PASS-ID Act

[CuttingEdge100]

PASS ID Act is REAL ID 2.0
URL: http://epic.org/privacy/pass_id/

On June 15, 2009, S. 1261, the "Providing for Additional Security in States' Identification Act of 2009" or the "Pass ID Act" was introduced in the Senate. If the bill becomes law, it would establish a national ID card. Its provisions are similar to those contained in the controversial REAL ID Act. REAL ID has faced ongoing criticisms from state governments, technical experts, and privacy advocates. The REAL ID implementation posed a number of privacy threats because of document collection, retention, sharing, and use.

In 2007, EPIC and the Privacy Coalition organized a national campaign against REAL ID implementation.
The PASS ID Act states that, beginning one year after the final regulations are issued, no federal agency can accept a driver's license or state-issued ID card unless the issuing state is "materially compliant." Material compliance is determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, based on whether a state has begun to issue PASS ID drivers licenses and state issued ID cards. The PASS ID bill then sets a deadline of six years after the final rule that prohibits all federal agencies from accepting any non-compliant drivers license or state identification card for any official purpose (e.g. boarding an airplane, applying for Social Security benefits, student loans, opening a post office box, entering a federal building, etc). This raises questions regarding the rights of the physically challenged, children, poor, and the elderly who receive benefits or services from federal government agencies. There are reasons why each may not hold a federally sanctioned, state-issued identification document. The PASS ID Act does not specify limits on the requirement of an approved identification document to access federal government services, benefits, or meet with federal employees in official settings. In effect, individuals will lose some level of citizenship and rights should they not hold a PASS ID. Further, there is no reason to assume that local and state governments and private sector entities will not develop requirements that persons seeking services must hold a PASS ID. Compliance means that, over time, all those issued drivers licenses and state ID cards will face the challenge of complying with the PASS ID rules written by DHS. This is the same situation that REAL ID attempted to create, and 24 states rejected.

The PASS ID Act gives the Secretary of Homeland Security "unreviewable discretion" to issue driver's licenses and state ID cards under the Minimum Issuance Standards Section (c)(2)(B) "Evidence of Lawful Status" items (v), (xii), as well as under Section (C) Temporary Drivers Licenses and Identification Cards item (i). The term "unreviewable discretion" raises questions about the definition of this term as it relates to oversight, privacy protections, and judicial review. This new authority in the context of the PASS ID bill will extend drivers licenses or state identification cards to persons who might otherwise be denied them. Extending rights or benefits of citizenship or legal residence status is a positive thing, but care should be taken to ensure that this authority is not expanded to include the power to withhold the issuance of a drivers license or state issued ID card to someone who is otherwise qualified to receive one.

PASS ID directs states to "[e]stablish an effective procedure to confirm or verify a renewing applicant’s information." States are provided access to two federal government databases: SSOLV (SSN Verification) and SAVE (Immigration status) at no cost. States are required to collect a wide range of original documents from applicants and retain them in digital form for as long as the document is authorized for use.

This bill is currently designated S.1261, and is basically the REAL ID act all over again. It essentially establishes a National-ID Card program which doubles as a driver's license. It will be required to use any federal facilities, and will give DHS unreviewable discretion in establishing requirements for these cards.

They contain an RFID chip which allows a person to be tracked whenever they carry the card on them, which is required most of the time as it is also to be used as a driver's license.

With this, a seamless network of RFID detectors would be placed all over the country, if not the world, which would allow us, including me and you to be tracked wherever you go.

The last time this was proposed, it initially was rejected, and the government ultimately attached it to a must-pass bill regarding troop-funding and it unanimously passed. It was only due to the fact there was a lot of opposition to it (on privacy grounds obviously) that states passed legislation to counter it. This should have obviously been a hint that it was not wanted. But, you know the adage "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again..."


I'd like to hear your opinions


CuttingEdge100

 

[CorporalClegg]

I think it's fucking ridiculous; I also think this is better served in TNZ.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Corporal Clegg,

I think it's fucking ridiculous; I also think this is better served in TNZ.

I respectfully disagree, it involves technology, particularly the use of an RFID chip installed and the fact that this will allow all of us, me, you and, everybody, to be tracked wherever we go.

This is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind

 

[iguana_tonante]

Heh. Bout time you had one. All this "ID is fascism!" is kinda silly in my opinion.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

Corporal Clegg,

I think it's fucking ridiculous; I also think this is better served in TNZ.

I respectfully disagree, it involves technology, particularly the use of an RFID chip installed and the fact that this will allow all of us, me, you and, everybody, to be tracked wherever we go.

