Tag Archives: id

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

 

 

 

Help Me Stop Mandatory Biometric ID!

Facial Recognition black white

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

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.

The Immigration Reform Bill – Prodding Forth Real ID, an INTERNATIONAL Biometric ID

global biometric id

Kaye Beach

May 14, 2013

On May 10th The Blaze ran a headline that asks; Is There a Scary Biometric ‘National ID System’ Tucked into the Immigration Bill?

The answer is YES!

But wait!  There’s more. . .I sometimes feel like I am belaboring the point but it seems to me the distinction between a national and INTERnational biometric identity system is a very important one.

Study that graphic up there.  It is the simple three step recipe for a single, global biometric identification system.  Read this post then look at it again and see if you can grokk what I’m telling you.

The federal Real ID Act of 2005 imposed federal guidelines that use international standards on state driver’s licenses and ID cards.  You may remeber that at least 25 states said no to Real ID by passing either a law or a resolution against the implementation of the Real ID Act.  Nevertheless, Real ID has continued to be implemented in most states to various degrees.

“By the deadline of January 13, 2013, most states will be substantially or materially or fully compliant with REAL ID” –Janice Kephart, Feb. 2012

It is important to note though, that ALL states are capturing and storing applicants’ digital facial images.  And although not all of the states are actually using this facial biometric as intended by the Real ID Act, eventually they will be.   The immigration reform bill (S.744, the ‘Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act’) will make sure of it.

In case you missed it, now, when you apply for a state driver’s license, a state identification card or any other form of government issued photo ID really, you are having your facial biometrics captured by a high resolution photograph.  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 remote identification and tracking through networked camera systems without our knowledge or consent.  As a matter of fact, facial biometrics is the governments biometric of choice because it can be used to identify and investigate us at-a-distance without our knowledge or consent.

Pay close attention here: This digital image on your state driver’s license or ID card is, by definition, a biometric.

The standard specified in the Real ID regulations for your state driver’s license and ID cards ensures that the digital facial image is facial recognition compatible.  That standard is the adopted standard of the ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, an agency of the UN.

(Want more information?  Read REAL ID – BIOMETRIC FACT SHEET)

International standards exist for one purpose;  to enable the global sharing of that information.

REAL ID is. . .the current face of a far larger, international government and private economic effort to collect, store, and distribute the sensitive biometric data of citizens to use for the twin purposes of government tracking and economic control.” -PA Rep. Sam Rohr

Real ID is technically voluntary for the states.  What the government has always intended, is for Real ID to be practically mandatory for the citizens.  This is why the threat hangs over our heads that if we do not have a Real ID card by a certian date, we will not be able to fly or enter a federal building.

“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

The road to Real ID compliance has admittedly been a rather slow and arduous one but the Immigration Reform bill (S.744, the ‘Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act’), if passed, will put a stop to any state foot dragging on Real ID because citizens will have to have it in order to work!

 A Real ID compliant driver’s license is specifically named as one of the acceptable ID documents in the bill (but all ID documents specified in the bill are biometric ID’s.)

To be perfectly clear – with S.744, producing your government issued, internationally standardized biometric ID is mandatory.  You will not be able gain permission to work without it. 

In authoritarian societies you must always have permission.

Forget privacy.  That is not what this is about.  This is about the balance of power between us and our government.  This is about control.  If we wish to retain control over our own lives, we will not accept government serializing of our bodies and we won’t allow the government to turn our rights into privileges

The Sec. of the Dept. of Homeland Security also has the option to add any other biometric or security feature as a requirement for those who wished to be employed so facial biometrics is the minimum biometric requirement but iris scans, fingerprints, or any other biometric could be required as well.

The new comprehensive immigration reform bill is not the first step in enrolling US citizens in the global biometric identification system.  The first step was that every government issued ID (especially the driver’s license) captured and collected your biometric data and that that data was collected in accordance with international standards.  The second step is to share your biometric data, to connect databases so that they can get that data flowing freely from the state and local databases on to the federal ones and eventually into global data systems.

