Real ID Watch

Good News: Over 25 States in Legal Opposition of Real ID Act

2009-04-30T12:57:00.000-07:00

One Federalized ID going down: here, and here.

Other like measures are sure to rear their ugly heads.

Vigilance in a day of Statism (both Republican and Democrat.)

Virginia’s General Assembly rejects REAL ID provisions

2009-02-11T19:27:00.000-08:00

Very good news here.

"You're ID, Please." -- Required at a County Dump Site

2008-09-24T06:38:00.000-07:00

Yes. It actually happened.

I was with my family on a short vacation in Florida. We had accumulated some garbage in one large bag. So I took a trip to the county dump. (We call them "convenience centers" where I live.)

The lady working there noticed that I wasn't from "around" there. She came out to see who dared to throw a bag of trash in the bin.

She asked me for ID.

I said, "You've got to be kidding."

She wasn't. Apparently there was a problem with people from other counties throwing there trash away there.

Thank goodness I passed muster and was "allowed" to throw away my trash--at a DUMP.

It's getting to be crazy out there.

If we have to show ID in order to throw away our trash, you can bet that society will ask for ID for just about anything.

We have survived as a society without this ID obsession for many years. We don't need to lose our minds (or our freedom) now.

This is just sheer lunacy.

Good for Sarah Palin!

2008-08-31T12:17:00.001-07:00

A short comment embedded in this article reveals that Sarah Palin signed a law against the REAL ID Act.

Good for Sarah Palin.

These are interesting political times.

Family Security Matters: REAL ID = National ID

2008-06-26T05:40:00.000-07:00

Jim Harper of the Cato Institute has written a post entitled Family Security Matters: REAL ID = National ID.

There is a lot of back and forth about REAL ID that goes like this:

"It's a National Id Card!"
"No, it's not!"
"Yes, it is!"
"Is not!"
"Is too!"
"Is not!"

But Harper's post reminds us that the argument ends up on "Is too!"

Governor signs bill to keep Arizona out of `Real ID'

2008-06-18T05:49:00.000-07:00

Arizona stands against the REAL ID Act: For more, go here.

Missouri also joins the fray.

Anyone in Washington listening?

What Say Ye, Arizona?

2008-06-14T07:53:00.000-07:00

State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Forty-eighth Legislature
Second Regular Session
2008

HOUSE BILL 2677

AN ACT

AMENDING TITLE 28, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 28-336; RELATING TO THE REAL ID ACT OF 2005.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 28, chapter 2, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 28-336, to read:
28-336. REAL ID act; implementation prohibited without legislative authorization

A. THIS STATE SHALL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REAL ID ACT OF 2005 (P.L. 109-13, DIVISION B; 119 STAT. 302) UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY AN ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL NOT IMPLEMENT THE REAL ID ACT OF 2005 UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY AN ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE AND SHALL REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE ANY ATTEMPT BY AGENCIES OR AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO SECURE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REAL ID ACT OF 2005 THROUGH THE OPERATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

B. THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT THIS STATE FROM ESTABLISHING A STATE SECURE IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM USING APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY AND STATE DATABASES.

Sometimes standing for freedom can be simple, straightforward, and free from fanfare.

All you have to have is courage, clarity, and will--every day.

For more, go here and here. (Tucson Citizen news story.)

National Security Presidential Directive and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

2008-06-13T07:05:00.000-07:00

I've always been a Republican because I believe in limited government, freedom of the individual, the Bill of Rights (all 10 of them--the 2nd along with the 4th...and especially the forgotten 10th), and the Constitution (the spirit and the letter).

So when Republicans morph into another big-government, big-brother party, I have to cry foul. I never would have voted for Al Gore or John Kerry, but I have to say that George Bush has been a major disappointment in several key issues. (He's been strong on several key issues as well--for which I am grateful, but he's certainly a mixed bag. The net result is disappointment.)

A key disappointment is his support for surveillance over American citizens and control structures like the national id card called The REAL ID Act.

This link also shows his misplaced obsession with biometrics and the collection of personal information of innocent citizens.

When the Republicans undermine the nature of America by these kinds of measures, I wonder why I should be a Republican.

I've heard talk about smaller government all my life from this party.

The Republicans may have slowed down the rate of growth from time to time, but I've never seen the government become smaller.

Obviously, its all talk.

I guess George Bush's conservatism is "big hat, few cattle."

Debate Looks at Immigration Laws and Citizenship

2008-06-06T09:08:00.000-07:00

PBS has posted a debate sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. Robert MacNeil was the moderator. The introduction says the debate "examined the current laws dealing with immigration and the possible plans to address the twelve million illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S."

One of the participants of the debate, Vernon Briggs said:

Well, I think, ultimately, we're going to have to get a counterfeit-proof identification card of some sort to be used in -- and hopefully it will be partially the Social Security card, but it's going to have to have biometric identifiers. It's going to be a transition that will require people to have photographs.

I mean, I have in my pocket a card, a Cornell faculty card. And the back of it, it says I am required to carry that card at all times when I'm on the campus of Cornell University. Every student carries that card.

So this idea that somehow I.D. cards are a big attack on civil liberties is a pure myth. But that's what's holding it up right now.

I am always amazed at how people do not discern things that are different.

Cornell University is not the federal government. No elaboration on this point should be necessary.

In traditional, freedom-oriented thinking, the expansion of the size and power of government necessarily entails a decrease in individual liberty.

The very existence of a national id card (a biometric-plus Social Security Card or REAL ID Card) is a violation of civil liberties. America is supposed to be different. It is supposed to be a free country.

Has Mr. Briggs asked the following questions?

1. Who owns the biometrics of a person? The individual or the government?

2. Should citizens be required, by legislative force, to carry around such a card? If so, why? To be scanned at a policeman's request on a moment's notice?

3. How many applications for this technology is Mr. Briggs willing to stomach?

4. Are our rights God-given or electronically doled out by the central government?

5. If the government "needs to know" something about a citizen, shouldn't 4th Amendment issues be raised?

6. Isn't a national id card simply the obtaining of real-time and continuous permission from the federal government just to function in society? Is such "permission" a Constitutional value? Why do free people need so much permission from the government?

7. Shouldn't we reduce or eliminate the number of government "services" that require so much ID?

8. Isn't such a card a massive empowerment of government? It reduces the individual to a string of digits to be electronically manipulated and recorded by powerful politicians and bureaucrats.

9. Shouldn't the power of government be continually pushed "down the ladder" to state and local governments, thereby making communities more personal, human, and accessible? Haven't we had enough of impersonal and dehumanizing expansion of government?

For more on this debate, go here.

Sensenbrenner: "We need to act like Republicans and vote like Republicans."

2008-05-19T06:59:00.000-07:00

John Nichols reports that Sensenbrenner's outburst on Real ID sours GOP lovefest. He notes that the U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin remarked, "We need to act like Republicans and vote like Republicans."

My point exactly!

I've not been a Republican all my life simply to see Orwellian measures like the REAL ID Act made into law--by so-called "conservatives" no less... I thought that fighting this kind of stuff was part of what the Cold War was all about.

I can only hope that Mr. Sensenbrenner can rethink his pet surveillance mandate (REAL ID)--and act like a Republican.

Read the opinion piece Sensenbrenner's real wrong to attack Huebsch on Real ID.

Read 'The Sensenbrenner Tax' abandons true conservatism.

Policy Forum: The REAL ID Rebellion: Whither the National ID Law?

2008-05-02T14:17:00.000-07:00

From the Cato Institute:

POLICY FORUM
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
12:00 PM (Luncheon to Follow)

Featuring Mark Sanford, Republican Governor of South Carolina and Jon Tester, Democratic U.S. Senator from Montana. Moderated by Jim Harper, Cato Institute.

The Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001

Watch the Event Live in RealVideo
Listen to the Event in RealAudio (Audio Only)

On May 11, 2008, the statutory deadline for compliance with the REAL ID Act will pass without a single state meeting its requirements. Indeed, more than 17 states have passed legislation objecting to or outright refusing to implement this national ID law. Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security handed out extensions of the compliance deadline just for the asking, but state leaders from across the ideological spectrum refused even this small gesture of acquiescence. A REAL ID rebellion is underway, and it has ushered in a debate on whether the United States should have a national ID system. The debate didn’t happen when the law passed because Congress held no hearings, and there was no up-or-down vote on REAL ID in the Senate. Votes this year on REAL ID funding, or perhaps repeal of the national ID law, will reveal where Members of Congress stand on the question whether law-abiding American citizens should be practically or legally required to carry a national ID. Please join us to hear two prominent leaders present their distinct perspectives on REAL ID, identification policy, national and individual security, identity fraud, and privacy.

Cato events, unless otherwise noted, are free of charge. To register for this event, please fill out the form below and click submit or email events@cato.org, fax (202) 371-0841, or call (202) 789-5229 by noon, Tuesday, May 6, 2008. Please arrive early. Seating is limited and not guaranteed. News media inquiries only (no registrations), please call (202) 789-5200.

If you can't make it to the Cato Institute, watch this forum live online.

Be sure to check it out.

Administration Set to Use New Spy Program in U.S.

2008-04-13T06:20:00.000-07:00

A Washingtonpost.com story reports:

The Bush administration said yesterday that it plans to start using the nation's most advanced spy technology for domestic purposes soon, rebuffing challenges by House Democrats over the idea's legal authority.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said his department will activate his department's new domestic satellite surveillance office in stages, starting as soon as possible with traditional scientific and homeland security activities -- such as tracking hurricane damage, monitoring climate change and creating terrain maps.

Sophisticated overhead sensor data will be used for law enforcement once privacy and civil rights concerns are resolved, he said. The department has previously said the program will not intercept communications.

"There is no basis to suggest that this process is in any way insufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans," Chertoff wrote to Reps. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) and Jane Harman (D-Calif.), chairmen of the House Homeland Security Committee and its intelligence subcommittee, respectively, in letters released yesterday.

The reason Mr. Chertoff can say things like this is that DHS--led by Republicans--has abandoned any thought whatsoever about our Constitutional heritage of freedom.

People who cannot see the massive increase in government desire, capability, and will to abandon any vestiges of freedom need to be jolted from their stupor. REAL ID is just one expression of this trend.

The Republicans have lost their minds.

Where are conservatives to go?

HT: Drudge

A "Must Read" Post by Jim Harper on REAL ID

2008-04-07T13:46:00.000-07:00

Jim Harper posted "Some Myth-Busting Is Quite Revealing"

After DHS Secretary Chertoff’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee this week (at which he was apparently rebuked for “bullying” states on REAL ID compliance) he sat down with a group of bloggers to discuss things.

Harper gives Secretary Chertoff points for making himself available for discussion but goes on to reveal why--in spite of DHS's "myth-busting"--REAL ID is still a problem for American-style freedom.

It is very hard to design information technology systems that do not collect and retain information. The current secretary’s personal opinion about databases just isn’t good evidence of whether or not there will be databases of information about the comings and goings of law-abiding Americans. Chances are very good if REAL ID is implemented that there will be.

My only thought is, "There's no chance about it. There will be."

For the "why's" and "wherefore's" of Jim's helpful insights, read more here.

Also, check out "Chertoff’s Defense of REAL ID is “Dead Wrong.”"

Eagle Forum Seems Confused about Freedom and REAL ID

2008-04-06T13:39:00.000-07:00

In 1998, the Eagle Forum posted Liberty vs. Totalitarianism, Clinton-Style: Monitoring by I.D. and Database. The article rightly said:

Two of the principal mechanisms by which the rulers of 20th century police states maintained their control over their people were the file and the internal passport....

Unknown to most Americans, coordinated plans are well underway to give the Federal Government the power to input personal information on all Americans onto a government database. The computer will record our school, business, medical, financial, and personal activities, and track our movements as we travel about the United States.

These plans were authorized by the so-called conservative Congress and are eagerly implemented and expanded by the Clinton Administration liberals.

The law orders "consultation" with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. AAMVA, a pseudo-private, quasi-government organization, has long urged using driver's licenses, with Social Security numbers and digital fingerprinting, as a de facto national I.D. card that would enable the government to track everyone's movements throughout North America.

That was 1998.

The striking--and confusing--point is that Phyllis Schlafly supports the REAL ID Act. The REAL ID Act may not contain all the measures the frightening legislation of 1998 had (REAL ID is "optional" to carry--optional, but required if you want to live and function in the U.S. Nor does it--as yet--require biometrics...), but REAL ID is very much the kind of scheme that was proposed in 1998!

1. REAL ID networks all 50 state databases into one. Technically, this is "not a national database." But networking makes such a technicality meaningless. It is one network government can access through a computer. To say this is not a national database is serious confusion.

2. REAL ID requires "machine readable technology." The REAL ID cards can be scanned anywhere, anytime by the government for identification purposes. Sound American? DHS Secretary Chertoff has said that REAL ID can be used for "countless other activities." Sound minimal?

3. REAL ID effectively turns the driver's license into an internal passport for flying, banking, working, and soon to be for "countless other activities."--as Mr. Chertoff has said.

4. REAL ID is a power-play where Washington forces states to do its job and bidding. Sound Constitutional?

In all of this, the Eagle Forum sounds really confusing. Phyllis Schlafly wrote in 2005:

The open-borders lobby is crying that the REAL ID Act would give us a national ID card, something that sounds un-American. The truth is that requiring the states to stop issuing driver's licenses to illegals is the best way to prevent the demand for a national ID card, which might prove irresistible if we suffer another terrorist attack on our own soil.

As stated above, REAL ID does a lot more than force us to stop giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens. It sets up a massive system for future regulation. It is indeed a national id card.

1. REAL ID has requirements demanded by the NATIONAL government.

2. REAL ID is for the purpose of IDENTIFICATION.

3. REAL ID is on a CARD.

1+2+3= National ID Card. (Nobody has refuted this.)

Phyllis Schlafly essentially promotes in 2005 what Eagle Forum resisted in 1998.

There's not enough difference to resist one and support the other.

Let's fight terrorism.
Let's stop illegal immigration.

But lets not make a National ID Card to do it.
Let's not quit being America in order to save America.

And, conservatives, let's not quit being conservative.

California deems REAL ID Act unnecessary

2008-04-03T07:22:00.000-07:00

Theresa Wray reports:

Mike Marando, Deputy Director of Communications at California DMV, said that the state is already using holograms, fingerprinting and other security protections. The extra effort to work within the federal system and with other states would present an unnecessary burden.

We should have a debate on who owns the biometrics of individuals: the individuals or the government? How one answers this question reveals how one thinks about government and freedom. Sounds like California disregards REAL ID for all the wrong reasons...

And here is an excellent example of a bureaucrat's ability to contradict one's self in the same sentence (emphasis mine):

REAL ID does not establish a national database for storing information, according to Kudwa [spokesperson for the DHS Office of Public Affairs]. It will provide a central location that will drive a state's query to other state's databases, the immigration database and other agencies to verify information before a license is approved.

Surely the reader can see the problem "on the face of it."

So, DHS likes to say that there is not a national database.

So what?

It is a national network that connects the databases into one--and the results are the same!

DHS also likes to say that REAL ID is not a national id card.

Yet, REAL ID is demanded by the national government, for identification at the national level--banking, federal buildings, and flying... in addition to "countless other activities," according to Mr. Chertoff....

And it is all put on a card.

Sounds amazingly close to a national id card...

The Lesson?

Beware of bureaucrat's speaking...

Read more here.

Why REAL ID Is Not "Just a Secure Driver's License."

2008-03-31T08:50:00.000-07:00

*****UPDATE***** THE COURAGEOUS GOVERNOR SANFORD OF SOUTH CAROLINA
-------------------
REAL ID is a lot more than "just a secure card."

It is an entire system of card, scanners, records, and access by government officials. In short, it is a platform for increasing control and regulation over the individual. Such schemes would be used by politicians for an avalanche of regulation.

Some bureaucrats are trying to convince us that REAL ID is a simple change with no long term affects. They blogand say things like:

"Is REAL ID a threat to privacy? There are critics who will say so. But, these same critics can’t and won’t tell you precisely how REAL ID threatens privacy. There’s a reason for that. They have no evidence."

