brokerage houses, money transfer services and casinos to the government, the IRS, FBI, and other law enforcement agencies required almost continuous computer upgrades. These occurred in rapid succession, and continue today. Analysts needed a unique “personal identifier” to track individual financial transactions. The most logical choice was the Social Security number; once assigned to Americans upon entering the workplace, and now assigned at birth.
The SSN thus evolved into a universal identifying code for U.S. citizens. Knowing your SSN, anyone using one of thousands of Internet-based information services can learn where you live; where you work; what property you own; where you bank and the balance of your account; what stockbroker you use; the value of your investments; if you have ever been sued; and much more. Recent innovations in database technology make your SSN unnecessary; investigators can now retrieve your data merely knowing your name, your address, or your driver’s license number.
Police Records: There for the Taking
Government agencies maintain detailed information on individuals suspected, accused, or convicted of crimes. In most states, at least some of these records are publicly available. However, in many cases, they’re not maintained securely.
In the United States, the largest law enforcement database is the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database (renamed NCIC-2000). The NCIC stores information regarding open arrest warrants, arrests, and dispositions regarding felonies and serious misdemeanors. It processes nearly 2 billion requests annually. More than 80,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide have access to the NCIC database. Prospective employers and licensing boards throughout the United States have access as well.69
Serious problems exist in the NCIC. The most significant problem is accuracy. A study in 2000 showed that nearly half the records contained errors, including omissions as basic as whether a criminal suspect was convicted or exonerated.70 Perhaps that’s why in 2003, the FBI announced that it would no longer enforce a requirement that information added to the NCIC database be accurate or timely.71
There’s also a long history of unauthorized access to the NCIC. While federal law generally prohibits public access to law enforcement and intelligence databases, it’s often available “at the right price” or to persons “with the right connections.” Among many examples, nearly 100 Michigan police officers, dispatchers, federal agents, and security guards have illegally accessed police databases to stalk women, threaten motorists, and settle scores.72 In 2001, a former FBI employee pleaded guilty to illegally disclosing “hundreds of different FBI records and documents pertaining to criminal cases and grand jury investigations.”73
The NCIC, of course, is only one law enforcement database. There are many others, and there is no evidence that most of them are any more accurate or better protected than NCIC.
Closed Circuit Television and “Surveillance Creep”
One of the fastest growing surveillance technologies is closed circuit television (CCTV). In city centers and other locations thought to be security risks or attract crime, CCTV is increasingly popular.
The United Kingdom has perhaps more CCTV cameras than any other country. At the end of 2006, there were an estimated 4.2 million CCTV cameras in Britain, one for every 14 people.74 The actual number is much higher, as there is no way to count the number of individuals and companies that have installed CCTV for security purposes.
In a few U.K. cities, hidden CCTV cameras actually appear to scold you if you litter, are drunk, urinate in public, or engage in other “anti-social behaviors.” The unexpected broadcast comes via a loudspeaker controlled by a CCTV control center staff – and delivered in the voice of a child.75
More surveillance creep: Software is being developed to spot when someone’s on-camera behavior hints they may be about to commit a crime. Microphones are being built in to CCTV units to record conversations. Software automatically scans CCTV footage for suspicious behavior and matches it with mug shots. Police have proposed equipping CCTV units with “x-ray vision” that see through clothing in a bid to thwart terrorism.76
Hundreds of thousands of security cameras are now connected to the Internet. Many are accessible through search engine queries.77 Indeed, in the U.K.’s “Internet Eyes” initiative, you can register to view networks of CCTV cameras over the Internet. If you identify a crime, you’re eligible for a reward.78
There’s near-zero evidence that CCTV lowers crime rates (although review of CCTV archives may help solve some crimes). One U.K. study found that street crime and violence is no lower in areas equipped with CCTV than in areas without it.79 Another review of 44 research studies revealed that CCTV has little impact on U.K. crime rates, other than reducing it in parking lots.80
National ID Cards Through the “Back Door”
The chief principle of a well-regulated police state is this: That each citizen shall be at all times and places … recognized as this or that particular person. No one must remain unknown to the police. This can be attained with certainty only in the following manner. Each one must carry a pass with him, signed by his immediate government official, in which his person is accurately described … No person should be received at any place who cannot thus make known by his pass his last place of residence and his name.
– Johann Gottlieb Fichte, 1796 (German philosopher and historian)
Imagine walking down the street to the corner store for a newspaper and being stopped by police. The police demand to see your identification. You aren’t carrying it with you. You’re immediately arrested and placed into custody.
Is this a totalitarian nightmare of East Germany or the Soviet Union? No, this is everyday life in dozens of countries that have already issued their citizens national ID cards that must be carried at all times. Failure to present the card upon demand is an offense in many of these countries.81
Once a system of universal identification is established, it’s a short step to requiring people to have and carry ID cards. And at least in the United States, that’s where an obscure law called the “Real ID Act”82 comes into play.
Enacted in 2005, the Real ID Act established “national uniform standards” for driver’s licenses. Once the law comes into effect in 2013, state driver’s licenses that fail to conform to federal “minimum standards” will no longer be valid for any federal “official purpose.” Examples of “official purposes” include boarding an airplane, buying a firearm, obtaining federal benefits, or even entering a federal courthouse.
From the outset, state governments hated the Real ID initiative. The reason had nothing to do with any concern about privacy, states’ rights, or any other constitutional concern, but a more immediate problem: money.
The Real ID Act is a classic unfunded mandate, foisted upon the states by the federal government. Estimates of implementing it nationwide run into the tens of billions of dollars. That’s chump change in comparison with the cost, say, of bailing out AIG. But for fiscally strapped states, it represents a big stack of mostly borrowed dollars.
Ironically, the REAL ID initiative will actually make us less secure, particularly against crimes like identity theft. Computer experts have easily duplicated virtually every state-of-the-art identification document that currently exists. There’s near-zero proof that high-tech drivers’ licenses will be any different.
But
