Slashdot Mirror


RFID Passports Cloned Without Opening the Package

Jeremy writes to tell us that using some simple deduction, a security consultant discovered how to clone a passport as it's being mailed to its recipient, without ever opening the package. "But the key in this first generation of biometric passport is relatively easy to identify/crack. It is not random, but consists of passport number, the passport holder's date of birth and the passport expiry date. The Mail found it relatively easy to identify the holder's date of birth, while the expiry date is 10 years from the issue date, which for a newly-delivered passport would clearly fall within a few days. The passport number consists of a number of predictable elements, including an identifier for the issuing office, so effectively a significant part of the key can be reconstructed from the envelope and its address label."

43 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. Ohhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    10 seconds in the microwave sounds about right!

    1. Re:Ohhh by mdm-adph · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've heard smashing it with a hammer works just as well, and it doesn't invalidate the passport. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this!

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    2. Re:Ohhh by kpainter · · Score: 2

      That sounds like an excellent idea to me, seriously. I wonder what the effect of doing that would be on the user though?

    3. Re:Ohhh by db32 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Temporal hammer? You would have to smash it before you get it.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    4. Re:Ohhh by Sunburnt · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not sure about the effects on a UK passport holder, but you can still use a U.S. passport if the RFID is disabled. The only advantage of having one seems to be shorter lines at Immigration. (Which isn't true yet, at least at LAX as of two weeks ago. They're probably waiting for more people to get the new passports before they set up the equipment.)

      --
      Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
    5. Re:Ohhh by misterhypno · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't matter if YOU disable the chip, because it can be cloned BEFORE THE OWNER EVER GETS THE FRENORKING THING!!

      If you read the article, the cloning took place while it was IN TRANSIT TO the intended receipient - which means that ANYONE getting a Passport through the mail could have their Passport cloned BEFORE they ever GET it.

      Without the package that the Passport is shipped in EVER BEING OPENED!

      Try reading for content next time.

      So, even if you disable the RFID after you GET it, the thing has been compromised BEFORE you ever get your hands ON it!

      RFID = Real Fast Identity Destruction... courtesy of Homeland Security and the rest of the paranoids who don't understand technology up on the Hill who probably think that RFID is "totally tubular, man! Like the internets!"

      And I will bet long odds that this post gets me audited - again - too.

    6. Re:Ohhh by Clazzy · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can see it now, get an RFID-enabled passport and get a tin foil hat for free!

      --
      If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards... Checkmate.
  2. Does anyone remember Press Your Luck? by Aurelfell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It was the game show with the Whammies that stole your money. As I recall, there was a guy who watched the show long enough that he figured out a pattern that would let him win every time. He played for like three days, and won a crazy amount of money. The show went of the air, but I remember reading that the programmers who created the game board offered to make it 'true random' for another $600, and the network refused to pay it.

    This article reminds me of that story.

    1. Re:Does anyone remember Press Your Luck? by rufey · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yes, this really did happen on Press Your Luck. The contestant was Michael Larson. He had spent quite a bit of time before appearing on the show analyzing how the different squares on the board flashed and in what sequence. He managed to win over $100,000 USD on the show.

      More can be found at Snopes and at Wikipedia.

    2. Re:Does anyone remember Press Your Luck? by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Off the topic of TFA, more info relating to Michael Larson (the PYL contestant mentioned in the post above) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Your_Luck#Micha el_Larson and http://gscentral.net/larsen.htm

  3. Packaging by Radon360 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I guess they should have considered mailing them inside a sealed aluminum foil pouch inside the envelope. Not that something like that would stop all of the other vulnerabilities, however.

    1. Re:Packaging by VorpalRodent · · Score: 2, Insightful
      In every article we've seen on this, there is always the discussion of the government's position of "no one can read it if it's closed". What happened to that? I don't recall my passport arriving opened inside the pouch.

      This implies, at least to me, that there is no security whatsoever protecting it from being read, closed or open. Are we to believe that this is seriously the best that they could come up with?

