November 24, 2004
Your Papers Please: National Identification Cards
American Military University
SS 121, American Government I
by James Landrith
Following the horrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 on New York City, Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC, the concept of a mandatory national identification card has crept back into public policy discussions and debates. While not a new idea in many parts of the world such as Hong Kong, Malaysia, South Africa and most of Europe, national identification cards would be new to the United States (EPIC).
On its extensive webpage titled “National ID Cards,” the Electronic Privacy Information Center reports that:
In 1971, the Social Security Administration task force on the SSN rejected the extension of the Social Security Number to the status of an ID Card. In 1973, the Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems concluded that a national identifier was not desirable. In 1976, the Federal Advisory Committee on False Identification rejected the idea of an identifier. In 1977, the Carter Administration reiterated that the SSN was not to become an identifier, and in 1981 the Reagan Administration stated that it was “explicitly opposed” to the creation of a national ID card.
As the above text from the Electronic Privacy Information Center demonstrates, throughout multiple Administrations and political party changes in the 1970’s and early 1980’s, at the height of the Cold War, the American government repeatedly rejected the concept of mandatory national identification cards.
Further, according to the Electronic Privacy Information Center, this idea re-emerged during the Clinton Administration’s national discussion on health care reform. EPIC also reports that:
In 1999 Congress repealed a controversial provision in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 which gave authorization to include Social Security Numbers on drivers’ licenses.
An American Civil Liberties Union report from 1996 claims that the social security number provision in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 would be “misplaced” and a “superficial quick fix.” Three years later, Congress agreed and removed the provision from the law (EPIC).
The American Civil Liberties Union further pointed out that the use of social security numbers or other forms of a national identification card “would be no more reliable than the documents a person would show to obtain” the national identification card. In short, fraudulent backup paperwork could easily be used to obtain what would otherwise be considered a legitimate identification card from the government. Further, such an identification card would make government oppression of political minorities far easier to accomplish through increased ability to perform surveillance and tracking of an individual’s movement through the use of his national identification card.
Further elaborating on this theme, David Sobel of Boston University School of Law has chronicled the ugly history of abuses of several nations visited upon their respective citizenry through the use of identification cards and paper systems. For instance, slavery era laws in the United States required slaves traveling off their respective plantations to carry permission passes (Sobel). In France, the use of the world’s first passport was created to control the movements of political dissidents following the French Revolution. This now commonly used document soon spread across Europe as an effective method of internally controlling political dissidents and other critics of the status quo (Sobel).
In A History of South Africa, Robert Lacour-Gayet discusses the use of identification methods by the apartheid South African government to control the movement of non-white citizens. Lacour-Gayet points out that all individuals over the age of sixteen were required to possess an “identity book and proof of their work contract” in order to travel outside their government segregated communities.
A similar system of identity controls were used by Nazi Germany to track and suppress the movement of its Jewish citizenry during the years leading up to World War II and the Holocaust (Sobel). German officials used government collected documents to access birth records, business documentation, marriage licenses and other forms of data collection to identify and segregate populations based on religion, sexual orientation, race and other factors (Sobel). While such a task could surely be accomplished without the records, the logistics of such would have been much more difficult, costly, time consuming and less accurate without having access to the previously collected documentation. Clearly, collecting such data for so-called harmless ends like tracking statistics on marriages or births can easily be used for much more devious ends by future regimes.
The concept of a national identification card, resurrected from the policy graveyard, is again being discussed and debated as a potential weapon in the war on terror. This time, however, the proponents of such a concept have chosen to promote a de facto national identification card via coordination of an individual’s driver’s license and national information databases. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) Special Task Force on Identification Security has repeatedly requested that Congress implement a mandatory plan to standardize and link all state license databases and identification cards for ease of identification tracking and issuance. Further, the AAMVA advocate that Congress mandate the use of biometric identifiers such as a thumbprint or retinal scan on driver’s licenses and other forms of government issued identification (EPIC).
While such provisions can possibly lead to a moderate increase in security, they will likely also lead to greater control of the citizenry through the government’s increased ability to monitor and track political opponents and dissident movements (Sobel). In addition, the AAMVA proposals would shift the focus of state driver’s licensing offices from issuing licenses and identity cards to verification of citizenship and various unrelated tasks. These additional powers open the door to unnecessary accumulation of personal and professional information in government databases. The more information a particular government agency is allowed to accumulate about its citizens, the greater the possibility of abuse of said data and suppression of the public by dishonest or tyrannical leaders.
The accumulation of such data by government agencies also seems to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s restriction against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” By allowing such data hoarding of private information, the government would be complicit in the public’s loss of privacy and the potential for abuses of said data by future administrations.
On February 11, 2002, a non-partisan coalition of national civil liberties organizations, policy institutes and related publications, including my publication The Multiracial Activist, sent a letter to President George W. Bush outlining our concerns with the AAMVA’s proposal. First, the coalition pointed out that an “identity card is only as good as the information that establishes” the individual’s identity. Second, this proposal would require massive amounts of personal data storage by government agencies. Third, a national identification program would drain away funding from more legitimate uses, such as border security and other methods of counter-terrorism. Fourth, the accumulation of such data in multiple databases leaves the information vulnerable to hacking and the public exposed to a greater chance of identity theft. Fifth, once established, a national identification card system could easily be transitioned into an “internal passport,” restricting movement and stifling dissent.
Later that same year, H.R. 4633, the “Driver’s License Modernization Act of 2002” was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. The same coalition of organizations sent another letter in opposition. This letter was addressed to Chairman Don Young and Ranking Member James Oberstar of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In addition to the previous concerns, the coalition was especially distressed by the addition of a provision allowing private corporate databases to be linked to government databases. Such a linkage, without the consent of those included in the database, would greatly increase the amount of information available to bureaucratic agencies about the public.
Over the next two years, little happened on this front until the passage of H.R. 10 in the House and S. 2845 in the Senate. The same coalition responsible for the two 2002 letters issued another letter to the Conference Committee on Intelligence Reform on November 15, 2004, outlining their concerns with the AAMVA’s database expansion proposal being included in the bills passed by both Houses of Congress. These bills are currently stalled in Conference, but the possibility of a de facto national identification card is extremely likely in the very near future. Should such an undesirable outcome occur, the possibilities for theft of information, fraud, impersonation, blackmail and suppression of minority political views will be greatly increased.
References
Lacour-Gayet, Robert. A History of South Africa. London: Cassell. 1977.
“National Identification Cards.” American Civil Liberties Union. 21 Nov. 2004 <http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaidcard.html>.
“National ID Cards.” Electronic Privacy Information Center. 21 Nov. 2004 <http://www.epic.org/privacy/id_cards/>.
“Open Letter to the Conference Committee on Intelligence Reform.” Anti-National Identification Card Coalition. 15 Nov. 2004. 21 Nov. 2004 <http://www.multiracial.com/letters/2004-11-15.pdf>.
“Letter to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.” Anti-National Identification Card Coalition. 27 Jun. 2002. 21 Nov. 2004 <http://www.multiracial.com/letters/2002-06-27.pdf>.
“Letter to President George W. Bush.” Anti-National Identification Card Coalition. 11 Feb. 2002. 21 Nov. 2004 <http://www.multiracial.com/letters/2002-02-11.html>.
“Your Papers, Please: From the State Drivers License To A National Identification System.” Electronic Privacy Information Center. Feb. 2002.