Slashdot Log In
RFID: The New Big Brother ?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Tue Jan 14, 2003 09:56 AM
from the break-out-the-tinfoil-hats dept.
from the break-out-the-tinfoil-hats dept.
Makarand writes "The possibility that we could be tracked not because we have a microchip implant but
merely because we wear clothes, eat and carry objects around is real
according to this article on C|net news.
A technology called RFID (radio frequency identification) consisting of miniscule microchips
the size of a single grain of sand that listen to a radio query and respond by
transmitting their unique ID can make this possible.
Most RFID tags use the power from the initial radio signal to transmit their response and hence can be placed anywhere imaginable.
Retailers are adoring this concept and soon
everything more expensive than a Snickers bar will sport RFID tags
making tracking possible through our own personal possessions.
The privacy threat comes when RFID tags remain active once you leave a store and currently the RFID
industry seems to be giving 'mixed' signals about whether the tags will be disabled
or left enabled by default."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Simple enough... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Simple enough... (Score:5, Funny)
Fleener's Law: 80% of conspiracy theories come true in time.
Parent
Re:Simple enough... (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to own a computer store, and we had problems when we had a "flaky" motherboard that would boot but was unreliable, and was still under warranty.
The distributor would set it up, see it do something, and send it back to us. To fix this, we'd put it into a microwave oven for 3 seconds before shipping it back.
That'd cook the chips on the motherboard without leaving any visible sign of problems. It would then show no signs of working, and they'd give us a whole new motherboard, and everybody was happy.
Worked for RAM chips, video cards, sound cards, modems, etc. although we had the most trouble with motherboards.
So why is this "funny"? Should be "informative"...
Parent
Even simpler (Score:5, Funny)
That, or you could advertise a protect using your body...
Parent
Re:Even simpler (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Even simpler (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Simple enough won't work (Score:4, Informative)
This Stanford seminar [microsoft.com] gave a good overview of the underlying technology.
Parent
Re:Simple enough... (Score:5, Informative)
Just be careful. Certain synthetic fabrics (nylon for one) will catch fire fairly quickly in a microwave.
Parent
Re:Simple enough... (Score:5, Informative)
So to "clean" your, you could emit broad spectrum high power RF noise and nuke the little bastards.
Parent
Re:Simple enough... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Simple enough... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Simple enough... (Score:5, Informative)
These are the same Tags that have been around for YEARS. Its what they tag whales with. Now their in your cars as passive anti-theft devices on the Luxury and expensive models. The keys have a chip in them.
I dont think you will be frying this thing with any low power RF noise. Thats everywhere, and I have yet to loose an electronic device to it.
This think is not a tick. It will not absorb energy till it pops.
Microwave is an excellent idea. If its too small to be seen, its power output will be too low to be of consequence.
Parent
Re:A better idea .... (Score:5, Informative)
Including, apparently, the poster.
The microwave oven beam is directional only until it hits the "stirrer", a rotating paddle designed to spread the microwaves all over the interior of the oven (for even heating). Plenty will leak out the front if it isn't shielded.
The screen does a wonderful job at stopping the (microwave) radiation, since the holes are far smaller than the wavelength -- it "looks" like solid metal to the microwaves.
As for the energy -- there may be higher total wattage in the microwave beam, but per-photon the higher-frequency light waves have much higher energy. That higher frequency also means the wavelength is small enough to easily pass through the holes in the screen, so you can watch your dinner cooking, or the pretty light show from nuking an AOL CD.
Parent
Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
New use for your microwave! (Score:4, Funny)
See? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:See? (Score:5, Funny)
Nude LAN parties *shudder*
Please take that thought out of my head!
Parent
Good for the environment (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good for the environment (Score:4, Insightful)
What if you buy a candy bar for a friend and HE litters with the wrapper? What if your wrapper just happened to fly off of a garbage truck?
Man, people are just itching to make a criminal out of anybody...