      --
      Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
    2. Re:Packaging by Sunburnt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In every article we've seen on this, there is always the discussion of the government's position of "no one can read it if it's closed". What happened to that? I don't recall my passport arriving opened inside the pouch.
      Mine did, actually, but the article is referring to the U.K. passports. Different kind of RFID on the U.S. models, and the cover is definitely a different (and thicker) material than the older passports.
      --
      Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
  4. Same old Daily Mail by goldaryn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the Daily Mail article: "More significantly, we had the details which would allow a fraudster, people trafficker or illegal immigrant* to set up a new life in Britain. The criminal could open a bank account, claim state benefits and undertake a myriad financial and legal transactions in someone else's name. "

    So basically, exactly what goes on now, except for the new false sense of security. Great!

    * I knew they'd bring this up

    1. Re:Same old Daily Mail by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I knew they'd bring this up

      You know, it's not just governments concerned about illegal immigration. It's residents, too. Illegal immigration does help keep prices low, but it also helps drive down wages by reducing the value of laborers.

      As such, they would be remiss in not mentioning it, as it is of interest to their readership.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Same old Daily Mail by Cinnamon+Whirl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And shouldn't they have? Immigration is Britains #1 problem. +4 insightful for that? He didn't even say "illegal immigration", he said "immigration"! And even then, that wouldn't be insightful: various factors are a play in any social situation, so a one line summary of "Britain's problems" shouldn't cut it.
    3. Re:Same old Daily Mail by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First off, you need to look at the jobs they do.

      Having grown up in Santa Cruz, which is in a highly agricultural area, and now living in Kelseyville, which is/was the Pear capital of the world (lots of pears coming out and grapes going in these days though) I'm pretty highly aware of the jobs they do.

      I do know that in the US, there are farms that can not get american laborers at over 10 bucks an hour with benefits.

      What? That sentence doesn't really say anything. There are no farms, for example, that could not get American laborers at 30 bucks an hour. That's over 10 bucks an hour. Maybe we could revisit this point?

      It's the type of work someone will do day in and day out when setting up a new life.

      I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Lots of people in the US need a new life, too.

      So, that farmer cuold pay more, but they don't have the funds right now, and how much are we willing to buy a potato for?

      Well, that's precisely my point. The farmer needs to charge more in order to pay more. As long as some employers are happy to hire illegals, they can charge less, and that makes them more competitive. So their competitors are forced to do the same thing.

      Consequently we have cheap produce... but it's only cheap at the store. The simple fact is that every taxpayer in America is subsidizing that "cheap" food. We're paying for medical care for these immigrants, for example. Their employers work them part-time or they otherwise do not receive benefits. They do not pay taxes, or if they do pay taxes, their income is underreported and they're using someone else's SSN (in fact one used mine one year, but they reported only a few dollars of income so it didn't actually harm me.) There is also a very real issue with Mexican (in particular) gangs, especially in California. This is not a joke, this is not a made-up problem designed to scare people. It's real, and it's here. And it is largely a result of illegal immigration.

      Now, look at the alternative to illegal immigration. If people are here legally then they can afford to report labor code abuses, because they don't just get kicked out of the country when they interface with the law. So this tends to have the result that people who are worked full-time actually get their benefits, and they have health insurance. So now they no longer need to depend on the taxpayer for medical care.

      Of course, it also has the effect that food appears more expensive on the store shelf, or in the produce aisle, et cetera. But in fact the ACTUAL costs may go down overall! I say "may" because let's face it, I am not an economist, and I have not run the numbers. But I'm also not a complete idiot and I'm capable of understanding simple cause and effect.

      What we have created is a system that encourages unemployment. It reduces not only the total number of jobs, but also the number of jobs capable of supporting a family. Wouldn't it be better if food cost a little more, or in some cases even a lot more, and the actual cost were reflected directly at the store shelf?

      Looking at the history of migrant labor, the US was a lot better off when migrant laborers went backa nd forth across the border. It was when it became really difficult to go back did we start to see problems.

      That's not really true. We only see different problems now. One issue is that we the US have constantly sought to degrade the quality of life south of the border in order to protect our pool of ready and willing labor. NAFTA, for example, was simply another way to fuck over the Mexicans. And now that manufacturing is cheaper in other countries, we just take whatever is valuable (even for scrap) and abandon the factories to sit and rust on the polluted ground we left them on, and move our manufacturing, so that Mexico really gets nothing out of it. But long be

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Same old Daily Mail by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Funny

      And shouldn't they have? Immigration is Britains #1 problem.

