Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was handing out "extensions" to all 50 states, including those that refused to comply with federal deadlines, for upgrading their driver licenses to Real ID security requirements. Meanwhile, the United States Department of State continued to move forward with the Bush Administration's Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). The WHTI requires that citizens of the United States, wishing to "get themselves home," must present a WHTI compliant piece of identification at all land and sea border crossings into the United States. The new requirement is scheduled to go into effect this summer on June 1, 2009.

At that time, U.S. citizens seeking entry into their country from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean or Bermuda will have to present one of the following authorized pieces of identification:

1. Valid U.S. Passport
2. U.S. Passport Card (shown above)
3. Trusted Traveler Program card
4. Enhanced driver license (EDL) (read Real ID card)

The Passport Card, with biometric (photo) identification now being  issued by the United States Department of State,  is the federal government's version of the Real ID card.  It is the North American "Border Pass" that is recommended in the report Building a North American Community issued by the CFR in 2005 to promote the Bush Administration's Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). (Note: The SPP is that "dialogue - not a formal agreement or treaty," that supporters insist is not an attempt to create a North American Union patterned on the European Union super-state, which erased the sovereign borders of Europe. --  Additional Note: The UK is holding out in a few areas of EU integration, but starting a national ID card program isn't one of them.)

Every one of the identification documents listed above now being issued by the federal government contains an RFID chip similar to ones used in the federal government's NAIS program used for tracking livestock. At the moment, the only EDLs approved as WHTI compliant (read Real ID compliant/ RFID chip embedded) are those issued by the state of Washington. Another key land crossing border state, New York, has already reached agreement with Homeland Security to meet the June 1, 2009 deadline — ahead of the original January 2010 target date requirement for Real ID compliant driver licenses.  Border states Arizona, California, Michigan, Texas and Vermont are also working with Homeland Security.

Canadian provinces are also developing RFID enabled EDL's that will comply with the security and tracking requirements being set by Canada's big brother to the south. At the start of this year, British Columbia launched a limited pilot program with about 500 volunteers. In September, Ontario introduced Bill 85 to upgrade its driver license to meet the DHS standards. Later in October, Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner, Dr. Ann Cavoukian, was allowed to submit an official review of the privacy issues surrounding WHTI/Real ID compliant personal identification cards set to be issued under Bill 85. Unlike the contrived self-critique by DHS of its own mandated system, Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner has provided an independent critique of privacy concerns raised by the Real ID scheme. On the first page of her report, Dr. Cavoukian commendably identifies the real issue at hand:

As an individual citizen, I understand concerns about the growth of terrorism. However, as Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, I also fear the potential loss of our freedoms, especially privacy, which I believe, forms the basis of all of our other freedoms.

Dr. Cavoukian goes on to point out that, as submitted, Bill 85 is essentially a blank check for government officials and agencies and private third parties who seek to know more about us. Her report makes twenty recommendations, the final two of which should give pause even for those who imagine the Real ID solution is really about protecting them from terrorists and other lawbreakers.

Sections [11 and 44] of Bill 85 should be amended to provide that the use and disclosure of personal information by the Ministry and by public bodies and related governments must be limited to that which is objectively necessary and for the purposes for which it was collected, namely, establishing eligibility for each of the photo cards.

Section 44 of Bill 85 should be amended to provide that the use and disclosure of personal information by the Ministry and by public bodies and related governments must be limited to that which is objectively necessary and for the purposes for which it was collected, namely, establishing eligibility for a driver’s licence or vehicle permit.

Dr. Cavoukian also exposes the fallacy in the statement used by U.S. officials that, "for privacy protection, no personal information [only a unique identifier number] is stored on the electronic [RFID] chip itself."  She correctly notes (emphasis added):

In response to these privacy concerns, one may hear that the RFID tag does not include any personally identifiable information, only a unique number linking the cardholder to his or her record in a database, so no privacy concerns arise. However, this is incorrect. A number, when uniquely linked to an individual, is not inconsequential – it is not just a meaningless number – it points to real, personally identifiable information. A Social Insurance Number, a passport number or a driver’s licence number – while each of these unique identification numbers may appear to be “just a string of numbers,” “of no use to anyone,” when linked to personally identifiable information, each can be misused, by unauthorized persons or used for unintended purposes that may cause real harm to real people.

Worse yet, but not surprisingly, there is nothing to suggest in current Homeland Security documentation that the alleged limitation to only have a unique number encoded into the RFID chip will remain in place. Instead, DHS's self-critique contains (on page 10) this implicit admission to the contrary: "[DHS] CBP also recommends and, where possible, requires that the only information subject to transmission on an RFID enabled card is the RFID number." 

Please reread the statement from HS's Customs and Border Patrol noting the correct emphasis on what is really being said. Here is the correct translation: "Where possible, the recommendation is to limit the data, subject to transmission, to an identifying RFID number. Now insert this standard assurance: "We're from the government, trust us."  

The where possible is the most troubling wording. What that phrase likely means is that, "where an individual has not been placed on our watch list, it will be possible to limit the data being transmitted from the chip to only a unique identification number."  Honestly, who believes that DHS won't, at its own discretion, use an embedded RFID as a scarlet letter? 

