With REAL ID, Privacy Concerns for the Transgender Community
By Tonei Glavinic
01 February, 2010


http://studentpulse.com/articles/149/with-real-id-privacy-concerns-for-the-transgender-community


According to the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), one of the main problems with REAL ID is the collection and retention of the identity documents required to obtain a REAL ID (2009). State DMVs would be required to verify the accuracy and validity of these documents, and then maintain a digital copy attached to an individual's electronic license record.

This presents a security risk for many transgender people, as the documents required to obtain a license can often reveal their personal medical history to anyone accessing their records.  For example, Ohio does not allow a person to change the gender marker on their birth certificate.  A transgender person born in Ohio would therefore have to provide the DMV with the birth certificate showing an originally assigned gender and some kind of letter establishing that this was no longer accurate.

This is definitely a concern. Luckily a few years ago my state (Arizona) passed a state law formally rejecting the federal Real ID Act and asserting States' rights. We are one of the few states I believe (if not the only one) that has not updated our state IDs to meet TSA requirements. I'm sure they don't like it but tough. States' rights.

I think as with the system of ID being introduced in the UK, there would be tiered access to records on the ID system... a shop clerk could not access your medical records... for example, just date of birth.. the only pertinent iformation to them. A  doctor or nurse? sure... running someones ID and having thier records pop up makes treatment really easy when someone is out cold or unable to talk...

I can see issues for it, but none that are not present currently... i mean, if you cant change your gender marker now, how is that different?

This is going to be a real nightmare for us until full genital surgery is completed and you birth certificate is changed. Some States will not change Birth records under any circumstances. Even then there will be lingering worries that something will show up with you old ID. If you don"t fly or travel internationally you will only have a job problem if the records don't match. Many companies are TG friendly and understand this; many don't.

Pam

While I'm not exactly known for standing up for the Feds, I do understand the problem with having 50 differing sets of standards, 50 different sets of laws, and 50 different forms of ID.  Bureaucracies crave uniformity, and this is no different.  Somewhere all that DL changes, and BC changes are noted, if no where else on the official records - it's just a question of accessing those changes.

Look the amount of data out there on any single person is pretty awesome, and anymore its all there floating on bits and bytes somewhere in electronic space.  Any law enforcement agency, particularly the Federal ones, can get to any of it, and all of it.  So thinking that somehow not putting real ID into effect is going to 'protect' you is just not happening.

As it is, most of the larger states (those with the largest populations) already meet this standard.  My Cali ID has both magnetic strip and laser encoded information on it, has had for decades now. 

As for states rights, well the Feds can do what they have always done, basically say "either comply or we'll cut off your federal highway funds, and/or your federal airport funding" and like the national 21 year drinking age, the states will go along in the end.

While having an ID can be very convenient, everything is a trade-off. This usually comes down to security and convenience vs. privacy and freedom. For instance, in my state (Arizona), there is no law requiring you to carry ID (unless you are driving). The only law is that you identify yourself. If you are encountered by law enforcement, you can simply give them your name, DOB, and address without having to actually give them an ID. While this does protect your liberty to some level, you may want to carry an ID for the fact that suppose you got hurt and the police or others were trying to help you and identify you to others yet can't figure out who you are.

I really think it should come down to giving people choices instead of requiring it. While people may elect to give out lots of personal information to make their lives easier, it should rarely be required. Take a Social Security Number for instance. This was never intended originally to be used for identification yet now you are basically required to provide it for medical care, enrolling in school, opening bank accounts or loans, buying or renting property, and a list of other things. Someone mentioned about the UK having shops asking for IDs. I don't know what the story is there but I would hope that their only purpose is for age law requirements such as liquor sales. If it gets to the point where people can't buy clothes or groceries without an ID, then you have big problems.

People have the right in my opinion to a certain level of anonymity. A grocery store may want your name and information before you buy groceries but then you have the freedom to shop somewhere else who doesn't act like that. When the government imposes such things on businesses, it is wrong. Additionally, people fail to realize how little security is actually provided by IDs in general. The more information you have on someone, the more someone is going to gain by hacking it. Linking everyone's life together in one database between their criminal records to medical to credit to education, etc. is a privacy nightmare should someone illicitly get a hold of that information. People want to trust that the gatekeepers would never let that happen but I don't see why anyone should ever have that much trust. Most people would not trust their co-workers enough to leave their purses left out unattended so why should they trust faceless government beauracrats to guard their entire autobiography of data?

