Slashdot Mirror
An ID Number for Everything
jon323456 writes "Put this in your privacy pipe and smoke it. According to news.com, MIT researchers have cooked up a new barcode that has enough dataspace to include a unique serial number for everything. And in combination with RFID tags...."
Damn man, MIT must be slipping. I could give you uniqueness using only 64-bits.
So could any coder who cut his teeth on machine language.
We need to stop teaching Perl/Python/Java as a first language. Make the uber-generation deal with opcodes and registers. Assembler will put hair on your chest boy!
The point is, bits aren't cheap. If we're going to set standards for their allocation, let's let somebody who knows what they're doing do it. Yes?
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Why call this a barcode? It's an ID tag. Kinda like a DSL 'modem' I guess.
It takes all those PhDs to figure out that a really, really big number can hold lots of information.
So basically.. they're using a 96 digit bar code instead of a 12 or 14..
wow stop the presses.. thatis revolutionary..
oh wait I got an idea.. lets use 128.. or better yet 1024!!! we'll never need to make a new standard for thousands of years!
woooo!(ric-flair like woooo)
Now I can start tagging my subatomic particle collection!
So, my tinfoil hat will now have a unique code as well. What's a paranoid /. geek to do?
Maybe I'm the only one confused here, but why would anyone want to invest absurd ammounts of money into upgrading an id system when the current is good enough.
I don't remember anyone complaing about not having enough barcodes etc...
In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
Gillette was listed as an attendee. This is the same gillette who took photos of customers purchasing their products using an rfid-triggered cameras.
that's 2^96 = 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336
hosts... minus 2 for the broadcast and the network address. Um...No thats not right.. damn cisco.
To start with, let's give each of those ID chips a number! Oh wait... now there are no numbers left for all my other stuff!
Thus with 80 digit barcode you should able to label every particle in the universe :)
Take a felt tipped marker. Make one of the lines thicker.
Problem Solved!
Did I just violate DMCA?
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
Actually, having a unique bar code could be very beneficial when recovering lost and stolen property. If everything is uniquely identified, and you have somehow recorded your id codes for certain things that are of some value (either real value or sentimental), this could potentially aid in goods recovery. Granted, it could be taken to absurd extremes, but for more important items (artwork, computers, rare books, etc), this could be invaluable.
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
This barcode tatoo on the back of my neck is going to seem So Dated.
Everyone knows how much street cred you get with a low /. ID..
Why not just give every item an IPv6 address? Assign the UCC a /16 for merchandise and you've got 2^112 == 5e33 possible codes. The IPv6 folks are going on and on about giving everything an IP address--wouldn't this be a perfect application?
Hmm. If everything can have a unique ID, and an RFID tag to go with it, then my cunning solution is to insist that each RFID tag has its own unique ID (and tag) as well. Privacy intrusion defeated by the power of recursion!
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
It has been shown that IPv6 will provide 4 IP numbers per square centimetre of space on earth. That should be enough to cover all products. My proposal would be to make the UPC the same as a IPv6 number, and then make the barcode show the item's IPv6 address. Network configuration would be simplified - just scan the barcode - and the item wouldn't need a UPC *and* a IPv6. They would be the same. That would simplify marketing and tracking as well, items such as coke cans and underwar could simply be ping:ed on the net. No need to bother with those RFID tags.
OK... You are now number 675474! Congratulations!
Happiness is like peeing yourself. Everybody can see it but only you can feel its warmth.
Put this in your privacy pipe and smoke it.
Maybe the things that I smoke in my privacy pipe is my own freakin' business- that never occurred to you now, did it?
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
Passive RFID can already do that.
...and can be read at greater distances, can't be duplicated, can be used in any type of material, is more durable, etc...
"79228162514264337593543950336 bar codes ought to be enough for anyone."
--MIT, 2003
That green slime had it coming.
These people looked deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined.
-- Homer J. Simpson.
Maybe it'll be like vanity phone numbers... I got dibs on 1337!!!
Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
There will be a huge fight against these in terms of the privacy issues -- tracking cars, for example.
Yeah, imagine how awful it would be if every car had a unique identifier associated with it. You could be identified wherever you go by anyone with access to the right equipment.
Ever heard of a license plate?
This space intentionally left blank.
Wow! This needs some kind of cool name, like... like...
MIT Everyware, perhaps?
Tweet, tweet.
We're talking some heavy crunching power.
To have any useful application, those codes would have to be linked to transactions and locations.
Imagine trying to update the transactions and locations of just every can of Coke sold every day.
Manufactured
Shipped from the manufacturing plant
Received at the warehouse
Shipped to the store
Sold to the customer
The 12-digit bar code that's used across the United States was introduced in the 1970s, and the retail industry is close to running out of new combinations.
UPC-A barcodes are 12 digit long. There are many many other types of barcodes, including 2D barcodes that can hold up to 1K of data on them. They just have to pick another type of barcode, like CODE128, for consumer products and declare it the new standard. No need for revolutionary changes here.
Look in the SUPPORTED_BARCODES file in the cuecat driver archive to see how many 1D barcode types already exist.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
barcodes for every thing, even cash. It could be well nigh impossible to have an anonymous transaction, unless you resort to barter, but make sure that you have removed the RFID (if it is legal to do so). So you microwave you dollars to fry the RFID, this could be illegal and no business would accept your cash. The possibilities are endless, and very scary.
But if you are not doing anything illegal you have nothing to worry about
Tell that to the Cubans who simply want to loan books to their friends---oops Animal Farm, 1984, the Bible are illegal in Cuba.
"No more inventory counts. No more lost or misdirected shipments. No more guessing how much material is in the supply chain--or how much product is on the store shelves."
Wrong. Completely wrong. If you have ever worked for a major retailer, you will come to understand this reality.
ID's are not a panacea. You have to have a system of control and accountability over your inventory that makes use of a unique ID and checks itself constantly, forcing correction.
When some doofus screws up the "next ID" field and a bunch of items get duplicate ID numbers? Creation of unique ID's is a PITA problem and I don't think that the average manufacturer is going to get it right for some time.
I hearby claim first bar
|
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
So where are they gonna put this barcode, oops, ID Tag on people? If it's on the ass no one will be able to scan mine through all the hair.
"Sheep just follow the easiest path and run from scary noises and intimidating creatures." - Me
You'll always have a need to do a physical audit.
Man, I don't want to be respomsible for that database.
Hey, Microsoft, maybe you'd like a shot at this one? Then everyone would be happy knowing that there data may not be secure, but when it crashes (not if), we all get to start over.
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
While reading another article about those nasty RIFD tags the other day, I suddenly had a thought....
Why not just attach the RFID tags to the product packaging rather than permanently to the product itself. The packaging gets thrown away, not the product. Most of the privacy issues simply disappear. (Other than that someone could run your trash through an RFID scanner, but would still need access to a database in order to determine that that number is a particular subversive book that you should not be reading.)
I'm not saying it's a total solution to the problem of RFID tag privacy. But if tags were affixed to packaging rather than products, most / many privacy issued just go away. (Some remain.) Or have I overlooked something major?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
So you have a 96-bit ID number. That means you have 2^96 unique numbers.
Make a tag for each one.
Let's say for the sake of argument that the tags weigh 0.01 grams.
Now make all 2^96 of them. You have just created 792,281,625,142,643,375,935,439.50336 kg of tags.
That's a shitload of tags! For reference, Planet Earth has a mass of 5.972e24kg. Your tags would weigh 1/132 as much as the entire planet.
That's less than 1%, but that's still a MAJOR volume of tags. We'd be choking on them. They'd be everywhere.
At 1,000,000 tags per second, how long would it take to manufacture 2^96 tags? 7,922,162,514,264,337,593,543 seconds. That's 2,512,308,552,583,217 years.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
"Under EPC, every can of Coke would have a one-of-a-kind identifier."
