Over 16,533,018 people are on fubar.
What are you waiting for?
(3), specifies that the validity of birth certificates, presented to document the date of birth or to prove U.S. citizenship, should be verified electronically, by accessing the Electronic Verification of Vital Events (EVVE) system maintained by the National Association of Public Health Statistics and Information Systems (NAPHSIS), rather than directly with the issuers of the birth certificates (such as hospitals).
[edit] Linking of license and ID card databases
Each state must agree to share its motor vehicle database with all other states. This database must include, at a minimum, all the data printed on the state drivers' licenses and ID cards, plus drivers' histories (including motor vehicle violations, suspensions, and points on licenses).
Original legislation contained one of the most controversial elements which did not make it into the final legislation that was signed into law. It would have required states to sign a new compact known as the Driver License Agreement (DLA) as written by the Joint Driver's License Compact/ Non-Resident Violators Compact Executive Board with the support of AAMVA which would have required states to give reciprocity to those provinces and territories in Canada and those states in Mexico that joined the DLA and complied with its provisions. As a part of the DLA, states would be required to network their databases with these provinces, territories and Mexican states. The databases that are accessible would include sensitive information such as Social Security numbers, home addresses and other information. The foreign states and provinces are not required to abide with the Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) and are free to access and use the sensitive information as they see fit.
Traffic violations would be required to be sent to the licensing jurisdiction and be recorded. The licensing jurisdiction would be required to act on the violation according to its own laws such as assigning points and insurance surcharges to the driver not only for violations reported from DLA members but also from non-DLA members as well. The DLA requires member states to treat non-DLA states as if they are DLA members concerning their drivers.
Since foreign countries are included, there are no procedures to deal with due process issues such as a U.S. driver getting cited for a violation in a foreign country. Although not discussed, other countries could sign on to the DLA at a later time, such as the European Union countries.
[edit] DHS regulations regarding implementation of the Driver's Licence provisions of the Act
On January 11, 2008 DHS released the final rule [10] regarding the implementation of the driver's licenses provisions of the Real ID Act. Under the DHS final rule, those states that chose to comply with Driver's Licence provisions of the Real ID Act are allowed to apply for up to two extensions of the May 11, 2008 deadline for implementing these provisions: an extension until no later than December 31, 2009 and an additional extension until no later than May 11, 2011. The DHS final rule mandates that, as of March 11, 2011, driver's licenses issued by the states that are not deemed to be in full compliance with the Real ID Act, will not be accepted for federal purposes. For the states that do not apply to DHS, by March 31, 2008, for an extension of the May 11, 2008 implementation deadline, that deadline will apply: after May 11, 2008 driver's licenses issued by such states will not be accepted for federal purposes.
After the final May 11, 2011 implementation deadline, some non-Real-ID-compliant licenses will continue to be accepted for federal purposes, provided DHS judges that the state which issued such a licence is in full compliance with the Real ID Act by May 11, 2011. However, in order for their licenses to be accepted for federal purposes, all people born after December 1, 1964 will be required to have Real-ID-compliant cards by December 1, 2014. Additionally, in order to be accepted for federal purposes, people born before December 1, 1964 will be required to have Real-ID-compliant cards by December 1, 2017.
[edit] Immigration
This article is missing citations or needs footnotes. Please help add inline citations to guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (April 2007)
As of May 11, 2005, several portions of the Real ID Act have imposed higher burdens and stricter standards of proof for individuals applying for asylum and other related forms of relief. For the first time, immigration judges can require an applicant to produce corroborating evidence (8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4). Additionally, the government may also require that an applicant produce corroborating evidence, a requirement that may only be overcome if the judge is convinced that such evidence is unavailable (8 U.S.C. § 1252(4)).
