Friday, May 25, 2007
The NH Senate unaminously approved a bill that bars the state from complying with the Real ID Act, and the Governor says he'll sign it. That's good news in the move to stop the implementation of Real ID.
One refrain that's clear in every rejection is that cost is a huge concern for the states. As documented here and many other places, there are other major problems with the Real ID Act. It's important to keep those other issues at the forefront of this debate in case somehow cost becomes less of a concern due to... well... to someone printing more money, I suppose!
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
If you want to get up to speed quickly, head on over to PogoWasRight.org's page devoted to Real ID news. You'll see there a link to the Real ID listserv that EPIC has set up as well as all the news in Congress and the states. And check out Dissent's blog there, too, for all sorts of tidbits.
The states continue to show opposition to the Real ID act, but at this point, the action is in Congress and in awaiting the DHS' next iteration of their proposal. Staying informed and active remains important, since this issue isn't going away any time soon....
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Today comes news from Nevada that they've chopped the budget for Real ID, approving only 100K this year to hire a project manager who would submit the state's plan to implement Real ID. This is kinda a "wait and see" approach -- not opting out, but clearly not pushing forward until any possible repeal or changes are made public.
The news from Oregon is certainly no endorsement of Real ID itself, though while rejecting Real ID, the state senate approved changes to require state licenses only be issued to those who can prove they are in the country legally.
There's news from Missouri, Georgia, and other states as well. The interactive map at the ACLU site is handy-dandy for this. Also, there continues to be lots of good commentary on the web, including John R.'s excellent Real ID Watch blog.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont seems to be driving action in the US Senate in terms of revisiting (or perhaps repealing?) Real ID. And at last count, 33 states have pending or passed bills refusing to comply with the Act. Tuesday, for example, Oregon's Senate will be debating such a bill.
The ACLU's Real Nightmare site has this handy-dandy state map to help keep on top of the news. And keep checking in at the Privacy Coalition's Stop Real ID page for updates, too.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 8 — The Homeland Security Department said Tuesday that it would plow ahead with national standards for driver’s licenses, despite a highly unusual level of activity by state legislatures opposed to the idea, and substantial second thoughts in Congress.Matthew Wald writes in the New York Times. I'm kind of curious what time Knocke gave that estimate; most of the article is a discussion of the Leahy hearing yesterday, which started at 10 a.m. EST ... and I'm sure comments are continuing to trickle in after the deadline. Still, it's a first stake in the ground.
The department said it had received about 12,000 public responses to its draft rules, in a 60-day comment period that ended Tuesday. Russ Knocke, a spokesman, said the comments were mixed.
As for "mixed" ... I've been spot-checking comments all week long and they seem to be running at least 80% anti-Real ID both at the individual and the organizational level -- and the chatter in the blogosphere near the deadline was overwhelmingly anti, 95% or more. So we'll see just how "mixed" it really is.
No word in the article about timeframe for posting or responding to comments.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
This first part of the campaign was a whirlwind -- we only had 60 days to build the campaign, get media coverage, and round up as many people as we could to send in comments. It was a big job. To make our lives more difficult, the DHS had troubles with their fax capabilities and their web site. It was only during the last 24 hours that they made available an email address that people could use to send in their comments. It will likely be at least a week before we know exactly how many people sent in comments.
Now that this phase is done, what do we do?
Now is the time to follow up with congress people, if you haven't done so already. Colorado is now on the list of states that don't want to follow Real ID. I was on a conference call today (May 8) with the EPIC privacy coalition group, and one of the people on the call had just testified before a small group of Senators about the privacy and security flaws with Real ID. He's a security expert and got a very warm reception.
At some point, the DHS will do one of three things: 1) announce that they have adopted a rule to implement Real ID - with or without our comments being taken into account, 2) defer adopting a rule until they get more direction from Congress, or 3) re-open the comment period. In the meanwhile, Congress should be hearing from all of us that we want the Act repealed.
As for DHS? Option #3 is unlikely. It's unclear which is more likely, option #1 or option #2.
We'll keep posting here as I get new information. Please keep following the news, and help as you can.
Thanks again everyone.
The draft rules proposed by DHS to implement the Real ID Act are fatally flawed. Focusing on how to best implement an Act as deeply flawed as this one is not in the best interests of individuals or the states; therefore we recommend that the proposed rule be withdrawn. Ultimately, Privacyactivism believes that the Real ID Act should be repealed, but understands that this is outside of the scope of this rulemaking process. Privacyactivism’s comments will therefore focus on the lack of privacy protections in the proposed rule, and why the lack of these protections require the withdrawal of the proposed rule.
Specifically, our comments will cover these areas: 1) The general lack of privacy and security protections; 2) the difficulty of compliance; 3) exceptions in the draft rule that lead to inadequate security; 4) the cost involved.
