(no subject)

[usernamenumber]

So, there's a story on BoingBoing entitled "Kill the national ID card: 48h remain!". It is basically a plug for http://www.unrealid.com, which is a site devoted to criticism of a bill called the Real ID Act that will supposedly go up for a vote on Tuesday^[1]. The unrealid site paints this bill as tantamount to a "papers, please" style national id system and the people at boingboing seem to see it the same way. However, in looking over the text of the bill, it doesn't look like that to me at all. Title II seems to be the relevant part and all it seems to do is lay out minimum requirements as to what information State-issued licenses need to contain for them to be honored by the federal government. And the requirements aren't anything crazy either: photo, name, address, etc. I have issues with the address because I think that while an authority figure might well be entitled to know that I am who I say I am, there are significantly fewer circumstances under which they or anyone else would be entitled to know where I live. But that point's moot in this context anyway since the driver's licenses of every state that I've had one in have already contained this information.

I know that I have at least one (almost) lawyer who reads this lj occasionally, so I'd like to take the opportunity to ask: Am I missing something here? Is there something more devious that I'm not noticing, or are people just freaking out about the wrong thing here? Section 203 has a clause that gets my paranoia going about having states link their databases and share all information stored on state-licensed IDs, but even with this there are a number of mitigating factors. First, while eligibility for financial assistance to offset the costs of implementation is contingent upon database-sharing, states are not otherwise required to participate (as I read it, please correct me if I'm wrong). Second, and here is where my own naivete may be showing... isn't that already pretty-much done? I mean, I'd always assumed that if I got pulled over in Nevada they'd still be able to run the CA license. I guess that must not be correct, otherwise there wouldn't be such a stipulation in the bill, but does anyone have more information on the extent to which state's databases of eg driver's lisence data are already shared?

So, I guess my main reason for posting this (besides, I'll admit, to pat myself on the back for taking some time to research the issue) is to solicit perspectives. Does anybody know anything about this that I should be aware of? Am I missing something in thinking that this is not the big bad thing that unrealid makes it out to be? If I'm wrong I'd like to know in time to act. If I'm right, I'd like to share my observations lest anyone else be fooled. I must say that, either way, I'm a bit disapointed in boingboing for linking without question to unrealid.com. Any site that employs sarcasm and fearmongering so blatently and to such a great extent without ever actually linking to the text of the bill should immediately arouse suspicions and yet, looking at the comments that people have posted there, either I am severely misunderstanding something or.... hrmm. Help?

Thanks if anyone can shed some light and/or take some time and share an opinion here.

[1] Oh, and unrealid is also a bit out of date, I think. They say that the Real ID Act is being sneaked through the back door by tacking it onto another bill that provides funding to troops in Iraq. However, it seems that Real ID and a number of related riders were stripped from the funding bill in mid April and I haven't found any records of it's re-introduction (though I'm admittedly still an amature at this sort of thing). This reminds me that I'd especially like to hear from anyone who actually has experience navigating the http://thomas.loc.gov records. In particular, its list of actions made on the bill ends in February when it was referred to a committee even though the affore mentioned issues with it being attached to another bill and then removed supposedly happened in March and April respectively. Again, what gives?

Comments

[slyviolet.livejournal.com]

This has absolutely nothing to do with your post, but I wanted to tell you, as one of the only other people to whom I know this would be interesting/important news...

THEY FOUND THE FINAL PAGE OF 'THE EYE OF ARGON'!! OMGWTF!

...and now we know how it really ended, after all these years. I'm so proud to be alive in times like these.

Oh also, I have another good story that I need to tell you over AIM, in person, or in some other less-than-LJ-publicity environment. S'awesome. You'll dig it muchly.

[choose-again.livejournal.com]

i have only read the first few lines and i wanted to thank you for providing me with an excellent thing to read to my class so they know how NOT to write their short story. :)

[slyviolet.livejournal.com]

*laughs* It is exquisitely awful. ;)

[choose-again.livejournal.com]

i am continually amazed by your efforts to research things you hear. i wish i was as naturally skeptical and reasonable as you are. thanks for being my better half. :)

[usernamenumber.livejournal.com]

You're complementing my research? I do this kind of thing once a year but you spend an unhealthy amount of time on it daily, just other topics, so don't sell yourself short. =:)

[choose-again.livejournal.com]

*beams*

alright

[fsckitall.livejournal.com]

I can tell you why its bad -- talk to me on AIM. It goes back to a bill that started in 1953 and didn't get passed until 1956. There are things moving behind the scenes that america doesn't see here.

other links

[fiatlouis.livejournal.com]

Here's the link I saw recently in slashdot to a news.com article:
http://news.com.com/FAQ+How+Real+ID+will+affect+you/2100-1028_3-5697111.html?tag=st.num
I believe it is similar to stuff put in by Wisconsin's James Sensenbrenner in a previous Iraq spending bill, and then he tried to stuff it in the new National Intelligence Director bill. When that became a stumbling block to getting the intelligence reform bill passed the House leadership promised him that if they took it out of the intel. reform bill that they would put it in another "must-pass" piece of legislation early this year. They seem to have kept their promise. I have not done as much research on it as you, so I mostly just know what I have heard on the radio news, and the article linked above.

[abazureonna.livejournal.com]

I think it's the RFID tags (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFId) that are going to be implanted into ID cards that people are upset about, rather than the inclusion of standard personal information.

[usernamenumber.livejournal.com]

Well not that *would* upset me. A lot. But all the bill specifies is that it have a "machine readable" interface somewhere on it. It seems that what kind of interface (a bar code would suffice) gets implimented would be up to the states.

