What is 'real ID act'?

[Graham2001]

Over in New Zealand a knife wielding passenger tried to hijack a commuter plane to Australia.

This has led to the usual furious 'debate' over airline security and of course conspiracy theorists have started butting in.

One of the posters bought up something called the "...real ID act..." which supposedly means that all citizens (of the US/UK) will have to possess an ID card fitted with an RFID chip that will have all their information on it including DNA.

Originally Posted by yann crusoe (germany)

No. It seems that people are all too eager to give their liberties away when anything happens and the government are keen to take our liberties away to make us "safer". When these things happen, citizens pay for it with their freedom. We are heading towards the Orwellian State. The real ID act passed in the US + new laws like the home security act are all new and were passed without public consent, but people are made to believe they are safer with these new laws, even though your DNA, retina, fingerprints are all to be on one card equipped with an RFID chip (radio frequency identification). This card your drivers license, passport, bank card, ID card etc etc. Its everything and they want everyone to have one and soon. I think people need to wake up and stop looking to the government to save them because in the end we will be enslaved. Incidences just like this are exactly what the government needs to convince the people to get chipped. If you think its bollocks - look it up. The real ID act has passed in the US, the UK and soon NZ for sure. All money, details, sex, DNA on those cards. Wake up people, dont let it happen.

I've never heard this particular version though I have seen several ones invoving having RFID chips implanted (usually in your head) for the same purpose.

Can anyone here provide more information on just what Act the author is referring to, or just which wack-a-doo the author of the above has got his ideas from?

[Gravy]

Here's info in the Real ID act in the U.S. I don't know what's being done in Britain.

http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7...0358--,00.html

[T.A.M.]

I somehow doubt there will be any form of "having your DNA Code" on a chip.

Give me a break...

EDIT: Thanks for the link gravy...I see no mention of retina scans or DNA Code in that "Act" description...why am I not surprised.

TAM

[BigAl]

Bob Barr, an Amercian conservative has written about his objections to the Real ID law. If his name doesn't ring any bells look at his bio on his web site.

http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=918

FWIW, 17 states have passed laws barring the implementation of Real ID for various reasons.

http://epic.org/privacy/id-cards/

Lots of details here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act

[T.A.M.]

I have no comment, mainly through a lack of reading on the subject, on whether there should be a "real ID" card program in the USA, or in Canada for that matter.

My point is merely on the issue of DNA Code and Retina Scanning, which I see no evidence for in the "Act" description.

TAM

[defaultdotxbe]

looking at this on wikipedia:

Quote:

Data requirements

Each card must include, at a minimum, the person's full legal name, signature, date of birth, gender, driver's license or identification card number. It also includes a photograph of the person's face and the address of principal residence. It is required to have physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes. In North Carolina, these new security features include a hologram of a map of the entire North American continent[2].
It will use common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements (the details of which are not spelled out, but left to the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and the states, to regulate).

i dont see how this is any different than the state-issued drivers license i have now

it has my full name, DOB, gender, DL number, address and picture (it also has my height, weight and eye color) it has tamper security, as well as a "common machine-readable technology" called a barcode

personally i support a national ID and a national drivers license because it would mean someone checking IDs (in an airport, liquor store, etc) doesnt need to be familiar with 50 state IDs to check for fakes, they would just need to know the national ID

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by BigAl

Bob Barr, an Amercian conservative has written about his objections to the Real ID law.

Originally Posted by Bob Barr

A person not possessing a Real ID Act-compliant identification card could not enter any federal building, or an office of his or her congressman or senator or the U.S. Capitol. This effectively denies that person their fundamental rights to assembly and to petition the government as guaranteed in the First Amendment.

Well I can't contact my representative unless I have some means of communicating with them. Is it unconstitutional for me to not have a telephone?

Originally Posted by Bob Barr

A veteran may be denied access to a VA hospital because he or she lacks the requisite Real ID card, perhaps because they did not have the money required to purchase it or because they could not locate the background forms the Department of Homeland Security required to obtain one.

Why are veterans too poor or stupid to follow directions?

[Edx]

I remember seeing a clip on a news show where this FBI lady was saying they wanted to build up a massive database of peoples retina information, but she recognised there was a security problem they hadent solved yet that if someone steals your credit card you can cancel it and get a new one, but if someone steals your retina information you cant get another eye! . When governments are so inept they will loose computer disks with the personal details of thousands of people like they did in the Uk, thats a very important concern!

[swskeptic]

This "REAL ID ACT" stuff is so overblown. I hate how Conspiracy Theorists keep bringing that up as proof that our government (along with all the others in the world) are trying to form a One World Government.

It's such crap, and just like defaultdotxbe it's essentially exactly what everyone has now.

I don't think the Conspiracy Theorists would be all over it so much if it wasn't going to include a hologram of the North American Continent. Being that the new ID is supposed to make travel between countries easier, it doesn't exactly seem diabolical to put that on the ID's.

[defaultdotxbe]

been reading up more on the real ID, and its not a national ID system as i had initially thought, its a set of minimum standard for state-issued IDs

as i mentioned previously, my drivers license already meets those requirements, it also met the requirements for obtaining the ID, so my state wont have to change anything to comply with the real ID act (BTW my state was compliant in 1998 when i got my drivers license, so it seems the requirements are neither new nor extreme)

[swskeptic]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

It seems the requirements are neither new nor extreme

I think the wiki article mentions that somewhere also. I'm not positive though. Either way, the REAL ID is really nothing but a standardized system with maybe a few extra security measures thrown in.

No matter though, the Conspiracy Theorists just claim instead that the fact that it sets national standards for cards makes it a national ID card system.

Although everything else basically is left up to the states.

[ServiceSoon]

Would a national ID card have prevented this from happening?

When the real ID was first unveiled in America many critics thought it would make use of RFID technology. I think that is where the author's story came from. Whether using RFID technology was never discussed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or if the DHS scrapped that idea after the public outcry, I'm not sure.

If a national ID card is more secure (notice I didn't say it would be) imagine how much more secure a national ID card containing DNA would be. Like a lot of governmental programs I could see this as a process. I have noticed many governmental programs that make use of gradualism. Although I have to admit I can’t tell if it was planned or if the future leaders of the country picked up where the previous leaders left off.

[swskeptic]

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

imagine how much more secure a national ID card containing DNA would be.

Any security benefits are completely outweighed by the dangers of having your damn DNA on your little plastic card in your pocket.

And people bitch about losing there SSN...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

If a national ID card is more secure (notice I didn't say it would be) imagine how much more secure a national ID card containing DNA would be.

What would be the point? For that to be of any use as identification, you'd have to provide a DNA sample for comparison on-the-spot. I'm not too sure about the state of the technology, but I don't think a portable and quick DNA analyzer exists.

ETA: Also, you leave samples of your DNA everywhere you go!

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by BigAl

Bob Barr, an Amercian conservative has written about his objections to the Real ID law. If his name doesn't ring any bells look at his bio on his web site.

http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=918

We remember Barr the former congressman very well here in Georgia. While I don’t care much for his ultra-conservative political views, he is quite sincere about his support for personal liberties. The man does stand on his principles and it was his lack of support for some provisions of the first Patriot Act that caused him to loose his seat in congress when the Bush and the GOP targeted him for defeat in 2002.

[GreNME]

I hate the RealID Act and what it will mean for our civil liberties in terms of protection from undue surveillance and the possibility of mistaken prosecution. On top of that, I'm a (computer) security guy and as such tend to err on the side of paranoid in terms of keeping my privacy. When I heard about the use of RFID I began looking into how easy it was to counterfeit-- not surprisingly, the answer is "very easy." If I'm eventually required to have a national ID (since I do travel across the country often enough), I'll definitely be looking into how easy it would be for crooks and suspicious folk to counterfeit the ID.

The biggest flaw in any identification system I have ever read about being introduced is the fact that identity theft is so easy I could probably teach most of you how to do it in the span of a few weeks. The thing all of these identification systems are counting on is that most people just won't go through the trouble to fake anything, and the reality is that people go through that much trouble already.

I have no idea where they are getting these people who come up with these asinine plans, but all they would need is a small committee of real security experts to poke holes in their ideas if they really wanted to know whether their plans were nothing but a costly waste of time (and money).

[swskeptic]

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

ETA: Also, you leave samples of your DNA everywhere you go!

Good point, I think that may have been directed.

I'm still not very fond of the idea though, like you said, what would be the point? And for that matter, what's the point of the REAL ID ACT in the first place of most state ID's all ready meet the requirements? Am I missing something here?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

If a national ID card is more secure (notice I didn't say it would be) imagine how much more secure a national ID card containing DNA would be. Like a lot of governmental programs I could see this as a process. I have noticed many governmental programs that make use of gradualism. Although I have to admit I can’t tell if it was planned or if the future leaders of the country picked up where the previous leaders left off.

As Cl1mh4224rd mentioned, unless you have some way of easily comparing DNA, it's really not all that secure. Of course, assuming that at some time in the future such technology were available, why would it be a problem to have such data on your card? What could people do with it they can't do now? What could they do with it they couldn't do with the hypothetical DNA scanner?

Originally Posted by swskeptic

Any security benefits are completely outweighed by the dangers of having your damn DNA on your little plastic card in your pocket.

And people bitch about losing there SSN...

But that's the point: a SSN is just a number. Once you know it, that's all you need. With a DNA record, even if you had my card, you wouldn't have my DNA. Assuming a DNA scanner could exist, there's no way you could pass yourself off as me (without me helping, at least - Anyone seen GATTACA?).

I just don't see how this is supposed to be some "gradual" step towards some nefarious goal....

[Darat]

There is no "real ID act" in the UK.

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by swskeptic

And for that matter, what's the point of the REAL ID ACT in the first place of most state ID's all ready meet the requirements? Am I missing something here?

most states, but not all, basically it means, for example, if you are boarding a plane and the person checks your state ID, he doesnt have to sit and think "ok, nebraska, is this valid or does he need a second form of ID?" and then the guy from oklahoma wondering why he needs 2 IDs while the guy from illinois just needs his drivers license

eliminating confusion like this is one of the reasons i support a standardized national drivers license (that and i got fined 500 dollars for selling cigarettes to a guy with a obviously fake michegan drivers license, but i didnt know it was fake because i didnt know what a michegan drivers license was supposed to look like)

Originally Posted by Horatius

But that's the point: a SSN is just a number. Once you know it, that's all you need. With a DNA record, even if you had my card, you wouldn't have my DNA. Assuming a DNA scanner could exist, there's no way you could pass yourself off as me (without me helping, at least - Anyone seen GATTACA?).

this would be fine as long as DNA scans are always done in person, and not via any kind of remote means like over the internet

i woudl expect that should DNA replace the SSN people will want some way of sending the ID over the internet, so there will be a market for USB (or whatever standard we have in the future) DNA scanners, so now you need some way of ensuring the DNA being sent to the remote computer actually comes from your body and isnt simply being passed via software that spoofs a scanner

[swskeptic]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

most states, but not all, basically it means, for example, if you are boarding a plane and the person checks your state ID, he doesnt have to sit and think "ok, nebraska, is this valid or does he need a second form of ID?" and then the guy from oklahoma wondering why he needs 2 IDs while the guy from illinois just needs his drivers license

eliminating confusion like this is one of the reasons i support a standardized national drivers license (that and i got fined 500 dollars for selling cigarettes to a guy with a obviously fake michegan drivers license, but i didnt know it was fake because i didnt know what a michegan drivers license was supposed to look like)

Well, I never said I wasn't for it, honestly, I guess I'm kind of indifferent. I don't see much harm in it, but I don't see much good in it either really, except to avoid situations like yours.

I just don't see why it is such a HUGE issue with privacy advocates. I mean, what privacy is this card invading that I don't know about?

[ServiceSoon]

Originally Posted by swskeptic

Any security benefits are completely outweighed by the dangers of having your damn DNA on your little plastic card in your pocket.

And people bitch about losing there SSN...

The faulty logic in this argument has already been discussed.

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

Would a national ID card have prevented this from happening?

Since nobody answered this question I can only assume that a national ID card wouldn't have prevented this from happening.

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

most states, but not all, basically it means, for example, if you are boarding a plane and the person checks your state ID, he doesnt have to sit and think "ok, nebraska, is this valid or does he need a second form of ID?" and then the guy from oklahoma wondering why he needs 2 IDs while the guy from illinois just needs his drivers license

eliminating confusion like this is one of the reasons i support a standardized national drivers license (that and i got fined 500 dollars for selling cigarettes to a guy with a obviously fake michegan drivers license, but i didnt know it was fake because i didnt know what a michegan drivers license was supposed to look like)

Who represented you in this case? BTW there was a inititive between the states to create standards for the state's ID's before the federal gov stepped in.

Originally Posted by Darat

There is no "real ID act" in the UK.

Are you saying there isn't currently a national ID system or there is no legislature? The word 'no' makes it hard for me to understand. I feel like we are on completly opposite sides of the world
Evidence of consideration.
| | | |
Semantics. Ok, now you are argue that there isn't a nation ID card.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

eliminating confusion like this is one of the reasons i support a standardized national drivers license (that and i got fined 500 dollars for selling cigarettes to a guy with a obviously fake michegan drivers license, but i didnt know it was fake because i didnt know what a michegan drivers license was supposed to look like)

I think the first step would be to know how to spell Michigan...

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by GreNME

I hate the RealID Act and what it will mean for our civil liberties in terms of protection from undue surveillance and the possibility of mistaken prosecution. On top of that, I'm a (computer) security guy and as such tend to err on the side of paranoid in terms of keeping my privacy. When I heard about the use of RFID I began looking into how easy it was to counterfeit-- not surprisingly, the answer is "very easy." If I'm eventually required to have a national ID (since I do travel across the country often enough), I'll definitely be looking into how easy it would be for crooks and suspicious folk to counterfeit the ID.

The biggest flaw in any identification system I have ever read about being introduced is the fact that identity theft is so easy I could probably teach most of you how to do it in the span of a few weeks. The thing all of these identification systems are counting on is that most people just won't go through the trouble to fake anything, and the reality is that people go through that much trouble already.

I have no idea where they are getting these people who come up with these asinine plans, but all they would need is a small committee of real security experts to poke holes in their ideas if they really wanted to know whether their plans were nothing but a costly waste of time (and money).

By that logic we shouldn't have any forms of ID other than the honor system (you just say who you are), since they can be faked. Do you not see the flaw in your argument?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

...snip...

Are you saying there isn't currently a national ID system or there is no legislature?

...snip...

There is nothing like the "real ID" legislation in the UK. The article you quote in the opening post is factually incorrect when it states that

"The real ID act has passed in the US, the UK...."

Considering that such a large part of the "argument" in the article rests on this incorrect fact you will understand why I dismiss the article's arguments and conclusions.

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

...snip...

The word 'no' makes it hard for me to understand. I feel like we are on completly opposite sides of the world
Evidence of consideration.
| | | |
Semantics. Ok, now you are argue that there isn't a nation ID card.

And I'm not arguing that there is no national ID card, it's just a matter of fact that we don't have one in this country.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by Darat

And I'm not arguing that there is no national ID card, it's just a matter of fact that we don't have one in this country.

Well, they are trying to get a national ID card.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7203740.stm
They're not doing very well at it though.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by WildCat

By that logic we shouldn't have any forms of ID other than the honor system (you just say who you are), since they can be faked. Do you not see the flaw in your argument?

Not at all. The illusion of security is often more dangerous than a well-understood lack of security.

A simple example : if you know you're talking on an open telephone that might be tapped, you will take care not to say anything that you wouldn't want to be overheard. If you are talking on a secure telephone, it doesn't matter what you say. But if you are talking on a telephone that you believe to be secure, and isn't, that's when problems arise.

With the current ID muddle, it's quite reasonable for a sales clerk or security guard to look at a "suspicious" card, not be sure if it's genuine or not, and ask for other ID if necessary. One of the goals of the Real ID scheme is to avoid this -- if your card passes the Real ID validator, then it's genuine and no other information is necessary. In this case, the guard will probably be trained not to ask for further ID and to rely solely on the validator's judgement. Imagine the problems when it turns out there's a simple security flaw and any 15 year old can turn out "valid" IDs on his printer.

As a real example of this, consider the ill-fated Clipper chip initiative, which Matt Blaze broke in less than a week. There are a number of other cryptographic examples I could cite.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by drkitten

With the current ID muddle, it's quite reasonable for a sales clerk or security guard to look at a "suspicious" card, not be sure if it's genuine or not, and ask for other ID if necessary.

In my experience clerks don't ask for ID anyway. A few days before Christmas my mother had her wallet picked from her purse. Within a few hours over $10,000 had been charged on her credit cards, and a few days later over $1,000 was taken from her bank account using a debit card that had been deactivated 2 years earlier! The bank is still trying to figure out how that last one happened.

Quote:

One of the goals of the Real ID scheme is to avoid this -- if your card passes the Real ID validator, then it's genuine and no other information is necessary. In this case, the guard will probably be trained not to ask for further ID and to rely solely on the validator's judgement. Imagine the problems when it turns out there's a simple security flaw and any 15 year old can turn out "valid" IDs on his printer.

Hey, I prefer biometrics such as a retinal scan. Good luck doing that on a printer! Though someone on another thread claimed that would be faked.

And frankly, I'd rather have a card that can be verified by a disinterested computer somewhere than by a clerk who's too busy yapping on her cell phone about what Mindy did the other day to bother looking at the picture and hologram.

[PhantomWolf]

Our Driver's Licences would almost past muster too. The only thing that is different to that list to ours is that the adress is optional (if you move a lot then it's pointless having your address on it, or you'd need a new one all the time.) Standardisation seems logical to me, especially with nothing in the way of border controls between States. Having a Driver's Licence that looks similar to other States and has basic ID information on it is neither a National ID card or that I can see a breach of the consitution. Having to prove you really are who you claim to be does seem to be either I would have thought.

[Minadin]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

been reading up more on the real ID, and its not a national ID system as i had initially thought, its a set of minimum standard for state-issued IDs

as i mentioned previously, my drivers license already meets those requirements, it also met the requirements for obtaining the ID, so my state wont have to change anything to comply with the real ID act (BTW my state was compliant in 1998 when i got my drivers license, so it seems the requirements are neither new nor extreme)

It looks like the Missouri Driver's license passes the requirements as well. So does my US passport, I think. The MO DL has a barcode (partially scrambled) whereas my old Kansas DL had a magnetic strip on the back. The US Passport has a numerical code swipe area on the main information page, similar to the MICR routing and account numbers at the bottom of a check. I'm not sure if the Passport includes my address, though I do believe there's a place where you can pencil it in.

I don't really understand what the argument is against having some sort of national ID. They could make it pretty cool, in fact - Have some standard which is adhered to by each state, but leave each state to add their own holograms and etc., such as the state seal / flag / outline to give a Missouri-produced DL a subtle difference when compared to a Kansas one, for instance.

It would be great for those of us who move around a lot to not have to re-apply for a new DL each time we change states. When I moved back to Missouri from Kansas about 4 years ago, I needed to get a MO one, which basically meant having a new picture taken and giving the state $15. That was roughly 6 months after I had renewed my Kansas DL, which would have been good for the next 7 years, if I had not moved. But they just cut it up.

Link to Missouri License: http://dor.mo.gov/mvdl/drivers/newlicense.pdf

Link to Kansas License: http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/public.pdf

[ServiceSoon]

Originally Posted by Darat

There is nothing like the "real ID" legislation in the UK. The article you quote in the opening post is factually incorrect when it states that

"The real ID act has passed in the US, the UK...."

Considering that such a large part of the "argument" in the article rests on this incorrect fact you will understand why I dismiss the article's arguments and conclusions.

And I'm not arguing that there is no national ID card, it's just a matter of fact that we don't have one in this country.

I hope I don't get schooled, but what is this?

[Mr. Skinny]

I have a government issued Common Access Card (CAC).

Color picture on the front side, along with name, branch of service, expiry date, etc. Also a bar code that kinda looks like black and white television static, plus a memory chip to store your PIN, index finger print, name/address/city/state/physical description.

On the back is a reduced B&W picture of the one on the front, a symbol showing you are an organ donor, a magnetic stripe, and a "regular" bar code.

I need to use it to get on base, enter the building, log on to my computer, etc. I'm already feeling "big brother" more than most people, but honestly, while I wish we didn't need all this security, it's not that big of a disruption to my life (so far).

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by WildCat

By that logic we shouldn't have any forms of ID other than the honor system (you just say who you are), since they can be faked. Do you not see the flaw in your argument?

No. You see, a card using RFID, for example, is even less effective than the honor system because I can pull your information from your RF chip simply by walking by you and never even glancing at you. With your current drivers's license, I would have to at least have a copy of it to begin making even a usable facsimile. If I wanted to go to the DMV to have them give me a fresh one of yours, I'd need x number of proofs of ID (depending on the state). That's not to say that a national card is definitely going to use RF (though some passports do), but every time I hear Congress bringing this up they discuss the efficacy of RFID, when it is so poor it should never even enter public debate as a possibility. Furthermore, from a security perspective having loads of separate ID configurations across the different states lowers the available surface area for counterfeiter's, because each different configuration carries with it its own challenges, thus reducing the conceivable area in which a counterfeiter can operate efficiently. Going from state cards to a unified national card is, purely from a security standpoint, exactly the opposite direction in terms of reducing the probability of counterfeiting and efficacy of a tracking program under those conditions.

What does a national ID card solve? Let's take a look:

• Identifiability of individuals? Nope, because it's inherently no better than state-issued licenses in terms of stating who a person actually is. Additionally, unless the identification is mandatory for all eligible individuals, one can easily disregard it by never registering. There is no effective advantage in the national cards that isn't already addressed by systems in place, and there is a significant disadvantage by taking those systems already in place and merging them into one bureaucracy-- Department of Homeland Security is a good macro example of how this can lead to mismanagement and gaping holes in the efficacy of such a move.
• Ease of travel to other nations? I don't see how, since a passport already handles that problem. There is no fundamental difference between a national ID and a passport, except that current post-9/11 attempts to "secure" the passport-- like sticking RFID chips in them-- have proven to be stupid mistakes that should have had more investigation to them from security experts (and had those recommendations heeded). The RealID, judging by its history and short time in Congress, has not had time to stand up to such scrutiny. Since most of the hijackers (if not all) came into the States with valid foreign passports in the first place, not faked US passports or IDs, this RealID Act seems to not actually address the aspect of security from non-nationals. "Fixing" something that does not necessarily seem to be broken in the first place is the bailiwick of poor assessment and shoddy management, and offers no better security to the individual who must inevitably follow the system.
• Security? Once again, nope. I refer again to the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were not pretending to be Americans or American nationals in their attacks, so a system like this would not necessarily apply to them anyway. I also already mentioned the inherent risks to taking multiple separate (and different) ID systems from numerous states and enforcing a nationalized standard increases the surface area of potential counterfeiting, which increases the risk of identity theft among individual citizens.

Homogeneity does not increase security, not internally nor externally. It usually turns out doing exactly the opposite, no matter what the system is that is in place. This is a core principle in the field of security, whether we're talking computer security or physical (door, building, etc.) security or information security. The RealID Act breaks this cardinal rule to put forth the image of creating security, and even worse it does so for no good reason at all (once again, I refer to the 9/11 hijackers' foreign status).

So, since the new system isn't going to actually increase security (and stands a good chance of the opposite), isn't actually going to be improving on our current system of international travel (and will, in fact, add another layer of complexity since other nations still go by passports), and does nothing to increase the identifiability of citizens of the United States within our borders, what is the purpose of the act? The purpose is, apparently, to give the impression of the aforementioned things by doing exactly the wrong thing for each of them, not unlike many measures taken at airports (which hasn't actually improved security if independent and FBI testing is believable).

Flaw in my argument? No, I'm not seeing it. What I'm seeing is a propagation of flawed thinking that doesn't follow real security principles, ostensibly because actually doing so tends to make the work more difficult for those responsible for security.

ETA: And I guess I should qualify-- I've been involved in information and computer security for years, having done consulting for companies in the medical and financial fields, both of which have higher than average levels of necessity for privacy and privileged-only access to information. On the side I study investigation and premises security concepts, though I haven't applied for any PI licenses in any state (not enough money in it compared to my current career). Maybe that gives some insight into why I think the way I do, maybe it doesn't, but I wanted to clarify that I'm not coming at this from some woo angle. On the contrary, most woo-ers have a worse comprehension of basic security principles than even our government officials.

[defaultdotxbe]

we use RF card access at the office i work at, the range is about 2-3 inches, so in order to "steal" the info from someones RFID card you would probably have to know what pocket the ID is in, and pretty much bump into them to do it (not saying it isnt possible, but its not as simple as just passing them in a hallway)

also, this assumes all pertinent information is transmitted over RF, i would figure it would more likely just send the actual card number, then other info would be pulled from a database and compared to the information displayed on the card itself (like when you use a credit card after swiping the cashier will often enter the last 4 digits to ensure the magnetic strip hasnt been reprogrammed)

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by GreNME

What does a national ID card solve?

Whoa there! RealID is NOT a national ID card! There would still be different cards issued by every state, and it certainly would not take the place of a passport for international travel.

All it does is require minimum security features and standardized information for the ID's issued by the various states.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

I hope I don't get schooled, but what is this?

It's not a compulsary ID Card, it's for those that want one, similar as our 18+ card for those that want ID for getting into night clubs or pubs, etc, but don't have a driver's licence or other photo ID. The difference the British one is Government run and based on a register of people who apply, ours isn't.

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by GreNME

Homogeneity does not increase security, not internally nor externally. It usually turns out doing exactly the opposite, no matter what the system is that is in place.

is there a break-even point for this? i mean, right now IDs are homogeneous within each state, does that decrease security over a system where each county has their own ID? or each town? would each individual creating their own ID be the most secure means of all?

[PhantomWolf]

How is Each state providing the same information on their driver's licence akin to a National ID card? (and machine readable just means it has to have something a machine can read, a bar code, a magnetic strip, or a chip.)

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Whoa there! RealID is NOT a national ID card!

Woah there, scarecrow! I never said it was a separate card, but it is a homogeneous card format, which means everyone gets a new card. Do try to not get tripped up on false semantics, please.

Originally Posted by WildCat

There would still be different cards issued by every state, and it certainly would not take the place of a passport for international travel.

That just supports what I've already said in my post: it isn't actually addressing any problem, only adding homogeneity, which is ultimately a security liability.

Originally Posted by WildCat

All it does is require minimum security features and standardized information for the ID's issued by the various states.

Like I said, homogeneity. Thanks for repeating but using different words. It doesn't change my opinion that it's a crappy idea for crappy reasons that is more likely to have no benefit or, at worst, make other concerns even worse.

-------

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

is there a break-even point for this? i mean, right now IDs are homogeneous within each state, does that decrease security over a system where each county has their own ID? or each town? would each individual creating their own ID be the most secure means of all?

I'd say that such a tactic is over-reacting from a security standpoint. There is a point where the level of extremity of a given security tactic becomes unnecessary or even detrimental, and depending on how far you drill down for diversity you can easily reach that point. What I would counter with, instead, is asking what problem the measure is supposed to be addressing. Putting out these standards is a large (and expensive) undertaking-- would those funds have been better put toward other measures instead of trying to re-work the state licensing formats to meet a national set of criteria? Promoting the measure as one of security is indeed not only misleading but downright untrue, to the point that this measure tends to actually go the opposite direction. This is a significant aspect of the legislation with regard to why I find it so offensive as compared to, say, the ridiculousness and inconvenience of the extra steps at airports. While I'm inconvenienced at airports (and I am, as I have between 10-15 lbs of metal hardware in my body) it doesn't hold long-term consequences to me as an individual outside of the fact that I have to get to the airport 30-45 minutes earlier than I used to. With the ID "standards" contained within the RealID, the ability for some jerk with a little bit of counterfeiting skill to steal my identity becomes easier, which places my "stuff" (bank account, credit rating, good standing with law enforcement) at risk.

But the basic question: is there a break-even point? Nope, because while plenty of large organizations (the RIAA, the MPAA, some Federal agencies) might believe otherwise, no system is completely safe and the more monolithic the system the higher the probability that it will be cracked in rather short order. That doesn't exonerate smaller systems, because there is always a hierarchy of effective systems and if the more effective systems compel a sufficient number of people to engage in it, the system becomes monolithic in its own right, meaning it's just a matter of time before it loses efficacy. This concept is pretty much the reason why security experts are always going to have employability as long as there are things that need to be secured.

My big complaint is in the waste of money for the loss of effectiveness. However, that being said I should also point out that my gripes with it are more applicable to the politics forum than the conspiracy theory one, because this isn't a matter of conspiracy and more a matter of government bureaucratic business as usual. This decade's version of $100 hammer's, if you ask me.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

How is Each state providing the same information on their driver's licence akin to a National ID card? (and machine readable just means it has to have something a machine can read, a bar code, a magnetic strip, or a chip.)

So far, the magnetic strip is the most common "standard" that seems to be in place.