You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
US sets date for biometric passports
2005-08-11
The US Department of State announced today a timeframe for issuing electronic passports that supporters say will improve the government's ability to protect its borders and critics say are a dangerous step towards a Big Brother-like surveillance society.
Sigh. Can we have a simple description of the passport specifics *before* we get to the (unnamed) critics?
The (unnamed) critics are the point of the whole story, not the passports...
The state department has publicized its plans to issue 'biometric' passports for some time; today the department solidified the calendar for issuing such passports, which will combine facial recognition technology, a radio-frequency chip that contains all the information written on the inside cover of the passport, and a digital signature intended to prevent unauthorized alterations.
They must be taking the gas pipe in Quetta. They'll probably riot when they discover there's no religion column...
The department confirmed that it will issue the first such passports this December, as anticipated. The current plan calls for all domestic passport agencies to issue them by October 2006. In anticipation of this changeover, the National Passport Center tacked on a $12 surcharge in March 2005 for all passport renewals; renewal by mail now costs $67 or $97 if you have to show up in person.
And now the cavalcade of critics:
Critics are wary of the biometric passports for two reasons. First, they say the technology doesn't actually work very well and will cause even longer delays at security checkpoints, for example, when the facial reader doesn't recognize the carrier or when signals from multiple chips interfere with each other. To address the specific complaint that chips may be susceptible to unauthorized reading, referred to 'skimming', the Department today said it would incorporate anti-skimming technology in the front cover. It provided no technical details as to how that would work.
As if the Expatica reporter has any idea of the technical details of anti-skimming technology.
"Mahmoud! How're we going to fool the face scanner?"
"I got a generic picture of a Bugti. It'll crash the INS server and we just walk through!"
The Department also said it is "seriously considering" using a technology called Basic Access Control intended to prevent the chip from being accessed until the passport is opened.
*BUT*
But an even more pressing worry, say civil liberties activists, is the potential use of such passports as what will amount to "global identity cards''; opponents also fear they will help the government track citizen's movements too closely.
That's one of the purposes of a passport. That's why they put all those stamps in them...
"What we are witnessing amounts to an effort by the U.S. government and others (whether conscious or not) to leapfrog over the politically untenable idea of adopting a national identity card, and set a course directly toward the creation of a global identity document," said a white paper from the ACLU issued last November.
You don't need to get a passport if you don't want one. You just can't go to Kashmir without it.
The European Union likewise has comparable plans to create biometric passports, plans that have met with comparable opposition. "These proposals are yet another result of the 'war on terrorism' which show that the EU is just as keen as the USA to introduce systems of mass surveillance which have much more to do with political and social control than fighting terrorism," wrote editor Tony Bunyan on his civil liberties online newsletter Statewatch.
It sounds to me like Tony's found the Secret Plan™ behind it all. He must be a highly trained observer, since it's invisible to the rest of us.
Posted by:Seafarious

#11  Umm, .com, I think you need to take a chill dude.

The topic is about "big brother" in the form of biometric passports.

My first comment is that there is no particular problem with them IF they are true passports, totally voluntary, only used for international travel etc. (Totally on topic)

But, from a big brother perspective, anything that enables the gov't to keep tabs on anyone at any time (see GPS chips mandated in cell phones by the FCC) my libertarian antenna twitch.
(Big Brotherism, also on topic)

Calling me a left-winger is about as appropos as calling Atilla the Hun a pacifist.
Posted by: AlanC   2005-08-11 18:13  

#10  Serious subject here, but I've had several beers and some wine so I'll take a chance - Herb Al-Kaboomi! brilliant name ;) and an ugly MoFo to boot.

There was a post yesterday or the day before where some arrested paki had *hundreds* of blank UK passports. If this stops crap like that, then I'm ok with it. RFID is not some skin implant with unlimited range so the BB analogies are waaay off.
Posted by: Tony (UK)   2005-08-11 16:06  

#9  So, they want to start using something that would make it incredibly hard to lie about who you are on a passport. WHY THE HELL NOT. What special need is there for one to have a better ability to lie about who they are on a passport? In the first instance, why worry about the technology because it will progress regardless of what moonbats might want or fear. Most of us will probably live to see the day when the issue is moot. The focus should be on understanding it as well as the implications on society in order to put it to work for our common good.
Posted by: MunkarKat   2005-08-11 15:43  

#8  I have heard all this blathering I can take. Some one needs to read up on RFID. Put it in a foil pouch and don your tin foil hat if you are paranoid. The range at which RFID works is measured in inches. If you have ever been through passport control you know no one is going to be in range of your passport and your but the people supposed to be checking it. Take this luddite crap to Slashdot.

