Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States

RFID Labels On Prescription Drug Bottles 222

sonik1 writes "The New York Times is reporting that the Food and Drug Administration and several major drug makers are expected to announce an agreement Monday to put tiny radio antennas on the labels of millions of medicine bottles to combat counterfeiting and fraud. RFID labels provide a unique identifier that is almost impossible to copy. When pharmacists receive delivery, they should be able to pass a wand over the bottles and, through an online database, check the history of each. Each label costs 20 to 50 cents."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RFID Labels On Prescription Drug Bottles

Comments Filter:
  • In the Money (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stecoop ( 759508 ) * on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:05AM (#10819385) Journal
    1) charge 20 to 50 per RFID label
    2) Opt out
    3) ???
    4) Profit!!!

    So I can save 20 to 50 cents on my perscription by choosing not to purchase the RFID label? 5 or 6 perscription you woule have saved enough get a cheap bottle of wine.
    • Re:In the Money (Score:5, Informative)

      by will_die ( 586523 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:18AM (#10819473) Homepage
      For the time being it is only going on the large bottles that percriptions are filled from. You will probably not see any increase unless you are purchasing a multiple year usage of viagra.
    • Re:In the Money (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Nurseman ( 161297 )
      So I can save 20 to 50 cents on my perscription by choosing not to purchase the RFID label? 5 or 6 perscription you woule have saved enough get a cheap bottle of wine.

      The 20 -50 cents will still be passed on to you, but the labels will be on the bulk bottles the pharmacy recieves. This will still not prevent the pharmacist from "diluting" the drug, which often happens with very expensive drugs, like chemotherapy agents, and HIV drugs. But it is a good start.

      • Re:In the Money (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BreadMan ( 178060 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @10:23AM (#10820030)
        The expensive part when shipping scheduled drugs is having a pharmacist on hand to monitor the delivery. Before shipping scheduled drugs, a pharmacist must seal and sign off the shipment container and only a pharmacist can break the seal at delivery and count the drugs before they're locked away in inventory. Pharmacist labor is very expenisve ($50 - $70/hour) so being able to account for the contents of a sealed box would result in big cost savings.

        >> This will still not prevent the pharmacist from "diluting" the drug
        Tampering with a drug in this way would result the removal of your pharmacy license in a NY second. For injectable drugs, the pharmacy keeps very careful logs to prove how much medicine goes into each IV bag: who calculated the dose and how, who checked the calculations, who filled the order, who checked the order before filling (different than the person who does the filling) and who checked the bag before it went out. The system exists to minimize the possibility for error, an incorrect chemo dose could kill somebody. Besides, you couldn't get insurance for your pharmacy unless you kept these records.
    • 3) Get mugged by Rush Limbaugh on the way out of the drugstore?

      First thing that comes to mind when I read this is now people will be able to tell who coming out of the drug store has the "good" drugs and who has the crap like antibiotics and "women's ointments".

    • 5 or 6 perscription you woule have saved enough get a cheap bottle of wine.


      Don't most medications recommend you NOT consume alcohol while on them?

      Except Viagra, which I think, its a GOOD IDEA to drink a bit before getting a little randy.
  • by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:07AM (#10819397)
    Initially, the expense of the system will be considerable. Each label costs 20 to 50 cents. The readers and scanners cost thousands of dollars. But because the medicines tend to be very expensive and the need to ensure their authenticity is great, officials said, the expense is justified.

    As if my three prescription drugs don't cost enough already (and my co-pays continue to increase) I am going to have to subsidize a possible invasion of my privacy as well? Are they going to insure that before I leave that pharmacy counter that the tag's information will be wiped?

    I certainly don't want to be heading towards the door with Oxy and have some hi-tech thief scan me and follow me home to rob me of the drugs I just purchased... Perhaps even someone could scan important/famous people and either blackmail them for their drug purchases (HIV/STDs) or just blatantly report it to the Fish Wrappers for cash.

