Foreigners Fingerprinted at U.S. Airports?

[Michael Harris]

To All:

I found this today - it is less than an hour old. We should do this for all or none.


Foreigners Fingerprinted at U.S. Airports
By MELANIE COFFEE, Associated Press Writer

CHICAGO - Foreigners arriving at U.S. airports were photographed and had their fingerprints scanned Monday in the start of a government effort to use some of the latest surveillance technology to keep terrorists out of the country.

The program allows Customs officials to check passengers instantly against terrorist watch lists and a national criminal database.

The goal is to "make sure our borders are open to visitors but closed to terrorists," Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said.

The changes came as the United States entered a third consecutive week on high alert for terrorism, including especially tight security involving foreign flights. Fourteen flights on British Airways, Aeromexico and Air France have been canceled or delayed since New Year's Eve because of security fears.

Under the new rules, travelers press their index fingers onto an inkless scanner and then have their photograph taken as they make their way through customs.

The security checks target foreigners entering the 115 U.S. airports that handle international flights, as well as 14 major seaports. The only exceptions will be visitors from 27 countries _ mostly European nations _ whose citizens are allowed to come to the United States for up to 90 days without visas.

Also exempted will be most Canadians, because they usually are not required to get visas, and Mexicans who are coming into the country for a short time and not venturing far from the border.

The program, called US-VISIT, or U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology, is expected to check up to 24 million foreigners each year, though some will be repeat visitors.

"America has been and will always be a welcoming country, but we will also be on guard," Ridge said at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, where he greeted some of the first foreign passengers to pass through the system.

In a pilot program at Hartsfield-Jackson that preceded Monday's nationwide implementation, authorities turned up 21 people on the FBI's criminal watch list for such crimes as drug offenses, rape and visa fraud, Ridge said.

Homeland Security spokesman Bill Strassberger said that once screeners become proficient, the extra security will take 10 to 15 seconds per person.

Airport officials and passengers reported little fuss over the security checks, and many said they did not mind the extra steps if it meant safer skies. Passengers reported only minor delays, if any, in passing through customs checkpoints.

"We all want to go on a flight knowing we're going to arrive safely," said Layal Rashid, 22, a Cyprus resident who arrived at Chicago's O'Hare Airport on a flight from Frankfurt, Germany. "It puts your mind at ease to know that the security is stricter now."

But some foreign travelers were taken aback by the rules, and worried about a system that tracks their movements.

"We're not used to having our fingerprint and photo taken and it being filed. Who knows what they can do with that?" said Carlos Elizondo, who came to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport on a flight from Monterrey, Mexico.

Under the program, photographs go into a law-enforcement database that eventually will allow users to pull up photos of visa holders and make sure they match the person who is seeking to enter the country. The travel data is supposed to be securely stored and made available only to authorized officials on a need-to-know basis.

Foreigners also will be checked as they leave the country as an extra security measure and to ensure they have not overstayed their visa or violated other restrictions.

A similar program is to be installed at 50 land border crossings by the end of next year.

Nishith Shah, who arrived at Boston's Logan Airport from India, said he was comfortable with the process because it did not take long. But he said he hopes it does not lead to further restrictions on foreigners.

"Is it going to stop here?" Shah said.

:eek: :( :o :confused:

[Dragos Sfinteanu]

Originally posted by Michael Harris

... We should do this for all or none


The principle is ethical. 100%

But could it be sustained by a moral principle? Protecting Americans (and others!) against a threat generated (until now) by individuals emerging only from "specific geographical areas", is moral or not?

This is a sensitive issue (see Patriot Act)

[Michael Harris]

Dragos,

I have read most of the Patriot Act and all of the portions that relate to computers, etc. The Act terrifies me. We are losing our freedoms.

If the process is controlled as the originators seemed to want, it might help. But why stop at foreigners? Why not fingerprint and photograph everyone? That way we could also capture citizens traveling under false ID.

Where does it stop?