Parent
cool (Score:5, Interesting)
I always wish, both during and after such a quest, that I could have just whipped out a tricorder (or device of a similar form factor) and scanned for whatever I'm missing, and it would start beeping or blinking on the screen or whatever. It would save hours of time for all but the most type A people.
It would also be a boon on the golf course. And for finding your kids when they wander off at Disneyland. Really, all I can think about is good applications of this technology, so bring it on!
Re:cool (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Defense (Score:5, Interesting)
Another way to go. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Another way to go. (Score:4, Insightful)
In theory this could be defeated - if you only sent out thousands a second.
Suppose they read your ID for 5 seconds. Chances are they are going to get random numbers, plus a single number repeated 100 times. Guess which one is the real ID?
Or, suppose they get the real ID just once. And suppose you sent a million false IDs. They check their database, and they find that only one of the IDs is present - so that is the real one. Why is only one present? Well, there are 2^64 possible combinations, so if you send 10^6 values, there is a 10^6/2^64*(number of valid IDs) chance of you hitting a valid ID. Suppose there are a trillion IDs in existance (a pretty big number). Then the chance of hitting a valid ID is 0.005%. That is assuming the real RFID code is only sent once, and of course assuming the receiver can read the barrage of IDs. While I'm sure this would cost more, keep in mind that while the ID has to be very cheap, the receiver does not.
Also, note that the only people who are going to build receivers that do this are people who are INTERESTED in tracking you. Having a jamming device like this is going to advertise "I have something to hide" to anybody who looks at the logs. (Not that this SHOULD be the case, but the fact is that it will be - just like sending PGP'ed email while that isn't the norm.) You really want a jammer which either is undetectable, or which completely blocks the ID itself so that while it might set off an alarm, you remain anonymous. (Of course, if this were a real security checkpoint you could be detained or photographed.)
Parent
Re:Another way to go. (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed. As a signal intel analyst in the army, the fact that a certain TYPE of encryption was being used was often more important than the content of the message. When an East German armor regiment sent out a message using a code way too sophisticated for your average east german comms soldier, you knew there were Soviet Army bigwigs there with their OWN comms guys. "Intelligence" folks work at all different levels, so you have to be careful not only of what you say, but also what you DON'T say, and also WHEN you say it...
Parent
And they thought I was mad... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And they thought I was mad... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
They are in your tires now... (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine the possibilities... There's a video on that site for anyone willing to dig. I'd rather not slashdot it (28 megs). This technology was initially used to ship and track tires as a replacement to the old bar codes, but now, the boys in the tinfoil hats are detecting RFID activity on the freeways and border crossings...
Auto manufacturers are programming the VIN number into the tire at assembly. It is only a matter of time before this becomes a requirement.
Whatever... (Score:4, Informative)
Range: 15 feet "optimally oriented in front of a reader in free space."
While the chips themselves are small (grain of pepper is mentioned), the antennas are 1/2" to 4" long.
Sure, this is interesting news (from a technology perspective), but I for one don't fear their use by big brother just yet.
Sounds Good to Me (Score:5, Funny)
Now let's not get carried away (Score:5, Informative)
I work in the packaging industry and have seen firsthand some of the RFID application processes on folder gluers. First of all, the defect rate hovers around 10%, which makes relying on this technology a dubious proposition.
I doubt that the practical size is approaching "half a grain of sand," which would make application a nightmare to try to control. And most importantly, RFID tags are like UPC barcodes: they're coded to a single frequency and product, not to each instance of the product! If an RFID tag is enabled on your North Face jacket and you walk in a store, they may be able to tell that you're wearing the jacket, but that doesn't tell them who you are.
So if I've helped reduce the paranoia level a little bit, I'll now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
Re:Now let's not get carried away (Score:4, Interesting)
"I'm just buying a gallon of milk! what the hell!!!"
if they dont deativate them at purchase... it will mess up all of their plans.