    Costs are still far too high for individual consumer goods, like the amber bottles that pharmacies use to dispense pills to individuals. But prices are expected to plunge once radio labels become popular, so drug makers represent an important set of early adopters.

    Once it does become viable for individual consumer bottles there will be yet another excuse why the prices need to continue to go up. Everything needs to cost more especially in the pharmaceutical industry. I swear everyone is in on it. I am told I need three low dose drugs when I have a feeling that a higher dose of another would handle it just fine. I am told that I am being prescribed these particular drugs because my coverage is good enough to afford it... It all leads to more money for everyone.

    This still doesn't stop someone from switching the drugs once they arrive at the pharmacy.

    Counterfeit drugs are still comparatively rare in the United States, but federal officials say the problem is growing. Throughout the 1990's, the F.D.A. pursued about five cases of counterfeit drugs every year. In each of the last several years, the number of cases has averaged about 20, but law-enforcement officials say that figure does not reflect the extent of the problem.

    Then WTF are we doing this? 20 cases of counterfeit drugs yet we have to spend thousands and thousands and pass that on to the consumer. Ugh. Yeah, they are going to say that we need to protect against a possible outbreak of this. Personally, I don't see how a label can help when the medicine inside is what is important. Anyone can swap out the real meds inside for their counterfeit ones.
    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:12AM (#10819434)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • how about- he just copies the RFID of the original case, and dupes it for 3 different shops.
      • by mr. methane ( 593577 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @10:50AM (#10820275) Journal
        I think it's actually the opposite - the commercial-size shipments of medications don't tend to have tamper-resistant caps and other features. What this allows is quick checking of shipments, so they know immediately that there's 600 units of some medication in the crate, and the computer can start auto-dialing people who are waiting to have prescriptions filled.

        Considering that it might save a pharmacist even a few minutes per day, it more than pays for itself immediately.

        As usual, it also should cause a nice bump in the sale of tin-foil hats for the black helicopter crowd.

        • Considering that it might save a pharmacist even a few minutes per day, it more than pays for itself immediately.

          Don't think for a minute that these savings will be passed through to the customer. It will still be used to justify a price increase.
        • I think it's actually the opposite - the commercial-size shipments of medications don't tend to have tamper-resistant caps and other features.

          For over-the-counter drugs tamper-proof packaging is required by 21CFR211.132.

          I couldn't see any regs regarding non-OTC packages, but I think that most big companies provide fairly strong tamper-evident packaging for drugs when they are in transit. They may not need tamper-evident seals on individual packages, but they usually use shrink-wrap on shipping containe
      • This presumes that the thief would have access to the database of reference. The tag only contains a Unique ID, therefore, without the reference, the ID is useless. You or the famous person are at the type of risk you describe already if an untrustworthy person has access to your medical records or pharmacy records.

        Hmm, I go from trusting my pharmacist (and people with access to his database) not to leak info about my drugs, to trusting any person with access to this database (which will necessarily incl

    • by will_die ( 586523 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:16AM (#10819458) Homepage
      Try reading the article.
      For the time being they are only doing this on the large bottles that pharamacies get and then split up to form the indiv amounts.
      Besides thier are easier ways to find you have drugs then scanning you as you leave a drug store. if you are really so scared take your aluminum hat off and wrap the drugs in it.
    • by twitter ( 104583 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:16AM (#10819459) Homepage Journal
      Then WTF are we doing this? 20 cases of counterfeit drugs yet we have to spend thousands and thousands and pass that on to the consumer.

      So that drug companies can keep people from importing drugs from Canada? Same drug, same label, different cost due to state controls. I'm sure the drug companies would consider their own pill a counterfeit under those circumstances. Drug companies could even demand special cash registers to deny sales, and I'm sure that's part of the thousands of dollars worth of cost and the "online" database. Welcome to entertainment style DRM for medicine.

      I think I'm going to be sick.

