Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online Technology

RFID Cards to Include Tin Foil Hats? 248

Posted by CowboyNeal from the passport-privacy-pondered-plaintively dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The tinfoil hat finally gains government approval. From the story: 'Wrap an RFID chip [of the US passport] inside a Faraday cage, and the electromagnetic waves from the chip reader can't get in and activate the chip. The State Department says it may use the principle to give travelers an added sense of security. No, there won't be rolls of aluminum foil included with every passport. Instead, the passport cover may include a network of wires woven into the fabric. Fold the passport shut, and there's your Faraday cage. Even Schneier agrees that a properly shielded passport cover should solve the problem. He wonders why this wasn't included in the original plans for the new passports. 'It took a bunch of criticism before they even mentioned it,' Schneier said. And he hopes the anti-snooping technology is thoroughly tested before the new passports are introduced next spring.'" We've also seen this suggested in the past.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RFID Cards to Include Tin Foil Hats? More

RFID Cards to Include Tin Foil Hats?

Comments Filter:

  • Wow.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kid Zero ( 4866 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @01:51AM (#11174782) Homepage Journal
    Was that a rational thought from the government? I know it's cold enough for hell to freeze over, but...

    Wow.

    • Re:Wow.... (Score:3, Funny)

      by forkazoo ( 138186 )
      Rational thoughts only come from those with cranio-deflective alu-protection. Obviously, somebody in the government got a well crafted, correctly tuned headpiece from a board certified farraday cage haberdasherer (such as myself). If it was properly adjusted to provide shielding on his brainwave frequency, the idea would have occurred to him instantly.
    • It just rains instead.
    • I dunno man, it's currently lightly snowing in Baton Rouge today, and that does not happen. In a stunning coincidence, Nick Saban is leaving LSU today, so the world truly must be about to end.

    • Re:Wow.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by russotto ( 537200 )
      Well, it's not exactly rational. But it certainly makes sense by government standards. Instead of a cheap contact-based solution, use an expensive RFID solution... then use an expensive passport cover to make it not work at a distance.

  • Let me get this straight... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Eric(b0mb)Dennis ( 629047 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @01:51AM (#11174783)
    I can't wait for people to start selling clothing with built in faraday cages, or a stylist alternative to the woeful 'tinfoil hat'... a (insert favorite h4x0r phrase here) hat with a built in faraday cage!

  • Oh Man. (Score:5, Funny)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) * on Friday December 24, 2004 @01:51AM (#11174784)
    It is time to make a new conspiracy theory. The current one that they government wants to use our passports to spy on us just got defunct. Maybe we can not trust the government issue Aluminum foil and it will be some sort of hidden spy method.

    • Re:Oh Man. (Score:5, Funny)

      by forkazoo ( 138186 ) <<wrosecrans> <at> <gmail.com>> on Friday December 24, 2004 @02:29AM (#11174926) Homepage
      The metal wires in the cover are probably just an antenna, because they couldn't get good signal from the satellites, and don't want to bother having somebody follow you.

    • Re:Oh Man. (Score:3, Funny)

      by japhmi ( 225606 )
      Well, everyone knows that buying Tin Foil off the shelf will make a bad hat, because the Government puts inpurities in the Tin that will amplify the signal of the brain-control lasers. (That's why you smelt your own Tin for your hats).

      These wires in the Passports are made of the same material that they use as inpurities in Tin Foil, because it increases the signal of brain-control and person-tracking beams.

      • Re:Oh Man. (Score:3, Funny)

        by Nf1nk ( 443791 )
        wrong, the Tin foil has all but been eliminated on the mass market because it was effective in stopping the mind control satilites, and has been replaced by aluminium which *_actualy_increases_* brain sensitivity to the radiation released by the age mind control satilites and the newer mind control beams found on stoplights.

  • Density of metallic fibres required to block RFID (Score:3, Funny)

    by glomph ( 2644 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @01:52AM (#11174785) Homepage Journal
    Something like 666 strands per inch. Remember only the BAD GUYS have something to hide. Fear not.

