US Opposes Passport Protection

The abstract of the article at the bottom of the page is a classic example of a news spin that subtly distorts the facts. The issue is perfectly legitimate but the spin isn't. There are legitimate concerns on both sides but positioning this bit of news as another (subtext) evil activity of the Bush administration is just silly. The administration has a legitimate concern with international operability. The ACLU has a legitimate concern about privacy but instead of reporting it as a debate about the various issues the Administration haters just have to give it a negative nudge. The US is not opposed to passport privacy protection--the issue is clearly more complicated than that. (Note that I think the data should be encrypted but only if it doesn't screw up foreign nations' ability to read the passports.) One might suggest that the ACLU be more positive about the matter and try to suggest ways that foreign countries would all have access to encryption readers instead of engaging in its usual big brother paranoia. It is this sort of news reporting that obscures real problem solving and contributes to a completely unnecessary polarization of the issue.


Frank Moss, deputy assistant secretary of state for passport services, said the United States wants to ensure the safety and security of Americans traveling abroad. "We are still hard at work at ensuring the security and integrity of the data on the chip," Moss said. He said, however, encrypting the data might make it more difficult for other countries to read the passports. "It flies in the face of global interoperability,"

"The ability to read remotely, or "skim," personal data raises the possibility that passport holders would be vulnerable to identity theft, the ACLU said. It also would allow government agents to find out covertly who was attending a political meeting or make it easier for terrorists to target Americans traveling abroad, the ACLU said."

On the positive side of this sort of surveillance, we would be able to monitor passport holders engaged in criminal or seditious activity. Nambla passport holders, for example, meeting in a foreign country would be an excellent use of this sort of surveillance, as would tracking unregistered "agents of influence" or even right wing nut cases purchasing ammunition and weapons abroad. I suspect that those with the most to hide are among those who are most worried about surveillance. Clearly there are negatives, so the issue is legitimate.


U.S. Opposes Passport Privacy Protections

November 28, 2004
The Bush administration opposed security measures for new microchip-equipped passports that privacy advocates contended were needed to prevent identity theft, government snooping or a terror attack, according to State Department docs...

The passports, scheduled to be issued by the end of 2005, could be read remotely from as far away as 30 feet, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which obtained the documents under a Freedom of Information Act request. Though the passports wouldn't include transmitters of their own, they would have the capability to allow a reader to capture the data. The ability to read remotely, or "skim," personal data raises the possibility that passport holders would be vulnerable to identity theft, the ACLU said. It also would allow government agents to find out covertly who was attending a political meeting or make it easier for terrorists to target Americans traveling abroad, the ACLU said.

Wouldn't it be interesting if condoms could report their users?