Tag Archives: Biometrics

FortySix News: New Oklahoma REAL ID Meeting Set, Discussion Transcript Published

Kaye Beach

Jan. 2, 2016

FortySix News reports that Rep. Bob Cleveland and Lewis Moore will be holding the next public meeting on the REAL ID Act at the state capitol on Jan. 5th at 10 AM in Room 206.

FortySix News also provides the transcript of the Question and Answer portion of the last REAL ID meeting that was held on Now. 18th, noting that:

 

Several major things discovered in the transcripts below:

  • The question was asked multiple times – How does this improve safety? No real coherent answer was ever given.

  • During the discussion the question was asked about the Dictator Clause in the REAL ID Act when the answer never happened due to an alarm that went off at the state capitol making everyone evacuate. When the session resumed the question was never brought up again. The Dictator Clause allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to arbitrarily add anything to the list of official purposes that require a person to produce a REAL ID. Things that have already been suggested recently are guns and ammo.

  • The extension to be able to get onto an aircraft really was set till 2020, but could be changed to an earlier date at the discretion of the Director of Homeland Security.

 

Read more from FortySix News: New Meeting Called to Get Answers About REAL ID, Exclusive: Discussion Transcript Included

 

 

Advertisements

Okla. REAL ID Study, Kaye Beach’s Testimony

Kaye2014

Kaye Beach

Nov. 20, 2015

On Nov. 18th there was a public study  held at the Oklahoma state capitol on the issue of REAL ID.  Oklahoma is under pressure to implement the federal REAL ID Act of 2005.

The meeting was held by Rep. Lewis Moore and Rep. Bob Cleveland.  Many Oklahomans expected to follow the meeting online.  They were disappointed.  I am posting testimony of the speakers so that those who are interested can be informed on the proceedings.

Yesterday I posted Howard Houchen’s public testimony which I drew from an audio recording made of the hearing.

I was the second speaker in the lineup and spoke in opposition to REAL ID.  I am not transcribing my comments but am posting my written statement that I prepared.  My oral statement very closely followed my written testimony.

The next post will be on the testimony that was presented by former state representative Charles Key.

Additionally, I will transcribe the remarks of Department of Public Safety Commissioner, Michael C. Thompson as well as the discussion that transpired at the meeting.

 

Here is my written statement:

 

Testimony for Public Hearing on REAL ID

Oklahoma State Capitol

Nov. 18, 2015

 

Kaye Beach

 

Thank you Chairman and members of the committee for holding this study and for inviting me to speak today. My name is Kaye Beach.  I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Constitutional Alliance, a national organization formed primarily to inform individuals and legislators about the threats to liberty posed by mandatory biometric identification.

I will keep my comments brief but I am submitting more in-depth documentation electronically for the record.  This information will also be posted online at the top of my website axiomamuse.wordpress.com.

I am here today to advocate on behalf of myself and other Oklahomans who are opposed to mandatory biometric identification policies such as the one currently instituted by the Department of Public Safety and also as is required by the federal REAL ID Act of 2005.

I am personally most concerned about the mandatory collection and retention of our biometric data but I will also touch on another requirement of REAL ID that policymakers must be aware of when weighing their options.

For those that may not be aware, Oklahoma’s driver’s licenses and ID cards are biometric ID’s  

{“You probably noticed that they take your index fingers but you may not have noticed, because it didn’t seem any different, that they are also collecting a high resolution digital image which is collected in a biometric format”}

The state Department of Public Safety has been collecting finger and facial biometrics since at least 2004. Oklahoma’s mandatory biometric identification policy has created a clash of conscience for some Oklahomans of faith, including myself, and has opened the door to unprecedented surveillance, which affects every one of us.

When we talk about privacy often what we are really talking about is power.  The limit of our privacy is defines the limits of policy.

Believe it or not, the facial biometrics actually present a greater risk to our privacy and personal liberty that a fingerprint does.

Facial recognition is the most commonly used form of what Laura Donahue, Professor of Law at Georgetown University, has termed ‘Remote Biometric Identification” which, according to Donahue, gives the government the ability to identity multiple people,  in public,  at a  distance, without their knowledge or consent and importantly, to do so in a continuous and on-going manner.

Professor Donahue did an exhaustive research paper in 2012 on the growing number of federal programs that are developing their ability to use remote biometric ID and legal and social perils this technology presents.

donahue examples biometric programs

(Source: Technological Leap, Statutory Gap, and Constitutional Abyss: Remote Biometric Identification Comes of Age, Laura Donohue, Georgetown University Law Center, 2012)

 

Professor Donahue takes great care to emphasize that with remote biometric ID “The level of intrusiveness represents something different in kind—not degree—from what has come before.”

‘A GPS chip may reveal where the car goes, but the verification of personally identifiable information… is more invasive in its direct and personal link to a specific individual.’

Professor Donahue’s research backs up materials distributed by the FBI in 2010 that showed facial recognition technology being used by authorities to identify, investigate and track individuals in public.  This sort of surveillance, while not pervasive yet, is more than just a theoretical risk.  It is being done.

NLETS, the International Justice and Public Safety Network, has a vested interest in using biometric data so you wouldn’t expect them to present an extreme view as to the privacy concerns relating to its product one of its newer products which is the interstate sharing of biometric photos.

NLETS is the conduit for sharing the biometric data collected by the DMV as is required by the REAL ID ACT.

In 2011 NLETS released an eye-opening report, ‘Privacy Impact Assessment Report for the Utilization of Facial Recognition Technologies to Identify Subjects in the Field’ which focuses on facial recognition field identification tools that use DMV images.”

According to NLETS there are many types of privacy risks surrounding the use of facial recognition technology and the report openly acknowledges that using this technology will hinder our ability to be anonymous, which, and is according to NLETS,  an “important right in a free society” 

NLETS also informs us of another basic truth, but it’s one I get raised eyebrows over when I say it.  NLETS says that ‘As an instrument of surveillance, identification increases the government’s power to control individuals’ behavior.’

And NLETs also warns us of what is probably already obvious

‘…facial recognition systems, in combination with the wide use of video surveillance across the country, would be likely to grow increasingly invasive over time.’

We can’t know how exactly the federal government will use it but we do know that for facial recognition technology to work as a mass surveillance tool, a good database of biometric photos from previously identified people – is required.  All states are collecting photos in a biometric format making our state DMV databases a potential mass surveillance goldmine.

The state has a responsibility to protect this data but the REAL ID Act requires participating states to relinquish control over this sensitive data by connecting our state DMV database to a nationwide network.  What happens to our accountability mechanism?  So, who do we hold accountable when our biometric data is lost, stolen or misused, if the state has signed on to REAL ID?