  • Some useful advice (Score:5, Funny)

    by ReelOddeeo ( 115880 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @01:52AM (#11174787)
    Personally I have found that if you use a double layer of tinfoil when fashioning your headwear that it more than doubles the effectiveness! This is due to a resonance effect between the two layers of tinfoil which resonates precisely at the frequency of the government's invisible brain lasers.

    In addition, if you fashion two antennas on the top of your hat instead of the usual one, it increases the effectiveness by an additional 37 percent.

    (+5 Misinformative)
    • You need to put the layers of foil with the SHINY SIDE OUT. If you put the shiny side in, it will actually MULTIPLY the strength by bouncing the waves between the layers, acting as a MASER. It's a scientifically proven fact that Government Mind Control Rays are reflected and dispersed 68% more effectively by the shiny side of foil than the dull side.

  • Stocks ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by DanteLysin ( 829006 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @01:54AM (#11174795)
    ... of tin foil companies were up by more than 5 points today.

  • Still too invasive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phr1 ( 211689 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @01:55AM (#11174799)
    It means metal detectors will find your passport cover. When I go through airport security, I get wanded and they look in my wallet, which bugs the heck out of me. I usually carry my passport and cash in a nylon neck pouch though, and that doesn't set off the metal detectors. I don't like the sound of this new wire mesh thing. Big Brother and for that matter any club or courthouse I might visit has no need to know whether I'm carrying a passport.
    • What do you have in your wallet? I have NEVER had my wallet searched. It stays in my back pocket.

    • Re:Still too invasive (Score:5, Interesting)

      by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposerNO@SPAMalum.mit.edu> on Friday December 24, 2004 @02:16AM (#11174884) Homepage

      This isn't a trivial concern. People with dual citizenship are at risk in some countries. If you're a citizen of country X leaving country X, you may not want the security people to know that you're carrying a US passport. You may have no choice but to carry it, but making it metallic practically guarantees that you'll have to show it to security. Of course the same thing applies if other countries use RFID tags with metallic shielding.

      • Re:Still too invasive (Score:3, Informative)

        by TLLOTS ( 827806 )
        Err... couldn't you just put your passports in whatever bag you carry on the plane? That way when you go through the metal detectors, you just take your bag off, and you don't have to worry about passports showing up via metal detection. Keep them close together in the bag and when x-rayed they may not even be able to tell there's two in there. Though I could be very wrong about this, so take it with a grain of salt ;)

      • RFID in passports is a dangerous idea anyway (Score:5, Informative)

        by D4C5CE ( 578304 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @06:18AM (#11175512)
        In the countries considering RFID (US and many more, unfortunately), the governments' thinking with respect to RFID seems to be flawed in many ways:
        • They (incorrectly to their own knowledge) deny implications of RFID (in passports or otherwise) for the bearer's personal safety
        • They want to force RFID chips inside passports
        • Then they promise to shield it so the passport needs to be opened anyway - but could still be identified as e.g. a US one even when closed, and potentially still be read out with special (i.e. simply more powerful and/or sensitive) equipment, despite the apparent perception of security
        • Unlike with optical reading, where the document can simply be put out of sight, the bearer has no way of knowing whether and when an RFID shield actually works
        • Why pretend that only governments (or "the good guys" in general) would be able to procure RFID readers? This technology is not rocket science, and it could be every thug's dream come true (especially as the European Central Bank even seems to consider putting it into their money) - so "finally" for the nastier elements of society, remote assessment of who might be a "promising" victim e.g. for abduction, robbery or worse becomes possible
        So there is always certain inconvenience -if not danger- to the bearer, but not a single valid reason for embedding RFID into a passport: If it needs to be opened anyway, and faster machine-readability than with the current (already standardized) printed text is required, a simple printed barcode would do, at much greater reliability. Make no mistake, if RFID is enforced even though it does not have any benefit in the proposed application, there have to be ulterior motives for its use - then, however, it is no conspiracy theory to suggest that future mischief is implied in this scenario.
        • A further point: RFID's supposed advantage of high capacity for data storage is easily rivalled by a full-page 2D barcode.

