Real ID Benchmarks

Governor Spitzer raised a series of concerns about the Real ID Act’s privacy threats and implementation costs in comments his administration submitted to the Department of Homeland Security following the release of the draft regulations last March:

The Spitzer Test (from DMV comments to DHS)

1. Will the privacy rights of New Yorkers be protected?
1. “The [draft regulations on Real ID] require that states must provide to all other states electronic access to information contained in the motor vehicle database of the state…The NYS DMV is concerned about the potential for information security breaches by requiring information exchange …between jurisdictions. The exchange of Personal, Private, and Sensitive Information (PPSI), with unknown motor vehicle employees in other jurisdictions, increase the vulnerability of identity theft. The use of this information is beyond the scrutiny of the state of record. The privacy claim is only as strong as its weakest link among all employees in the fifty states.” (emphasis added)

“The NYS DMV is concerned that there is a need for minimum standards to ensure a secure information exchange between states. Best practice standards should be defined for data formatting, quality, and integrity of information, with an oversight entity appointed to ensure best practices are met.” (Page 6)

2. Will DHS protect the confidential information of domestic violence victims, undercover police officers and judges?
1. “NYS DMV is concerned about confidential information (i.e., name history, address history, personal identifiers, etc.) that may be included in the barcode [on a Real ID and that can be easily swiped].  For example, NYS law now protects certain categories of individuals such as domestic violence victims, undercover police officers and judges. DHS should evaluate whether the release of such information would disrupt the important balance between privacy and national security, and detail what data elements should be included in the barcode.”
3. Is the federal government paying for implementation of the Real ID Act in New York?
1. “All costs associated with implementation should be funded by the federal government.” (Page 2)
2. “We estimate that the annual cost of issuing Federally Approved Driver Licenses under the proposed regulations would be approximately $84 million—costs that should be borne by the federal government…Please note that this figure does not include the costs that cannot be determined from the required verification systems that the federal government has not yet developed.  It furthermore does not include the costs for the development and operations of the verification databases required by this Act.” (pages 1-2)
3. The costs that should be borne by the federal government include, according to the Spitzer administration: (Pages 2-3)
1. Employee background checks
2. Verification of source documents
3. Collection and storage of data and images of source documents
4. Hiring and training of additional staff
5. Training in fraudulent document detection
6. Managing a Federally Approved Driver License system program
7. Revision of driver license and identification documents
8. Establishing new offices (Spitzer estimates at least 10 new offices)
9. Modifying existing offices
10. Modifying or creating databases and software
11. Purchasing equipment to scan and store data and images
4. Did DHS reverse the requirement that non-Real ID licenses be marked inadequate, thus creating a two-class system for Americans?
1. “We respectfully submit that the current law impinges on the prerogative of the states, and that a far less intrusive measure would accomplish precisely the same aim.  Instead of impinging on state licenses, the law could require an affirmative declaration on federally approved licenses such as: “Meets Federal Standards.”” (Page 4)
5. Did DHS clearly define when a Real ID will be required?
1. “DHS must provide a clearly defined list of agencies/facilities where a Federally Approved Driver License will be required…DHS must clearly define the process and potential reasons for changes to the “federal purposes” list.” (Page 3)

Printer-friendly Version