Slashdot Mirror


Damaged US Passport Chip Strands Travelers

caseih writes "Damaging the embedded chip in your passport is now grounds for denying you the ability to travel in at least one airport in the U.S. Though the airport can slide the passport through the little number reader as easily as they can wave it in front of an RFID reader, they chose to deny a young child access to the flight, in essence denying the whole family. The child had accidentally sat on his passport, creasing the cover, and the passport appeared worn. The claim has been made that breaking the chip in the passport shows that you disrespect the privilege of owning a passport, and that the airport was justified in denying this child from using the passport."

34 of 624 comments (clear)

  1. Bad summary: the airline, not the government by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFA states that it was an airline official who refused to allow the passenger to board, not an agent of the government. It's still galling, but let's express our discontent where it belongs.

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does it really make a difference which incompetent and/or indifferent bureaucrat screwed this family over?

      Will it stop happening? Will these people be made whole without spending thousands of dollars and perhaps dozens or hundreds of hours fighting it?

      Let's face it, the default state of the American citizen and consumer is "screwed", and you must start from there.

      And people keep voting, with their wallets and with their ballots, for more of the same.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    2. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      TFA also states:

      Ray Priest, owner of International Passport Visas in Denver, said your passport isn’t actually yours at all; it belongs to the US government.

      “To have a passport is privilege, it’s not entitled to you by citizenship,” Priest said. He said the issue may be with a microchip embedded in the back of all new passports. “They have no reason in the world to let you travel if it’s been damaged,” Priest said. “It’s like cutting your photo out or something if that chip doesn’t work.”

      These people wanted to leave the country. By no means should we ever prevent someone from exiting when they want to, passport or not. If you don't have a passport, just don't expect to return.

    3. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      The guy who was talking all the smack, who said: "To have a passport is privilege, it's not entitled to you by citizenship," Priest said. He said the issue may be with a microchip embedded in the back of all new passports. "They have no reason in the world to let you travel if it's been damaged," Priest said. "It's like cutting your photo out or something if that chip doesn't work." is the same guy who is rated A- by the BBB for several complains. His contact info at BBB is at http://www.bbb.org/denver/business-reviews/passport-and-visa-services/international-passport-visas-in-denver-co-8845

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    4. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Martin+Blank · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It does make a difference. For all the complaining that the corporations and the government are the same, it's a lot easier to get corporate policy changed than government. If this brings enough attention, the airline may choose to clarify its policy or retrain the individual who refused to accept the passport.

      There are times when the letter of corporate policy should give way to good customer service.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    5. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by j35ter · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. The RFID is optional. A passport is still a physical ID, and as such respected worlwide ... uh ... except in the us, of course.

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    6. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And people keep voting, with their wallets and with their ballots, for more of the same.

      How am I supposed to vote?!?!? Let me be clear: I voted for Obama because Obama promised to roll back the damage done by Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales to rights such as habeas corpus. Obama failed to keep his promises, choosing instead to continue in lockstep with those evil bastards. Don't blame me - I voted the best that I knew how to try to correct egregious wrongs - blame the politicians.

    7. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the worst part is, you and I need to vote for him next time, too, because Frothy isn't even pretending to want to restore our civil liberties, instead gleefully enumerating what new restrictions he wants to place on the American people in the name of a "better society" or whatever. (Seriously, the legality of contraception stopped being a topic of political debate in the late sixties. What the hell is going on?)

      Ahh, the sharp difference between "bad" and "worse". A two-party system has to be at least twice as good as one-party rule, right?

    8. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by wer32r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is exactly what I thought of as well. When owning a passport is becoming a privilege, you're on your way down a very slippery slope...

    9. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A damaged passport is unusable, period.

      Excellent example of using ", period" to mean "everything I just said only makes sense if you don't think about it at all so for the LOVE OF GOD please don't!"

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by dbialac · · Score: 5, Informative

      Moreover, your passport explicitly states in plain writing that the chip doesn't have to be functioning for it to be a valid document.

    11. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Leebert · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Don't blame me - I voted the best that I knew how to try to correct egregious wrongs - blame the politicians.

      I'm sorry, but if you were foolish enough in 2008 to see him as anything but what he is -- yet another (Chicago, even!) politician, you're kinda gullible (or, at least, insufficiently cynical.) (Don't worry, I fell for Bush 2000 myself, so I'm right there with you in the gullible camp.)

      How am I supposed to vote?!?!?

      Well, you could start by figuring out how to vote in the Republican primaries and voting for Paul. If Paul isn't palatable for you, there are plenty of other parties and candidates; chances are very good that you can find someone that you pretty well agree with out there somewhere.

