|
|
 |
|
Real ID or Real Bad Idea?
by Sarah Baker
Personal identity ranges from individual characteristics to tangible forms of identification. Though every person possesses both, it seems that with current threats, changes, and security measures, the number of necessary forms of identification is growing exponentially. One of these soon-to-be nationally required forms is the Real ID, instated by the Real ID Act of 2005.
The Real ID Act was endorsed by the 9/11 Commission in an effort to help fight terrorism and reduce fraud. The act itself is a United States federal law that imposes new security standards for all state licenses and state identification cards, and is a rider to another terrorism-related act of the United Stated Congress. The act implements changes such as tightening laws on application for deportation of individuals for terrorist activity, funding certain reports and projects related to border security, and changing visa limits for temporary workers.
Though the ID's intended use is for "official purposes", which is defined by the Secretary of Homeland Security as being presented when boarding airplanes and entering federal buildings and nuclear power plants, in actuality, the Real ID will end up replacing all current IDs. In fact, once the Real ID Act is in full effect, old IDs will no longer be accepted. Differences between the current state identification cards or licenses and the Real IDs are quite drastic. Although they have similarities, the Real ID requires at a minimum, the following: full name, gender, date of birth, signature, facial photo, address, license or ID card number, and other various security features. The ID also requires proof of identity and United States citizenship or legal status of the applicant, verification of the source documents which must be provided by the applicant in order to obtain the ID, and security standards specifically for the offices that issue licenses and identification
cards.
The Real ID Act and what it entails has been a controversial issue since its creation. As always, there are two sides to the argument and each has valid reasoning as to why the instatement of this nationwide change may have both positive and negative effects. As noted by the Department of Homeland Security, documentation is just as important to terrorists as their weapons, and it is not overly difficult to obtain fraudulent documents. The main intention of the Real ID in regards to terrorism is to enhance security features to an extent that prevents, or at least decreases, the ease with which terrorists can acquire documents that allow them access to the United States and its resources. Although this is a concept designed as a way to keep the country safe, it is likely that the Real ID Act will prove to do little or nothing to prevent terrorism. Ultimately, if a terrorist or terrorist group is determined to gain entrance into the United States, it will be done in any and every
way possible.
Another speculated result of the Real ID Act is the push it will give the country towards a "surveillance society". The ID requires essentially every piece of information that gives an individual their "tangible" identity. In order to do this, all documentation identifying a person must be presented and given to offices that issue the ID cards, which is then fed into a computer and could potentially be accessed by a number of people. Moreover, this information is used to create the identification cards, all of which can be read by a machine, allowing the government to procure data related to any specific individual at any given time.
The privacy aspect of the Real ID situation also correlates to the cost of the entire operation. For the identification cards to be read, analyzed, and more significantly, made, the economic side is extreme and costly. The cost of the Real ID Act as a whole is an estimated 11 billion dollars, undeniably thrusting the country further into debt. The biggest costs, nearly 8.5 billion, are those associated with reissuing all 245 million American driver's licenses so that they comply with the new standards. The steep cost is going to be hard on states economically because each Department of Motor Vehicles must update its equipment with software that will issue and recognize the new identification cards. Costs will also be involved with training requirements directed to all relevant state officials for reading the IDs.
Aside from the cost and technological burden facing individual states, there will also be a burden placed on travelers that do not possess a Real ID. Though the ID is not required, anyone who chooses to remain solely with the current identification cards will be forced to take extra security measures when boarding aircrafts, and asked to present various forms of identification as opposed to the single Real ID card.
The Real ID Act goes into effect on May 11th of 2008, but many states within the country have been granted extensions. An extension, simply, is the recognition by the government that some states may take longer to implement the Real ID, and the Department of Homeland Security has offered those states more time to meet the specified requirements. For travelers, this means that the current state IDs and driver's licenses will still be a valid form of identification when boarding a federally-regulated airplane. However, if a state did not request an extension by March 31st of 2008, then state ID cards will not be accepted for the aforementioned official purposes beginning May 11th of this year. Even so, United States passports, military IDs, or government identification badges can still be presented as acceptable forms.
Maine, specifically, is an area of particular interest in the Real ID extension. The governor of Maine, John Baldacci, has agreed that he supports the increase in security standards for identification cards, but requested and was granted an extension. For Maine residents and residents of other states with the same granted extension, state IDs and licenses will be accepted until December 31st, 2009. In addition, states that meet certain measures for the security of their credentials and processes of licensing will automatically be granted a second extension, effective until May 11th, 2011. Theoretically, this will be done to give states an adequate amount of time to complete the full implementation.
It seems as though it will take no less than three years, 11 billion dollars, and extension after extension for the country to experience the complete effect of the Real ID Act. It took nothing more than the proposed idea of a national identity card to stir extreme opposition from many political groups, and the actual execution of the idea will only add intensity to an already heated situation. So how are citizens reacting to the prospect of replacing all known forms of identification for one, nationally accepted card containing a multitude of personal information? Not well, apparently. Many American citizens believe that the ID Act is an invasion of privacy, and an expense that will not be outweighed by potential benefits. Even the current presidential candidates shared their opinions, and only one, Senator John McCain, supports the change. Senator Barack Obama stated, "I do not support the Real ID program because it is an
unfunded mandate, and not enough work has been done with the states to help them implement the program." Senator Hilary Clinton believes in a serious reexamination of the Real ID Act, and Senator Ron Paul has similar views. Representative Mike Huckabee rather frankly commented, "...Real ID, that's a huge mistake. It's putting a burden on a state that should not be the state's function, which is to provide the frontline of national security defense at the hands of a DMV worker at a state office. That's absurd. And then not funding it. That's a real problem. If you're going to have federal program then the feds ought to pay for it." It is evident that the results of the upcoming presidential election may play a part in the outcome of the Real ID Act, based on the opinions of not only some of the candidates, but political representatives as well.
It is clear that individuals who will be affected by the Real ID Act are in agreement with the politicians who oppose, or at least are not in full support of, the change that is expected to take place. From high school students to adult members of the community, the thought of the national identity card raises questions and concerns. Stephanie Bates, an eighteen-year-old with a Maine state driver's license, military identification card, and passport, shared this when asked her opinion on the Real ID change. "I think it's a waste of time and money, and it's going to be hard for all of the states to get new technology just to issue the new IDs. The economy is already not doing well and another 11 billion dollars spent on something like that definitely won't help." Many of Bates' peers feel the same way, based on the reaction from numerous people not only in the same age bracket, but adults who greet the issue with confusion.
Marsea Spiegel, a local Freeport resident and frequent traveler commented, "I don't get it - they can look up your name with your license and get all of the information they need. I think it's stupid. It will end up being a huge cost for states to get completely new technology and as applicants for the new IDs; we should not have to pay for any of it."
A surprising number of United States citizens know little to nothing about the Real ID Act, and the majority of those who are familiar with the change have negative opinions about it. This raises serious questions about the governments' effectiveness in informing the country about the new identification process, when it should in fact, be a main concern. The citizens of the country will become the applicants for the Real IDs, and a lack of knowledge on the topic is doing nothing to strengthen the acceptance of the act among people who will be experiencing it. States in general are also dealing with unease when it comes to the situation; the time it will take, the cost it will create, and the hardships it will place on relevant offices and state employees. It will clearly be a task for the government as well, who must, in order for the change to evolve, provide each state with sufficient information and training.
As far as the expected benefits are concerned, the lack of solid understanding for how a national identification card will protect the country is vague and incomplete. Though security may be enhanced, it will end up serving as just another obstacle for terrorists wishing to enter the country by way of documentation. The less than concrete idea seems decent in theory, but the speculated reality of the Real ID Act is one of negative or no effect. That is, of course, speculation, and the actual outcome of the change will remain unknown until the implementation is further underway. There is no doubt that challenges will present themselves, inquires will be made, and opinions will continue to be formed, so for now it seems best to consider the impact a national identification card would have on the United States and its citizens.
| |
|
|
