See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: STATES TO HOMELAND SECURITY ON REAL ID: NO THANKS
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven36.htm
Published: May 11, 2008
Author: Stephen Yates
Post Date: 2008-05-11 10:09:25 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 218
Comments: 8
Today—May 11, 2008—is not just Mother’s Day but REAL ID D-Day, so to speak: the day citizens of states not granted extensions to comply with the REAL ID Act of 2005 would find themselves unable to board planes, enter federal buildings, etc. By the end of last year, seven states had passed laws prohibiting implementation of REAL ID in their state: Maine, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Washington, New Hampshire, and Georgia. That number became eight on April 9 of this year when Idaho joined up. Ten states had laws that were passed in one house but not the other. Eight more states had introduced such laws. Twelve had passed nonbinding resolutions denouncing REAL ID. That’s a 38-state rebellion! With no evidence that an increasingly dictatorial Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would back down, one by one, most of the states blinked and requested extensions. All but four: Montana, New Hampshire, Maine, and my adopted home state of South Carolina. According to DHS rules handed down in January, states had until March 31 to request an extension. If they did not, the above consequences for their citizens would kick in. With the clock ticking, on March 31, 2008, South Carolina lived up to its reputation as a sometimes-defiant state with leaders capable of thinking independently and stand up for states’ rights (integral to the original meaning of federalism). That day, Governor Mark Sanford declined to seek an extension from the Department of Homeland Security in order to comply with the REAL ID Act, which as some have noted did not get through Congress on its own merits but rode piggyback on an appropriations bill that Congress considered must-pass. That bill was signed into law by President Bush on May 11, 2005. For quite a while, little was said about REAL ID. Those of us who tried to draw attention to the subject often found ourselves derided as “conspiracy nuts.” Last year, a small group of South Carolinians (which included your humble narrator) noticed that there was a rebellion brewing in certain states: New Hampshire, Maine, and Montana were examples. On January 25, 2007, Maine enacted the first resolution against the REAL ID Act. We wondered: what was South Carolina doing? Nothing, so far as we could tell. So we took action on our own. Slightly over a year ago, we drafted a proposed bill and took it to the South Carolina General Assembly. This involved a few day trips to Columbia. Many of our representatives were unfamiliar with REAL ID. The law had never been publicized except on the Internet. And some folks out there—I’ve heard from a few—are really dense enough to wonder why we think there are “conspiracies” afoot. We educated our representatives. Fortunately, they were willing to be educated. They did not dismiss us as “conspiracy nuts.” I believe they were impressed by the fact that we were coming to Columbia at our own expense. We were not working as paid lobbyists. We had documentation to back up what we were saying, including copies of the REAL ID Act itself. Our bill went through several modifications and was shortened considerably, but finally came to the floor as S.449. Here was S.449’s crucial passage: “Title 56 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding: Section 56-1-85. The State shall not participate in the implementation of the federal REAL ID Act. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.” The S.C. General Assembly passed S.449 on June 8, 2007. Five days later, on June 13, Governor Mark Sanford made a special trip to Greenville to sign S.449 into law publicly. As many of our citizens group attended as could fit the event into our work schedules, and were recognized by the Governor. Why Greenville? Because nearly all the anti-REAL ID agitation had come from the Upstate, and Greenville was the largest city. Our neighbor, Spartanburg, had produced its share of anti-REAL ID activists. (We never found out what the rest of the state was doing.) Aaron Bolinger, then living in Spartanburg, deserves the lion’s share of credit for having spearheaded our efforts. A former lobbyist with several years of experience on Capitol Hill, he knew how to approach the General Assembly. From him I learned much. He had assembled our documentation into a single package containing information on nearly every aspect, ramification, and point of view one could use to evaluate Real ID—its history, its costs as determined by DHS itself or by professional groups such as the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, its risk to our privacy, information on what other states were doing, and even the theological questions REAL ID raises (think of the “mark of the Beast” in Revelation). Having tasted victory here, Bolinger moved to Pennsylvania to assist that state’s anti-REAL ID effort. Advertisement Our victory was, of course, temporary. Back to 2008. DHS Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, as I mentioned, handed down final REAL ID rules on January 11. The new rules allowed states to request extensions, which would be granted if they could show “material compliance” with the Act. They would have until May 11, 2011, to achieve full compliance. Four states, as I also mentioned, remained steadfast in refusing to ask for extensions. Almost immediately, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer sent a letter to other governors stating, “I am asking you to join with me