British opposition leaders are demanding a recall of all RFID-enabled UK passports after the supposedly ultra-secure passports were cloned as part of an investigation by Guardian star reporter Steve Boggan.
In John Gilmore’s request to the Supreme Court to hear his secret law case, yesterday afternoon was a busy time on the east coast. Three Friends of the Court (amicus) briefs were filed on Gilmore’s behalf by the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Electronic Freedom Foundation, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Good reads, all.
Also yesterday, the Feds filed their opposition brief in the case.
I received a political hit-piece today from one of the candidates for California Secretary of State. It says:
“When you rent a movie at the video store you have to show ID.
Why shouldn’t you have to show ID to vote in California?
Secretary of State Debra Bowen
Bruce McPherson wants is AGAINST
to require ID at the polls. requiring ID at the polls."
In case you had any doubt before, papers please! readers now know who to vote for.
And for Mr. McPherson, a clue: We shouldn’t have to show ID to vote, because some people who have a RIGHT to vote do not have an ID. You can’t take away their right to vote, just because they decline to have an optional ID card.
Clue #2: A mandate that every citizen must obtain an ID and present it to exercise their constitutional rights is, in legalese, a “licensing scheme” for imposing “prior restraint” on those rights. The process for obtaining those IDs is going to have to meet constitutional standards for prior restraints. It doesn’t even come close, today.
Addendum: Mr. McPherson lost the election.
Press reports say that China will no longer allow people to post to the Internet under pseudonyms without registering their “real name” with the government.
But that could never happen here. We all know that there is no requirement to register your real name or address with the government before being allowed to exercise any of the rights in the Constitution. At least those in the first two amendments. Right? Wrong.
If you are a citizen or resident of the European Union, and have travelled to the United States, now is the time to ask for copies of your travel records.
Unlike Americans, Europeans have the right to know who is keeping records about you, what information is in your records, and to whom it has been given.
Airlines that fly from Europe to the U.S. have been illegally turning over passenger name records (PNR’s) to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Those records include where, when, and with whom you travelleled, your credit card information, and much more.
And the DHS is still not satisfied. They want more data, they want to keep it longer, and they want fewer rules about how they can use it or who they can give it to:
The chief U.S. negotiator … said Washington would push for the right to hold data on passengers for longer than the current arrangement of 3-1/2 years. “Our usual rule for law enforcement data is that it is kept for about 40 years, but the real question is how long is it likely to be relevant,” said Stewart Baker, assistant secretary for policy at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Baker described restrictions included in the current accord as “almost a code of conduct for the United States” but said he was confident that negotiations due to start with Europe would lead to some of them being relaxed in any future pact.
The only way to find out what’s in your travel records, and what is being done with them, is to request them under your country’s data protection laws. Then, if the data protection law has been broken, you can complain to the authorities, or bring a lawsuit.
First, request your travel records from the travel agency or tour operator that booked your flights to the U.S., and the airline you flew on. When they respond, they should tell you which computerized reservation system (CRS) they use. Then you can request your records from the CRS as well. There might be records in two different CRS’s, with different data, if the travel agent uses one CRS to make the booking and send it to the airline, and the airline hosts its database in another CRS.
Here are sample letter for U.K. citizens and residents to request your travel records from travel agencies, tour operators, airlines, and CRS’s. If you are in another country, you can modify these to refer to your national data protection law:
The National Animal Identification System is a system by the US Department of Agriculture in which every farm is “registered” with the federal government and that every animal on every farm is tagged by some method, and has its movements tracked for life in a federal database. “These methods could include radio frequency identification tags, retinal scans, DNA, or others.” NoNAIS.org is a good source of information opposing the plan.
Just like TSA’s tracking program for humans, Registered Traveler, and the State Department’s chipping program for humans, RFID Passports, NAIS is “voluntary” now but planned to become mandatory. Various states, such as Texas, have already passed laws requiring farms to register for it. USDA is honest enough to admit its plan:
No mandatory regulations have been “initiated”, but lots of other actions have been. Many small farmers have been threatened by state agriculture agents with big fines or the slaughter of their animals if they refuse to play along. And you can be sure that all the lessons learned about how to tag and track every animal will be re-applied to tagging and tracking every human.
Should you have to ask for permission from the government before you are allowed to get on a plane or cruise ship?
The Department of Homeland Security has proposed that airlines and cruise ships be required to get individual permission (“clearance”) from the DHS for each individual passenger on all flights to, from, or via the U.S. Unless the answer is “Yes” — if the answer is “no” or “maybe”, or if the DHS doesn’t answer at all — the airline wouldn’t be allowed to give you a boarding pass, or let you or your luggage on the plane or ship.
The Identity Project, along with the World Privacy Forum and John Gilmore, has filed comments with the DHS objecting to this proposal as a violation of international human rights, First Amendment rights, and privacy and government accountability laws.
This is the third of three identification-related “rulemakings” in the last month and a half in which the DHS has proposed to restrict the right to travel. IDP has filed formal objections to each of these proposals:
No wonder we can’t understand what Homeland Security thinks it’s doing.
Does the government have the right to keep secret a law that is applied to millions of Americans every day? That’s the question John Gilmore has asked the Supreme Court to decide in his petition to the Court, filed late last Friday.
By choosing to hear Gilmore v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court can and should expose Secret Law for what it is: an abomination. Read more at John’s new and updated website.
Alaska struck the first legal blow in the fight against a national ID card by refusing to pass legislation to bring the state in line with REAL ID requirements.
The bill, SB-189, breezed through the state’s rubber stamp Senate before being killed by a duo of freedom-loving legislators in the House of Representatives.
Who are these heroes of the Bill of Rights? Front and center is Rep. Paul Seaton of Homer, a commercial fisherman and Chairman of the House State Affairs Committee. Through his leadership and by voting against fellow Republicans, Rep. Seaton killed SB-189 and beat back a last minute attempt to resurrect the bill by his party. The party paid him back by killing most, if not all of his own bills.
Assisting him in fighting-off REAL ID was Rep. Max Gruenberg of Anchorage, the former House majority leader when it was under Democratic control. Rep. Gruenberg worked across party lines to make sure that this piece of un-American legislation died on the vine.
The Identity Project is proud to have been involved in testifying before the State Affairs Committee and providing the information needed to make sure that the oppression of a national ID card never hits the shores of the Last Frontier.
Alaska has said ‘no’ to a national ID card: which other state will love freedom enough to follow in their footsteps?