Restricting illegal immigrants or legal immigrants who can't prove their legal status, or are without social security numbers, from obtaining driver's licenses may keep them from obtaining liability insurance. But, the new law does allow states to offer "not for federal ID" licenses in these cases. In fact, several states (e.g., Utah and Tennessee) have already started issuing such "driving privileges certificates/cards" in lieu of regular drivers licenses, allowing such applicants to be tested and licensed to drive and obtain liability insurance. In October of 2007, then-governor of New York Eliot Spitzer announced that the state will adopt a similar "multi-tiered" licensing scheme in which the state will issue three different kinds of driver licenses, two of which comply with the Real ID security requirements and one which will be marked as "not for federal ID" purposes.[19] However, following a political outcry, Spitzer withdrew his proposal to issue licenses to those unable to prove legal residence. [20]
[edit] Waiving laws that interfere with construction of border barriers
An earlier law (Section 102 of Pub.L. 104-208, which is now part of 8 U.S.C. § 1103) provided for improvements to physical barriers at the borders of the United States.
Subsection 
of this law reads as follows: "The Attorney General, in consultation with the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States."
Subsection orders the Attorney General to commence work on specified improvements to a 14-mile section of the existing border fence near San Diego, and allocates funds for the project.
Subsection (c) provides for waivers of laws that interfere with the work described in subsections and . Prior to the Real ID Act, this subsection allowed waivers of only two specific federal environmental laws.
The Real ID Act amends the language of subsection (c) to make the following changes:
* Allows waivers of any and all laws "necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section."
* Gives this waiver authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security (rather than the Attorney General). Waivers are made at his sole discretion.
* Restricts court review of waiver decisions: "The district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear all causes or claims arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1). A cause of action or claim may only be brought alleging a violation of the Constitution of the United States. The court shall not have jurisdiction to hear any claim not specified in this subparagraph." Claims are barred unless filed within 60 days, and cases may be appealed "only upon petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court".
These waivers apply to barrier construction anywhere on the United States border (not just at San Diego, as some sources have erroneously reported).
[edit] Application for asylum; deportation of aliens for terrorist activity
The Real ID Act introduces stricter laws governing applications for asylum and deportation of aliens for terrorist activity. However, at the same time, it makes two minor changes to U.S. immigration law:
* Elimination of the 10,000 annual limit for previously-approved asylees to adjust to permanent legal residence. This had been urged for years because the average asylee had a 17-year wait before he would be able to achieve legal resident status. As a result, in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the backlog was greatly reduced as 147,131 asylees were granted legal permanent residence status.
* Usage of 50,000 unused employment-based visas from 2003. This was a compromise between proponents who had earlier tried to include all employment visas which went unused between 2001 and 2004, and immigration restrictionists. They were used, mostly in fiscal year 2006, for Schedule A workers newly arrived mainly from the Philippines and India, rather than for adjustments of status cases like the American Competitiveness in the 21st Act.
The deportation of aliens for terrorist activities is governed by the following provisions.
Section 212(3): Terrorist activities
The INA (Immigration & Nationality Act) defines "terrorist activity" to mean any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:
* (I) The hijacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).
* (II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.
* (III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in Section 1116(4) of Title 18, United States Code) or upon the liberty of such a person.
* (IV) An assassination.
* (V) The use of any:
o biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device.
o explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.
* (VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.
Other pertinent portions of Section 212(3) are set forth below:
"Engage in terrorist activity" defined
As used in this chapter (Chapter 8 of the INA), the term, "engage in terrorist activity" means in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization:
* to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;
* to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;
* to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
* to solicit funds or other things of value for:
o (aa) a terrorist activity;
o (bb) a terrorist organization described in Clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II);
o (cc) a terrorist organization described in Clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization’s terrorist activity;
* to solicit any individual:
o (aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this clause;
o (bb) for membership in terrorist organization described in Clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
o (cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described in Clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization’s terrorist activity; or
* to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training:
o (aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;
o (bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity;
o (cc) to a terrorist organization described in Clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
o (dd) to a terrorist organization described in Clause (vi)(III), unless the actor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the act would further the organization’s terrorist activity.
This clause shall not apply to any material support the alien afforded to an organization or individual that has committed terrorist activity, if the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, concludes in his sole unreviewable discretion, that that this clause should not apply."
"Representative" defined
As used in this paragraph, the term, "representative" includes an officer, official, or spokesman of an organization, and any person who directs, counsels, commands, or induces an organization or its members to engage in terrorist activity.
