The hits keep on comin’. Yesterday, both the Federal Times and Government Executive, a pair of publications made for civil service and national security information technocrats, respectively published stories relating to the RFID embedded passport cards and the basic shortcomings of the technology’s use in government. While the Federal Times story hits on much the same points already reported on, Government Executive takes an extensive look at the hype and disappointment surrounding RFID across various government agencies.
By and large, the Federal Times story was nothing new, but it is a significant paper for civil servant technology geeks inside the Beltway. The story claims some 4,000 people have submitted comments regarding the cards to the State Department, “most opposing the plan, often on privacy grounds.” The affirmative side, in this case the Customs and Border Patrol, argues there’s no personal information contained in the card, just a CBP-issued number. However, Sophia Cope of the Center for Democracy and Technology argues that the CBP-issued number is itself a unique identifier.
The Government Executive piece takes a thorough look at why RFID has not been successfully adopted by agencies ranging from Agriculture to Defense and Transportation. The article rests its case after arguing that high costs, security concerns and usability problems inhibit the use and adoption of RFID. Jeff Vining, a research vice president at Gartner Inc. says, “A few years ago, the [federal government] and other organizations looked to RFID tagging as a panacea for a whole host of security solutions. But reality has set in.” And former CIO for the US VISIT program, Scott Hastings, says, “There’s an investment involved that is not trivial [with RFID]. People are divided about whether it’s worthwhile.”
Although RFID holds much promise and has yielded little actual results, the government continues to develop the technology. Of all the agencies currently looking to implement RFID, the Department of Homeland Security is the most heavily invested; which only makes sense. Why develop the technology and either fix or discount it in areas other than national defense? Why not add a little more pressure to the situation by saying American lives depend on the development and implementation of RFID and make a quick buck in the meantime? This reader and freethinker says it’s a bit too fishy and it’s been going on for a bit too long, but it is indeed so widespread a practice in government today, that it’s hard to say exactly when it’s been too much.