      You seem to be forgetting national dental care, the horrible rise of drug abuse, particularly among the working class and the minorities, the removal of troops from Northern Ireland, the parking situation in Benchley, and preventing Liam Gallagher from leaving Oasis.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    5. Re:Same old Daily Mail by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For some reason, all the high quality stuff - tools, appliances, etc. come from Germany.

      My dad makes the assertion that at least in cars, the germans believe that good components make a good car, whereas the japanese believe that it's good system design that makes the difference. These days, though, both BMWs and Mercedes are big pieces of shit, and VW actually makes a more reliable car. So obviously things are a-movin' and a-shakin' over there.

      The Germans DO seem to make the best tools around, though, still. And they make great kitchen appliances :)

      Boo to all the American companies who have sacrificed their reputation / name with crappy quality cheesy products made in China, eliminating jobs here in America.

      Well, they would have made crap here in America, too. It would just have been more expensive crap.

      Boo to all the big-box retailers who think that people only want crappy products. Boo to consumers who put up with that crap and supported this behavior by shopping at Walmart and their ilk while watching all their manufacturing jobs disappear.

      Well, this is where I have to part company with you, more about the former than the latter. The big-box retailers don't just think that, they know it, because people buy the cheap crap over the well-made product in almost every situation. A lot of that is that your warranty doesn't mean shit, so you might as well buy some shit. Most consumer electronics these days have what, a 90 day warranty? Wal-Mart will give me that! So why spend $500 for the good shit when I can spend $100 and get the same warranty?

      Since the retailers know it, the manufacturers know it too, and they focus on making cheap crap.

      As for the consumers shopping at wal-mart, I think the real problem is one of overconsumption. The government wants us all to consume, because it's good for the economy. Problem is, it's not good for us, and when we're all fucked, so will the economy be. Or vice versa - did you know the US dollar and Canadian dollar have reached parity? That is some scary shit if you live in the USA.

      But anyway, without overconsumption we would have more money to spend carefully on our purchases, but you can go out any day of the week and see people below the US poverty line pushing their baby in a $300 stroller. The baby is wearing $100 sneakers. They get into a new car which they'll be making payments on long after the car is a pile of shit...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. One of the problems with RFID by StewedSquirrel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the primary problems with RFID is that it is "wireless" in nature. It is also designed to be "simplistic" for the simple case of economic savings.

    While it is a great technology for information such as Barcode scanning and inventory tracking, its use in biometrics, identification and access controls is less secure. Transmitting significant and irrevocable information in an RFID pulse is irresponsible.

    Where a barcode is ubiquitous and the concept of "stealing" it is silly, and even where the ID number of a "proxmity card" employee ID badge is easily revocable, information stored on a passport, such as biometrics, permanent identification numbers and the like are not revocable.

    If you have such a passport, it is advisable that you either fry the RFID chip (i am not responsible for the legal issues surrounding it) or you store your passport in a metal safe, where RF cannot pass. There are already bags on the market with an integrated faraday cage, it is not entirely practical to keep your RFID identity perpetually in this bag while traveling (not to mention the headache at the airport screening area with a metal-laced bag).

    In short, this new RFID identity system is one of the most ill-advised and potentially dangerous (vulnerable to easy identity theft) systems in recent history, and is simply ASKING for people to duplicate it, while providing no benefit other than the government control ("papers please") that it demands.

    Stewed

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
    1. Re:One of the problems with RFID by Sandbags · · Score: 4, Interesting

      RFID may be easy to copy or crack, but someone gets that info on their screen and still validates it against the hard copy when entering/exiting using a passport. You don't just wave it and go on... Passport information by itself is not enough to steal someone's identity or bank account. You still need physical proof. This first pass with RFID is simply making data tracking easier. It was not designed to be secure, just difficult to completely copy or forge. A truly secure passport system would have to include fingerprinting, pass codes, facial scanning technology, or some other system to prove the identity of the bearer. Of course, the RFID could not be responsible to pass that information, it would likely merely possess some simply information allowing it to access a secure database system that actually contains the remainder of the data. That data could be on a government server, or even an integrated SIM in the passport itself requiring connection to a proprietary system. 3 point data validation would work, but it would be very expensive. You'd still need hard copy for entering nations that do not yet have the technological capacity to electronically scan passports. One solution I hear proposed was that not only would the passport itself have an RFID tag, but also the person himself embedded under the skin, plus the addition of a fingerprint and 6 digit pin number. All 4 would have to match, be combined, and then be compared to a CRC value stored in an international database. All this would be simply for identity confirmation and nothing more, with the FBI and other similar branches still needing to cross validate your identity to your criminal record or a watch list. Are we really that concerned/paranoid?

