A right to a false ID?
As an immigrant I read the constitution several times, quite carefully. Still I have been unable to find any mentioning of a right to present false IDs. However this is in effect the claim set forth by the state of Maine, soon by to be joined by several others. These states, and allied privacy advocates, do not object to the requirement that those who negotiate public roads must carry a driver license. They object “only” the new measures that seek to make it difficult to falsify these documents. They reveal all the chutzpah of a under aged college kid who demands a right to Xerox the ID of an older fraternity brother, so that he can booze all he wants. The hell with law and public safety.
I chaired a small group of security and privacy experts who studied the existing forms of identification, for the Markle Foundation. We learned that the most widely used ID, the state issued driver licenses, are extremely easy to forge. In a test conducted by the Government Accounting Office, home made driver licenses fooled the border patrol a cool 25 out of 25 times. A citizen who already has a driver’s license from one state, can get up to 49 such licenses from the other states, and dole out these “extras” to all comers. In effect, the 9/11 terrorists used such licenses to open bank accounts and travel by air. (The states do not share information with each other about who already received a driver license, as long as those involved have not committed a crime and do not drive a commercial vehicle).
Now comes the big bad federal government and has the temerity of insisting that those who obtain a driver license (or renew one) show up in person rather than apply for them via the mail. In this way the states are to be able to verify that, first of all the person exists, and second that he is who he claims to be. These measures that should have been introduced five years ago, say on 9/12.
The Maine legislature started the national campaign against vetted driver licenses, by passing on January 26 a resolution against complying with the Real ID Act of 2005. Other states, including Georgia, Wyoming and New Mexico are expected to follow in Maine’s footsteps. The Real ID law, to take effect in May 2008 (what is the rush?), rules that driver licenses that do not meet the federal standards will not be useable after that date in entering federal building, flying, and opening bank accounts.
The main complaint is that by setting federal standards rather than allowing each state to follow its own lights and refuse to collaborate with the other states, the US is moving toward the repugnant national ID card. However vetted driver licenses differ profoundly from such cards in two major ways. No one is required to have them on their person at all times, and people cannot be stopped without cause and confronted with the demand that they identify themselves. The vetted licenses are to be used only if and when a person seeks—voluntarily-- to enter a controlled public space such as a court house, legislature, or secured parts of airports.
Privacy advocates such as Jim Harper of the Cato institute argue that these driver licenses lead us down a slippery slope toward an Orwellian police state, based on national ID cards. However the proper response to such a danger is to enact laws that ensure that authorities can demand the presentation of driver licenses only to vet the ID of those who wish to enter secured public spaces—rather favor licenses that are not worth much more than the pieces of paper on which they printed.
(Crosspost with Political Mavens)
Comments (20)
Yeah, that'll work.
February 23, 2007 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Always helpful to check Bruce Schneier on these types of issues:
Essay 1.
Essay 2.
Essay 3.
February 23, 2007 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
'people cannot be stopped without cause and confronted with the demand that they identify themselves'
Bwahahaha. In what pony-filled world is this? No cop worth his/her salt has any trouble at all getting around this. All they have to do is say they have a report of vandalism/burglary/theft in the area and someone matching you/your car's description.
How long do you think before merchants start demanding you present the same ID to make purchases? How long before every other government facility has identical requirements?
The original purpose of the driver's license was to prove you had passed the driver's test. It originally was a piece of paper. Now, it's a photo ID that is required everywhere you go to prove who you are before you can purchase things. Things are already bad enough, but by keeping it to the state level, the federal government still has some difficulty keeping track of people. You say terrorists, but one day it will be enemies of the state.
Anything that could increase the power of a police state should be resisted, for with such power comes the temptation to use it.
February 23, 2007 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand why Mr. Etzioni is being so trusting on this issue. I'm glad to see some states standing up to the feds on this one. Most people have ID that they'll produce on demand in any event.
Also, I don't think you should necessarily have to physically go to the DMV for every renewal.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
February 23, 2007 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Etzioni appears to have mistaken us for a totalitarian state, where "everything not explicitly permitted is forbidden." Fortunately, he is not correct. It works the other way here, and this fact is explicitly stated in the Constitution.
Try reading the "9th Amendment - Reservation of Rights of the People."
February 23, 2007 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish Mr. Etzioni had included some links to the laws in question, so we could judge them for ourselves. It's impossible for me to do so with the information provided here.
February 23, 2007 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
RealID was bad legislation. Mr. Etzioni's disrespectful ridicule of those, who object to its foolish and unfunded mandates, does nothing to enlighten us as to the issues. And, with his use of an unfathomable naivete about whether IDs will be demanded by law enforcement, let alone everyone else . . . he's pretty much disqualified himself from this discussion with this posting.