See our full comments for the details.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Emails must have “DHS-2006-0030” in the subject line. Click
here to e-mail (or to type the address yourself: oscomments at dhs . gov) or check the Coalition page for a link with a comment letter (which you may customize!) attached.
File before 5PM EST on Tuesday the 8th!
The Department of Homeland Security's outside privacy advisors explicitly refused to bless proposed federal rules to standardize states' driver's licenses Monday, saying the Department's proposed rules for standardized driver's licenses -- known as Real IDs -- do not adequately address concerns about privacy, price, information security, redress, "mission creep", and national security protections.
Besides being good for the Stop Real ID cause, it's also heartening to see debate on the issue (since Congress hasn't yet had that chance).
In other news, Slashdot notes that there's opposition in Massachusetts to Real ID. BoingBoing again helps remind folks that the time for comments is now. And tomorrow in the US Senate, the Committee on the Judiciary has a hearing called "Will REAL ID Actually Make Us Safer? An Examination of Privacy and Civil Liberties Concerns"
There's a nice list of speakers to the committee, including Bruce Schneier and Jim Harper, both quoted here before.
Oh, and in case I failed to mention it earlier, it's a good time to go and file your comments!
- File comments, if you haven't already.
- Tell your friends and family, and ask them to file comments. Don't underestimate the power of personal connections; if we each convince five people to file comments, that will make a huge difference.
- Get the word out! Email and post wherever you think it's relevant, and make sure to tell people how to file comments and remind them of the deadline.
- Ask your state legislators to file comments.
- Tell the media to cover the Real ID rebellion
The Transportation Security Administration has lost a computer hard drive containing Social Security numbers, bank data and payroll information for about 100,000 employees.
TSA, a division of the Homeland Security Department, employs about 50,000 people and is responsible for security of the nation's transportation systems, including airports and train stations.
``It's seems like there's a problem with security inside Homeland Security and that makes no sense,'' said James Slade, a TSA screener and the executive vice president of the National Treasury Employees Union chapter at John F. Kennedy International Airport. ``That's scary. That's my identity. And now who has a hold of it? So many things go on in your mind.''
See Matt Spuzzo's AP article for more -- or the TSA's web site.
Now imagine if this hard drive also had copies of birth certificates, documents providing proof of address, and photos -- as required by Real ID.
See why computer security experts think that Real ID is likely to increase identity theft?
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Cost: The estimated pricetag for implementation is over $20 billion... and this will be shouldered almost exclusively by the states and individuals. I believe a DHS speaker at the Town Hall said there is around $40 million in Federal money available. You can do the math as well as I can.
Privacy: the proposed implementation punts on privacy, leaving it to the states or simply hoping, I suppose, that as everything gets put into place, somehow things will work out. Implementing a huge data storage system of incredibly personal data without first coming up with HOW that data will be kept safe is bad news indeed, and simply not a good way to go about business.
Identity theft: as proposed, Real ID would not only give identity thieves one stop shopping for information, but victims of identity theft would have tremendous difficulty in clearing up problems.
Security: if the DHS keeps claiming that the point of Real ID is to make sure that the person sitting next to you on the plane is who they say they are, then they have defined security in a rather different way than I would. Also, with the various exemptions that are in place, the Real ID program has security holes big enough to drive a truck through.
The ACLU Real Nightmare page has more, as does the Stop Real ID wiki. Suffice to say, there are a lot of problems with Real ID, and there are many reasons why there are such diverse groups in the coalition that formed this past week to stop Real ID.
On more than one occasion, a DHS official made the statement that Real ID was designed so that you’d know that the person sitting next to you on an airplane was actually the person they claimed to be. To illustrate this concept, they had a picture of a 9/11 terrorist and his IDs… yet this terrorist traveled AND got his IDs, flawed though they might have been, under his own name. If the goal of Real ID is truly what was stated, then Real ID would not have made one iota of difference. Somehow the irony of this was not apparent to the DHS speakers.
As I noted in the comment I submitted during the meeting, Dr. Richard Barth of DHS took the above concept further and stated that all a person cares about when they put their spouse or child on a plane is that the person their loved one ends up sitting next to is the person they claim to be. Personally, I care if the person seated next to a loved one is going to harm them. I don’t care what their name is or whether they are traveling under a made up name. Everyone I’ve asked agrees with me, in fact, but again, an emotional button is being pressed – a spouse or child in jeopardy!!!! – and it’s being pressed to distract attention from a legitimate conversation about the issues of Real ID’s implementation.
