Topic: Law and Civil Liberties

Rumors that the UK Will Abandon National ID

Via SecureID News, politics.co.uk reports on speculation that incoming Prime Minister Gordon Brown will abandon the UK’s national identification card scheme.

Back-handed encouragement for that has come in an open letter to Brown from Conservative shadow home secretary David Davis:

As chancellor you already bear responsibility for the £58 million of taxpayers money wasted on this expensive white elephant… .Experts in the field warn that, far from making us more secure, ID cards risk making us less safe. By clustering a mass of personal information in one place, ID cards will make us a prize target for hackers, fraudsters and terrorists.

Almost a year ago, the Sunday Times reported on leaked emails showing that the UK national ID scheme is in collapse. Much like the U.S. scheme is now.

National Service Is Garbage

In Albania, anyway. NPR reports that garbage is piling up in the streets of Tirana, and “It’s something you could blame on the fall of communism.” As reporter Vicky O’Hara explained,

When communism collapsed here in the early 1900s so did the city’s system of garbage removal. Shpresa Rira, a teacher at the foreign language institute in Tirana, remembers that under communism families were ordered to spend part of their weekend picking up trash.

Ms. SHPRESA RIRA: It was called the communist Saturday because people were meant to come to come together and give their services to the community.

O’HARA: Rira says that people were not paid but they turned out anyway, because if they didn’t, the consequences could be dire.

So it was universal compulsory service, like Melvin Laird and John Edwards want for the United States. But it turns out it didn’t work so well in Albania.

The communist tactic, she says, destroyed community spirit in Albania.

Ms. RIRA: We thought that we were closely connected, but as soon as communism was over, you know, we understood that that community spirit didn’t exist at all. It was just a fake.

And like most collectivist systems, it did not  “foster a culture of responsibility for our democracy.” Instead, it left people expecting that government would handle everything. So now, the government no longer threatens people with dire consequences for not picking up trash, and no one does. The city has been slow to create a normal garbage collection system. Maybe this forced community spirit stuff isn’t such a good idea after all.

A Travesty in Tehran

I’ve been out of the office for a bit, but coming back I see that the Government of Iran has now charged Woodrow Wilson Center scholar Haleh Esfandiari with trying to foment a “velvet revolution” in Iran. It is awful news for several reasons.

First, the charges that Esfandiari was plotting to overthrow the Tehran government seem ridiculous. The notion is entirely at odds with the body of Esfandiari’s scholarly work at the Wilson Center, not exactly a hotbed of ideological bomb-throwing. (The Wilson Center chief, Lee Hamilton, tried quietly approaching President Ahmadinejad starting in February, keeping the matter out of the headlines. He has as yet received no response.) It is also worth mentioning that Esfandiari had come under some criticism from neocons and right-wingers in Washington for being too sympathetic to Tehran’s position in the bilateral relationship. The notion that she is a U.S. or Israeli spy strains credulity.

Second, her arrest gives hardliners in Washington grounds to wag their fingers in the faces of those of us (including people like Esfandiari) who favor dialogue and reduced tensions. Reuel Marc Gerecht immediately charged to the pages of the New York Times to argue that the event made clear that his view of the Islamic Republic, “suspicious, cynical, hawkish and religiously oriented,” offered the most plausible explanation. In part as a result of the Esfandiari case, it is an argument with more momentum than this analyst would like.

Third, it greatly jeopardizes U.S.-Iran relations at a time when the Bush administration is seen (grading on a curve, admittedly) as taking small steps away from confrontation with Iran and toward conciliation. Whether Esfandiari’s detention and arrest were an attempt by hardliners in Iran to scuttle rapprochement or not, the events have an effect of putting a damper on pushes from Washington to get to the negotiating table and avert a catastrophe.

But all of the political implications pale by comparison to the fact that a human being–and one who has worked tirelessly to produce outcomes that would benefit the citizens of both Iran and the United States–has been imprisoned unjustly and without even the pretense of due process. One can only hope that the leadership in Iran will come to its senses, whether out of recognition of its error or out of the realization that this sort of confrontation serves no one’s interests: the regime’s, the Iranian people’s, or the world’s.

The American Islamic Congress has set up a “Free Haleh” website here, and for further back story, read the op-ed from Esfandiari’s husband, GMU professor Shaul Bakhash.

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.

I’ll Take the Frying Pan over the Fire

Via Ars Technica, here’s a Quad-Cities Online report on the state of Illinois using $1 million in taxpayer dollars to fund litigation in support of an unconstitutional ban on video game violence. The money was taken from other budget areas, including public health, welfare, and economic development.

The ideal would be to give the money back to taxpayers. It rightly belongs to them. But given the choice between using the funds to erode free speech rights or using them to support the welfare state, I’ll take the welfare state.

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.