Perspective: Do we need a national ID card?

With all the political wrangling about immigration in Washington, D.C., I'm surprised we haven't heard more about national ID cards.

Shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, members of the U.S. Congress took up the idea of requiring a national identity card; they did that again just before the 2004 election. But there is news out of the United Kingdom that national ID cards may become mandatory by 2010. And the initial response has been mostly bad, forcing me to ask: Do we even need a national ID card when there are more important security measures we can take?

In the United Kingdom, talk of a national ID card is linked to the establishment of a national biometric identity database. Within two years, all U.K. citizens renewing their passports will be required to submit biometric information. While they may opt out of receiving an actual ID card until 2010, the biometric data will still be collected. On the surface, biometric means, at a minimum, a photograph and a fingerprint--data currently required for most passports. I've already commented that biometric passports are not entirely secure, nor are they tamperproof.

You want security? Let's start by tracking convicted felons. Here's an excellent test bed to see whether such ID systems really work.

The U.K. biometric data collection includes foreigners, as well. Foreign nationals visiting the United Kingdom must apply for "biometric residence permits" or biometric visas and consent to be entered into a national database. Beginning in 2010, the U.K. ID cards (either for a resident or a visitor) will be required to buy or rent a house, stay in a hotel, purchase a cell phone, open or close a bank account, travel abroad, obtain medical care or register for classes. This latter provision seems geared at stopping illegal immigrants.

Scotland-based science fiction author Charles Stross thinks issuing every U.K. citizen an ID card by 2010 is nuts. He recently opined in his blog that the concept is doomed from the outset by the sheer numbers involved, numbers he derives from a post on Blairwatch.co.uk.

While I agree with Stross that the initial sign-up period seems too short, comments made by others regarding the ability of this new database to handle the volume of transactions required seem unwarranted. Denmark has had a national registration system since the 1920s, and in Hong Kong, citizens are required to carry around an ID card. In both cases, the databases are robust enough to handle new registrants and changes to existing records just fine. Privacy aside, the back-end systems really aren't the issue.

De facto national ID
In the United States, we already have a national ID card--and while it's robust, it's not exactly flawless. In the United States, the typical driver's license enables you to register to vote, and in most states, registering to vote automatically places you into the eligible jury pool.

We think nothing of showing our driver's license to verify a check or a hotel registration; we don't worry when a car rental establishment photocopies it for their records. And currently, some high-tech bars are scanning driver's licenses, presumably as a means of stopping underage drinkers, but also as a means of gathering statistics on their patrons, such as what hours certain demographic groups drink.

It's sad that data warehouses such as ChoicePoint know more about you and me than cops know about convicted felons on the street.

This latter use is worrisome, and it's likely to get worse, in part because of legislation approved by Congress last year. The Real ID Act requires states to adopt uniform standards for their driver's licenses, including common machine-readable technology, presumably RFID. The idea is that a driver's license in one state can be scanned by someone in another state. Under the Real ID Act, the information will not be encrypted--a boon for identity thieves who can already scan copycat credit and debit cards at their leisure.

With the Real ID Act, look for more businesses to scan driver's licenses with an eye toward selling the data to data warehouses, such as ChoicePoint, which have proven to be insecure.

Yet U.S. driver's licenses are commonly forged. Currently, every state has different criteria for what's on their residents' driver's licenses, even where the photo goes. The new law seeks to standardize the look and feel, as well as the information encoded within. Which means it'll be easier to forge a fake driver's license for anyone in any state in the near future. Here, it's the ID cards themselves that undermine the supposed security they bring.

So, how hard is it to produce a tamperproof ID card? Apparently, it's plenty hard. In a front page New York Times article on May 14, 2006, the Department of Homeland Security was called to task for investing tens of millions of dollars and more than four years of labor on a tamperproof ID card for airport, rail and maritime workers. Such a card does not yet exist. Much of the controversy surrounds the favors granted to pet businesses in rural Kentucky, and not whether to place a hologram or other unique identifier within the card.

With all the talk of creating a national ID card or standardizing U.S. driver's licenses, there has been very little action on something that would improve security--creating a united crime database in the United States. You want security? Let's start by tracking convicted felons. Here's an excellent test bed to see whether such ID systems really work.

