States prepare to combat stimulus strings

Worried the federal government is increasing its dominance over their affairs, several states are pursuing legislative action to assert their sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution in hopes of warding off demands from Washington on how to spend money or enact policy. The growing concerns even have a handful of governors questioning whether to accept federal stimulus money that comes with strings attached.

The sentiments to declare themselves legally independent from Washington have swept across as many as a dozen states, renewing a debate over so-called unfunded mandates that last raged in the 1990s. The states question whether the U.S. government can force states to take actions without paying for them or impose conditions on states if they accept certain federal funding.

States prepare to combat stimulus strings
Assert sovereignty with 10th Amendment
by David M. Dickson

"We are telling the federal government that we are a sovereign state and want to be treated as such. We are not a branch of the federal government," said Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges, who is leading an effort in her state to pass a resolution called "Sovereignty: the 10th Amendment." Ms. Burges was inspired to action by a pair of Bush administration initiatives: The No Child Left Behind education law of 2002 and the Real ID Act, a 2005 law that established national standards for state-issued driver's licenses and identification cards.

In other states, lawmakers say they are bracing to repeal federal mandates to spend their money that they expect will emanate from Washington once President Obama begins delivering some of the big-ticket programs promised during his presidential campaign.

Oklahoma state Sen. Randy Brogdon introduced a resolution that he said would enable his state to "reclaim its 10th Amendment right to reject any and all acts of Congress that go beyond its enumerated powers in violation of the 10th Amendment."

Other states pursuing sovereignty resolutions are Hawaii, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire and Washington. Similar measures are likely to be introduced in more than a dozen other states, analysts said.

"The states are sending a message," said Robert Alt, a legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation.

The nearly $800 billion stimulus bill also has raised worries.

Republican governors Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Bobby Jindal of
Louisiana and Rick Perry of Texas expressed reservations this week about accepting their states' shares of the stimulus package because they are worried that the federal government will impose conditions on how it can be spent.

As a self-styled staunch conservative, Mr. Sanford, the new head of the Republican Governors Association, aggressively opposed the stimulus plan. However, in a Thursday morning interview on CBS' "The Early Show," Mr. Sanford said his state would accept money from the stimulus bill. Opposing the plan "doesn't preclude taking the money," said Mr. Sanford. South Carolina's 9.5 percent unemployment rate is the nation's third-highest.

Mr. Perry sent Mr. Obama a letter Wednesday certifying that Texas also would accept stimulus money.

"I remain opposed to using these funds to expand existing government programs, burdening the state with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up," Mr. Perry wrote, clearly expressing his opposition to unfunded mandates.

Mr. Obama has promised that his administration will use federal funds to support his administration's initiatives.

"[Mr. Obama does] not support imposing unfunded mandates on states and localities. They strongly support providing necessary funding for programs such as No Child Left Behind," his campaign literature said.

The states are resting their efforts on the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Mr. Brogdon said prospects for passage of his resolution are "grand," noting that a similar bill passed the Oklahoma House by a 97-3 vote last year and that Republicans captured a majority of the Oklahoma Senate in the 2008 elections. He predicted that the Legislature would easily override a veto from Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat.

Mr. Obama proposed a slew of expensive programs during his presidential campaign, ranging from health insurance to policies addressing alternative energy and climate change. "The states are worried that these programs would increase the overall regulatory burden without providing the funding," Mr. Alt said.

Some analysts dispute the financial impact of recent unfunded mandates on state budgets.

Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the Cato Institute who recently completed a two-year stint in Indiana's budget office, said he hasn't "heard states clamoring about unfunded mandates the way they were during the 1990s. What you hear more today are states begging for federal money."

The reality is that states are being "hypocritical," he said, noting that about a third of average total state spending comes from the federal government.

The biggest federal grants involve Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health care for the poor.

"States were adding Medicaid benefits when times were good. Now the federal government must bail the states out through the so-called stimulus bill because the states' revenues have taken a hit and they must operate under a balanced-budget mandate," Mr. DeHaven said.

In 2007, according to the Congressional Budget Office, states collectively spent $1 billion for unfunded federal mandates from programs enacted since the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

"To a large degree, states are scapegoating their budget problems on Washington," Mr. Riedl said. "It's tough to be sympathetic for states and local governments when they got $467 billion in federal grants last year," he said.

Mr. Riedl also rejected the notion that the No Child Left Behind Act constitutes an unfunded mandate. States are free to opt out of this and many other federal programs by not accepting federal money in exchange for federal regulations. States have effectively decided that the federal dollars are worth the strings attached to them, Mr. Riedl concluded.

Mr. Riedl acknowledged that Medicaid, which was created in 1965, does represent a major unfunded mandate. But he said that "a majority of state Medicaid spending is on populations and benefits that states have voluntarily added and could reduce at any time."

The other major unfunded federal mandate that predates the 1995 law is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). However, federal funding for IDEA has grown 71 percent faster than inflation since 2001, Mr. Riedl said.

Many of the sovereignty resolutions under consideration in the states will not have the force of law. Even if they did, said Mr. Alt, "through the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution, so long as a federal statute is constitutional, it would trump state law."

Mr. Brogdon of Oklahoma did not take issue with that. "Federal law does not trump the Constitution," he said.

He suggested that if he becomes governor, the federal courts likely will get a case involving the 10th Amendment and congressional powers.

VIRGINIA BEATS THE CHIP!!

Hat Tip to BEAT THE CHIP






VIRGINIA BEATS THE CHIP!!
HEY TEXAS AND NORTH CAROLINA ... YOU'RE NEXT!!

Virginia’s General Assembly rejects REAL ID provisions

By David Sherfinski
DC Examiner Staff Writer 2/12/09

The Virginia House and Senate have overwhelmingly passed legislation rejecting elements of the federal government’s Real ID law, which requires states to issue federally mandated drivers’ licenses or similar forms of identification that would become part of a national database.

The House approved Del. Robert Marshall’s, R-Prince William, bill 88-10 on Tuesday, and the Senate passed legislation from Ken Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax, 30-9.

“I was obviously pretty pleased with that,” said Cuccinelli, noting that the bill survived a close 8-6 vote in committee. “Right and left were aligned on this thing. Consistent, steady, grassroots support for it, combined with no opposition … paved the way.”

Critics of the program argue that the law is an invasion of privacy.