So I left a comment at this blog and said the following:

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

I have reason and evidence to oppose REAL ID.

I find it ironic for some to say that the government can protect our records without incident. Our presidential candidates may have something contrary to say, having had their passport records hacked by people contracted to work for the government. “But,” I hear proponents of REAL ID saying, “we’ll be really, really good at it, ok? Just trust us.”

This is not very reassuring.

Concerning identity theft... Have we ever stopped to think that maybe--just maybe--we should not have reduced our lives to a nine-digit number? We created the problem and then howl about it. Surely we can put our American ingenuity to work and think of ways to empower the individual’s control over his person and papers. That would be better than reducing our rights and identities to a card--which is then placed squarely in the hands of bureaucrats.

This power play leaves the government holding all the cards... with the citizen risking all the bets.

We have the evidence of what our leaders are actually saying about REAL ID. One leader has said there can be “countless other uses” for REAL ID.

Countless other uses.

Countless times to be scanned by “machine-readable technology” in the transactions of our daily lives. Scanned and recorded for the benefit of government. Living in a REAL ID maze of red light-green light is not freedom.

Why shouldn’t we be concerned about this?

REAL ID creates an infrastructure for increasing regulation. The problem isn’t just the collection of inert information. It’s about the real-time, digital use of that information by the government over against the individual citizen.

As a conservative, I also happen to believe in the 4th Amendment. We ought not let the government make the 4th Amendment obsolete through “countless” scannings of citizens by “machine readable technology” every time we turn around. If the government needs to search a citizen’s person or papers, let it get a search warrant. Otherwise, the government should leave free citizens alone. REAL ID proponents essentially want to skirt the inconvenience of probable cause and search warrants. Instead, we get to hear “Your REAL ID, please” for countless other purposes.

You see, the privacy we need is privacy from the government--until and unless there is probable cause of wrongdoing. It’s called playing by the Constitutional rules. I know it sounds strange.

True, we cannot “go back to a simpler day.” But we are creative and smart enough to carry our heritage of freedom with us--even as technology advances. Technological advances are no excuse to abandon the Constitutional concept of limited government. Technology does not require statism.

History provides evidence. Programs like REAL ID never remain “minimal.” For example, Social Security cards were introduced with the promise that they would not be used for identification purposes. Wow.

REAL ID “security” standards will not remain “minimal” either. We are putting all our identity eggs into one federal basket. How long until we see the inherent “risks” of this and then “require” the use of biometrics--for our “protection” and “convenience?” How long before DHS or Congress can no longer resist the lobbying of biometrics companies?

And who owns the biometrics of the individual anyway? The citizen or the government? We haven’t even had that debate.

There is a lot to discuss about this road called REAL ID... before we jump over the edge like lemmings.

An Internet Round-Up on REAL ID

2008-03-26T08:18:00.000-07:00

Here are a variety to "To Reads" concerning REAL ID:

* States Challenge Homeland Security's ID Deadline (National Public Radio)

* States get breathing room on Real ID

* California Backs Off Real ID - Update

* Homeland Security's Own Privacy Panel Declines to Endorse License Rules

* Ariz. lawmakers balk at new driver’s licenses

* US government cools on Real ID threats

* Lamar seeing chance to nix Real ID Act

Where Do You Place Your Distrust?

2008-03-22T09:59:00.000-07:00

In the debate over national id cards (REAL ID), I often hear people say, “Well, if you’ve got nothing to hide, what does it matter if the government knows everything about you?”

The underlying assumption for saying such a thing is twofold:

1) The Individual Should Be Distrusted.
2) The Government Should Be Trusted.

The question really is “Where do you place your distrust?”

Secretaries and Bureaucrats have the job of wielding government power. It is a necessary job because government is needed. It’s a fallen world after all. So Secretaries and Bureaucrats (and Presidents and Congresses) ask themselves, “How Can I Make My Job Easier?” It is human nature to ask, and it is usually a good question.

But when Secretaries and Bureaucrats want to expand their space, they must contract the individual’s space. That’s just the way the world works. So government officials have to “sell” their increased powers to the voters by telling the voters how good (convenient) the expansion of government power will be for them.

And here’s the rub.

The Framers of the Constitution had an up-close-and-personal understanding of tyranny. They knew that government power must be minimized and individual freedom must be maximized. To achieve this, they separated the powers of government into three branches and into a federal system. They also shackled the government with checks and balances. The whole Constitution screams, “Limited Government!”

The Framers placed their distrust in government. It’s the American way.

But modern day leaders distrust the individual, disregard the Constitution, and love government. And Secretaries and Bureaucrats chafe under limitations. Their easy way out is to override the individual.

With the rise of technology and the war on terrorism, we can easily forget the threat of tyranny. National ID Cards (i.e. REAL ID) enable the government to track individuals through their daily lives. Secretary Chertoff has already talked about “countless other uses” for REAL ID. So the citizen is subject to being conveniently scanned for “countless other uses” by “machine readable technology.”

Knowledge is power. If the government knows everything, it has all the power. To digitally track the individual in real-time makes the 4th Amendment obsolete and grants the government massive power. It’s a zero-sum game.

One might say, “The government knows everything about you anyway. What’s it matter?” It matters for two reasons:

1) Such talk says, “Let’s capitulate.” It is a fallacy that says, “It’s already bad, so let’s make it worse.” Hope for reform withers under that kind of resignation.

2) REAL ID layers on more real-time capability of surveillance. If it weren’t a significant change that increased government’s power, the government wouldn’t be pushing for it.

The proliferation of scanners will have the citizen scanning-in with the government every time he turns around. Mr. Chertoff has already mentioned using REAL ID to buy cold medicine!

Instead of asking the individual, “What do you have to hide?” we should be asking bureaucrats, secretaries, Presidents and Congresses “Why do you want so much power at my expense?”

Where should we place our distrust?

I stand with the Constitution’s Framers. The threat of tyranny has never gone away. I simply can’t believe our only choices are statism or terrorism.

If we sell out our freedoms in order to fight terrorism (which we should fight hammer-and-tong) how can we say “We are defending America?”

Surely we can do better.

REAL ID Plain and Simple

2008-03-21T07:18:00.000-07:00

Assistant Secretary for DHS, Stewart A. Baker, posted an article entitled "Real ID Plain and Simple." He writes for the Homeland Security Leadership Journal. In his post, he promotes what he thinks are the virtues of REAL ID.

I'm am convinced that people like Mr. Baker are trying to do their jobs with the best of motives. However, we have a right to disagree strongly with those in leadership--and express our concerns. Mr. Baker notes:

As I write, four states have yet to commit to secure licenses for their citizens. The good news for these state leaders is that there’s still time to get on board. I’ll have more to say about this in the coming days. In the meantime, thanks for reading and I look forward to your comments.

So I left a comment.

Mr. Baker's job is to cast REAL ID in the best light possible. Read his article and ask yourself if a national id card (REAL ID) is really the best solution for our problems. Then check out Jim Harper's article Collins and Chertoff Fight to Save the National ID--and see if you agree with Mr. Harper's conclusion:

Implementing REAL ID would burden the country with wasteful spending and needlessly undermine Americans' freedom and privacy without adding to our protections.

Federal buildings become Real ID zones

2008-03-20T13:05:00.001-07:00

Declan McCullagh and Anne Broache at CNet News discuss the implementation and problems of the REAL ID Act.

Editor's note: A May deadline looms as just one flash point in a political showdown between Homeland Security and states that oppose Real ID demands. This is the second in a four-part series examining the confrontation.

The nation's capital attracts more than 15 million visitors a year, mostly leisure travelers who often make their way to the city's official visitor center, which is conveniently located downtown in a corner of the Ronald Reagan building.

Or was that inconveniently located? Starting May 11, Americans living in states that don't comply with new federal regulations could be barred from entering Washington D.C.'s visitor center and collecting the complimentary maps and brochures--unless they happen to bring a U.S. passport or military ID with them.

How many more REAL ID zones will there be?

Read more here.

A Letter to My Congressman: David Davis

2008-03-14T07:28:00.000-07:00

David Davis is a good man whom I respect. But that doesn't mean that fellow conservatives are always going to agree.

And I have a significant difference with Mr. Davis about solving the problems of illegal immigration.

Representative Davis is eager--and rightfully so--to solve the problems of illegal immigration. But his zeal to handle the issue has, I believe, blinded him to the long-term consequences which are anything but "conservative."

Mr. Davis agrees with measures like the REAL ID Act. He also wants to increase the information sharing between the Social Security Administration, IRS, and Homeland Security. The effectively blends these bureaucracies into one massive institution.

Below is a letter to this fine man with whom I disagree--strongly--on these issues:

February 21, 2008

To the Honorable David Davis:

I just received the brochure on your solution to illegal immigration.

I agree with Point #1: Enforce the Laws Already on the Books.
I agree with Point #2: Build the Border Fence.

Yet I have three major disagreements.

1. I disagree with E-Verification of Employees: You want to build an electronic infrastructure where every American citizen must get permission from the federal government for every job he takes. My right to work is an inalienable right from God, not a privilege handed out from the federal government.

2. I disagree with “Tamper-Proof ID” Cards: You must mean biometric and scannable cards. These cards undermine the 4th Amendment. The federal government will search and seize personal information (biometrics and documents)--as if each citizen were a criminal. This is simply a dragnet over every American citizen ignoring the checks and balances of “probable cause” and the issuing of warrants.

Our Founding Fathers would shudder at your proposal. Americans are to be “innocent-until-proven-guilty.” We are not to be “suspect-until-properly-identified.”

You are handing liberals a powerful tool to regulate Americans. An electronic ID system creates an infrastructure for layering on arbitrary rules just to function in society--such as regulations on gun purchases, accessing healthcare (when healthcare is finally socialized), buying cold medicine, entering schools or other public buildings, etc. With the current REAL ID Card legislation, Americans are no longer able to function in society without real-time, digital permission from the federal government. Mr. Chertoff has already mentioned “countless other uses” for REAL ID.

3. I disagree with Centralizing Power into a Monolithic Government: Tying Homeland Security, Social Security, and the IRS into virtually one massive bureaucracy is an amazing concept. We have a label for political thinking that wraps individuals and businesses around a monolithic central government--and that label isn’t freedom. It’s a sad thing when “conservatives” promote big-government theory.

In light of all this, I have to question your commitment to conservatism (classical liberalism).

Please look at history again and reconsider America’s founding principles. If you are indeed conservative, please promote the Constitutional values of:

Limited Government
Federalism
Individualism
The Bill of Rights

Right now, you are aiding the growth of statism--a poor, and unnecessary, solution to any problem.

Sincerely,

John R.

My Comment to Fred Barnes

2008-03-11T09:18:00.000-07:00

I like Fred Barnes. I enjoy watching him on Fox News from time to time. I believe he's a good guy.

But I disagree with him whole-heartedly on the issue of a national id card. In September of 2002, Mr. Barnes wrote in The Weekly Standard an article entitled Let's See Some ID, Please:

The major objection to a uniform card is that it curbs our freedom. It does not. It may reduce our privacy, but not much more than has already occurred because of credit cards, bank accounts, electronic toll passes, movie rental cards, car rentals, phone usage, driver's licenses, voter registration, and airline records--all of which are readily available to investigators.

He goes on with his thoughts here.

Since the REAL ID Act is indeed a national id card, I want to post my comments to Mr. Barnes' article. We have to be willing to challenge the thinking on this issue. Here are my comments:

Mr. Barnes,

I just read your article promoting the virtues of a national id card. I oppose a national id card--passionately. I'm concerned about 4th Amendment issues. If I voluntarily associate myself with private sector entities which maintain some information about me, that's my business. If the government needs that info, let it get a search warrant.

If the government mandates a seizure of my biometric information in order to establish a platform for ongoing verification of my identity, the government has taken to itself a massive power of control. People who have to have "permission" from the federal government to function on a daily basis are not free.

A national id card is not simply a secure card. It would be an entire infrastructure of card, scanners, records, and access by government officials. In short, it is a platform for increasing control and regulation over the individual. Such schemes would be used by liberals for an avalanche of regulation.

Why "conservatives" cannot see the inherent increase in government presence and power is beyond me. Conservatives tout "limited government" and then embrace national id card schemes like the REAL ID Act.

To say that the Constitution was not written to protect us from such government is just silly.

I don't want government to hold all the cards--whether in the "right" hand or the "left."

Big government is big government.

Admit the obvious!

Thank You.

Those are my comments, Mr. Barnes.

Here is a post script:

In the context of America's Constitutional thought and heritage of freedom, the concept of a national id card is a radical idea.

Let's leave such schemes for totalitarian countries and dictatorships.

America is supposed to be different--and free.

Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification: Franz Kafka's Solution to Illegal Immigration

2008-03-08T06:05:00.000-08:00

Jim Harper of the Cato Institute recently wrote:

In last summer's debate over immigration reform, Congres treated a national electronic employment eligibility verificatio (EEV) system as a matter of near consensus. Intended to strengthen internal enforcement of the immigration laws electronic EEV is an Internet-based employee vetting system tha the federal government would require every employer to use....

Creating an accurate EEV system would require a national identification (ID) system, costing about $20 billion to create and hundreds of millions more per year to operate. Even if it were free, the country should reject a national ID system. It would cause law-abiding American citizens to lose more of their privacy as government records about them grew and were converted to untold new purposes. "Mission creep" all but guarantees that the federal government would use an EEV system to extend federal regulatory control over Americans' lives even further.

REAL ID was a part of the EEVS plan granting the government the ability to control--arbitrarily-- an American's right to work.

Please read more by Jim Harper here.

When Was This Quote Written?

2008-03-07T15:07:00.000-08:00

When and where did the following quote about national id cards come from?

It is particularly disturbing that the attempt to deal with illegal immigrants can end up harming people who appear foreign, who are in the U.S. legally or even are citizens. And it is especially ironic that people fleeing the tyranny and poverty of socialist countries should face increased restrictions in the U.S

It comes from an organization that promotes itself as loving Constitutional freedoms.

It was written in 1990 for an organization that now promotes the REAL ID Act.

DHS: Real ID is 'pro-consumer' and 'antiterrorism'

2008-03-04T10:16:00.001-08:00

Ann Broache, on behalf of CNet News, blogs about DHS's push to make states comply with REAL ID:

WASHINGTON--One of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's most prominent Real ID cheerleaders made a more timid than usual push on Tuesday for states to adopt the controversial identification card standards.

Stewart Baker, the department's assistant secretary for policy, has touted what he perceives as the privacy-protective, identity theft-preventive features of the congressionally mandated Real ID driver's license regime during the past year....

But, clearly fearing criticism during a Tuesday morning speech at the spring meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General, he saved any mention of the program until the tail end of a 20-minute speech about the perils of identity theft.

The former National Security Agency general counsel then launched into a kinder, gentler defense of Real ID, first acknowledging he expected "to get a little pushback on this."

I only wish there were a lot of push back on this.

The concept of the individual is fading fast. REAL ID creates an infrastructure where arbitrary rules can be added and enforced with greater ease than before--reducing the "breathing space" of the individual radically.

The justification for REAL ID has already morphed into several purposes: national security, illegal immigration, identity fraud, and cold-medicine control. However, none of these issues creates a valid need for a national id card.

When people have to gain on-going permission to live (i.e. "You're ID, please."), those people are not free; especially when that ID is controlled by an impersonal, too-powerful bureaucracy.

Is this what America was supposed to be?

Read more of Ann Broache's article here..

Chertoff urges holdout states to comply with REAL ID act

2008-03-04T10:12:00.000-08:00

The Jurist Legal News and Research notes that Chertoff urges holdout states to comply with REAL ID act:

Read about it here.

Rejecting National ID

2008-02-28T13:11:00.001-08:00

The American Spectator has a good article on REAL ID: Rejecting National ID by Jim Harper.

With so many states on record opposing REAL ID, the feds have been shifting through numerous stories trying to justify their national ID. First, they said it was a national security tool. But by now everyone realizes how easy it would be for criminal organizations and terrorists to avoid or defeat a national ID system.

Then REAL ID became a way to control illegal immigration. But it has the same defects here too. Illegal immigrants will use a mix of forgery, fraud, and corruption at any motor vehicles bureau in the country to get around REAL ID. Driving illegal immigrants further into criminality deepens the problem rather than fixing it. And should law-abiding American citizens really have to carry a national ID to get at illegal immigrants? Just who is the criminal here?

Next, we were told that having a national ID was about identity fraud. But putting our personal information, Social Security Numbers, and basic identity documents like birth certificates into a nationwide string of government databases is a recipe for more identity theft, not less.

WHEN THE Department of Homeland Security came out with the final REAL ID regulations last month, a top official threw the department's final Hail Mary, suggesting that REAL ID could be used to control access to cold medicine. That's right: cold medicine. The lesson? Once a national ID system is in place, the federal government will use it for tighter and tighter control of every American.

Conservatives who love the concepts of individual freedom and limited government will do all they can to reject a national id card--not promote one.

Read more here.

Did Heritage Sell Out?

2008-02-24T10:57:00.000-08:00

Liberty Author and Columnist John Longenecker objects to the Heritage Foundation’s position in favor of Real ID, America’s National ID Card:

"I’ve long admired the Foundation for its patriotism, and we are members," says liberty author and columnist John Longenecker, "But the Foundation’s position on Real ID is all wrong."

I've simply been amazed at how quickly my fellow conservatives are willing to undermine freedom of the individual, expand the power of government, and create a new electronic infrastructure for massive, arbitrary, and expanding regulations.

It seems that we are all afflicted with the "can't see beyond our noses" disease.

Solutions that undermine the principles of freedom are not worthy to apply to any problem.

Look Around: Smart Cards Integrated with Biometrics to Provide Cost-effective and Secure Solutions Across All Applications

2008-02-21T07:18:00.000-08:00

National ID Cards are becoming all the rage in many parts of the world. Newswire Today! reports:

Industry participants in every part of the value chain are implementing smart cards integrated with biometrics on an open platform to ensure interoperability and ease of addition of future applications. Such long-term planning will ensure the survival of any integrated solution's implementation.

As such, there is immense opportunity for smart cards in the untapped markets in Asia. The widespread acceptance of new technology in the early stages is quite encouraging for smart card participants. System integrators have realized the need for proper planning and coordination in order to increase market revenue.

New analysis from Frost & Sullivan (smartcards.frost.com), APAC Integrated Smart Cards and Biometrics Markets, finds that the market earned $249.1 million in 2007 and is expected to reach $822.2 million by 2013.

The market has already bagged numerous and significant projects such as the national ID and e-passport programs. National ID projects are the most active revenue generators for the market, since all governments in the Asia Pacific are looking at implementing biometrics along with smart cards.

A few national ID projects such as those of India's and Malaysia's have already started using biometric verification, while Japan's and China's are still at the planning stages. With many more countries looking at implementing national ID projects, and biometrics being one of the pre requisites for these projects, the market has good reasons to feel optimistic.

"The number of national ID projects that are in the pipeline in the Asia Pacific shows the huge potential for smart cards integrated with biometrics," says Frost & Sullivan Research Analyst Navin Rajendra. "Furthermore, with the implementation of the e-passport program coming to an end by 2008, new issuance of passports by the countries under the U.S. VISA Waiver program will add significantly to the unit shipment growth."

What kind of governments make up most of Asia?

The United States of America has been different from the rest of the world in its clear concepts of freedom, federalism, and many other important concepts in the Constitution.

However, the politicians and population of the U.S.A. are increasingly willing to abandon those principles because of the immense power of newly applied technology.

I've always maintained that technology is usually amoral. The problems arise in how we use technology. A database society is going to challenge many of the principles that have secured American freedom for so many years.

The REAL ID Act creates, not just a "secure card," but a transformation of a license to drive our highways into a unified database network, ubiquitous scanners, and the ability to track Amercans in real-time.

When the State aligns every aspect of citizens' lives into one collective pulled by the will of the powerful--we don't have a free country anymore. We have to call it something else.

Look around.

Think again.

Read America's founding documents.

A Simple Question.

2008-02-18T10:00:00.000-08:00

Mr. Chertoff has spoken of REAL ID's "countless other uses."

It is amazing that "conservatives" who promote "limited government" are setting up an electronic infrastructure for an avalanche of arbitrary rules--where a citizen's life is accessed by a REAL ID.

Our lives are reduced to a digital collective in which we live by constant, real-time permission of the federal government.

So my simple question is this: "If we have to 'check in' with the federal government in order to live our daily lives, how can we call it 'freedom?'"

Travelers to Europe May Face Fingerprinting

2008-02-12T08:20:00.000-08:00

Washington Post.com posted the article Travelers to Europe May Face Fingerprinting:

The European Commission will propose tomorrow that all foreign travelers entering and leaving Europe, including U.S. citizens, should be fingerprinted. If approved by the European Parliament, the measure would mean that precisely identifying information on tens of millions of citizens will be added in coming years to databases that could be shared by friendly governments around the world....

The plan is part of a vast and growing trend on both sides of the Atlantic to collect and share data electronically to identify and track people in the name of national security and immigration control. U.S. government computers now have access to data on financial transactions; air travel details such as name, itinerary and credit card numbers; and the names of those sending and receiving express-mail packages -- even a description of the contents.

It seems that freedom is becoming obsolete.

The sad thing is that it was the Republicans that pushed REAL ID and other measures like the ones mentioned above. I'm a Republican. I'm a conservative. But even I can see President Bush's totalitarian tendencies. It is an ugly thing to see in conservatism. I'd expect it from liberalism.

Republicans should abandon all talk about the "Constitution" and "Limited Government."

They pay lip-service only.

How will Real ID affect you?

2008-02-07T12:09:00.001-08:00

CNet News.com has posted an article entitled How will Real ID affect you? Here is a selection from the article. Everyone should realize that state and federal databases are being coalesced into one national network.

Where is the federalism?

Q: What kind of data will states share under Real ID?

Real ID will require states to share detailed information about anyone with a state ID card or driver's license, perhaps through a network called AAMVAnet, which the Department of Transportation is paying to expand in hopes of supporting the massive amount of data that will be exchanged. Databases owned by Social Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will also be integrated. (emphasis mine) The idea is that this will allow documents such as birth certificates to be validated online.

Many of the details remain unclear because Homeland Security has not made final decisions, including about whether to build on top of AAMVAnet or expand a centralized federal database already used for commercial driver's licensing. Computer scientists and privacy advocates unsuccessfully urged Homeland Security to reject Real ID as "unworkable" because of the security and scalability concerns.

Read more here.

Two For the Price of One

2008-01-30T08:38:00.001-08:00

Here are two articles worth reading: one from Investor's Business Daily and another from CNet News.

Investors: Digital Identification Plan Still Facing Many Hurdles:

The clock's ticking for Real ID, a driver's license overhaul created by Congress to deter terrorism. Its countdown to changes in 2014 holds some worry that airport security lines could be thrown into chaos this spring.
The Department of Homeland Security laid out extended deadlines for Real ID with a final rule issued Jan 11. The agency must now pass the roadblock of state dissent and cross a technology gap to reach its goal.

CNet: Religious minorities face Real ID crackdown:

More than two decades after the Quaring case, approximately a dozen states now offer religious exceptions when issuing driver's licenses. But because of a federal law called the Real ID Act that takes effect on May 11, residents of those states who have pictureless licenses could expect problems flying on commercial airliners and entering federal buildings, including some Social Security and Veterans Affairs offices.

America is changing from a community of fellow citizens who are "innocent until proven guilty" into a society of suspicion and power-play. Americans are turning into subjects who are "suspect until properly identified."

Is the United States rejecting America?

Privacy--Who Should Be Ignorant About Us?

2008-01-28T09:56:00.000-08:00

In all the talk about privacy, few are talking about the parties who ought not have the informational "low down" on individuals.

I submit the following: We are not experiencing "freedom" or "privacy" when it is the government that knows everything about us and is "protecting" our privacy. The situation is similar to medical billing companies that refuse to strike a person's social security number from its records. They keep the information in order to "protect" our privacy.

We need protection from organizations like that--and from the government.

If the DHS is quietly permitting every banking transaction or travel plan or tourist visit to Washington or "countless other uses" (as Mr. Chertoff foresees for REAL ID)--we are not experiencing privacy (freedom)

The privacy I want is the kind where the government is out of our back-pockets, leaving Americans alone until there is probable cause to search (or surveil) our lives.

It's just a little something called The Bill of Rights.

A concept called freedom...

COLUMN: Conservatives yield to 'Big Brother' in the name of security

2008-01-27T07:12:00.000-08:00

Harry Reynolds of the Journal Gazette Times Online of Charleston Illinois contends that Conservatives yield to 'Big Brother' in the name of security:

I can’t decide if Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is an avid disciple of “Big Brother” government or merely oblivious to its dangers.

The Bush administration’s shucking of conservative principles in the name of security smacks of hypocrisy. But, it’s not alone in the farce. Democrats and Republicans in Congress have aided and abetted this assault on civil liberties.

I can understand liberal Democrats’ treading toward big government at the expense of state’s and individual rights. It’s sad to see conservatives in both parties sell the label so cheaply.

As a conservative, I have to agree with Mr. Reynolds.

Read the entire column here.

The false promise of Real ID

2008-01-25T07:40:00.000-08:00

Jon Heasley has a good opinion piece in the LA Times: The False Promise of REAL ID:

DHS can only define those 'official purposes' for which a REAL ID credential must be used in lieu of other state-issued drivers' licenses," the department said in a summary of the rules. "If cardholders experience specific abuses regarding third-party misuse of these cards, Congress and the states can determine whether and how to address such abuses." How reassuring.

Read the entire article here.

Again--I ask, "Where are the 'conservatives' who believe in limited government and the Bill of Rights?"

Two "Atta Boys" on REAL ID

2008-01-21T10:14:00.000-08:00

One "keep going" for Montana's governor:

In his letter (.pdf) to other governors, Schweitzer makes clear he's not going to ask for an extension.

"Today, I am asking you to join with me in resisting the DHS coercion to comply with the provisions of REAL ID, " Schweitzer wrote. "If we stand together either DHS will blink or Congress will have to act to avoid havoc at our nation's airports and federal courthouses."

And one "well said" for Bob Barr at the Washington Times:

While disingenuously professing no desire to "punish" citizens because the government of the state in which they live might not be ready to jump onto the federal government's Real ID bandwagon, Mr. Chertoff said this was precisely what the department would do.

In a refrain distressingly typical of how this administration routinely treats notions of federalism and individual liberty, last Friday Mr. Chertoff said, "The last thing I want to do is punish citizens of a state who would love to have a Real ID license but can't get one, but in the end, the rule is the rule."

In fact, the Real ID act rushed through Congress three years ago by the Republican majority in cahoots with a Republican president, presents serious financial and privacy concerns to the states; concerns that have not been addressed by our federal benefactors. The law details requirements for drivers' licenses if they are to be accepted for air travel or any other purpose regulated or controlled in any way by a federal agency or a federal law....

Unless this situation changes, it will provide yet another clear example of how both major political parties remain firmly under control of Big Government advocates.

I'm a conservative. I've always been Republican. But more important than "party" is "Constitution" and "freedom."

I apologize for this mess my own party created. But they made this mess by forgetting what we sent them to Washington to do--limit the government.

All I can say to the Republicans is, on this point, "You blew it guys. Fix it."

Please read the above articles in their entirety.

The Answer is Still No

2008-01-18T06:47:00.000-08:00

The Anchorage Daily News posted an excellent opinion piece about REAL ID: The Answer is Still No:

Last week, Michael Chertoff, secretary of Homeland Security, unveiled revised rules for the REAL ID Act, which bombed beyond the Beltway after its passage in 2005. Seventeen states passed resolutions protesting it or prohibiting compliance. So Homeland Security tried to sweeten the deal by granting delays, slashing costs by a claimed 73 percent and exempting Americans 50 and older from carrying federally approved driver's licenses until 2017.

Red flag, citizens. If you can't peddle an idea without a fire sale and years of delay, it's probably not a good idea....

Critics point out that REAL ID would not make us safer. It would not have stopped Timothy McVeigh, a homegrown terrorist, nor would it guarantee the apprehension of foreign-born terrorists like those who carried out the attacks of 9/11. It might provide a limited tool against illegal immigration, and, Mr. Chertoff argues, identity theft. But tech trackers insist shared databases would increase opportunities for ID theft and other information hacking -- not to mention government-sanctioned invasions of privacy.

Paranoia? No, just knowledge of current events....

Read more here.

Michael Chertoff: National ID security

2008-01-16T08:16:00.000-08:00

Michael Chertoff wrote an article for the Sacramento Bee. In this article, he tries to promote and extol the virtues of REAL ID. You can read it here. I want to quote Mr. Chertoff in red...

He starts off my asking some interesting questions:

Should banks cash checks from people who cannot prove who they are? Should parents hire babysitters they know nothing about? Should airlines let passengers on board without validating their identity? For most Americans, these questions answer themselves. Our citizens depend on different forms of government-issued identification, such as driver's licenses, every day.

Don't you see that the banking problem is already covered? Banks take our Social Security Numbers in order to open accounts. The Patriot Act also watches any troubling use of those accounts. How is that we have banked for so many years without REAL ID?

Is it the federal government's job to verify the hiring of baby-sitters? I thought REAL ID was supposed to be an anti-illegal immigration and anti-terrorism tool? How is it that parents have handled baby-sitting problems all these years without REAL ID? Chertoff is already revealing the "mission creep" that REAL ID will experience.

Don't airlines already validate the identity of passengers? Haven't we already put measures in place to secure the airlines? Haven't we already "beefed up" the security of the airlines? There are a myriad of anti-terror tools at the disposal of law enforcement--and I firmly believe that we should go after the terrorists. But I'm not so sure that we need a national id system that casts an electronic net over every American citizen to do it.
-----------------------------------

Under these new standards, individuals seeking driver's licenses must provide their state Department of Motor Vehicles office with documents proving who they are and that they're here legally.

Verifying the legality of a driver license applicant is not a problem. But the REAL ID act scans the information and retains it permanently for federal use--to grant us citizens ongoing federal permission to function in society. It really, really brings the federal government close the people: an electronic ball-and-chain in every back pocket or purse.
-----------------------------------

Some... objections are based on misinformation. A good example is the spurious claim that we're ushering in a national identity card. What we are actually doing is setting standards that will let the states keep issuing their own ID cards.

This is a difference without a distinction. And is it typical bureaucratic word-twisting. Let me boil down the national id issue:

1. REAL ID is a driver's license using standards demanded by the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.

2. REAL ID is for the purpose of IDENTIFICATION: As Mr. Chertoff has already revealed, he sees "countless other" uses for REAL ID in every day life--such as baby-sitting.

3. REAL ID is a CARD.

Put all three components together and we have a NATIONAL ID CARD.

This isn't rocket science.

REAL ID also links the 50 state databases into one grand network that the federal government has access to. Bureaucrats like Mr. Chertoff may say that this isn't a national database--but this is another difference that makes no difference. The issue isn't where the information lies. REAL ID creates all the effects of a national database by using the states to do the federal government's "dirty work."

REAL ID creates more than just a "secure card." It creates an entirely new infrastructure of 1) The Card 2) Ubiquitous Scanners 3) A National Database (50 linked databases for federal use), and 4) Records of where and when the cards are scanned. Believe me, the "where and when" will include more than just when we fly.

Are people free when the daily transactions of our lives are subject to the federal government's ongoing "permission?"
-----------------------------------

But remember what I said about checks, babysitters and planes. Almost no one -- including privacy advocates -- denies that sometimes we need to know who we're dealing with. We need a document that reveals their identity. So why would anyone oppose efforts to secure identity documents from fraud and falsification?

