For many years, there has been a debate in the United States about establishing a "national identity system:" a way to establish, accurately, reliably, and securely, the identity of any person within the U.S. borders. Such a system would allow individuals to prove who they are and would allow legally authorized officials to determine the identity of others. In the course of this debate, many social and technological issues have been identified that would need to be addressed before such a system could be implemented.

A national ID system could be used for a variety of purposes--voter registration, tracking of suspected criminals, accurate distribution of government benefits, among many others--but you should distinguish these potential uses of a national ID system (some of which may be good, some of which may not) from the fundamental, primary goal of the system, which is to determine (accurately, reliably, securely) who somebody is.

Your assignment is to propose, in about five double-spaced pages, the design of a national ID system that will achieve this primary goal. The system you design will be a "socio-technical system," including laws, various organizations, cultural influences, and (possibly) technology; technology is not its main focus. You will inform yourself about the relevant issues (some required and suggested readings are included below), determine which issues you feel are most important to address, consider carefully the social and technical aspects of these important issues, and based on that consideration design a system that achieves the primary goal. Your grade depends mainly on how well your proposed system meets that primary goal of identifying people. You need not fully address all the uses of a national ID system, though some uses may help you illustrate or describe features of your proposed system.

(Some of you may be opposed to the entire idea of a national ID system, but this assignment is not to argue or analyze whether or not such a system should be implemented. In this case the decision has been made to implement the system; your task is to design the least objectionable system that meets the primary goal. It's not uncommon in the workplace to be asked to implement something that you don't entirely agree with, and being involved in the design helps you influence it in the direction you prefer. Of course, if your opposition is so strong that it becomes such a moral or ethical issue that you'd resign your job rather than propose any design at all, talk with us.)

Your proposal should analyze the social, organizational, risk, and technological aspects of the system, addressing many of the issues listed below.

Social aspects: To guide the design of your system, you will need to identify the stakeholders, their needs, their goals, and the risks their interest creates for your system. However, you will not describe your stakeholder analysis in your paper. This is different from the first writing assignment, where a large part of what you wrote was the stakeholder analysis. But in this assignment, while you must do the analysis to design your system, your paper will focus on the design, applying your analysis rather than just describing it.

These are some issues to consider: the balance between the privacy needs of individuals and the legitimate needs of society (you'll need to decide what society's needs are); safety and reliability (potential abuses and how to prevent them); compliance with the U.S. Constitution; who will control various aspects of the system (who maintains the physical part, who controls the flow of information through the system, who determines the policies that the system implements); who exercises oversight authority (not who runs the system, but who makes sure the system is run properly); how public trust in a national ID system might be earned and maintained.

Organizational, structural, and operational aspects: Should the system be centralized, distributed, or something in between? Should it be administered by a governmental organization, a commercial one, a NPO/NGO (non-profit or non-governmental organization), or some combination? Who will pay for which aspects of the system? (Don't do a cost analysis or estimate, but don't be wasteful, either.) What identity information is collected into the system; how is it entered, maintained, and updated; who will be responsible for this?

Risk aspects: What are the potential impacts and consequences of your proposed design for the identified stakeholders? Which risks are most important, and how might they be mitigated? Does the design treat some identifiable segments of the population differently from others (and if so, how might that be resolved)?

Technological aspects: Proposals should not focus on describing the details of specific technologies, but rather on how those technologies can support the structure and operation of the entire proposed system. Proposers can assume that suitable cryptographic technologies will be provided by the U.S. government; proposals need not describe details of cryptographic technologies. Any specific technology mentioned in the proposal should include a citation to a credible source that describes that technology. If a specific aspect or detail of a technology provides support for a particular point in the proposal, the proposal may include that detail with a citation. Citations may be Web URLs, but we encourage you to keep a copy of the referenced site(s) in case a question about the technology arises and the page has disappeared.

Of course you can't address every relevant issue in five pages, so you will have to determine what arguments best support your proposal and focus on presenting those arguments. As always, there is no "right answer;" your grade will depend on how well you inform yourself of the relevant issues, determine an approach or design that achieves the primary goal and addresses the major issues, craft an argument or justification supporting your approach, support your argument with citations from credible sources, and express yourself clearly, completely, and succinctly.

Stage I: Report on your approach (outline due July 16)

In this course you have already seen many tools of social analysis that you can apply to this assignment; you should be able to focus on informing yourself about the issues surrounding this topic. Below are listed some Web URLs that are sources of information, both pro and con, that can help you at this stage. Of course you are not limited to these sources.

Decide on the proposal you will make and what arguments support your design choices. Then draft a two- to three-page outline of your proposal and your supporting arguments, identifying the issues you will address and how you intend to address them. Develop at least two of these issues in some detail; at this stage you may treat additional issues more briefly.

This outline is due on paper at the beginning of class on Thursday, July 16, and electronically (to Masterhit and also to submit.ics.uci.edu).

Be sure to keep your graded outline; you will turn it in with the later stages.

Stage II: Write your proposal (due July 22)

You may present your proposal in memo form or as a more generic report. In either case, it must include an executive summary (of 125 words or fewer) and it must clearly present your argument and the points that support it. This version should be five to seven double-spaced pages in 10- or 12-point type.

Remember that this is an academic paper and should reflect your "academic voice" (semi-formal language and correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation). Writing that doesn't follow the standards for academic communication diminishes the effectiveness of your argument. If this proposal were for a fifty-million-dollar contract to implement your system, you wouldn't want to alienate or confuse or distract the reader from the fundamental quality of your approach, and you shouldn't want to do that for your coursework, either.