Going back to the basic concept of a photo ID for security on transportation, this still offers very little. Who you are makes no difference as to what you are bringing on an airplane or train. Using IDs to screen people may filter out those who are suspected of terrorism but at the same time will create a false sense of security. While it may prevent a suspected terrorist from boarding a plane, some Joe Schmoe who has had a picture perfect lifestyle who simply decides to go nuts will be overlooked from the screening process. Sadly, the more people seem to focus on technlogy, the less they focus on common sense. As said before, it doesn't matter if you are an Arab from Saudi Arabia, a grandmother from Texas, or a six-year-old from town, if a bomb is in one of their bags it will still go off.

As to gender markers, DOB, address, and other things a lot of it should be irrelevant. In very rare cases should any of this information impact anything. This is especially true with sex on an ID/application. This is essentially asking what type of genitals someone has. Why? People need to stop and ask themselves why anyone has a need to know so much of their private lives.

ID is a fickle issue... a lot do not understand it.... these 'omg digital databases' cries are amusing... where you you belive its kept at the moment? on computer.

As for gender marker change, the rules on when you can change it wont change from now... some states allow 'permanent surgery towards change' some srs, some not... hell, if it were to become federal with real ID... what are the chances the rules for gender change would be too? and most likely those in states that cant change it probably then COULD!

Real id isnt designed to stop you changing anything, or let a grocery clerk ask for your details, they have no right or need of them... if they ask for your ID at present, its to prove age for alcohol etc... fair. they can read that on the card, not scan it. As for travel abroad...jeez guys, you still can.... just because your marker says m, and you present female wont stop you getting on an airliner... a letter from your therapist detailing that you're transitioning fixes any ID issues... anywhere... no problem?

I think we need to stop panicing and look quite logically...

I don't see why a federal ID is needed. A state ID should be sufficient. There already is a federal ID, it's called a U.S. Passport. Any business conducted within the U.S. should be sufficient with an ID from one of the 50 U.S. states. If you are leaving the U.S. then the Passport works fine. I wish the government would leave well enough alone.

Oh I could see the feds going to an all passport system easily enough if the states will not do real ID.  The effect though is to prohibit people who can't afford, or did not prepare for that, from being able to take interstate transportation, which I think might be a worse imposition.

Brit: you are one country are you not? why not act like one? is it such a bad thing?

We dont have county ID's here, just national and it doesnt bother us... most of the world do it.

Neither does this country need to act "like the rest of the world." This country was founded on a principle that most concerns are left to the individual states if not the people themselves which is in our Bill of Rights and Constitution. The only purpose for a national ID is for use in other countries such as a U.S. Passport when travelling to or from the U.S. Using an ID within the U.S. is clearly sufficient from one of the issuing states within it.

One of the biggest parts of the liberal agenda in the U.S. is pushing for federalization of everything whereas the conservative agenda is more or less for states' rights. I for one think most concerns should be left up to local, county, and state governments to decide. Real ID is just one of many parts of this federalized agenda. They want everything homogenous whether it be all schools on the same standards, hospitals, police, etc. Some of this is certainly good but it should be carefully determined what is necessary for this and what is not. Besides, when more things are nationalized, local leaders and the people are increasingly taken out of the decision-processes and more is left up to beaurocrats in a faraway Capital whose interests are not going to be the same as those in all of the areas of the country they claim to serve. Sometimes applying all standards to all people simply doesn't work. I don't think a school teacher in a rural Missouri town should be told by federal agents in Washington, D.C. what books are to be introduced to the kids despite what the town that pays taxes for the school decides as long as it is Constitutional.

Same with Real ID. Let the federal government create one if they want to and if states such as California or New York want to adopt the federal standards, then let them. If states such as Iowa or Kansas prefer to use their existing ID systems, let them. Enough of this imposing on people. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. If the government decided to actually do nothing at all, I bet more would actually get accomplished.

Im sorry to see such warped ideas take form. The country attitude to anything federal and 'blame it on the liberals' aproach.

you know, Im suprised you havent excomunicated yourself and proceeded to beat yourself for being trans... the attitude fits... 'not in mah town'.

Probably not alone, but im amused to see a transgender person so...conservative and biggoted and narrow minded.



The only thing you left out was this all being the communist's fault.

Quote from: The None Blonde on February 09, 2010, 10:14:17 AM
Probably not alone, but im amused to see a transgender person so...conservative and biggoted and narrow minded.

Please explain where I have been "bigoted?" Here's a thought: try actually disagreeing without resorting to emotional tactics.

It has to do with childhood according to a very famous, but little publicized study.

In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.
Psychology Today

On a slightly different point.

I have just had my passport renewed. The photo is a haggared old bloke with a nicely developing male pattern baldness taking shape and a face full of whiskers because I resent shaving.

But, for some reason, my sex is F.

Opportunity?