Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News Technology

RFID Tags in Law Enforcement 290

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the tabs-keeping-tabs dept.
RFID tags seem to be the flavor of the month for law enforcement officials in the tracking of individuals both foreign and domestic. pin_gween writes "In an effort to speed up entry to the US, The Dept. of Homeland Security has begun a trial using RFID tags in certain visitors' papers. The tag is embedded in paperwork and "chip readers note the entry or exit of visitors who pass by and transmit that information to a government-maintained database." In addition, Saeed al-Sahaf writes "Security officials gathered Monday at a Canadian border crossing to mark the first test of this radio RFID system" Relatedly LexNaturalis writes "Wired News has an article about England testing RFID chips in license plates that can transmit VINs and other data to appropriate receivers. According to the article, the United States will be 'closely watching the British trial as they contemplate initiating their own tests of the plates, which incorporate radio frequency identification, or RFID, tags to make vehicles electronically trackable.' Naturally privacy advocates are decrying the move by stating that unlike electronic toll passes, these new plates will not be anonymous." We mentioned the concept of tracking visitors via RFID in July.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RFID Tags in Law Enforcement More

RFID Tags in Law Enforcement

Comments Filter:

  • Yes. Be RFID (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @06:38PM (#13282424)
    Be VERY RFID [cafepress.com]
    • Hey, I just got an idea. Have a script that notes whenever a slashdot story is posted with certain keywords in it, and then post [automatically, if possible] a link to a Cafepress shop or something with a product related to that keyword sold by you. Just come up with a list of vaguely funny posts or have the link target be funny, and there you go.

      I'm not trying to mock the parent poster, I just want to get in on the action.

      On the other hand, maybe people would notice the repititon. But unless someone cal
  • http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4741809.stm [bbc.co.uk]

    The Laser Surface Authentication (LSA) system scans tiny surface variations of paper, plastic, metal and ceramics to detect the material's "fingerprint".

    The system then records the naturally occurring pattern of imperfections.

    The imperfections are so minute, say the scientists, that they are virtually impossible to replicate.

    Of course, that would prevent folks from reading them ever time you walk around with it not secured in your tinfoil-lin

  • Lower tech approach? (Score:4, Funny)

    by KarmaBlackballed ( 222917 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @06:40PM (#13282434) Homepage Journal
    How about a tatoo on the forehead? Or will that diminish tourism?
    • > How about a tatoo on the forehead? Or will that diminish tourism?

      Silly privacy-advocate! The forehead and right hand are expressly reserved for the Mark of the Beast.

      Tattoos, on the other hand, go on the chest or the inner forearm.

      /one ticket to hell, please.

  • RFID in plates (Score:3, Interesting)

    by romka1 ( 891990 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @06:41PM (#13282445) Homepage
    RFID in plates could help catch stolen vechiles... Right now if your car get stolen you can file a report and that will be the end of the story (that what happend with me at least)

    • Re:RFID in plates (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anakron ( 899671 )
      And as a nice side-effect, they can track you wherever you go. But you have nothing to hide, right? RIGHT?
      *insert bad guys of the moment here

    • Re:RFID in plates (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @07:00PM (#13282594)
      Instead of requiring RFID in plates, why don't we create a car tracker system that is totally opt-in. The people who want it, pay for it themselves. No government intervention necessary. We could even run a company based on this idea. I propse we name the company Lojack [lojack.com]

    • Re:RFID in plates (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hypnagogue ( 700024 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @07:10PM (#13282651)
      Because car thieves are not bright enough to change license plates? Sorry, RFID tags in license plates can only serve to track law abiding citizens -- they are simply too easy for criminals to circumvent.

      • Re:RFID in plates (Score:4, Interesting)

        by maxpublic ( 450413 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @09:35PM (#13283373) Homepage
        As with all of these moves, the point isn't to improve the security or safety of the average citizen, but to make it easier for the government to track every aspect of that citizens life. Criminals will find ways to circumvent the new devices, making them useless for any other purpose.

        The more you know about a person, the easier it is to control them. And I think it's painfully apparent at this point that our government has a vested, intense interest in making sure it can control each and every one of us in order to preserve the status quo (people in power stay in power, the rest of us remain proles forever).

        Tinfoil-hat stuff, I know, but with every one of these stories I wonder more and more often if the paranoids don't have it right.

        Max

  • On Papers, not on people (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anakron ( 899671 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @06:42PM (#13282453)
    As long as this is done on the papers/documents the person is supposed to have, and not on their person, I suppose this is a step forward.
    In a way, it isn't very different from giving a person a card that they swipe at the terminal instead of paper that a person has to read/stamp. Now, if they start putting these on people, thats scary!

  • Unnecessary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @06:42PM (#13282455)
    RFIDs can be swapped. If people aren't comparing them to the documents and verifying the identity by other means before entry into the central database, these RFIDs can be used to actually fool and interfere with person tracking. If they are being compared, those other means are the better, more efficient, and not unnecessarily redundant means to track people. So, in summary, this is unnecessary. RFID tags at the border solve no problems and actually create more. But it does fund a specific business, so Congress will gladly fund it for the campaign kickbacks.
    • Now, all Osamma Bin Laden has to do to get in the US is steal the ID tag from some innocuous victim (dead or alive).
    • RFIDs can be swapped.

      This is an important enough point that it bears some expansion. If all they do is check RFID tags on the way in our out of the country, at best all they're logging is the entry/exit of someone's passport (or similar other documents). That proves nothing at all.

      To complicate things, RFID tags are not necessarily permanantly attached to anything. There's no real guarantee that your passport even left the country. It would be a lot like putting a gold star sticker on someone's papers,

    • Just curious .... I'm thinking from a hackers perspective....

      Are their semi universal RFID detectors that I could buy that would help me locate any RFID tags in things I own and potentially destroy them, or can they have protocols in them so they only respond to readers that know how to talk the given kind of chip. I'm interested in something that will just spot them and help locate them, not necessarily read the data on them, though reading the data would be cool.

      What kinds of secure logins and encryption
      • One would think you'd be able to figure it out by doing a signal sweep with a frequency generator and looking for spikes on an O-silly-scope.
        • I'm skeptical it would be that simple especially in ones with sensitive data on them. I'm assuming you have to send them a somewhat more complex signal to get them to respond.
    • +5 right on.

  • It's a big Give and Take (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chia_monkey ( 593501 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @06:44PM (#13282467) Journal
    People will be clamoring over the fact "the Man is invading my privacy!" and then beg for more security and question how "we let so many terrorists get by". For security, you need security provisions. If you don't want guns at a concert, you're going to have to be searched. It's just how it is.

    The fun arises when you think about the different levels of security, the personal information gathered, how the information is used, where it is kept, etc. I have no problem having my auto information on an RFID tag somewhere on the car. Hell, my credit cards have more personal information than these little tags. In the idea of more security, I'd be fine with having my passport contain an RFID tag. Driver's licenses already hold so much info, why not a passport that lets people into the country? I'm not sure I want ALL my info on these things though. And who I want to hold the info. Identity theft could get REAL hairy depending on what info is gathered. Track my car, I don't care. Let my license have my vital info (age, sex, height, weight...maybe even blood type and other medical things for an emergency situation) if you need but be damn sure that you keep that info safe and if not, YOU are responsible for fixing the mess, not ME.
    • All you need is a linking factor among several government databases...and it might as well be a one-stop shop. That's where the problem lies.

      While a lot of information is public, the ease of gathering where you are/were is now to the point of painless. Tracking an individual used to involve a lot of work and traditional gumshoeing. Technologies like this make it easier only to track your law-abiding people.

      Those who are intent to dodge the system for nefarious purposes are going to slip through much more
      • All very good points. It is much easier to get all that info if it's housed in one central database and that's what scares me. That's why I don't want ALL my info in one card stored on ONE database.