“There’s [absolutely] no reason that we should link our data to another database that’s going to be broken into,” said Mike Stallenwerk, chairman of the Fairfax County Privacy Council. “That’s happened time and time again.

“This is fake security,” he added. “It’s not real security.”

The Virginia law, if signed by Gov. Tim Kaine, would not overtly reject Real ID. Rather, it would prohibit the state from complying with any element of the act that would compromise economic privacy, such as residents’ tax returns, financial transactions and investment transactions, or the security of biometric data, like fingerprints, retinal scans and DNA samples.

“This is not only a very important step forward for privacy rights in the state, but it looks as if Virginia will soon join 21 other states that have expressed opposition to some aspects of the federal Real ID law,” said Kent Willis, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Virginia chapter.

Congress passed the Real ID Act in 2005 in response to the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that the U.S. improve its system for issuing ID documents.

“I’d like to see them repeal it straightway,” Cuccinelli said.

The program, whose purpose is to make it more difficult for terrorists to obtain fraudulent state-issued identification, is run by the Department of Homeland Security. Calls and e-mails placed to the agency were not immediately returned Wednesday.

REAL ID Act: Maryland may have to delay federal Real ID program

State may have to delay federal
Real ID program

High costs and requiring legal residency may delay Maryland's progress with the Real ID program, even though the state has met fewer than half the requirements for the federal driver's license mandate.

"I think it's unlikely we'll do anything this year, and it's going to be a tremendous burden on this state," Sen. Brian Frosh, D-Montgomery, said at a hearing Wednesday. He serves as chairman of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.

The federal law has tougher requirements for getting driving licenses, including being a legal resident.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued 18 benchmarks that states must meet to get a second extension, to May 2011, for Real ID implementation.

The Motor Vehicle Administration has met eight of those requirements. Most were already in place and therefore cost nothing to implement.

Four remain unfulfilled because the state doesn't check applicants' residency status, according to MVA administrator John Kuo.

MVA has the technology to check legal status, so it wouldn't cost more money if legal status were added as a requirement, Kuo said.

Between 35 percent to 50 percent of the out-of-country applicants are rejected for driver's licenses because they don't have enough proof they are Maryland residents or don't have proper documentation, the administrator said.

The General Assembly must grant approval to the residency requirement.

Some lawmakers say Real ID is a way to thwart terrorism and reduce illegal immigration. Others view the program as an invasion of privacy and fear it could lead to undocumented people driving without licenses.

In the 47 states that require drivers to have legal status, "I bet there are a lot of people driving without licenses," said Sen. Jennie Forehand, D-Montgomery.

The state can reject the Real ID requirements, but that would mean Maryland licenses couldn't be used to enter federal buildings or board planes.

Kuo said a two-tier system, in which those without legal status could obtain a driver's license but not be federally compliant, is an alternative. But he said that would put an administrative and fiscal burden on MVA.

Real ID is expected to cost Maryland $30 million to implement. The federal government has given the state $1.1 million, with another $700,000 coming this fiscal year.

Delegate Ron George, R-Anne Arundel, again plans to submit a bill requiring legal status for driving licenses, pointing to the large number of foreign applicants at the MVA.

FBI studies biometrics to plan its future research

The FBI released on Tuesday a detailed study of the advancement of different kinds of biometrics -- from fingerprints to ear scans -- to lay out how the bureau might pursue the identification of individuals in the future.

The FBI plans to use the independent assessment, which Mitre Corp. completed in June 2008, to provide a common understanding of biometric technologies, suggest potential related areas the bureau and its partners can investigate, and solve issues related to technologies identified by the National Science and Technology Council, which coordinates policy across federal agencies. The FBI Biometric Center of Excellence funded the study.

"We want to be able to leverage the [biometric] technology, without repeating activities being done elsewhere in the community, whether in other agencies, academia, industry or internationally," said Thomas Bush III, assistant director of the FBI criminal justice information services division. "At the same time, we're trying to define our lane. Everyone is jockeying for a position in this market. We're not going to be all things biometric, but we've been in this business a long time. We don't want to be [marginalized]."

The first volume of the technology assessment, 127 pages in all, analyzes technologies used for fingerprints and palm print collection and vascular pattern recognition. Mitre recommends which technology advancements and research the FBI should pursue, dividing the suggestions into goals ranging from immediately to two years, two to five years and five to 10 years

The 121-page second volume analyzes technologies used for face, iris and ear scans, and voice and handwriting identification. It also provides a set of recommendations for each technology. For example, Mitre reported, "Face recognition depends on successful face segmentation (or face detection), which is known to suffer performance degradation due to imaging and orientation factors. The FBI should evaluate the use of research tools for face detection against relevant media to include video sources, uncontrolled images, mug shots and civil identification photos."

The third volume, which the FBI is completing, analyzes methods used for collecting DNA.

The assessment is part of the State-of-the-Art Biometrics Excellence Roadmap, an FBI initiative to plan and implement the technology. Among the goals of SABER is to help establish governmentwide biometric standards.

The assessment is based on 10 months of research, which included an extensive survey of biometric technologies, independent performance evaluations; an overview of select research activities; and an analysis of the market and how biometric methods are currently applied.

Supplementing the technology assessment is a document evaluating the potential for expanding the list of products that are certified by the FBI as compliant with required quality standards for biometrics technologies.

"The results of the SABER study represent an important plank in our biometrics efforts, one that will help us strategically prioritize the FBI's biometric research and funding activities," wrote Louis Grever, executive assistant director of the FBI's science and technology branch, in the assessment. "As we move forward, it is critical to ensure a coordinated effort across our community to effectively harness the benefits of emerging biometric technologies to support our nation's law enforcement and intelligence missions."

Sen. Brogdon Bill would ban fingerprinting for driver's license

Oklahoma State Sen. Randy Brogdon is sponsoring a bill to prohibit the state Department of Public Safety from requiring driver's license applicants to give their fingerprints.

The bill (SB 289) would prevent the state from collecting or keeping "any biometric data in connection with motor vehicle registration or operation or in connection with driver licensing."

Biometric data would include fingerprints, palm prints, voice data, iris recognition data, retinal scans and DNA.

It would also apply to Social Security numbers.

Oklahoma Highway Patrol Capt. Chris West says the fingerprint requirement is intended to reduce identity theft and is required under a law that took effect in July 2004.