The issue isn't those pesky privacy nuts. The issue is freedom. Should our identities be federalized? Should our God-given rights be reduced to a string of digits--subject to the mercy of technocrats and impersonal software? Is a person's dignity to be reduced to a card? Local families, businesses, and societies have taken care of themselves for a long time without a federalized id card.
-----------------------------------

Other critics seem to think that it is a privacy violation simply to create secure identification.

Mr. Chertoff wants to do an end-run around the 4th Amendment. Free people are supposed to be left alone until there is probable cause to seize their papers or their persons. If Americans have committed crimes, let the government get a warrant to arrest them. Otherwise, leave us alone. REAL ID seizes our papers and scans them into a de facto national database so the federal government can monitor our daily lives.
-----------------------------------

In the end, by embracing REAL ID, we can indeed cash a check, hire a baby sitter, board a plane or engage in countless other activities with confidence. By issuing this rule, we've moved decisively to secure our nation and its people in the coming years. I truly believe that one day our children will look back at this day and wonder how we could have lived without these common-sense protections.

Mr. Chertoff, we can already cash checks. We can already hire baby-sitters. We can already do "countless other activities"--without you breathing down our necks.

I hope our children will look back on this day and thank God that Americans did all they could to preserve freedom.

National ID card would show we've given in to fear

2008-01-15T06:40:00.000-08:00

Paul Krissel of Salem, Oregon wrote a good editorial on the REAL ID Act:

Let's think before we give in to our fears and allow the creation of a national identity card.

Our founders created strong individual freedoms in the Bill of Rights. As national laws were passed such as Social Security and the creation of the Internal Revenue Service, strict walls were established between government agencies to prohibit the creation of a national identity card invading the freedom of individuals and our privacy. We are being driven to hysteria by many fears (terrorism, immigration) and are asked to give up freedoms that define the U.S.A.

Driver's licenses were never supposed to be anything other than documentation that a driver learned the rules of the road to safely operate a motor vehicle. Police officials have historically favored licensing, regardless of immigration status, to assure safety on our roads.

This paper has reported that more documented residents and citizens would have difficulty qualifying for a license than undocumented workers, due to many cross-governmental data errors.

Let us resist the urge to give up our privacy and freedoms in response to our fears about immigration. The Bill of Rights must not be so easily compromised.

-- Paul Krissel, Salem

A Good Editorial: Here comes a national ID card

2008-01-13T07:09:00.000-08:00

The Sentinel of Carlisle, PA has a good editorial entitled Here Comes a National ID Card.

Regarding REAL ID:

Supporters of REAL ID take great pains to say the new driver’s licenses will not be a national identity card. But we predict that if REAL ID succeeds, it won’t be long before it is used for everything from check cashing to renting an apartment or that you’ll be required to produce it if you’re walking down the street at night and a police officer doesn’t like your looks.

If the U.S. Supreme Court upholds state laws requiring “official” photo identification to vote, you can bet it will soon be REAL ID poll workers will be asking for.

And because they will be bar-coded, the probability will be high that REAL ID can be used to track an individual’s movements over years.

This is not what America is about.

For a lot more from this article, go here.

The REAL ID will become not only a driver's license, but a banking license, a flying license, and a visit-the-Capitol license (federal buildings).

How long until it becomes a Buy Ammunition License, Get Utilities License, Buy a Home License, Attend Sporting Events License, Enter a School License, and a Walk Down the Street License?

How many other arbitrary rules and uses can be added to REAL ID?

Are people free if they need constant, real-time, electronic, federal-government permission to function in society?

My Email to the Heritage Foundation

2008-01-12T09:27:00.001-08:00

Below is an email I sent to the Heritage Foundation a couple of days ago. As of yet, I haven't heard a reply--and really don't expect one because of the volume of emails I'm sure the Foundation receives.

But the content of the email is something I would direct to any government leader as well. Michael Chertoff casts REAL ID as a "no-brainer" and even manages to twist the rule into a boon for privacy.

But I never hear an answer for the real underlying concerns I have--which are expressed in this email.

What do you think?

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

Why do you, as so-called "conservatives", promote the REAL ID Act?

The REAL ID Act undermines the 4th Amendment (Are Americans "innocent until proven guilty," or are we "suspect until properly identified?")

The REAL ID Act undermines whatever vestiges of federalism remain. The Act may contain technicalities that avoid such a charge, but the spirit of the act undermines the goals of the Constitution.

The REAL ID Act creates an infrastructure for enforcing arbitrary and increasing numbers of regulations that liberals--and apparently "conservatives"--will not be afraid to add to the "minimum" standards. Instead of being free citizens, we will be people living under constant, real-time "permission" from the government to function in society.

The REAL ID Act also multiplies the effects of a surveillance society.

Will the REAL ID Act incorporate biometrics in the future? If not, why not? What guarantees do we have once we've thrown over our heritage of freedom by taking these first steps toward a national id card? Why do "free" people need to be tagged and tracked like cattle?

A driver's license should be just that--a license to drive: Not a license to function in society. The Constitution is supposed to the basis for functioning in a free society.

I cannot tell you how disappointed I am in "conservatives" who do nothing to conserve freedom.

I've not been a Republican all my life in order to promote the expansion of government--especially an expansion on this scale. (If REAL ID does not "really" expand the powers and abilities of government, then why are we doing it?) I have no confidence in Republicans to guard the trust of freedom.

You are wrong to support of REAL ID.

DHS Releases REAL ID Regulation

2008-01-11T11:13:00.000-08:00

The DHS just released final regulations on REAL ID:

Final Rule
Questions and Answers
Privacy Impact Assessments (PIA)

More here, and here.

Isn't it amazing how complicated it is to just live, move, and have our being in the United States-- a "free" country?

The Heritage Foundation: A "REAL" Disappointment

2008-01-10T11:36:00.000-08:00

The Heritage Foundation has the following mission statement:

Our Mission: Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

I like this mission statement...as far as it goes.

Their cause is a worthy cause.

But something is wrong: the Heritage Foundation promotes the REAL ID Act.

I encourage every American to study the REAL ID Act and then ask themselves "How does a national id card promote limited government?"

We should also ask "How does the REAL ID Act promote individual freedom?"

Actually, the REAL ID Act stands in opposition to both these ideals.

REAL ID expands the power of the federal government by creating an electronic infrastructure for innumerable regulations future Congresses can impose.

The REAL ID Act limits the freedom of the individual by expanding the presence and power of the federal government. How is the individual more "free" with an ever-present federal government brought into the transactions of daily life?

The irony is that the Heritage Foundation calls itself a "conservative" think-thank.

Maybe the Heritage Foundation needs to add "Valuing and Promoting the Ideals of the Constitution" to their mission statement.

Such a goal would indeed be "conservative."

The politics of privacy

2007-12-31T07:28:00.001-08:00

Declan McCullagh, of CNET News wrote an interesting article entitled "The Politics of Privacy" which recaps major issues of 2007. He includes some remarks about the REAL ID Act:

Also continuing through next year will be a growing controversy over the Real ID Act, which would create the first federal identity card for Americans. In January, Maine became the first state to formally reject the scheme, and a few months later anti-Real ID Act senators had some success with an amendment limiting its future expansion.

But the Department of Homeland Security pressed forward with its regulations, which means that starting on May 11, 2008, residents of noncompliant states won't be able to use their driver's licenses as ID at airports or while entering federal buildings. The next five months will tell whether DHS will actually enforce those rules.

For more information, go here.

LibDems vow to bring down ID card plans

2007-12-31T07:25:00.000-08:00

Looking Around the World...

Here is an interesting article about developments in England--a country that's abandoned any sense of dignity for the individual when it comes to a surveillance society. Some are trying to slow down the free-fall:

"Putting British families back in control of their everyday lives will be at the heart of everything we stand for...."

"So let 2008 be the year we bring down the Identity Cards scheme."

Individual privacy under threat in Europe and U.S., report says

2007-12-31T06:53:00.000-08:00

The International Herald Tribune has an article entitled Individual privacy under threat in Europe and U.S.

Individual privacy is under threat in the United States and across the European Union as governments introduce sweeping surveillance and information-gathering measures in the name of security and controlling borders, an international rights group has said in a report.

The United States ranks low on the privacy scale:

Both Britain and the United States fell into the lowest-performing group of "endemic surveillance societies."

I always contend that the word privacy needs to be substituted with the word freedom.

I am not against the U.S. listening to overseas calls on suspected terrorists, but such measures are not the only ones implemented. So-called "conservatives" constantly push for national id cards, REAL ID, prolific use of biometrics, and the spread of CCTV. I encourage all Americans to read the 4th Amendment and think about why it was written.

The article notes that...

concern about terrorism, immigration and border security was driving the spread of identity and fingerprinting systems, often without regard to individual privacy.

For more from this article, click here. It tries to end on a positive note.

(Hat Tip to Drudge)

Tester and Baucus vote against national ID card funding

2007-12-20T09:08:00.000-08:00

Jami Bond, reporting from KTVQ in Billings, says:

Montana Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester successfully put the brakes on establishing a national ID card.

Such a statement is probably too optimistic, but it is encouraging to see some of our leaders resisting the establishment of REAL ID.

Read more here.

Arizona GOP lawmakers vow fight against 3-in-1 license

2007-12-13T05:48:00.000-08:00

The mostly Republican mess that is known as REAL ID is yet opposed by some GOP members at the state level. Paul Davenport of the AP reports:

PHOENIX (AP) -- Prominent Republican legislators vowed Tuesday to fight Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano's proposal for a new alternative driver license that could also be used to cross borders to verify eligibility for employment.

The lawmakers called the license proposal an ominous step toward compliance with Real ID, an emerging federal identification requirement that the lawmakers called an infringement on individual liberties and of state sovereignty.

The proposed alternative license would put the state on a track to requiring citizens to carry identification cards with embedded electronic features that could be used as tracking devices, said Republican Sen. Karen Johnson of Mesa, a leading critic of the license plan. "I oppose making our driver license into an identity card."

Good for Karen Johnson

Elsewhere Michael Chertoff, head of DHS, dismisses Americans' concerns by calling them "an ideological discomfort" and saying:

"I have yet to hear a persuasive argument for why it is a good thing for privacy to have driver's licenses that are easily forged or counterfeited."

Apparently, he hasn't been listening very closely.

As for the "ideological discomfort," just call it wistful Constitutionalism. The Constitution and our heritage of freedom is indeed an ideology.

A pretty good one.

I simply wish the Republicans cared more about it.

Republicans Give Liberals Greater Power with REAL ID

2007-12-11T05:38:00.000-08:00

Liberals like government power. It's axiomatic. So do Republicans...

When the Republicans passed the REAL ID Act, they gave a great tool to every politician who wants to expand governmental controls over the life of the individual.

For example, certain mayors across the country want to undermine 2nd Amendment rights--and use REAL ID as one tool to do so. Here is what they want to ask the current presidential candidates:

In 2013, the federal "Real ID Act" will go into full effect. In order to get into a federal building or to get on a commercial airplane, all persons will have to show secure identification that is compliant with the Real ID Act. However, unless the law is amended, people would not need to show Real ID-compliant identification to buy guns. Requiring gun purchasers to show Real ID-compliant identification could help prevent sales to persons already prohibited from buying firearms, including felons (who might be able to more easily fake non compliant IDs) and undocumented aliens (who, unless INS has flagged them individually in the background check system, can now buy guns by misrepresenting their status on the background check form). Do you support a change in federal law to require that gun purchasers show Real ID-compliant identification by 2013?

In the name of "common sense" and "fighting crime," how many other aspects of Amercans' lives will be brought under the digital net that politicians want to cast over the individual?

Again, I must ask the following questions:

1. Are we supposed to be a free people?
2. Aren't free people supposed to be innocent until proven guilty?
3. OR, Are free people suspect until properly identified?
4. Will Americans have to "scan in" every transaction of their lives? To what other areas of live can we apply the REAL ID?
5. Is it right to reduce God-given rights to a string of digits?

Arizona to create high-tech driver licenses

2007-12-07T07:48:00.000-08:00

From the East Valley Tribune-- Arizona to create high-tech driver licenses:

State Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, said she is “livid’’ that Napolitano promised to have Arizona comply with the Real ID Act and promised to fight the plan despite its voluntary nature.

“The federal government’s going to get all this information,’’ Johnson said.

Laura Keehner, a Homeland Security spokeswoman, said there will not be a national database. Instead, she said, each state will keep its own records containing the additional information.

Keehner said she did not know if personal information such as an individual’s physical features, fingerprints or even retinal scans would be collected, encoded on the card or possibly put onto a computer chip built into the license.

Johnson said it was wrong of Napolitano to sign the agreement with those issues unresolved.

“Who is the governor to say what we are going to do here in Arizona?’’ she said. “She’s only one branch of our state government.’’

Read more here.

I have to say that Laura Keehner--being true to bureaucratic principles-- is disingenuous by saying there will not be a national database.

This is a smokescreen.

All 50 states may indeed maintain "their own" databases...

...but if all 50 states are linked to each other and allow the federal government access to the network...

...the results are the same as having one federal database.

Who are these DHS people?

There is No Longer Any Privacy

2007-12-03T07:16:00.000-08:00

David Calder of the BBC posts that "There is no longer any privacy."

Concerning Britain:

"The National Identity Register will hold up to 50 pieces of information," [Dr. David Murakami Wood] said.

"Everything from your national insurance number to your health record to the number of penalty points on your driving licence will be stored there, even information about when you buy a mobile phone."

That mobile phone is also storing a surprising amount of information about you.

From the start of October, the mobile phone companies will have to retain data about who you were calling, when you made the call and where you were when you made it.

And that information won't just be available to the police.

Read more here.

Many "conservatives" want to go down the same road Britain is traveling--a road where the individual is blended into a great digital collective.

They do this because they're not thinking two yards past their own noses. But the effects will be the same (or worse) as if big-government liberals had been in charge.

I agree with John Scott from the above article:

"We should stop and think about where we'll be in five or 10 years time. We should be trying to stop the unthinking proliferation of surveillance systems before it's too late."

State Senator Mike Folmer (Pennsylvania) Introduces Anti-REAL ID Legislation

2007-11-30T08:25:00.000-08:00

For Release November 14, 2007:

HARRISBURG – Senator Mike "Citizen Mike" Folmer (R-Lebanon) today announced he is introducing legislation which would exempt Pennsylvania from a federal mandate requiring the establishment of a national identification card.

"In the post-9-11 era, there is the sense by some that we should strip away privacy rights, if that's perceived as what's necessary to stave off terrorism," Folmer said. "A national ID system will redefine privacy as we know it, create a mountain of new bureaucracy and increase fees and taxes – without making us any safer."

Folmer noted that ID documents don't reveal anything about evil intent. "Even with a reliable list of terrorists, the authorities will miss anyone who is not previously known to be a threat, he added. "The terrorists are patient. They'll do whatever it takes to legally maneuver around whatever roadblocks we put up."

Four states – South Carolina, New Hampshire, Maine, and Montana – have already enacted statutes precluding their compliance with the federal REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005 in response to recommendations from the 9-11 Commission.

Specifically, the federal REAL ID Act mandates that states turn driver's licenses into a national identity card. Under enforcement of REAL ID, state driver's licenses will not be accepted for federal purposes – including boarding an aircraft or entering a federal facility – unless they meet numerous criteria, including:

They must reveal standard information such as full legal name, gender, address, date of birth, photograph and signature.

They must contain a "machine readable zone" that allows for the easy capture of all the data on the ID by stores or anyone else with a reader.

Additionally, REAL ID requires that:

Each state establish the ability to provide all the other states with access to the information contained in its motor vehicle database - creating, in effect, a single nationally distributed database operated by the states.

States retain a digital scan of source identity documents – including birth certificates and Social Security cards – for at least 10 years (or a paper copy for seven years).

The federal requirements under REAL ID would be completely unfunded mandates that would impose a significant financial burden on Pennsylvania. The National Governor's Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the American Association of Motor Vehicles predict that REAL ID will cost states $11 billion. The State of Virginia estimates its compliance costs to be in the neighborhood of $240 million.

