On Apr 30, 12:07*pm, wrote:
On Apr 30, 5:59 am, "John Gilmer" wrote:





ScienceDaily (Apr. 25, 2010) — Since 2007, every new U.S. passport has

been outfitted with a computer chip. Embedded in the back cover of the
passport, the "e-passport" contains biometric data, electronic
fingerprints and pictures of the holder, and a wireless radio
frequency identification (RFID) transmitter.

Tee hee.

Frankly, there is little or no justification to have this information on
most "ID" type documents.

A case could be made to not even have a picture on the document.

If an official wants the data he can query the "official" data base. * *All
the "ID" card would be is just a place to record the ID #.

A place so isolated that they don't have access to "high headquarters"
likely would not have the "chip reading" equipment.

Not having a picture or basic physical info like gender, DOB, etc
would require ALL the worlds customs/immigration systems to be linked
and have access to each others passport database. * * Every last one
from Somalia to the USA. * And aside from being difficult to achieve
agreement on, it could raise as many security questions as it fixes.



A "smart card" that's just a replacement for ca$h and NOT a credit card
doesn't even require the technology.

Doesn't require what technology? * All the smart cards I've seen are
at least linked to a bank account. *Even if you had a smart card
loaded up with $500 cash that you just bought, without some form of
security, why couldn't a hacker simply empty it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Amazing isn't it that with all this technology a major country can't
devise a proper voting system; without hanging chads etc. etc. and
innumerable court appeals!

Some countries do an excellent job using nothing more than paper and
pencil! And even using technology, India a country with four time the
population of the USA and many semi-literate people, managed to run a
good election a few years ago. After all most people understand
pictures and can press a button.

All these multiple choice systems just complicate the problem. Better
to pick one party/candidate; have done with and live with the
consequences. Big business lobbyists probably run the US government
anyway!

i.e. Don't get Cheneyed eh?