[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Try It For 5 Days! - The Most EFFICIENT Way To LOSE FAT Number Of US Student Visas Issued To Asians Tumbles Range than U.S HIMARS, Russia Unveils New Variant of 300mm Rocket Launcher on KamAZ-63501 Chassis Keir Starmer’s Hidden Past: The Cases Nobody Talks About BRICS Bombshell! Putin & China just DESTROYED the U.S. Dollar with this gold move Clashes, arrests as tens of thousands protest flood-control corruption in Philippines The death of Yu Menglong: Political scandal in China (Homo Rape & murder of Actor) The Pacific Plate Is CRACKING: A Massive Geological Disaster Is Unfolding! Waste Of The Day: Veterans' Hospital Equipment Is Missing The Earth Has Been Shaken By 466,742 Earthquakes So Far In 2025 LadyX Half of the US secret service and every gov't three letter agency wants Trump dead. Tomorrow should be a good show 1963 Chrysler Turbine 3I/ATLAS is Beginning to Reveal What it Truly Is Deep Intel on the Damning New F-35 Report CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene NEW: Armed man detained at site of Kirk memorial: Report $200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030 Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis Fooling Us Badly With Psyops The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why) Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them

Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: DHS Privacy Committee Finalizes Report on RFID IDs
Source: RFID Journal
URL Source: http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/2885/1/1/
Published: Dec 12, 2006
Author: Mary Catherine O'Connor
Post Date: 2006-12-13 00:33:19 by bluegrass
Ping List: *New History*
Keywords: None
Views: 257
Comments: 5

Dec. 12, 2006 — A revised version of a report from the Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, a subcommittee of the Privacy Office of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), was cleared for publication at a Dec. 6 meeting of the committee in Miami Beach, Fla. The report, titled "The Use of RFID for Human Identification," will now be sent to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, as well as the DHS's chief privacy officer, Maureen Cooney.

The subcommittee wrote the 15-page report to guide Chertoff and Cooney in deciding whether to deploy RFID technology to identify or track individuals for such DHS programs as the PASS cards that will eventually be issued as an alternative to U.S. passports for travel in North America.

The original version of the report, written by the committee's Emerging Applications and Technology Subcommittee, was presented to the full Advisory Committee on June 7, 2006, at a public meeting in San Francisco (see DHS Meeting Draws Comments on RFID). At the time, it received a chilly reception by many representatives from companies selling RFID technology used in identification and credential applications, as well as from technology industry groups, because it came down hard on the use of RFID in identity documents. "We recommend that RFID be disfavored for identifying and tracking human beings," the draft report indicated, citing concerns over the skimming of personal data transmitted over a radio frequency signal, the cost of implementing RF technology and the existence of other authenticating technologies that could be used instead.

The final version of the report comes to a similar conclusion, according to coauthor Jim Harper, a director of information-policy studies for the Cato Institute, though its language has been softened. "I think a lot of the language was toned done, and a lot of assumptions that I feel strongly are true...were left out for the sake of congeniality," he says. One example he points to is the removal of most descriptions of RFID in identity documents as being "a tracking technology." Still, he says, there are no "recognizable substantive changes" to the latest version.

But in his reading of the latest report, Douglas Farry, a managing director and chair of the RFID practice at McKenna Long & Aldridge, a nationwide law firm focusing on the intersection of public policy and technology, sees a more pronounced change in the final draft. "It seems to be a better position than the initial draft, in that the initial draft concluded that the potential benefits [of using RFID in identity documents] were more than outweighed by the potential risks to personal privacy [that the technology presents]. But that's toned down. Now it says that if the DHS is going to use an RFID system, it should do so thoughtfully and carefully."

Both the original and revised reports are roughly the same length, and both share a common architecture and most of the same section and subsection content. However, the original version uses more pointed language. For instance, both versions state that RFID can provide a means of identifying a credential, but not the individual who is presenting it. To authenticate the bearer, they say, one or more biometric scans must be used to prove the credential was issued to the person presenting it. The two versions of the report diverge, however, in regard to the impact that authenticating the bearer would have on the process of RFID use to authenticate the document. "The steps needed to verify the biometric information using today's technology may reduce or negate the speed benefit offered by radio transmission," the revised report states. The original, however, contains the following wording: "Tying RFID to a biometric authentication negates the speed benefit [of using RFID]."

The reports also differ in describing the possible risks to personal privacy presented by the use of RFID technology in identity documents. The original version of the report says, "The use of RFID for human identification may create a number of risks that are not found in conventional and non-radio identification processes. Individuals will likely be subject to greater surveillance in RFID identification. They will be less aware of being identified and what information is transferred during identification, concerns that necessitate transparency in the design of RFID identification systems." In contrast, the revised report focuses on the personal-privacy risks created by any digital information system, over a manual system. "Digital identification systems pose privacy risks," the revised report states. "In a visual ID-check environment, a person may be briefly identified but then forgotten, rendering them anonymous for practical purposes. In a digital (RF-based) identity-check environment, by contrast, a person's entry into a particular area can be recorded and the information stored for some period of time. If not properly protected, this information could also be repeatedly shared or used for secondary purposes, even potentially used for broader surveillance."

Harper says he hopes members of the DHS and representatives from the RFID and smart-card industry will take the report to heart, giving credence to the best practices and privacy-focused safeguards it recommends.

The DHS and the U.S. Department of State (DOS) are already beginning to embed RFID inlays in U.S. passports, so the final publication of the privacy report comes too late for use by those agencies in that regard. Still, Harper maintains, the report could still hold value to decision makers in other countries who are considering deploying electronic passports. The guidelines the United States and other nations are following for deploying RFID in passports, Harper says, were devised by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), do not require as many privacy safeguards as they should (see United States Sets Date for E-Passports).

The DHS and DOS also plan to RFID-enable the PASS card, a travel document that will be issued in lieu of a U.S. passport to identify U.S. citizens who travel to Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean or Bermuda (see New U.S. ID for Border Crossing to Use RFID). The agencies originally set a deadline of Dec. 18 for the public to submit comments on their plans to add RFID to the card (see DHS Proposes Vicinity RFID Technology for PASSport Card ). That deadline has now been extended to Jan. 8, and Harper says the Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee hopes the agencies consider the report along with the public comments they are currently receiving, as they develop the PASS program.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.

#1. To: Zoroaster, BTP Holdings, Brian S, Jethro Tull, Tauzero, Red Jones, Lady X, noone222, Brian S, christine, Zipporah, robin, Peetie Wheatstraw, HOUNDDAWG, Uncle Bill, Dakmar, tom007, aristeides, Neil McIver, bluedogtxn, historian1944 (#0)

Both the original and revised reports are roughly the same length, and both share a common architecture and most of the same section and subsection content. However, the original version uses more pointed language. For instance, both versions state that RFID can provide a means of identifying a credential, but not the individual who is presenting it. To authenticate the bearer, they say, one or more biometric scans must be used to prove the credential was issued to the person presenting it. The two versions of the report diverge, however, in regard to the impact that authenticating the bearer would have on the process of RFID use to authenticate the document. "The steps needed to verify the biometric information using today's technology may reduce or negate the speed benefit offered by radio transmission," the revised report states. The original, however, contains the following wording: "Tying RFID to a biometric authentication negates the speed benefit [of using RFID]."

Note that the scare tactic isn't "The number of the Beast really sucks." The scare tactic is "we might be inconvenienced."

bluegrass  posted on  2006-12-13   1:06:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

This has the same problem as any ID. If the card or tag itself carries the data, it's subject to counterfeiting. If a centralized database holds the data, it's subject to some functionary fat fingering a number during input and ruining someone's life, or subject to some damned fool taking the data home on a laptop and getting it stolen or compromised.

RFID is really an interesting technology, and I think that eventually WalMart is going to be the driver for making it ubiquitous. For a loss prevention tool at a store, it cannot be beat. Make a membership card (like a Mobil speedpass) mandatory (note that I'm saying that a commercial enterprise could do this, under no circumstances should a government at any level be allowed to incorporate this, even though they won't ask permission) connected to a credit or debit card. Have interrogators at every avenue of ingress and egress. When you walk in, the store notes that you have entered. You fill your shopping cart, and walk out. Since every item is tagged, every item in your shopping card gets debited from your account. You can have less loss prevention types and fewer actual cashiers. There are still ways around this, but it is an interesting idea.

For IDs, this is an abomination, though. It would make it too easy for the state to track citizens, and I still believe that the American people have a right to privacy, and a right to anonymity. Use of RFID in ID cards would remove both.

historian1944  posted on  2006-12-13   6:51:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

For IDs, this is an abomination, though. It would make it too easy for the state to track citizens, and I still believe that the American people have a right to privacy, and a right to anonymity. Use of RFID in ID cards would remove both.

Which is why I'll refuse it. NO matter what the consequences.

IndieTX  posted on  2006-12-13   9:42:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

        There are no replies to Comment # 3.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 3.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]