Foreign Languages

[Chodon]

Yes, I can attest to this, as, regrettably, it's about the only thing I've "learned" about the UN. Though, to split hairs, it's not necessarily believed that the mark will be a "tatoo"... there's probably more on the side that it will be a chip, like the ones used in pets... just saying.

Those chips are currently called RFIDs.  They're in a lot more than pets.

In fact, US passports require RFID chips in them and some fear they could be used as triggers for IEDs targeting US citizens.  Not quite the mark of the beast, but still scary.
http://news.cnet.com/Researchers-E-passports-pose-security-risk/2100-7349_3-6102608.html

[Russell Nash]

Yes, I can attest to this, as, regrettably, it's about the only thing I've "learned" about the UN. Though, to split hairs, it's not necessarily believed that the mark will be a "tatoo"... there's probably more on the side that it will be a chip, like the ones used in pets... just saying.

Those chips are currently called RFIDs.  They're in a lot more than pets.

In fact, US passports require RFID chips in them and some fear they could be used as triggers for IEDs targeting US citizens.  Not quite the mark of the beast, but still scary.
http://news.cnet.com/Researchers-E-passports-pose-security-risk/2100-7349_3-6102608.html

The RFIDs got delayed in the passports.  I hadn't heard if they started using them yet or not.  I hope not.  I pick up my boy's new one this week.

[wintermute]

Yes, I can attest to this, as, regrettably, it's about the only thing I've "learned" about the UN. Though, to split hairs, it's not necessarily believed that the mark will be a "tatoo"... there's probably more on the side that it will be a chip, like the ones used in pets... just saying.

Those chips are currently called RFIDs.  They're in a lot more than pets.

In fact, US passports require RFID chips in them and some fear they could be used as triggers for IEDs targeting US citizens.  Not quite the mark of the beast, but still scary.
http://news.cnet.com/Researchers-E-passports-pose-security-risk/2100-7349_3-6102608.html

RFID is a very weak signal. You'd basically have to get within a couple of feet to read it; a lot closer with a DIY hack job. And distinguishing between a US passport and some other RFID'd passport (like my new British one, or Pakistani or Malaysian passports) would be in interesting cryptographical challenge.

According to the article you link to, the RFID chip can't be detected at all unless the passport is at least slightly open, and "the actual data on the chip can't be read"; "it may be possible to determine the nationality of a passport holder by 'fingerprinting' the characteristics of the RFID chip". But it doesn't sound like anyone's very confident that this is going to happen any time soon. And, if you're worried about it, just keep your passport closed. Or, for the truely paranoid, get one of the many faraday cages made especially for passports.

[Chodon]

Yes, I can attest to this, as, regrettably, it's about the only thing I've "learned" about the UN. Though, to split hairs, it's not necessarily believed that the mark will be a "tatoo"... there's probably more on the side that it will be a chip, like the ones used in pets... just saying.

Those chips are currently called RFIDs.  They're in a lot more than pets.

In fact, US passports require RFID chips in them and some fear they could be used as triggers for IEDs targeting US citizens.  Not quite the mark of the beast, but still scary.
http://news.cnet.com/Researchers-E-passports-pose-security-risk/2100-7349_3-6102608.html

RFID is a very weak signal. You'd basically have to get within a couple of feet to read it; a lot closer with a DIY hack job. And distinguishing between a US passport and some other RFID'd passport (like my new British one, or Pakistani or Malaysian passports) would be in interesting cryptographical challenge.

According to the article you link to, the RFID chip can't be detected at all unless the passport is at least slightly open, and "the actual data on the chip can't be read"; "it may be possible to determine the nationality of a passport holder by 'fingerprinting' the characteristics of the RFID chip". But it doesn't sound like anyone's very confident that this is going to happen any time soon. And, if you're worried about it, just keep your passport closed. Or, for the truely paranoid, get one of the many faraday cages made especially for passports.

First, if there is a way to do it, someone will figure it out.  How would the RFID tag know if the passport were open or not?  Plus, I would imagine a terrorist wouldn't need to pick up a signal from too far away.  Devices in trash cans or backpacks are a pretty common means of terrorist attack.  Being within a few feet of an explosive device is a very lethal range.  I'm not saying it would be easy,  but it is possible (as the article says).

I am lucky enough to have a passport issued before the introduction of the RFID tag (at least for the next 8 years or so).  My concern is that it adds zero security to the passport (as evidenced by the referenced article) and it does pose a security risk.  I'm not nearly as worried about my information being copied (since I have an RFID credit card) as I am about it being used as a remote means of identification. 

