Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States Your Rights Online

Utah Leads the Way Toward RFID Privacy Legislation 259

Posted by michael from the good-for-something dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Wired News reports that Utah's House of Representatives passed the first-ever RFID privacy bill this week, 47-23. Utah state Rep. David Hogue said that without laws to ensure consumer privacy, retailers will be tempted to match the data gathered by RFID readers with consumers' personal information. 'The RFID industry will carry the technology as far as they can,' said Hogue, sponsor of the Radio Frequency Identification Right to Know Act. 'Marketing people especially are going to love this kind of stuff.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Utah Leads the Way Toward RFID Privacy Legislation More

Utah Leads the Way Toward RFID Privacy Legislation

Comments Filter:

  • Doubt it will last (Score:5, Insightful)

    by synergy3000 ( 637810 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:03PM (#8411672)
    Has RFID users formed their own lobby yet? Retailers have their own. Notice how powerful Walmart is in that respect. They will just lobby the US Congress to create an over-riding law allowing RFIDs to be used as the retailers see fit. Vote smarter next time around and everyone vote!
    • Or how about instead of voting for bad candidates to see your will done, file complaints left and right with store managers and drive the chain crazy with complaints until they stop?

      Ah, silly me, that'd take effort.

      Cheers

  • cool (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FoogyFoo ( 726938 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:03PM (#8411673)
    A tech law in advance of the tech.
    That's the way it should be, rather than trying to throw together a hack job after the tech has been around for a while.

    • Re:cool (Score:4, Funny)

      by pilgrim23 ( 716938 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:38PM (#8411955)
      If only the proper legislation had been in place before "Ugh! Mog invent wheel!". We could have completely avoided the greatest threat to western civilization: Parking Meters!

    • Re:cool (Score:4, Insightful)

      by An Onerous Coward ( 222037 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @08:19PM (#8413658) Homepage
      You're right. If only the government had stepped in and started heavily regulating the Internet around 1985...

      I'm glad to see my Utah legislature taking time out of its busy schedule of banning gay marriage and getting us out of the UN to meddle in technology it doesn't even begin to understand. Gives me a real warm, fuzzy feeling all over.

      Not that I wouldn't like to see some sane, well-considered legislation on the subject. But every year, they prove over the course of forty-five days that they're not capable of crafting legislation even remotely like that.

  • hi. I'm Troy McClure (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:03PM (#8411674)
    hi. I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from such RFID-paranoia movies as "1984 mhz" and "My Radio Receiver Knows what you Did Last Summer"

  • Bush's cronies... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by YanceyAI ( 192279 ) * <IAMYANCEY@yahoo.com> on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:06PM (#8411702)
    Wait. You're saying that I could get one of these little buggers and stick it on someone and know exactly where they are? I'm more worried about the Bush administration's ideas for using this technology than I am about Wal-Mart's. Though I don't want them tracking me either.

    I mean who wants your retailer to know when you buy condoms or somethng equally personal. Really, technologically speaking, we are not far from the thought police at all.

    • Tinfoil condoms (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "I mean who wants your retailer to know when you buy condoms ...."

      If you believe anyone is going to track condom usage with RFID, I suggest you wrap your willie in tin foil the next time you have sex. Since that is likely to be sometime around 2015, you have plenty of time to prepare.

    • Re:Bush's cronies... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Zakabog ( 603757 ) <.moc.guamj. .ta. .nhoj.> on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:32PM (#8411908)
      Yeah the retailer should never know when you buy condoms, so when you go up to the counter to pay for them rip off the bar code and assure the clerk it's the right one while keeping the condoms in your pocket.

      This is really dumb, the store knows when you buy personal items if they have a RFID tag or not. When you go to the counter and pay for the items, hey someone's gonna know! And it kind of tips people off when you carry them in your cart or basket. Also, if you use a CVS card or anything like that they keep track of what you buy and send you flyers and ads home based on that information.

      We're not too far from the thought police at all? Where the hell did that come from? RFID tags can't read your mind, if you have one on your body no one's gonna be able to track you from a satellite, it doesn't transmit brain waves. You'd need a reader really close to the device anyway. Not like the CIA is gonna follow you around with a RFID tag reader, that'll defeat the purpose of having the tag installed secretly in the first place.

