<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">All,<BR>
<BR>
FYI,<BR>
<BR>
Beverley<BR>
<BR>
REAL ID: CONNECTING THE DOTS TO AN INTERNATIONAL ID <BR>
By Representative Sam E. Rohrer <BR>
August 24, 2008 <A HREF="http://newswithviews.com/">NewsWithViews.com</A> <BR>
<BR>
History offers many examples of societies which have sought to increase <BR>
security by sacrificing freedom. America itself provides many pertinent <BR>
instances. However, our founding fathers have not left us without wisdom on <BR>
this issue. Ben Franklin has famously stated, "People willing to trade <BR>
freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." REAL ID <BR>
undoubtedly exemplifies a scenario in which a difficult tension exists <BR>
between freedom and security. By commandeering every state's driver's <BR>
license issuing process, REAL ID threatens the results warned by Franklin - <BR>
loss of both freedom and security. It has become the biometric enrollment <BR>
phase of a plan to implement a terribly invasive tracking system, largely <BR>
without public knowledge or approval. <BR>
REAL ID is merely the current face of a far larger, international government <BR>
and private economic effort to collect, store, and distribute the sensitive <BR>
biometric data of citizens to use for the twin purposes of government <BR>
tracking and economic control. At issue are much more than standardized or <BR>
non-duplicative driver's licenses. This effort extends worldwide, <BR>
threatening every person alive today. Although very legitimate security <BR>
concerns exist in this age of terrorism, this Act extends far beyond <BR>
terrorism prevention or protection of the innocent. Keeping that broad <BR>
picture in mind, let us move to some background behind the face of REAL ID <BR>
implementation in America. <BR>
The REAL ID Act passed Congress in 2005 buried in a "must-pass" war funding <BR>
and tsunami relief bill. The little debate in the House and total absence of <BR>
debate in the Senate ensured that many Congressmen did not realize the full <BR>
implications of REAL ID. Importantly, the desire by government and economic <BR>
interests to implement a national tracking and ID system did not start with <BR>
the REAL ID Act in 2005. Under the guise of security, it has been attempted <BR>
numerous times in the past, even during Ronald Reagan's administration. When <BR>
former Attorney General William French Smith proposed to implement what he <BR>
called a "perfectly harmless" national ID system as well as when a second <BR>
cabinet member proposed to "tattoo a number on each American's forearm," <BR>
Ronald Reagan responded, "My God, that's the mark of the beast," signaling <BR>
an abrupt end to the national ID debate during the Reagan years. <BR>
The significant opposition to a national ID system in the past extends to <BR>
the REAL ID issue today. This conviction has united both Democrats and <BR>
Republicans as well as such normally opposed groups as the ACLU and the <BR>
ACLJ. Whether the concern is privacy, religious rights, states' rights, or <BR>
cost of implementation, REAL ID has galvanized broad and deep resistance, <BR>
currently including an estimated six hundred groups. Today, over twenty <BR>
legislatures have passed resolutions or legislation variously opposing <BR>
implementation of the REAL ID Act. Eleven of those legislatures have gone <BR>
further by passing laws specifically prohibiting compliance with REAL ID. <BR>
What does REAL ID do? REAL ID attempts to mandate a standardized process and <BR>
format for all state drivers' licenses to achieve increased security. Most <BR>
importantly in this standardized process, REAL ID mandates a certain picture <BR>
quality. A footnote issued by the Department of Homeland Security <BR>
establishes this quality as compliant with the ICAO Document 9303 biometric <BR>
format. The global body setting this format, the International Civil <BR>
Aviation Organization (ICAO), is a specialized agency created under the <BR>
United Nations. Biometric data can be produced from a simple digital <BR>
photograph of this quality by running the picture of a person's face through <BR>
a software program which measures and analyzes the unique, personally <BR>
identifiable characteristics of that face. The process results in a unique <BR>
numeric code which identifies a person according to facial measurements. You <BR>
read that correctly. A unique number or "code" is developed from an <BR>
algorithmic formula which converts a digital biometric sample to biometric <BR>
"face print" data. Under REAL ID biometric facial recognition technology, <BR>
you become a number literally worn on your face - a number which is read by <BR>
computer, tracked by surveillance camera, and distributed worldwide. <BR>
Clearly, this international standard provides global compatibility of <BR>
American citizens' biometric data collected through REAL ID. <BR>
Having this background, we should observe that many Americans still do not <BR>
know why the provisions of the REAL ID Act must be rejected and aggressively <BR>
opposed because they do not understand the full implications of REAL ID. <BR>
Many wrongly assume that the legitimate need for security trumps all other <BR>
considerations. However, REAL ID is not primarily about a secure driver's <BR>