This is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind

There is no requirement for RFID chips in drivers licenses. Tens or hundreds of millions of RFID readers would need to be installed to cover the entire US (even if active RFID chips are used in the hypothetical conspiracy theory), so it's complete paranoia to think that the government will be tracking everyone everywhere.

I see no problem with a uniform set of guidelines that states must follow when issuing ID. It's not even a national ID card.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Another serious worry about this bill is it's more likely to pass as the demands and financial loads on the states are lower

 

[CuttingEdge100]

r serious worry about this bill is it's more likely to pass as the demands and financial loads on the states are lower


PlixTixiPlix.

There is no requirement for RFID chips in drivers licenses.

It's highly likely that RFID's would be used because the REAL ID act employed them, also later proposed Enhanced-IDs also called for an RFID chip being used.

Tens or hundreds of millions of RFID readers would need to be installed to cover the entire US

I doubt it would require tends to hundreds of millions of RFID readers to cover the whole US. Depending on the sensitivity of the scanners, and the broadcasting capability of the RFID chip used it could vary wildly.

There are a number of analysts who have speculated that the US will create a seamless network of RFID readers, so this is not just some paranoid conjecture.

I see no problem with a uniform set of guidelines that states must follow when issuing ID. It's not even a national ID card.

My problem includes the following issues

- The fact that the cards may include some kind of tracking technology on them such as an RFID tag. I don't commit any crime, I don't do anything wrong, the government has no legitimate cause to track me wherever I go.

- I don't think this is the case (but DHS will have unreviewable authority to revise the standards for the ID-card to include additional criteria) but another issue could include the amount of data the government will have on us. A country founded on the principles of freedom should not be gathering excessively large amounts of data on people.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

r serious worry about this bill is it's more likely to pass as the demands and financial loads on the states are lower


PlixTixiPlix.

There is no requirement for RFID chips in drivers licenses.

It's highly likely that RFID's would be used because the REAL ID act employed them, also later proposed Enhanced-IDs also called for an RFID chip being used.

I'm guessing you didn't read the link I provided, which discussed the Homeland Security requirements for licenses under the REAL ID act. It specifically states that they did not require RFID.

Tens or hundreds of millions of RFID readers would need to be installed to cover the entire US

I doubt it would require tends to hundreds of millions of RFID readers to cover the whole US. Depending on the sensitivity of the scanners, and the broadcasting capability of the RFID chip used it could vary wildly.

There are a number of analysts who have speculated that the US will create a seamless network of RFID readers, so this is not just some paranoid conjecture.

An active RFID chip can broadcast over maybe 200 m (an area of 0.04 km2) so it would require 250 million receivers to cover the entire 10 million km2 of the US. Even if you left out parts of Alaska or Nevada where it's particularly unihabited, you would still need tens of millions.

I see no problem with a uniform set of guidelines that states must follow when issuing ID. It's not even a national ID card.

My problem includes the following issues

- The fact that the cards may include some kind of tracking technology on them such as an RFID tag. I don't commit any crime, I don't do anything wrong, the government has no legitimate cause to track me wherever I go.

- I don't think this is the case (but DHS will have unreviewable authority to revise the standards for the ID-card to include additional criteria) but another issue could include the amount of data the government will have on us. A country founded on the principles of freedom should not be gathering excessively large amounts of data on people.

Then you definitely should support Pass-ID, because it removes the requirement in the Real ID act (which has already passed) compelling states to share their databases.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

MESSAGE DELETED BY CUTTINGEDGE100

 

[CuttingEdge100]

PlixTixiPlix,

I'm guessing you didn't read the link I provided, which discussed the Homeland Security requirements for licenses under the REAL ID act. It specifically states that they did not require RFID.

Well it may not require it, but it probably will end up having them, as the REAL ID act had them, and later Enhanced ID's also had them too.

Then you definitely should support Pass-ID, because it removes the requirement in the Real ID act (which has already passed) compelling states to share their databases.

But it still gives DHS unreviewable authority to change the requirements any time it chooses. Even if an RFID chip wasn't required initially, it could be made a requirement immediately after. Who knows what other changes could be made?


CuttingEdge100

 

[farmkid]

Corporal Clegg,

I think it's fucking ridiculous; I also think this is better served in TNZ.

I respectfully disagree, it involves technology, particularly the use of an RFID chip installed and the fact that this will allow all of us, me, you and, everybody, to be tracked wherever we go.

