Slashdot Mirror
Delta Air Invests $25 Million in RFID for Luggage
securitas writes "The New York Times' Barnaby Feder reports on Delta Air Lines' plans to invest $25 million in RFID luggage tracking hardware and software over the next two years. This sounds very similar to the Jacksonville Airport RFID plan. McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas and Hong Kong International Airport have also announced plans to use RFID technology in their operations. More at the Cincinnati Enquirer and the Boston Globe."
The ones that go along with any mention of RFID, and drown out legitimate concerns.
I heard yesterday that people were now forced to label their cases while travelling using the French Railways, will it be possible that in a near future, they will be given RFIDs when purchasing train tickets ?
What about the Swiss who have the "Abonnement General" ?
Will they have to pre-order these ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
well that and the cool little keyfobs we use at work. A while ago, I took the chip out of mine, and replanted it into my pen, confuses people when your opening the door with an inkpen. Seems like a good case for "the pen is mightier" quote
Within the arms of tragedy, there is little comfort in being right.
do i let them know where my _oh-so-private_ luggage is?
or do i prefer not having it lost every third flight across the atlantic and taking no responsibility for it?
hmm...
is useless. There needs to be a standard definied AND there has to be a mapping back to the current barcode standard so that luggage can still be handled at airports that haven't yet upgraded.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Put the RFID chips in their tags, so I can remove them when the flight is over, why should this be a big deal. They already use barcodes on the tags.
What hilarity could ensue if I packed my own RFID tags? Of course, this would assume that I had the capability to encode them, knew Delta's encoding scheme, and wasn't scared by the thought of losing either my luggage or my personal freedom, but hey, what a hack, right?
DELTITE #1: "Uhh, Dave, the system shows 1,337 bags just came off that DC-9. I'm taking my lunch break now, let me know how that turns out."
DELTITE #2: "!"
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Spyware gets under your skin. RFID *IS* under your skin.
Ask me about my vow of silence!
The new airbus A380 will be capable of holding over 800 passengers in full economy mode. Knowing the general vicinity of your bag out of 1200 (assuming 1.5 bags stowed per psgnr) is still only limiting it to a pile of 800.
think of the implications for the privacy of luggage? Suitcases have rights...feelings..emotions too, you know!
I imagine Tin Foil hats are not allowed on aircraft. Something to do with interfering with radar / comms / etc
WTF? Airlines MUST track your luggage. I want them to track it. Hell, this is common sense. I don't have any need for spyware to track me so it is completely different.
...oh wait, you mean they can use it to find my luggage when it gets lost or shipped on the wrong flight?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I, just as anyone else here, is worried over the potential abuse of this system, but there can be improvements as well.
I dont know whether its such an issue here, but outside US, anyone or anything can walk in to a baggage terminal and walk off with someone else's bag with out being stopped. And Usually this happens when the owner of the baggage hasnt gotten to the baggage terminal from the gate. What if Delta has a counter where travellers once they collect their baggage and on their way out, can scan their RFID's, verify they were the rightful owner of the bag and then remove the RFID to go their own merry way? Someone trying to steal the baggage could get flagged since his RFID will still be in place when he attempts to leave..
This might lead to long lines again in the baggage terminal and can cost the airline more, but does this make sense?
Rapid Nirvana
Wont do any good to track a rogue baggage handler is running down the runway stealing it, lol
Oh, so now they can tell me WHICH city my luggage went to, instead of just telling me its not there (I can SEE that, asshole!)
(No, I didn't RTFA, because then this joke might not work...)
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
I don't care if they know where my suitcase is, just as long as they don't know there is a dead hooker in it.
remember, what happens in vegas, stays in vegas.
- Barcodes
- Credit Cards
- Drivers Licenses
- Grocery discount cards
- License Plates
- Cookies
Free Mac Mini
This is an important point! My tinfoil hats in my luggage may interfere with the RFID tracking! This means I'll lose my hats, the government wil be able to spy on me, and I'll lose my luggage!
Do these people not think the issues through?
And of course someone (probably not me :-[) will make a mint by manufacturing the handy little devices that will detect and disable the confounded spying tags that the confounded unethical companies leave on your bags...
Error: Success
"But, I'm in New York and I leave for California tomorrow."
"No, problem. We can give you realtime tracking information as your baggage follows you around the country."