license or terrorism prevention. The full and dangerous implications of REAL <BR>
ID may be fleshed out through a discussion of why each American must <BR>
vigorously oppose this Act's most basic tenets. It poses dangers in the <BR>
following three areas: <BR>
1 - REAL ID violates Constitutional rights. <BR>
2 - REAL ID compromises national and state sovereignty. <BR>
3 - REAL ID threatens the safety of all Americans. <BR>
I- First, let us note that compliance with REAL ID would violate our <BR>
constitutionally protected freedoms. <BR>
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion <BR>
REAL ID violates freedom of religion for some citizens by forcing inclusion <BR>
into a system which requires a picture - and more - just to access public <BR>
services. The Amish and some Mennonites provide examples of religious groups <BR>
who view the mere taking of photographs as idolatry. REAL ID conditions <BR>
their freedoms, such as entering a federal building, upon a provision which <BR>
violates their religious beliefs. Because this "government" identification <BR>
system limits travel and access to certain public places, and could even <BR>
become a debit card, other more mainline religious groups view REAL ID as <BR>
the advent of the "mark of the beast." <BR>
Particularly because this technology assigns a unique number to represent <BR>
each person's biometric face print, these concerns are hardly unfounded. <BR>
A Powerpoint presentation from L-1 Identity Solutions, the major biometrics <BR>
company in the U.S. today, bolsters this claim. A slide in that presentation <BR>
includes a graph which charts future likely applications for biometrics. <BR>
Phase 1 of this "blueprint" for biometric implementation utilizes the <BR>
authority of Federal agencies to impose such requirements as REAL ID. Phase <BR>
utilizes bureaucratic leveraging on regulated industries to implement <BR>
biometrics. Phase 3 anticipates mass implementation on the citizens at large <BR>
for such everyday activities as buying and selling. As an example, under <BR>
Phase 2 DHS is attempting to force airlines to pick up the costs of <BR>
collecting biometrics from foreigners at airports. In Texas under Phase 3, a <BR>
company is experimenting with using the driver's license as a debit card. <BR>
Whether one is personally alarmed at some or all of these concerns, REAL ID <BR>
would prohibit the free exercise of religion for many people. <BR>
Amendment IV Freedom of Privacy <BR>
REAL ID also violates the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of freedom of <BR>
privacy. First, by mandating the collection, storage, and dissemination of <BR>
personally identifiable data without any informed consent, REAL ID tramples <BR>
on this right. In reality, this practice constitutes government-sanctioned <BR>
identity theft and seriously breaches the "security of person" guaranteed to <BR>
every U.S. citizen. No sufficiently compelling need exists to warrant <BR>
government mass collection and storage of such sensitive information about <BR>
its citizens. Concern heightens even further when private corporations <BR>
control the databases being set up to house this information. As an example, <BR>
L-1 Identity Solutions houses a database of U.S. driver's license <BR>
information. This company, which has consolidated a virtual monopoly on the <BR>
driver's license issuing market in the U.S., will handle all private <BR>
information collected during the license issuing process. <BR>
Secondly, REAL ID threatens freedom of privacy because this warehoused data <BR>
cannot be confidently secured. Even the Department of Homeland Security's <BR>
own Privacy Impact Assessment fails to guarantee that the database linking <BR>
and networking that will result from REAL ID will be secure. Many privacy <BR>
experts agree that REAL ID will actually increase identity theft! In <BR>
reality, the database and access to it will create an electronic <BR>
superhighway for potential mass identity theft. <BR>
Thirdly, REAL ID violates the Fourth Amendment in that the process of <BR>
collecting personal biometric data without consent violates the very laws <BR>
that exist to protect against such measures. This is probably one of the <BR>
most significant Constitutional issues. Current US law allows the collection <BR>
of biometric information only in the case of criminal activity. However, <BR>
REAL ID institutionalizes the capture of facial recognition biometrics for <BR>
every driver, regardless of criminality. <BR>
Fourthly, REAL ID ripens the climate for aggressive efforts to control the <BR>
masses via information and leading-edge technology, regardless of crucial <BR>
privacy considerations. Data collection and surveillance is simultaneously <BR>
occurring across several diverse fronts, each one a potential privacy danger <BR>
painting the broader picture of where REAL ID will take us as a country. For <BR>
instance: <BR>
1- In Rhode Island, a school district is allowing a company to place radio <BR>
frequency tracking (RFID) chips in students' book bags. <BR>
2- Nationwide, Great Britain has installed an estimated 4.2 million <BR>
surveillance cameras utilizing facial recognition technology to keep tabs on <BR>
all citizens. These cameras, of which there is 1 for every 14 citizens, can <BR>
observe a person up to 300 times in a normal day in the city of London. <BR>
