I was reading the EFF newsletter and I learned that the Department of Homeland Security plans to place transmitters (via a mini-PC chip) on passports as an anti-terrorism measure. For about the lifespan of a quark, I though how novel. Reality, however, soon set in and shattered my naivety to bits. Nonetheless, I am confident that everyone involved had the best intentions. I am more confident that it is very risky and hazardous.
The brilliance of this plan was to transmit information, such as name, relevant ID numbers and nationality. This would allow tracking of every passport holder. This would give the US government the information on your location when you, the terrorist who gave legit information, traveling with a legally obtained passport despite the public announcement that each one is now a beacon, commit your heinous crime against America. (Even more amazing, as we shall soon see, other nations should easily be able to do so as well.)
How, in a "beyond belief bureaucratic brainstorming" manner, do we accomplish this? Maybe we can put a transmitter in them. Yeah, that will work.
I hope that you are thinking the same as I. I am thinking "What were they thinking?" Next, I thought "I see... They weren't".
Saying they were not thinking is not exactly right. They were thinking... just not "right&quout;. Others have written much about the technical aspects of this. I wish to write about my opinion on "how" they were thinking. First, they thought it would be good to put a chip in because it would help to have more information available than scannable text would. Now, at first, this seems like a good idea. It is, I suspect, a myth.
With the technologies available, it would make far more sense to use a unique ID number to link all the relevant data to that ID. If you linked an ID to a secure database, you would have the advantage of keeping only the database and not the ID secure. Granted that a stolen Id would link to the secure data but, unless the scanner securities were breached, the data remains secure. Now why would we want that over transmitting the data?
Furthermore, they seemed to completely forget about the existing smart card technology that, although more expensive, would make any such ID much more secure. The devices chosen do not need physical contact to send their information. They literally transmit it, to anyone.
I suspect they were thinking that if the devices transmitted it would make the carrier easier to track. I mean, after all, would a terrorist willingly have his or her passport scanned. I also reckon that they were assuming that a terrorist would never think of obtaining a forged passport or stealing one.
It also seems that we are assuming those terrorists are just plain stupid. We are to assume that they would never forge a passport, steal one or such. We must also assume that they would enter/exit the country through passport checkpoints. In other words, they are not as bright as the Mexicans who swim the Rio Grande to avoid detection. They are not as bright as the drug smugglers who fly at night without lights and below radar. They are not as bright as those who simply beach a craft at Cape Anywhere, USA and sneak in. No, these are terrorist. They would never think of anything like that. I mean come on, what do you think they are pilots or something?
I can also assure you that a terrorist would never think of using these passport beacons to target individuals for hijackings or other evil means to achieve their fanatical ends. You are all making it sound like they would do something crazy like try and fly a jet into the Capital or something. They would never be able to figure out how to build something as simple as a device to receive a signal. I mean, you know that a pull string and not radio waves trigger a remote control car bomb.
We also must assume that nobody other than the customs agents would ever dare of lifting the information broadcasted. I mean, if that were possible, the Internet would be rampant with crimes such as identity theft. Terrorist would never use an ID beacon as such to pick out individuals from certain nations or military organizations. After all, if that were true, jet hijackers would have already used ID's to target, for example, Navy Seals.
I guess I have to go back to my second thought... They were not thinking.
This is another classic example of good intentions by those lacking any resemblance of a clue as to what is important and/or relevant. The result is a bad, in this case hazardous, decision. The decision made will make every traveling individual with such an ID a beacon. I hope you saw through my sarcasm and realize just how serious this matter is. (If not, I am sure the Department of Homeland Defense has a job for you.)
Just as it was the passengers, mostly US citizens, who caused a jet destined for the White House to plunge into the earth instead of its target, it is going to have to be the citizens who change the path of this "protective" measure. Write your representatives. I told you how to find them in this blog. This one matters much.
Well, Lumpy is off to write letters.