        I'm not really sure I get your car/murder example though. Anyone can steal a car as it is. The authorities would have to prove that I was driving it when someone killed someone else. Also, like I stated in my original post, if they (read: government agencies) are going to collect all this info and have it be e
    • I have no problem having my auto information on an RFID tag somewhere on the car

      Neither does the terrorist. Of course, since he's not planning on driving for much longer, he pulled his RFID off and for shits and giggles in the afterlife, stuck it to someone elses car.
  • Why not just implant them in babies at birth, in case they're kidnapped. It'll never get abused.
    /sarcasm

  • Hello Big Brother (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pin_gween ( 870994 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @06:48PM (#13282503)
    Watch out Speeders if the RF plates become a reality. Sensors along roads take your position, computers extrapolate speed and two days later you get your ticket in in the mail.

    And Big Brother Watching you? You wouldn't even need the software predictions [slashdot.org] mentioned a few weeks ago -- just follow the RF tag around town
    • Watch out Speeders if the RF plates become a reality. Sensors along roads take your position, computers extrapolate speed and two days later you get your ticket in in the mail.

      Well, they already do that with automated radar guns and red-light cameras... Having computers track you over a certain distance and calculate your speed seems like a more complicated way to do it.

      And Big Brother Watching you? You wouldn't even need the software predictions mentioned a few weeks ago -- just follow the RF tag around

  • Needs a better acronym for public relations... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Orrin Bloquy ( 898571 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @06:48PM (#13282504) Journal
    Universal
    Frequency
    Identification
    Access.

  • Why extra RFID? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Keruo ( 771880 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @06:50PM (#13282518)
    > The tag is embedded in paperwork and "chip readers note the entry or exit of visitors who pass by and transmit that information to a government-maintained database.

    What's preventing people from storing their tickets and passports at locked storage boxes at airport?

    That way they have complete freedom to roam around the country without being followed, the database doesn't even show them ever leaving the airport if the reader is at the front exit.

    Or is there some limiting law that visitor must have his/her visa with him/her all times when moving outdoors that I missed?

    • Re:Why extra RFID? (Score:3, Informative)

      by EvilMagnus ( 32878 )
      Or is there some limiting law that visitor must have his/her visa with him/her all times when moving outdoors that I missed?

      I'm pretty sure there is such a law - if you're a Nonimmigrant, you're supposed to carry positive ID at all times - and they pretty much say that's your passport. Of course, the vast majority of nonimmigrant visa holders don't do this, but some friends of mine were given a hard time by INS agents when they returned from a short pleasure flight in Cessna in MA - met at the ramp by Immig
  • this century will be the most oppressed ever as we have means never before to track and trace people. The dictators of the 20th century had nothing on the technology to pillage and murder that we are developing now.

  • RFID Security (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ndansmith ( 582590 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @06:51PM (#13282530)
    Here is a piggy back question: If you were going to implement a large-scale RFID system (let's say license plates in California), how would you address the issues of fraud, hacking, etc.? It seems to me that RFID would be an attractive taget for hackers (both for proof-of-concept and malicious purposes). Do you encrypt the data being transmitted by the RFID? How do you protect the privacy of the RFIDed people? Knowing that someone could use this technology along with several receivers to triangulate any vehicle's position and therefore follow it without-a-trace, how would you protect this sort of criminal (or law enforcement) abuse?

  • Barcodes? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @06:52PM (#13282537) Homepage Journal
    What was wrong with barcodes? It seems to me that for the intended uses, barcodes would have worked just as well without the attendant privacy implications. Why on earth would the U.S. voluntarily give criminals and terrorists the tools to target people according to their nationality?
  • What they really mean is they plan to put RFID tags in donuts to help determine just how many coffee breaks cops take.

  • My thoughts on RFID chips (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Antony-Kyre ( 807195 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @07:00PM (#13282589)
    You can put them in license plates. Afterall, the only difference will be being able to read the plate number from any angle within a distance.

