From: Asma Chandani <asc2106@columbia.edu>
  To  : <cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 19:49:04 -0400

"I will never relent in defending America, whatever it takes."

Hi Sverker,

I feel you on the way it was passed. I can understand why privacy
advocates would be upset about that. However, I think it's quite fitting
that the Bush administration passed the bill in such a manner. To bring
politics into the analysis, I have pasted in the subject line of this
email a quote from President Bush's RNC Nomination Acceptance Speech in
2004. We are presently funneling immense resources into fighting a war
on terror. The country most closely aligned with fighting a war against
terror is Israel, and they currently have national biometric
identification cards. (See
http://www.freedomisslavery.info/wp-trackback.php/1081). 

As long as we are launching full-frontal war in other parts of this
world, it is perfectly logical I think for the administration to beef up
its identification system to better track and verify its own nationals.
The question: are we really safer? is a whole other discussion better in
the realm of politics. The ramifications on immigrants, etc. will
undoubtedly be played out on the evening news. (I have no TV access so
you may have to verify this for me!) 

I personally would rather see the vast sums of money being channeled
into health care and education, not bombs and national ID cards. But
given Bush's second victory in domestic elections, I guess I'm in the
minority. And present day politicians with a majority backing apparently
think measures like the Patriot Act, with its National Security Letters
and gag orders, the Real ID system, with its ambitious scheme and no
mention of strong encryption supporting it, and bombing desolate
countries without prior logic, are the smartest means of self defense of
American territory. 

In this scheme, I don't think identity theft is at the forefront. Leave
that to insurance, credit bureaus, and consumer advocates, the majority
says. 

Maybe this argument is circular, and a counter one can be made showing
that the huge potential for identity theft may indeed shoot all my
reasoning down. I welcome such a response. 

~Asma


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu
[mailto:owner-cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Sverker K.
Hogberg
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 4:58 PM
To: cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: "Real ID Act" About to Become Law


I think you have to consider the manner in which the Real ID Act is 
being passed. It's very suspect to attempt to pass controversial 
legislation as a rider to an appropriations bill. This is doubly true 
for a completely unrelated appropriations bill for emergency military 
spending that is time sensitive and has little political opposition. It 
ensures that the rider legislation gets minimal, if any, scrutiny from 
either a qualified legslative committee or on the floor.

Also, I just don't see how putting more personal information on an ID 
card (including immutable biometrics) in digital form, making it more 
easily and universally machine readable (i.e., allowing easier 
downloading and archiving - possibly by means of RFID), and placing its 
data in more widely accessible databases accomplishes anything good with

regard to national security. If the card can still be forged or 
misappropriated (I don't see why it couldn't), you've just increased the

damage ID theft will cause. And if you rely more heavily on centralized 
authentication then you've created an incredibly potent system of 
citizen surveillance. And all of this without proper legislative
scrutiny.

Asma Chandani wrote:

>As long as there are things called as nation states with sovereignty
>over their borders, isn't it perfectly reasonable to expect countries
to
>issue whatever sort of national ID card they want to, call it what you
>will, and put what you will on it? 
>
>At this stage, it doesn't seem the card is capable of actively emitting
>a signal of its own force, nor across long distances, so there's not
>that same worry about interception. Assuming one day the cards, or a
>chip embedded somewhere else, is capable of emitting signal, wouldn't
>the traffic created by everyone's chips be impossible to navigate
>through, i.e. standing as a barrier to such a system from emerging in
>the first place? 
>
>I have a driver's license in my purse right now, and I'm not too sure
>I'd be upset to know that 30 years from now my daughter's driver's
>license card was more technically advanced than mine. As long as the
>identity verification means used by the sovereign is external
(something
>you have, not something you are), then I'm still missing why people are
>so up in arms about this. 
>
>I just hope the new tinfoil guarded wallets are made by designers too.
>;) If not, Caitlin and I may just have found a product for our long-
>contemplated-joint business venture!
>
>~Asma
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu
>[mailto:owner-cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Sverker K.
>Hogberg
>Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 4:04 PM
>To: CPC@emoglen.law.columbia.edu
>Subject: "Real ID Act" About to Become Law
>
>
>Here's an article about the "Real ID Act" (imposing uniform
requirements
>
>on state drivers licenses) that has been attached to an emergency 
>military spending bill that is expected to be signed into law very
soon.
>
>This seems like a particularly serious (but typical) abuse of 
>legislative riders to appropriations bills.
>http://news.com.com/FAQ+How+Real+ID+will+affect+you/2100-1028_3-5697111
.
>html?tag=nefd.lede
>
>"Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United 
>States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an 
>airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or
take
>
>advantage of nearly any government service."
>
>State licenses will have to store your name, birth date, sex, ID
number,
>
>digital photograph, and address, and perhaps biometric data like
retinal
>
>scans (TBD by homeland security dept). Since state licenses will have
to
>
>use "common machine-readable technology" (barcodes, etc) this 
>potentially allows for far better tracking/surveillance of individuals,

>and far better economies of scale for deploying scanning and
centralized
>
>authentication systems, even outside of the context of government
>services.
>
>Imagine having your license scanned, centrally authenticated, and
logged
>
>for each and every one of the times you currently present photo ID (at 
>bars, when buying cigarettes, at security checkpoints in large
manhattan
>
>office buildings, at pharmacies, etc). That's a huge step in the 
>direction of a ubiquitous national ID card system w/o the 
>public/legislative scrutiny and vetting usually given to a stand-alone
>bill.
>
>
>Slashdot Coverage: 
>http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/05/06/1516210.shtml?tid=158&tid=172&tid=
2
>19
>Real ID Act (see Title II): 
>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c1098DBdTR::
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list
>  
>

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list