      • Re:Bush's cronies... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by el-spectre ( 668104 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:52PM (#8412075) Journal
        Incidently... having been a cashier for a bit I can tell you: No one cares when you buy personal kinds of stuff. You wanna buy condoms? Go for it... most people have sex, it's not a big secret. Other than mild amusement when a giggly couple comes thru buying wine and rubbers, I never gave a damn.

        One exception, though: Couple cam thru buying wine, condoms, KY, straight razors, rubbing alcohol (!!!), and nothing else. Had a funny look in their eyes... I don't know what they were up to, but the alcohol and razors STILL makes me shudder.

        • Re:Bush's cronies... (Score:5, Funny)

          by saforrest ( 184929 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @05:55PM (#8412633) Journal
          One exception, though: Couple cam thru buying wine, condoms, KY, straight razors, rubbing alcohol (!!!), and nothing else. Had a funny look in their eyes... I don't know what they were up to, but the alcohol and razors STILL makes me shudder.

          A friend of mine was participating in a scavenger hunt once. He went to the local Canadian Tire (basically a hardware store, for non-Canadians) with another friend, who happened to be female, and bought, among several things I can't recall, a box of condoms, a lot of Coke, a duck decoy, a for-emergency-use-only CO2 bicycle pump, and a hockey goalie mask.

          The cashier gave them a very strange look as they left.

      • Re:Bush's cronies... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by geekoid ( 135745 ) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {dnaltropnidad}> on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:52PM (#8412076) Homepage Journal
        he said technologivally, were not far from the thought police.

        Perhaps you have some condoms in your pocket. then every where there is a rfid rader, there is someone who knows what is in you pocket.

        You go to the story to buy a couple of things, then suddenly the cart announces there is a sale on condoms. now everyone know you have condoms.

        Or perhaps you hacve some mdication you would rather someone didn't know about?
        Walk into an interview, and the company know you take diabetis medication. well, better hire someone else because of the insurance risk.

        Your in a town that is run by a religeon, and you have some material on you that would be 'against the rules'. suddenly your life just got a lot harder.

        the CIA won't have to follow us if the readers are every where, would they?

        no they can't read you mind, but they tell the world what you own, and people will infer there own reasons why you would own them. And believe me, nobody is going to infer anything positive.
      • CVS card... i have one. when i signed up, you can check a box saying "don't send me crap" and amazingly enough, they havn't sent me one bit of crap.

      • Re:Bush's cronies... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Asprin ( 545477 ) <gsarnoldNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:57PM (#8412127) Homepage Journal

        There's a difference between "Tee-hee, then this one guy came in today and he bought ...." and "Please send Mr. Williams an email informing him that the .... he purchased today will no longer be on sale next week, so he should come in as soon as possible to stock up."

        I expect that the biggest discernable change RFID is going to cause is the deliberate modification of personal behavior to prevent this kind of information from being PRESENT so that it cannot be collected.

      • Re:Bush's cronies... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by thelexx ( 237096 )
        There's a big difference between having one clerk notice for a moment that you are buying something embarassing and having it stored in a database for convenient perusal at any date in the future by multiple parties and without your knowledge or permission.

        The thought police idea comes in when you change your behavior based on the above.
    • I'm more worried about the Bush administration's ideas for using this technology than I am about Wal-Mart's.
      What, you think they're two different issues? Hey, I know that when I head down to Wal-Mart to pick up an assault rifle and a couple of kilograms of cocaine, my biggest worry is whether George is going to be sitting in the Oval Office checking over my shopping list.

    • Wait. You're saying that I could get one of these little buggers and stick it on someone and know exactly where they are?

      More to the point, you could buy a six-pack of undies at Wallmart, shred them into itsie-bitsie pieces and put them, like lint, into dozens of pockets at the local dry cleaners. Then they will suddenly be tracking hundreds of "you". Whoever they are.

      There are a thousand ways to defeat Big Brother, if you think about it. Paranoia just means you have to be careful.