    You can put them near the barcode of products bought in store, for the same reasons as above. Plus it can prevent shoplifting a lot easier. Scan it in, scan it out, no problem.

    But under no situation stick it in a human or into our ID cards. That crosses the line.

  • Other security applications (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @07:07PM (#13282637)
    This could be useful for tracking sensitive documents in archives, and tracking when someone like Sandy Berger [washingtonpost.com] violates security and steals documents to use in a political campaign.

  • Use with guns? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by chilledinsanity ( 906404 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @07:07PM (#13282638)
    As I understand it, most RFID tags have a very limited range. If it was small enough, I'm wondering if you could have an officer's gun respond only when fired by a person wearing a RFID enabling ring or wristband. I say this because out of the majority of police officers who die each year in the line of duty, most are killed with their own weapons.
    • RFID range is dependant on the sensitivity of the receiver, so even though they only put out a small signal, RFIDs have a theoretical infinite range.

      • Re:RFID range (Score:3, Informative)

        by MajroMax ( 112652 )
        RFID range is dependant on the sensitivity of the receiver, so even though they only put out a small signal, RFIDs have a theoretical infinite range.

        No it's not. According to the Shannon-Hartley theorem, [wikipedia.org] there's a theoretical maximum transfer rate at a given bandwidth and noise floor.

        The bandwidth of an RFID response is, of course, constant. By contrast (and ignoring entirely that RFIDs are passively powered) the relative signal strength of the RFID at the receiver decays approximately with the square

    • and if the guy puts the gun to an officers head? He's in range he can fire.
  • What about a system wherein each individual could choose which pieces of information he or she was willing to have the RFID transmit? Like,

    First Name: No
    Last Name: Yes
    SSN: No
    Gender: No
    etc?

    If a person felt comfortable allowing the government to scan his or her information and thereby clear faster, he or she could do so, but if a person did not feel comfortable with that he or she would still be able to pass through the normal way. Would this be a possible compromise between privacy and security?
    • But what would be the point. A bunvh of people would not give there info becuase they're criminals, a bunch would not give it because like me they like to fuck with the system whenever possible. So then what use is tagging anyone, if everyone isn't documented.?
  • It can't be hard to disable (fry) these RFID tags, and how's a poor innocent driver supposed to know (heh) that the RFID tag in his license plate isn't working any more, and thus automated revenue-collection systems (e.g. next-gen speed cameras) won't target him? :-)

  • RFID tags on our elected officials (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ScooterBill ( 599835 ) * on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @07:17PM (#13282685)
    Why not go the extra mile and put RFID tags on cops, judges, politicians, doctors, bankers, pharmacists, etc.

    Then publish their whereabouts on a googlized map system. Now when you need a doctor or a cop, you know where to go. When there's an accusation of corruption or impropriety, you can check the map logs and see if Congressman Joe "show me the money" Smith was visiting the local corporate ganstas. I think this idea has merits.
  • First it starts with "oh, we're just going to put the VIN and the Plate number..." A year later its "oh now that we have this, we are going to pur the registered owners information on it"

    I'm sorry put yeah, for one, someone can hack a way to read all that information, now a thief has your address. And where does it stop? Once the government starts using RFID, they'll come up with all sorts of "neat" ways to use it. This is just to get us comfortable with the technology.

    I always have my tin foil hat on

  • Somebody could probably make some money renting out de-RFID tools (aka a very large hammer) just inside the border.

    I assume that that's not illegal. Yet.

    Chip H.
  • This is great. Now we can setup a network and track our government officials in realtime.

    For example, senator xyz's frequent trips during work hours to $liquorstore, and his frequent trips after work hours to $crackdealer / $hooker.

    Or congressman abc's frequent visits to $megacorp-campaign-contributor and immediately afterwards to $uberbank or $money-laundering-hidingplace.
  • What if the RFID is broken? I plan on breaking every RFID that I am issued (read: forced to have).