Parent
This will answer the age old question... (Score:5, Funny)
Um... what's the big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
They won't know my name, address, phone number, age, social security number, sexual preference, number of pets, or marital status.
So what the hell's the big deal? Or are we all just being slash-paranoid?
- A.P.
*ahem* Allow me. (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, so someone will know I'm wearing Timberland boots, Dockers pants, Oakley sunglasses, and an Izod shirt.
You mean velcro closure Reeboks, sweatpants, prescription glasses, a Slashdot shirt, and a Members Only jacket.
They won't know my name, address, phone number, age, social security number, sexual preference, number of pets, or marital status.
Who cares, your parent's house, your parent's phone number, 16-40, who cares, who knows, 3 cats, and single.
Parent
Frightening (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Megan's law reporting problems? Just put one of these in a freckle-sized tattoo on sex offenders. Then sell little sensors for paranoid soccer mommies.
2. Prescription drugs being taken by the wrong person? Is Billy taking Johnny's Ritalin or Mommy's Oxycontin again to get high? Just run the sensor over him to see if he's bouncing the ID embedded in the pills!
3. Is that a valid driver's license? Just run that sensor over the card to see if it replies with the right code! We don't want kids to be able to buy cigarettes, alcohol (except Listerine - 40 proof), or porn with a fake I.D.!
Of course, all of this data will be kept secure, and companies certainly won't scan your body on the way into job interviews to see if you bounce signals for things like heart medication, anti-depressants, or anything else that might increase their insurance plan costs. You'd literally be broadcasting an enormous amount of information about yourself to anyone with a sensor.
Wasn't there just an outfit that had a bar code reader as a consumer device? Why not upgrade to an RFID reader? Learn all sorts of cool things about your coworkers, bosses, employees, enemies, etc.!! Fun for the whole family!
It's enough to make me want to become the next unabomber, only without the goat stink and the crappy beard.
GF.
Re:Frightening (Score:4, Insightful)
Card? You're thinking inside the box.
Cards can be stolen. Wave the sensor over the human.
> Megan's law reporting problems? Just put one of these in a freckle-sized tattoo on sex offenders. Then sell little sensors for paranoid soccer mommies.
And is that gonna stop an offender from going out and committing a crime? No - it'll only make him easier to find after he's committed the crime.
You want to nail him as soon as the kid goes missing, and again, you're thinking inside the box. Don't chip the offender (well, chip him too), but to prevent the crime, you've gotta chip the kid. Paranoid pet owners chip their dogs for this reason, why wouldn't a soccer mom want her sprog chipped?
Start by chipping kids at birth - embed it deep, so that digging it out with an Xacto will be painful and leave a scar. Embed it on the face, where any such scar will be visible to all. (If you've got something to hide, make sure you end up ugly enough that we appreciate your hiding it :)
Suppose Congress appropriated a few billion dollars to HomeSec for phase one - chip 'em at birth or on registration to school - would that be enough to deploy a mesh of RFID scanners around schools and shopping malls. Most kids under 18 would be effectively tracked 24/7. There's a kidnapping every few days in this country - imagine the PR impact of having a "kidnapping thwarted by chip" news story every few weeks. (Sure, the media would get bored, but it'd take at least a couple of years).
Phase two - now that you're using the chip to protect the children, extend "protection" to "if you have a chip, you must be under 18" and can't buy whatever. Scanners get added to retail outlets, marketers know who wears what and who looks at what products (data for future resale), and customers get the convenience of cashless shopping and never having to deal with annoying checkout clerks. And we never have to worry about Joey Sixpack buying beer.
Phase three - at age of majority, a ceremonial (well, as ceremonial as you can at the doctor's office) insertion of a second chip that permits beer-buying and other activities associated with age of majority. Congratuations, Joe Sixpack, you can buy a six-pack, you're a man now!