      • Why put it in underware? Put it in drivers licences and state ID. There is a push to have a national ID card, so put one in them, too. You can't microwave them, as they would probably melt. Even if not, it would be destruction of government property, and land you in jail. You can't report it stolen and get a few more, and have them spread around, because they would know which are the stolen ones, and could arrest the people who are carrying them for you.

        All you could do is wrap it in tinfoil.

        • Why put it in underware?

          I thought that was the whole point - that these little buggers were going to be embedded into everything you ever bought, for inventory and other commercial purposes. Remember the TV ad where the skanky looking dude shuffles through the store, stuffing things into his coat pockets, and when he leaves, bypassing the cashier, the guard at the door stops him and says "Excuse me, sir, you forgot your reciept." That's the dream -- they'll identify you as you walk around and you're charg

  • Stop fighting it. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hayzeus ( 596826 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:06PM (#8411707) Homepage
    As good consumers we should welcome the departure of out privacy. It is, after all, a fair trade-off given the great (and personalized!) deals we'll all get in return. So let's all just relax and "go with the flow", shall we?

    Thanx for listening,

    Consumer 0556672GXX89F2

    • If so, why? I mean, I wash my hands after going to the bathroom, at home, alone. Because it is the right thing to do.

      While I don't ACT any differently I certainly do my share of database pollution, wrong phone numebrs, bad zip codes, etc. Every chance I get. Just because I don't like being watched, and don't make it easy, I don't act any differently when I am.

  • But what about Orrin Hatch... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by barfy ( 256323 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:09PM (#8411733)
    Nice for them... Now if they can control what thier senator wants to do on a national level [slashdot.org] then we can talk...

  • Marketing people really are awful (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZuperDee ( 161571 ) <zuperdee.yahoo@com> on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:09PM (#8411734) Homepage Journal
    I wrote a letter to NewEgg, asking them to stop using HTTP Referrer on their site, because I thought it a privacy concern. Their response: "Unfortunately the HTTP Referrer Header cannot be eliminated because it is an essential tool for our Marketing Department used to monitor where we are getting our web traffic from so that we can improve future campaigns to focus on more specific demographics. Please accept our humblest apologies for any inconvenience." I have tried not to shop at NewEgg ever since, because the idea of gathering information on my web viewing habits WITHOUT informing me, and without my consent, really does bother me.

    My main point here though is that this is just one example of how marketing people will do ANYTHING to gather information about people. Without a privacy policy, I think the folks in Utah are right, things like RFID will be used to gather personal information about consumers.

    • Re:Marketing people really are awful (Score:5, Informative)

      by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:15PM (#8411775) Journal
      Actually your HTTP Referrer is sent by your browser by its own choice, you can turn it off, and in some browsers even have it smartly decide when to send the referrer and when to keep quiet, it can also send a 'fake' address based on the current one to allow leeching etc.

      An RFID tag on the other hand is more like a trojan condom/malware/spyware etc.

    • Re:Marketing people really are awful (Score:5, Informative)

      by claar ( 126368 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:15PM (#8411780)
      For your particular example, why not just turn off sending referrer information in your browser? The prefbar [mozdev.org] has a nice check box that lets you turn off sending referrer whenever you like.

    • what's the problem? (Score:5, Informative)

      by bani ( 467531 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:23PM (#8411843)
      mozilla and other browsers allow you to control the referrer sent to sites.

      you can make it lie and say you were referred by h0t-chixx0r-sex.com

      that will get them wondering 8)

      or you can just enter the site manually into your location bar, in which case there is no referrer...

    • Re:Marketing people really are awful (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      That is quite possibly the one of the stupidest things I have every heard. You don't want a retailer knowing how you stumbled upon thier site? Do you demand that all Brick & Mortar retailers blacken their windows so that they can't see the direction from which you drove to get there? Think of all the privacy they are invading with that little trick! One day, they may amass enough information to determine that 60% of their shoppers come from the east and can use that knowledge in purchasing a billboa

    • Forgot your tinfoil hat. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:40PM (#8411976)
      You have to understand... companies do not want business from nutjobs like you because you take more time than you're worth. A http_referrer? Are you nuts? Oh wait. You are. That's not your history... it's just the site that you came from. Virtually every single website does this so they can see where their advertising money is spent the best. I don't think that an http_referrer qualifies as doing "anything" to gather info. It's equivalent to walking into a small store and the owner asking where you heard about them. But, like I said, people like you are very few and far between, so anybody with an online business really would be smart to tell you to take a flying leap. Satisfing a handful of paranoid nutjobs at the expense of knowing where their customers come from is a very bad tradeoff. BTW, have you ever thought of defeating their evil schemes by opening a browser and typing "newegg.com"??
    • Many sites I have designed use referrer as the first line of security. you don't have it, the portions of the site won't work, period. take it or leave it, but I see no problem with internal referrers.