Here is the best way to know that DHS is lying about only using the RFID chip for storing a simple number; No officials have suggested that the storage capacity of the embedded RFID chip be limited to a size that will only be able to hold a single encrypted indentifing number.

Another important aspect of the RFID debate noted in the Ontario Commssioner's report is the security hole posed by unauthorized access to identification cards containing the RFID chips. U.S. Homeland Security claims that between the protective sleeve they provide with RFID embedded cards and security measures in place around border crossings, no unauthorized RFID readers will be able to gain access to a individual's information. 

This argument is self-defeating. HS admits that security measures (undisclosed) must be in place to keep unauthorized readers out of the zone un-sleeved cards are susceptible to giving up their information. The commonly stated distance that readers can readily pull information off the RFID chips on compliant ID cards is 15 feet. As anyone with a cell phone or wireless connection knows the range readable data can be picked up will exceed 15 feet. Consider then, all the places individuals carrying EDLs will be asked to pull out and unsleeve their driver licenses for identification purposes. 

There is no way DHS or state driver license agencies can guarantee RFID chips in individual's cards can't be accessed by unauthorized entities. Give credit to Ontario officials for acknowledging that though raw data coming off of RFID chips may be strongly encrypted, it is simply a fact of the technology that this data cannot be withheld from a nefarious person armed with a RFID reader in proximity of an individual's card.

Ontario officials seeking improvements to Bill 85 offer a solution to this inherent problem with RFID chips: a card holder operable "on-off" switch. Though this "still under development" solution would hardly limit governments from compiling data files on all individuals, it would at least give the card holder some control over when, where and by whom information is pulled (or loaded onto) his RFID chip enhanced card. Such technology offers a token of personal control over one's private information, but perhaps more importantly, it allows privacy advocates to buy time with government agencies by demanding that RFID enhanced biometric ID cards not be made a requirement until such technology is fully available.

Like Bill 85 in Ontario, expect similar measures pending in state legislatures in the U.S. to fall far short of protecting a person's privacy from prying eyes and the inevitable mission creep inherent in most government identification and tracking programs. Remeber those social security cards that were never to be used for identification purposes? This time it is worse. The tribulations that can accrue to a person whose social security number or credit card number is compromised pale in comparison to those a person is exposed to once their biometric data is compromised. Your face pattern or DNA code can't be swapped out like a password or PIN.

The idea of being forced to register one's biometric identity with the federal government into a master data base that is continuously updated as you move around with your RFID enabled identification card, should be rejected just as soundly as having to register one's firearms or ammunition. Our unalienable right to personal privacy, like our unalienable right to bear arms in self defense, is a foundation of our freedom. History has demonstrated personal identification schemes are inevitably incompatible with human freedom.

If you believe your personal information, financial transactions and movements should remain personal and not a collection of data housed in a central government database and ultimately who knows where else, please join with members of The John Birch Society and others who are working with state legislatures to block implementation of the Real ID Act. Contact us today. 

Note: Reviewing the material provided in the hyperlinks in this article is a good way to get yourself up to speed for having informed conversations with your state legislators.

Sidebar: As for the U.S. Passport Card — the federal government's version of Real ID compliant EDLs — the U.S. State Department reported on December 11th, that since they became available this summer, more than 650,000 have been issued through the end of November. If the eyebrows and place of birth of the State Department's "Happy Traveler" in the sample card above reminds you of someone, think of it as possibly a subliminal suggestion for the personality profile type Homeland Security is most interested in maintaining traceability on.  The Real ID program is not as much about protecting people from terrorists as it is about protecting "The State" from human capital that seeks to be free.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (11)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Kermit said:

	good work Keep up the good work JBS and 'Patriot'. A few years ago I was a Neo_con because of talk radio but you guys have opened up my mind to what is really important: our Constitutional Freedoms!
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 22, 2008
Votes: +2

Kermit said:

	Obama and Google Hey folks, just to let you know, the Telgraph UK had this article last month stating "US President-elect Barack Obama has appointed a team of high-level advisers including billionaire investor Warren Buffett and Google chief executive Eric Schmidt.." so it seems that Obama my be trying to get information on people from all angles.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 22, 2008
Votes: +2

Gary Lewis said:

	... I'm curious as to how much further down this path our nation will travel before the majority of United States citizens realize something isn't right and decide they must take action. What's scary is how effective they've been in keeping us distracted while they carry out their agenda.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 23, 2008
Votes: +1

Pat Henry said:

	problems reading the chips A recent passport issued with a chip insignia appear to be unreadable. While wrapping it in aluminum can keep it intact and away from remote non-government readers, it appears this one malfunctions. Not sure if a kid put it in a microwave, it got too close to a strong magnet, or was left on a hot dashboard.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 24, 2008
Votes: +1

US-Patriot said:

... Do you know how many millions of people cross our land borders (at ports of entry) right now through US Customs (CBP) and simply say "I'm an American Citizen" while not showing any documents at all? If the Customs officer cannot PROVE that the person in front of him/her is not a US Citizen he must let them into the US. The person making application doesn't even have to speak English. This is why it's so important for American Citizens to have a passport when they cross the border. This helps eliminate fraud. Fraud also happens when people show only "Identity" documents (Gov ID's, Licenses, credit cards, costco cards, library cards, school id's etc) and not citizenship documents. Mandating a passport will stop the fraud and push the illegals into the deserts where Border Patrol can then do their jobs which is another matter. (If we build the fence then Border Patrol can do their job a lot more effectively). Both privacy and "right of return" are issues of concern for us as US Citizens, however the illegals have found and exploited the loophole to the tune of 30 million plus. Thank You

report abuse vote down vote up

December 27, 2008
Votes: +1

capousa said:

Border Crossing Having grown up, lived and been a frequent border crosser in our nation's busiest border town of Detroit, I am less worried about people sneaking in at a formal/highly guarded border check point. I can tell you from experience that the "I'm an American citizen" answer only works if you, your car and all the other questions you answer check out. An accent, bad answers to questions like, "Where do you work?" and "What was the purpose of your travel" and lack of documentation is a sure way to end up being sent to the search your car area. The 30 million illegals and terrorist threats are the marketing hype being used to sell a national ID system for all Americans. If you were a person with a green card, or poor English, it was always best to carry your passport when driving out of the US. Now, instead of making the few adjust to this good idea, the move is to make Real ID mandatory for all. This is not the American way. We are innocent until proven guilty. It certainly is the federal government's responsibility to prove that we shouldn't be allowed into our country rather than we having to prove that we should. Crime is not going to be solved by registering all guns with the central government. Ditto for the even more important issue of my identity.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 29, 2008
Votes: -1

US-Patriot said:

Border Crosser To CAPOUSA: Respectfully I have to point out that your last post is wrong on several points. You are confusing some issues. I am a US Customs officer, NRA member, and I can tell you from experience the following: - Detroit is not as you put it "our nation's busiest border town..." San Ysidro, Ca is the largest of not only our country but in the entire world with El Paso, TX being the 2nd largest/busiest.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 29, 2008
Votes: +1

US-Patriot said:

... -Secondly by law if we can't prove a person is NOT a US Citizen then we have to let them in. They don't even have to speak English. This pisses me off as an American but it is true. Sure they go to Secondary inspection but so what; they are then released when we can't prove that they are lying. Our management is mostly of Mexican heritage and they favor the Country of Mexico over the US anytime they can get away with it.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 29, 2008
Votes: +1

US-Patriot said:

... -Thirdly if a person has a green card as you say, therefore a NON-US Citizen, they are already required to carry that "green card" with them every time they leave the Country. They don't have US passports nor can they get one because they are not US Citizens. Green card holders (Resident Aliens) are legally required to carry that card at all times. They cannot legally re-enter the US without it. There are stiff financial penalties if they don’t have it with them when they arrive. If they have lived in the US for a long time a lot of them start to think and act like American citizens. But if they never naturalized then they are not yet US Citizens. Here is the problem. They too have ID cards and Licenses etc. the same as a US Citizen. They can speak English better than most natural born Americans. They then both get lazy or sneaky and don't show their green card anymore. They claim to be US Citizens to "get across the border faster" by showing these same documents that any American has. This is highly illegal but done often. -Lastly you have the illegals (those with no green card/no legal status). They too can claim to be a US Citizen and if we can't prove otherwise, even after 2nd inspection they are let into the US. And yes we do have a problem with illegals to the tune of 30 million plus who care nothing about our heritage or history or language or our flag. We need to plug that hole. You carry a passport when you travel to Europe and other parts of the world why is it such a problem for you to do your part in stopping the invasion at a land border?

report abuse vote down vote up

December 29, 2008
Votes: +1

David J. Wenta said:

	... I loved the "linked" letter (in the first paragraph) by Governor Mark Sanford to Michael Chertoff (DHS). Mr. Sanford, well done and bless your heart. You may have noticed that Illinois could use a real governor. You got any brothers? ....or sisters for that matter?
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 29, 2008
Votes: +0

capousa said:

Border Crosser clarified Detroit-Windsor is the busiest commercial border crossing in the US (and possibly the world). But, since we are talking about ID'ing people rather than goods, I should not have tried to slip that through without clarification. Here is my problem with having to accept whatever tagging my government demands of me beyond trusting me on my word. As you allude to, the US government is not serious about keeping out those who seek to enter the country illegally: "Our management is mostly of Mexican heritage and they favor the Country of Mexico over the US anytime they can get away with it." No system or set of procedures is going to work if those who are running it are disinclinded to follow the rules. AFTER, the CPB cracks down on its own management and staff, THEN, I will be open to doing my part. Before then, it appears pretty clear to me that the Real ID program is not about stopping illegals -- It's about tracking citizens...particularly those of means who might one day decide to leave this country for greener pastures. These are the ones who may find that they will have to leave most of their wealth behind them to pay off the debts their government has run up under their name. BTW: The first ever U.S. "Exit Tax" went into effect this spring.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 30, 2008
Votes: -1