3- China is aggressively pursuing country-wide surveillance of its citizens <BR>
using facial recognition technology purchased from a contractor supplied by <BR>
the previously mentioned L-1 Identity Solutions. <BR>
4- According to a June 28, 2008 New York Times article, US and European <BR>
officials are nearly agreed upon a "binding international agreement" which <BR>
would allow "European governments and companies to transfer personal <BR>
information to the United States, and vice versa." Under the cloak of <BR>
terrorism prevention, European governments could request "private <BR>
information - like credit card transactions, travel histories, and Internet <BR>
browsing habits" about American citizens. <BR>
5- Homeland Security Presidential Directive 24 issued by the President on <BR>
June 5, 2008, "establishes a framework to ensure that Federal executive <BR>
departments and agencies use mutually compatible methods and procedures in <BR>
the collection, storage, use, analysis, and sharing of biometric and <BR>
associated biographic and contextual information of individuals." This step <BR>
shows the President's extensive authority and disregard for privacy in <BR>
streamlining the biometric sharing process. <BR>
6- The FBI is currently building a billion-dollar database to house an <BR>
enormous amount of biometric data. While officially aimed at housing <BR>
criminal and terrorist data, this database already retains finger prints, <BR>
iris scans and other individual biometrics that the government collects on <BR>
ordinary citizens. Who knows the extent of the private information that will <BR>
be stored in this massive database? REAL ID-collected "face prints" are just <BR>
one more piece of the data collection and tracking system. <BR>
These examples only serve to underscore the aggressive global government <BR>
efforts to track and control citizens. In every case, REAL ID violates the <BR>
freedoms guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. <BR>
Amendment X States' Rights <BR>
REAL ID violates the Tenth Amendment in that the federal government is <BR>
attempting to force the states to collect private data on their citizens, <BR>
only to allow that data to be shipped out-of-state and shared worldwide. <BR>
This action forces the states to work against the very interests of the <BR>
citizens they are to protect. When states accede to this pressure under REAL <BR>
ID, they allow the transfer of state authority to the federal government. <BR>
The separation of powers built into our Constitution then crumbles as the <BR>
federal government makes the rules, interprets the rules, and enforces the <BR>
rules regarding all state drivers' licenses. <BR>
II- In addition to the three ways REAL ID would violate the Constitution, <BR>
compliance with the REAL ID Act would undermine our national and state <BR>
sovereignty. While REAL ID reads like a manual for a national ID card, the <BR>
Department of Homeland Security's own rules for REAL ID reveal that it <BR>
implements an international ID system based on biometric identification. <BR>
Complying with the requirements under REAL ID would violate U.S. national <BR>
and state sovereignty by forcing states to adopt international biometric <BR>
facial image standards and to document standards set by international <BR>
organizations. <BR>
As mentioned previously, the ICAO, affiliated with the UN, sets the <BR>
standards for facial image captures (photos). Besides tracking the movements <BR>
of international travelers, the ICAO also has assumed the responsibility of <BR>
creating a common international passport system that stores individual <BR>
personal and biometric information on a RFID chip built into the passport. <BR>
The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), which <BR>
recognizes ICAO standards, "enables" this scheme. This international body <BR>
and private organization sets nearly all the standards for REAL ID document <BR>
scanning, storage, data encryption, barcode and layout design to comply with <BR>
their 2005 international driver's license system. Under REAL ID, AAMVA is <BR>
the hub and backbone of the database system being set up to share <BR>
information between states. From a broad perspective, the system created by <BR>
REAL ID destroys national sovereignty and constitutional authority by <BR>
removing control of government from the people and establishing government <BR>
control over the people. <BR>
Furthering AAMVA's control strategy here in North America, implementation of <BR>
REAL ID is "de facto" enrollment of each state into AAMVA's Driver's License <BR>
Agreement (DLA). AAMVA has pushed the DLA, which meets REAL ID <BR>
specifications, for nearly ten years. The implementation of this DLA is <BR>
crucially important to the global effort because it mandates the sharing of <BR>
all U.S. drivers' license information with Mexico and Canada. This egregious <BR>
step places U.S. citizen's data at the mercy of Canadian and Mexican privacy <BR>
controls, further exacerbating the identity theft problem, and violating <BR>
Constitutional law and national sovereignty by essentially having states <BR>
form a treaty with a foreign nation. <BR>
REAL ID also violates national sovereignty because any international system <BR>
includes and requires agreements and obligations that would weaken any <BR>