It occured to me that it's quite possible that such unique id's on consumable items could later get tracked back to their purchasers, then automatically impose a littering fine on them if said Coke can is found empty and discarded on the ground somewhere.
I don't really see that as becoming a reality, but it's possible.
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
No, no, no, you'd label each _molecule_ within the paint can and query that silly ;)
No Comment.
2^96 is not nearly enough for every molecule on earth. Avogadro's number is 6 * 10^23, which is approximately the number of protons that weigh 1 kilogram together. Most molecules weigh less than 100 protons. 2^96 = 8 * 10^28. So at most 10^7 kilogram can be tagged uniquely with ECP. The earth weighs approximately 6 * 10^24 kilograms. Yeah, those "MIT boys" are really smart...
Well, the raw tag number is unique within any given state, but looked at nationally, each number could have up to 50 duplicates, ignoring the state of origin. Besides, what can you tell from a license plate itself? There's a much more serious issue in the automotive industry; the VIN.
The VIN is truly unique; no two cars have the same number. They are unique amongst a common manufacturer, and unique amongst all automotive manufacturers. Every car, truck, minivan, SUV, etc. has one of these numbers, often written in multiple places, and oftentimes PHYSICALLY STAMPED in the material of the car so as to prevent fraud (it's illegal to remove this privacy-infringing device!)
These numbers are not protected at all; they're prominently displayed on the dash of all vehicles equipped with them, so that anyone simply walking past your car can look in and record the number. From it, they'll know what manufacturer produced your car, the car's series, its body style, engine type, emissions, what model year it is, what factory it was produced in, and on top of that, A SIX-DIGIT UNIQUE IDENTIFIER!
This problem has existed for decades, and few people actually know the evils that lurk inside! This must be stopped! Stand up to your car manufacturers, tell them you WILL NOT BUY another vehicle from them until this travesty is corrected!
(Peace out, yo.)
Unless, of course, that your whole business is the warehousing and distribution of RFID tags. If that's the case, you're probably just about set.
Guess that's one less person to worry about Barcoding.
You'll always have a need to do a physical audit.
Of course, but it's faster and easier to have your physical auditors just running around looking for damaged goods than it is to have them walking around with clipboards counting everything.
everything in moderation
This is really nothing compared to RFID.
Y'see, if a policeman asks to scan my barcode every time I get on a bus or train, I know that I'm being monitored, and I can avoid it if I really want. If shop owners want to scan my barcode before I enter a store I can refuse, or go to another store. Or remove the barcodes from all my things.
However, if the RFID in my shoes is logged by the government owned scanner on every street corner, I'll have no idea about it. I can try removing the chips from all my clothes, but the chances are I'll miss one.
RFID is scary because it allows you to be identified or monitored without your permission and without your knowledge. People dislike RFID because they aren't disabled when you leave the store from which you bought your item, and the only uses of an active RFID chip on something you have legitemately bought are privacy invading.
(And just to prempt some replies, I really don't buy this 40cm range crap. 40cm max now, on consumer tech maybe. 40cm max in 5 years time, on equipment owned by the government, I highly doubt it.)
The same exact thought occured to me. Right now, if someone dumps garbage in, say, a park the only way they can investigate it is if there is a witness or they find addressed mail (or similar papers) in the pile. Now they'll just have to put bar codes on all of those damn Dunkin Doughnut coffee cups I constantly see on the ground.
I'm sure we'll see a market for microchip destroying devices of some sort for home use if RFID's ever take off in significant numbers.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Morally
Indifferent
Technologists
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
When our whole lives are encoded in a database, what is to stop future legislation that punishes people for crimes they never knew they commited? What about people who make mistakes in their young adult years and want to reinvent themselves somewhere else but can't due to their digital legacy? What about people whose business isn't our own but who have access to this data and use it against us?
Databases of this scale are immensely dangerous regardless of what trivial conveniences they allow. These databases can take our lives out of their social context and make us vulnerable to blackmail and extortion by public officials.
These databases also violate the Fourth Amendment. What about a future where law enforcement officials don't even need to step on a person's property to execute a search?
Simply, privacy is fundamentally important and is a fundamental human right. Only when citizens can control their own information, can a proper balance of power be mainained in a representative democracy like the USA. Remember, those who hold the information are those who are truly in power.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
The article is pretty confusing. This is not a barcode at all: it is just setting up the number space that will be used for RFID tags. All that has been decided, AFAICS, is that it will be a 96 bit code in the RFID chip, MIT will hold the central registgry, and many interested manufacturers are meeting to agree on how to divide up and administer that 96 bit space.
Bit of a "Duh" if you ask me. Of course it has to be done, but this is pure implementation territory: it doiesn't affect the privacy issues on bit.
Mind you, I do wonder what the delta cost on the RFID chip of moving from 96 bit to (say) 128 bit - or even 256-bit. While I agree that these things are going to be produced in trillions and therefore millionths of a cent add up, I would have thought that most of the cost was constant per unit - slicing, packaging, testing etc.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Reality is that the likelihood of extortion and blackmail over previous events in life becomes far less likely if everyone is held accountable. Currently the system is built more around how much money one can throw to make things go away.
The sad state of affairs, particularly in the US, is that everyone is expected to live up to a high level of morality, because everyone hides what they've done wrong. When no one can hide what they've done wrong, the system as a whole becomes far less black and white.
The real issue of privacy is whether or not we can build a system by which equal accountability will be maintained, not whether or not being able to hide one's past is a right.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
To be usable, the new system would have to mimic the current one, with some bits dedicated to a manufacturer ID number, and some bits for a product-id-within-that-manufacturer numbers, with the new system adding more bits for individual-item-id-within-product number. Each field must be made large enough to accomidate all manufacturers (ie, CocaCola has few products, but ships millions of each, while a book publisher would have thousands of products but with some only shipping a few hundred). This means that a lot of bits are "wasted" -- although they would be available to the manufacturer for their own subdivision. (Let's say it give 32bits for individual item id. A vender could say 1 bit indicated continient it made one, 3 bit for the country, 3 bits for the factory within that country; 7 bit, year; 4 bits, month; 5 bits, DOM; 9 bits, items made that day.)
Yeah, imagine how awful it would be if every car had a unique identifier associated with it.
If your car's whereabouts were tracked and stored in a database, there's the chance the employere could find that their employees are interviewing, which customers are shopping around and where, etc. What if you were recorded simply driving down a street within minutes of a crime committed by someone else? What's your alibi? There were no witnesses to the crime other than the database, of course.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
MIT Researcher 1: so , should we make it 96 bits or 128? MIT Researcher 2: "96 bits should be enough for anybody."
After reading the article I don't understand a few things:
1. Why the article's title on CNET mentions "futuristic barcode" when the project is apparently in relation to low capacity (96bit) RFIDs or the like.
2. Why it took 5 years to develop. RFID technology is readily understood. Databases are readily understood, wireless communication is readily understood. Prototyping hardware and writing some connectivity software should not have taken 5 years for such a "group". I'm either dissapointed or confused.
3. Why give each tag a only specific serial number that MUST be looked up in the database to ID it. The current barcode mass-grouping is still valid even with more bits. A stripped down database could then be used for off-line reading and you would still know the manufacturer and possibly the product family. For example barcodes starting with "636920" are from O'Reilly; all barcodes starting with "05000" are from Nestle. Isn't that much easier than having NO idea what "aj380dk358fh3k8i" is?
4. Why access a database directly? Why not use the Internet and stanard DNS and HTML/XML? Purchase a domain and make simple IRLs that include the tag info: http://www.taginfo.org/044254 ? The server would see the code, and send back a response containing one of two things: 1: the product information in XML (including a link to more info from the manufacturer), 2: an error. Such a thin HTTP/HTML client could be written quite quickly and be embedded in almost anything. There are already many synconization and caching sytems in place for HTML.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Did you mean to type http://www.pdf417.com/?
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.