Smart Card Alliance Not Particularly Concerned About Privacy Implications Of REAL ID Act
from the not-their-privacy dept
For a few years now, many have been pushing for the "REAL ID Act" which would effectively create a national ID program. The supporters of the law suggest that it would somehow make us safer, ignoring plenty of evidence that it would do the opposite by making identity theft that much easier. It's also never clearly explained how this makes anyone any safer. It certainly does make it a lot easier for people to be tracked -- and as we've seen lately, governments have a hard time resisting the urge to misuse these tools to snoop on people, even when they have no legal right to the information. So, when these very real concerns are brought up by folks like Jim Harper at Cato, you would think that supporters of the Act would have a decent response on the security and privacy issues -- but instead, they brush it off as "nothing to worry about." Harper points to the quotes from Randy Vanderhoof, the Smart Card Alliance's executive director, saying: "Privacy concerns are all perception and hype and no substance but carry considerable weight with state legislators because no one wants to be accused of being soft on privacy." It's nice of him to brush off the security and privacy concerns of everyone else without backing up his statements -- but the problem is that, if he's wrong (and he's very wrong) it's not quite a system where you can put the genie back in the bottle after the data has been leaked. Given how many stories we've seen this year alone about government data leaks, I'd say that there's plenty of substance to the concerns -- and anyone brushing them aside has lost touch with what's actually happening.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Firstr post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
REAL ID ACT is discriminatory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's just putting all the eggs in one basket; however, and yes - anyone with any sense should know it's a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a good solution
At some point we need to make a new ID system that can not be faked so easily. Whether it is by finger print, retinal scan, or whatever, as long as it is something that can uniquely identify someone. While I'm sure it is possible, I doubt ID theft would be as high if your eye was the key.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]