Spychipped Drivers Licenses: Coming to Your State Next?
Dr. Katherine Albrecht Interviews Michigan State Rep. Paul Opsommer
February 25, 2009

Michigan state Representative Paul Opsommer has been a vocal critic of the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to introduce remotely-readable, RFID-tagged drivers licenses, known as "Enhanced Drivers Licenses," in his state. Now he sounds the alarm as DHS head Janet Napolitano discusses plans to expand the cards to all 50 states. If this plan goes forward, it will create a tracking nightmare that threatenes to destroy our remaining privacy and civil liberties. I caught up with Rep. Opsommer to get his thoughts on these recent developments.

 

---

Rep. Opsommer has also been a guest on Katherine's radio program.
MP3 files of those interviews are available to stream or download.

Radio Interview - February 27, 2009 (Select "Hour 1")  <-- Recent
Radio Interview - February 22, 2008 (Select "Hour 2")  <-- 2008

Also: See WorldNet Daily's related article: "Radio Chip Coming Soon to your Driver's License?" 2/28/09

---

 

KA:  Rep. Opsommer, thank you for agreeing to speak with me. Being from the border state of Michigan, you have spent the past several years dealing with what they now call “EDLs”, or “Enhanced Driver’s Licenses”, while much of the country was instead focused on REAL ID. What is the difference between the two?

PO: They are similar but different. Some people think they are the same thing, just with a different name, and as time passes I’m starting to agree with them.

What happened was that a few years ago Washington State and Canada got concerned that the international border was going to inhibit cross border revenue for the Winter Olympics. The federal government was doing two things: one, making the price of a traditional passport over a hundred dollars, and two, passing a new law saying that US citizens could not get back into the US from Canada or Mexico unless they had a passport. Now you would think when the federal government passes a law like that they would do everything they could to ensure citizens could get reasonably affordable passports in a timely manner….

KA: But they didn’t do that.

PO: No, and that is where the birthplace of EDLs came from. The federal government instead dropped the ball in regards to passports, created a backlog, and raised the price. That is when they went to Washington State and said hey, if you let us put a RFID chip into your driver’s license we’ll let your people use these at the border for the Winter Olympics. Now you have to remember, Washington State had at this time decided not to join in REAL ID, so I guess plan B for DHS at that time was to “enhance” these licenses with a RFID chip and accomplish REAL ID by another name. So they got what they wanted by hook or by crook.

KA: Why do you think the state legislators in Washington were willing to do EDLs but not REAL ID?

PO: I’m not sure, you would have to ask them, but I have to believe that a lot of it was the pressure from wanting to help the economy with the Winter Olympics, and the fear that travel would be inhibited.

The States were kind of in this vise because the federal government passed this law that would require more of us to get passports, at the same time they were making passports more expensive and harder to get. Some people had to wait months, there were scandals with Chinese firms supposedly stealing our blank chips being made in Thailand, and I think the federal government kind of threw up their hands and saw an opportunity to outsource a problem of their own creation onto us.

The GAO has come out with a series of reports saying they were running the passport program inefficiently, causing people delays and charging them too much. Instead of getting their own house in order I think they just outsourced it to us.

Of course, now instead of having separate state and federal documents, you have this new “Enhanced Drivers License” that is something new, something that I don’t think we will really know what it is until it is challenged in Court. It’s a state document that has to meet federal and international standards. Is still says Michigan on the top, but in many ways that is about the end of our involvement in the license design.

They are not a state sovereign document anymore because we can’t control the technology mandates, the biometrics, and with whom and how the data is shared with, but DHS is happy because we have taken some of the workload for passports off their plates.

KA:  And it sounds like you think that is a bad thing?

PO:  Absolutely. Look, I am all in favor of only giving drivers licenses to US citizens or people that are otherwise here in this country legally. But we are already doing that in Michigan. We accomplished that without an EDL, as has virtually every other state via their own state laws. But just because we choose to only issue our license to US citizens does not mean that our licenses should somehow then fall under federal control.
It’s still a state document, we are just controlling who we issue them to. But under the EDL program, the Department of Homeland Security is saying that making sure illegals don’t get these is not enough. Now you need the chip to prove your citizenship.

Look at it this way: you could have two exact licenses, identical in every way, where the person has gone through the exact same background checks and everything. But if one contains a RFID chip and the other doesn’t, DHS is then saying that you can’t use the one for whatever they define now or in the future as one of their “secure” purposes.

That’s outrageous. Is our citizenship really dependent on being able to transmit it wirelessly?

KA: Why do you think they are doing it then?

PO: I’m not sure. I’ve tried for two years for them to allow us to issue a more secure license that does not have RFID in it. They have flat out refused, and their reasoning is all about the need for what they call “facilitative technology”, which they then determined was RFID. 

The supposed advantage of the RFID is that say when you are 100 yards in front of a border crossing that the security folks there would have sensors built into the ground that would automatically read your card and then track you, so that when you got to the booth the border agent would already have your info pulled up and could process you faster. There is a debate about how much faster that would really speed things up, but that is the theory.

