REAL ID IS BIOMETRIC ID

Oct. 26, 2015

Kaye Beach

The conversation surrounding the supposed impending enforcement of the federal REAL ID Act is so muddled that it is virtually impossible for anyone to develop an informed opinion on the matter. I am trying to help by providing documentation that will put to rest a few of the elementary aspects of REAL ID so that, hopefully, we can have a productive discussion about the matter.

To my mind, there is a few things about this federal law that we should understand before making a decision about whether or not our state should commit to it. For instance, we need to understand that REAL ID is a biometric ID and what the implications of moving the population en mass to this form of identification  are. Many seem to be confused about the difference between biometric ID and RFID so I want to write a post about that. We should also be aware that REAL ID requires the linking of our state databases and the is also an open ended aspect of the Act that we need to consider. There is much more to the REAL ID ACT but these are the items that come to my mind most immediately.

In my last post I addressed only one issue – are our Oklahoma state drivers licenses and ID cards biometric ID‘s? The answer is YES and you can take a look at the some of the sources of that information here.

In this short post, I am only going to address one subject as well.

REAL ID is BIOMETRIC ID

The Federal REAL ID Act of 2005 REQUIRES that a digital facial image be captured from each driver’s license and ID card applicant.

These images must to be captured conformant to an international biometric format standard enabling the use of facial recognition technology and global information sharing.

The National Conference of State Legislatures is a trusted policy think tank that advises state legislators about a variety of policy matters. In 2014 the NCSL did a policy brief on REAL ID. Here is what they say:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/real-id-is-for-real.aspx

A digital facial image is required by the REAL ID Act.

Link: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy_pia_realid_1.pdf

Buried in a pile of REAL ID rules is a notation that mentions a bit of technical information regarding the digital facial images that are required by the Act that reveals that the image is collected as biometric data (as opposed to just a simple photograph)

And more from the Department of Homeland Security on how this biometric data is intended to be used.

Link: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy_pia_realid_1.pdf

These are just a few sources that verify that REAL ID is indeed a biometric ID but in the spirit of trying to keep things simple, I am trying to provide just just enough information to put the question to rest.

REAL ID IS BIOMETRIC ID PDF
Here is a one page PDF of this info in case you would like a copy of these sources.

Now we know that our current ID cards and driver’s licenses are biometric ID’s and that the federal REAL ID is also a biometric ID.

My next posts will cover the difference between RFID and Biometric ID and some of the implications of biomtric identification and what the difference is between having a state level biomertric ID vs. a federal one.

Help Me Stop Mandatory Biometric ID!

Kaye Beach

Dec. 9, 2013

My name is Kaye Beach.  If you don’t know me, here is the short story;  I’m an ordinary woman, a Christian, a mom, and a wife.  I was a small business woman for about 20 years but for the last six years I have been an activist with one mission – to stop mandatory biometric ID.

I have filed a lawsuit against the state of Oklahoma to challenge the requirement of my biometric data in exchange for a state driver’s license.  I believe that this requirement is a violation of my right to religious freedom and my right to be free of unwarranted searches and seizures both of which are protected under Oklahoma law.  (You can read my Motion for Summary Judgment here)

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.

The simple truth is that all of us are being enrolled into a single, global system of identification and control that links our bodies through biometrics to our ability to buy sell and travel (and more!)

My lawsuit is based on the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act and Article II Sec. 30 of the Oklahoma constitution, our state’s reiteration of the Fourth Amendment which says we have a right to be free of searches and seizures without just cause. When it comes to biometric ID, It makes no difference whether you are a Christian who is preaching the Gospel, an activist protesting injustice, or merely an ordinary person trying to work and feed your family – mandatory biometric ID means ultimate control by government.

Information is power.

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.

In the US, enrollment is being accomplished largely through state driver’s license and ID cards.  For example, the current Immigration reform bill seeks to build upon the existing DMV biometric databases and use our biometrics to control our ability to work for a living.

And as Jennifer Lynch of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has testified,

‘The FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) database represents the most robust effort to introduce and streamline multimodal biometrics collection.  FBI has stated it needs “to collect as much biometric data as possible . . . and to make this information accessible to all levels of law enforcement, including International agencies.” Accordingly, it has been working “aggressively to build biometric databases that are comprehensive and international in scope.”’

The state biometric DMV databases are the foundation for corporate and government tracking and control. This is why I am fighting the state’s mandatory biometric ID but I need your help in order to win.