West says the Social Security numbers help in collection of child support.

(REAL ID Act) Why Technology Won't Prevent Identity Theft

TECHNOLOGYJANUARY 9, 2009, 11:26 A.M. ET

Why Technology Won't Prevent
Identity Theft

By BRUCE SCHNEIER | Special to THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Impersonation isn't new. In 1556, a Frenchman was executed for impersonating Martin Guerre and this week hackers impersonated Barack Obama on Twitter. It's not even unique to humans: mockingbirds, Viceroy butterflies, and the brown octopus all use impersonation as a survival strategy. For people, detecting impersonation is a hard problem for three reasons: we need to verify the identity of people we don't know, we interact with people through "narrow" communications channels like the telephone and Internet, and we want computerized systems to do the verification for us.

Traditional impersonation involves people fooling people. It's still done today: impersonating garbage men to collect tips, impersonating parking lot attendants to collect fees, or impersonating the French president to fool Sarah Palin. Impersonating people like policemen, security guards, and meter readers is a common criminal tactic.

These tricks work because we all regularly interact with people we don't know. No one could successfully impersonate your brother, your best friend, or your boss, because you know them intimately. But a policeman or a parking lot attendant? That's just someone with a badge or a uniform. But badges and ID cards only help if you know how to verify one. Do you know what a valid police ID looks like? Or how to tell a real telephone repairman's badge from a forged one?

Still, it's human nature to trust these credentials. We naturally trust uniforms, even though we know that anyone can wear one. When we visit a Web site, we use the professionalism of the page to judge whether or not it's really legitimate -- never mind that anyone can cut and paste graphics. Watch the next time someone other than law enforcement verifies your ID; most people barely look at it.

Impersonation is even easier over limited communications channels. On the telephone, how can you distinguish someone working at your credit card company from someone trying to steal your account details and login information? On e-mail, how can you distinguish someone from your company's tech support from a hacker trying to break into your network -- or the mayor of Paris from an impersonator? Once in a while someone frees himself from jail by faxing a forged release order to his warden. This is social engineering: impersonating someone convincingly enough to fool the victim.

These days, a lot of identity verification happens with computers. Computers are fast at computation but not very good at judgment, and can be tricked. So people can fool speed cameras by taping a fake license plate over the real one, fingerprint readers with a piece of tape, or automatic face scanners with -- and I'm not making this up -- a photograph of a face held in front of their own. Even the most bored policeman wouldn't fall for any of those tricks.

This is why identity theft is such a big problem today. So much authentication happens online, with only a small amount of information: user ID, password, birth date, Social Security number, and so on. Anyone who gets that information can impersonate you to a computer, which doesn't know any better.

Despite all of these problems, most authentication systems work most of the time. Even something as ridiculous as faxed signatures work, and can be legally binding. But no authentication system is perfect, and impersonation is always possible.

This lack of perfection is okay, though. Security is a trade-off, and any well-designed authentication system balances security with ease of use, customer acceptance, cost, and so on. More authentication isn't always better. Banks make this trade-off when they don't bother authenticating signatures on checks under amounts like $25,000; it's cheaper to deal with fraud after the fact. Web sites make this trade-off when they use simple passwords instead of something more secure, and merchants make this trade-off when they don't bother verifying your signature against your credit card. We make this trade-off when we accept police badges, Best Buy uniforms, and faxed signatures with only a cursory amount of verification.

Good authentication systems also balance false positives against false negatives. Impersonation is just one way these systems can fail; they can also fail to authenticate the real person. An ATM is better off allowing occasional fraud than preventing legitimate account holders access to their money. On the other hand, a false positive in a nuclear launch system is much more dangerous; better to not launch the missiles.

Decentralized authentication systems work better than centralized ones. Open your wallet, and you'll see a variety of physical tokens used to identify you to different people and organizations: your bank, your credit card company, the library, your health club, and your employer, as well as a catch-all driver's license used to identify you in a variety of circumstances. That assortment is actually more secure than a single centralized identity card: each system must be broken individually, and breaking one doesn't give the attacker access to everything. This is one of the reasons that centralized systems like REAL-ID make us less secure.

Finally, any good authentication system uses defense in depth. Since no authentication system is perfect, there need to be other security measures in place if authentication fails. That's why all of a corporation's assets and information isn't available to anyone who can bluff his way into the corporate offices. That is why credit card companies have expert systems analyzing suspicious spending patterns. And it's why identity theft won't be solved by making personal information harder to steal.

We can reduce the risk of impersonation, but it will always be with us; technology cannot "solve" it in any absolute sense. Like any security, the trick is to balance the trade-offs. Too little security, and criminals withdraw money from all our bank accounts. Too much security and when Barack Obama calls to congratulate you on your reelection, you won't believe it's him.
Write to Bruce Schneier at schneier@schneier.com

Democrats weigh IT money for DHS in stimulus bill

The economic stimulus package under consideration by key Democrats could include funding for the Homeland Security Department -- possibly as much as $2 billion, congressional and industry sources said today.

Talk has surfaced about the inclusion of hundreds of millions of dollars for Customs and Border Protection, the Transportation Security Administration and the Coast Guard, sources said.

Funding could be sought to help states comply with the so-called Real ID law, which requires them to issue secure driver's licenses to their citizens.

The push for the funding appeared to be coming from both lawmakers and the homeland security industry. "Everything's in play," one source said. But aides for the Senate and House Appropriations committees could not confirm specific homeland security efforts that might be included in the stimulus and sources cautioned that nothing has been decided.

Sources pointed to an economic stimulus bill proposed by former Senate Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd in November as a blueprint, which sought to provide more than $2 billion for Homeland Security agencies. Funding in the bill included $500 million for TSA to buy and install explosives detection equipment, about $300 million for the Coast Guard and another $300 million for border security, especially to expedite the deployment of technology to the southwest border.

The bill called for another $100 million to improve infrastructure at the nation's ports of entry and about $350 million to consolidate the Homeland Security Department headquarters in Washington. An industry source said it is likely that the stimulus bill will include funding to improve ports of entry and for TSA baggage-screening operations.

Another source added that other infrastructure improvements in the bill, such as for bridges, could include security measures, such as video cameras or perimeter protections.

