Slashdot Mirror


American Passports to Have RFID Chips

pr1000 writes "Wired is reporting that the State Department is planned on adding RFID chips to new American passports, starting with diplomat's passports in January. Those worried about the privacy concerns of RFID should take notice, as this rollout could set a precedent."

7 of 668 comments (clear)

  1. Or, on the other hand for target selection by kentmartin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me get this straight. Assume I am a bad guy. If I want to find an American overseas - particularly in a country where carrying a passport is mandatory, how am I going to go about it?

    To take it one step further, if I am wifi'd into a database somehow, I can even do a few smarts and identify a "better" target (wealthier, public figure etc).

    I carry an Australian passport and it will not shock me when "the Clever Country" bends over and does what the Americans do - yet again!

    1. Re:Or, on the other hand for target selection by forii · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I simply told him, "Stay on this train for about 4 hours, and it will reach manchester!"

      What i didnt tell him, was the train in concern is the "Circle Line" which simply runs around london in a loop!!!!! {EVIL GRIN}


      So rather than inform an obvious newcomer to your country of this fact, you instead took the chance to be an asshole. And your country is better...how?

  2. Re:ID... by Tjebbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The difference is that with current passports, you have to show it, which has to be asked, and which you can refuse, so you have the ability to choose to accept the consequences of not showing your passport. With rfid tags it can be done without you even knowing it, and thus without you agreeing to.

  3. Re:ID... by gowen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But you get to choose who to show your passport to. Anyone can read RFID information, as long as they can get reasonably close to you.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  4. No enyryption of the data by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the article:
    Security experts said the U.S. government decided not to encrypt the data because of the risks involved in sharing the method of decryption with other countries.

    And those very same security "experts" obviously don't know that there are methods for secure encryption known throughout the world even now? You don't need to be an expert to know that!

    And no, I can't see any other explanation. It cannot be the possibility of unallowed reading of the data: That's even easier if the data isn't encrypted at all. And it cannot be the possibility of making forged passports: Having data not encrypted makes this not any harder than having it encrypted with a known encryption.

    Even in the worst case scenario, when the decryption key was made public by some other state, the situation couldn't get worse than without any encryption at all. Of course, the USA could just decide not to give the key (or any specification at all) to countries they don't trust. Those countries would then just have to do what they do now: Rely on the non-RFID portion of the passport (which is currently all that is in a passport).

    So there is really no excuse to store unencrypted data on the RFID chip.
    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  5. Re:Bruce Schneier by stoney27 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok you wait in line to have your passport checked. I will happily go threw the reader with my passport safely on my person. With a little green light that says it is OK for me to enter the US or even other countries.


    Of course nothing stopping me from walking up to the reader and opening my shielded case and walking through.

    But while you walk around with a non shield RFID the CIA will know exactly who you are and able to add notes to your passport with out your knowledge.
    -S

    --

    It is said that a child learns wisdom from the parent,
    but the truly wise parent learns joy from the child
  6. Re:What's the fuss about? by phoenix321 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is not easier to show, but it is a *lot* harder to hide. That's the point why everyone is making such a fuss around this issue, I think.

    Today, you carry some form of ID, be it driver's license in the US, a national ID in Europe or whatever. You are most of the time obliged to show this piece of ID to law enforcement officers if they ask for.

    Either the officer authenticates him/herself with his badge, a similar ID item or just the entire appearance along with police equipment and police car. So in 99% of all cases, I know when my ID is checked and by whom and I'm sure it was read by real officers on duty or someone is going to jail for posing as one.

    With RFID, none of us can ever know if we were checked, let alone by whom. If that person was really authorized by law and duty to check us, we can only pray for. We want to hide our ID from anyone's eyes who has not identified himself as a lawful officer on duty. With RFID it is hardly possible.

    If the regular police cannot or does not perform simple duties in plain sight, with proper uniform, without hiding the officers identity behind something, having the officers armed only with the law and a baton, our society as a whole is in trouble. Riot shields, handcuffs and a low power hand gun may be necessary at times, but cable ties, fully automatic rifles, masks are certainly unacceptable for me. Special units can have them, but regular policemen and -women should not. Hidden and unnoticed checks for unsuspecting passer-bys performed by guess-who are totally out of question.

    Law enforcement should not use mobster tactics. Should not be armed like mobsters, should not act like them. This may give criminals and terrorists an advantage, but it is the only way to make sure we can distinguish between officers and mobsters. If we allow the police to act like the mob, guess how long it takes for these two to merge...