Sun Joins RFID Program

per unit analyzer writes: "C|Net is running an interesting article on Sun's recent affiliation with MIT's Auto-ID initiative. The article is a layman's intoduction to passive RF tag technology. The concept is to replace the ubiquitous UPC bar code with a 5-cent RF-tag. When hit with the right excitation signal, the tag emits its own RF signal encoded with a 96-bit number. The privacy concerns are obvious; items people buy could be tracked anywhere they happen to go. How would you like the security scanners at airports or even the local high school be able to generate a complete inventory of the consumer products carried by each person coming through the door? (OK Johnny, hand over that pr0n magazine in your backpack...) The Auto-ID ilk includes many of the major consumer product manufacturers and retailers. Incidently, the American Radio Relay League is also currently fighting an uphill battle to keep the RF-tag technology of Audo-ID Technology Board member Savi Technology out of the 70cm Amateur Radio band in the US." We have a couple of earlier stories about RFID tags.

Comments

Great opportunity for hackers

[reemul]

Sure its a total bastard of an idea from a privacy standpoint, but just think of the fun hackers can have with this once the stores go automated. Just pick off the signal for a product, and rebroadcast using a stronger signal whenever folks go through the scanner. If every single person leaving the store on a given day gets charged for 5 boxes of extra-small condoms and a snickers bar, I'd imagine they'll just go back to barcodes. Or maybe a small personal jammer, so that you can walk through with your heaping cart of geekfuel, and only get charged for a small jar of peanut butter. A cheap 5-cent tag just can't incorporate many security features, and any wireless system is an open invitation to hackers.

The folks who are really concerned about this as a privacy issue need to go visit and abuse all of the test sites they can identify. Drop the confidence level far enough, and the tech won't be adopted.

-reemul

Re:Great opportunity for hackers

[Robotech_Master]

The folks who are really concerned about this as a privacy issue need to go visit and abuse all of the test sites they can identify. Drop the confidence level far enough, and the tech won't be adopted.

Sounds good, but just be sure to abuse them in a way that they overcharge you, not that you slip out with more goods than you've paid for--because if they catch you intentionally hacking the system to take a bunch of stuff out without paying for it, you'll find yourself charged with shoplifting so fast your head will spin, and no amount of claiming "I was just proving a point" will get them to see it otherwise. (q.v. the fellow who worked for Intel and was arrested for running a password cracker on an Intel machine to demonstrate how lax their security was.)

VERY dangerous, but don't forget the benefits

[brunes69]

Ever see that IBM commercial where the guy grabs all this stuff, hides it under the jacket, and starts to walk out of the store? The security gruard grabs him, and you're supposed to think he's going to arrest him, but he really just says something stupid. Then the guy keeps walking, and these scanners pick up all the stuff he bought, and he just pays for the stuff. He's out of the store in like 15 seconds, none of this waiting in line for 15 mins.

Now, I know I may be speaking to the wrong crowd here (who in slashdot actually COOKS stuff???) but I HATE grocery store lineups (Can I have a pricecheck on canned tomatores????) and the delays they cause.

If these tags were somehow keyed to a specific store (with something like a public encryption key?), so that once you exited the premises they became disabled and/or useless, I can see no real privicy concerns. After all, they are just tags or stickers, if you're really paranoid just trash em when you get home. But the benefits to shopping would be immense. Not only would it speed up checkouts, it would be a very effective shoplifting deterrant (alot like existing systems that have a magnetic tag, but these ones you cant "sneak" around the scanners, cause they run on RF.)

Opt-out shopping bags and backpacks

[lildogie]

This would create a market for 5-cent bags that screen out the tagged signals from the 5-cent tags.

Spy vs. spy ==> tag vs. bag

RF Tags already used

[Klatma]

I am an engineer with a systems integrator, and I can say I have used these sorts of things many times. Many manufacturing plants use an rf tag that transmits a signal when excited with a certain frequency. They also have the ability to write to the tags as well. These tags generally have to be real close to the transmitter/receiver in order to work, and they don't work quite right if more than one tag is in range. Since all the transponders will most likely resond on the same frequency, there is going to have to be some tricky decoding going on to capture all the transponders within range.

As for privacy, I don't see the problem. Like has been pointed out before, you just remove the transponder when you get home. Heck they could even have a transpoder return program similar to the can/bottle return in some states. Then the transponders can be reused and cut costs even more.

Computer users need an ARRL

[crucini]

Never mind the RF tags. What I find interesting is:

1. The ARRL saw a threat to the RF commons (a "band threat" as they term it).
   
2. ARRL complained to the relevant authority (the FCC) using the words, procedures and scientific context with which the FCC is comfortable. They provided an argument which FCC officials might feel comfortable adopting as an official position.
   

Now contrast this with how the same drama would play itself out in computer-land:

1. We would learn of the threat after the ruling had been passed, or maybe two days before a deadline for comments.
   
2. We would not understand the context or language of the legislators/regulators. Our arguments would be framed in terms of abstract ideas of liberty or justice, based on quotes from the founding fathers. This is painfully illustrated by the quantity of irrelevant comments received in response to the proposed Microsoft settlement (although we are not told what proportion of the irrelevant comments are pro- or anti-settlement).
   
3. Having no credible, agreed-upon spokesman, we would simply barrage legislators with angry, incoherent, badly spelled emails.
   
4. We would probably send our email to the wrong address, for example a legislator who has no direct bearing on this particular process.
   
5. Inevitably, we would be defeated and retreat into sullen mumbling about the "corruption" of the government.
   

Anyhow, I respect the ARRL for understanding the rules of engagement and for not waiting until the enemy brings the fight to them. Whether they win or lose this specific battle is not as important - the important thing is that they have preserved the right of ordinary citizens to operate radios. Looks like that right may outlast the right of ordinary citizens to operate computers.

What would it take for the computer world to grow an ARRL?