      • by poot_rootbeer ( 188613 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:13AM (#10820569)
        I think I'm going to be sick.

        Considering your paranoia concerning the pharmaceutical industry, I would recommend against you getting sick...
    • by Ender_Stonebender ( 60900 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:16AM (#10819462) Homepage Journal
      You need more coffee, man - your brain hasn't started to function yet.

      Even from the summary, it was obvious that these RFID tags are NOT going to be on the bottles you're carrying home. They're going to be on the bottles of prescription drugs that the pharmacies receive and will be used to authenticate that the drugs were not replaced during shipment. You'll still get the same amber bottle you've always gotten to carry your drugs home in.

      Your last couple of points, however, are totally valid. Unless opening the bottles destroys the RFID tag, there's no way to tell that the drugs inside the bottles haven't been replaced. And 20 cases per year? Given the huge number of prescriptions filled in the US per year, 20 cases of counterfeit drugs is so miniscule that the problem is essentially non-existent.

      --Ender
    • by Phronesis ( 175966 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:57AM (#10819802)
      20 cases of counterfeit drugs yet we have to spend thousands and thousands and pass that on to the consumer.

      According to a story [washingtonpost.com] in the Washington Post, the scale of the problem is much larger than "20 cases" might sound like. Each of these cases may involve tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of doses of counterfeit drugs, many of which are resold back to the major pharma companies, so your local drug store can't tell that they came from a shady middleman rather than directly from Merck's factories.

      Phony medicines have surfaced in pharmacies from Florida to Hawaii, including tens of thousands of doses discovered in warehouses of the Big Three wholesalers.

      Last summer, nearly 200,000 tablets of Lipitor, the world's best-selling cholesterol-lowering medication, was found to be counterfeit and recalled by a small Missouri wholesaler. Some of the pills had already reached Rite Aid and CVS pharmacies.

      Part of the problem is that
      It can be harder to become licensed as a beautician than as a pharmaceutical distributor. With a $700 permit fee and a $200 bond, a pair of Florida manicurists got a license to sell intravenous drugs. An auto body shop owner in Miami got a license to sell drugs in Maryland. Nevada awarded a license to a 23-year-old former restaurant hostess to operate an Internet pharmacy that specialized in narcotics.
      Even worse,
      Florida gave licenses to at least a half-dozen felons, records show. Two states -- Georgia and Tennessee -- gave a wholesaler license to James R. Suozzo of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., a convicted cocaine user with a long history of heroin abuse, investigative records show. Suozzo's background surfaced when he was arrested in February on suspicion of attempting to sell adulterated Procrit, Epogen and Neupogen to another small wholesaler.
      • many of which are resold back to the major pharma companies

        So...they'll end up with "pure as the driven snow" RFID tags when they're repackaged by the pharma cos for distribution to retailers.

        Part of the problem...

        This looks like a regulatory issue, and has very little to do with the enduser. It looks a lot like proper oversight and policing of pharmaceutical distribution licenses is more likely to catch the bad guys than RFID tags and scans.

      • Phony medicines have surfaced in pharmacies from Florida to Hawaii, including tens of thousands of doses discovered in warehouses of the Big Three wholesalers.

        Last summer, nearly 200,000 tablets of Lipitor, the world's best-selling cholesterol-lowering medication, was found to be counterfeit and recalled by a small Missouri wholesaler. Some of the pills had already reached Rite Aid and CVS pharmacies.

        It can be harder to become licensed as a beautician than as a pharmaceutical distributor. With a $700 per
        • I agree that the more important thing is to clean up the licensing procedures for pharmaceutical distributors, but since we're not about to do that (it would involve big government---hiring more inspectors, creating a bureaucracy to do background checks, etc.) it's not likely we'll see any improvement soon (as the WaPo article I cited above says, there are more inspectors for amusement parks than for pharmaceutical distributors). Given that our government likes buying gadgets better than hiring people, RFI
          • As to truck hijacking, why would a company implement a policy that would make it more likely to be robbed?

