Last Friday, head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Michael Chertoff (whom I gave the evil eye in a CNN green room) announced the final regulations of the REAL ID Act.
Among other things, states have until May 2008 to comply with the law to keep residents’ current IDs valid for air travel (intent to comply is OK at this point), or seek waivers. Final implementation will be delayed until 2017.
Signed into law in 2005, the REAL ID Act was a response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, or more specifically, to the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations that the federal government set standards for identification cards. REAL ID requires states to comply with these standards if they wish to continue receiving federal dollars.
Perhaps the most distinguishing feature of REAL ID (and my favorite) is the requirement that people seeking a driver’s license prove they’re in the country legally. States must verify that these proof-of-status documents and social security numbers are legitimate. And DMVs will be required to take license photos at the beginning of the process instead of at the end. Why? If the person ends up not getting a license because they don’t have the necessary documents, their photos will be on file. The idea is to link up state databases, so if such people attempt to get a license in another state, a record of their failed attempts will show up. Additionally, the new IDs supposedly will be tamper-proof.
Americans will need a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license or photo ID card for “official purposes” like boarding airplanes and entering federal buildings. Residents of non-complying states will be hassled more than usual when trying to board planes and enter federal builders. A regular driver’s license won’t cut it. They’ll have to show ID like passports.
REAL ID implementation will take place in stages. For instance, by the end of 2009, states must check the legal status of driver’s license applicants with DHS. By 2014, license holders born after 1964 will be required to have a REAL ID driver’s license. By 2017, all license holders will be required to carry one. The extensions are designed to reduce the costs of implementing the new law.
Seventeen states openly oppose REAL ID (including my home state of SC), citing funding and/or privacy concerns. Some believe the idea of a national database is dangerous. Others say it’s too much government control. They fear that one day, REAL IDs will be required to vote or open a bank account or even rent a DVD.
Other say we’ll be vulnerable to computer hackers with access to our personal information. DHS says REAL ID is not a “national ID,” and the information contained in DMV databases will not be available “willy nilly,” whatever that means.
While I also have concerns about privacy, I’m willing to take the risk if REAL ID will make it tougher for terrorists and illegal aliens to obtain valid IDs and stop them from entering or remaining in the country. Islamofascists have mucked it up for everybody. Don’t be angry with the federal government for trying to do something to secure the homeland; vent your anger on thugs who make it necessary for us to secure the homeland.
Is REAL ID borderline Big Brother-ish? Probably. But the older I get, the more willing I am to give up just a little bit of my privacy to make the country safer for all Americans. How about you?
(Photo source: Hartford Courant)
Sources:
{ 37 comments }
As usual, we have to use the 9/11 test: would this have stopped 9/11?
Nope. Most of the hijackers were here legally. So, you can give up your privacy, but you’ll gain nothing.
The real answer to nutty Muslims crashing planes is to inform the passengers ahead of time that they’ll probably die if the hijacking is allowed, so don’t allow any hijacking. Problem solved.
What about illegal aliens? Do you believe REAL ID will stop them from getting driver’s licenses? If so, isn’t that a good thing?
This is a big real crap pot, Real ID is a real joke! I was born in the U.S and if I don’t have the documents needed or my state don’t comply I will be treat like a Illegal immigration WTF! Some of my family were born in New Orleans half of the stuff they need for this is down the grand old mississippi river, shame on the good old boys in the white house for using 9/11 to high jack people on the hill to pass there own agenda. Also shame on you people for letting bush in for other term what ever your smoking I want some too!
I don’t mind if IDs have to comply with standards, and I agree with requiring a person to provide proof of legal residence to get one, as long as it is still Indiana (my state) issuing the ID, not the federal government.
I also have a problem with the feds blackmailing the states into compliance.
My father-in-law was killed in a car accident some months ago by an illegal alien. The kid had been drinking a lot either on the job or immediately after work. He then went home, crested a hill on a narrow country road, crossed the center line, and slammed into my FIL’s car, killing him on impact. The kid’s vehicle went into a field and started on fire. He died at the hospital. He has family here; I think they are here legally, but I’m not sure.
He might not have been out on the road that night if REAL ID had been in place earlier. He had a Wisconsin driver’s license that was obtained with a Mexican Consulate ID. If I drew a picture of myself in crayon with my left hand on some construction paper and took it into the DMV to get a driver’s license, it would be pretty much the same thing as using a Consulate ID. They’re worthless.
