QUESTION regarding RFID Blocking??

[STARFISH*4]

do you use these type of passport holders or wallets for travel?

have been going back and forth about wether we should have them...

ANY OPINIONS?

[cherylandtk]

You'll get opinions of every variety and side. Here is some helpful information about the technology in use. I think most people are not aware that the cover of the passport has blocking material and that there is BAC control on the chip itself.

 

http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_2788.html#Twelve

[STARFISH*4]

You'll get opinions of every variety and side. Here is some helpful information about the technology in use. I think most people are not aware that the cover of the passport has blocking material and that there is BAC control on the chip itself.

 

http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_2788.html#Twelve

 

thanks mine was issued in Feb 2007.

[Globaliser]

do you use these type of passport holders or wallets for travel?

No; and ATM I really don't understand why anyone would want to.

 

The chip basically contains the same information as on the printed details page of the passport, and its fundamental purpose is to verify that the printed page has not been tampered with or altered.

[daffodiliaz]

I purchased a RFID blocking sleeve to put my credit cards in inside my wallet. Why? I got a little paranoid after seeing a story on TV about electronic pickpocketing. I think the sleeve does work. I put my work ID inside it and tried to enter the building and couldn't open the door. There are many videos on YouTube about just how easy it is to buy a scanner and bump into someone on the street and steal credit card info. My peace of mind was worth the 10 bucks or so. No comment on passports.

[FlyerTalker]

My credit cards stay in my Flipside wallet for RFID shielding. My passport stays in its nice leather case. Am I concerned about RFID scamming - yep. For my financial instruments.

[PennyAgain]

I do have a purse with an RFID blocking liner. It has its advantages and disadvantages. My cell phone won't take a call when in the purse.

 

The purse is heavy for its size.

 

The purse cost more than for a similar plain purse.

 

but I do use it.

[new salt]

I do have a purse with an RFID blocking liner. It has its advantages and disadvantages. My cell phone won't take a call when in the purse.

 

The purse is heavy for its size.

 

The purse cost more than for a similar plain purse.

 

but I do use it.

 

Wouldn't a layer of tinfoil inside a wallet work as well to protect credit cards or can these scanners read through it? (Note to self; retain future ear cut outs from helmets)

.

[STARFISH*4]

we did need new passport cases so i just went ahead and got the RFID

ones...

 

THANKS for all your opinions.

[kenish]

No guarantees or responsibility on the results...but as an electronics engineer, I think 3-5 seconds in a microwave could fry the RFID chip with no external clues. But I have to assume they thought of this and either made it immune or the passport has microwave tamper-evident features.

[FlyerTalker]

No guarantees or responsibility on the results...but as an electronics engineer, I think 3-5 seconds in a microwave could fry the RFID chip with no external clues. But I have to assume they thought of this and either made it immune or the passport has microwave tamper-evident features.

Or, just declare it to be invalid.

 

From 22 CFR Part 51:

Invalidity

 

A United States passport is invalid as soon as:

 

(5) The passport has been materially changed in physical appearance or composition, or contains a damaged, defective or otherwise nonfunctioning chip, or includes unauthorized changes, obliterations, entries or photographs, or has observable wear or tear that renders it unfit for use as a travel document, and the Department either takes possession of the passport or sends a written notice to the bearer.

[Globaliser]

... or the passport has microwave tamper-evident features.

Yup: chip no work, you no travel.

 

At least potentially.

 

But I still don't see why anyone's worried about somone remotely skimming the chip on the passport. It's encrypted; decryption requires the use of the physical details page on the passport; and when decrypted, the chip tells you no more than what is on that very same details page. The chip is a device to verify that the physical details page has not been tampered with, not a repository of all your vital statistics.

[njhorseman]

Or, just declare it to be invalid.

 

From 22 CFR Part 51:

 

Invalidity

 

A United States passport is invalid as soon as:

 

(5) The passport has been materially changed in physical appearance or composition, or contains a damaged, defective or otherwise nonfunctioning chip, or includes unauthorized changes, obliterations, entries or photographs, or has observable wear or tear that renders it unfit for use as a travel document, and the Department either takes possession of the passport or sends a written notice to the bearer.

 

Interesting, because this conflicts with information in the FAQ cited by cherylandtk:

 

What will happen if my Electronic Passport fails at a port-of-entry?

 

The chip in the passport is just one of the many security features of the new passport. If the chip fails, the passport remains a valid travel document until its expiration date. You will continue to be processed by the port-of-entry officer as if you had a passport without a chip.

[FlyerTalker]

When there is a difference between the black-letter law and an FAQ, I'll defer to the law. It may or may not cause you to be denied entry, but it most assuredly (IMHO) gives an immigration official cause for further scrutiny and questioning. Plus enhance the chance for customs to go through every inch of your luggage.

 

Of course, YMMV.

 

Sidebar: On Wednesday, I sat near a young woman in a boarding area. She was complaining how UK officials at LHR denied her entry, put her in a detention facility overnight, and then turned her around back to the USA. She was adamant that they had to let her into the UK. It was funny listening to her naivete. As long as there is a legal basis, it is completely within the jurisdiction of an immigration officer to say "nah, we don't think you should come in."

