Posted: September 28, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
WASHINGTON – The House Republican leadership's new bill to restructure the nation's intelligence bureaucracy would turn driver's licenses issued by the 50 states into a de facto national ID card, say privacy activists. The House bill, set for committee markups this week, is expected to be merged with a Senate version and voted on before the Nov. 2 election. But among the little-known provisions of the "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act" are new requirements for state driver's licenses that have very little to do with driving, say critics. According to the legislation, within three years of its enactment, no federal agency may accept for any official purpose a driver's license or identification card issued by a state that does not require applicants to provide Social Security number and "facial imaging capture." Washington would also require all states to share digital data acquired in the process of licensing to other states. A blogger site committed to fighting a national ID calls the plan a "backdoor creation of a National ID" that "has been the in the works for a few years now, even prior to events of September 11." "This seems marginally better than the ID provisions McCain-Lieberman bill in the Senate, in that it is not explicitly part of a biometric checkpoint system," wrote the privacy activists of Libertythink.com. "But the highlighted text suggests facial biometrics nonetheless. And the linking of all the databases is troublesome." The issue of national standards for driver's licenses and other documents was taken up by the 9/11 Commission and by the McCain-Lieberman bill introduced earlier this month in the Senate. Both urge sweeping reforms, such as mandated federal standards for license formats. Privacy experts say that national standards that require states to add a fingerprint or other biometric data to driver's licenses might effectively create a national ID card. The House bill also immediately ran into partisan opposition last Friday when it was introduced. "Instead of acting in a bipartisan manner, the Republican leadership is introducing a bill, written behind closed doors, that attempts to score partisan points and goes far outside the recommendations of the 9/11 commission," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat. "Unbelievably, the Republicans claim to have introduced a bipartisan bill, as Senate leaders have done. It is simply not true." No bill number was available and even the full text was not released until yesterday. Driver's licenses are not the only form of identification changing. Next year, both U.S. passports and foreign visitor passports will be issued with a special computer chip woven into the cover. The chip will include a photograph of the traveler, and face-recognition technology will be used to make sure the passport presenter is the same as the person who applied for the document. That seems to be what the House bill is requiring for driver's licenses of the future, too. This change will be gradual in the United States. All new passports will include the chip by next year, but those holding valid passports won't be required to upgrade until their current ones expire. On the other hand, citizens of countries in the U.S. visa waiver program, such as Britain and Spain, will have to arrive on U.S. shores with a biometric chip in their passport beginning in October of next year. Congress has already extended that deadline from the initial October 2004 date mandated in a 2002 law. Facial-recognition programs, however, are notoriously inaccurate, with some studies suggesting error rates as high as 50 percent. Simple changes in lighting, or beard growth, can foil it. Similar legislation was pushed during the Clinton administration but was rebuffed by privacy activists.
Pre 9/11 I was almost paranoid in my defense of privacy and fear of Big Brother. But as our President said, "9/11 changed everything." No, I don't like a National ID system- but I can live with it.
In the Internet age, anybody with a computer can track you more invasively than the Government ever dreamed of back in the 1960s. Credit, driver's licenses, medical info- all are linked to your Social Security number. What privacy is there left to lose?
Is it too much to ask that all residents of the US pay taxes, and that only citizens are eligible to vote or receive government benefits?
We wouldnt need a federal ID if they would simply close the borders round up all illegals and terrorist enablers and deport them and never let them back in...
They cry for a federal ID in order to stop terrorism when they refuse to adequately protect our borders...?
Biometrics...RFID....Chips....National ID...
First you need the reason to pass such laws....illegal aliens narco terrorists cuban terrorists red chinese and al qaida provide the reason...
Leaving your back door open while you cry about the need for more security laws to protect the front door of the house is just plain stupid.....
or is it?...dumb like a fox maybe
Just heard on WGN news..."Operation Predator" sting op to take out child sex predators has so far netted 1800 foreign nationals who are pedophile predators operating inside CONUS...they have been arrested...and deported...
Thats a fine example of the kind of scum coming over our unprotected borders....
imo
If done right, it could be our only defense against illegals, and voter fraud as well. A national database would work wonders.
(Sorry for this double post, accidentally sent to wrong person as reply.)
Biometrics is "the number of a man" (as opposed to the social security number systematically assigned to represent a person). If a form of ID is required to make a purchase (buy) or have a job ("sell" your services); this is directly in line with the "mark of the beast", if not it. After these IDs start to get stolen, creating a major identity theft problem; then, the "verichip" implant solution, most likely, would be offered next.
According to Rev. 13 KJV; a Christian could not take such a "mark" or form of identity. This would leave Christians as "non-citizens" or being viewed as terrorist.
"Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security." -- Ben Franklin