As a US citizen, I believe I needed several forms of identification when I first got my license nine years ago. I think it was something like a birth certificate or SS card, a bill with my address and name on it, and perhaps my high school ID. It was a while ago, so I don’t know exactly what I needed, but it was quite a bit of stuff.
So, in a way, this is good but rather bittersweet news to me. I am wondering about privacy issues. I don’t understand the connection between this and renting movies in the future. If someone could explain it to me…
Why should I have to show an ID to get on a plane, anyway? I don’t have to for any other form of travel within the country.
I have little issue with some baseline standards for driver licenses, but any time you have the words “creating a national database” in a sentence, you should get a tingle.
Let me clarify something: I’m all about making it more difficult to get a license; it should not be as easy as walking into the DMV with a consulate ID card and being handed a license. That’s insane. That’s the part of REAL ID that I can stand behind.
Michael, I understand your concerns, but it is possible to get replacement birth certificates and SS cards. I’ve done it myself. Granted, there may be so many people putting in requests like that in Louisiana right now that the system is backed up. I have no idea what the situation is. But you can get those things replaced.
It will not, of course, remove all drunk drivers from the roads (in high school alone, some ten or more of my Wisconsin-born classmates got DUI’s and a slap on the wrist), but it will hopefully remove more than a few.
The social security number was not ‘intended’ to be used as an identifier…but guess what you are identified by your SS #.
Real ID? A good idea brought to you by Big Brother himself.
It is not a question of methodology; it is the question of liberty. The fact that “the Government” is restricting the essential liberties of the citizen is what should be questioned (vigorously!), not the size, shape, and color of the shackles and who gets to put them on you.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)
I understand the concerns here, but let’s be honest: they are the same concerns that apply to ANY verification of identity. No matter how it’s done it’s an invasion of privacy. If you admit the need for ID at all, then it must be legitimate, verifiable ID. And if there is a reason to have immigration laws, then there must be a way to enforce them. There’s going to be some tradeoff no matter what. The question is whether we are going to back up our words with actions.
Michael Chaney–
So all we have to do to prevent hijacking is to tell the passengers they’ll die if there is one? How in the world will that help? Surely you don’t suppose that hijackings are the fault of the bystanders. The passengers on Flight 93 didn’t “allow” the hijacking, but they’re all still dead.
REAL ID will not stop a thing. Already the some states DMV offices were crippled due to the new requirements overwhelming the computer systems. Then you add in the fact none of the records were checked for accuracy before rolling out this program. The example is the police officer who had a DOB mismatch, well now he has to prove who he is. Genius just genius.
This law will be repealed or gutted soon enough, once businesses realize the cheap labor pool can not get to work.
REAL ID is not a solution it is problem to fix another problem.
Real ID? We now have fingerprints on drivers licenses. How much more real can you get? Another step closer to the mark of the beast.
What I’d like to know is, why isn’t the government more concerned about the identity of law firms with whom Americans trust their legal business? Why is the law office located at 127 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA allowed to CONTINUE BEING ADVERTISED as the Atlanta office of the (Johnny) Cochran Firm (see their Internet ads), when that law firm held in Fulton Co. Superior Court of Georgia that it is NO SUCH THING? Either that law office is guilty of perjury to dodge having to answer my family’s suit for fraud, or it is guilty of a lot of false advertising. (See DOCUMENTATION tab at http://wrongfuldeathoflarryneal.com)
I made the FTC aware of this firm possibly using an alias to dodge court proceedings about 8 months ago, and all I know that they did was open a file number. WHAT IS THE REAL I.D. OF THIS LAW FIRM? The Cochran Firm is advertised as the “largest single plaintiffs’ law firm in America.” Now, I don’t have a law degree, but back in first grade, I was taught that words like “the” and “single” mean ONE. Try to sue those frauds, and they break into 20 different pieces. Come to them with your law case, and they impress you to death with how big their law firm (no “s”) is! A law firm’s identity should not depend upon whether you are coming to serve a suit or get lawyers to handle your suit. MAKE THE COCHRAN FIRM STAND UP TO ONE IDENTITY, or admit that it is just an association of 20 little law offices capitalizing off the fame of a dead guy.
