Asset Protection BLOG - Mark Nestmann

TSA Airport Security Personnel no Longer to Act as "Cash Police"

It's not often that I can report news that's actually favorable to financial privacy.  Today is a happy exception.  I'm pleased to report that the Transportation Security Administration has modified its rules regarding detaining and questioning airline passengers carrying large quantities of cash.

In March 2009, TSA officials in St. Louis detained Steven Bierfeldt after discovering US$4,700 in cash in his carry-on bag.  Bierfeldt, the Director of Development for the Campaign for Liberty (an offshoot of Congressman Ron Paul's presidential campaign), was about to board a domestic flight. 

TSA agents placed Bierfeldt in a small room and began to interrogate him.  Bierfeldt refused to answer the questions.  Instead, he repeatedly asked the agents to explain the scope of their authority to detain and interrogate him.  Not only did the agents refuse to do so, they also told Bierfeldt he was being arrested. 

Fortunately, Bierfeldt had the presence of mind to make an audio recording of the incident on his cellular telephone.  The recording reveals a series of threatening and expletive-laden questions relating to why Bierfeldt was carrying cash.  When he was finally released, Bierfeldt turned the recording over to the American Civil Liberties Union.  Shortly thereafter, the ACLU sued the Department of Homeland Security, which has authority over the TSA, on his behalf.   

TSA officials are authorized to conduct safety-related searches for weapons and explosives. They have no right to interrogate passengers about matters unrelated to passenger safety.  Carrying cash aboard a flight obviously poses no safety risk.  And it's perfectly legal to carry as much cash aboard an airplane as you want.  Unless you're transporting more than US$10,000 in cash across a U.S. border, no reporting is required. 

I anticipated a long and drawn-out lawsuit in this case.   Indeed, I thought the TSA might press for new rules providing explicit authority for agents to confiscate "suspicious" quantities of cash.  However, I was happily surprised to learn last week that the TSA has instead issued new rules that prohibit agents from interrogating passengers on matters unrelated to aircraft safety.  Transporting US$4,700 in your carry-on bag, or US$470,000, for that matter, doesn't qualify. 

However, I still don't recommend that you transport a large quantity of cash on an airplane departing and/or or arriving in a U.S. airport.  The reason is that at some airports, TSA screening may be supplemented by a separate inspection for narcotics.  Most U.S. and foreign currency contains minute traces of narcotics residues.  A drug-sniffing dog is likely to "alert" to any large quantity of cash you're carrying.  That alert may provide probable cause for police to then seize the cash under federal or state civil forfeiture laws.  You may or may not get the cash back, and you'll face an expensive and protracted court battle to prove it came from a legitimate source.

Copyright © 2009 by Mark Nestmann

U.S. Uses Roving Border Checkpoints to Escalate the War on Cash

I just returned to Phoenix from a week's vacation on the beach in San Diego.  My all-too-brief holiday was very pleasant, with the exception of the time spent waiting in line at checkpoints manned by agents of the U.S. Border Patrol—five in all on Interstate 8 between Gila Bend, Arizona and San Diego.

I'm white as a ghost, and over 50, so I don't fit the profile of an illegal immigrant, terrorist, or drug smuggler.  That allowed me to proceed unmolested after brief interrogations by hulking Border Patrol agents.  But what shocked me was that at one checkpoint, agents brought out dogs to inspect each vehicle passing through.  Presumably, if the dog had alerted to the presence of who-knows-what, I would have been subjected to a thorough search of my vehicle.

For decades, the Border Patrol has operated dozens of these interior traffic checkpoints.  And in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that warrantless stops and searches near the border don't violate the U.S. Constitution.  But over the last decade the number of these checkpoints as proliferated. 

Today, there are about 30 permanent checkpoints and numerous additional temporary or "roving" checkpoints along the Mexican border, and a few along the Canadian border.  Apologists for the Border Patrol say warrantless searches of vehicles at these checkpoints is necessary to fight the War on Terrorism, the War on Illegal Immigration, and the War on (Some) Drugs. 

