Archive for the ‘Compliance’ Category

BTC Exclusive – Language to HB 234, Utah’s state bill to opt-out of Real ID, was amended recently as a concession to gain Gov. Herbert’s signature. The amendment, authored by Senator Margaret Dayton, limited the state bill’s ability to prohibit all future national identity programs from consideration in the State of Utah. Future federal identity legislation, like the proposed Schumer-Graham bill to approve national biometric worker ID cards, would not be excluded from considerations in the amended version of the bill.

The bill, if passed as amended, would close the door on any future implementations or benchmark compliance movements in Utah. The issue of license benchmark compliances were debated during the bill’s passage through the House, according to sponsor Rep. Stephen Sandstrom. Citizens opposed to Real ID and similar legislations balked at some of the bill’s language, doubting the bill’s ability to stop incremental movements forward to implement the use of RFID and subsequent databases.

“There is nothing in the current [license] code to [move forward with RFID, databases], ” said Sandstrom, who says the bill would opt-out Utah of any future compliance with the Real ID Act, but not of future programs involving national identity.
License holders who possesss cards which comply in part with the Real ID Act program will not have to return to the DMV to get a different license once the bill is passed. For instance, Utah license holders with benchmark compliant bar codes won’t return to long lines to renew or replace licenses for new IDs without barcodes. Utah licenses with the barcodes also won’t be moved to the next step of being incorporated into a national to international database aggregate set forward by the Real ID program.

BTC – AAMVA or the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators published every state’s progress for benchmarks and compliance.

If you are currently unsure of what your state is doing regarding material compliance with the Real ID act or the PASS ID Act coming up for congressional revision; you might want to search this document for your state’s DMV or driver’s license division.
The very first benchmark is something privacy and identity advocates will pay special attention to among others…

1 § 37.11(a) Subject each applicant to a mandatory facial image capture and retain such image even if a driver license (DL) or

identification card (ID) is not issued


[DEADLINE =] 3/2010 DMV’s new software system will integrate this requirement. Work flow of DL/ID transaction being reconfigured. Work stations will now include cameras to capture digital photos of all DL/ID applicants


“Under REAL ID, states not able to certify full compliance by December 31,2009, may request an extension until May 10,2011. A Material Compliance Checklist must accompany the extension request. As of December 31,2009, DHS and its Components may not accept driver’s licenses issued by states that are not in material compliance with REAL ID Act for any official purpose, including identification for domestic air travel.” – Janet Napolitano, in an extension letter to Gov. Jim Douglas of Vermont

I’m beginning to get the impression that this is a

game of pass the bramble.

So everyone just relax &
“Pass the Dutchie… to the left one side… ”
– Musical Youth

The following rhetoric is a pleasant surprise from colleague, Mark Lerner, known for possessing good information about Real ID.

Commentary by Mark Lerner of Stop Real ID Coalition

Today the DHS extended the deadline for states to ask for an extension in order to comply with the Real ID Act 2005. Prior to today the states had until 11 October 2009 to ask for an extension. States now have until 1 December 2009.

What I find very interesting is the strategy DHS and others are using to persuade states and Congress to agree to support the PASS ID Act, SB261.

DHS is reminding states and Congress that under current federal law (The Real ID Act 2005) DHS will be left with no alternative but to comply with the Real ID Act, 31 December 2009. I was present for Secretary Napolitano’s testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee on 15 July 2009. The Secretary verbally drew an image of long lines at airports and entrances to federal facilities.

According to the Secretary everyone would have to be subject to secondary screening procedures because not one State would be Real ID compliant by 31 December 2009.

I question why it is that we seem to always be told that if we do not do something today the sky will fall. Yes, the PASS ID Act, if passed and signed into law would give the States new timelines to comply with federal legislation (PASS Act) and the old timelines of the Real ID Act would no longer be in effect.

There are other alternatives. Congress may decide to extend the implementation date for the Real ID Act 2005 past 31 December 2009.

If I did not trust DHS I might think that the extension is being given so that the opposition to the Real ID Act would not be apparent on 11 October. If the 11 October date came and States did not ask for extensions there would be “discussion” about why states were not asking for the extensions. By extending the date until 1 December it gives Congress the time to pass the PASS ID Act legislation and have it signed by the President before any discussion takes place.

The best alternative would be if Congress would allow opposing testimony to the PASS Act and consider additional alternatives to the Real ID Act 2005, PASS ID Act (SB1261) and the Real ID Repeal and Identification Security Enhancement Act of 2009 (HR3471). Senator Lieberman did not allow any opposing testimony to the PASS Act when the legislation was in the committee he chairs.

It is noteworthy that Senator Lieberman did not allow opposing testimony and now DHS seems to want to eliminate the “discussion” about why States would not as for extensions to comply with the Real ID Act.

For those of you who do not know, many of those who oppose the Real ID Act oppose the PASS ID legislation for the same reasons.

Why are our elected officials and DHS so afraid of debate/discussion about the Real ID Act 2005, the PASS ID Act and the Real ID Repeal and Identification Security Enhancement Act of 2009? The answer is very simple. DHS and Congress are afraid if there is a discussion about the Real ID Act 2005 and/or other proposed legislation that discussion might turn into a much broader discussion about the power the federal government is seeking over States and citizens. [*cough* “IMMIGRATION”-BTC]

It is time for a discussion about civil liberties and national security.

We, as a country have gone through this charade before. There was no debate at all in the United States Senate when the Real ID Act 2005 passed and was signed into law.


As legislative sessions kick in, it’s back to basics. 

Businessweek.com  Debate Room

To promote safety and cut red tape, state-by-state licenses should be replaced by federally issued ones. Pro or con?  [MORE]


Real ID in a Nutshell 

The debacle analysis continues.

TechRepublic c/o Chad Perrin

Isn’t greater security important? Doesn’t a set of national standards set a minimum bar for security, bringing nationwide compliance up to at least a tolerable level? Aren’t standards — especially for something as important as security — good things?

The answer is complex, but key points include:

effectiveness: As Governor Schweitzer points out in the above-linked interview, most of the identified 9/11 hijackers would have qualified to be issued an ID under the requirements of the REAL ID Act.

privacy: Among other issues of privacy, this Act aims to create a national database, available to many federal and state agencies, tracking personally identifying information about carriers of REAL ID compliant identification cards — which could also contribute to increased risk of identity fraud.

risks: Some of the requirements of the Act may actually increase security risks, rather than reducing them. This is a common problem with broadly applied standards enacted by people (like Congress) who have no security expertise. Among the problems is the mandate for RFID chips in your wallet — a source of security vulnerability about which I’ve already written, in What to do about RFID chips in your wallet.
legality: The law created by the passage of the REAL ID Act may itself be illegal. Specifically, it has been argued that it is unconstitutional, violating the 10th Amendment. [MORE]

Drivers license rejection anger policy’s critics
Susan Carroll, Houston Chronicle

New citizenship rules for Texas licenses lead to misfortune, complications

“I have always maintained my legal status,” Mehmood said. “It’s not fair to people who want to live here and follow the law.”Adeel Mehmood, University of Houston alumni

Three months after the policy took effect, critics are pointing to a growing list of cases involving legal immigrants who have been significantly delayed or outright rejected in efforts to get or renew licenses despite being authorized to live and work legally in the U.S.

“I have always maintained my legal status,” Mehmood said. “It’s not fair to people who want to live here and follow the law.”

Under the policy change, only applicants who have documents showing they have permission to stay in the U.S. for at least six months are eligible for Texas drivers’ licenses. But immigration attorneys are reporting that people who meet that criteria but are unable to produce documents required by the Department of Public Safety to prove their legal status are still being turned away.

For example, Mehmood said he was rejected by DPS after being told his letter from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services granting him asylum wasn’t specifically listed on DPS’ list of acceptable forms. [MORE]