Post-9/11 Americans seemed all too willing to sacrifice their privacy to combat terrorism. But residents in 17 states may soon find themselves in limbo as President Bush battles state governments over the Real ID Act of 2005. The act imposes national standards for state-issued driver's licenses, a de facto national identity card.
States resisting the measure insist that the security measure will cost billions to comply. Homeland Security has countered that the state governments of Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Washington, may request waivers extending the fulfillment deadline. If not, residents of states that fail to meet these terms will have to deal with the bureaucratic complexities of a non-standardized ID.
The Real ID Act is designed to make it harder for terrorists, illegal immigrants and con artists to get government-issued identification. But identity-based security is easy to evade, as any document can be forged or purchased outright from a corrupt official. And a terrorist could very well be a law-abiding citizen, without fraudulent identification papers.
The creation of a national database may even increase the risk of identity theft. Imagine a mega-file with all of your personal data; linking Social Security numbers, account/credit information, home and e-mail addresses, political affiliation, medical records, education records and travel history. Those in favor of the law argue that such information is only precious if you have something to hide, but consider that with the information consolidated, anyone with access to that database has access to you.
The measure compromises civil liberties, particularly the right to privacy. National surveillance permits the government to monitor everyone at all times. Without a Real ID, Americans will no longer be able to legally drive a car, board a plane, enter a government building, open a bank account or hold a job. The measure, designed to defend and protect the American way of life, seems a frightening move toward totalitarianism.
It would be naive to assume that America is not already under the watchful eye of “big brother,” but why empower the government further? Communist Soviet Union, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany are historic examples of where extreme regulation can lead.
In a post-9/11 rush to pacify public fear, it seems like our politicians didn't consider the possible repercussions of such a measure. I am certainly not comparing Homeland Security to the Nazis, but I believe it's important to consider the dramatic change that this law could have on the structure of our government.
Estabrook's column appears Monday and she can be reached at estabrookcarole@yahoo.com
The Real ID Act is designed to make it harder for terrorists, illegal immigrants and con artists to get government-issued identification. But identity-based security is easy to evade, as any document can be forged or purchased outright from a corrupt official. And a terrorist could very well be a law-abiding citizen, without fraudulent identification papers.
The creation of a national database may even increase the risk of identity theft. Imagine a mega-file with all of your personal data; linking Social Security numbers, account/credit information, home and e-mail addresses, political affiliation, medical records, education records and travel history. Those in favor of the law argue that such information is only precious if you have something to hide, but consider that with the information consolidated, anyone with access to that database has access to you.
The measure compromises civil liberties, particularly the right to privacy. National surveillance permits the government to monitor everyone at all times. Without a Real ID, Americans will no longer be able to legally drive a car, board a plane, enter a government building, open a bank account or hold a job. The measure, designed to defend and protect the American way of life, seems a frightening move toward totalitarianism.
It would be naive to assume that America is not already under the watchful eye of “big brother,” but why empower the government further? Communist Soviet Union, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany are historic examples of where extreme regulation can lead.
In a post-9/11 rush to pacify public fear, it seems like our politicians didn't consider the possible repercussions of such a measure. I am certainly not comparing Homeland Security to the Nazis, but I believe it's important to consider the dramatic change that this law could have on the structure of our government.
Estabrook's column appears Monday and she can be reached at estabrookcarole@yahoo.com
The Citizens' Say
There are 7 comment(s)
Farmer's Gal wrote on Jan 19, 2008 11:30 AM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on Jan 19, 2008 11:29 AM:
Since the very first time I heard someone worrying about transferring credit card data over the internet I've been saying -- that's so secure, you hardly need worry about it. What you need to worry about is how these companies/corporations who have our personally identifying information STORE it. All the big cases of stolen data are from hacked storage servers, not from data en route, so it doesn't matter if you transmitted the data via internet, over the phone or by handing the card to a salesperson in a store.
And those corporations and their marketing counterparts having been fighting and mostly winning against all proposed legislation to protect our private information because it cuts into their ability to buy and sell our personal info for marketing purposes.
But Hillbilly and Carol are right too. Americans are frighteningly quick to give away our privacy rights. The reference to Big Brother is no joke; it's not facetious at all. Many of the things Orwell described as outrageous invasions of privacy in his book have long since come to pass and many more ingenious ones are on the verge of being foisted upon us daily, yet we have many foolish people among the citizenry who poo-poo what's happening and play right into the hands of the Big Brother component of our government.
Like the frog and the boiling water: drop a frog in boiling water, and it will spring right out. But put a frog in a comfortable pan of lukewarm water and slowly turn up the heat, and the from will be boiled before he realizes what's happening.
We are the frogs, and boy, are we gullible. "
hillbilly wrote on Jan 16, 2008 10:17 PM:
mjmanning wrote on Jan 16, 2008 4:49 PM:
The point that Ms. Estabrook is making is that our government is now deciding for us what information they are entitled to. They are taking away that private and indivdual right and are deciding (and now demanding) that they are entitled to know anything & everything about you. When you sign up for a credit card, you are giving them the authority to know everything about you. MySpace and other sites are also choices that are decided by the individual. Of course, the government would most definitely encourage you to make that choice since it makes it easier for them to track what you do.
In regards to the "standards" even the Real ID Act doesn't specify them. They are as follows: "Data requirements:
Each card must include, at a minimum, the person's full legal name, signature, date of birth, sex, driver's license or identification card number. It also includes a photograph of the person's face and the address of principal residence. It is required to have physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes. These new security features include a hologram of a map of the entire North American Continent.
It will use common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements (the details of which are not spelled out, but left to the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and the states, to regulate)."
I do feel that we are living in a Big Brother Society and that we should be very careful about what we allow our government to demand. If the people don't demand it, the government shouldn't either. After all, isn't the government for the people and by the people?
"
hillbilly wrote on Jan 15, 2008 8:47 AM:
hilltop wrote on Jan 14, 2008 1:57 PM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on Jan 14, 2008 12:27 PM: