[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Real ID/RFID Enhanced Border Passport Cards Available Now... Real ID/RFID Enhanced Border Passport Cards Available Now... Written by Jim Capo Saturday, 20 December 2008 12:52 Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was handing out "extensions" to all 50 states, including those that refused to comply with federal deadlines, for upgrading their driver licenses to Real ID security requirements. Meanwhile, the United States Department of State continued to move forward with the Bush Administration's Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). The WHTI requires that citizens of the United States, wishing to "get themselves home," must present a WHTI compliant piece of identification at all land and sea border crossings into the United States. The new requirement is scheduled to go into effect this summer on June 1, 2009. At that time, U.S. citizens seeking entry into their country from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean or Bermuda will have to present one of the following authorized pieces of identification: Every one of the identification documents listed above now being issued by the federal government contains an RFID chip similar to ones used in the federal government's NAIS program used for tracking livestock. At the moment, the only EDLs approved as WHTI compliant (read Real ID compliant/ RFID chip embedded) are those issued by the state of Washington. Another key land crossing border state, New York, has already reached agreement with Homeland Security to meet the June 1, 2009 deadline — ahead of the original January 2010 target date requirement for Real ID compliant driver licenses. Border states Arizona, California, Michigan, Texas and Vermont are also working with Homeland Security. Canadian provinces are also developing RFID enabled EDL's that will comply with the security and tracking requirements being set by Canada's big brother to the south. At the start of this year, British Columbia launched a limited pilot program with about 500 volunteers. In September, Ontario introduced Bill 85 to upgrade its driver license to meet the DHS standards. Later in October, Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner, Dr. Ann Cavoukian, was allowed to submit an official review of the privacy issues surrounding WHTI/Real ID compliant personal identification cards set to be issued under Bill 85. Unlike the contrived self-critique by DHS of its own mandated system, Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner has provided an independent critique of privacy concerns raised by the Real ID scheme. On the first page of her report, Dr. Cavoukian commendably identifies the real issue at hand: Dr. Cavoukian goes on to point out that, as submitted, Bill 85 is essentially a blank check for government officials and agencies and private third parties who seek to know more about us. Her report makes twenty recommendations, the final two of which should give pause even for those who imagine the Real ID solution is really about protecting them from terrorists and other lawbreakers. Section 44 of Bill 85 should be amended to provide that the use and disclosure of personal information by the Ministry and by public bodies and related governments must be limited to that which is objectively necessary and for the purposes for which it was collected, namely, establishing eligibility for a driver’s licence or vehicle permit. Dr. Cavoukian also exposes the fallacy in the statement used by U.S. officials that, "for privacy protection, no personal information [only a unique identifier number] is stored on the electronic [RFID] chip itself." She correctly notes (emphasis added): Worse yet, but not surprisingly, there is nothing to suggest in current Homeland Security documentation that the alleged limitation to only have a unique number encoded into the RFID chip will remain in place. Instead, DHS's self-critique contains (on page 10) this implicit admission to the contrary: "[DHS] CBP also recommends and, where possible, requires that the only information subject to transmission on an RFID enabled card is the RFID number." Please reread the statement from HS's Customs and Border Patrol noting the correct emphasis on what is really being said. Here is the correct translation: "Where possible, the recommendation is to limit the data, subject to transmission, to an identifying RFID number. Now insert this standard assurance: "We're from the government, trust us." The where possible is the most troubling wording. What that phrase likely means is that, "where an individual has not been placed on our watch list, it will be possible to limit the data being transmitted from the chip to only a unique identification number." Honestly, who believes that DHS won't, at its own discretion, use an embedded RFID as a scarlet letter? Here is the best way to know that DHS is lying about only using the RFID chip for storing a simple number; No officials have suggested that the storage capacity of the embedded RFID chip be limited to a size that will only be able to hold a single encrypted indentifing number. Another important aspect of the RFID debate noted in the Ontario Commssioner's report is the security hole posed by unauthorized access to identification cards containing the RFID chips. U.S. Homeland Security claims that between the protective sleeve they provide with RFID embedded cards and security measures in place around border crossings, no unauthorized RFID readers will be able to gain access to a individual's information. This argument is self-defeating. HS admits that security measures (undisclosed) must be in place to keep unauthorized readers out of the zone un-sleeved cards are susceptible to giving up their information. The commonly stated distance that readers can readily pull information off the RFID chips on compliant ID cards is 15 feet. As anyone with a cell phone or wireless connection knows the range readable data can be picked up will exceed 15 feet. Consider then, all the places individuals carrying EDLs will be asked to pull out and unsleeve their driver licenses for identification purposes. There is no way DHS or state driver license agencies can guarantee RFID chips in individual's cards can't be accessed by unauthorized entities. Give credit to Ontario officials for acknowledging that though raw data coming off of RFID chips may be strongly encrypted, it is simply a fact of the technology that this data cannot be withheld from a nefarious person armed with a RFID reader in proximity of an individual's card. Ontario officials seeking improvements to Bill 85 offer a solution to this inherent problem with RFID chips: a card holder operable "on-off" switch. Though this "still under development" solution would hardly limit governments from compiling data files on all individuals, it would at least give the card holder some control over when, where and by whom information is pulled (or loaded onto) his RFID chip enhanced card. Such technology offers a token of personal control over one's private information, but perhaps more importantly, it allows privacy advocates to buy time with government agencies by demanding that RFID enhanced biometric ID cards not be made a requirement until such technology is fully available. Like Bill 85 in Ontario, expect similar measures pending in state legislatures in the U.S. to fall far short of protecting a person's privacy from prying eyes and the inevitable mission creep inherent in most government identification and tracking programs. Remeber those social security cards that were never to be used for identification purposes? This time it is worse. The tribulations that can accrue to a person whose social security number or credit card number is compromised pale in comparison to those a person is exposed to once their biometric data is compromised. Your face pattern or DNA code can't be swapped out like a password or PIN. The idea of being forced to register one's biometric identity with the federal government into a master data base that is continuously updated as you move around with your RFID enabled identification card, should be rejected just as soundly as having to register one's firearms or ammunition. Our unalienable right to personal privacy, like our unalienable right to bear arms in self defense, is a foundation of our freedom. History has demonstrated personal identification schemes are inevitably incompatible with human freedom. If you believe your personal information, financial transactions and movements should remain personal and not a collection of data housed in a central government database and ultimately who knows where else, please join with members of The John Birch Society and others who are working with state legislatures to block implementation of the Real ID Act. Contact us today. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: farmfriend (#0)
I wonder if these RFID chips will be trackable by GPS? Then the govt would know the location of every card so equipped -- and the person it belongs to, if carried with them. I may sound like a conspiracy nut, but WHY does the government need this information? No good reason I can think of, but a lot of bad ones.
#2. To: CalifGirlInMaine (#1)
They use them in SF to track traffic. Yes they can tell where you are. As for being paranoid, once you take the red pill there is no going back. There is no Mr. Smith to re-incert you back into the matrix.
no, you don't sound like a conspiracy nut. you sound like a girl whose eyes are wide open.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||