But that doesn’t have anything to do with what the premise of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative was all about. That was just about proving you were a citizen, not that you had to do it by any specific kind of technology.

We are close to the point now that if you don’t want RFID in any of your documents that you can’t leave the country or get back into it. Congress never passed that law, but because some unelected bureaucrats in the US, Canada, and Mexico thought it was a good idea, that is what we have today, and they are the ones controlling things with their economic cudgel.

DHS told us that it was very unlikely they could make an exception for Michigan because if they were trying to harmonize these standards with Canada and Mexico it had to apply to everybody. I was absolutely dumbfounded.

KA: So how did Canada and Mexico get involved?

PO: It all seems to be related to NAFTA, or the SPP, or whatever they are calling it these days.
Here is an example. When REAL ID was first rolled out, the early versions said that states had to join an AAMVA compact called the Drivers License Agreement, or DLA. Well, that didn’t get very far in Congress, because if a State like Michigan joined the DLA you were basically putting AAMVA in charge of decisions like what biometrics had to go onto the licenses, and what technologies were employed.

The DLA also called for foreign data sharing, which from what I hear alarmed some people in Congress more than things like iris scans and RFID. Canada and Mexico are great allies, but we have enough to deal with rooting out corruption in our own DMVs without worrying about those in other countries. And AAMVA by its very nature is an international 501c3 with foreign voting members, so some in Congress just weren’t comfortable with the idea of people in other countries determining our standards.

So once the DLA was removed from REAL ID, for those in DHS that want this foreign data component, the Enhanced Drivers License again became plan B like what happened in Washington State. It has seemed to work for them as about 10 states have signed on, as well as several provinces in Canada. Mexican states are probably next. So even though Congress said no to the DLA, DHS found a way to accomplish the same thing through the bureaucratic intricacies of NAFTA. They are getting some pushback in Canada, however.

KA:  What do you mean?

PO: Just from what I have read in following the issue, the citizens in Canada seem more concerned about the nationalism and privacy aspects of EDLs than we do right now. I don’t know if that is because we really don’t care, or if it is just that not enough people here know about the finer details yet. I pray it is the latter.
Canadians are also more connected to what is going on in Britain with the expansion of the national ID program there, and have seen the mission creep that occurs with things like gun control first hand, so that may play a role as well.

Whatever the reason, as an example, just last week the Canadian government repatriated a database from the US that contained the driver’s license data of their citizens. Someone finally woke up and realized it would not be a good idea for that to be on American soil, although it will still be available electronically. If they are concerned about it,

I think it is only logical that we as State legislators really understand how the governments of Mexico and Canada will have access to our own citizen’s data. Right now it is very ambiguous and even difficult for me to get answers on as a State Representative. Some of the particulars seem like they will even be immune to FOIA. Considering the government’s track record lately on losing databases, they aren’t leaving me with many warm and fuzzies. Past behavior predicts future behavior.

KA: I read about that in a press release you did. One of the reasons I wanted to talk to you is because in that same release you criticized new DHS head Janet Napolitano for her comments about expanding the EDL program. Can you tell me a little more about that?

PO: Well, I’ve sent her a letter, essentially the same one I sent to Chertoff, asking them to allow Michigan to create a secure license that does not need to have RFID in it, or at the very least offers secure licenses that can be used at the borders that come in two flavors, one with RFID and one without. I have not heard back yet, but she is just starting, so I want to give her the benefit of the doubt for now.

But I did not like her comments at all that I read in the Washington Times that she views EDLs as the new direction for her Department when it comes to secure licenses. For one, there is still too much unresolved about all these issues to expand it to other states. And secondly, say for States like Colorado, how on earth do you sell an EDL there? They don’t even touch a foreign border, and you have to remember again that this was supposed to be the whole point behind why we needed these new license/passport hybrids.

So if EDLs are the new direction for secure licenses in all states, it just reinforces what many have been telling me that DHS wants to expand this program and turn it into a wireless national ID with a different name. We’ll wake up one day and without a vote in Congress DHS will just pass a rule and say something like “starting next month you will need an EDL to fly on a plane, or to buy a gun, or whatever”. So the choices we make with EDLs today become critically important. There is little doubt in my mind they will be expanded onto all citizens in the future.

I still believe in my gut that we can create secure IDs that are only issued to citizens without mandating wireless technologies or foreign data sharing. Those seem less secure to me, not more.

KA: From my background in RFID, I definitely agree with you. The RFID they have chosen to put in these cards is actually about the least secure form of RFID you can come up with. It’s like they couldn’t have gotten less secure if they tried. And I see this as a trend with wanting to use this for toll roads, driver’s licenses, road taxes, and license plates. The cost of the RFID readers is really coming down, they are getting smaller and smaller, and they are currently in more places than people realize. It’s not like the transportation departments or stores are putting up signs or anything to let you know.

