April 2, 2008 6:52 PM PDT

Homeland Security blinks on Real ID: No hassles on May 11

This map, updated earlier Wednesday by Homeland Security, shows all states as green--meaning no new air travel or federal building hassles on May 11. Current hassles will continue. The next deadline is December 31, 2009.

WASHINGTON--In the long-running Real ID staring match, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ended up being the first to blink.

Homeland Security announced Wednesday that all 50 states and the District of Columbia will be technically Real ID-compliant by the May 11, 2008 deadline--even though many states actually have rejected the concept and have zero plans to embrace a national ID card.

This means Americans will face no new hassles when using their drivers licenses to enter federal buildings or fly on airplanes starting on May 11. That's a good thing.

But the way this turned out is so odd it's worth repeating. States including New Hampshire, Maine, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Washington, and Montana have enacted laws saying "hell no we'll never comply with Real ID." And Homeland Security officials carefully ignored those public votes of condemnation, instead pretending that those states really intend to acquiesce by the next major deadline of December 31, 2009. (See our special report on Real ID from earlier this year.)

"Now they've got 18 months to actually finish the process of being able to issue the cards that will meet the requirements," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a small group of reporters and bloggers here on Wednesday. "We will have to watch this because the one thing that will be important is for a state not to be dilatory in completing the process."

That may have been a more serious threat a few years ago, when Chertoff was beginning his defense of the Real ID Act, which became law as part of a must-pass tsunami relief and Iraq emergency appropriations bill in 2005.

Now, however, state officials realize that Homeland Security is more likely to back down than not. The first sign of this came when the agency decided to treat a request for an extension past May 11 as a formal agreement to comply with all Real ID rules. The second came when Homeland Security retreated to its fallback position: even a symbolic gesture on the part of a governor amounted to full compliance.

A good example of this dynamic is what happened in the last few days involving Maine, a state that has rejected Real ID in no uncertain terms, and was the only will-have-trouble-at-airports state as of this morning. Its legislation approved last year says that it "refuses to implement the Real ID Act and thereby protest the treatment by Congress and the president of the states as agents of the federal government."

Maine nevertheless asked the feds not to penalize its travelers. Stewart Baker, Homeland Security assistant secretary for policy, replied in a letter that if Maine "is prepared to commit" to embracing Real ID by 5 p.m. on April 2, "we will grant an extension conditioned upon performance of these commitments." (The commitments Baker requested include using a Homeland Security identity verification system, using facial recognition technology so someone can't get two licenses, and so on.)

In response, Gov. John Baldacci, a Democrat, wrote back to Baker saying in part:

I will seek legislation to halt Maine's current practice of issuing licenses to those not present lawfully in the United States.

I will submit legislation, which includes a funding source and appropriations, that will adopt three changes in Maine's licensing processes:

Maine will enter into an agreement with USCIS and utilize the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program to verify DHS documents presented by non-citizens.

Maine will begin capturing and maintaining photographs of each individual applying for a license or state identification card, even if no license is issued.

It worked. Maine got a green check mark, and its licenses will continue to be valid for federal purposes after May 11--even though Baldacci was, for the most part, merely promising to introduce legislation. And the Maine legislators, who soundly rebuked the Bush administration by nearly unanimous votes last year, will be the ones to vote on it.

Last month, Montana took a similar approach. Its governor, Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, has repeatedly denounced Real ID and even called on his counterparts (PDF) in other states to oppose it. But Homeland Security dutifully accepted a relatively hostile letter from Schweitzer--saying he will never "authorize implementation of the Real ID Act"--as good enough.

Now that the May 11 deadline has become effectively meaningless, the next major deadline is December 31, 2009, at which point Homeland Security currently says it will require "certification that the state has achieved the benchmarks set forth in the Material Compliance Checklist."

In political terms, that's a long time--and a new presidential administration--away. Some opponents of Real ID are already predicting that no state will actually comply with the deadline, or, alternatively, the next administration will find a way to quietly dispose of Real ID without much fanfare.

"DHS is not in power here," said Jim Harper, the director of information policy studies at the free-market Cato Institute. "The states are in power. DHS has done all it could, but from a position of weakness...DHS put the best face it could on its capitulation to states with backbone. A lot more states will recognize that they own this issue, they control this debate."

News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this report from Washington, D.C.