REAL ID further threatens privacy rights by opening the door to the empowerment of the Department of Homeland Security to collect biometric data – including fingerprints and eye scans – as well as placing Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chips in every American's driver's license.

REAL ID offers no controls on what confidential data can be collected from driver's licenses, where and how long it can be stored, and who is authorized to obtain, share, trade or sell that information.

Folmer's legislation is supported by a number of groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and National Veterans Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which are concerned with the privacy repercussions of the federal government having the power to track our whereabouts every second of the day.

Folmer said instead of REAL ID, Americans need to be vigilant, and exercise their right to self-protection. He added that America must get serious about cracking down on illegal immigration.

Also, here is a PODCAST about Senator Folmer's concerns.

Thanks to The Commonwealth Foundation Blog for the tip.

A Video on REAL ID from the Cato Institute

2007-11-30T08:17:00.000-08:00

The post, "More on REALID," at the Commonwealth Foundation contains a video by Jim Harper.

I encourage you to watch it and consider some key issues about REAL ID.

We’ve sold our secrets for a walletful of plastic

2007-11-28T09:10:00.000-08:00

Richard Morrison wrote an interesting and entertaining piece for the TimesOnline, UK:

There are no “Chinese walls” in the secrets business. What your credit card supplier knows about you, the entire retail industry knows. That’s why talk of a national ID card revealing only “limited information” about you is hogwash. One database leads to another. A “guarantee of confidentiality” on a contract requiring you to divulge yet more information about yourself is not worth the paper it’s written on. Especially, given the apparently lax controls in the public sector, if that guarantee comes from HM Revenue and Customs or the National Health Service. You would have more chance of keeping personal details out of the hands of crooks if you got yourself a megaphone and broadcast them from Speaker’s Corner.

I encourage you to read more here.

As always, the issue isn't just "privacy." The issue is freedom--especially when it comes to REAL ID and similar issues.

Do we still believe in freedom?

Two Spin-Off Stories from UK's Privacy Distaster

2007-11-28T08:43:00.000-08:00

Story #1:

UK's Privacy Chernobyl (Bruce Schneier)

...[T]he UK's loss of 25 million child benefit records -- including dates of birth, addresses, bank account information, and national insurance numbers -- is turning into a privacy disaster, threatening to derail plans for a national ID card.

A biometric security firm is pitching a national identity scheme designed to allay fears caused by the government holding and trying to manage a national identity base.

The biometric smartcard system proposed by UK Biometrics is being promoted as the government tries to address the outcry caused by HMRC losing the child benefit records of 25m people.

Read more here.

Americans should learn from the UK about how invasive identity cards can be. The ComputerWeekly story points out that governments want to reduce citizens to the level of a can of soup: "Scannable" at any time:

When required by police or authorities to positively identify themselves, the card holder would slot their smart card into a hand-held biometric scanner, place their fingertip onto the reader and have their identity confirmed.

Before jumping off the biometric cliff, lemming-like--maybe we should rethink the importance of the 4th Amendment and our heritage of freedom.

Our freedom has cost an awful lot. I'd hate to toss it away.

Senator calls for Real ID rebellion

2007-11-19T10:21:00.000-08:00

Here is another measure of good news reported by the Evening Sun (Serving the greater Hanover and Gettysburg Area).

It sounds like one, lone Republican has remembered from whence he came:

A midstate senator wants Pennsylvania to join a list of states rebelling against a federal law calling for new identification cards that have been likened to a national driver's license.

Sen. Mike Folmer, R-Lebanon, unveiled a bill Wednesday that would preclude Pennsylvania from complying with the Real ID Act, approved by Congress in 2005. By RICHARD FELLINGER Article, Launched: 11/17/2007 04:05:42 AM EST

For more information, go here--and hope for success in Pennsylvania.

S. 717: Identification Security Enhancement Act of 2007

2007-11-18T07:22:00.000-08:00

From GovTrack.us:

"A bill to repeal title II of the REAL ID Act of 2005, to restore section 7212 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which provides States additional regulatory flexibility and funding authorization to more rapidly produce tamper- and counterfeit-resistant driver's licenses, and to protect privacy and civil liberties by providing interested stakeholders on a negotiated rulemaking with guidance to achieve improved 21st century licenses to improve national security."

For more information on this bill, go here.

GOP split on repeal of Real ID

2007-11-14T08:36:00.000-08:00

The Washington Times reports that The GOP is split on repeal of Real ID

Congressional Republicans are scrambling to defuse the political time bomb they created in 2005 when they allowed states to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens — but a key Republican and author of the Real ID Act says their new bill is unconstitutional.

"Driver's licenses are issued by the states, not the federal government. I do not believe it is constitutional for the federal government to tell the states who they can issue driver's licenses to and who they can't issue driver's licenses to," said Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Wisconsin Republican who wrote the 2005 law and its provision allowing states the option of giving licenses to illegal aliens.

Read more here.

I find it ironic that Sensenbrenner is getting all "Constitutional" about the issue now.

The current debate is about giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. But it strikes at the deeper issues of federalism, freedom, and the massive growth in power and scope of the federal government. People who call themselves "conservative" and sling around words like "Constitution" better figure out what their doing PDQ.

We better make sure that the cure for illegal immigration isn't worse than the problem.

Also, I'm simultaneously amused and dismayed at the willingness of Sensenbrenner to engage in ad hominem slaps at regular Americans who still love the antiquated idea of freedom:

"If there's a national policy then a driver's license becomes a national ID card," he said, adding that "ends up playing into the fears of the ACLU and the people on the far right that the Real ID is in fact a national ID card."

Translation: The ideal of limited government and the Bill of Rights (esp. 4th Amendment), are now the realm of the "far right."

Mr. Sensenbrenner must have a new twist on conservative philosophy: Freedom is no longer tied to the concept of "limited government." Freedom is now tied to the concept of an "ever-present Washington." This kind of thinking can only come from someone who has been in Washington too long.

Finally, Mr. Sensenbrenner should be careful of expressing concerns over the Constitution and federalism. Someone may label him as "far right."

Oh well...

(See why REAL ID is indeed a national id card.)

Illegal Immigration is No Excuse for Totalitarianism

2007-11-09T08:19:00.000-08:00

Oklahoma recently passed a new law aimed at illegal immigration in the state.

While some measures may be necessary, I'm troubled by the response of many Americans--including fellow Repubicans and so-called "conservatives."

My statement is simple:

If the illegal immigrant is the one breaking the law, the illegal immigrant should carry the burden for breaking that law.

American citizens should not become the target of drastic measures.

I'm concerned that the fight against illegal immigration is resulting in an assault on American liberty. Presidents and Congresses have failed to do their job at the border, and now they want to tighten laws around the lives of innocent Americans.

The following requirements of Oklahoma's law is a burden on the back of normal Americans:

Create a state felony offense for persons who knowingly harbor, transport, conceal or shelter illegal aliens. Each offense is punishable by a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail.

As a conservative, evangelical Christians in America, I find the above requirement to be a real problem.

If a person is in real need--the churches in Oklahoma should help him, illegal immigrant or not. The other day I saw a news story where one of the sponsors of Oklahoma's new bill threatened churches with the loss of 501(c)(3) status if they met real needs of illegal immigrants.

Was this man supposed to be a "freedom-loving Republican?"

I don't hate illegal immigrants, although we need to stop illegal immigration the best way we can. Yet, I do wonder why some "conservatives" seem to hate illegal immigrants more than they love freedom and our Constitutional heritage.

I'm not interested in the philosophy that says, "Statism is the only solution to Illegal Immigration."

Consider this Oklahoma requirement (a haunting remnant from Washington's failed "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" bill:

As of July 2008, businesses will have to check new employees' work authorization with federal databases.

In order for such an instantly-accessible database to work, everyone will have to be in it. This will necessitate branding every American citizen (maybe with biometrics?) in order to ensure that the government has the correct electronic ball-and-chain on the correct citizen.

Enter the "necessity" of the REAL ID Act.

Remember, the REAL ID Act is more than just a "secure card." It is an entire infrastructure supporting a National ID Card:

-A National ID Database (50 state databases linked into 1 network),
-Machine-readable technology (hand-held scanners--to scan anyone, anytime.),
-Codes about an individual's "acceptability" for work, travel, banking, and potentially much, much more.

Without the electronic ball-and-chain, the individual cannot function at various levels of society.

Are not Americans supposed to be a free people?
Then why do we have to live with constant, real-time, electronic, governmental permission to function?

Is totalitarianism the only correct response to illegal immigration?

I thought Americans were smarter than this.

I thought "conservative" Republicans would be better than this.

Is Real ID plan on its deathbed?

2007-11-05T09:26:00.000-08:00

Anne Broache at CNETNews.com asks Is Real ID plan on its deathbed?

The U.S. government's controversial plan to outfit all Americans with uniform electronic identification cards--officially known as Real ID--may be on its deathbed, opponents of the program charged this week.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has long said that starting as soon as May 2008, and definitely after May 2013, it will deny state citizens the right to board planes or enter federal buildings unless they show Real ID-compliant documents.

But on a recent conference call with state officials from across the country, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Richard Barth gave the impression that the agency doesn't plan to punish states that have rejected the rules, according to Timothy Sparapani, senior legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union, and Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap.

"To me, this signals the real end of the Real ID Act because it prevents the government from having any leverage over the states," Sparapani said in a conference call his group organized with reporters Thursday afternoon.

But DHS denies that REAL ID is going to go away.

If you're interested, read more here.

Just a reminder: REAL ID is more than just a "secure card." It is an entire infrastructure of a National ID Card (linked to every aspect of our live's via SSN's), machine-readable technology (the easier to scan us with, anywhere & anytime...), codes about an individual's "acceptability" for work, travel, and banking...

And nobody-knows-how-many codes will be attached to the individual for the sake of bureaucratic control.

Are not Americans supposed to be a free people? Then why do we have to live our lives with constant/ real-time permission from the government to function?

Where are all the freedom-loving, Constitution-quoting, so-called "conservatives?"

N.Y. steps forward with Real ID

2007-10-30T08:07:00.000-07:00

From Washington Technology:

New York will become the fourth state to implement a hybrid identification card that may be used for border crossings and as a driver’s license complying with upcoming Real ID Act regulations, Secretary Michael Chertoff and Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) announced.

America quietly acquiesces?

Read more here.

My Comment at the Article "Visit DHS Privacy Web Site -- Please"

2007-10-18T09:04:00.000-07:00

Below is a comment I left in the combox for Bob Brewin's good article entitled "Visit DHS Privacy Web Site -- Please."

His article was written for GovernmentExecutive.com

Mr. Brewin discusses a statement made by Hugo Teufel III, chief privacy officer of the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Teufel tries to convince Americans that DHS is concerned about privacy, and that Americans should see the privacy web page at DHS. Brewins rightly concludes:

Somehow, the thought of having to produce a passport to buy a stamp at the post office in my hometown of Las Vegas, N.M., (if New Mexico does not adopt Real ID driver's licenses) does not make me feel more secure, or that DHS really cares about privacy or that top DHS management understands citizens still have a deep distrust of government.

I agree.

I also think someone should inform Mr. Teufel III that the issue is not privacy per se. The issue is freedom, federalism, the 4th Amendment, and our heritage of Freedom.

My comment on Mr. Brewins article is:

The problem I see with national Id/REAL ID is two-fold:

1. If biometrics is used, are we not "booking" innocent people like criminals? And why should we not consider our "biometrics" to be OURS rather than the GOVERNMENT'S? Whose got the power?

2. It is not an ID Card standing alone. It is part of a powerful infrastructure: Card, Reading Machine, Internet, Software, and Codes attached to people. All of this reduces us to living in a software maze of Red Light/Green Light.

The infrastructure will be used to digitally manage more and more of our lives. I believe that one arbitrary rule/regulation will be piled on top of another. Politicians/bureaucrats just can't resist.

This is not freedom.

Read more here.

The REAL ID Act: An Update

2007-10-09T08:49:00.000-07:00

Jim Harper wrote An Update on the REAL ID Act for the Cato Institute, October 8th.

In just seven short months, states will begin issuing drivers' licenses and identification cards in accordance with federal standards, and they'll begin making their databases of driver information available nationwide. At least, that's how the REAL ID Act would have it.

In fact, it's unlikely that a single state will comply with this national ID law — a whopping unfunded surveillance mandate passed hastily by Congress in May 2005. The Department of Homeland Security asked states to commit to REAL ID or ask for an extension by October 1st, so now is a good time to review where things are with REAL ID, and perhaps see where they're going.

Harper goes on to chronicle the troubled origins and history of the REAL ID Act.

He made an interesting observation by saying:

With a significant number of states committed not to implement the national ID plan, the Congress unwilling to prop it up or fund it, and the DHS yet to issue final regulations, REAL ID is mostly dead. But government contractors and state bureaucrats are still working to build this national ID system, going so far as to train up for REAL ID advocacy using taxpayer funds. At a recent REAL ID conclave in Washington, D.C., DMV bureaucrats sat through panels with titles like, "Bringing Your Public Onboard . . . ."

Americans who treasure the concept of limited government and individual freedom should not "get on board" with REAL ID. We should seek to keep our driver's licenses as driver's licenses--not work licenses, banking licenses, touring-the-Capitol licenses, flying licenses, etc.

If we're not careful, these cards may become Go-to-the-Doctor licenses or Walk-Around-Town licenses... (If the government takes over health-care, just what else would it use to "identify" an eligible patient? Also, the Supreme Court ruled a few years ago that police can ask anyone who they are and what they are doing--and the individual must comply... just for being in public.... This was a change in our tradition of freedom.)

I believe we can be creative enough and vigilant enough to fight terror and deal with illegal immigration without abandoning the concepts of freedom.

Read Harper's article here.

Reviving Privacy by Robert Ellis Smith

2007-10-03T12:19:00.000-07:00

Robert Ellis Smith wrote an excellent article for Forbes.com.

The article is entitled Reviving Privacy.

Here are a couple of excerpts:

Is there a revival of interest among Americans in protecting personal privacy? I believe that there is, and you can see the signs everywhere....

Since 2001, there has been a maturing of our attitudes towards combating terrorism and protecting civil liberties....

In the fall of 2001, 70% of Americans said they favored a mandatory national ID card. Just a few months later, support had ebbed to 26%, and in later years polls have shown that most Americans aren't so sure that a national ID is a good idea at all.

For Americans (left, center, and right) who care about the Constitution will be encouraged by Smith's commentary.

Smith includes the REAL ID Act in his ruminations.

Please read the entire article here.

Who Loves Real ID? AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo Do.

2007-10-01T11:59:00.000-07:00

The federal Real ID Act doesn’t have many friends these days. Eighteen states have passed legislation rejecting the law, Congress has refused to put any money into implementing it, and just this week New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer announced he, not the Feds, would determine New York’s drivers license policy, with officials in his administration indicating the state might opt out of the Real ID program altogether.

Read the rest of this article here.

Mike Huckabee: An Interview

2007-09-26T08:58:00.000-07:00

Mike Huckabe was interviewed about a variety of issues. Here is what he said about REAL ID:

There have been some things in this particular administration that have been troubling to me. I'm certainly a 10th Amendment guy. I'm a federalist at heart. I think Jefferson was right and Hamilton was wrong. And at times this administration seems to have become Hamiltonian and not Jeffersonian. For example, with REAL ID, that's a huge mistake. It's putting a burden on a state that should not be the state's function, which is to provide the frontline of national security defense at the hands of a DMV worker at a state office. That's absurd. And then not funding it. That's a real problem. If you're going to have federal program then the feds ought to pay for it.

Read more here.

I have to ask again: Is REAL ID a headache because it is inherently an affront to our heritage of freedom or because it is expensive?

The answer is both.

The disturbing fact is many see the problem of REAL ID in purely financial terms.

