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?
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!
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!
If you had read the article, then you would have noticed that it said that the current 12 digit barcode is running out of room, and that they are having to move to a 14 digit barcode system in the next year. It also said this new system would take around a decade to catch-on, because obviously the cost of printing a bar code on an already existing bit of paper on the product is a lot less than creating a little microchip/transmitter/thingy.
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.
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?
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.
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
These people looked deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined.
-- Homer J. Simpson.
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.
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
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.)
MIT Researcher 1: so , should we make it 96 bits or 128? MIT Researcher 2: "96 bits should be enough for anybody."