How close is Oklahoma to Real ID? Much, Much Closer Than It Ought To Be

Kaye Beach

September 14, 2012

Have you noticed the flurry of activity related to Oklahoma’s driver’s licenses?  Did your Real ID radar begin to ping?

A Google photo search for “new driver’s license design” shows that many states, like Oklahoma, are getting new driver’s license designs.  And like Oklahoma, the photos are all moved to the left.  This isn’t a DMV fad.   These standards come from somewhere.  —  2012 AAMVA North American Standard – DL/ID Card Design

“AAMVA (the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) is called the “backbone” and hub” of the Real ID Act in the final rules issued by DHS” Mark Lerner, testimony before the Michigan House of Representatives, 2008

Several news items were released last week about some changes coming to Oklahoma’s driver’s licenses.

Oklahoma Rolls Out New Driver License and Upgraded Issuance System by MorphoTrust Sep 06, 2012 by Business Wire

“The new license meets rigorous security requirements and will not only upgrade our system but enhance customer service as well,” said Michael C. Thompson, Commissioner for the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety.

Oklahoma driver’s license will get makeover

Repositioned photograph is among changes to be rolled out over next several months for Oklahoma driver’s license

“They totally redesigned the system to where it’s going to be faster for the operator, which will speed up the line of people waiting at the tag agencies and exam offices.”

These news items were primed by many articles released over the last couple of months regarding the horrendous waits driver’s license applicants are forced to undergo in our state since ‘The number of examiners at licensing offices statewide decreased from 152 in 2009 to 105 this year. The number of testing sites has been reduced from 89 to 36 in a decade’

Long lines drive push to help Oklahoma driver’s license exam sites

At this point, Oklahomans are frustrated and the news of any changes that could help speed up the process are sure to be greeted with a huge sigh of relief and little scrutiny.

A little scrutiny is in order.

The deadline for meeting the standards of the REAL ID Act is January 15, 2013.

The Real ID Act passed in 2005 imposed federal guidelines that use  INTERNATIONAL standards for state driver’s licenses and ID documents

REAL ID licenses are to be

•machine readable

•contain biometric data

(including facial biometrics)

This and other information is to be shared

•nationally

•internationally

There are 18 initial benchmarks (39 benchmarks total) to the Real ID Act of 2005 that, once they are achieved, a state can consider to be in “material compliance” with the Act.  A state is in “full compliance” with the Real ID Act upon meeting all 39 of the benchmarks.

Once material compliance is achieved a state may request to be able to place a gold star on their state license to indicate that the card is acceptable for “federal identification purposes” from the DHS.

Spring of this year seven states were named as being the naughty foot draggers regarding meeting the 18 Real ID benchmarks. Oklahoma is listed as one of those laggard seven states and for good reason-our state passed a law prohibiting implementation of the federal Real ID Act in 2008. 

Oklahoma – OKLA. STAT. ANN, tit. 47, § 6-110.3 (2007) (The State of Oklahoma shall not participate in the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005. The Department of Public Safety is hereby directed not to implement the provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005 and to report to the Governor and the Legislature any attempt by agencies or agents of the United States Department of Homeland Security to secure the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005 through the operations of that or any other state department. . .

The President of the Coalition for a Secure Driver’s License took it upon himself to help the Department of Homeland Security pressure and threaten these last remaining rebel states:

“It’s their last opportunity to get on board with the REAL ID rules or face consequences. . . . REAL ID is no longer a policy matter, the REAL ID debate is over.  REAL ID is now part of DHS’ ongoing operations.”
PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1bIrU)

What are the “consequences” of not having a Real ID?  Here is what we are told;

“In the future, only those state issued Driver Licenses and Identification cards which are fully compliant with the REAL ID act of 2005 will be authorized for use as identification for official federal government purposes, such as boarding commercial aircraft and entering certain regulated federal facilities.” Alabama DMV-STAR ID

Does this mean we won’t be able to fly?  In a word-no.  We will still be able to fly.   A passport will work as well as a military ID.  Of course any government issued photo ID means biometrics and carries with it the some of the same concerns as Real ID.  Any lesser ID may require secondary screening procedures, but you can fly without a Real ID.  As far as the federal buildings.  That will be interesting.  Barring US citizens from certain federal building will probably set off a constitutional showdown.

