Chips in Your Passport
Feb 2, 2009 | 7:03 pm
#16
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
Ok, I read the above article. It said no personal information can be gathered from the RFID, just a number. So ok, the number can be used to forge things just like your SS# can be used without your name, and a DL# can be used without your name or address. My new passport card (the size of a credit card) came with a protective envelope that stops anyone from reading anything off it at all according to the article.
So the big deal is to keep the passport card in it's protected sleeve and keep a new passport in a protective pouch. It's to late to stop the march of technology.
So the big deal is to keep the passport card in it's protected sleeve and keep a new passport in a protective pouch. It's to late to stop the march of technology.
Yes, the key is to protect yourself from from folks being able to track you. In the case of a technology that is marching forward without proper oversight or considerations for personal privacy or security the responsible thing to do is to prevent yourself from being tracked in that way. Destroying the RFID chip is the most reliable way to ensure this. That way you know you are protected, regardless of where you are carrying the card.
And it is most certainly NOT too late to pressure the government to act responsibly when it comes to things like individual privacy concerns. That time will never come.
Feb 3, 2009 | 7:14 am
#17
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Back to Florida...... bye London
Programs: Hilton, AA,, Delta
Posts: 5,455
ROFLMAO!!!! I suppose I can refuse to get a social security number and refuse to get the mandated vaccinations and move to the middle of nowhere wilderness so no one can track me illicitly, but then again, I choose to be part of the greater society.
If you don't want a passport with an RFID then stop traveling. To advocate intentionally destroy part of your passport , which is what you are advocating, isn't right. I would suspect that the government might actually frown on this and could take your passport away if you intentionally destroy part of it.
If the government wants to track you, they will track you. If you are an element of society that the government (or some shady, nefarious organization) feels necessary to track, then, umm, maybe you have a right to feel watched.
If you are a general traveler, then worrying about your chipped passport is beyond silly in my opinion. It has been proved that if you keep it in a reader proof sleeve or pouch then it can't be read, at all, no problem. If you are overly worried about it, just keep it as safe as you do your other personal belongings.
If you don't want a passport with an RFID then stop traveling. To advocate intentionally destroy part of your passport , which is what you are advocating, isn't right. I would suspect that the government might actually frown on this and could take your passport away if you intentionally destroy part of it.
If the government wants to track you, they will track you. If you are an element of society that the government (or some shady, nefarious organization) feels necessary to track, then, umm, maybe you have a right to feel watched.
If you are a general traveler, then worrying about your chipped passport is beyond silly in my opinion. It has been proved that if you keep it in a reader proof sleeve or pouch then it can't be read, at all, no problem. If you are overly worried about it, just keep it as safe as you do your other personal belongings.
The problem is much greater than just that someone can "use" the number without you there. Because they can read your government-issued ID remotely it is now significantly easier to track people illicitly.
Yes, the key is to protect yourself from from folks being able to track you. In the case of a technology that is marching forward without proper oversight or considerations for personal privacy or security the responsible thing to do is to prevent yourself from being tracked in that way. Destroying the RFID chip is the most reliable way to ensure this. That way you know you are protected, regardless of where you are carrying the card.
And it is most certainly NOT too late to pressure the government to act responsibly when it comes to things like individual privacy concerns. That time will never come.
Yes, the key is to protect yourself from from folks being able to track you. In the case of a technology that is marching forward without proper oversight or considerations for personal privacy or security the responsible thing to do is to prevent yourself from being tracked in that way. Destroying the RFID chip is the most reliable way to ensure this. That way you know you are protected, regardless of where you are carrying the card.
And it is most certainly NOT too late to pressure the government to act responsibly when it comes to things like individual privacy concerns. That time will never come.
Feb 16, 2009 | 8:14 pm
#18
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 264
Feb 16, 2009 | 8:48 pm
#19
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
If you don't want a passport with an RFID then stop traveling. To advocate intentionally destroy part of your passport , which is what you are advocating, isn't right. I would suspect that the government might actually frown on this and could take your passport away if you intentionally destroy part of it.
The old "if you have nothing to hide" theory. Sorry, but I'm not buying it.
Feb 16, 2009 | 9:58 pm
#20
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
ROFLMAO!!!! I suppose I can refuse to get a social security number and refuse to get the mandated vaccinations and move to the middle of nowhere wilderness so no one can track me illicitly, but then again, I choose to be part of the greater society.
If you don't want a passport with an RFID then stop traveling. To advocate intentionally destroy part of your passport , which is what you are advocating, isn't right. I would suspect that the government might actually frown on this and could take your passport away if you intentionally destroy part of it.
If the government wants to track you, they will track you. If you are an element of society that the government (or some shady, nefarious organization) feels necessary to track, then, umm, maybe you have a right to feel watched.
If you are a general traveler, then worrying about your chipped passport is beyond silly in my opinion. It has been proved that if you keep it in a reader proof sleeve or pouch then it can't be read, at all, no problem. If you are overly worried about it, just keep it as safe as you do your other personal belongings.
If you don't want a passport with an RFID then stop traveling. To advocate intentionally destroy part of your passport , which is what you are advocating, isn't right. I would suspect that the government might actually frown on this and could take your passport away if you intentionally destroy part of it.
If the government wants to track you, they will track you. If you are an element of society that the government (or some shady, nefarious organization) feels necessary to track, then, umm, maybe you have a right to feel watched.
If you are a general traveler, then worrying about your chipped passport is beyond silly in my opinion. It has been proved that if you keep it in a reader proof sleeve or pouch then it can't be read, at all, no problem. If you are overly worried about it, just keep it as safe as you do your other personal belongings.
Jul 11, 2009 | 8:45 pm
#22
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Programs: AA 2MM - UA 1P / Hyatt Diamond - SPG Plat / Hertz 5* - Avis 1st
Posts: 3,933
Jul 12, 2009 | 9:09 am
#23
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Programs: BA Gold, M&M, PC PlatAmb, Marriott, SPG
Posts: 427
You can steal the data on the RFID chips 20 feet away as proven by this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9isKnDiJNPk
And a corresponding article:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...07-11-15-38-40
The chips are a very poor implementation, really should have done it another way IMO.
*edit* seems that the very same things were posted in some earlier messages...