  • Some Tinfoil Hat Fodder... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bones3D_mac ( 324952 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @07:50PM (#13282879)
    Stuff like this really makes me wonder if the national ID cards we've been hearing about will employ RFID technology as well.

    Here's a possible worst case scenario for such a thing...

    First, have these new RFID cards required by law to be on your person at all times. Those who fail to comply with this are met with stiff penalties and become tagged as possible terror suspects.

    Then, set up a system to track each of these RFIDs to within three feet of their physical location, creating a database of common activity over time. (Going to work, groceries, etc...) If any new activity deviates from the activity stored in the database beyond a certain threshold or if the RFID goes out of range or stops transmitting beyond a set length of time, alert the feds / law enforcement to observe your activity directly, and tag you as a potential threat.

    Finally,have anyone found tampering with the RFID or willfully preventing random access to the RFID data (wrapping it in foil, etc...) tagged as a potential terror suspect and presented with stiff penalties.
  • This does nothing about the most deadly traffic to cross the US border.

    Each year, a large proportion of the gun deaths in Canada, Mexico and as far away as Japan are caused by illegal guns smuggled out of the US.

  • England leading the march (Score:4, Interesting)

    by chihowa ( 366380 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @08:30PM (#13283071)
    With all of the criticism of the US and its increasingly authoritarian feel (and there's no lack of it coming from me), it's interesting to note that England appears to be much farther ahead of us in the march to 1984.

    Even more interestingly, they seem pretty content with that fact. The fact that they're an unarmed populace with an armed (and dangerous!) government seems to please them greatly. The cameras and microphones in public places seem to get constant praise, or at least little outraged criticism (at least here on Slashdot). Some of the biggest gripes I heard in a previous article about the governor chips in cars in lieu of congestion fees were about how they weren't related (speeding in a congestion zone?).

    What gives? When the US gets to the level of government involvement that England is currently experiencing, will we be happy with it, too?

  • A not so perfect world (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Wardish ( 699865 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2005 @09:57PM (#13283462) Journal
    In a perfect world we wouldn't be concerned about privacy, we wouldn't need checks and balances on government power, we wouldn't need laws.

    BUT

    It's not a perfect world.

    All forms of power are eventually corrupting, in the rare event that a particular person isn't tempted in a way they are vulnerable to then time itself will cycle up someone who is.

    All structures in which power is accumulated is a beacon to those who would use it for good as well as those who would use it for personal gain, and many will switch from good to gain over the long run.

    Power can be even more insidious, you don't need to wield the ultimate power to be affected. You can in fact find satisfaction in exercising what control you can. Many people who for one reason or another seek power over other's gravitate to the twin bastions of abused power.

    GOVERNMENT and BUREAUCRACY

    Worse yet, in many positions where you have both the power and the desire to do good. You encounter those who would take advantage, those who are dishonest, those from whom you must protect the resources you control so that the good people will have them. Thus rules are made, rules that grow over time to cover manifold individual situations. Rules that take up much time to bypass for those few who are exceptions. First one is slighted, for the good of all, after all we wouldn't be able to help 10 other's if we took the time to help that one. And so it goes. Leading ever downward to the stereotype called

    BUREAUCRAT.

    But back to the point of this post... It's not a perfect world. We do need protections from ourselves, not individually, but that we do as a group. I've always been amazed at how the intelligence of a mob (in all it's many forms) is defined by it's lower limits. But again I digress.

    On the one hand our law enforcement agents need information in order to provide protection from those members of society that seek to harm other's.

    On the other hand if that information is easily obtained, not bound by strict and ruthless controls and access then IT WILL BE ABUSED. It is the nature of power.

    The US has had a good time of it, our constitution was well designed, with numerous limits and balances built in to check the natural growth of government power. These checks and balances weren't there by accident.

