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.






- 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.<br />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.<br /><br />Peace
- 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.
- 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 <br />about that. But given that a driver has met the requirements to <br />earn one (can drive safely, has a safe vehicle & has insurance) <br />that driver should be able to use the roads that he/she the <br />taxpayer has paid for without giving up all of his personal <br />information (and possibly at a later date of the Federal <br />Government's choosing) your personal liberty as well. The right <br />to privacy and liberty are in fact ours to keep, and not for the <br />Federal Government to grant or take away without due process.<br /><br />Keeping illegal aliens out of this country, if that were truly the <br />goal, should be focused on compliance by the employers of <br />illegal aliens. They've had a good time screwing the workers in <br />the U.S., and I think it's high time the burden of proof should <br />cause them the grief and inconvenience. Not the vast majority of <br />us who are law abiding citizens who believe the constitution isn't <br />open to the interpretations of the greedy or the globalists.
- 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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?
- 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.<br /><br /><br />Ron Paul in 08
- Like this
-
(25 Comments)