"Terrorist organization" defined"
As used in Clause (i)(VI) and Clause (iv), the term ‘terrorist organization’ means an organization:
* designated under Section 219 (8 U.S.C. § 1189);
* otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in the activities described in Subclause (I), (II), or (III) of Clause (iv), or that the organization provides material support to further terrorist activity; or
* that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in the activities described in Subclause (I), (II), or (III) of Clause (iv).
Section 140
(2) of the "Foreign Relations Authorization Act", Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 defines "terrorism" as "premeditated, politically motivated violence, perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."
[edit] Other provisions
This section requires expansion.
[edit] Delivery bonds
The Real ID Act introduces complex rules covering "delivery bonds." These resemble bail bonds, but are to be required for aliens that have been released pending hearings.
[edit] Miscellaneous provisions
The remaining sections of the Real ID Act allocate funding for some reports and pilot projects related to border security, and change visa limits for temporary workers, nurses, and Australians.
Under the REAL ID Act, nationals of Australia are eligible to receive a special E-3 visa. This provision was the result of negotiations between the two countries that also led to the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement which came into force on January 1, 2005.
[edit] Controversy and opposition
The Real ID Act has faced widespread and intense public criticism from across the political spectrum and remains the subject of several ongoing controversies. Opponents of the Real ID Act include: libertarian groups, in particular the Cato Institute; immigrant advocacy groups; human and civil rights organizations, including ACLU; privacy advocacy groups, including 511 campaign; good government and government accountability groups; labor groups such as AFL-CIO; People for the American Way; consumer and patient protection groups; some gun rights groups; many state lawmakers, state legislatures and governors; and others. [21][22] While most conservative groups and most Republican politicians oppose the Real ID Act to varying degrees, Liberals are split on the issue. Real ID is opposed by such conservative-leaning groups as Gun Owners of America, by the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal as well as by many current and former Republican members of Congress. Apart from the Bush administration, the Real ID Act is strongly supported by the conservative Heritage Foundation and by many anti-illegal immigration advocates. [21]
Among the 2008 presidential candidates, according to a February 2008 CNet report at news.com, John McCain strongly supports the Real ID Act, Barack Obama and Ron Paul flatly oppose it, while Hillary Clinton called for the law to be reviewed. [23] In a September 2007 interview Mike Huckabee expressed opposition to the Real ID Act, calling the Real ID Act "a huge mistake". [24].
[edit] Congressional passage procedure controversy
The original Real ID Act, H. R. 418, was approved by the House on February 10, 2005 by a vote of 261-161. At the insistence of the Real ID Act sponsor and then House Judiciary Committee Chair F. James Sensenbrenner (Republican, Wisconsin), the Real ID Act was subsequently attached by the House Republican leadership as a rider to H.R. 1268, a bill dealing with emergency appropriations for the Iraq War and with the Tsunami relief funding. H.R. 1268 was widely regarded as a "must-pass" legislation. The original version of H.R. 1268 was passed by the Senate on April 21, 2005 and did not include the Real ID Act. However, the Real ID Act was inserted in the conference report on H.R. 1268 that was then passed by the House on May 5, 2005 by a 368-58 vote and was unanimously passed by the Senate on May 10, 2005.[25] The Senate never discussed or voted on the Real ID Act specifically and no Senate committee hearings were conducted on the Real ID Act prior to its passage. [26] Critics charged that this procedure was undemocratic and that the bill's proponents avoided a substantive debate on a far-reaching piece of legislation by attaching it to a "must-pass" bill. [27][28][29][26]
A May 3, 2005 statement by the American Immigration Lawyers Association said: "Because Congress held no hearings or meaningful debate on the legislation and amended it to a must-pass spending bill, the REAL ID Act did not receive the scrutiny necessary for most measures, and most certainly not the level required for a measure of this importance and impact. Consistent with the lack of debate and discussion, conference negotiations also were held behind closed doors, with Democrats prevented from participating."[30]
[edit] National ID card controversy
Arguments for and against identity cards are covered in detail under Identity document.