          A standard PDF417 barcode contains about 1kB of data in 35 x 9mm. That's 315mm^2. My passport has a useful printable area of roughly 9600mm^2. That means that a single passport-page-sized 2D barcode could hold roughly 30kB.

          Of course, anyone can print barcodes. But then, relying on the inaccessibility of RFID programming and reading equipment is security through obscurity at its worst.

          • It may take some time for RFID readers and writers to be commercially available, but it will happen, just as anyone today can buy magnetic card equipment.

            First, these aren't RFIDs, they're contactless smart cards (the difference is one of degree, not type, but important nonethelesss). And contactless smart card reader/writers are already commercially available, and cost between $70 and $200.

            However, the chips are not just passive data stores, like a magnetic stripe or a barcode, they're microprocessor

            • If the chip refuses to divulge the data until you've successfully authenticated yourself via a cryptographic challenge/response protocol, just having a reader won't do any good.

              Although the govenrnment is not talking about cryptographic protection on reads (though they really, really should), they certainly will configure the chips to require a strong authentication for writes. It's very unlikely that you'll ever be able to modify the data on a passport like you could if it were encoded on a magnetic med

    • Re:Still too invasive (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It'll be a copper mesh in the fabric. It won't set off metal detectors. There'd be a much higher chance of the average sized fly zipper have a larger detection footprint then the passport cover.

      Metal detectors don't like non-ferrous metals.
      • But copper mesh would show on airport xray equipment, instantly identifying you to security personnel as a US passport holder, even when hidden in a checked bag.

        Does the US Govt assume that every other govt will always be friendly to US citizens?

        Does this make sense when about half the world seriously hates the US right now?
    • I'm not sure I agree. I don't know the intimate details of what airport metal detectors are designed to pick up, but in my 400,000 miles of flying in the past five years, I've noticed that small masses of metal (wire-frame eyeglasses, small belt buckles, wristwatches, etc.) usually don't get picked up by the walk-through type of detector. I'd have to guess that there would be an even smaller mass of metal in the passport cover than these items, so there's a pretty good chance that they wouldn't be detecte
    • I get wanded and they look in my wallet, which bugs the heck out of me.

      I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. At least in the US airports I've been to, they've never, ever looked inside my wallet except for the x-ray, which pretty much reveals a chunk of metal. That is, I don't hold on to my wallet when I go throug the detectors beause I'm not supposed to. Also I figured out that if I don't set off any alarms the first time (take off those shoes) they won't bother me at all on the other side
    • "It means metal detectors will find your passport cover. When I go through airport security, I get wanded and they look in my wallet, which bugs the heck out of me. I usually carry my passport and cash in a nylon neck pouch though, and that doesn't set off the metal detectors. I don't like the sound of this new wire mesh thing. Big Brother and for that matter any club or courthouse I might visit has no need to know whether I'm carrying a passport."

      Actually tinfoil is not such a big issue. My wallet is lin

  • Every neek and gerd should have some Mu metal which offers superb shielding of the magnetic component of the EMF. And at the close range of typical detectors it is the magnetic component which needs the shielding the most.

    • Re:Mu metal is the shielding of choice (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dougmc ( 70836 ) <dougmc+slashdot@frenzied.us> on Friday December 24, 2004 @02:15AM (#11174875) Homepage
      Mu metal which offers superb shielding of the magnetic component of the EMF.
      mu metal is way overkill. Seriously, a single layer of tinfoil is more than enough.

      You're not trying to stop a static magnetic field (there's no need) -- you're trying to stop a electromagnetic wave, and stopping either part of it (electric or magnetic) will do it.

    • Mu metal?

      That's a little bit hard to find. What about metal from Atlantis, hyperborea or Lemuria?

      WTF is mu metal?

      • From Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (2002):

        Mumetal

        [f. mu (l being conventionally used to denote permeability) + metal n. (and a.).]

        The proprietary name of an alloy of iron that contains approximately 75 to 78 per cent nickel, 4 to 6 per cent copper, and 1 1/2 to 2 per cent chromium by weight and is a useful material for transformer cores and magnetic shields because of its high permeability...
        First cited use: 1924 Trade Marks Jrnl. 16 Apr. 858 Mumetal. Metallic alloys, unwrought or partly

  • How to kill a biometric spy chip (Score:3, Informative)

    by spywarearcata.com ( 841806 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @02:15AM (#11174874)
    A stun gun is portable, works great, leaves no marks, and has pretty blue dancing lights.

