In recent weeks, much of the public attention – at least, that not taken up by the funerals of Pope John Paul II and Johnnie Cochran – has been focused on State Department plans to require Americans to present passports when traveling to and from Mexico, Canada, Bermuda and the Caribbean. Currently, one can enter and return from those nations on a driver’s license or certified birth certificate.

Lost in the debate over whether the plan would harm tourism with our neighbors, especially those south of the border, is another provision to add a computer chip to passports, making them easier to read by custom officials and border control agents. That is a noble goal, but one fraught with problems. The 64-KB electronic chip, which would be embedded in a passport’s back cover, is called RFID – radio frequency identification. Like the regular passport, it will contain the carrier’s photograph, name, date, place of birth and passport number.

Using special readers, custom officials will be able to call up chip information on a computer screen. They can then use facial-identification software and digital cameras to verify the identity of the passport holder.

Bill Scannell, the privacy advocate that launched a successful campaign against Delta Airlines over what he termed a misuse of passenger information, has initiated a similar campaign against RFID. He has established a Web site to educate the public, www.rfidkills.com.

Scannell has circulated an e-mail stating, “Close up, the information broadcast from the RFID chip can be read by anyone with an inexpensive electronic reader. Farther away, the RFID can be activated enough to identify the passport holder as an American. From identify theft to identity death, an RFID-chipped US passport means good news for the bad guys.”

Several business travel groups have voiced similar concerns.

“American business travelers have gone to great length in traveling abroad to maintain a low profile,” Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition, said in a statement. “Most U.S. citizens do not expect their government to protect them while traveling on business in foreign lands. At the same time, however, they do not expect to have their government knowingly put them in harm’s way.”

Another business group, the Association of Corporate Travel Executives, expressed opposition to the RFID “bugs.”

President Greeley Koch states, “There is no doubt that RFID technology can be shielded or coded in some say. But it is once again developing false reliance on technology. A mass-produced, cheap, electronic identification system that is bound to be lost or stolen in large qualities is bound to be defeated.”

The State Department dismisses such statements as exaggerations, arguing that the new passports will reduce fraud and provide another layer of protection.

One security expert, Jon Callas, told Wired magazine: “There are cheaper, safer alternatives. This is a case where a security measure is putting the people carrying it at risk. When I travel abroad, I spend a certain amount of effort trying to look inconspicuous, but nonetheless I carry my passport.”

Scannell, the privacy advocate, says the State Department could reduce passport fraud by using barcodes similar to those used in retail.

Ironically, that’s exactly where RFID originated. It is used by Wal-Mart and other retailers to track inventory. Price varies from $500 to several thousand dollars.

Under the State Department plan, new passports will be issued to diplomats and State Department personnel by late summer. They will be issued to everyone, beginning this fall or winter. Because passports are good for up to 10 years, it will be 2016 before all passports contain the electronic chip.

The debate over how best to use technology to improve our security is a classic one that must balance the need to reduce the number of fake or altered documents in order to better protect U.S. citizens with steps to protect personal privacy and not give would-be terrorists or thieves an upper hand.

A similar debate is underway in other forums. For example, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has testified against a San Francisco Public Library Commission plan to employ RFID technology.

“As we explain below, RFID technology raises great privacy concerns because insecure RFID tags will permit inventorying of people’s possessions and tracking of people via their possessions,” the group wrote. “These risks are especially great where books and other reading materials are concerned, because both privacy and freedom of expression are at stake.”

Whether we’re using our passports or checking out books, so much is at stake. And we must be vigilant if we are to protect our freedoms.