DHS: Real ID is 'pro-consumer' and 'antiterrorism'
WASHINGTON--One of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's most prominent Real ID cheerleaders made a more timid than usual push on Tuesday for states to adopt the controversial identification card standards.
Stewart Baker, the department's assistant secretary for policy, has touted what he perceives as the privacy-protective, identity theft-preventive features of the congressionally mandated Real ID driver's license regime during the past year.
But, clearly fearing criticism during a Tuesday morning speech at the spring meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General, he saved any mention of the program until the tail end of a 20-minute speech about the perils of identity theft.
"One thing I will say," Baker said, almost couching his imminent pitch as something of an afterthought. "One of the key ways to catch identity thieves is better security for driver's licenses."
The former National Security Agency general counsel then launched into a kinder, gentler defense of Real ID, first acknowledging he expected "to get a little pushback on this."
"Real ID has a bad bumper sticker reputation," Baker said, "but what it boils down to is a set of standards for obtaining driver's licenses, so it's harder to obtain fraudulent driver's licenses."
Baker and other proponents argue that the scheme, which was passed as part of an emergency spending bill by Congress in 2005, is necessary to prevent terrorists, criminals, and illegal immigrants from successfully obtaining and using fraudulent driver's licenses. (For that reason, it's a "pro-consumer" and "antiterrorism" measure, Baker said Tuesday.) Privacy and civil liberties advocates, however, say the regime doesn't have enough checks built in to prevent abuse of information encoded on the licenses, and a number of states have balked at the cost of the mandate.
Homeland Security is pushing states "pretty hard" to come into compliance with Real ID requirements over the next 18 months and has gotten a "decent" response so far, Baker said. According to an agency-produced map, 45 states and the District of Columbia have already received deadline extensions, which means their driver's licenses will continue to be accepted for boarding airplanes and entering federal buildings come May 11, 2008, when the new rules kick in. But another five states--Maine, Montana, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Delaware--have said they will not comply. (See related story.)
Baker, for his part, characterized that continued resistance as "ideological and, in my opinion, based on misconceptions." Citing fake driver's licenses used by Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and September 11 hijackers, he suggested the Real ID plan's requirements were something of an inevitability, even if they may be a bit costly.
"That's my proposal," Baker said at the close of his speech. "If you've got better ideas, then I'd really like to hear it."
None of the two dozen or so attorneys general present at the meeting raised their hands with questions or comments.
"It must be really early in the morning if Real ID doesn't get a bite," he quipped with a chuckle, before being handed a medallion as a "token of appreciation" from his hosts.
are arguments on both sides. I'm sure the Nazis also had plenty
of justification for what they did. The problem with Real ID isn't
so much in the hands of honest men, it's in the monster it could
potentially become in the hands of Big Brother. Frankly, since
January 20, 2001, Big Brother has gotten all too close.
The ideals of the Founding Fathers are trampled down more, day
by day. Millimeter by millimeter, the ideals of the Great Republic
are turning into ways to better "protect" us. But who will protect
us from "them"?
Let's face it, the REALLY "bad guys" will find a way around it, so the only thing it is good for is allowing Big Brother to come even closer to tracking all of its citizens. Since January 20, 2001, our freedoms and the concept of "Constitutional protections" has been slowly going down the tubes.
To repeat the oft quoted (but rarely acknowledged) Benjamin Franklin warning:
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
-- Benjamin Franklin
For God's sake my mail is left in a box outside my house in the darkness when I'm eating dinner. My DMV has been hanging on to everyone's name, soc', picture ... who knows what else for years. A credit check and uncover CIA employees that are undercover.
The barn burned down long ago and the horse didn't run out.
Same with sitting in your mailbox. Federal offense to open someone else mail.
The thing with DMV pictures - don't be suprised if you end up in some facial scanning software system tracking you in the future. YOu have little protection from this abuse.
