backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 221 comment(s) - last by christojojo.. on Jan 14 at 3:44 PM

A new ID system will make US citizens more secure, according to the government

Trust in government data responsibility is at an all time low internationally, following Britain’s lost of millions of citizens' personal data including addresses and bank information.  In the U.S., the sentiment is slightly better, as there have been no major publicly acknowledged data losses despite regular attacks on government systems by hackers.

Now the U.S. federal government is looking to put even more data in government hands, hoping that it can keep up its good record of responsibility.  The plan is part of ambitious post 9/11 rules passed by the federal government in order to make citizens "safer." 

All U.S. citizens born after Dec. 1, 1964, must obtain new driver's licenses within six years.  These driver's licenses will contain additional information and ways of extracting info quickly, and the citizen data will be shared between government branches; something that had not previously been done on this scale.

The basis of this development is the REAL ID Act, passed into law by Congress in 2005.  The system aims to thwart terrorists, illegal immigrants and con artists
by preventing them from manufacturing fake IDs.  The program has been met with skepticism from state officials both due to costs involved and privacy concerns.

Due to this resistance, the plan has been pushed back from more rapid adoption to about 6 years, with the key deadline being 2011 and additional measures being enacted within three years of that.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff worked on promoting the currently confidential set of rules for the project through a state and federal government advisory board.  He said, "We worked very closely with the states in terms of developing a plan that I think will be inexpensive, reasonable to implement and produce the results.  This is a win-win. As long as people use driver's licenses to identify themselves for whatever reason there's no reason for those licenses to be easily counterfeited or tampered with."

The Department of Homeland Security (DOHS) originally estimated a total cost of the program at $14.6 billion USD, the cost of which would be shared amongst the states.  Now, the DOHS is stating that it will only cost $3.9 billion USD total.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been vocally opposing the initiative, which they say violates citizens' rights to privacy.  Furthermore, they point to instances of what happened in Britain, and say that with more proliferated citizen data throughout the federal and state government, it will be far easier to lose citizen's valuable private information.  The ACLU says the initiative is effectively the
"first-ever national identity card system," and "would irreparably damage the fabric of American life."

The over 50 exemption was given to help give states time to adjust their older citizens to the law.  However, even the older folks will need one of the new IDs in order to board a plane by 2017.

The new licenses will include three additional security layers, but no microchips -- yet.  This will likely comfort some of RFID's vocal opponents.  Secretary of State offices will now take pictures for licenses at the start, instead of the end the application process, so upon rejection, the person will be put in the system in case they try to return or forge a license.  Additionally, it'll mandate all states to perform social security checks when licensing.

This program is representative of the major government drive in recent years to increase security, even at the expense of cost and privacy.  Many of the stateside logistics are already in place in some states; others will be forced to update their procedures.  Meanwhile on the federal level, the government must embark on the massive task of network citizen data between its branches and attempting to keep this data secure.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Brave New World?
By youdosuck on 1/11/2008 2:20:06 PM , Rating: 3
And So it Begins!!!!




RE: Brave New World?
By thejez on 1/11/2008 2:25:35 PM , Rating: 1
this is the kind of stuff that scares the crap out of me.. the government doesnt do hardly anything right... so less of my info they have the better... this is why Ron Paul has my vote.


RE: Brave New World?
By clovell on 1/11/2008 2:31:32 PM , Rating: 1
Dude, the government already has this information. We're talking about your driver's license, not your genetic code. And if you read the details, and bypass Jason's rhetoric here, you'll notice that the UK records loss was the fault of a contractor in the US, not the UK government.

I understand people's lack of faith in the competence of the government, but not not when it isn't warranted.


RE: Brave New World?
By thejez on 1/11/2008 2:36:43 PM , Rating: 2
drivers license is a state id... this is federal... i consider them different in scope AND application.


RE: Brave New World?
By clovell on 1/11/2008 2:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
It sounds more like a federal database of state drivers' coupled with a ferally-determined standardization of said licenses - not a second license.


RE: Brave New World?
By clovell on 1/11/2008 2:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
*federally

I lol'd at ferally...=D


RE: Brave New World?
By MrBungle on 1/11/2008 2:47:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The system aims to thwart terrorists, illegal immigrants and con artists by preventing them from manufacturing fake IDs.


