Don't Make Privacy the Next Victim of Terror

By Jane Black

Open the San Diego White Pages, turn to the A's, and you'll find a listing for Nawaq Alhamzi.
Everything you wanted to know about his whereabouts were right there in black and white: 6401
Mount Ada Road, San Diego, Calif. Alhamzi was one of the hijackers on American Airlines Flight 77
that killed all 68 passengers on board and 125 people on the ground when it crashed into the
Pentagon on Sept. 11.

Alleged ringleader Mohamed Atta and other suspects used
debit cards to rent cars in the months before the attacks. In
July, Fayez Ahmed, one of the hijackers on United Airlines'
Flight 175, which crashed into the World Trade Center's
south tower, rented a post-office box under his own name
in Delray Beach, Fla.

These men were not going out of their way to hide their
 identities. In fact, they lived their lives in plain sight of the
authorities. The problem was: No one was looking for
them. Most of them anyway. Two of the hijackers were on
 a U.S. government watch list after one was spotted with a
Malaysian suspected of being involved with the U.S.S. Cole
bombing. But even with sophisticated surveillance, the FBI was unable to locate them.

INEFFECTIVE AND EXCESSIVE. Why, then, all the talk now about implementing a national
identification system as part of the war on terrorism? The Bush Administration is not actively pushing
legislation. Yet Represenative George Gekas [R-Pa.], who heads a subcommittee on immigration, says
his office has been flooded with calls requesting a legislative debate.

On Sept. 21, no less than Oracle CEO Larry Ellison entered the fray, calling for the creation of a
national ID system, even offering to donate the software to make it possible. ``The privacy you're
concerned about is largely an illusion. All you have to give up is your illusions, not any of your
privacy. Right now, you can go onto the Internet and get a credit report about your neighbor and find
out where your neighbor works and how much they earn,'' Ellison told TV station KPIX in San
Francisco.

Perhaps. But creating a national ID system is precisely the kind of reactionary policy the U.S. should
avoid. Contrary to what Ellison believes, it would reduce privacy by creating a government-sponsored
tracking system for all citizens. More to the point, unless Americans were required to present their
IDs everywhere they went [``Papers, please!''], a sweeping approach like a national ID system
would do little to increase security, whereas more targeted strategies could be just as effective. A
national ID system would have done nothing to prevent the four deadly hijackings of Sept. 11.

UNIQUE IDENTIFIER. Alas, that hasn't stopped the American public from jumping on the national ID
bandwagon. A poll conducted Sept. 13 to 17 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
revealed that 70% of Americans said they favored a law requiring citizens to carry a national ID card
at all times that would have to be produced upon request to a police officer. Twenty-six percent said
they would be against such a proposal, while 4% remained undecided.

What exactly would a national ID card look like? Put simply, it would be a national driver's license,
with a barcode that holds a fingerprint or retinal image, as well as a photograph. It would also include
a unique identifier, like a Social Security number, that commercial and law-enforcement officials
could run through a database to check information such as the person's immigration status, tax
records, and credit history.

Privacy advocates say that number is the most threatening to privacy. If citizens were required to
show their ID card to open a bank account, buy gas, or board an airplane, the government would be
creating a massive tracking database of every citizen -- suspicious or otherwise. ``To work, we
would create records on citizens heretofore unseen in a nonpolice state. All to track a few terrorists
who...use[d] their real names and credit cards anyway. What good would it do?'' says Richard Smith,
chief technology officer of the Privacy Foundation.

FINLAND'S LEAD. Would a less intrusive system work? Not to prevent terrorism. Cards that don't
allow law-enforcement officials to efficiently zero in on suspects at any time would fail to deliver on
any counterterrorism promise. ``For a national ID card to actually do what its proponents claim it
would, someone would have to watch every individual's move from when they got into their car and
where they drove to what they bought throughout the day,'' says David Banisar, deputy director of
Privacy International.

That's not to say that a system of national ID cards wouldn't have some benefits. To see why, just
look at Finland, which launched electronic national IDs in December, 1999. Besides being simply a
unique identifier, the card has an embedded chip that functions as a mini-computer when inserted
into a computer-card reader. These cards can hold all sorts of information in a digital lock-box, from
bank accounts to social security numbers to specific privileges for accessing software or television
channels.

The fact that the cards are linked to Finnish national ID numbers makes them ideal as means of
authentication. Though the program is still in its early stages, government officials believe the ID
cards will form the cornerstone of a sophisticated system of secure electronic transactions. That,
however, has everything to do with creating a national ID card for a small, homogeneous nation and
little to do with preventing terrorism.

DANGER ZONES. Security can be improved via simpler, more direct methods without creating a
monster tracking system of American citizens. Take the trash cans that line the streets of major
metropolitan areas such as New York. These receptacles are an easy place for terrorists to hide
homemade bombs. So why not remove them from streets and subway stations? This is an obvious
counterterrorism measure used in cities like London and Jerusalem, which are under constant threat,
yet even the proactive New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has made no effort to get a similar plan
under way.

Other plans should take sharp aim at danger zones such as airports and other transport routes. On
Sept. 25, the largest pilots' union submitted a practical proposal that would allow commercial pilots
to carry handguns to defend themselves against hijackers. Pilots would not be required to carry
weapons, and those who did would be forced to submit to psychological testing and extensive
training as well as background checks before receiving approval. So far, Federal Aviation
Administrator Jane Garvey says she's open to the idea.

The U.S. could also require background checks on agricultural workers who could have the skills and
access to equipment that might be used in biological and chemical attacks. Already, New Jersey is
considering such a proposal for truck drivers who carry hazardous materials. ``There are lots of
ways to improve security,'' says the Privacy Foundation's Smith. ``Are national ID cards going to
help? I don't think so.''

A targeted response is the best way to prevent terrorism. A national ID system would be both
expensive [surely in tens of millions of dollars to implement] and largely ineffective, unless we want
to overturn freedoms that Americans take for granted. Perfect security is an illusion in today's world.
We must focus on rational measures -- or risk falling into another terrorist trap.