Finally along these lines, what added to the frustration is not simply that the DHS speakers at the Town Hall referenced 9/11. Of course they did, as it was the 9/11 Commission report that gave rise to what turned into Real ID. What bothered me, instead, was the language they used. “Crashed the planes into…” “Slammed into…” The imagery was designed to create a visceral reaction and take the conversation away from the specifics at hand. As horrific as 9/11 was (and still is), the fact that planes were “slammed” and “crashed” is NOT an answer to how to implement any specific part of the Real ID Act, and that’s what conversation was supposed to be about. Yet those words and images were used over and over in conversations stemming from questions about barcodes, databases, and cost. Clearly, the comments were off point and designed to persuade by fear.
So now, filing comments on the Real ID Act is also a way of saying “I will not be cowed by attempts to instill fear.” That, too, is an important message to send… now, I suspect, more than ever.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
EFF and Downsize DC have sites that make it easy to email your legislators. USA.gov has state-by-state directories of legislators if you'd prefer to mail, fax, or phone.
PS: If you know that your legislators have voted against Real ID in your state, start by thanking them. It's so unusual for them to get thanked, they'll probably fall out of their chair -- and once they pick themselves up, they'll be much more inclined to respond to the rest of your mail.
Friday, May 4, 2007
The impact on politicians is most straightforward:
States are lining up against the Act, although some are on the fence about it. A strong showing from the public will not only let DHS know how we feel about it, but it will also be a boost in the undecided states -- and increase the momentum for a repeal in Congress. The commenting process isn't easy, and so legislators estimate that each comment represents the views of 1,000 people ... your voice matters a lot.
The other two require a bit of context for how the "rulemaking" process works. Briefly, once Congress passed Real ID in 2005 (with no debate, as a rider to a "must pass" spending bill ... but that's another story), DHS has the responsibility proposing a "rule" to implement the law. All proposed rules go through a public commenting period; the proposed rule can be adopted as is, or can be rejected. If rejected, it needs to be redrafted and sent out again for public comment. The current commenting process ends May 8.
And these kinds of commenting processes do work to kill bad laws. The example Deborah gave:
The more negative comments DHS receives, the less likely it will be that the rule will be adopted.... If that happens, we have another 30 or 60 days to try to convince Congress to repeal the law.
If no one says anything during the comment period, DHS will say that the public is fine with Real ID, and fine with all of the privacy invasive decisions contained in their draft rule.
The biggest one I've seen involved Secure Flight -- a passenger profiling system that the US wanted.
DHS and DoT published a draft rule in the Federal Register .... We commented it to death, we hit all of the press we could, and basically forced them to convene a committee (DHS put it together). A scathing report was issued, and guess what? Secure Flight was killed. It's still dead.
So yes, this is a difficult and somewhat obscure process ... but it's well worth doing.
... Giuliani and Romney backpedaled and clarified that they only meant this to apply to immigrants (um, isn't this called a "green card").
One of the things I flashed on was the Real ID Town Hall webcast. Gina Scott described this well in her GovTech article:
Unfortunately, many people were put on the defensive at the meeting when, in the opening remarks, a picture of the Florida driver's license of one of the 9-11 highjackers was put on the overhead screen. The apparent attempt to show the ease in which such terrorists were able to attain state-issued identification drew the proverbial line in the sand for the state DMVs. For the regular citizens, many saw the use of the highjacker's card as a threat. One citizen commented that the use of the photo was offensive, especially "in a time when we are going through a period of distrust in this country."
Intentionally or not, showing the hijacker's ID card triggers all of these factors that lead people to overestimate risks: it personifies the risk; relates it to a rare, spectactular, much-talked-about event; etc. etc.
In the Q&A after the talk, I asked what approaches we should use to counter this -- basically to get people into a framework where they're getting beyond their instinctual fears to think through the security tradeoffs at a public policy level in a way that better reflects the real risks. "It's hard," he replied. "Fear is so visceral, so powerful." I suggested that one of the things we should look at is countering with more positive emotions (Stephen Duncombe's Dream: Reinventing Progressive Politics in an Age of Fantasy makes a similar suggestion in a more general context). He agreed that this was worth looking at, as well as various framing approaches ... and I agreed that it's really difficult -- especially when the mass media's coverage tends to reinforce the fear.
Schneier's essay on the subject covers the same ground as his talk, in somewhat more detail, looking at research from behavioral economics, pscyhology of risk, neuroscience. Strongly recommended.
Over at Govtech.com, they had a fine summary of the Town Hall meeting. Here was a list of some of the issues they highlighted as coming up at the meeting:
- Lack of inclusion of states in decision making process
- Privacy and security of records
- Types of information stored in databases
- Identity theft and inside jobs
- Use, and types of biometrics included
- Ease in which people with disabilities, and the elderly will be able to get cards
- Putting addresses on cards and the danger to people escaping violent environments
- Religious discrimination
- Gender options on cards
- Costs to states and individuals
And Deborah Pierce of Privacy Activism (and this blog) noted in a thread on Tribe.net that...
The commenting process isn't easy, and so legislators estimate that each comment represents the views of 1,000 people ... your voice matters a lot.
Indeed it does! Yet one more reason why it's time to write those comments....
Thursday, May 3, 2007
So says DownsizeDC, and I couldn't agree more. They're not just complaining, though: they're starting up an email campaign with a page that lets you send a message to Neil Cavuto on FoxNews, Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, and Wolf Blitzter on CNN. Good thinking! I just tried it out (I'll include my letter in a response) and it seems to work just fine.
On Homeland Stupidity, Michael Hampton quotes Jim Babka of Downsize DC on why this is so important:
Congress may not always care what citizens think, until they’re forced to, but Congress always cares what the media thinks.... We need to get the media to cover the nationwide revolt against the REAL ID Act.
As well as bringing up the risks of identity theft ("one wonders how vulnerable this system-of-systems will be to data loss or identity theft resulting from unscrupulous employees, flawed technologies, external compromises or human error--even under the best of security conditions" -- this is pretty similar to the pont I brought up in my question and comments at the town hall meeting) and pointing out the risks of mission creep ("Other homeland security initiatives, such as the Patriot Act, have been used and applied--some say abused--for purposes far removed from anything related to homeland security. How can we ensure the same will not happen with Real ID?"), they make an excellent point about how Real ID makes the people who aren't eligible for it -- or live in states that have rejected it -- into second-class citizens:
In a nod to states' rights advocates, DHS declares that states are free not to participate in the Real ID system if they choose--but any identification card issued by a state that does not meet Real ID criteria is to be clearly labeled as such, to include "bold lettering" or a "unique design" similar to how many states design driver's licenses for those under 21 years of age.
In its own guidance document, the department has proposed branding citizens not possessing a Real ID card in a manner that lets all who see their official state-issued identification know that they're "different," and perhaps potentially dangerous, according to standards established by the federal government. They would become stigmatized, branded, marked, ostracized, segregated. All in the name of protecting the homeland; no wonder this provision appears at the very end of the document.
The Mercury News had a good summation of the meeting, as did the UC Davis daily, the California Aggie. And as noted here earlier, Wired had a good write-up as well.
There's also been some coverage of the announcement of 43 (now up to 50) groups uniting in a drive to submit comments on the Real ID Act ahead of the May 8th close of the public comment period -- the article in FCW.com and mention in Homeland Stupidity's Who wants a national ID?" are good examples.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
The Real ID Act is viewed as one of the biggest problems in the transgender community in the US. Documentation is increasingly hard to get, especially for certain kinds of people (low-income, elderly, transgender, immigrant); and you need it for more and more things: starting a bank account, buying cigarettes … gender is recorded on the driver’s license; the fact of a name change is recorded on the 2d barcode – Mark to Mara, for me. Not sure about the gender change, but this is certainly in the database . Every time you go to a bar, you’re outed; in an airport. Maybe not such a big issue in a big city; what about in a small town – or where you know the TSA agent’s family?Russell Roundpoint (Chief Administrative Officer, Mohawk Council of Akwasasne) talked about the difficult situation of the Akwasasne community, which spans five jurisdictional districts (Canada, the US, Quebec, Ontario, and New York) -- and the extra challenges for people like his wife, who is a US citizen despite never having lived here, but does not fall under any of the standard categories of exceptions, and so has a hard time getting a passport. At yesterday's town hall meeting, a gentleman from the Arizona DMV had highlighted their experiences with the rural Native American population, and strongly cautioned DHS that the current regulations did not take this into account; I found myself wondering whether the Akwasasne situation had been considered.
Journalist Dave Jamieson talked about surveillance cameras in Washington DC (his Washington City Paper story Speaker of the House is a great read). While not specifically ID-related, the experience about how cameras and speakers so that the camera watchers can give orders are increasingly being installed in low income housing complexes is a good reminder that the burden of surveillance technologies (and that's what Real ID is) tends to fall very heavily on lower-income people or others who are marginalized -- the same point Mara brought up.
Lots of great stuff in the panel; see my detailed notes here.
Assistant Secretary Richard Barth, flanked by Jonathan Frankel and Darrell Williams, denied they were building a national identification card, and tried to empasize that the proposed requirements were intended to keep terrorists off airplanes.
But afterwards, Frankel told Wired News that applicants for Real ID licenses won't be compared against the government's centralized terrorist watchlist unless states choose to do so, a policy choice made to prevent people from feeling a heavy hand from the government.
Right. There's nothing else in Real ID that would make people feel a heavy hand ... and why would we want to check those terrorist watch lists anyhow? Hmm....
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
There seemed to be a lot of recurring themes, concerns and phrases. To highlight a few....
"This is not a Federal program; it is a partnership with the states." Variations on this popped up all the time, but what was never addressed was exactly WHO in the states this is a partnership with. A majority of Governor's oppose it. Five states have rejected it, with legislation pending in others. DMV's don't seem to support this implementation (see below). So... who?
