[RandyO]

Sunday, March 12, 2006
An even bigger Big Brother? N.H. fights national IDs that would track individuals

By ROBERT M. COOK
Staff Writer
bcook@fosters.com



Radio frequency identification microchips are adhered to product boxes with a label for shipping purposes.
(New York Times News Service file photo)



Related Articles and Media

Article:Maine's Olympia Snow a supporter of bill that would OK warrantless spying info in court
Article: State Senate panel to decide fate of 'Spychips' in commerce



CONCORD — New Hampshire is fiercely opposing federal plans to incorporate so-called "spychips" into future national identification cards and other existing documents such as drivers licenses.

One bill, House Bill 1582, would bar the state from participating in the country's national identification card program, setting the stage for a legal showdown between Concord and Washington, D.C.

The House of Representatives this week overwhelmingly passed the measure, sponsored by Rep. Neal Kurk, R&D-Weare. New Hampshire lawmakers can carry two political affiliations when they are unopposed, write-in candidates who carry each major party's primary.

"We fired the shot that will be heard around the nation," Kurk said. "What we need to do is to say no to the federal government — and not just in New Hampshire, but in many other states."

The bill is now in the state Senate's hands along with a second House bill that was passed last fall that seeks to protect consumer privacy rights from retailers that choose to use the same technology to track purchased products.

Spychips are another name for Radio Frequency Identification Devices, or RFIDs. They are paper-thin, antenna-like chips that are small, flexible and light enough to be made part of a product packaging label, identification card or other document.

The chips can store information such as unique identification numbers. Scanners using radio waves then can silently and invisibly read the information when RFID chips are close enough.

Current technology allows for passive, automatic scanning from several feet away. Some businesses, such as Wal-Mart, use RFIDs to keep track of inventory. Future applications could, in theory, allow for the rapid scanning and addition of all prices in a shopping cart full of items at a store.

But privacy advocates worry that RFIDs easily can be abused as monitoring devices. They note that RFIDs can be placed almost invisibly into many objects, then secretly scanned at a distance. Should RFIDs and scanners become ubiquitous in stores and other public areas, privacy advocates warn, an Orwellian digital record of each person's movements would be compiled automatically and could be made available to law enforcement officials or other agencies.

The U.S. Congress passed the national identification card program through the Real ID Act in May 2005. It was attached to an $82 million military spending bill for the war in Iraq. States have until May 2008 to implement the program.

The Department of Homeland Security later issued a six-page "Request for Information" document in summer 2005. It inquired about the feasibility of several uses for RFID technology at U.S. Border Patrol checkpoints. It also noted that the federal government wanted the technology for its national identification card program and listed ideal performance standards the devices should attain in the future.

Those standards include that RFIDs should "be sensed remotely, passively and automatically." The standards also included the ability to access RFID information even if a device is still "being carried in a pocket, purse, wallet, in a traveler's clothes, or elsewhere on the person of the traveler."

The federal information request repeatedly stresses the need to access identifying information without an individual's direct, overt consent or participation.

"The traveler should not have to do anything to prepare the device to be read, or to present the device for reading," the document states.

What began as a tool to help retail giants like Wal-Mart track inventory is evolving into a major Homeland Security program to track every U.S. citizen, said Claire Ebel, executive director of the New Hampshire American Civil Liberties Union chapter in Concord.

"They are going to know everything about you and everywhere you go," she said. "You might as well take the Fourth Amendment and set it on fire in the public square."

She added that the U.S. Border Patrol began issuing documents containing spychips in December.

RFIDs in an identification card could contain a person's name, address, Social Security number and photograph, she said. Their personal information could be at risk if someone buys a scanner for $40, remotely captures it and downloads it into a computer, she warned.

The book "1984" "is exactly where we are going," Ebel said. "The only way they can protect us is to make us prisoners."

Attempts to reach Homeland Security representatives for comment were unsuccessful.

New Hampshire, in passing House Bill 1582, refused to participate in a National ID card pilot program. The federal government allocated $3 million in Homeland Security funds to the Granite State and Tennessee on the condition that the states upgrade their motor vehicle department computer systems and begin issuing drivers licenses embedded with RFID chips, Kurk said.

Kurk took extraordinary steps to ensure the measure passed. He filed the bill in January, but the House Transportation Committee rejected it 12-1. The bill then was placed on a House consent calendar with nearly 100 other bills, all of which would be decided with a block vote.

Kurk said he removed the bill from the consent calendar so it could be aired separately before the full House, which then passed his bill by a 3-1 margin.

"The vote was very significant," he added. "The House rarely overturns a committee's report."

The state Senate Transportation Committee will take up the measure next, he said.

Kurk said he believes other states will follow New Hampshire's lead if the state ultimately passes legislation to ban the national ID card program. It's up to the states to convince the federal government to drop the program, he added.

He said the national ID program likely wouldn't deter would-be terrorists, counterfeiters or forgers from gaining access to documents like passports or drivers licenses.

"It is almost certain that it would induce a false sense of security in the United States," he said.

Gov. John Lynch shares many concerns House lawmakers have expressed about the National ID card program, according to Pamela Walsh, his spokeswoman. The National Governors Association also has expressed concern, she added.

If New Hampshire does prohibit the National ID Card program, the state law would stand up against an existing federal law. The state maintains responsibility over driver's licenses, Ebel said.

But the federal government can require any state's residents to get RFID-tagged passports or other identification cards to fly from any U.S. airport or enter any federal building, she said.

But she, like Kurk, predicted that the federal government would bow to pressure and drop the program if enough states follow New Hampshire's lead.

"We have the right to privacy," she said. "We have the right to not be monitored."

[JeffL]

Why dont they just put collars on our ankles? Fuckers. Fuck that, those fucking fucks.

[RandyO]

Originally posted by JeffL
Why dont they just put collars on our ankles? Fuckers. Fuck that, those fucking fucks.

Ideally, they want to implant a chip on you body, at birth

[neuthunder]

there could be benefits to the rfid cards.... just not enough to overcome freedom issues, i dont really think security issues are that much of a problem to pull that crap

[mzdagrl]

If I wanted to live in Communism, I wouldn't be living in New Hampshire. Fuck that.

[Stoneman]

Didn't the Kinks do a song about this? Ah yes, PARNOIA...

[Kham]

Originally posted by RandyO
Ideally, they want to implant a chip on you body, at birth

futuristic

[Kham]

Originally posted by JeffL
Why dont they just put collars on our ankles? Fuckers. Fuck that, those fucking fucks.

didn't you vote for Bush? don't question his security decision.

[JeffL]

Originally posted by Kham
didn't you vote for Bush? don't question his security decision.

Fuck that guy, I voted for the lesser of 2 evils.

[RandyO]

Originally posted by JeffL
Fuck that guy, I voted for the lesser of 2 evils.

there were other choices

[HBerry]

Don't carry your license wtih you. Leave it in your car/Bike

[Kham]

Originally posted by HBerry
Don't carry your license wtih you. Leave it in your car/Bike

you will get fine for it. can't win...

[RandyO]

January 2, 2006 Concord, N.H. Concerned by perceived abuses of Federal power during the Katrina crisis, New Hampshire state reps are reviewing a bill which would criminalize certain weapons seizures - even if the perpetrators are Federal officers. House Bill 1639-FN, prohibits the confiscation of lawfully owned and lawfully carried firearms during a state of emergency, making a felon of any law enforcement officer who attempts to seize such a firearm during a disaster. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Paul Hopfgarten at the request of local Free Staters - members of a group trying to recruit freedom lovers to...

[atek3]

Originally posted by RandyO
January 2, 2006 Concord, N.H. Concerned by perceived abuses of Federal power during the Katrina crisis, New Hampshire state reps are reviewing a bill which would criminalize certain weapons seizures - even if the perpetrators are Federal officers. House Bill 1639-FN, prohibits the confiscation of lawfully owned and lawfully carried firearms during a state of emergency, making a felon of any law enforcement officer who attempts to seize such a firearm during a disaster. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Paul Hopfgarten at the request of local Free Staters - members of a group trying to recruit freedom lovers to...

Oh man I can't wait to move to NH...coming from Berkeley it'll be like breathing the sweet air of freedom.

atek3