'); document.write('

Technology And Liberty News

'); document.write('

MCLU Concerned About Overuse of Social Security Numbers
'); document.write('
Recommends Caution to School Districts Across the State

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

Today, the MCLU advised Maine\'s public school superintendents to supplement their annual privacy notifications to parents with an additional explanation of the risks associated with social security numbers. The letter was sent in response to an Administrative Letter from the Maine Department of Education to school districts initiating a controversial Social Security number collection policy. That letter contains its own recommended language, which the Maine Civil Liberties Union feels does not go far enough.

In 2009, the Maine Department of Education sought authority to request Social Security numbers from all students enrolled in Maine schools, in order to conduct a longitudinal data study. The Legislature agreed, but only on the condition that the Department explain to parents that disclosure of the numbers is optional, and that the numbers would not be used for the study unless parents (or students over 18) provide written consent. To this end, the Department\'s suggested language includes four short sentences as an explanation, following six paragraphs explaining the benefits of social security number collection.

"The statute says that the parental notification must include an \'explanation,\'" said MCLU Field Director Brianna Twofoot, "but the Department\'s suggested language does not go far enough. Without an explicit description of the potential for loss of privacy and identity theft, parents and students cannot make an informed decision about participation in this voluntary program."

At the beginning of each school year, schools are required to inform parents of students\' privacy rights under the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). In a letter to superintendents (see attached), the MCLU urged superintendents to include language in this yearly notice that thoroughly explains a students\' right to privacy, the risks associated with sharing your social security number and the voluntary nature of the Department\'s program.

"Even the most secure databases are subject to breach, and theft of social security numbers can lead to identity theft," said MCLU Executive Director Shenna Bellows. "A proper explanation would inform parents of privacy risks associated with social security numbers and the benefits of keeping our most personal information private."

The debate over the Social Security law was heated, and it continues still. Over the summer, RSU #44 passed a resolution urging the Maine legislature to repeal the law, citing the Veteran\'s Affairs Administration security breach of 26.5 million social security numbers when a disc containing sensitive information was stolen in 2006. The MCLU has urged other school committees to consider similar action.
'); document.write('
MCLU Urges School Boards to Review Social Security Number Collection Program
'); document.write('
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

Portland – The Maine Civil Liberties Union sent letters to Maine\'s school board chairs today encouraging them to pass resolutions to promote student privacy.

A state law, which is set to go into effect later this year, allows the Department of Education to collect and store student social security numbers for tracking purposes. Already, one Maine school board, RSU #44 serving the Bethel area, has passed a resolution in favor of the law\'s repeal. The Bethel resolution also instructs schools to ensure parents know the program is opt-in. The MCLU hopes that resolutions by other school boards will place mounting pressure on the legislature to repeal or revise the law, which was passed in the spring of 2009.

"We encourage school boards to educate themselves, schools and parents about the risks of social security number collection," said MCLU Executive Director Shenna Bellows. "The Bethel area school board recognized, as we do, that students have privacy rights too."

In its letter, the MCLU cautioned school boards of the risks individuals face when their social security numbers are collected and stored. Social security numbers can be used by identity thieves or others to unlock the most personal details of people\'s lives. In the last several years, high-profile instances of data breach at the U.S. Veterans Affairs Administration and the Finance Authority of Maine among other entities have exposed the vulnerability of even the most secure data, whether to unauthorized or mistaken access.

The MCLU also emphasized that participation in LD 1356\'s data collection is voluntary, a fact it hopes school boards will make clear to parents who might otherwise believe that their participation in the program is obligatory. The resolution passed by RSU #44 advises parents that the program is strictly optional.

"The program is voluntary, and schools may not retaliate against parents who decline to disclose their child\'s social security numbers," writes MCLU Field Director Brianna Twofoot to school board chairs in the MCLU letter. "Without explicit explanations of the program and associated risks, parents and schools alike are in the dark."

In 1974, Congress passed the Privacy Act, which found that the government\'s use and dissemination of private data places privacy at risk. Improperly protected student data, which can include disciplinary records as well as academic transcripts, can affect one\'s access to housing, employment, and credit later in life. The state law, PL Chapter 448, requires the Department of Education to explain the risks associated with the disclosure of social security numbers. It has not yet done so, however, leading to concern that parents and schools will be left in the dark when making decisions about the program.