in resisting the DHS coercion to comply with the provisions of REAL ID. If we stand together either DHS will blink or Congress will have to act to avoid havoc at our nation's airports and federal courthouses.” He cited concerns over privacy, states’ rights, and the cost of implementation. His letter went to governors of Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington. Homeland Security spokesperson Laura Keehner responded: “That will mean real consequences for their citizens starting in May if their leadership chooses not to comply. That includes getting on an airplane or entering a federal building, so they will need to get passports.” In other words, DHS’s way of dealing with dissent is typically authoritarian: make a threat. In Montana’s case, DHS blinked. The agency granted the state an extension it didn’t ask for. Existing Montana drivers licenses will continue to be accepted for federal purposes. Schweitzer was not appeased. “I sent them a horse,” he said afterwards, “and if they want to call it a zebra, that's up to them.” He remained defiant. On a March 7 National Public Radio interview he did not mince words. “[E]very month,” he said, the feds “come out with another harebrained scheme.… We play along for a while.… But if it comes to a head we’ve found it’s just best to tell them they can go to hell.” On March 31, South Carolina Governor Sanford made his stand. Sanford was more polite than Schweitzer, but what happened was essentially the same. He sent a five-page letter to Chertoff stating that South Carolina declines to participate, would not seek an extension, and explained in great detail why not. He wrote of “what I consider to be grave consequences to the taxpayer, privacy interests, and civil liberties in our country if we continue with REAL ID in its present form.” “As you know,” he states at the outset of the letter, “South Carolina has enacted legislation that prevents the state from complying with REAL ID, and I am duty bound to comply with the laws of our state.” Sanford went on to explain his “serious reservations about REAL ID…” He observes, first, what I noted above: “REAL ID was never fully debated in Congress. As we both know, REAL ID was included as a rider to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief in 2005… Does it make any sense to begin a de facto national ID system without debate?” He argues, second: “at some point someone has got to draw a line in the sand with regard to unfunded federal mandates. Based on the broad array of groups from across the political spectrum that oppose REAL ID, if there was ever a federal mandate on which to draw that line in the sand, this seems to be it.” He then discussed Real ID’s price tag. “DHS currently estimates that REAL ID will cost $9.9 billion [down from $23 billion]. Over the last 15 years that I have had reason to closely watch things in Washington, three-fold decreases in cost have never been the order of things. Nonetheless, if one leaves aside for a moment what we believe to be implausible assumptions that go with this downward revision, the revised costs are as follows: $3.9 billion cost to the states, $5.8 billion cost to individuals, and $0.2 billion ($200 million) to the federal government and private sector. It seems to me there is something wrong when the federal government imposes the burdens of creating a national ID system on the states—but only pays for two percent of the cost.” Moreover, “REAL ID also does not address the cost to verify information across databases.” Sanford observes that the cost of the verification process has gone up. “Before legislation like this goes into effect, I believe transaction costs should be clearly and specifically enumerated.” This assumes that the federal government can afford REAL ID. “As you know,” he had said earlier in the letter, “Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano and I share very different political philosophies, but I completely agree with her that if the federal government wants something, then the federal government should pay for it…. Unfunded mandates and unspecified costs are relevant to a national security debate and REAL ID because of the larger spending problems in Washington.” Our total indebtedness, that is, totals over $50 trillion. “[S]ustainable spending, especially given what is happening to the dollar, is a big part of this. In short, if the federal government thinks a national ID card is necessary, then, after debating its merits, they should pay for it—after determining they can pay for it” (orig. emphasis). For part two click below. Click here for part ----> 2,
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine, Peppa, farmfriend, Cynicom, robin, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, FOH, Artisan, angle, lodwick, duckhunter, Kamala, HOUNDDAWG, James Deffenbach, Percy Dovetonsils, Pinguinite, ratcat, Palo Verde, aristeides, all (#0)
Congratulations to the Patriots who have been successful so far. We need to continue this fight because the so-called "Real I.D." (actually an Internal Passport such as the Soviet Union used) is a real and present danger. Fighting the "Real I.D." is important on another level as this is part of the NAU integration in establishing continent wide regimentation. The implementation of the "Real I.D." allows for smoother integration between the People's Republic of Canada and the Kleptocracy of Mexico by allowing the eventual merging of citizen records. Never doubt that the "Real I.D." is not about identification but about regimentation and control.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Those renegade states will come around in short order when they're threatened with getting their federal dole cut off. Just watch.
