Slashdot Mirror


RFID Tags in Law Enforcement

RFID tags seem to be the flavor of the month for law enforcement officials in the tracking of individuals both foreign and domestic. pin_gween writes "In an effort to speed up entry to the US, The Dept. of Homeland Security has begun a trial using RFID tags in certain visitors' papers. The tag is embedded in paperwork and "chip readers note the entry or exit of visitors who pass by and transmit that information to a government-maintained database." In addition, Saeed al-Sahaf writes "Security officials gathered Monday at a Canadian border crossing to mark the first test of this radio RFID system" Relatedly LexNaturalis writes "Wired News has an article about England testing RFID chips in license plates that can transmit VINs and other data to appropriate receivers. According to the article, the United States will be 'closely watching the British trial as they contemplate initiating their own tests of the plates, which incorporate radio frequency identification, or RFID, tags to make vehicles electronically trackable.' Naturally privacy advocates are decrying the move by stating that unlike electronic toll passes, these new plates will not be anonymous." We mentioned the concept of tracking visitors via RFID in July.

13 of 290 comments (clear)

  1. Yes. Be RFID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
  2. Unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    RFIDs can be swapped. If people aren't comparing them to the documents and verifying the identity by other means before entry into the central database, these RFIDs can be used to actually fool and interfere with person tracking. If they are being compared, those other means are the better, more efficient, and not unnecessarily redundant means to track people. So, in summary, this is unnecessary. RFID tags at the border solve no problems and actually create more. But it does fund a specific business, so Congress will gladly fund it for the campaign kickbacks.

  3. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by w98 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah maybe, but do you know how much it's gonna cost to keep my entire car wrapped in tinfoil?! :o)

  4. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Tracking vehicles with RFID may not so bad - after all vehicles have licence plates...

    RFID tracking PEOPLE on the other hand is worrysome.
    In my opinion, it should take some real effort to track vehicles. The Government shouldn't just be able to keep tabs on people with the push of a button. They are entitled to privacy, and if there is some compelling reason to authorize surveillance then the organization being granted permission to do so should have to actually take on the burden to do so. People should not be expected to simply allow themselves to be tracked just because certain bureaucrats feel that it is in their exclusive interests to do so.

    Then again, I also believe that the government shouldn't be allowed to keep any information on an otherwise-law-abiding person whatsoever beyond that used in exchanges with that individual. This means that I personally would want them to have a file for my voter registration, my tax history, notation of the presence of a driver's license, notation of ownership of land if any, and notation of things like social security, medicare, or any other non-standard service that is used by the person. Beyond that, nothing else that I do is any of their business at all.
    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  5. Hello Big Brother by pin_gween · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Watch out Speeders if the RF plates become a reality. Sensors along roads take your position, computers extrapolate speed and two days later you get your ticket in in the mail.

    And Big Brother Watching you? You wouldn't even need the software predictions mentioned a few weeks ago -- just follow the RF tag around town

    --
    Ignorance is not a crime; neither should it be a way of life

    Congress control $ = inmates run the asylum
  6. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Informative

    What's more worrysome is, people seem to have forgotten that most of the 9/11 terrorists had valid passports. With this new measure in place, they'd have valid RFID-enabled passport and a chance to pass security faster, so they're a little less jet-lagged when they arrive at the hotel.

    I'm really beginning to wonder why nobody points out the fact that all these security measures just aren't any use to catch determined terrorists. My personal conviction is that companies who market those "anti-terrorism" devices are making a fat buck out of the whole deal, and they share the proceeds with the politicians who approve of these things. It disgusts me more and more each time I look at it...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  7. RFID Security by ndansmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here is a piggy back question: If you were going to implement a large-scale RFID system (let's say license plates in California), how would you address the issues of fraud, hacking, etc.? It seems to me that RFID would be an attractive taget for hackers (both for proof-of-concept and malicious purposes). Do you encrypt the data being transmitted by the RFID? How do you protect the privacy of the RFIDed people? Knowing that someone could use this technology along with several receivers to triangulate any vehicle's position and therefore follow it without-a-trace, how would you protect this sort of criminal (or law enforcement) abuse?

  8. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The war on terrorism isn't about catching terrorists, or preventing attacks. The war on terrorism is simply about stripping people of their rights, and keeping them from noticing how corrupt their government gotten.