PO: Well, I’m only now becoming fully knowledgeable about RFID, but in Michigan some legislators attempted a compromise where at least the RFID would be encrypted, or would have a true on-off button on the card itself, or something like that. DHS said that it couldn’t be encrypted because then not all law enforcement would be able to read the encrypted card. That didn’t make much sense to me, because if only border guards could have access to the data base, does it matter if some deputy in the Upper Peninsula couldn’t scan the RFID?

So that just made no sense whatsoever unless they want to expand this so that it is more than just border guards who can read the chip. Maybe they ultimately want that, I don’t know.

Next they said the RFID would be protected from skimming because they would be issued in a special wallet that is covered in aluminum foil or some other kind of metal. I’m not sure if that really blocks the RFID signal from being read or not, but to me it didn’t matter because you have to show your drivers license for so many things these days, and then the big box stores are already associating you and your address with your license and credit card as it is. So the first time you are in a big box store and you have to show your license to buy some beer, or you are in a bank and need to take it out of the fancy wallet, the card can immediately be read by any reader in about a 50 foot radius, through walls, doors, whatever. I’ve been told you can do it with equipment that will cost you $50 down the street.

The problem is you will never know if the number has been compromised. If the chip gets skimmed, you won’t even know it. It doesn’t beep or alert you in any way, and even if it did, you still wouldn’t know who did it. So from that point forward, someone can know that chip#1234567 is you, and you can be tracked as you move around and the card gets read somewhere else.

KA: Can you explain that a little bit more for others? What can you do if the card is compromised, and what exactly can be skimmed from the cards?

PO: Well, that is one of the issues I posed to DHS and have not heard back on. Could you apply to get a new number if someone skimmed you? I do not know, first you may have to prove to them that it happened or they would likely want you to pay for it. That may be impossible for a person to do.

But even on a bigger scale, what if the database got hacked into and every person in even one state had their number compromised? Just think of the cost and time involved with having to replace every driver’s license because of the breach. Logistically, I don’t think they could do it, so I think the answer is that you probably can’t get a new number. It is probably yours for life unless they could wirelessly patch your card or download changes remotely.

KA: Explain the number you are talking about.

PO: For now what this chip would broadcast is this new unique national ID number that they create for people who get issued these cards. That is a lot better than using our current social security number, but it only goes so far.

First of all, as I just said, once someone is able to skim your number and is personally able to associate it with you, it loses its anonymity. So even if only the border guards of Canada, Mexico, and the US can electronically access the database with that new national ID number, that number still has value to others when used for other purposes.

With the kind of RFID they have chosen, any big box store can just put readers around their doors and at their registers, and by scanning you when you have to take your license out, they learn that you are that unique number. From that point forward the number can then be put into their database, they can tell when you are in the store, how long you have been there, what aisles you go to, etc. There is little doubt in my mind that after a while the special wallets will get torn, or people will just get tired of always having to take them in and out of their sleeves, and eventually their cards will be readable all the time.

But regardless, the second point is that once we accept as citizens that you have to have RFID in order to securely prove who you are, DHS, AAMVA, or whoever makes the rules can change what is on that chip going forward. We as states are losing control in that decision-making process. The state's name across the top of the license becomes just another datafield on a standardized driver’s license throughout the Western Hemisphere.

KA: What can do to fight this?

PO: Well, I’m continuing to push for DHS to allow us to create a highly secure card where the technology is based on State law and not DHS or AAMVA. What we really need to be asking ourselves now, before the genie is too far out of the bottle, is whether or not we really want to turn our IDs into the equivalent of mini laptop computers?

With all the things we need to worry about today, do we really need to add to the list worrying about having your ID skimmed, hacked, or cloned? We need to move slowly on RFID, not quickly, yet DHS seems intent on cramming a cookie-cutter approach down our throats. It's ironic that they are not putting this RFID into their federal military identification cards, but instead they are pushing it onto us.

KA: Do you think we can fight back, considering the momentum the EDL program seems to have?

PO: Right now I have no idea, I can only speak for myself. If legislators in other states want to accept this, I can’t control that. But based on my conservative Republican beliefs and commitment to the 10^th Amendment, I don’t see how I would change my mind about it. DHS is simply fooling too many other states by not even explaining what “facilitative technology” is, or how the data will be shared. We don’t have to go that route.

President Obama, for example, could be using some of these stimulus dollars to hire more federal passport workers and then lower the cost of traditional passports to $50 so more people could afford them. But I doubt this is on his radar yet. DHS may still be advising him that EDLs are the solution.

The whole way we are approaching this needs to be rethought. When I have explained the EDL to people, they understand the problems, regardless of political party or affiliation. But as we fight to improve the economy and protect home ownership, bi-partisan issues like EDLs and states' rights unfortunately continue to fly under the radar.

As leaders we have to be able to walk and chew bubblegum at the same time when it comes to issues as important as the Constitution. Technology is also rapidly changing, and we need to be able to understand it and keep up. We owe it to our constituents.

KA: Representative, thank you for your time and your efforts on this crucial issue.

PO: Thank you.

# # # #

---