EPIC (2002)1 “YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE”
WATCHING THE WATCHERS – Policy Report #1 (February 2002)
“Y
OUR
P
APERS
, P
LEASE
: F
ROM THE
S
TATE
D
RIVERS
L
ICENSETO A
N
ATIONAL
I
DENTIFICATION
S
YSTEM
”
An Assessment of the Proposal of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators(AAMVA) to Transform the State Drivers License into a De Facto National ID CardSUMMARY
The American Association of Motor VehicleAdministrators (AAMVA) Special Task Forceon Identification Security has issuedrecommendations that would turn the statedriver license into a de facto national ID card.The proposed scheme, analyzed in detail below,seeks federal legislation to require all states andother jurisdictions to conform to uniformstandards for driver license eligibility, proof of identity, license content and document security.It would facilitate greater information sharingbetween jurisdictions and with state and federalagencies. It seeks to reduce fraud by encodingunique biometric identifiers on licenses andstrictly enforcing prohibitions on credentialfraud. But the biometric identifier would alsoenable new systems of identification in theprivate sector, and will contribute to greaterprofiling and surveillance of American citizens.EPIC supports efforts to detect and prevent fraudoccurring by means of the state driver’s license.New technologies can reduce the risk of counterfeiting and fraud. It is also appropriatefor the state Departments of Motor Vehicles(DMVs) to implement improved documentsecurity measures to prevent forgery. However,EPIC opposes AAMVA's move to standardizedriver's licenses, to collect more and moreinvasive personal information, and to expand theinformation sharing capacities of DMVs.This proposal has all the elements, risks anddangers of a national identification card system.The only distinctions between the AAMVAproposal and other National ID proposalsrejected in the past are that (a) the card will notbe issued by the federal government but by statemotor vehicle agencies under mandatory federalregulations, and (b) the driver's license andDMV issued identity cards, held by 228 millionindividuals, are not (yet) mandatory. Thesedistinctions are illusory rather than substantive,do not diminish the harm to individuals' privacy,and should not dissuade public opposition to thescheme.
“YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE”2 EPIC (2002)
The AAMVA proposal will have far-reachingand profound impacts on individual privacy. Itsignificantly transforms the legitimate purposeof the driver's license: to certify that anindividual is competent to drive a motor vehicle.It does not accomplish its stated aims of increased safety and security, but merely shiftsthe potential for fraud and identity theft to ahigher plane, where the intrinsic privacyinvasion is greater, and the means of remedyinginevitable flaws in the system is more complexand difficult.
⇒
There must be wider public debate about the details and the consequences of AAMVA's national identification card and driver's license system.
AAMVA and its industry advisors
1
have notgiven adequate consideration to either the detailsof their proposed system or its consequences.They have failed to define the scope of properaccess to and use of personal information, failedto consider mechanisms to prevent internalbreaches or misuse by third parties, and failed toprovide a means to correct abuses when theyinevitably occur.There must be wider public debate about thedetails and the consequences of AAMVA'snational identification card and driver's licensesystem.EPIC favors legislative proposals that wouldreduce the risks of counterfeiting and tampering,that would enable greater accuracy andreliability, and that would give individual license
1
Seehttp://www.aamva.org/links/mnu_lnkAssociateMembers.asp for a list of AAMVA AssociateMembers & Industry Advisory Board Members andhttp://www.aamva.org/drivers/drvIDSecurityDocuments.asp for a list of identification technologycompanies submitting reports to AAMVA's SpecialTask Force on Identification Security.
holders greater control over the subsequent useof their personal information. EPIC opposesprovisions that would facilitate linkage of personal data among federal and state agencies,that would expand profiling of licensed drivers,and that would turn the state drivers license intoan open-ended system of identification thatcould be routinely requested for purposesunrelated to the administration of motor vehiclesand the safety of public roads.
Background of Driver’s License Privacy
For more than a decade, state legislatures, theCongress, and even federal courts have workedto safeguard the privacy of driver recordinformation. Aware that the widespreadavailability of the personal information obtainedby state agencies for the purpose of licensingdrivers has contributed to identity theft, financialloss, and even death, efforts to limit the use of driver’s record information has been a highpriority in the United States beginning withpassage of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act of 1994, which limited the ability of state DMVs tocirculate information obtained from individualswho applied for drivers licenses. The law, whichwas challenged by several states on federalismgrounds, was upheld by the United StatesSupreme Court in one of the few recent opinionswhere the Court has held that the federalgovernment has the authority to regulate statepractices.
2
Other steps taken to limit or reduce the risks of disclosure of personal information includeefforts to allow non-commercial drivers todesignate an identification number other than theSocial Security Number. This change cameabout in part because of the awareness that the
2
Condon v. Reno,
528 U.S. 141
(2000)http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1464.ZO.html. See also EPIC's Amicus Brief athttp://www.epic.org/privacy/drivers/epic_dppa_brief.pdf
EPIC (2002)3 “YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE”
use of a single identifier, such as the SSN, wascontributing to identity theft and white-collarcrime.States have also passed laws restricting thecircumstances when a person can be required toprovide a drivers license. And a federal appealscourt ruled recently that it is unconstitutional forpolice to arrest someone for failure to provideidentity documents.
3
All of these developments in the United Statesover the past decade indicate widespread effortsat all levels of government to protect privacyand to reduce the risk that could result from theuse of the state drivers license as a de factonational identifier.
Analysis of AAMVA recommendations
4
Set out below is an assessment of the eightprinciples contained in the initial AAMVAreport. The first three principles put forward byAAMVA are:
AAMVA(1) Improve and standardize initialdriver’s license and ID card processes AAMVA(2) Standardize the definition of residency in all states and provinces AAMVA(3) Establish uniform procedures for serving non-citizens
AAMVA seeks to "improve and standardizeinitial driver's license and ID card processes."This would include standardizing the definitionof residency and imposing uniform procedures
3
Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board
4
AAMVA Press Release, January 14 2002[http://www.aamva.org/news/nwsPressReleaseAAMVAHelpsSecureSaferAmerica.asp].
for non-citizens
5
. Such a proposal raises seriousquestions about the appropriate scope of stateDMV authority and infringes on a state's right todevelop systems and processes to serve theparticular needs of its citizens.AAMVA states its aim to "develop/capturecitizenship/residence on document and/ordatabase" within the next year.
6
It is not clearwhat role establishing citizenship and uniformresidency status plays in the core function of adriver's license: ensuring that there are trained,safe drivers on the roads. In fact, the proposedrequirements would undermine the public safetyrationale of a driver's license by discouragingundocumented aliens from getting licenses,leading to more uninsured and untrained driverson the roads and contributing to the nationalroad toll of 40,000 deaths per year.
7
Differentstates have formulated specific responses to thisissue based on their individual circumstances,and there is no overriding federal need toestablish uniform procedures.
⇒
Centralizing authority over personal identity necessarily increases both the risk of ID theft as well as the scope of harm when ID theft occurs.
Establishing citizenship and residency statusshifts the role of the state DMVs from licensingdrivers to verifying the identity of allAmericans. AAMVA relies on faulty reasoningto make its argument: driver's licenses are usedas identity cards for purposes unrelated to theoperation of a motor vehicle, such purposes
5
Other consequences of standardization are discussedbelow in the context of AAMVA's proposal for a"uniform" national driver's license.
6
AAMVA Special Task Force on IdentificationSecurity Report to the AAMVA Board at 4[Hereinafter “AAMVA Task Force Report”].
7
The National Institute of Health reports 41,717traffic fatalities in 1999.[http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/databases/crash01.txt].
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Notes
Load more