A copy of the Bethel school board resolution is available at: http://www.mclu.org/sites/default/files/Board%20Resolution%20PL%20448.pdf
'); document.write('
State May Not Stop Privacy Advocate from Publishing Records Found on Government Websites
'); document.write('
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Today Reaffirms Lower Court Ruling

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

Richmond, VA –The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that privacy advocate B.J. Ostergren may post public records that contain Social Security Numbers on her website, despite a 2008 Virginia law prohibiting the dissemination of such information.

Today\'s ruling reaffirms a June 2009 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Robert E. Payne, who found that the law, commonly referred to as the "anti-B.J. law," violated Ostergren\'s First Amendment rights. Payne ruled that Ostergren had the right to post the Social Security Numbers of Virginia legislators, Virginia Executive Officers and Clerks of Court whenever the numbers were obtained from a government website accessible to the public.

Other courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have held that the government cannot make information available to the public, but then restrict what the public can do with it.

The Fourth Circuit not only affirmed the lower court decision but also found that Judge Payne\'s injunction against enforcing the law against Ostergren did not go far enough because it "does not protect Ostergren in publishing Virginia land records containing private individuals\' SSNs" or those of "non-Virginia public officials." The case has therefore been remanded to the lower court for revision of the injunction.

For many years, Ostergren has run TheVirginiaWatchdog.com, which advocates against the government making personal information available on the Internet. The Virginia Watchdog posts public records, including the Social Security Numbers of some public officials, obtained from government websites. By posting these documents, Ostergren illustrates how easy it is to obtain private information from government websites and hopes to prod elected officials to take action to prevent such information from becoming available to identity thieves.

Under Virginia law, all land records are available on the Internet. These records include deeds and mortgage information, as well as legal judgments, such as divorce decrees, that may contain Social Security Numbers and other personal information.

"Ms. Ostergren\'s most powerful advocacy weapon has been to demonstrate to the public how bad a job the government is doing to protect our online privacy rights," said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis. "The government responded but by trying to silence Ms. Ostergren. That\'s hardly the answer any of us want to see, and besides, it violates the constitutional right of free speech."

Attorneys representing Ostergren are ACLU of Virginia Legal Director Rebecca K. Glenberg and Richmond attorney Frank Feibelman. The Fourth Circuit\'s ruling can be found online at: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/091723.P.pdf
'); document.write('
Intelligence Community’s Enormous Use Of Private Contractors Raises Civil Liberties Concerns, Says ACLU
'); document.write('
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: (202) 675-2312 or media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – Private contractors play an enormous role in our country’s national security apparatus, according to the Washington Post today. According to today’s story, the second in a series by the Post entitled Top Secret America, contractors have been used for a wide range of intelligence jobs, including surveillance and interrogation of detainees, where civil liberties are greatly implicated.

The following can be attributed to Laura W. Murphy, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office:

“The massive use of private contractors in our intelligence community further exacerbates the lack of control, oversight and accountability that already plagues our intelligence apparatus. The excessive use of contractors puts more distance between the government and those carrying out intelligence work and infuses the profit motive into a calculation that should be focused on effectiveness and adhering to the rule of law.”
'); document.write('
ACLU Calls on University of Washington to Curb Campus Surveillance
'); document.write('
Records Show Campus Spying on Student Activists

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

The ACLU of Washington today called upon the University of Washington administration to take action to ensure that campus police prevent further surveillance of the lawful political activities of its students, faculty and staff. The ACLU said that incidents on campus point to the need for state legislation allowing political surveillance only when there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Public records obtained by the ACLU show that the University of Washington Police Department (UWPD) authorized an undercover officer to attend, participate in, and collect information about meetings of the University of Washington Student Worker Coalition (SWC). These documents follow on the heels of a previously disclosed surveillance episode and show that it was neither an isolated incident, nor was it the first time police improperly monitored the student group.