The only thing I am pissed about is I will have to replace my almost brand new Passport that contains none of this biometric info at some point sooner than I normally would have to.
Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom   2005-08-11 14:33  

#7  when signals from multiple chips interfere with each other

As the (brainless) reporter referred to the chip earlier as a "radio-frequency chip", I'm going to assume they're talking about an RFID.

Walmart is requiring suppliers to put RFIDs on cases, so that the warehouses can better track what comes in and goes out. Would they be considering this if there were problems with RFIDs interfering with each other?

Last I heard, this wasn't a pilot project. It was implementation phase.

The Department also said it is "seriously considering" using a technology called Basic Access Control intended to prevent the chip from being accessed until the passport is opened.

I believe it's called a "wire mesh" and it's woven into the cover material. When closed, the mesh provides a nifty little Faraday cage to prevent the RFID chip from hearing the query signal, and -- if the signal DOES get in -- to prevent anything from coming back out.

Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.

What liberty is lost from having a machine-readable passport?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-08-11 14:29  

#6  Focus, AlanC. You're off-topic - and this an important one: fighting the memes of the LLL Moonbats. Are you one, too? Drink your favorite Kool Aid in private or post an opinion piece, if you can make coherent arguments, don't muddy the water here.
Posted by: .com   2005-08-11 14:08  

#5  Being both a total gov't skeptic and very much wary of Big Brother I've got two things to add...

1) If the passport is only needed for international travel this is not a scary thing, BUT if someone starts touting this as a "generic" ID for all purposes, it's getting close to lock & load time.

2) How do YOU all feel about having a GPS chip in your cell phones that is on by default? Supposedly you can switch it to only transmit when you call 911, but.......
Posted by: AlanC   2005-08-11 14:00  

#4  To the fuckwit who posted #3: Heavy meds - or Drano.

The truth is, there is no perfect answer to security, so it's very easy to snipe, cry foul, play off paranoia, post incredibly infantile fear-mongering stupidity, etc. for any measure proposed. Too easy. There needs to be a minimum IQ req'd.

It's your fucking passport, asshole. If you don't need one, then that's that, isn't it? You're done here, fuck the fuck off. Take that room temperature IQ with you.

If you do, then you likely aren't as naive, paranoid, and simply stupid as this fuckwit, and have seen that the world is a dangerous place and this is a realistic measure. It is only applicable at the times of exiting and entering the country - though this moron implies your passport will be sending secret snaps of you in the shower. Wotta bogeyman.

Everybody's bitching about border control, immigration, yadda³. But it's equally important that the identification used at the border be verifiable - or all other border control measures are a joke. Sure, build walls, etc, but let anyone in if the passport "looks" okay. Shit, you can buy stolen / phoney passports in lots of 100 - because they're not secure. This has to be done.

Sheesh. This is the obvious next step and you knew it had to come. Deal with it, paranoia freaks. The rest of us, who aren't afraid of the law because we're not asshats or crooks or Kool Aid swilling toolfools or mental institution escapees, welcome it. Get a fucking grip. Big Brother - kiss my hairy ass you fucking zero.
Posted by: .com   2005-08-11 13:54  

#3  My Big Brother loves me.

Just go ahead and implant the chip. It'll make us all so safe.

Don't you want to feel safe?

We need to montior everyone to stop the terrorists.

If you aren't a terrorist why should you mind right? You're not a terrorist are you?

It'll make everything so convenient too, and so safe. Safe from terrorists.

Don't you want your kiddies safe from terrorists?

Sometimes we need to give a little so we can all be safer.

Big Brother loves you.

Thanks Big Brother

Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.
Posted by: Big Brother Loves You   2005-08-11 13:25  

#2  Looks more like Frank Zappa to me:
Posted by: Raj   2005-08-11 11:43  

#1  Oh my Gawd, is that terrorist Mario Cuomo?
Posted by: Captain America   2005-08-11 09:06  

00:00