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

My lawsuit is challenging the compulsory nature of biometric ID.  I want to know – do we have the right NOT to be enrolled?  That is the question that has not been asked, that must be asked in a court of law, and this is why I am asking for your help.  We have one more deposition to complete and then the case should proceed on to the courtroom.  My legal representation is not free and my case will only go forward if people are willing to support it.  I need to raise $20,000 for my legal fees in order to keep my agreement with my legal team and keep my case moving forward.

There are no longer any technical or political barriers to implementing this unprecedented system of global identification and financial control. The only obstacle now is you and I. 

If you want to help me win this first, crucial fight against mandatory biometric enrollment I ask you to please consider contributing whatever you can, to my legal fund.

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,

Kaye Beach

Follow the developments in my legal case at http://constitutionalalliance.org

Contact me at AxxiomForLiberty@gmail.com

Examiner.com: No Guns for Anyone – Sheriff Whetsel and Gun Control

Kaye Beach

Oct. 26, 2012, updated Oct. 29, 2012

I hate to be an absolutist but after years of studying the International Association of Chiefs of Police, it is my firm opinion that any Sheriff candidate associated with the organization is pretty much a no go.  There are a number of police associations to choose from and a choice to band together with this one is out of them all has to be the product of a pronounced ideology that for many Americans, especially pro Second Amendment Americans, is repulsive.

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, was also critical of the IACP, which he told Cybercast News Service “represents a lot of appointed police chiefs from a lot of totalitarian and dictatorship countries where human rights are constantly violated and freedom of the press doesn’t even exist.”

“There isn’t a gun-control proposal that this organization hasn’t supported. . .” 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/international-police-chiefs-advocate-more-gun-control

I think that any officer of the law that does not trust law abiding citizens with a gun, doesn’t deserve our trust.

This excellent article posted today at the Examiner.com takes a look at the latest IACP anti-gun Resolutions and points out the fact that Sheriff John Whetsel was a past President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.  Whetsel, as IACP President, in 1995,  actively worked to suppress right to carry legislation in the states including Oklahoma.

No Guns for Anyone – Sheriff Whetsel and Gun Control

Here is  1995 internal IACP strategic plan document to undermine or eliminate right to carry legislation.

The plan was to kill the bills if possible and if not to encumber the legislation with a number of burdensome requirements to deter lawful citizens from obtaining a permit.

For example, Item 5 on page 6 of the document suggests making it a criminal offense, a felony rather than a misdemeanor,  to carry with an expired permit.

Another example is item #14 on pg 7. Require a separate CCW permit for each individual weapon and limit permit holders to one gun purchase per month.

President Clinton thanked John Whetsel personally in 1994 for his help in passing the Brady and Crime Bills.  The “Crime Bill” that Clinton makes reference to is actually ‘The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act’  This was the Act that established a ban on “Assault Weapons” which lasted from 1994 to 2004.  Clinton Whetsel 1994

The Examiner.com looks into this a little deeper here

I have been barking about the International Association of Chiefs of Police for years.

The IACP is an international, non governmental organization accredited by the United Nations and is a ‘Member of the UN POLICE COMMUNITY’ http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/sites/police/community.shtml

This organization has been instrumental in bringing about profound changes to our nation politically, technologically and culturally and not necessarily for the better.  They are the thought leaders, the change agents in American law enforcement.

You would be hard pressed to find even one of the Ten Amendments to the  US Constitution that the policies pushed by the IACP has not insulted but one of the most telling positions taken by the organization is their stance on the Second Amendment.

Steven Spingola, a well respected former homicide detective sums the IACP up very well as;

“a global organization that views the American Constitution as an obstructionist document.”

The IACP has a long history of anti-Second Amendment stances.

They have actively supported every piece of gun control legislation since the 1960’s. The organization is long time, bitter enemies with the NRA and other pro-Second Amendment groups.

IACP President, Quinn Tamm,  in 1971 actually said that a brick was a safer weapon for self defense that a handgun.

Nothing has changed since then. (See the 2012 Resolutions issued by the IACP)

For a litany of anti-gun antics from the IACP in recent times, read this.

The IACP opposes;

•Concealed Campus Carry

•expansion of concealed carry

•50-caliber rifles

•private sales of gun

•gun shows

•so-called “assault” weapons

The IACP Supports;

•Limiting the number of handguns law abiding citizens can purchase

•five-day “cooling off” or waiting periods

•Legislation to allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry.

•State, local, and tribal governments mandating specific storage methods of guns

•Repealing  the Tiahrt Amendment, a federal law that protects sensitive federal gun trace data from general access.

•Gun surrender programs

This international organization is highly political.  Some of the activities of the IACP include lobbying and testifying before Congress, doing research and policy development, setting professional standards and providing accreditation for US police departments.  The IACP promotes and writes guidelines for police technology, trains and educates law enforcement as well as managing and administering numerous programs for the federal government.

But Whetsel asserts that law enforcement is not about politics.

If that is so, why choose to forge ties with an incredibly political organization like the IACP?

John Whetsel at the 2011 IACP Conference

Sheriff Whetsel has a deep and longstanding and continuing relationship with the IACP. He attends IACP yearly conferences and is a member of the IACP Executive Committee and an active member of at least one IACP subcommittee.

And it is all very convenient to say it is not about politics when he is under pressure to defend his ideology that as the Sheriff absolutely does matter!  I have spent many hours at the state capitol and have witnessed the Sheriff’s armed lobbyists working diligently on highly political matters and the Sheriff.  As you can imagine the Sheriff has quite a lot of pull up there, you know, where they make laws that impact the free exercise of your rights.  And Whetsel, like the IACP,  does not have a reputation of  being very concerned with protecting any of those Ten Amendments.

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.

 

Smartworld: Identity Profiling With Radio Frequency

Kaye Beach

September 6, 2012

Excellent, information and reference packed article!  More than you ever wanted to know about RFID.

Published Sept. 4, 2012

Julie Beal, Contributor
Activist Post

RFID, or radio frequency identification (also known as near field communication, or NFC) is used for wireless communication between devices, one of which is a transmitter and the other is a receiver. This involves the use of low frequency radio waves passing between the devices; it is in widespread use, although the impact on health is rarely alluded to. RFID is being used for a multitude of applications involving sensing and communication of information, especially ID verification using smart cards/phones, miniscule sensors known as smart dust, bodily implants, and product tracking.

There are already many well-established ID Management companies who are also using or advocating RFID and biometrics. These companies are heavily involved in the emerging global identity ecosystem (eg, the NSTIC program, the work of the ITU, and the European initiatives, including STORK), and include Accenture, IBM, Verisign/Symantec and Oracle. The industry has grown significantly and the trend looks set to continue – especially considering the heavy investment by leading corporations like Google, IBM, and Microsoft.

The smart card industry is playing a leading role in identity management, indicating that in the near future the public will expect to manage their digitised identity with extrinsic devices such as contactless cards and mobile phones.

In Denver, for instance, Auraria Higher Education Center recently decided to issue new contactless smart cards to students (over 43,000 of them), and to staff. The cards will control door access using RFID, and will even serve as Visa debit cards. The plan is to eventually integrate the cards with other applications for student services, including parking, meal payment, library checkout, event management, emergency incidents, and lab and recreational tracking.

Read more

Stealth International Internet Control Imosed on US by ‘Executive Agreement’? ACTA

Kaye Beach

Jan, 30, 2012

ACTA stands for the  Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

ACTA is an agreement between several nations (including the US) signed Oct 1, 2011 t for the purpose of establishing international standards for intellectual property rights enforcement. ACTA is designed to establish international legal standards for the purpose of curtailing the sale of counterfeit goods and copyright infringement on the internet.

Read ACTA

Apparently here are many problems with ACTA including the lack of transparency involved in developing and negotiating the treaty  or “executive agreement” as it is being considered since a treaty in the US must get 2/3 approval from the US Senate.  President Obama has bypassed that process and went ahead and signed ACTA without any approval.

Many individuals and groups believe that ACTA is worse than SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act bill that was recently shelved due to massive outrage due to censorship on the internet that SOPA would have enabled.  In fact, thousands of Europeans have have recently engaged in protest against their governments participation in this treaty.

What do they know that we don’t?

From the Electronic Frontier Foundation posted Jan 27, 2012

We Have Every Right to Be Furious About ACTA

If there’s one thing that encapsulates what’s wrong with the way government functions today, ACTA is it. You wouldn’t know it from the name, but the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is a plurilateral agreement designed to broaden and extend existing intellectual property (IP) enforcement laws to the Internet. While it was only negotiated between a few countries,1 it has global consequences. First because it will create new rules for the Internet, and second, because its standards will be applied to other countries through the U.S.’s annual Special 301 process. Negotiated in secret, ACTA bypassed checks and balances of existing international IP norm-setting bodies, without any meaningful input from national parliaments, policymakers, or their citizens. Worse still, the agreement creates a new global institution, an “ACTA Committee” to oversee its implementation and interpretation that will be made up of unelected members with no legal obligation to be transparent in their proceedings. Both in substance and in process, ACTA embodies an outdated top-down, arbitrary approach to government that is out of step with modern notions of participatory democracy.

The EU and 22 of its 27 member states signed ACTA yesterday in Tokyo. This news is neither momentous nor surprising. This is but the latest step in more than three years of non-transparent negotiations. In December, the Council of the European Union—one of the European Union’s two legislative bodies, composed of executives from the 27 EU member states—adopted ACTA during a completely unrelated meeting on agriculture and fisheries. Of course, this is not the end of the story in the EU. For ACTA to be adopted as EU law, the European Parliament has to vote on whether to accept or reject it.

In the U.S., there are growing concerns about the constitutionality of negotiating ACTA as a “sole executive agreement”.  This is not just a semantic argument. If ACTA were categorized as a treaty, it would have to be ratified by the Senate. But the USTR and the Administration have consistently maintained that ACTA is a sole executive agreement negotiated under the President’s power. On that theory, it does not need Congressional approval and thus ACTA already became binding on the US government when Ambassador Ron Kirk signed it last October.

But leading US Constitutional Scholars disagree. Professors Jack Goldsmith and Larry Lessig, questioned the Constitutionality of the executive agreement classification in 2010:

The president has no independent constitutional authority over intellectual property or communications policy, and there is no long historical practice of making sole executive agreements in this area. To the contrary, the Constitution gives primary authority over these matters to Congress, which is charged with making laws that regulate foreign commerce and intellectual property.2

(And by the way, we agree [pdf].)

Senator Ron Wyden has been asking these questions for years, first demanding an explanation from USTR ambassador Ron Kirk, President Obama, and now the administration’s top international law expert Harold Koh. The distinction between executive agreement and treaty should not be lost on this administration: as a Senator, Vice President Joe Biden used the same argument to require the Bush administration to seek Senate approval for an arms reduction agreement.

Read More

Oklahoma Joint Committee Meeting on Healthcare Reform OK-SAFE Covers IT, Security and Privacy Issues

Kaye Beach

Nov 3, 2011

I attended the fourth Joint committee meeting on the effect of the federal healthcare reform laws on the state of Oklahoma.

Of course the highlight of the day, for me, was Amanda Teegarden’s presentation,  Healthcare Reform –
IT, Security & Privacy Issues/Concerns , on behalf of OK-SAFE.

Amanda presented a clear, lucid and powerful 45 minute presentation of the research she has spent months working on.

The presentation laid bare the ugly guts of the federal health care reform by describing it by its most basic components.

}Health Care Reform – is really about the use of IT to implement a nationwide health information network (NHIN), that will enable the seamless flow of information across boundaries, and that allows a growing global surveillance system to function.

And that;

}Electronic Health Records  – Reform is predicated on the creation of a standardized, interoperable electronic health record (EHR) on every single individual

This system is;

}Cradle-to-Grave – EHRs are used for data collection, aggregation and reporting and are intended to track a person from birth to death. (Longitudinal)

And;

}EHRs are universal and to be shared globally – not only within our government, but with foreign governments, universities, and other third parties.

}Requires Standardization and Interoperability – to establish uniformity and compatibility in data collection, regardless of jurisdiction

It gets really personal;

}EHRs include each person’s genetic information – and will be used for research purposes without the knowledge or consent of the person

Not to mention;

}Rights killing – Health care reform, and other data collection networks, do an “end-run” around search warrants and nullify our inherent rights to life, liberty and property.

The presentation was split into six sections

Part I The Federal Data Hub/IT/Digital Everything

Part II Health Care Reform Defined/National Standards/Global Adoption

Part III Office of the National Coordinator/                                             Government+Industry +Academia = PPPs /One “Fused” System

Part IV State Initiatives

Part V Privacy & Security

Part VI Conclusion

Your personal, medical information flows from you to the health IT data collection system to the prying eyes of the federal government and research universities to the private sector and even foreign organizations.

Especially noteworthy were the points made about the inclusion of health information into law enforcement and intelligence data fusion.