      To the sibling poster who claims that you "need to vote for him the next time, too", that's patently ridiculous. There are plenty of candidates for president who actually make a *credible* claim that they'll fight to restore our constitutionally-enshrined rights. Yes, they aren't likely to win, but I swear I'll go all medieval on you if you claim that I am throwing away my vote by voting for someone who believes as I do instead of voting for someone who I disagree slightly less with but is more likely to win.

    12. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by alexo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And people keep voting, with their wallets and with their ballots, for more of the same.

      How am I supposed to vote?!?!? Let me be clear: I voted for Obama because Obama promised to roll back the damage done by Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales to rights such as habeas corpus. Obama failed to keep his promises, choosing instead to continue in lockstep with those evil bastards. Don't blame me - I voted the best that I knew how to try to correct egregious wrongs - blame the politicians.

      You should vote against both Kang and Kodos.

      Voting anything but a 3rd party (or independent) is perpetuating the system.

    13. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by Sporkinum · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't blame me! I voted for Kodos!

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    14. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by airdweller · · Score: 5, Informative

      "The Federal Government is requiring many Catholic organizations..."
      Catholic-affiliated. Not churches, but hospitals, etc. A person who works at a Catholic church has to be Catholic. A person who works for a Catholic-affiliated hospital - doesn't have to, and has the right for such a policy.

    15. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by stonedown · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How did this get labeled Insightful? The Federal Government is requiring many Catholic organizations to provide contraception in the policies they provide their employees. Because these organizations pay at least partially for these policies, they are being required to pay for contraception. The slimy move to say it doesn't have to be in the policy, but has to be provided for free it just bull and every one knows it.

      I have less than zero sympathy, because I was forced to pay for the invasion of Iraq, with all the subsequent aftermath of at least 4 million people displaced from their homes, hundreds of thousands killed, worse living conditions than before, and women's rights brought down to the standard of other countries in the region.

      And I'm supposed to support Catholic organizations' mission to deny birth control coverage for their employees? Not gonna happen.

    16. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Informative

      How did this get labeled Insightful? The Federal Government is requiring many Catholic organizations to provide contraception in the policies they provide their employees. Because these organizations pay at least partially for these policies, they are being required to pay for contraception. The slimy move to say it doesn't have to be in the policy, but has to be provided for free it just bull and every one knows it.

      The original set of rules were already in place in California, and the Catholic Church attempted to fight a legal battle over it. They got all the way to the Federal District Appeals, and were shot down. The Supreme Court denied them a writ to hear the case.

      The actual original conditions require Catholics who are not hiring predominantly other Catholics, who do not service predominantly other Catholics, and a few other reasonable conditions to cover birth control for their employees. This means, that if a Catholic organization, goes out and hires atheists, protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, and Wiccans, that they would have been forced (just like every other public employer) to provide birth control for those individuals.

      These Catholic organizations, which would have been required to provide birth control, do not feel that sharing their faith is necessary to be employed by them, so they should be treated just like any other employer. I don't care if your organization is "based on religious ideas", if you're practicing secular employment, then you cannot bring up your religious ideas to justify discrimination of those employees. You yourself have already chosen to eschew your religious employment grounds.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    17. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by mikkelm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is most certainly not a privilege.

      The right to travel, the right to leave any country, and the right to return to your own country are fundamental human rights defined by the UDHR. These rights may not be respected, but that doesn't change their nature as rights.

    18. Re:Bad summary: the airline, not the government by fredklein · · Score: 5, Informative

      United Declaration on Human Rights is silent on the issue of travel.

      Um...

      http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
      Article 13.

              (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
              (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

  2. FTFA by SleazyRidr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    “This is done for national security, for whatever reason they can’t make an exception, period,”

    They flew from Denver to Dallas without a problem, then were stopped in Dallas. If they can't make an exception, why were they allowed to get on the first plane?

    1. Re:FTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't need a passport for flying within the US. Technically, you don't even need a passport for leaving the US, but if you don't have one, it becomes very difficult to re-enter.

      The proper way to handle this would've been to inform them that they need to get the passport repaired or risk facing excessive scrutiny on their return. Some officials involved and quoted in the article need to be replaced.

    2. Re:FTFA by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You only need the Visa if you plan on working there. The passport's enough for a visit.

      That depends on the country. Many countries grant Americans an implicit visa to travel there for tourism for a specific period of time, but many others do not. India and Vietnam are two examples that immediately come to mind. Some countries will grant you a visa in the airport after you fill out some paperwork, while others require you to apply from outside the country in advance (and waiting periods vary).

      You should travel more.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  3. Comparison of technologies by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Paper

    Can survive being crushed, sat on, folded, spun, submerged in water, thrown up on, run over by a car, heated to several hundred degrees, frozen to near absolute zero, exposed to intense radiation, and the data stored on paper can be read with no special tools under a wide variety of environmental conditions, or using simple tools like a 'lens', can be read at distances of up to several hundred feet or more.