Security threats to the databases. This came up in comments from folks who were not otherwised focused on privacy concerns. And here the DHS members of the panel agreed with concerns, and bully for them for doing so, though they still tried to minimize the risk by noting that, for example, there is no design to have a single, centralized database with all the information. True, that single one cannot be hacked, but soooo many others now can. Here's a good link of some of the data losses that have already occured. NOT dealing with this in advance doesn't really seem so wise, does it?
"You want to know that the person sitting next to you on the plane is the person they say they are." A UC-Davis grad student, I believe, called this "solving the wrong problem." And it is not only that, but it's an attempt at putting emotions into the argument to pull attention away from the issues at hand. Here are far more cogent thoughts on why this is the wrong problem.
DMV front line workers and administrators spoke up about a raft of issues beyond cost. And they're complex issues that all point to the fact that the Real ID Act needs far fuller debate and discussion.
And finally, "the 9/11 commission recommended this." The 9/11 Commission recommended a concept. Real ID, however, is an explicit set of proposals. That is a difference... and a major one at that. Does Real ID address the concerns of the Commission and is it the best implementation of the concept? Those are the questions that need debate.
More to come... and feel free to share your reactions to the Town Hall.
The recent Zogby poll that has continually been quoted here today asked people whether they supported "the REAL ID program, which requires each state to change their driver's license systems to meet national standards and ensure that their databases are compatible with other states."
That is a far different question than asking if people support the specific rules proposed in the DHS implementation of the Real ID Act. Do you believe that if you were to sit down with those surveyed and explain to them all the costs and issues associated with the Act – issues which you have acknowledged – the 70% figure would remain? If not, then using that figure is misleading.
Also, when you say that all I care about when I put my spouse or child on a plane is whether the person they are sitting next to is the person they claim to be, you do not speak for me or, in fact, any spouse or parent I know. What I care about, and what everyone I’ve asked cares about, is whether the person in question is going to do harm. People do harm under their real names all the time, including, quite horrifically, the 9/11 terrorists.
It is hard to have a debate about the issues when emotional trump cards are continually played. While I tremendously appreciate your being here today and allowing us this forum, I would ask that you do not speak for me… but instead listen to me and accept that in issues as complex as this, there is a need to have open dialogue and not rely on sound bites.
Real ID is a very specific set of rules. The idea of secure, national driver's license standards is a different thing entirely, and it's important to keep that distinction.
If you get a chance, tune it ...
Remember, you can still register and watch at realidtownhall.com
Our media release is up on the Privacy Activism site, and the Privacy Coalition site is tracking the announcements of all the groups involved -- as well as providing links to our instructions for filing comments, along with EFF's and the ACLU's. Here are a couple of excerpts:
The timing of this announcement, right before the webcast, is perfect ... it should give a lot of momentum to the last week's drive for comments.
"The breadth and diversity of the opposition is real testimony to how harmful Real ID is to so many different communities," said Deborah Pierce, Executive Director of PrivacyActivism.org and one of the founders of the Stop Real ID Now! activism campaign. "By getting people and groups who are usually excluded from the debate involved at the grassroots level, we can stop Real ID."
"The Real ID Act of 2005 turns our state driver's licenses into a national ID card, costs over $20 billion dollars, infringes privacy, and imposes major burdens on taxpayers, anybody renewing a driver's license, seniors, immigrants, transgender people, and state governments -- while doing nothing to protect against terrorism," said privacy activist Jon Pincus, another founder of the Stop Real ID Now! activism campaign. "This commenting process is a great chance for the American people to tell DHS and Congress the Real ID Act is a bad law that needs to be repealed."
So please, forward broadly!
PS: see the comments for the list of groups who are initially joining -- and we're expeecting more!
John07801's diary on DailyKos has some pointers to the local coverage in Davis, and Adam Shostack on Emergent Chaos notes that DHS is sending an "Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy Development" rather than somebody higher-powered ... well, okay, actually he calls the DHS representative a "flunky". Catherine of Siena comments on Threshing Grain that she's trying to get WorldNetDaily to cover the story, and Liam Ferris has a great title for his post: Homeland Security feigns interest, so tell them what you think.
Just a blip, or the start of a trend? We shall see ...
Monday, April 30, 2007
The network around CFP is one of the many hotbeds of resistance to Real ID. In fact, I met people like Jim Harper (now at the Cato Institute), Mike Stollenwork (Fairfax County Privacy Council), and Katherine Albrecht (Spychips) for the first time at past CFPs. Last year, Sonya Hipper (who designed our logo) was on a social networking panel that Deborah organized; Bill Scannell (unreald.org) and Bruce Schneier (who along with Jim Harper has done some of the best writing on Real ID's flaws from a security perspective) both gave keynotes a couple of years ago. What's really exciting about grassroots activism is that it's an opportunity for this network to intersect with others ...
