RFID In Government Issued ID? 89
RFID! writes, "The Department of Homeland Security's Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee published a draft report that poured cold water on using RFID in government-mandated identity cards and documents (PDF link). But this met with some consternation among the DHS bureaus that plan to use RFID in this way and the businesses eager to sell the technology to the government, and now a vote on the report has been delayed until December."
It was only a matter of time (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I don't like the idea of RFID tags in much of anything. Too many things being tracked. When you see just how much information Corporate America has on it's customers, it makes you shudder thinking about how much the Government must have on you. It is odd, however, to note that occasionally the Industrial Espionage works better than the US Government's does.
C.f. Hollerith Cards (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen some automated warehouse and inventory-management systems that depend on RFID tags, and (if you're into this kind of stuff) they're the slickest thing you've ever seen. If your full supply chain uses tags, then there's no manual inventorying; as stuff gets unloaded from the trucks at a loading dock (by the pallet-full -- scanners can 'talk' to tens or hundreds of tags at once), it gets noted. When it gets put on a shelf, it gets noted. When an order comes in, the system knows whether it's in stock, and where's it's located. The picker (guys who pull individual items from warehouse shelves) can follow a wrist-mounted computer right to the location, and scan it as they pick it up. As orders get loaded on a truck to go out, they get scanned again at the dock doors. At every step in your supply chain, you can do this.
It's not quite a fully-automated warehouse, but it's pretty close. If you've ever worked in industry or retail, you can appreciate the beauty of such a system. All that real-time data; I won't say there's "no limit" to what you can do, because I don't want to start sounding like an ad, but there's a lot.
So really, don't blame the technology here. The gear is really good. The problem is that a lot of contractors, who want to make a few bucks from Uncle Sam, have convinced some govvies that this sort of data flow -- which is great when you're talking about cases of Rice Krispies or DVD players -- would be nice to have on all of us. The problem with "RFID" as people have come to think of it, is totally a social one. If you could somehow 'uninvent' RFID, put the genie back in the bottle, it wouldn't fix the real issue: that our government is currently obsessed with reaching down into the personal lives of individual citizens, either by accident or by design. A government which took more of an interest in privacy concerns, probably wouldn't think that embedding RFID tags in passports and drivers licenses would be a good idea. That they do, is indicative of a problem in government, not in the tags.
An apt analogy would be Hollerith card sorters and other indexing machines, in the early part of last century. They let people do all sorts of rapid data analysis and were indispensable to industry and government for countless projects. Yet they were also used by the Nazis, to greater or lesser effect depending on who you choose to believe. That a particular technology was used reprehensibly isn't necessarily a valid criticism of the technology itself; virtually anything can be perverted for ill uses.
So in short, don't blame RFID in general. It's a great technology, when used correctly, and its potential for abuse isn't any greater than similarly revolutionary systems were in their day.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, I explained that a little weird.
Re: (Score:2)
RFID's receive a signal and then spit it back out again, "casting" the signal in a "broad" manner.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course now that I want to be clever I cannot find the reference, but there was a discussion about how the political parties track and segment their various constituencies. The number quoted (which I cannot verify) was that they have r
Re: (Score:2)
I love the two ways that statement can be read. Keyword: "must".
Re: (Score:1)
As we've seen repeatedly, the amount of information is not nearly as important as its organization. "The" government (US Federal?, state?, local? combination?) is justifiably ridiculed for its inability to organize information. Call 'em "silos" (databases) or "stovepipes" (access). The US Federal government has focused on integrating disparate information without notable success. I think this is a good thing, since their identifications of evildoers rarely withstands the tests pr
Re: (Score:2)
Citizen: Crap! The government must have enough information to bury me!
Government: We must have this information to control the People.
stating the obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
hmm (Score:3, Funny)
That sounds like it would have shocking results.
Shocking? (Score:2, Funny)
Pwnership Society (Score:3, Funny)
Our Republican government is visionary. They're not distracted by polls [msn.com] or mere facts from government agencies... Republicans know government doesn't work, and they'll prove it to you every chance they get.
So welcome our Republican overlords, and their shiny new RFID IDs. Why should identity theft be limited to a few thousand wired Americans each day, when Republicans can bring us a Pwnership society?
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
50% Flamebait
50% Offtopic
"Shut the fuck up!" is their UserID. And my post wasn't "Flamebait", it's a FLAME. This mod system is a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
!include <sarcasm.h> (Score:5, Funny)
Re:!include [OT] (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the reason Cato doesn't like RFID (Score:5, Insightful)
He's saying it isn't any better than other card systems, and it doesn't solve the principal security problem - that of identifying the owner. I bet, however, that if one were to somehow solve the confirmation of identity issue - such as by injecting or surgically implanting and RFID chip - he might change his mind.
I think one could argue that Mr. Harper doesn't oppose RFID as much as he finds it impotent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Contactless cards offe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be pedantic, the vulnerabilities of the passports are mostly privacy and safety concerns for their individual holders. And I'm not saying that this is a minor issue. It's not. But the passports do increase border security. It is possible to clone the chip (due to protocol vuln
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. Contactless cards get their power from the radio waves (the "R" of RFID) which provides very little power over the expected time period within range. For that reason, they cannot do much processing, e.g. good cryptography. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedpass [wikipedia.org] for information about cracking RFID encryption.) Ther
Re: (Score:2)
Contactless (or RFID, if you prefer) smart cards are passive in the sense that they don't have a power supply. Due to the power consumption, the operat
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They probably asked for something so heinous so that it would draw everyone's fire. Then, when they roll out their real plan (arm barcodes) it doesn't seem so bad in comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
http://web.archive.org/web/20050306022005/http://w ww.privacilla.org/index.html [archive.org] )
It was "a web-based think tank that takes a free-market, pro-technology approach to privacy policy."