There is disagreement about whether the Real ID Act institutes a "national identification card" system.[31] The new law only sets forth national standards, but leaves the issuance of cards and the maintenance of databases in state hands; therefore, the Department of Homeland Security claims it is not a "national ID" system.[32] Web sites such as no2realid.org, unrealid.com, and realnightmare.org argue that this is a trivial distinction, and that the new cards are in fact national ID cards, thanks to the uniform national standards created by the AAMVA and (especially) the linked databases, and by the fact that such identification is mandatory if people wish to travel out of the US.
Many advocacy groups and individual opponents of the Real ID Act believe that having a Real ID-compliant license may become a requirement for various basic tasks. Thus a January 2008 statement by ACLU of Maryland says: "The law places no limits on potential required uses for Real IDs. In time, Real IDs could be required to vote, collect a Social Security check, access Medicaid, open a bank account, go to an Orioles game, or buy a gun. The private sector could begin mandating a Real ID to perform countless commercial and financial activities, such as renting a DVD or buying car insurance. Real ID cards would become a necessity, making them de facto national IDs." However, it should be noted that in order to perform many of those tasks, government-issued identification is already required (e.g., two forms of ID - usually a driver's license, passport, or Social Security card - are required by the Patriot Act in order to open a bank account).[33]
[edit] State adoption and non-compliance
Portions of the Real ID Act pertaining to states were scheduled to take effect on May 11, 2008, three years after the law passed, but the deadline had been extended to December 31, 2009.[34] On January 11, 2008, it was announced the deadline has been extended again, until 2011, in hopes of gaining more support from states.[9]
On January 25, 2007, a Resolution passed overwhelmingly in the Maine Legislature that refuses implementation of the Real ID Act in that state, and demands Congress repeal the law. Many Maine lawmakers believe the law does more harm than good, that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to enforce, is threatening to individual privacy, makes citizens increasingly vulnerable to ID theft, and would cost Maine taxpayers at least $185 million in five years because of the massive unfunded federal mandates on all the states. The Resolution vote in the Maine House was 137-4 and in the Maine Senate unanimous, 34-0.[35]
On February 16, 2007, Utah unanimously passed a resolution that opposes the REAL ID Act.[36] The resolution states that REAL ID is "in opposition to the Jeffersonian principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government." It further states that "the use of identification-based security cannot be justified as part of a 'layered' security system if the costs of the identification 'layer'--in dollars, lost privacy, and lost liberty--are greater than the security identification provides":
"the "common machine-readable technology" required by the REAL ID Act would convert state-issued driver licenses and identification cards into tracking devices, allowing computers to note and record people's whereabouts each time they are identified"
"the requirement that states maintain databases of information about their citizens and residents and then share this personal information with all other states will expose every state to the information security weaknesses of every other state and threaten the privacy of every American"
"the REAL ID Act wrongly coerces states into doing the federal government's bidding by threatening to refuse noncomplying states' citizens the privileges and immunities enjoyed by other states' citizens"
Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington have joined Maine and Utah in passing legislation opposing Real ID.[37][38][39][40][41] However it should be noted that most of these actions are non-binding resolutions rather than acts of law, leaving the decision about compliance to the governors themselves.
Similar resolutions are pending in Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.[42]
Other states have moved aggressively to upgrade their IDs since 9/11, and still others have staked decidedly pro-Real ID positions, such as North Carolina,[43], and Michigan[44]. Some states whose legislatures passed non-binding resolutions opposing REAL ID are nonetheless working to comply with the law, such as Illinois[45]. In announcing the new regulations, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff cited California, Alabama and North Dakota[46] as examples of states that had made progress in complying with Real ID.
On July 7, 2008, PR-Governor Aníbal Acevedo Vilá announced that all 15 Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works Driver's Services Center will implement a new system complying with the Real-ID Act.[47]
New York's new policy of issuing driver's licenses to undocumented residents upon presentation of a valid foreign passport goes against the requirements for documentation of legal status and a valid Social Security Number.