However, organized criminal interests learned long ago to post lookouts near the permanent checkpoints.  Whenever they're unmanned, they alert their colleagues that the coast is clear.  In recent years, it appears from press reports that most arrests at these permanent checkpoints are tourists transporting small quantities of marijuana for recreational use.

Which brings us to the roving checkpoints, and the friendly dogs that inhabit them.  These are more difficult for the professional smugglers to avoid, but hardly impossible. They simply send vehicles ahead of a major shipment of narcotics or illegal immigrants and then choose whatever route is unmanned at the time.  Again, press reports indicate that most arrests appear to be of recreational drug users.

I personally think it's ridiculous for the government to prohibit anyone from indulging in their favorite libation, but there's also a much larger issue.  What else are the dogs sniffing for?

It's my guess that it's cash, not drugs, immigrants, or anything else is what the Border Patrol dogs are after.  Since more than 95% of circulating U.S. currency is contaminated with drug residues, it's a lead-pipe cinch for a dog to "alert" on any large quantity of cash you might be transporting in a border area.  And that's backed up by numerous reports of cash seizures at these checkpoints, inevitably accompanied by a press release from the Border Patrol.

U.S. courts have repeatedly ruled that possession of a large sum of currency is "strong evidence" of a connection to trafficking in illegal drugs.  Merely possessing currency provides the government with sufficient evidence to seize it, unless you can provide clear and credible evidence that it's NOT connected to illegal drugs.  And even then, Border Patrol Agents—or any other law enforcement authority—can still seize it, and force you to sue in court to try to get it back.

The creeping militarization of our border areas gives me, well, the creeps.  It's not effective at stopping illegal immigration or illegal drug trafficking.  What it is effective at is establishing a de facto prohibition against moving any meaningful quantity of cash near a U.S. border.

Copyright © 2009 by Mark Nestmann

Warrantless Laptop Searches at U.S. Borders to Continue

Nearly three years ago, I warned you about the possible consequences of carrying a laptop computer across a U.S. border.  Basically, U.S. courts have said that Customs can confiscate your laptop, make an "image" of the hard disk and all the data on it, and use that data against you in a criminal proceeding—all without probable cause that you've done anything wrong.  (The situation, incidentally, appears to be the same when entering or leaving an increasing number of other countries, including the United Kingdom.)

This authority is deeply controversial, and civil libertarians had hoped that the Obama administration would revise the policy.  However, last week, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) re-confirmed the Bush era policy that customs officials can seize and search any electronic device you carry across a U.S. border.  That includes laptops, cell phones, MP3 players, USB sticks, etc.  No warrant is necessary: "gimme" is sufficient.

The good news, if there is any, is that the Obamites have streamlined the inspection process.  In most cases, says the DHS, you'll have your laptop or other electronic device(s) back in 30 days or less.  Presumably, they'll copy whatever you've stored on these devices, and then mail it back to you when they're done, presumably they don't find anything suspicious (e.g., child porn, bomb-making instructions, etc.).  Any files copied may be stored "indefinitely."

Fortunately, these warrantless searches don't occur often.  Over the last 10 months, customs officials have conducted only 46 in-depth laptop searches.  They've examined another 1,000 or so without conducting an exhaustive search. 

One way to protect yourself from this type of intrusion is to encrypt all the data on your laptop, including the hard disk itself, using a program like PGP Whole Disk Encryption (http://www.pgp.com) or True-Crypt (http://www.truecrypt.org).

Unfortunately, this isn't a complete solution, because customs officials may demand that you decrypt any encrypted files before they allow you to proceed.  If you refuse, you might be detained until you agree to decrypt the laptop for inspection.  In that event, though, True-Crypt lets you type in a special access code that provides access only to part of your hard drive.  The remainder of your data remains protected in a hidden hard disk partition.

Another issue if customs officials detain your laptop is access to your data.  One way to deal with this issue is to create an encrypted zip file (again using a program like PGP Whole Disk Encryption).  Then, upload it to a secure location using a program such as Filezilla (http://filezilla-project.org).