And is there a market for PI services? :eek: :o

[Dragos Sfinteanu]

Originally posted by Michael Harris

... But why stop at foreigners? Why not fingerprint and photograph everyone?...


Michael,

A partial answer is that, technically, it would be impossible to fingerprint and photograph everyone.

A simple math, applied to a big airport (4-minute landing time gap, 10-hrs. activity per every 24-hrs., an average of 200 passengers per plane, 15 sec. processing time per passenger) shows a 300 hrs- processing time. If installing 300 (!) processors, the "over-time" (total additional time/airport) would be one hour. This could be acceptable, but the reality (and good sense) tell us that the "15 seconds" per passenger includes only the processing time. What about the rest?, i.e. handling crowds of hundred, waiting time, etc. A very optimistic rationale would indicate a minimum 2-3 minute time per passenger. Consequently, the additional time would be 8 to 12 hours.
This would be not acceptable.

Considering the topic, there are much more questions than answers, i.e. since starting (yesterday!) there were six questions and one (partial) answer. :rolleyes:

It is really a sensitive one. (no smiles!)

[Tanya Wyche]

This is a touchy subject. You both have great points. Not sure I am ready to debate. But I was a little surprised when I saw it on the news myself.

[Michael Harris]

Dragos,

There is very little human interaction. As the article says,
The program allows Customs officials to check passengers instantly against terrorist watch lists and a national criminal database.

I think this is doable. I worked for a major developer/manufacturer who was heavily involved in this kind of work. It is easier and quicker than you would believe. That is if you discount the TSA employees.

[Michael Harris]

Tanya,

No fence-sitting. :rolleyes:

[Dragos Sfinteanu]

Originally posted by Michael Harris

... There is very little human interaction. As the article says,
The program allows Customs officials to check passengers instantly ...
I think this is doable. I worked for a major developer/manufacturer who was heavily involved in this kind of work. It is easier and quicker than you would believe...



Michael,

Thomas the Unbeliever was probably kind of PI.

I also like to see first. In this particular case, I would like to know how passengers will be instantly checked, i.e.:
- photographed/filmed? ; even using the most advanced device ,
comparing standard (police type) photos with other ones
(moving action, poorer light quality, possible indirect "direction"
of the camera, etc., etc.) would be not.... perfect.
- for fingerprinting all passengers should stop at the
sensor device, and this takes time; it couldn't be done instantly;
- how will the "smart" device make the difference between an
American and a Middle-East person, since they all walk in a
single column? ( try to follow your idea: no "segregation"!)

Again, there are more questions than answers. I had a premonition...

[Tanya Wyche]

Must have fence to survive..........:p

[Michael Harris]

Dragos,

There is technology out there that those without the Top Secret clearance from a governmental activity will not see for another decade.

The facial recognition software is available to help. Besides, this will only check against the database of known bad guys.

Having been fingerprinted several times recently, I know that the digital machines are up to the task.

I also know things I am not at liberty to discuss. :rolleyes:

[Dragos Sfinteanu]

Michael,

We were discussing... a ghost.

[Kerin Reed -]

I think all non-US citizens fingerprints should be checked. I believe I heard alot of terrorists have been living in the UK for a long time, perhaps even born there.

[Debra Lewis -]

just as a bar or restaurant has the right to refuse service to anyone...it seems this policy should be able to be carried over to other business...
there is no easy or comfortable solution...

[Michael Harris]

Debra,

I am not sure if you are serious or sarcastic. :confused:

I do know that posting a statement saying that the establishment reserves the right to refuse service is not a valid defense.

In the US, the rules should to apply to everyone equally - citizen or visitor. The only difference should be in who we let in. We, as US citizens, put up with giving up our passports in French hotels, etc. We have ample precedence for documenting and scrutinizing foreigh visitors - almost every other country does it. The EU does not, but they have such lousy security except at airports.

