The Real ID Act of 2005

[peejay 327]

An Identity Crisis We Can Ease

Time to Stop Blocking Secure ID Cards

By John Lehman

Tuesday, May 8, 2007; A25

The 41 recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission continue to stand the test of time and remain the framework for policy debate on our national security. That is because they were derived simply and directly from the unanimous nonpartisan findings of the commission investigation, because they were nonpolitical and nonideological, and because they are all achievable in the real world.

Recommendation No. 14, on identity security, was enacted into law in 2005 as the Real ID Act. That recommendation reads: "Secure identification should begin in the United States. The federal government should set standards for . . . sources of identification, such as driver's licenses." Today, two years later, a number of state legislatures are winding up their sessions by considering whether to comply with the act's requirements. This should not be an issue when the vulnerabilities in our identification issuance systems made so painfully evident by the Sept. 11 attacks still exist. Or when 70 percent of Americans support national standards for driver's licenses, as a Zogby-UPI poll found last month.

Identity security was one of our most important recommendations because the 19 hijackers had 30 state-issued IDs, at least seven of which were obtained by fraud. Most important, they used the IDs to assimilate into the United States and to board planes on Sept. 11, 2001.

We recommended shoring up the states' ID issuance system partly to avoid the question of a national ID card, an issue beyond our mandate. We sought to respect states' rights in balance with national security; thus, if a state declined to require proof of legal immigration status or would not check other states' data for identity or driver information, we proposed that the state be free to do so -- with the caveat that that state's identification would not be acceptable for a federal purpose such as boarding a plane.

Consider the case of Sept. 11 pilot Ziad Jarrah, who crashed Flight 93 into a field in Pennsylvania. Jarrah had obtained two driver's licenses from Florida -- one on May 2, 2001, and the other on May 24. In addition, he fraudulently obtained a state-issued ID from Virginia on Aug. 29. On Sept. 9, 2001, Jarrah was stopped for speeding -- potentially a major glitch in the hijackers' plans -- and presented the officer with one of his Florida licenses. Had the Real ID Act been in effect, Jarrah would have been limited to one active license and the officer could have checked for other violations. The officer also could have checked an immigration database, which could have shown that Jarrah had entered the United States illegally at least five times. But the officer had none of this information, and Jarrah got away with a $270 ticket.

The hijackers could have done the same today. The issuance of multiple IDs from a single state is possible because identities aren't verified. Obtaining IDs from multiple states is also possible and even likely, because states still don't exchange information with each other regarding those holding legitimate identification. Police officers' hands are tied when they can't cross-check against any other information the ID they've been handed.

The Sept. 11 hijackers are not the only terrorists we know have taken advantage of flaws and weak spots in our ID issuance systems. One terrorist caught in 2001 on our northern border, Nabil al-Marabh, had five driver's licenses and a hazardous materials permit. Mir Aimal Kasi, who killed two people outside CIA headquarters in 1993, got a Virginia driver's license despite being in the United States illegally. These problems exist in many states, and as long as they do, terrorists will continue to benefit from them.

Current efforts to gut the law are based on two concerns: Some object to denying illegal immigrants the right to drive legally, citing safety and compassionate concerns. Others see the Real ID Act as the thin end of the wedge of a national identity card. Neither objection is valid. States still can grant such driving rights to illegal immigrants if they choose; they just cannot use that class of license for federal identification. The second objection is just not true. There will be no federal database drawn from states complying with Real ID.

One objection that is legitimate, however, is that, so far, the legislation is an "unfunded mandate." Congress should step up and fully fund the real costs that this essential program will impose on the states.

The next Sept. 11-style attack will not be stopped by grandiose bureaucratic reorganization but by the workmanlike weaving of a web of pragmatic measures such as Real ID. These measures will choke off easy access to America's vulnerabilities that have been the basis of al-Qaeda planning, while safeguarding the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans and legal residents. While I respect states' right to choose, a decision not to comply is a decision that terrorists will approve. That is not a way to secure our nation.

The writer was secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration and was a member of the Sept. 11 commission.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0701353_pf.html

[almaty 19]

i do not want a national id card...

[YuAndDan 153]

Not for me!

SEE: http://www.epic.org/privacy/id_cards/

[mawilson 2,133]

i do not want a national id card...

