- Related Stories
-
California bill would ban tracking chips in IDs
April 28, 2005 -
National ID cards on the way?
February 14, 2005 -
House backs major shift to electronic IDs
February 10, 2005 -
States to test ID chips on foreign visitors
January 26, 2005 -
U.S. moves closer to e-passports
October 25, 2004
What's all the fuss with the Real ID Act about?
President Bush is expected to sign an $82 billion military spending bill soon that will, in part, create electronically readable, federally approved ID cards for Americans. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the package--which includes the Real ID Act--on Thursday.
What does that mean for me?
Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards.
What's new:
The House of Representatives has approved an $82 billion military spending bill with an attachment that would mandate electronically readable ID cards for Americans. President Bush is expected to sign the bill.
Bottom line:
The Real ID Act would establish what amounts to a national identity card. State drivers' licenses and other such documents would have to meet federal ID standards established by the Department of Homeland Security.
The Real ID Act hands the Department of Homeland Security the power to set these standards and determine whether state drivers' licenses and other ID cards pass muster. Only ID cards approved by Homeland Security can be accepted "for any official purpose" by the feds.
How will I get one of these new ID cards?
You'll still get one through your state motor vehicle agency, and it will likely take the place of your drivers' license. But the identification process will be more rigorous.
For instance, you'll need to bring a "photo identity document," document your birth date and address, and show that your Social Security number is what you had claimed it to be. U.S. citizens will have to prove that status, and foreigners will have to show a valid visa.
State DMVs will have to verify that these identity documents are legitimate, digitize them and store them permanently. In addition, Social Security numbers must be verified with the Social Security Administration.
What's going to be stored on this ID card?
At a minimum: name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address, and a "common machine-readable technology"
Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements--such as a fingerprint or retinal scan--on top of those. We won't know for a while what these additional requirements will be.
Why did these ID requirements get attached to an "emergency" military spending bill?
Because it's difficult for politicians to vote against money that will go to the troops in Iraq and tsunami relief. The funds cover ammunition, weapons, tracked combat vehicles, aircraft, troop housing, death benefits, and so on.
The House already approved a standalone version of the Real ID
See more CNET content tagged:
Real ID Act, ID card, Social Security, homeland security, social security number






- The media screws up again
- by May 6, 2005 1:47 PM PDT
- Over and above the fact that the government is rapidly consolidating its postion as public enemy number one, we also learn in this article that reporters don't want to do any research for their story. <br /><br />This article clearly stated the the Supremes have held that police can demand to see ID from law-abiding citizens and then refer to the Hibel v. Nevada case. In Hibel, the Supremes held that a person can be required to identify themselves. However, the Nevada statute did not require that an ID be produced. And the dicta in the opinion seems to indicate that had a particular form of ID been required the ruling may well have been different.<br /><br />So, while it is true that police may "demand to see ID", they have been entitled to do so for a long time. The requirement to respond would still seem to be only that a verbal statement of name is required.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I think this is really bad precedent for a free nation. Not that I have a problem with the concept of a national ID, just that the government and other entites that would use such an ID are not to be trusted not to abuse it.<br /><br />Read Heinlein - the way to avoid high-tech surveilance is to go low-tech - in this case, the RFID can generally be defeated by wrapping the chip in aluminum foil or a similar Faraday shield.<br /><br />So, if I need such an ID to go into a gevernment building, does that mean when the IRS asks me to show up for an audit that I will not be allowed to attend if I don't have such an ID? And that I won't be allowed to enter the courthouse for jury duty, etc.<br /><br />This isn't all bad ...<br />I think a little creative civil disobedience is in order.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 8 pages (319 Comments)