(December 15, 2014) In this article I use Oklahoma, a state that is not in material compliance with the Real ID Act 2005 as an example of the methods used to eventually have all states become Real ID compliant. As of this time not all states are in material compliance with the Real ID Act 2005. There are 39 benchmarks a state must complete to be in full compliance with the Real ID Act 2005 (a link is provided later in this article to a list of all 39 benchmarks). Today states are only being required to meet the first 18 benchmarks to be in “material compliance”. That being said, the effort to bring all states into full compliance continues. If you live in a non-Real ID compliant state this article will help you to understand the tactics being employed to make your state Real ID compliant. If you live in a state that is already in material compliance, or a state that has said it intends to be in material compliance, I encourage you to use the information in this article and ask your state lawmakers their reason(s) for subjecting you to an overreaching federal government. In some cases you will find out your state lawmakers did not understand all the consequences of becoming Real ID compliant. If you live in a state such as Oklahoma that is not yet in material compliance with the Real ID Act you should provide the information in this document to your state lawmakers and ask if they are going to support becoming compliant with the Real ID Act 2005.
In 2007, the Oklahoma legislature passed SB464. The legislation passed overwhelmingly in both chambers with bi-partisan support. The author of the legislation in the House was Representative Charles Key. There were co-authors in the senate: Senator Brogdon (R) and Senator Johnson (D). SB464 was signed into law on 23 May 2007. The law prohibits implementing the federal government’s Real ID Act 2005. Among the many reasons SB464 was passed is the Real ID Act threatens the right of citizens to be protected against an overreaching federal government given unlimited power to control when we must show our driver’s license to be able to do something. In addition to the unlimited power the Real ID Act 2005 provides the Secretary of DHS (Department of Homeland Security), our right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure, our right not to be identified and tracked in public, our right to peacefully assemble, and our right to religious freedom are all infringed upon and threatened by the Real ID Act. This article will, among other things, explain how one federal law can impact so many rights of citizens and also discuss the tactics used by the federal government, and even some state officials, to ensure material compliance with the Real ID Act 2005.
The public and for that matter many state officials do not understand that the Secretary of DHS can wake up tomorrow and require a Real ID compliant license to purchase a weapon or ammunition, pick up a prescription, or even work This will not happen tomorrow because all states are not compliant yet. Once all states are in material compliance then DHS is free to unveil its whole bag of tricks. Right now DHS does not want to scare off states that are not in material compliance. Make no mistake about it; the Real ID Act gives the Secretary of DHS the unfettered discretion to add to the “official purposes” for which a Real ID compliant driver’s license will be needed.
Some of the responsibility for the public not fully understanding the implications or consequences of complying with the Real ID Act 2005 falls squarely on the shoulders of the media. Whether in Oklahoma or other states, the local media in states has ignored the unfettered discretion given to the Secretary of DHS under the provisions of the Real ID Act 2005. Provide this document to people in your media so that they no longer have any excuse for telling only one side of the story. In all fairness to some in the media they were never informed of this part of the Real ID Act when the interviewed officials for stories.
The following language is contained in the “Final Rules” published by DHS in the Federal Register, January 29, 2008.
“DHS agrees with those commenters who noted that the proposed definition of “official purpose” is consistent with Congressional intent. DHS is neither expanding nor limiting the definition further in this rule. DHS will continue to consider additional ways in which a REAL ID license can or should be used and will implement any changes to the definition of “official purpose” or determinations regarding additional uses for REAL ID consistent with applicable laws and regulatory requirements. DHS does not agree that it must seek the approval of Congress as a prerequisite to changing the definition in the future (except of course to remove one of the three statutorily-mandated official purposes) as Sec. 201(3) of the Act gives discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security to determine other purposes.” http://constitutionalalliance.org/xfiles/library/Stop-Real-ID-Coalition_DHS-DHS-Real-ID-Final-Rules_Part-1-and-2.pdf (page 37)
To further illustrate the point about the discretion the Secretary of DHS is provided, read the following which is in part attributed to the former Secretary of DHS, Michael Chertoff:
“Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff encourages the use of the REAL ID system for a wide variety of purposes unrelated to the law that authorized the system. In an opinion column written by Secretary Chertoff after the publication of the final rule in January (2008), he said, “embracing REAL ID” would mean it would be used to “cash a check, hire a baby sitter, board a plane or engage in countless other activities.” http://epic.org/privacy/id_cards/epic_realid_0508.pdf (page 4).