Absolutely. Also note this: URGENT -STOP H.R. 5405 (Secure Social Security Card ~end run around Real ID) freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...gi? ArtNum=77677&Disp=1#C1 URGENT ACTION ALERT-STOP H.R. 5405 By zoi | April 9, 2008 This is yet another plot to enslave the American people in an unconstitutional framework of databases under the guise of “security”. Recently Congressman Mark Kirk from Illinois 10th District introduced a bill to create a “Secure Social Security Card”. This new card is clearly a run around to the state’s opposition to Real ID and we must do all in our power to prevent it from becoming law. FIRST: Watch this short video recorded at the town hall meeting where Congressman Kirk talks about the “Secure Social Security Card”: www.youtube.com/watch? v=PrsJVZe41Dg <
That's funny--from what I've read before, at least one state told DHS to go fuck themselves and did NOT request an extension. DHS granted them one anyway.
Stop Real ID coalition The Final Chapter in a Systematic Plan for a Single Global Biometric ID System Submitted by the STOP REAL ID COALITION –an association of concerned citizens The REAL ID ACT of 2005 does not create a national ID card but an INTERnational BIOMETRIC ID card The world is being enrolled into a single global biometric ID system through driver’s license/ID cards (DL/ID cards), passports and other ID documents. Biometrics, like facial recognition, digital fingerprinting and iris recognition, are already being used by many states and nations. The federal government attempted to impose biometrics on state ID in 1986i. International biometric plans were laid in 1995ii. Both predate 9/11. The biometrics required by REAL ID, other security laws, initiatives, treaties and agreements, are not needed tools against terrorism, but the fulfillment of a global biometric ID system. On March 1st, 2007 REAL ID’s “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” (NPRM) was issued, revealing REAL ID’s global biometric connectioniii. The three main entities driving this system are: AAMVA is an international association of motor vehicle and law enforcement officialsiv. AAMVA is responsible for international biometric DL/ID card standards and an international information sharing agreement, the “Driver License Agreement” (DLA)v. Themost recent AAMVA DL/ID standard is the 2005 “Personal Identification –AAMVA International Specification- DL/ID Card Design.vi”This DL/ID standard, DLA and other document standards are requirements, cited in REAL ID HR418vii and/or NPRMviii. AAMVA’s influence over international, federal and state DL/ID card laws is evident in REAL ID (mentioned 30 times in NPRMand 150 times in REAL ID final rules 01-11- 08) viii. ICAO monitors travelers, designed biometric “e-passportsix” required for “Visa Waiver Nationsx” and is affiliated with the UNxi. Global enrollment into the e-passport system is 50 million annuallyxii. REAL ID photos comply with ICAO “biometric data interchange formats”xiiistandards, making state photos compatible with global biometric facial recognition standards. Together, DHS, AAMVA and ICAO are fulfilling the three elements necessary for a global biometric system. DHS denies that REAL ID requires biometrics but the “Privacy Impact Assessment for REAL ID ACT”(March 1, 2007) clearly states; “In addition, as a result of the Act, state databases will contain standardized photo images that will allow law enforcement agencies to use facial-recognition technology to help apprehend criminals, and the state DMVs will be able to use the images and application data to prevent drivers whose licenses have been revoked in one state from obtaining them in another.” viii (emphasis added) REAL ID standards make state databases “interoperable” and database linking will result in states losing