    The founders were so wary of and understanding of the nature of government and power that their first attempt failed (Articles of Confederation) by being so weak on the federal level to be essentially useless. It was in fact so bad that when they gathered to fix it tossed it and started over.

    That good time is coming to an end. Defeated by time and technologically aided abuses that are overwhelming the built in protections. Even though the founders built in methods for these protections to be updated and modified when necessary they weren't able to build in the will and resolve to do what's necessary.

    I don't believe we should turn away from technology, and I do think it can be a tremendous help in combating crime. HOWEVER it should be used and applied with 80% of the resources applied to checks and balances. The smallest incursions on our rights should be met with the assumption that such will be misused unless rigorous controls and safeguards are implemented.

    I'm not saying we can't trust those in power. I don't know them that well. I'm saying that if the power is there, then eventually someone we can't trust will be wielding it.
     

  • It has *no* privacy problems: the gov't says so. (Score:5, Informative)

    by geekotourist ( 80163 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @02:55AM (#13284459) Journal
    From a post [slashdot.org] from the last time Slashdot covered this story [slashdot.org]:

    The Department of Homeland Security has a Privacy Assessment of this program [dhs.gov]. Guess what? It has no privacy implications.

    • The information can only be shared with "...other agencies at the federal, state, local, foreign, or tribal level, who are lawfully engaged in collecting law enforcement information (whether civil or criminal) and national security intelligence information and/or who are investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing civil and/or criminal laws, related rules, regulations, or orders." "The Privacy Act SORNs for the systems on which US-VISIT draws provide notice as to the conditions of disclosure and routine uses for the information collected by US-VISIT. Any disclosure by DHS must be compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected."
    • The tag only contains an unencrypted number, and only the very limited number of groups above would have access to the information.
    • The tag can't be used to ID someone as a visitor because the DHS has contemplated this problem. Thus problem solved... "it is contemplated that the unencrypted RFID tag number will not be structured in such a way that it can be used to identify the individual as a non-immigrant."(pg 15)How exactly? Will everyone soon be carrying an RFID, so the visitor won't stand out?
    • And of course it can't be used for surveillance, as "There is also a low risk that the RFID tag could be used to conduct surreptitious locational surveillance of an individual; i.e., to use the presence of the tag to follow an individual as he or she moves about in the U.S. However, ensuring that RFID tag numbers do not exhibit properties that can be readily attributed to US-VISIT and using a limited radio frequency range effectively mitigates this risk. The design process is also taking into account methods of reducing eavesdropping and skimming possibilities." (pg 15). Reducing the "possibilities" by sticking their fingers into their ears and singing "La la la" each time a new tech groups shows them ever longer read ranges.
    • And most importantly it doesn't affect US Citizens, because the document doesn't mention them. Never mind that every traveler in the car must be identified in order to separate the residents and citizens from visitors (by definition). They'll now know who you're associating with as you travel.
    As I said last time...

    I'm now going to "contemplate" that being asked for "your papers, please" and being tracked every time I enter and leave my country, that there is no more "If" in "If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free [privcom.gc.ca]." doesn't change our rights (4th Amendment [state.gov] anyone? it says "Persons") in the US. Whooohoo, I'm ever so much safer! [btw, that's one of the best essays on why privacy is a necessary and fundamental right in a free society. He warns Canadians not to give up what the U.S. has already lost. Worth reading.]

  • Nexus Pass (Score:3, Informative)

    by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @06:12AM (#13284807) Homepage
    I cross the US/Canadian border regularly, and use a special "commuter" lane called the nexus lane (both ways - it's a cooperative program between both countries). In that lane, there is an RFID reader and we are all issued plastic cards with RFID chips in them. You just drive up, the RFID reader reads the chip in the card, a camera takes a picture of your license plate and does character recognition on it, then compares it to the database to make sure it matches one of the vehicles assigned to that card, and then a border guard makes sure the picture on the card matches you. I think this program started in 2002 or something.

    So, this is not new to me.

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close