Just one issue raised by RealID makes me want to see it blocked. RealID requires, absolutely, that your State driver's license list your actual residence address on its face. You cannot use a mailing address, as I do on my California driver's licence (and, yes, the California DMV has a record of my actual residence). This is an obvious open door to serious invasions of privacy. Evidence presented to Congress about how stalkers, who have killed people, got residence information from driver's licenses, did not disuade the Republicans, who pushed this bill.
February 23, 2007 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
To answer Mr. Etzioni's headline question, directly:
Yes!
In fact, any system of authenticated identification ought to allow the individual to use any number of legitimate aliases.
Anyone, who has thought about the issue for more than 30 minutes will come to the conclusion that legitimate aliases are a necessary option to protect people against the invasion of privacy by private businesses, which naturally accompanies the ability to datamine.
A unique identifier is all Big Business needs to coordinate data-gathering on every aspect of a person's life. And, I mean EVERY aspect! Your every movement can be traced from your cellphone, every purchase not made with cash (including every grocery or drugstore "club" purchase), every webpage viewed, and on and on.
People are learning to use substitute e-mail addresses, to get one-time use credit card numbers, and to take other measures. No nascent national ID system should be adopted, which does not permit the use of aliases to protect privacy.
February 23, 2007 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Orcinus has some informative posts on this as well. Seems that the requirements may be a bit more onerous than just showing up at the DMV:
February 23, 2007 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was that well-regarded political pundit Carlos Mencia who noted to Keith Olbermann that Bush's proposal for a 'secure biometric ID' for guest workers could be undercut simply by producing a fake birth certificate.
The problem with Real ID, as Schneier and others have pointed out, is that proof of identity is built upon a network of documents, particularly when applying for any additional identity documentation. (Immigrants experience this as they slowly build up the various credentials that make them full people within the layers of American bureaucracy, sometimes encountering Kafkaesque wrangles on the way.)
February 23, 2007 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both sides of this argument confuse "privacy" with "security".
Every sort of political-economic interest and social-psychological concern surfaces in these arguments. But, neither individual nor collective perspectives are well served by confusing complementary but orthogonal aspects of privacy and security.
So, I suggest another way to have this discussion: Start with the reality of pervasive digital networks, cyberspace, then consider the admiralty-type Seven Laws of Identity, and, finally, re-consider the Second Amendment today, understanding that "arms" includes regulation of seals and ciphers.
Otherwise, it is easy to undermine security and privacy with a false dialectic generated by adversarial intermediaries having stakes in tangential, not truly personal or common moral, interests.
::JRBehrman
February 24, 2007 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I didn't know better I'd think I was browsing some paranoid rightwing blog!
There are multiple problems with RealID, both practical and conceptual. For the states, though, bottom line is that this is a huge unfunded mandate. If you check the Constitution it is not the states which are responsible for either national security or immigration policy. It is the federal government. Therefore RealID should be forthwith repealed and if there really is a need for a national ID (and I am quite skeptical on that) then the federal government should implement and pay for that itself.
Paranoids like GOP Congressman Sensenbrenner (godfather of RealID) make much out of the fact that the 9-11 hijackers had drivers licenses. But so what? That wasn't the problem at all. The problem was that they were allowed in the country and that the Bush administration, dismissing warnings about imminent terror attacks, and ignoring a broad trail of suspicious evidence about Mr Atta and friends, failed in its duty to protect the lives of our citizens. Let the buck rest where it should, and that's the White House not the local DMV. RealID would not have prevented 9-11, or Tim McVeigh's bombimg or any other past horror. It's nothing but a feel-good, Potemkin policy.
February 24, 2007 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is, is that no one is stating the obvious. Why do not states computerize birth and death records? Why are our city and state governments not able to verify our social security numbers?
Why does the Social Security System not have a verifiable system not provide for an accurate means to vet if a social security number matches the name, as well as if the person is of a certain age, as well as whether this is a living person? This would ensure employers wouldn't be able to hire illegal aliens and get away with it.
Also I have to ask, why is it allowed for people who do not speak or read english to be able to obtain a drivers license in states all across the country? It is a safety hazard. In RI, there was for a time a local television show filmed in traffic court, and the amount of those brought before the court for traffic violations, who used the excuse they couldn't read the signs in english, including traffic speed information were enormous.. and their attornies used the language barrier as an excuse to get them off instead of having to pay fines or take the consequences of their actions. Even in the case of not having the legally required automobile insurance.
There is nothing right wing, or racially motivated in expecting that our government do the correct thing. Also, our already overburdened states can not continue to absorb increasing numbers of the children of illegal aliens into our schools without crushing them with the extra costs. It's well known that states are having to consider selling off infrastructure like roads and airports, infrastructure that the public has invested huge amounts of money into over the decades.
