Matthew L. 5/22/08 (14)
The Real ID Act (an act concerning a National ID card) has faced great opposition since it was first attached to a military bill and made law. Could a National ID card really be as bad as everyone says it is?
History
The real ID act was originally written by Representative James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin who managed to attach it to a necessary military bill. The bill passed the senate and, in 2005, the president signed it. On January 11, 2008 the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) released the final rule (see part 1 and part 2 by clicking on the links).
What it is
The act sets minimum standards for ID cards and drivers licenses set by the federal government. These requirements include:
● Your full name
● Date of birth
● Signature
● Gender
● Photograph
● Physical security features
● Address
● Driver's License
As opposed to what some people think, these requirements do not include RFID technology. The final rule says "DHS is not requiring that States employ RFID in REAL ID Act cards; rather the only technology required by the final rule is the use of the PDF4 17 bar code, which most States already use on their cards." However the barcode lets whoever is scanning it in (law enforcement officers) can see if the information on the card has been duplicated or not. What if hackers got into it?
The Issues
It is in question whether the real ID act is constitutionally correct. In the tenth amendment it states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". Wikipedia Quotes Anthony Romero who says "... Real ID is an unfunded mandate that violates the Constitution's 10th Amendment on state powers, destroys states' dual sovereignty and consolidates every American's private information, leaving all of us far more vulnerable to identity thieves."
Some people who don't agree with the real ID act say that it could eventually become necessary to have in order to do basic things, such as open a bank account and vote. In response, the DHS Final Rule says "DHS... understands the concerns raised in the comments about how a REAL ID might be used outside of the defined "official purposes" identified in the Act and this final rule. DHS does not intend that a REAL ID document become a de facto national identification card. Whether States choose to require presentation of a REAL ID for State purposes is not within the purview of DHSYs authority under the Act - which applies to documents that Federal agencies can accept for official purposes - and thus is outside of the scope of this rule making." This is what DHS says, but couldn't this evolve over time?
Another big issue is the way that the real ID act got in. As I have mentioned, it was attached to a must – pass bill. Congress did not revue or debate the real ID act. How James Sensenbrenner got this through is wrong and should not be allowed.
Also a point of controversy is the problem of how the state is supposed to pay for the real ID. This was a question until the federal government promised $79.8 million to assist the states. But the question is: will it be enough?
State Opposition
According to Wikipedia, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, and Utah are all opposed to real ID while other states are considering it. The reasons they aren't complying include some of the aforementioned issues. Isn't this enough to make federal government realize that this is a problem?
Presidential Candidates Views
Ron Paul strongly opposes the real ID act, saying:
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. This bill purports to make us safer from terrorists who may sneak into the United States, and from other illegal immigrants. While I agree that these issues are of vital importance, this bill will do very little to make us more secure. It will not address our real vulnerabilities. It will, however, make us much less free. In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty.
Hillary Clinton says that the act needs to be reviewed, saying:
I believe we need to seriously re-examine Real ID and make changes that take into account legitimate concerns raised by states. I have long expressed concern with the Real ID Act, dating back to its initial consideration in the Senate in the spring of 2005.
Had there been an opportunity to properly consider this legislation, it would have been revealed that the Real ID Act imposes dramatic new burdens on our states and substantially changes our immigration and asylum laws in ways that deserve critical examination.
Among other things, Real ID's driver's license provisions impose a massive unfunded mandate on states, while ignoring our broken immigration system.
But there never was an opportunity to consider it properly. Senate Republicans brought this legislation up for a vote without holding hearings or engaging in serious debate, and by tacking it on to an emergency spending bill for our troops. By employing these tactics, Republicans revealed that they were determined to bulldoze this law through without serious discussion. I support a comprehensive review of Real ID to determine whether its various ID provisions make sense in light of our very real security needs and the challenges facing our states.
Barack Obama is opposed to the Real Id act. When asked about it, he said "I do not support the Real ID program because it is an unfunded mandate, and not enough work has been done with the states to help them implement the program."
In support of real ID, McCain says:
The 9/11 Commission recommended that the federal government set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as driver's licenses. Consistent with these recommendations, the Real ID act established federal guidelines to prevent fraud in the issuance and acquisition of identity documents. I support full implementation of Real ID but understand that states need to be given enough time and funding to implement the requirements.
Summary – My Opinion
I myself do not think that the actual real ID act is an entirely bad thing. The bad part is what may come after the real ID goes into effect. It may evolve into a citizen tracking system or something like that.
Please note: The real ID act will go into effect in 2011. A real ID card will be required for air travel and entering federal buildings.
If you feel something in this article is false or you would like to know more, please refer to the real ID final rule.
Part 1: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary
1 comment:
Nice article, Matthew. Here are a few concerns:
Funding - why should the federal government pay? Because it's a federally mandated program. But our federal government is already WAY overspending. The federal government needs NO additional spending program, it needs to cut back.
Constitutionality - The founding fathers wanted a very limited federal government. Add the real ID act will just increases its power.
Privacy - Many people are against the real ID act because they fear for their privacy and that the card will be required for more than the act calls for now. And I believe that fear is valid, just look at what happened with the social security number/card. It was originally intended only for wage earners to keep track of taking out social security taxes. Now you are required to get one for babies, to open a banking account, to purchase a new car, to attend college, to apply for a credit card, etc...
Post a Comment