Rel $$ from the DHS:

New Hampshire and Kentucky are each receiving $3,000,000 from the DHS to implelemnt "pilot" Real ID projects. We'll definitely want to se where this money goes, and how well it covers implementation of real ID. I believe the DHS has still not properly defined what Real ID is, so it will also be interesting to see how much of this money can be spent soon.

NH is an interesting choice, as this state nearly opted out of Real ID altogether. There may still be interesting limits to NH's involvement, as shown in an AP article published in the Nashua Telegraph article online (Aug 9, 2006), by Anne Saunders:

Motor Vehicles Director Virginia Beecher told the committee she has no intention of sharing driver information with a national database, except for the system that now exists to identify problem drivers to police.

“We would protect state’s rights and individual privacy,” she said.

Security: balancing cost against value:

Bruce Schneier, in his weblogs and books, is eloquent and clear on this subject: all security procedures are a tradeoff of cost against value. No procedures are perfect, and we have a finite amount of money to spend on security. It's unfortunate that security laws and materials are usually adopted on emotional grounds, or because they clearly look useful, without any consideration of balancing cost. Here's a wonderful example, by Beverly Wang (associated Press writer), reported in boston.com news:

CONCORD, N.H. --Forcing people to show passports or national ID cards at Canadian border crossings is an inconvenient, money-wasting invasion of privacy that won't protect against terrorism, according to one Democrat running in the 1st Congressional District.

"Surely a terrorist could figure out how to walk through the woods to avoid the border guards," said Carol Shea-Porter of Rochester. "The program would cost billions of dollars to implement, inconvenience millions of honest people, and would only create the illusion of safety."