NationStates Jolt Archive

So, the US state department has asked 27 allied nations to begin building biometric security chips into passports, or their citizens may not be allowed to enter the US.

http://premium.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/06/14/us.passports.ap/

Many people feel that biometric security could be easily misused and is a violation of their privacy and civil rights, and many international travelers have decided never to visit the US again because of biometric security (and bad experiences at customs).

But because of this new requirement, they may have to submit to biometric security, effectively, just to leave their own countries of origin.

Is this fair? or is it too much like 1984 meets global Apartheid? Should non-US citizens petition their own governments not to comply or to create separate documents for travel to the US, allowing people to waive the biometric requirement if they don't want to go there?

I wrote my thoughts on this back in December of last year: http://armageddonproject.com/?p=159
Travelling? Next Stop: 1984

The Christian Science Monitor (among other sources) is reporting that the U.S. government is going ahead with its plan to make RFID chips a part of every U.S. citizen’s passport — whether we like it or not.

Passports go electronic with new microchip

Next year, new US passports will have a chip slipped under the cover, containing biometric and personal data. But privacy advocates worry about surveillance.

By Susan Llewelyn Leach | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

(Photograph)The US passport is about to go electronic, with a tiny microchip embedded in its cover. Along with digitized pictures, holograms, security ink, and “ghost” photos - all security features added since 2002 - the chip is the latest outpost in the battle to outwit tamperers. But it’s also one that worries privacy advocates.

The RFID (radio frequency identification) chip in each passport will contain the same personal data as now appear on the inside pages - name, date of birth, place of birth, issuing office - and a digitized version of the photo. But the 64K chip will be read remotely. And there’s the rub.

The scenario, privacy advocates say, could be as simple as you standing in line with your passport as someone walks by innocuously carrying a briefcase. Inside that case, a microchip reader could be skimming data from your passport to be used for identity theft. Or maybe authorities or terrorists want to see who’s gathered in a crowd and surreptitiously survey your ID and track you. Suddenly, “The Matrix” looks less futuristic.

More —>

This is just one more example of the U.S. federal government’s apparent fascination with turning America into Oceania ala 1984.

The RFID chip manufacturers say that the chips are safe and can only be read inside a 10 centimeter distance. That is not the problem. The problem lies in the fact that the data stored on the chip is not encrypted. I have a serious problem with the government and the manufacturers not taking the security of our personal data seriously, especially when they are forcing us to carry around the unencrypted data on a chip. It’s almost as if they are intentionally forcing this faulty technology on us as a “solution” for homeland security…which then creates a problem of possible identity theft…which they will then pronounce to be the problem and force some other wonderful “solution” on us to fix the problems raised by their previous “solution”. Implantable RFID chips, maybe?

What happened to the government protecting instead of spying on us?I have links to more information on the post itself on my website.

If the USA wants to go ahead with these measures then they can. It simply means that many people will choose other holiday destinations. I can forsee considerable increase in the tourists going to Canada, Australia and South Africa as these would be reasonable alternatives for those that want English speaking countries.

I do not understand how the biometrics would actually have any effect in identifying terrorists. Can anyone explain this?

The Swedish government is going to start issuing biometric passports in October. I will fortunately get a new, regular passport before that and it will mean that I'll avoid getting into this scary system for at least ten years, as the old kind will be valid for that time.

Let's just say since I'm not American I don't really approve of this regulation. From what I've gathered, the US require foreigners to have biometric passports in order to be allowed to travel to the US, but their own passports are not equipped to these standards. (Which, to me, is not really the best way to handle the situation... some Europeans might interpret this as a way of the US saying 'you don't quite seem trustworthy to us, but how you could possibly think the same of us?')

There's no way they can tell if you're a terrorist from the information they say they want on the passport. I assume this means that they're either a gimick or they're lying about the ammount of information to be put on the passport.

I live in the UK and the government want to bring in ID cards here as an encore to the qualification of free speach, house arrest without trial and a ban on protests outside parliament. As if this wasn't bad enough they want to charge us £90 each for they privelege of being spied on.

I have links to more information on the post itself on my website.
It'd be cool to see the other post, too. Can you post a URL?

If the USA wants to go ahead with these measures then they can. It simply means that many people will choose other holiday destinations.
But if other governments start using biometrics in their travel documents just to keep the US happy, even people who don't want to go to the US will still be affected.

...I'll avoid getting into this scary system for at least ten years, as the old kind will be valid for that time.
It's only five years in my country :(

Good god this possiblity disturbs me. Right outta Gattaca or Brave New World I tells ya

If they used a system similar to the one in Gattaca, none of your personal information would exist on a card. It would all be in the computer.

You would give a drop of blood (or a hair, or some dead skin) as a sample every time you wanted to authenticate your identity.

The computer would show a picture and other details so that the other person could verify who you were.

It would be much, much harder to conceal your identity. Not impossible, but much more difficult than today.

Also, if your DNA was on file, if any DNA was present at a crime scene, they would know very quickly who was present.