PI UNION MEMBER: Author of "Police arrest people for refusing to ID themselves?"

[Christopher Shane Stoneham]

I would like to bring up the another point on this topic.
next year in may we will start seeing REAL ID's which are basically a national ID card with an RF chip implanted. How is this going to not be in breach of privacy? To be able to locate a any person with a card at any time in order to control their movements?

I mean seriously we are worried about flashing ID's....but this point is moot dont ya think when the government can literally scan you and know every little thing they want about you.

Isnt that Invasion of Privacy. Bush Signed this bill in 2005 and it will be implemented in may of 2008.

I find this whole thing very creepy and absurdly invasive.

[Michael Harris]

Christopher,

First, privacy under the law and privacy as "the people" perceive it are not the same. Example - outside of your own home (the yard does not count), you have no expectation of privacy anywhere except in restrooms and changing rooms (actually, you have them in hotels, but not your friends' homes). For your data, if the law says that governments can have access to the data, you have no expectation of privacy of that data - by the governments.

Second, there are several parts to the REAL ID Act. One part requires that all the states have driver's licenses that are are to counterfeit. New Jersey has these and it is much easier to get a US passport than a NJ DL (unless you pay off the clerk). Only idiots and incompetent politicians have a problem with this. Another part of the REAL ID Act allows for the states (licensing and police at all levels) to share that information with the Federal government and with other states. If you cannot trust your own state, then you will never trust the other 50+ governments (actually, many, many agencies per state, territory, and federal government).

The first part is expensive, but should be done anyway. The other part(s) are even more expensive. Many states have passed laws forbidding implementation of the REAL ID Act (they might think they are laws, but are most likely non-binding resolutions). Or the states may refuse to fund the mandate. The use of the term Mandate implies that the Act is imposed on the states and someone has to pay for it. With Mandates, we expect the issuer to pay. Not so with the REAL ID Act - the states are expected to pay.

Given the expense of implementing the REAL ID Act, I doubt that it will go into effect in 2008 as planned.

This still leaves us with your question of privacy. The issue of privacy does not exist. The federal government has the right to mandate the sharing of the data. The real issue is the security of your information. Remember, the government has the data on you right now; but only your state. The state police may have access, but the county and local police or sheriffs do not have access. And no other state has access. Your privacy is not the issue. Again, the security of the information is the issue.

Your identification, your driving transcript, your criminal records, etc. will be shared by all states at all levels of government and be the federal government. Half the population of the country will have access to your data. With 200 million individuals in the system, no one has the time to look for your data without cause.

I like the aspect of the REAL ID Act that improves the security of the drivers' licenses. In an ideal, secure world, I would love to see the police have access to criminal and driving records across the country. The only place where the police are always able to get your criminal records and driving transcripts is CSI and CSI: Miami.

The rest of the REAL ID Act is too expensive - today. Too many states have passed legislation preventing the funding of implementation.

Do we need to be concerned about our privacy - in general, yes; in the case, no. The data is out there and can be shared by court order now.

Keep the questions coming.