Blocker Tags to Protect Privacy From RFID Tags

geekee writes "According to an article at CNET, RSA Security is developing a 'blocker' tag that disrupts RFID tag transmissions, protecting a person's privacy from those who would abuse RFID technology. The blocker tag would be embedded in your watch, for instance. This method has an advantage over destroying the RFID tags after purchase because useful information on the tag could help consumers (e.g. laundry instructions)." According to the RSA scientist quoted in the article, privacy concerns regarding RFID have been overblown, but it's still worth being proactive when finding ways to defeat the tags.

Comments

Re:God I hate those tags

[Frymaster]

nor have I heard of any stores stocking merchandise equipped with them,

well... there's gilette mach iii razor blades (source is here). apparently that's been canned because of the outcry. but early adopters always have a tough time of it..

Re:Is that legal?

[BigDish]

With current laws (unless this gets called a circumvention device under the DMCA) it would be legal. This is because the RFID tag will be unlicensed and fall under part 15 of the FCC's rules. Cell phones, on the other hand, are in licensed spectrum, and transmit with much more power than part 15. Part of the requirements for a part 15 device to operate is it must not intentionally cause interference (ie blocking a cell phone) with another, LICSENCED device (so interfering with an RFID tag is OK, cell phone is not) Additionally, most likely power levels greater than part 15 would be required to block a cell phone transmisssion. So in short, this is legal, call phone blocking isn't.

Re:Shoplifting?

[LineNoiz]

The cops can search your car without your consent and without a warrant. All they need is probable cause.

Ironically enough, you denying them consent to search is generally considered probable enough for them to search it anyway....

URL to Rivest RFID blocking paper

[karl.auerbach]

In case anyone wants to read the original paper on this it's at:

http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/JuelsRivestSzydl o-TheBlockerTag.pdf

Re:Shoplifting?

[psyco484]

The device in question wouldn't be designed to jam anti-theft stuff. They have no right to search you, if a cop does search your car after you deny them, they are violating your rights. If their reason was "he denied us, he must have something to hide" then they're violating that whole innocent until proven guilty thing. Airport security is an entirely different matter. By going in an airport you are consenting to a search. Stores must have you sign a consent form (like at Costco/BJ's/Sam's Club) to search your stuff when you leave. It's in their membership agreement thing, that's consent. I can't say I have personal experience, but I've heard of people that have gone into a Fry's and refused who they called "the door nazi" to check their stuff. This is completely legal and the store can't do anything about it. Knowing your rights doesn't mean you have something to hide, it's just insurance against getting screwed.

Case in point: My roommate this past year had been arrested for alcohol possesion (he's 19). The alcohol was in his car trunk, out of view. He wasn't pulled over for DUI, but for a busted tail light. The cop asked to search his car and he refused. The cop searched it anyway. The case was thrown out, my roommate cleared of all charges, and the cop was suspended. This is an example of how the system can fail, but it's an example of how the system works and the extent of your rights in the US.