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    2. Re:One of the problems with RFID by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RFID may be easy to copy or crack, but someone gets that info on their screen and still validates it against the hard copy when entering/exiting using a passport. You don't just wave it and go on... Passport information by itself is not enough to steal someone's identity or bank account. You still need physical proof. This first pass with RFID is simply making data tracking easier. It was not designed to be secure, just difficult to completely copy or forge. A truly secure passport system would have to include fingerprinting, pass codes, facial scanning technology, or some other system to prove the identity of the bearer.

      The question is not just, "Is an RFID passport secure authentication?"
      The question is, in the big picture when all costs and all benefits are accounted for, are RFID passports a good value compared to the previous system?

      The ability to clone a passport that is in a sealed envelope is a significant cost compared to the previous system because it opens up a whole class of attacks that did not exist previously. Factor in other costs, like the direct cost of the equipment upgrades and the inevitable over-reliance on the system by the people who check passports, the risk to American Freedom from ever expanding government and corporate databases with semi-public access, and even the ability to remotely detect a passport's presence without decrypting the contents (the RFID equivalent of walking around with a sign on your back that says "I'm an American, kick my ass") and the cost-benefit ratio of RFID passports starts to look really, really poor.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  6. Because It's a Dumb Chip! by mpapet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know the average /.'er will be up in arms about how insecure the new passport is but it's simply not one of the design goals.

    The primary goal is to have a document that's harder (it's never impossible) to forge and easier to collect and process entry/exits. That's it. End of story.

    It's not a silver bullet. Treating it as such is demanding something you won't ever get.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
    1. Re:Because It's a Dumb Chip! by WinterSolstice · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seems like it's actually *harder*, to process and *easier* to forge though, not easier. Or am I the only one that thinks so?

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    2. Re:Because It's a Dumb Chip! by EdMack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're missing the point. It *is* now easier to forge, since the chip is easily copied without the receiver knowing, and people perceive the chip to be more secure and harder to copy.

      --
      puts ("Python r0cks\n");
    3. Re:Because It's a Dumb Chip! by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The primary goal is to have a document that's harder (it's never impossible) to forge and easier to collect and process entry/exits. That's it. End of story.

      So if you "need" a chip to handle the data, what's wrong with using a CONTACT-read chip like those on credit cards?

      Sticking the passport in a slot is THAT much more inconvenient than waving it over a reader that you have to make the passport subject to drive-by scanning?

      (Just imagine the next generation of "wardrivers". The term might end up being literal.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  7. What about US passports? by Sunburnt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I received one of the new U.S. Passports - the day I handed in my application happened to be the first day of the change, and I had my order expedited, so I have one of the first new passports.

    There's no "chip:" the electronic storage is embedded in the photo page of the passport, among a series of wires covered with laminate. The Department of State says the cover of the new passports prevents RFID scanning when closed, which probably explains why the cover is a different thickness and flexibility than the previous passports.

    Funny thing, though: the passport itself was opened flat in the shipping envelope from the passport center. So, presumably, it could be read. I wonder what sort of security the USDoS is using on these things?

    The article has nothing to do with U.S. passports, since the Brits are using a different RFID mechanism. So, no help there. I wonder how many people read the article summary (which fails to mention this detail - it probably should, since this is a rather U.S.-centric website) without RTFA and are busy microwaving their new U.S. passports?

    --
    Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
  8. Re:Embedded Linux is a major security risk by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow! I did not know that there were any oblivious morons left in the wild.
    What number is on your ear tag? OH! are you one of the rare untagged morons? Where is my camera! National Geographic is gonna pay for a photo of a untagged wild moron!

    hey, come back! this camera won't steal your soul....... dammit.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  9. That's no "security researcher"... by OriginalArlen · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...that's Adam Laurie! The godlike genius of Shepherd's Bush! Seriously though... he's something of a geek hero to me. Dunno why (apart from respect for a fellow-survivor of Bush) -- lots of other people write code and do research, but he just seems like such a nice chap with it.