If you have a Web site with sufficient free space, you could upload it to that location.  Many Internet Service Providers also provide an online backup service.  If you have only a few megabytes of data to protect, you could even send the encrypted file to a friend, with instructions to send it back at your request.  When you're done, securely "wipe" any confidential information off your hard drive, along with the "free space," again using a program like PGP Desktop. 

Before you cross the border, be certain to "sanitize" your laptop of records of Web sites you've visited, incompletely deleted files, and other detritus that may be incriminating.  A good program to use for this purpose is Window Washer (http://www.webroot.com). 

Finally, don't forget to take the same precautions for other electronic media you carry across international borders.  For instance, if you've downloaded music to your MP3 player in violation of copyright laws, this could potentially cause problems.  Leave your MP3 player at home if there's any doubt.

You can protect your "smartphone" by backing up your data as I've already described, and then encrypting it using a product such as PGP Mobile.  If your cell phone doesn't connect to the Internet, there's less potentially incriminating data on it, but the safest strategy is to delete any photos or text messages you feel to be even remotely controversial, and then reset it to factory settings.  You can find instructions for doing so at http://www.master-reset.com.

DHS officials seem to think these rules will help fight terrorism, but I'm not so sure.  After all, if you were really a terrorist, you'd never bring a laptop with you into another country.  You'd simply e-mail yourself the plans to blow up, poison, or incinerate whatever you wish to target.  As with most anti-terrorism initiatives, this one does little or nothing to fight terrorists.  It merely inconveniences law-abiding travelers. 

Copyright © 2009 by Mark Nestmann

Scalia: You Can Invade My Privacy—but I Don't Have to Like It

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia doesn't think you have a right to privacy in most aspects of your life.  But he doesn't care to have his own privacy invaded—although he admits it's perfectly legal.

Back in January, Scalia spoke at a privacy conference organized by the Institute of American and Talmudic Law.  While his speech wasn't recorded (apparently at his own insistence), one of his remarks was a statement to the effect:

"Every single datum about my life is private? That's silly."  Some information should remain private, "but it doesn't include what groceries I buy."

Scalia also said he wasn't bothered by anyone tracking him on the Internet.  "I don't find that particularly offensive…I don't find it a secret what I buy, unless it's shameful."

Taking a cue from Scalia's remarks, Fordham Law Professor Joel Reidenberg decided to give the students in his Information Privacy Law class a special assignment: find everything they could about  Scalia on the Internet, and compile a dossier on him.  Among other findings, students discovered Scalia's home address and home phone number, his wife's personal e-mail address, and his food and entertainment preferences.

Scalia's reaction wasn't surprising.  He didn't like having this information published.  Said Scalia:

It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time. What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any.

Well, well.  Nothing like being dressed down by a Supreme Court justice! 

But perhaps Justice Scalia should give the matter some more consideration.  Not everything that should remain private, for instance, is shameful.  Your bank account transaction data may not be shameful (well, perhaps it is…), but that doesn't mean anyone should be able to view it.  Nor is your Social Security number shameful—but it's not a good idea to broadcast it to potential identity thieves.

Still, the most revealing portraits come from not just one or two data points, but the aggregation of volumes of data, all freely available to anyone who cares to gather it.  Taken together, this information paints a remarkably detailed portrait of "you."  And it's perfectly legal to compile, even if, as the good Justice Scalia reminds us, the person gathering it, or using it, may be exercising "bad judgment." 

Copyright © 2009 by Mark Nestmann

Click here to learn 109 ways you can begin to use today to protect what's left of your privacy

How Secure is Your RFID Passport? Not Very…

Once upon a time, an enterprising thief who wanted to steal your passport had to take the actual document from you.  But with today's "ultra-secure" RFID passports, a thief merely needs to be somewhere close to you, equipped with the proper electronics.

Using a device that one researcher bought on eBay for US$250, you too can create ultra-secure RFID passports.  Driving along Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, the researcher captured—and cloned—a half-dozen RFID chips used in these passports in less than an hour.