In addition, the documents show that UWPD violated internal policy regarding intelligence collection, which state that the "sole purpose" of information collection is "eliminating criminal activity," and that "[i]nformation collected is limited to suspected criminal conduct and activities that are crimes." By collecting non-criminal information about the SWC – including their political ideas, allies and statements – the UWPD went beyond the limitations set forth in their Operations Manual.

"We urge the University to issue a clear statement that government surveillance based on political ideology is not permissible," said Kathleen Taylor, executive director of the ACLU of Washington in a letter to Vice Provost Eric Godfrey. "Further, we call on the University of Washington to ensure its policy limiting intelligence collection is enforced and to provide training to all officers clearly stating that officers shall not collect information about political and religious views and activities without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity."

According to documents obtained via an ACLU of Washington records request, a UWPD officer attempted to infiltrate a Student Worker Coalition meeting at Suzzallo Café on April 1, 2010. Noting that this was "not an open meeting," the officer sat at a neighboring table and took notes. In an April 2, 2010 e-mail to a UWPD Lieutenant, the officer discussed the content of the SWC meeting, participants\' political beliefs, and their plans to work with various worker groups throughout the UW community. The officer also described her intent to "locate the location of the next meeting to see if a plain clothes officer could fit in." Her superior and a deputy chief responded that the officer "did a great job" monitoring the SWC.

This e-mail sheds new light on a previously disclosed incident involving the same officer. On April 8, a woman named "Tani" who described herself as a UW alumna actively participated in an SWC meeting to plan for a May 3d campus demonstration. The following week, several SWC members encountered the officer in police uniform and confronted her, whereupon she admitted to being the person posing as "Tani" who attended the SWC meeting.

Salmun Kazerounian and Sarah White, recent University of Washington Law School graduates and members of the Student Worker Coalition, spoke at the press conference. "Spying on workers and student activists is an embarrassing waste of public resources that disrupts legitimate and important organizing activities," said Kazerounian. Members of the UW chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, Kazerounian and White helped form the SWC to address both worker and student concerns around budget cuts.

"The surveillance incidents on campus are further evidence of the need for state legislation to allow political surveillance only with reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct," Taylor added. Legislation to accomplish this was introduced in the 2010 legislature, and the ACLU again will press for its passage in 2011.

In the recent settlement of a case brought by the ACLU of Washington and attorney Lawrence Hildes, three law enforcement agencies agreed to pay $418,000 including attorney\'s fees for the wrongful arrest and covert surveillance of Evergreen State graduate Philip Chinn. Despite obeying traffic laws and passing all sobriety tests, Chinn was arrested for driving under the influence on the way from Olympia to an anti-war demonstration in Aberdeen. Documents obtained via public disclosure requests revealed that the arrest came as part of a multi-agency "action plan" to suppress political protest.
'); document.write('
ACLU Sues Health Department Over Failure To Adopt Rules Protecting Patient Privacy
'); document.write('
Claiming that not enough has been done to protect the privacy rights of patients, the Rhode Island ACLU today filed suit against the R.I. Department of Health (DOH), challenging the inadequacy of rules the agency has adopted to implement a centralized database of patient health care records in the state. The Health Information Exchange (HIE), established by legislation approved by the General Assembly in 2008, will allow medical personnel to routinely access a patient\'s entire medical file, including mental health records and other sensitive medical information.

Last year, when the DOH proposed regulations to implement the statute, the ACLU objected that the proposed regulations provided virtually no details as to how the system would actually work, and how it would protect the privacy, confidentiality and informed consent interests of patients. The Affiliate has been battling over these issues since the HIE proposal was first floated some years ago.

In written testimony about the DOH\'s proposed regulations, the ACLU noted that there are no fewer than seven provisions in the HIE statute that require implementing details about the system to be fleshed out by DOH through a public rule-making process. However, the ACLU argued that those issues were only minimally addressed, if at all, in the regulations. When the ACLU sought an explanation as to why they had not been addressed, the DOH responded that it felt that they could better be handled through internal "policies" that were not subject to the public notice and comment requirement that agency regulations must undergo.