  • Voter issues (Score:5, Informative)

    by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:12PM (#8411754) Homepage
    Complain all you want, but when voters care, issues happen.

    My uninformed opinion of Utah is that there attitude is kinda like.
    "We protect our own, you outsiders go away"

    Note that there is interest from California, and Massachusetts.
    They point out the Senator from Massachusetts sponsored an antispam bill. Even if the bill wasn't perfect, it did pass, and at least he is trying to do something. Perhaps with the right help he can do better with RFID?

    • Re:Voter issues (Score:2, Insightful)

      by FuzzyShrimp ( 751090 )
      "when voters care, issues happen" Trouble is that they don't care and cannot remember three months into the future who said what or voted which way. Terrible truth. Look at who we elect over and over. SOS.

  • RFID Locator? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gtrubetskoy ( 734033 ) * on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:13PM (#8411766)
    Is there such a thing as an RFID tag locator? Could someone electronically-savvy pitch in on this? Can I have a little device that beeps louder as it gets closer to a tag?
    • That's what the tags are for. They're an inventory control device. Small chips powered by the scanner, that can contain data on the tagged item.

    • Re:RFID Locator? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Kozar_The_Malignant ( 738483 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:38PM (#8411954)

      > Is there such a thing as an RFID tag locator?

      How about an RFID Reader Card for your laptop or PDA? You can get one for $150.00ish US from Syscan International (http://www.syscan.com). It fits a CF slot or PCMCIA with an adapter.

      From an article in RFID Journal
      http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/3 93/1/1/
      "The read range is just five to 10 cm (two to four inches). But Striefler says the company is working to extend that. 'We hope to increase the power of the chip to improve its read range.' ... The reader can record changes in temperature, time and other data. The initial reader that Syscan is producing works with 13.56 MHz tags based on the ISO15693 and ISO14443 standards. The company is working to produce versions for the ISO 14443A and ISO 14443B standards. It will also create readers for the Sony FeliCa RFID chip, and 125 kHz and 134 kHz frequencies. "

      Looks like a bold new frontier for interacting creatively with corporate computer systems.

  • Laws need to include all future forms of tracking. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SpudB0y ( 617458 ) * on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:13PM (#8411767)
    Why come out with a new law each time there is a new form of technology? Just make it illegal to use ANY electronic database to surreptitiously track people. This can include facial recognition, RFID, gait recognition, electronic nose systems, cell phone triangulation, licence plate OCR, or any possible unforseen technological advances.
    • Just make it illegal to use ANY electronic database to surreptitiously track people.

      Umm. Ok. So you use SpeedPass to get through the tollgates on the local freeway, and one month your bill looks higher than normal. You ask them "why is this higher?"

      What should they say? "Ummm, you went through 45 dollars worth of tollgates this month, but we cannot tell you which ones". Or would you prefer they say "you went through X ten times, Y eight times, and Z two dozen times?" At least with the latter, you can arg

  • I NEVER thought I'd say this... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bradee-oh! ( 459922 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:16PM (#8411781)
    but unless others follow suit, I now have a reason to move to...

    Utah...

    *shudders*
    • Don't forget Utopia, the plan to hook up fiber optic cable to hundreds of thousands of Utah homes. http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/18/083344. php [blogcritics.org].

    • Re:I NEVER thought I'd say this... (Score:4, Informative)

      by John Harrison ( 223649 ) <johnharrison@@@gmail...com> on Friday February 27, 2004 @05:04PM (#8412214) Homepage Journal
      Do you like to ski, mountain bike, hike, or camp? Do you enjoy visiting national parks?