Under the Real ID Act 2005, the MRZ (Machine Readable Zone) on the back of a driver’s license is NOT encrypted. The MRZ can be “swiped” to collect all the information on the front of the license. There have been many stories published about the unscrupulous “swiping” of the MRZ by retailers and criminals. The fact the MRZ is not encrypted, is not the only reason to believe Real ID will increase identity theft. With other states and agencies/departments of the federal government given access to information in state DMV databases under the provisions of the Real ID Act 2005, personal information is more at risk, not less at risk. http://www.constitutionalalliance.org/dhs-real-id-act-2005-final-rules-part-1-and-2 (page 46).
Why would anyone be in favor of collecting any and all information about each of us including our biometrics, when federal databases, defense contractor databases and the databases of retailers such as Home Depot and Target have all been breached/compromised? Most recently Sony Entertainment was hacked. We should realize Sony does invest upwards of $100 million on producing individual movies. Sony has the financial resources to employ the best tech people to protect their intellectual property. In Sony’s case not only was an unreleased movie “stolen” in the breach but also the PII (Personal Identifiable Information) of employees. This PII included email accounts, social security numbers and additional biographic information.
To this point I have discussed two reasons that should give people reason to challenge the smartness of supporting the Real ID Act 2005. The power congress gave the Secretary of DHS is unacceptable. In a era in which identity theft continues to be one of the fastest growing crimes it is also unacceptable to expose more and more of the PII of people to other people. Your biometrics are also PII.
Not everyone knows what a “biometric” is. There are different definitions that all essentially say that a biometric is a unique physical or behavioral characteristic of an individual. Commonly we think of fingerprints, high resolution digital facial images/photographs, iris scans, hand/palm geometry, and DNA when we think of biometrics.
There are proponents of the Real ID Act 2005 that will argue that the Real ID Act 2005 does not require any state to collect an individual’s biometrics. You will learn unequivocally that this is not the truth.
One of the best kept secrets of the Real ID Act 2005 is that the law requires you provide your biometrics to your DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) when you apply for a driver’s license or state issued ID for identification purposes if you do not drive. Requirements are in someway like rules; there is an exception. With the Real ID Act there is an exception to having to provide your biometrics. This exception is the Real ID Act does allow states to issue both Real ID compliant driver’s licenses and non-Real ID compliant driver’s licenses. The “rules” for a non-Real ID compliant driver’s license are stated in the Real ID Act 2005, Public Law 109-13. The following is the language as it appears in Public Law 109-13:
“(A) clearly states on its face that it may not be accepted by any Federal agency for federal identification or any other official purpose; and
(B) uses a unique design or color indicator to alert Federal agency and other law enforcement personnel that it may not be accepted for any such purpose.”
The bottom line is requiring a person to provide their biometrics whether the biometric be a person’s fingerprints or a high resolution digital facial image/photograph is not part of the Real ID Act 2005 as the Real ID Act pertains to allowing states to issue non-Real ID compliant driver’s licenses. Today there are several states that issue both Real ID compliant driver’s licenses and driver’s licenses that are not allowed to be used for federal official purposes. That being said in each state that requires a photograph on their driver’s licenses, the photograph is a high resolution digital facial image specifically set to standards for the use of facial recognition software.
Do the lawmakers in every state know they are requiring every person who applies for a driver’s license to submit to mandatory biometric enrollment? The answer is “Yes” in some states and “No” in other states. The reason for the different answers is because the answer depends on how knowledgeable and/or honest law enforcement officers in the respective states are. Not too long ago a senior law enforcement official in Louisiana testified before a state legislative committee that the photograph on a Louisiana driver’s license was not a biometric photograph. Once confronted with irrefutable evidence that the photograph in fact is a biometric, the law enforcement official recanted his denial and admitted that in fact the photograph is a biometric. I do not believe he honestly knew the photograph is a biometric until he was provided the evidence. It was the Constitutional Alliance that provided the information showing the photograph is in fact a biometric. One way to think about his issue is to consider we know a fingerprint is a biometric albeit a biometric sample. Think of the digital facial image/photograph that is taken specifically for use with facial recognition software just as you would a fingerprint.
You may want to know just how is it that a person in law enforcement could be confused or just wrong about whether or not a photograph being taken is a biometric. Hidden, and I do mean hidden on page 68 (document is 162 pages long) of the Notice of Proposed RuleMaking for the Real ID Act 2005 issued by DHS in March of 2007 is footnote 17 at the bottom of the page. The following is the footnote:
“The relevant ICAO standard is ICAO 9303 Part 1 Vol. 2, specifically ISO/IEC 19794-5 – Information technology – Biometric data interchange formats – Part 5: Face image data, which is incorporated into ICAO 9303.”
The standard for the facial image I provided above is the only mention of the mandated use of biometrics in the Real ID Act 2005 or the Notice of Proposed RuleMaking. ICAO is the International Civil Aviation Organization.
The standard for the digital facial image/photograph stated above is being adhered to by every state DMV. The reason this standard is being used in every state, including non-Real ID compliant states, is the vendors who provide driver’s licenses and AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) have each adopted the standard set in the Real ID Act 2005. As a side note, AAMVA is named in the Final Rules for the Real ID Act issued by DHS in January 2008 as the “hub” and “backbone” of the Real ID Act 2005.
There are states that in state statute do require fingerprints. Most states also require a photograph on driver’s licenses. There are states that still allow for a “valid without photo” ID for people who have a religious objection. Further down in this article I will cover why requiring any biometric is unnecessary. As a point of information I should disclose that handwriting is considered a biometric. This means a person’s signature on their driver’s license is a biometric. That being said, a person can sign their name differently than they usually would when signing their license. The signing of the signature differently and applying pressure on the pen in a different way then a person would normally, would hinder the use of a signature for biometric use.
An important point is there is a world of difference between a low resolution analog photograph states previously used and the currently used high resolution digital facial image that states are using today. The difference is NOT in the clarity of the photograph as it appears on the driver’s license. Both the low resolution analog photograph and the high resolution digital facial image/photograph are equally human recognizable on the driver’s license. The difference is that the analog, low resolution photograph is not facial recognition software compatible because of the very high error rate when a computer compares one photograph to another. Facial recognition software allows for a computer to measure the distance between key facial characteristics such as the eyes, nose, and lips of a person. These distances we are told are unique to each person. Because facial recognition is not as accurate as some other biometrics such as fingerprints, human intervention is necessary. A computer may bring up the ten or so of the most similar facial images of people in a state DMV database to the person who is applying for a driver’s license. The idea is that if a person is applying for multiple driver’s licenses using different names, facial recognition software will spot the fraud the person applying for the driver’s license is committing. A human being would look at the most similar photos the computer brings up to see if any are an actual match to the person applying for the driver’s license.
If the reason for using facial recognition is to spot a person who is applying for multiple driver’s licenses under different names then why doesn’t law enforcement simply use fingerprints which are far more accurate than facial recognition? That is the six million dollar question. The answer is the people who promote the use of facial recognition want to use facial recognition for other purposes that have nothing to do with driver’s licenses. No, they do not want to tell you that but their actions speak much louder than their words. You may also be told that not all people have fingerprints that can be “captured” by a scanner. This is true but avoids the question of why the need for biometrics at all. I will offer one possible alternative to biometrics a little further down.
Earlier on I said that the Real ID Act infringes on many of our rights. The Real ID Act irrefutably requires a facial recognition compatible digital facial image/photograph that is facial recognition compatible. When government takes action that hinders our rights by intimidation that is unconstitutional. The courts have long recognized the power of intimidation. There are laws that prohibit people from being too close to a polling station while expressing their displeasure or approval of certain candidates. When we know or have a reasonable belief that we are being watched, identified and information is being collected about us when we attend a rally or protest that is very intimidating to some, even perhaps many people. This is why facial recognition threatens our right to peacefully assemble, our right to free speech, our right to associate with whom we choose, our right to seek redress of our grievances and our right to religious freedom.