The ACLU\'s lawsuit, filed in R.I. Superior Court by volunteer attorney Frederic Marzilli, argues that the Department\'s position violates the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), "since all department policies that have general application and which implement, interpret or prescribe law" are subject to the APA\'s public vetting process. The suit seeks a court order declaring unenforceable the DOH\'s adoption of non-promulgated policies, rather than regulations adopted through a public rule-making process, and requiring DOH to promulgate "regulations that completely fulfill its obligation" under the HIE statute.

Noting the significant privacy issues raised by the HIE, the ACLU called it crucial that regulations setting up the system be as detailed as possible, explaining, for example, the rights patients have to opt out of the system, to correct information contained in it, and to ensure appropriate confidentiality of the data. RI ACLU volunteer attorney Marzilli said today: "In light of the important privacy and confidentiality issues raised by an electronic health records system, the legislature clearly envisioned the adoption of detailed regulations through a transparent process of public input. This lawsuit simply seeks to carry out that intent."
'); document.write('
ACLU Submits Testimony Today For House Subcommittee Hearing On Cell Phone Privacy
'); document.write('
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON -- The American Civil Liberties today submitted written testimony to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties for a hearing on updating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and the need for reform in the use of location tracking information. ECPA became law in 1986 and has not been properly updated to reflect the vast technological advances that have occurred since its passage, including the use of cell phone information by law enforcement to track Americans\' movements. The ACLU is asking Congress to require government officials to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before allowing access to any of those electronic records, just as they have always had to do for similarly sensitive personal information.

"Tracking our citizens\' locations and movements without warrants or probable cause constitutes a massive privacy violation," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The overwhelming majority of Americans carry cell phones and inadvertently transmit their location information every minute of every day. Whether they visit a therapist, liquor store, church or gun range, these movements are often available to law enforcement in real time or even months later. Clearly, these kinds of sensitive records should be fiercely protected and law enforcement should be required to obtain a warrant before getting near them."

The ACLU noted in its testimony that law enforcement has been obtaining location information since at least the late 1990s, but more than a decade later there is still no uniform standard for when law enforcement can access this information. Because Congress has never addressed the appropriate standard for location information and because of particular practices by the Department of Justice (DOJ), confusion remains regarding what the appropriate standard should be. The position of the DOJ is that enormous amounts of location information should be accessible without it having to obtain a warrant and show probable cause.

"Our government continues to obtain its citizens very private and sensitive information with the lowest of legal standards and little to no oversight," said Christopher Calabrese, ACLU Legislative Counsel. "In addition to all their benefits, cell phones are also portable tracking devices. Americans shouldn\'t have to accept constant surveillance in order to enjoy the benefits of mobile services. It is time for Congress to act. It must amendment the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to bring this intrusive surveillance back in line with the Fourth Amendment."

Last week, the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging a Connecticut court to suppress cell site information that the government had obtained against the defendant, Luis Soto, without a warrant. In that case the government sought tracking information not only on Soto but also on approximately 180 other people.

The brief can be found here:
www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/us-v-soto-amici-brief-support-motion-suppress

The ACLU’s statement for the record submitted to the subcommittee is here:
www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/comments-submitted-ecpa-reform-hearing

More information on the ACLU’s work with online privacy can be found at: www.dotrights.org and www.aclu.org/ecpa.
'); document.write('
ACLU Intervenes In Lawsuit To Protect Amazon Users\' Personal Information
'); document.write('
Demand For Records By North Carolina Department Of Revenue Unconstitutional

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – Requests by the North Carolina Department of Revenue (NCDOR) for detailed information about Amazon.com customers are unconstitutional because they violate Internet users\' rights to free speech, anonymity and privacy, according to a complaint filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation and ACLU of Washington. The ACLU, on behalf of several Amazon.com customers, intervened in an existing lawsuit brought by Amazon to stop NCDOR from collecting personally identifiable information that could be linked to their specific purchases on Amazon.

"The Constitution does not permit government agencies to conduct such sweeping collections of our personal and private information," said Aden Fine, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. "Disclosing the purchase records of thousands of Amazon customers would violate their constitutional rights to read and purchase the lawful materials of their choice, free from government intrusion."

