Talk:Camouflage passport

POV & Counterfeiting horse feathers

My recent editor quotes the passages I wrote and attributes them to “passport distributors.” This is false. Obviously he was overtaken by the idea that I am a camouflage “passport distributor” and it really got his knickers in a bind.

The edit comment “(Don't let the scammers that sell these fakes write these articles. It completely kills the whole point of this encyclopedia.)” is particularly charming. He is so very sure of himself. I’m not going to get bogged down in a what do I do for a living argument, but he's fighting a straw man here, not me.

Further, a lot of changes are POV inserts or inaccurate:

"The passport distributors claims [sic] that the passports 'are not forgeries of actual documents, since legitimate passports from those entities do not exist'. While that's true, they may not exist now, but they did in the past, which is what makes camouflage passports forgeries of - even though not valid - but never the less actual, real world, official documents."

So, they both are and are not forgeries of actual documents? I would note that many are issued in the names of places that never existed or never issued passports. In any case the issue date of the passport comes well after the entity ceased to exist as an issuing entity. Therefore the “passport” is not properly a forgery of any real document, but an approximation of what a real document of the sort would look like, if, in fact, a real document of that sort existed, which they don’t.

There's more but I'm too tired to fight about this. Criticality 04:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Load of Crap

This article is obviously a creation of someone who makes their living selling these documents. It is outright deceiving in implying that there's nothing illegal about them. I can assure you that if you presented yourself with this document in the vast majority of countries, you'd be arrested and thrown to jail. It is that simple.

Another point to mention - the majority of these fake passports are used for fraud, that's a fact. To claim that thousands of them sold each year are sold out of some terrorist security concerns is just ludacrous. They are used exactly for the very purpose that the author is trivializing as a marginal occurrence, and that is misrepresentation for financial gain.

I appreciate your suspicious impulse here. But let me parse out a reply here:

(1) “This article is obviously a creation of someone who makes their living selling these documents.”

I created it. I do not “make[ my] living selling these documents.” I have never been remotely connected to any such enterprise, nor have I ever made a dime, directly, indirectly, or even incidentally, off anything of the sort. If it were so, I think I should be better off than I am.

(2) “It is outright deceiving in implying that there's nothing illegal about them. I can assure you that if you presented yourself with this document in the vast majority of countries, you'd be arrested and thrown to jail. It is that simple.”

If by “presented yourself with this document” you mean presenting the camouflage passport as your travel document to the officials at passport control you are very, very right. If you mean that you merely possess it while you are present in any give country, I disagree.

Granted, “vast majority of countries” is difficult for anyone to speak to competently. However, most common law jurisdictions criminalize forgeries (i.e., falsified copies) of real documents when they are made or possessed with the intent to defraud, deceive or injure. There are three variations on the theme:

(a) Possession of forgeries of real documents without any intent to defraud. This is probably illegal in some jurisdictions regardless of intent, though I don’t know of any myself. In others, there is no crime absent proof of any intent to defraud.

(b) Possession of forgeries of nonsense documents with an intent to defraud. Evidence of fraudulent intent would be the issue here and usually means a person is accused of using the paper in some fraudulent manner, i.e., presenting it as ID to a governmental official or bank in the unlikely hope that they are dumb enough to believe it. This would include camouflage passports used to open bank accounts or to build a false identity, etc. In such cases, the conduct is probably criminal itself, but the use of the paper may be an aggravating element or a compounding offense in itself. Some suggest that some deceptive uses fall into a “little white” category—lying to hotel staff (in countries where hotel or similar registration in not required) abut your identity. (Along those lines, in order to avoid the any inference of such an intent, one should not attempt to acquire a camouflage passport in a bogus name. While passenger manifests may connect a name with a nationality, the process of elimination will probably make the issue moot.)

(c) Possession of nonsense documents with no criminal intent. This is the classic camouflage passport scenario. This is not criminal in most civilized nations. Given all the states and federated subdivisions that make criminal laws, one would assume they must be illegal to possess somewhere. Take one there and you may be in for big trouble. In most jurisdictions, possessing a “real-looking” but actually implausible document with non-criminal intent is no more illegal than merely possessing monopoly money or reprints confederate currency. Could a person with criminal intent pass off reprint confederate script to a gullible vender in Louangphabang? Probably. Does that make it a crime to possess reprinted confederate scrip there? Probably not. Could you get arrested for merely having monopoly money in your luggage at the border crossing into Manzhouli? Given some bad luck, probably so—always consider who you’re dealing with.