Governors pressure feds on Real ID funding

2007-09-24T11:39:00.000-07:00

By Wade-Hahn Chan

Governors pressure feds on Real ID funding

Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann Minner and Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons are calling on the federal government to issue the long-awaited regulations for the Real ID Act of 2005 and also to pump more money into the program.

In a Sept. 12 letter to the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the two governors asked federal officials to “provide the significant investment necessary to meet the requirements of the federal mandate.”

Read more here.

----------------------
Is REAL ID a headache because it is inherently an affront to our heritage of freedom or because it is expensive?

The answer is both.

The disturbing fact is that most state leaders see the problem of REAL ID in purely financial terms. - JR

Feds still love Real ID despite growing opposition

2007-09-11T05:34:00.000-07:00

Anne Broache posted this article at CNet News:

WASHINGTON--A controversial plan for national identification cards known as Real ID drew another ringing endorsement from top Bush administration officials on Monday, even as senators continued to question the law's privacy implications and cost.

Cheerleading for the mandate was led by the retiring Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), who called a nationalized ID card a top priority. He asked the four Bush administration officials present to divulge whether they supported the idea, which was recommended by the 9/11 Commission but has sparked rebellion from numerous states and civil liberties advocates concerned about its cost and potential for abuse.

Read more here.

Looking Beyond Our Noses: "Judge Calls for a DNA Bank to Cover Everyone

2007-09-06T10:02:00.000-07:00

The TimesOnline (UK) reports that

A senior judge has called for the entire population and anyone visiting Britain to have their DNA placed on a national database.

Lord Justice Sedley said that a nationwide bank of DNA profiles would help to tackle crime and correct an imbalance in profiles stored by police.

This is an important story because bad ideas have a way of spreading--and the justifications for destroying the individual to facilitate an ever-increasing "statism" are endless.

There are 4.1 million people whose DNA is recorded on the police computer, more than in any other country. The vast majority of the profiles were obtained by arresting officers who are allowed to take samples from anyone detained for a “recordable offence” – a crime that could lead to imprisonment. The samples are kept whether the person is convicted or acquitted.

Sir Stephen Sedley, one of England’s most experienced Appeal Court judges, claims that it would be fairer to obtain the DNA from the whole of the British population whether involved in crime or not.

I can hear a dam giving way.

I am continually amazed at the lemming-like folks who have "no problem" with such a massive power-grab by any government. The first two reader comments display an inability to stand against the tide of group-think. For example:

I don't see how people can complain when we already have a driving licence, passport and other such identity documents. (The "Its Already Bad So Let's Make it Worse Fallacy".)

And...

So with the proper protective measures in place I am ok handing my DNA profile to the authorities. (The "I Don't Have Any Sense of Personal Dignity" Fallacy combined with the "My DNA is not My Personal Property" conclusion and the "I Trust Everyone With Power and Cannot Think For Myself" inclination.)

The discouraging fact is that Americans increasingly think the same way.

An Idea Worthy Trying...

2007-09-04T07:41:00.000-07:00

Robert Hawes at The Jeffersonian has an idea for undermining the REAL ID Act:

Contact your state representative and, if you can't persuade them to sink REAL ID, ask them to support a measure that will give people a choice as to whether they want it or not, pursuant to their understanding the consequences of not having it. Many state politicians seem like they're asking to be given a reason not to comply with REAL ID. This approach may give them a measure of satisfaction where that is concerned. It's also very difficult to argue against giving people a choice when the new requirements will present such a tangible expense and inconvenience for the average person. More importantly though, it will leave you with a bit more of your freedom than you might otherwise retain, and, over time, such allowances may prove to be the monkey wrench that wrecks the authoritarian machine.

Check out the rest of the article here.

"Are We a Free Country Anymore?" by Philip Johnston

2007-08-10T11:03:00.000-07:00

Philip Johnston wrote a good article entitled Are We a Free Country Anymore?

It seems England leads the way in how a democratic society can abandon its ideals with amazing speed and incredible apathy.

Johnston invites us all to think again:

It is said, though less often now than it used to be, that the basis of English liberty is the rule of law, under which everything is allowed unless specifically prohibited. According to A.V. Dicey, the 19th-century constitutionalist, this was one of the features that distinguished England from its continental counterparts, where people were subject to the exercise of arbitrary power and were actions that where not specifically authorised were proscribed.

Effectively, this principle limited the scope of the State to intervene in people’s lives. Law set the boundaries of personal action but did not dictate the course of such action. Some limitations on personal freedom are introduced ostensibly for our own good and some, obviously, predate the Blair Government, such as the compulsory wearing of seat belts in cars and a requirement to wear a crash helmet on a motorbike; but, since 1997, the pace of proscription has grown alarmingly, encompassing smacking to smoking.

Another aspect of liberty is privacy. It may be hard to believe in a world where people crave televised notoriety that there are still many who cherish anonymity. In a truly free society it should be possible for someone who does not wish to come to the attention of the state to remain unnoticed provided he breaks no laws. As A. J. P. Taylor observed, before the First World War the average citizen’s interaction with the Government was largely limited to paying tax.

“He could live where he liked and as he liked,” the great historian wrote. “He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission.”

Of one thing he could be certain and that was the inviolability of his home. But recent research has uncovered 266 separate powers under which the police and other state agents can enter your home, often using force to do so.

The proliferation of state databases, again very much a recent development, has also rendered the concept of the private individual a thing of the past, and from the earliest age. We are, almost without realising it, becoming the most snooped-on democratic nation on earth, electronically tracked from cot to coffin, our most personal details to be stored for ever, all in the name of modernisation, efficiency and, we are told, our own good.

There's a lot more in Johnston's article, and I hope Americans will read it thoughtfully.

With my own party of self-proclaimed "conservatives" quickly following Britain's model, we should also be asking the same question Johnston is asking.

Dennis Prager Says It Well... But Fails to Apply His Thoughts Consistently

2007-08-08T11:10:00.000-07:00

There is a lot of good stuff at Townhall.com. I enjoy listening to their radio personalities like Medved and Prager, although my personal philosophy and religion line up more closely with Al Mohler.

Recently, Dennis Prager had a great program entitled "Roosevelt and the Depression." He interviewed Amity Shlaes who wrote The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. I recommend that you listen to the interview.

However, what caught my attention was Mr. Prager's concluding thoughts. He was contradicting the view that expanding government power solves our problems. I thought his insights were terrific!

Here are a couple of excerpts of his comments--again in the context of growing government to address unemployment, health care, and revenue (taxes):

I have come to realize that there are two terrible things that tempt any human in terms of a society and the way in which we govern ourselves.

One is to fix things immediately without asking “What’s next?”

And a bit later:

“Let’s fix it now and not worry about the long term results.” Sure if you make an income tax, you could pay for more things. It was a 1% income tax when it was first passed. And now look at it today.

Well... So what does the left say? “The government is not big enough.”

We haven’t solved our problems, and the left’s answer is: “Well then, let’s make government even bigger.”

I am deeply concerned that fellow conservatives can make statements like these--and then turn around to promote the idea of a national identification card. And the folks at Townhall do promote a national id card: (here, here, and here.)

I want to say to Mr. Prager (and Mr. Medved), "After we implement a national identification infrastructre, 'What next? What, indeed, are the long-term results of implementing national id?'"

You may be trying to solve the problem of illegal immigration, but what you are doing is electronically "herding" all Americans into a massive and powerful expansion of government.

What next?

It doesn't take much imagination to answer that question. I can see how a national id card will make it easier for the central government to implement and enforce arbitrary rules over the lives of American citizens.

Why is it that conservatives cannot see that a national id card is not consistent with America's freedom, heritage, and Constitution?

Surely we can think through ways to fight illegal immigration and terror without:

1. A massive increase in government power,
2. An undermining of federalism,
3. An undermining of the 4th amendment,
4. An increased ability to track Americans in real-time,
5. An erosion of the presumption of innocence,
6. A radically increased ability to enforce arbitrary (future) rules,

and

7. Federal approval on whether you and I can earn money.

These things, I believe, are the long-term results. The "What Next?" effect.

I’m all for stemming the tide of illegal immigration. But I don’t want to throw our freedoms into the dump to do it.

There is nothing “conservative” about promoting a national id card.

If our friends at Townhall.com wish to promote one, they should abandon talking about their belief in “limited government.”

Is This Where Republicans Want to Take Us?

2007-08-02T07:45:00.000-07:00

Police want DNA from speeding drivers and litterbugs on database...

This is an issue in the UK, but what goes on around the world affects us--at least in our thinking. I honestly want to know if the so-called conservatives promoting national id cards, immediate employer verification, REAL ID, and biometric social security cards have thought about how far they are willing to go in undermining freedom?

Police are seeking powers to take DNA samples from suspects on the streets and for non-imprisonable offences such as speeding and dropping litter.

The demand for a huge expansion of powers to take DNA comes as a government watchdog announced the first public inquiry into the national DNA database.www.timesonline.co.uk

Read more here.

Also, here is an example of home-grown "conservatives" promoting REAL ID.

Obviously, both Republicans and Democrats adore big-government power.

Governors should fight Real ID plan

2007-07-20T09:19:00.000-07:00

From the Detroit Free Press.

When the nation's governors gather in Traverse City this weekend, they ought to do themselves and their states a service by serving a definitive notice on Washington that the Real ID Act is not just unworkable but unacceptable and ought to be repealed before it takes effect next year.

Federal Real ID Act Update: Podcast from MITECHNEWS.com

2007-07-12T06:52:00.000-07:00

A lot of folks are just unaware of the REAL ID Act--believe it or not.

Mitechnews.com has a podcast that gives a good survey of the legislation.

I encourage you to listen

Then think.

And think again.

Conservative Bona Fides

2007-07-09T06:05:00.000-07:00

There is a wide variety of people who stand opposed to the REAL ID Act and national id cards.

Many are extremely liberal.

Many are extremely right-wing--and conspiratorial in their thinking. (By the way, REAL ID is a bad idea all by itself. It doesn't require needless conspiracy-thinking to present it as problematic...)

Others are "independents."

Regardless, a lot of Americans just want to protect freedom.

Anyway, I'm glad to see a concerted effort to undo this lousy legislation passed in May of 2005.

But what is curious to me is why conservatives and Republicans were the ones to push the bill into law.

How does increasing the scope and presence of government in the lives of citizens promote the conservative ideal of "limited government?"

Conservatives usually stand against arbitrary and cumbersome regulation in our country. But with a system of national identification, they want to build the infrastructure that has potential for attaching and enforcing regulations in an unprecedented way. Do they not see this as a contradiction to conservative ideals?

I'm a conservative. I want a strong view of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments to remain in our country.

Shoot. I happen to believe in all 10 of the Bill of Rights.

Conservatives that I respect (here, and here) are promoting a national id system. And I am amazed at their stance.

Surely Americans are creative enough to stem the tide of illegal immigration, fight the necessary war on terror, and protect our borders within the framework of our great heritage of freedom.

Establishing national id cards is no good answer.

National ID Cards in India: Future Promise of E-Governance

2007-07-06T10:55:00.000-07:00

In America, politicians like to talk about narrow uses for certain measures. These "minimum standards" or "narrow uses" usually increase beyond their initially established parameters.

Proponents of REAL ID like to talk about "minimum standards" for ID that will be used for entering nuclear power plants. Often they forget to tell you that the REAL ID will be required for banking--which affects our daily lives.

How many more uses will be added to this national id card? How many arbitrary rules can be enforced with this efficient method of control?

We have to look around and see what people in the world are saying. We have to look beyond the politicians in the U.S. who oftentimes speak for manipulative effect.

Consider India.

Future promise of e-governance

The next five years will see e-governance going beyond transactions to do much, much more.

Sunil Chandiramani, Partner, Ernst & Young talked about the future of e-governance. He started off with a quick recap of what has been done to date. India has transformed significantly over the past few years...

The next five years will see much more. Focusing on some key areas could accelerate the speed of implementation of NeGP—multi-purpose, secure, authentic, unique national citizen identity database; Greater harmonization of initiatives between the centre and states; equitable partnerships with the private sector; accelerated rural connectivity; building common storage and processing capacities between or amongst the states and the centre to optimise investments and cost of maintenance; capacity building and change management as well as delayed projects and accelerated costs – monitoring and evaluation.

Chandiramani posed a provocative question: “Do we restrict e-governance to transactions or do more than that?” (emphasis added) ExpressComputerOnline.com

“Do we restrict e-governance to transactions or do more than that?”

Once REAL ID becomes part of our national infrastructure, I predict we will be hearing this question more and more.

The politicians just won't be able to resist.

It's sad that most Americans aren't either.

TN rejects "Real ID" legislation

2007-07-05T07:47:00.000-07:00

Here's a recent posting at the Knoxnews.com site about the Tennessee legislature's rejection of REAL ID.

ASHVILLE - The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee (ACLU-TN) today praised the Tennessee General Assembly for their bipartisan rejection of the REAL ID Act, which would require all Tennesseans to give up sensitive personal information which would be stored in a national database, to pay higher licensing fees, and to stand in long lines at the Department of Motor Vehicles. The joint resolution (SJR248) criticizes the federal law’s unfunded mandate and its threats to privacy, security, and the Tennessee Constitution.

Many conservatives are opposed the general direction of the ACLU. I'm one of these people. I believe the ACLU is usually opposed to the best interests of the country.

One commenter named Joel expressed his dislike for the ACLU.

As much as I generally disagree with the ACLU, I had to respond to Joel:

Joel,

I despise most of what the ACLU is doing, but you know what "they" say about a stopped clock. You can't be wrong all the time.

I am dismayed that so many Americans think that to fight illegal immigration and terror we must promote:

1. A massive increase in government power,
2. An undermining of federalism,
3. An undermining of the 4th amendment,
4. An increased ability to track Americans in real-time,
5. An erosion of the presumption of innocence,
6. A radically increased ability to enforce arbitrary (future) rules,

and

7. Federal approval on whether you and I can earn money or not.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for stemming the tide of illegal immigration. But I don't want to throw our freedoms into the dump to do it.

Illegal immigration should never be used as an issue to further the evolution of a totalitarian state. Instead of going after illegal immigrants, bureaucrats and politicians sought and seek power to monitor and approve the lives of everyone.

A dedication to freedom principles (i.e. the Constitution) may call for difficult decisions.

So be it.

If it’s not freedom, Just what are we fighting for?

I'm sure the ACLU's motivations for opposing REAL ID do not line up with mine.

But conservatives who love the spirit of the Constitution and the goals of the Bill of Rights should be opposed to the thinking and the results of REAL ID.

We shouldn't look first at who opposes it--and then decide we're for it.

Read the resolution here.tenn_0248.pdf

National ID plan may have killed immigration bill

2007-06-29T09:14:00.000-07:00

Declan McCullagh, staff write for CNET News.com, wrote yesterday that the National ID plan may have killed immigration bill

"The proponents of national ID in the Senate weren't getting what they wanted, so they backed away," said Jim Harper, a policy analyst at the free-market Cato Institute who opposes Real ID. "It was a landmine that blew up in their faces."

Let's hope that opposition to a big-government scheme like "national id" was indeed a major factor in the bill's defeat. Senators often need to "get a message" from the people they are to represent. For example: "Americans have always valued freedom. And enough has been lost already."

The article goes on to note:

In a press release, the two Montana Democrats, Max Baucus and Jon Tester, said they were happy that a pro-privacy approach killed the bill. "If Jon and I just brought down the entire bill, that's good for Montana and the country," said Baucus, who cosponsored the amendment deleting the employer verification rule.

"Employer Verification" translates into "Government Approval of Whether Citizens Can Work Or Not."

In seeking to enforce the law on some, the government was seeking more power over everyone. Hence, booking every innocent American in a national id scheme was necessary.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for stemming the tide of illegal immigration. But I don't want to throw our freedoms into the dump to do it.

Illegal immigration should never be used as an issue to further the evolution of a totalitarian state. Instead of going after illegal immigrants, bureaucrats and politicians sought and seek power to monitor and approve the lives of everyone.

A dedication to freedom principles (i.e. the Constitution) may call for difficult decisions.

So be it.

Read more here.

Flashback: The Immigration Bill & Tom Ridge's Double-Speak (September 7, 2004)

2007-06-28T12:07:00.000-07:00

Remarks for Secretary Tom Ridge at National Press Club (September 7, 2004)

On the day the Immigration Bill dies, I thought it interesting to look back a few years to see the plans for bad ideas like REAL ID.

Remember when Tom Ridge was the Secretary of DHS?

He made the following remarks concerning a national id card. Knowing that REAL ID was passed later in May of 2005--and how it was plugged in to the just-dead immigration bill, read the comments with an eye for double-speak:

Secretary Ridge: Our mission is to preserve our freedoms while we secure our homeland. I mean, that's basically the primary mission of the Department of Homeland Security and the goal and the intent of this country. We will not sacrifice those liberties and freedoms.

And within our department, Congress very appropriately set up a, within our department, a privacy office and a civil liberties office, and every single day as an administration and every single day as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, before we walk down any path, any new initiative, we take a look at the possible impact on any of the liberties and freedoms that we enjoy, and we will not sacrifice those liberties in the effort to combat terrorism.
When we start making those concessions to combat terrorism, the terrorists begin to win, and we cannot afford them to have any kind of victory whatsoever.

...One of the areas that I am-- that I see and sense and feel that great progress has been made is the acceptance by most of our colleagues, most of the countries around the rest of the world, that there is a collective approach, a universal approach will be the best to secure safety of not just U.S. citizens, but their citizens, as well. That's why we're working more closely than we've ever worked together before on authenticating documents, verifying identities. Every single day brings the world closer to accepting biometric standards to help us make sure that the people and goods that flow across our borders are safe and secure so we can keep the terrorists and their weapons out.

Ms. Cherry: Do we need a national ID card and should it include biometrics?

Secretary Ridge: The legislation that created the department specifically prohibited a national ID card, but I must tell you that there are areas where identification, and cards including biometrics, are needed and part of our mission in homeland security to get done.

We are obliged to come up with transportation worker identification cards. We literally have hundreds of thousands of people who not only have access to potential points of vulnerability, but are driving trucks with hazardous material and the like. We're in the process of doing that.

One of the things we're looking we are doing, looking at within the administration is a set of basic requirements for federal employees and contractors that work here. We're in discussion with the National Governors' Association to see if we can come to some agreement where at least on the driver's license there is an agreement among and this is tough to do. It's a federal system. You don't mandate this, and it's a challenge we have. But the National Governors' Association wanted to take it on.

Are there certain pieces of information that all states would require to be included as part of their driver's license? Because that is the most commonly referred to piece of identification that people are more often than not inclined to use.

So no national ID, but what we have an opportunity to use biometrics, and particularly to identify people who have access to certain areas nuclear power plants and airports and the like, or the driver's license we're working toward a little more regularity and a certain standard that we would be able to use across the board.

So:

1. No National Id Card.
2. We need biometrics.
3. As a "standard that we would be able to use across the board"

The planned uses of REAL ID were expanded to include bank accounts and the ability to work in this country. Yep. That's freedom.

Go here to read why REAL ID is indeed a national id card.

Go here to flashback to former Secretary Ridge's full comments cited above.

National ID Cards The 'Sleeper' Immigration Issue?

2007-06-27T07:46:00.000-07:00

Chris Murphy, at InformationWeek posted an article entitled National ID Cards The 'Sleeper' Immigration Issue?

A largely overlooked section in the comprehensive immigration reform being debated in the Senate calls for the Social Security Administration to come up with fraud-resistant cards within two years to aid in electronic worker verification, possibly including biometric information. One top immigration scholar says this could be the "sleeper" issue of the debate, since it affects every U.S. employee.

Politicians who may "oppose" REAL ID, may support biometric Social Security Cards--used for many of the same purposes.

Often people say, "It's an idea whose time has come."

But I have yet to see how the mere passing of time has ever turned a bad idea into a good one.

One fact is for sure: the passing of time has not reduced our need to keep an eye on power-seeking Republicans and Democrats who just can't wait to push bad ideas.

The price of freedom is always vigilance--by means of a little extra thinking, remembering, and communicating.

It's the thinking and the remembering we have the hardest time accomplishing.

Read more here.

Dennis Prager Promotes Big Government with National ID Card

2007-06-21T07:30:00.000-07:00

I think Dennis Prager is the example of what a conservative radio talk show host should be: clear, thoughtful, engaging, kind, direct, honest, and values-oriented. He is a unique figure on the radio landscape. He loves freedom, America, and the Judeo-Christian heritage.

So I feel a sense of frustration when I hear someone like him promoting the virtues of a national id card. His line of argument is that everyone knows everything about you anyway because of the internet--so what does ‘privacy’ matter?

Or, The government knows everything there is to know about you anyway, and a national id card is an easy way to identify illegal immigrants.

Or, People against a national id card have a ‘romanticized’ vision of privacy.

My response to Mr. Prager’s thinking is manifold:

1. If the government knows “everything there is to know about us,” then we don’t need a national id card, do we? If everything is already “known” then why spend billions of dollars on a needless technology?

The fact of the matter is that a national id card is, indeed, an advancement in the government’s ability to know, track, and manipulate. Otherwise, the government and certain talk show hosts would not be pushing for a change.

You’ve got to be honest enough to admit that a national id card (REAL ID) is truly an increase in the presence and power of the federal government.

Mr. Prager, if you’re going to extol the virtues of “limited government,” please apply your energies against a national id card! Such a card is a direct tether (or chain) from Washington to every American citizen. It doesn't take much imagination to see how liberals will want to attach and enforce arbitrary regulations with such an efficient technology. And you want to set up the infrastructure for it.

Can’t you see your inconsistency?

2. Do you believe that freedom is a “romanticized” notion? Are the Constitution and Bill of Rights obsolete? You see, the issue isn’t some nerdy notion of “privacy.”

The issue is freedom.

Freedom is lost in our philosophy/theory long before it's lost in practice. Philosophically, you think a big-government id card is a good idea. Your "freedom-thinking" is eroded, and you now want to put it into practice.

I cannot envision Washington, Madison, and Franklin sitting down and saying,

“Ok boys, let’s set up a free country!

The first thing we’re going to do is get everyone’s fingerprints so our central government can approve the individual's every job.

Oh... And let's set up an infrastructure to track their daily movements.

Sound like an idea worth dying for?

Great! Let’s go...”

If knowledge is power, then more knowledge is more power. The government wants to have more knowledge of everyone--hence it wants to grow in more and more power. Is this really that hard to understand? Are you for bigger or smaller government? It isn’t just a matter of taxes...

Surely you would draw the line on this issue somewhere.

Just where you draw it?

Should the government make everyone wear hats with video cameras in them so the DHS can watch our every move in first-person perspective? Obviously that’s a crazy idea. You think its crazy and unrealistic because you know that “We’ve got to draw the line somewhere!”

I just want to draw the line as close as possible to the ideals of the Constitution and our heritage of freedom.

Is that so crazy? Is that “romanticized” thinking?

3. Maybe the government needs to be trimmed back. If it already knows so much about us, wouldn’t it be better to try to beat the monster back a little? You seem to be falling into the thinking that says, “It is already bad--so let’s make it worse.”

Maybe we should be trying to correct a current problem, not throwing up our hands in capitulation. Isn't this what your show's all about?

4. I think we need to explore the following questions: “What can the free market and legislators do to empower the individual to own, protect, and manage his own crucial, digital information and get the government out of our way?”

Also, Can we enact the “Fair Tax” so we don’t have to report our income to the government?

Shouldn't we privatize Social Security so the money belongs to the individual and is not some "trough" everyone can come to?

Can't we make sure that the government never owns or manages our medical information?

Shouldn't we find ways to build a firewall around the individual so that we are not all reduced to a digital collective?

I don’t have all the answers for these issues, but I think we all better explore them, PDQ.

5. I understand and support the fight against terror. But let’s not throw into the trash the very freedom we seek to protect. America's supposed to be about freedom. The terrorists want to destroy America. If we destroy freedom in order to fight the terrorists, I have to ask, “Just who is winning the war?”

6. I don't want the government to have more "easy" ways to intrude into my life. We used to think that any increase in government is inherently a decrease in the freedom of the individual. That's what conservatives used to say. I wish conservatives would hold true--and look down the road a bit.

So, my questions to you, Mr. Prager, are: “Do you value freedom? Do you believe that the Bill of Rights can survive in an age of terror and technology?

Or do you believe the great experiment is over?”

Computer Hacking Plagues Department of Homeland Security

2007-06-20T17:46:00.000-07:00

Some folks have an inherent trust in government to take care of them, direct them, secure them, and provide for them. Strange, it almost comes across as a love relationship.

But America was founded on a basic distrust of centralized power over the lives of individuals. Yes, government is a necessity, but it is something that needs to be checked, balanced, distributed (federalism) and above all limited. But today, many conservatives are willing to throw their principles to the wind and establish a national id card.

"The government will take care of us. We'll give them unprecedented information about us, an infrastructure to track us, an easy ability to scan and search us. The government doesn't have to make hard decisions within its bounds to do the right thing. It can just tag and track us all. In return, the government will protect us."

Enter the bureacracy.

WASHINGTON — Several government agencies within the Department of Homeland Security admit they are regularly victims of computer break-ins at home and overseas by hackers finding their way into the department's cyber network.

More than 800 security incidents plagued the department over the past two years, including viruses, password-stealing programs and "Trojans" or hacker tunnels found on some workstations. Problems have cropped up at FEMA, the Transportation Security Agency, the Coast Guard and other agencies.

The House Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, Science and Technology asked officials Wednesday how they are improving their cybersecurity to prevent such incidents from happening again. Chairman Jim Langevin, D-R.I., called the reports "very disturbing."

Some security problems include unauthorized software installed on department computers, misconfigured firewalls and unauthorized disclosures of classified data.- Wednesday, June 20, 2007, FoxNews.com

Read more here--and think again of doing a swan dive of trust into a massive central government.

I recommend we pursue the ideals of the Constitution: Government is necessary--but something to be watched and limited.

"Watched" and "limited" is not the best language to apply to law-abiding individuals.

Michael Medved Promotes Big Government with National ID Card

2007-06-20T07:07:00.000-07:00

I listen to Michael Medved's conservative radio talk show simply because I enjoy it. His "Disagreement Days" and "Conspiracy Theory" days are very entertaining, interesting, and enlightening.

As a conservative and a Christian, I appreciate much (most) of what this conservative, Jewish thinker/entertainer has to say.

(Here it comes...) BUT...

I couldn't disagree more with Mr. Medved on his promotion of a national id card. He insists that a national id system is crucial to any effective immigration reform. I don't deny that a national id card would be very effective.

It will be effective in increasing the power of the federal government to micromanage and manipulate the lives of individuals.
It will be very effective in reducing God-given, Constitution-recognized rights to a string of digits at the mercy of technocrats.
It will be very effective in undermining federalism.
It will be very effective in undermining the 4th Amendment.
It will be very effective at accruing arbitrary and petty rules by future politicians and cabinet members.
It will be very effective in abandoning the spirit of freedom and our Constitutional heritage.

I wish Michael would be a consistent conservative and seek to check the rise of government intrusion in the lives of individuals.

At least he is honest. He openly promotes the need of an id card.

But I've got to disagree--and wish that most Americans would too.

Mr. Medved is promoting big government theory.
-----------------------------------------

Below is an email I sent to his show. I know he gets a lot of correspondence--so I doubt he'll see it. I'll vent my thoughts to him by posting it here:

Michael,

You are at least honest enough to say outright that you support a national id card. But I don't understand why you would support one.

A national id inherently brings government closer to the every day lives of Americans. It undermines federalism. I think it undermines the 4th amendment. The infrastructure that would go with a national id would give the government power to enforce the myriad of arbitrary rules liberals would love to attach to the card.

We have been approaching a full-blown national id for quite some time, but I'd rather start working turn back to more freedom-loving thinking. If we're on the wrong road, the soonest way to progress isto turn around.

You are supporting big government and an idea that totally contrary to our American heritage of freedom.

Immigration Reform: REAL ID and a Federal "No Work" List

2007-06-18T15:39:00.000-07:00

Please read Jim Harper's article at the Cato Institute. It is entitled Immigration Reform: REAL ID and a Federal "No Work" List.

Immigration reform is now in limbo, perhaps to return to the Senate floor for a vote, perhaps not. The debate so far — over 'amnesty,' border control, and guest workers—has assumed that "workplace enforcement" is a good thing. But verifying workers' employment eligibility, as called for in the Senate immigration bill, is not such a good idea. It would revive the failing national ID plan in the REAL ID Act, create a mission-creepy surveillance system, and subject every American worker to a bureaucratic gauntlet akin to the Department of Homeland Security's embarassing "no-fly" list.

I think his conclusion is simple and true:

Law-abiding, native-born Americans should be able to work without carrying a national ID.

Read more here and ask yourself if freedom can survive in an age of terror, technology, and power-seeking politicians from both sides of the aisle.

If freedom is important to you, do something to take a stand to protect it. Maybe you can do something a simple as picking up a phone...

Good News & Bad News from Tennessee

2007-06-15T09:48:00.000-07:00

The Rogersville Review reports that Tennessee's senator, Lamar Alexander fights federal Real ID mandate. This is good. But Alexander doesn't seem to get the picture quite right. For Alexander, the issue is money:

“When I was Tennessee’s governor I used to get mad whenever Congress came up with a big idea and then sent me the bill to pay for it,” Alexander said. “This Real ID Act will take a real hit out of state’s pocketbooks unless we step up and pay for Congress’ big idea ourselves.”

However, it is obvious to me that our senator is not thinking in terms of freedom, our Constitution, federalism, or limited government. He is open to using biometrics on Social Security cards and to the concept of a national id card. He seems to miss entirely that the REAL ID Act is wrong--cheap or expensive.

But I will acknowledge that any resistance to a bad idea is helpful. But our leadership would be better if they remembered what true conservativism is all about: pursuing and protecting God-given rights of the individual from a power-greedy state. (Freedoms are lost in our philosophy long before they are lost in our practice.)

Tennessee's senate has opposed the REAL ID Act. This is also good.

My hope is Tennessee will draw good conclusions from good thinking.

It's not just about the money.

ID cards add to immigration battle

2007-06-11T11:29:00.000-07:00

HeraldTribune.com of southwest Florida reports that ID cards add to immigration battle.

The currently stalled immigration bill...

would force states to comply the Real ID Act of 2005, which dictates security measures for state-issued driver's licenses and ID cards that can be read by computers, by requiring many job applicants to show such a card at the time of hire.

At least a dozen states are fighting the Real ID Act, which is supposed to be implemented next May, on privacy and cost grounds, while other states are pressing for delays.

The government is also planning to change the Social Security card:

The immigration bill also requires the Social Security Administration to increase the security of its cards -- the venerable, often tattered and easily forged paper documents that have not changed much in 70 years even as their uses have multiplied.

I disagree that the Social Security card is "venerable" and regret that its "uses have multiplied." Nevertheless, it seems that changes to the card are inevitable--regardless of what happens to the current immigration bill.

The changes would satisfy the immigration bill but fall short of measures some lawmakers and experts say are necessary to secure a document that people show to get a job or obtain other identification. Those critics want the cards to include encrypted biometric identifiers such as pictures, fingerprints and retinal scans.

The "critics" and "experts" mentioned above are people that should concern every American interested in the ideals of freedom. It is heartening that several states are resisting the REAL ID Act, yet the issues that make REAL ID such a problem will always be pressing. So the price of freedom will continue to be vigilance.

Are there enough "free" thinkers around?

I find it humorous and frustrating that our leaders continue to speak dishonestly about national id cards:

The issue is so sensitive that the immigration bill states flatly it shall not be construed "to authorize, directly or indirectly" the issuance or establishment of a national ID card -- a sure sign that plenty of people would construe it exactly that way.

