Previous Politech message:
http://www.politechbot.com/2005/03/24/new-national-id/
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Politech] New national ID argument: Let's support half of
one so we don't get the whole thing [priv]
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:29:37 -0500
From: Stirland, Sarah <SStirland@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
Declan,
This article omits some key facts. Here are some of them in an article I
recently wrote. The administration has already set in process work to
create a more secure ID system and doing what it was instructed to do by
the intelligence reform bill.
Sarah
Lobbying: Push To Change Driver's Licensing System Prompts Outcry
(c) National Journal Group, Inc.
A coalition of state officials and motor-vehicle administrators on
Thursday defended the current Transportation Department process for
establishing federal standards for driver's licenses and argued that a
competing plan now before Congress should be rejected.
In a letter to Senate leaders, the coalition said the process, which
gives a voice to state elected officials and motor-vehicle
administrators, provides "a workable framework for developing meaningful
standards to increase reliability and security of driver's licenses and
ID cards." It also said the process "protects state eligibility criteria
and retains the flexibility necessary to incorporate best practices from
around the states."
The letter -- signed by leaders at the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators, Council of State Governments, National
Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and National Governors
Association -- specifically rejects the driver's licensing language
tacked onto the fiscal 2005 emergency spending bill that the House
passed Wednesday. The Senate Appropriations Committee is scheduled to
debate the bill April 6.
...
The issue arose last year during the debate on intelligence legislation,
which later became law. Congress included in that act language creating
the current system for driver's licensing.
That system requires the Transportation secretary, with the help of the
Homeland Security secretary, to establish federally recognized minimum
standards for driver's licenses. Transportation must create the
standards through a rulemaking process that involves a committee of 25
people at the federal and state levels.
The state officials include representatives from motor-vehicle
administrations, the attorneys general offices, governors' offices and
legislatures. Technology organizations and privacy and civil-liberties
are among the others designated to participate.
The committee is required to submit recommendations on the standards to
the transportation secretary by mid-September. Its first three-day
meeting is scheduled for April 5.
...
National Journal's Technology Daily PM
Sarah Lai Stirland
Senior Writer
National Journal's Technology Daily
http://www.technologydaily.com
http://www.sarahstirland.com
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] New national ID argument: Let's support half of
one so we don't get the whole thing [priv]
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:36:22 -0800
From: David Brownell <david-b@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
CC: politech@private
References: <42424B75.1030601@private>
On Wednesday 23 March 2005 9:09 pm, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
>
> "... At many entry points to
> vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of
> identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who
> they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists."
Right. We'll be so much safer when airports have "terrorists-only" lines.
Normal people will get the level of scrutiny they did ten years ago, none
of this invasive strip-search-grandma stuff any more.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] New national ID argument: Let's support half of
one so we don't get the whole thing [priv]
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:04:15 -0500
From: Chris Beck <cbeck@private>
Organization: None At All
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
References: <42424B75.1030601@private>
> "Once again, libertarian ideologues are objective allies of big
> government, trying to block the limited reforms that are the only way to
> stave off the more sweeping measures favored by the Left."
Right, because TIA was proposed under a Leftist government. And all this
secrecy and constitution bashing. Right. And making Orin Hatch the
chairman of
the IP sub-committee.
Don't get me wrong, the DMCA was under Clinton's watch - they are _all_
bad if
you ask me.
Cheers,
Chris
--
Chris Beck - http://pacanukeha.blogspot.com
He needs a lang shanket spoon that sups kail wi' the de'il
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] New national ID argument: Let's support half of
one sowe don't ge
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:06:12 -0800
From: James Moyer <james@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
Declan,
I'm glad you focused on the line in Krikorian's article saying that the
Real ID Act is a way of preventing a full National ID card from those on
the Left. I've looked at the voting on the Real ID Act, and I see quite
a lot more Republicans in favor than Democrats. Anecdotally, I would
actually say that the historical development of ID cards in this country
was lead more by security scared Republicans (persuaded/frightened by
photo ID card vendors) than statist Democrats.
