Posted Tuesday 8th April 2008 20:36 GMT
I'm reminded of a recent movie called "Xchange" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0242150/plotsummary)
Posted Tuesday 8th April 2008 21:46 GMT
And have built in shielding.
Me? A properly placed hammer blow ought to work nicely. Probably not too detectable until you attempt to 'read' the information. Then "ooops, it doesn't work!".
Are they circling yet?
Posted Wednesday 9th April 2008 03:48 GMT
Leave your IED in some likely place where lots of people go past it all the time. Nothing will happen until one of those bastards from [insert unlucky nationality here] shows up then WOOM.
Posted Wednesday 9th April 2008 03:48 GMT
Surely our security/terror/id boffins wouldn't get the BASICS wrong, would they?
Posted Wednesday 9th April 2008 03:49 GMT
Detect the nationality of a passport from a range of 25cm? Wow. When I was last at an airport (not T5 thank goodness), I used my eyes and successfully decoded the non-encrypted national emblem on the front of half a dozen passports belonging to people in various queues at a range of far greater than 25cm. And I wasn't even trying hard.
Posted Wednesday 9th April 2008 08:08 GMT
Yes, they would. Don't they ALWAYS? (Answer - Yes!)
Posted Wednesday 9th April 2008 08:08 GMT
The right thing is not to create a problem, such as broadcasting a person's private details, that will require a sheilding solution, in the first place.
Posted Wednesday 9th April 2008 08:47 GMT
Well then it would mean no RFID, where would the fun and profit come from. RFID is so cool we should put it in everything. Combine RFID with IPv6 and have RFID readers everywhere then you have a proper fully connected world. Google Earth you could zoom in to someones passport or shopping basket or home webcam. Imagine that.
Posted Wednesday 9th April 2008 08:47 GMT
I just hope the double layer of tinfoil in my leather passport holder actually works.
Posted Wednesday 9th April 2008 09:02 GMT
Don't you think it's patently rediculous to use a broadcasting device, and then have to shield it again?
I'm still entirely unclear why a passport has to carry so much extra data in the first place.
Posted Wednesday 9th April 2008 09:21 GMT
Does it differentiate diplomatic passports from non-diplomatic ones? ... that dosent seem to be covered here. Who actually issues them?
Posted Wednesday 9th April 2008 09:28 GMT
Yes they would - and don't call me Shirley.
Bdum Tsh!!
Coat/Hat/Passport/Taxi........
Posted Wednesday 9th April 2008 11:10 GMT
what's stopping immigration from scanning your bags looking for your other passports (if you have dual nationality etc.)
Posted Wednesday 9th April 2008 11:10 GMT
..."shielded as an _alternative_ to BAC"? (my emphasis)
So, American passports don't bother to a) provide for a security mechanism for establishing communications, and b) don't encrypt comms either.
IOW, they're really even more shit than ours. I bet the shielding was an afterthought, when someone realised there were no "safeguards" for the RFID.
If passports have any form of passive indirect communication, they should be both shielded *and* use encrypted communication.
I really can't see a significant advantage in using "contactless" technology for an item that is expected to be handled by an official, where the option to swipe or otherwise connect the passport to a reader exists.
Posted Wednesday 9th April 2008 11:12 GMT
If you don't want others to see what your passport says, buy a cover or keep it in your pocket.
If you are worried that someone is interested enough in knowing your nationality to hang about <somewhere> collecting that information, make a tinfoil bag.
Gosh - that was hard!
Posted Wednesday 9th April 2008 11:12 GMT
When I get home my passport is going straight in the microwave!
If I say that outloud I'm sure my co-workers will think I've flipped...
Posted Wednesday 9th April 2008 11:17 GMT
I keep my passport under my tin-foil hat!
Posted Wednesday 9th April 2008 12:55 GMT
Tin foil? They can just wang up the receiver sensitivity. Instead, pop an Oyster card inside. Both use ISO14443A protocols at the same frequency so neither can be read while they're together.
Posted Wednesday 9th April 2008 13:05 GMT
It's stuff like this that proves what a stupid mistake it was to put RFID in passports in the first place! Add wireless to the system, oh yeah! That'll make it more secure.
Posted Thursday 10th April 2008 20:45 GMT
...a metal MESH - faraday's cage :D
...lead - poisonous if not coated in something nice like leather, but a fantastic up yours to radio signals
Icon cos if someone tried to nick my identity I would happily watch them suffer hell.
Back to the article