    --

    Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
  10. Re:So what? by Arker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is this really a big deal?

    Yes.

    The issue with RFID passports would be if they could be forged... it doesn't matter if they can be duplicated.

    A distinction without a difference. An organisation (and it doesn't matter if this is a terrorist group or a run-of-the-mill little mafia type operation) coöpts a few postal employees. Not particularly hard to do. Those employees use a relatively inexpensive piece of equipment to scan the passports that pass through their hands. This is nearly instantaneous, and non-invasive, so good luck noticing that. The passports go right along to their intended recipients with no delay, and no one's the wiser. Yet the organisation now has all the information needed to create forged passports with valid data, which will raise no flags when used and allow their operatives to assume the identity of the citizen. All the supposed security benefits of the plan are gone, in fact, it's worse than old-style passports from a standpoint of security.

    Sure, there's a minor privacy issue if the passport can be read by proximity (how close do you need to be?

    Depends on how good your receiver is. Just because customs will be using an el cheapo setup that needs to be within ten inches to read the signal doesn't mean that no one will be able to construct a better reader. You think that's a *minor* issue? That someone could steal your identity, or detonate a bomb, based on that information without even having to set hands on your passport? Sounds pretty major to me.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  11. RFID passports to be abandonded? by mrtexe · · Score: 2, Informative
    Secretary Chertoff, US Department of Homeland Security: RFID passports to be abandonded.

    That said, it looks like some of these passports are out there already. Secondly, I haven't come across a definitive statement or timeline from DHS as to when RFID passpots will be abandonded.

  12. RFID is not going to save the world by unPlugged-2.0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    As a software developer in the RFID industry and trying to effectively merge open source and RFID I always hear these kinds of things from our clients, slashdotters, family and random people on the street. RFID is insecure, it's the end of the world, we are all going to be puppets, you wouldn't believe the kind of responses I get during thanksgiving.

    And what I tell everyone is RFID is not the end-all technology to solve every identification need. Also there is no one kind of tag so it is silly to say that RFID in and of itself is insecure.

    The truth is that tags can be secure or they can be cheap but very rarely both. It is impossible to be able to have them both with the current economies of scale. The ones used in the passport are most definitely not the high-end tags with memory and cryptographic capabilities. There are some active tags that can do public/private key validation but they also cost a fortune. The governments are going to go with the cheapest version.

    They know full well it is going to be cracked. It is not a big deal as it is not that hard to steal or copy the current passport anyways so they have not really digressed. This was meant to be a pilot (that somehow went into production) to check how efficient it could be and also serve as a vehicle for making further enhancements and putting more data.

    As other slashdotters have pointed out it is still impossible to actually modify the information on the tags. When this is possible then that is really newsworthy because now people can actually change other people's information and wreak havoc.

    But until then there are far easier and cheaper ways to find out someone's Social Security and date of birth on the web.

    1. Re:RFID is not going to save the world by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a software developer in the RFID industry and trying to effectively merge open source and RFID I always hear these kinds of things from our clients, slashdotters, family and random people on the street. RFID is insecure, it's the end of the world, we are all going to be puppets, you wouldn't believe the kind of responses I get during thanksgiving. And what I tell everyone is RFID is not the end-all technology to solve every identification need. Also there is no one kind of tag so it is silly to say that RFID in and of itself is insecure.

      RFID in and of itself causes security problems outside the realm of whether RFID is secure or not.

      It is a simple fact that RFID tags are going in everything. Sooner or later they will be as ubiquitous as UPC codes.

      It is also a fact that RFID tags can be read at a distance with off the shelf hardware.

      It is ALSO a fast that even more RFID tags can be read at a distance with custom hardware.

      It is also a fact that RFID tags are going into the soles of shoes and into tires, both cases in which the tag will be very easily readable because it will be both parallel and close to a flat surface that can easily have an antenna embedded within it.

