State bill would turn RFID researchers into felons

If white hats are outlawed...


The sponsor of a controversial bill before the Nevada legislature has promised to introduce amendments after security experts and civil libertarians warned it would make felons of people studying privacy threats involving RFID, or radio frequency identification.

In its present form, Senate Bill 125 (PDF) would make it a felony for anyone to possess, read or capture the personally identifying RFID information of others without their consent. Without changes, the legislation would prevent the testing and demonstrating of RFID weaknesses in a state that hosts Defcon and Black Hat, the biggest hacker conference and one of the biggest security conferences respectively.

State Senator David Parks, the original sponsor of the bill, said he intends to amend the bill on Monday to exempt people carrying out "legitimate research." Security experts say that is important because the bill as it's now written would seriously impinge on their ability to test the security of RFID in real-world scenarios.

"The ability to be able to take this RFID technology into the real world and actually show it to people is pretty crucial because there is a lot of misunderstanding about the technology and people need practical demonstrations of things in order to understand the weaknesses in it," said Chris Paget, who last month demonstrated a low-cost mobile platform that can clone large numbers of unique RFID tags embedded in US passport cards and next generation drivers licenses. "It definitely needs an exception."

Paget's $250 RFID war-driving device managed to clone three passport card RFID tags during a 20-minute drive in downtown San Francisco. The exercise was legal because it was conducted in California, where an anti-skimming measure that became law last year expressly exempts skimming "in the course of an act of good faith security research, experimentation, or scientific inquiry."

The safe-harbor provision was added after the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California pushed for it. Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney for the EFF, said a similar exemption is needed in Nevada as well.

"Because the privacy risks of RFID include the likelihood that malevolent entities will 'skim' individuals' RFID-enabled devices in public places without their knowledge, it is important that security researchers be able to lawfully demonstrate that these vulnerabilities exist in real-world settings – not only in controlled conditions," he wrote in a letter sent to the Senator Terry Care, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the bill will be introduced Monday.

Nevada is one of a handful of states with a legislature that meets only once every two years. That means legislation often moves very quickly with little opportunity for changes.

"We have a politically realistic window of Monday morning at 9 am in Carson City to let the legislators know that there is a major problem with this bill," said Ira Victor, president of the Sierra Nevada chapter of InfraGard, which acts as a liaison between the FBI and private enterprise to protect cybersecurity and critical infrastructure.

That's 9am Nevada time. The hearing is expected to be viewable by webcast at this link. ®

Broader topics


Other stories you might like

  • DigitalOcean tries to take sting out of price hike with $4 VM
    Cloud biz says it is reacting to customer mix largely shifting from lone devs to SMEs

    DigitalOcean attempted to lessen the sting of higher prices this week by announcing a cut-rate instance aimed at developers and hobbyists.

    The $4-a-month droplet — what the infrastructure-as-a-service outfit calls its virtual machines — pairs a single virtual CPU with 512 MB of memory, 10 GB of SSD storage, and 500 GB a month in network bandwidth.

    The launch comes as DigitalOcean plans a sweeping price hike across much of its product portfolio, effective July 1. On the low-end, most instances will see pricing increase between $1 and $16 a month, but on the high-end, some products will see increases of as much as $120 in the case of DigitalOceans’ top-tier storage-optimized virtual machines.

    Continue reading
  • GPL legal battle: Vizio told by judge it will have to answer breach-of-contract claims
    Fine-print crucially deemed contractual agreement as well as copyright license in smartTV source-code case

    The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) has won a significant legal victory in its ongoing effort to force Vizio to publish the source code of its SmartCast TV software, which is said to contain GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 copyleft-licensed components.

    SFC sued Vizio, claiming it was in breach of contract by failing to obey the terms of the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 licenses that require source code to be made public when certain conditions are met, and sought declaratory relief on behalf of Vizio TV owners. SFC wanted its breach-of-contract arguments to be heard by the Orange County Superior Court in California, though Vizio kicked the matter up to the district court level in central California where it hoped to avoid the contract issue and defend its corner using just federal copyright law.

    On Friday, Federal District Judge Josephine Staton sided with SFC and granted its motion to send its lawsuit back to superior court. To do so, Judge Staton had to decide whether or not the federal Copyright Act preempted the SFC's breach-of-contract allegations; in the end, she decided it didn't.

    Continue reading
  • US brings first-of-its-kind criminal charges of Bitcoin-based sanctions-busting
    Citizen allegedly moved $10m-plus in BTC into banned nation

    US prosecutors have accused an American citizen of illegally funneling more than $10 million in Bitcoin into an economically sanctioned country.

    It's said the resulting criminal charges of sanctions busting through the use of cryptocurrency are the first of their kind to be brought in the US.

    Under the United States' International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEA), it is illegal for a citizen or institution within the US to transfer funds, directly or indirectly, to a sanctioned country, such as Iran, Cuba, North Korea, or Russia. If there is evidence the IEEA was willfully violated, a criminal case should follow. If an individual or financial exchange was unwittingly involved in evading sanctions, they may be subject to civil action. 

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022