Blog #5: Privacy and the License Branch / REAL ID

(This was written on 6/15 and posted on 6/17)

With the talk of privacy this week and digital footprints, I found an article that connects this problem with government agencies. This one involves driver's licenses and how your information (digital footprints) can be used to track you wherever you go. When you go to the BMV to renew or get a new license, you are subjected to a process where your picture is taken, as usual, but your facial features are "read" and then documented as part of your digital footprint. Most of you already know this, but what we might not know is that in states like Pennsylvania, that data could be gleaned from the dirver's licence when used to enter certain places, like bars, to prove identity.

The article examines the repurcussions of allowing the state to gather this information into a collective database, where your digital footprint could also include scans of your birth certificate and SS card. In effect, it turns your driver's license into a national ID card, which the government calls REAL ID. According to the article, all states have to submit individual information to the governmnet by the end of this year into a "single, national database." The information could also include what is called biometric data (fingerprints, eye scans, and radio identification chips used for passports).

According to lawmakers who are addressing this issue, "The potential for abuse is absolutely horrendous," and "The more information you put in one spot, the more vulnerable it is and the more likely it will be compromised." They continued, saying, that "people attending any public gathering could be required to scan their cards, giving organizers access to Social Security numbers, birth dates and even facial features."

I didn't know about the REAL ID program until this story. But I think it has a great deal to do with how my picture was taken when I renewed by driver's licence this year. I couldn't smile if I showed my teeth and all hair had to be off of my forehead. No glasses, either. I was told that it was in order for my face to be able to be recognized using certain "points". When I asked why it was being done this way I was told the truth: that it is a better way to identify you if we need to. I didn't ask who the "you" was. Scary.


More info:
REAL ID by Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act
Here's the DHS take on it:
http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/gc_1200062053842.shtm

Full Story:
IS LOSS OF PRIVACY IN THE CARDS?:
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cookie,url,uid&db=krh&AN=2W62W62819703127&loginpage=Login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Blog Posting #4 for Week of June 10th

I found this article and thought it was pertinent to our discussion on Internet filters and intellectual freedom's equal access. The ACLU used a federal statute that was created and enacted into law by groups who wanted to allow bible study during school hours. The ACLU used the same statute to unblock pro-LGTB websites at school. It's the Equal Access Act (enacted in 1984), and it has allowed the ACLU to sue two Tennessee public school districts who have filtered pro-LGTB websites, not anti-LGTB sites.

The article states that, "As the basis for the suit, the ACLU invoked both a federal statute enabling the direct federal-court enforcement of constitutional rights – here, First Amendment rights – and the Equal Access Act, which grants public high school student groups a right to equal access to school resources. "
See more information about the Equal Access Act here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/20/4071.html

Other Tennessee school districts have unblocked the pro-LGTB sites, and since the filtering company's software could block pornography sites separately, there was no argument that the school systems could make for inadvertent access to sexual content. It was also a clear case of "viewpoint censorship" since the anti-LGTB sites were not blocked. It was mentioned in the article that school districts in Indiana had also unblocked the pro-LGTB sites. I wonder if that's the case. If anyone who reads this wants to respond about whether they know if their school district still blocks LGTB sites? The filtering company, called ENA services, still offers the blocking filter to districts that want it. The ACLU might be interested to know if anyone has evidence that their district blocks pro-LGTB sites.

Here is the full Article:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20090605.html

Blog #3 for Week of June 3

I've noticed in my research that Australia has popped up a couple of times with regards to the government attempting to censor the Internet from such nefarious places as gambling websites.
The man in charge of the ACMA (Australia Communications and Media Authority) refuses to accept any advice against his plan to try and block over 1300 sites. I don't know the political structure of Australian government, but there doesn't seem to be the checks and balances that exist here. This man, Senator Steven Conroy, began his campaign to filter the Internet under the auspices of blocking child pornography websites.

The ACMA now has a "secret blacklist" of websites it intends to block using some sort of classification code which is not fully explained in the article. Suggestions by others with cooler heads include an education program to raise awareness of Internet supervision by parents. Another individual implied that the "scheme" couldn't work due to child porn being transferred from peer-to-peer networks that are encrypted (same technology as the X-netters).

Piggy-backing on my last posting, I can't help but wonder if our government will try to do something similar after Obama appoints the Cyber Czar. First, the military is the reason for the need for more control over privacy. After a couple of years of acceptance, what will they try next? The Patriot Act and the DHS are imposing enough, now we have the Czar. The trifecta of ....what should we call it?

Link to Full Story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30998004