In any case, CFP 2007 should be interesting, and fun, and I'm looking forward to spending time in Montreal as the fight against Real ID goes international!
PLUS… I mean, really now… it's the right thing to do. The way I figure it, we can all be part of this process, or we can let an opportunity to speak up slip away. And why should we? Yes, it's easier NOT to comment… … NOT to make the effort… NOT to feel like you've emerged from the safety of a turtle shell. But where's the good in that? Everyone, on both sides of this issue, should leave comments or attend tomorrow's Town Hall or send in good, solid questions via email. Not only is it our chance to speak, it's our responsibility.
And speaking for myself now that I've commented… I have to tell you it feels good.
I'd love to hear if you've commented, or if you've had a different reaction than I have. Commenting closes on May 8th, so you still have time. And honestly… what are you waiting for?
Sunday, April 29, 2007
So far there are a little less than 2,000 comments submitted -- which is a long way from our goal of 100,000. Still, I'm optimistic; comments usually don't start to arrive until the last minute, and on top of that I think the combination DHS/California DMV Town Hall meeting and webcast on May 1 followed by the Computers, Freedom and Privacy 2007 conference is likely to (finally!) start getting Real ID more attention in the mainstream media and blogosphere.
No way to know for sure, but it really feels to me like the grassroots energy is building and is about to break loose. With any luck at all, the next ten days will be pretty exciting!
REAL ID Town Hall Meeting
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
The REAL ID Town Hall Meeting is being hosted by the State of California (DMV) and sponsored by the federal Department of Homeland Security. The forum is designed to seek public comment on the federal REAL ID Act.
A G E N D A
10:00 a.m. – 10:05 a.m. Welcome and Introduction HSI Moderator
10:05 a.m. – 10:10 a.m. Introductory Comments Dr. Richard Barth
Office of Policy Development
Dept. of Homeland Security
10:10 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. Introductory Remarks George Valverde, Director California DMV
10:15 a.m. – 10:20 a.m. Ground rules/introduction HSI Moderator of subject areas
Open Comment Period by Topic Areas
10:20 a.m. – 10:55 a.m. Consumer/Personal Impact Perspective
10:55 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. Privacy/Security
11:30 a.m. – 11:40 a.m. -- B R E A K –
11:40 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. Electronic Verification Systems
12:15 p.m. – 12:50 p.m. Funding/Implementation/Time Frames
12:50 p.m. – 1:25 p.m. Law Enforcement
1:25 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. General Open Comment Opportunity
2:00 p.m. Closing Comments/Remarks HSI Moderator
A sign-up list for making comments will be available at the door upon entering Freeborn Hall. Comments will be limited. In order to facilitate as many people as possible, please try to arrive by 9:30 a.m., as the event will begin promptly at 10. Ample parking at UC Davis will be available.
Stop Real ID Now!
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
You may submit comments via an email link that will be provided on this website approximately 90 minutes before the broadcast.
Good to know! (I'd note, by the way, that when you enter the domain name www.realidtownhall.com the registration page is the page that comes up. While it does bear the logo of DHS, there is nothing else on the site that definitively confirms that this is, in fact, a DHS related site. I would think it is, however, and look forward to being able to hear the webcast)
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Suppose we focused on May 1 for a coordinated day of action against Real ID. I'm thinking of things like getting bloggers to cover the various issues about Real ID, in-person get-togethers everywhere in bars and cafes, discussions on the various social networks and in chat, asking people to put the logo on their pages (or as their chat avatar) ... and asking organizations to issue media releases and send mail out to their members, all with a focus on getting the word out and filing comments.
Sure, time's really short -- it's only a week away -- but we have everything we need in place to make this happen. This could kick our commenting drive into high gear -- and hopefully increase the intensity of media coverage.
What do people think of the idea?
Monday, April 23, 2007
This is where we all come in to play. As legislation opposing Real ID works its way through many states (you can keep track of what's going on in the states on the ACLU's handy interactive, Real Nightmare state map), we all need to keep the discussion focused on the issues in play, many of which are discussed in our talking points. As our group and others like us keep growing, it's key to make sure the discussions stay on track, so that we can be the signal that rises above the noise.
Friday, April 20, 2007
The Department of Homeland Security is holding a town hall meeting on Real ID on Tuesday, May 1st.
It will be located at Freeborn Hall at UC Davis from 10 AM to 2 PM.
If you're able, go, and ask hard questions. A strong presence at the town hall meeting will go a long way in helping to kill Real ID.
And please, spread the word. If you can't go, maybe some of your friends and family can make it.
I took notes, and after I clean them up a little I'll post them in the next day or so.
