The Candidates and the Real ID Act
The FBI is preparing to unveil their plan for a comprehensive biometrics database that will store information about criminals to help the bureau to identify them. Identifying factors such as palm prints, face shapes, iris scans, and tattoo mapping will serve to flesh out the identification of suspected terrorists, criminals, security clearance applicants, and illegal immigrants.
Not surprisingly, the plan has many opponents. People who would rather not have their personal information stored believe that the information has a great capacity for being lost or misused.
Could the FBI’s plan converge with the much-maligned Real ID? Along with other personal information, will the Real IDs of the future contain our iris scans and palm prints? The Real ID Act, set to roll out with new state IDs beginning next year, is itself the target of much opposition. Among the opposition are such widely varied groups as battered women (hiding from their abusers), gun owners (against a national gun owners’ database), the Amish community (it’s against their religion to “number” animals or humans), conservatives, liberals, and a surprising number of state governments.
Although biometric information has long been discussed as relating to Real ID, states are not currently required to include information such as fingerprints or iris scans. What they do require are machine-readable chips…although even the newest DHS literature on the Real ID requirements doesn’t address exactly what information those chips will contain.
The ACLU and other groups have been hard at work, trying to find out the presidential candidates’ positions on the Real ID Act. The results may not be what you expect. John Edwards, and Ron Paul are strictly against the idea, while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have expressed opposition, but seemingly only because of the financial burdens the plan represents for the states. Mike Huckabee opposes the Real ID act on the grounds that national security should not be entrusted to the DMV.
On the other hand, Giuliani, Romney, and McCain are all in favor - no real surprises there. Their stated reasons? To ensure that illegal immigrants are not able to work, and that terrorists are not able to obtain false documents.
Posted: February 4th, 2008 under American Politics, Democrats, Political News, Political Opinion, Republicans.
Comments: 10
Comments
Comment from digg
Time: February 5, 2008, 1:51 pm
Here’s a more nuanced opinion on the topic from Obama: http://www.eduwrit.com/blog/?p=1004
Comment from greg
Time: February 5, 2008, 1:56 pm
the real id won’t stop illegal immigrants from working…what landscapers & kitchens are gonna start scanning thumbs!?
Comment from Matt
Time: February 5, 2008, 1:59 pm
No mention of Gravel? I know where he stands already, but other people don’t, and should.
He’s the only Democrat opposed to it on the basis of privacy.
Comment from bob
Time: February 5, 2008, 2:47 pm
Ummm gravel thought a national ID was a good idea - look it up on youtube.
Comment from Brent Winter
Time: February 5, 2008, 4:09 pm
I say f#@$ the Real ID Act. I don’t want to sound alarmist, but America is about to take many steps towards fascism. With armored troops with automatic rifles roaming our subways and a complete mapping of american’s biometrics, ID’s containing all of our personal information, camera’s on our street corners and the government monitoring our phone conversations, our country is starting to sound a lot like “1984″. I know that this comment has been made before but it is starting to get a lot worse. It is time to stop falling for scare tactics and start learning the facts. It is time to let our voices be heard and to let our government know that we are not their cattle anymore!!!
Comment from Winston Smith
Time: February 5, 2008, 6:10 pm
The Ministry of Love would be the perfect agency to administer the Real ID. Its just a matter of time.
Comment from me
Time: February 5, 2008, 8:18 pm
Hillary actually supports the Real ID Act. She voted yes on increasing funding for it. Though, I don’t doubt she said she opposes it, because she tends to lie a lot about her political background.
Comment from Mark Arntson
Time: February 6, 2008, 12:03 am
Right on Brent. This is not a joke. One simple mistake, intentional or not, cn have dire consequences in this scenario. So much lockdown begs the question: what, exactly are we protecting? Our freedom? When, exactly, will we stand up and say enough is enough? When it’s too late?
Comment from Brent Winter
Time: February 6, 2008, 11:22 pm
You are very right Mark. The truth of the matter is that we are not protecting our rights. We are, in fact, giving them away.
Pingback from PoliZine » Next Stop 1984?
Time: February 13, 2008, 12:07 pm
[…] The Candidates and the Real ID Act […]
Write a comment