Fusion Center: A collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide resources, expertise, and/or information to the center with the goal of maximizing the ability to detect, prevent, apprehend, and respond to criminal and terrorism activity. Source: Recommended Fusion Center Law Enforcement Intelligence Standards March 2005

Purpose – the elimination of any barrier to information exchange and sharing, regardless of jurisdiction.  Information is to be shared nationally and internationally.

As noted in the notes section of slide 31;

The Fusion Center Guidelines have now been updated to incorporate public health and health care community information.

This is possible due to policy changes allowing the seamless flow of information across boundaries, and because all state systems, including the health care system use common sets of standards and are interoperable.  Both the Fusion Centers and the Health Care System are NIEM Compliant – both are part of the Nationwide Health Information Network.

The result – one fused system.

Read more about the integration of “public health and healthcare communities into the homeland security intelligence and information sharing process.” here

and here- Health Security: Public Health and Medical Integration for Fusion Centers

In short, when it comes to privacy, there is none.

Slide 41 touches up our medical and genetic information used for research purposes.

There are a few other surprises and outrages contained in the presentation, so be sure to take a look at it.

Amanda concludes;

The American People Are NOT Slaves – Nor simply ‘carbon-based life forms’[as one federal document refers to us]

Government, via health care reform and other federal initiatives, is establishing a globally networked and integrated  intelligence enterprise – one that includes an extraordinary amount of extremely personal, detailed information about the America people.

Government, in it’s attempt to be an all-knowing technocratic “god” and to satisfy the IT industry’s insatiable, ever-changing appetite, is doing an end-run around human dignity and nullifying our God-given rights to life, liberty and property.

And gives the joint committee seven recommendations;

1.Repent – not kidding here

2.Do not establish a state-based Health Insurance exchange – it will be the same as the Federal government’s version

3.Allow people to escape HIT/HIE system without penalty;  do not penalize providers who opt not to adopt EHRs or participate in this system

4.Repeal state laws that prohibit individuals from seeking alternative health care services,  i.e. homeopathic medicines or non-traditional treatments

5.Terminate the Oklahoma Health Information Exchange Trust

6.Audit the Oklahoma Health Care Authority – expenses outweigh benefits

7.Adhere to the OK Constitution – work to restore liberty

View OK-SAFE’s presentation here

Go to  www.okhealthcare.info for information on this and past joint committee meetings.

Electronic Health Record Security Concerns Are Global

Kaye Beach

Oct 14, 2011

Great article on Electronic Health Records privacy concerns.

By: Robert Charette / ieee spectrum
September 26th, 2011

As I mentioned in a recent post, nearly half of Australians may end up boycotting the new voluntary electronic health record (EHR) system when it launches next year because they believe the government can’t provide guarantees that their private medical details will remain private. A new Harris survey sponsored by the identity management company Sailpoint highlights EHR privacy concerns not only in Australia, but also in the United Kingdom and the United States.

According to the survey findings, some 83 percent of Australians, 81 percent of Britons, and 80 percent of Americans express some level of concern about moving their personal medical information to an electronic form…

…For example, since September 2009, at least 9.8 million instances of improper disclosure of medical information have been recorded in the United States. Earlier this month, the renowned Stanford Hospital & Clinics in California added to the total when it announced that the electronic health records of 20 000 of its emergency room patients seen between March 1st and August 31st of 2009, including their names, diagnostic codes, medical record numbers, hospital account numbers, billing charges, and emergency room admission and discharge dates, had been posted for nearly a year (Sept. 9, 2010, to Aug. 23, 2011) on a commercial Web site called Student of Fortune.

Full Story…

What Ever Happened to REAL ID?

Kaye Beach

Sept 23, 2011

What did ever happen to the REAL ID Act?

In a word-NOTHING.

Remember when roughly half the states in the US said NO! by passing either a law or resolution against participating in DHS’s national ID program?  Most of us assume that “no” means “no” and breathed a sigh of relief when so many states took a stand against it.

“. . .many state motor vehicle departments are quietly doing the work to meet the law’s initial 18 benchmarks.” http://tinyurl.com/4rgrv87

The fact is that  little has changed.

The world is being enrolled into a single global system of identification and financial control.
One’s body is now directly linked to the control of financial transactions through biometric ID, an international ID system that uses computers to automatically identify individuals based on unique physical characteristics, such as a facial image. Facial recognition and digital fingerprinting are common forms of biometrics.  Almost all states and nations now use biometrics to identify their residents.  From Your Body Is Your ID

On Tuesday Sept. 21, 2011 my legal council filed suit against the state of Oklahoma for the violation of my religious freedoms and right to privacy (Okla. Constitution Article II Sec. 30) on my behalf.   You can read the petition as filed here (top left)

I have watched with dismay as comment after comment in response to the  news of this lawsuit express surprise even outrage that Oklahoma is collecting biometrics as they then wonder if their state is doing the same.

The answer?  I know of no state that is not doing so.

Real ID and that little gold star on your driver’s license

Here are two updates on the ever forward march of Real ID across the US.

Public Safety to launch STAR I.D. pilot project

Sept. 22, 2011

Alabama will launch a pilot project Oct. 3 for a new, secure form of identification created to comply with the REAL-ID Act of 2005.

The Alabama Department of Public Safety has developed the STAR I.D. program, with STAR standing for Secure, Trusted and Reliable.

The IDs will be available at driver license examining offices in Montgomery, Autauga and Chilton counties as part of the pilot project. There will be a statewide launch at the start of the year.

Read more

Connecticut about to begin controversial ‘Real ID’ program | The Connecticut Mirror

Sept. 22, 2011

Connecticut launched a campaign today to publicize how to obtain a driver’s license that meets the stricter verification standards of a federal “Real ID” law passed in 2005, but never implemented in face of objections from two dozen states.

Read more

How to create a global, biometric system of identification;

To create a global biometric system, states and nations must:
1. Enroll their citizens (DL/ID cards, passports, national ID, school ID, etc.)
2. Adopt international standards for documents, photos and data sharing
3. Link databases for global information sharing, global ID-tracking and surveillance

Read more

Find out more about REAL ID and Biometric Identification

Rutherford Institute Challenges Biometric Photo Requirement for Oklahoma Drivers’ Licenses

9/21/2011

Rutherford Institute Challenges Biometric Photo Requirement for Oklahoma Drivers’ Licenses, Demands Religious Accommodation

NORMAN, Okla. — The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of an Oklahoma woman who has been denied accommodation of her sincerely held religious objection to having a high-resolution biometric photograph used on her driver’s license. In filing suit against the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (DPS), Rutherford Institute attorneys contend that the state’s demand for a biometric photograph as a condition of being licensed to drive violates Kaye Beach’s rights under the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act and the provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Rutherford Institute’s complaint in Kaye Beach v. Oklahoma Department of Public Safety is available here.

“Whether a biometric ID card in the form of a driver’s license or other government-issued form of identification is the mark of the Beast or merely the long arm of Big Brother, the outcome remains the same—ultimate control by the government,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “As Kaye Beach’s case makes clear, failing to have a biometric card can render you a non-person for all intents and purposes, with your ability to work, travel, buy, sell, access health care, and so on jeopardized.”

In March 2011, Kaye Beach applied to renew her driver’s license with the Department of Public Safety (DPS). Upon learning that the biometric photographs used by DPS are stored in a database that is managed and accessed by international organizations, Beach repeatedly voiced her religious objection to the practice and asked to be allowed to use a low-resolution photograph for her license. Kaye Beach subscribes to the Christian belief, detailed in the Bible’s Book of Revelation, that Christians must not participate in a global numbering identification system.

Although Beach met all other requirements for renewing her license, DPS refused her request for an accommodation of her religious beliefs, as well as her offer to submit to a low-resolution photograph for her license, insisting that the state law does not provide for alternatives or exemptions. As a result, Beach was not permitted to renew her driver’s license. Consequently, Beach has also been deprived of common benefits and services that hinge on possessing a valid driver’s license, including the ability to acquire prescription medications, use her debit card, rent a hotel room or obtain a post office box.

In filing suit in the District Court of Cleveland County, Okla., attorneys for The Rutherford Institute allege that DPS’ refusal to accommodate Beach’s religious beliefs and grant Beach a license violates the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act. Institute attorneys point out that the state’s requirement of a biometric photograph does not serve a compelling state interest and that the state has other means for furthering any such state interest. The lawsuit also alleges that the use of Beach’s biometric photograph violates her right of privacy as guaranteed by Okla. Const. Art. II, § 30. Attorneys Eileen Echols, Jonathan Echols and Benjamin Sisney of Echols & Assoc. are working with the Institute in its defense of Kaye Beach’s right to religious freedom.

http://www.rutherford.org/