As time moves forward in addition to using CCTV and smart phones to be able to capture the facial images of people, law enforcement will have the use of thousands of drones. There are drones today already being used but the numbers pale in comparison to the numbers that will be in the air over the next five years.
The Constitutional Alliance, an organization who is opposed to the collection of any biometric as a requirement to obtain a driver’s license would not and do not support the collection of fingerprints either. This leads to a discussion of what is a less restrictive means of ensuring a person does not have multiple driver’s licenses under different names or a person is not using the documents of another person to fraudulently obtain a driver’s license.
When a digital facial image or fingerprint is “captured”/”collected” they are compared using a computer to digital facial images/photographs and/or fingerprints in the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) and other databases. What determines a person’s identity is not the digital facial image or fingerprint but rather the other Personal Identifiable Information (PII) that is contained in the DMV database, such as a birth certificate and social security number/card. In Oklahoma the birth certificate is a “primary form of identification” and the social security card is a “secondary form of identification.” The birth certificate and the social security card are by definition called “breeder documents.” Breeder documents are documents that establish a person’s identity.
A fairly simple way of ensuring a person does not have multiple driver’s licenses under different names and ensuring a person is who they say they are is to number the breeder documents. Each state has an office or Department of Vital Statistics or other named office that serves the same function. In nearly every state now birth certificates and death certificates have been or are being digitized. There are only a handful of states where this has not or is not being done yet. My solution, which is not only one, thus others may have or come up with other solutions, is for states to number all birth certificates sequentially starting with the initials of the state the person was born in. Let’s say a person was born in Oklahoma. Their birth certificate would be numbered OK123456789, for example.
Among other good things of the solution I offer is states control their Department of Vital Statistics database, not the federal government. There would be no need for a national repository or federal database of birth certificates. The solution I am offering is a fairly simple matter of creating software; writing a computer program.
The way this would play out is if a person applies for a driver’s license anywhere in the country, the Department of Vital Statistics would maintain the request or query that would show which DMV is asking for the birth certificate to be authenticated. In addition to maintaining the request and who it was from, would be the date of the request. If the same person applied for a license in a different state, the new state DMV would be alerted by the Department of Vital Statistics that maintains the birth certificate that the individual has a current driver’s license in another state. The person then would be required as they are already to turn in their current license before being issued a new license from whatever state they moved to.
If someone else attempted to use this person’s birth certificate at any DMV in the country, again the DMV would be alerted that the birth certificate had already been used to acquire a driver’s license. Law enforcement could easily and quickly determine which is the person committing fraud.
If a person presented a counterfeit birth certificate, that birth certificate would not be in any state Department of Vital Statistics database. This would result in the DMV requesting authentication being alerted by the Department of Vital Statistics “system”.
I realize not everyone has a birth certificate but the reality is most everyone does. But if in fact a person does not then whatever breeder document the person has and/or is using currently would be numbered and at that point the “system”/procedure would be the same as I noted above.
During one of my many discussions with people in our federal government I asked why what I am proposing, numbering birth certificates or assigning new numbers to exisiting birth certificates could not be done? I was told “We had not thought about that.” While it may be true that the concept had not been thought of, the truth is having each person’s biometrics is the “prize.” There is a reason that facial recognition is called “the biometric of choice.” The reason is facial recognition allows for people to be identified and tracked in real time without their knowledge or consent. Another fact is researchers are already hard at work developing technology that will allow for our fingerprints and iris scans to be captured at a distance. There has already been limited success.
One of the major reasons given for collecting a person’s biometrics is to ensure they are who they say they are. The only way a biometric can ensure a person is who they say they are is if a person’s biometrics are captured/collected and retained at birth. The most likely biometric to be used in this instance, at the time of a person’s birth, would be the person’s DNA. Your facial image is obviously not the same at birth as it is 10, 20, 30, or 40 years or more later. Your DNA is the same at birth and in your later years.
