Homeland Security RFID Declaration Means Little

Written by Evan Schuman
February 15th, 2007

For retail RFID observers, the comment late last week from Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that his department was abandoning RFID for one aspect of border protection should have been big news. Upon closer examination, it’s really not.

The saga started last Friday when a major wire service reported that Homeland Security was abandoning RFID across the entire mega-department. On Monday, Homeland Security clarified that the comments were limited to the exit portion of its VISIT border control effort. Even so, if Homeland Security was abandoning RFID for that important program because of “unsuccessful” tests, those results should give pause to others.

One key official with the VISIT program, however, said the reasons stepping back from RFID for the program weren’t for reasons that should concern others.

One concern, for example, is that people were supposed to hold the card up to seen by a reader, which was considered too much of a hassle for many. But that was a program requirement from the beginning so it’s not an RFID fault. Another concern was a language problem in the Southwest border, which was also nothing that RFID had much to do with.

The only technological concern was that the tags being used were running Gen1 RFID, when the industry standard is now Gen2. That was because Gen1 was state-of-the-art when the tests began in 2005.

Asked why the department hadn’t instead simply upgraded to Gen2, the official said that might indeed happen. Given that, we asked if Chertoff’s comment that the department was “abandoning” RFID for VISIT was somewhat of an overstatement. The official paused and promised to get back to us. We?re still waiting.


2 Comments | Read Homeland Security RFID Declaration Means Little

  1. Craig K. Harmon Says:

    My only comment on this article is your statement that Gen1 was “state-of-the-art” when the VISIT tests began in 2005. Gen1 was never “state-of-the-art”. It may be what they and DoD chose to initially implement, but they were not “state-of-the-art”.

  2. Chris Kapsambelis Says:

    I agree with Craig Harmon. When it comes to RFID, the prase “state-of-the-art” does not exist in the present or the past. It only exists in the future.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.