The Dictator Clause in REAL ID

There are actually FOUR Official Purposes defined in Sec. 201 of the REAL ID Act.

You may have heard about the first 3 official purposes which requires you to present your REAL ID when;

  • Entering certain federal buildings
  • Boarding a commercial airliner
  • Entering a nuclear facility

The media has let us down by not asking tough questions and as a result, the threat of enforcement has been wildly overblown. In reality, the enforcement of the three official purposes will effect very few people.

REAL ID Enforcement Facts 1 page 11 12 15

It’s the fourth official purpose that is the real wild card.  The fourth official purpose requires you to present a federal REAL ID for:  “any other purpose established by the Secretary of Homeland Security”

This allows the Secretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security to tack on additional purposes that require a REAL ID in the future without any input from the people or congress. DHS has made it clear by that additional purposes will definitely be considered and that these additional purposes can be added solely at the DHS Secretary’s discretion.

–A mandatory biometric ID is indispensable for anything that the government wants to monitor, ration or control and once they have it – they will use it.

How can our state seriously consider Real ID compliance when doing so explicitly means agreeing to give a federal bureaucrat so much power over the state and its citizens?

 

Last point- It is important that we understand that biometrics do not establish a person’s identity.  The common refrain is that we need biometric ID so we can know that a person is who they claim to be. But that is not how it works.

We may be many things to many people but the fact remains that it is our birth certificate which establishes our legal identity.  The biometrics are added after the fact and our identity card can only be as good as the foundation upon which it rests.

Take for France’s for example.  France has issued app. 6.5 million biometric passports yet an estimated 500,000 to 1 million of them are worthless because they are based on fraudulent breeder documents

EVVE, Electronic Verification of Vital Events, is service available to the states, that electronically validates (or invalidates) both birth and death records without exchanging any personal information. It is the best system available for authenticating our foundation documents.

Guess how many states are actually using this system?

Answer: Only 1 state and it’s not Oklahoma. 

I am not enthusiastic about a whole lot of scrutiny on everyone’s papers but doesn’t it make more sense to scrutinize a person’s documents before you resort to scrutinizing their body?

Let me be quick to add, that there is no perfect ID, not one that a free society could tolerate anyways.  It is technically possible to implement a literal womb to tomb biometric ID but it would have to be affixed to the actual body rather than on a flimsy document that could be lost or stolen.  That would be pretty airtight but also horrible. Although it is true that some people do bad things with their privacy it is also true that sometimes the ability to shed your legal identity is a matter of life and death.

Requiring biometric ID for ordinary, law abiding people is unnecessary, too risky and just plain wrong. It should stop.

If REAL ID is fully implemented in this state, we will be subject to more government intrusion and control over their daily lives.

If we implement REAL ID, the state government must cede some jurisdiction and thus its power.  The state will be less able to act in its citizens’ behalf and the citizens lose the ability to hold their government accountable — Why would we sign up for this?  What is the benefit?

The decision of our state legislators made reject REAL ID in 2007 was a sound one. We should stick with it.

 

 

‘It’s going to get out of your control Oklahoma’ Howard Houchen testifies on REAL ID

Howard Houchen a

Kaye Beach

Nov 19, 2015

Yesterday Rep. Bob Cleveland and Rep. Lewis Moore held a public meeting making further study on the question of whether Oklahoma should repeal its 2007 prohibition of participating in the federal REAL ID Act of 2005.

The meeting was held in the new House conference room at the capitol which is a large comfortable conference room with modern sound and video equipment which is important as many Oklahomans who are unable to travel long distances or take a day off of work, expected to be able to access this meeting online.  Unfortunately, the meeting was not available online.

Anyone  who turned to media outlets to find out what happened were likely  disappointed as the majority of reports consisted of nothing more than briefly restating talking points about REAL ID enforcement, reinforcing fears by reminding the public that they won’t be able to fly in a year without a REAL ID.  (Which isn’t true and was covered at length in yesterday’s meeting.)

The study was an interesting one that brought to the fore quite a bit of new information and issues which have not been publicly discussed before.

After the meeting yesterday while casually communicating on social media, I asked Howard, who was there and testified, what he thought was the most important information that came out of the meeting.

Here was his take on it (I did change the formatting of his reply for easier readability):

There were more than one.

  1. The admittance, finally, by DPS that it CURRENTLY possesses a Facial Recognition Database.

  2. The confirmation by US Congressman Steve Russel’s rep that REAL ID requirements for air travel will NOT BE enforced till 2020.

  3. That admittance into Federal Bldgs for virtually all the reasons almost all of us would have to visit one will NOT BE restricted if someone does not have a REAL ID compliant ID.

  4. That NO ONE could answer the question how REAL ID can/should/will make us safer.

  5. No one could seem to even guess at how much this will cost.

I admit that am hardly an unbiased observer of the proceedings but I do have the audio recording of the event and am entirely capable of transcribing the audio.  I will do my best to give you an accurate summary of what happened at the REAL ID Study yesterday.

Testifying in opposition to REAL ID was Howard Houchen, who earned his Masters Degree in National Security Studies, myself, Kaye Beach, and former Oklahoma state Rep. Charles Key, who authored the 2007 House legislation to prohibit REAL ID.

Also present and on the agenda to speak was the Commissioner of Public Safety, Michael Thompson, Captain Randy Rogers OHP, Director of Driver License Services Jeff Hankins.

In this post, I am going to cover the testimony of the first speaker, Howard Houchen.

Howard Houchen began by explaining that his degree includes a focus on Homeland Security and back in 2001 while he was working on his degree, the big question was how our country would balance security and civil liberties.  He says that within a few years it became apparent to him that our government had chosen to throw civil liberties by the wayside citing the REAL ID Act of 2005 as a major indicator.

Quoting well know security researcher, Bruce Schneier, Houchen tells listeners “If you think technology can solve your security problems you don’t understand the problems and you don’t understand the technology.” 

While he agrees that the original intentions behind REAL ID were noble, Houchen says it has morphed into something else entirely citing, for example, that the mobile biometric technology is a 32.8 billion dollar industry and that the biometric technology industry across the board is worth an untold amount of money.

Houchen says biometric ID is “a data grab” and explains that the UK sought to implement a national biometric identity system in 2006 and scrapped in 2011.  He says that according to many members of Parliament the effort was nothing more than a costly folly, noting that in addition to the system providing no increase in security that could justify the cost, it was also rejected as an unwelcome intrusion into people’s personal liberty.  According to Houchen, other countries are having issues with their biometric identification programs as well including Israel, whose program is voluntary.