Oklahoma was not alone in their opposition to the Real ID Act.  At least 25 states passed a law or resolution prohibiting the implementation of Real ID in their states.  This was a historic level of rebellion and one that both red and blue states participated.

At least 13 (the National Conference of State Legislatures recognizes 16) states passed an actual law against Real ID but we know from Congressional documents that some of these states are quietly issuing Real ID compliant driver’s licenses anyways.

Thirteen states have laws prohibiting compliance with the REAL ID Act. Even so, DHS believes that some of these states already issue secure identification documents consistent with the standards of the regulation.  Link

These states may not sign up for the gold star just yet, but with a wink and a nod, they are just as surely undermining the will of the people by meeting the first 18 benchmarks of Real ID.  To state it simply, these states are positioned to do the bidding of the Department of Homeland Security by meeting the requirements of the Real ID Act while retaining plausible deniability about violating their states’ law that prohibits implementation of the Real ID Act.

At least nineteen states are now in compliance with the Act.   Twenty-six more are reported to have committed to meet the standards before the (new) deadline. (Dec. 1, 2014) link

So where does Oklahoma stand on the 18 (Real ID) benchmarks?

I will show you that Oklahoma is merely one benchmark away from compliance with this international ID scheme that caused an unprecedented uproar by the states following its introduction in 2005.

Oklahoma has progressed from meeting 9 of these benchmarks in 2008 to currently meeting 14 of the 18 Real ID benchmarks. (3 of the benchmarks pertain to formalizing commitment by the state to REAL ID.  State’s that have passed a law prohibiting Real ID implementation are forgiven these benchmarks by the Dept. of Homeland Security.  That is the “wink and a nod” Do in reality, Oklahoma is really only one benchmark away from being considered Real ID compliant.)

Real ID benchmarks 1-6

Real ID Benchmarks 7-15

Real ID Benchmarks 16-18

 

Doesn’t appear that the law prohibiting implementation of the provisions of Real ID slowed us down much, does it?

Some of these 18 benchmarks are sensible measures that many states were already working on prior to Real ID anyways.

However, benchmark Number 1 is a REAL problem!

Benchmark #1. “Mandatory facial image capture and retention of such image.”

Let me explain briefly why:  the digital facial photo is a biometric suitable for use with facial recognition software.  In fact, facial biometrics is the governments biometric of choice.  Why?  It is not the most accurate biometric for identification purposes but it does allow us to be identified in public without our knowledge or consent.  Never mind that we have the right to go about our business, as long as we are not a criminal or suspect, without be investigated.  The Supreme Court has upheld our right to anonymity on several occasions in recent history.

Here is just one example;

Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority … It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation–and their ideas from suppression–at the hand of an intolerant society.”

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334

The inaccuracy of facial recognition could cause anyone to be misidentified which would introduce the unfortunate person host of unpleasant possibilities.  But, I suppose, it is ‘good enough for government work,’ as they say.  But it gets even worse.

After the initial 18 benchmarks are met, the states will proceed to implement the next 21 benchmarks, step by step enrolling us into a global biometric identity system.

“The main ideology for defining the design of the DL/ID is the minimum acceptable set of requirements to guarantee global interoperability. “

Source: Personal Identification – AAMVA North American Standard – DL/ID Card Design, 2012

Myself as well as many other policy watchers that care to know, have been warning for years that our government intends to use those DL photos, conveniently combined with our personal, biographical information to not just identify us in public absent of any specific, articulable suspicion; they intend to use our facial biometrics to investigate and even predict based on the associated data- whether we are more or less likely to present a threat to government.  As of late, these intentions have been loosed from obscure, seldom read government documents and have been printed in black and white for the world to see.

In addition to scanning mugshots for a match, FBI officials have indicated that they are keen to track a suspect by picking out their face in a crowd.

Another application would be the reverse: images of a person of interest from security cameras or public photos uploaded onto the internet could be compared against a national repository of images held by the FBI. An algorithm would perform an automatic search and return a list of potential hits for an officer to sort through and use as possible leads for an investigation.

New Scientist, September 7, 2012 FBI launches $1 billion face recognition project

And then this-a first-law enforcement admits to using facial recognition on protestors in public.

Computer World: Undercover cops secretly use smartphones, face recognition to spy on crowds

And this one from June 16, 2013,  the Washington Post:

State photo-ID databases become troves for police

Oklahoma residents who prefer to not be enrolled into this biometric identification system ought to be asking their representatives why the state is continuing in the fulfillment of the Real ID Act in spite of the law which clearly expresses the will of the people to not participate in the international biometric identity scheme.

 

City of Norman’s Fifth Density Dialog Charade

Kaye Beach

August 14, 2012

I am completely frustrated with the City of Norman’s “community dialog” meetings on density development.  Last night was the fifth meeting.

(You can find out more about the meetings and see some of the materials from the meetings here)

Previous posts on the subject are here and here

We were told in the beginning that the meetings were for the purpose of discovering whether or not Norman residents even wanted high density development.  That question could have been answered in much less that the six scheduled meetings being held but then the planners would not have had the opportunity to manipulate the attendees into agreeing to the sort of development that they have in mind.

I am not opposed to the building of high density housing units.  If there is a market for it and it doesn’t harm the rights of property owners nearby, then why not?  But there is much more going on here than that.

Last night we really got down to the nitty gritty after we were instructed by City Planner Susan Atkinson on exactly what constituted “good design”  Good design, we were told, is three stories, built right up to the sidewalk, retail on the bottom, residential on top, meager parking, hidden in the back.  Good design means wide sidewalks and narrow streets.  Why?

I’ll tell you why.  Because public transportation REQUIRES high density development,( located right  next to the tracks) that discourages the use of automobiles.    The planners aim to take away your choices so that their goals are met.

The city is working on what is called Transit Oriented Development only they will not simply tell you that because if they did and we understood what they were really up to, many of us would not agree to it.

(Read the Central Oklahoma Transit Supportive Guidebook)

Transit Oriented Development  (also called New Urbanism or Smart Growth) calls for high density mixed use developments. link

Today, TOD means building high density projects at transit stops, such as a light rail stations. Providing places to live, work, and shop within close distance of a rail station helps drive ridership on the transit system. http://iqc.ou.edu/2011/09/28/urban-design-in-territorial-oklahoma/

Transit-Oriented Development — moderate- to high-density, mixed-use neighborhoods concentrated at transit stops and designed to maximize access to and use of public transportation. http://www.epa.gov/dced/codeexamples.htm

So, who really wants transit oriented development?  The federal government does.  And ACOG wants it because federal transportation dollars are contingent upon it.  The city wants transit oriented development because it is part of ACOG’s regional transportation plan.

Since when does the federal government dictate city planning?  The answer is they can’t, not directly anyways but by using the carrot and the stick method the federal government is doing it and ACOG and our city council rather than standing up to this travesty and letting the good people of Oklahoma who value their sovereignty and local control are working right along with them.  And this, we will be told, is what WE want.  It is OUR plan.

Here is just one example of new federal initiatives that have completely changed the game.

Obama Administration Proposes Major Public Transportation Policy Shift
to Highlight Livability
Changes Include Economic Development and Environmental Benefits

In a dramatic change from existing policy, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today proposed that new funding guidelines for major transit projects be based on livability issues such as economic development opportunities and environmental benefits, in addition to cost and time saved, which are currently the primary criteria.