    RFID

    Can be used with a scanner that has a range of only a few inches. If any part of the chip is damaged, the data is irretrievable. Costs more than paper. Can be destroyed in everyday use, including sitting on it, folding it, getting it wet, etc.

    Which one would you pick for storing sensitive information which, if made inaccessible, has the potential to prevent you from ever seeing your loved ones, your home, or any of your possessions again?

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Comparison of technologies by ncttrnl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Even without the RFID, I've watched them deny kids onto flights because their passport wasn't signed. It was interesting to watch the mother explain that her kids could barely write their name let alone be expected to have a signature that would ever be useful for identification. They finally made her hold her kids' hands so that each of them could sign their names. The whole system is flawed and RFID is just another expensive layer on top of it. I would have hoped RFID was implemented more like magnetic strips on credit cards. When they work, it speeds things up. When they don't, every business has an imprint machine or a place to type in your credit card number in their computer so they can still take your money. I guess there is more incentive in the case of credit cards to actually get it right for the consumer though.

    2. Re:Comparison of technologies by GodInHell · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Which one would you pick for storing sensitive information which, if made inaccessible, has the potential to prevent you from ever seeing your loved ones, your home, or any of your possessions again?

      Neither?

      Even if you intentionally light your passport on fire and fling it into the U.S. Embassy, you still have the right to return if you're a U.S. Citizen. (admittedly, probably after at least a few days in jail for lighting something on fire and flinging it into an occupied building.) I went to the Chzech republic once with some other students from the U.S., while we were there one of my friends made with the stupid and agreed to leave her passport with her hotel as a security deposit (do NOT do this). Naturally when she tried to retrieve it her passport was gone (stolen, they are valuable).

      Was she "prevented from ever seeing [her] loved ones, [her] home, or any of [her] possessions again?" Of course not, she went to the U.S. Embassy. They harangued her for being stupid and issued her a temporary passport to get back to Italy with. Once we were back in Italy the U.S. Embassy in Rome issued her a new permanent passport. Getting her Italian Visa replaced was harder.

      When you travel outside the U.S., you need to accept that you may not be able to keep to your schedule, plan for it. Book all your flights with a single airline (so that when Airline A screws up and you miss a connecting flight its their problem, not yours). Leave some vacation time (a day or two) on the return side of your trip. Don't try to sneak pot back out of Amsterdam (no, seriously, wtf are you thinking?). You have to take precautions.

      But what you describe, has no connection to reality.

  4. Same thing has happened to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was traveling alone, but I've gotten similar crap from a AA rep with a bur up his butt or something. This was pre-chip passport, but my well traveled 9 1/2 year old passport was slightly bowed from being placed in my pocket. He said basically the same thing as the article, that it shows a disrespect for the document and that I should keep it in a necklace type holder or somewhere else other than my back pocket. This same passport was never questioned by a government official in any country I traveled too. I waited for the douche to go on break and then proceeded to check in without incident by another agent. He would probably be one to charge folks an excessive baggage fee if one of their bags was 1 oz over regulation as well.

    1. Re:Same thing has happened to me... by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Disrespect for the document"? It's a fucking document, not a person. I have no reason to respect a document. Especially one that I bought and paid for myself, with my own time and money.

      As long as it's legible and you can see my photo, that's all that should matter. These people must be the ones who were teacher's pets in high school civics class, right? WTF is the world coming to?

    2. Re:Same thing has happened to me... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There seems to be some sort of fetish for 'respect', most commonly(but not entirely exclusively) exhibited by those people who've never deserved a dose of it in their lives. I don't know exactly why this crops up; but it definitely does. It's bad enough when those people demand respect for themselves regardless of desert and sometimes by force; but when they give up on that and hitch their self worth to a god or a flag or something they become truly insufferable.

  5. Kinda right, but not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The travel guy they interview has one thing right and one thing wrong...

    Not all passports have RFID chips in them. That didn't start until 2006. Mine has no such chip in it. No problems at all with it. Even without the RFID chip, the passport is machine readable (that's the barcode on the picture page). It won't be until 2016 that all US passports--that is, when the old ones all expire, finally--will be biometric/RFID. So I don't see why they should refuse someone who's RFID chip doesn't work, given that other people will be allowed on without one too.

    But he is right that the passport is property of the US government. It says that in the document somewhere.

