Smart Card Alliance calls RFID licenses unsafe, can't say why

We're all for some genuine privacy concerns or legitimate RFID security scenarios, but we think this Enhanced Driver License scenario might be a bit overblown. The new licenses, which are due to launch in Vermont and Washington in 2008, are designed to expedite passport-free border crossing into Canada and Mexico. The critics point out that the RFID tags emit a unique ID tag that can be picked up by standard equipment, but beyond that they haven't really locked down a specific threat that a leaked ID number could be to users. "I'm tapping in to the emotion of those people who are sensitive to their rights to privacy," said Randy Vanderhoff of the Smart Card Alliance, which is promoting a competing standard. The licenses are completely voluntary, and both Vermont and Washington are going to be offering radio-blocking sleeves to users to allay any privacy concerns.

[Thanks, SickNic]

[Jack @ Nov 5th 2007 9:28AM]

Awwwwrriight I know where she lives

Giggidi Giggidi Guu

[Paul @ Nov 5th 2007 11:18AM]

It's Giggity giggity goo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Quagmire

[nikola @ Nov 5th 2007 11:58AM]

HMMMMMM.....a driver's license that emits a signal effectively allowing you to be "tagged" or have your identity remotely scanned at any authority figure's desire...and engaaahget can't figure out what could be wrong with that?

Hey, I have an idea. Lets give the guys that think simulated drowning isn't torture more powers, like the ability to track us and turn any policeman or car into a remote check-point. Nothing could possibly go wrong there. I just hope my engaahget comments don't give me a high-terror score when they scan my card :/

[Homeboy @ Nov 5th 2007 9:28AM]

Mary Jane is one fine woman. I can be her Peter Parker any day.

[tim @ Nov 5th 2007 12:10PM]

looking closely, something tells me shes not as great as first glance would suggest. and trust me, im quite possibly the hottest guy in seattle.

[[e-mail] @ Nov 5th 2007 9:32AM]

Shes 50 years old? GILF.

[Jeff @ Nov 5th 2007 12:13PM]

And she weighs 148 pounds. Guess none of that fat's in the face.

Something tells me this is a fake driver's license.

[ukickmydog (NDF - Earth) @ Nov 5th 2007 9:33AM]

maybe because they can cause cancer?

[Joseph @ Nov 5th 2007 9:34AM]

Mary Jane has held up well for a woman born in 1957!

[Argot @ Nov 5th 2007 12:14PM]

Yeah. Smokin!

[Wwhat @ Nov 5th 2007 9:36AM]

INTO canada/mexico? you mean FROM canada/mexico right? Or what?

[Justin @ Nov 5th 2007 11:27AM]

Because why would someone in the States ever want to visit another country, right?

/sarcasm

[Wwhat @ Nov 5th 2007 3:08PM]

My point was that I don't see mexico demanding RFID cards from americans so soon, but the other way round seems more likely, it seems america is more interested in keeping illegal mexicans out than mexico is in keeping illegal americans out, and the same applies to canada.

[dhughes @ Nov 5th 2007 3:59PM]

You got that right, those darn US illegal aliens coming up here for our free health care (seriously!), our high dollar and jobs in the Alberta oil fields.

[Jason B @ Nov 5th 2007 9:40AM]

All Hail the Alliance!

[Wwhat @ Nov 5th 2007 9:41AM]

Oh incidentally, not only is she born in 1957 but the 'new' passport 'due out in 2008' was issued in 2003?
And do they really put your weight on those things? bit embarrassing for americans perhaps? plus it's changing all the time so to put it on something valid for years is daft.
And one last question: since it's american should it not also have a line that says 'race'? and perhaps 'religion'?

[The Pepto Pimp @ Nov 5th 2007 10:50AM]

Can't speak for all states, but here in California they do put your weight on them. And the overweight, resentful employees at the California Department of Motor Vehicles have been known to comment on and/or falisfy the weight information.

America, despite all outward appearences, can in fact be a wonderful place...

[Denver_80203 @ Nov 5th 2007 9:41AM]

Can anyone give a good non-tinfoil-cap reason that a national ID card is a bad idea?

[Andrew @ Nov 5th 2007 9:57AM]

It impedes the subjugation of immigrants by Wal*Mart.

[Wwhat @ Nov 5th 2007 9:56AM]

You know, if you read the news, read the testimonies, read the congressional records, read history books, and were generally even slightly informed about reality as it exists in present day america where bush takes a dump on the constitution daily you would not employ the term 'tinfoil hat' really I think.

[Denver_80203 @ Nov 5th 2007 10:16AM]

Thanks Wwhat. I do all those things and all your have proven is that you are paranoid tinfoil capper without referring to a single example. How is a national ID any worse than a State issued ID? What godly powers does this open up upon you?

[Nedy78 @ Nov 5th 2007 10:35AM]

I think the issue has more to due with the RFID potential to track rather than a national ID system. I personally would be perfectly fine with a national ID. In fact, it would even be nice to have it linked with various credit cards and other "cards"; imagine having to just carry one card around, but I digress.

[Benson @ Nov 5th 2007 10:47AM]

Here you go, I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat! (It's safely tucked away in my secret pocket; I only need it when I leave my broad-spectrum-jammed Faraday-caged basement hideout.)

The bottom line is: you're asking the wrong question:
"Can anyone give a good non-tinfoil-cap reason that a national ID card is a bad idea?"
There are some privacy concerns regarding non-government use/spying (with RFID especially), some concerns about government abuse, and perhaps some other concerns people have about this specific issue. I'm not sure precisely where to draw the "tin-foil hat" line on these concerns, but I'm persuaded that if you care which concerns are valid, you've missed the main point.
The very notion that the government can do anthing, as long as it's not "a bad idea," is the bad idea.
Here's a little explanation of my understanding of government:
First, practically all conflicts are resolved by the use of force, or the threat thereof. That's simply a fact of life.
The point of governments is to obtain a limited monopoly on the use of force. If the government of a society uses force only in "right" ways (where right is difficult to define), including to protect its monopoly by punishing those who use force without its sanction, then conflicts between members of the society will be resolved through peaceable means, because of the threat of force from the government.
Clearly (with most reasonable definitions of "better"), the society is better off this way, rather than with each individual using force to resolve conflicts in their own favor. (In general, everything is better resolved by the threat of force rather than by actual force, but due to the use of force in "right" ways, we expect a greater level of "fairness" as well as reduced bloodshed.)
The trouble is, now the government _can_ (and, given the involvement of humans in government, will) use force to resolve conflicts in its own favor. This happens so predictably we have a word for it: Oppression.
To reduce the capability of the government to oppress, several measures can be (and, in the U.S., have been) taken:
* Separate powers placed in opposition. The natural ambition and jealousy of the other powers limits the strength of any one power.
* Carefully enumerated privileges of each branch. By limiting them to only defined privileges, it becomes much harder for them to "pull one over" on the people, promoting some oppressive, or at least power-expanding, goal by concealing the danger and asking only "why is it a bad idea?"
* Keeping the entire government sufficiently weak and the individuals, and states, sufficiently strong to keep a revolution possible. That's right, the U.S. government was designed to _enable_ a just revolution. When it becomes sufficiently clear that the federal government is usurping the rights of the states or of individuals, enough states or individuals will band together and have sufficient strength to overthrow the federal government. Of course, the plan was, in fact, that the threat of such an uprising, and the inability of the federal government to strengthen itself against it, would deter the government from oppression.

My argument would be that the enumerated powers of the U.S. Congress do not permit them to make such a law, and so they must not be permitted to take this power, however harmless and expedient it may seem.
If that doesn't work for you, (e.g. you're not concerned about legality, but rather wisdom: _Should_ the Constitution permit Congress to make a national ID?) then I would argue that there are no good reasons to allow it, and that it should therefore be stopped to keep the federal government weak.

[Denver_80203 @ Nov 5th 2007 11:01AM]

Ok Benson.. So if the government goes up in smoke and we're all running for our lives.. the failure of the revolutionaries will be RFID tags? I mean... REALLY??? are you protesting Social security numbers? License Plates? RFID on your debit card? IP addresses? Since they are embedding such chips in Passports (I have one), are you no longer going to travel? I get that you shouldn't trust your government but I'm not sure that the issues you talk about outweigh the benefits of a single ID. If you are ever the victim of ID theft, you may find yourself with more pressing concerns than the failure of democracy as we know it.

[Benson @ Nov 5th 2007 12:09PM]

My argument is an appeal to principle. When you don't stand on principle, you lose, inch by inch. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough, but I think national IDs are small and insignificant. The issues that exist with them in particular can be addressed by careful selection of the type of ID cards, control of access to databases, and aluminized mylar card-sleeves.
If it's wrong in principle, I object on the basis of that principle, not because of specific effects of this violation. To see it as wrong in principle and accept it because of minimal effects would be analogous to letting someone off the hook for shooting Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, et al. on the grounds that the effect was insignificant, or perhaps positive. :)
And let's not forget: "If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will."

As to your specific questions:

> Are you protesting Social security numbers?
There are several issues here. The use of the SSN as a universal ID? Yes. It's use should be constrained to collection of taxes and disbursal of benefits under Social Security. The use of the SSN for Social Security purposes, given the existence of Social Security? No, how else do you keep track of people in a nationwide program? Their parents assign names, and cannot be persuaded to assign them uniquely. Much better for the responsible agency to assign a unique identifier. The existence of a Social Security program? Yes. Definitely. FDR ranks right up there with the Reconstruction-era Radical Republicans in my book of the U.S.'s worst internal enemies ever. Creating dependency of people on the government is one of the best ways to strengthen the government and weaken the people. It's also one of the worst ways to help people, as governments face no competitive pressure to increase efficiency. Finally, a Ponzi scheme is unstable, and it is pure folly to make a government program that can be guaranteed to collapse or require massive additional funding.

> License Plates?
No. I do take issue with insurance requirements, but not with the license plates themselves. These are state issued, not federal, and so don't strengthen the federal government at all. There is the possibility of states becoming oppressive, but this is less a problem because the Constitution is held to permit freedom of movement between states, and because many injustices by state governments can be dealt with by the federal government; there is no such recourse for federal injustice.

> RFID on your debit card?
No. The bank I get my debit card from has no powers of coercion, so while there may be privacy concerns, they may be resolved with aluminum foil, or more simply by not using an RFID debit card. There are none of the concerns associated with the government's unique situation as the arbiter of force.

> IP addresses?
No. Again, the government does not require me to get an IP address (though I do need one to send an internet through a bunch of tubes). Please note that my concerns do not center around traceability, but rather around governmental power and knowledge. A national ID card, properly implemented, probably has less traceability than an IP address, although that may be countered by the persistence of the ID.

> Since they are embedding such chips in Passports (I have one), are you no longer going to travel?
I didn't even mention RFID, except in a brief mention of the sort of concerns I said _didn't matter_. My opinions on passports will not be changed by the inclusion of RFID. One of the main goals of the federal government _should be_ to limit access to the country by whoever feels like dropping in. Passports are an excellent tool in accomplishing this, and I have no problem with them, RFID or otherwise.

> If you are ever the victim of ID theft, you may find yourself with more pressing concerns than the failure of democracy as we know it.
Regarding the failure of democracy as we know it: That would be a _good_ thing. I'm far more concerned about the failure of republicanism as we know it. (I know, that wasn't your main point, and you may well understand the truth better than most who say that. But it drives me nuts when so many people think the democratic aspects of this republic are what makes it great. They are just part of the elaborate machinery designed to prevent usurpation of power; when taken alone, they merely introduce a majoritized tyranny.)

