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.

9 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Great opportunity for hackers by reemul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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*
    1. Re:Great opportunity for hackers by Robotech_Master · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.)
      --
      Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
  2. Imagine this... by Timid_Monkey · · Score: 4, Funny
    Just think if these tags are somehow included in everything including clothing. Now, let's say I'm scanning people (with or without their knowledge). You could know as much as whether or not the girl next to you has a Victoria's Secret thong on, or some Jockey's brief. Perhaps even whether she has on any at all.


    And same in reverse. What if it's a laundry day and you have to go commando? Do you really want people to know?

  3. You didn't sign a contract to give back true ID... by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 5, Funny


    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
  4. VERY dangerous, but don't forget the benefits by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.)

    1. Re:VERY dangerous, but don't forget the benefits by Robotech_Master · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My retail-store place of employment has a system which is occasionally used during the busiest of times when all the available cashiers are on-line and there are still long queues. A manager uses his hand-held bar code scanner to zap all the items in a customer's cart while he's waiting in line, then all the cashier has to do is scan the bar code on a little card and the register rings up every item that the manager zapped.

      Speaking as a cashier who's worked with this system, I would find it very convenient not to have to scan every item before I bagged it (especially with the arcane "rings per minute" efficiency monitoring system my store uses, which requires pressing weird button combinations to stop the clock when we're not doing something). And speaking as a customer, I would find that sort of speedy checkout much more enticing.

      They just have to balance the convenience with privacy concerns somehow...

      --
      Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
  5. Opt-out shopping bags and backpacks by lildogie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  6. Actually, you'd be surprised... by Svartalf · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  7. Current Applications by adamjone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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).