    A colleague of mine had major problems with Delta and his visa. He was going to China, and had a return flight 60 days after he left. His visa was only good to stay 30 days. They refused to let him on the plane. Of course, he had planned to go to Hong Kong after 28 days, stay for 3, and then return to mainland China (possible with his multiple entry visa), all of which is fully legal. Delta didn't care and made him change his flight (and pay to do so). He then had to pay a second time to change it back once he got to China. His CC refunded the fees, but it was still unnecessary hassle.

    The major issue: airlines are NOT immigrations officials! They do have some responsibility, of course. They don't want people getting on planes without passports, only to have them sent back home immediately. Still, on judgment calls like validity of visa and travel plans, they should not have final say in the matter. That's not their job. They don't always get it right.

    The family may have made a mistake not immediately calling for a customs agent to get involved. The airline could easily take them downstairs, where there's dozens of immigrations officers, any of whom could make the judgment. There's also probably a supervisor there who gets final say. Why were those people not called in to decide the validity of the passport?

  6. Terrible, terrible summary by Revotron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know this will go unheeded because it's what people don't want to hear, but the US Government had nothing to do with this case.

    The child was denied clearance by an airline employee, not an actual customs agent. And the person who claims that a damaged passport is "disrespect" to the privilege of holding a passport is some whackjob I've never heard of who owns a small business that specializes in... wait for it... passports and visas! The online ratings for this guy's business classify him as a Grade A jackass, as well.

    This is an overblown, almost-manufactured attempt at criticizing the government for its national security policies. It's really much more akin to blaming the local beef farmer because my steak was overcooked.

  7. How is a having a passport a privilege??????? by nedlohs · · Score: 5, Informative

    "To have a passport is privilege, it's not entitled to you by citizenship," Priest said

    The law disagrees completely - http://law.justia.com/cfr/title22/22-1.0.1.6.33.5.5.1.html. Note there are grounds for denying a passport, but there are also grounds for puttting you in prison - that doesn't mean not being in prison is a priviledge.

    Or if you prefer statements made to the public of how the government interpretes the law:

    Every United States citizen is entitled to a U.S. passport provided that they, or an adult acting on a child's behalf, comply with all applicable requirements, and that there is no statutory or regulatory reason to deny the passport.

            - http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/family/family_864.html

    Heck it uses the word "entitled"!

  8. A bad chip is still a valid passport by Vaerchi · · Score: 5, Informative

    quoted from http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_2788.html#One

    What will happen if my Electronic Passport fails at a port-of-entry?

    The chip in the passport is just one of the many security features of the new passport. If the chip fails, the passport remains a valid travel document until its expiration date. You will continue to be processed by the port-of-entry officer as if you had a passport without a chip.

  9. THE CHILD WASN'T REFUSED by x_IamSpartacus_x · · Score: 5, Informative
    Apparently people (including the submitter) are not RTFA very well. FTA

    Little Kye’s passport has a crease on the back cover, which Gosnell says came from him accidentally sitting on the passport. His passport was questioned, but not denied. It was Kyle Gosnell’s that was the real problem. It has a small crease on the back cover, and is overall weathered and worn.

    The child's passport was NOT denied, it was Kyle (presumably the father) who had the "overall weathered and worn" passport that was denied. It's hard to believe that his passport was so weathered and worn that it couldn't be read so this is probably still an issue of an airline employee with a stick up his ass but TFS is completely wrong and trolling everyone who comments on here enraged. TFA doesn't even say that the RFID chip had ANYTHING to do with his being denied. Parent is absolutely right that the person who is quoted has NOTHING to do with this situation. The local Fox team reporting on this probably Googled someone in the Denver area (not the Dallas area where this whole f'ing thing actually happened) and asked this nutjob for a quote for their story.
    PLEASE RTFA before commenting. Slashdot editors, PLEASE edit these retarded submissions before they get our collective panties in a wad.

  10. Try "a car without license plates" instead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...if you're going for a car analogy.

    http://travel.state.gov/passport/faq/faq_1741.html

    Q:My passport has been damaged. Can I continue to use this passport?
            a:If your passport has been significantly damaged, especially the book cover or the page displaying your personal data and photo, you will need to apply for a new passport. You will need to submit the following in person (See Where to Apply):

                    The damaged passport
                    Form DS-11
                    All documents required by Form DS-11, including citizenship documentation (i.e. birth certificate)

            Water damage, a significant tear, unofficial markings on the data page, missing visa pages (torn out), a hole punch and other injuries may constitute "damage" requiring use of Form DS-11.

            Normal wear of a U.S. passport is understandable and likely does not constitute "damage". For instance, the expected bend of a passport after being carried in your back pocket or fanning of the visa pages after extensive opening and closing. In most cases of normal wear, you may renew your passport by mail using Form DS-82.

            Please remember, if you try to renew a significantly damaged passport using Form DS-82, you may be asked by the Passport Agency to apply again using Form DS-11 and incur additional fees./