Me neither

[WifeOHunkyJohn 2]

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to have continuity within the DMV itself in each state (who issue drivers licences and IDs) on the information they are required to accept from people applying for IDs - in California, for example, "legal presence verification" is required before an ID is issued, but in some states, VJers have reported that the NOA1 for AOS is accepted, where it is not in CA. A NOA1 only says that you applied for AOS, not that you have been approved.

If there was consistency in the information they accept and "legal presence verification" was mandatory, then there would be no need whatsoever for a RealID and no need for people to be worried about the cost of getting a new, secondary identification card (as IDs and Drivers Licences are the norm and most people, in the end, manage to have one or the other).

Anyhoo, just my 2 cents

[Dr_LHA 3]

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to have continuity within the DMV itself in each state (who issue drivers licences and IDs) on the information they are required to accept from people applying for IDs - in California, for example, "legal presence verification" is required before an ID is issued, but in some states, VJers have reported that the NOA1 for AOS is accepted, where it is not in CA. A NOA1 only says that you applied for AOS, not that you have been approved.

Indeed, in the REAL ID act itself it states that NOA1 for AOS is proof of legal presence. Those states like Pennsylvania who accept that as proof of legal presence are simply aligning themselves with the requirements REAL ID act before it actually becomes a necessity to do so.

That said, there are plenty of reasons to not like the REAL ID act, which have been spelled out elsewhere.

[homesick_american 1]

I don't see any problem with implementing national standards for driver's licenses or making the information accessible from state to state; it will free up law enforcement. Most other countries don't have to deal with this B.S., why should we?

[peejay 327]

I don't see any problem with implementing national standards for driver's licenses or making the information accessible from state to state; it will free up law enforcement. Most other countries don't have to deal with this B.S., why should we?

I don't understand the resistance to this either. Especially since getting a driver's license or a passport in the USA is a voluntary issue. You don't have to drive or travel abroad. Shouldn't a state or Federal issued form of ID be trustworthy and secure? Shouldn't only persons eligible for these documents be allowed to have them? Shouldn't the person on these government issued documents actually be that person?

This is quite different from a national ID.

Corporate America knows more about us, invades our privacy, and abuses its information database on us lots more than government, but people line up by the boatloads to give them all kinds of private information.

[homesick_american 1]

I don't understand the resistance to this either. Especially since getting a driver's license or a passport in the USA is a voluntary issue. You don't have to drive or travel abroad. Shouldn't a state or Federal issued form of ID be trustworthy and secure? Shouldn't only persons eligible for these documents be allowed to have them? Shouldn't the person on these government issued documents actually be that person?

This is quite different from a national ID.

Corporate America knows more about us, invades our privacy, and abuses its information database on us lots more than government, but people line up by the boatloads to give them all kinds of private information.

Personally I think it would be great if corporations didn't spy on us and there was no such thing as identity theft or fake state IDs/passports out there, but we need to face reality. This is the world we live in now.

[Dr_LHA 3]

This is quite different from a national ID.

Its national ID by the back door. Also to say that having an ID in this country is voluntary is ridiculous. Everyone has an ID, and everyone needs an ID. It may not be written in law that you must, but as anyone on here who has had difficulties getting a drivers license can attest to, not having a form of US ID makes life extremely difficult unless you want to live "off the grid".

[peejay 327]

I don't understand the resistance to this either. Especially since getting a driver's license or a passport in the USA is a voluntary issue. You don't have to drive or travel abroad. Shouldn't a state or Federal issued form of ID be trustworthy and secure? Shouldn't only persons eligible for these documents be allowed to have them? Shouldn't the person on these government issued documents actually be that person?

This is quite different from a national ID.

Corporate America knows more about us, invades our privacy, and abuses its information database on us lots more than government, but people line up by the boatloads to give them all kinds of private information.

Personally I think it would be great if corporations didn't spy on us and there was no such thing as identity theft or fake state IDs/passports out there, but we need to face reality. This is the world we live in now.

To be honest...I am more concerned with the British practice of putting surveilance cameras on every street corner and I am seeing it more and more over here in the USA. Big Brother is watching you and listening once you leave the house. He already knows when your car passes through EZ Tag on the tollroad, where you are when you talk on your cell phone, where you spend you money on the debit card, etc., etc..

Unfortunately the widespread application of computer technology has made all this data mining a reality. The days of humans hunting through reams of paper are over. It has changed our world and it will get to be more difficult to be anonymous. They already know who you are and where you are if you buy into the American dream and suburbia. It is the crooks, terrorists, illegal aliens, etc. that are off the radar. The rest of us are already in the database. People can wring their hands over it, but it's true.