      It's easy enough to stop people from reading your passport. Put it in a metal case, or even a mylar bag (although the latter may not be proof against it, while the former is pretty damned good.) But what we NEED to be able to stop is to stop the government from tracking where each and every person is during their every waking hour. RFID tags are smaller than grains of rice now. They can trivially be secreted in your clothing. In fact you could disguise them as little bits of grit! No one is going to be surprised at some grit in their pants cuff.

      I think it's quite reasonable to be paranoid about RFID in a world of continual surveillance and when no government has respect for your rights.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:RFID is not going to save the world by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The bottom line is that RFID is not any more secure or any less secure than what you currently have. Do you have a credit card? A bank card? Then you are have already been violated.

      No card in my wallet is remotely readable, at least to the best of my knowledge. You missed the point entirely.

      The RFID used in credit cards and passports are HF (13.56 mhz). The range on these tags is incredibly small. Even with the best equipment you cannot read farther than 6 - 12 inches. You can build a fancy contraption with a huge antenna and power co-efficient but you will probably cause a lot of damage to other components before you are going to increase that range not to mention looking like a walking weather station.

      All that is required is more gain on the receiving side, which in turn requires intelligent filtering and design to have a useful SnR to begin with. Anyway here is an article about a company with a solution currently in the field for reading HF tags at ranges up to ten meters.

      Also, 6-12 inches is enough if you can get people walking through doorways, or walking up and pressing a button on a traffic light, et cetera. You can always also just bump into them and then you can get absolute proximity.

      Also HF is notoriously bad at high speed so it is going to be hard for anyone to track your tires much less to hide an antenna in the ground they are quite fragile too. Also the readers themselves require power, circuitry, and ethernet/wireless conection etc etc blah blah. You can see my point.

      Making the antenna durable is a triviality. You can place it into the road surface at the same place as the metal detector used to see if your car has pulled up to a light. Want to know what RFIDs are in the tires of an upcoming car? Just switch the light at the right time to stop them. And if they run the light, now you can drag them into court and look up their ass with a flashlight.

      I suspect in fact that sooner or later they will devise the technology to use the same loop antenna used to detect your car to read RFID.

      The point is that there are far easier ways to steal information. Take for instance myself. I know quite a bit about RFID, I can get acess to the best RFID equipment but even with all that if I wanted to steal your information I would much rather hold you up (or hire someone else to do it) than to devise an elaborate plot where I would have to monitor your habits and then set up readers in your path so that I can get your information.

      It's not about stealing information via RFID. Get that idea out of your head right now. It's about uniquely identifying people by their RFID tag constellation, and being able to track them. It's one more piece in the "ubiquitous surveillance" puzzle. Just as RFID can't save the world, it can't doom it, either. It's part of the problem.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Re:No No! No! by mpapet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here's the how-to on forging a new passport:

    1. Create a falsified passport jacket capable of holding a chip and antenna.
    2. You embed the _right_ chip with the _right_ number encoded (oh yeah, you need to encode the chip) AND the _right_ antenna required for the chip in your garage into the faked passport jacket.
    3. Create secure paper used in passport.
    4. You'll need to work up all of the print security features.

    It's not trivial, it's not a silver bullet it's not a fake ID you used to buy beer in college. Stop expecting more from the new passport than the design requirements fulfill.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  14. RFID by mypalmike · · Score: 4, Funny

    RFID = Ready For Immediate Duplication?

    --
    There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
  15. I'm a "Law 'n Order Anarchist" by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm a libertarian so now I feel justified in supporting open borders. Having enough money to live in a gated community and owning machine guns is a private matter.

    I, on the other hand, characterize myself as a "Law 'n Order Anarchist" (or "Law 'n Order Minarchist" on even-numbered days). That means I think we should get rid of all (or all but the minimum necessary) of the laws - but believe it must be done in the right ORDER or it makes things worse rather than better.

    (Actually, I'm more of a "Constitutional Law 'n Order Anarchist/Minarchist" Let's get there by legal means, such as repeals and amendments.)

    A prime example of this order-dependence is the immigration barriers. Open borders would be nice. But you have to remove the cancerous overgrowth of the social services first. Otherwise you get an inrush of people who put a far larger load on the services than any taxes on them cover, while depressing wages and breaking unions. A double pick of the workers' pocket - for the dubious "benefit" of giving employers a break on wages. The mass of workers gets hit twice - once in the paycheck, again in taxes. A perfect, though indirect, example of "corporate welfare".