And no more of this "vote early, vote often" crap. One citizen , one vote! One non-citizen, no vote. (If you're an alien, your chip marks you as such - just like a green card is supposed to. When you naturalize, you get a "citizenchip". Hell, it even sounds cool! "Please present proof of citizenchip at the polling station!" :-) Voter and immigration fraud would be eliminated, enhancing the security of our democracy and our labor market.
Yes, you could encode date-of-birth on the first chip, but you have to get widespread acceptance of the technology first, so why go whole-hog on Day One? Thinking longer-term, this gives you the option to refine the system, since every subject gets chipped not once, but twice. (At birth, and upon upgrade to adulthood, or likewise upon immigration, and upon upgrade to full citizenchip.)
Parent
IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, wait a minute...
Density of receivers (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Unless the receiver can determine the distance to the RFID tag (and this is usually not the case), the tag's location cannot be determined with any greater accuracy that the distance to the nearest receiver. To "locate" a tag, there must be many expensive receivers no how many cheap tags there are. Remember, we live in three dimensions.
2. The range of passively powered tags is only a few meters, and they all tend to reply at the same time when a bunch are pinged, causing interference.
These difficulties can be solved, but not soon.
Similar tech to famous Russian spying device (Score:4, Interesting)
famous Russian listening device.
This device was totally passive, but when hit with a specific RF frequency (via a very directional beam) it would reflect the beam back but modulated by the sound in the room. The Russians could demodulate the signal and get the audio back. They hid the device in a carved wooden Seal of the United States that they presented to the US Embassador to Russia who proudly hung it above his desk. The Russian were privy to all conversations that took place in his office.
After a while the American figured his room was bugged so they sent in technicians to find the bug. The Russians weren't stupid - they knew when technicians arrived and simply turned off the directional RF carrier beam. They would turn it back on when the technicians left. Finally the Americans got smarter and all left but one who hid in the office with RF listening gear. When the Russians turned the RF carrier on, he detected it and figured it out it was embedded in the Seal. It was quite a scandal.
FUD Alert (Score:4, Informative)
RFID tags are not the size of "grains of sand" but rather the size of an oversized stamp. They are based on passive RF technology. When probed, they absorb a little of the energy and use it to respond. Outside an RFID scanners range, they are just circuits and have no function.
The price point the article quotes is also very wrong. Costs are much lower but still 2x - 3x what they need to be.
So what is this technology being developed for? To replace UPC labels! Instead of having to scan a bar code, you bombared an RFID with energy. An RFID is just as useless as a bar code in the absence of a scanner. The only difference it's a lot harder to mess up scanning an RFID than a bar code (not to mention that bar codes can degrade much easier than RFIDs).
This article was absolutely FUD. Just someone trying to cause a ruckus over nothing.
Difficult (Score:4, Insightful)
All technology (hell, even nuclear technology) can be used for good and bad purposes. I can imagine many uses for RF tags that I would actually appreciate. For example, as I walk to my car, it automatically unlocks and starts the engine. Or, the front door of my home automatically unlocks for me as I grasp the doorknob. When I enter a room, the lights automatically adjust to my preferred lighting level. Provided the tag is embedded within my body, there's not much risk of it being stolen.
But as everyone here points out, there are many possible nefarious uses for such a device. And indeed, there are nefarious uses for any technology. I could use wall current to electrocute you, blind you with a laser, or carve an "anarchy" symbol into your forehead with the sharp edge of a broken silicon wafer (ok, that's a little facetious, but you get the point).
My question for everyone is, how much are we willing to limit our technological advancements because of possible risks?
Let me give another example that might sound silly. Scientists are, right now, dreaming up technology to move asteroids around. One day we might use this to bring them closer, and mine them for materials. We could also use it to push an incoming asteroid out of a collision course with Earth.
A sufficiently funded terrorist, however, could also use this technology to take the world hostage. Or, if he's having a bad day, he could endanger the survival of the human race by actually doing it, and flinging a huge rock toward Earth. Should we stop developing this asteroid-moving technology because of this risk?
When does scientific and technological advancement become irresponsible?
