The Really No Idea Act!

A story in Detroit's MetroTimes (by Ben LeFebvre) adds to my previous post; I'm not the only one aware of the DHS not finalizing Real ID. Here are a few long quotes from this article, which is right on:

"Unfortunately, we are in a bit of a holding pattern, awaiting instructions from the Department of Homeland Security," says Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of State.

Meanwhile, as the Department of Homeland Security attempts to determine the specifics of how the act will be implemented, questions about potential costs — both in terms of the dollar burden to states and the toll on individual privacy — continue to be raised about what amounts to a national ID program that will consolidate detailed personal information on a vast computer database.

And here's the most serious statement I've read about how Real ID could place our private data at risk:

Particularly upsetting for civil libertarians concerned about the Big Brother capabilities of both government and corporations is the amount of information to be contained on a single card. One requirement of the new ID will be that it use "common machine-readable technology" to store information about a person. That could mean a bar code, a magnetic strip or, more ominously, what's known as a radio frequency identification tag (RFID). As University of Washington School of Law professor Anita Ramasastry reported in a column for CNN.com, such tags emit radio frequency signals that would "allow the government to track the movement of our cards and us."

"Private businesses," Ramasastry adds, "may be able to use remote scanners to read RFID tags too, and add to the digital dossiers they may already be compiling. If different merchants combine their data — you can imagine the sorts of profiles that will develop. And unlike with a grocery store checkout, we may have no idea the scan is even occurring; no telltale beep will alert us."

Why is it problemm that the DHS has not issued its Real ID regulations yet?

I've often complained here that it is not possible for the states to develop their Real ID licenses, as required by law, until the DHS gets through specifying them. There's simply no guessing what small change the DHS might require that would force a lot of software to be rewritten and hardware to be modified or repurchased.

If you think it's "obvious" what should be on a drivers license, check out this Montana <,a href=http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2006/05/19/news/topnews/114930.txt>story in the Bismarck Tribune by Tom Rqaafferty. Montana has been imaginative about solving some license problems, and in the process they have added features to their licenses that the DHS might force on everyone else; or the DHS might force Montana to drop them. The story mentions thesse features:

• A second photo that will become blurry if photocopied.
  
• Licenses of people under 21 are printed vertically instead of horizontally, to make it easy to see that they are (probably still) underage.
  

The idea of distinguishing licenses for people underage could be troubling, if the Real ID licenses will be valid for eight years (one possibility). A person could be 28 and have an "underrage" license, which means that people may not check them carefully before selling liquor or cigs.
The DHS probably is not interested in liquor or cigs; it's intetested in terrorism. So the DHS is more likely to require all licenses to be printed the same way, for ease of scanning and reading.

Maine Wants to give up.

A story in Bangor Daily News quotes Secretary of State Matt Dunlap:

"I don't see how we could possibly meet all its requirements. I don't see how any state could meet all the requirements by the deadline." ... "It is a huge, unfunded federal mandate," he said, "and it is totally unrealistic in its timelines."

Maine recently spent $14 million to computerize and speed up the licensing process, and is now looking at a new law that will create long lines to renew, and make licenses cost over $100.

"It simply can't be done in a couple of years," he said. Dunlap is joined in his criticism of the law by the National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures, which issued a report last month critical of the lack of funding and unrealistic implementation schedule.

Resitance is Building (2) ...

An article in the free Internet Press has more quotes from a National Governors Association meeting:

Concerns are so great that last week, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators issued a report saying that the states have not been given the time or money to comply with the law and that they need at least another eight years.

... "It's absolutely absurd," said Gov. Mike Huckabee, of Arkansas, chairman of the National Governors Association, which takes a stand on issues only when it has a broad consensus. "The time frame is unrealistic; the lack of funding is inexcusable."

Another concern, Huckabee, a Republican, said, is "whether this is a role that you really want to turn over to an entry-level, front-line, desk person at the D.M.V."

"If we're at a point that we need a national I.D. card, then let's do that," Huckabee said. "But let's not act like we're addressing this at a federal level and then blame the states if they mess it up. There's not a governor in America that wants that responsibility."

Resistance is building (1) ...

Resistance is building against the real ID act. I'm sure this has a lot to do with the fact that May 2008 is closer than it used to be, and the act is still not finished (no specs from the DHS after a year of waiting). Here are some comments from the online version of Jurist (Pitttsburgh PA Univ law school), article by Jamie Sterling:

State lawmakers have expressed concern about possible problems expected to accompany the implementation of the REAL ID Act [PDF text, UPI backgrounder], fearing that the law cannot be enacted before the May 2008 deadline.

Since the law passed Congress [JURIST report] last May, states have said that the compliance process is too large and too expensive to undertake and complete by the deadline. New York City passed a resolution asking that the law be repealed, Kentucky and Washington are currently considering passing such resolutions, and the New Hampshire House passed a bill [text] last week that would allow the state to opt out of compliance with the act entirely.

...the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators [official website] teamed up and released a report [PDF text] concluding that states are unprepared to implement the law [press release] and may need up to eight years to acquire the requisite money and time to successfully enact the legislation. These organizations hope the report will "bring state concerns about REAL ID to the attention of the Department of Homeland Security."