"There's a reason you don't wear your Social Security number across your T-shirt," Albrecht says, "and beaming out your new, national RFID number in a 30-foot radius would be far worse."

There are no federal laws against the surreptitious skimming of Americans' RFID numbers, so it won't be long before people seek to profit from this, says Bruce Schneier, an author and chief security officer at BT, the British telecommunications operator.

Data brokers that compile computer dossiers on millions of individuals from public records, credit applications and other sources "will certainly maintain databases of RFID numbers and associated people," he says. "They'd do a disservice to their stockholders if they didn't."

Or put simply, everyone knows that this is scary beyond reason and we need to do something now BEFORE it's a problem.

Here is some more information from the source article:

In its October 2005 Federal Register notice, the State Department reassured Americans that the e-passport's chip — the ISO 14443 tag — would emit radio waves only within a 4-inch radius, making it tougher to hack.

Technologists in Israel and England, however, soon found otherwise. In May 2006, at the University of Tel Aviv, researchers cobbled together $110 worth of parts from hobbyists kits and directly skimmed an encrypted tag from several feet away. At the University of Cambridge, a student showed that a transmission between an e-passport and a legitimate reader could be intercepted from 160 feet.

The article also mentions a video that shows the results of his experiment. I was able to find it HERE.

Fixing Airport Security

Also be aware that the TSA is making significant strides backwards when it comes to whole body imaging. Where they used to be looking at technology that wasn't as privacy invasive, they've now started making a major push for what some are calling a digital strip search. The most important issue here is that the scanners are being planned as a replacement for metal detectors which means you'd have no choice but to bare all for the TSA.

Bring on the tinfoil underwear…

This is so wrong, I barely know what to say. I sure hope this trend doesn't start to catch on, because a lot of people would give up the information when they're pressured instead of doing the right thing and refusing.

"Please list any and all, current personal or business websites, web pages or memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc." the form reads. But Bozeman isn't simply interested in finding out where to look for potentially embarrassing personal details; the city wants full disclosure, since the form demands username and password information for each.

This is way worse than all those sickening social networking sites asking for your e-mail address password.

Update

Here is the contact information for the relevant people in the city if you want to ask them why they thought this would be a good idea.

And just in case someone were to change the form, here's a copy of the original found on their website:

This is for real... they actually expect you to give up your account details!

There are so many questions I want to ask such as why Google stores data for so long (which they've avoided answering before) and why the FTC doesn't promote credit freezes (which they've avoided answering before).

In the meantime, there's talk about the different types of data collection each group does and the standard rigamarole about customizing and targeting advertisements as if that's helpful to the end user. Granted having ads that are more appropriate are more useful than less, but I see that as the same as having a neighbor down the street that you hardly know bring you a box of your favorite beef jerky. It's nice, but damned creepy when someone knows that much about you when you don't know who they are, what their intentions are, and how much else they know about you.

I stood up to lecture the panel on the fact that personalized ads aren't necessary for small sites to exist if they use the product recommendation method versus random ad policy like me, opt-out is an unfair business practice since it requires that people become very knowledgeable about ads and how to stop them which is near impossible for regular people, and opt-in is not only necessary, it's easy.

I doubt the information I shared will have any positive effect on the industry, but it was still worth a try.

(H/T to Slashdot for the link)

Transit Police will only inspect areas of bags that are capable of concealing explosives. Police will not be viewing the content of papers or other reading material. But if illegal items such as drugs are found, they will be confiscated as evidence, and police will cite or arrest the individual. Those who refuse to have their bags searched will not be allowed to enter. Transit Police will not arrest people who refuse to have their bags inspected.

The key here is that you have the right to refuse which most people probably wouldn't know about or exercise. If you don't know, ask. Ask "do I have the legal right to refuse the search and what are the consequences if I do so?" I have no idea if asking such a thing could create legal problems in some circumstances, but it's what I would do. Never submit to authority asking you to do things you don't think are right without at least questioning it (in my personal, non-legal, non-professional, opinion).

(H/T to Privacy.org for the link)

The scary thing is, this is just software, it's not a special phone. If you have software like this, what's to stop you from installing it in your girlfriend's phone or a business contact. Where's my "phone only" phone?

Y.R. Tap - The reject Cryptokid

But that's not what I'm posting about.

I ran across this interesting comic about the unpopular little-know cryptokid, Y.R. Tap, the NSA domestic spying fly. The fly shows the Cryptokids what can happen when civil liberties are violated.