True, the RFID chips he cloned weren't the same as the ones in an ordinary U.S. passport.  They're used in the new "passport cards" the U.S. Department of Homeland Security now issues for travel to and from Western Hemisphere countries.  Some U.S. states have also issued high-tech driver's licenses incorporating these chips.

But ordinary passports are vulnerable as well.  Last summer, security researchers in the United Kingdom demonstrated how to clone RFID-equipped U.K. passports and accepted as genuine by the computer software recommended for use at international airports.  After cloning the chips, the researchers implanted digital images of Osama bin Laden and a suicide bomber.  Then they tested the "passport" using passport reader software used by the U.N. agency that sets standards for e-passports.  It passed with flying colors.

Naturally, this should be viewed as progress, according to government security experts.  Here's what the U.S. Department of State has to say about RFID passports:

"The [RFID] chip securely stores the same data visually displayed on the photo page of the passport, and additionally includes a digital photograph. The inclusion of the digital photograph enables biometric comparison, through the use of facial recognition technology, at international borders. The U.S. e-passport also has a new look, incorporating additional anti-fraud and security features."

Got that?  Since the government says the passport is secure, it is secure!  Doesn't that make you feel better?

Hopefully, Osama and his ilk won't be carrying cloned British or U.S. passports anytime soon.  But even if not, the ability to clone the RFID chip on your passport makes you vulnerable to identity theft.  Here's how it might happen.

You check in to a hotel managed by a criminal.  When you take out your RFID passport to identify yourself, a hidden RFID scanner captures the data.  Now your name, digital photo, and biometric data can be cloned and sold over the Internet to the highest bidder. 

To protect yourself, consider the following precautions:

• If you have one of the new DHS "passport cards" or a driver's license with an RFID chip, keep the card wrapped in foil except when you need to present it at a border crossing.  That makes it less vulnerable to remote cloning.
• Also, when you check into a hotel, rent a vehicle, or carry out any other transaction abroad that requires you to present your passport, try not to let it out of your sight.  Unless a hidden remote scanner is present, that way your data is less likely to be cloned.  This may be easier said than done; some hotels (particularly smaller ones) insist on holding on to visitors' passports until checkout.  If you offer to pay in advance, the hotel may relent on this requirement.

Unfortunately, I can't recommend the most effective self-defense mechanism: to put your RFID passport in a microwave oven and switch it on for a few seconds.  That will destroy the RFID chip, but tampering with a passport is punishable by 25 years in prison.  Compared to that, identity theft is a small price to pay.

Copyright © 2009 by Mark Nestmann

Don't Get Caught in a War with the Wrong Passport!

As fighting intensified in the Gaza Strip, Israel last Friday began allowing individuals possessing a foreign passport to leave the crowded Palestinian territory.  Hundreds left before Israel's ground forces invaded the Gaza Strip the next day.

They were the fortunate ones. Ordinary Palestinians have few options to escape the war zone.  Gaza is surrounded on three sides by Israel, and on the fourth by Egypt.  Both countries have closed all border crossings.  And while the Palestine governing authority issues a passport, Palestinians can't use it to leave Gaza.  Only Palestinians fortunate enough to possess a non-Palestinian passport can leave.

Even in better times, a Palestinian passport isn't an ideal travel document.  Only a handful of countries recognize it, although more than 100 countries have diplomatic ties with Palestine.  Even when the borders are open, persons carrying a Palestinian passport must negotiate a labyrinth of legal requirements to depart legally.  And, they may not be allowed to return. 

How you would react if the country you live in now became a war zone?  Would the authorities allow you to leave your own country?  Or, as in Gaza, would you become a virtual prisoner?  Further, what would you do if your own country—or an authority controlling access to it—wouldn't allow you to return home?

