RFID: The New Big Brother ? 566
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."
Simple enough... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Simple enough... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Simple enough... (Score:5, Informative)
Just be careful. Certain synthetic fabrics (nylon for one) will catch fire fairly quickly in a microwave.
Re:Simple enough... (Score:3, Informative)
Put a cup of water in the microwave along with the clothes. It should absorb enough of the energy to prevent serious arcing and heating of the metal while still letting the RFID be fried.
Re:Simple enough... (Score:5, Informative)
So to "clean" your, you could emit broad spectrum high power RF noise and nuke the little bastards.
Re:Simple enough... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Simple enough... (Score:5, Informative)
Mechanisms (was Re:Simple enough...) (Score:3, Informative)
The saturation type strips the parent refers to are actually prone to false alarms from certain metal objects with a low (and abrupt) saturation point. These systems are commonly found in libraries, rather than retail stores. Several other types are in use.
Read here [beer.org] and here [howstuffworks.com].
Re:Simple enough... (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, such a transmitter would probably be declared a "DMCA circumvention device"...
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.
Re:Simple enough... (Score:2)
Re:Simple enough... (Score:5, Funny)
Fleener's Law: 80% of conspiracy theories come true in time.
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"...
Even simpler (Score:5, Funny)
That, or you could advertise a protect using your body...
Re:Even simpler (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Even simpler (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Simple enough... (Score:3, Interesting)
Or indeed, everything. If they can put it unobtrusively into a Snickers wrapper, what's to stop them putting it into the bar itself?
Simple enough won't work (Score:4, Informative)
This Stanford seminar [microsoft.com] gave a good overview of the underlying technology.
Re:Simple enough... (Score:3, Insightful)
The answer may be simpler than that. Electrostatic Discharge, or ESD. A simple shock should fry these chips. Wald on a carpet, and touch any suspect item. POP! No RFID chip.
Of course, that relies on actually knowing where the RFID device is embedded in the clothing. If it really is the size of a grain of sand, how would you know? I vote for the brute force microwave (BFM) method.
Re:Simple enough... (Score:3, Informative)
You were probably working with one of the lower power models.
I work for a company that manufactures and sells access control systems. We do everything from magstripe to proximity (read RFID) to bio-metric readers. And the idea that the prox type readers are only short range is wrong. Hughes Identity Corporation (HID) makes a higher power reader that is capable of reading at several feet. Mind you its bulky (about 18" per side and 3" thick.) and pulls a good bit of power, but it is accurate and can cover a doorway easily enough. We have several customers that use them for inventory control, you put one of the tags on each item, then, as it is moved through a doorway, it is read and tracked.
The only draw back I have ever seen to these types of readers is that they have a rough time of it if you put 3 or 4 cards near them at once, they just refuse to read them. Also, if you put a switching power supply next to one, it all but loses its ability to read the card. Though, these are access control readers and so tend to avoid reading if conditions aren't just right (its a security feature).
As for the idea of microwaving them, I don't know, I've never tried it. But from what I understand about them, it would probably work. If the antenna picked up enough energy, it might overcharge, and fry, the capacitor that is used to power the response circut.
Re:Simple enough... (Score:3, Funny)
they have a rough time of it if you put 3 or 4 cards near them at once
Sounds like the tin foil hat concerns could then be just as well addressed by carrying around lots of these RFID tags.
Don your RF Mega ID shirt as if it were chain mail. Walk through detectors and presto!
- You are a McDonald's Happy Meal, and
- You are 2005 Porsche Boxster, and
- You are a Victoria's Secret 38D, and
- You are a pallet of 1.75 liter Jack Daniel's bottles.
You are instantly a man of mystery and one fun dude!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.
Personal Challenge (Score:2)
Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
Of course from the consumer standpoint, the idea of this is ludicrous. Why should *I* have to disable these tracking devices? Shouldn't it be the other way around? That they have to ask my permission before trying to follow me around?
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Insightful)
It gives me this nasty pit in my stomach.