Good point...and, down the road, I'm sure there will be real-world Spybots and Ad-Awares that will scan your clothes and other items looking for RFID items that you can them remove/disable. Remember, there were radar guns and then radar detectors. The marketplace will always respond.
Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
Seems like a good case for "the pen is mightier"
I'd say. They actually let you bring your penis mightier to work?
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
damn annoying.. they have to find the suitcase and offload it.. I'm sure this will make that a whole damn lot faster..
I often wonder what makes a person miss the flight at that point.... it's gotta be sex...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
In other news, slashdotters spend 25 million on tinfoil.
In a paper published back in '98 RFID was proposed extensively in everything from luggage tracking to passenger tracking.
Ask me about my vow of silence!
Nah, that's just a cover story to prevent people from guarding themselves against the intense psychotronic programming they do to air travellers in planes.
(Yes, I'm being silly. They can't do it in planes. That's what check-in lounges are for.)
Oh, and hide your cash under your mattress. Wait, just burn your money. You know the government tracks their own currency, right?
RFID scanning is the equilvilent of an illegal search.
RFID's primary purpose is to track the buying and movement habits of consumers. Retailers and marketers in paticular are pushing this technology, because in essence, they want to know everything about you. They claim it's for inventory and supply chain purposes but they're lying. They _Want_ your data, and will do whatever it takes to rape you for it.
Remember the Ad scence in Miority Report. Imagine that, but with ads personalised to you:
"Morning Sir! Why not buy your favourites! TechUniverse Magazine and Playster Mag Together with your favourite cola, Kolka-Kola!"
"Good day sir!! See as how you have One--Hundred--And--Thirty--Dollars on you why not buy seat covers for that Forelet car you bought last week."
"Oh sorry sir. Only people without RFID blockers can enter. Please turn off yours now so we can find out who you are and where you got it and can report your subversive ass to Homeland Security."
RFID offers minimal advantages over barcodes for inventory purposes and does nothing for supply chains, as when goods are purchased, the transaction is logged anyway. Their _Primary_ purpose is to spy on us. RFID tags have now been developed to survive washing, when the clothes they're in are placed in the machine. Now why would you need that if you only wanted it for inventory purposes.
Of course governments love all this, because when your luggage(and indeed you) go through the airport, they can examine every single item you have, analysie it's history, where it was bought, who owned it, how much it's worth. They'll be able to track everyone, everywhere, everytime. And for anyone who thinks this won't affect anyone in the US or EU, spare a thought for the people living under the current Chinese administration. You think the party _Won't_ use this technoloy?
Hands up everyone who DOESN'T think these RFID systems will be used to track peoples movements.
Also Hands up everyone who thinks these measure make us in any way safer.
May the Maths Be with you!
I would hope that isn't what you were trying to imply.
Sure paranoids tend to be extreme, but it doesnt mean they arent correct, and often ahead of the curve.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Now they can track my luggage all the way to Guam during my flight to Seattle...
From 0 to drunk in $20
many years ago (before elevated security) my uncle had a dog in the dog-safe cargo area of an airplane..... in short they lost the dog and it somehow got diverted to a wharehouse. he was pretty much told there was no easy way to find the dog if someone didn't hear it bark by chance. after much yelling they let him search a wharehouse. by the time he found the dog it had been there for over 2 days with no water. in the end the dog recovered 100%, but i am sure this kind of situation would make you think they are not so bad. if the RFID tags are slapped on like the current barcodes, is it a big deal? you rip it off at baggage claim. it's not like your bag get's a permanant tag on it that will track its traveling history.
it has to suck if a passenger ends up getting bumped from a flight last minute and Todd the baggage handler has to find that one passenger's bags. Actually last night my brother's flight was super delayed because some guy in first class threw a hissy fit about something and was ejected from the plane. it was while first class was still boarding so well in advance of the plane being loaded. theys till had to go in and find his luggage and pull it out. that has to be a lot of digging......
"- Cookies"
;)
With all those other physical objects, you need to specify what kind of cookies you're talking about. After all the extremely paranoid comments I've seen today, a comment like that just might put Oreo out of business.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution recently asked some "what if"-type questions in response to speculation that Delta might file for a Chapter 11 reorg by the end of the year. I thought it kind of interesting when juxtaposed against their $25M proposal for RFID-bagtag thing.