[abazureonna.livejournal.com]

That would make sense, because the wording is completely vague:

"(9) A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements."

I'm having a hard time finding what the "defined minimum data elements" are in the bill itself, but I don't interpret that to mean that the States will be deciding what the "defined minimum data elements" are, especially in context (it's a bill to lay down ground rules for ID standards, so it meaning "oh why don't you pick!" wouldn't make sense).

The bill doesn't specify RFID tags - it doesn't specify anything, only that the IDs will have to include "common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements". From a legal stand point, the bill strikes me as lame because it's so unclear. From a privacy stand point, I know that there is a lot of talk in Washington (and by that I mean to include senators, congress members, and white house officials - what i don't mean is oh, you know... just people.. in D.C.; i also don't have the articles i've read at hand at the moment so i don't remember the names of specific politicians - talk of using RFID tags goes back, as you well know) about using RFID tags, and if the plan is to use those, then, um, that's a bad idea because the information that RFID tags contain is completely unsecure.

From a historian's stand point it's a little tricky. When IDs started being issued at all there was a big out cry, and nobody liked it, but now we're pretty used to having to carry ID.

[usernamenumber.livejournal.com]

Yeah and, subject of the times that I am, I really don't have a problem with carrying ID. But I *do* have a problem with someone being able to harvest my home address just by bumping into me in a crowd. How braindead does someone have to be to think that's a good idea??

I should admit that RFID isn't something that I've read up on too much, but I know the range is at least a couple of feet, right? Heck, even if it had a range of a couple of inches all I'd have to do is wave a handheld scanner over people's back pockets at the mall, then go home, dump the data and see what I had.

[abazureonna.livejournal.com]

Most of them are under five feet, but Identec makes long range tags that can be read up to 300 feet away. Gah - putting those in passports, especially, is such a fucked up idea.

[usernamenumber.livejournal.com]

So the question becomes: What to do about it? Shooting down this particular bill probably wouldn't solve the problem because the uproar is over misplaced criticism of the "nazification" of the US via the, not that it leaves room for RFID. Maybe a letter-to-senator warning about RFID in general, in the hopes that even if this does pass Congress will think twice about implimenting it that way?

[abazureonna.livejournal.com]

I think that writing senators is a really good idea. The bill is going to pass, like it or not - let's just try to get them against using RFID tags, specifically. The EU thankfully decided to scrap the idea, so that's a good start.

Also...

[abazureonna.livejournal.com]

Apparently you can hush your ID up by keeping it wrapped up in aluminum foil. Right, but how many people are going to know to do that? Wikipedia says that a security test showed that the test passports could be read from around 30 feet away, as of this month, even though the Department of State was claiming that they could only be read from 4 inches away.

The state IDs, I'm not as worried about. I guess the idea is to have the RFID tags only transmit special ID numbers that would bring up your information if you entered it in a secure database. It's not completely safe, but at that point I think it'd be easier to just take someone's wallet then it would be to hack into the DMV.

Re: Also...

[usernamenumber.livejournal.com]

Sure, that makes sense. Still kind of irritating, but not as bad as a passport that makes it that much easier for people to play "spot the American" whenever you travel. *shudder*. Really should do some more reading . But, must get back to class for now. Thanks for the information!

Re: Also...

[fsckitall.livejournal.com]

just to say
Our driver's licenses are already easily machine-read.

The back of it has all the information. If a bar thinks an ID is fake, they scan the back if someone doesn't look 21. Haven't you seen that before?

Re: Also...

[usernamenumber.livejournal.com]

Nope. I don't spend a lot of time in bars. =;)

Re: Also...

[fsckitall.livejournal.com]

Its the black stuff all over the back of your license. Its somehow machine-read, not sure exactly how it works.

Re: Also...

[usernamenumber.livejournal.com]

It's magnetically encoded, same as a credit card. I saw a guy at toorcon who builds card readers for super-cheap and has written software that just dumps what's on the card out to your screen. It's crazy what all information is on those things.

Anyway, I should have been more clear: I just meant to say that I had never seen anyone actually swipe a driver's license, not that I didn't know it could be done. =:)

social security cards versus driver's liscense

[narbulwinj.livejournal.com]

There were two things going on regarding ID's. One of them was to do with driver's liscenses and one had to do with high tech Social Security cards. So one is a state identity card and one is a federal one.

The question I have is what is the purpose of this law, could it be mis-used, and does it lead you to a slippery slope thing. In this case I think the main argument against is the slippery slope argument. People get used to accepting a certain level of invasion of privacy for the sake of convenience. Over time, you can increase the invasion without upsetting folks.

When I was in Australia in 1987, they were debating a national identity card. They asked me how I felt about having one. I said, we didn't. But they saw the Social Security Card as the same thing. So some of this is perspective. If you think of high tech Social Security cards as National ID cards or if you think of state databases being accessed by various agencies then things might seem different.

Historically, national identity cards have been used in many nefarious ways. In addition, the centralization of information is pretty creepy if you think about it. Do you want the cop who scans your driver's liscense to see what books you checked out of the library or that you had an abortion 6 years ago?

Me, I don't like what it says about society that we should feel that this is necessary. I mean, I'd rather trust the people to be honest than invade privacy. But that's the thing I think people are in a state of fear and they are willing to give up freedom as a result.

[dfn-doe.livejournal.com]

I dunno much about it, except that I'm against anything that limits my personal freedom...

Read something interesting over here though that makes this all seem truly evil to me....