  • Call me suspicious... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sinical ( 14215 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @02:21AM (#11174898)
    They can *tell* you that there're metal threads running through the cover, but can you know that without dismantling one? Perhaps the activation frequencies will be made public, but perhaps not. In any event, it would probably be a pain in the ass to figure it out non-destructively (try and stuff an antenna in there and keep the passport closed, then measure the intensity of the radiation that comes though? Microwave it and look for sparks or the wires to catch fire?).

    Make my tinfoil hat a beanie with a propellor, please. Or maybe a fedora...

  • Orbital Mind Control Lasers (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ranger ( 1783 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @02:22AM (#11174903) Homepage
    They want you to wear tin foil hats. It enhances the ability of the orbital mind control lasers to control you. The only sure protection is to shove your head up your ass.

    I for one welcome our new RFID overlords.

  • So... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jtbauki ( 838979 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @02:32AM (#11174937)
    ...they put metal wires in to keep others from accessing your information, big deal. How are they going to keep a thief from stealing your passport altogether?
    • "How are they going to keep a thief from stealing your passport altogether?"

      Um, this is the job of the government? Get a pouch and wear it around your neck. ...Unless this was a subtle joke, and I didn't initially get it. In that case, sorry.
    • To be fair, the problem of stolen passports is not unique to passports incorporating RFID's. I think it's safe to assume, barring strong encryption, that a thief who steals any document will be able to read all the information it contains.

      Passports already contain enough information to present a problem if stolen. Adding biometrics may increase the damage that can be done if the passport is stolen, but this is true however the biometric inforamtion is encoded.

      As far as using strong encryption on the

  • Big Brother is Watching (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AndrenidEnder ( 837536 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @02:34AM (#11174946)
    This is an early precedent towards a totalitarian state. We say, "Okay, that sounds resonable." Then, they do it with something else, something slightly more intrusive. You know the government wants to put tracking devices in every car for "taxation purposes". Another precendent. There are already black boxes in most newer model cars that save some of the statistics of your driving. Call me paranoid, but I don't like this kind of stuff, and I seem to be in the minority.
    • Call me paranoid

      You're paranoid.

      I don't think the government has any interest in tracking people. And I don't say that because I think the government wants to do no wrong, but that this doesn't seem to be a requirement of any evil plans. I don't think a part of the Bush agenda includes tracking some slashdotter around. Bush has been reelected and I think all he wants to do now is make people feel safe and secure in his presidency. Remember, he's got to pass the torch to somebody on his way out.

      • You haven't been keeping up with modern governments.

        Ok, you don't live in the UK but this is exactly [guardian.co.uk] what you are saying they aren't thinking about.

        They also want to bring in ID cards in the UK.. and then people wonder why were a little paranoid.

        Other things they have done in the last couple of years include,

        Detailing someone for an unlimited period without charge.
        Removal of the right to trail by jury so some crimes.
        Removal of the double jeopardy rule, where you can't be tried twice for the same crime.
        B
        • Well, this is about US passports so I'm discussing that. Look at laws in China or Puerto Rico. Just because their leaders tighten their grips doesn't mean I should get paranoid as an American citizen.

          And I don't think it's up to governments to sort out the problems. The people should get their shit together and solve their own problems. The government should just make sure the laws in place to protect them are enforced.

  • 1/2 solved? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by serps ( 517783 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @02:35AM (#11174950) Homepage
    Hang on, this solves the "random people can steal biometrics by wardriving" problem, but what about the "US Government now knows your fingerprint etc details" problem?
    • Actually, having the government KNOW your
      fingerprints, as well as your retinal scan
      (and perhaps even your DNA sequence) MIGHT
      just be a good thing. Both illegal immigration
      AND identity theft have gone up since 9-11-2001.
      Every billion dollars that the government
      wastes on a totally non-functional anti-ballistic
      missile defense system is a billion dollars not
      spent on improved border, seaport, and air cargo
      security. (You don't really think that the crazy
      lunatic running North Korea will launch 1 or 2
      of his 8 bal

      • Re:1/2 solved? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by xlv ( 125699 )
        Unfortunately, the attitude expressed in the
        parent comment is part of the problem that
        was expressed by Bush/Ashcroft/Tenet/Ridge --
        "not a matter of IF there will be another
        terrorist attack on USA soil, but of WHEN".