[njhorseman]

When there is a difference between the black-letter law and an FAQ, I'll defer to the law. It may or may not cause you to be denied entry, but it most assuredly (IMHO) gives an immigration official cause for further scrutiny and questioning. Plus enhance the chance for customs to go through every inch of your luggage.

 

Of course, YMMV.

 

Sidebar: On Wednesday, I sat near a young woman in a boarding area. She was complaining how UK officials at LHR denied her entry, put her in a detention facility overnight, and then turned her around back to the USA. She was adamant that they had to let her into the UK. It was funny listening to her naivete. As long as there is a legal basis, it is completely within the jurisdiction of an immigration officer to say "nah, we don't think you should come in."

 

There are millions and millions of US passports still in use (mine included) that don't contain the RFID chip because the State Department only began issuing all passports with the chip in 2007. Given that valid US passports without the chip will be in use until 2017, I find it difficult to believe that anyone at this juncture would be denied entry solely due to a non-functioning chip, when perhaps 50% of current valid passports don't even have them. In 2017, perhaps, but not in 2011. The rule might have been worded that way to accommodate long term plans for enforcement, or perhaps some brain-dead Washington bureaucrat who drafted the rule thought that all passports would magically have the chip from the first day the passports with chips became standard. :rolleyes: (Personally, I vote for the latter theory.)

[STARFISH*4]

There are millions and millions of US passports still in use (mine included) that don't contain the RFID chip because the State Department only began issuing all passports with the chip in 2007. )

 

the chip i understand was issued after i got mine in Feb 2007-(August 2007) and like you said i would imagine there are ALOT of us out there that dont have 'chip' passports!

[Globaliser]

Given that valid US passports without the chip will be in use until 2017, I find it difficult to believe that anyone at this juncture would be denied entry solely due to a non-functioning chip ...

Perhaps not solely, but just imagine that you've intentionally disabled the chip, and there's something on the printed details page that makes an immigration officer suspect that it's been tampered with.

 

And then remember that the chip is intended to make the details page tamper-evident.

 

Intentionally disabling the chip might make it seem more suspicious than if you had no chip at all.

[njhorseman]

Perhaps not solely, but just imagine that you've intentionally disabled the chip, and there's something on the printed details page that makes an immigration officer suspect that it's been tampered with.

And then remember that the chip is intended to make the details page tamper-evident.

 

Intentionally disabling the chip might make it seem more suspicious than if you had no chip at all.

 

Intentionally disabling the chip and having something suspicious on the printed details page is a huge leap from the passport just having a non-functioning chip.

 

By the way, for anyone (and I know it wasn't you who said it) who claims that the law trumps the advice provided by a government agency, I would like to remind you of something called REAL ID. It was enacted into law years ago, was supposed to be placed into operation years ago, but DHS has repeatedly postponed its implementation and enforcement because most states have dug in their heels and refused to upgrade their drivers license issuance practices to comply with the law. I think now they're aiming for implementation sometime in 2013, but I wouldn't count on it given the history of repeated postponements. The moral of the story is even though the law says a non-functioning RFID chip invalidates a passport, the fact that the government's current advice is that your passport is still valid even if the chip isn't functioning IMO overrides the literal reading of the law.

[wcook]

Intentionally disabling the chip might make it seem more suspicious than if you had no chip at all.

This is what I was thinking. I don't care what the law or the FAQ says... if immigration suspects that you have tampered with the chip, you are going to be answering a lot of questions from people you don't want to talk to.

 

Personally, I haven't a clue why anyone would need, or even want to block/disable the information on the RFID chip.

[kenish]

Interesting discussion that my comment triggered. I don't have a problem w/ the RFID chip, and was "just saying..." I like my travel to roll out smoothly and creating issues at immigration or customs is high on the list of bad ideas. :)

[FlyerTalker]

By the way, for anyone (and I know it wasn't you who said it) who claims that the law trumps the advice provided by a government agency, I would like to remind you of something called REAL ID. It was enacted into law years ago, was supposed to be placed into operation years ago, but DHS has repeatedly postponed its implementation and enforcement because most states have dug in their heels and refused to upgrade their drivers license issuance practices to comply with the law. I think now they're aiming for implementation sometime in 2013, but I wouldn't count on it given the history of repeated postponements. The moral of the story is even though the law says a non-functioning RFID chip invalidates a passport, the fact that the government's current advice is that your passport is still valid even if the chip isn't functioning IMO overrides the literal reading of the law.

You are bringing up a separate issue, that of non-enforcement of a law.

 

Two parallel situations for your consideration: You drive past a policeman while exceeding the speed limit. He doesn't stop you and issue a ticket. You drive past the same policeman the following day. He again ignores you. Does that mean that the law against exceeding the speed limit is not valid? Nope, just that on your particular day/time, it was not enforced to the letter of the law. Could you easily be picked up tomorrow? Yes. Will you? Guess that depends whether you have the same cop at that spot, or maybe the new rookie that's trying to build up his enforcement totals.

 

Further consideration: You ask a policeman in a donut shop how much over the speed limit you can drive before they will stop you. He gives you a number. Do you have a defense when a different officer stops you for breaking the law? "But this other officer....he said it was OK." Yeah, right.

 

Plus, picture yourself standing before the judge trying to fight that ticket. You say "But Your Honor, I've been speeding past that same spot daily for the last month, so why should I be ticketed now?" None of that changes the fact that you have violated the law, and as such, may be prosecuted at any time.

 

Cruise air related scenario: An airline has posted regulations regarding carry-on baggage. Size, weight and number limits. Regularly, pax have been exceeding those limits and the gate agents have done nothing about it. So, you decide that it's OK to take that oversized bag. Except this time, the GA says "you can't take that onboard - and it will be $25 to check it since it is oversized for carry-on". Does "well, it was allowed last time" or "no one ever enforced that before" cut any slack with the GA??

 

As I posted - YMMV. You could very easily have no problems. OTOH, go in fully aware that the law is not on your side. Please show me anywhere that an FAQ supersedes black-letter law. Court citations appreciated. Deliberately damaging the chip makes for an officially invalid document. And as kenish wrote, it's always better to have no reason to attract the attention and scrutiny of immigration folk.

[njhorseman]

You are bringing up a separate issue, that of non-enforcement of a law.

 

Two parallel situations for your consideration: You drive past a policeman while exceeding the speed limit. He doesn't stop you and issue a ticket. You drive past the same policeman the following day. He again ignores you. Does that mean that the law against exceeding the speed limit is not valid? Nope, just that on your particular day/time, it was not enforced to the letter of the law. Could you easily be picked up tomorrow? Yes. Will you? Guess that depends whether you have the same cop at that spot, or maybe the new rookie that's trying to build up his enforcement totals.

 

Further consideration: You ask a policeman in a donut shop how much over the speed limit you can drive before they will stop you. He gives you a number. Do you have a defense when a different officer stops you for breaking the law? "But this other officer....he said it was OK." Yeah, right.

 

Plus, picture yourself standing before the judge trying to fight that ticket. You say "But Your Honor, I've been speeding past that same spot daily for the last month, so why should I be ticketed now?" None of that changes the fact that you have violated the law, and as such, may be prosecuted at any time.

 

Cruise air related scenario: An airline has posted regulations regarding carry-on baggage. Size, weight and number limits. Regularly, pax have been exceeding those limits and the gate agents have done nothing about it. So, you decide that it's OK to take that oversized bag. Except this time, the GA says "you can't take that onboard - and it will be $25 to check it since it is oversized for carry-on". Does "well, it was allowed last time" or "no one ever enforced that before" cut any slack with the GA??

 

As I posted - YMMV. You could very easily have no problems. OTOH, go in fully aware that the law is not on your side. Please show me anywhere that an FAQ supersedes black-letter law. Court citations appreciated. Deliberately damaging the chip makes for an officially invalid document. And as kenish wrote, it's always better to have no reason to attract the attention and scrutiny of immigration folk.

 

 

No, it's in no way analogous to discretionary selective enforcement of speed limits, baggage restrictions, etc.

 

The REAL ID and RFID chip situations are memorialized by officially published US government agency information (DHS and Department of State, respectively) on their Web sites. The State page has already been cited in this thread. Here's DHS on REAL ID (note the delayed 2013 implementation):

 

http://www.dhs.gov/files/laws/gc_1172765386179.shtm

 

You may not realize that many enacted laws require action on the part of a specified government agency before they are actually put into effect, enforced and implemented. Under the principle of separation of powers, while the legislative branch has the authority and responsibility to enact laws, the actual implementation and enforcement of those laws is the responsibility of the executive branch, and if the executive branch refuses to actually implement, the law is meaningless unless and until the judicial branch rules to force action from the executive branch. The judicial branch doesn't initiate action of its own...it rules on issues brought before it. So, for Congress to force DHS or the Department of State to implement a law, a suit has to brought before the courts, which then will issue a ruling. Alternatively, Congress could impeach officers of the executive branch for failure to perform the duties necessary to carry out these laws. I can assure you this probably isn't happening any time soon, so State and DHS are free to use their timetables for implementing and enforcing the laws.

[Taxguy77]

Interesting discussion that my comment triggered. I don't have a problem w/ the RFID chip, and was "just saying..." I like my travel to roll out smoothly and creating issues at immigration or customs is high on the list of bad ideas. :)

 

I'm trying to think of one that might be higher, but have not come up with any yet.

[Deckhandoug]

There are actually no documented cases of any skimming crimes being committed, either passports or credit cards.

 

It is a media sponsored hysteria, research it and see.

[LHT28]

There are actually no documented cases of any skimming crimes being committed, either passports or credit cards.

 

My friend's card was skimmed in Ottawa to the tune of $500 within 1 hr for overseas purchases

 

Fortunately VISA checked with her because she had not told them she was travelling out of the Country