Well, guess just what I heard on FOX (GOVERNMENT NEWS) Network. Knew it was coming, starting Jan 23, 2007, all new passports will have a computer chip implanted in them with your personal information stored on the chip.

When the DOT representative was asked what kind of info was stored on the chip, he responded by saying well, things like your name, address, age, birthplace. I thought, you lying sack of . All that info is already written on the inside of the cover of the passport. He mentioned that the chip couldn’t be altered without the government knowing about it. He turns right around and says that he doesn't believe that this is in anyway an invasion of someone's privacy. He also committed on this is mainly designed for travelers coming and going to Canada or Mexico. He said it could be only tracked at border crossings. BS!. If my passport is sitting on my desk at home those SOB's can track that and that's a fact.

Water meters were all changed and outfitted with transponders about five years ago. This allows the city to discontinue in house meter readings and resident meter reporting. The City department vehicle drives down the street and an onboard laptop reads the transponders from every house. I have seen the car in action and have observed it process a street of 32 houses in about one minute. Unfortunately I did not know about the dangers of RFID or know about any of the police state stuff so we allowed the tech into the house to replace the meter.

The transponder is about the size of the EZ-Pass transponder and the FAST Lane for New York and Massachusetts, respectively. The car is about 60-70 feet away from the transponder and it picks up the signal. This is obviously a great concern for passport as well. The RFID has a great range.

Pretty soon all "citizens" will be required to have an internal Passport and carry their papers with them at all times. Fixed antenna arrays will capture the signal as you or I walk by them, tracking us much like our post-2001 cell phones already do.

First, odd that they'd go to some Dept of Transport mouthpiece for an explanation. Passports are still done under the Bureau of Consular Affairs in the Dept of STATE.

Second, considering that it's pretty much the same info as is printed on the passport, this chip can be used as an anticounterfeiting measure, since passports have been stolen (and their proper bearer's murdered) not only to patch another photo in for some criminal or terrorist, but also sometimes with changes in the printed information to comport with the age, height, etc. of the criminal user.

Eventually, however, these chips might be used like those toll bridge EZ passes, where the passport is just waved over a sensor and is cleared instantly without any time spent opening and reading the pages.

Please address the ability to clone RFID and you will see it is meant to increase "identity theft" not provide so-called "security". Hacking groups have already come out and said they have cloned passports and have lifted information off unsuspecting holders.

Now they don’t even have to ask for your papers, you are automatically
scan.

NeedKarma

It must be a U.S. thing then because I don't get those ads here in Canada, nor does anyone I know. Plus I don't believe that we have those types of 'information brokers' here either (maybe we do and it's part of an underworld I am not familiar with).

tamed

Please understand that this by no means belittles the severity of those attacks nor does it make this day any less significant, but these new security measures will not necessarily change the fact that there will still be terrorists born and raised in either the US or the UK and them having a passport with their details on it will not change what they believe in. It is very easy to say that these new measures are for our own safety but how much is it really?

ScottGem

See what you have is a Catch 22. You asked why they feel the need to monitor. I gave you the answer to that question. Your response is to say that the measures may not stop every potential terrorist. But is that any reason to drop the measures making it easier for more potential terrorists?

Already, several potential plots have been foiled by greater screening and diligence. Will one of them get thru someday? I fear they will, but I don't feel that means relaxing our vigilance.

In my opinon 9/11 succeeded mostly because of the climate that existed prior to it. Airline passengers were told to sit tight and not antagonize the hijackers. The lesson of Flight 93 is such that I don't believe the tactic can be used again. Passengers are not going to sit still against a few people armed with box cutters.

9/11 changed the world we live in. Some of those changes are good, others bad. But Pandora's box has been opened. I think its going to be a fine line for govt's to walk to provide security without inhibiting freedoms. The question is where to draw the lines. I personally am willing to give up some freedoms and privacy for greater security. But I also draw the line. For example, I am dead set against warrantless wire taps. The mechanism exist for obtaining such warrants without compromising the investigation so they were not necessary and should be illegal. But would I mind having my bag randomly checked as I board the PATH some morning, no I wouldn't. There is nothing in my bag to get me in any trouble with the law.

KMSRyana

I work with people almost every single day who have been victims of Identity theft. I have personally had to sit and entertain criminals trying to obtain fraudulent loans while the police where on the way, on several occasions. It's real. Very, very real. On that end I am concerned with the nature of the RFID device and how it works, because it isn't passive, it's 24/7 transmitting. It just makes it easier. The Padre makes some very valid points with how easy it is to obtain information about others as it is now. This will just make it easier, in my opinion.

KMSRyana

100% agree. That whole post was thorough, well thought out, and well said. I still don't like the device. The idea itself is a good one, but there has to be a more secure way of doing the same thing.

ScottGem

Oh its very real. I have a shredder and every mail I get that has the remotest possibility of being used against me gets shredded. But I have been using cyberspace since the 80s before there was a WWW. I've been using computer banking for almost as long as there has been computer banking. I have too many credit cards and have shopped by Internet and phone. I've never come close to having my Identity stolen. Its a very real problem but I just don't think its as widespread as has been made out. I also think that much of the time where there is an Identity theft its due to carelessness on the part of the victim. Like falling for a phishing scam.

Thanks for the compliment about my Catch 22 note.

tamed

You see, that right there is what I mean. There are already "measures" in place that reduce/ foil potential plots. You have air marshals, stricter measures on hand luggage, finger printing and eye scanning at airports (and the list goes on), intelligence offices being at higher alert, these are acceptable measures but the only thing me carrying all my details around with me is going to help is proving that I am not an illegal immigrant. Those who carried out the attacks in London however, were born and bred there so theoretically speaking this new passport idea would not have change anything because they would still have all their details in check. Or have you forgotten that most of these people do not tend toi have criminal records?

The bottom line is that I don't think this passport issue increases our vigilance by one iota.
You are correct in saying that our attitudes have change with regards to hijacking and that the tactic may not be used again. 9/11 was a world defining event and indeed Pandora's box has been opened but the government have not treaded the fine line carefully and have thus crossed it. It is their duty to protect us and it is also their duty to make sure that protection doesn't take away from our liberty otherwise what would be the point of all the wars if we are to have our liberty taking away by those who have sworn to protect it?

Just because we have nothing to hide does not give the anyone the right to invade our privacy. You say that you are against unwarranted wire tapping but how is that different from them knowing your every movement? To borrow from your Pandora's box analogy, once your movements have been tracked, why not your phone calls?
We have worked hard for this freedom we uphold, countless of people have died because of it, wouldn't freely giving it up spit in their faces?

ScottGem

That's not the Pandora's box analogy, that's the give them an inch they will take a mile adage. The answer to that is you have to have guardians like the ACLU for example (yes I know they tend to go too far, lets not get into that) to safeguard the freedoms.

But this goes with what I was saying. I really don't care if the govt knows where I go. I'm not bothered that they can use my EZ-Pass to know when I've crossed the Hudson. I don't care if they know I went to Fort Lauderdale several years ago (I actually stayed in the same motel a couple of the 9/11 hijackers stayed in though at different times). None of those things bother me.

tamed

I guess thats one of the many differences that makes us all individuals. Even if I don't have anything to hide, I would still like my privacy.

KMSRyana

Tough issue. Let's just not vote on it, the government will just alter the results.