Driver's licenses issued by states which do not file a waiver indicating intent to comply with the new standards will not be valid for air travel or to enter federal buildings starting May 11, 2008.[48][49]
As of January 29, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security has announced $79.8 million in grant monies[50] to assist states with REAL ID implementation, and set an application deadline of March 7, 2008.
[edit] Constitutionality
Some critics claim that the Real ID Act violates the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as a federal legislation in an area that, under the terms of the Tenth Amendment, is the province of the states. Thus, Anthony Romero, the executive director of ACLU, stated: "... Real ID is an unfunded mandate that violates the Constitution's 10th Amendment on state powers, destroys states' dual sovereignty and consolidates every American's private information, leaving all of us far more vulnerable to identity thieves." [51].
Former Republican U.S. Representative Bob Barr wrote in a February 2008 article: "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." [52]
The DHS final rule [10] regarding implementation of the Real ID Act discusses a number of constitutional concerns raised by the commenters on the proposed version of this rule. The DHS rule explicitly rejects the assertion that the implementation of the Real ID Act will lead to violations of the citizens' individual constitutional rights (page 5284 of the DHS rule in the Federal register). In relation to the Tenth Amendment argument about violation of states' constitutional rights, the DHS rule acknowledges that that these concerns have been raised by a number of individual commenters and in the comments by some states. The DHS rule does not attempt to rebuff the Tenth Amendment argument directly, but says that the DHS is acting in accordance with the authority granted to it by the Real ID Act and that DHS has been and will be working closely with the states on the implementation of the Real ID Act (pages 5284 and 5317 of the DHS final rule in the Federal Register).
On November 1, 2007, attorneys for Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club filed an amended complaint in U.S. District Court challenging the 2005 REAL ID Act. The amended complaint alleges that this unprecedented authority violates the fundamental separation of powers principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The environmental groups argue that Congress unconstitutionally delegated the power to the Department of Homeland Security (an appointed Executive branch not accountable to the public) to pick and choose which laws will apply to border wall construction. On December 18, 2007, Judge Ellen S. Huvelle rejected the challenge.[53][54]
On March 17, 2008, attorneys for Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its "constitutional challenge to the Secretary’s decision waiving nineteen federal laws, and all state and local legal requirements related to them, in connection with the construction of a barrier along a portion of the border with Mexico"[55][56]. They question whether the preclusion of judicial review amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power and whether the "grant of waiver authority violates Article I’s requirement that a duly-enacted law may be repealed only by legislation approved by both Houses of Congress and presented to the President"[55]. On April 17, 2008, numerous amicus briefs "supporting the petition were filed on behalf 14 members of Congress, a diverse coalition of conservation, religious and Native American organizations, and 28 law professors and constitutional scholars"[57][58][59].
[edit] Asylum and deportation controversy
Many immigrant and civil rights advocates feel that the changes related to evidentiary standards and the immigration officers' discretion in asylum cases, contained in the Real ID Act, would prevent many legitimate asylum seekers from obtaining asylum.[60] [61]. Thus a 2005 article in LCCR-sponsored "Civil Rights Monitor" says: "The bill also contained changes to asylum standards, which according to LCCR, would prevent many legitimate asylum seekers from obtaining safe haven in the United States. These changes gave immigration officials broad discretion to demand certain evidence to support an asylum claim, with little regard to whether the evidence can realistically be obtained; as well as the discretion to deny claims based on such subjective factors as "demeanor". Critics said the reason for putting such asylum restrictions into what was being sold as an antiterrorism bill was unclear, given that suspected terrorists are already barred from obtaining asylum or any other immigration benefit. " [60].
Similarly, some immigration and human rights advocacy groups maintain that the Real ID Act provides an overly broad definition of "terrorist activity" that will prevent some deserving categories of applicants from gaining asylum or refugee status in the United States.[62] A November 2007 report by Human Rights Watch raises this criticism specifically in relation to former child soldiers who have been forcibly and illegally recruited to participate in an armed group. [63]
[edit] Judicial review controversy
A previous version of the Real ID Act (H.R. 418) would have prohibited any judicial review of Homeland Security law waivers for barrier construction. Critics maintained that this would elevate the Secretary of Homeland Security above the law, and this language was changed in the final version (H.R. 1268).