        Let me just first say that I have absolutly no sympathy for the current US administration. Now that that's out of the way, the above statement is one of the few accurate truths coming out of this administration. If you believe otherwise, i.e. that there is a way to prevent all terrorist attacks

      • Re:1/2 solved? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mrogers ( 85392 )
        An improved method of verifying people's identity would go a long way toward weeding out the illegal aliens (and the terrorists that are hiding amongst them).

        Name one illegal alien who has ever committed a terrorist act in the US.

        "not a matter of IF there will be another terrorist attack on USA soil, but of WHEN"

        True, but statistically irrelevant to your safety. Which of the following has killed more people in the US in the last five years:
        a) Terrorism
        b) Traffic accidents involving ice cream trucks?

        • Re:1/2 solved? (Score:3, Informative)

          by quarkscat ( 697644 )
          Define terrorist.

          There was a case several years ago regarding
          an illegal alien who had a habit of riding
          freight trains all over the USA. Granted that
          he is not a terrorist, but he is a psychopathic
          serial murderer. He killed more US citizens
          from California to Florida than the infamous
          Metro DC sniper team. Many times he was
          caught for vagrancy or petty crimes; sometimes
          he was detained by INS and then deported. But
          he kept crossing the border and committing these
          murders because the proceeds made for easy
          livin
    • It's not a problem it's a uhh... feature.

  • Fatal flaw... (Score:4, Funny)

    by AdamInParadise ( 257888 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @02:40AM (#11174964) Homepage
    I heard that, in order to cut costs. they will put wires only in the front cover.
    • The State Department says it may use the principle to give travelers an added
      sense of security.
      In other words, actual (increased) security is not what's been promised - rather, just the perception of it.

      Really weird how one could choose to adopt this kind of technology (especially as -unlike a bar code- it is creating other risks for the holder) in the first place, under these circumstances...

  • So why have them? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 24, 2004 @02:41AM (#11174968)
    It sounds like someone's getting an RFID kickback...why not use a barcode? Proven, cheap, and doesn't require new wars for foil...

  • What!? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Parandor ( 779995 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @02:50AM (#11174999)
    Ok, lets recap: they are going to sell magnetic shield with those RFID passports, right? That's briliant! I also have some prime estate on mars I could sell them at a discount. A real steal!

    Note that NOT using RFID is not what they propose. It is really impressive to see how far they are willing to go in order to justify pushing corporate interest despite its lack of use. There is plenty of technological solutions that can do the job, they have to insist on the one that won't...

  • Why does it need to be RFID in the first place? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @03:09AM (#11175055)
    Is there any reason it needs to be RFID and cant just be a smartcard thingo that gets plugged into the immigration guys box which then reads the data off it or whatever.
  • Even before the article the editors linked to. [slashdot.org]

    And for the record, I am STILL enjoying the fearmongering groupthink very much, thanks.

  • hacks (Score:4, Funny)

    by torrents ( 827493 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @03:58AM (#11175216) Homepage
    i'm personally going to wait for o'reilly to release "passport hacks" before i start tinkering...

  • Why not a bar code? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If the purpose of the wire mesh is to prevent the passport from being read without opening it then why didn't they just use a 2-D optical bar code that is visible only on the inside of the passport? Seems like somebody wanted RFID for the sex-appeal factor rather than any objective need.
    • Barcodes can't truly store information, and they misread all the time. I work at a library that uses barcodes, and the bc scanners will misread every 1 out of 50 books, or try to read the desk, mouse.. what have you. And a misread in this situation is not what you want.

      • Re:Why not a bar code? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SagSaw ( 219314 )
        Barcodes can't truly store information, and they misread all the time.

