March 26, 2007 3:01 PM PDT

Senators skeptical of Real ID Act rules

Not one senator voted against a 2005 emergency spending bill that created federalized ID cards. But two years later, skepticism on Capitol Hill about the wildly controversial Real ID rules is beginning to surface.

Leaders of a U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs panel joined a chorus of outsiders, including many state government officials, who have questioned the costs and privacy implications of the congressionally mandated shift to identification cards that must adhere to a bevy of national standards.

One of the requirements in draft rules for the program issued earlier this month, for example, is that states issue machine-readable licenses whose information could be shared among individual state motor vehicle department databases, which Homeland Security defends as a means of helping to verify that the same driver isn't licensed in more than one state. There is no requirement, however, that the information contained on the cards be encrypted.

Such a standard "could provide one-stop shopping for identity thieves," Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) said at a hearing on the topic.

Akaka, who also joined some of his colleagues in criticizing the current Real ID requirements as an "unfunded mandate," is one of four senators backing a bill that would repeal the Real ID Act. The proposal would replace that law with what privacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have praised as a more flexible approach with stiffer privacy requirements, including encryption of card data and a ban on third-party use of the data.

The Real ID Act grew out of 9/11 Commission recommendations that states implement driver's licenses that are more difficult to forge, after investigators determined the majority of the hijackers who masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks were able to obtain the identification cards using falsified documents.

Some senators on Monday lamented that their colleagues managed to sneak the Real ID language into a crucial spending bill without hearings or debate. They said they would have preferred to implement the changes through a process some had advocated prior to the Real ID Act's passage: convening a group composed of state officials, privacy advocates and technological experts to negotiate standards.

Meanwhile, a number of states have begun rebelling against the requirements, citing cost and privacy concerns. State legislators in Maine and Idaho recently rejected participation, and some 28 states have seen introduction of or support for measures voicing disapproval with the Real ID requirements.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has introduced a bill that would give states more time to get their systems in line with the requirements, questioned whether such a route is actually practical.

"If they don't participate, then their citizens cannot board airplanes, they cannot gain access to certain federal buildings...so do you really think there is an alternative for any state but to opt in?" she asked Richard Barth, a U.S. Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary who shares responsibility for the program.

Barth, who spoke under oath before the committee, said he believes there are "strong incentives" for states to participate and defended the program as vital for fighting terrorism. He added that citizens will be able to use alternative forms of identification, such as State Department-issued passports or military-issued identification cards, as stand-ins for the Real ID-mandated cards.

Senators also continued to voice concern about how states would pay for the program, which Homeland Security estimates will cost $23.1 billion over a 10-year period. States are allowed, for instance, to spend 20 percent of the federal homeland security grants they receive on meeting Real ID requirements, but committee members, including Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), said they found that prospect "ridiculous."

"I wonder if Congress realizes the huge cost burden we're placing on states," he said.

Barth said Homeland Security would not "in any way, shape or form" object to Congress setting aside more than the $40 million it has currently appropriated for federal Real ID implementation. But he said the department is also looking at ways to help states to cut costs, such as procuring all of the cardstock and physical equipment needed to print the cards through a national contract and reselling them to states at "the lowest possible cost."

Not all senators present on Monday were so critical of the existing plan. Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) said going forward with the standardized IDs was critical for national security. He also suggested Congress should hold off on changing the law until at least after Homeland Security issues its final Real ID rules, which Barth said are expected in August or September.

"We've got to be a working partner and not get into an adversarial process," Warner said.

See more CNET content tagged:
Real ID Act, senator, homeland security, ID card, state

3 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Skeptical of Real ID Act as Super ID Act
The advancement of technology makes any new ID card effectively a SUPER ID card with magnetic strip, computer chip etc... capability. Sure there will be careful limits placed upon the use of these cards in order to allow them to be established. But as sure as it has happened before, it will happen again that circumstances will change and the application of SUPER ID cards will also change.

Remember how it was promised that the Social Security numbers would never be used as a national ID number? Well, that is changed. Remember how the national income tax was passed over christmas vacation in 1913 partially on the promises that the new taxes would be very minimal and provide plenty of money to the national treasury no problemo? Well, things changed and the authorities utilized the tools in their hands for broader purposes.

Surely times will change again and the SUPER ID cards will be the tools in hand to use to meet the characterizably broader demands that will face us. I feel uncomfortable with what that means. If the government can feel uncomfortable with what could be out there and thus claim a need for or an expanded use for a SUPER ID card, then I say that I feel uncomfortable with what could be out there in the future by way of the government using the SUPER ID technology to track and control our lives.

Surely we citizens can face the challenges of our world with more backbone and determination! I'd rather not give up our "negative freedoms" of the individualistic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And I'm all for providing some "positive rights" (either from government or private sources) like assuring food and shelter for all people also. I think we should try to do this without excessive government in our private lives. With the criminal element so powerful using new technology etc I feel that we should not limit the government's ability to meet that powerful criminal element of society with at least all the tools that the criminals use. Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Posted by jefframse (20 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Skeptical of Real ID Act as Super ID Act
After seeing the Patriot Act I and II, and realizing the scope of what our own government will do with the tools we give them, I am unabashedly afraid to give them yet another tool to hammer away at my rights with.

They don't need this Real ID to make us safer from terrorists---some of the terrorists on 9-11 didn't even have any ID---so now what?
Posted by trid2bnrml (11 comments )
Link Flag
Bid high then accept low: For coming debate
In the 2005 emergency spending bill the people who inserted the Real ID (read SUPER ID ) into it knowingly left out key limitations on its future application. The ACLU would prefer..."more flexible approach with stiffer privacy requirements, including encryption of card data and a ban on third-party use of the data". Without encryption or ban of third party use of ID data, the future debate on whether or not to have a SUPER ID would be blunted or shifted from whether to have it at all towards the question of how to make this be workable.

Surely the sponsors of this 'insertion' into the Spending Bill do not want carde blanche given to the SUPER ID card right off the bat. But they did bid high on first offer for it knowing that something less than whole hog would end up being getting it to stay on board! See. Now the bidding will bring it down to a social price that may be bargained for. Encryption and banning third party use of SUPER ID information will now be the compromise instead of an integral part of the initial presentation that would be debated solely on overall merit.

I feel it was not an even-handed the way it was inserted in the first place without restrictions to speak of. Rather it was a clever way to get it on board and to increase the likelihood of it hanging in there after the coming opposition to it. See.
Posted by jefframse (20 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.