But even the limited restrictions on judicial review remain controversial. Supporters of the Real ID Act see a need to restrain so-called "judicial activism" so needed barriers can be built. Opponents think that the restrictions on judicial review may exceed the authority Congress has to regulate the courts (as spelled out in Article Three of the United States Constitution), and violate the principle of separation of powers.
[edit] Religious controversy
Many Christian religious groups claim the Real ID Act could be part of fulfilled prophecy from the Book of Revelation that relates to a financial control system. These groups commonly cite scriptures out of the King James Bible such as those found in Revelation 13:16-18.
Revelation 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.[64]
They claim this National ID system could be a part of the number of the beast system spoken of in Revelation required for buying and selling on a global scale, and that it could be instituted in the form of a microchip implant or biometric scan such as ocular-based iris scan, or fingerprint recognition.[65]
[edit] Privacy
Many privacy rights advocates charge that by creating a national system electronically storing vast amounts of detailed personal data about individuals, the Real ID Act increases the chance of such data being stolen and thus raises the risk of identity theft. [66] [67] [68] [69] The Bush administration, in the DHS final rule [10] regarding the Real ID Act implementation, counters that the security precautions regarding handling sensitive personal data and hiring DMV workers, that are specified in the Real ID Act and in the DHS final rule, provide sufficient protections against unauthorized use and theft of such personal data (pages 5281-5283 of the DHS final rule in the Federal Register).
Another privacy concern raised by the privacy advocates, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is that the implementation of the Real ID Act will make it substantially easier for the government to track numerous activities of Americans and conduct their surveillance. [70] [71]
Supporters of the Real ID Act, such as a conservative think-tank the Heritage Foundation, reject this criticism and maintain that states will be permitted to share data only when validating someone's identity. [70]
The Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, which was established to advise the Department of Homeland Security on privacy-related issues, released a statement regarding the Department of Homeland Security's proposed rules for the standardization of state driver licenses on May 7, 2007[72]. The committee stated that "Given that these issues have not received adequate consideration, the Committee feels it is important that the following comments do not constitute an endorsement of REAL ID or the regulations as workable or appropriate," and "The issues pose serious risks to an individual’s privacy and, without amelioration, could undermine the stated goals of the REAL ID Act."
[edit] Congressional efforts to change or repeal the Real ID Act
On February 28, 2007 U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka [D-HI] introduced the Senate Bill S. 717, "Identification Security Enhancement Act of 2007", subtitled: "A bill to repeal title II of the REAL ID Act of 2005, to restore section 7212 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which provides States additional regulatory flexibility and funding authorization to more rapidly produce tamper- and counterfeit-resistant driver's licenses, and to protect privacy and civil liberties by providing interested stakeholders on a negotiated rulemaking with guidance to achieve improved 21st century licenses to improve national security". [73] The bill is co-sponsored by Senators Lamar Alexander [R-TN], Max Baucus [D-MT], Patrick Leahy [D-VT], John E. Sununu [R-NH], Jon Tester [D-MT]. The bill was read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on February 28, 2007.
A similar bill was introduced on February 16, 2007 in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Thomas Allen [D-ME], with 32 co-sponsors (all Democrats). The House bill, H.R. 1117, "REAL ID Repeal and Identification Security Enhancement Act of 2007", is subtitled: "A bill to repeal title II of the REAL ID Act of 2005, to restore section 7212 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which provides States additional regulatory flexibility and funding authorization to more rapidly produce tamper- and counterfeit-resistant driver's licenses, and to protect privacy and civil liberties by providing interested stakeholders on a negotiated rulemaking with guidance to achieve improved 21st century licenses to improve national security." [74] On May 23, 2007, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee referred H.R. 1117 to the Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement.
A more limited bill, S. 563, that would extend the deadlines for the states' compliance with the Real ID Act, was introduced on February 13, 2007 in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Susan Collins [R, ME], together with Senators Lamar Alexander [R, TN], Thomas Carper [D, DE], Charles Hagel [R, NE], and Olympia Snowe [R, ME]. [75]
