X-posted at ETG
A couple of months ago I wrote a diary about the US-VISIT program, which requires visitors from abroad to submit to biometric identification. I also described the technical problems involved.
The Department of Homeland Security now wants to raise the ante and is about to start a pilot program in which foreigners will be issued an RFID ID card readable from 10 to 15 meters away.
More below the fold.
The Kingston (Ont.) Whig-Standard reports:
Kingston’s closest U.S. border
crossing will employ high-tech radio frequency technology to monitor visitors from other countries who want to enter the States from Canada – a move that alarms both a Kingston privacy expert and an immigration specialist.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said this week that the crossing between Lansdowne and Alexandria Bay, N.Y., will be one of three Canada-U.S. land borders to require non-Canadians to carry wireless devices as part of a pilot project.
Travellers will be required to carry the devices as of Aug. 4.
(snip)
They’ll have to carry the wireless devices as a way for border guards to access the electronic information stored inside a document about the size of a large index card.
Visitors to the U.S. will get the card the first time they cross the border and will be required the carry the document on subsequent crossings to and from the States. link, via BoingBoing
Most Canadians are apparently exempt, but landed immigrants are not.
DHS says that the UHF frequency used “makes it impossible to locate a specific person”. However, Queen’s University law professor and privacy expert Art Cockfield points out:
“Often these technologies are introduced in a fairly minor form and then the technology is extended. What would be very troubling to me would be the tracking of visitors after they’ve crossed the border.”
Not to mention the possibility of surruptitious screening in electronic spot checks.
What will they think of next?
I attached a poll for non-US citizens to the diary on ETG. It will be interesting to see how many people are turned off by the identity obstacle course.
As I was reading this, I realized that the visual in my mind was that of people walking across a scarred landscape, in bulky coats and with pinched faces, holding up their papers (and their hands) as they warily approach a tall watchtower and barbed wire fences.
Probably from some old movie… of course these people will be in cars and approaching a modern border crossing. I am not sure the feelings the image invokes would be that far off though. Soon, no one at all will want to visit our police state.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
The US immigration policy is a mess and makes no sense. I am a US citizen who lives in Canada, directly across the water from Detroit. I return to the US to work everyday.
Initially, my husband, a Canadian, was going to move to the US because I already owned a house. We changed our mind when it became clear to us that he would have to quit his Canadian job and not return to Canada until his Green Card arrived, potentially a year.
Now, on the verge of adopting a child from China, my country has told me that my son will not be able to enter the US until he is either a) a Canadian citizen (a process that is now taking up to a ridiculous 18 mos.) b) a US citizen or c) has an interview at the US consulate in Toronto for a visa. God, I hope the one-year gives the right answers!
I like Option C. Take the child–a baby, yes?–to the consulate, and when he needs changing use the consul’s desk as a changing table.
and just get foreigners to sign some kind of document waiving any remaining protection US law may offer them. No even better make them sign something where they willingly submit to be sent to Gitmo if on their visit they should in any way do or say anything that could be construed as critical of King George. And of course with a little bit of fine print about willingly submitting to all kinds of “torture”, degradation and general sexual depravity that will be visited on them in the said detention camp.
I highly suspect that this is just the dry run for all of the world’s citizens. I doubt there’ll be a shortage of excuses for implementation.
So far we’ve got chips embedded in some city dwelling dogs so their masters can track their every movement.
And we’ve got an RFID industry poised to enter the retail markets… barcodes soon to be another ancient artifact.
So folks, the technology for monitoring any and all individuals via GPS, and accessing your whole history, (of course that given you by the authorities) through RFID technology only awaits implementation.
My recommendation: Just Say, NO!
If interested in the retail application see
http://www.alientechnology.com
So far we’ve got chips embedded in some city dwelling dogs so their masters can track their every movement.
Actually, the chips in the dogs are so that if they run away, the folks at the animal shelter can identify them and return them to their owners – dog tags can get lost or come off. If one of these dogs happens to bite someone, it can confirm that it has had its rabies shot, so it won’t have to needlessly have its head removed to check for rabies (no good way to culture the rabies organism from blood samples).
And that’s the problem. The technology is introduced for legitimate, fine-sounding reasons, but is adapted by warped minds to purposes its inventors probably never intended.
Another example is GPS systems, which allow rescuers to locate children lost in the wilderness, but can also be used to track movements of those a government deems “suspicious.”
Saying “the technology isn’t good or bad, it’s the people” is also an oversimplification, however. Some technologies lend themselves to decentralized power and democratic societies, others lend themselves to centralized power and autocracy.
Consider nuclear power, which by its very nature must be both centralized and heavily secured, versus a solar power system on every rooftop.
It takes discernment to evaluate whether a given technology should be adopted or avoided, and if adopted, what safeguards need to be put into place to protect freedom and privacy.
So I guess I would say “no” here, “yes” there, and in most places “maybe” and, especially, “only on these conditions.”
The key is public education – and not just in the technical details of the invention – so society is informed enough and wise enough to make these determinations with discernment.
Even though I object most strongly to the implications of such electronic tracking of humans, I had my dog microchipped earlier this year against the time that I may want to take him to another country.
It’s required for dogs entering the E.U., and I imagine it soon may be for Canada.
If I decide to leave, I don’t want to have to wait around for six months while a microchip becomes acceptably old.
Thanks for the info, Dem and Mnemosyne. It’s just amazing what one can learn in these exchanges.
The use of chips in dogs is totally unknown in my state as far as I know. I’d heard the story from a co-worker who had a son in NYC.
Next dog I have will most likely get the new technology.