Slashdot Mirror
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.
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
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
The issue of the cost of the tags is looked at heavily in the article, but that's a long run consideration. In order for the cost of the tags to really be applicable the stores have to have the readers installed in the checkouts. Readers which are likely to be horribly expensive - and management drones are notoriously tight when it comes to spending money on "new" (to them) technology.
Warning: you suc
And same in reverse. What if it's a laundry day and you have to go commando? Do you really want people to know?
RF ID tags are not a big problem for those who don't want to participate. It's like Internet browser cookies. You can let anyone put cookies on your hard drive. But, you didn't sign a contract with web site owners to give back the same cookies that they recorded. You could have software that gave back, not the correct cookies, but something subtly different.
Similarly, you can allow them to irradiate your possessions with radio frequency signals. But you don't have to give back the signals they expect. If they ping your possessions, your own electronics can respond that you are carrying three large elephants from the zoo. If anyone questions you about this, you can confess that you have never stolen anything before, but that you carried the elephants away in an unusual moment of weakness.
--
Links to respected news sources show that U.S. government policy contributed to terrorism: What should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
If this goes on credit cards and drivers licenses then I can scan you and get everything but your signature and (perhaps) the expiration dates. I can check that you're not carrying cards or IDs in more than one name (useful for airport security). I can scan you as you walk in the door of my rug store and check whether your cards are gold or platinum, and have my systems check whether a purchase of a certain amount can be covered. This means in many situations it won't matter if you dress up or dress down, because there will be a more accurate metric of your worth available - presuming you aren't carrying someone else's stolen wallet. Clothing would be an obvious use for this since many stores already have bar code plus security tag on each item - this would replace both. Serve 'em right if the introduction of the technology drives down sales by subtracting from the semiotic value of rags as wealth indicators.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
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.)
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
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.
Your idea has already been legislated. In many U.S. states, it's illegal to carry a device known as a "passive radiator," which is a non-powered electronic device that can modify a radar signal and re-generate it (but not amplify it) with slightly different characteristics, which would indicated a speed on a cop's radar gun different from what you are actually traveling.
Give it time: Legislation will no doubt be passed which will prohibit you from carrying on your person RFIDs with the intent of bypassing or otherwise interfering with RFID detection systems.
Because these loopy RFID tags are on different frequencies- you're going to have to hit a lot of different frequencies. Spark-gap oscillators will effectively jam anything up into the microwave domain. The catch is that it jams everything and you'll eventually draw attention to yourself.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
At 5 cents a chip, they're mass-producing them for that cheap.
They're usually capable of withstanding some 200-500 or so watts of RF power before blowing out the chip's circuitry. The only way to really discombobulate these things is to detatch the chip from the antenna or remove the whole affair from the thing you're wanting it to no longer be tagged.
As for detecting them, unless you're knowing how they make the chip's transponder work, you're going to have a FUN time catching all of them.
There's very few tags out there that are like bugs that can be immediately detected with common stuff.
There's inductive loop tags (a' la Mobil Speedpass)- they will only respond when powered by a magic frequency and when triggered by the right modulation/data sequence.
There's the dual frequency units, where you send one signal and then the chip responds at a different frequency. These will usually only work in the same manner as the Speedpass type of tag.
Then there's the backscatter type of tags, commonly used by the toll tag systems. They act as a special mirror to the RF signal, re-radiating what they're recieving with a modulation carrier on it. If you don't have the right frequency, they don't work at all- and some of the more sophisticated tags (like the ones we're talking about here...) do handshaking with the RFID base system before re-radiating.
There's several other schemes out there, to be sure- I'm just naming the few I've had to work with in the past. (I worked for a division of Intermec (now owned by TransCore) that did RFID systems for parking, ground transportation management, railcar identification, and these little things they called "gamma" tags that they licensed the technology from IBM that are used for this very thing we're discussing- so I know a little something about it...).
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I work for a systems integrator and I have evaluated and used RFID in a couple of systems. There are only a handful of scenarios where using the RFIDs makes sense right now.
One scenario where RFIDs do make sense is in large warehouses and storage systems. With barcodes, the fork truck operator must be fairly accurate in his aim to get a proper ID back. With the RFIDs, he has a lot more room for error. A single RFID can identify what is in a skid of product, so the cost is relatively small.
A situation where RFIDs don't work well is in the consumer market. Currently, beverage makers are able to print the barcode directly onto the container (case, can, bottle). With RFIDs, the manufacturing must add an extra step in order to apply the ID. The additional cost of the ID, plus the cost of modifying the packaging system is far too great right now to justify using RFIDs. Add to this the fact that most supermarkets will need to install new equipment at the checkout for identifying the products. It is a change that is not worth making when the current barcode system works very well.
For those concerned about someone scanning all of your products in a single sweep, don't be (at least not with today's version of RFID). You have to be within a couple of feet of the ID to get it to respond. Also, several brands of the RFIDs are reprogrammable, so you could simply reset all of the IDs when you got home. Most likely, the ID is applied to the packaging, and not the product itself, so you could just throw out the box as well. I have found in my testing that if more than one ID is within the activation range of the reader, the reader will not get the right value. So you can rest your fears (at least until a better RFID tag is created).
Now contrast this with how the same drama would play itself out in computer-land:
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?