This is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind

There is no requirement for RFID chips in drivers licenses. Tens or hundreds of millions of RFID readers would need to be installed to cover the entire US (even if active RFID chips are used in the hypothetical conspiracy theory), so it's complete paranoia to think that the government will be tracking everyone everywhere.

I see no problem with a uniform set of guidelines that states must follow when issuing ID. It's not even a national ID card.

I don't like the idea of the government tracking me everywhere I go. However, as I think about it, I can't think of any way it could cause me harm. The only way I can think it might affect me at all (beside the tax money to pay for it, or course) is that the data might be used to exonerate me if I were to be wrongfully accused of a crime. Otherwise, there's no reason the government would care where I was at any given time.

I can't see the government installing a network of RFID readers to track everyone's movement. It would be hugely expensive with little to no benefit. Why would the government even want to track everyone?

 

[PlixTixiplik]

PlixTixiPlix,

I'm guessing you didn't read the link I provided, which discussed the Homeland Security requirements for licenses under the REAL ID act. It specifically states that they did not require RFID.

Well it may not require it, but it probably will end up having them, as the REAL ID act had them, and later Enhanced ID's also had them too.

Then you definitely should support Pass-ID, because it removes the requirement in the Real ID act (which has already passed) compelling states to share their databases.

But it still gives DHS unreviewable authority to change the requirements any time it chooses. Even if an RFID chip wasn't required initially, it could be made a requirement immediately after. Who knows what other changes could be made?


CuttingEdge100

The Real ID act did not require RFID chips. I don't know how many times I need to say that. In 2005, the bill mandated that state IDs had to conform to Homeland Security requirements. Homeland Security issued those requirements in early 2007 and chose a 2-D barcode instead of RFID.

The regulations propose the use of the 2-D barcode already used by 46 jurisdictions (45 States and the District of Columbia). DHS leans towards encrypting the data on the barcode as a privacy protection and requests comments on how to proceed given operational considerations.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

PlixTixiPlik,

The Real ID act did not require RFID chips. I don't know how many times I need to say that. In 2005, the bill mandated that state IDs had to conform to Homeland Security requirements. Homeland Security issued those requirements in early 2007 and chose a 2-D barcode instead of RFID.

Well I did hear a lot of data about RFID chips being used, and the Enhanced ID which was conceived later (2008-2009?) had RFID.

The regulations propose the use of the 2-D barcode already used by 46 jurisdictions (45 States and the District of Columbia). DHS leans towards encrypting the data on the barcode as a privacy protection and requests comments on how to proceed given operational considerations.

Is a 2D barcode like the kind you have on a credit card?


Farmkid,

I don't like the idea of the government tracking me everywhere I go.

Which is good enough reason to oppose this bill. Since it is a senate bill, contacting your senators would be a wise idea.

However, as I think about it, I can't think of any way it could cause me harm. The only way I can think it might affect me at all (beside the tax money to pay for it, or course) is that the data might be used to exonerate me if I were to be wrongfully accused of a crime. Otherwise, there's no reason the government would care where I was at any given time.

You operate under the attitude that "if you're doing nothing wrong, you shouldn't have anything to hide". The government shouldn't be monitoring you if they have no reason to suspect you've done anything wrong, plain and simple.

Additionally, it should also be noted that all the data collected on all the locations you go could be used to infer large amounts of information about you. Who knows what that information will be used for? Also, who's to say they won't make a mistake and mismanage the data.

Why would the government even want to track everyone?

Are you serious?

 

[cardinal biggles]

I don't like the idea of the government tracking me everywhere I go. However, as I think about it, I can't think of any way it could cause me harm. The only way I can think it might affect me at all (beside the tax money to pay for it, or course) is that the data might be used to exonerate me if I were to be wrongfully accused of a crime.

That's assuming you always remember to carry it on your person.

I can't see the government installing a network of RFID readers to track everyone's movement. It would be hugely expensive with little to no benefit.

This is the biggest sticking point, as far as I'm concerned. The sheer ridiculous number of RFID readers required for this system to be remotely effective is prohibitive.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Driver's licenses are already de facto national ID's anyway, so I don't see why this is such a big deal.

As for the tracking: Meh. As has been pointed out, the government has neither the time nor the resources to track each and every one of us, assuming they could even get the required readers installed all over the place anyway (which they probably will not). Besides, it might even help. If you are kidnapped or otherwise go missing, it might help emergency workers locate you. And I do always carry my license.

 

[JiNX-01]

I think it's fucking ridiculous; I also think this is better served in TNZ.