      If you like any of those things then you might like Utah. If you are not LDS and like those things then even better, because the Mormons aren't doing those things on Sunday. I don't ski on Sunday so I am relying on my friends who do for this info, but they insist that the slopes are nearly empty on Sundays.

  • Well... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by physicsboy500 ( 645835 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:17PM (#8411795)

    We've already seen Budweiser [cnn.com] push for all the info they can get without these tags... I'm sure RFID is soon to follow.

    At least they won't be able to invade your spending habits this way, and I'm sure legislation will come to dissallow their current manner of tracking if it deeply affects consumer rights.

    Technology like this is beginning to infringe on our privacy though... I wouldn't want everyone to know I bought four pairs of handcuffs and a lether whip around my girlfriend's birth... I mean candy and flowers... yeah

  • Marketing people especially are going to love this kind of stuff

    Is there anything wrong with that so long as somewhere in our future we make sure that information isn't accessed 'inappropriately'?

    An example of such abuse it as marketer looking up information an a prospective date, or a baristor using racel profiling digs up information about you that would prejedice a jury.

    That's what we all fear...

    But if this leads to cheaper and more acurate (and less bothersome) appraisal of market fashions, the

  • The real issue with RF ID is jobs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MountainLogic ( 92466 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:22PM (#8411835) Homepage
    While the marketoids will try to mine the tags, I do not think that privacy is the biggest problem with RFID. Why is wallmart pushing for the tags so hard? To eliminate labor. Labor is one of their biggest costs. With the tags in place they can eliminate the checkout people, you push your cart through the scanner and up pops your bill on the ATM pad. This also allows them to keep track of what sells and when. With some scanners between each department they can find misplaced items that customers put back on the wrong rack. This would also all but eliminate employee thieft. Only jobs left will be the greeter at the enterace and security at the exit. They have already outsourced janitorial services to fight unionization and I'm sure they'l do the same with a restocking crew and rent-a-cop.

    In some ways this is the ultamate offshoring of a service job. The labor of checkout clerk is moved to the chip factory where the tage is made and the shoe factory where the tag is inserted.

    • I agree with you up until you say

      In some ways this is the ultamate offshoring of a service job

      This is not offshoring jobs, it's technology making certain jobs redundent. Since this technology will be cheaper than labour it will win. Jobs are great and all, but people need to be "net productive", at least in theory
      • This is not offshoring jobs, it's technology making certain jobs redundent. Since this technology will be cheaper than labour it will win. Jobs are great and all, but people need to be "net productive", at least in theory

        You're getting at the capital-labor ratio... in "rich" countries where labor is expensive, labor will be replaced with capital as long as the replacement lowers cost. If Walmart believes replacing cashiers with RFID tags/scanners is cheaper, they will do so. RFID (at least for check out p
    • Oh, so you mean they are trying to automate menial tasks to make more profit? And you're concerned because this has never been done before? Here's an idea: go to each Walmart location and smash these RFID readers you speak of. Ned Ludd [greenleft.org.au] would be proud.
    • Also, printing presses should be regulated, because they put scribes and illuminators out of work.
    • I sympathize with your point but....

      This is exactly the same argument that was used (unsuccessfully) against using machines during the "Industrial Revolution", against the use of automated manufacturing equipment on automobile assembly lines during the 1980s, and most recently against the replacement of the White House staff and US President with life-like robots.

    • Re:The real issue with RF ID is jobs (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Flavius Stilicho ( 220508 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:57PM (#8412124)
      With the tags in place they can eliminate the checkout people, you push your cart through the scanner and up pops your bill on the ATM pad.

      This is precisely why I never have and never will use the 'Self Checkout' lanes at the supermarket, Home Depot, etc. Not only are they eliminating some poor schmo's job, but they're getting ME to do it for them on top. When they start giving me a 10% discount to use those lanes, I'll reconsider. Until then, they can blow me. and forget the argument that the discount is built in... if that were the case the prices at the full service line would be higher. Of course, just like ATMs and bank tellers, I guess that's next. </rant>.

      Sorry... just thoroughly disgusted with the system lately.