One other important step in this global system of identification and control is to make sure we have to produce our global biometric ID for everything.  Or at least everything that we do that government wants to track and control.  And don’t forget that with biometric ID, your body IS your ID.  It’s the databases and not the card we should be focusing on.

Here are a few more facts about the bill as drafted;

Requires ALL potential employees to be authorized to work through the Dept. of Homeland Security.  Even If you are already employed when the proposed law goes into effect, you still will have to go through this authorization process.

Authorization hinges upon biometric identification.  Biometric data, including but not necessarily limited to, digital facial image, is required.  Real ID compliant driver’s licenses are cited as one acceptable form of biometric ID but the bill leaves the door open for the Sec. of the Dept. of Homeland Security to add other security requirements as he or she see fit.

The immigration reform bill requires employers to use a “photo tool” to verify the identity of each employee.  The term ‘photo tool’ is simply a euphemism for facial recognition software that will be used to match the facial biometrics provided by the potential employee to a federal database.

Where will this federal database come from?  I asked this question of Mark Lerner, co-founder of The Constitutional Alliance,  the leading expert on biometrics and the Real ID Act.

Here is his reply:

 “The answer will come in the Rulemaking process. There are two possible scenarios. In either scenario the “key” will be the photos stored in state DMV databases. Whether it will be DHS requiring employers to send photos to DHS and DHS having direct or indirect access to state DMV photo databases or whether DHS will require the photos the employers uses to be provided directly to states for the states to compare to photos in the state DMV database remains unclear. I also believe it is clear DHS will get the photo regardless.”

Access to the biometric data held in state DMV databases will be a must. 

There are reasons I have been having a fit trying to get my biometric data OUT of the state Department of Public Safety database.  I think this bill goes a long way in making my argument for me.  Read more about my lawsuit against the state of Oklahoma for the unwarranted collection of my biometric data here.

There is more to this bill to be concerned about  For instance,  the unconstitutional lack of due process.  Every person must prove they are a US citizen before they can work.  If the system says you do not pass muster, you are required to be terminated from your job at the end of an administrative process.   Will have more info on this and other issues soon.

ultimate control whitehead

REAL ID-Great for Gun Control and a whole lot more!

Kaye Beach

Oct. 16, 2012

Prescient words from 2008;

The long-term plan for REAL ID is to force its biometric ID functions on federal, state, local and private entities for all transactions. Thus, ID confirmation by a distant bureaucracy becomes permission for essential daily activities including banking, doctor visits, transit, school attendance and purchases — including guns.

. . .By participating in REAL ID, Pennsylvanians will be subjected to scrutiny by a host of federal agencies with every swipe of a REAL ID card. This is de facto gun registration, only worse. Once a gun buyer is identified, other information such as military service, purchases, rentals, travel, and medical history will be easily cross-referenced and subjected to interpretation. It’s inevitable that politicized standards will emerge that can be used to deny Pennsylvanians the right to keep and bear arms — everyone except violent criminals and politicians’ bodyguards.

Read more

Yesterday was the deadline for states to notify the Dept. of Homeland Security as to whether or not they will be in material compliance with the REAL ID Act of 2005.

The deadline for compliance with the REAL ID Act has been moved up three times since the law was passed.  Now we have almost reached the final deadline.

DHS expressed confidence at the end of August this year that all states would be in significant compliance with the law by Jan. 15 2013, the final deadline for state compliance for REAL ID.

“All 56 states have submitted some documentation of their status with respect to the material compliance benchmarks or “elements” of REAL ID to DHS since 2009. On the basis of the total dataset of states reporting, all states meet or commit to meet 83 percent of the material compliance benchmarks, which DHS believes may understate state progress.”