[eytanz]

First, if there is a way to do it, someone will figure it out.  How would the RFID tag know if the passport were open or not? 

There are several ways I can come up with, and I don't know anything about the actual implementation. For example, the passport's cover could be lined with something that blocks the signal, so that only if it is open the tag can be read.

Plus, I would imagine a terrorist wouldn't need to pick up a signal from too far away.  Devices in trash cans or backpacks are a pretty common means of terrorist attack.  Being within a few feet of an explosive device is a very lethal range.  I'm not saying it would be easy,  but it is possible (as the article says).

That's not so much a terror risk, but more a risk for targetted assassinations. Terrorists, by definition, try to cause mass destruction. And they usually don't care how much collateral damage they cause. I can't see how RFID tags would help them do anything they can't achieve as well by bombing a crowded area. Political assassinations are another matter. But most of us have nothing to fear from that.

[wintermute]

First, if there is a way to do it, someone will figure it out.

Yeah, that's the point behind peer-reviewed cryptography. We know how many decades of computer time (assuming you could dedicate every computer on the planet to the task) it would take to crack the encryption on your average credit card, and it's not a small number. I don't know what algorithms the passport RFID uses, but I'd be surprised if it's weaker than banks use.

How would the RFID tag know if the passport were open or not?

Well, it wouldn't. But the covers are radio-opaque enough that the weak signals can't be picked up when it's closed.

I'm not saying it would be easy,  but it is possible (as the article says).

No, the article says it might, conceivably be possible at some time in the future. Maybe. And maybe we'll also figure out FTL travel.

I am lucky enough to have a passport issued before the introduction of the RFID tag (at least for the next 8 years or so).  My concern is that it adds zero security to the passport (as evidenced by the referenced article) and it does pose a security risk.

It's not meant to add security. It's meant to add convenience. If the customs desk has all your information on screen even before you hand them your passport, they can shave a few seconds off the processing time. And when there are 500 people in the queue in front of you, that all adds up to you managing to catch your connecting flight.

I'm not nearly as worried about my information being copied (since I have an RFID credit card) as I am about it being used as a remote means of identification.

A bluetooth phone is a far better way of identifying people remotely. Even if it's not actively seeking.

[wintermute]

Actually, it occurs to me that the GSM signal that your phone uses to connect to the network is far better than bluetooth for identifying people. It's on all the time, and is strong enough to be read from several miles away. It sends a unique signal that exactly identifies your phone (and therefore, you) that's easy to crack because the information isn't considered particularly sensitive (if you want a truly private encrypted secure phone, you can pay for it, but most people don't think it's worth the thousands a month it costs). If you know someone's Subscriber Identity Number, say, by reading it off their phone when they're not looking, you can tell when they're moderately close, tuning the range with the power of your receiver. If you don't care about individuals and only want to get someone from a specific country, you just need to find a phone that cries out "I am looking for an AT&T Network!" Hell, if your target nation is America, you don't need to do any kind of reading at all, and just look for phones that broadcast on 850MHz or 1900MHz!

And while people are probably going to go to significant lengths to radioshield their passports, a radioshielded phone is... an electronic address book.

[Russell Nash]

Yes, I can attest to this, as, regrettably, it's about the only thing I've "learned" about the UN. Though, to split hairs, it's not necessarily believed that the mark will be a "tatoo"... there's probably more on the side that it will be a chip, like the ones used in pets... just saying.

Those chips are currently called RFIDs.  They're in a lot more than pets.

In fact, US passports require RFID chips in them and some fear they could be used as triggers for IEDs targeting US citizens.  Not quite the mark of the beast, but still scary.
http://news.cnet.com/Researchers-E-passports-pose-security-risk/2100-7349_3-6102608.html

The RFIDs got delayed in the passports.  I hadn't heard if they started using them yet or not.  I hope not.  I pick up my boy's new one this week.

I'm looking at my boy's new passport.  On the last page it says, "This document contains sensitive electronics."  I can actually see the rather thick shielding in the covers.  From what I have read and seen of RFID and having looked at this, I'm going to say the only way this could be used to ID someone would be if there was a reader built into a doorway.  For me it's all totally irrelevant anyway.  All the "terrorists"* would have to do is wait for me to yell to one of my kids.

A more serious point about the new passports is the extreme arrogance of design.  My passport has a motif of state emblems on each page.  Each state gets represnted once or twice and it's just saying, "look at all the different states we have."  This new one has images of things like the Statue of Liberty and cowboys herding longhorns.  Across the top of each page is some quote about how great America is.  Do we really need propaganda inside our own passports?.