[Debra Lewis -]

i was being sarcastic..
when you consider efficacy
there are no easy, comfortable or time efficient solutions

spot checks reduce effectiveness of screening

screening everyone is so time consuming

[Michael Harris]

Debra,

In the 1980s when I was doing a bit of foreign (business) travel, I becsame used to the slowness of the European airports, just as the Europeans were.

In what was once Yugoslavia, we checked our luggage just like at any other airport. When we were called for boarding, the plane was a quarter mile away on the tarmac with a big pile of luggage sitting about 20 meters from the plane. As passengers, we identified our luggage and it was loaded on a cart to take it to the plane. Luggage not claimed was not loaded. If luggage was not claimed, the airport staff had all the passengers deplane and all the luggage removed and checked for explosives. It adds a bit to the trip, but it makes you feel safer.

In Milan, Italy, we paarked the plane two miles from the terminal and were escorted to the terminal by 50 heavily-armed police. You get used to the delays and the inconvenience, but you are still alive. :o

In Europe 15 years ago, 100% checks of passengers were common. Why dod the US wait so long.

Is an extra hour worth it if it keeps you alive? For me, the answer is easy - yes.

[Debra Lewis -]

do you think passports will eventually include fingerprints?

[Michael Harris]

Debra,

That is a very good question. It would make it harder to alter a passport, but not affect the forgeries.

I believe that we will have fingerprints on passports sometime, but not for a few years.

[Debra Lewis -]

i agree it would take some years...

[Dragos Sfinteanu]

Originally posted by Michael Harris

Dragos,

There is technology out there that those without the Top Secret clearance from a governmental activity will not see for another decade....

I also know things I am not at liberty to discuss. :rolleyes:

Michael,

It seems to be less complicated than presumed. Not even very sophisticated. Sometimes, one does not need top secret clearance to find out what's going on. The newspaper will tell him.




Published by The San Jose Mercury News / January 6, 2004

FOREIGNERS - Screening marks new security era.

..."Requests for 'left index finger, then right' replaced the decade-old greetings of 'passport and ticket, please', as federal agents opened electronic files on foreign travelers entering the country"...


The passengers spend 10 to 15 seconds in front of the machine for a simultaneous photo- and fingerprinting process.

With regard to ethics and moral, it seems that the pool released by journalists is relevant enough:




Published by The San Jose Mercury News / January 6, 2004

...Some passengers protested the scans Monday, and privacy groups warned the new measure will increase government control of personal information... Most passengers, however, said they accepted the new measure and even welcomed the government tighter grip on immigration...


Living in a democracy involves respecting majority's decision. :)

[Michael Harris]

Dragos,

The technology that is DOD Secret is easy to find in the media. The technology that is DOD TOP SECRET will not come to light unless some spy leaks it.

The TS material is very much buried. I lived in the Secret wourld for three decades and know many people in the Top Secret world. These are the people who cannot tell you where they work, for whom they work, and what job skills they have. Most are very patriotic and would never leak anything.

[Dragos Sfinteanu]

Michael,

You are right about the TS issues. There are, more or less, the same regulations worldwide in this matter. I do not have any comment about that. I was trying to set a conclusion related to the technology: it is appropriate for scanning a large flow of passengers ? The newspaper clarified the point: Yes, it is. Instead of checking the passport versus a list of suspects (which involves the risk of fraud by fake passports), the new technology processes simultaneously photo- and fingerprinting, which is 100% accurate, and requires less time than conventional technologies.

After setting the "technical" aspect , the only remaining one, that started the topic itself, in my opinion, is the "ethical/moral" issue
(i.e. the pool released by the journalists, etc. :( )

[Michael Harris]

Dragos,

With the technical issue settled - the checks can be done without too much inconvenience to the passengers, all that is left are the ethical and moral issues.

Keep in mind that ethics and morality are not related.

As a born-again believer, my morality is based on the Bible (both the Old and New Testaments).

However, my morality does not relate to my ethical values or to the ethics of the situation.

An act that may be ethical at Lockheed Martin Corporation may be unethical at Raytheon Corporation.