Collecting a person’s DNA at birth brings into play a pandora’s box of issues. Anyone who would have access to the DNA could misuse the information to determine whether you are more or less likely to suffer from a given illness, or predisposed to being an alcoholic. Your DNA could be used to determine whether you may lack certain intellectual capabilities. This all being said there is an effort by some to promote collecting everyone’s DNA at birth and attach the DNA to the person’s birth certificate.
At this point if not sooner, I am sure there are those that believe or are even convinced that I have lost my mind. This belief is nothing new to me. Many years ago even before the passage of the Real ID Act 2005 I warned people that the goal of government and corporations was total global biometric enrollment. As years went by my warning started to become reality. Slowly but assuredly one country after another instituted a “national” ID card that incorporated biometrics. Our own government officials began speaking about global biometric enrollment. Eventually world officials were talking about a global agency with global powers to standardize and collect the biometrics of the world’s population.
There are articles I have written posted on the Constitutional Alliance web-site that verify beyond any reasonable doubt that my warnings were and still are based on reality; on what is taking place in the world today. There is a reason in every article or essay I write that I provide links, many links to corroborate what I have written. The articles and other material I provide for corroboration are reputable. The most recent articles I have written leave no doubt that total global biometric enrollment is the goal. Our country and other countries have adopted international standards for the collecting and sharing of biometric data.
If you would like you may read these two articles.
- http://www.constitutionalalliance.org/articles/must-read-all-people-total-global-biometric-enrollment and
- http://www.constitutionalalliance.org/articles/there-can-be-no-denying-we-are-each-being-enrolled-single-global-system-identification-and
Whatever level or degree of craziness you assign to me you need to assign an equal or greater level of naivety to yourself. A person not wanting to hear or believe something does not make that something any less true. Now let’s move forward. I left off discussing collecting DNA at birth and attaching the DNA to a person’s birth certificate. I read hundred’s of documents and view an equal amount of videos or PowerPoint presentations a year. My purpose in this learning is to know what law enforcement and other government officials are doing now and thinking about for the future. The following link is to a presentation that a Denver, Colorado law enforcement official gave at John Hopkins Policy Center, at John Hopkins University (read pages 5 and 6 to read what this law enforcement officer envisions for the future use of the collection of everyone’s DNA).
http://www.dnapolicy.org/resources/GenePOPSforensics_transcript.pdf
Earlier I had said that biometrics do not determine identity; breeder documents such as birth certificates and social security cards are what is used to establish identity. To illustrate this point I want you to consider that our government did not know the identity of eleven Russian spies in our country until these spies were actually caught spying and arrested. We had the biometrics of these spies but because they used fraudulent breeder documents to obtain identification documents, we did not know who this people really were. A link to corroborate what I am saying:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/world/europe/29spy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Under the provisions or lack thereof in the Real ID Act 2005, any state or the federal government can obtain the digital facial image/photograph and/or biometric template that can be used to identify and track you when you are in public. There is no federal or Oklahoma statute that protects citizens against this type of surveillance. You and I may think this is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment but the courts have not weighed in on this issue. As often happens, the courts are years behind the capabilities of technology.
The Supreme Court has ruled we have a right to anonymity when we are in public. Privacy and anonymity are not one in the same. Unless law enforcement has a reasonable suspicion that can be articulated that a person has done or is doing something wrong, a person does not have to show an ID. There are exceptions as there always is but as a general rule this is the law of the land. Prior to the use of facial recognition a person would know if they are providing their ID. Now with facial recognition a police officer can use a smart phone, capture your facial image, and compare it to facial images in DMV databases without your knowledge or consent. This would allow your identity to be determined which in turn would be a variation of “Show me your papers!” Not only would the officer be able to identify you without your knoweldge but the officer would be able to search a myriad of databases to learn a great deal about you. This presents all kinds of problems depending what information the officer decides to access. Keep in mind information including but not limited to what charities you give to, what causes or candidates you give to, whether you are a gun owner, what magazines you subscribe to, what countries you have traveled to, what your credit score is, where you reside, is all in databases that are easily accessed by law enforcement. In the past “reasonable suspicion” was based on observation; tpday because current law does not address this issue, reasonable suspicion can be based on big data.