Added:  I need to take my dog in for her shots soon.  I'll see if the reader at the vets can get a signal.

[Chodon]

No, the article says it might, conceivably be possible at some time in the future. Maybe. And maybe we'll also figure out FTL travel.

The article says:

It may be possible to determine the nationality of a passport holder by "fingerprinting" the characteristics of the RFID chip, Mahaffey said. "Taken to an extreme, this could make it possible to craft explosives that detonate only when someone from the U.S. is nearby," he said. At Black Hat, Mahaffey showed a video that simulates just that.

This is not on par with faster than light travel.  Researchers say this represents a "real threat of targeted attack". link to video

I am lucky enough to have a passport issued before the introduction of the RFID tag (at least for the next 8 years or so).  My concern is that it adds zero security to the passport (as evidenced by the referenced article) and it does pose a security risk.

It's not meant to add security. It's meant to add convenience. If the customs desk has all your information on screen even before you hand them your passport, they can shave a few seconds off the processing time. And when there are 500 people in the queue in front of you, that all adds up to you managing to catch your connecting flight.

Actually, this article says the main reason the state department cites for the new passports is "enhanced security". 

I'm not nearly as worried about my information being copied (since I have an RFID credit card) as I am about it being used as a remote means of identification.

A bluetooth phone is a far better way of identifying people remotely. Even if it's not actively seeking.

A bluetooth phone doesn't have a national identification.  The whole concern is it would allow targeting of individuals with certain citizenship.  For some terrorist groups the whole plan is to kill US citizens, not just random damage.  This technology could potentially allow this kind of targeting.
If you feel comfortable with this kind of risk saving you a few seconds in line at the airport, fine.  I don't think it's worth the risk.

[Russell Nash]

A bluetooth phone doesn't have a national identification.  The whole concern is it would allow targeting of individuals with certain citizenship.  For some terrorist groups the whole plan is to kill US citizens, not just random damage.  This technology could potentially allow this kind of targeting.
If you feel comfortable with this kind of risk saving you a few seconds in line at the airport, fine.  I don't think it's worth the risk.

I find all this talk about terrorists to be absolutely off-target (changed from nastier ways of saying it).  More Americans get killed crossing the street each day than get killed in a year by terrorists.  If my big threat was terrorists, I'd be the happiest person in the world.  Going from the Newark airport to my parents place in PA has a far greater threat rating than I'd find from terrorists anywhere except maybe an Israeli-Palestinian border crossing point.

Hell even in 2001, as an American, you were more than ten times more likely to comit suicide than you were to get killed by a terrorist.

[Troo]

Across the top of each page is some quote about how great America is.  Do we really need propaganda inside our own passports?.

Clearly. I mean, you must've forgotten how awesome America is if you want to go outside it, and what other purpose does a passport serve than to let you leave America? 

[wintermute]

No, the article says it might, conceivably be possible at some time in the future. Maybe. And maybe we'll also figure out FTL travel.

The article says:

It may be possible to determine the nationality of a passport holder by "fingerprinting" the characteristics of the RFID chip, Mahaffey said. "Taken to an extreme, this could make it possible to craft explosives that detonate only when someone from the U.S. is nearby," he said. At Black Hat, Mahaffey showed a video that simulates just that.

This is not on par with faster than light travel.  Researchers say this represents a "real threat of targeted attack". link to video

No, really. They say it may be possible to break the encryption on these things, if we assume that every cryptographer since Alan Turing was a blithering moron compared to the guys working for the terrorists. And then, if we take that assumption to the extreme, then maybe they'll be able to pull sensitive data out of it! And here's a video of a simulation of what that might look like, if it was possible! You do know what "simulation" means, right?

Suggesting that a mature, trusted, open cryptographic system could possibly be broken in less than a hundred years, even with every computer on Earth dedicated to the task, is pretty much exactly like saying we might figure out FTL. Suggesting that someone working in secret could do it on the kind of hardware that you can find outside of the CIA or MIT is more like claiming it it's possible you could build an FTL craft out of an TV and an egg whisk.

The crypto I have on my computer is, to all intents and purposes, literally unbreakable. I'm betting that the ICAO has recommended cryptogaphy for biometric passports that's at least as good as you can get off the shelf at Best Buy.

Actually, this article says the main reason the state department cites for the new passports is "enhanced security".

It will, in theory, make it harder to fake a passport, because the encrypted data will be impossible to change, but it'll still pass a visual inspection, and anything more thorough than that would get caught when the passport number is checked against the master database, anyway. I think most good fake passports are basically real passports, officially issued with fake data. The US government currently justifies everything with "security", and I don't think that proves that security is actually the reason they do anything.