No, I did not RTFA...
This is not a dig on RFID or other tracking technologies. I believe they have their place and if they can help streamline operations, great. However, it would seem in the case of Delta, or pretty much any other airline than Southwest, they may want to invest that money in infrastructure upgrades, pilot salaries, fuel spec buys, etc. etc. It just doesn't seem like an RFID project like this money well spent at this time.
"I'm a karate man. Karate mans bleed on the inside."
> WTF? Airlines MUST track your luggage. I want them to track it. Hell, this is common sense. I don't have any need for spyware to track me so it is completely different.
Yeah but what's stopping mixups with RFID tags? The thing about security is that the more you have, the more you need. Adding new layers of security does make it harder for mixups, but it also makes it harder to maintain, and airports are always on the edge when it comes to funding where I'm from. I'm not against RFIDs, but if they are going to do it, they should make sure they have the budget to do it right. I have a feeling they'll end up making a lot of extra work for people with only a marginal rate of success. RFIDs can fall off your luggage as easily as barcodes, or likely easier. I've seen luggage handled before, and it's not pretty at times. Big piles of suitcases, pressing against eachother. It's a wonder more people aren't on the show Airline, complaining about lost luggage... and they do show people losing luggage all the time on that show. My best guess is that RFIDs will make some people's luggage get there when it wouldn't have, but on the other hand it will also likely make some people lose their luggage when they wouldn't have. The more you rely on a system like this, the more it can hurt when a wrinkle comes along.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Considering what Delta charges Cincinnatians (the most expensive airport (or #2) in the nation) they should be able to afford a BUTLER to carry each piece of luggage.
Of course, the rest of the time, the airlines all whine about being broke and ask congress for a big bailout.
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
$25 million doesn't seem like all that large an investment, IMO. What does a single plane cost, after all? My guess is that they'll save $25 million over a few years just in terms of saved labor.
It's not "misplaced luggage" that's the problem, the industry is being coy and cute, it's more like stolen luggage, or luggage broken into, then purposely "lost" to hide evidence of the theft. Happens all the time, been a dodge they been underplaying for years now. Over the years in the US, you are more likely to have your luggage stolen and broken into by airport employees than from random people just taking luggage. Here's a recent example of some of the trusted "homeland security personnel" in action.
Before RFID:
Baggage Claim Desk: Your luggage was diverted.
Me: oh no to where?
Baggage Claim Desk: Bulgaria.
After RFID:
Baggage Claim Desk: Your luggage was diverted.
Me: oh no to where?
Baggage Claim Desk: Bulgaria.
So now when they lose my luggage, they'll actually be able to see that they sent it to Idaho when I was going to Vegas!
That list you show here, shows how we already have gone by giving away our privacy. Don't you think RFID will make it very easy to take away the last tiny bit we have left?
"Honey, I feel a certain distance between us..." "Really? A 31ms ping ain't that bad..."
This, in a round about way, reminds me of something I learned in class the over day (the part about losing the dog). In the 727 there's a switch affectionately refered to as "the puppy snuffer". It closes a valve in the cargo hold the allows air out of the plane. If it's closed, no fresh air can get down there, nor can the area be heated since no air is circulating.
On a side note about the RFID tags. Purdue's Aviation Technology department has been doing research into this with United Airlines at their Denver base to help prevent theft of the luggage, it's apparently a huge problem there. Most of the RFID work is being done in the baggage sorting facility, not actually getting the baggage to the passengers. The airlines can save a huge amount of money by speeding up the movement of baggage through the terminal since less bags misrouted means less money spent on fixing the problem. The tags also speed up an airplane's turnaround time by getting the luggage to and from it faster.
You might want to try understanding what people are complaining about before you assume the argument will be made here.
Most of the concerns I've read about the use of RFID tags have been about:
1) Persistence - the tags last as long as you have the item they are attached to and can be difficult to find or remove. Not an issue here. The article states in the very first sentence that the tags are disposable. They are also likely to be mounted in a clearly visible manner.
2) Surreptitious - the tags can be read without the knowledge of the person holding them. Not really an issue here because the tags are attached to baggage that the customer is not going to be carrying with him.
Do try to understand the issues before you discount them as "tinfoil-hat ideas".
