Intelligence Reform Spawns National ID Card Debate
by Joseph P. Tartaro, Executive Editor
January 10, 2005
Some voices were heard before the so-called Intelligence Reform bill was passed. Others have taken up the cause since the measure passed and was signed into law by President Bush in late December.
The 9/11 Commission recommended the changes, and many people including many relatives of people killed in the terrorist attacks of 2001 have pushed for passage of all the commission’s recommended changes.
Now the debate is growing especially on Internet blog sites and chat rooms, and in letters to the editor and talk radio. Some people would accept a full national ID card if they thought it would make them safer. Others totally reject the idea.
However, privacy advocates continue to worry that provisions buried in the intelligence bill will lead to a national identification card.
Little-noted measures included in the legislation that reshuffles intelligence agencies order states to begin issuing new fraud-proof birth certificates, and new driver’s licenses with standardized data encoded on them are set for 2006.
The legislation also orders states to stop putting Social Security numbers on licenses.
What data will be included on licenses and how it will be used in federal databanks is not yet clear. The legislation only requires the data to be “machine readable,” leaving the issue of what data to collect to the Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security. Regulations concerning fraud-proofing birth certificates are to be drafted by the Department of Heath and Human Services.
“There’s a problem,” said Marc Rotenberg, a Georgetown University law professor who serves as executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington think tank.
“There are two directions they can go here. One is to reduce the likelihood of fraud and counterfeiting of driver’s licenses, which we all would applaud. Or they could link this all together in a new national database, which is what they should not do.”
Rotenberg called the measure “not quite half a step towards a national identification card” because its full impact has not yet been determined.
The bill, which Congress adopted late last year after stripping out controversial immigration provisions, carries out key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including establishing standards for birth certificates and driver’s licenses.
But James Plummer of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse noted that all but one of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 had valid American identification—including driver’s licenses—and that the changes Congress has ordered wouldn’t prevent terrorists from obtaining the new and more secure documents.
“This is a bunch of troubling language,” said Plummer. “I don’t think this solves the issue at all.”
Plummer said he’s concerned that the measure, for the first time, sets federal standards on documents like birth certificates and driver’s licenses that traditionally have been matters for states to decide.
The legislation states that within two years, US government employees won’t accept any driver’s licenses or birth certificates issued by the states that don’t comply with the new fraud-proof requirements. That means drivers from states that don’t comply with the new requirements will be unable to use their state licenses as identification to get past federal airport screeners and board an aircraft.
“It’s definitely crossing over into a national ID system, something this country hasn’t seen before and something that was more a feature of Eastern European systems during the Cold War,” he said.
Plummer said it raises privacy concerns because driver’s licenses are used today in determining eligibility to conduct many routine activities. It is a basic document used by Americans to vote, buy guns, open bank accounts, cash checks and check into hotels.
Organizations ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Conservative Union to the Gun Owners of America oppose the measure, saying it would give too much power to federal bureaucrats to decide who could get a valid license.
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has concerns about where this could all lead.
“History shows governments inevitably use such power in harmful ways,” Paul said. “It is just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane.”
The debate over national ID cards is not restricted to the United States. The British are in the same pickle.
The London Times reported on Dec. 20 that Charles Clarke, Great Britain’s new Home Secretary, had accused critics of identity cards of “liberal woolly thinking” and spreading false fears as he pledged not to waver from his predecessor’s controversial plans.
As both Clarke and Michael Howard, the Tory leader in Parliament, face backbench rebellions in the House of Commons, Clarke said in The Times that ID cards will “help make everyone a bit safer” at no real cost to civil liberties.
A spokesman for the civil rights group Liberty said: “If opponents of identity cards are woolly liberals, what does that make George W Bush? He has ruled out ID cards in the US on the grounds that they will have not one iota of effect on terrorism and will seriously undermine civil liberties.”