            Why would a state's department of transportation spend $10 mil on installing safety lights on a frequently fog covered mountain when the lights cause more deaths than not having them?

            Answer, hindsight is 20/20. In my lights example, people thought that having these bright lights on the side of the road would make it safer in the fog because they could see the road right? Well, yes it makes it easie
            • Fair enough. You give a good example. Another such would be antilock brakes. About 15 years ago, taxicabs in Munich were equipped with antilock brakes and the accident rate went up. Several studies have showed that similarly, people drive faster and follow more closely when equipped with antilock brakes and have more crashes. (See G. Wilde, "Target Risk [queensu.ca]")

              If you've got a reference for the mountain fog lights, I'd love to learn more about them.

    • As if my three prescription drugs don't cost enough already (and my co-pays continue to increase) I am going to have to subsidize a possible invasion of my privacy as well?

      First of all, 50 cents isn't going to break anybody. Secondly, if this system makes it easier to verify the authenticity of the drugs, that probably means that there's a cost-savings somewhere else in the system to offset the expense.
      • One 50 cent cost isn't going to break anybody, but is this the only 50 cent cost? How many government regulations are you willing to justify on the basis that it's "only 50 cents"?

        One hundred government regulations could cost me $50/month. One thousand - $500/month. How can I even begin to estimate how much of my monthly budget is being eaten by government regulations? Sure, I can look at my income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes, but it's much harder to estimate what percentage of the purchase pric
  • Impossible to copy? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Devar ( 312672 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:07AM (#10819399) Homepage Journal
    RFID labels provide a unique identifier that is almost impossible to copy.

    Really? [slashdot.org]
  • by Chess_the_cat ( 653159 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:07AM (#10819400) Homepage
    Why does it seem that RFID stories are automatically posted under My Rights Online?
  • special labels... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by emptybody ( 12341 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:08AM (#10819410) Homepage Journal
    because noone would ever tamper with the contents...
    • because noone would ever tamper with the contents...

      The only thing that makes sense is that drug companies are looking for a way to restrict sales of re imported drugs. It's not going to stop tampering and we can be sure that counterfeiters will be able to fake the RFIDs no matter what the drug companies do. If you can make one, someone can make one just like it. The only thing I can think of that works is computer enforced regional cost discrimination.

      What this system will do is burn a pharmacy that's

  • Humm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ambient_Developer ( 825456 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:09AM (#10819417) Journal
    So now they can tell which stuff came from canada, ingenious!
  • Well I'm not keen on RFIDs being anywhere, but I suppose there's no point complaining about them being on prescription containers, they already got my name and address on the things so I guess adding an RFID isn't going to make my prescriptions any less private.
    • they already got my name and address on the things

      Yeah, but you can keep that private by doing something radical like putting the bottle in your pocket where curious eyes can't see the label. With an RFID, it can be read at some distance even when squirreled away in a bag or pocket.

      I really do think this could be a big deal. There has been an increasing trend in pharmacy to just dispense full, prepackaged bottles of pills (why it still takes 30 minutes to fill is a mystery since all they do is stick a

      • It's not like they'll know that tag # 6165846185385498431837272978435 is a viagra prescription, unless it's a store that's connected to the database (ie you bought it from a walgreens, any walgreens will probably be able to look it up), in which case they know you bought it anyways because it went into the computer when you purchased it.
  • by THESuperShawn ( 764971 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:17AM (#10819469)
    NOT the little brown bottles you bring home.

    This will save you MORE than money.This will potentially save you (or your family members) lives as it prevents fake drugs- or at least makes them a lot harder to produce.

    The number of fake pills out there is staggering. This is actually a 'good' implementation of RFID.

    The only thing this has to do with the little brown bottle you bring home is that it may vist a few cents more (the tag costs like 20 cents, the tagged bottle may fill 10-50 prescriptions). The benefit is that you can be pretty darn sure tha medicine you get is legit.