"It's a great opportunity now. Security was an afterthought before. Now you have the opportunity to do those things up front," the source said.

DHS to collect biometric data from green card holders

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has announced plans to expand its biometric data collection program to include foreign permanent residents and refugees.

Almost all noncitizens will be required to provide digital fingerprints and a photograph upon entry into the United States as of Jan. 18.

A notice in Friday's Federal Register, said expansion of the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program (US VISIT) will include "nearly all aliens," except Canadian citizens on brief visits. Those categories include permanent residents with green cards, individuals seeking to enter on immigrant visas, and potential refugees.

The US VISIT program was developed after the Sept.11, 2001, terrorist attacks to collect fingerprints from foreign visitors and run them against the FBI's terrorist watch list and other criminal databases. Another phase of the project, to develop an exit system to track foreign nationals leaving the country, has run into repeated setbacks.

The decision to track permanent residents has drawn criticism from privacy advocates, especially since DHS has acknowledged that green card holders do not necessarily pose a greater threat than "nonimmigrants."

"It's very disappointing. These are individuals who don't deserve the indignity of being subjected to biometric capture," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the technology and liberty program for the American Civil Liberties Union.

DHS officials said their primary reason for collecting data from permanent residents is to identify noncitizens with fraudulent documents. But Steinhardt called it a "pretext" to gathering more personal information.

"It's a mania for collecting information from individuals," he said. "It's part of a fruitless effort to match individuals who are legal permanent residents of the U.S. with various legal watch lists, which we know are fraught with error."

Anna Hinken, director of communications for US VISIT, said by expanding the program to green card holders, DHS is simply complying with its mandate to include all non-U.S. citizens in the system. Existing policy excludes Canadians on quick visits to the United States, she said.

Steinhardt said DHS should focus on finishing the exit portion of US VISIT before expanding the program.

"There's still the irony that the government keeps expanding the US VISIT program but never built the exit system that is supposed to be built," he said. "They know when people come in but don't know if they've left. Rather than expand the program to people who are lawfully residents here, they might want to consider possibility of actually building exit portion."

According to the Federal Register notice, US VISIT will gather biometric information at the 50 largest land ports, in addition to all sea and airports. The program is in transition from collecting two fingerprints to a full set of 10, a process Hinken expects will be done by the beginning of 2009. DHS is working to make US VISIT interoperable with the FBI's databases and make its biometric information available to local law enforcement officials.

(REAL ID) (North Carolina) House panel tells feds 'no' on secure ID plan

House panel tells feds 'no' on secure ID plan
RALEIGH, N.C.

A House panel has rebuffed the federal government's plan to require states to make identification cards more secure.

A measure criticizing the federal REAL ID Act was approved by a House judiciary committee Tuesday. The plan is designed to keep identification cards out of the hands of terrorists and illegal immigrants by requiring more stringent security checks.

The bill's sponsor, Democrat Rep. Nelson Cole, said complying will cost North Carolina tens of millions of dollars.

The bill calls for the state to stop spending taxpayer dollars to implement the requirements, and instead try to use federal grants and other funding sources.

With lawmakers looking to adjourn by the end of the week, it's unclear if the bill will be approved by the full House and Senate in time.

Real ID imposes big burden on Md.

Real ID imposes big burden on Md.
June 28, 2008

It was disappointing to read the misleading statements by Stewart Baker, assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in his letter "Real ID offers real protection" (June 22).

As a Maryland state legislator who has been working closely with our Motor Vehicles Administration as well as with national state advocacy organizations on driver's licensing issues, I know that the Real ID Act is one of the largest unfunded federal mandates ever imposed on the states.

Furthermore, Real ID is not "simply a set of minimum security standards," as Mr. Baker claims.

The Real ID Act requires states to undertake expensive and substantive changes in the ways they license drivers.


But neither the act nor the federal government's final regulations on its implementation set out data security standards. Instead, they leave it to the states to determine and pay for the yet-unspecified level of security that will be required to protect residents' personal information.

In recent years, Maryland has invested more than $40 million to make our driver's license one of the most secure in the nation.

The Real ID law would force us to throw away that investment by Maryland taxpayers and supplant our existing security system with one that uses less-secure national databases and provides less protection of drivers' personal information.

Last week, Arizona became the 10th state to opt out of Real ID when Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, signed a bill passed by a Republican-led legislature.

Next year, I hope that Maryland will act in a bipartisan manner and follows the lead of our sister states that have said no to Real ID.

We can and should provide more secure driver's licenses without the costs and threats to privacy posed by the Real ID law.

Ana Sol Gutierrez

Chevy Chase

The writer represents District 18 in the Maryland House of Delegates.

Op/Ed - Real ID, real problem

Real ID, real problem

The costly, burdensome federal mandate does little to stop illegal immigration and actually leaves us more vulnerable to identify theft; Maryland should join other states in rejecting it

By Cynthia Boersma
June 17, 2008

"No. Nope. No way."

So exclaimed Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana when asked whether his state would participate in the federal Real ID program.

Frustration with this misguided, expensive and unworkable federal mandate also compelled another governor, Republican Mark Sanford of South Carolina, to call Real ID "the worst piece of legislation I have seen during the 15 years I have been engaged in the political process." If Real ID has any friends in the states, they're not speaking up.

This sentiment is now percolating through the halls of Congress. In recent hearings before the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, senators from both sides of the aisle were blistering in their criticism of Real ID. "The massive amounts of personal information that would be stored in state databases that are to be shared electronically with all other states, as well as the unencrypted data on the Real ID card itself, could provide one-stop shopping for identity thieves," said Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, a Hawaii Democrat, at the hearing over which he presided with Republican Sen. George V. Voinovich of Ohio.

Unfortunately, some folks in Maryland have not yet gotten the message. Opponents of illegal immigration recently staged protests outside Motor Vehicle Administration offices, demonstrating a misunderstanding of Real ID. The erroneous impression that participation in Real ID will prevent illegal immigration or require Maryland to issue driver's licenses only to documented U.S. citizens is also shared by the O'Malley administration.

Before Maryland sinks hundreds of millions of its precious transportation dollars into the Real ID sinkhole, leaders should understand what participation in Real ID will and will not do.

Under the Real ID Act, the federal government requires states to issue uniform driver's licenses - essentially a national ID card - with insecure, unecrypted personal information on machine-readable strips. That means three bad things: huge costs of time and money for Marylanders, an easier task for identity thieves, and less, not more, security for our state.