In an attempt to placate opponents Clarke says that the British legislation will not make it compulsory to carry a card, and will not give powers to the police to stop individuals and demand to see their card. The database accompanying the system will not hold information on medical records, religion or political beliefs.
Among other safeguards against misuse, officials in Britain who gain unauthorized access to information gathered under the system will face up to two years in prison, and there will be moves to make the cards cheaper for pensioners and the poor.
Clarke, facing his first big parliamentary test since taking over recently, will make plain that he will not “pause for thought,” as suggested again by Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader. But while Clarke may face objections from up to 30 Labour Party MPs, Howard faces the biggest revolt of his leadership. Several Shadow Cabinet members are unhappy about his decision to back the bill in principle and many front-benchers and backbench Members of Parliament (MPs) plan to stay away rather than vote for it.
Baroness Margaret Thatcher was also reported to be strongly against ID cards. She told a private meeting that they were a “Germanic concept completely alien to this country.” Apparently, Thatcher remembers the Nazis demanding identity papers from everyone. The Liberal Democrats in Britain oppose the Bill.
Clarke wrote in The Times that ID cards have significant security and practical benefits as well as saving millions by tackling fraud. A secure system would help to prevent terrorist activity and tackle the “vile trafficking in vulnerable human beings.” It would be profoundly civil libertarian because it promotes the most fundamental civil liberty, the right to live free from crime and fear.
He says critics are “woolly” and spreading fears when they claim that cards will erode liberties and usher in the Big Brother society or a police state.
“Those kinds of nightmares will be no more true of ID cards than they have been for the spread of cash and credit cards, (drivers) licenses, work security passes and other forms of ID which most of us carry.”
It was reported before Christmas that a document prepared by Lord Goldsmith, the British attorney general, on whether ID cards would invade people’s privacy or infringe their human rights was being kept secret from MPs before they voted on the British measure.
The report is understood to contain legal arguments on the powers of the security services, police and other bodies to access information on the cards. No wonder they were keeping the report under wraps. That is what many liberals and conservatives in Britain and the US are worried about—not the ID cards themselves, but how authorities will use them.
by Joseph P. Tartaro, Executive Editor
January 10, 2005
Some voices were heard before the so-called Intelligence Reform bill was passed. Others have taken up the cause since the measure passed and was signed into law by President Bush in late December.
The 9/11 Commission recommended the changes, and many people including many relatives of people killed in the terrorist attacks of 2001 have pushed for passage of all the commission’s recommended changes.
Now the debate is growing especially on Internet blog sites and chat rooms, and in letters to the editor and talk radio. Some people would accept a full national ID card if they thought it would make them safer. Others totally reject the idea.
However, privacy advocates continue to worry that provisions buried in the intelligence bill will lead to a national identification card.
Little-noted measures included in the legislation that reshuffles intelligence agencies order states to begin issuing new fraud-proof birth certificates, and new driver’s licenses with standardized data encoded on them are set for 2006.
The legislation also orders states to stop putting Social Security numbers on licenses.
What data will be included on licenses and how it will be used in federal databanks is not yet clear. The legislation only requires the data to be “machine readable,” leaving the issue of what data to collect to the Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security. Regulations concerning fraud-proofing birth certificates are to be drafted by the Department of Heath and Human Services.
“There’s a problem,” said Marc Rotenberg, a Georgetown University law professor who serves as executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington think tank.
“There are two directions they can go here. One is to reduce the likelihood of fraud and counterfeiting of driver’s licenses, which we all would applaud. Or they could link this all together in a new national database, which is what they should not do.”
Rotenberg called the measure “not quite half a step towards a national identification card” because its full impact has not yet been determined.
The bill, which Congress adopted late last year after stripping out controversial immigration provisions, carries out key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including establishing standards for birth certificates and driver’s licenses.
But James Plummer of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse noted that all but one of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 had valid American identification—including driver’s licenses—and that the changes Congress has ordered wouldn’t prevent terrorists from obtaining the new and more secure documents.
“This is a bunch of troubling language,” said Plummer. “I don’t think this solves the issue at all.”
