About that "Real ID" bill...
A couple weeks ago I posted here about Rep. Sensenbrenner's "Real I.D." bill. (Previous posts on the BBA by here by Chris and here from me.)
I wondered whether I would be able to get answers to all my questions about the bill, since no one in Rep. Sensenbrenner's office was allowed to answer them on the phone, and I wasn't sure if a mere blogger would be given the same information given to members of the press.
Well, yes and no, or maybe I should say, "no and yes", respectively.
I still haven't had all my questions answered, but I was given information from the Judiciary Press Secretary. I received an email from him, with quite a bit of background information, a transcript of a press conference with Rep. Sensenbrenner, and some other material.
That was great. But it still didn't answer all my questions or the critic's objections.
For example, will a database of information on U.S. citizens be compiled and shared with Mexico and Canada, as alleged by Rep. Ron Paul? Nothing I read addressed that question.
Will the machine-readable code on drivers' licenses include an RFID chip? No information was given. Are there limits to the information that could be placed on that machine-readable section? The bill doesn't address that, presumably leaving that up to the states -- for now.
The rationale for this bill is simple, actually, and appeals to common sense (as some commenters here noted). Under current state rules, drivers' licenses are issued to show that an individual has met the state's criteria for being allowed to drive a certain kind of vehicle. That's it. There's no particular effort to make sure that the individual requesting the license is actually who he says he is, nor to verify the documents presented.
This poses a problem because of the way those licenses are used: not just as "permission slips" to drive, but as universally accepted I.D.
So, the "Real I.D." bill attempts to make drivers' licenses, well, "real I.D.'s". To comply with this bill, states would have to make sure that people are who they say they are when applying for a license. The cards themselves would have to meet the bill's minimum standards for data contained in a machine-readable code.
If the state doesn't comply, then those citizens would not be able use their driver's license as acceptable ID for federal purposes, including boarding a plane. Inconvenient, to be sure.
But I'm not sure if this is a case where we should let the federal government make the states roll over. Nobody talks about federal "power grabs" anymore, but this is what the "Real I.D." bill appears to be. If there's one thing we've learned about government, or should have learned, it's that there are no limits to its desire for information, regulation, and control.
Now, if you ask me about the Wisconsin Photo ID bill for voting -- I'm all for it. It's local, it's sensible, and it doesn't launch a new set of databases and privacy issues.
But a federally mandated "Real I.D." bill, with perhaps unlimited data contained on the card, edging toward a national I.D. card -- I'm not so sure.
The good, sensible, law-abiding conservative in me wants to say this is a good thing.
But the libertarian in me is starting to rebel.
One commenter here, who's in favor of a national ID card, said,
I can't imagine any quicker way to lose our liberty than to follow that formula. The problem, of course, is that it's the government that gets to determine what is "stupid". Today, I don't do anything stupid (well, by government standards, that is).
But what if tomorrow -- perhaps a distant tomorrow -- the government decides that belonging to a peaceful pro-life group is "stupid". Or owning a gun is "stupid". Or assembling with others to protest a law or court order is "stupid". Or blogging is "stupid".
Having a national ID card, or a fascimile of one, could just quicken the process by which the government identifies and locates individuals they've decided are behaving badly.
I don't want to go there.
I wondered whether I would be able to get answers to all my questions about the bill, since no one in Rep. Sensenbrenner's office was allowed to answer them on the phone, and I wasn't sure if a mere blogger would be given the same information given to members of the press.
Well, yes and no, or maybe I should say, "no and yes", respectively.
I still haven't had all my questions answered, but I was given information from the Judiciary Press Secretary. I received an email from him, with quite a bit of background information, a transcript of a press conference with Rep. Sensenbrenner, and some other material.
That was great. But it still didn't answer all my questions or the critic's objections.
For example, will a database of information on U.S. citizens be compiled and shared with Mexico and Canada, as alleged by Rep. Ron Paul? Nothing I read addressed that question.
Will the machine-readable code on drivers' licenses include an RFID chip? No information was given. Are there limits to the information that could be placed on that machine-readable section? The bill doesn't address that, presumably leaving that up to the states -- for now.
The rationale for this bill is simple, actually, and appeals to common sense (as some commenters here noted). Under current state rules, drivers' licenses are issued to show that an individual has met the state's criteria for being allowed to drive a certain kind of vehicle. That's it. There's no particular effort to make sure that the individual requesting the license is actually who he says he is, nor to verify the documents presented.
This poses a problem because of the way those licenses are used: not just as "permission slips" to drive, but as universally accepted I.D.
So, the "Real I.D." bill attempts to make drivers' licenses, well, "real I.D.'s". To comply with this bill, states would have to make sure that people are who they say they are when applying for a license. The cards themselves would have to meet the bill's minimum standards for data contained in a machine-readable code.
If the state doesn't comply, then those citizens would not be able use their driver's license as acceptable ID for federal purposes, including boarding a plane. Inconvenient, to be sure.
But I'm not sure if this is a case where we should let the federal government make the states roll over. Nobody talks about federal "power grabs" anymore, but this is what the "Real I.D." bill appears to be. If there's one thing we've learned about government, or should have learned, it's that there are no limits to its desire for information, regulation, and control.
Now, if you ask me about the Wisconsin Photo ID bill for voting -- I'm all for it. It's local, it's sensible, and it doesn't launch a new set of databases and privacy issues.
But a federally mandated "Real I.D." bill, with perhaps unlimited data contained on the card, edging toward a national I.D. card -- I'm not so sure.
The good, sensible, law-abiding conservative in me wants to say this is a good thing.
But the libertarian in me is starting to rebel.
One commenter here, who's in favor of a national ID card, said,
"The government, if they so choose, can find out anything they want about you. Accept it as fact and don't do anything stupid to become a target of their investigation."
I can't imagine any quicker way to lose our liberty than to follow that formula. The problem, of course, is that it's the government that gets to determine what is "stupid". Today, I don't do anything stupid (well, by government standards, that is).
But what if tomorrow -- perhaps a distant tomorrow -- the government decides that belonging to a peaceful pro-life group is "stupid". Or owning a gun is "stupid". Or assembling with others to protest a law or court order is "stupid". Or blogging is "stupid".
Having a national ID card, or a fascimile of one, could just quicken the process by which the government identifies and locates individuals they've decided are behaving badly.
I don't want to go there.
posted by M.E. @ 5:42 PM
<< Home