What? Those of us who don't belong to TNZ don't have the right to discuss this outrageous attempt by the U.S. government to force American citizens to carry identification at all times?

Say goodbye to the Constitution.

Bastards.

 

[farmkid]

However, as I think about it, I can't think of any way it could cause me harm. The only way I can think it might affect me at all (beside the tax money to pay for it, or course) is that the data might be used to exonerate me if I were to be wrongfully accused of a crime. Otherwise, there's no reason the government would care where I was at any given time.

You operate under the attitude that "if you're doing nothing wrong, you shouldn't have anything to hide". The government shouldn't be monitoring you if they have no reason to suspect you've done anything wrong, plain and simple.

Additionally, it should also be noted that all the data collected on all the locations you go could be used to infer large amounts of information about you. Who knows what that information will be used for? Also, who's to say they won't make a mistake and mismanage the data.

Why would the government even want to track everyone?

Are you serious?

Yes, I am serious. I honestly can't think of any reason why the government would invest the huge amount of money necessary to track me. Why would they care? What could they possibly do with the information that would be of any value to them or could harm me? If I were a terrorist or criminal of some sort, they would be interested in me, but I'm not, so why bother. Please don't confuse this with "if you're doing nothing wrong, you shouldn't have anything to hide". That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying my life is so boring and uninteresting to the government that there's no reason for them even to look, so I don't have to hide anything.

You sound like something of a conspiracy nut. You're very worried about the government tracking you, but why would they bother? What could they use the information for? If the government did establish the infrastructure required to track everyone, they wouldn't waste their money and resources compiling data on every person in the country. The cost of generating, compiling, storing, and sorting through all that data would be so cost prohibitive as to make it virtually impossible. Such a program would generate enormous amounts of data and the actually useful data would be so minuscule as to be essentially non-existent. It wouldn't be a needle in a haystack, but a grass stem in a very large alfalfa hay stack. If such a system were built, it would be used to track people they had already established an interest in by some other method.

 

[JiNX-01]

Corporal Clegg,

I respectfully disagree, it involves technology, particularly the use of an RFID chip installed and the fact that this will allow all of us, me, you and, everybody, to be tracked wherever we go.

This is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind

There is no requirement for RFID chips in drivers licenses. Tens or hundreds of millions of RFID readers would need to be installed to cover the entire US (even if active RFID chips are used in the hypothetical conspiracy theory), so it's complete paranoia to think that the government will be tracking everyone everywhere.

I see no problem with a uniform set of guidelines that states must follow when issuing ID. It's not even a national ID card.

I don't like the idea of the government tracking me everywhere I go. However, as I think about it, I can't think of any way it could cause me harm. The only way I can think it might affect me at all (beside the tax money to pay for it, or course) is that the data might be used to exonerate me if I were to be wrongfully accused of a crime. Otherwise, there's no reason the government would care where I was at any given time.

I can't see the government installing a network of RFID readers to track everyone's movement. It would be hugely expensive with little to no benefit. Why would the government even want to track everyone?

Yeah, you just keep thinking that way.

Just remember: The 9/11 commission blamed the terrorists' success on a lack of imagination on OUR part.

Read this before you dismiss RFID technology as no big deal:

http://cyberinsecure.com/rfid-smart...-crack-it-in-minutes-using-inexpensive-tools/

 

[farmkid]

Yeah, you just keep thinking that way.

Just remember: The 9/11 commission blamed the terrorists' success on a lack of imagination on OUR part.

Read this before you dismiss RFID technology as no big deal:

http://cyberinsecure.com/rfid-smart...-crack-it-in-minutes-using-inexpensive-tools/

Okay, so the encryption on those particular ones aren't well protected. I'm not sure how that applies here.

Your second line seems to contradict your first. You start out suggesting that I'm naive and that the government really does want to track everyone and that I should be scared of this. However, if the 9/11 terrorists succeeded partly because we weren't imaginative enough, I can only conclude that you're saying that if the government were more imaginative they would have instituted such a tracking program earlier and could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. Are you arguing for or against this?

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me just how I could be harmed by the government knowing where I am, or what good they could get out of it, or even to explain why it would be worth so much to them.

 

[Scout101]

I just don't see a problem. Honestly, making a uniform id system instead of the current state driver license cockup would probably be a benefit. Something more secure, that would have a more central database instead of each state running their own system, harder to duplicate, etc.

The RFID thing is just too complicated to ever roll out and have work, so not worried about it. And frankly, they could get the exact same info off of your cellphone with a lot less ease, and I don't see people calling for those to go away...