New passports won't make America safer

By DIANA LEDESMA

We all agree that our safety is important and want to live our lives without having to worry about tragedies like the one on September 11.

In order to ensure that safety, the Department of Homeland Security recently proposed that all everyone, including Americans, crossing the border into the U.S. provide a passport as a source of identification.

Currently, the United States requires people coming in from Canada to provide official identification, such as a driver’s license. Travelers from other countries, such as Mexico, are required to provide more than an official identification such as a birth certificate or resident card.

However, requiring passports will not only do the opposite of supplying our security, but it will affect our economy in the process.

The proposed new “e-passport” will not be your typical blue-jacketed or maroon-and-black-covered passport.

The new passports will include a computer chip that can be scanned and provide passport officials with instant informationm including name, date of birth, place of birth, nationality, passport number and a digitalized photo. Sounds easy.

President Bush, who was surprised when he read about the proposal in a newspaper, as well as Quebec Premier Jean Charest, worry that the proposal will be an impediment to the facilitating of trade.

Being that Canada is the largest U.S. trading partner, I can see why that would worry them.

However, the issue remains about security.

Already the Bush administration, specifically the Department of Homeland Security, is advocating that the chips on U.S. and foreign passports include a radio frequency identification component.

That is a bad idea.

The chips would send out radio signals that could easily be activated by anyone with a powerful enough frequency. This would allow people, possibly terrorists, easy access to downloading information on virtually anyone.

The State Department acknowledged that illegal “skimming” could occur. A notice on the Federal Register says a chip-reader would have to be within four inches. However, privacy advocate Bill Scannell says a powerful reader could pick up the information from much farther away.

Safety is a tradeoff. Think about it: With our e-passports, we would be broadcasting ourselves constantly.

Homeland Security ironically claims the output of our information will make us safer. The question still remains, safe from whom?

How safe will we be from terrorists when someone who has learned how to trigger these chips can distinguish the nationality of people inside a building from outside of it?