We can probalble make a good case that the morality issue is a non-issue in the checking of fingerprints, etc. of foreign passengers are US airports.

The only remaining issue is of ethics. See next post for ethics 101.

[Michael Harris]

Ethics is nothing but abiding by a set of rules. When you need to know if an act is ethical, use the following set of questions to help you.[list=1]
Does the act violate any law?
Does the act violate any regulation?
Does the act violate any policy?
Does the act violate any procedure or process document?
[/list=1] If you answered No to all of these, the act is probably ethical.

To add questions to the list may be helpful, but the questions must come after number 4. The questions need to be asked in the order given to be helpful, and any yes makes the act unethical.


The kind of questions that you might ask after number 4 would include things like - Would you want the act reported in the newspaper? would you want your family to know about the act?

Example 1: As a private investigator (or PI trainee), you are faced with a situation that is new to you and you are not sure if it is ethical.

First, you need to ask yourself if the act would break any of your state's laws on the conduct of a private investigator (or other law). Is there a state police regulation (lower than a law) that would be broken? Does your PI employer or client have a policy, procedure, practice, or process that prohibits the act? If you get this far with ethical results, the only thing left is to go down the list of items on your IPIU COE. If you get through the IPIU COE without finding a problem, the act is ethical. I keep my signed IPIU COE pledge in a plastic sheet protector in the from of my Operations Manual where I can see it often.

Example 2: This is to show you that there is no real link between ethics and morality.

You are a faithful Catholic who believes that abortion is morally wrong. As a moral person, you take hostile action against a local abortion clinic. The act is clearly moral. But is the act ethical? No. Why is this moral act not ethical? You may have broken the law (you probably did if the act was hostile - I was careful not to use the term 'violent'). Abortion is legal (therefore, not murder). Your act probably broke regulations (blocking traffic, vandalism, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, etc.) You can only do a moral act within the confines/constraints of the law.

Summary: As a PI or trainee, you are bound by the rules. If you read your IPIU COE carefully, you will see that all the ethical questions are built in. IPIU did a great job with the ethics statement.

For those of you who do not know my background, my first doctorate was in business ethics. I am also an ordained minister. I have to wrestle with the immorality of present day America, but I can only address the immorality through ethical acts. Life is not easy, but you never expected it to be easy.

[Debra Lewis -]

this thread is quite interesting...

but have you thought about the idea that ethics and morals can overlap...
depending on where the definition of ethics;
and where the definition of morals are placed,
or presented in?

in regard to scanning fingerprints, would it be fair to say that if there is no law/policy against fingerprint scanning, and a private company wants it, the private company may fingerprint passengers by method of scanning fingerprints?

but that even though the technology is supposed too be 100% accurate, if you have someone doing the scanning, but they purposely "flip" and do it incorrectly to allow terrorist boarding...

what does that become?

software doesn't do what you want it to do...
software does what you tell it to do

[Dragos Sfinteanu]

Michael,

I have been keeping in mind since 1960's (Philosophy class in the Engineering College ;) ) that morality and ethics are different notions. Writing "ethics/moral issue" was probably Fat Finger Typo (Guess, who told me this for the first time? :) ) I did not pay attention when writing it since I was sure you read my first comment in this thread (the second, after yours), saying that the principle was 100% ethical but raising some concerns if it was perfectly moral.

Your answer now


"We can probable make a good case that the morality issue is a non-issue in checking the fingerprints..."

in my opinion, could be interpreted in the same way (probably not perfectly moral if considering the morality issue, or not to be discussed at all).

Dragos

P.S. I should not say that ethics and morality are not related (although they are different notions). Most moral people are also ethical (not vice-versa!).

[Dragos Sfinteanu]

Michael,

I know (and appreciate) your set of questions defining ethics. You posted them at "Dirty digging as a profession" and we already had a discussion in this matter. The first time you mentioned five main questions. Number 5 ("Looking in the mirror every day...) was the one which determined both of us to consider "Dirty digging..." as not ethical. Do you remember?

