Virginia Bill: DNA Collection for DL

[Obviously when Virginia backs down off the
DNA sampling requirement, whatever else is
left will seem like a reasonable compromise to those
who are naive of how this ploy works.]

----

Senate wants thumbprints on driver's licenses
By LOUIS HANSEN, The Virginian-Pilot
© January 31, 2002

RICHMOND -- A little ink, a pad and a clean thumb might
be required later this year when you renew your
license.

The state Senate approved a measure Wednesday requiring
the Department of Motor Vehicles to collect thumbprints
on all applications for driver's licenses.

The bill, SB62, allows the Department of Motor Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------
to take thumbprints or other types of biological
------- -------------------
identification -- eye scans, pictures or DNA samples --
--------------------------- -----------
and place the information on driver's licenses.

Sen. John Watkins, R-Chesterfield, said the bill
responds to a growing problem of identity theft. Stolen
driver's licenses, Social Security cards and passports
have allowed thieves to con banks and tap into credit
lines. Home computers, scanners, printers and various
software make it easy for criminals to create
fraudulent accounts in victims' names.

[Actually one of the top sources of fradulent IDs
IS the state DMVs -- their employees are notorious
for selling ID and blank documents to their friends.
This will do nothing to stop that. Also note that
most of the recent terrorists have had LEGITIMATE
IDs. So what problem does this really solve? The
problem of the gov't not being able to track and
control the common folk as much as they would like.
Are we the slaves of the government? How we respond
to these incursions tells if we give or withdraw our
consent to by owned by Ol' Massa Sam.]

The measure passed, 28 to 10, with one abstention. It
now goes to the House of Delegates for consideration.

More General Assembly news, bill tracking, discussions,
citizens guide, links Several senators opposed
requiring law-abiding citizens to give fingerprints to
the state. While acknowledging it is a worthy goal to
enhance safety and security, they also argued that the
proposal is too broad in giving the state the right to
--------------------------------
require DNA samples.
-------------------

"That concerns me," said Sen. William T. Bolling,
R-Hanover. Watkins said it was unlikely the department
-------------------------------------------
would require DNA samples because they are expensive to
-------------------------------------------------------
collect. He said adding a fingerprint to the front or
-------
back of a license would cost between $1 and $2 per
card.

[Note that cost is the only reason discussed - not
privacy.]

Watkins said the state needs to catch up with the new
technology and new ways of fraud. The Department of
Motor Vehicles already collects biometric information,
he said, in the form of pictures used on a license.

"There are those who say George Orwell has arrived in
Richmond," Watkins said. "Look over your shoulder. He
got here 10 years ago."

Watkins said he did not advocate having the DMV keeping
the information on file, although he noted the
department already keeps photographs.

He said it would be more difficult to forge papers if
another kind of identification is required. A person
may be asked to give an additional thumbprint if a bank
or government agency doubted the authenticity of his or
her license or identification.

[What good would that do?]

For law-abiding citizens, he said, "it only provides
another layer of protection."

[Does it?]

Kent Willis, executive director of the Virginia Chapter
of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the state
should collect private information only when it is
absolutely necessary. The state should study whether

[Maybe the ACLU should stop pandering to gov't and
revise their statement to use the word 'never'.]

the thumbprints would actually make Virginians safer
and more secure, he said.

[The government can order studies to say whatever
conclusion the gov't is looking for.]

Instead, he said, "someone will spend more money for
licenses, and the privacy of citizens will be invaded."