Topic: Foreign Policy and National Security

Phil Bond Doesn’t Understand Security

Here’s an interesting Washington Technology article on the security issues that would be created by implementing the REAL ID Act. Complying with the law would require states to create huge, nationally accessible databases of information about all licensed drivers and ID card-holders. Computer security guru Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer at BT Counterpane Internet Security, is quoted, saying “Computer scientists don’t know how to keep a database of this magnitude secure.”

The really striking quote from the article, though, goes to a different kind of security: security against terrorist attacks. Information Technology Association president Phil Bond is quoted in a statement on the REAL ID Act:

“Today’s system is the system that helped to bring us the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,” said Phil Bond, ITAA president, in the statement. “We know the problem, and we have the technology to fix it.”

How many different ways has Bond gotten security wrong? I can’t list them all, but …

The first is the implied causal relationship between our present-day ID card system and terror attacks. There are many causes of terrorism and terrorist attacks - Ron Paul recently stirred the Republican pot by suggesting they include an interventionist foreign policy. To respond to the literal import of Bond’s statement: the ID system in our country did not cause weak groups elsewhere to adopt the strategy of terrorism. Our current ID and licensing system did not “bring us” the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

But Bond was making purposeful use of inaccurate language. His implication is that the current driver licensing system is so lacking in security measures that it can be treated as an equivalent to a real cause of terrorist attack. This is where Bond’s security ignorance shines like a beacon.

For all the benefits they provide, including a modicum of security, identity systems provide almost no security against committed opponents like terrorist organizations, criminal enterprises, or even hardened criminals. In my book Identity Crisis: How Identification is Overused and Misunderstood, I show how identity acts as an economic and social glue. It brings people together for all kinds of transactions, and it holds them together if and when things go wrong. But I also show how breakable this glue is. Identity does not reveal intention.

People who have studied identity and security know that you can’t extrapolate from the use of identity in every-day transactions to the use of identity in counter-terrorism. Commited bad actors will defraud, inflitrate, or corrupt card issuing systems, or create fraudulent identity documents directly - to say nothing of simply avoiding targets that are controlled by identification checks. (That’s not a big improvement in security. There are far more uncontrolled targets than controlled targets.)

Evidently, Phil Bond is not someone who has studied identity and security, which is a shame given that he is the highly regarded leader of a significant technology-industry trade association.

State to Young People: You Belong to Me

Under the benign headline “Turning Apathy Into Good Deeds,” former secretary of defense Melvin Laird endorses a strikingly authoritarian proposal: “a system of compulsory universal civil service for young people.” Laird recognizes that the military doesn’t need all the recruits a draft would produce and that today’s high-tech military needs longer-term training and commitment. But the drawn-out war in Iraq threatens to discourage future enlistments. So “universal service” might pressure just enough young people to join the army, while also producing a bumper crop of slave labor for schools, Head Start, Peace Corps, hospitals, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the State Department.

Laird thinks such a program would “foster a culture of responsibility for our democracy.” Not among free and responsible people, it wouldn’t. It may be no accident that Laird repeatedly mentions democracy, but the words freedom and liberty–the fundamental values of America, which our constitutional republic was created to protect–do not appear in his piece.

Laird does not address how you square compulsory service with the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Laird’s proposed “service” is clearly involuntary.

For generations and centuries, old people have complained that today’s young people just don’t appreciate the sacrifices of their elders. They talk too loud and they don’t care about the community. They need, in the words of William James, “to get the childishness knocked out of them, and to come back into society with healthier sympathies and soberer ideas.”

And meanwhile, they can do a lot of useful things that we older taxpayers would like to have done but don’t want to pay for. After all, in a market economy, if you want more people working in hospitals or day-care centers, you can pay them to do so. And if you don’t think $2.9 trillion is enough to pay for all the useful services of the federal government, you can propose a tax increase. But how much easier it might seem just to commandeer four million free or cheap laborers.

Of course, they’re not really so cheap. You do have to pay them something. And you’ll need massive new layers of bureaucracy to manage four million people (the approximate number of Americans who turn 18 each year).

And then there are the opportunity costs.  Workers will be allocated to government make-work jobs instead of the jobs where the market demand is strongest. The economy will be less efficient and less productive. As Doug Bandow writes, “paying young people to sweep floors entails the cost of forgoing whatever else we could do with that money and the cost of forgoing whatever else those young people could do with their time. An additional dollar spent on medical research might be a better investment than one used to add an extra hospital helper; an additional young person who finished school and entered the field of biogenetics might increase social welfare more than one more kid shelving books in a library.”

