[ BTW, thanks to everyone who cared enough to say deleting KP wasn't enough, do a wipe. ] http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ID_SSN_fingerprinting/HTML/19980807_eff_dot_comments.html # # Full text of the proposed regulation can be found at: # http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=0780930967+26+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve # # August 7, 1998 # # Docket Management Room PL-401 National Highway Traffic Safety # Administration Nassif Building 400 Seventh Street, S.W. # Washington, DC 20590 # # Re: Docket Number: NHTSA-98-3945 Notice Number: RIN 2127-AG-91 # # Dear Sir or Madam: # # I am writing on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation # (EFF) in response to your Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding # State-Issued Driver's Licenses and Comparable Identification # Documents, which appeared in the Federal Register on June 17, # 1998. EFF is a privately funded, nonprofit organization concerned # with protecting civil liberties and promoting responsible behavior # in the electronic world. We'd like to thank you for giving us # the opportunity to comment on the Department of Transportation's # (DOT's) Proposed Rulemaking. # # As a civil liberties organization, EFF is very concerned with # your proposal. We believe that DOT has overstepped its authority # in requiring states to conform to its proposed standards. In # the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act # of 1996, Congress simply stated conditions under which # state-issued driver's licenses could be adequate for personal # identification for federal agencies. Congress did not give DOT # the authority to require states to collect any information on # American citizens in order to provide them with driver's licenses. # # While stating that DOT is opposed to creating a "national # identification card," in fact, that is precisely what DOT is # doing. In addition to our civil liberties concerns, we believe # that mandating states to conform to federal requirements in order # to issue state driver's licenses is an unconstitutional abrogation # of states' rights under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution. # It is obvious that these requirements create a "national driver's # license," which can easily be used for other purposes. # # The federal government should not be mandating standards for # state identity documents. If the federal government wishes to # produce a national ID document and require that citizens and # other persons present it on demand or to access federal services, # then such a proposal should be published straightforwardly and # debated on its merits. This "back door" approach, attempting # to accomplish the same result while pushing responsibility off # on the states to do the dirty work, is unacceptable. # # In addition, by requiring a Social Security number to be # machine-readable on the card or in a database tied to the card, # the proposal anticipates numerous non-federal uses that would # be made of this information, once the federal government had # required its collection and presentation. No longer would a # citizen be free to reveal or withhold personal information in # any context that traditionally requires identification documents, # such as when cashing a check. The mere presentation of the # state-issued document would violate the citizen's privacy by # revealing information that the citizen did not wish to publicize. # The fact that the proposal encourages the use of "electronic # means" for conveying this information simply magnifies the # problem. # # Social Security numbers should not be used as a requirement for # a state driver's license. Historically, Social Security numbers # were never intended to be used as universal identifiers. Over # the past 50 years, we have seen more and more pieces of # information linked by Social Security numbers. These databases, # once collected, do not remain private; history shows that more # and more uses would be made of the information collected. # Furthermore, the Social Security number system has proven to # be extremely insecure and is riddled with duplicate numbers, # false numbers, and other incorrect information. # # We agree with your assessment that "The Immigration Reform Act # was not enacted into law to prevent individuals who are legally # in the United States from holding valid driver's licenses or # identification documents. Rather, the statute was enacted to # deter illegal immigration into the United States." As such, # requiring American citizens to provide Social Security numbers # in this context completely undermines the purpose of the Act # and overrides numerous state policies that have opted to not # key to Social Security numbers. # # We ask that you eliminate the requirement that states collect # Social Security numbers for state-issued driver's licenses from # your proposal. # # Thank you for your attention to our concerns. We would like to # draw your attention to the comments jointly submitted by the # Electronic Privacy Information Center and Privacy International # on August 3, 1998. We are in full agreement with these comments, # which do an excellent job of detailing our common concerns with # your proposal. Please feel free to contact us if you would like # to discuss our concerns further, or if we can supply you with # any additional information. # # Sincerely, # # Shari Steele # Staff Attorney http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/princip.htm California is a uniquely privacy-conscious state. It is one of only ten states with a constitutional right to privacy. The constitutional provision not only prohibits the state from committing privacy intrusions, but also applies to the private sector as well (Article 1, Section 1, California Constitution, amended in 1972). Californians themselves take extra steps to protect their privacy. For example, over 50% of households have unlisted telephone numbers. That figure reaches nearly 70% in Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Jose, Fresno and Oakland. The national average, in contrast, is 24% of households. (Survey Sampling Inc., 1997) ...and yet Tim's SSN got released when helping a friend.