Mary Neal
Assistance to the Incarcerated Mentally Ill
P.O. Box 7222
Atlanta, GA 30357
mln@wrongfuldeathoflarryneal.com
mneal000@yahoo.com
Sigh. Trish, we don’t have to tell people that they’ll likely die if a plane is hijacked, we all know this now. Hijacking a plane requires the cooperation of everybody else on a plane. Nobody cooperates – no hijacking.
In case you haven’t figured it out, hijacking is finished since 9/11. The government can’t do anything to stop what happened that day, but they don’t have to since ultimately the other passengers are the only ones who can stop it. And they will, given the chance. I don’t think they’ll have that chance, though. It’s doubtful that anyone will try to use planes again.
Ben Franklin said “Those that give up liberty for security deserver neither security are liberty. We used to be the land of the brave, now we are the land of the afraid. How sad.
La Shawn–you ask some good questions. While my initial reaction to this is a low snarl, I am pragmatic enough to know that unless you live in bubble and have no credit, the idea of “privacy” as libertarians see it is obsolete.
You have given a good summary of the law. I think it is ridiculous to say (as its proponents do) that this will not become a National ID. The question is, will having a national ID fundamentally change our current way of life? I don’t think it will.
If citizens truly want the federal government to protect them from terrorism and illegal immigration, they must give them the tools to do it. If citizens are unwilling to grant the federal government this tool, then do not complain when criminals use the various states to game the system.
#11: “Then you add in the fact none of the records were checked for accuracy before rolling out this program. The example is the police officer who had a DOB mismatch, well now he has to prove who he is. Genius just genius.”
This is exactly the problem with the program regardless of how good its intent may be. In the end, it always ends up hurting law-abiding citizens more than it punishes criminals or prevents crime. It doesn’t make anyone safer at all.
It has some good points, like getting a person’s photo at the start of the process (already in use for getting passports), or cross-checking ss#, but the whole “national database” thing is a bunch of hooey that’s just a sitting duck for infiltration and screw ups.
>>”If the person ends up not getting a license because they don’t have the necessary documents, their photos will be on file. The idea is to link up state databases, so if such people attempt to get a license in another state, a record of their failed attempts will show up.”
If this happens, why not put only those people into a database? Why put everyone into a giant, messy pot and clog up the works? And sorry, there’s no such thing as tamper proof.
There have to be other ways to tighten security using the info already available.
Michael Chaney–
I wish I lived in your dream world. I wish that hijacking were finished, and that all it took to prevent one was to have one person on the plane not cooperate. But if that were true, there would never have been any airplane hijackings anywhere, at any time.
It’s nice to pretend, but pretending that passengers are the ones who prevent hijackings is only endangering us all.
The biggest weakness to any system is human operators and/or poor implementation. Since we know criminals/terrorists are too stupid to be patient and find and exploit weaknesses this REALID law will work like a charm.
Um, Trish, I didn’t say “one person”. It’s everybody on the plane. Ask Richard Reid how easy it is to try to do something on a plane.
Or look at flight 83. By the time the passengers realized what was going on, they ended the hijacking. In case you missed the story there, they apparently tortured and killed the unlucky hijacker who was outside of the cockpit. The others would have gotten the same fate had they been able to enter the cockpit.
This isn’t “fantasy”, it’s reality. Hijacking of airplanes is finished. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be diligent, but the reality is that the only people who can stop it are those on the plane, and history has shown that the other passengers are more than capable of taking care of business.
Seriously.
“He who would give up essential liberties for temporary security will soon have neither.”
-Ben Franklin
Dear FL Mum;
I beg to disagree. Public Key Infrastructure is tamper-proof. Many encryption schemes (such as SSL, PGP and Rijndael) are, in fact, infeasible to hack/crack in a non-trivial (i.e. brute force) manner. The EMV smart chips used in many modern passports and credit cards are also infeasible to crack.
So much for the technical details. However, if you refer to the human component, then yeah, we won’t ever be ‘tamper-proof’ if only because of human stupidity and corruptibility. This does not mean that you stop issuing drivers’ licenses because the instructors can be bribed. Which they most certainly can, in Malaysia.