Along those lines, one must never underestimate the legal ignorance of law enforcement and how that ignorance can hurt you. Note that it is always YOU that gets hurt, not them—they are often legally or practically immune (usually both), you go to jail, your day (or worse) is ruined. In the end, they will usually not accept that they were in the wrong, they will just believe you were lucky. Conduct yourself accordingly. This is why many persons with dual citizenship often hide their second legal passport—an idiot official may get the idea the second is a phony (as the logic of a 12th grade education dictates a person can have only one passport.) Getting it “sorted out later” is precious little compensation and “being in the right” is utterly meaningless in the aftermath.

(3) “Another point to mention - the majority of these fake passports are used for fraud, that's a fact. To claim that thousands of them sold each year are sold out of some terrorist security concerns is just lud[i]crous. They are used exactly for the very purpose that the author is trivializing as a marginal occurrence, and that is misrepresentation for financial gain.”

I would suggest that is by no means “a fact” that “the majority of these fake passports are used for fraud.” I would suggest that it IS a marginal occurrence—but things that occur marginally really occur, and that is an issue. However, put your intellectual docility hat on and let’s look at it this way: If I have a driver’s license issued by the “Independent People’s Republic of the Sakhalin Island” or a beige passport printed in the name of the “Principality of East Prussia” how much fraud mileage do you think I’m really getting out of that? The point isn’t so much what is possible, the point is, what is realistic? I mean seriously, who is going to accept an East Prussia passport for any serious purpose? Some Mohammedan thug who is scanning for US and UK passports? Or a bank teller or customs official trying to verify identity? (No insult is meant to East Prussia here—verily, who among us does not weep daily for the loss of our beloved Königsberg?) This doubly so since the existence of camouflage passports and the name of the countries they are issued under is widely known. Also well known are the names of real, existing states that issue real passports. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries They are, as it were “phony as a three-dollar bill.” Of course, someone will always try it—some moron will go to the DMV with a cabbage patch doll’s birth certificate in the name of “Cabbage Tom” and time and space and the inexplicable unfolding of Providence may bring said moron together with an imbacil DMV clerk who will actually issue this clown his very own “Cabbage Tom” driver’s license. It will happen. [In my state people are regularly prosecuted for supposedly falling for the “Nigerian prince email” check cashing fraud scheme. Why? Because the DAs know that no one could actually believe that a Nigerian prince emailed them out of the blue was sending them a real check to cash for them.

Moreover, anyone who is engaged in some fraud scheme, or money laundering, or what have you, is going to get an honest-to-goodness “real” forged passport in the name of a real country—that is, if they want to get somewhere other then jail. Using a camouflage passport in that way just screams “arrest me, please!, I love jail.”

Recapping you suggest “the majority of these fake passports are used for fraud, that's a fact.” I find that hard to believe. Logically, the categories of purchasers of camouflage passports include: First, people who want nothing more than to use it as a security device, though many never actually get around to using them at all. In some cases they may intend also “white lie” uses, that is, to maintain privacy, deflect attention that their nationality may bring, or similar uses that they believe are not illegal but may in fact be criminal. [Marketers of the camouflage passports often encourage this dangerous way of thinking in trying to make their wares seem more valuable.] Others, probably a big chunk, are “Walter Mitty” cloak-and-dagger types—these folks also buy novelty & fantasy passports, phony press badges and private investigator ID’s [note people also whine about the fraud potential for these, which can exist]—but they never “use” them for anything. Some people with a survivalist/rainy day mentality may think (realistically or unrealistically) that they might be useful in any of a range of legal or illegal contexts should some personal or social upheaval occur. These people presumably never end up using them either. Then you have a lot of dimwitted people who think that they can use these things as fake travel documents or that they can build a false identity around them in a foreign land.

The percentage that are actually used in crime? Common sense would indicate it’s pretty small. One example: Andrew Cunanan apparently had owned a Principality of Sealand passport when he shot Gianni Versace in a fit of homosexual longing. Some say he believed it gave him diplomatic immunity, others that he could use it to flee the country. We may never know. However, the “Principality of Sealand” document should probably be categorized as “fantasy” or “novelty” passport. What percentage are used in crimes for which people don’t get caught? Much smaller.

In any case, please accept this as notice of my intent to tweak a few of the more unbalanced changes to the article, though a lot of the changes should stay and I agree that the legality issue could have been—and still needs to be, perhaps—rounded out better. Criticality 04:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Added a redirect from fantasy passport as no article exists there. I don't agree that a camouflage or fantasy passport are different things. They are just slightly different sides of the same coin and there is no justification for two articles saying the same thing.

