Published: June 29, 2008 10:14 pm         

Real ID still being eyed by lawmaker

CHARLESTON — Just how much personal data on American citizens does the federal government need in its vast network of computer files to safeguard the homeland from terrorists and keep track of illegal aliens?

For two men generally on opposite sides of the political spectrum, that is the heart of their opposition to Real ID.

“The issue is still the issue of privacy,” says Sen. Clark Barnes, a conservative Republican who represents Randolph County in West Virginia’s 15th senatorial district.

“The issue hasn’t changed.”

To Seth DiStefano, field organizer for the American Civil Liberties Union in West Virginia, the right of individual privacy, free of unwarranted government intrusion, is likewise a key point in his group’s dissent with Real ID.

Congress mandated the program that calls for a national identification card using a driver’s license.

While the stated intention was to crack down on illegal aliens taking up residency in this country, and to provide more security against terrorists, men such as Barnes and DiStefano see disturbing elements at play.

Barnes sees a parallel in the so-called “fusion centers,” designed to be criminal information banks shared between police departments. In that concept, the senator has no problem.

“That was active investigation information, and now there are reports that some of these fusion centers around the country that have been established are incorporating a whole lot more information than current active criminal investigations,” he says.

While it might not be directly linked to Real ID, the senator views this as another realm that embraces privacy questions and needs to be studied.

“How much information is really necessary?” Barnes asked.

“The limits of the information that will eventually be required on Real ID are yet undetermined. Is it just a name and a Social Security number and an address?”

Barnes points to groups that combat domestic violence with concerns that Real ID would require everyone’s name, including victims of spousal abuse, and a physical address on a driver’s license.

“So for every positive purpose that they may require information on this, there may be a negative result in some areas,” he says.

“If you have to show your ID at a store to get a check approved or show that a credit card belongs to you, you’re laying your personal information out there. That may seem insignificant to most people, but it’s very significant to people whose lives may be in danger.”

In the past, Barnes noted, a motorist’s mailing address could suffice.

He says he also is concerned that the government, by using a Real ID, could snoop at stores where Americans shop, knowing instantly what they bought and when and how much they paid for their purchases.

“Much of that is tracked electronically already without people’s knowledge,” Barnes says.

“People that use the Internet, buying information or retrieving information, already are being documented somewhere in some computer bank. At this particular point, it’s not with the government. And although we may not like our privacy to be exposed in a commercial manner, it already is.”

What happens when the government gets its hands on one’s personal data?

“When the government starts accumulating this information, then the question is, although it may be for positive purposes now, what negative purpose could it be used for in the future?”

Barnes recalled the Legislature’s move last winter, working with the American Association of Retired Persons and Attorney General Darrell McGraw to restrict organizations from sharing information with one another without written permission.

Which leads to the heart of Barnes’ dissent — what happens when the government can absorb one’s personal data and store it?

“They don’t need to give it to somebody else,” he says. “It’s shared within agencies already. Big Brother is here.”

While the ACLU took an active role in the stalled bill that Barnes crafted at its request, DiStefano says his group is focusing its attention for now at the federal level.

DiStefano finds another area to attack the Real ID — the uncertainty over what the program will cost.

Originally, it was estimated to be a $23 billion project, but that has been scaled down to $10 billion. In West Virginia, the cost has floated from $20 million-plus to anywhere between $2 million and $5 million.

“There has been some very, very fuzzy math on this issue,” the ACLU official said.

Moreover, he points to a growing number of states that have moved to block Real ID, most recently Arizona, raising to 19 the ranks of those in opposition.

“The general consensus is that Real ID is dying on the vine,” he said while attending last week’s special legislative session.

“A lot of people in West Virginia — liberal and conservative — are still paying very close attention to the issue. The ground war is being won against the program.”

— E-mail

mannix@register-herald.com