sovereign standing. In fact, a Government Computer News report notes the <BR>
following from Robert Mocny, acting program manager for the U.S. Visitor and <BR>
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program. His quote comes from comments <BR>
about a federal plan to extend biometric data sharing to Asian and European <BR>
governments and corporations, so as to create a Global Security Envelope of <BR>
identity management. <BR>
"My question is, how is it ethical not to share?" Mocny asked. "It makes no <BR>
sense for us to develop separate systems . . . information sharing is <BR>
appropriate around the world." Government Computer News further notes that <BR>
he is sketching a plan for sharing biometric data that would permanently <BR>
link an individual with data that governments and corporations hold. Since <BR>
both governments and corporations have been infiltrated by extremists and <BR>
terrorists and since certain governments of today may be our enemies <BR>
tomorrow, I hardly think that worldwide sharing of our citizen's data is a <BR>
good idea! <BR>
Enhanced Driver's Licenses (or EDL's) provide a further example of the <BR>
undermining of national and state sovereignty. Citizens that purchase these <BR>
nearly REAL ID-compliant licenses, which contain biographic and biometric <BR>
information on an RFID chip, can use them as a passport to enter either <BR>
Mexico or Canada. This advancement establishes the international ID <BR>
designation of REAL ID. The Canadian province British Columbia has also <BR>
issued a new EDL which, according to their website is also, "an acceptable <BR>
document for entry from Canada into the United States by land and water." <BR>
REAL ID violates state sovereignty because the issue in contention is <BR>
"national identity management", with the federal government manipulating the <BR>
tool of state driver's licenses. Consider the following statements about <BR>
REAL ID from Electronic Data Systems, the very company likely to maintain <BR>
AAMVA's driver's license database: "The Real ID Act, then, is about more <BR>
than a driver's license. It puts in place a set of standards for Identity <BR>
Management (IdM) that can be leveraged across an entire government <BR>
organization to create an integrated citizen identity security program." The <BR>
international biometric standards mandated in DHS's final rules, paint the <BR>
broader picture of an international ID card for government surveillance and <BR>
tracking. <BR>
III- REAL ID would endanger Constitutional rights and both national and <BR>
state sovereignty. Finally, let us consider that compliance with the REAL ID <BR>
Act would compromise the safety of our people. Unlike what some government <BR>
officials might say, 9/11 and the prevention of terrorism are not the real <BR>
reasons for REAL ID. In fact, this technology was being pushed well before <BR>
/11. Although REAL ID and biometrics are promoted as the "cure-all" to <BR>
terrorism and identity theft problems, many highly dispute this claim. In <BR>
response to the post-9/11 claims of biometrics companies that their <BR>
technology could have prevented 9/11, Jim Wayman, the former head of the US <BR>
Biometrics Center countered, "No, the government didn't have this stuff in <BR>
place, precisely because it had been working on it and knew its limitations <BR>
and didn't find any value for the costs involved." He further noted, "It's <BR>
going to be hard to know how these technologies can be applied to increase <BR>
national security. We're not just going to turn these machines on and start <BR>
catching terrorists." REAL ID will not assure greater safety since <BR>
terrorists will either avoid or duplicate a REAL ID compliant drivers' <BR>
license, although a correctly operating biometric system would certainly <BR>
increase the difficulty of faking or forging a license. <BR>
Despite the government's assurances about the "certain" safety benefits of <BR>
REAL ID, no government or company can create a foolproof, perfectly secure <BR>
system. A person who breaks the law or who desires to wreak havoc on <BR>
American soil will find a loophole with which to avoid the requirements of <BR>
REAL ID. One needs only consider that driver's licenses on the black market <BR>
will continue to be readily available. <BR>
Further, the safety of law abiding citizens will be compromised as their <BR>
identities are stolen, stored and made accessible to thieves around the <BR>
globe. Some people reject this idea because they hope that the government <BR>
will be able to protect their identity once it has all of a person's <BR>
information. The simple faith implicit in this idea is widely misplaced, <BR>
however. As proof, consider that in 2007, a Globe and Mail report noted, "A <BR>
security flaw in Passport Canada's website has allowed easy access to the <BR>
personal information - including social insurance numbers, dates of birth <BR>
and driver's license numbers - of people applying for new passports." A <BR>
breach of security in Great Britain last December resulted in the loss of <BR>
approximately 25 million individual records. In my state of Pennsylvania, a <BR>
security breach which occurred two years ago at a Driver's License Center <BR>
resulted in over 11,000 records being compromised. Such security breaches <BR>
highlight significant personal dangers to law abiding citizens and prove <BR>
that the only secure data is uncollected data. <BR>
Finally, REAL ID does not assure safety because biometric technology itself <BR>
does not work predictably. At this point in time, the technology we are <BR>
discussing does not work well; hence REAL ID and facial recognition <BR>
biometrics can not ensure safety. As a result, no one has yet been <BR>
successfully prosecuted via facial biometrics. The opportunity for false <BR>
identification and therefore being, "guilty before proven innocent" is <BR>
great. For example, the Tampa, Florida police force scrapped a facial <BR>
recognition system in 2003 because, according to a spokesman, "We never <BR>
identified, were alerted to, or caught any criminal. It didn't work." While <BR>
on its face, the concept of REAL ID seems like it would increase security, <BR>
it does not. A Privacy International Study conducted in 2004 found "Of the 5 <BR>
countries that have been most adversely affected by terrorism since 1986, <BR>
eighty percent have national identity cards, one third of which incorporate <BR>
biometrics. This research was unable to uncover any instance where the <BR>
presence of an identity card system in those countries was seen as a <BR>
significant deterrent to terrorist activity." The simple truth is that REAL <BR>
ID cannot stop crime. <BR>
In summary, we have seen that REAL ID threatens Constitutional rights, <BR>
national and state sovereignty, and the safety of our people. The enrollment <BR>
of American citizens into an international biometric system of <BR>
identification and tracking constitutes the heart of the REAL ID issue. A <BR>
secure driver's license is not the ultimate goal or certainly the ultimate <BR>
result of the REAL ID Act. And it is unfortunately clear that the ultimate <BR>
purpose is government tracking and economic control through enhanced <BR>
knowledge and surveillance through biometric identification and tracking. <BR>
This being established, it is clear that this aggressive effort of the <BR>
federal government, working hand-in-hand with private commercial interests, <BR>
must be opposed on every level. While Congress must move to quickly repeal <BR>
the passage of the REAL ID Act, the states provide an ideal position from <BR>
which to fight this encroachment by the federal government. The <BR>
responsibility for the security and privacy of our own generation and the <BR>
generations to come, however, rests upon our shoulders. <BR>
The next action to be taken involves the following three steps. <BR>
First, Congress must immediately repeal the REAL ID Act and resist any <BR>
effort to pass anything remotely similar. Secondly, individual states which <BR>
have not passed legislation preventing implementation of any provision of <BR>
REAL ID, particularly the biometric portion, must do so without delay. As <BR>
has been stressed throughout this article, biometrics is the core provision <BR>
of REAL ID; consequently, the states must move to protect their citizens' <BR>
biometric data immediately. This step is critical because the vast majority <BR>
of statutory law did not envision the breadth of individually identifiable <BR>
data that could be gleaned by rapidly advancing technology. Further, because <BR>
L-1 Identity Solutions holds a virtual monopoly as contractor for state <BR>
DMVs, they could use their position to coerce the states into implementing <BR>
all of DHS's wishes. This scenario further endangers state's rights. <BR>
Therefore, it is not enough for states to simply stop collecting biometric <BR>
data. They must purge and "dumb-down" databases to preclude any government <BR>
knowledge or use of private citizen's biometrics. Additionally, private <BR>
third-party inspections should be ordered to ensure that all measures have <BR>
been fully implemented. Fundamentally, the states must demand control they <BR>
must inform the contractor what to do, not vice versa. Thirdly, citizens <BR>
must play a role in resisting illegitimate actions of the federal <BR>
government. They must be encouraged in their capacity as law-abiding <BR>
citizens to whom Constitutional guarantees were acknowledged, to resist <BR>
implementation of any effort that would compromise their individual, <BR>
God-given rights. <BR>
The American people remain the strongest defenders of freedom in the world. <BR>
Many in our past have died for the liberties we enjoy today. Most of us are <BR>
still willing to fight and die today for our freedom and the freedom of our <BR>
children tomorrow. May we each do our part to ensure the greatest nation on <BR>
earth remains "the land of the free and the home of the brave!" <BR>
"Liberty has never come from the government; it has always come from the <BR>
subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of limitation of <BR>
governmental power, not the increase of it." -Woodrow Wilson <BR>
Sam Rohrer is a Representative for the state of Pennsylvania and a member of <BR>
the American Policy Center Advisory Board. <BR>
For more information on the dangers of the Real ID Act, contact: <BR>
Mark Lerner Co-Founder - Stop Real ID Coalition Phone: </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Tahoma" LANG="0"><B>(816) 401-7615 </B>Email: <BR>
stoprealid@aol.com<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT> </HTML>