[Benson @ Nov 5th 2007 12:22PM]

Oops. The smiley following "That would be a _good_ thing." somehow escaped. But I finally caught him:
------

------
:)
------

------
It wouldn't really be good, of course. It's an essential part of the machinery, as discussed in the next sentence.

[Chris @ Nov 5th 2007 1:32PM]

There is a difference between a state issued ID and a national ID. It is the same difference in any state law vs national law issue, and that is the removal of states' rights and the consolidation of power.

That and the fact that the Federal Government has repeatedly shown its inability to keep private information private make me nervous about another national ID (we already have SSN).

Philosophical reasons aside, with all the oversight today (which increases every day), I doubt that there would be any widespread abuse. It would certainly be used, and likely unintentionally misused, frequently.

The question then is, do the benefits outweigh the costs? Well that is up to the policy makers.

[Dauthi @ Nov 5th 2007 2:44PM]

Go Benson.

The federal government has too much control as it is, which is why we're seeing so many abuses and bureaucratic crap these days. They are no longer afraid of the people and they have every right not to be when people are more concerned with convenience than with liberty. Leave it up to the states to augment our convenience: they can be controlled much easier than the Feds, who have been increasing their powers for decades without impediment.

We've already seen them chuck the Geneva Constitution and attempt to roast parts of the Constitution/Bill of Rights. These should be warning signs, people!

[adriangrab @ Nov 5th 2007 9:54AM]

RFID is really one of the most amazing technologies that can revolutionize our lives. It's a shame there is a small lobby that is so against them. The possibilities are endless. Nothing makes me happier than using my AMEX Express Pay.

[Wwhat @ Nov 5th 2007 9:57AM]

See, your statement just reads as a sarcastic joke, which is telling.

[artman1033 @ Nov 5th 2007 9:57AM]

Mary Jane is mighty good lookin for 50, but she is a little chunky at 140, 5 foot 8 inches. She probably has 5 kids. But she must have a nanny, to look that good.

[LikesGadgetsWillTravel @ Nov 5th 2007 11:50AM]

It says the RFID can be read with "standard" equipment. So stores could put these at the entrance and see how often certain IDs show up.

On the other hand, if those things become the norm, I'll install another RFID reader on the side of my driveway to pick up and record the IDs of anyone entering. If my house gets broken into, I'll hand that list to police.

Personally, I think there'll be a market for rfid-proof wallets. Sorry, you can't patent that, I just provided prior work :P

[Eludium-Q36 @ Nov 5th 2007 11:52AM]

It's All in the Implementation

Whenever you're transmitting you're discoverable, trackable, and spoofable. These are inherently bad things with no further argument needed. However, 95% of the time in normal day-to-day life these detriments don't present a problem and you can enjoy the benefits of RFID. However, there's that pesky 5% of the time where you're going to be discovered, tracked, or spoofed and you'll be sorry. Finally, RF transmitters can and do cause tumors but that's easily addressed by shielding, extremely low power, or by transmitting-on-demand (button press).

[the other steve jobs @ Nov 5th 2007 12:01PM]

sooo...

why not just add a "read" button to the card? A membrane button that opens and closes the curcuit to the recieve antenna so that when you press it, the circuit closes and the card can be read, and when its not pressed, the circuit is open, so it can't be?

aka... an on/off button.

[Stephen @ Nov 5th 2007 1:33PM]

I have yet to understand why they don't include on/off buttons on RFID... There is no reason for these things to be always-on for the occasional times you need them to be on.

By letting them be on when the user wants them on, you eliminate most of the security concerns, prevent most spoofing, eliminate unwanted tracking, etc.

The only real reason I can see for why they don't already have on/off switches is because the tin-foil-hatters are right and "They" don't want you to turn them off...

[ethana2 @ Nov 5th 2007 1:37PM]

Bingo.

[dhughes @ Nov 5th 2007 3:59PM]

"...I have yet to understand why they don't include on/off buttons on RFID..."

They are pretty much just small flat aerials that come alive when they are exposed to a certain radio frequency, the radio wave energy powers the device, it doesn't have batteries. It would then emit data of some sort that is read by a receiver.

There's really no way to turn it off or on anymore than you could make an aerial not detect radio waves, the only real way would be to not use it or mask it using some sort of blocking material - tinfoil perhaps?

[Malcolm @ Nov 5th 2007 12:45PM]

RFID is already available on border crossings - the NEXUS system allows fast track into Canada, allowing frequent travelers quicker clearance through Immigration.

[paragraph @ Nov 5th 2007 1:22PM]

Well, the worst i can see here is that someone could jack the ID code, and potentially look it up in a db in mexico or canada and see who that person is, where they live, etc. But then again this is impractical. I guess the state would also have a record of who's ID is who's etc. But have you tried to get anything from the MVC, they require three forms of ID just to get in line ffs!!!!

Seriously, it's not probable that someone could abuse this info, i guess they could in theory steal your number, put it on a fake card, and pass through to mexico as you... thats enough for tin-foil hats for some people, but for me it's enough for me to elect NOT to get one... and if they ever did become mandatory, i'd just wrap it in tin-foil all the time... and let others open it up and let my data leak ;)

anywho, i do have to agree that MJ is indeed a MILF, but i'd venture to say she's not as old as the picture would have you think, 50 years is a nice round number to use as a fake birthday ;)

[Wwhat @ Nov 5th 2007 9:48AM]

Or someone that wants to follow/stalk you could track you everywhere, or they could determine if you were at some place at some time, causing divorce procedures, or forcing you to testify in some criminal case, or labeling you part of some terrorist/criminal group that you happen to pass as they are being scanned by the feds.
There's plenty more scenarios 'than are dreamt of in your philosophy'

[mb @ Nov 5th 2007 12:09PM]

Wouldn't it be nice if your car insurance company dropped RFID readers in your local bar? And raised your rates based on the frequency of your visits?

Just an example, I'm sure people can come up with more.

[ethana2 @ Nov 5th 2007 1:46PM]

That sounds like a good idea for me. Hit a bar, and your car doesn't start for three hours. Sounds invasive, maybe, but I say do it. Lives are at stake.

[Scott @ Nov 5th 2007 2:00PM]

@ethana2

Are you REALLY going to make someone bring out the old Ben Franklin quote about security vs liberty? Why not keep everyone in cage at all times? That will surely save lives!

[Dauthi @ Nov 5th 2007 2:41PM]

Could always make it a voluntary program. I'm sure there are some people who would a) like it, b) be glad (afterwards), c) qualify for it through court-mandated settlements. In that respect it sounds good. Some people know better, but know 'different' in the heat of the moment.

Otherwise, screw the insurance companies. They have enough control over your life already.

[phw @ Nov 5th 2007 2:21PM]

in wa, the cards unique ID number is useless without access to the state department of licensing's database where the actual personal information is held. since the cards are optional, anyone who wants to blow whistles about privacy can just get a regular card and then pay more money to the state department for an rfid passport which actually stores that personal information in the rfid tag. i'm sure since mr. vanderhoff's smart card alliance is behind a competing scheme, there is some sort of commercial interest involved anyway.

[Supporter @ Nov 5th 2007 2:44PM]

States rights! Federal accountability!

Ron Paul for president!

[Wwhat @ Nov 5th 2007 3:10PM]

OR alternatively, let the other candidates embrace that common sense attitude.

[Sirocco @ Nov 5th 2007 6:17PM]

Wait, you're saying it comes with a case? I want one.

[B513A @ Nov 5th 2007 7:14PM]

This is yet another way for our government to tag us, keep track of us and follow our every move and no doubt they WILL abuse it. And they say it's all in the name of "safety". I call B.S. We've been lied into the position we find ourselves today. I can't believe this... Don't support it. Our State issued ID cards work fine as they are now.

[Markus @ Nov 6th 2007 1:10AM]

She's fifty! Fifty years old everybody...fifty years old.

http://barney.gonzaga.edu/~tlarson1/SallyOMalley.jpg