    I think it's worth it.
    • by calibanDNS ( 32250 ) <[moc.liamtoh] [ta] [notats_darb]> on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:36AM (#10819614)
      What bothers me about this argument is that if I'm taking prescription drugs, I now have to eat the increased cost of making sure that I'm given legitimate drugs. Sorry, but I feel that the drug distributing industry should have to be responsible for this particular service on its own. Loopholes in their system have allowed counterfeit drugs to slip in, and they should be the ones paying to fix it, not consumers who are alredy bogged down with the (sometimes exteremly high) cost of prescription drugs. Also, we're not just seeing the price of the RFID tag passed on to consumers, but also the cost of the equipment to check those tags at delivery sites.

      I think it's worth it if the drug industry is paying for their own screw ups. In reality, the customers who are already the victims of counterfeit drugs are going to have to pay for this.
      • You make a very valid point. But, think of it this way.

        The cost is about 20 cents (or 250 canadian dollars...just teasing) per bottle. That same bottle will fill several prescriptions. The costs to you will be anywhere from less than one cent to 20 cents max.

        PLUS, your co-pay, if you are insured, is not going to change. Technically, you will not really pay anything.

        Now, I know a valid argument can be made to say that any cost will make premiums go up, etc, BUT, think of this. RFID will cost much less to
        • by calibanDNS ( 32250 ) <[moc.liamtoh] [ta] [notats_darb]> on Monday November 15, 2004 @10:02AM (#10819844)
          Ok, here's another look at it. I'm not saying that you're wrong, and I hope that you aren't, but I just don't trust large corporations to not screw us over.

          Let's say it's $0.20/large bottle to tag and each large bottle on average fills 20 perscriptions. That SHOULD only raise the price about $0.01/perscription. Which is barely noticable.

          Now add in the cost of the RFID reader. I don't know how expensive these things are, but I'm sure they're more than a couple of dollars. Now install at least one reader in each pharmacy. Now train each pharmacy tech to use the equipment. See how fast the costs can increase? Companies will most likely want to make up for these costs ASAP, so they'll increase prices immediately instead of trying to spread the costs over a year with only slightly higher prices. Once the insurance companies are paying these prices, the pharmacies have no incentive to lower the prices (citing continued maintenence and training costs). This, of course, causes insurance premiums to go up and we won't even talk about what happens to the uninsured.
      • What bothers me about this argument is that if I'm taking prescription drugs, I now have to eat the increased cost of making sure that I'm given legitimate drugs. Sorry, but I feel that the drug distributing industry should have to be responsible for this particular service on its own.

        Hi! Quick hint: drug companies get their money from people who buy medicine. No matter how you look at this, you will be paying for it. And if they'd had before a better system that prevented this fakery? You would have pai
        • I'm still trying to figure out the overall economic impact. Theoretically the RFID tags should make tracking drugs easier, more efficient, and more accurate. All things that should save money. What I don't know is if the savings is equal to, less than, or greater than the cost. I do know that Wal Mart doesn't want the tags so they can spy on people. Wal Mart wants them because they will save it some money.

          One other thing-the cost of one lawsuit for incorrectly dispensed medication could by a lot of RFID ta
      • What bothers me about this argument is that if I'm taking prescription drugs, I now have to eat the increased cost of making sure that I'm given legitimate drugs.