Real ID will vastly increase the time, travel and expense involved in obtaining a Maryland driver's license. It will require every driver to re-enroll at the MVA. It will require every applicant for a state driver's license to submit original birth certificates and other original source documents in person to obtain or renew a license.

Real ID then requires these documents to be electronically stored in a database accessible to the federal government and every MVA in the country with no established restrictions on access, data sharing or data mining. It will render every Marylander highly vulnerable to identity theft and will subject personal information to misuse and fraud.

Real ID will increase our vulnerability to security threats and fraud at a cost of $4 billion nationwide and over $121.5 million to Maryland. And though it may seem incredible to those who believe Real ID is intended to improve the security of our borders, the one thing it does not mandate is that Maryland require proof of citizenship to obtain a driver's license.

The contradictory and unreal nature of Real ID is driving a rebellion against it by the states. Nine states have enacted laws prohibiting state participation in the program. Ten other states have passed resolutions opposing the program. States refusing to implement Real ID include states with a lawful-presence requirement for their driver's licenses as well as states with no such requirement.

Thankfully, there is a far better alternative. Recently, the National Conference of State Legislatures issued a call to support repeal of Real ID and passage of replacement legislation. The Identification Security Enhancement Act was introduced this year in the U.S. Senate with bipartisan support. That bill would protect privacy, would achieve effective driver's license security, could be implemented more quickly than Real ID and would not cost billions of dollars to be shouldered by the states.

A congressional subcommittee is considering this year's budget for the Department of Homeland Security, which contains $50 million for Real ID implementation. This is a tiny fraction of Real ID's real cost.

Maryland should join other states in saying no to Real ID. Marylanders should urge Gov. Martin O'Malley to end our state's participation in this wasteful and dangerous program and Sens. Benjamin L. Cardin and Barbara A. Mikulski to support the federal reform bill. This failed program should not be allowed to limp along to the next administration.

Real ID may be a real nightmare, but it is one from which we can still wake up.

Cynthia Boersma is legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland. Her e-mail at boersma@aclu-md.org.

Arizona Legislature Says No to Real ID

Arizona Legislature
Says No to Real ID

6/13/2008

Arizona legislature votes by overwhelming margin to oppose federal efforts to turn driving licenses into a national ID card.

The Arizona state legislature has made it quite clear that it wants nothing to do with the federal Real ID drivers' license plan. Lawmakers on Wednesday sent a bill to the governor prohibiting the state from implementing the proposed national ID card program. The legislation had sailed through the state House on a 51-1 vote after clearing the state Senate last month by a 21-7 vote.

The federal Real ID Act was designed to force states to use their drivers' licenses to create a form of national identity card. The Department of Homeland Security has threatened to deny access to airline travel to residents from states that fail to adopt the national ID standards. Arizona lawmakers took issue with this and included a provision that requires state officials to report any attempts at coercion by DHS employees over Real ID.

It is uncertain whether Governor Janet Napolitano (D) will sign the bill. Last year, Napolitano moved to create a driver's license that complies with Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative standards as a precursor to compliance with Real ID.

"Arizona has been a leader among the states on issues related to border security and immigration," Napolitano said in a 2007 statement. "My hope is that this project will lead to an effective permanent program that can be implemented nationwide."

DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff praised Napolitano's initiative.

"I applaud the leadership of the state of Arizona who came forward to join us in our effort to bolster security through secure identification," Chertoff said. "This partnership helps us strike the right balance between security and facilitation, incorporating 21st century technology and innovation."

The legislature passed the Real ID ban by a margin sufficient to override a veto attempt by the governor.


Text of legislation --

State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Forty-eighth Legislature
Second Regular Session 2008

HOUSE BILL 2677

AN ACT amending title 28, chapter 2, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding section 28-336; relating to the REAL ID Act of 2005.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Title 28, chapter 2, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 28-336, to read:

28-336. REAL ID act; implementation prohibited

This state shall not participate in the implementation of the REAL ID act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, Division B; 119 Stat. 302). The department shall not implement the REAL ID act of 2005 and shall report to the governor and the legislature any attempt by agencies or agents of the United States DEPARTMENT of homeland security to secure the implementation of the REAL ID act of 2005 through the operations of the United States department of homeland security.

(Arizona) Opinion - Napolitano should oppose Real IDs, keep government out of residents' lives

Napolitano should oppose Real IDs, keep government out of residents' lives
June 12, 2008

The Arizona House of Representatives has joined the State Senate in making it clear it wants nothing to do with the federal government Real ID program.

It is a decision that is welcomed by privacy advocates and those of us concerned about the continuing power grabs by the federal government in the name of security.

The near unanimous vote Tuesday to approve HB 2677 was essentially a rejection of the idea of a national identification card that would be achieved by co-opting state driver's licenses.

The law would prevent Gov. Janet Napolitano from fulfilling an agreement she reached with the Department of Homeland Security to provide an alternative to the Real ID. The federal government wants state to produce tamperproof driver's licenses. The governor agreed to create a "3-in-1" license for Arizona residents that could be used for driving, as proof of citizenship and for border crossing instead of a passport. However, that requires legislative approval.

Lawmakers say the "3-in-1" license is just a temporary delay to the Real ID requirement, which Homeland officials said all states would eventually have to meet. Instead of an alternative, they want the state to say no to the Real ID, as nine other states have done.

The hope is that if enough states resist, the federal government will back down. Homeland Security has already delayed implementation of Real IDs - which would include links to individual private information in a federal database - from last month until the end of 2009.

Americans have long viewed the ability to travel within our borders without government interference or monitoring as a basic right. Driver's licenses were intended only to offer proof of driving ability, not as an identification.

Unfortunately, the misuse of driver's licenses for ID purposes has grown over the years. But that does not justify even further and more extensive violation of Americans' privacy by transforming it into a national ID card.

That is especially true because the licenses, if embedded with electronic chips, could be used to monitor and track the activities of Americans without their knowledge. Their private information would also be stored in a national database, putting it at the fingertips of federal officials and others who might breach security.

Whether the governor will go along with the Legislature's opposition to the IDs is not yet known. She should sign the law so the federal government will get the message that Arizona won't accept this intrusion into our private lives.

