As an immigrant I read the constitution several times, quite carefully. Still I have been unable to find any mentioning of a right to present false IDs. However this is in effect the claim set forth by the state of Maine, soon by to be joined by several others. These states, and allied privacy advocates, do not object to the requirement that those who negotiate public roads must carry a driver license. They object “only” the new measures that seek to make it difficult to falsify these documents. They reveal all the chutzpah of a under aged college kid who demands a right to Xerox the ID of an older fraternity brother, so that he can booze all he wants. The hell with law and public safety.
I chaired a small group of security and privacy experts who studied the existing forms of identification, for the Markle Foundation. We learned that the most widely used ID, the state issued driver licenses, are extremely easy to forge. In a test conducted by the Government Accounting Office, home made driver licenses fooled the border patrol a cool 25 out of 25 times. A citizen who already has a driver’s license from one state, can get up to 49 such licenses from the other states, and dole out these “extras” to all comers. In effect, the 9/11 terrorists used such licenses to open bank accounts and travel by air. (The states do not share information with each other about who already received a driver license, as long as those involved have not committed a crime and do not drive a commercial vehicle).
Now comes the big bad federal government and has the temerity of insisting that those who obtain a driver license (or renew one) show up in person rather than apply for them via the mail. In this way the states are to be able to verify that, first of all the person exists, and second that he is who he claims to be. These measures that should have been introduced five years ago, say on 9/12.
The Maine legislature started the national campaign against vetted driver licenses, by passing on January 26 a resolution against complying with the Real ID Act of 2005. Other states, including Georgia, Wyoming and New Mexico are expected to follow in Maine’s footsteps. The Real ID law, to take effect in May 2008 (what is the rush?), rules that driver licenses that do not meet the federal standards will not be useable after that date in entering federal building, flying, and opening bank accounts.
The main complaint is that by setting federal standards rather than allowing each state to follow its own lights and refuse to collaborate with the other states, the US is moving toward the repugnant national ID card. However vetted driver licenses differ profoundly from such cards in two major ways. No one is required to have them on their person at all times, and people cannot be stopped without cause and confronted with the demand that they identify themselves. The vetted licenses are to be used only if and when a person seeks—voluntarily-- to enter a controlled public space such as a court house, legislature, or secured parts of airports.
Privacy advocates such as Jim Harper of the Cato institute argue that these driver licenses lead us down a slippery slope toward an Orwellian police state, based on national ID cards. However the proper response to such a danger is to enact laws that ensure that authorities can demand the presentation of driver licenses only to vet the ID of those who wish to enter secured public spaces—rather favor licenses that are not worth much more than the pieces of paper on which they printed.
Comments