        Those costs have always been there. You bear the cost for R&D. You bear the cost for manufacturing. You bear the cost for shipping. You bear the cost for content verification. You bear the cost for retail markup. You are the consumer. All the costs fall to your shoulders. If you can't handle that, then I think Ted Kaczynski has a shed
      • yes you are paying for them solving one of their problems.... but as the customer you pay for everything. you pay for far more than 30 days worth of pills.... you pay for everything from the headquarters having nice floral arangements to their letterhead.

        i have never stolen anything from a Home Depot, yet part of the price i pay for tools and hardware goes for security tags and readers and guards. the system would not work if only the thieves had to pay up for the cost of security.
  • Your Rights Online unless you're an online drug dealer or something...
  • by scattol ( 577179 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:19AM (#10819479)
    RFID tags on the boxes means that it will now be easy for customs to deny entry of cheaper canadian pharmacuticals into the US since their history can't be guaranteed authentic. Remember that the Bush battlecry has been safety and with this you will be able to track drugs Canadian hands which are unsafe by definition since they aren't subjet to US laws.

    Looks like the plan is unfolding as it should

    Or is it just tin foil hat time?
  • RFID's easy to copy (Score:3, Informative)

    by Effugas ( 2378 ) * on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:19AM (#10819480) Homepage
    Why would they be hard to copy?

    They're a 10 digit number emitted over RF at 13.57mhz. RFID ain't magic, it's just barcode over AM radio.

    Even the physical security guys are starting to realize that perhaps moving all access control to this tech was a profoundly questionable move. Something like a deadpool is forming for the first time someone walks by a TSA agent and electronically pickpockets access to the entire airport. Convenience, eh?
    • by will_die ( 586523 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:29AM (#10819557) Homepage
      It would not really matter if they were copied, since the system is used mainly as a tracker.
      So if one is copied then as it was scanned in it would show up that it was also purchased by some other end parmacies and that would be a great clue that it was bad.
      The problem would be if they generate a number that corresponds to a bottle that was in transit. It would take until the other bottle is delivered to find you have a possible forgery.
  • by lavaforge ( 245529 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:21AM (#10819493)


    Or at least it is in this case.

    I recently co-oped at a large pharmaceutical company and it honestly looks like RFID is a good idea here.

    Counterfeit drugs are a serious problem. There are several large counterfeiting operations working out of areas like China that produce product that is so authentic looking that most people (even doctors) can't tell the difference. The only problem is that nobody has any idea as to whether the dosages are correct or if the product was manufactured under sterile conditions. There have already been a few deaths.

    I've read quite a few people complaining about how RFID is going to jack up the cost of prescriptions, but I would willingly pay %0.50-$1.00 to guarantee that I'm actually taking what I think I'm taking.

    It's your life, though. Feel free to gamble with it if you must.

    • I would willingly pay %0.50-$1.00 to guarantee that I'm actually taking what I think I'm taking.

      So would I, but tell me how you think this is going to guarantee that the drug is actually what you think you're taking? The article mentioned nothing about how it would be used, just that if the same ID showed up in the system twice or at the wrong pharmacy, then it would know something suspicious happened. Nothing about making sure the drug inside is correct, or anything like that.

      Sounds more like theft de
      • The regular pillbottle in the picture is a bottle that will never end up in an end consumer's hands. It just has a small quantity of pills in it. Most pharmas only sell REALLY big bottles for things like Tylenol hospital shipments.
    • Made me think of a news story a while back about counterfeiting in general. The counterfeits are getting good enough that sometimes even the original company can't tell an original from the forgery. One example used was high end golf clubs. For some the only way to tell a difference is to actually cut across the head of the clup to inspect the interior. Kinda kills the club in the process. Now if they had an RFID tag in them... ...you could tell if they were fake.

      and ...you're wife could keep track of how
      • This is a big deal in pharma as well. If somebody sues you for getting sick from a pill, you really want to be able to find out whether it was made by you in the first place.

        I think that chemical tracers are often used for this (trace amounts of certain elements in certain ratios, or isotopes, or little (smaller than bacteria) pieces of multi-colored plastic, or whatever).
  • Actually. (Score:3, Informative)

    by NotJeff ( 181459 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:23AM (#10819515) Homepage
    As if my three prescription drugs don't cost enough already (and my co-pays continue to increase) I am going to have to subsidize a possible invasion of my privacy as well? Are they going to insure that before I leave that pharmacy counter that the tag's information will be wiped?