    --
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    Laziness is the father.
  9. Re:RFID in plates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Instead of requiring RFID in plates, why don't we create a car tracker system that is totally opt-in. The people who want it, pay for it themselves. No government intervention necessary. We could even run a company based on this idea. I propse we name the company Lojack

  10. Re:RFID in plates by hypnagogue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because car thieves are not bright enough to change license plates? Sorry, RFID tags in license plates can only serve to track law abiding citizens -- they are simply too easy for criminals to circumvent.

    --
    Liberty you never use is liberty you lose.
  11. RFID tags on our elected officials by ScooterBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why not go the extra mile and put RFID tags on cops, judges, politicians, doctors, bankers, pharmacists, etc.

    Then publish their whereabouts on a googlized map system. Now when you need a doctor or a cop, you know where to go. When there's an accusation of corruption or impropriety, you can check the map logs and see if Congressman Joe "show me the money" Smith was visiting the local corporate ganstas. I think this idea has merits.

  12. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Sheetrock · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't know where the line of thinking comes from on things like RFID or recent overbearing legislation that suggests that the only people who have a right to express concern about potential abuses must have already suffered a direct and forceful negative experience as a result of said technology or legislation.

    In my case, you're quite likely correct that nobody that would have access to these tools would care about tracking me, personally, throughout my day. But do consider the possibility of a small town or two where the local enforcement occasionally finds itself poking in everybody's business, perhaps sweeping parking lots of bars where "odd" people hang out or looking for out-of-towners to ticket.

    And then even figuring I'm a pretty uninteresting individual, take into account that protestors and politicians aren't. If this gets integrated in any way with traffic cameras or toll booths or they decide to toss routine scans from a cruiser into a log, the information could be used to quash dissent or held over our representatives to steer their decisions. Who knows how long this information is retained for, either? Ten years down the road you might run for office only to have logs of your vehicle regularly parked outside a porn shop turn up in the paper from an anonymous source.

    What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't have to directly affect us to affect us. It's a threat, albeit one still waiting for implementation to demonstrate how benign or dangerous it is to our privacy. It also seems redundant in light of license plates, except for the fact that it would make casual electronic scans of masses of vehicles much easier than visually inspecting each plate.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




  13. It has *no* privacy problems: the gov't says so. by geekotourist · · Score: 4, Informative
    From a post from the last time Slashdot covered this story:

    The Department of Homeland Security has a Privacy Assessment of this program. Guess what? It has no privacy implications.

    • The information can only be shared with "...other agencies at the federal, state, local, foreign, or tribal level, who are lawfully engaged in collecting law enforcement information (whether civil or criminal) and national security intelligence information and/or who are investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing civil and/or criminal laws, related rules, regulations, or orders." "The Privacy Act SORNs for the systems on which US-VISIT draws provide notice as to the conditions of disclosure and routine uses for the information collected by US-VISIT. Any disclosure by DHS must be compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected."
    • The tag only contains an unencrypted number, and only the very limited number of groups above would have access to the information.
    • The tag can't be used to ID someone as a visitor because the DHS has contemplated this problem. Thus problem solved... "it is contemplated that the unencrypted RFID tag number will not be structured in such a way that it can be used to identify the individual as a non-immigrant."(pg 15)How exactly? Will everyone soon be carrying an RFID, so the visitor won't stand out?
    • And of course it can't be used for surveillance, as "There is also a low risk that the RFID tag could be used to conduct surreptitious locational surveillance of an individual; i.e., to use the presence of the tag to follow an individual as he or she moves about in the U.S. However, ensuring that RFID tag numbers do not exhibit properties that can be readily attributed to US-VISIT and using a limited radio frequency range effectively mitigates this risk. The design process is also taking into account methods of reducing eavesdropping and skimming possibilities." (pg 15). Reducing the "possibilities" by sticking their fingers into their ears and singing "La la la" each time a new tech groups shows them ever longer read ranges.
    • And most importantly it doesn't affect US Citizens, because the document doesn't mention them. Never mind that every traveler in the car must be identified in order to separate the residents and citizens from visitors (by definition). They'll now know who you're associating with as you travel.
    As I said last time...

    I'm now going to "contemplate" that being asked for "your papers, please" and being tracked every time I enter and leave my country, that there is no more "If" in "If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free." doesn't change our rights (4th Amendment anyone? it says "Persons") in the US. Whooohoo, I'm ever so much safer! [btw, that's one of the best essays on why privacy is a necessary and fundamental right in a free society. He warns Canadians not to give up what the U.S. has already lost. Worth reading.]