Recent posts from The Iconoclast
FBI's Net surveillance proposal raises privacy, legal concerns
Transcript: FBI director on surveillance of 'illegal' Internet activity
FBI, politicos renew push for ISP data retention laws
Shamos: Why e-voting paper trails are a bad idea
FBI nudges state 'fusion centers' into the shadows
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 28 comments (Page 1 of 2)
Hopefully
by The_Decider April 2, 2008 8:14 PM PDT
After the next election once again roundly dismisses the totalitarians and the traitor Bush is gone, this treasonous piece of legislation will be repealed. At least a few handful of states remembered the principles of liberty. Perhaps it will remind the cowards of the only concept that really matters.
Reply to this comment View all 4 replies
Using facial?
by Travis Ernst April 2, 2008 9:14 PM PDT
We are heading Orwellian a little too quick. I don't want a camera 30 yards away to be able to take a picture of me and say YES thats John Doe when it links with the database. Thats FREAKY. What are we trying to do, follow Soccer Mom around the town and see what type of BREAD and MILK she buys??!! Big Brother has outgrown his britches. Time to cut the cord and let him sink. I have been lucky until this year. I missed the updated State cards by a few weeks. Sadly they will catch me this year and get my cuffed into the system. When are they going to start chipping us or inking our kids when they are born, claiming it's for safety. I'd rather be invisible than all over the nations computer systems for another datathief to bust in and steal all of our ID's. I'm not anxious to see the news when the haxers hit it the first time and the panic it causes.
Reply to this comment
encouraging
by coldcoldworld April 2, 2008 11:16 PM PDT
nice to read something from washington that i can go to sleep after
Reply to this comment
Montana did NOT ask for an extention.
by Solaris_User April 3, 2008 2:14 AM PDT
Montana actually did not ask for an extension at all. They said go to hell and the feds then "granted" them one as if they asked for it. On March 21, Montana?s Attorney General, Mike McGrath, sent a letter to DHS Secretary Chertoff, informing him that Montana?s licensing requirements are already "one of the most secure in the nation," and that he cannot authorize implementation of REAL ID because the Montana legislature has forbidden it. DHS replied that it would have to treat McGrath?s letter as "a request for an extension," to which Governor Schweitzer responded, "I sent them a horse and if they want to call it a zebra, that?s up to them. They can call it whatever they want, and it wasn?t a love letter."
Reply to this comment View reply
Boiling a frog
by scdecade April 3, 2008 7:30 AM PDT
That's all this is: boiling a frog. The arrow of government only points in one direction: more.
Reply to this comment
Why would you not want REAL ID?
by Virginian888 April 3, 2008 8:02 AM PDT
Let's see 1 in 4 victims of Identity theft. So a Democratically controlled Congress and a Republican President pass a law that says state issued ID's should Have some sort of biometric identifier and check to make sure someone else is not using your picture. Why would I not want this? If I still were in University and under 21 maybe, If I was an illegal alien using someone else's identity and SS# definitely. But the rest of us? It seems like a way to at least partially cut down on identity theft.
Reply to this comment View all 4 replies
I know why...
by digitalnomad April 3, 2008 8:18 AM PDT
How about it's unconstitutional. 10th Admendment: ?The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.?
Reply to this comment View reply
Why would I NOT want it?
by dscottmc April 3, 2008 10:01 AM PDT
Sorry Virginiann888, but the answer to identity theft does not rest with federal oversight with a biomarker or any centralized database system. It's easier to crack 1 system (federal) than the present 72 or so. The answer lies in technology in the hands of private enterprise. A company in San Francisco, (an article on www.doppelit.com) has developed a patent that completely eliminates identity theft/fraud from any form of copy (copy, skim, loss, etc.) Don't get caught up in the rhetoric, or I should say, "The political con job." D. Scott McGregor scott@scottmcgregor.com
Reply to this comment
REAL ID would address illegal aliens
by jonhuie April 3, 2008 10:08 AM PDT
A strong national ID card would be the most effective way to manage the illegal alien issue. The crazy thing is that the people who are most against a strong national ID card are the very same people who most want to keep out illegal aliens.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
States vs. Feds
by Renegade Knight April 4, 2008 7:15 AM PDT
Why is it the congressional delegates from states who don't like Real ID (which is most states) are the ones who both passed it and refuse to change it?
Reply to this comment View reply
1 | 2 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
  • About The Iconoclast

  • Declan McCullagh has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C. for over a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says: "We oughta have a new federal law against this."

Add this feed to your online news reader
Google
Yahoo
MSN

Latest blog posts from News.com

Featured blogs

Beyond Binary by Ina Fried A look at how technology is changing our lives and at the people behind all that life-changing stuff.

Coop's Corner by Charles Cooper Charles Cooper weighs in on Silicon Valley hijinks, and he doesn't suffer fools gladly.

Defense in Depth by Robert Vamosi Covering the latest in computer viruses and computer crime.

Geek Gestalt by Daniel Terdiman At the tech culture nexus of video games, fire art, and virtual worlds.

Green Tech Fresh green tech news and commentary.

One More Thing by Tom Krazit Tom Krazit takes on the tech phenomenon that is Apple, and keeps a close watch on the chip industry.

Outside the Lines by Dan Farber When business and technology meet, that's when things get interesting.

The Social by Caroline McCarthy Exploring all facets of social media and tech culture.

Underexposed by Stephen Shankland Coverage of digital photography, science, and open-source software.

Resource center from News.com sponsors

advertisement
On CHOW: Does drinking ice water burn calories?
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CNET Networks sites: