By Matthew M. Johnson, CQ Staff

Rep. Mark Souder has become a crusader for biometrics ID cards, but admits the political environment is not yet ripe for making them a part of Americans’ everyday life.

IDs encrypted with images of their holders’ fingerprints and irises would not only be the best tool to identify terrorists, says the Indiana Republican, but would go a long way toward helping people avoid the inconveniences associated with many homeland security initiatives.

Souder has taken up the biometric cause from his spot as the top GOP member on the House Homeland Security Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee. His district is also home to a facility owned by Beaverton, Ore.-based Digimarc Corp., a producer of 32 states’ drivers licenses, including some with biometric information; about 75 people work at the Fort Wayne offices.

But despite worries about homeland security, even the strongest supporters of biometrics acknowledge that concerns about privacy and long-standing visceral objections to anything that could be considered a “national ID card” are likely to block progress on the issue.

Then there is the question of whether the technology can be made to work effectively.

“There are lots and lots of ways that biometrics are not as reliable and infallible as people tend to think they are,” said Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “I would argue that the burden of proof is on the proponents of biometrics to show that it is actually going to be workable as security.”

Tien said a major reason biometric technologies do well in labs but have performed poorly when implemented is because lab tests haven’t sufficiently simulated people trying to defeat the system.

All the while, Tien argues, citizens would pay a steep toll in terms of personal privacy if they had to submit biometric identifiers.

“What it does is it tries to create a unique identification for someone [by adding] identification requirements and checkpoints,” Tien said. “It really becomes something that actually makes it easier for peoples’ activities and movements to be tracked and monitored. So it is really a double edged sword and we really think that it is a very, very significant step to incorporate these kinds of biometrics into existing systems.”

Demanding Results

Supporters of increased use of biometrics argue that that is precisely the point — being able to identify, track and monitor bad actors so you know who they are and where they are is essential for national security.

And, aside from the increased security, there would be practical effects that would improve people’s lives, supporters say.

For example, passengers who are commonly confused with someone listed on the no-fly list could clear the matter up in a few short minutes if they are carrying a biometrically enabled ID card and airport security personnel are equipped with a reader that can verify or disprove a match.

Right now, people whose name is on the list and want redress — including Souder’s colleague, Rep. John Lewis , D-Ga. — have to give the Transportation Security Administration detailed personal information that is used to verify that they are not the unwelcome person.

When a determination is made that the person is not a terrorist threat, they are given a number they can provide to airport security when they are misidentified. The number is designed to lead screeners back to a footnote in the database that indicates the person has been cleared. Very rarely are names removed from the database, because in most cases there is still a person out there who goes by the same name and is believed to be a terrorist.

According to members of the House Homeland Security Committee, the redress process has yet to run efficiently and numerous lawmakers have demanded better results.

TSA says that a domestic travel screening program, known as Secure Flight, will help to clear up many instances of misidentification because the agency will take over watch list responsibilities — including updating the list — from airlines. While Secure Flight will begin implementation next year, Souder is not convinced it can address misidentification or security vulnerabilities as well as biometric cards can.

“Without biometrics, the problem that the government has is huge,” Souder said at a Nov. 8 House Homeland Security Committee hearing. “Somebody could steal my ID [and] if I’ve been on a list, and got myself off a list, then it becomes a protected name on the list.”

The result is a large security vulnerability because a terrorist who gets on a flight using a cleared person’s information and redress number slips through the system, he said.

In addition to helping to create an adequate redress process and greater security for airline passengers, Souder said biometrically enabled ID cards would help other homeland security agencies to perform their functions better:

• Immigration and Customs Enforcement could go into American companies and accurately ensure that they are not employing illegal residents.

• Customs and Border Protection could accurately identify people attempting to enter the country via a land or sea port of entry.

• State and local police could identify potential threats when they are enforcing traffic and other domestic laws.

• Bank tellers could ensure that legitimate people are the ones removing or adding money to an account.

Forcing the Future

Souder said he is considering drafting a bill that would give financial incentives or direct funding to states that include biometrics when implementing the Real ID Act (PL 109-13).

The 2005 law requires states to comply with minimum security standards for issuing driver’s licenses or identification cards or risk having those IDs cease to be accepted for boarding flights or entering federal buildings.

But, beyond that, he recognizes that the forces aligned against biometrics will make it difficult to make any bold moves for the time being.

“Politically it is not palatable yet because a lot of people don’t yet see why they should be inconvenienced just because people are stealing IDs and illegals are coming into America,” Souder said in a phone interview. “A lot of American citizens are jumpy about this for fear that we are going to identify other things, like that they skipped child support payments. [But] having fingerprints, one eye ball or a biometric indicator is the only solution because whatever we keep devising short-term is going to break down eventually.”

Souder says he is taking a patient approach, assuming time and circumstance are on his side.

He is confident that circumstances will change the attitudes most Americans have towards biometrics, and noted that as many as 70 percent of Republicans in Congress now favor their use.

Incidents that are likely to change peoples’ opinions include discrimination lawsuits brought against companies employing suspected illegal immigrants or a crush of misidentification problems at airports with the terrorist watch list, Souder said. There is also the possibility that another major terrorist attack could involve the use of fake IDs, as the attacks of Sept. 11 did.

Matthew M. Johnson can be reached at mjohnson@cq.com.