Then speaking loudly and clearly, Houchen states, “There is something that is being missed with REAL ID…and that is the fact that the biometrics that are collected as a part of the REAL ID Act ARE going to be shared.  . .  that is a part of the federal REAL ID Act.”  Further explaining Houchen says, “They are going to be shared so that they can be compared, without yours and my consent, by the way.”

Houchen takes issue with this on the grounds of the Fourth Amendment which guarantees us the right to be free of unwarranted searches and seizures.

“What happens when the biometrics are breached?” asks Houchen. Who then tells the panel about his experience as one of the 21 million Americans who had their most personal information hacked in the recent federal OPM breach, revealing that additionally that he was among the 5.1 million subset of victims of this hack that had their fingerprints stolen as well.

The OPM is offering victims three years of identity theft protection, which according to Houchen, is of little use.  “Biometrics once stolen is not like a social security number, it’s not like a password, it’s gone forever, warning that, Oklahoma might have, right now, a good secure system to keep those biometrics but it’s going to get out of your control Oklahoma, because you have to share those biometrics.” 

Houchen explains that he has lived and traveled abroad extensively including countries where, at the time, it was very dangerous for Americans all of which and more was in his OPM file.  We don’t know for sure who hacked the OPM but the federal government suspects the Chinese. Houchen expressed concern about future travel, especially to Russia, since his personal information was hacked.

Houchen ends by saying, “I believe the Oklahoma legislature can and should end this employment of poor civic hygiene by forcing yet another, no-choice, federal solution on Oklahomans.  We demand and deserve a choice.”

The reference to civic hygiene comes from another oft cited quote made by security guru, Bruce Schneier who said, “It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state.”

 

REAL ID Fright Fest 2015, Oklahoma Edition

Headlines 2015

Kaye Beach | Oct. 6, 2015

The headlines are scary.

Vaguely worded policies issued by the federal Department of Homeland Security and sensational headlines have allowed misconceptions about the actual consequences of not having a REAL ID to grow.

The very worst possible consequences of not having not having a REAL ID card are actually quite minimal.

To refresh your memory- the REAL ID Act was passed with little to no debate in Congress in 2005 as a rider to a ‘must pass’ military and disaster relief funding bill.  The most controversial portion of the law imposes federal standards upon state driver’s licenses and ID documents.  And contrary to media reports, the REAL ID Act does require the collection and digital retention of every driver license applicants’ biometric facial image.  This fact is acknowledged by the National Conference of State Legislatures as well as other policy professionals so you don’t have to take my word for it.

nscl

The biometric and other personal information is required to be shared among the states and is accessible to the federal government.
The consequences for having a REAL ID are far more disturbing than the consequences for not having a REAL ID  which can be summed up like this; Someday, if you do not have a REAL ID compliant driver’s license or one of the umpteen acceptable alternatives, the TSA will look you up in their database to make sure that you are really you and you may be subject to a secondary screening which generally means you will be asked to either go through the naked scanner or get a pat down and they will look in your bags. That’s about it so why are we being treated to this over the top fright fest?
Because fear is one of the only tools DHS has to get the states to comply

Jim Harper at Cato explains:

Right now, the Department of Homeland Security is sending out emissaries to tell state leaders that their residents might soon feel the TSA’s wrath. State motor vehicle bureaucrats and pro-national ID groups are joining them in the effort to herd state leaders over the national ID cliff.
But the threat of TSA enforcement is an empty one. REAL ID “deadlines” have come and gone many times. No state has ever come into compliance with REAL ID. No state will be in compliance in 2016. And the TSA will not begin a program to prevent Americans from traveling by air.

The adoption of the REAL ID standards is (by law) is voluntary for the states. This is not a mandate so implementation can only be accomplished gradually by persuading (or intimidating) the states into compliance. Since the law is so controversial (not to mention convoluted and costly!) states have little incentive to adopt the REAL ID standards.
No one really seems to want a REAL ID — unless they think that the consequences for not having one might be dire.

“. . .by requiring Real ID-compliant licenses to board commercial aircraft, the law could put a lot of public pressure on states to issue licenses that meet its standards.”
Source: USA Today, Real ID is slowly changing state drivers’ licenses, Jan. 22, 2014

Oklahoma has been granted an extension by the Dept. of Homeland Security. An extension means that the state’s driver’s license and ID cards will be accepted just as if the ID was fully REAL ID compliant.
From the Dept. of Homeland Security, REAL ID Enforcement in Brief:
“Individuals holding driver’s licenses or identification cards from these jurisdiction may continue to use them as before.”
The jurisdiction referred to are states where their licenses have been “(1) determined to meet the Act’s standards; or (2) that have received extensions.”

This means that Oklahoma ID’s are acceptable for flying, entering specified federal buildings and entering a nuclear facility, 3 of the four “official purposes” that will require a REAL ID.  There are FOUR official purposes that require a REAL ID but I have yet to hear the media cover the fourth purpose even once.

The REAL ID final rules require a REAL ID complaint driver’s license or ID card for certain specified “official purposes” (defined in Sec 201 of the Act.)
#1 Entering Federal facilities
#2 boarding a Federally-regulated commercial aircraft
#3 Entering a nuclear power plant
and
#4 Any other purpose established by the Secretary of Homeland Security
(Real ID Final Rules http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-01-29/pdf/08-140.pdf)

The fourth official purpose is what a good friend of mine refers to as the “dictator clause”  It means just what it says.  The Secretary of Homeland Security can add any other purpose he or she wisher.  No congressional review – no nothing.  Would it bother you if you were required to present your biometric national ID for say….ammo?

That fourth purpose could come in handy for just about anything that needs to be monitored, rationed or controlled.  Ask Oklahoma media to cover THAT!

The DHS will be reviewing the progress of states that have received extensions this month. I predict that Oklahoma will be granted another extension.

On Dec. 29, 2014, the Dept. Of Homeland Security extended the deadline for enforcement upon states that have an extension or are deemed compliant with REAL ID until Oct. 1, 2020. Oklahoma appears to exempt from enforcement until 2020.

In the worst-case-scenario, one where the DHS refuses to grant our state and extension and we become subject to enforcement in order to board a plane “no sooner than 2016,”  it’s still not going to be a big deal for Okies.

Not once has it been publicly asserted by the Department of Homeland Security or the TSA that not having a REAL ID compliant license would ever be a basis for denying a person the ability to board a commercial aircraft or that a U.S. Passport is the only accepted alternative to REAL ID
Clarifying statements have been made by DHS officials though, they just aren’t the ones that make the headlines.
For example, Darrell Williams, former Senior Director, Office of State Issued ID Support, Department of Homeland Security, testified before a Congressional subcommittee that there are a variety of identification alternatives to a REAL ID and that not having a REAL ID compliant license will not prevent a person from boarding a plane. He went on to say to say that even individuals with NO FORM OF ID at all can still be permitted to fly.