One way to protect yourself from this possibility—and to obtain many other benefits—is to obtain a second passport.  If you don't qualify for a second passport by virtue of your ancestry or your marital status, you can purchase one from a handful of countries that offer "economic citizenship."   The Commonwealth of Dominica, the Federation of St. Kitts & Nevis, and Austria all have official, legally mandated, economic citizenship programs.  To qualify under any of them, you must pass a strict vetting process that includes a comprehensive criminal background check. 

The least expensive option is to obtain economic citizenship from Dominica. Under this country's economic citizenship program, you may acquire citizenship and passport in return for a cash contribution.  Total costs including all fees for a single applicant come to about US$103,000.  Add US$25,000 if you need a passport for your spouse and up to two children under 18.  Dominican passport holders can travel without a visa, or obtain a visa upon entry, to nearly 90 countries and territories.

In the Federation of St. Kitts & Nevis, there are two ways to obtain economic citizenship.  The most practical strategy is to make a direct contribution.   Total costs including all fees for a single applicant under this option come to about US$215,000, or US$265,000 for an applicant with up to three dependents. Alternatively, you can purchase qualifying property worth a minimum of US$350,000. However, fees and taxes under this option are much higher than if you make a direct contribution.  St. Kitts & Nevis passport holders can travel without a visa, or obtain a visa upon entry, to more than 100 countries.

Finally, you may be able to obtain Austrian citizenship and passport after making a substantial investment in that country.  Unlike the programs in Dominica and St. Kitts & Nevis, in Austria, you must make your investment first and then apply for citizenship. You don't get your money back if you're not approved.  Generally, you must invest several million dollars to have a reasonable chance at qualifying, and pay legal fees of US$30,000 or more.  Austrian passport holders can travel to more than 120 countries visa-free and live and work in any of the 27 members of the European Union.

Other than giving you an "exit strategy" in case of domestic unrest, having a second passport and dual citizenship has numerous additional benefits. It can expand your travel possibilities, reduce your profile to terrorists, give you the right to reside in other countries, and give you a way to cross international borders if your primary passport is lost or stolen.  For Americans, a second passport has another benefit.  It is an essential prerequisite to expatriation; i.e., giving up U.S. citizenship in order to permanently disconnect from U.S. taxing authority.

The Nestmann Group, Ltd. can assist individuals seeking alternative citizenship and tax-advantaged residence. Please contact us for more information at info@nestmann.com.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

Ruling by Decree: How Will President Obama Use his Authority to Issue "Executive Orders?"

One of the most important, yet least publicized, powers of the U.S. President is the authority to issue legally binding decrees, without the consent of Congress. 

Using an instrument known as an executive order, the president may, at the stroke of a pen:

• Freeze the U.S. property of any person, entity, or government
• Eliminate the right of habeas corpus and bring accused political criminals before military tribunals for trial
• Imprison or detain individuals or an entire class of people without trial
• Impose national banking "holidays" closing all U.S. banks or restrict and ration currency withdrawals and the cashing of checks or drafts.
• Shut down domestic stock and commodity exchanges
• Investigate, regulate, or prohibit the importing, exporting, or holding of currency, securities, or precious metals
• Impose punitive taxes on inbound or outbound foreign investments
• Impose wage and price controls

In the 230-year history of the United States, presidents have used all of these powers.  In just the last eight years, President George W. Bush has unilaterally frozen the assets of suspected terrorists, dramatically expanded surveillance of domestic communications, and detained hundreds of people without accusing them of any crime.

President-elect Obama campaigned on a platform of "change," but there is little assurance that he will be more judicious in his use of executive orders than George W. Bush.  That's because in a crisis—or a perceived crisis—executive orders are a convenient way to demonstrate to the American people that their president is "doing something" to deal with the problem.

In the Bush administration, of course, the "problem" was the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.  President-elect Obama still faces the specter of terrorism, of course, but the unraveling economy presents an even greater challenge.  And, especially if Congress doesn't go along with his domestic policy agenda, Obama may be tempted to draw on precedents set by previous presidents to "go it alone" via executive orders. For instance, in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order that temporarily closed all U.S. banks.  He issued another order that mandated the forced sale of all gold and silver held by U.S. persons. 