Considering your last post, would you like please, review your second example (about ethics and morality)?



Originally posted by Michael Harris

".....Example 2: This is to show you that there is no real link between ethics and morality.

You are a faithful Catholic who believes that abortion is morally wrong. As a moral person, you take hostile action against a local abortion clinic. The act is clearly moral. But is the act ethical? No. Why is this moral act not ethical? You may have broken the law (you probably did if the act was hostile - I was careful not to use the term 'violent'). Abortion is legal (therefore, not murder). Your act probably broke regulations (blocking traffic, vandalism, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, etc.) You can only do a moral act within the confines/constraints of the law. ..."


Let us reconsider:

2.1 "The act is clearly moral"

2.2 It is not ethical since the person broke the law or regulations.

2.3 In this case, your last assertion (You can only do a moral act within the confines/constraints of the law") does not contradict the first one (2.1)?

This example also raises a question: If for a (faithful) Catholic, taking a hostile action (non-violent!) against an abortion clinic is a moral act, what about for a Muslim, Baptist, Orthodox or Jew?

[Debra Lewis -]

as a newbie there is much to consider..

i'm glad you guys raised the point that there is a distinction between ethics and morals...

your thoughts and definitions help identify more boundaries

those boundaries help create personal guidelines

those guidelines will help to figure out grey areas

[Dragos Sfinteanu]

Debra,

You are repeating the performance I already remarked somewhere in the forums: you talk sense in a poetry-like manner.

[Debra Lewis -]

thank you again...

i've been trained by some very extraordinary people...
------------------
has there been any part of your view of ethics and morality that has changed since this thread?

[Michael Harris]

Dragos,

I have written so much here inthe forums. I have taught ethics so many times. After a while, I for get what I told to whom. :confused:

[Dragos Sfinteanu]

Debra,

Morality is built from childhood to maturity. After that it normally does not change. Ethics principles for an individual are different (more or less), according to the environment (i.e. profession, type of job, work conditions,etc.) and could change (not fundamentally).

In my case, neither ethics nor moral viewpoints have been changed since starting this thread (too short time ;) )

[Dragos Sfinteanu]

Michael,

It is absolutely normal to forget details when writing so much. At the same time, I would like to mention that Colin Powell would be delighted to have you leading a department at the State Department :)

[Debra Lewis -]

Originally posted by Dragos Sfinteanu
Debra,

Morality is built from childhood to maturity. After that it normally does not change. Ethics principles for an individual are different (more or less), according to the environment (i.e. profession, type of job, work conditions,etc.) and could change (not fundamentally).

In my case, neither ethics nor moral viewpoints have been changed since starting this thread (too short time ;) )

i agree that moral principles are pretty much developed and then set in the mind mentally...
but i believe the application of those morals is subject to change at any time

similarly i agree Ethics principles for an individual are different (more or less), according to the environment (i.e. profession, type of job, work conditions,etc.)
but i believe those are subject to change at any time, as well

humans struggle with the conflict of behavior vs belief system all the time

my point being that i believe ethics and morals are not limited to the belief system, ethics and morals include behavior as well...
therefore,
i believe ethics and morals are more fluid over the timeline of one's life

[Michael Harris]

Dragos/Debra,

I was reading (yesterday) about the need for ethics officers for major corporations. They need them desparately, but almost always hire internally.

Why would they not want to hire fromthe outside? Business ethics requires a strong knowledge of the organization's culture - only an insider can meet this requirement.

Situational ethics (something the fundamentalists condemn) is the only kind of ethics in business.

[Debra Lewis -]

interesting...
business formulas are sometimes difficult to make sense of...

i suspect that one you mentioned has to do with a perception...
or a previously proven success with it being done that way...
or both

[William Wacyk]

Michael,

I have been keeping in mind since 1960's (Philosophy class in the Engineering College ;) ) that morality and ethics are different notions. Writing "ethics/moral issue" was probably Fat Finger Typo (Guess, who told me this for the first time? :) ) I did not pay attention when writing it since I was sure you read my first comment in this thread (the second, after yours), saying that the principle was 100% ethical but raising some concerns if it was perfectly moral.