The whole point of Voter ID is to increase the bar on authenticating your right to vote. It is not much different from employee security/door tags/IDs, when you come right down to it.
I have a problem with being treated like a criminal to catch criminals.
While I see the need to bar Illegal’s getting Drivers licenses, I fail to see why my privacy needs to be severely invaded.
I was born in Michigan, 42 years ago, I have no criminal record other than some traffic violations, but now I have to register like a sex offender to drive a car or board a plane?
Bad idea and I won’t comply.
#13, #17:
Michael, you make a good point here, which I don’t think many of us have thought about. Now that you mention it, I don’t remember hearing of a single air-jacking since 9/11 (except the kid who flew into a FL office bldg in “a low-budget sequel”).
The point is also well-taken that passengers would now stop a hijacking. How about we citizens step up and stop crime? We used to–until it got to be legally more risky for the crime-stopper than for the criminal.
We are profiled in private and government data bases. Your cell phone tracks your movement. My car is tracked by GPS. The social security number is the primary source of identification (even though it is not to be used for identification.)
A national ID card is just around the corner.
There is no right to privacy. This is mainly true because there is no workable definition of “Privacy.” The Bill of Rights protects you against unreasonable state intrusion on your person, papers or property. But your DNA, fingerprints, photo image, etc. are fair game.
The Real ID is just the first step toward getting the states to make their driver’s license program a uniform and reliable identification system.
Illegal aliens will have a much tougher time if they can not get an official state ID.
I am for tougher standards for the states and a national ID card.
Perhaps I am relaxed about the idea because I do not have anything to hide. So far as “Big Brotherism” is concerned, people who have not read “1984″ since high school need to revisit it. We already know a great deal about our citizens. Why do you want to extend anonymity to those in the underground?
I have a hard time understanding why people are more concerned with their privacy when it comes to voting or boarding a plane than they are about needing an ID to get into a bar, buy a pack of cigarettes, apply for medicaid or social security disability, etc. Makes no sense at all to me.
Lashawn: This is over the top and I am not comparing one with the other but the resemblence in scary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-Sturmbrigade_Dirlewanger
I have trouble thinking of ways in which the government can make it difficult for illegal immigrants to get IDs without insisting on a set of standards.
And to reference the Ben Franklin quote everyone’s been throwing around, I don’t think this situation qualifies as “temporary security” when the stated goal of terrorists is “death to America.”
#1: Excellent point, Michael. However, there is another consideration which I have concluded is important, too.
First, Michael, your point: What measures, if they had been in place before 9/11, would have stopped it? Basically, I believe, only one: Armored cockpit doors. If the hijackers had not been able to enter the cockpits no matter what, 9/11 couldn’t have happened, at least not beyond the deaths of all the passengers and cabin crew, and the hijackers could not have martyred themselves.
True, the hijackers had weapons, but they were limited to weapons which would slip through security. Such weapons exist today; try taking away every passenger’s ballpoint pen, a potential lethal weapon.
The hijackers didn’t carry explosives; the plane did.
The hijackers had valid IDs.
Back to my second consideration: Security also includes emotional security. Therefore, measures must be taken which go beyond the strictly objective so that passengers and would-be passengers will feel safe. This justifies a good deal of the screening we experience. A major part of the government’s job after 9/11 was to make people feel safe flying again.
The news last year of liquid, mixable-on-board explosives led to the ban on carry-on liquids. This was not only possibly reasonable-though-reactive, it also forestalled the embarrassment/scare phenomenon that would have resulted from an official decision to treat the risk as negligible combined with the leaked news that there had been such a threat.
A key part of the air traffic security is the public perception that the government is on top of the situation, and if there’s anything we need to know, they’ll tell us. Even though some liberals have mocked the color-coded threat levels and the publication thereof, this is a significant part of public perception of being safe.
So, Michael, I think we have to look at your point, but also at this second point. The actions taken need (and the actions need to be taken) to effectively thwart if not prevent terrorism AND the actions taken need/the actions need to be taken which will give the public a perception they are safe.
(BTW, I don’t see how a “Real ID” will do either job.)
Dooz, in a long war on terrorism, I do not think that “emotional security” is possible or even a worthy goal.
You may be right that “Real ID” would not have prevented 9/11. With Real ID there may be future attacks, but that is not necessarily because of a Real ID failure.