I think the point is, what about the stated objective above warrants a move from state to federal control of licensing? Why can't states continue to manufacture (or begin manufacturing) more secure IDs by themselves, without the oversight of the federal government?

Why the need to centralize this data into a federal database, unless there are ulterior motives here? To me, it sounds like yet another opportunistic way to mold a legitimate problem (ID counterfeiting) into a means of centralizing power within the federal government.


RE: Brave New World?
By clovell on 1/11/2008 3:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
Being able to cut back on forgeries will help tighten the borders and sharing information across the country among law enforcement will help police. Terrorism isn't my area of expertise - so you've got me there.

States can't do this themselves because it's rather difficult to get 50 people into a room and make a collective decision, let alone 50 states.


RE: Brave New World?
By clovell on 1/11/2008 3:47:34 PM , Rating: 2
Stop equivocating, dude. The feds aren't taking control of licensing. They're asking states to meet a standard so that government agencies (state and federal) can have access to the licensing information.

Why the need? To aid law enforcement and cut down on forgeries.


RE: Brave New World?
By MrBungle on 1/11/2008 4:19:17 PM , Rating: 4
There's no "asking" in legislation. Mandating a standard, forcing the cost on the states and then having direct access to the results is taking control, is it not?

Aside from that, "to aid law enforcement" and to cut down on forgeries are two very distinct things. The latter is a preventative measure - one that the states can do, and are already doing, by themselves (e.g. magnetic strips on licenses) - whereas the former is a very vague, general statement that has historically shown to be ripe for abuse. The federal government hasn't had this kind of access to our information in the history of the U.S. specifically because they shouldn't have it. The ACLU has a very valid argument here.

I'm sorry, but we can't take this "government has our best interests in mind" attitude for granted anymore. Anyone who has followed the legal conquests of the Bush administration - and I'm not talking about what little gets reported through mass media outlets - knows that any more centralization of power with the federal government is a major cause for concern among private citizens. That's not Bush-bashing, either - I only use his administration as an example of what can happen when federal power goes unchecked. In my opinion, anyone who thinks that this information will be used for purely benevolent purposes is delusional.


RE: Brave New World?
By clovell on 1/11/2008 4:54:36 PM , Rating: 4
> Aside from that, "to aid law enforcement" and to cut down on forgeries are two very distinct things. The latter is a preventative measure - one that the states can do, and are already doing, by themselves (e.g. magnetic strips on licenses)

Not on this scale, they're not.

> The federal government hasn't had this kind of access to our information in the history of the U.S.

Yes, they have. IRS and Social Security. They have this information already. Are there men in black suits knocking on your door? No. QED.


RE: Brave New World?
By Alexstarfire on 1/11/2008 7:47:03 PM , Rating: 3
Well, it never says what information they are going to have on these cards. If it's the same stuff that's already on my driver's license then I don't see a problem. And it's true that they have access to this information, but it's all never been in one place. I'd rather have all my data scattered about so it's harder for hackers and such to acquire all my information. Sure, it might take the government a bit of time to get it all as well, but my privacy comes way before convenience.


RE: Brave New World?
By clovell on 1/12/2008 11:35:15 AM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind, though, that you live in one state right now, all this information is there.e


RE: Brave New World?
By eye smite on 1/11/2008 2:41:59 PM , Rating: 5
The thing you're seeing in most of the comments here is they are taking more of our freedoms away. This country was founded on the principles of freedom. Now days you're as free as you can afford to be in this country. Very soon freedom will be a delusion just like the locks on your front door that are supposed to keep intruders out.


RE: Brave New World?
By mdogs444 on 1/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Brave New World?
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 3:23:45 PM , Rating: 3
How about people who don't have sufficient documentation to obtain a national identity card? E.g., poor, homeless, elderly, mentally ill, etc.?

You see, the next step after this, is to mandate that any US citizen be able to produce an identity card, otherwise they can be detained by police. You see this already as part of the law in other countries such as Germany.

Is it too hard to understand how this would enable discrimination against certain classes of US citizens?

Look at our history, if you want to understand our future.


RE: Brave New World?
By mdogs444 on 1/11/08, Rating: 0