I defy anyone to tell me how a free society and a surveillance state can be reconciled. The “Chilling Effect” of a surveillance state inhibits citizens from participating in the “political process.” Given that DHS and Fusion Centers across the country have named dozens of groups of people as “potential domestic terrorists”, people are rightfully concerned that their names will appear on a watch list somewhere. The list of groups included as potential domestic terrorists includes people who support the 2nd Amendment and environmentalists also. If a person has stated they are opposed to war or opposed to abortions they can be on a list of potential domestic terrorists. These watch lists are equal opportunity (progressives and conservatives) offenders.
http://www.constitution.org/abus/dhs/hsra-domestic-extremismlexicon_165213935473.pdf (should read entire 12 page document – it is not my purpose to indict DHS – in all fairness to DHS people should know DHS has rescinded this document but rescinding a document does not rescind the mindset)
Supporting our law enforcement community should not be equated with trusting everyone in law enforcement. I previously wrote an article in which I provided over 70 links to articles about the abuse of power by government officials. Almost all of the abuses occurred in the last 12 months. The links are not to individual cases of law enforcement “mistakes” such as the wrong driver being pulled over because of an error resulting from the use of an Automatic License Plate Reader or a SWAT team entering the wrong home because of an error in a search warrant, if in fact there is a warrant. The links/articles are much broader in nature and go towards the systemic abuse of power and the growing surveillance state. http://constitutionalalliance.org/articles/updated-now-includes-new-arti…
There are many other facts you should know about biometrics but I am going to address a very important point right now. It is not my goal to drag you through the weeds about all things biometrics but know that biometric samples (i.e. high resolution digital facial images, fingerprints, iris scans) are stored in biometric templates. I am being overly simplistic but please stay with me. The point I want to make and you need to know is that biometric templates have been succesfully reverse engineered. Unlike your bank account numbers, your credit card numbers and even your social security number, you cannot go out a get new biometrics. The ability to reverse engineer biometric templates has greatly improved over the last few years. You can bet reverse engineering will continue to improve just as we have seen other technologies continually improve. Once again I can only imagine you think I am blowing things out of proportion. Great: Once again I will prove to you that I am not. When you have time read the article provided by the following link (I could provide many more articles/links but to what end?):
http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/26/technology/iris-hacking/
The people in Oklahoma and other states were not told they are being enrolled into a global system of identification that directly links their body to their ability to buy, sell, travel and work. Comprehensive Immigration Reform (S744) that has already passed in the United States Senate requires employers, regardless of size, to collect and share the biometrics of U.S. citizens with DHS. There is no religious exemption for the many Evangelical Christians who object to being enrolled into a global system of identification and financial control. All Christians may not see mandated biometric enrollment as the precursor to “The Mark of the Beast” but because all Christians are part of the Body of Christ; we should support one another. I am not Amish. The Amish do not drive but they do work. For those of us who are Christians are we going to force the Amish to provide their biometrics so they can work? As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “Not to act is to act.”
Consider the words of Robert Mocny, the Director of the Office of Biometric Identity Management for the Department of Homeland Security.
Mocny sketched a federal plan to extend biometric data sharing to Asian and European governments and corporations, so as to create a Global Security Envelope of identity management.
“My question is, how is it ethical not to share?” Mocny asked. “It makes no sense for us to develop separate systems.” http://gcn.com/Articles/2007/02/04/DHS-pushes-global-data-sharing.aspx?Page=2
Recently Mocny made the following observation: ”Our efforts will continue because there are still many countries that have yet to adopt biometrics – but they will.” http://www.iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/home/what-we-do/migration-policy-and-research/migration-policy-1/migration-policy-practice/issues/december-2012january-2013/biometrics-revolutionize-identit.html
The fact is 3/4 of the world’s population already live in countries with a “national/international” biometric ID either already in place or well underway. These countries include countries in Europe, China, Russia, India, Mexico, countries in the Middle East, countries in Africa, and countries in South America and yes, the United States with the Real ID Act 2005.
