http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,68451,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2 And since one's passport essentially boils down to a chip, why not implant it under the skin? As for the encryption issue, can someone explain to me why it even matters? It would seem to me that any "on-demand" access to one's chip-stored info is only as secure as the encryption codes, which would have to be stored and which will eventually become "public", no matter how much the government says, "Trust us...the access codes are secure." Seems to me, the only way to secure the RFID encrypted info would be if the owner (uh, I mean the citizen unit) releases said info via a personal encryption code, known only to the user and not by ex-welfare Gate goons. But I seriously doubt that that is what the government is "thinking about". (ie, they want to be able to read your RFID wihtout you having to perform any additional actions to release the information.) The only way I see it making a difference is perhaps in the physical layer...encryption + shielding is probably a lot more secure than encryption without shielding, given an ID "phisher" wandering around an airport with a special purpose briefcase. -TD