In remarks at the Transportation Research Board annual meeting, the Secretary announced the Obama Administration’s plans to change how projects are selected to receive federal financial assistance in the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) New Starts and Small Starts programs.

“Our new policy for selecting major transit projects will work to promote livability rather than hinder it,” said Secretary LaHood. “We want to base our decisions on how much transit helps the environment, how much it improves development opportunities and how it makes our communities better places to live.” http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/fta0110.htm

If you are wondering what these “livability principles” are, you can click here to read them.

In an March 2012 ACOG transportation  meeting, Commissioner Mark Sharpton goes on record calling out the ‘Livability Principles” for what they are and his reaction to the suggestion of incorporating them into our region-wide transportation policies brought forth an entirely appropriate response form this red-blooded American;

You know, I actually feel for the city council and even ACOG.  They are between a rock and a hard place for sure.  But you know what?  I am more concerned about the people of this great state and what the future will look like for us and our children if this is allowed to continue.

We don’t get to vote for those who presume to represent us on ACOG (which is just one of a number of problems with the whole arrangement) but we DO vote for our city council members still even though they often appear to be being led by the nose by their staff.  They have to stand up for us or pay the price at the ballot box.  We should insist that our City Council put an end to this farce!

I am sending a copy of this post to my councilman.  If you have concerns, you should contact yours as well. You can find their contact info here

They said they just wanted to know if we want higher density development.  How about NO?!

The residents of Norman should know that the City cannot accomplish their hidden goals without our approval.  Do you think that they would bother to mess with all of these meetings to manipulate us into agreeing if they didn’t have to?

“Because the projects are routinely deemed illegal under local zoning laws and go against most conventional development practices, the new urbanists have pioneered new approval techniques (notably the town planning charrette).” Link

I have much more to say about this charade (I mean charrette!) the City is putting us through but for now I will leave you with this incredibly thoughtful speech made by Lolita Buckner Inniss, J.D., L.L.M. Associate Professor of Law, Cleveland-Marshall School of Law,  Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio in 2008.

. . .what I’m going to be offering here is a critique of New Urbanism in general and “form-based code” in particular and as a tool of New Urbanism. I also want to talk about the fact that form-based code, while it’s often touted as being more flexible than zoning and is a great method to overcome a number of the problems that we see in our cities—urban decay, segregation, economic downturns, what I began to see, however, particularly as I taught the first year on property, is that form-based code is not generally doing what advocates said.

. . .First and foremost, it tries to do by design what was ultimately spontaneous. What it comes down to, and I’ll talk about this in more detail, is that in the city as we have known it and have come to understand it in the United States, and certainly also in Europe, city growth was spontaneous growth. I think it’s problematic from the outset to assume that you can do now by design what it has taken us one hundred years to do in our urban areas. I think you would have to challenge any plan that purports to design something that didn’t come about by design. So that’s one of the first problems I’ve had with it.

. . .

Next, New Urbanism. As I’ll talk about in a few moments, when you talk about form-based code, you’re really talking about one of the principal tools of what’s called the new urbanism, sort of a way of getting back to the “old urbanism” and the old city. What I’ll discuss is the fact that the new urbanism, like the old urbanism—that’s deeply contested. The city that you and I may remember may be very different than the city that somebody else remembered. So again it’s problematic when someone purports to put together a plan that’s supposed to take us back to the old urbanism. We all remember and lived in different types of cities, and so there’s no way that we’re going to design something that reflects a vision. There is no single vision. There are multiple visions that could never begin to be incorporated in any one single vision, So that’s another problem.

Finally, the charette process, as Carol mentioned, relies on the “community” in order to sort of pull together form-based code plans. All too often it doesn’t work out as claimed, which is one of the things I talk about in my essay where I discuss the rebuilding of New Orleans that’s the basis for this talk. That’s a wonderful example of what happens when you claim that the community is going to be represented. All too often, form-based code plans end up representing the elites who put them together, who bring in the experts, who all too often monopolize the talk that’s going on. And it’s a wonderful way for a very, very small strand of people in the community to have their views represented as “what everybody wants.” All too often, that’s simply not the case.