The best that we can probably hope for is that Obama will use his executive authority to undo the worst abuses of George W. Bush's penchant to rule by decree.  A few suggestions:

• Set a firm deadline for closing the prison camp for unindicted detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba
• Order the U.S. military and all executive agencies to comply with U.S. treaty obligations, such as the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture.
• Order U.S. intelligence agencies to comply with domestic laws regulating warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of electronic communications.

Still, while hoping for the best, it's important to be prepared for the worst:

• Set up an offshore account if you haven't done so already.  If you already have one, it wouldn't hurt to add to it if you can afford to so. 
• Keep enough cash on hand to pay for at least a month's necessities if U.S. banks close down.  Store it securely at home or other private location, NOT in a safety deposit box.  Also keep some "junk silver" and small denomination gold coins on hand. (But keep the bulk of your precious metals holdings offshore.)
• Establish reserves of necessities, especially food and water.
• Upgrade the physical security of your home.

It's hard to imagine why anyone would want to be president as the United States heads into what may be the worst economic downturn in its history.  President-elect Obama made that choice, and I wish him the best.  But I'm preparing for the worst, and you should, too.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

Big Brother, May I? Soon, You’ll Need Uncle Sam’s Permission to Travel Almost Anywhere

Last year, I wrote that if Uncle Sam gets its way, we’d all be on no-fly lists, unless the government gives us permission to leave—or re-enter—the United States.  That day has now arrived, but in addition to obtaining Big Brother’s permission to travel internationally, a final rule pursuant to the U.S. Transportation Security Administration’s “Secure Flight” initiative says we must now get it to travel from state-to-state.” 

For now, permission to travel applies only to air transport.  However, the TSA could of course extend it to train, bus, or auto travel anytime.  (Just imagine TSA checkpoints on interstates at every state border.)   And, while the TSA hasn’t announced the effective date of the rule, it did reveal what information it would need in order to leave, say, San Francisco, to fly to Las Vegas for a weekend on the Strip.

At some point in the future, you’ll need to reveal your name, gender, and date of birth when you make a domestic airline reservation.  The airline will contact TSA to determine if you’re cleared to board.  If you’re on any of TSA’s watchlists (which include such deceased “terrorists” as Saddam Hussein, along with live ones such as Sen. Edward Kennedy), you’ll need to provide an official document acceptable for federal identification purposes in order to travel.  Examples of acceptable identity documents are passports and the “enhanced” driver’s licenses required under the ill-fated “Real ID Act.”  If you can’t produce such a document, you can’t board the plane.

This is the first time the U.S. government has restricted the right of sovereign citizens to travel inside the United States since the Civil War.  And the TSA is imposing this restriction, despite numerous rulings from the Supreme Court indicating that you have a Constitutional right to travel.  According to the court, the right to travel is "not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conventional due process or equal protection standards," but "a virtually unconditional personal right."  International travel is specifically protected as well, for "Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood…Freedom of movement is basic to our scheme of values."

Further, the U.S. government has reiterated in its most recent report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee that, “…[I]n the United States, the right to travel—both domestically and internationally—is constitutionally protected."  Perhaps it’s time the government amend this declaration!

What this amounts to is essentially a reprise of the infamous "internal passport" system in effect in the former Soviet Union.  In 1933, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin introduced "internal passports" that prohibited Soviet citizens from leaving their place of residence without permission.  Over time, the internal passport became the prime instrument of Soviet oppression over its citizens.

It's bad enough needing to ask Uncle Sam for permission to leave the United States, and to reenter it.  But an internal passport is a blueprint for totalitarianism.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

Since Sept. 11, 2001, it's become difficult to travel without subjecting yourself to intrusive surveillance.  However, it's still possible to travel privately, and in some cases, virtually anonymously.  Click here to learn how.

We Know Where You Are, Where You’ve Been, and Where You’re Going

First, it was radar guns.  Next came red light cameras, which took a photo both of your face and your license plate numbers.  And now, surveillance vendors are promoting an American “homeland security” system that would track you, wherever you drive.