This version will be graded; the TA will make comments and suggest improvements. Your grade for this part will count 30% of your grade on the whole assignment, so it pays to do as well as you can at this point. On Monday, July 22, turn in:

Be sure to keep your graded proposal; you will turn it in again with the final version.

On July 25 and 26, the TA will schedule one-on-one meetings to discuss the suggested revisions.

Stage III: Revise your proposal (due July 30)

Your final, revised proposal should address any issues identified in the grading of your previous version. Besides the executive summary, it must include appropriate citations (either on a separate "Works Cited" page or as footnotes). It should be five to seven pages long, double-spaced, not counting the citations. On July 30, turn in:

The July 30 date, even more than the others, is firm; please plan to turn in what you have completed on that date.

Other important advice: Going back to read the good advice on the voting assignment sheet would be a good idea. Also don't forget the other guidelines on the "Writing Assignment Requirements" sheet.

References to help you get started: These three are required.

  1. Kent, Stephen J. and Millett, Lynnette I. "IDs--Not That Easy: Questions About Nationwide Identity Systems." Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council. 2002. Executive Summary (pre-print): http://books.nap.edu/books/030908430X/html/1.html .

  2. Why Fear National ID Cards?, by Alan M. Dershowitz (NY Times, 2001.10.13) (attached)

  3. Anonymous. Rethinking National IDs. (attached) [Note: Do not use this article for citation; it is for background only, to help broaden your thinking.]

Suggested references:

  1. Get Over It: National IDs are on the Way, http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=722&a=20189,00.asp

  2. EPIC Identity Card Archive, http://www.epic.org/privacy/id_cards/

  3. National Identification Card Systems, http://www.acm.org/usacm/National.htm

  4. National ID Card Gaining Support, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52300-2001Dec16.html

  5. Ex-Lawmakers Endorse National I.D. System, http://www.securityfocus.com/news/286

  6. National Identification Schemes (NIDS) and the Fight against Terrorism: Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.cpsr.org/program/natlID/natlIDfaq.html

  7. Think a National ID System Is Too Costly? Think Again, http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/16_18/cover/17550-1.html

  8. National ID Card System Failing to Attract Supporters, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-102401idcards.story

Why Fear National ID Cards?

by Alan M. Dershowitz

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- At many bridges and tunnels across the country, drivers avoid long delays at the toll booths with an unobtrusive device that fits on a car's dashboard. Instead of fumbling for change, they drive right through; the device sends a radio signal that records their passage. They are billed later. It's a tradeoff between privacy and convenience: the toll-takers know more about you -- when you entered and left Manhattan, for instance -- but you save time and money.

An optional national identity card could be used in a similar way, offering a similar kind of tradeoff: a little less anonymity for a lot more security. Anyone who had the card could be allowed to pass through airports or building security more expeditiously, and anyone who opted out could be examined much more closely.

As a civil libertarian, I am instinctively skeptical of such tradeoffs. But I support a national identity card with a chip that can match the holder's fingerprint. It could be an effective tool for preventing terrorism, reducing the need for other law-enforcement mechanisms -- especially racial and ethnic profiling -- that pose even greater dangers to civil liberties.

I can hear the objections: What about the specter of Big Brother? What about fears of identity cards leading to more intrusive measures? (The National Rifle Association, for example, worries that a government that registered people might also decide to register guns.) What about fears that such cards would lead to increased deportation of illegal immigrants?

First, we already require photo ID's for many activities, including flying, driving, drinking and check-cashing. And fingerprints differ from photographs only in that they are harder to fake. The vast majority of Americans routinely carry photo ID's in their wallets and pocketbooks. These ID's are issued by state motor vehicle bureaus and other public and private entities. A national card would be uniform and difficult to forge or alter. It would reduce the likelihood that someone could, intentionally or not, get lost in the cracks of multiple bureaucracies.

The fear of an intrusive government can be addressed by setting criteria for any official who demands to see the card. Even without a national card, people are always being asked to show identification. The existence of a national card need not change the rules about when ID can properly be demanded. It is true that the card would facilitate the deportation of illegal immigrants. But President Bush has proposed giving legal status to many of the illegal immigrants now in this country. And legal immigrants would actually benefit from a national ID card that could demonstrate their status to government officials.

Finally, there is the question of the right to anonymity. I don't believe we can afford to recognize such a right in this age of terrorism. No such right is hinted at in the Constitution. And though the Supreme Court has identified a right to privacy, privacy and anonymity are not the same. American taxpayers, voters and drivers long ago gave up any right of anonymity without loss of our right to engage in lawful conduct within zones of privacy. Rights are a function of experience, and our recent experiences teach that it is far too easy to be anonymous -- even to create a false identity -- in this large and decentralized country. A national ID card would not prevent all threats of terrorism, but it would make it more difficult for potential terrorists to hide in open view, as many of the Sept. 11 hijackers apparently managed to do.

A national ID card could actually enhance civil liberties by reducing the need for racial and ethnic stereotyping. There would be no excuse for hassling someone merely because he belongs to a particular racial or ethnic group if he presented a card that matched his print and that permitted his name to be checked instantly against the kind of computerized criminal-history retrieval systems that are already in use. (If there is too much personal information in the system, or if the information is being used improperly, that is a separate issue. The only information the card need contain is name, address, photo and print.)

From a civil liberties perspective, I prefer a system that takes a little bit of freedom from all to one that takes a great deal of freedom and dignity from the few -- especially since those few are usually from a racially or ethnically disfavored group. A national ID card would be much more effective in preventing terrorism than profiling millions of men simply because of their appearance.

[New York Times, 13 October 2001]