I do have a better idea. I am from New Hampshire. I use my new totally unsecure U.S. Passport at the airports. The founding fathers of the United States of America did not want a national police. A national ID is a giant step towards giving the FBI the green light to trample upon the individual states - in the name of national security. If MY state even considers implementing Real ID, I will demand that my state legislators amend any Real ID legislation to make it optional in NH - where residents who opt out will have to sign a document acknowledging the risks of refusing Real ID. I will do this just to stick it to the federal government and all the other pansies, er.. states, that don't know any better.
Besides that central database already exist. It's called the credit reporters, the IRS, Google.....
Time to pull the tin foil of your collective heads.
No matter how evil you think real id is or isn't, its stated goal is an impossibility.
This driver license crap is just a cowardly way of finessing the whole national ID issue. If a national id/internal passport is what it takes to be secure (or not), let's have an honest open national debate on the issue, not sneak around it on the pretense of making state licenses better.
Illegals constantly driving 30 or 35 in a 40mph zone in the passing lane no less!
While it is true that privacy may be a moot issue in a time when multiple technologies can be used to track anyone doing anything at any time, the real question is, "who shall be master?" If you must carry a card (or a chip) that identifies you according to the arbitrary specifications of an authority, if you cannot participate in important common life activities without it, and if the issuing authority can revoke it or use it to abridge your privileges and entitlements at any time, then you are only free in Bizarro World, or in the "freedom is slavery" sense of "1984."
Before anyone starts fitting me for a tinfoil hat, just consider that, without an ID that conforms to federal specifications, you will not be allowed to enter federal buildings. This would make it hard for you to, for example, effectively petition your government for redress of grievances, either in court or to visit your legislators in their offices, testify before government panels, etc. As the Post Office is a federal building, and as you must already now show some form of ID to pick up packages there, will you now need to show a Real ID compliant credential simply to do get a certified letter or a package that couldn't be delivered to you? Will it be the case that anyone who accepts federal funds (e.g., educational grants or scholarships, medical reimbursement payments, etc.) will need a "Real ID," or will be required to demand it of people with whom they do business? Might you someday be denied education or medical care unless you present a valid, "Real ID"? Already, there are scores of situations where people who contract with, are regulated directly by, or otherwise deal with the government demand your Social Security number before doing business with you. If and when the Real ID becomes pervasive, will the new demand be for that number rather than the SS#? Will the Real ID become the all-in-one card that demonstrates your eligibility (your permission or entitlement) to participate in both economic and civic life?
I think that the objections to Real ID based on privacy are valid, but are overshadowed by objections based on whether we want to give any central agency or authority as much power to affect our daily lives as would be implied by a federally mandated personal ID card. People's ability to travel, make a living, trade with others, and participate in so many other life activities should, in general, be none of the government's business -- certainly we should never need government's permission or stamp or approval to engage in such activities. But if all of these things and more necessarily involve the use of a Real ID card, then government will be in the middle of our business 24/7. Is this really what you want?
After witnessing the British Empire's reach to all corners of the globe, it was the founding fathers contention to not allow the federal government the means to become an empire.
This is why there was no national police and why every state still has the right to print and issue its own currency.
If the Soviet Union had had Real ID, All counter revolutionaries would be history.
If the Nazis had Real ID, the world would now be chanting, Sieg Heil, Mein Fuehrer! The Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and other degenerate perverts would be exterminated.
Now if I could just get into power and exercise that kind of complete control, the world would finally be law abiding and perfect!
- For all the radicals here....
- by suyts March 4, 2008 6:12 PM PST
- there is no "RIGHT" to a drivers license. Check yourselves. Nor is there a requirement to have one. Check yourselves again.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- I guess its just too bad for you...
- by Had_to_be_said March 4, 2008 8:29 PM PST
- ...that us "radicals" (I.E. MOST Americans, at this point) arent as easily swayed by your ignorant, and asinine, lies and rhetoric... as you would like.
- Like this
-
- Right to drive liberty away...
- by Todd Templeton March 5, 2008 10:56 AM PST
- There is no "right to have a driver's license", you are correct
- Like this View reply
Processing -
- Keep 'em Out?
- by Calipat March 5, 2008 6:15 PM PST
- Do you mean like the 9/11 hijackers that the state department knew were presumably still here in our country because their federally-issued student or business visas had been overstayed and the state department had no record of them leaving?
- Like this
-
- @ SUYTS
- by nuckelhedd March 7, 2008 5:54 AM PST
- Go **** yourself you are anti american and don't even know it. I will not submit to government tyranny and i will not hold with those who do. This is nothing mire than a way to tell who is who and where everybody is. This information will be handed to the UN and hom,eland tyranny er.. security will then have the Papers they need to justify unleashing the private army they have ammassed upon us in an effort to keep us safe from ourselves. "There were no hijackers,it would have made no difference if McVey had a real ID because he didn't do it anyway, and as for those of you such as SUYTS who think it is a priviledge to own a DL go back and read the Constitution again and tell me in there where the States or the federal goverment dictate to us what our rights or priviledges are. " So again i reitterate SUYTS go **** yourself. I'll probably be rmoved from this forum but it was worth it.
- Like this
-
(25 Comments)In the meantime, why don't you come up with a better way to keep people out of this country that don't need to be here.
Peace
First... Real-ID isnt a "drivers license". Drivers licenses are simply the most expedient method of forcibly-imposing these national, biometric, government-tracking, identification cards. And, yes, without one of these, FEDERALLY-MANDATED, National-Id cards... EVERYONES -RIGHTS- (assembly, redress, "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness") will be abridged. That is, literally, the entire point of "REAL-ID". Furthermore, simply by being "tracked", and preemptively "monitored", every person IS having their basic human-rights violated. And, that does not even mention the clear and present danger to virtually every other freedom that this sort of illegal, and un-Constitutional, power represents.
Second, only a fool surrenders their most basic human-freedoms to, proven, lying-criminals, who have already, callously, caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children... for NOTHING... and, who are working so hard to destroy the economy (for the exclusive benefit of a wealthy few). And, only an imbecile would ever surrender to an administration that has already effectively suspended virtually every single major element of American-liberty, and legal-justice (allegedly, for our own good... though that LIE has pretty much been thoroughly debunked).
And, finally, "peace"... my ASS. You, sir, have done nothing, in these forums, for months, except lie, and defend the most abhorrent corruption, crimes, and injustices being committed, not just against Americans, but literally against people all around the world. In short... you do nothing but, spread lies, hatred, and now racism... to further you own insane goals.
Frankly, I find your actions to be despicable. And, your goals are literally treasonous (by any measure of American-history). I simply cannot understand how such a person can even sleep at night.
about that. But given that a driver has met the requirements to
earn one (can drive safely, has a safe vehicle & has insurance)
that driver should be able to use the roads that he/she the
taxpayer has paid for without giving up all of his personal
information (and possibly at a later date of the Federal
Government's choosing) your personal liberty as well. The right
to privacy and liberty are in fact ours to keep, and not for the
Federal Government to grant or take away without due process.
Keeping illegal aliens out of this country, if that were truly the
goal, should be focused on compliance by the employers of
illegal aliens. They've had a good time screwing the workers in
the U.S., and I think it's high time the burden of proof should
cause them the grief and inconvenience. Not the vast majority of
us who are law abiding citizens who believe the constitution isn't
open to the interpretations of the greedy or the globalists.
Or do you mean our inability to secure our borders completely with Mexico because someone's property, business or town butts up to the line? Our inability to secure the border with Canada because so much of it is wilderness?
How will this mesh with people (e.g., executives) coming into the U.S. with international driver's licenses or DLs from their home country?
Ron Paul in 08