Williams TSA REAL ID

Mr. Williams as the former Director of the REAL ID program for the Department of Homeland Security with (which directs the Transportation Security Administration) is very familiar with the policies of both agencies. No publicly available official statement on the matter of REAL ID and boarding a federally regulated commercial aircraft refutes Mr. Williams’ testimony.

Here is the TSA’s list of preferred ID documents:
• Driver’s licenses or other state photo identity cards issued by Department of Motor Vehicles (or equivalent)
• U.S. passport
• U.S. passport card
• DHS trusted traveler cards (Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST)
• U.S. military ID (active duty or retired military and their dependents, and DoD civilians)
• Permanent resident card
• Border crossing card
• DHS-designated enhanced driver’s license
• Airline or airport-issued ID (if issued under a TSA-approved security plan)
• Federally recognized, tribal-issued photo ID
• HSPD-12 PIV card
• Foreign government-issued passport
• Canadian provincial driver’s license or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada card
• Transportation worker identification credential
http://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification

Here the TSA goes into a bit more detail regarding its identity verification procedures:

“TSA prefers that passengers use an acceptable ID at the checkpoint and only publishes the acceptable forms of primary ID, such as a driver’s license and passport on its website. However, we understand that, due to extenuating circumstances a passenger may not have an acceptable form of ID when attempting to travel on a commercial aircraft. Therefore, TSA has alternate means to verify identity in order to allow a passenger to travel and may rely on a variety of government-issued documents, commercial databases, and other agencies to verify passenger identity. The alternative means to establish identity are not published on the website in part because TSA prefers that passengers use acceptable ID.

The TSA website informs passengers that, if they do not have acceptable ID, they can alternatively provide additional information and undergo additional screening in order to be cleared. Specifically, the website informs the public that: “If you are willing to provide additional information, we have other ways to confirm your identity, like using publicly available databases, so you can reach your flight.”
(TSA response to congressional inquiry Aug. 7, 2014
https://www.scribd.com/doc/237497624/TSA-Doc)

No one is going to have to get a passport or be barred from flying due to the REAL ID Act.

Sparks Real ID

This press released today by the Oklahoma Senate certainly sounds dire.

Can you imagine if people were unable to enter the Social Security office?  What if you were asked to appear in Federal Court and you don’t have a REAL ID?  What would happen?

Apparently nothing.

REAL ID Act of 2005 Implementation: An Interagency Security Committee Guide
Aug 2015, Interagency Security Committee
“…there is no requirement to produce a REAL ID Act compliant ID to enter a Federal facility for accessing health or life preserving services (including hospitals and health clinics), law enforcement (including participating in law enforcement proceedings or investigations), participating in constitutionally protected activities (including a defendant’s or spectator’s access to court proceedings, access by jurors or potential jurors), voting or registering to vote, or applying for or receiving Federal benefits…”
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/isc-real-id-guide-august-2015-508_0.pdf

According to the Department of Homeland Security
REAL ID does NOT apply to the following:
• Entering Federal facilities that do not require a person to present identification
• Voting or registering to vote
• Applying for or receiving Federal benefits
• Being licensed by a state to drive
• Accessing Health or life preserving services (including hospitals and health clinics), law enforcement, or constitutionally protected activities (including a defendant’s access to court proceedings)
• Participating in law enforcement proceedings or investigations

There is too much fear, uncertainty and doubt being pumped out by the media and state officials for me to address in just one post so expect more posts soon.  Until then – don’t let them scare you!

Texas DPS’ Face and ALL Ten Prints Biometric Policy Makes Everone a Suspect

lineup

Kaye Beach
July 14, 2014

Like Oklahoma, Texas requires applicants for a state drivers license or ID card to submit to his or her facial and finger biometrics to being captured and stored. But Texas has recently upped the ante requiring those who wish to have a state issued driver’s license of ID card, to submit to the scanning and retention of all ten fingerprints.

Texas lawmakers have passed legislation that allows the Department of Public Safety to get all ten of your fingerprints the next time you renew your drivers license. And the DPS quietly began doing that this year.

‘To Cut Down On Fraud, DPS Wants Fingerprints To Renew Drivers License,’

If you are already offended by the notion of the notion of being fingerprinted like a common criminal just to get an driver’s license or ID card you will be horrified by what Ryan Barrett, a former DPS employee who resigned over the new fingerprinting policy, reveals about what is actually being done with the data.

His main objection, he tells The Watchdog, is that all fingerprints of Texans are now being run through the state’s criminal database. (my bold)

…Barrett says he is not against catching criminals. The problem, he says, is that if someone has no criminal record, a new record is created of the innocent individual and stored in the statewide database called AFIS.

…Barrett says he believes the reason DPS quietly launched the program this year without public announcement is because such a public notice would have touched off a debate about the program’s legality.

Read more, ‘The Watchdog: Whistleblower blasts DPS for taking fingerprints,’ July 12, 2014, DallasNews.com

Dave Lieber, Watchdog Reporter for the Dallas Morning News is doing a fine job of investigating and reporting on this story which he first reported  on back on June 7, 2014.

Watchdog: Driver’s license centers snatch your fingerprints

[. . .]Quietly, earlier this year, the Texas Department of Public Safety began requiring full sets of fingerprints from everyone who obtains a new driver’s license or photo identification card.

[. . .]Since 2010, Texas has used facial recognition software to match driver’s license photos with government databases looking for persons wanted by law enforcement for various reasons.

The state’s Image Verification System also matches known faces from driver’s licenses and photo ID cards with sketches of criminal suspects, a Texas Department of Public Safety spokesman explained in answer to The Watchdog’s questions.

[. . . ]In the Texas Homeland Security Strategic Plan, which Marina found, authorities cite identity theft and terrorism as two motivators for using fingerprints and facial recognition software.

Checking fingerprints, the plan says, will help officials locate people seeking a second, unauthorized identification card.

The plan states that fingerprints will be compared with the federal Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System to identify criminals and terrorists.  Read more

July 12, 2014 article, The Watchdog: Whistleblower blasts DPS for taking fingerprints

And here is Lieber’s article published today, July 14, 2014, that allows the whistleblower and a representative for the Texas Department of Public Safety,  to both give their perspective in their own words.

Judge for yourself if fingerprint taking is necessary for Texas driver’s licenses

 

I love the DPS whistleblower, Ryan Barrett’s,  final thoughts on the matter.