The public is not safe and there is nothing to be gained by giving the public a false sense of security or “a perception they are safe” as you state it.
Our biggest security threat is a complacent and bored public that is feels that this whole terrorism thing is s-o-o-o-o yesterday!!!
Heliotrope, that’s an excellent point! I agree that public complacency is a big problem. When I was a firefighter, I learned (if I didn’t already know it) that the leading cause of fires and losses in fires is–I’m going to say it this way–public stupidity.
People leave home with food on the stove, use charcoal grills to heat on cold nights, store stacks of newspaper next to the gas hot water heater–and on and on! Did I mention taking the batteries out of the smoke detector? There has been public education since 1871 (the Chicago Fire), but the results have been far from ideal.
If we would observe our surroundings and report suspicious people, packages, etc., we could be more secure.
Oh, wait! We do that. I monitor the local fire departments and I hear calls for suspicious packages all the time; apparently people are not, as you assert, complacent and bored.
However, this issue is not quite the same, I don’t think, as the public having a perception that air travel is safe, that the Feds are at least giving a really good try at providing protection/detection. And since whenever I see airline passengers interviewed regarding the latest change in airport screening, and most say that the security measures and the delays they cause are worth it for the security and peace of mind, I would suggest that the general perception is not that national security is “s-o-o-o-o yesterday”.
Dooz, I do encounter plenty of people who think that the whole terrorism thing is pure politics. I also encounter lots of folks who think that radical Islam can be negotiated with smooth talking. I gave a talk to a group who think that there is no reason why Iran shouldn’t have nukes because Israel and the US have them. They think it is hypocritical for us to oppose their “right” to have nukes.
I realize that my Valley Girl reference (s-o-o-o yesterday) is not really what I meant to say. What I really think is that there are plenty of Americans who put opposition politics above common sense security.
I fly a great deal. Most people are ready and able to deal with the TSA. I see very few complaints. (There are still the people who rarely fly and get flustered easily. I think there should be a line for them where the TSA helps them face the ordeal.)
As I said before, I favor a national ID card. The airlines could use the help. I carry my passport for domestic flights and it often speeds things along.
re: “If citizens are unwilling to grant the federal government this tool, then do not complain when criminals use the various states to game the system.” (Comment by Eilish — 01.15.08 @ 12:23 am)
Trouble is the tools are all in place (existing laws) to accomplish the stated goals of “Real ID”.
They are just not used.
When the “criminals use the various states to game the system”, hammer them. Don’t turn them loose and then pass a law that punishes evrybody.
The only gun control laws that have emperical proof of success are those that mandate a fixed sentence for crimes committed with a firearm – usually in addition to the time for the crime.
Many fear the new ID requirements of DHS more than muslim terrorists. Fine. Why not let the free market cater to them? Allow an airline company to provide flights that do not demand any form of ID to board the plane. The benefits would include keeping his anonymity from government and, especially nice, no lost time standing in line for security checks. Islamist sympathizers, including the ACLU, will welcome the refrain from any perceived profiling. However, they may have to pay more on the air ticket to cover increased wages for flight personnel, if any can be found, and increased insurance to cover losses of the planes. What remains to be seen is if they, ACLU staff, and islamist apologizers put their life where their mouth is?
I agree with #22 with respect to being treated like a criminal & I challenge this assumption whenever I am able.
Didn’t Brandeis describe the right to privacy as the right to be left alone?
‘Didn’t Brandeis describe the right to privacy as the right to be left alone?”
Let alone doing what? Lighting your shoes?
I already have a “real id/national id” It says US Navy Retired. I don’t need another one. The current one is paid for. No further discussion is required from Snakehead Chertoff or any of his minions.
#21 The human component automatically renders any security measure “not tamper proof.” Criminals will always find a work-around because their whole intent is to break the law. Meanwhile, we honest citizens are the ones getting shafted if there’s a mistake on our info in the data entry stage, if someone steals our identity, etc.
Does current info like SS#, etc. need to be used more efficiently for security? Yes. Is Real ID the answer? No.
#28 >>”Basically, I believe, only one: Armored cockpit doors.”
There’s another: armed pilots. Israeli airlines greatly reduced rampant hijackings by training their pilots in gun control and arming them with pistols while on duty.
Comments on this entry are closed.