This morning the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Public Liaison was good enough to email me a copy of USA Today's editorial supporting the REAL ID Act. Curiously absent from the email was a copy of, or even a link to, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero's opposing view.
It has been called unwise to argue with someone who buys ink by the ton, but USA Today's praiseworthy adoption of "Web 2.0" interactivity on its Web site shows how ink is shrinking in relevance. So let's go ahead and see how the paper did in its point-by-point assessment of REAL ID. Below, USA Today's points are in bold. My commentary in roman text:
Taking the arguments of Real ID opponents one at a time:
•It won't make the nation safer. True, there's no guarantee that the law would have stopped the 9/11 hijackers and that determined terrorists won't find a way around the new requirements. Averting terror attacks, however, requires layers of security. Credible IDs are an important layer.
To be more clear, the law would not have stopped the 9/11 hijackers. All of the 9/11 attackers could have gotten driver's licenses legally had the REAL ID Act been the law on September 11, 2001. Identification really doesn't provide any security against committed threats.
"Layered security" is a legitimate way of thinking about things. One shouldn't rely on a single security system, because that creates a single point of failure. However, security layering doesn't end the inquiry. Each layer must provide security that is cost-justified. If creating a national ID doesn't create a substantial protection - and it doesn't - the national ID layer does more harm than good. Speaking of cost . . .
•It costs too much. Motorists will have to spend an estimated $20 more, a relatively small sum for a standardized, tamper-proof license. For states, the costs are estimated at up to $14.6 billion over five years, offset by as much as $100 million in federal grants this year alone, on top of $40 million in federal aid already provided. Governors can make a case for more help, but cost-sharing arguments shouldn't stop the program from going forward.
DHS's own cost estimate is that REAL ID costs over $17 billion dollars. That's about $50 per man, woman, and child in the United States. State government officials are probably not enthused to know that DHS is making available less than 1 percent of the costs to implement REAL ID.
•It violates privacy. The creation of large databases always is reason to be wary. But the new regulations don't create a national ID card or giant Big Brother-like federal database. States will still issue the licenses and retain information used to verify identity. Making an existing database more credible threatens privacy far less than many private sector data collections do.
To most people, a nationally standardized, government-issued card that is effectively mandatory to carry is a national ID card.
No database, huh? Here’s section 202(d) of the Act:
To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall adopt the following practices in the issuance of drivers’ licenses and identification cards: . . .
(12) Provide electronic access to all other States to information contained in the motor vehicle database of the State.
(13) Maintain a State motor vehicle database that contains, at a minimum–
(A) all data fields printed on drivers’ licenses and identification cards issued by the State; and
(B) motor vehicle drivers’ histories, including motor vehicle violations, suspensions, and points on licenses.
As to private sector data collections, these, at least, people can prevent. But if the private sector is wrong to do this, two wrongs don't make a right.
•It forces illegal immigrants to drive without licenses or insurance. Illegal immigrants won't be able to get Real ID licenses, but states will be allowed to issue permits allowing them to drive and obtain insurance. In any event, the nation's immigration problems require a comprehensive solution in Washington; they can't be solved at state motor vehicle departments.
When the state of New Mexico de-linked driver licensing and immigration status, uninsured vehicle rates in the state dropped from 33 percent to 17 percent. Unlicensed driving, hit-and-run accidents, and insurance rates probably followed a similar course. It's true that states will be allowed to issue non-federally-compliant IDs, including to illegal immigrants. Knowing that such cards are "for illegals," illegals are unlikely to get them. Thanks to REAL ID, these drivers will kill innocent law-abiding Americans on the highways.
•It's too hasty. This is just absurd. DHS gave states until the end of 2009 to have programs in place to replace all licenses by 2013 — a sluggish 12 years after the 9/11 attacks.
Each day that driver's licenses lack credibility is a day of needless vulnerability. As DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff told Congress last month, "If we don't get it done now, someone's going to be sitting around in three or four years explaining to the next 9/11 Commission why we didn't do it."
Few have made the argument that REAL ID is "too hasty." The Department of Homeland Security's regulations didn't make the law workable and neither can a delay. The real problem is the law itself, and it needs to be repealed.
Careful observers noted the contrast between Secretary Chertoff's urgency when speaking to Congress about REAL ID and his Department's willingness to kick implementation down the road another year and a half, to December 2009. Cards wouldn't even be in everyone's hands until 2013. This puts the lie to the idea that a national ID is a security tool at all.
USA Today's editorial page has been rather good on privacy issues in the past, and willing to call out government hypocrisy. They took a winger on this one and got it wrong.