ID'ed Indeed
A U.S. national ID card might be more eminent than previously thought
NATIONAL identification cards were being promoted long before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as a means to identify potential terrorists, curb illegal immigration and thwart criminal activity.
Countries around the world are already using national ID cards. Singapore recently implemented Singapore Personal Access, or “SingPass,” an ID used for e-government services. Germany uses an encrypted biometric national ID. Malaysia established “Mykad,” a universal-purpose ID card, and no less than a dozen other countries have issued contracts to develop the infrastructure to support a national ID card. Other nations considering a national ID program include the United States, England, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Colombia, Argentina, Bangladesh and Russia.
Historically, U.S. government officials and the American public have rejected the notion of a national ID card. When the Social Security program was established in 1935, the Social Security number was intended to be used as an account number, although its use as a national ID card has been promoted throughout history. In 1971, the U.S. armed forces replaced the use of service numbers in favor of the Social Security number. Nearly 40 years ago, the Nixon administration recommended against using Social Security numbers as a national identifier. Since then, the Carter administration and the Reagan administration both rejected this type of use. Unrelated to the use of Social Security numbers, the Clinton administration proposed a “health security card” in 1993 with an identification number for all Americans. That was soundly defeated, even with assurances for the safeguards of private information.
Despite these and other failed attempts at creating a national identification number or national ID card, the government has sent mixed messages on its intent to create a national ID card. In 2003, Congress recognized the public’s legitimate concern for privacy by mandating that the newly-formed Department of Homeland Security was not authorized to issue a national ID system.
"The legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security was very specific on the question of a national ID card. They said there will be no national ID card,” said then-DHS Secretary Tom Ridge in September 2004.
If DHS is not authorized to issue a national ID card, it would appear to be a dead issue. But this is not the case. One year later, Congress passed the Real ID Act of 2005, which mandates federal requirements for state driver's licenses. Despite the recently vacillating public opinion on this subject, this act has revitalized government watchdog organizations and concerned private citizens in opposition to the appearance of a national ID. Critics of the Real ID Act of 2005 argue that it would effectively turn driver's licenses into de-facto national IDs.
The Real ID Act of 2005 authorized significant changes in how states issue driver’s licenses, and it is full of controversy. First, the specific legislative requirements and their impact upon the American people was not debated by Congress because the act was inserted in the 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act and was intended to fund Hurricane Katrina relief and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Real ID was stuffed into the supplemental appropriations bill for Hurricane Katrina and the troops in Iraq, so of course, we had to vote for the bill, but we had no chance to amend it—no debate, no hearing and no consideration of other alternatives,” said Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander about the legislation.
Also, the act places an $11 billion unfunded mandate on the states. The act essentially requires states to issue nationally-standardized driver's licenses while inputting and using drivers' information stored in nationally-connected databases. The fiscal and administrative costs of compliance are substantial, including increased bureaucracy at state DMVs, longer wait times, higher processing fees and, of course, other direct costs. The law further requires states to start issuing standardized licenses by Dec. 31, 2009. In response, state legislators are seeking to forestall implementation of this unfunded federal mandate. Four states have passed legislation directly opposing the act: Montana, Washington, North Carolina and Maine. Additionally, 30 states have passed or are considering proposals condemning the license standards. These states are primarily seeking federal funding to implement the new standards and an extension to the unrealistic 2009 deadline.
The primary concern over the Real ID Act is not its significant financial burden, but its impact on our privacy rights. The act mandates the creation of a national, interlinked database containing a significant amount of personal information, including an individual’s basic information, biometric identifiers and an assigned identification (national ID) number. Over time, this national database has the potential to host more and more personal data and may be used for expanded purposes, similar to what we’ve seen with the broadening use of Social Security numbers. Beyond the concern over a national repository of private information, the central database also renders American’s personal information vulnerable to identity theft. Under the new system, each DMV office would have access to the central database, making the database vulnerable and attractive to criminals. A single break in security at any one of the thousands of DMV offices across the country can compromise the personal information and documents of millions of Americans.
Any one of these issues would be magnified during the implementation of a standardized driver’s license system, and several others will be inevitably created. Despite use in other nations, a nationally-standardized ID program is a step in the wrong direction for the citizens of the United States. Congress agreed in principle when it specifically limited the authority of DHS to create a national ID program. A de-facto national ID program, like the Real ID Act of 2005, inspires distrust in tracking and detecting private citizens in public and private places. Several states have been appropriately responding to the federal mandate by rejecting its provisions on many levels. These states are acting responsively to the rights of its citizens, even when the terms of the act are rejected for financial and administrative reasons. When taken advantage of by governmental entities, privacy rights are only eroded and almost never re-established. The United States should move slowly and deliberately in determining the potential impact of programs like the Real ID Act on our individual liberties.