‘…you can use any means or methods to stop crime and then justify it with the DPS’s blanket ‘safety’ statement.  You can say the DPS is placing RFID chips in all driver’s license holders, and then justify it with the the same sentence Tom used: that it stops fraud, combats terrorism, and keeps people safe.  In fact, I’m sure it probably would stop a little fraud, or some crime, but that doesn’t mean it is morally right, in line with the concept of citizens’ privacy, or cost-effective.  You could search every single house in a city when a crime is committed and justify it with that statement, and yes, the police would probably find some crime or wrong-doing.  But again, that doesn’t mean it’s morally right…’

Read more, ‘The Watchdog: Whistleblower blasts DPS for taking fingerprints,’ July 12, 2014, DallasNews.com

Update on my lawsuit to stop mandatory biometric ID and an urgent plea for your help TODAY!

Kaye Beach

June 25, 2014

I know my blog posts have been few and far between these days.  You know how I like to tell and I look forward to being able to tell you everything and begin posting frequently and freely again.

(My small talk news is that I am proudly working at a great local vape store! I only applied at one store and that was because of the owners and crew’s commitment to activism and helping smokers choose a safer alternative.   I am excited to be helping others make the transition from smoking to vaping as I have done after almost 30 years of smoking.  I am enjoying this work immensely and will be posting more on this soon!)

I am writing this post in order to  bring you up to speed on my lawsuit in Oklahoma opposing mandatory biometric identification in order to be issued a state driver’s license or ID card and make an urgent request for your support.

If you wish to contribute to my legal fund online through Paypal.com Here is the link: https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/send-money-online  All you need is my email, which is axxiomforliberty@gmail.com
 By US mail, you can send a check or money order to;
Kaye Beach
P.O. Box 722381
Norman, Oklahoma, 73070

Biometric ID

‘Biometric means “measurement of the body.”  This is technology is used to measure aspects of an individual and transform this personal data into digital code for the purpose of identification.  With biometrics, your body IS your ID.

Biometric identification creates a perfect connection between our bodies and information about us.  It is also used to control access to places, services and goods and it is being implemented around the world through deception, coercion and stealth.  Industry experts predict that within five years, the majority of the world’s population will be enrolled into one or another biometric identification scheme.’ (Dec. 9, 2013, AxXiom For Liberty https://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/help-me-stop-mandatory-biometric-id/)

I was honored to be interviewed by Oklahoma Journalist, Patrick McQuigan recently. (OK Woman battles ‘mandatory biometric’ required for drivers’ licenses  19-Jun-2014 )

And as I explained to Mr. McGuigan;

“I filed a lawsuit against this policy in the first place because I believe it is a violation of my right to freedom of religion, as well as my right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, both of which are protected under Oklahoma law,”

(Press Release from the Rutherford Institute: Rutherford Institute Challenges Oklahoma’s Mandatory Biometric Photo Requirement for Drivers’ Licenses As Infringement of Religious Freedom)

City Sentinel June 25 2014

I was also very pleased and surprised to see my story make the front page of the City Sentinel today. I owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. McGuigan for delving into my story.

Recap As some of you may be aware, I began my battle back in the summer of 2011.  Yes, the wheels of justice do indeed move slowly — especially in comparison to the rapid expansion in the use of the biometric technology.

In 2011, my driver’s license came due and because of all I had learned about the nature of biometric ID and my Christian faith, there was no way I could voluntarily and passively accept biometric enrollment. I had worked hard to gain a thorough understanding of the policy and technology behind the collection of our biometric data and I learned that this biometric identification system is not merely a state level nuisance, or even simply a reviled national identity system.  This is a global system of identification and financial control.   It will apply to everyone.  Right now, the people of the world are well on their way to total global enrollment.  I am determined not to be one of them!  Furthermore, I intend to prove that this is a violation of our rights as individuals so that we can protect these rights!

Regardless of our political or religious persuasions, a great many people oppose mandatory biometric enrollment and they do so on a variety of grounds.  The common thread is preserving individual freedoms. We must not allow ourselves to be trapped in this unbearably intimate, body-based system of government control!

In the spring of 2011, I was cited for driving without a valid license and with the help of my lawyers, I fought that citation in city court.  The Norman City Attorney, apparently reluctant to try and settle such a serious matter in a city court, dismissed my case.

Still, without a valid license or government issued photo ID, the normal duties of life become very difficult.  Purchases, banking, health care, travel and more, become extremely challenging and in the future, these things are intended to become impossible without a government issued biometric ID.

The state of Oklahoma patently refused to consider my religious objections and issue a non-biometric license and since I am certain that I have a right to freely live my life and follow my faith without having to submit the measurements of my body to government databases, my battle could not stop at a city court dismissal.   Ultimately, my lawyers filed a lawsuit on my behalf against the state to protect my right to religious freedom and against the unwarranted collection of my biometric data.

(Petition filed on Sept. 21, 2011 http://constitutionalalliance.org/xfiles/Constitutional-Alliance_Kaye-Beach_Petition-Suit-as-Filed.pdf  If you would like to read more about the beginning of this battle, please see My Real ID Reckoning, June 28, 201)

We are NOT criminals!

In a recent interview with local FOX news affiliate, I explained to the Reporter that one of the benefits to being a law abiding citizen is that we get to go about our business without having the government constantly looking over our shoulders, monitoring, evaluating and controlling our lives. When we are arrested, we are fingerprinted and our digital mug shot is captured along with scads of other personal information.  These details are entered into a database allowing the government to keep track of criminals and suspects for the purpose of protecting public safety.  Now, at the DMV, we are fingerprinted and this along with our digital ‘faceprint’ and biographical information is captured and stored for use with facial recognition technology. This data, like criminal data, is also used to keep an eye on us.  Tell me, where is the benefit of being a law-abiding citizen when we are all treated as criminals and suspects?

I am, of course, somewhat limited in what I can say but to bring you up to speed on my lawsuit here is what I can share;

June 18, 2013, we filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which is a pre-trail motion that presents the undisputed facts of my case to the judge asking that based on these undisputed facts that the judge rule in my favor. Page 1-10 lists 36 statements of undisputed facts.  The rest of the petition is legal justifications and exhibits.  I encourage everyone to read pages 1-30. (Motion for Summary Judgment, June 18, 2013, http://constitutionalalliance.org/xfiles/Kaye-Beach_Motion-for-Summary-Judgment-as-to-Count-1_6.19.13_reduced.pdf )

Then there were depositions.  The state had its opportunity to thoroughly question me about whatever they wished and I had to answer each of their questions honestly upon my oath.  Likewise, my lawyer had the opportunity to perform a deposition on the state.

On April 1st, 2014, the state responded to my Motion for Summary Judgment and made a counter motion. The series of documents that comprise the state’s response is publicly available on the Oklahoma State Court Network which I have copied and pasted here for your convenience.