What kind of message does compulsory service send to young people? It tells them that they are national resources, state property, that they do not own themselves. That’s not the message the Founders thought they were sending in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It’s not an attitude appropriate for citizens of a free society. It’s a collectivist, authoritarian concept. It says, with much less charm than the old song, “You belong to me.”

Melvin Laird should be ashamed. So should John Edwards.

REAL ID Update

Lots of interesting things continue to happen with the REAL ID Act, America’s faltering national ID law. Passed in May 2005, it would have states issue drivers’ licenses and IDs to federal standards by May of next year.

The count of states rejecting implementation of this federal surveillance mandate has now reached 11, with Missouri, Georgia, and Nevada most recently joining the list of states opposed.

Interestingly, Department of Motor Vehicle bureaucrats in Nevada continue to move forward with REAL ID planning, despite the opinions of the state’s legislature. According to a Federal Computer Week article posted today, “Nevada’s Department of Motor Vehicles … is investigating facial recognition and various methods for sharing driver’s license information with other states and the federal government.” This, despite the legislature consistently cutting funding for implementation and passing legislation urging Congress to repeal REAL ID. But what’s a legislature to stand in the way of bureaucrats doing what they want to do?

Activity in other states continues. In Michigan, Rep. Paul Opsommer (R-DeWitt) has introduced a resolution urging Congress to repeal REAL ID. This has earned him plaudits from Lansing State Journal columnist Derek Melot, whose recent blog post about Opsommer’s bill was called “Somebody gets it.” Indeed Opsommer does. (Be sure to read the comments. Someone with behind-the-scenes knowledge has offered his take.)

At the federal level, Title III of the ballyhooed immigration reform bill might as well be called REAL ID II. It would spend $300 million trying to get states to implement the REAL ID Act. (This is both too much and too little. Too much, because REAL ID shouldn’t be implemented. Too little because implementation will cost the states and people over $17 billion dollars.) Most importantly, possession of a REAL ID-compliant license or ID card will be a condition of getting federal permission for working if Title III passes as written. The Department of Homeland Security is using immigration reform to try to resurrect its failed national ID plan, described by Senate Homeland Security Chairman Lieberman as “unworkable” when it originally passed.

Ashcroft: Closet Civil Libertarian?

A piece in yesterday’s Post points out that, contrary to John Ashcroft’s reputation as a lockstep defender of the administration’s war-on-terror policies, as attorney general, Ashcroft “at times resisted what he saw as radical overreaching”:

In addition to rejecting to the most expansive version of the warrantless eavesdropping program, the officials said, Ashcroft also opposed holding detainees indefinitely at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without some form of due process. He fought to guarantee some rights for those to be tried by newly created military commissions. And he insisted that Zacarias Moussaoui, accused of conspiring with the Sept. 11 hijackers, be prosecuted in a civilian court.

All true, but the article leaves out one of the most important occasions on which Ashcroft pushed back.  In 2002, the adminstration seriously contemplated extending the Jose Padilla treatment–that is, indefinite confinement at the will of the president, without charges or access to counsel–to all Americans suspected of terrorist activity.  As Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman reported in Newsweek three years ago, in addition to Padilla, “officials privately debated whether to name more Americans as enemy combatants—including a truck driver from Ohio and a group of men from Portland, Ore.,” as well as the Lackawanna Six

For Dick Cheney and his ally, Donald Rumsfeld, the answer was simple: the accused men should be locked up indefinitely as “enemy combatants,” and thrown into a military brig with no right to trial or even to see a lawyer. That’s what authorities had done with two other Americans, Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla. “They are the enemy, and they’re right here in the country,” Cheney argued, according to a participant. But others were hesitant to take the extraordinary step of stripping the men of their rights, especially because there was no evidence that they had actually carried out any terrorist acts. Instead, John Ashcroft insisted he could bring a tough criminal case against them for providing “material support” to Al Qaeda. 

Indeed, though Ashcroft seemed to have been on board with the transfer of Padilla out of civilian custody, he apparently helped prevent a much broader assault on the rule of law. 

Now I think calling John Ashcroft a civil libertarian for this would be setting the bar pretty low.  But after nearly six years of radical overreaching, it’s hard not to fall victim to the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” 

Immigration Reform = National ID?

Yesterday’s “breakthrough” on comprehensive immigration reform is indeed salutary. But as the Washington Post editorializes this morning, “It’s critical that in addressing one set of immigration problems, the legislation doesn’t create a new set.”

One potential problem is the creation of a national ID in the process of expanding worker surveillance for intensified internal enforcement. This was the subject of a hearing in the House Immigration Subcommittee at which I recently testified.

Like many, I’ll be watching carefully to see if a national ID system is part of the ineluctable logic of the immigration reform deal that has been struck. Ineluctably, I’ll be calling it like I see it.