control of their ID system.The DL/ID card controls our ability to buy, sell and move.While under state control, this power remains under the control of the people who have access to the lawmakers administering its use. REAL ID places that control under federal and international entities through laws, initiatives and treaties, some of which are listed below. FACIAL RECOGNITION –The Global Biometric of Choice On June 28, 2002, the ICAO, and its stakeholders, unanimously endorsed the “Berlin Resolution” for “the use of facial recognition as the globally interoperable biometric formachine assisted identity confirmation with MRTD’s (machine readable travel documents)”xix Why Facial Recognition? Facial recognition can use existing digital photo databases (enrollment) and is suitable for public surveillance. FACIAL RECOGNITION TESTS – The IBG report reveals: DHS WANTS MOREHIGH-TECH TOOLS–Human Dignity, Civil Rights, Testing & Function are Secondary Instead of investing in “real” security, DHS spent millions on Boeing’s “virtual fence,” that doesn’t work.xxiv DHS is also testing the “virtual strip search,” machine, AKAbackscatter device, recently deployed in Phoenix.xxv Another new item being tested is “Project Hostile Intent”xxvi that will “identify” terrorists’ “intent” by judging behavior and facial expressions. The suspicious test procedures and failed tests by DHS-TSA are too numerous to mention in this document. POWER, CONTROL AND DECEIT REAL ID’s official purposes have already changed to discourage further opposition i.e. access to national parks. Potentially, REAL ID requirements could be imposed on banking, Medicare or cashing Social Security checks, school ID, etc. REAL ID is a symptom of a society that has lost control of its government, where international organizations have more influence over state and federal law than the people, or their elected representatives. DL/ID Card Photo =Biometrics and deceitful enrollment. Why use facial recognition? Enrollment. The 2003 IBG report states, “Facial recognition technology can acquire faces from almost any static camera or video,” and “Facial recognition databases…are capable of creating databases from facial images not specifically collected for biometric usage.” Linked databases with photos = facial recognition database. RUSHING TO FAILURE–Increasing Risk andWasting Resources REAL ID,Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), e-passport, TransportationWorker Identification Credential (TWIC), backscatter, virtual fence, “Project Hostile Intent” etc. are indicators of the current DHS mindset that can’t keep its hands out of the technological cookie jar. While technical failures mount, our nation becomes less secure. DHS is wasting billions of dollars on “high-tech” failures instead of investing in fences and people desperately needed on our borders and in our ports. This “DHS mindset” has not escaped the notice of the Government Accounting Office (GAO), that recently cited many problems with DHS, giving it a several failing grades. REAL ID and other biometric laws must be repealed. Statesmust take back power from international organizations, wipe databases of biometrics and biometric compatible information, and reduce the quality of photos, making them unusable for biometrics (max. 25 pixels between eye centers), protecting state databases from future takeovers. 