    The article says the tags are for the big bottles the pharmacy receives, not the amber bottles for the consumers. This doesn't seem to be a consumer rights issue at all, mostly.

  • Woohoo new spam will reach our mailboxes: "Get the ONLY real RFIDed Viagra bottle!"
  • I guess... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by katzman_NJ ( 162382 )
    this will also help the current administration with the drugs from Canada issue. Now they can say: "The ones from Canada got no antennas so we can't allow them in!"
  • by Mr. Cancelled ( 572486 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:34AM (#10819598)
    Some readers appear to be missing the fact that this only applies to the large jugs of pills that the pharmacists receive. Your individual pill bottle will not have this antenna.

    For now at least... I'd imagine that if this is succesful, that consumer bottles will be next on the list, where they'll likely meet the same kind of debate that RFID tags are now dealing with.
  • by compro01 ( 777531 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:41AM (#10819649)
    RFID tags have a VERY limited range. a few feet at most. to scan someone, you would have to be nearly touching them. you couldn't wardrive for narcotics, like one poster mentioned.

    the tags are only on the large bottles that pharmicies get. the kind that has about 1000 or so pills in it. that is about 33 perscripions. so $0.50/33= $0.0001.
  • this is a good write up done by Christopher Barry hope you enjoy reading it

    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UQX/is _11_65/ai_81221653

  • About locks & thieves?

    "Making more complex locks just makes for more highly skilled thieves, not less thieves."

    Basically this is alluding to the fact that good security is not just about making better safes & locks, (because there will always be a thief who will open/crack them), but deciding how to keep the larger portion of the population from profiting off of your "valuable" items.
  • Radio labels fight counterfeiting by providing a unique identifier that is almost impossible to copy.

    If you believe that, I have some Ocean Front property in Arizona for sale - Are You Interested?

    I can't disclose the precise location because it would be in violation of the DMCA.

  • RFID evil? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Sai Babu ( 827212 )
    RTFA.
    RFID proposed for tracking from manufacturer to retailer. You're jug of 5000 Viagra (buy the 10's the 5's are 80% the price and a pill cutteris cheap) will only go up by $.50/$5000.
    IMO this particular application is a solution in search of a problem. Drugs are already tracked. Every time a shipment changed hands, someone has to sign for it. Ahh, but the RFID solution is so much easier than taking note of the $8.78/hour warehouse worker wearing $50k in bling and driving a new H2.

    What you should rea
  • I have no problem paying 20 to 50 cents extra for RFID technology for prescriptions (in principle). As long as it fsucking stays at 20 to 50 cents.

    But I can see that little gem of a price rapidly inflating over time for "new advances."

    Also, I have to wonder just how much good it will really be at things like combating the rare but extremely dangerous incidents of pharmeceutical human error. Human error is almost always the weakest link in any chain of security/precation.

    And what is to stop counterfeit F
  • by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @10:15AM (#10819946)
    . . . the REAL reason this technology came about is because no one was ever able to figure out how to get a pill bottle through a printer or typewriter . . .
  • RFID should go in the pill, so they can track this shit from end to end. The pillbottle should have an RFID reader. And cops should be able to set up a few parallax antennae every block or so, and get a live virtual simulation of everyone out there, clickable from medical history to other consumer history, as well as criminal record and secret "Homeland Security" outer joins. Then the RFID silicon should include MEMS that modulate the pill's output in the humans, so cops can inject any chemicals they want i
  • #include "CURRENT_POLITICAL_CLIMATE_DEFINITIONS.h"
    #includ e "iostream.h"
    bool JudgesRuling(double);
    bool CongressApproves();
    bool CoperationsArgueBetter();
    double MoneysInvolved(double);
    void Appeal();
    void GoAheadAnyWay();
    bool The_System_Works();