Your answer now

in my opinion, could be interpreted in the same way (probably not perfectly moral if considering the morality issue, or not to be discussed at all).

Dragos

P.S. I should not say that ethics and morality are not related (although they are different notions). Most moral people are also ethical (not vice-versa!).


Hi all!! Great discussion!! Many good points taken!! As an x law enforcement officer, let's see if I can add some more spark to the conversation. There is a few things I would like to respond to.
First. I was a Customs Inspector and, since Homeland Security, I served as a INS Inspector, through cross training.
Responding to fingerprinting ALL and not being selective. A legitimate US citizen should not be subjected or detained any more than necessary. Customs policy deals with procedure to protect US citizens. Dragos is correct about the moral and ethical issue. Taking of fingerprints is not a moral or ethical issue when it comes to agency policy. But, since ethics deals with good and evil and were trying to prevent evil,taking fingerprints is ethical. On the other hand, the majority of US citizens, that we interacted with, are of morality and ethical. Therefore, why "punish" them. The airports position is to move passengers as qucikly and convenient as possible. With the expertise present on the front lines, suspicious passengers, US or non US, should be dectected. That's the airports and Homeland Securities position. When a law enforcement officer deals with mainstream population, they, for the most part, are moral and ethical. We don't need to bother with them until they no longer are moral or ethical. It's the same way at the airports.
Let's face it. Terrorists are moral and ethical, in their own minds, as we are in ours. But that's not what it takes to win the battle.
There are many countries targeted for possible terrorists. The airport I worked at made entry to over 8000 international passengers at three different terminals. To fingerprint "ALL" would be a very, very long delay. Since the travel industry is substantially down, LAGE sums of money is being lost. Much of the travelling public feels they are are being taxed enough with inconvience and delays as it is. To satisfy BOTH is not an easy job. But yet, the fight against terrorism MUST go on. The sad thing is, as far as I'm concerned, were not doing enough because we can't.


Bill Wacyk

[Michael Runner]

"We're not used to having our fingerprint and photo taken and it being filed. Who knows what they can do with that?" said Carlos Elizondo, who came to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport on a flight from Monterrey, Mexico."

The same thing they can do when they take your finger prints and photo for your drivers lic.

[Michael Harris]

To All:

We looked at this a short time ago (and I cannot find it).

I am not really sure what happened. It looks like the government is going to take the road of least resistance and not encrypt the data, but are going to go for the e-Passports.

I am confused.


NO ENCRYPTION FOR E-PASSPORTS
By Ryan Singel http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,66686,00.html

Despite widespread criticism from security experts that a proposed high-tech upgrade to Americans' passports actually introduces new security risks, the government is declining to encrypt data on new high-tech e-passports, according to proposed new rules published last week.

In response to this outside criticism and some public questioning by one of its own contractors, the State Department delayed its rollout of the chip-equipped passports and hired additional companies to provide prototypes.

Other countries are also wrangling with the issue, as the United States is requiring all 27 countries whose citizens do not need visas to visit America to begin issuing e-passports by October.

So far only Belgium has started production, and it is likely the deadline, which was originally October 2004, will be pushed back another year.

The new passports will include a radio frequency identification tag, a chip that will store all the information on the data page of the passport, including name, date and place of birth, and a digitized version of the photo passport, according to the proposal in the Federal Register.

RFID chips are widely used in automatic toll-payment systems such as FasTrak, or identification chips implanted in the necks of pets.

The chips are activated by a reader using certain radio frequency waves, which the chips use as an energy source to send back the encoded information.

Border agents, equipped with readers, would be able to pull up passport information on a screen and visually compare the digitized photo against the passport bearer.

Agents will also be able to use facial identification software to compare the person to the digitized photo, which is not feasible with current passports.

The State Department, which has responsibility for passports and visas, hopes the measure will improve security and help curb passport forgery.

