOT PASS.
Do you think they are not in a panic? They played a very heavy hand and lost. Of course they will try again and again. But each time they do, more Americans will come to understand what we say is true. They will lose more support and their position becomes weaker. Because we are here with the truth.
Some say we can't stop the North American Union. We're told it is a done deal. Wanna bet? Even with virtually no national media to expose it, the word is spreading like wildfire.
It's taken them years to carefully lay the groundwork for this. We've only been openly fighting it for about a year. And our tiny band of activists are causing them major headaches. In fact, their only tactics have been to say either - there is no NAU - or we're all just a bunch of nuts.
The fact is, through our efforts, Americans are starting to figure this out.
As a result, currently 18 state legislatures have now passed, or are working to pass, resolutions against the idea of a North American Union.
The Teamsters Union has filed suit to stop the Bush Administration's plan to allow Mexican trucks to cross our borders and haul goods throughout the nation. The suit is shining a very bright spotlight on the scheme and could well sidetrack the program. And that spotlight is helping more Americans to learn that the NAU is real.
Keep in mind; all of the Americans who stood up to oppose the immigration bill are potential allies in the fight against the North American Union. It's the same issue in different wrapping.
In Texas, just a year ago, state legislators basically denied there even was a Trans Texas Corridor. Just a highway improvement program, they said. Yet, just one year later, in landslide margins, the Texas Legislature voted overwhelmingly to put a moratorium on the project so more discussion could take place. That was a major victory. And we made that happen.
True, the Governor rose up with all the power at his disposal to stop it. As a result, many of the legislators lost their nerve at the last minute and put in amendments to basically cut the teeth out of the bill.
But first we must remember that the vote in itself was an amazing victory to expose the corridor. There can be no denial that the vote was to stop the TCC. The people of Texas said no to that Corridor.
Imagine the panic in the Governor's office as this was going down. Now he and every legislator who betrayed the will of the people must be targeted and held accountable.
The momentum of the first vote must be used to continue the fight until we win the final victory to stop the TCC - just like we did in the immigration battle.
We actually hold a strong hand. It would be silly folly for us to now just slink away with our heads down. Are we nuts! Name names. Make them feel pain. One thing is consistent on the other side - they are cowards - cockroaches who hate the light of day. Bright lights and roach spray are what we need.
And let's look beyond the issue of the SPP and the Corridor. There have been some astounding victories on other fronts as well.
In 2005, Freedom's warriors were convinced the battle to stop the National ID was over after Congress passed the Real ID Act. Yet, there are now 12 states refusing to go along with implementing it.
There is legislation in Congress to repeal it outright. Americans are learning it is not a tool to fight terrorism or illegal immigration, but a plan to impose a big brother style tyranny on us all. We're stopping it - or at least slowing it down.
A couple of years ago, Congress passed a horrible bill which literally robbed our First Amendment right of free speech. The McCain-Feingold bill severely restricted the ability to even name elected representatives in campaign ads. It was done to make it near impossible to run effective campaigns against incumbents, giving them a free election ride.
But last month the Supreme Court ruled that it was against the First Amendment to ban businesses and unions to fund advocacy campaigns in the closing months of an election. It was a huge victory for the right of free speech and the Republic.
Word has now come down from Congressional Democrats that they will not renew Fast Track authority for the president. Of course it's a political ploy against Bush, but the fact is, Fast Track is the one policy that actually gives the President the legal authority to negotiate policy like NAFTA, GATT and the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), to implement the North American Union.
Fast Track allows the President to force policy on congress without debate and without amendments. It is a victory for our side to take that authority away from him, no matter the reason.
And look at Al Gore's panic in trying to force climate change policies on us. Billions of dollars have been spent to get us to believe in man-made global warming. Hollywood had to give him an Oscar to get our attention.
But in fact, the American people aren't buying it. Al's worldwide concerts for climate change last week were the lowest rated shows on television.
Worse, for him, Senator Jim Inhofe, from just up the road in Oklahoma has become a one man wrecking crew in Congress, debunking the so-called science Al's using. Real scientists are coming out of the woodwork now to say they are global warming skeptics.
No wonder Al and his ilk want to put us in jail for opposing them - they have nothing else left to threaten us with.
Worried about the invasion of Chinese goods now flooding the American market place? The problem may take care of itself soon.
The month of June has seen a huge backlash against Chinese goods - more powerful than any boycott could ever produce. And they are doing it to themselves. Chemicals in killer dog food have been traced back to China. The FDA has just moved to block the sale of Chinese fish because of still more chemicals. Defective Chinese tires have been discovered.
All of these things will only serve to prove to the American people that Chinese goods are inferior and undesirable. Americans may yet learn that China is a brutal communist regime that has no concern for the quality of its products. It cares only for the power of the money it makes off of them.
The Chinese debacle proves that the free market can be trusted and those who think they can manipulate it will eventually be exposed.
There are lots of good things happening in the name of freedom around the world.
Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto is becoming an international phenomenon with his advocacy of private property ownership as a means to eradicate poverty. 50 heads of state have asked him to meet with them to discuss his ideas - including such totalitarian states as Syria.
I have learned in the past few months that there are freedom fighters out there you and I have never heard of. I just spent last week in Las Vegas with 1,000 of them. They have never heard of you and you've never heard of them - but they are there, fighting much the same fight.
Of course there are bad things going on. Of course the forces of tyranny continue to build to enforce their will. And of course they will fight back when we win a round.
The good news is every victory they score creates new victims. Every new victim finds their way to the camp of Freedoms Heroes and our forces swell. And that can ultimately lead to freedom - if we will just get our heads out of the sand and appreciate a victory when we win one.
When you feel you can't go on in the fight, when you feel there is no hope, remember this - there are millions in the world who really want freedom - we are not alone.
There is a great uprising beginning to take place around the world. The Internet has become an incredible tool to spread the world of freedom around the world. And oppressed people are reading and listening and dreaming of freedom for themselves.
Truth is on our side. Right is on our side. And I believe time is on our side. Call me Pollyanna if you will, but I see signs of change. The immigration battle shows people are alert. It has awakened that sleeping giant.
The truth is, in our lifetime we are never going to see America become what we might envision to be the perfect world. Frankly, many of us would disagree among ourselves about what that perfect world should be.
But, in the face of the forces of tyranny we fight today, if we can preserve our nation's sovereignty and independence and keep the Bill of Rights alive - a document based on the three principles of freedom - then frankly that will be an incredible victory.
And for our children and grandchildren to have a hope of living in Freedom - that will be enough.
Tom DeWeese is the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center, a grassroots, activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, Virginia. Its Internet site is www.americanpolicy.org. Tom can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com
Other articles by Tom Deweese
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese082207.htm