If you think this technology is a pipe dream, think again.  It exists now, and will soon arrive in the United States. 

You can thank the United Kingdom for pioneering this system.  When fully implemented next year, the U.K.’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system will track nearly 500,000 vehicles daily through police cameras and CCTV systems.  As you drive between major cities and (especially) into a major metropolitan area, your license plate will be scanned and your identity matched against various U.K. databases. 

Should you be driving a “vehicle of interest,” it will be easy for police to detain and possibly arrest you.  And since the results will be archived for five years, investigators can subsequently trawl the database of billions of vehicle journeys for whatever purposes are deemed necessary. 

Such a system already exists in London, where it was installed to reduce traffic congestion.  Now, proponents justify it as a measure to fight terrorism, child pornography, and narcotics trafficking. 

In the United States, leading photo enforcement providers are promoting a similar program as a way for police to solve missing persons cases and reclaim stolen cars.  But behind the scenes, they’re advocating a much more ambitious network with capabilities that would equal or even exceed those being developed in the United Kingdom.

The potential for abuse is obvious.  And you don’t need to look far to find it.  In Canada, a police sergeant in Edmonton, Alberta decided to track the whereabouts of a journalist who had criticized the city’s photo radar operation.  Police followed the critic to a local bar, hoping to arrest him for driving under the influence of alcohol.  Unfortunately for police, the journalist took a taxi home.  Shortly thereafter, the plan became public knowledge after someone inside the police department leaked tapes of radio traffic to the press.

What politician might be silenced after the license numbers of both he and an alleged mistress are found at the same hotel?  What civil libertarian will feel compelled to stay at home rather than risk harassment by police if he drives his vehicle to a political rally?  The prospects for continued abuses are real, and growing rapidly.

One thing’s for sure.  Big Brother has literally taken to the roads.  If you want transportation privacy in this brave new world, buy a bicycle—or a good pair of hiking boots.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

RFID Tags Enable 24/7 Surveillance [Part II]

in my last blog entry, I described how states on the U.S. and Mexican borders have begun to issue "enhanced driver licenses," which can be used at U.S. border crossings in Mexico and Canada.  Each license incorporates a RFID tag encoded with a unique identification number.  The ID tag number on your license is associated with your identity.

I also described how corporate American plans to install a nationwide network of"person tracking units" (PTUs) everywhere that people go--from airports to shopping malls to museums. 

How do corporate America and the U.S. government plan to use the massive amounts of data gathered through RFID tags?  ssentially, to facilitate 24/7 surveillance of everything you do and everywhere you go.  Here's how I think it will work.

Even if the RFID tag contains no personally identifiable data, that doesn't matter.  That's because once the PTU establishes the link between your unique RFID number and your identity, "personal information will be obtained when the person uses his or her credit card, bank card, shopper card or the like."  Enhanced driver licenses are ideal for this purpose because they are compatible with scanners already in use by many large retailers.

Corporate America plans to aggregate this data and use it to make better decisions about how to market specific products to specific individuals.  Based on your RFID profile, for instance, you might see the type of personalized advertising pitches that were a staple of the movie "Minority Report" (highly recommended).  But naturally, this data would also be available for government inspection as well…and there's the real danger. 

Consider how China plans to use RFID tags.  The new high-tech Chinese national ID card contains a record of the cardholder's employment status, ethnicity, health and reproductive history, and even religion.  Plans are underway to use these cards in conjunction with state-of-the-art CCTV and related surveillance technologies in Chinese cities.  The primary goal of the program, according to a company manufacturing the RFID tags, is "for the government to control the population in the future."  The same potential exists in the United States or any other country that adopts this technology without careful consideration of the consequences.

What can you do to slow down the RFID juggernaut?  For starters, don't apply for an enhanced driver's license if the state you live in offers one.  And while you're at it, get involved in the effort to reduce RFID surveillance.  The most influential organization in this fight is CASPIAN—Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering.  Visit their Web site at http://www.nocards.org to learn more.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann