Real ID is a Real Problem
By Pierre LELIEVRE
Posted on Wed May 02, 2007 at 05:26:12 PM EST
The Real ID Act was signed in 2005 by President Bush, in order to "increase the security and to diminish the risks of terrorism in the post-9/11 era." It requires all states to give mountains of information to the federal government about the public to create a unified national ID.
Many civil liberties organizations oppose Real ID and ask the states not to implement it or give data about their citizens to Washington, D.C.
The groups joining in the anti-REAL ID campaign are concerned about the increased threat of counterfeiting and identity theft, lack of security to protect against unauthorized access to the document's machine readable content, increased cost to taxpayers, diverting of state funds intended for homeland security, increased costs for obtaining a license or state issued ID card, and because the REAL ID would create a false belief that it is secure and unforgeable.
Real ID creates major concerns over privacy. Indeed, Real ID would allow the federal government to know where you are at any moment: when you took a plane, when you came back home... And employees from the state, at all levels, would have access to this centralized information. It gets worse: the production of this ID would be committed to private firms that could use information for commercial goals.
It would damage our democracy and Civil Rights, too. A new national ID would result in big lines in front of administration offices before elections that would lead to confusion, then desperation and disenfranchisement among many voters. Some people, who don't currently have certain documents (people without a passport - most Americans - or without a driver's license) would have a hard time getting their ID. Some sections of the population actually seem to be the target of the law. Minorities, the poor, working class families and the elderly will be especially hurt by REAL ID.
This sophisticated document would cost a lot. There are two solutions to finance it: either the government will increase taxes (and frankly, there are more useful ways to use taxes than to create new IDs!), or they will ask people to pay fees for their ID. That would discourage almost all poor voters from applying for the ID, and they would lose their right to vote.
Several states expressed their fears and their doubts about Real ID. But Montana was the first one to frankly decide that it would not comply by the federal law. State Congress and Governor have decided to keep data about the population private. This decision was defended by the Democratic Governor, but the Republicans also supported non-compliance, as Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R) stated.
Governor Schweitzer and Montana have taken a bold and admirable step by rejecting this misguided law," said Scott Crichton, Executive Director of the ACLU of Montana. "In the face of supposed threats that our citizens' right to travel would be curbed, we stand firm and declare loudly that this legislation is not good for the people of our state and we refuse to participate in it. I am very proud of our state and the legislators who reached across the partisan divide to pass this bill without one dissenting voice.
There is no good reason to defend Real ID. The only thing it could bring to the elections is complexity, increasing costs, and inequality among citizens. The electoral system neither deserves Real ID nor needs it.
Tags: elections, privacy, real ID, civil liberties (all tags)
You are not logged in.
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.