The ACLU filed the case on behalf of six anonymous North Carolina residents (Does 1-6) and Cecil Bothwell, an elected public official, who do not think the government should be able to find out the personal, private information their purchasing records reveal. The plaintiffs include:
- Jane Doe 1, who purchased books on self-help and how to get a divorce and a restraining order after her former spouse developed substance abuse problems and threatened to kill her;
- Jane Doe 2, the general counsel of a global corporation, who has purchased books and movies with overt political leanings as well as books that may reveal her religious beliefs;
- Jane Doe 3, who has purchased books on mental health in order to better understand the conditions afflicting her former spouse, including "Stop Walking On Eggshells: Taking Your Life Back When Someone Your Care About Has Borderline Personality Disorder," as well as books about cancer, including "Cancer: 50 Essential Things To Do: Revised and Updated," by Greg Anderson. She has also purchased books on atheism. She is not public about her personal beliefs and doesn\'t want others to find out;
- Jane Doe 4, who has received several politically-charged items through Amazon from her parents, including "Obama Zombies: How The Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation," by Jason Mattera. Jane Doe 4 is a law school student who would like to one day work in the public sector, and she is concerned that her career prospects may be impaired if her personal and political beliefs are disclosed;
- Jane Doe 5, the parent of Jane Doe 4, who is a Florida resident, but whose information has been caught up in NCDOR\'s request. She does not want the government to know which books she has decided to purchase for her child;
- Jane Doe 6, whose purchases include books with sensitive and potentially controversial subject matters; and
- Cecil Bothwell, an elected city official, author and proprietor of a publishing house who has both purchased and sold potentially controversial books on Amazon. He is an atheist, which his political opponents seized on following his election because of a provision in the North Carolina Constitution that purports to prohibit anyone who "shall deny the being of Almighty God" from holding public office. He is joining the lawsuit on behalf of himself and his readers and customers, whose information has also been sought by NCDOR.
According to the lawsuit filed by Amazon in April in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, NCDOR issued a request to Amazon for the purchase records since August 2003 of customers with a North Carolina shipping address as part of a tax audit of Amazon. Amazon has already provided NCDOR with product codes that reveal the exact items purchased – including books on the subjects of mental health, alcoholism and LGBT issues. Amazon has withheld individually identifiable user information that could be linked back to the individual purchases, including names and addresses, but NCDOR has refused to agree that it is not entitled to such information.

"The ACLU is not taking issue with the Department\'s authority to collect taxes on these purchases, but there is no legitimate reason why government officials need to know which North Carolina residents are reading which books or purchasing which specific brands of products," said Katy Parker, Legal Director for the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation. "We had hoped the Department would narrow the scope of its requests in order to protect privacy rights, and we are surprised and disappointed that it has become necessary for us to take legal action in order to safeguard consumer\'s rights."

The ACLU in May sent a letter to North Carolina Secretary of Revenue Kenneth Lay, informing him that the ACLU would take legal action if NCDOR persisted in its demand for constitutionally-protected information.

In addition to Fine and Parker, attorneys on the case are Mariko Hirose of the ACLU, Sarah Dunne of the ACLU of Washington and cooperating attorney Venkat Balasubramani of the Focal PLLC law firm.

The ACLU\'s complaint can be found online at: www.aclu.org/free-speech-technology-and-liberty/amazoncom-llc-v-kenneth-r-lay-intervenors-complaint
'); document.write('
Lawmakers Fail to Address Unanswered Questions about DNA Databank Expansion, NYCLU Charges in New Q&A
'); document.write('
Research validates concerns about error and fraud, cost and inefficiency, racial and ethnic bias in the use of forensic DNA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

NEW YORK -- The New York Civil Liberties Union today released Unanswered Questions about Proposals to Expand the State\'s DNA Databank, a document that raises provocative questions about the governor\'s proposal to collect and store DNA from all New Yorkers – including youth – convicted of any penal offense, including low-level misdemeanors.

A Q&A, the document cites numerous criminal justice experts whose research identifies problems with the use of DNA databanks – including an unexpectedly high incidence of error and fraud in the collection, handling and analysis of forensic DNA.

"There are so many questions that must be answered, but our legislators are notably incurious," said NYCLU Legislative Director Robert Perry. "The complexity and importance of the issues raised by the proposal to expand the state\'s DNA databank – issues of law, science and public policy – are matched only by the indifference of law makers. It\'s perplexing."