Any objection to my updating the article to reflect this? --Spartaz 16:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any objection... --Spartaz 16:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but I object. You say: “I don't agree that a camouflage or fantasy passport are different things.” That is an opinion that you are entitled to it. Nevertheless, reality and human language are not going to bend to your whim on all occasions. You also say: “The catchall term of fantasy document is often used in official circles to describe all of the different types of these documents.” Which “official circles”? It may be true of some “official circles,” but not all, as the rather detailed Isle of Man publication demonstrates. See. The fact that some people (official or otherwise) fail to understand, as you do, the distinction does not justify scrapping it immediately. The original article drew the common, rational distinction between the two. It is a distinction that is predicated partly on intended use, partly on the nature of the documents themselves, and partly on origin. To say that a NSK fantasy passport issued by the Slovenian art collective to a rabid Laibach fan is the same as a Rhodesian camouflage passport in the hands of an American businessman traveling in the Middle East is to deprive BOTH terms of the meaning that makes them useful. That is why the terms exist: “Camouflage” denotes the intended use of the document as well as its design, viz., to have a passably realistic country name and appearance. “Fantasy” denotes not only the fantastical nature of many of the issuing entities, but rather that the documents are consumed as novelties, often by people who only are feeding their imaginations. They differ in other ways, notably in their origin. Camouflage passports are sold by blatantly commercial business outfits as a putative security tool. They don’t pretend what they are selling is “real,” they describe exactly what their wares are: Bogus but real-looking and from a host of non-existent countries you can choose from. Fantasy passports are the opposite. A single “fantasy” issuer issues its own single type of passport and purports that the passport actually means something, be it membership, solidarity, citizenship, whatever. They do not come out and say “buy our fake passports, the mean nothing, but you might be able to fool terrorist with them.” Their product is quite different. Can you use a fantasy passport as a camouflage passport? You can try it. Don’t may people who buy camouflage passports do so exclusively for a novelty or fantasy purposes? You bet. But the position that they are the same thing and that is clearly untrue. --Criticality 23:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Phew - what a lot of text. Do you have a link to the different definitions of camouflage and fantasy passport? Offical circles would be national immigration authorities - This would unfortunately fall under WP:OR since I know this from being a long standing member of am immigration authority. Frankly anyone holding a document that they know to be invalid and seeking to use it for any offical purpose is equally wrong whether they call them fantasy documents or anything else. I'm not particular interested in getting into a fight over this but I'm not happy with documents being cited one way or the other without any links. --Spartaz 21:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The distinction being well set out is in the Isle of Man press release cited above in this discussion and in the article itself. The camouflage/fantasy distinction is neither perfect nor universally observed, but it certainly is valid and useful (as illustrated above) and supported both by etymology and convention. --Criticality 14:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Union

The Russian Federation was until recently still using up its stock of Soviet Union passports. They are neither fantasy nor camouflage documents so I have removed the reference. --Spartaz 16:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Russia’s known and reckless practice of using old paper stock to issue current passports does not resurrect the Soviet Union. The USSR does not exist and it does not issue passports. I don’t know whether the Russian Federation marks up its newly issued passports with the name of the issuing county, I suspect they do. In an case, “camouflage passports” issued in the name of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, are openly available and have been for years. E.g. You can issue them. I can issue them. The Russian Federation can issue them as easily as Latvia. Again, the USSR does not exist and it cannot issue passports.

--Criticality 20:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Reckless - says whom? Its hardly reckless if every country in the world recognises and accepts the documents as evidence of Russian citizenship is it? Old Soviet Union agreements and treaties are still binding between Russia and other countries unless specifically cancelled so why the big deal that theya re using up old passport stocks? The documents don't say the holders are Soviet Union Citizens but Russians. FWIW Most of the 'Stans issued Soviet passports for some years after independeance until they had time to design, print and issue their own documents. :-)

BTW I can't find any reference to Soviet passports in the link you cited. Any chance you could be more specific?

--Spartaz 22:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Russia is a successor nation to the USSR, but it is not the USSR, which no longer exists. I say “reckless” because the Russians know there is a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the policy will cause exceptional confusion and facilitate fraud and yet they do it anyway, simply to save money on paper. Honoring papers previously issued in the name of Russia’s parent state is one thing—issuing new passports with USSR makings is altogether different because it falsely states the identity of the document issuer. This is naturally misleading to the average person and, more importantly, it makes genuine fraud more ambiguous because the USSR’s nonexistence makes specific criminal intent much more difficult to prove.

In any case, when I look at the site above it does claim that USSR camouflage passports are for sale. So do these sites: #1, #2, & #3 --Criticality 14:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

--Bjd-- Russian(and other former Soviet Nations) Passports issued on USSR Paper Stock have a stamp on the last page where it is written "This Passport is Property of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" is stamped "This Passport is Property of the Russian Federation"

Hong Kong

removed

• British Hong Kong (absorbed by the People's Republic of China)

from main page. Eh? Not aware of any HNK comouflage/fantasy passport. There is still BRitish National Overseas passports but they are not comouflage passports as they are issued by the UK Government.