I remember a left that would have demanded our government take on foreign governments like that in Mexico, threatening tariffs or trade restrictions if they didn't meet their obligation to their citizens. Mexico is touted as a wealthy and stable economy for wealthy investors to profit from by investing in. Those who rationalize Bush's open border policy are helping corporations profit from the impoverishment of Americans.
February 25, 2007 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Why do not states computerize birth and death records? Why are our city and state governments not able to verify our social security numbers?
Most Americans were born before the IT revolution. Birth records have always been kept locally (generally by county) in this country and so you have as many different formats and standards as you have counties-- more in fact, since formats and standards change over time. And in some (many?) places these records have been poorly kept, some being lost or damaged over time. Getting all that into some centralized database is a huge undertaking, and due to losses and errors the information will not be 100% accurate.
Re: Why does the Social Security System not have a verifiable system not provide for an accurate means to vet if a social security number matches the name, as well as if the person is of a certain age, as well as whether this is a living person?
Such a system does exist and many states voluntarily check SS#'s (which are required for drivers licenses now in all 50 states) when they issue a new license. But here again there is an accuracy problem; the SSA database contains a non-trivial number of errors. Some are due to things like women not changing their names with the SSA when they marry or divorce. But other errors are due to clerical mistakes, and these can be hard to correct. For example, my own birthdate is incorrect with SSA, off by a day. Fixing that would involve reams of red tape and it's too much hassle so I guess I'll just have to wait an extra day to get my benefits when I turn 65. And in a nation of 300 million people mistakes will always happen. Hence there is not, and probably never can be, a 100% foolproof means of checking anyone's identity.
Buy the way why should employers care how old a person is (as long as they are over 18)? Age discrimination is illegal and it's just as well for a potential employer not even to ask or seek to verify it.
February 25, 2007 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
So it's just too hard? Not workable? It is in your own interest... These are the answers for anything the government doesn't want to do. Fixing the communications systems for first responders? Too hard. Protecting our public lands from those who would destroy it to make a buck? Not workable.
If the GOVERNMENT does it the quality will go down (like health care). Negotiating prices with drug companies? Not fair, but it's fair to stop those who get the very same drugs from Canada at a savings of 50%.
Yep, it is in your interest that the government does these things. After all, Canadians are falling over dead every day because their drugs are so bad.
As to the states not being able to develop a data base, they could certainly start with tax records. They have to start SOMEWHERE. I miswrote my son's ss# on my tax for once, and believe me, both the state and the IRS let me know that I could not claim a 42 year-old as a minor dependent.
Jan Knaus
February 25, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you looking for? Perfcetion? That will never happen-- not by the government or by porivate enterprise. Now, did you bother to read what I wrote? The states acan and do verify SS# for drivers licenses. Ohio does it, Florida does it. They also share info in a central database about whose license is supsended so people who lose their license for DUI or whatever can't just go to another state and get one. It's not like they;'re are huge numbnesr of people walking around with fake licenses. In fact, the 9-11 guys had perfectly legal licenses in their own names and the RealId act would not have prevented them fropm getting them!
You've listened to too many scare-mongers on the Right. There really ins't a problem with licenses or ID in general in this country and certainly ID issues had nbothing to do with 9-11. RealID is a fascist* solution looking for a problem.
* A VERY rare use of that word by me, but in this case I think it fits. I'm no libertarian but I also disagree that I owe my right to live and work in my own country to the folks in Washington, or in Talahassee or the Broward County governmment building, for that matter. That is the logic of slaves, not of free citizens.
February 25, 2007 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but I don't even know what you're so upset about. Nothing in your response had anything to do with what I said, but I get that you're ticked off.
PS, Could you address what I said that makes you think I've listened to too many scare-mongers on the right. Most of my objections were about why the governement says we can't do things for the common good -- not a big issue witht the right.
Did you even read what I SAID?
Jan Knaus
February 25, 2007 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
One of the best ideas I've heard for those who really wish for some form of national ID, is to allow those individuals to be first in line to have tattooed in the middle of their forehead the following:
~OGD~
February 26, 2007 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The bottom line is--as it has always been--which is more important, the greater good of the individual versus greater good of society as a whole.
But in today's society, with radical jihad extremism, suitcase nuclear weapons, and biological weaponry, the stakies are INFINATELY higher than ever.
The greater good of society means the fate of tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of American lives are at stake. Compared to the rights of any single person, I can't imagine how anybody who would--or could--argue that any "one's" individual rights are more important than the lives of hundreds of millions of lives that hang in the balance of known terrorist threats! Unless of course you are one of those idiot savants who keeps babbling "what terrorism" in light of the 800,000 people killed in the last 10 years by the fanatical radical Islamic terorists. (Or should I call them by the news media's new politically correct term for bloody terorists: "political insurgents"?).
February 28, 2007 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Schneier is collecting some of these thoughts into a longer essay form. He says this is being distributed as a draft and is not final:
The Psychology of Security
March 1, 2007 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink