IR View: Just saying no to REAL ID
By Independent Record - 01/22/08
Calling the federal REAL ID Act “a major threat to the privacy, constitutional rights and pocketbooks of ordinary Montanans,” Gov. Brian Schweitzer called on the governors of 17 states last week to join up in a fight against the measure.
We wish his efforts well. REAL ID is an idea whose time has gone.
The governors contacted by Schweitzer have all voiced reservations about REAL ID, if only because they consider it a huge unfunded mandate. In Montana, the last Legislature passed a law preventing the state from implementing it.
The costs of operating this national ID program would be staggering for the states, but it is the civil rights and personal privacy issues that are the scariest. For instance, because the states will be required to keep a database holding the name, digital image, signature, Social Security number and address of every licensed driver — and share it freely with every other state — the opportunities for identity theft would be rife. How could such a storehouse of information for criminals be kept secure?
Schweitzer urged the other states that have expressed strong reservations about REAL ID to stand with Montana in opposing a plan to penalize states that resist adopting it. Homeland Security has said that states not in compliance must file for a waiver seeking more time within 60 days or, beginning May 11, their residents will have to submit to secondary screening every time they board an aircraft or enter a federal building.
The governor warned against such a “Faustian bargain.” If enough states so no, Schweitzer said, “either DHS will blink or Congress will have to act to avoid havoc at our nation’s airports and federal courthouses.” The governor probably is right about that. But in any case, his idea certainly is worth a try.
We wish his efforts well. REAL ID is an idea whose time has gone.
The governors contacted by Schweitzer have all voiced reservations about REAL ID, if only because they consider it a huge unfunded mandate. In Montana, the last Legislature passed a law preventing the state from implementing it.
The costs of operating this national ID program would be staggering for the states, but it is the civil rights and personal privacy issues that are the scariest. For instance, because the states will be required to keep a database holding the name, digital image, signature, Social Security number and address of every licensed driver — and share it freely with every other state — the opportunities for identity theft would be rife. How could such a storehouse of information for criminals be kept secure?
Schweitzer urged the other states that have expressed strong reservations about REAL ID to stand with Montana in opposing a plan to penalize states that resist adopting it. Homeland Security has said that states not in compliance must file for a waiver seeking more time within 60 days or, beginning May 11, their residents will have to submit to secondary screening every time they board an aircraft or enter a federal building.
The governor warned against such a “Faustian bargain.” If enough states so no, Schweitzer said, “either DHS will blink or Congress will have to act to avoid havoc at our nation’s airports and federal courthouses.” The governor probably is right about that. But in any case, his idea certainly is worth a try.
Current rating: 3.2 with 9 ratings.
Click here to register
Reader Comments:
Share Article
dgrinsell wrote on Jan 22, 2008 12:54 PM:
The issue here isn't terrorists "sneaking" into the country. As I understand it, the 9/11 guys were all here "legally". Requiring citizens to subject themselves to this level of monitoring makes us safer how? DHS is talking about domestic flights and access to our own government, not crossing the border. We already have a document for that; it's called a passport and I have no problem with using it at the international border.
Maybe I'm paranoid, maybe I'm not, but I see this as a huge invasion of privacy and if we allow it, where exactly does it end? Requiring better border controls is fine and realistic, but requiring this for domestic travel is, in my opinion, way out of bounds. "