[Politech] Passport RFID tracking: a between-the-lines read [priv] (fwd from declan at well.com)

[cypherpunk]

A Politech article forwarded email from a liar named <parks at uhibpd.phys.uh.edu>:

> >From the EE-Times, a between the lines look at the future of RFID tracking:
> 
> re: E-passport makers hail U.S. retreat
> 
> Junko Yoshida [FAIR USE]
> EE Times
> (04/29/2005 1:38 PM EDT)
> 
> PARIS - Global electronic passports suppliers hailed a decision by the U.S.
> State Department to drop a requirement for additional security measures in
> next-generation U.S. passports. The specifications have yet to be finalized.
> 
> Neville Pattinson, director of technology development and government
> affairs for smart card provider Axalto Americas, said Friday (April 29)
> that adding security measures such as "Basic Access Control" and a metallic
> shield cover to U.S. passports could "completely make the information
> [stored in the e-passport] undetectable."

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/business/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=162100152
is the actual EE times article. The true article reads, as you can see
for yourself:

"PARIS  Global electronic passports suppliers hailed a decision by
the U.S. State Department to add a requirement for additional security
measures in next-generation U.S. passports. The specifications have
yet to be finalized."

Can you see the difference? What's wrong with this picture?

The true article says that the U.S. will ADD a requirement for
additional security measures. The article as quoted by liar Parks had
been changed to say that the U.S. will DROP the requirement. Of course
that made the article read as confused and inconsistent, which is what
led me to track down the original.

I'm pissed at Parks for lying and editing a supposedly forwarded
article to make some kind of rhetorical point. He had his own comments
interspersed among the article's supposed text so he had plenty of
opportunity to make his own arguments. Altering the text of material
you are quoting is the lowest of despicable argumentation techniques.

I'm also pissed at McCullagh for forwarding this on without the
slightest fact checking. Of course anyone familiar with his work will
know better than to expect a correction or even acknowledgement of his
error. He is a hack reporter who cares nothing about accuracy or
truth, only on stirring things up and pushing the predictable buttons
of his readers.

And of course there is Eugen* Leitl, who mindlessly forwards far and
wide everything that enters his mailbox. I don't know whether we
should be annoyed or relieved that he fails to exercise the slightest
editorial effort by adding his own thoughts, if he has any, to the
material he passes around.

CP