At this moment, local law enforcement agencies don't have access to the full criminal profile of individuals they pull over. While law enforcement officers can see if there are any outstanding warrants, the picture is incomplete because law enforcement agencies do not standardize their information, nor is there a central database for this. It's sad that data warehouses such as ChoicePoint know more about you and me than cops know about convicted felons on the street.

If we can't yet sync the names of criminals wanted in one state with people arrested in another state, it seems to me that we shouldn't be so eager to start tracking honest, noncriminal citizens.

Biography
Robert Vamosi is a senior editor for CNET Reviews.

More Perspectives

[Baysdale]

Personalised signatures will restore honesty

In reality identity fraud has nothing to do with ID documents (which could be bogus) or shredding documents with personal details (details could be obtained from any other source) or PIN (could be stolen) but has EVERYTHING to do with meaningless outdated signature system, which does not even expose person's gender.

To make signature reliable all we have to do is to apply our ID sticker (small sticker with photo and name printed on it) to the document and countersign so that the signature is shared between the sticker and document. Even if the name and signature is bogus, person?s photo will increase risk of prosecution from next to none to virtually 100%. Do we need unreliable ID cards when we can restore honesty simply by personalising our signatures?

[JackfromBerkeley]

just a step to GPS enabled RFID implants in us all

That way they'll know where we are as well as who we are.
The benefits will outweigh old-fashioned concerns about stuff like
privacy, which is old hat now.

[bobdonohoo]

This gives government toooo much opportunity to abuse

While many people talk about the advantages of a national ID for the government's use and the problem of identity theft, we seldom think about how unscrupulous people in power can abuse it as well. I don't worry about identity theft as much as government abuse.

[marileev]

can a Nat'l ID database be secure?

A linked national ID system per your argument Mr. Vamosi in par with our driver's license's makes sense, but can the government ensure the safety of this database? With yesterday afternoon's news of the 26.5 million vet's at risk for ID theft, can Americans be confident that 298,793,347 of us will be safe when nearly 1% of the population was put in harm's way? http://www.iwantmyess.com/?p=61

Let's get our national databases like the VA's secure, then work on a national DB. --Marilee V.

[datonto7]

We Must Have A National ID Card !

To Whom It May Concern: I have Traveled to Europe and It was Obvious that all Europeans have and Use there Identity Cards and Papers.You are riding on aTrain from one Country to another.Different Countrys and Different Laws, Always in place are there National Identity Cards.The American Indians have to have there Identity Cards, Which I think Is Assinine. If they have to Produce Identity Cards, then we all should Have them also.What is the Big Deal anyway? Now that this Country Allowed 9/11 to Occur. We have to be Especially Careful who is allowed into America. We should have had Sky Marshalls on the Planes from 9/11. We had Sky Marshalls in the Early 70/s. Why was it stopped? Isreal has always used Sky Marshalls, England,France,Germany!What is wrong with Amarican Government to allow Foriegn Arabs to learn how to Fly Planes? And train them to Crash into Government Buildings,and the Twin Towers.This is a Gross Mistake that should have never Occured! Thank You,

[Blito]

Bimetrics is too invasive: It's not a good lock system

Anything can be faked but if someone owns my biometrics they practically own my soul.
When devising a lock system it is best not to make it too powerful because if the thief breaks it he has THAT munch more power of you. If he does win through and break that lock he doesn't win too much with a basic lock system.
I agree with the as we should do more obvious things instead of extremes.

This is just too Orwellian for me. The 1950s was bad enough.

[GES Herbert]

It's not the card or even the biometrics

The problem with the UK scheme is not merely the collection of biometrics, it is that the scheme is conceptualised to act as a means of collation of all government data, and indexing all significant civil transactions through a central database. Total Information Awareness done from the bottom-up, rather than by data-mining.

From the privacy and security points of view, it is the worst possible system. But from the point of view of a naive government, offers the best chances of both universal surveilance and a notional "administrative efficiency" via data-sharing.

American readers should be extremely loth to follow this example, even if they incline (for reasons incomprehensible to me) to give the federal government approval of their own personal identity. Be warned: if this system is permitted to succeed in the UK, then there will be a clamour among securocrats for it to be brought in over there. "The Brits have it; they have a free country: so it must be OK." Only we won't have a free country if universal state ID control is in place...

Save yourselves. And for heavens' sake help us!

Guy Herbert
General Secretary
www.no2id.net

[prozac360]

ya know... your right....

Radio devices in them need to go period. Personal information like social security numbers for example need to go. It should be a drivers lisence/ID for the country if anything and not much more.

No databases, no archives, no radio transmitters!

and for godsake if there so worried about terrorist and illegals driving places why dont they just setup the dang roadblocks already. We are already heading back to 1940s. Wheres my papers?

They should just inact a standard every year to retest for your lisence written and driven and prove your a citizen. Think about it you cant even maintain a job in certain fields unless you are CPR trained annually. Why should some one with a 2,000lbs+ car be any diffrent!

back on topic. I wont support it and never will. I wrote my congressman but unfortunitly he supports it!

[wbenton]

Biometric identification is dangerous

Unless biometric identification is implemented properly... which it VERY RARELY IS... is dangerous.

You can easily change your password and/or your RSA coded USB Key, but how does one go about changing their finger tips and/or retna?

It's NOT going to be implemented in a safe manner MOST of the time and thus such info WILL BE STOLEN. Once it's stolen... you can't change it so the end of biometric technology... even if re-implemented properly in the future... it's like closing the barn door after all the horses have gone out!!!

Walt

[wbenton]

Biometric identification is dangerous

Unless biometric identification is implemented properly... which it VERY RARELY IS... is dangerous.

You can easily change your password and/or your RSA coded USB Key, but how does one go about changing their finger tips and/or retna?

It's NOT going to be implemented in a safe manner MOST of the time and thus such info WILL BE STOLEN. Once it's stolen... you can't change it so the end of biometric technology... even if re-implemented properly in the future... it's like closing the barn door after all the horses have gone out!!!

Walt

[Lorrette]

Biometrics in vogue for our National Security

In this realm of transnational communication and transportation such monitoring system is needed for the homeland security which requires identifying people from their root traits. And I think using Bio-metrics for immigration, laws and national security purposes is a great way. I think where there is a question of spoofing, looking for authenticated experts and well established biometric research firms is the only solution. My friend is in the cop and he told me about the jail management software they are using in their office which is integrated with fingerprint recognition system offered by a Biometric research firm named M2SYS based in Atlanta Georgia. Fingerprint Scanners help them to keep track of all the criminals and help tighten the security system. I strongly feel that the reputed experts in this field should be authorized by the U.S. government to provide exclusive and advanced biometrics systems and they should also be provided with adequate facilities for continuous research for the purpose of a comprehensive biometric identification program at a national level.

[jefframse]

the Movie, "Ghandi"

""If we can't yet sync the names of criminals wanted in one state with people arrested in another state, it seems to me that we shouldn't be so eager to start tracking honest, noncriminal citizens. ""

In the movie Ghandi, he speaks to a crowded auditorium of Hindus and Muslims in South Africa against the government's new law to fingerprint each Indian person as if they were common criminals. There were some in the crowd who declared that they would kill and die for their rights against this (and more things which were in that decree by the military general who made the decree). Ghandi up there on stage said how he admired such courage and that he too would die for the prinicple but not ever kill for it. That publicly and openly he would never submit to the law and that all of them should not submit. They should peacefully not submit. Then the crowd gradually stood up in support of the committment not to submit to the unjust law upon law abiding citizens.

This movie scene is on my mind because this very morning before work I watched that 5 minute vignette on the DVD that came with the book, 'The 8th Habit' by Steven Covey. Currently I'm reading that book as I continuously read or listen to such books and tapes and CD's of that caliber.

I saw the movie Ghandi many years ago when it first came out on VHS ( or was it BETA hiihhi ). But that scenario reminds me of our current situation of the national Super ID cards being proposed for law abiding citizens of America and other countries of the west. Wow. I work to keep our society safe and sound without the government feeling compelled to go beyond the duty of protecting my negative rights and providing some few positive rights. I don't want the government to be in the business of recording more and more of my life's activities. Where do we draw the line? Is there a place to 'draw the line' and say that there is no more need for them to record any more details of my life?? I can't say as I don't know the answer. I do know that I obey the law, I raise my children in scouts and sunday school, I work full time and take classes at the local university. I love my country and teach my children to do so also. I think this is a good start. It certainly is where we must all begin: with ourselves and our family.

Perhaps I/we should do more for our country because apparently this isn't quite enough. Thank you for your time and consideration of my thoughts.