Over 600 groups ranging the entire political spectrum opposed the Real ID Act 2005. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html (make sure to read “about me” section of the blog by Mr. Schneier to understand why he is considered a leading privacy and security expert)
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ – the Christian counterpart to the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)) produced a report 112 pages long opposing the Real ID Act 2005. The ACLU was and is also one of the groups that opposes Real ID. The fact of the matter os the ACLU was one of the first groups to speak out against the Real ID Act 2005.
Does Real ID make our country safer? Consider France has issued hundreds of thousands of E-Passports that were issued to people using names other than their own. France is a country where its citizens do not need a visa to enter the United States. France is also at least 8% Muslim with the Muslim population growing at a faster rate than any other part of the population. I am not saying all or even most Muslims are terrorists but the reality is there are many Islamic extremists. Real ID does nothing to protect U.S. citizens from being the victim of an attack on our homeland by any of these people that hold these authentic French E-Passports.
http://www.iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/home/what-we-do/migration-policy-and-research/migration-policy-1/migration-policy-practice/issues/december-2012january-2013/biometrics-revolutionize-identit.html (slide 22)
If that is not enough to make the point that Real ID is about perceived security and not actual security consider that Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory, has said 1/2 of the driver’s licenses issued to people in Puerto Rico, were issued to people using an alias, not their real name. The problem is so bad that Puerto Rican authorities have admitted they have issued more driver’s licenses than they have citizens. Keep in mind; people born in Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens. http://watchdog.org/155518/fake-birth-certificates-find-easy-live-american-dream/
The Constitutional Alliance’s members each have their own personal feelings about Comprehensive Immigration Reform. I bring this issue of immigration reform up because another misconception about the Real ID Act 2005 is states that are in material compliance with the Real ID Act cannot issue driver’s licenses to people in the United States unlawfully. The fact is a state in material compliance with the Real ID Act can issue both driver’s licenses for federal purposes and one that are not. The driver’s licenses that are not for federal purposes can be issued to people in the United States unlawfully. If state lawmakers argue a state or all states should be Real ID compliant because this would help to end or would end people coming into the United States unlawfully, the state lawmaker(s) is wrong. States that issue driver’s licenses not for federal purposes are issuing valid issued state ID that is acceptable for driving, cashing checks, picking up prescriptions and other purposes. Whether a person agrees with President Obama’s Executive Action that defers deportation for roughly 4.5 million people or not, the fact of the matter is DHS is not going to stand in the way of states that issue “not for federal purposes” driver’s licenses to these people.
I have addressed some of the misconceptions about the Real ID Act and what is does and does not do. There is an additional consequence of the requirements of the Real ID Act which is not often given much thought. In states that are Real ID compliant thus collecting a great deal of Personal Identifiable Information is being collected. The United States has many agreements that call for our government to share information of United States citizens with other governments. One problem among many with the global sharing of the personal information including the biometrics of U.S. citizens is our allies today can become our enemies of tomorrow. We have seen this time and time again throughout history. Cuba, Venezuela, Iraq, Russia, Libya and many other countries have each at different times been allies and enemies. Another problem is even in countries that we may consider allies, drug cartels and terrorist organizations have infiltrated the highest levels of government.
Julian Ashbourn as Chairman of the International Biometrics Foundation stated “What information do governments share? With whom is my data shared and why?” All of these questions need to be addressed by an agency with global powers, according to Ashbourn. Really: We need a global agency with global powers? http://www.zdnet.com/experts-call-for-global-biometrics-agency-3039232717/
Perhaps the states, including Oklahoma should be authenticating birth certificates before issuing driver’s licenses. That is something many people would support. We do not need to mandate biometrics. There are less restrictive means to ensure a person only has one driver’s license and is who they say they are.
One issue that is not discussed is the 10th Amendment to our Constitution. Where do Real ID proponents find in the Constitution the authority for the federal government to control state driver’s licenses? If the federal government and Congress specifically, want a national/international ID card then Congress should go to the citizens of the United States and ask what the people think.
DHS was not honest with the public about the role biometrics plays in Real ID. Many state lawmakers across the country were told wrongly that their citizens would not be able to fly without a Real ID compliant driver’s license and thus these lawmakers voted in favor of Real ID. Most did not understand the power the Real ID Act 2005 gave to the Secretary of DHS.