State ID cards were never meant to imply anything about citizenship. The
fact that people commonly accept the documents as proof of citizenship
or residency is a major failing of photo ID cards, but that problem is
best addressed other ways. No security expert worth their salt is in
favor of adding residency/citizenship data to the license (such as
combined license/visa expiry.) That simply increases the value of the
driver's license, because then it actually becomes a residency document,
and if you thought driver's licensing fraud was bad, watch what happens
when it gets combined with passport/green card fraud.
I like to say that, if the brillaint security experts that helped derail
some of the electronic voting proposals, had been around when photo ID
cards were considered, we wouldn't have them today. Kirkorian's article
assumes the unproven--that powerful photo ID cards are, or can be,
secure for identification, and, moreover, that they are productive for
security situations like preventing terrorism. 9/11 should have proven
the opposite, yet people like Kirkorian assume something was wrong with
the details, not with the principle of cheap plastic cards preventing
terrorist acts.
James
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] New national ID argument: Let's support half of
one so we don't get the whole thing [priv]
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:37:20 -0800
From: Russ Allbery <rra@private>
Organization: The Eyrie
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
References: <42424B75.1030601@private>
Declan McCullagh <declan@private> writes:
> A REAL Solution
> The Safe Side of the ID Debate
> By Mark Krikorian
[...]
> But there's more. It's not just that the bill wouldn't establish a
> national ID; by making our existing, decentralized identification
> arrangements more secure, the REAL ID Act is the only thing that can
> stop a national ID card.
There is an unacknowledged and controversial assumption at work here,
namely that REAL ID will make something more secure. There are cogent
arguments saying that it won't. See, for instance:
<http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=40902>
There are things to quibble about in the above opinion as well (for
example, I think there would still be a market for forged ID outside of
criminals and terrorists even with a permissive policy on issuance of
driver's licenses), but the point is that we should have that discussion,
not simply assume a conclusion that's not been proven.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@private) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] New national ID argument: Let's support half of
one so we don't get the whole thing [priv]
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:48:37 -0600
From: Steve Stearns <sterno@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
References: <42424B75.1030601@private>
Declan McCullagh wrote:
> The need for more security in our existing document system was
> highlighted by the 9/11 Commission: "The federal government should set
> standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of
> identification, such as driver's licenses. Fraud in identification
> documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many entry points
> to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft,
> sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that
> people are who they say they are and to check whether they are
> terrorists." (see Chapter 12, p. 390.)
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't all the 9/11 hijackers exactly who
they said they were?
In order for an identification based security system to work, we need
two things:
1) Iron clad guarantees that the identification is valid
2) Certain knowledge that a person is actually a threat
The first part of this is difficult because even with the guarantees
mandated by this legislation, nothing is out there to prevent people
from using bribery, theft, etc, to forge identification. In illinois,
many people got completely valid truck driving licenses in spite of
their lack of qualifications because of government corruption. Just
because a state is mandated to do all of those checks doesn't mean they
will actually get done.
The second part is almost impossible. While it can certainly catch the
low hanging fruit, well trained and committed terrorists can avoid the
factors that would likely flag them as a legitimate threat. They can
use such a system against itself quite readily, going to airports,
seeing if they can get through, knowing that if they get stopped and
checked, they have been compromised.
The real flaw in the system on 9/11 was two fold:
1) Anybody could get a large knife onto a plane
2) Everybody assumed that a terrorist would try to land the plane, not
use it as a weapon
Had the 9/11 terrorists not had knives, it never happens. Passengers
knowing they will be used as a weapon will not sit and let it happen. A
knife isn't going to fend off a plane full of people in fear of their
lives.
This is just more legislation to create the illusion of security without
actually making us more secure.
---Steve
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Mar 24 2005 - 21:16:51 PST