    int main(int argc,char* argv[]){
    bool RFID_tags_become_popular = CONSUMER_APATHY_INDICATOR;
    long number_of_consumers = NUMBER_OF_SUCKERS;
    long number_of_RFID_readers = CORPERATION_RUTHLESSNESS_INDICATOR;

    double massive_amount_of_personal_data_in_private_hands =
    RFID_tags_become_popular * number_of_consumers * number_of_RFID_readers * AVG_READS_PER_DAY * AVG_READ_COOKIE_SIZE;

    bool RFID_scanning_is_illegal_search =JudgesRuling(massive_amount_of_data_in_private_ha nds);

    if(RFID_scanning_is_illegal_search){ if(MoneysInvolved(massive_amount_of_data_in_privat e_hands) > A_LOT_OF_$$$) Appeal();
    else
    printf("You have no Privacy, get over it\n"); endl;
    return A_LOT_OF_$$$;
    }

    return OUTSCOURCED_RFID_PROFITS;
    }

    bool JudgesRuling(double possible_infraction){

    if(CongressApproves()) return false;
    else if(MoneysInvolved(possible_infraction) > A_LOT_OF_$$$) return false;
    else if(CorperationsArgueBetter()) return false;
    else return true; //should never get here
    }

    bool CongressApproves(){
    if(CorperationsArgueBetter())
    return true;
    else
    return false;
    }

    bool CorperationsArgueBetter(){

    if(A_LOT_OF_$$$ > PROTESTERS_FUNDS)//always true
    return true;
    else
    return false;
    }

    double MoneysInvolved(double data_recieved){
    return data_recieved * NUMBER_OF_SUCKERS * DOLLARS_PER_SUCKER;
    }

    void Appeal(){
    if(The_System_Works())
    return;
    else
    GoAheadAnyWay();
    }

    void GoAheadAnyWay(){
    printf("We will find other methods to make life better for consumers\n");
    exit(-1);
    }

    bool The_System_Works(){
    if(A_LOT_OF_$$$ > 0)
    return false;
    else
    return true;
    }
  • Look, all this RFID chat is great... Wal-Mart using it on pallets of product, Drug companies tagging shipments with it, even Tesco and their RFID/picture setup. I'm pretty damn sure we can expect to see UPS/FedEx take it on soon as well.... I mean, how simple would THAT be, having a series of tags made up to chirp tracking numbers. Then you can chirp a whole crate as it is being loaded on an airplane and get the individual package responses.

    My complaint is: WHAT ABOUT THE GODDAMN AIRLINES?!?! I've been com
  • This has been alluded to by a couple of other posters, but what about the situations where the end user *does* get the bulk bottle? I get three-month supplies of prescription drugs via mail for some stuff, and I assure you that the mail-order prescription house is not bothering to remove the drugs from the manufacturer's bulk packaging except where necessary (in my case, one drug in particular comes in bottles of 100 from the manufacturer and my prescription is not for an even number of hundreds, so I'll g

    • If you really care about your privacy, then get your private stuff delived to a PO box. But if they were to ship the manufacturer bottle without removing an RFID tag, they would be in violation of HIPAA. Since they want to continue to sell stuff, I think they would change bottles. Well, unless the RFID data was encrypted, in which case it would take someone sniffing your RFID and breaking the encryption to see what is sitting in your rural-route mailbox.
  • by dbitter1 ( 411864 ) <slashdot@@@carnivores-r...us> on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:17AM (#10820630)
    The company I work for also does some RFID contracts. All paranoia aside, another use we saw (and $diety I wish we thought of it first) was to place RFID tags on pills that had the encoded consumption instructions on them. Then, sell certain consumers readers that allowed them to hold the bottle next to the reader, and it would synthesize the dosage, timing, etc. into something they could understand.

    Not all people (think the visually impared, illiterate, non-english speaking, etc) can read the bottles, and some computer assistance can certainly help with the medication...

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Working...