U.S. Homeland Security Delays RFID Plan

Written by Evan Schuman
February 28th, 2006

Wal-Mart isn’t the only major early RFID backer to have cooled its RFID enthusiasm lately. One of the most anticipated RFID trials was at the Department of Homeland Security, which last year made a move to use super-beefed-up RFID devices track all U.S. ports of entry.

That plan has been placed on hold recently as the government “is trying to determine what technology we are going to use,” said Bob Richards, the Homeland Security Department contracting officer assigned to this particular RFI (request for information).

The proposal itself?which was never widely reported?wanted RFID tracking capabilities so that it could locate and identify a tag that was inside a “car, truck or bus” from 25 feet away, while the vehicle was driving as quickly as 55 mph. “The accuracy and reliability goals of the data capture process are 100 percent,” the RFI statement said.

Commented one vendor involved in the process, who requested anonymity: “Yeah, and I think they believe in Tinker Bell, too.”

The move worried some privacy advocates. Although the RFI said that “privacy of travelers shall not be compromised,” its specifications also included details that seemed to undermine that instruction.

“The Government requires that [an RFID device] be read under circumstances that include the device being carried in a pocket, purse, wallet, in traveler’s clothes, or elsewhere on the person of the traveler. The device must be readable when the traveler walks into a (Port of Entry) or crosses the border” at a Port of Entry, the RFI said. “Readers are located in doorways and in individual pedestrian and vehicle lanes to allow identification of where the token is read and to allow association of the token with the individual and, if applicable, the vehicle in which the token is carried.”

Privacy concerns, however, didn’t derail this RFID effort: For the moment, bureaucracy has.

Interviewed last week as the controversial takeover of some U.S. shipping terminals by a United Arab Emirates company was grabbing many of the day’s headlines, contracting officer Richards said the RFID effort was moving along well when it was suddenly halted.

“We went out with the RFI and we did get a lot of responses in. We evaluated them and then the project just went on hold” in mid-December,” Richards said.

The technology choice was only a small aspect, he said, with interdepartmental jurisdiction proving to be a much greater concern.

“Now it’s also going to involve the State Department,” he said.


Comments are closed.


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.