Thread: Support H.R.220 - Common Sense About Identity Theft & RE

Published April 19, 2007
Comment (1) Print email Subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregoire rejects national ID card

DAVID AMMONS
The Associated Press

Gov. Chris Gregoire, who is developing a high-tech state driver's license that can serve as a border-crossing document, Wednesday signed legislation rejecting Real ID, a federal identification requirement that would essentially create a national ID card.

The Washington state legislation is part of a growing rebellion against an expensive federal mandate that the American Civil Liberties Union says would threaten personal privacy.

The new state law says Washington will not implement the new Real ID system unless: Uncle Sam foots the bill, the government takes steps to ensure that privacy and data security concerns are addressed and the system doesn't place unreasonable costs or recordkeeping burdens on the average citizen.

The measure also gives the state attorney general the authority, if the governor concurs, to go to court to challenge the federal law.

Adopted by Congress

The system was adopted by Congress in 2005, growing out of national security concerns. It requires states to develop a new driver's license and personal identification card that allows information to be stored and checked by national databases.

It requires the applicant to show a birth certificate, proof of citizenship, proof of state residency and other information. The person's driving history and other information must be stored electronically by the state.

The new system, which is supposed to be a requirement in 2008, would cost the state

$250 million to develop and implement, the governor said.

"This is another unfunded mandate from the federal government and, even worse, it doesn't protect the privacy of the citizens of Washington," Gregoire said Wednesday in signing the bill.

"Washington will not spend the $250 million without a guarantee of privacy and federal funds to help fund it."

The measure passed both houses with a strong bipartisan vote.

"While everyone can agree on the need for security, we need to make sure any new system will protect our privacy and data from abuse and will not bankrupt our state," said the prime sponsor, Senate Transportation Chairwoman Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island.

"Only with those assurances in place will we be in a position to move forward with Real ID."

Besides the expense, Haugen said she had major concerns that "the numerous forms of identification required under this federal mandate ... could provide a virtual gold mine of information for identity thieves" who could hack into the system.

"Lawmakers from both parties took a strong stand against Real ID," said Jennifer Shaw, legislative director of the ACLU of Washington. "It would threaten personal privacy as well as create a bureaucratic nightmare to implement."

She said by placing personally identifiable information into databases accessible across the country, Real ID could make consumers more vulnerable to identity theft and abuse.

Shaw said Washington is the fifth state to express opposition to the federal law, joining Montana, Idaho, Arkansas and Maine, and that more than 20 other states are considering similar laws or protest resolutions.

On the web

Legislature: www.leg.wa.gov

Governor: www.governor.wa.gov

Licensing agency: www.dol.wa.gov


http://www.theolympian.com/125/story/84630.html

New Hamp. Legislators Address RFID Concerns

Written By: Steven Titch
Published In: Info Tech & Telecom News
Publication Date: May 1, 2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute


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

Controversy over the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) continues to grow as New Hampshire has reintroduced legislation to regulate the use of RFID chips in consumer products and entirely ban their use in government documents such as driver's licenses.

Currently, RFID chips are used in certain point-of-sale devices, such as ExxonMobil's EasyPass, tollway passes, and building access cards that many employers issue. Retailers use RFID to track shipping pallets and containers.

RFID chips to date have not been incorporated into packaging on any widespread basis. The only exception is in the pharmaceutical industry, which uses RFID to keep counterfeit prescription drugs out of the supply chain.


Reflects Growing Concerns

The New Hampshire bill reflects growing legislator and voter concerns over the increasing use of RFID chips by large retailers such as Wal-Mart and Target to track inventory as it moves through the supply chain. At least three states have drawn up legislation against government plans to incorporate RFID chips into passports and driver's licenses. Consumer activists and civil libertarians say use of the chips and the information they gather can lead to wholesale invasions of privacy.

The New Hampshire bill, H.B. 686, would require retailers to label any products, such as food, apparel, or appliances, that contain RFID chips. It would exempt devices that incorporate RFID and other radio tracking technology as part of their essential mechanisms, such as cell phones, WiFi cards, and global positioning system (GPS) receivers.

The bill, introduced in February, revives but clarifies a failed 2005 bill that many felt was overly broad in its definitions, especially of radio tracking devices.

"[RFID tagging] is about generating more personal data about individual consumers, which can then be mined and sold. I still maintain that it is fraud for a retailer to take something of value from a customer without their knowledge and consent," said state Rep. Joel Winters (D-Hillsborough), a member of the House Commerce Committee, to which the bill has been referred.

"Look at supermarket 'loyalty cards,' which exist solely for tracking our purchases," Winters said. "Read the privacy policy of most large chains; Home Depot, for example, promises to keep a record of your transactions if you use a credit or debit card. I don't believe that the idea retailers will just stop collecting data is correct.

"There is also precedent for retailers to exchange information with each other; as they might do with RFID tag numbers," Winters said. For example, RFID data might be used to track an individual customer's return history. "Some retailers share that information to create sort of a return blacklist," he said.


Government Uses Cause Worry

The New Hampshire bill also would prohibit forced implantation of an RFID chip in a person. Police would have to obtain a court order to use RFID to track an individual electronically.

The bill itself, like at least 17 others that have been introduced in state houses around the country, reflects the two sides of the RFID coin, commercial and government. While commercial applications largely are geared toward tracking items, government applications are geared toward tracking individuals.

Concerns in the latter case have led to resolutions rejecting the U.S. government's proposed Real ID Act of 2005, which aims to standardize the information on state driver's licenses and require them to contain RFID chips. Maine legislators approved such a resolution in January. Similar bills are pending in Georgia, Massachusetts, Montana, and Washington. Idaho, Maine, and Montana have introduced such bills. New Hampshire has also introduced a bill, sponsored by Winters, that would prohibit the state from participating in any national ID card system.

Industry groups such as the Smart Card Alliance say RFID labeling laws raise costs for business and hit small retailers especially hard. The Smart Card Alliance also says the capability of the technology to be used by unauthorized third parties to hijack personal information has been overhyped and misportrayed in the media. In reality, supporters of the technology say, RFID helps reduce manufacturing costs and protects consumers by keeping counterfeit products out of the supply chain.

The Smart Card Alliance advocates a series of policy steps (see accompanying tables) for both retail and government applications, including deactivation of any RFID chips embedded in a package or product upon purchase and the use of encryption in documents.

Critics of RFID legislation also say fear over the technology's role in identity theft is misplaced. They point out that identify theft is now largely a component of organized crime, which seeks the volume that can be acquired only through bribery or theft of devices such as laptops, disks, and memory cards that contain large amounts of personal data.


Human Implants Considered

The implantation of RFID chips in individuals remains a hotly debated topic. VeriChip Corp., for example, sells FDA-approved RFID chips, about the size of a grain of rice, designed for human implantation that would carry medical information about the individual. In Florida, VeriChip and the Alzheimer's Community Care Association of Palm Beach and Martin Counties Inc. have begun a two-year study to determine whether it's practical to implant tiny computer chips containing medical records in dementia patients.

"People with Alzheimer's and dementia are our most vulnerable population, particularly during hurricane season. We're hoping this kind of technology creates a safer environment for them and creates higher efficiency in the emergency room," Mary Barnes, president and chief executive of Alzheimer's Community Care, told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Civil libertarians, however, fear that without adequate safeguards RFID use presents something of a "slippery slope," where RFID implantation in the elderly and children becomes more of a convenience for family and caregivers than a necessity for patient safety.

"In families that receive the VeriChip implants, the children have been left with no choice but to comply with their parents wishes. Also, VeriChip has announced plans to implant Alzheimer's patients in Florida with RFID chips. I don't believe they can give consent, although their legal guardians will have to," said Winters.

"In Mexico, a number of bureaucrats were implanted with RFID chips," Winters noted. "I assume that they were told if they wanted to keep working, they would have to comply. It's very possible that this will be a condition of employment here in the U.S. in the future."


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

Steven Titch (titch@heartland.org) is senior fellow for IT and telecom policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of IT&T News.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21011

Published: Friday, April 20, 2007

Back to drawing board for flawed ID system




Our state was right to reject the half-baked Real ID system rushed into place by the feds two years ago. Congress and the Bush administration need to go back to the drawing board on this one.

Touted as an important homeland security measure, Real ID makes driver's licenses and ID cards from non-compliant states unacceptable forms of identification for boarding commercial flights and entering federal buildings starting in 2009. To become compliant, states must issue standardized licenses that include scannable personal information that's linked to national databases.

The system has at least two major flaws: it comes without anything close to adequate federal funding (Washingtonians would have to cough up some $250 million over five years) and lacks ample safeguards to assure personal information on all those databases is protected from identity theft. Legitimate privacy concerns are also in play.

Gov. Chris Gregoire signed legislation Wednesday to keep the state out of the program unless those and other concerns are addressed.

Serious concerns over Real ID are shared by both parties in Olympia. The measure, prime-sponsored by Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen (D-Camano Island), passed 41-4 in the Senate and 95-2 in the House.

Congress approved Real ID in 2005 after the basic idea was suggested by the 9-11 commission, but it wasn't fully vetted. It was attached to bills that addressed funding for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, never getting its own hearings.

With Washington joining at least four other states that have rejected it, and some 20 more considering such a move, the feds clearly need to start over. This time, rather than a top-down approach, they should create a process in which the Department of Homeland Security sits down with state officials, privacy advocates and other stakeholders to see if a more realistic, workable system can be forged.

Wider involvement really can lead to better solutions: Our state, working with British Columbia, has already won federal approval of a pilot project to use enhanced driver's licenses at border crossings.

Still, all parties should recognize that ID systems offer very limited protection from terrorism. They might flag known terrorists, but not those without a previous record.

No changes as monumental as Real ID should be implemented without a thorough debate over the security gained vs. the privacy waived.

http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/07/04/ ... ial001.cfm

Friday, April 20, 2007 :: infoZine Staff :: page views
Two States Lead Revolt Against Real ID
By Eric Kelderman - Montana and Washington state defied the U.S. government this week, enacting the first state laws to reject the 2005 federal Real ID Act and ratcheting up pressure on Congress to amend or repeal national standards for driver's licenses.



Stateline.org - infoZine - Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) signed legislation Tuesday (April 17) that bans the state's Motor Vehicle Division from enforcing the national rules, which set uniform security features for driver's licenses and require states to verify the identity of all driver's license applicants.

Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) signed a bill Wednesday (April 1 barring that state from complying unless the federal government comes up with an extra $250 million to cover the state's expenses. The law also gives Washington's attorney general the right to challenge Real ID in court.

Montana's Schweitzer complained that the Real ID law is another way for the federal government to stomp on residents' personal privacy. "Montanans don't want the federal agents listening to their phone conversations, rifling through their papers, checking on what books they read and monitoring where they go and when. We think they ought to mind their own business," he said in a written statement.

Gregoire in a statement said the Real ID Act "is another unfunded mandate from the federal government and, even worse, it doesn't protect the privacy of the citizens of Washington."

In all, 30 states have passed or are considering proposals condemning the license standards. State lawmakers have railed at the costs and deadlines imposed on states, at federal intrusion into what had been a state responsibility and the specter of a national ID card. But the Montana and Washington actions stand out as the first statutes to bar state agencies from participating in Real ID, which passed Congress without floor debate, attached to a 2005 bill funding the war in Iraq and international aid after the Asian tsunami.

Legislatures in Idaho and Maine have passed nonbinding measures protesting the 2005 act. Arkansas lawmakers have approved one resolution calling for Congress to repeal the act and another that asks for civil-liberty protections and full funding to meet the estimated $14 billion cost to states. None of those measures carries the weight of law or required a governor's signature.

Bills condemning Real ID have been approved by one chamber in another 13 legislatures and have been introduced in 12 more.

"When a state like Montana tells the federal government to take a hike, it brings down the whole house of cards. If there was ever any question that Congress would be forced to revisit this misguided law, there is no more," Barry Steinhardt of the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement.

States have held out hope that the new Democratic majority in Congress will pay more attention to their concerns than the Republicans did. U.S. Sens. Daniel Akaka (D) of Hawaii and John Sununu (R) of New Hampshire have revived a 2006 bill to repeal Real ID. U.S. Rep. Tom Allen (D) of Maine also has submitted a bill rejecting the act.

Real ID requires that all new and existing driver's license applicants present and states verify: a form of photo identification, a document showing date of birth, proof of a Social Security number and a document with the name and address of the applicant.

All state-issued driver's licenses must include an individual's name, address, date of birth, gender, signature, driver's license number, a digital photograph and several features to prevent counterfeiting.

Driver's license bureaus would feed information into databases to verify applicants' identity, leading critics to worry about invasions of privacy and identify theft.

Cost also is a primary concern. State officials decry the act as a giant unfunded mandate. Congress has appropriated just $40 million for states to begin verifying and reissuing an estimated 245 million driver's licenses and identification cards.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in March said states could use 20 percent of their federal homeland security grants to help meet costs. But those amounts are just a fraction of the total $14.6 billion that the department estimates the law will cost states. In addition, the law will impose $7.9 billion in costs on individuals and $617 million on the federal government, according to homeland security figures.

Time is another problem, say states. The initial deadline to begin issuing compliant licenses is May 11, 2008, although states can apply for an extension until Dec. 31, 2009. That won't help, state officials counter, because all existing licenses still have to be reissued by 2013, so states that delay actually have a smaller window to meet the law.

Montana state Rep. Brady Wiseman (D), a sponsor of his state's legislation, said his colleagues were most concerned about privacy issues and Real ID's requirement to digitally store personal information and make that information available to other states. "We just didn't see the benefit here from going through all that rigmarole," said Wiseman, whose bill passed the Republican-controlled state House and Democratic-controlled Senate with unanimous support.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute both oppose Real ID on the grounds that it will violate civil liberties.

"The states reserve the right to choose not to comply with Real ID," said Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. But he noted that citizens in states without compliant licenses will not be able to use their licenses to board commercial flights or enter federal buildings.
Related stories:

Related articles in infoZine
Real ID -- Real Questions
Too little time, too much cost for Real ID
Congress sets new driver's license rules
States balk at license bill as it heads to U.S. Senate
Drivers' Licenses Now a Tool for Homeland Security


Comment on this story by registering with Stateline.org, or e-mail your feedback to our Letters to the editor section at letters@stateline.org

http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op ... sid/22365/

Defiance to Real ID develops in Montana
By Stateline.org

WASHINGTON - Montana and Washington defied the U.S. government last week, enacting the first state laws to reject the 2005 federal Real ID Act and ratcheting up pressure on Congress to amend or repeal national standards for driver's licenses.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer signed legislation Tuesday that bans the state's Motor Vehicle Division from enforcing the national rules, which set uniform security features for drivers' licenses and require states to verify the identity of all applicants.

Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, signed a bill Wednesday barring that state from complying unless the federal government comes up with an extra $250 million to cover the state's expenses. The law also gives Washington's attorney general the right to challenge Real ID in court.

Montana's Schweitzer, a Democrat, complained that the Real ID law is another way for the federal government to stomp on residents' personal privacy. "Montanans don't want the federal agents listening to their phone conversations, rifling through their papers, checking on what books they read and monitoring where they go and when. We think they ought to mind their own business," he said in a written statement. Gregoire in a statement said the Real ID Act "is another unfunded mandate from the federal government and, even worse, it doesn't protect the privacy of the citizens of Washington."

In all, 30 states have passed or are considering proposals condemning the license standards. State lawmakers have railed at the costs and deadlines imposed on states, at federal intrusion into what had been a state responsibility and the specter of a national ID card. But the Montana and Washington actions stand out as the first statutes to bar state agencies from participating in Real ID, which passed Congress without floor debate, attached to a 2005 bill funding the war in Iraq and international aid after the Asian tsunami.

Legislatures in Idaho and Maine have passed nonbinding measures protesting the 2005 act. Arkansas lawmakers have approved one resolution calling for Congress to repeal the act and another that asks for civil-liberty protections and full funding to meet the estimated $14 billion cost to states. None of those measures carries the weight of law or required a governor's signature.

Bills condemning Real ID have been approved by one chamber in another 13 legislatures and have been introduced in 12 more.

"When a state like Montana tells the federal government to take a hike, it brings down the whole house of cards. If there was ever any question that Congress would be forced to revisit this misguided law, there is no more," Barry Steinhardt of the American Civil Liberties Union said in a prepared statement.

States have held out hope that the new Democratic majority in Congress will pay more attention to their concerns than the Republicans did. U.S. Sens. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii and John Sununu, R-N.H., have revived a 2006 bill to repeal Real ID. U.S. Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine, also has submitted a bill rejecting the act.

Real ID requires that all new and existing driver's license applicants present, and states verify, a form of photo identification, a document showing date of birth, proof of a Social Security number and a document with the name and address of the applicant.

All state-issued driver's licenses must include an individual's name, address, date of birth, gender, signature, driver's license number, a digital photograph and several features to prevent counterfeiting.

Driver's license bureaus would feed information into databases to verify applicants' identity, leading critics to worry about invasions of privacy and identify theft.

Cost also is a primary concern. State officials decry the act as a giant unfunded mandate. Congress has appropriated just $40 million for states to begin verifying and reissuing an estimated 245 million driver's licenses and identification cards.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in March said states could use 20 percent of their federal homeland security grants to help meet costs. But those amounts are just a fraction of the total $14.6 billion that the department estimates the law will cost states. In addition, the law will impose $7.9 billion in costs on individuals and $617 million on the federal government, according to homeland security figures.

Time is another problem, say states. The initial deadline to begin issuing compliant licenses is May 11, 2008, although states can apply for an extension until Dec. 31, 2009. That won't help, state officials counter, because all existing licenses still have to be reissued by 2013, so states that delay actually have a smaller window to meet the law.

Montana state Rep. Brady Wiseman, a Democrat and a sponsor of his state's legislation, said his colleagues were most concerned about privacy issues and Real ID's requirement to digitally store personal information and make that information available to other states. "We just didn't see the benefit here from going through all that rigmarole," said Wiseman, whose bill passed the Republican-controlled state House and Democratic-controlled Senate with unanimous support.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute both oppose Real ID on the grounds that it will violate civil liberties.

"The states reserve the right to choose not to comply with Real ID," said Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. But he noted that citizens in states without compliant licenses will not be able to use their licenses to board commercial flights or enter federal buildings.


Published on Sunday, April 22, 2007.
Last modified on 4/22/2007 at 3:40 am



http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles ... ontana.txt

Legislature passes bill delaying Real ID
Coastal Empire | Local News
Morris News Service | Friday, April 20, 2007 at 01:00 am

First Lady Mary Perdue votes at her polling place at the Kathleen Voting precinct in Kathleen, Ga., this morning. (AP Photo/Ric Feld) (Photo: AP Photo/Ric Feld)

Sonny PerdueRepublican gubernatorial candidatephotographed at Skidaway Island United Methodist Church(1/23/02) (Photo



ATLANTA - Georgia joins a growing number of states whose lawmakers have approved bills threatening not to comply with federal standards for drivers' licenses.

The Real ID Act requires that states implement a number of security measures on licenses that will require drivers to bring in documents, such as birth certificates and social security cards, to verify their citizenship.

States have until May of next year to implement the process but can apply for an extension.

Georgia lawmakers passed Senate Bill 5 on Friday allowing Gov. Sonny Perdue to delay complying until the federal Homeland Security agency can show that drivers' personal information, which will be shared among states under Real ID, will be protected.

About 30 legislatures around the country have considered measures to protest the federal act in some way.

This week, Montana and Washington became the first states to outright refuse to comply, with lawmakers there demanding the federal government cover the costs for states to implement the changes.

SB 5 now heads to Perdue for his signature or veto.

http://savannahnow.com/node/269369

Big brother is already watching and knowing every move we make. with the real ID it will include everyone and will know who is illeagl and who is not. I am all for it. If you have the little supermarket discount card, SSI#, driver license, pay taxes and have every enrolled in school, they already know too much and one more card will not make that much difference is what is known about us but them.
With ony my grand father's name, I got all kinds of info about him through social security that I did not know.
It is no biggie for me. They already know what I have to reveal to get a Real ID card.
If it helps to know who is here, I am all for it.
Yes, they may be able to counterfeit, and maybe not so easy. If it helps in the least, it is worth it.

Originally Posted by dyehard39

Big brother is already watching and knowing every move we make. with the real ID it will include everyone and will know who is illeagl and who is not. I am all for it. If you have the little supermarket discount card, SSI#, driver license, pay taxes and have every enrolled in school, they already know too much and one more card will not make that much difference is what is known about us but them.
With ony my grand father's name, I got all kinds of info about him through social security that I did not know.
It is no biggie for me. They already know what I have to reveal to get a Real ID card.
If it helps to know who is here, I am all for it.
Yes, they may be able to counterfeit, and maybe not so easy. If it helps in the least, it is worth it.

Just remember what Benjamin Franklin said, "They that would trade essential Liberty, for a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty, nor Safety".

I don't believe in this Act, and will never support it. It is the most invasive act since the Social Security Act, which is another illegal agency according to the Constitution. What does "Social" mean? Anything to do with socialism? You bet. Socialism doesn't work. It's a utopian ideology, but not very realistic as it leads to a dictatorial state, the same as a welfare state does.

I feel that we've surrenderred more than enough of our Liberty, and will not surrender anymore myself. My efforts are for more restorations of our Liberty. And in no way do I think this Act will improve things, for the American People, unless slavery is the American way.

Originally Posted by dyehard39

Big brother is already watching and knowing every move we make. with the real ID it will include everyone and will know who is illeagl and who is not. I am all for it. If you have the little supermarket discount card, SSI#, driver license, pay taxes and have every enrolled in school, they already know too much and one more card will not make that much difference is what is known about us but them.
With ony my grand father's name, I got all kinds of info about him through social security that I did not know.
It is no biggie for me. They already know what I have to reveal to get a Real ID card.
If it helps to know who is here, I am all for it.
Yes, they may be able to counterfeit, and maybe not so easy. If it helps in the least, it is worth it.

How, precisely, do you claim that the Real ID will accomplish all that you say it will accomplish? What happens to actual Americans who don't have SSNs for religious or other reasons? What happens to illegals who DO HAVE SSNs? I do not see that the Real ID will separate the illegals from the legals.

Beyond all that, I wholeheartedly concur with Hylander. Even IF the Real ID was to somehow identify every illegal in the US, and even in the highly unlikely event that its doing so resulted in a decent percentage of them being deported, the price in surrendered freedom is too high.

Originally Posted by Hylander

I feel that we've surrenderred more than enough of our Liberty, and will not surrender anymore myself. My efforts are for more restorations of our Liberty. And in no way do I think this Act will improve things, for the American People, unless slavery is the American way.

What is it that we will have to surrender that we have not already surrendered? Don't have social security number because of there religion?Who are these people? I thought everyone had to have a social security number? Even babies now.

History of National Identification Cards
1. National ID cards have long been advocated as a means to enhance national security, unmask potential terrorists, and guard against illegal immigrants. They are in use in many countries around the world including most European countries, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. Currently, the United States and the United Kingdom have continued to debate the merits of adopting national ID cards. The types of card, their functions, and privacy safeguards vary widely.
Americans have rejected the idea of a national ID card. When the Social Security Number (SSN) was created in 1936, it was meant to be used only as an account number associated with the administration of the Social Security system. Though use of the SSN has expanded considerably, it is not a universal identifier and efforts to make it one have been consistently rejected. In 1971, the Social Security Administration task force on the SSN rejected the extension of the Social Security Number to the status of an ID card. In 1973, the Health, Education and Welfare Secretary's Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems concluded that a national identifier was not desirable. In 1976, the Federal Advisory Committee on False Identification rejected the idea of an identifier.
In 1977, the Carter Administration reiterated that the SSN was not to become an identifier, and in 1981 the Reagan Administration stated that it was "explicitly opposed" to the creation of a national ID card. The Clinton administration advocated a “Health Security Card” in 1993 and assured the public that the card, issued to every American, would have “full protection for privacy and confidentiality.” Still, the idea was rejected and the health security card was never created. In 1999 Congress repealed a controversial provision in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 which gave authorization to include Social Security Numbers on driver's licenses. In response to the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, there has been renewed interest in the creation of national ID cards. Soon after the attacks, Larry Ellison, head of California-based software company Oracle Corporation, called for the development of a national identification system and offered to donate the technology to make this possible. He proposed ID cards with embedded digitized thumbprints and photographs of all legal residents in the U.S. There was much public debate about the issue, and Congressional hearings were held. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich testified that he "would not institute a national ID card because you do get into civil liberties issues." When it created the Department of Homeland Security, Congress made clear in the enabling legislation that the agency could not create a national ID system. In September 2004, then-DHS Secretary Tom Ridge reiterated, "[t]he legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security was very specific on the question of a national ID card. They said there will be no national ID card."
The public continues to debate the issue, and there have been many other proposals for the creation of a national identification system, some through the standardization of state driver's licenses. The debate remains in the international spotlight – several nations are considering implementing such systems. The U.S. Congress has passed the REAL ID Act of 2005, which mandates federal requirements for driver's licenses. Critics argue that it would make driver's licenses into de facto national Ids.

How will the REAL ID Act affect state driver's licenses and identification cards (DL/ID)?
1. If the Department of Homeland Security Secretary doesn't grant a state an extension to meet the certification requirements, then by May 11, 2008 (three years after passage of the REAL ID Act), states must meet the following standards to be accepted for federal use (entrance into a courthouse, onto a plane; receiving federal benefits, such as Social Security or Medicare). After more than two years, the Department of Homeland Security issued draft regulations on March 1, 2007, explaining how the states can meet these standards. The EPIC analysis of the potential privacy implications follows the enumeration of the each set of standards.
Minimum document requirements, §202(b):
"To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall include, at a minimum, the following information and features on each driver's license and identification card issued to a person by the State:
(1) The person's full legal name.
(2) The person's date of birth.
(3) The person's gender.
(4) The person's driver's license or identification card number.
(5) A digital photograph of the person.
(6) The person's address of principle residence.
(7) The person's signature.
( Physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes.
(9) A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements."
http://www.epic.org/privacy/id_cards/