    Then the citizens retaliate in elections. Libertarians, with their track record of going after any piece of their agenda without regard for the consequences of the order, become further marginalized. Naturalizing the incoming won't help Libertarians either: The bulk of their votes will go for more benefits for themselves.

    Your situation is another example: To do what you want you need to get rid of the laws that make owning a machine gun or using it for home defense nearly impossible before you retreat to your fortress neighborhood and open the borders. B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  16. Re:The terrorists have won. by istartedi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If there are no borders, then there is effectively no government. This is one of my big problems with the Libertarians. Taking away borders would, in theory, lead to anarchy. In practice, any anarchy gives rise to power centers since nature abhors a power vacuum just as much as it abhors a physical vacuum. In the past, this vacuum was filled by feudal systems that coalesced into nation states. In the present, the porosity of borders combined with the mobility and rapid communications of technological society, allows multinational corporations to fill the void. If you support this particular bit of Libertarian ideology, you indirectly support rule by multinational corporations. I know I'll get heated rebuttals on this from Libertarians. The counter-arguments will probably end up sounding a lot like the GPL zealots who argue that their ideal of freedom is more important than having a video driver that works. If we lose control of the borders, we may all end up so poor that we find ourselves dreaming of the day we can afford to buy a PC from WorldMart that runs GNU/Linux at 640 by 480.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  17. Re:If you want something done right... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The federal, state and city government do a lot of things right. In fact most of there projects are quite successful. The media shines a light on the problems* so thats all most people here.

    Most agencies are more fiscally responsible then most corporations.

    Go the the ligrary and look at all the projects that get done.

    remember, with a company all you here is the success, with the government all you hear about is the problems.

    90% of all government projects are done on time, 90% of all corporate projects fail.

    *and they should

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  18. Re:So what? by jimicus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The issue with RFID passports would be if they could be /forged/... it doesn't matter if they can be duplicated.

    Not true.

    There's a lot to be said for not bothering to forge passports anyway - sooner or later customs at most first-world countries will probably link up, so the passport number can be checked instantly against a database to make sure the details match up. The only way a "forged" passport will work then is if it's not forged at all, but rather made with the collusion of someone at the passport office.

    However, if you can duplicate a passport, you can pretend to be someone else. Someone who (you hope) has no criminal record and is not even vaguely interesting to the authorities. With access to a crooked person in authority, you can confirm this. Without such access, you simply make a few flights and see if you get stopped. The only way I can see around this is if government starts tracking where everyone is, and if the passport handed over at customs belongs to someone you know for a fact was a thousand miles away only ten minutes ago, you know something fishy's going on. But we're a long way from having that level of technology - and while I absolutely hate the sound of it, I wouldn't be even remotely surprised if someone in government is mulling it over right now.

  19. Re:So what? by Kristoph · · Score: 4, Informative

    I cannot believe this was voted insightful.

    A copy of 'biometric' passport information has no value in a security context. If a copy of a passport is created using the biometric information then, obviously, that biometric information will not match the passport holder which will mean he/she will be identified as carrying a forged passport. If the biometrics are changed the digest of the passport information will be invalid and so, again, he/she will be identified as carrying a forged passport.

    This is really only an issue because someone can get your personal information (for use in, for example, financial identity fraud) without having to actually open any of your mail.

    ]{

  20. Re:The terrorists have won. by AJWM · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm a libertarian so now I feel justified in supporting open borders. Having enough money to live in a gated community and owning machine guns is a private matter.

    You call yourself a libertarian and you can't see the internal inconsistency in that position?

    Sigh, what happened to the good old days when libertarians were people who had read and understood Ayn Rand? Our borders are our gated community, how else keep out people who are opposed to the libertarian ethic? (I.e., who want to take things from us by force or fraud.)

    --
    -- Alastair
  21. Re:No No! No! by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is the chip required to get through customs? If not, the procedures is more like:

    1. Read and crack data without being detected(this is perhaps easier than stealing a traditional passport).
    2. Forge now even more legitimate passport using cracked data.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.