Oh, and that article also points out that the RFID chip has a broadcast range in "inches", not feet. Because it needs to pick up power from the reader.

[wintermute]

A more serious point about the new passports is the extreme arrogance of design.  My passport has a motif of state emblems on each page.  Each state gets represnted once or twice and it's just saying, "look at all the different states we have."  This new one has images of things like the Statue of Liberty and cowboys herding longhorns.  Across the top of each page is some quote about how great America is.  Do we really need propaganda inside our own passports?

My passport has pictures of birds in it. They make me smile when I see them.

But, yeah. One of the things about America that frightens me is the fact that they've replaced patriotism with jingoism. Cats lying with dogs, I tell you.

[zZzacha]

Effe terug naar het onderwerp...
I mean... I'm gonna talk foreign language again if that's okay!

Speaking of embarrassing family in foreign countries, I had a devil of a time trying to get mumsy dearest to stop blowing her nose at the dinner table in Japan. Still, at least she didn't resort to leaving her chopsticks sticking up out of her rice at any point.

Help me out here, I really feel like a stupid foreigner now... I've never been to Japan and I'm unaware of the nose and chopstick customs, so tell me!

I know there was some country where it's rude when you don't burp aloud after dinner but I don't know which country. And I wonder if they think it's rude when you burp _without_ dinner. Or is that okay, unless you have your chopsticks in hand

[Chodon]

A bluetooth phone doesn't have a national identification.  The whole concern is it would allow targeting of individuals with certain citizenship.  For some terrorist groups the whole plan is to kill US citizens, not just random damage.  This technology could potentially allow this kind of targeting.
If you feel comfortable with this kind of risk saving you a few seconds in line at the airport, fine.  I don't think it's worth the risk.

I find all this talk about terrorists to be absolutely off-target (changed from nastier ways of saying it).  More Americans get killed crossing the street each day than get killed in a year by terrorists.  If my big threat was terrorists, I'd be the happiest person in the world.  Going from the Newark airport to my parents place in PA has a far greater threat rating than I'd find from terrorists anywhere except maybe an Israeli-Palestinian border crossing point.

Hell even in 2001, as an American, you were more than ten times more likely to comit suicide than you were to get killed by a terrorist.

The statistics agree with you, but a guy sitting two desks down from me had his son blown to pieces in the Cairo bombings of 2005.   It's all statistics and news stories happening to someone else until it hits someone you know. 

Is fear of being blown up going to keep me from going out of the country?  No.  I don't stay up at night worrying about this stuff.  I have tickets to go to Ireland and Northern Ireland this summer, and I'm not going to worry about terrorism while I'm there.  I just think RFID tags in passports is a bad idea, and there are a lot of security experts (which I don't believe any of you are, and I am sure as hell not so I'll defer to them) who agree.

I will restate my point: the risks of having an RFID tag in a passport DO NOT outweigh the benefits (saving a few seconds in line, as Wintermute pointed out).

zZzacha is right, I have derailed this thread with RFID talk (sorry), and I think I have clearly expressed my thoughts on the subject.  They are what they are...

[wintermute]

The statistics agree with you, but a guy sitting two desks down from me had his son blown to pieces in the Cairo bombings of 2005.   It's all statistics and news stories happening to someone else until it hits someone you know.

For the record, in 1996, I was within 200 yards of a pretty serious terrorist bombing.

[stePH]

I find all this talk about terrorists to be absolutely off-target (changed from nastier ways of saying it).  More Americans get killed crossing the street each day than get killed in a year by terrorists.  If my big threat was terrorists, I'd be the happiest person in the world.  Going from the Newark airport to my parents place in PA has a far greater threat rating than I'd find from terrorists anywhere except maybe an Israeli-Palestinian border crossing point.

Hell even in 2001, as an American, you were more than ten times more likely to comit suicide than you were to get killed by a terrorist.

I absolutely agree with Nash on this.  Even on the afternoon of September 11, 2001, I was almost completely unconcerned about the "threat" that "terrorists" posed to my life and my way of life.  I was much more concerned with what my own government might do as a response.

[Chodon]

Help me out here, I really feel like a stupid foreigner now... I've never been to Japan and I'm unaware of the nose and chopstick customs, so tell me!

I'm not sure about the nose thing (but in some culture that's pretty rude in American culture because of the whole sanitation issue that arises).  As for the chopsticks in the rice, from Wikipedia:

Chopsticks are never left sticking vertically into rice, as this resembles incense sticks (which are usually placed vertically in sand) during offerings to the dead. Using chopsticks to spear food, to point, or especially to pass food into someone else's chopsticks is also frowned upon. It is also very bad manners to bite on your chopsticks.