He's also author of "Identity Crisis: How Identification is Overused and Misunderstood"
Search inside it at Amazon.
Also, google is your friend... lots of stuff. Not sure exactly what you are looking for.
Re: (Score:2)
Though I've only met him once, and haven't read fully his book Identity Crisis [amazon.com] I think he is very anti-RFID but chose only to discuss the issue in the context of how well it works for that particular blog entry.
I believe him to be very pro-privacy and civil liberties, but he often chooses to argue against a system on efficacy grounds instead of invoking philosophical arguments.
If you needed another reason to clean house(s).... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Question (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The distance you can read RFID depends on the implementation and conditions. Some are designed to be read at such distances, even when they're tracking metal or liquid products.
Some RFID is easy to clone, others are designed to be hard to clone. Easier to mimic the signal than copy the device itself, and there may be features of the signal that prohibit easy replication (beyond this guess, my knowledge of the fi
Ouch (Score:5, Informative)
From the Executive Summary:
"There appear to be specific, narrowly defined situations in which RFID is appropriate for human identification. Miners or firefighters might be appropriately identified using RFID because speed of identification is at a premium in dangerous situations and the need to verify the connection between a card and bearer is low.
But for other applications related to human beings, RFID appears to offer little benefit when compared to the consequences it brings for privacy and data integrity. Instead, it increases risks to personal privacy and security, with no commensurate benefit for performance or national security."
"no commensurate benefit for national security"
Translation: This will not protect you from the terrorists.
And really, isn't that
A) the big goal of all these changes?
B) how everyone is justifying their budget?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an uncommon attitude.
Re: (Score:1)
There *is* no benefit for national security, you'd think that blatently broadcasting information for ease of identification would've been the first clue this might be bad. I'm thinking this relates to a word that starts with $.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
That's just the tinfoil talking though =)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two Thoughts (Score:1)
2. To the conspiracy know-it-all types that are sure to flood this one, if you've ever worked in government intelligence for any length of time, you'd realize how much time you're wasting with the big brother fantasies. Google's the one to wa
Summary of TFA (Score:4, Funny)
RFID is only a supplemental technology (Score:5, Interesting)
The biggest problem with RFID is that too many industries (government included) are implementing it because it is a neat technology. In reality it is great for some things but not so good for others.
I do think that RFID will eventually be good for adding more information and for use as human id's but only with a supplementatl verification system like BioMetrics.
But even just RFID alone is in no way less secure than printing a number on your passport that uniquely identifies you. I think that your passport number is a much easier counterfeit target than a chip in your passport.
If you just clone the chip it is very unlikely that customs will only want to check your chip and not the rest of your passport or your picture.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a really strange thing to say. Here's short list of potential security problems an RFID presents that a printed number doesn't, off the top of my head:
1. Your RFID chip can be read & potentially copied without your peremission, or even your being aware of it.
2. An RFID-enabled ID allows anyone to build an "American Detector" that's 100% reliable, and works from a distance. This i
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
From the State Department E-Passport FAQ (http://travel.state.gov/passport/eppt/eppt_2788.h tml)
"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 c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I doubt you ever complained that magnetic stripe cards could be erased remotely by EMP, or that your mobile phone could be fried remotely by high-powered microwaves.
Go ahead and try... (Score:2)
As far as the phone goes, I'd be pretty peeved if someone fried it with microwaves, but there's probably at least some protection built into the phone - otherwise, walking directly by a cell tower migh
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Would would our citizens even be travelling to other lands where this would be an issue? Do they perhaps... hate America?.
Would you use RFID prepaid cards? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
RFID simply makes it easier to read that information than with a contact based system. For something like a passport, which someone who uses it a lot might use twice a day, it offers basically no advantage, with the disadvantage that someone can try to talk to the card without
Re: (Score:1)
Correct, but...
One can clone that information. You say, but then the RFID information doesn't match the non-RFID information.
Correct, but
In many applications that doesn't matter. For example, it would still work fine for people-less transactions such as Mobil Speedpass f
Re: (Score:1)
To be clear, my thinking is that there is no reason to use RFID in situations where security and identity are an issue, and that there are reasons not to use it. For tracking things, it's great.
The psychological issue of the 'ok beep' that you bring up i
Next, babies will be microchipped... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
EMP (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and call me Plissken.
Re: (Score:1)
Er, oh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
if we must... but then no exceptions (Score:2)
Helping the terrorists - class act (Score:1)
RFID's ONLY benefit over a stupid 2D barcode (which is easy to
And RFID Passports in the USA a Reality Now... (Score:4, Informative)
"Following this previous story [slashgeo.org], we learn from the Washington Post RFID chips in US passports are now confirmed [washingtonpost.com]. From the article: "Passports will come with a shielded cover, making it much harder to read the chip when the passport is closed. And there are now access-control and encryption mechanisms, making it much harder for an unauthorized reader to collect, understand and alter the data. [...] The Colorado passport office is already issuing RFID passports, and the State Department expects all U.S. passport offices to be doing so by the end of the year.""
Re: (Score:2)
-molo
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you would 'see' the chip. They're not that small!
"Then once it is identified, how can we defeat the RFID? Does throwing it in the microwave really work?"
I don't know. But I would not mess with it. If they figure out you tried to mess with with, they'll only give you trouble...