Legislature votes to opt Arizona out of Real ID program

Legislature votes to opt Arizona
out of Real ID program
The Associated Press

PHOENIX - Legislators on Wednesday sent Gov. Janet Napolitano a bill to make Arizona the latest state to refuse to implement new "Real ID" security standards mandated by the federal government for driver's licenses.

House approval of the bill (HB2677) on a 51-1 vote with no debate Wednesday completed legislative action on the bill. It was approved, 21-7, by the Senate on May 6.

What happens next with the bill is unclear because Napolitano hasn't indicated whether she'll sign or veto it.

The bill would have no immediate impact even if it becomes law because Arizona has already received a federal extension on Real ID compliance to 2009.

However, its passage is clearly trouble for Napolitano's own proposal for an enhanced "3-in-1" driver's license. She needs legislative authorization for that. A bill to provide that approval was introduced but not heard during the current session.

At least eight other states have enacted legislation refusing to implement the Real ID law, which was enacted in 2005 military spending legislation and proposed in response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

It requires all states to bring their driver's licenses under a national standard and to link their record-keeping systems.

Implementation of the law would require the public to show Real ID-compliant driver's licenses or other identification in order to enter federal buildings or board airplanes.

While the Bush administration says the law will hinder terrorists, illegal immigrants and other wrongdoers, Real ID faces criticism from states and others because of the federal mandate, costs to states and privacy concerns.

The Arizona bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Judy Burgess of Skull Valley, said it represents "a Real ID tea party at the statehouse."

Burges said she's particularly concerned that database connections could ease identity theft.

"What happens is the database would be shared clear across the United States and we would be subject to the weakest link in other states," she said.

States that have rejected the Real ID act, some with conditions, include Idaho, New Hampshire, Montana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, Oklahoma and Maine. Minnesota's governor vetoed a prohibition bill on April 25.

The National Conference of State Legislatures' president, state Rep. Donna Stone of Delaware, told a U.S. Senate subcommittee in April that the Real ID law should be repealed and replaced with a negotiated rulemaking process that would include state lawmakers.

Napolitano on Dec. 6 signed an agreement with U.S. Homeland Security Michael Chertoff on development of an alternative 3-in-1 driver's license with enhanced security features that could also be used to cross borders and verify employment eligibility.

Key Arizona legislators vowed to fight the proposal, calling it a step toward compliance with Real ID and an infringement on the Legislature's policy-making role.

Napolitano calls the deal with Chertoff a realistic and appropriate means to do employment eligibility checks and meet tough new federal ID requirements to enter the United States from Canada and Mexico.

As described by Napolitano, Arizonans could either get the 3-in-1 license or the current license.

Rep. Bill Konopnicki, R-Safford, cast the only Arizona House vote against the bill on Wednesday, saying later that he favored authorization for the 3-in-1 license instead.

Real ID "could change dramatically next year - it has to," Konopnicki said. "But we have to be able to board airplanes."

(Florida) Local Latin American advocacy group supports driver licences for illegals

Local Latin American advocacy groupsupports driver licences
for illegals
By ELYSA BATISTA

A local Latin American advocacy group supports a resolution that would allow illegal immigrants to get driver licenses.

The League of United Latin American Citizens’ Civil Right Council 7115 supported the resolution, passed by its state chapter in Miami last week, during a press conference Thursday at the Golden Gate Community Center.

Council President Victor Valdes presented the resolution, aimed at providing driver licenses to undocumented immigrants with no criminal record.

On one side, there is the humanitarian issue that affects the unlicensed immigrants, Valdes said.

“But I realized that there would be racist people out there that would say, ‘Well, we don’t care,’” he said.

Instead the group opted to approach it from the safety perspective, Valdes said.

“If there are 1 million undocumented drivers in Florida, while we (licensed drivers) are on the road, the chances for an accident, regardless of who is at fault, is greater,” he said.

If undocumented drivers have licenses and insurance, the state’s drivers would be safer, Valdes said.

The way things are right now, who would pay if he were in an accident with an unlicensed or uninsured undocumented immigrant, Valdes said.

“It’s the governor’s moral obligation to guarantee Florida’s drivers that the streets are safe for us to drive on,” said Valdes.

Local government officials had a different take on the issue.

Commissioner Fred Coyle said he thought giving driver licenses to illegal immigrants would be a violation of law and that he would strongly oppose such legislation.

“They shouldn’t be driving and they shouldn’t be here,” Coyle said. “A driver’s license gives people a lot of access to things, including an airplane.”

It’s a chance that government should not take, Coyle said.

“We simply can’t tolerate that. If they are undocumented, we simply don’t know who they are, and we shouldn’t be giving them documentation,” Coyle said, adding that such legislation did not make sense. “If they think that it’s going to solve a problem, it won’t be solved by giving the official documentation.”

The Collier County Sheriff’s Office agreed.

“We don’t support changing the law,” said Collier County Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman Karie Partington. “Giving illegal aliens driver’s licenses would be a violation of state law and the upcoming federal REAL ID act.”

The REAL ID Act of 2005 was passed by Congress to make it more difficult to fraudulently acquire a driver license or ID card, as part of the effort to fight terrorism and reduce fraud.

The act establishes minimum standards for state-issued driver licenses and personal identification cards which include information and security features that must be incorporated into each card; proof of identity and U.S. citizenship or legal status of an applicant; verification of the source documents provided by an applicant; and security standards for the offices that issue the licenses and identification cards.

REAL ID compliant driver licenses and ID cards allow people to board a federally-regulated airplane, access a federal facility or a nuclear power plant.

“It’s a matter of domestic security, because driver’s licenses are such key pieces of documentation,” said Partington.

Valdes said he knows that there are people clamoring for the government to immediately deport all undocumented immigrants as a way to stop them from driving, but that won’t happen overnight.

“(The government) can’t guarantee that they’re going to be able to kick out, within the next 15 to 30 days, the more than 1 million undocumented immigrants in Florida,” said Valdes. “You have to at least give them a license, or else you are putting regular drivers in peril, because these people will still be on the road.”

The resolution, which was unanimously approved by the Florida League of United Latin American Citizens Assembly last week in Miami, is similar to one adopted by New Mexico in 2003 and revamped in 2007.