Thanks to Brandy Reynolds of the BARK ACLU for organizing, and to the ACLU of Northern California for hosting!
Thursday, April 19, 2007
See you there!
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Gov. Brian Schweitzer signed a law Tuesday rejecting national driver's licenses for Montanans, saying the message to the federal government was "no, nope, no way, hell no."
I wonder what he really means?
Maine, Idaho and Arkansas are the three other states that have passed and signed similar bills; in Washington, the bill has passed both branches of the legislature but hasn't been signed yet. Thanks to this great post on the blog Grits for Breakfast, you can learn about a resolution in the Texas House that will reject Real ID unless the Federal government pays for it. The resolution also mentions data security and identity theft, even though cost appears to be the biggest issue.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Some of the questions we're likely to get from the media include "how many people are involved?" and "how much momentum do you have?" We want to have good answers for these. So please:
- - introduce yourself in the who we are thread
- - get the word out: to your friends and family, by forwarding the new Real Nightmare video, in comments on articles and blog posts (see the first two paragraphs of Jon's comment here for an example), in discussion forums, email, phone calls, on your blog if you have one, as MySpace bulletins ...
- - file comments if you haven't already -- and copy your congresspeople, too!
Sunday, April 15, 2007
If you'd like to join us, just reply (with your real name or a pseudonym, and a link off to your web site or profile page if you want) and tell us something about why you want to get involved ... and welcome!
Saturday, April 14, 2007
It's at 7 p.m. next Thursday, April 19 at the ACLU of Northern California's San Francisco headquarters (39 Drumm St.) I'll be speaking and answering questions, and light refreshments will be served -- details in this post on free-association. If you're in the SF bay area, I hope to see you there!
If you're interested in helping to organize or host a get-together in your area, please let us know -- and we'll post the collateral that we're producing for the SF get-together so that people can reuse it however they want.
PS: Many thanks to Brandy for organizing this event!
Friday, April 13, 2007
The piece features Bill Cattorini, a retired Chicago fireman who has been caught in a bureaucratic limbo due to a discrepancy between his birth date as listed on his driver’s license and the date on his social security card. That was never an issue until Illinois began trying to comply with some parts of Real ID. Now Cattorini can’t drive.
Also up on YouTube here ...
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Real ID creates new opportunities for id thiefs by requiring DMVs to store a huge amount of personal information in databases that can be stolen, and by requiring that all this personal information is available on a drivers license for bars, merchants, or anybody else to scan. [Bruce Schneier points out that this information will then be resold to data aggregators like Choicepoint ... remember them?]
Just as importantly, PRC explains why Real ID is likely to make things much more difficult for victims of identity theft:
A lot of what makes it so difficult for victims is that they run up against a presumption that the transactions completed in their name are legitimate. Banks, merchants, and other creditors assume that the purchases that were made and the loans that were given belong to the victim – and the victim is forced to prove otherwise.
Real ID may just strengthen that presumption. If someone succeeds in getting a counterfeit Real ID under your name, you’ll have to confront a perception that Real IDs are more secure and difficult to obtain fraudulently.
The proposed Real ID explicitly punt on these issues: "DHS believes that it would be outside its authority to address this issue within this rulemaking." Anita Ramasastry has a good response to this in her FindLaw column:
DHS itself should be forced to confront, not dodge, the important privacy, security and identity theft issues the REAL ID program raises. In addition, the federal government should pay the tab for addressing the information-security issues its legislation will predictably create.
SEUSSVEILLANCE IN THE PANOPTICON
They watch when you’re shopping and driving and eating.
They watch who you’re calling and watch who you’re meeting.
They watch where you’re surfing and watch who you’re mailing,
But tables are turned with some inverse surveilling.
Then you’ll know the places that they’ll know you’re going
Since they watched your to-ing but you watched their fro-ing.
And if you would log what you know on the ‘net
Then the watchers would know that they’re less of a threat.
Since spiers when spied on, I think it’s apparent,
Are quite like a mirror that’s fully transparent.
So don’t just take action – record it, transmit it.
If that’s viewed as sin then I say “go commit it.”
Yes, spend your time watching and spend your time blogging.
Buy wearable cameras and learn cyborglogging.
Then soon in a fate that would be quite ironic
Big Brother would find the world panopticonic.
Thanks to Sonya Hipper for designing the Stop Real ID Now logo! We wanted something that would get our message across clearly and at the same time capture the breadth of the opposition to Real ID. And it's pretty, too!
Differet sizes and formats of the image are available here -- all under a Creative Commons licence, so please feel free to share and remix.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The measure directs the state not to spend money to implement the act unless privacy and security protections have been met, the implementation doesn't place unreasonable costs or record-keeping burdens on citizens, and the state has received federal money to put the act's requirements into effect.