        I disagree. 2-D barcodes can very easily be used to store information, rather than just a key to some seperate database. At a past employer, most parts had a 2-D barcode which, besides for encoding the serial number (i.e. key to an external database), encoded important part parameters. Often, these parts were sold in matched sets. Encoding the data on the part allowed the customer to choose a replacement part with the correct par

  • Misdirection? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Has nobody thought about what a wonderful piece of misdirection RFID tags are? They're huge square blobs that ontain a lot of things you can obviously see, they are easily blocked or jammed and everyone knows about them. People can complain about it all they want and governments can listen and pretend to legislate, and all the while the real trackable stuff is silently glossed over. Don't you think there's smaller, more efficient tracking stuff that hasn't already been implemented? We're in 2004! An rfid ta
  • Can't you see??!! They're just going to connect the "shields" to the tag!!! They're building antennae into these things!! Run away! Flee while you can!

  • Two Problems (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Robber Baron ( 112304 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @11:08AM (#11176351) Homepage
    1) A passport isn't a national ID card, which appears to still be in the works. Americans still have "May I see your papers, citizen?" in their futures.

    2) Even with a Faraday cover, you will still need to take your passport out and open it. The would-be data thieves will simply hang around those places...airport check-ins, Immigration desks, hotels...etc

  • Still Not Secure (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Doug Dante ( 22218 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @11:53AM (#11176542)
    "You want wine? May I see your ID?"

    American pulls out passport.

    RFID snoopers who hang out nearby restaurant frequented by foreign tourists scoop up yet another id.

    The best solution is to eliminate the stupid idea that you can send and receive vital information wirelessly.

    However, baring that, somehow preventing the RFID from working unless you do something explicit to make it work should be sufficient. For example, the RFID chip won't send personally identifiying information unless it has a low voltage electrical contact that you can make by pressing a specifically marked spot in the passport marked "press here to activate wireless identification".

  • If they need more machine-readable information than a conventional barcode, use the 2-D barcodes [adams1.com] like UPS does (they use Maxicode, good for about 100 ASCII chars.) And check this out - once the passport is closed, nobody can read it. Oh, and it's not detectable with metal detectors, and it's compatible with the existing publication techniques.

    My gut is tellimg me that the RFID manufacturers are lobbying the politicians. The malicious behavior is on the part of the RFID manufacturers who are desperate t

  • This is only part of a larger problem. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 3point1415927 ( 838110 ) on Friday December 24, 2004 @01:34PM (#11177059)
    Naturally, I agree with the majority of people here that RFID passports are insecure, a threat to our privacy, and just generally a bad idea. However, I see a bigger problem here-- and a trend that's been growing over the past few years, at airports in America as well as in other countries. Airport security has already essentially dropped the facade of "random" checks; my male relatives (of Israeli descent, but most holding American passports) have all been interrogated/strip-searched/had the bomb squad called on them in the past few years at various airports throughout the world, for no justifiable reason. I find it pretty ridiculous that governments are spending so much money paying people to do things such as spend 2 hours detaining/interrogating a random girl (me) and doing things such as turning my violin upside down and shaking it violently, repeatedly turning my laptop on and off, etc., asking me idiotic questions ("why do you have this computer? what are you using it for?"). At any rate (sorry, got a bit off-track there), the real problem I see is this: airport security/governments in general already have such ridiculous criteria for profiling thought criminals (oh excuse me, "suspected terrorists".) It's bad enough to be detained/searched in this manner on a regular basis simply because of your ethnicity or appearance, but with RFID passports, passports containing a smartcard, etc., they can just take it one step further and start flagging "suspicious" people even more easily. Maybe I'm on the wrong track, but I really fell that the biggest threat here is not random criminals trying to steal your data or abduct you (as others have suggested); I think it's government entities with which we should be more concerned.
  • Get a new/renewd passport NOW, i.e., before they start issuing the RFID ones. Passports are now good for 10 years. I doubt that they'll forcibly retire all existing ones at once, since it would cost too much, they'l probably replace them all by attrition, and now you'll have 10 years until renewal.

    By then, it might have been successfully fought, or there could be good tested workarounds to the problems.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close