--Spartaz 10:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Camouflage passports are sold in the name of “British Hong Kong.” E.g. Why is it that you are convinced otherwise?

As you might recall, there was a time, not so long ago, when Hong Kong was actually a leased possession of the British Crown. Alas, however, Hong Kong is no longer British and now passports issued in the name of a “British Hong Kong” are patently bogus. Nevertheless, they have the veneer of reality, and might fool an ignorant or careless person (none of those around here) with malevolent intent, so they fill the role of a camouflage passport readily. As you suggest, UK issued British National overseas passports are, of course, REAL. Similarly, previous UK/HK “BDTC” passports were also real but all expired by 30 June 1997. As indicated, the “British Hong Kong” passports on the market are camouflage, since no one issues a “British Hong Kong” passport and “British Hong Kong.” What is your point in this edit?

--Criticality 21:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticality - I'm a professional immigration person heavily involved in detecting document fraud - I would be vaguely aware if there were any unofficial British Hong Kong passports floating around (apart from the forged ones that is). There is no reference to British Hong Kong passports in the site you cited. Please can you be more specific? A very quick google search on the term only showed incorrect references to BNO passports (British National Overseas)--Spartaz 22:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, a careful look at the aforementioned site discloses that it does claim the offer “British Hong Kong” camouflage passports for sale. Furthermore, so do these sites: #1, #2, & #3 I would suggest "camouflage passport" + "british hong kong" as your Google search terms. --Criticality 14:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Visas?

Does a camouflage passport issuer provide some visas in their products?

Isn't it strange to open an unknown country's passport and see no visa in it. A country in conflict may not honor previous visa waiver programs to discourage visitors or spies. Therefore, whether you're carrying a U.S. or Japan passport or a passport issued by Spain or Pains, you need a visa to enter that country. What if they don't see a visa in it? What if they only see non-existent countries' visas in it?

If you enter a country holding that passport, your passport would surely be stamped. Then how do they provide an "ADMITTED" stamp in the camouflage passport? -- Toytoy 13:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The visa waiver programmes normally only target visitors from specific, mostly harmless countries. For instance, one could cross into New Brunswick from Maine or Newfoundland from St Pierre & Miquelon fully visa-exempt, but claim to be able to fly into Vancouver from Bleckibollockstan visa-exempt? Doesn't work that way, your non-existent country isn't going to be on the visa-exempt list (predictably) so a passport from some obscure country with no visas or stamps inside is a wee bit odd. Then again, if you show up in Toronto with a brand-spanking-new Dominion of Newfoundland passport, they might clue in that this is some sort of joke. --66.102.80.239 03:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Virtually all first world countries, and many third world ones, use machine readable passports. Customs and consular officials view hundreds of passports every day. Even if a passport from a country like "Rhodesia" or "Zanzibar" somehow got by an absent-minded officer, the passport would be "flagged" by the machine reader anyways. In short--no one should expect to use such a passport for any form of legitimate travel, not unless they're ready to do some serious explaining at every border crossing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SONORAMA (talk • contribs) 12:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Blatant POV

I just happened to see this article while browsing, and felt compelled to write. Something really needs to be done; this is the most bluntly point of view article I've ever read (and I've read lots of Serbia/Croatia articles). The point of Wikipedia in this case would be to explain to me (a person who has never heard of this practice or item) what a "camouflage Passport" is. Instead, I get essentially a sermon on why such passports are pointless, useless, and bad. This is really just an editorial which gives the minimum amount of information needed to understand what is being lambasted. One example out of hundreds is the smug statement that there is not one case of someone actually being helped by this means. If the author does not have some source for detailed kidnapping/hijacking/passport theft incident reports, I am really only reading that some editor some where doesn't happen to have heard about fake ID being useful in such a situation. We get it; you don't like novelty passports. That shouldn't bleed over into the neutrality of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.61.81.110 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Multiple issues

This article is unencyclopedic in tone, does not cite any sources and contains weasel words. Extremely poor quality article, likely needs rewriting from the ground up to become wikified. 81.151.203.167 (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the article? You might notice it does contain one source, about Iroquois passports. As far as it being "extremely poor quality, likely needs rewriting..." well, we're all editors here, why don't you make the edits yourself instead of just complaining? SONORAMA (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Another example of a novelty passport is that of The Conch Republic out of Key West, Florida. See http://www.conchrepublic.com/passports.htm. (Disclaimer: I not only have nothing to do with these passports or The Conch Republic, but I've also never been to Key West. I'm not sure I even know anyone who has been to Key West. So this isn't a commercial advertisement for the passports.)