According to New Mexico documents, residents within that state — with or without a Social Security number— are required to present two forms of identification to obtain a driver license. A person without a Social Security card can present either a tax identification number, a Matricula Consular provided by the Mexican Consulate in Albuquerque after February 2005 or a valid foreign passport to obtain a driver license.

Since 2003, New Mexico has issued 50,562 driver licenses to foreign nationals or those without a legal presence. Out of the 50,562, a total 10,790 issued since Oct. 1.

“We think this law change, has benefited New Mexico,” said Ken Ortiz, the Director of the Motor Vehicle Division for the state of New Mexico.

Ortiz said, that by being able to issue illegal immigrants a driver license, the law has helped accomplish two of the state’s main goals.

“We can test them and make sure that they are safe drivers,” Ortiz said. We know who they are, we know where they live. We feel that it brings them out of the shadows.”

He added that with a valid license, a foreign national would be less likely to leave the scene of an accident, and more likely to report a crime.

Once in the system, the state can keep track of traffic citations and monitor vehicle insurance, which is also a positive, Ortiz said.

“I think it’s an overall benefit for the state,” he said.

New Mexico is one of seven states in the U.S. that do not require drivers to prove legal status to obtain a license.

The next step is for Florida’s delegation to take the resolution to LULAC’s national convention on July 12, said Valdes.

Soon after that, he said, Gov. Charlie Crist and the Florida Legislature can expect to receive the proposal.

Alaska Becomes 9th State to Reject Real ID, Oklahoma AWOL ?

Alaska Becomes 9th State to
Reject Real ID
(5/29/2008)

Movement within states still very much alive

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312, media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – Yesterday, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin returned a bill to the legislature that would prevent the state from funding implementation of the federal Real ID Act. By neither signing nor vetoing the bill 20 days after overwhelming passage in the legislature, Governor Palin allowed the bill to become law, effective August of this year. Real ID is a federal mandate imposing a national ID card on all Americans through their state drivers' licenses.

"Alaska has joined a growing nationwide movement against Real ID, and by allowing this legislation to become law, Governor Palin has made Alaska the 9th state to pass a law prohibiting compliance," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU Technology and Liberty Program. "The act was hastily passed by Congress without receiving the proper assessment of cost and implementation and is now being forced on the states by administration officials who will not be around in 2017, when final implementation is projected to occur. As the Department of Homeland Security continues its practice of kicking the can down the road, states are continuing to stand up for their residents' privacy and reject Real ID. "

The Real ID Act of 2005 mandates that all states have compliant identification cards consistent with federal regulations, as well as requiring that all Americans' private information be held in a giant federal database – the cost and security of which is unknown. The states' response to the passage of Real ID has been steady. To date, 19 states have passed either resolutions or statutes against the program, including nine that have opted out completely.

"Governor Palin and the Alaska legislature deserve praise from all Alaskans for standing up to the federal government," added Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the ACLU of Alaska. "Officials of both parties came together to pass legislation that will not only protect the privacy of Alaskans, but will protect their pocketbooks as well by rejecting Real ID's massive financial burden."

Steinhardt added, "By allowing this vital legislation to become law, Governor Palin has opened the door for other governors to do the same."

Wheeling, West Virginia ACLU Opposes Real ID Act

ACLU Opposes Real ID Act
By IAN HICKS Staff Writer
May 29, 2008

The Wheeling chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union voted unanimously Wednesday to oppose the Real ID Act, a controversial law mandating national standards for state-issued drivers’ licenses and identification cards.

The Real ID Act, which was signed into law May 11, 2005, set national standards for what data is included on identification cards, what documentation must be presented when applying and for the sharing of motor vehicle databases between states. The original deadline for compliance was to be May 11 of this year, but the federal government has extended that deadline to Dec. 31, 2009.

Much of the opposition to the act stems from the use of machine-readable technology, which is a standardized two-dimensional bar code. Some believe this could enable the federal government to more easily track the activities of Americans.

“The government wants to keep track of everyone. It is (the ACLU’s) mission to protect civil and human rights, including privacy,” said Frank Calabrese, a member of the ACLU’s Wheeling chapter and member-at-large of the organization’s West Virginia affiliate. “This would be a huge invasion of privacy. Our state mantra is ‘Mountaineers Are Always Free.’”

Wheeling chapter President Barbara Jenks said she plans to inform ACLU-WV of her chapter’s opposition, in hopes of bolstering opposition to the law on a statewide level.

After the Dec. 31, 2009, deadline passes, citizens presenting driver’s licenses or identification cards issued by states that have not complied with the new national standards may have difficulty entering federal buildings or boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft without further screening.

Forty-six of the 50 states have requested extensions for compliance, citing funding issues. The law places the burden of funding on individual states — the cost to Maine taxpayers alone will be at least $185 million over five years, according to a resolution passed by that state refusing to comply with the measure.

Calabrese alluded to a classic George Orwell novel in voicing his opposition to the Real ID Act.

“It’s going to be ‘1984’ — just a little later, in 2008,” he said.

ACLU-WV is one of the fastest-growing state affiliates in the country. It has been in existence for just 40 years, making it one of the newest affiliates east of the Mississippi River.

(REAL ID) The Great Free State

Elizabeth Marsh Cupino
The Great Free State

Originally published May 29, 2008

I work up in Pennsylvania these days, and I am the only employee out of 20 who lives below the Mason-Dixon line. I love to brag about our Great Free State of Maryland.

You can just imagine how popular I am at work, but I'm merely providing facts and truth. Maryland kicks Pennsyltucky's Hillary-voting butt in every conceivable way. Maryland is America in miniature -- with ocean beaches, wide bay, rolling farmland, and green mountains east to west, and Charm City, and Fredericktowne, and history that beats the "P" out of Philadelphia.

Maryland was pivotal in the American Revolution. Baltimore was the seat of the Continental Congress for awhile. Frederick's own Catoctin Furnace furnished 100 tons of shells used at Yorktown. The list is as long as your arm. And Maryland was a hub in the Underground Railroad and a major battleground in the Civil War.

O say, can't you see? Maryland is the birthplace of American liberty.

We're still trying. Maryland is one of only five states holding out on compliance with the federal REAL ID program. For the moment, anyway.

It looks like Gov. Martin O'Malley will ultimately cave in, toe the line with the unfunded REAL ID mandate, and retool the system that issues driver's licenses and other IDs. Otherwise, a Maryland ID will not be adequate documentation to get you on a plane to Cancun or into a Smithsonian exhibit.