Read more

Governor Fallin, Homeland Security, OK National Guard Announce New Drone Program in Oklahoma

Kaye Beach

June 29, 2012

Entered without comment

 

Governor Mary Fallin Joins Department of Homeland Security, Oklahoma National Guard to Announce New Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program in Oklahoma

Thursday, 28 June 2012 19:06

Release from Office of Governor Mary Fallin

Governor Mary Fallin today joined officials from the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate (DHS S&T) and the Oklahoma National Guard in announcing that Oklahoma has been chosen as the test site for the DHS Robotic Aircraft for Public Safety (RAPS) Program. The program will research and test Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SUAS), focusing on possible applications for first responders, including search and rescue scenarios, response to radiological and chemical incidents and fire response and mapping.

Work is expected to begin this fall at Oklahoma State University’s Multispectral Lab (UML) test site near Lawton, Oklahoma. The program will be operated by UML and takes advantage of the restricted airspace around Fort Sill, a U.S. military base also near Lawton. The Oklahoma National Guard will be a key partner with both DHS S&T and the UML as the RAPS program develops.

RAPS is expected to represent a $1.4 million investment in Oklahoma in the first year of operations with potential for significant growth in future years. The program is expected to last at least three years.

Fallin said the announcement represents an exciting development for Oklahoma, and a major success for the Unmanned Aerial Systems Council assembled by her in 2011 and headed by Secretary of Science and Technology Stephen McKeever.

“Aerospace is one of the most important sectors of Oklahoma’s economy, supporting over 150,000 jobs around the state and accounting for more than $12.5 billion in industrial output each year,” Fallin said. “Within that industry, unmanned aircraft systems represent the fastest growing part of the aerospace sector. For that reason, Oklahoma is committed to becoming the number one place for UAS operations, research, experimentation, design and testing in the country. Today’s announcement represents a big step in that direction.”

“Not only does UAS research attract investment and jobs to the state of Oklahoma, but it allows us to be part of an exciting new technology that will help our first responders as they work to save lives and keep our citizens safe. My thanks go out to all the parties involved in this exciting new project, especially Dr. McKeever and the other members of the Unmanned Aerial Systems Council.”

Dr. John Appleby of DHS S&T, a senior program manager at the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency Science and Technology Directorate and the director of RAPS, said that he was impressed with the potential for UAS development in Oklahoma.

“After visiting more than a dozen sites in various southwestern and western states, I have selected Oklahoma as the venue for the Robotic Aircraft for Public Safety Program, with the intent to begin flying at Fort Sill as soon as possible,” said Appleby. “I continue to be impressed by the quality of UAS ideas and approaches in Oklahoma, the high level of experience and subject matter expertise concerning this technology and the breadth of available resources in the state needed for the program.”

Adjutant General Myles Deering of the National Guard said UAS technologies have the potential to provide invaluable assistance to guard members in first-responder scenarios.

“Whether it’s responding to severe wildfires, floods or other state emergencies, the ability of the National Guard to react quickly to events on the ground is one of the most important factors in preventing loss of life,” said Deering. “The use of unmanned aerial systems can help the Guard to gain quick tactical awareness, locate individuals who may be in immediate danger and respond accordingly. It also allows us to do all this at a fraction of the cost of manned aircraft and without putting Guardsmen in danger.”

McKeever said today’s announcement was a precursor to more work in the field of UAS.

“Our hope is that today’s announcement is just the beginning,” McKeever said. “When it comes to UAS technology, the possibilities are nearly endless. We expect UAS to be the wave of the future in the aerospace industry, and Oklahoma will continue to be on the cutting edge of this exciting new technology.”

https://news.okstate.edu/press-releases/1697-governor-mary-fallin-joins-department-of-homeland-security-oklahoma-national-guard-to-announce-new-unmanned-aircraft-systems-program-in-oklahoma