Plummer said he’s concerned that the measure, for the first time, sets federal standards on documents like birth certificates and driver’s licenses that traditionally have been matters for states to decide.
The legislation states that within two years, US government employees won’t accept any driver’s licenses or birth certificates issued by the states that don’t comply with the new fraud-proof requirements. That means drivers from states that don’t comply with the new requirements will be unable to use their state licenses as identification to get past federal airport screeners and board an aircraft.
“It’s definitely crossing over into a national ID system, something this country hasn’t seen before and something that was more a feature of Eastern European systems during the Cold War,” he said.
Plummer said it raises privacy concerns because driver’s licenses are used today in determining eligibility to conduct many routine activities. It is a basic document used by Americans to vote, buy guns, open bank accounts, cash checks and check into hotels.
Organizations ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Conservative Union to the Gun Owners of America oppose the measure, saying it would give too much power to federal bureaucrats to decide who could get a valid license.
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has concerns about where this could all lead.
“History shows governments inevitably use such power in harmful ways,” Paul said. “It is just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane.”
The debate over national ID cards is not restricted to the United States. The British are in the same pickle.
The London Times reported on Dec. 20 that Charles Clarke, Great Britain’s new Home Secretary, had accused critics of identity cards of “liberal woolly thinking” and spreading false fears as he pledged not to waver from his predecessor’s controversial plans.
As both Clarke and Michael Howard, the Tory leader in Parliament, face backbench rebellions in the House of Commons, Clarke said in The Times that ID cards will “help make everyone a bit safer” at no real cost to civil liberties.
A spokesman for the civil rights group Liberty said: “If opponents of identity cards are woolly liberals, what does that make George W Bush? He has ruled out ID cards in the US on the grounds that they will have not one iota of effect on terrorism and will seriously undermine civil liberties.”
In an attempt to placate opponents Clarke says that the British legislation will not make it compulsory to carry a card, and will not give powers to the police to stop individuals and demand to see their card. The database accompanying the system will not hold information on medical records, religion or political beliefs.
Among other safeguards against misuse, officials in Britain who gain unauthorized access to information gathered under the system will face up to two years in prison, and there will be moves to make the cards cheaper for pensioners and the poor.
Clarke, facing his first big parliamentary test since taking over recently, will make plain that he will not “pause for thought,” as suggested again by Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader. But while Clarke may face objections from up to 30 Labour Party MPs, Howard faces the biggest revolt of his leadership. Several Shadow Cabinet members are unhappy about his decision to back the bill in principle and many front-benchers and backbench Members of Parliament (MPs) plan to stay away rather than vote for it.
Baroness Margaret Thatcher was also reported to be strongly against ID cards. She told a private meeting that they were a “Germanic concept completely alien to this country.” Apparently, Thatcher remembers the Nazis demanding identity papers from everyone. The Liberal Democrats in Britain oppose the Bill.
Clarke wrote in The Times that ID cards have significant security and practical benefits as well as saving millions by tackling fraud. A secure system would help to prevent terrorist activity and tackle the “vile trafficking in vulnerable human beings.” It would be profoundly civil libertarian because it promotes the most fundamental civil liberty, the right to live free from crime and fear.
He says critics are “woolly” and spreading fears when they claim that cards will erode liberties and usher in the Big Brother society or a police state.
“Those kinds of nightmares will be no more true of ID cards than they have been for the spread of cash and credit cards, (drivers) licenses, work security passes and other forms of ID which most of us carry.”
It was reported before Christmas that a document prepared by Lord Goldsmith, the British attorney general, on whether ID cards would invade people’s privacy or infringe their human rights was being kept secret from MPs before they voted on the British measure.
The report is understood to contain legal arguments on the powers of the security services, police and other bodies to access information on the cards. No wonder they were keeping the report under wraps. That is what many liberals and conservatives in Britain and the US are worried about—not the ID cards themselves, but how authorities will use them.