[stePH]

Chopsticks are never left sticking vertically into rice, as this resembles incense sticks (which are usually placed vertically in sand) during offerings to the dead. Using chopsticks to spear food, to point, or especially to pass food into someone else's chopsticks is also frowned upon. It is also very bad manners to bite on your chopsticks.

I thought there was also a ritual of putting out a bowl of rice for the dead at a funeral dinner, with the chopsticks sticking straight up.  And the first time I heard that it's "rude" in Japan to have your chopsticks sticking straight up out of your rice, it was explained further: "only dead people do this."

[Chodon]

Chopsticks are never left sticking vertically into rice, as this resembles incense sticks (which are usually placed vertically in sand) during offerings to the dead. Using chopsticks to spear food, to point, or especially to pass food into someone else's chopsticks is also frowned upon. It is also very bad manners to bite on your chopsticks.

I thought there was also a ritual of putting out a bowl of rice for the dead at a funeral dinner, with the chopsticks sticking straight up.  And the first time I heard that it's "rude" in Japan to have your chopsticks sticking straight up out of your rice, it was explained further: "only dead people do this."

I've heard the same thing, but this was the only thing I could find citation for. 

[zZzacha]

And the first time I heard that it's "rude" in Japan to have your chopsticks sticking straight up out of your rice, it was explained further: "only dead people do this."

Sounds like Japanese funerals can be quite scary... Dead people sticking chopsticks in your rice.
Or do they mean: "Man, someone is going to KILL you if you do that."   

[birdless]

But, yeah. One of the things about America that frightens me is the fact that they've replaced patriotism with jingoism. Cats lying with dogs, I tell you.

You can reference a majority group who do this on a frequent, consistent basis? To be honest, I'm not sure if I mean this question as a challenge or whether I mean this as a genuine request for information. For myself, what you said hasn't been the case in my realm of experience. I guess I have my doubts that you really experience this, as well, but I'm willing to accept that I may be sheltered.

Or by "America" you could simply mean the current leader who represents America to the world... if that's what you mean, then I withdraw the question.

[Troo]

Help me out here, I really feel like a stupid foreigner now... I've never been to Japan and I'm unaware of the nose and chopstick customs, so tell me!

Well the nose-blowing's nothing exciting. It's just considered rude, particularly at the dinner table.

Chopsticks, however... *shudder* There's a full list of rules about using chopsticks, many of which are there to prevent conjuring up images of similar practices at funerals (where the ashes of the deceased would be picked through for bone fragments, using metal... chopsticks).

Here's a list, but it's not complete: http://www.culturalsavvy.com/chopsticks.htm

[Chodon]

You can reference a majority group who do this on a frequent, consistent basis?

Fox news.

I think I agree with Birdless' point about lumping "Americans" into one huge group though.  I think a big part of what this forum is about (and this thread in paticular) is breaking down some of those generalizations, which wintermute's original post about Americans being Jingoist did. 

I am an American, and I am not a Jingoist.  I am, however, a patriot...so there goes that theory.

[qwints]

But, yeah. One of the things about America that frightens me is the fact that they've replaced patriotism with jingoism. Cats lying with dogs, I tell you.

You can reference a majority group who do this on a frequent, consistent basis? To be honest, I'm not sure if I mean this question as a challenge or whether I mean this as a genuine request for information. For myself, what you said hasn't been the case in my realm of experience. I guess I have my doubts that you really experience this, as well, but I'm willing to accept that I may be sheltered.

Or by "America" you could simply mean the current leader who represents America to the world... if that's what you mean, then I withdraw the question.

Talk radio, Fox News, quite a few country music stars ...

I don't feel like researching this at the moment, but I'd bet that quite a few public opinion polls suggest that a significant portion of Americans feel that criticizing the country is unpatriotic. (Of course, it would all depend on how the question was phrased.) I certainly get the impression from media that love of country is seen as an unqualified good. Look at the controversy over Obama wearing a flag pin or not putting his hand on his heart during the national anthem. When symbolic acts of loyalty are issues in a campaign, I think it's fair to accuse some of jingoism.

On the other hand, this is nothing new. Look at the attitude towards pacifists in WW1. Look at the flack the Jehovah Witnesses took back in the Thirties and Forties when they refused to say the pledge of allegiance. Or loyalty oathshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_oath#Truman_era. Or the dismissal of Vietnam protesters as Un-American.