The bill also allows the state attorney general, with the approval of the governor, to challenge the legality or constitutionality of the act....
The Senate had already passed a similar bill, and the governor has said she'll sign it; so Washington now joins Arkansas, Idaho, and Maine as officially rejecting the current implmentation of Real ID. Estimated cost in Washington state is about $190 million over the next four years.
As the ACLU's press release points out, the overwhelming margins of these votes against Real ID show that it's a bipartisan issue.
If we can take the momentum that's being generated in the states and generate a tidal wave of comments, this should really strengthen the effort in Congress to repeal the whole act ...
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
...Real ID Act impinges on the states' rights to handle issuing of driver's licenses, is unfunded by the federal government and isn't practical.
In Montana, the House passed a bill already approved by the Senate that rejects the Real ID Act... though that wouldn't be effective until October so there would be time to review all DHS released documents. There was an interesting quote from the end of this article about the news, showing that there are many different views on what the Act actually is....
Montana is among a number of state legislatures throughout the country rejecting Real ID, which seeks to crack down on illegal immigration by requiring proof of residency as a minimum standard for states to issue drivers’ licenses.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Most groups are still working on their comments. We're ahead of the curve, so now's a good time to start a broader outreach -- that way there will already be a lot of be lots of buzz which will continue as new folks join in. If we build this buzz, we can get a lot of attention on the issue the last week in April and first week in May. We're planning on issuing our first media release by next Tuesday the 17th; our San Francisco get-together is on track for Thursday the 19th, and that will also be a chance to start getting some press.
This week, the priority is to continue to get people involved: in the discussion groups, on the blog, volunteering. Please reach out to your friends. The What's wrong with Real ID page is a good summary of the issues, and the blog is a good place to send people to find out more. We're also trying to nail down several more get-togethers -- and of course now's a good time to start filing comments.
I'll be somewhat low-key this week as I'm working on the comments PrivacyActivism is filing jointly with several other organizations (an expanded version of the three-page draft already up on our site). Expect to see me doing more blogging and media work starting next week!
And so, I toss out the first Poem for Privacy and encourage you all to join in.
Across the whole spectrum there’s no one who’s for it:
The Left and the Right and the Center abhor it.
Dislike’s not enough, though – we need stronger laws
That offer protection without giant flaws,
Since, info, we know, always wants to be free…
And safeguards are needed so you can’t be me.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
The New Hampshire House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to reject the federal REAL ID Act as amounting to the creation of a national ID card.See the full story -- and check out this the New Hampshire public radio story on this.
The House voted 268-8 to send the bill to the Senate that would bar the state from complying with the federal act that sets standards for driver's licenses.
Gov. John Lynch has said he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk....
''It is probably the worst piece of blackmail to come out of the federal government. This is pure, unadulterated blackmail,'' said. Rep. Sherman Packard, R-Londonderry....
Earlier this year, Lynch reiterated his concerns that too many questions remained about the cost, privacy and turning motor vehicle workers into de facto agents of Homeland Security
New Hampshire has been one of the hotbeds of opposition to Real ID. Check out the video of the Real ID protest and the Granite State ID site for more. Live free or die!
Lawmakers also are concerned about what Real ID would mean to S.C. residents, especially the estimated 700,000 retirees who might not be able to produce the birth certificates, Social Security cards or other documents required to receive a new ID.
Clearly not all the 700,000 would have a problem, but just as likely there are many non-retirees who would. This is where the exceptions and workarounds built into the Act come into play... and by their very nature end up weakening the efficacy of the proposed program itself.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
This week's guests are transgender activist,Kara Michelle Harkins and Deborah Pierce. Deborah is a privacy lawyer and the executive director of the organization Privacy Activism. Deborah will discuss the history of the real ID act and it's imposition on the privacy and constitutional rights of all Americans and Kara will discuss how the real ID act specifically affects the transgender community.
I thought it was a great interview -- well worth checking out!
Thursday, April 5, 2007
This national database of personal information would be a hacker's mother lode. And if you think it would be safe in the federal government's hands, just remember those FBI laptops.
It will be interesting to see as the month progresses how many editorials appear, and what areas they focus on, whether for or against Real ID.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Sunday, April 1, 2007
But before we get into the "how?" of that, the key thing is to understand the "why?" And for that, it's easier to send you to a couple of other places. The StopRealID website has lots of information about issues with the Real ID Act -- including its expense ($20 billion!), privacy issues, and exemptions that mean it won't actually keep us safer. If you've got some questions or would like to discuss the issues, please visit the RealID Activism Myspace group, Yahoo! group, or other discussion forums. There's also information in all these places about what we hope to accomplish, and you can see who is already helping out. And yes, there you'll see the "how?" of it all... and why we need you to help.
We're looking forward to an exciting few weeks ahead, and we hope you'll be a part of it with us.