This is moving beyond double-speak to triple and quadruple... It matters not how things are "construed." The Social Security card was not originally intended to be used for identification purposes. Yet this is primarily what it is used for. "Construals" and "good intentions" are irrelevant. The issue is "What are the consequences? What is actually happening?"

Politicians really do think we're stupid.

Read more here.

Hating Illegals More than Loving Freedom

2007-06-01T10:21:00.000-07:00

Sadly, many conservatives despise illegal immigrants so much that they are ready to throw in the towel on our freedoms, our heritage, and our Constitution.

They throw away these precious gifts--purchased with blood and sacrifice--only to reach for a society where the individual is reduced to a digital collective: REAL ID, Biometric Social Security Cards, EEVS, DHS approval to work...

I've told my congressman and senators that I don't hate illegal immigrants more than I love freedom. (I don't hate them period...) I should not have to have federal government approval in order live and work in this country. My "papers" should be the Constitution.

Idealistic?

Its an ideal sealed in blood.

I wish "conservatives" still held it as a worthy goal.

The government should stop the illegal crossings at the border. It shouldn't use its failure to do its job as an excuse to become something we've stood against since 1776.

Conservatives Give Up on Freedom and Limited Government

2007-05-25T06:48:00.000-07:00

Many so-called "conservatives" have quit supporting the ideals of freedom, limited-government, and the rights of the individual.

For example, read what "The Conservative Voice" has to offer:

More than one Republican Presidential candidate appearing in Charleston, South Carolina in the much-publicized debate on Fox News Tuesday evening, May 15, mentioned the necessity for a fool-proof, tamper-proof identification card for use in solving America's desperate unlawful immigration problem.

There is such a card which could be made readily available with a basic administration system already in place. This same card could serve multiple purposes and solve major problems. Not only could it be used for a planned and valid immigrant documentation system but it could be used universally for identification by every legally registered voter at the precinct polling place, eliminating voter fraud. It also would repair and correct extensive fraud and counterfeiting of cards in the U.S. Social Security System.

The administrative structure and the vehicle itself already exist in one of America's most highly respected agencies, the U.S. Social Security Administration, in existence for over 70 years.

You can read more about ideas to grow government and bring the federal surveillance up-close-and-personal to Americans' daily lives. Inevitably, this National ID Social Security Card would become a standard for many more transactions.

Why do "conservatives" want to empower the federal government beyond all Constitutional recognition?

Why do "conservatives" show a willingness to abdicate freedom in the face of illegal immigration and terror?

Why do "conservatives" show a willingness to fight for freedom abroad while eroding it at home?

Would such "conservatives" have established a free country in the first place?

Maybe they're not conservative after all.

More on the Real ID Debate: RFID (An older post)

2007-05-19T09:59:00.000-07:00

I posted this elsewhere on 8/29/06

Here is an article essentially asking everyone to stay calm while the biometrics/RFID revolution reduces freedom to a string of digits and the goodwill of the government. Here is a short quote from the article:

While these technologies have been around for a long time, their use in the field of human identification is relatively new—at least, on the broad scale now underway. Starting in 2008, the U.K. Identity Cards Scheme will force everyone over the age of 16 applying for a passport to have their personal biometric details—including fingerprints, eye or facial scans—added to a national identity register. For this reason, we can consider them emerging technologies since their field of use, or scale of use, is still maturing.

Throughout history, emerging technologies have faced the same level of scrutiny, and often mistrust, until they became familiar, better understood and eventually accepted by the masses. This is the basic technology-adoption lifecycle. An example from the industrial age is the locomotive engine. At that time, it was thought that traveling in excess of 30 miles per hour on one of these new locomotives would subject the human body to so much pressure that an individual would not be able to breathe. A more extreme example of technology mistrust involves the Luddites of the early 1800s, who smashed textile machines in various U.K. counties fearing the machines would make their skills obsolete.

I can only say that this is not simply a matter of the old making way for the new. This is a matter of Freedom making way for Control. Really, the above statement is simply a subtle ad hominem attack: calling the slow-to-roll-over ignorant and selfish.

My tour guide through a recent visit to the U.S. Capitol was promoting the ease and benefit that Russians have with their ever-present ID badges. But one must remember recent Russian history to understand their willingness to be so easily monitored.

A people with a heritage of freedom ought to put up a bigger fuss. But I'm afraid that we Americans have lost the whole concept and spirit of Constitutional freedoms for the individual. I, however, am not part of a herd. I am an individual. Do not brand and tag me.

Do we want to live in a society where every retail transaction could become a complete background check--cross-referenced with every database in cyberspace? I can only imagine the "common sense" (read arbitrary) regulations the government can come up with and enforce with this kind of power.

I sometimes hear people say, "Well, what do I have to worry about? I've got nothing to hide." That statement betrays a profound ignorance. It is not a matter of "having nothing to hide." It is a matter of government "having no limits." This kind of surveillance power could make the 4th Amendment obsolete. Forget search warrants. "Searching" is now constant and in real-time.

When you see the word "privacy" in media and government publications, replace it with the word "freedom." It will put things in better perspective. "Privacy" nuts can be easily dismissed. What is really at stake is freedom.

The REAL ID Act is Wrong--Cheap or Expensive

2007-05-19T09:56:00.001-07:00

The problem with the REAL ID Act that it creates a national identification card and grants the federal government an incredible new power to abuse. It doesn't matter if implementing it is cheap or expensive.

It's not about the money.

CATO Institute: REAL ID Rebellion Comes to Illinois

2007-05-16T08:46:00.000-07:00

Jim Harper, Director of Information Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, writes that REAL ID Rebellion Comes to Illinois:

REAL ID-compliant licenses will have a nationally uniform machine-readable technology, most likely a 2D bar code. Government officials would be able to scan us like cans of peaches at the grocery store. We do not want to follow the lead of places like the Soviet Union, apartheid South Africa, and more recently genocide-scarred Rwanda, where national IDs were put to very harmful uses.

In addition to the $17 billion implementation cost, REAL ID will overwhelm already strained DMVs across the country, especially in Illinois with its nearly 13 million people. That is a lot of paperwork. Lines and waiting times are long enough as it is.

Read more here.

I've often thought that people in Washington, DC breath the water and drink the air of "having to do something--whether it is good or not." They are too used to being in control and spending other peoples' money.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: I'm against the "open-border" mentality that our legislators and Presidents have exhibited in the past. But their failure to deal with the issue in recent years is no excuse to overturn the principles of freedom embedded in our heritage and in our Constitution.

What is sad and confusing is that so-called "conservatives" want to use the government's failure as an excuse to bloat its presence in the lives of the individuals. On this issue, many "conservatives" are inconsistent. They say they believe in "limited government." But they support a national id card that creates a platform for immense power and presence for the government.

How many arbitrary and crazy regulations will be more easily enforced through the means of a national id card? Do people really believe that the "minimum" uses will not accrue into various and many uses? How naive and foolish!

I honestly think some people hate illegal immigrants more than they love America-- the ideas that made America free and great.

Just because someone steals something from my house does not make me want to burn my house down. But several "conservatives" are having just such a knee-jerk reaction.

TERRORISM: Here is an interesting quote from Harper's article:

REAL ID proponents are incorrect in stating that a national ID would reduce terrorism; most terror attacks occur in countries that have national ID cards. REAL ID would not add to our country's protections. All that will change is that the terrorists would have to wait in long lines and fill out more paperwork — along with every law-abiding, native-born citizen.

This national id card (REAL ID) leaves the difficult decisions of border control against terrorism undone, but it does enhance the government's ability to track law-abiding citizens, citizens who need relief from a government that is just way too big.

National ID: Biometrics Pinned to Social Security Cards

2007-05-15T06:43:00.000-07:00

Ryan Singel National ID: Biometrics Pinned to Social Security Cards.

The Social Security card faces its first major upgrade in 70 years under two immigration-reform proposals slated for debate this week that would add biometric information to the card and finally complete its slow metamorphosis into a national ID.

Americans should react immediately against such crazy ideas.

Read more here.

In America Things Are Supposed to Be Different

2007-05-14T09:13:00.000-07:00

In America, the government is supposed to be suspect--and constantly watched. The citizens are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

With a national id card, we capitulate to the thinking that citizens are suspect (until properly identified), and the government should have the power of watching.

In America, the government is supposed to be limited as much as possible. The individual is supposed to have as much freedom as possible.

With a national id card, the individual functions--not on his God-given, Constitution-recognized rights--but on the good graces of a government that allows access to society in a software-maze of “red-light/green-light.”

The technocrat rises.

The individual disappears into the digital collective.

A national id card brings the presence of the central government closer to the individual than its ever been. And freedom fades.

Under the current trend, we hear more and more of our obligations to an ever-present government.

We hear very little of the philosophy that made this country great.

Biometrics Still an Issue: Luddites vs. Lemmings

2007-05-11T07:33:00.000-07:00

Digital50.com writes that International Biometrics Industry Association Submits Comments on REAL ID

IBIA supports the goals of REAL ID and the use of biometric technologies to ensure that it is implemented effectively. Biometric technology is the only technology that can bind an authentication or verification event to an actual person. As such, biometrics has an important role in meeting one of the key goals of the REAL ID Act to establish the identity and immigration status of an applicant before a card can be issued.

"Biometrics" include proven technologies that identify or verify individuals based on physiological or behavioral characteristics. Examples of biometric technology include products that recognize faces, hands, fingers, signatures, irises, veins, voices, and fingerprints.

I have to admit to a strong reaction when I see and hear about the rise of biometrics--and the emergence of many biometrics companies salivating at the prospects of a national id card.

Technology is not (usually) inherently good or bad. What we must always be careful about is the application of technology.

And "booking" every citizen through biometrics is the opposite of freedom.

Mr. Chertoff implies that people resisting a national id card are Luddites.

But maybe we are simply Americans who love our heritage and ideals of freedom. Since Mr. Chertoff employs the sublte use of ad hominem remarks, then freedom-loving people should be alllowed to imply that Mr. Chertoff wants to lead a nation of national-id-card-lemmings.

Before we take the biometric plunge as a nation of lemmings, can we please stop for a moment's reflection?

Let's ask ourselves the following questions:

1. Why do we think we can digitally tether every citizen to an ever-present, immanent government and remain free?

2. What does history have to teach us about societies that require identification at every turn? What were they like?

3. Where does the information about our bodies go once it is taken from us and manipulated by others (bureaucrats)?

4. What is the way back once we've see that we've gone the wrong way. (Somehow, I feel a door slamming shut behind us.)

5. Does making society a software maze of red-light/green-light promote freedom of the individual or increase the hold of statism?

6. Have we sacrificed so much in our history simply to turn Uncle Sam into Big Brother? The morphing has already begun. Where will it end?

7. Why do we not look down the road further than a step or two?

8. Why do many conservatives like the idea of increasing the presence and power of government in the lives of the individual?

The current REAL ID regulations do not require the use of biometrics--so far. But the pressure to include biometrics is immense. The pressure of lobbyists who stand to make a lot of money at the expense of the Bill of Rights is not going to go away.

We have some decisions to make.

It seems that we are unconsciously making all the wrong ones.

Federal ID card standards draw harsh criticism

2007-05-10T06:25:00.000-07:00

Bob Brewin of GovernmentExecutive.com writes that Federal ID card standards draw harsh criticism.

Standards proposed by the Homeland Security Department for secure drivers licenses and identification cards issued by all 50 states are drawing fire from state officials.

Some people say that REAL ID is not a national identification card because the federal government is not maintaining one database containing everyone's information. But this is a semantic smoke-screen:

The Real ID Act also requires that states provide other states with access to their databases, which the California DMV said could result in an interconnected virtual database of the 242 million driver's licenses in the country that would be a prime target for hackers and criminals.

With networking, there is no need to maintain ONE database. If all 50 state databases are linked, we--in fact-- have one database in the sense of access to the information. It doesn't matter just where the information lies.

Let's think:

1. The standards for REAL ID are set by THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.

2. The drivers' licenses are will be used for many IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES.

3. The driver's license is a small piece of plastic the size of a credit CARD

Therefore, REAL ID is a NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION CARD.

This is not rocket science.

Read more of Bob's article here.

The Wall Street Journal Weighs In

2007-05-09T05:53:00.000-07:00

The Wall Street Journal Online posted a good editorial yesterday entitled REAL ID Revolt.

The article gives a brief history of the REAL ID Act and says,

Two years later, a growing number of states are telling Congress what it can do with its de facto national ID card decree.

There are a good number of states lined up in opposition to REAL ID, and we can only hope that the number grows. The editorial discusses Representative Sensenbrenner's involvement in this disastrous (and non-conservative) law:

Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy has scheduled a hearing for today on Real ID, the kind of session that usually takes place before something becomes law. Perhaps Mr. Sensenbrenner should be invited to explain the national revolt against his handiwork.

Please read the entire editorial here.

It Never Stops at a "Minimum"

2007-05-08T08:21:00.000-07:00

Companies set to profit by a national identification card are not satisfied with the current 2D barcode standard in the REAL ID regulations:

PRINCETON JUNCTION, NJ, May 8, 2007–The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should not rely on static 2D barcode technology to store citizens’ personal information on REAL ID driver’s licenses or identification cards due to its inherent security drawbacks, according to the Smart Card Alliance’s comments in response to the DHS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on minimum standards for REAL ID cards.

Instead, the Alliance strongly recommends that DHS raise the security level for state-issued driving credentials to equal that which has been mandated in other federal programs, namely by using smart card technology.

If we do not fight the concept of a national identification system, the question will not be "Will this be intrusive to the freedom of the American individual?" The question will be "How intrusive will it be?"

And the answer will be "Very."

Once the door is opened, and 2D barcodes are found to be inadequate for "security," the government will have to start booking Americans through biometrics. The pressure to do so is here now--and it won't go away:

Smart cards, on the other hand, support:

The encryption of sensitive data, both on the credential and during communications with an external reader

Digital signatures which can be used to ensure data integrity

Multiple digital signatures which are required if different authorities create data stored on the card

Advanced security technologies such as public key cryptography and biometrics

Many conservatives think the REAL ID Act is a "reasonable" measure.

I would rather stand on principles--American principles.

National Id Cards are against everything America is supposed to be.

Coalition attacks Real ID Act regulations

2007-05-03T08:54:00.000-07:00

I hate siding with the ACLU, but here we are. I guess it's the stopped clock syndrome. They can't be wrong all the time. Although it seems like they are trying. But.... Back to REAL ID:

Forty-three civil liberties and consumer organizations have started a national campaign against the Real ID Act regulations issued by the Homeland Security Department because they believe the new identification system will have serious negative impacts on privacy and civil rights.

The campaign was announced Tuesday and seven additional groups joined today, bringing the total involved to 50. The purpose of the effort is “to stop the nation’s first national ID system,” the coalition said.

The groups, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, say they are worried about increased threat of counterfeiting and identity theft due to lack of security to protect against unauthorized access to the information on the ID cards....

“Under the act, states and federal government would share access to a vast national database that could include images of birth certificates, marriage licenses, divorce papers, court ordered separations, medical records and detailed information on the name, date of birth, race, religion, ethnicity, gender, address, telephone, e-mail address and Social Security number for more than 240 million (people), with no requirements or controls on how this database might be used,” the coalition said.

Please, read more here.

Also, be sure to read this post by Mark Rhoads at Illinois Review: Crossroads of the Conservative Community.

There are people of good will on many sides of this debate who sincerely want to see the security of driver's licenses improved and other people who do not want see their privacy made more vulnerable to ID theft. Both opinions are valid and no law or set of regulations is going to please everyone so a brief time out is needed. Nothing has yet really happened. It has all been planning up until now. State motor agencies are doing their cost studies to find out what it will take to comply including of course the cost to hire new employees to verify birth certificates. They will have until the year 2013 to make sure that issues such as U.S. birth certificates, green cards, and other valid evidence must be used and verified before a state can issue a driver's license.

I will try to follow his further postings on the subject and enter the debate somewhat.

I'm curious as to why fellow conservatives are falling in love with big government.

A strange blend indeed.

I have yet to hear a good answer.

Believe me, I'm listening.