I have a Real Problem with REAL ID. It's not so much about proof of citizenship. It's about Big Brother.

The Real purpose of REAL ID is to get every American citizen logged into the federal government's big central databases. Don't believe me? Check out Section 203 of the REAL ID Act: "Linking of Databases." Why isn't anybody picketing about this outside Maryland's MVA offices?

I'm not trying to say that the REAL ID program is, like, the Mark of the Beast or anything. I'm just saying it's another tentacle of a giant, radioactive federal surveillance octopus reaching in and attaching its suckers to our private information.

Besides the National Crime Information System and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (which tracks everyone who's ever had a mental illness, been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, or been "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance"), there's a big push by the FBI to get fingerprints and DNA from every person in this country. Congress recently passed legislation to prevent discrimination on the basis of genetic information, but somehow I'm not reassured.

The Bush Administration is establishing nationwide interoperable (shared) electronic medical records. It will be a requirement by 2014. As if giving the IRS all our financial information wasn't enough -- now your bout with Hep C or chronic fatigue syndrome will be captured and catalogued in a federal system.

If I had any confidence in the feds' motives or ability to manage, protect or use our private information in a responsible, ethical way, it might be different. But I don't. (Can you say habeas corpus?)

REAL ID and all these other programs constitute Real infringements on our privacy and our freedom. I think Maryland should hold out as long as possible on REAL ID, if only to make a point. Maryland doesn't take too kindly to being bullied.

I'm sure you all have our state anthem memorized ... so everybody sing! "The despot's heel is on thy shore, Maryland! His torch is at thy temple door, Maryland!"

Not too late to debate: Taking a second look at the Real ID Act

Not too late to debate
Cybereye—commentary:
Taking a second look at the Real ID Act
By William Jackson

A BIPARTISAN BLAST was launched against the Real ID Act earlier this month at a forum the Cato Institute called the beginning of a long-overdue debate on the law establishing mandatory national standards for state driver’s licenses and identity cards.

“Invasive, expensive and an affront to all of those who cherish privacy rights” was the way Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) described the act. “It will not deliver a real security benefit.”

On the other side of the aisle, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said Real ID was not merely an unfunded mandate but the mother of all unfunded mandates. He said the massive, interconnected databases of identity documents, which the law would create, would constitute “one-stop shopping for every computer hacker around the world.”

The forum did not represent a balanced discussion. It was difficult to find anyone in the room willing to defend the three-year-old law that establishes what amounts to a national ID. “Unconstitutional” was the kindest thing anyone had to say about it. But the participants were absolutely right in saying it is time to begin what Sanford called an incredibly important debate.

The law was passed without hearings and without an up-or-down vote in the Senate. The estimated cost of implementing it is between $9 billion and $23 billion, most of which states must fund. Federal funding for the program will come primarily from homeland security grants, which will divert money from other projects. Money and effort spent on implementing Real ID will hinder states’ efforts to improve their licensing and credentialing programs.

And no one in authority has been paying serious attention to securing the vast amounts of digitized data that the law requires.

Serious debate on the law has started at the state level. According to the Cato Institute, 18 states have passed resolutions or laws objecting to or refusing to implement the law, and legislation is pending in several other states. Although most states are in technical compliance with a May deadline for signaling their intention to obey the law, they met the deadline only because of blanket extensions granted by the Homeland Security Department, often whether states wanted them or not. Sanford said that when South Carolina notified DHS of its intention not to comply with the law, DHS responded by issuing an extension that had not been requested.

Whether or not you like the law, it is clear that Real ID is not well-thoughtout, and its impact on 50 states and millions of people was ignored when it was imposed on the country. The law should be suspended or repealed outright until a proper debate can be held and real concerns addressed.

“The states have led the charge on this, and I think that the federal government is starting to pay attention,” Tester said.

Let’s hope so.

Real ID has so many pitfalls and not enough money to back it up

OPINION

Our View

Real ID has so many pitfalls and not
enough money to back it up
MAY 25, 2008

Prepare for backups and even repeat visits to the Motor Vehicles office with the coming of Real ID. That's fair warning from the Delaware administrator about the looming federal security law that lumps counterterrorism with ordinary state transactions to license drivers.

That is, unless Congress repeals Real ID because of its logistical and financial burdens. And there is a contingent of Washington legislators who think the law should be scrapped and redone more reasonably.

The overarching logic of Real ID is compelling after the country's tragic experience. Americans know the sorry saga of the 9/11 hijackers who passed through airport security, belatedly red-flagging failures in intelligence, aviation, immigration and border control. While in the United States, those terror plotters also opened bank accounts and obtained personal identification from several states' motor vehicles departments.

The 9/11 Commission that investigated the 2001 plot concluded, "Targeting travel is at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as targeting their money." And the commission recommended, "The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers licenses."

But the execution of the Real ID law is a huge technical challenge. The law ordered that driver licenses and identification with photos be tamperproof, machine-readable and verify U.S. citizenship or legal immigration status.

So every issuing jurisdiction must not only supply such materials and do background checks to vouch that an applicant's documents are valid, all these old and new documents must be interchangeable everywhere for 245 million U.S. drivers.

Americans are inherently jealous of their liberties and privacy, even though modern interaction at every level of life involves institutional accumulation of personal information literally from birth. Of necessity, we all have documents and records -- regardless of conspiracy theorists' dire scenarios about bureaucratic intrusion.

Fraud does have potentially disastrous consequences in national security as well as personal identity theft by common criminals. Yet U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Akaka of Hawaii, of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, fears Real ID might actually make identity theft "one-stop shopping" for thieves.

Moreover, he and others cite the huge financial gap between varying multi-billion-dollar estimates for Real ID's execution and the paltry millions allocated to help states do all this work. Sen. Akaka and several cosponsors are for repeal.

Since the Homeland Security Department's creation, recurring disappointments and delays with technology still being invented for such tasks certainly raise doubts about Real ID's effective start date of 2010.

With a year and a half to go before Real ID is supposed to be ready to roll, it's time to decide if it's really possible to link up such a fail-safe system, and at what price. And will the government back up a federal security commitment with the right amount of money?

If this is only going to be an unreliable make-work project, pull the plug.