Domestic spying may have become a “way of life” for agencies and departments of the federal government; that does not mean the good people of Oklahoma or any other should accept it.
I encourage any or every state lawmaker to call the Chief Privacy Officer for the TSA, Peter Pietra and ask him point blank if U.S. citizens are going to need a Real ID compliant driver’s license, E-Passport or military ID card to fly. He will say the person may encounter additional security procedures but they will be allowed to fly.
State lawmakers were never intended to be surrogates for the federal government. State lawmakers should be the buffer between an overreaching federal government and the rights of the citizens in their respective states.
Today our biometrics are in DMV databases. Our state lawmakers can change that by passing legislation prohibiting the collection of high resolution digital facial images, the use of facial recognition software, and the collection of fingerprints to acquire a state driver’s license. If law enforcement wants our biometrics they should show probable cause and get a warrant. Governor Jindal of Louisiana said “No” to Real ID.
Recently, Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (DPS) Commissioner Michael C. Thompson said he was proud that Oklahoma is 59% compliant with Real ID requirements but has not defied the Oklahoma ban against complying with the Real ID Act 2005. http://m.tulsaworld.com/opinionhomepage1/julie-delcour-play-it-again-uncle-sam-pretend-time-over/article_6bb5b280-6119-5b8b-a076-9d29b43548ff.html?mode=jqm Commissioner Thompson knows that there is a difference between being in material compliance (the first 18 benchmarks of the 39 benchmarks) and being in full compliance. The fact is as I stated earlier, no state is in full compliance (39 benchmarks) with the Real ID Act 2005.
Commissioner Thompson knows Oklahoma has in fact met 15 or 16 of the needed first 18 benchmarks of the Real ID Act 2005 to be considered in “material compliance”. Commissioner Thompson is misleading, intentionally or not, the good people of Oklahoma when he uses the 59% figure rather than admitting Oklahoma has met 80% of the benchmarks to be considered in material compliance. Material compliance is all that is needed for a state to be allowed to place a “Gold Star” on their licenses. The “Gold Star” is what signifies a state is in material compliance with the Real ID Act 2005. The Gold Star also signifies that the state driver’s licenses are acceptable for the “official purposes” of the Real ID Act 2005. http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20120131-real-id-deadlines-looms
The media should ask our good Commissioner Thompson why he is misleading the good people of Oklahoma. Perhaps if given the opportunity Commissioner Thompson will clarify his remarks. It is not the purpose of the Constitutional Alliance to stain a long honored career of the distinguished Commissioner but we would like for him to correct an incorrect statement that he made. Keep in mind we are not just talking about the material versus full compliance issue but also about needing a Real ID compliant driver’s license, passport or military ID card to be able to fly on a commercial airliner. The media has no problem speaking out and informing the public when the First Amendment rights of the media are violated. One should ask why the Oklahoma media is not as vigilant about doing their due diligence when the rights of citizens are being violated and/or when public officials are providing erroneous information to the people of Oklahoma and the rest of the country.
Finally, consider the words of Bruce Schneier, arguably the most highly regarded security and privacy expert in the United States who has testified many times before different committees in Congress:
“Both government agencies and corporations have cloaked themselves in so much secrecy that it’s impossible to verify anything they say; revelation after revelation demonstrates that they’ve been lying to us regularly and tell the truth only when there’s no alternative.” https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/08/restoring_trust.html
I have done what I have been called to do. What you do or do not do is now in your hands.
To some what I am about to say will make complete sense; to others it will not. I cannot truly appreciate what Jeremiah and Paul had to deal with. I can have a sense, even if only a very small sense of how they felt. In no way am I comparing myself to Jeremiah or Paul but I can say I am a Watchman on the Tower.
God Bless these United States of America
Bonus Guide: Get “Top 5 Secrets of The Real ID agenda (Including 1 which makes You less secure)” – a free guide that reveals secrets revealed by the proponents of The Real ID Act of 2005. Get the guide.
About The Author
Mark Lerner is co-founder of Constitutional Alliance, an alliance of groups and individuals who support the Mission Statement.
