On 5/11/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I never claimed it was good, I just see all the moaning that it's so > bad but no details. I want to here the specific fears before I choose > a position.
Well Angel and I have both posted links to aspects of it. But I'll put my own take on it here. In the generic sense, it's a principle thing. Fundamentally, personal identification is the opposite of privacy. If you want to get a little more grounded in the Constitutional provisions, IIRC the only thing the Constitution really is supposed to let the Federal government do regarding tracking individuals is to perform a census. Everything else is the State's responsibility. Of course the FBI probably shouldn't exist either, but hey we're all sheep. I'm not so naive though as to hope that we'll all be able to cut our cards and romp around naked and free. (But doesn't it sound fun?) So it really comes down to implementation details of what we're going to have to live with. I'll admit that I haven't combed the actual legislation. I've mostly only read commentary about it. But from what I've read, there are some big questions that the Real ID plan raises. 1. Tech issues - One of the things that has been talked about quite a bit is how new technologies really change what an ID can mean. Angel mentioned RFID which definitely can track people in real-time. The specific technology isn't defined in the language, and even if it's not RFID, it's supposed to be a "machine readable" implentation, possibly magnetic stripes or bar codes that would be read by scanners. Sure credit cards have that now, but privacy laws prevent that information being used without a warrant. With a government ID, the swipe would be checking against a government database where the privacy limitations are about as strong as a piece of tissue paper (speaking as someone who works at a government institution). As someone who works in tech, you probably know how trivial it would be then to track a person in near-real-time. To be fair, my current driver's license has a "machine readable" bar code sorta thing on it. It's just the same information as on the front, and it's there as a backup to check to see if the information on the front is altered, basically to prevent underage drinking, and it's never been scanned for anything. But the difference between my driver's license and the Real ID is the intent. The Real ID is designed for a different intent than a driver's license. It's specifically meant to track/flag undesireables, and presumeably to do that someone will need to be scanning them regularly enough to actually raise flags. 2. Unconstitutional powers granted to DHS - In order to secure borders, the Real ID Act lets the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security summarily waive existing laws, including Congressional Acts, AND it prohibits any judicial review of such waivers. So it sidesteps the Constitutionally mandated checks and balances that the Judiciary is supposed to provide. I know you're not a fan of the Judiciary right now, but having checks and balances is intended to prevent exactly this sort of granting of powers and it's actually more beneficial to a conservative government. As part of the waivers and no Judicial review, it also prevents any kind of grievences and remuneration, say for people along the border who's homes and land are taken by the government in order build a bigger fence. That's a clear violation of the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments and possibly the 3rd depending on what they use the property for. Those are the bull in the china shop issues. There are certainly others, like the blackmail-esque unfunded mandates for the states to implement it or else. For instance, Virginia's DMV has estimated it would cost over $200 Million to implement the new measures. And of course, there's the identity theft issue. That's a real conundrum. The more accurate and pervasive the ID is, the more valuable it is to steal. If it's not secure, it's easily stolen, but if it's more secure it's also by default more accurate and therefore more valueable. On top of all this, there's little evidence other than supposition to show that the proposed changes will do that much to actually prevent terrorism. Other countries have implemented similar IDs and from what I've read, the privacy watchdogs have seen more domestic abuses than security improvements. Things like police using it for profiling. Ah well, you'll probably just quote Rush about why I'm all tinfoil-hatty. -Kevin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:157266 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