The government will use chips that can only be written to once, and a further safeguard is provided in the form of a digital signature, which allows readers to verify that the information on the chip is the information originally written to it.

But the rules, which are open for comment until April 4, rule out encrypting the bearer's name, birth date and digital photo, saying such a move would impede worldwide adoption of e-passports and that encrypted data would slow down entry and exit at customs.

The lack of encryption baffles privacy advocates and security researchers, who say the new passports are vulnerable to "skimming," an attack that uses an unauthorized reader to gather information from the RFID chip without the passport owner's knowledge.

The State Department concedes that skimming is a legitimate threat, but says the chips will have a read range of inches, that eavesdropping at border stations would be very conspicuous and that the passports will have a shielding mechanism -- perhaps a foil case or a weave in the cover that will cloak the chip when the passport is closed.

That does little to satisfy critics such as Lee Tien, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"The State Department has not responded in any meaningful way to any of the privacy community," Tien said. "They are offering the equivalent of duct tape and baling wire as far (as) protecting peoples' information from being read.

"It is my understanding it's possible to read this information from 10 to 30 feet away with the right equipment," Tien said. "When you think about the issues Americans have, especially when they travel abroad -- do you really want your passport to be broadcasting your name and nationality? This isn't good for privacy or the physical security of Americans abroad."

Bruce Schneier, a security expert and author who founded Counterpane Internet Security, questions how much shielding helps, since travelers often have to show identification to exchange currency or check into a hotel.

"Shielding is a good idea, but the problem is if you travel in Europe you are asked to show your passport a lot," Schneier said. "So all that shielding means is that someone who wants to sniff my passport just has to pick his location."

Schneier, who just renewed his passport to make sure he will not have an unencrypted passport for another 10 years, says he has yet to hear a good argument as to why the government is requiring remotely readable chips instead of a contact chip -- which could hold the same information but would not be skimmable.

"A contact chip would be so much safer," Schneier said. "The only reason I can think of is the government wants surreptitious access. I'm running out of other explanations. I'd love to hear one."

Not everyone in the RFID industry thinks the proposed rules compromise security more than they help.

"The goal is to create a stronger identification vehicle and that is what is being achieved in the e-passport initiative," said Erik Michielsen, director of RFID and ubiquitous networks at ABI Research.

Michielsen, who calls himself a supporter of RFID technology, acknowledges there are legitimate security concerns, but thinks that the government should look at how other countries handle these concerns and learn from them, even as it proceeds with the current plan.

"With any emerging technology, security issues arise and must be addressed," Michielsen said. "It's not whether security issues are solved today. It's assuring that as this moves toward a rollout that they are routinely addressed and resources are dedicated to ensuring consumers' privacy."

The State Department, which is accepting written responses to the proposal until April 4 via e-mail sent to PassportRules@state.gov, did not return a call requesting comment.

[Kenneth Owens -]

Sorry but I have to agree with the fingerprinting and photo's. I'd rather them do that than to send a bunch of people over somewhere else to be killed. I say keep it up and get stricter.

[Michael Harris]

Sorry but I have to agree with the fingerprinting and photo's. I'd rather them do that than to send a bunch of people over somewhere else to be killed. I say keep it up and get stricter.
Kenneth,

Almost 20 years ago, I was speaking at a conference in Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia. The procedure at the airport was to check you bags at the ticket counter and wiat for the plane to show up - just like in the US at the time.

However, when it was time to board the plane, there was no jetway and the plane was almost a half mile from the terminal. Halfway to the plane was a pile of luggage sitting on the tarmac. It was our luggage. After you pointed out your luggage, the baggage handler put it on a cart to take to the plane. Any luggage not claimed this way was taken out and blown up.

The point is that this was a minor inconvenience and added to the time from arraival at the airport to takeoff. The positive side is that only suicide bombers would get us.

Your solution is much the same. A minor inconvenience to save lives. Only an idiot would willingly risk his life for a small convenience.