Still I’d rather see it covered accurately. I don’t like to pull quotes from articles out of context, but I will here as that is what I can only assume the Business Week author did when quoting the computer security expert sourced in the piece.

On October 15, Bruce Schneier, Founder and CTO of Counterpane Internet Security, wrote a piece on “RFID Passports” that he published on his web site/newsletter. ContactlessNews editorial staff contacted Mr. Schneier via email to address some of the inaccuracies we perceived to be in his article. It seems that the Business Week author picked up on some of these points and elevated them to the next level (both in terms of public attention and, perhaps, exageration?)

“they chose a chip that can be queried remotely and surreptitiously. I can’t think of any reason why the government would do that, other than that they want surreptitious access.” And if airport and border security guards can read everyone’s passports on the sly, so could anyone with a radio-chip reader, from terrorists to identity thieves.”

My take: Perhaps the reason that ICAO chose contactless technology after a multi-year investigation of available options is that it is mature, stable, cost-effective. And equally important … it is a perfect technology to provide extremely rapid throughput in crowded situations (e.g. customs lines) and does not require the user to know how to place it in or swipe it through a reader – they simply hold it next to it.

“But the law didn’t specify what information should be on the chip, or what type of chip must be included. In what critics call policy laundering, that decision was ostensibly left to an obscure U.N.-affiliated agency, the International Civil Aviation Organization.”

My take: While ICAO may not be a household name, it is the organization that has been responsible for overseeing the details of international travel documents since the 1920s. It represents 188 member states (nations), relies on the International Organizatin for Standards (ISO) to help define it specification, and, I suspect, would take offence at being considered a pawn for the Bush Administration. For ICAO not to have been the party responsible for this decision would have been a major transgretion of process.

“Many companies, such as Wal-Mart, are using such radio frequency identification (RFID) chips to track inventory. Putting the chips in passports would enable the government to read personal information from more than 50 feet away.”

My take: Contactless technology that is being used for personal identification has a read range of inches rather than feet. This statement is simply false and serves only to scare the public. The RF signals from 13.56 MHz cards such as those for passports and travel documents are the same as those used worldwide for transit fare collection, secure access functions, and contactless payments. They can be read at a distance of several inches, use encryption to secure private information, and are built with a host of security features.

I encourage you to take a look at the article as it is important to know the misrepresentations to which your client populations are subjected. This type of article leaves the general public – those that are or will soon be using contactless technologies – with negative impressions of the technology … impressions that we must combat as we roll out identification credentials, transit cards, payment applications, and other secure and convenient services relying on contactless technology.

To read the Business Week article, click here.