DNA is widely considered the forensics gold standard, but the findings compiled by the NYCLU suggest lawmakers and law enforcement professionals have failed to recognize how the "human factor" can lead to flawed prosecutions – and wrongful convictions – due to mislabeling of samples, cross contamination of samples, misinterpretation of DNA analysis and misrepresentation of the test results.

The Q&A also identifies systemic inadequacies in the procedures by which law enforcement officials collect and analyze data on the number of "cold hits" – crime-scene DNA evidence that matches a sample in the databank – that lead to criminal investigations and convictions. The "cold hit" scenario is different from testing a known suspect against crime-scene evidence – which does not require, or rely upon, a databank.

The experts cited by the NYCLU assert that criminal justice professionals lack sufficient data to assess the actual value of DNA databanks in solving crimes.

In its Q&A, the NYCLU also raised concerns about a new "familial searching policy" recently approved by the state\'s Commission on Forensic Sciences. This policy authorizes law enforcement officials to investigate family members of an individual whose DNA is a "partial match" with crime scene evidence – on the grounds that a blood relative of that individual may be implicated in the crime. An expanded databank could place entire communities under permanent suspicion – solely because the DNA of a family member is in the state\'s databank.

The NYCLU offers a series of recommendations for lawmakers to ensure the integrity of the DNA databank. Among them, New York State must 1) establish a task force of independent scientists and criminal justice experts that is charged with identifying best practices in light of authoritative scientific and legal research; and 2) reconstitute the Commission on Forensic Sciences as a more independent, better resourced and more robust regulatory oversight body.

To read the NYCLU\'s full Q&A, visit: www.nyclu.org/files/releases/DNA%20UnansweredQuestions_FINAL_6.15.pdf
'); document.write('
State Senate Protects Pennsylvanians\' Privacy Rights by Passing Bill to Block Real ID, Says ACLU of PA
'); document.write('
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

HARRISBURG - The Pennsylvania Senate today continued the drumbeat of the states\' opposition to the federal Real ID program by unanimously passing legislation to block its implementation in the commonwealth. The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania supports the bill, Senate Bill 621, and praised the Senate for taking decisive action.

"Real ID is a de facto national ID card and is a radical new step in invading the privacy of Pennsylvanians and all Americans," said Andy Hoover, legislative director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. "The Senate has shown leadership in stopping Real ID from becoming a reality here."

Congress passed the Real ID Act in 2005 as part of an appropriations bill to fund American troops overseas and victims of the 2004 tsunami in South Asia. Real ID forces new mandates on the states regarding the distribution of drivers\' licenses.

Hoover cited multiple privacy problems for license holders as a result of Real ID, including a mandate on PennDOT to store copies of individuals\' personal documents, such as birth certificates and Social Security cards, and the linking of the databases of the departments of motor vehicles in all 56 licensing jurisdictions, creating a massive new national database.

"Real ID is a honeypot for identity thieves," Hoover said.

Senator Mike Folmer is the primary sponsor of SB 621 and has played a key role in moving the bill forward in the Senate. If the bill is passed by the House of Representatives and signed by Governor Rendell, Pennsylvania would become the 16th state to block the implementation of Real ID via statute. The 15 states that have opted out to date comprise a diverse group that includes Alaska, Maine, Minnesota, Georgia, and Oklahoma.

Hoover also noted Real ID\'s digital photo requirement, which poses First Amendment freedom of religion issues for persons of varying faiths, including the Amish, who acquire non-drivers\', non-photo ID cards for conducting federal business; Muslim women; and Sikh men.

"When the Department of Homeland Security issued its final regulations on Real ID, it simply ignored this issue," Hoover said.

PennDOT has estimated that Real ID will cost the commonwealth approximately $100-$120 million to implement and $40-$50 million annually to maintain. Congress has appropriated no significant funds for the states to start Real ID.

SB 621 now moves to the House for consideration. In 2008, the House unanimously passed similar legislation.

The federal government\'s deadline for compliance with Real ID is May, 2011.
'); document.write('