012208 REAL ID –BIOMETRIC FACT SHEET-final rules.doc REFERENCE PAGE i Source AAMVA – “Current and Ongoing Efforts – http://www.aamva.org/KnowledgeCenter/Standards/currentandongoingefforts-biomet rics.htm ii Source ICAO – Tag/Mrtd17_WP016.pdf (Jan. 2007) “Background 2.1” iii Source DHS – “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” (Mar. 2007) – section 3 “Digital Photograph” (March 2007) footnote (17) states ”The relevant ICAO standard is ICAO 9303 Part 1 Vol 2, specifically ISO/IEC 19794-5 - Information technology - Biometric data interchange formats - Part 5: Face image data, which is incorporated into ICAO 9303” nprm_readid.pdf iv Source AAMVA web site –www.aamva.org and listed on other source documents (see note i –Current and Ongoing Efforts – http://www.aamva.org/KnowledgeCenter/Standards/currentandongoingefforts- biometri cs.htm) v Source AAMVA - http://www.aamva.org/KnowledgeCenter/Driver/Compacts/History+of+the+DLA.htm vi Source AAMVA –std2005DL-IDCardSpecV2FINAL.pdf vii Source H.R.418 REAL ID ACT of 2005 – Sec. 203 “Linking of Databases” – re: “Driver License Agreement” //NOTE: HR418 from House was included in HR1268 in Senate, passed and signed into law viii Source DHS – “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” (Mar. 1st 2007), “H. Minimum Driver’s license or identification card Data Element Requirements - Sec. 5 Signature, Sec. 8.Machine Readable Technology (MRT) barcode standard, data elements, Sec. 9 Encryption (barcode) J. Source Document Retention (and related sections detailing these requirements) - nprm_readid.pdf --- Note: The “Privacy Impact Assessment for REAL ID ACT” is cited in the document and was issued with the NPRM--- REAL ID Final Rules issued January 11th, 2008. ix ICAO announces (July 11th 2005) the Machine Readable Passport (MRP) standard specified by ICAO is the international standard -- pio200507_e.pdf x “Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002” “Sec. 303 Machine Readable Tamper Resistant Entry and Exit” requires biometric Machine Readable Passports, complying to ICAO standards, for “visa waiver nations.” xi Source ICAO –Tag/Mrtd17_WP016.pdf (Jan. 2007) 3.1 Creation of ICAO xii Source ICAO –Tag/Mrtd17_WP20.pdf (March 12th, 2007) “2. ONGOING WORK OF THE NTWG SINCE TAG/16” sec. 2.2 xiii Source DHS –(See ref. iii ) - The ISO/IEC 19794-5 standard defines how photos, compatible with facial recognition biometrics, are to be collected when used in ICAO’s 9303 Machine Readable Travel Documents (MRTD). xiv ICAO 9303 - ISO/IEC 19794-5 is available from ISO (see 040607 April_6_FP_Published_ISO_Standards.pdf), however, “Annex D-Face Image Data Interchange.pdf” addresses similar content and can be downloaded. xv Source DHS – “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” (Mar. 1st 2007), “Sec. 6. a, ii. Federated Querying Service - nprm_readid.pdf xvi Source DHS - Privacy Impact Assessment for the REAL ID ACT of 2005- Sec. 3 “The State to State Data Exchange” (footnote 24) refers to AAMVAnet as one part of a current data exchange program that could be used to implement the requirements of REAL ID’s database linking requirements – privacy_pia_realid.pdf. Source DHS REAL ID Final Rules, refers to AAMVAnet as the “backbone” of this data sharing system. viii xvii Source DHS –http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/laws/gc_1172767635686.shtm xviii Source Wall Street Journal Article July 8th, 2005 “Surveillance Cameras Monitor Much of Daily Life in London May Help to Identify Bombers” - http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB112077340647880052- cKyZgAb0T3asU4UDFVNPWrOAqCY_20060708.html xix Source ICAO –TagMrtd17_WP016.pdf –5.3 SELECTION OF BIOMETRICS MODALITIES FOR E-PASSPORTS xx Source Washington Technology –Great Expectations –Biometrics – http://www.washingtontechnology.com/print/18_13/21791-2.html xxi Source AAMVA IBG Report - UID9BiometricReport_Phase1_1to300m.pdf xxii Source FRVT2006andICE2006LargeScaleReport (4).pdf http://frvt.org/FRVT2006/default.aspx xxiii Source Washington Post (Sept. 18th 2007) “DHS ‘Dry Run’ Support Cited” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/ content/article/2007/09/17/AR2007091701718.html?hpid=moreheadlines xxiv Source AP “Glitch Renders ‘Virtual Fence’ Unusable (Sept. 20th 2007) – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/ content/article/2007/09/19/AR2007091902664.html xxv Source USAToday - Phoenix test site for TSA X-ray - http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20061201/1a_lede01.art.htm xxvi Source DHS- Deception Detection: Identifying hostile intent – http://www.homelandsecurity.org/snapshots/newsletter/2007- 05.htm#deception xxvii Source GCN –DHS pushes global data sharing – http://www.gcn.com/print/26_03/43061-1.html A brief list of laws, initiatives and treaties being used to impose a global biometric ID system h23; The “Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986” attempted to impose biometrics on state ID for identifying commercial driver’s license holders h23; 1995 ICAO began work on biometric Machine Readable Travel Documents (MRTD’s) resulting in ICAO 9303 TAG-MRTD/17-WP/16.pdf (1-6-07) h23; The “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996” set federal standards for all driver’s license/ID cards (DL/IDcards) and placed state DL/ID card design under the influence of AAMVA h23; “Enhanced Security and Visa Reform Act of 2002” –biometrics collected on visa holders - Visa Waiver nations issue biometric passports designed by ICAO h23; REAL ID ACT of 2005 and NPRMrequire states to: 1. Collect, store and share highly personal information verified through online systems (ex. DHS “federated querying” system or AAMVAnet) 2. Adopt global biometric DL/ID card standards set by AAMVA and ICAO “9303” photo standards complyingwith “biometric data interchange formats” making all photos compatible with facial recognition software 3. Link state DL/ID databases, creating common database systems (DLA model) – Once databases link, the photos can be accessed by government agencies outside the state. The images can then be used with common facial recognition systems. State database linking and information sharing permanently enrolls U.S. citizens in a global biometric system. Data cannot be retrieved once distributed. The shared data can then be shared globally as part of an international database linking system. h23; Initiatives –WHTI (Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative) requires a passport for travel between Canada, United States and Mexico as of 2007–WHTI meant new applicants issued new biometric epassports (ICAO design). DHS began pilot program with Washington, Arizona and New York to issue biometric DL/ID card/passport hybrid acceptable as passport. TWIC (Transportation Worker Identification Credential) - Requires biometric ID cards for thousands of government employees h23; July 2007, the EU and US begin sharing new database information on travelers, including “racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership" and “data about an individual's health, traveling partners and sexual orientation” according to a July 27th, 2007 Washington Post article. Such data collection and sharing depends on other federal laws, like the recently revised FISA, to permit surveillance and data mining of information on U.S. citizens. Robert Mocny (DHS-US Visit) stated that global data sharingwould begin with Europe, Asia (GCN February 5th, 2007).
They've done a blanket extention. They have a bill going through the give the states grants to help with the cost of implimentation.
Endangered Real ID Act of 2005 I have trouble getting YouTube to embed sometimes.
#2. To: christine (#0)
#3. To: Original_Intent (#1)
We need to continue this fight because the so-called "Real I.D." (actually an Internal Passport such as the Soviet Union used) is a real and present danger.
#4. To: christine (#0)
With no evidence that an increasingly dictatorial Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would back down, one by one, most of the states blinked and requested extensions.