They're called RF-EAS tags (Score:5, Informative)
Checkpoint Systems [checkpointsystems.com] makes RF Electronic Article Surveilance (RF-EAS) tags (the US site is not responding, but the Japanese one [checkpointsystems.co.jp] is, showing the bulk tags.) And here's a company that sells machines to auto-insert the RF-EAS tag into DVD carriers. [eaminc.com]
An amazing amount of effort has gone into reducing the cost of the RFID anti-theft tags. They're typically screen printed, and usually are destroyed when you purchase the product. It's not cost effective to make it re-programmable, as the retailers are playing a statistical game - they're weighing the probability of someone stealing a returned (or defective) unit against the reprogrammable cost that burdens EVERY unit going out the door.
One step up from this application is the ubiquitous personnel badge that most of us drones are required to wear at the orifice. Here's one from TI (PDF datasheet.) [ti.com] This costs a little more, and is definitley capable of identifying who you are.
RFID vs. Maytag (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe I should call Maytag and see if they have some type of gauss gun add-on.
Missing the point . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
But if that's the case, you can't use the system to track the RFID chips after the sale is complete. You don't want the scanners telling you about the pants the customer bought last week, just the stuff he's buying now.
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong.
For one, it depends on the type of device. The ones you see embossed on paper are essentially just antennae that resonate at a certain frequency. There are other versions that are MUCH more sophisticated, though, AND active to boot, and manufacturers ARE anticipating imbedding them in a lot of products permanently (if for no other reason than to save the stores the labor costs of removing them.)
Do you think the little mylar strips in US money are for COUNTERFEIT protection??? haha. Stack up a few 20's and it wouldn't be hard to spot them at all using the same technology (i.e. finding the resonant frequency of a passive radiator consisting of an array of mylar strips of known size stacked a known distance apart.)
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think they're for TRACKING YOU? haha.
Lord. My brother used to work on the theft prevention systems they use at stores -- you know, the little magnetic strips on clothing and other goods that would set off the alarm if not deactivated first. This is not considerably different from RFID or the mylar strips in bills.
Do you have any idea how easy they are to defeat? Bend the strip and you change its resonant frequency. Put two strips up against one another. Wrap them in tinfoil. Any one of a half dozen other methods.
As usual, they only work against the idiots, which so happens to be 90% of your criminals.
And, of course, your rampant conspiracy theorists who don't actually have any bloody clue how reality works.
Parent
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what has grocers drooling over this (well, the super-automation of the supply chain and a tighter control on shrinkage too, but this is the killer app). Walk up to the register with your shopping cart, hand over your credit card and get back you receipt and a bunch of shopping bags. Wheel shopping cart to your car and pack your groceries there.
No loading-reloading at the cashier's, almost no lines, fewer employees at the store. Even a small error rate for the RFIDs will be acceptable just due to the payroll savings involved. And for the tinfoil-hat wearing crowd: for most goods sold at retail (not currency, or expensive stuff like high-end clothes, watches, etc) RFIDs are practically not different from bar-codes. So what's the problem there?
Parent
Re:Yikes (Score:4, Insightful)
Principally because the exact same thing was (and is still) said about barcodes. [google.com]
Parent
Re:Lojack for Dogs (Score:4, Interesting)
My only real hope about the proto-Orwellian age in which we find ourselves living is that it will spark a massive backlash, and create a privacy movement comparable to the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's, or the labor movement of the early part of the 20th c. Not just among the folks at the EFF and the ACLU, who come off as a bit fanatical to most folks, but something broad-based. (NB: I'm not calling the EFF and ACLU fanatical -- I support both organizations. But a lot of people think of them as "those nutjobs." I suspect that may be about to change
I think there may be early signs of this. People may say that it's okay for the government to infringe our privacy in one way to "fight terrorism," or the RIAA to do so in another to "fight piracy," or some huge business to do so in still another for "market research," or whatever
Parent