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / FOR SCANNING PURPOSES, DOC SPLIT INTO 3 PARTS / PART 1: MAIN PLEADING THROUGH EXHIBIT 2 (PAGE 59 OF TRANSCRIPT) Document Available (#1024392582)
04-01-2014 CNOTE 15174229 Apr 2 2014 8:19:59:360AM $ 0.00
PART 2: EXHIBIT 2 (PAGE 60 OF TRANSCRIPT) THROUGH EXHIBIT 6 / DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Document Available (#1024392578)
04-01-2014 CNOTE 15174230 Apr 2 2014 8:20:32:300AM $ 0.00
PART 3: EXHIBITS 7-10 / DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Document Available (#1024392574)

 

As you can see, the state’s response was a lengthy one – nearly 300 baffling pages.

My legal team’s response to the state’s response filed on June 17th, at a total of 31 pages, is relatively short and sweet – as the truth tends to be.

PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO HER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Document Available (#1025965247)

So where are we now?

Very Close! The state will have an opportunity to respond once again and then this Motion for Summary Judgment should go before the District Judge.  It should be 60 days or less till the Judge sees and rules on this pre-trial motion.  I believe that the law is clear and that my rights are being violated.  I believe my Counsel has done an excellent job in stating my case.

“Kaye Beach’s lawsuit, is the only substantial challenge to government mandated biometric ID, to my knowledge, that exists anywhere in our country.”–The Constitutional Alliance

We are very fortunate that my legal challenge attracted the attention of the Rutherford Institute, a nationally respected civil liberties organization. I count this organization as the ‘best of the best’ when it comes to protecting the rights of all in our country and John Whitehead has long been a personal hero of mine. I am so grateful that the Rutherford Institute is providing their experience and support in my lawsuit

My personal attorney is Benjamin Sisney, a man that I have great faith in.  He has a heart for this case and has worked diligently in representing me every step of the way.  I truly believe that I could not have better representation in this case than Ben Sisney and know that my case is in the best of hands.  It is important for you to understand how strongly I believe in my Attorney because this leads me to my purpose for writing to you today.

My excellent legal representation is not free

Right now I have an outstanding balance of about $17,000 for the hard work Mr. Sisney and his firm has done on my behalf and that balance must be paid up and quickly!  I must honor my debt to these good people as they deserve to be paid for their labors.  In my past fundraising efforts, you have come through for this cause and even though I know that money is tight for all, I am counting on you again.

I am on a very short timeline to get this debt cleared and am pleading for your help to get it done. 

For those who think that this issue is too complicated or somehow does not apply to them personally, please pay attention to John Whitehead’s (President of the Rutherford Institute) quote that Patrick McGuigan chose to include in his article about my case. (In bold below)  I think it neatly pins the crux of the problem with mandatory biometric ID, to the wall.

Whatever one’s belief systems — whether a person views a biometric ID card in the form of a driver’s license or other government-issued form of identification as the mark of the Beast or merely the long arm of Big Brother, the outcome remains the same — ultimate control by the government,”

Read more

If you support my effort to stop mandatory biometric enrollment, please, share this message with others and give as generously as you can today!

“As more and more of us are enrolled it is safe to predict that the balance of power that exists between the people and their governments will correspondingly shift further away from the people and towards government.  History shows us that, unerringly, that such power will be abused and the window of opportunity to resist this system of human identification and control is closing.”

https://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/help-me-stop-mandatory-biometric-id/

Here is how to contribute:

You may make a donation online through Paypal.com Here is the link:

https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/send-money-online  All you need is my email, which is axxiomforliberty@gmail.com

By US mail, you can send a check or money order to; Kaye Beach P.O. Box 722381 Norman, Oklahoma, 73070 (Please make the check out to “Kaye Beach”. You may write “legal defense fund” in the memo section of your check or money order)

Thank you for all you do for freedom!

 

Kaye Beach

 

 

 

Ohio says no to Real ID citing concerns about biometric collection, facial recognition

frt cctv

Kaye Beach

Dec. 16, 2013

Ohio is the first state to reject the federal Real ID Act solely on the basis of the biometric (facial recognition) collection.

(Read Biometrics 101 -Your Body is Your Id)

When people really understand that the mass collection of biometrics on ordinary people turns all of us into suspects and transforms our rights into privileges, sensible people will reject it.

State officials balked at the “one driver-one license” rule and at being required to store and share copies of personal documents, such as birth certificates, said Joe Andrews, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Public Safety…The objection is that it’s not acceptable in many circles in Ohio to do facial recognition on everyone who comes in to get a license,” http://www.dispatch.com//content/stories/local/2013/12/06/state-pulls-plans-to-comply-with-federal-id-law.html

Ohio had been set and ready to go with Real ID but when residents and legislators got a whiff of what Real ID with its facial biometric requirement was really about, they weren’t so happy.

 After Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine
quietly added a facial recognition capability to the
Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway
, which gives government officials unified access to databases for their browsing pleasure, state residents became a tad creeped out that they’d been conscripted into an ongoing police line-up. Link

The actuality of harm to our rights inherent in mandatory biometric ID is beginning to become apparent.  Compared to a few years ago, it is now much easier for the people and their legislators to see what this technology is and how it is being used and they are taking issue with it.

Recently Missouri legislators completed an investigation into privacy violations of Missouri residents and found that the state’s Department of Revenue has  continued implementation of the federal Real ID Act in spite of state law prohibiting it.

Mo. House Committee Releases Report Accusing DOR Of Breaking 2009 Anti-REAL ID Law

 “The Department of Revenue adopted a system of scanning and retention of source documents,” Cox said.  “They acquired and they spent considerable money in obtaining biometric information on citizens, they adopted the central issuance of driver’s licenses, and finally adopted what’s sometimes referred to as Level Three security, which is also a feature of (the) REAL ID Act, according to the Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano.”

But the federal government says it still intends to force the Real ID Act on the states.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NSCL)
Oct. 2013

REAL ID Enforcement on Its Way

In a recent meeting with NCSL, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) confirmed it is on schedule to announce, later this year, a timeline for the phased-in enforcement of the federal REAL ID Act.

There will likely be four to six phases, with each phase focusing on the use of  REAL ID-compliant IDs in different settings, such as to board commercial aircraft.

Each phase will consist of three steps: 1) signage regarding the upcoming enforcement, 2) verbal warnings of enforcement and 3) hard
enforcement.

Full enforcement of REAL ID is expected to begin
in two to three years.  Approximately 21 states are expected to already be in full compliance when DHS releases the timeline this year.

http://www.ncsl.org/documents/transportation/TRN-Oct2013.pdf

While the stealth national/international biometric ID has remained largely hidden from mass awareness, that is going to change.  More and more citizens and legislators will become aware of the reality of mandatory biometric ID being forced upon the American people and we can expect that this reality will create a new wave of battles.   It won’t be a moment too soon though because the fact is that all states are collecting digital facial images suitable for use with facial recognition technology which means you can kiss your privacy, autonomy and religious freedom goodbye unless its stopped.

I am engaged in my own battle against mandatory biometric ID right now.  I want to know if I have the right NOT to be enrolled into this system of biometric identification and financial control.  Many would benefit from a favorable ruling in my lawsuit and I am asking for your support to help me win my case.

Please help me stop mandatory biometric enrollment by making as generous a contribution to my legal fund as you are able to today.

If you wish to donate to my legal defense fund, you may do so online  through Paypal.com
By US mail, you can send a check or money order to;
Kaye Beach
P.O. Box 722381
Norman, Oklahoma, 73070

(Please make the check out to “Kaye Beach”. You may write “legal defense fund” in the memo section of your check or money order)
Thank you and God Bless,

Tonight on AxXiom For Liberty Live Mark Lerner, Real ID/Biometric Expert on Biometric ID in Immigration Reform Bill

a4l 55

Kaye Beach

May 17, 2013

Tonight on AxXiom For Liberty Live with Kaye Beach and Howard Houchen  6-8 PM Central – International Biometric ID for All if Immigration Reform Bill Passes
Listen Live-LogosRadioNetwork.com  click ‘Listen’ then choose your Internet speed.  Logos Radio Network is a listener supported, free speech radio network and your contributions are vital but you do not have to be a subscriber in order to hear the show.

There is much conflicting information being bandied about regarding the immigration reform bill (.744, the ‘Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act’)

Let’s clear the fog.

Mark Lerner is the co-founder of The Constitutional Alliance, and the nation’s leading expert on biometrics and the Real ID Act.  He will tell us exactly what is and isn’t in the bill and what it all means for us.  Don’t miss this opportunity to get the straight truth about S.744!

Howard and I will also be discussing a variety of important topics and taking your calls.

Your questions or comments are always welcome!
CALL IN LINE 512-646-1984
Miss a show?  Get the Podcast!  Archives here
Other ways to listen;
Listen to Logos Radio Network on SHOUTcast
iTunes-AxXiom For Liberty and other great Logos Radio Network shows can be accessed by iPhone and iPad on iTunes!  Just search iTunes for “AxXiom For Liberty” or “Logos Radio Network”
************************************
global biometric id

Your photo in your state driver’s license or ID card IS a Biometric

Mark Lerner explains:

Biometric is defined as: Measurements of the body. There are both physiological and behavioral biometrics.  For the sake of this document the focus will be on facial recognition and photographs.

There has been a great deal of conversation and equal amount of confusion about whether a photograph of an individual is a biometric.   The answer is “yes”.  Whether the photograph is an analog (old Polaroid photos) or a digital photograph, a photograph is a biometric.  The question becomes why are digital facial images/photographs now used instead of the older analog photos that were used on driver’s licenses and other identification documents?  The simple answer is the accuracy of the matching or comparison between one photograph and another is greatly increased when working with digital facial images.

One way to examine the question of whether a photograph is a biometric is by looking at photographs and fingerprints.  It is widely accepted to the point of being undisputed, that a fingerprint is a biometric.  Consider that when a person places a finger on a ink pad and then places that same finger on a piece of paper, the result is a fingerprint on the piece of paper.  Now let’s look at a photograph.  The photograph of a person’s face the equivalent of fingerprint, only the photograph is a representation of a person’s face instead of their finger tip.

Just as there are fingerprints that are not of sufficient quality to allow for computer automated comparisons, the same is true of photographs.  It is for this reason that we see standards for the collection of both fingerprints and photographs.  These “standards” are the minimum acceptable standards for the computer automated analysis/comparison.

The question of whether a photograph is in itself a biometric is especially important today because of the use of facial recognition software.  Facial recognition (software) in its simplest terms is described as follows:

Facial recognition systems are computer-based security systems that are able to automatically detect and identify human faces. These systems depend on a recognition algorithm, such as eigenface or the hidden Markov model. The first step for a facial recognition system is to recognize a human face and extract it fro the rest of the scene. Next, the system measures nodal points on the face, such as the distance between the eyes, the shape of the cheekbones and other distinguishable features. These nodal points are then compared to the nodal points computed from a database of pictures in order to find a match. Obviously, such a system is limited based on the angle of the face captured and the lighting conditions present. New technologies are currently in development to create three-dimensional models of a person’s face based on a digital photograph in order to create more nodal points for comparison. However, such technology is inherently susceptible to error given that the computer is extrapolating a three-dimensional model from a two-dimensional photograph.  http://epic.org/privacy/facerecognition/

Today in the United States and in other countries there has been a great deal of discussion about “facial recognition” in particular and more generally “surveillance”.

It is not widely known that all states in the United States are “capturing” a digital facial image/photograph that is facial recognition compatible.   Real ID compliant and non-Real ID compliant states use the same standard for the digital facial image/photograph capture.  Every state works with AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators).

AAMVA has adopted the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) standard that is required by the Real ID Act (page 68, footnote 17, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Real ID Act 2005).  In addition, the vendors who have been awarded state driver’s license contracts have adopted the same standard as called for in the Real ID Act 2005.

The following is the wording that articulates the standard for AAMVA, the vendors who have been awarded state driver’s license contracts and the Real ID Act 2005.  This wording is taken from page 68, footnote 17 of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making for the Real ID Act 2005.

“The relevant ICAO standard is ICAO 9303 Part 1 Vol. 2, specifically ISO/IEC 19794-5 – Information technology -Biometric data interchange formats – Part 5: Face image data, which is incorporated into ICAO 9303.”

In conclusion, there should no longer be a question in anyone’s mind that the photographs of a person’s face which are contained in every respective state Department of Motor Vehicle photo database is a biometric.

Missouri compliance with REAL ID has Lt. Gov., CCW permit holders up in arms

States that Stand Against REAL ID - Really?

States that Stand Against REAL ID – Really?

Kaye Beach

March 10, 2013

Residents of Missouri are in an uproar following the discovery that their state is apparently continuing to implement the REAL ID Act requirements in Missouri despite the fact that the state passed a law prohibiting the implementation of Real ID.

Though Missouri isn’t one of the 19 states certified by the Department of Homeland Security as REAL ID compliant, its steps towards compliance is raising privacy concerns by handgun carry permit holders and state lawmakers.

Source:  Real ID Act raises privacy concerns for Mo. handgun carry permit holders, March 6, 2013, Examiner.com

Opponents of The Real ID Act of 2005 span the political spectrum and not least among these opponents has always been those who value their right to keep and bear arms.  This may be one of the first visible eruptions at the inevitable intersection of Real ID and gun rights.  It will not be the last.

According to Lt. Governor Peter Kinder, Eric Griffin went to his Department of Motor Vehicles fee office after he passed the application process for a concealed carry gun permit. Griffin refused to let DMV employees scan some of his documentation and he was subsequently denied a permit.

Source:  Real ID Act raises privacy concerns for Mo. handgun carry permit holders, March 6, 2013, Examiner.com

From the Missouri Watchdog, March 6, 2013;

“What is going on is improper and is a new and illegal impediment to citizens’ rights to obtain a concealed-carry permit,” said Stoddard County prosecutor Russell Oliver, who is acting as the private attorney for plaintiff Eric Griffin.

The state statute governing the actions of the Department of Revenue forbids it from disclosing such personal information as photographs, driver’s license numbers, names and addresses without express consent.

In investigating the matter, Oliver said, he discovered that a third-party company — Morphotrust — licenses the equipment. On its website, the company says it’s a partner with all states and many federal agencies in providing “identity solutions” “to simplify, protect and secure the lives of the American people.”

Oliver said he’s not sure how long the Morphotrust scanning machines have been in place or how far-reaching they are in Missouri license fee offices. Stoddard County is in the southeast corner of the state.

“This is new, at least it’s new to us,” said Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, who joined Oliver at the Capitol in announcing the lawsuit.

. . .Oliver and Kinder said the DOR may be collecting the information to comply with the federal Real ID Act of 2005, but they said the state opted out of that law and instead implemented its own in response.

Read more

*Update* Oklahoma – Biometric Exemption Bill Passed Committee 12-0! Thank You’s Needed!

target dl 1

Kaye Beach

*Update 2/28/13 HB 1476 by Rep. Ken Walker passed the Government Modernization Committee 12 to 0 today!  Big thanks to all who called or emailed the committee members!  Please be sure to give them a thank you!

Here are the committee members’ emails;

Email block (use bcc)

jason.murphey@okhouse.gov, mike.turner@okhouse.gov, david.brumbaugh@okhouse.gov, david.derby@okhouse.gov, joedorman@okhouse.gov, dan.fisher@okhouse.gov, elise.hall@okhouse.gov, richardmorrissette@okhouse.gov, seneca.scott@okhouse.gov, jason.smalley@okhouse.gov, ken.walker@okhouse.gov, justin.wood@okhouse.gov

*Update 2/27/13 This bill is getting a lot of support!  Thank you to everyone who has called and emailed.  Thurs. morning, before the committee meeting (10:30 AM) It would be very helpfule to have a last push with some phone calls to the committee members. Numbers are listed below.  Thanks Again!**

Feb 26, 2013

Biometrics means “measurement of the body.”  Technology is used to measure behavioral or physical aspects of an individual and transform this personal data into digital code for the purpose of identification.

In Oklahoma, when we get a state driver’s license or identification card  we are having our facial biometrics captured by the high resolution photos.  High resolution digital cameras capture, map, digitize and database our facial features for the purpose of use by facial recognition technology.

Facial recognition technology enables at a distance identification and tracking through networked camera systems without our knowledge or consent.  (Oklahoma also requires a finger scan.)

The standard for the digital image on our ID cards is the adopted international standard of the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization and International Standards exist for one purpose: to enable the global exchange of information.

Americans are experiencing increasing demands by business and government to produce their ID as a condition for access.  Our ability to buy, sell travel (and if Congress gets its way-soon work!) is becoming contingent upon this biometric ID.

In truth, we are being enrolled into a global system of identification and control that links our bodies to our ability to buy sell and travel.  And it is being done through deception, coercion and stealth and these facts has vigilant Christians concerned.

“Oklahoma has a long tradition of protecting religious liberty through its laws.”  OK. AG Scott Pruitt

HB1476 by Rep. Jon Echols Ken Walker will be heard this Thursday in the Government Modernization Committee at 10:30 AM

HB 1476 will permit a religious exemption for those who object to being enrolled into a biometric identification system.

This is, in my mind, the most important bill offered this session.

HB 1476  says that

“Any applicant who has signed the exemption shall be exempt from supplying biometric data to the Dept. of Public Safety.”

And

“The Department of Public Safety shall cease collecting, retaining or disclosing biometric data and from making biometric comparisons of an applicant who has signed the exemption.”

This exemption means that those with a religious objection to biometric identification and enrollment could get a NON-biometric driver’s license or ID card AND that any biometric data previously collected from you would be deleted from the system.

HB 1476 reads in part;

Beginning November 1, 2013, the Department of Public Safety shall modify the application for the issuance of a Class D driver license or an identification card to contain a statement of exemption. The statement of exemption shall contain the following language:

“BIOMETRIC IDENTIFICATION RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION”

“Because of my religious beliefs, I object to enrollment in an international biometric identification system including, but not limited to, facial recognition and digital fingerprinting that directly connects my body to identification and personal biometric information sharing.”

E. Any applicant who has signed the exemption shall be exempt from supplying biometric data to the Department of  Public Safety.

. . .

G. The Department of Public Safety shall cease collecting,  retaining or disclosing biometric data, biometric samples or  biometric templates from and making biometric comparisons of an applicant who has signed the exemption.

Please contact the members of the Government Modernization Committee before this Thursday and ask that they support HB 1476 which will permit people of faith in Oklahoma to avoid being mandatorily enrolled in a system of identification and control that violates their sincerely held religious convictions.

Members of the Government Modernization Committee

Chair Rep. Murphey, Jason  405/557-7350

Vice Chair Rep. Turner, Mike 405/557-7357

Rep. David Brumbaugh  405/557-7347

Rep. David Derby  405/557-7377

Rep. Joe Dorman  405/557-7305

Rep. Elise  Hall  405/557-7403

Rep. Richard Morrissette  405/557-7404

Rep. Dan Fisher  405/557-7311

Rep. Seneca Scott  405/557-7391

Rep. Jason Smalley  405/557-7368

Rep. Ken  Walker  405/557-7359

Rep. Justin F. Wood  405/557-7345

Email block (use bcc)

jason.murphey@okhouse.gov, mike.turner@okhouse.gov, david.brumbaugh@okhouse.gov, david.derby@okhouse.gov, joedorman@okhouse.gov, dan.fisher@okhouse.gov, elise.hall@okhouse.gov, richardmorrissette@okhouse.gov, seneca.scott@okhouse.gov, jason.smalley@okhouse.gov, ken.walker@okhouse.gov, justin.wood@okhouse.gov