Powered By Sex Toy Shop
#5. To: christine, Original_Intent (#0)
REAL ID-BIOMETRIC FACT SHEET
Final Rules 1. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
2. The American Association ofMotor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA)
3. The International CivilAviation Organization (ICAO)1. Common “interoperable” document and biometric standards set by ICAO-AAMVA
REAL ID and NPRMand/or REAL ID final rules, require states to:
2. Biometric enrollment (passports, DL/ID cards, military ID, government employee ID, birth records, etc.)
3. International database linking containing personal-biometric information (DHS-AAMA-ICAO)1. Adopt biometric photo standards set in ICAO 9303xiv, a minimum resolution of 90 pixels between eye centers
After issuing the NPRM, DHS released “20 Questions and Answers”xvii about REAL ID. In it, DHS denied:
2. To verify identification “breeder” documents and supporting documents through an online system (proposed
systems include DHS sponsored “federated querying”xv and AAMVAnetxvi) 3. Adopt documentation standards set by AAMVA
4. Link state databases and participate in AAMVA’s DLA
DHS claims are deceitful. REAL ID is an INTERnational ID. DHS can “legally” access database information through the outdated “Drivers Privacy Protection Act” (DPPA) and the DHS proposed “federated querying system” or AAMVAnet (described in the Final Rules as the “backbone” of the system). REAL ID DOES require photos compatible with facial recognition biometrics and any government agency accessing the linked database system can use any state photo with facial recognition software, making it a biometric.
Facial recognition creates a digital, machine readable, map of one’s face. 3-D facial recognition potentially identifies individuals in “real world” settings, addressing issues of lighting and movement, providing the tool for a surveillance society like Great Britain with an estimated 500,000 surveillance cameras in London and 7 million nationally.xviii
National security funds are wasted on biometrics. Facial recognition failures are highly documentedxx even in AAMVA’s 2003 “International Biometric Group” (IBG) reportxxi. The report “anticipates” (by two years), the linked database requirements of REAL ID (300 million drivers), demonstrating AAMVA’s influence on federal legislation.
The DHS sponsored, Facial Recognition Vendor Test 2006 (FRVT 2006)xxii also reflected inflated vendor estimates, prompting biometrics expert, Ben Bavarian to state that thetests are “only valid for the defined circumstances of the NIST ITL labs” and these tests are “turned into marketing tools for vendors to push the products without doing the right things for the technology.”
Like facial recognition, DHS shares equal disregard for other testing procedures. On September 18, 2007, the Washington Post reported,xxiii that weeks before key government tests of new radiation detection equipment, DHS officials “helped” contractors through repeated dry runs that enabled them to perform better during the examinations. Congress expected to use the long-awaited tests to make a $1.2 billion decision. Congress was previously concerned that DHS misled them about the device’s effectiveness, known as Advanced Spectroscopic Portals, or ASPs.
Consider the numerous technology failures, the deceit of government agencies and the constitutional risks. How can we trust biometrics, biometric vendors, international organizations and government agencies employing biometrics? REAL ID grants DHS almost unlimited powers. DHS can also redefine their powers as they see fit. NPRM states that the “official purpose” of REAL ID: ``includes but is not limited to accessing Federal facilities, boarding Federallyregulated commercial aircraft, entering nuclear power plants, and any other purposes that the Secretary shall determine.'' The section goes on to say, “…under the discretionary authority granted to the Secretary of Homeland Security under the Act, may expand this definition in the future.” Even “final rules” is full of “potential changes.”
Robert Mocny (DHSUS-Visit) stated that “information sharing is appropriate around the world, and DHS plans to create a “Global Security Envelope of internationally shared biometric data that would permanently link individuals with biometric ID, personal information held by governments and corporations.”xxvii DHS is committed to global data sharing and is “rushing” to fulfill a global biometric dream, before November 2008. Risking it all, DHS ignores the facts about, global biometrics, data sharing, allowing international organizations to influence U.S. law and REAL ID.
Thought for the day:
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'
#6. To: Indrid Cold (#4)
That's funny--from what I've read before, at least one state told DHS to go fuck themselves and did NOT request an extension. DHS granted them one anyway.
Thought for the day:
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'
#7. To: christine, Original_Intent, *North American Union* (#0)
Thought for the day:
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'
#8. To: farmfriend (#7)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest