I came across a 2007 post on the RSA’s “Speaking of Security…” blog and podcast. It’s a blog comprised of a handful of men with “knowledge and interest in different areas of the security industry: R&D, online fraud and privacy, enterprise data protection, authentication strategies, and government policy.” I’d say this blog appears peruse-worthy.
Here’s an article at the Cato Institute from 2002 titled “Why Not Implant a Microchip?” It discusses the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935 and how skeptical the public had been back then, worried that social security numbers might someday be used as citizen identifiers (and they have). It also tells of how the government promised no such thing would occur before taking incremental steps in that direction over many decades before arriving where we are now, discussing national ID cards and biometric identification openly. The article ends on this note:
Over half of the population now supports some form of national identification. If Americans accept a National ID system as they accepted SSNs, and if the intrusiveness of such a system expands as did government-mandated SSN usage, ten years from now the idea of a national microchip system may not seem as alien and repugnant as it does today. As with SSNs, people will get used to it.
Scary stuff.
Here’s something recent from the U.S. Department of Defense announcing the first recruits to enlist using biometric technology in April of 2008. I agree that fingerprint scanning could serve plenty of useful purposes, like “going green” and cutting down on paper documents. However. We know it won’t stop there. It never does. I wish it would, but we the people have the nasty habit of consistently failing to hold our government accountable for abuses of power and encroachment on our rights and privacy. If we’d collectively man the leash like responsible citizens, I’d personally be less skeptical about the idea.
Anyway, read what the recruits thought of it:
Many of the enlisting troops had seen biometrics technology used on television and thought it “pretty neat” to learn that they were to be the first enlistees to use it, Daniels said. “We told them what we were doing was revolutionary, that this was the first time it was being down within the Department of Defense,” he said. “They came through here and said, ‘This is pretty neat, man.’”
Science Daily, in a November 2007 article titled “Benefits And Risks Of Fitting Patients With Radiofrequency Identification Devices“, had this to say on ethical concerns:
Yet, as with all new technologies, he says, “their adoption must be tempered by attention to potential unintended consequences.” Ethical concerns regarding the use of RFID devices arise, he says, from issues pertaining to informed consent, the privacy and accessibility of stored information, and the purposes for which the transmitted data will be used.
Because of the risks of unintended consequences, the implantation of RFID devices “merits a healthy dose of skepticism,” argue Ben Adida (Children’s Hospital Informatics Program, Boston, MA, USA) and colleagues. If such devices become widely deployed, say Adida and colleagues, they may provide an incentive for both well and ill-intentioned parties to set up readers for these “license plates for people.”
A store owner, for example, might set up a reader to track frequent customers, linking the unique identifier to the customer record upon first purchase. Law enforcement might leverage RFID as a means of ubiquitous surveillance. At the very least, say the authors, the informed consent process must “transparently convey the significant societal side effects of RFID devices.”
So, what’s the word on the Real ID Act? It’s coming along swimmingly, so says the Department of Homeland Security on their “REAL ID Proposed Guidelines: Questions & Answers” page. Here are a few other things they had to say on the topic:
What is a REAL ID license needed for?
The REAL ID Act requires that a REAL ID driver’s license be used for “official purposes,” as defined by DHS. In the proposed rule, DHS is proposing to limit the official purposes of a REAL ID license to those listed by Congress in the law: accessing a Federal facility; boarding Federally-regulated commercial aircraft; and entering nuclear power plants. DHS may consider expanding these official purposes through future rulemakings to maximize the security benefits of REAL ID.
Does DHS support an extension of the May 2008 deadline? Does DHS think that States will be ready?
DHS understands that the States are concerned about the tight timeline required to comply with the REAL ID Act. The Secretary and other DHS officials have discussed this matter with various Governors. Since DHS wants all States to be able to comply with the Act, DHS has set-up a procedure in the NPRM for States to obtain extensions until December 31, 2009. DHS expects States that have been granted an extension to begin issuing compliant licenses no later than January 1, 2010, in most cases with a roll-out of licenses as they expire.
Is this a National ID card?
No. The proposed regulations establish common standards for States to issue licenses. The Federal Government is not issuing the licenses, is not collecting information about license holders, and is not requiring States to transmit license holder information to the Federal Government that the Government does not already have (such as a Social Security Number). Most States already routinely collect the information required by the Act and the proposed regulations.
Do the proposed regulations require States to collect fingerprints or iris images from drivers?
No. Though States may independently choose to implement biometrics into their driver’s license process, the NPRM does not require a State to collect fingerprints, iris images, or other biometric data in connection with obtaining a license and has no plans to serve as a repository for the face images the states will collect.
Will REAL ID driver’s licenses include RFID cards?
The NPRM does not specify the use of RFID cards as a minimum standard. States may independently choose to implement an RFID solution, in addition to the standard 2-D barcode, to meet their constituent’s needs.
Is it me, or am I missing the point of the new Real ID cards? To make sure we’re not terrorists…okay…how does one do that? If RFID chips and biometric information is not required by each state, then what exactly is the point of implementing this new form of identification? What’s new about it? They claim it makes it more difficult to misuse another’s ID, but they’re not explaining how. They’re pushing this as a State-driven initiative, but it’s the Federal government that’s mandating states’ compliance by a given deadline. So, how exactly is this voluntary or respecting the rights and sovereignty of states? It’s clearly not.
(State sovereignty – ha, who am I kidding?)
This Q&A leaves me with even more unanswered questions than before.
RealNightmare.org isn’t too happy about the situation. On their opposition page, people had this to say:
“This proposal is one more step away from the Founding Fathers’ vision of a limited federal government. Our greatest homeland security is liberty, and the Founding Fathers believed our greatest threat to liberty was a central government grown too powerful. Accordingly, they set up checks on federal power by vesting authority at the individual and state levels.
REAL ID disrupts this delicate balance of power in two ways. First, it turns the Founders’ logic on its head by forcing states to act as agents for the federal government in creating a national ID card for federal purposes. Needing a REAL ID to board a plane or enter a federal building would also change the balance of power in something as seemingly insignificant as a visit to a member of Congress.”
– Gov. Mark Sanford, “Real ID Side Effects,” Washington Times, April 14, 2008. Online >
“The government claims that driver’s license “reform” will help combat illegal immigration and generally protect national security, but it fails to acknowledge that the Real ID Act seriously threatens privacy and civil liberties on a national scale.”
–Sophia Cope of Center for Democracy and Technology, “Why Real ID is a Flawed Law,” CNET News, January 31, 2008. Online>
Good calls.
For a complete smorgasbord of information on the Real ID Act and National ID cards, check out the news on Epic.org. This site has everything from the history to which states are resisting complying with the Real ID Act, with a sweet compilation of relevant news items dating from the present all the way back to 2001. Highly recommended reading!
Here’s a July 2008 article on Governing.com by Jonathan Walters that certainly offers no comfort. He basically says states need to get used to the idea (though the deadline for compliance has been pushed back to 2014), and explains how some already are by implementing EDLs (enhanced driver’s licenses).
I’ll leave it tonight on a note from Steve Boggan at the Guardian UK on how easy it was to crack the RFID security codes in European passports.
Newsvine