Americans have taken note of the fact that demands for ID and even the swiping of their driver’s license has exploded.  Now that resistance by the states to the national/international ID card has been largely overcome – watch out!  REAL ID will be increasingly required for just about every thing you need, including guns.

This is what REAL ID was made for.

Remember 25 states passed either a law or resolution prohibiting the implementation of REAL ID, including the great state of Oklahoma.  But they have just about pulled it off anyways.  Oklahoma is a mere 1 benchmark away from material compliance.  And other states are seeing “stars”

Back in 2009, Mayors Against Illegal Guns were already smacking their lips at the prospect of using REAL ID for gun control.

Recommendation 3: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should require REAL ID-compliant identification for all gun purchases after December 1, 2014.  read more

One little known fact about REAL ID is that there is no statutory limit on “official purposes” that the REAL ID can be required for. (There are currently three official purposes; boarding a commercial airliner, entering a federal building and nuclear facility)  What this means is that the Secretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security has unfettered authority to add anything she likes to official purposes that require a REAL ID.  That could be guns, ammo, prescriptions . . . anything.

Read more about REAL ID

REAL ID- MORE Than Just Drivers License Control and Expanding Rapidly

Schools-Social Laboratories for Human Surveillance

Kaye Beach

Oct. 10, 2012

The latest story about Texas school children being tagged and tracked with active RFID tracking devices  (the passive variety is considered “a little less Big Brotherish.”) has caused some controversy.  We are told that this is no big deal, that the RFID tracking simply allows the school to more efficiently do what it already does-take attendance and keep track of students whose safety and well-being is entrusted to the school by parents. But there is much more going on here and the issue deserves to be examined in a broader context.

Here is an excellent article by David Rosen of AlterNet that pulls together a variety of news relating to the tracking and surveillance of students.  If you are even slightly uncomfortable about the implementation of these high tech schemes being unleashed on our children, you should read every word of this article which provides some much needed context to the individual stories that trickle down to us from time to time.

These children are the leaders of tomorrow and their experiences at school help serve to fix the values that they will carry with them into adulthood and they are being immersed in an environment saturated with sensors designed to supervise, control and correct them.  (Here are some other objections to student RFID tracking)

Rosen’s article covers RFID and GPS tracking, electronic monitoring devices being used on kids to combat obesity in New York, electronic monitoring of calories consumed in school cafeterias,  networked CCTV systems that are directly  accessible to police and disturbing abuse of student privacy through CCTV cameras,  school computers that use cameras to remotely spy on students in their own homes, federal funding of school surveillance and more.

I would like to add one thing to  Rosen’s litany; biometric identification such as finger scanning to make lunch lines more efficient 

Rosen writes;

Few parents or children are fully aware of the scope of the tracking and surveillance now going on in American schools. Three simple questions need to be addressed: What is happening to all the personal data captured about the students? How long it is being retained? And are school administrators providing it to law enforcement authorities or commercial vendors?

Here is the AlterNet article.

Kids Tagged With RFID Chips? The Creepy New Technology Schools Use to Track Everything Kids Do — And the Profit Motive Behind It

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.

 

Healthcare, RFID and Medical Devices: Worry or Not?

Kaye Beach

July 10, 2011

In this post I raise two issues related to RFID and medical devices.  RFID is a generic term for technologies that use radio waves to automatically identify people or objects.

One of these issues you shouldn’t worry about but the other might be cause for concern.

Although the assertion that the Affordable Care Act mandates that the majority of people receive a RFID chip implant has been soundly debunked but there has been a resurgence in the hoax.  It is concerning to see that otherwise cautious and credible people are falling for it and perpetuating this disinformation.  As I have stated elsewhere, creditability is essential and it is an all or nothing kind of a deal.

Here is the basic claim being made;

The Obama Health care bill under Class II (Paragraph 1, Section B) specifically includes ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable.” Then on page 1004 it describes what the term “data” means in paragraph 1, section B:

‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘data’ refers to in
formation respecting a device described in paragraph (1),  including claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of  data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary”

What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? Lets see…

Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is a “implantable radiofrequency transponder system for patient identification and health information.” The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as “claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary.”

This sort of device would be implanted in the majority of people who opt to become covered by the public health care option.

link

The claim is faulty from the get go.  Although implantable RFID chips are a Class II device, the  aren’t the only implantable device that is a Class II medical device.

In the United States, medical devices are regulated by the FED, the Food and Drug Administration. Medical devices can be defined as any physical item useful for diagnostic, monitoring, or therapeutic purposes.

There are three classes of medical devices.  Devices are regulated according to their intended use and by level of risk posed to the patient with a Class I device being the most lightly regulated due their non invasive nature and slimmer possibility for harming a person and Class III being the most heavily regulated.  link Examples of Class I devices  include bandages and  hand held surgical instruments. Examples of Class II medical devices includes dental fillings, sutures, and yes, RFID implantable chips.

RFID chips are only one example of a Class II implantable device. 

What is a Class II medical device?

Class II devices have a higher potential to cause harm and require both general and special controls, such as special labeling, mandatory performance standards, and postmarket surveillance. These devices are typically nonimplanted, although some are partially invasive. Examples include x-ray machines, wheelchairs, infusion pumps, and surgical needles. Link

Also, the original (HR 3200)  bill did not mandate that anyone must have anything implanted. the language was actually proposing a national registry of medical devices  and furthermore this language was not included in the version (HR 3590) of the bill that actually passed into law.  A registry of medical devices certainly could be something to worry about but that is not what is being addressed by the above claims that are being passed  from person to person around like a bad rash.

Mark Lerner, co-founder of the Constitutional Alliance, researched the issue and provides this statement on his findings regarding the matter;

I have been asked if RFID (chips) implants are mandated as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR3590, Public Law 111-148) often referred to as “Obamacare”. The answer is “No”.

An earlier version of the legislation (HR3200, 111th Congress) did allow for class II devices that are “implantable” but that legislation never made it out of the House of Representatives.

Do not take my word for it; visit http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php and select “advanced search”, then select 111th Congress (2009-2010) and enter the bill number HR3590.

You can do the same for HR3200 and find out that HR3200 never was passed, much less signed into law. If you follow the directions I have provided you will be able to read and do a word search for the word “implantable”in both of the pieces of legislation and determine the last Congressional action taken.

I want to say unequivocally there are times when incorrect information is shared not because people intentionally are attempting to mislead others but rather because we do not always do our homework before passing on emails and other information. Let the man or woman or has never shared erroneous information come forward today and you will find nobody including myself that has not committed this error.”

Now here is an issue that involves RFID and medical device that may warrant some legitimate concern;

Published July 10, 2012 in the RFiD Journal

FDA Issues Proposed Rules for Unique Identification System for Medical Devices

The medical manufacturing and health-care industries have 120 days to comment on the new rules, which will require many medical devices to carry a printed text identification number and bar-code label or RFID tag ID that would be stored on an FDA database.

Read more

The concern is that medical devices that are either worn or implanted into a person that carry a unique identification number whether it be by bar code, RFID or simply text printed on the device-is traceable and could be combined with other personal data.  I find the idea, on its face, to be worrisome and will be doing some addition reading on this issue.

For more information on the privacy  problems with item level RFID tagging, read;

Bye Bye Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart Radio Tags to Track Clothing

We Need a Human Bar Code

Kaye Beach

June 27, 2012

Really we don’t need a human barcode but the arguments entertaining or even in favoring such a thing are becoming more and more common.  The campaign is being cranked up.

This article asks the question, ‘ Is a human barcode on the way?’  Noting that it is already technologically feasible (which, of course, means we will do it) the author moves on to the next question; will it violate our privacy?

That is the wrong question.

Here are some better ones;

Just because we can do something does that mean we should? 

