On Monday the Washington Times carried an article about an exchange of letters between the Department of Homeland Security and a company called Lamperd Less Lethal. The purpose was to investigate the viability of disposing of airport check in passes in favour of something entirely more sinister. RFID chipped bracelets for all passengers. While that in itself is worrying, the bracelets have a capability that is downright scary: On command they can administer a taser shock of up to 200,000 volts.
So is the DHS interested in making every man, woman and child wear their own shock collar just in case they are a terrorist?
Apparently the answer is yes.
According to the article:
This bracelet would:
• take the place of an airline boarding pass
• contain personal information about the traveler
• be able to monitor the whereabouts of each passenger and his/her luggage
• shock the wearer on command, completely immobilizing him/her for several minutes
By linking the luggage with the passenger at check in, any suspicious luggage found by airport staff could facilitate the immediate detention of the passenger the luggage belonged to. While this in itself is not a bad idea, there are no clues in either the promotional video or the website about the extent of personal information these bracelets may store - or how it could be retrieved.
It is obvious from the articles and video that RFID chips are the popular media here, but how secure are they from hand held hacking devices? While there are undeniable benefits to airport security, what guarantees are there that within a few months an RFID receiver that can read and clone the identity information won't start to become available on the black market?
In England, the London Transport system have been using RFID equipped cards (known as 'Oyster transit cards') for a while now. The idea is that you buy credit by touching the card to an RFID receiver at a pay point, then each time you make a journey you do so by touching the Oyster card to the receiver panel on the top of the entry and exit gates. The computer then works out how much your trip costs and debits the amount. An easy system to use. But is it secure? Apparently not. Last month articles began to appear on the internet discussing how Oyster cards had been hacked.
The other major concern has got to be how to protect the bracelet from tampering, while protecting the wearer from "false positives" to such an anti-tampering system. The last thing air crew want is the bracelet to be removed in flight from someone who genuinely is a risk, but by the same token bored children waiting at the departure gate are going to be playing with their bracelets purely because they're a new novelty. This raises the issue of what to do in the event the bracelet believes it's being tampered with. As well, if the taser function can be activated by a radio signal, there is always a danger that it can be set off accidentally, which also has to be balanced with ease of use. Take the scenario where there actually is a madman armed with a weapon that wants to attack an air crew - if triggering the bracelet requires the entry of a complex code, the steward or stewardess is going to be assaulted before they can trigger it, or worse going to trigger the wrong bracelet trying to enter the code. If it's too easy to trigger there's a danger it might be triggered by a simple wrong keypress.
The final thing I want to mention in this diary is something that is becoming increasingly important to me as a father-to-be in October - what will I allow for my child in the name of "security"? I have to say that I don't think I'm alone in saying that I'd rather find an alternative method of transport than let someone strap a taser to my child. Naturally the promotional video claims that "most people would prefer" their system. I wouldn't. I would balk at wearing one of these things myself, but there is absolutely no way I would inflict that upon my child.
So will this ever come to pass?
According to a letter from DHS official, Paul S. Ruwaldt of the Science and Technology Directorate, office of Research and Development, to the inventor whom he had previously met with, he wrote, "To make it clear, we [the federal government] are interested in...the immobilizing security bracelet, and look forward to receiving a written proposal." The letterhead, in case you were wondering, came from the DHS office at the William J. Hughes Technical Center at the Atlantic City International Airport, or the Federal Aviation Administration headquarters.
In another part of the letter, Mr. Ruwaldt confirmed, "It is conceivable to envision a use to improve air security, on passenger planes."
Coming soon to an airport near you.
UPDATE: Troutwaxer has a diary about this as well, raising some interesting points.