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.

Comments

Yes. Be RFID

[Anonymous Coward]

Be VERY RFID

Unnecessary

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Vehicle Tracking?

[TWX]

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.

Re:Vehicle Tracking?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

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...

Re:Vehicle Tracking?

[Sheetrock]

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.