No worries... it's supposed to.
New use for your microwave! (Score:4, Funny)
The Real Problem... (Score:3, Funny)
No... the real problem comes when certain establishments mandate that you wear underwear..
Lojack for Dogs (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Lojack for Dogs (Score:3, Interesting)
If I were a parent I could also maybe see it for my kids (young kids, not necessarily teenagers).
Might I suggest that it shouldn't even be done then? What happens when little Billy reaches his teenage years and his parents have long forgotten about the chip that it turned out they never needed? Depending on how young he was, he may not even know it's there. I find that very disturbing.
See? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:See? (Score:5, Funny)
Nude LAN parties *shudder*
Please take that thought out of my head!
Good for the environment (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good for the environment (Score:2)
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...
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)
Re:cool (Score:3, Funny)
Not just any pencil - his favorite pencil. "Oh damn, I've lost another tricorder. And that one was my favorite!"
What? (Score:3, Interesting)
RFID tags need to be printed on paper, so unless you have something like a magazine you'll be able to get rid of the RFID tags just by removing the wrapper or sales tag. Duh. It's not like these things are going to be attached to everything permanently just while they're in the store. It's basically a replacement for the barcode.
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.)
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and most countries have had metal in their notes for years now (and more than one colour too! and holograms! and see through windows! and textured ink!). It IS an anti-conterfeiting measure, and not a moment too soon, seeing as how the USD is by far the most easily copied major currency in the world.
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.
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
The mylar strips in US currency are not RFID tags or anything similar. They are an anti-counterfeiting measure.
As inexpensive printers got cheaper, many counterfeiters were bleaching $1 and $5 bills and printing phoney $20 and $100 bills on the paper. Most counterfeit money is detected by bank clerks who can feel the difference in paper quality.
The mylar strip (which is not present in $1 and $5 bills) makes it easy to spot bleached counterfeits.
The European Union addressed this problem by making each demonination of currency a different size.
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?
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.)
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...
Future Shopping Predicted? (Score:2)
And they thought I was mad... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And they thought I was mad... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't Care (Score:3, Funny)
WARNING!!! Hand Washing of this Material Could Cause Electrocution Resulting in Death.
Or Even worse make your hair stand up all Funny and stuff!
Mixed signals (Score:2)
currently the RFID industry seems to be giving 'mixed' signals about whether the tags will be disabled or left enabled by default.
Of course they are. Why alienate either end of the market, especially retailers or other commercial interests? You know that right now it's more important to court them anyway to build interest and revenue for development. Leave all possibilities possibilities, and all kinds of parties will step forward.
- DDT
Yikes (Score:3, Insightful)
"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, freeman and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no-one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom, if anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person and it's number is 666." Rev 13:16-18
Re:Yikes (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yikes (Score:4, Insightful)
Principally because the exact same thing was (and is still) said about barcodes. [google.com]
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.
Cool... (Score:2)
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.
Isn't this.... (Score:2)
See http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/17/03272
Sounds Good to Me (Score:5, Funny)
I'm glad I have a ferrite/aluminium foil hat! (Score:3, Funny)
"Hon, do you like this dress?"
"Yeah, it's really nice... WAIT DID YOU MICROWAVE IT BEFORE WE LEFT HOME!?!"
"Micro - huh? What the hell are to talking about?"
"RFID SAND CHIPS! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE! They've probably tracked us here. Better take off your clothes until we can get to some underground consignment shops and hook you up with some aluminized disco stuff from the '70s."
"We're through."
Aluminum Foil! (Score:3, 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.
Re:Now let's not get carried away (Score:3, Informative)
They could be used like UPC barcodes, but there's nothing that says they can't be used in far more intrusive fashions, as well.
Re:Now let's not get carried away (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Now let's not get carried away (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the tags in tires include the tire type, date of manufacture and the car that they were first mounted to. But that's a very specialized application, and we were talking about the general consumer scenario--John Doe checking out of Best Buy, Sears, Gap, XYZ Grocery, etc.
I doubt that you'll find any RFID tags with a memory size of 65,536 bits! And if you do, they certainly aren't the ones that we were talking about--disposable, cheap passive tags to be used by merchants at the point of sale. Sure they could be used in intrusive fashions, in the same way that UPC codes were going to be the mark of the beast when they debuted in the '80s, and The Net [imdb.com] was going to wreck all our lives and put us under control of nefarious orgzanizations.
But these RFID tags are going to be used for checkout purposes, and any merchant that doesn't disable them at the POS isn't going to be faced with a tricky problem down the road. For example, if a customer walks back into your store (Walmart) wearing a watch, pair of shoes, t-shirt and some candy he purchased there last week, how are you going to know whether the goods were already purchased or not?! Remember, these are read-only tags, not read/write tags. It's therefore to the merchant's advantage to disable the tags once the item has been purchased.
At the same time, the unique coding of items is fairly useless until you get into large-ticket items that may need to be repaired or serviced. Knowing that you sold Aiwa stereo #12345 is not better than knowing that you sold an Aiwa stereo model ABC. And when a 60" TV comes back in for repair, being able to scan the RFID emitter for its serial number takes only a few seconds off reading it off of the back of the unit and typing it in.
There are a host of applications for the technology, and I've only covered a slice of them. Anti-theft and non-line of sight ID'ing of products are two of the most beneficial, and in my opinion they far outweight the insidious uses of various organizations that paranoid people like to think up.
Re:Now let's not get carried away (Score:3, Informative)
This will answer the age old question... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This will answer the age old question... (Score:3, Funny)
Hey! Now we know what Stage 2 is!
1) Collect Underpants
2) Implant RFID tags
3) Profit!!!
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.
Re:Um... what's the big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
At worst (for you) it could know exactly who you are especially if you bought all those things in that chain store. At best it would still let them know your sex (unless you're a cross dresser), and can make a good guess of your age, lifestyle, weight and dimensions.
Now imagine a few scanners set strategically around the store and at the cash register and that you take a look around and then purchase another item of clothing with a credit card (assume you payed cash before).
Before you walked in they knew nothing about you. Now they know your name, your credit card number, the clothes you're wearing, how long you've been in the store, what part of the store you looked at most, what part you skipped, your approximate weight, lifestyle and age. And all you've done is buy a pair of socks!
Would any store go to the effort? Probably not until the technology improved, but I wouldn't put it past them. In fact, I can imagine that store cards of the future would employ similar technology so that the moment you walked in the door carrying the card they'd know who you were.
*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.
Re:Um... what's the big deal? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps I'm just old fashioned, but the big deal in my book is that this sort of thing is none of their damn business!
I would be highly offended if some clerk came up to me and asked, "Hello, Sir, welcome to S-Mart, and may I ask what brand of underwear you're wearing today?" The fact they they're trying to do so surreptitiously makes it no less inappropriate.
Time to come up with a Jammer (Score:3, Interesting)
Like I want an 'Enron' to happen with a company that controls distribution and/or access to these.
I suggest a hi-watt jammer to make the use of them impossible.
The knowledge of my whereabouts is copyrighted, and I have every right to disable, interfere, block, divert, or otherwise impair the unauthorized distribution, display, storage, or reproduction of this copyrighted information.
God, I hope they don't put these in tin foil. What will I make my hats out of?
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.)
Easily Defeat It (Score:3, Insightful)
IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, wait a minute...
using these to stop terrorism (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't see how else Israel will stop suicide bombing unless they only allow their own citizens in public areas, and this method would not be too expensive. And as much as I care about privacy, the situation there is life or death, and so more important.
Re:using these to stop terrorism (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, but I have been trolled. Pardon me.
Undocumented transfers (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're wearing an outfit bought for you by somebody else, then the computer will falsely identify you as that gift-giving friend or realitve. Too many false-positive IDs and this system gets considered useless.
Besides, we still use cash to buy things around here. I don't think we need to get paranoid until we see serious proposals to knock that off...
RFID and shoplifting (Score:3, Interesting)
Say I buy a winter coat from Walmart in the fall. Then near the end of winter I go back to buy a windbreaker for spring's warmer weather. Am I going to have to keep a recipt in my pocket to prove that I bought the jacket?
Or I go and buy a PDA from Circuit City then come back a week later and buy a printer (using the PDA as my check register)...how do I prove that it is now mine and not lifted?
Sure some of you are going to say "the security tags get removed at checkout" or "The RFID signature will be removed from the database and will not exist anymore to bother you", but consider...
Good idea, but I'm too familiar about the quality and the ability of the people who try to implement it. Some of these people can't pour sand out of a boot with instructions on the heel.
Phoenix
How long (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing's so bad that it can't be used for some good...
It may interest you to know.. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
It's the next step... (Score:3, Insightful)
From this one can find out not only what you like to buy, but how long you have had what you are wearing and how much you paid for it, possibly even where you bought it.
Include this with a retinal scan and a database of past product scans of the individual (not to mention other purchase profiles sold to advertisers by your supermarket/travel agent/etc.) and you start to build a fantastic database on the buying habits of the individual in question.
The "smart ad" accesses the database, crossreferences you and your buying habits.
Couple of instants later and *POOF* a personally tailored, computer generated ad pops up and starts calling your name using those trick directional ultrasonic sound generators...subliminals and throbbing music lulling you into a state of complete fiscal abandon...Showing you the way to the nearest store that will painlessly seperate you from the next sizable chunk of your no-longer-disposable income.
Sounds like a corporate driven police state where every purchase you make is tracked and logged to provide clues to allow companies to exploit your weaknesses for fine fragrances, goat porn, or cheap little southeast-asian made plastic trinkets.
Think I'll start making my own hemp clothes right now...gonna need some practice.
Spoofing for fun and profit (Score:3, Interesting)
This thing is going to be hacked more than anything else before.
--Mike--
Drivers Licenses... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think that that technology is too far fetched.
While drivers licenses might be a bit tough for people to swallow, imagine requiring them in all US passports? Then customs/immigration would be able to track anyone while they were inside of the designated security zones inside of airports. Great for tracking terrorists!
Anyone want to patent this to keep it from ever being used?
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.
Reminds me of taggants years back (Score:3, Insightful)
But with the amount of fireworks and roadwork going on, wind dispersal and all, it seemed to me at the time that we'd rapidly get to the point where *every* environmental sample would include some background level of taggants. At that point, tracing explosives would become a statistical process, and certainty would be long gone.
IMHO, the problem with RFID in everything would be the sheer data volume. Assume each and every RFID had a unique number, and then imagine the size of the database to track all of that, not to mention the monitoring infrastructure. Then remember that they can't even track election results.
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.
*sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
If we are worried "they" will know where we are, "they" will need a sensor wherever we are. A very unrealistic concept.
More likely will be sensors on toll booths on interstates, and things of that sort. Whereas using license plates from those cameras that are everywhere would still suffice to do that type of tracking.
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.
RFID tags are useful in the kitchen (Score:3, Insightful)
- automatically generate shopping lists
- compare food inventory against a recipe database to see what meal options I have
- automatically track food expiration
- optimize food usage (ie. less waste) by planning meals a week in advance
Of course, this would also require tracking of inventory depletion. However, with recipe planning and perhaps a touchscreen interface, this would be pretty simple and would allow you to track your nutrition at the same time.
As a side-note, these things are nowhere near a threat to privacy:
1.) They are trivially easy to destroy
2.) Regardless of how small the chip is, you still need an antenna matching the wavelength of the RFID detector's transceiver. Simple physics guarantees that the antenna will be plainly visible or else highly inefficient and narrow-banded. (not much use if you're trying to power a chip with it). Sure, these limitations may be slowly overcome by advances in nanotech and ultra-low-power design, but it'll also make the chips more fragile.