Would the use of such technology, in addition to destroying our privacy, also destroy our humanity?

Is a ‘human barcode’ on the way?

MEGHAN NEAL
Friday, June 01, 2012

Would you barcode your baby? Microchip implants have become standard practice for our pets, but have been a tougher sell when it comes to the idea of putting them in people. Science fiction author Elizabeth Moon last week rekindled the debate on whether it’s a good idea to “barcode” infants at birth in an interview on a BBC radio program. “I would insist on every individual having a unique ID permanently attached — a barcode if you will — an implanted chip to provide an easy, fast inexpensive way to identify individuals,” she said on The Forum, a weekly show that features “a global thinking” discussing a “radical, inspiring or controversial idea” for 60 seconds

Moon believes the tools most commonly used for surveillance and identification — like video cameras and DNA testing — are slow, costly and often ineffective.

In her opinion, human barcoding would save a lot of time and money.

The proposal isn’t too far-fetched – it is already technically possible to “barcode” a human – but does it violate our rights to privacy?

Read more

 

The idea of treating human beings like inventory is a popular and pervasive one for control freaks and slave fetishists alike.  And the author of the above article wasn’t being over the top in mentioning attaching some kind of ID to infants at birth.  That is exactly how it would work because in order to be certain that the person and the identity are correctly matched is to cement the ID to the individual at the moment of birth.  At some point we will be told that such a system is necessary for life in this modern world.  When that time comes technology corporations are ready.

Here is one example.

http://www.humanbarcode.com/

Spingola Files: One Woman’s Willingness to Stand-Up to Orwellian ID Act

Kaye Beach

Feb 4, 2011

Respected former detective weighs in on biometric ID case

The very best law officers have one thing in common; they want to get the bad guys and protect the innocent.  But what happens when the tools offered to law enforcement to get the bad guys also threaten the innocent?   This is not a new dilemma for law enforcement but with the myriad of changes taking place in recent years on both the legal and technological front, it must be an incredibly tricky one now.

Steven Spingola is doing something very important.  He is opening a dialog on issues that desperately needs an airing among those who swore an oath to serve and protect the people of the United States.

Spingola is a former Milwaukee Homicide Detective, an author and nationally recognized investigator whose excellent reputation proceeds him.  He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy, a death investigations expert, a police shooting reconstruction expert and is formally trained in investigative analysis.  (Read more about Steven Spingola)

This former detective is truly is an investigator to his core.  Not satisfied with accepting anything at face value he is examining issues at what must be an uncomfortable intersection for anyone involved in law enforcement.

At his blog site, The Spingola Files, Steve wrote an article about my efforts to defend against biometric ID by filing a  lawsuit against the state in Oklahoma.

I continue to heartened by the positive feedback I have received from members of law enforcement and am most grateful to Steve Spingola for his courage in bringing issues such as this to the fore.

From The Spingola Files, Feb. 4, 2012

One Woman’s Willingness to Stand-Up to Orwellian ID Act

When Oklahoma native Kaye Beach sought to renew her driver’s license, she refused to comply with that state’s version of the Real ID Law.

In Oklahoma, and throughout 26 other states, including Wisconsin, the one digital photo taken at the counter will no longer suffice.  Instead, applicants are required to submit to several photos, including a full body profile.

When Ms. Beach declined to acquiesce to the new array of photographs, officials from Oklahoma’s version of the Department of Motor Vehicles denied the renewal of her driver’s license.  Predictably, a time came when Ms. Beach had a traffic related law enforcement contact, at which time she was cited for driving without a valid operator’s license.

But instead of simply walking like a sheep to the slaughter to renew her permit, Ms. Beach fought to have her citation dismissed and then filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s Real ID law.

http://constitutionalalliance.org/work/article.php/20110910201040513

Why is Kaye Beach making such a fuss? After all, what is so difficult about submitting to a series of photographs?

Read More