  • tangled web of RFID lies (Score:5, Informative)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:23PM (#8411848) Homepage Journal
    "None of the retail tests of RFID tags invaded the privacy of shoppers in the Wal-Mart stores, Roberti [editor of RFID Journal] said. He also said that RFID chips in building security passes and toll-booth tags have never been used to invade a citizen's privacy."

    New Yorkers were conned into installing EZPass toll ID systems around our entire infrastructure by a lying Mayor Giuliani who promised that the logs would be tightly protected, available only by court order and subpoena after due process, evidence discovery, legal confidentiality, all the rights by which we protect ourselves from our governments. Once up and running, it turned out that $50 through any low-rent lawyer could buy the logs from the cops, at first used in divorce cases, and now surely used for whatever pretext is convenient to invade our privacy.

    Now the industry continues the lies to propagate their bugs throughout our consumer society. The deployment of the tech is inevitable, their lies as well. But our privacy rights can win, if we maintain zero tolerance for these invasions, and the liars who would have us pay for our own illegal surveillance. Join or promote the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) [epic.org], or the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) [eff.org], or the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [aclu.org]. The freedom you save will be your own.
    • He did exactly what he said he would he never sold the logs but didn't protect them from the courts either. All those rights you state have been tromped on for years they offer no protection.

      You would have to make the records unavalible by law to the courts or anybody else without need to know. The only people that get that seem to be our elected officials and the DOD. Funny as my elected officials are some of the people I trust least to do whats in my best interest. The DOD/CIA they have a job to do t
      • Well, I remember 'dolph Giuliani and his flacks telling us the records would be private, and then they weren't. The kind of Republican lies that are now being kindly misrepresented as merely "bait and switch". I also remember reading in the Daily News or somesuch paper, when the first public report of sale of the logs was published about 4-5 years ago, in an easily defensible "slippery slope" divorce case, that reiterated the original promise of confidentiality which had thereby been violated. I note that t

  • TEMPTED?!?!?!?!? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 2names ( 531755 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:26PM (#8411871)
    They will absolutely pair the RFID info with personal data. Most retailers will probably do this even if there are laws against it and just hope to not get caught.

    • Re:TEMPTED?!?!?!?!? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by happyfrogcow ( 708359 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @05:03PM (#8412205)
      hope not to get caught... well if I accuse them of pairing data with people the burden of proof is on me. How would I get that proof without breaking the DMCA through reverse engineering their system or other benevolent hacks?
    • RFID's are an interesting thing -- but one that people haven't thought through when they decide to get paranoid about them.

      But here's the real ticket: You know all those 'Visa Check Card' commercials? Since they've become more common, ever notice how much people use a check card to buy everything from groceries to gasoline?

      So, you go to the grocery store to get some groceries. You go to the checkout counter, they scan the bar codes, and the sale is stored in a database, itemized completely. Then you s

  • Who are we more scared of? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:39PM (#8411967) Journal
    This might keep the marketing dogs at bay but politicians must be having wet dreams at what this could acheave - imaging linking all this data, you basically have a distributed array of people sensors and an extensive log of where any one person has been on tap 24/7. How about installing RFID readers _everywhere_ - put them in airport check-ins, public transport, traffic lights, libraries, schools, the pavement, and you have amazing coverage. You could see what people were buying, reading, eating, wearing, even what underwear they had on and the best thing is it would happen automatically - the computer would build up profiles of people based on what tags were moving around, it would be able to fill in blanks from other databases - eg get on a plane and that set of RFID takes belongs to the name on your passport. Shops would be only too happy to give their database to the government in return for a few favours.

  • Son-of-a... (Score:4, Funny)

    by dannyelfman ( 717583 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:40PM (#8411975)

    Now how am I supposed to keep track of all my wives?

  • Personal jamming / confuse the system? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dankjones ( 192476 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:43PM (#8412006) Homepage
    What would happen if you just walked around with hundreds of RFID tags all over your body?
    • In order to work correctly, those tags do some kind of handshake with the base station and demand a timeslot for communication.
      There is work on jammers that just simulate a really high number of different recievers, thus preventing any timeslot from actual use.

    • Re:Personal jamming / confuse the system? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You would have lots of RFID tags on your body, but nothing else really. People should read up about this technology before getting parnoid, currently RFID technology for consumer products is limited to a few feet at most, or:

      "What's the typical read range for RFID devices?
      The majority of RFID transponders have a read range of less than 3 feet. Some applications, limit the read range to around 6 to 8 inches. Some newer technologies (UHF systems) do have a longer read range that can be 20 to 25 feet, but the

  • Profound Implications? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:46PM (#8412029)
    RFID detectors could be used on sidewalks to monitor pedestrians and the things they are carrying. And it wouldn't necessarily be government. Anyone could buy a detector and just start compiling data.

  • Information wants to be free (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:50PM (#8412053)
    Oh right, not when it's your information, only when it's a record label's information.

  • Want to guarantee passage? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:55PM (#8412100) Homepage Journal
    Want to guarantee passage of this law? Want to guarantee similar laws get passed elsewhere?

    Subject the (senators|congresscritters|Members of Parliment|...) to the effects of life without it.

    "Well, Senator Bedfellow, let's see. You bought condoms, yet your wife is out of town. You bought wine. You bought SuuperCalais (large economy bottle). You drove your car through the Expressway to a little hotel."

  • Remember Matrix (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27, 2004 @04:57PM (#8412126)
    Can you really believe this since this is the very same state that wanted to send information about every citizen in the state to a company in Florida called Matrix. See http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,590041052,00 .html

    • Re:Remember Matrix (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dwillden ( 521345 )
      A plan that was set up by the previous govenor without informing anyone else about it. The current govenor pulled out as soon as she heard about it. Get your facts straight, before you accues the state as a whole of wanting to surrender all privacy rights.

      Also the company isn't called Matrix, that is the name of the program/database in question.

      If anything this probably prompted the passing of the bill this thread is discussing. The Matrix flack brought the issue of privacy rights to the front of eve

  • Tech solution to privacy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @05:04PM (#8412216) Homepage
    In the February issue of Circuit Cellar [circuitcellar.com], there's an article on RFID tags and how to make your own. (Alas, it's not one of the freebee articles on their web site. Go kill a tree for a good cause.) And once you understand how something works, it's always easier to shove a potato into the works!

    Starting from this, building a RFID reader detector should be easy -- know when someone is scanning for tags. After that, if some reader is looking for tags with data, why not give the poor thing some? LOUDLY. Reading the data off of some existing tags should give you an idea of what format data the reader is looking for, especially if they use any CRCs or such to stop someone from feeding the reader arbitrary data. Then feed them arbitrary data. The best part is that you really aren't transmitting with passive RFID, you're just "echoing" the reader's transmission.

    The gizmo used in the project is an Atmel e5551. Google for that and you'll find lots of things to read.

  • In the end, it doesn't matter (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pturley ( 412183 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @05:16PM (#8412326)
    RFID is a red herring. It's needed now simply because our computer technology can't understand what's going on around it without a little help. As soon as computers can understand what they're seeing through a video camera, they'll just *look* at you and your basket and gather the same information. Are we going to ban video cameras in order to protect our privacy?

    Instead of arguing about whatever particular technologies happen to be available now, let's jump forward to the final argument. Unless you're inside your house, or some other friendly enclosure, you will be observable - and how can we really complain about anyone just *noticing* what they see and recording information about it, regardless of what their purposes are? I'm not really sure where this question will eventually lead but, in the end, it's the truly relevant question.

  • Orin Hatch... (Score:3, Funny)

    by sacrilicious ( 316896 ) <qbgfynfu.opt@recursor.net> on Friday February 27, 2004 @06:14PM (#8412789) Homepage
    ... is probably turning over in his grave.

    And yes yes I know, but I wish he was.

  • The German Retailer Metro just anounced [yahoo.com] that it is dropping RFID tags

  • Think of the implications. You have 14 wives, each with an RFID tag. You can track them coming and going but do you want the government to know about them? Of course not. The mormons had to renouce polygamy as a condition of statehood, wink wink.

    I, with my one wife, have no such problems. I know where she is by listening to her periodic yelling at the kids.

Slashdot Top Deals

The opossum is a very sophisticated animal. It doesn't even get up until 5 or 6 PM.

Close