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Here is a true story. My friend got on the wrong plane - honest mistake, there were 4 flights, all Delta, Las Vegas to Atlanta, departing within 20 minutes of each other.
So, whilst seated on the plane, he hears his name over the PA, they take him off the plane, put him on the right one. That left a bit later.
En route, he wonders, "what happened to my bags?"
Sure enough, he gets to Atlanta, and his bags are already going around the carrousel for the earlier flight.
The conclusion is that the bags went without the passenger. No maybe they just left them there on purpos since the owner was willing to fly with them, but I doubt they were supposed to go without him.
in short they lost the dog and it somehow got diverted to a wharehouse.
Yeah, I think I saw a video of that somewhere on the Net. Pretty disgusting if you ask me.
As of about ten years ago, air travelers in the US were informed that we were to leave our privacy behind at the security checkpoint. After presenting proof of id, submitting all bags for inspection, and stepping through a detector, the traveler knew that the "authorities" had a record of who they were, where they were going, and what they were (and weren't) carrying.
Face it. If you want privacy in your travel, you have two choices: avoid airports, or develop a very good false identity.
Given that I've left my privacy behind at the security checkpoint, anything that makes it easier for the airlines/airports to handle and transport my bags back to me at my final destination can't be seen as anything but a positive development.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
Add RFID to that, and I wonder what things of my daily life are left unknown to the public. I ain't crossing the pond for the coming years, and I hope this ridiculous need of tracking people and their habits won't go that far overhere.
Using the term "Fighting terrosism" for entering my personal life is a very, very bad excuse. I personally see RFID as a furthergoing extension to that.
"Honey, I feel a certain distance between us..." "Really? A 31ms ping ain't that bad..."
Mobile (cell for you Yanks) phones are banned from flights due to (I presume) radio interference. Will hundreds of RFID tags not pose a similar risk?
Also Fewer than a million of the 80 million or so bags Delta handles in an average year fail to reach their final destination
So around 1 in 80 bags ends up on the wrong flight? So, assuming 1 bag/passenger, around 7 bags get lost on a typical 747 flight? That sounds an awful lot to me.
You can spen d millions of dollars on sorters and diverters, but there's still no substitute for a pair of eyes reading the city code to get a bag where it needs to go. If they think the RFID system will help them in tracking and counting the bags, by all means, then they should use it. If you're worried about privacy, then don't fly - many airlines have admitted sharing their passenger data with the TSA for testing of the CAPPS II system.
...they're down to under 500UKP now. www.zebra.com et al sell them...
This move by some airports doesnt surprise me. Walmart has already started using RFID. UPS is moving that way. It's just a better barcode, no need to write your congressman
Slashdot is to RFID as Greenpeace is to:
A) Puppies
B) Trombones
C) Nuclear power generation
D) Trees
Let's get this straight people - RFID tags are not the devil. They are a technology with the potential to be VERY useful. Do we really have to see EVERY story about EVERY use of RFID tags in the world? Why don't you guys hold off until someone, somewhere actually does something Orwellian with the technology before you spurt the hackneyed, luddite, anti-RFID propaganda?
Oh and just because you disagree doesn't mean I'm trolling. Fuck, that concept is tired too. Where's my coffee?
In other words, they still lose your luggage, but somtimes find it. Sorry sir your luggage was rerouted to Antarctica, we know where it is, but a polar bear is hoarding all of the luggage from light 456 at this moment. ***I know, there are no polar bears in antarctica, but you get the picture.
I know someone who is a law enforcement officer and he was able to get on a plane at a small airport WITH HIS SIDEARM in his carry-on. Granted, he did have all the paperwork, ID, etc he needed to carry it onboard, but he was never asked for it. He made a connecting flight in a major hub, but since he came from another airport he was already through security and made it all the way to his destination without being questioned.
(Yes, this was post-9/11. About 6-mo ago)
15 years, put RFID under my fingernail, it's already in my clothes.
20 years, unite RFID and GPS under my fingernail, I'm already tracked in my home state.
25 years, place all of the RFID & GPS data on the internet in a publicly available database, it's already everywhere else.
30 years, You have been arrested for the murder you will commit at 4:57:23 - - 5 days from now.
heave, ho, heave ho, dhgfewpojpehrrrph - removes tin foil hat!
Let's just hope this stuff doesn't get abused too badly
I think that any such complaints would be unfounded.
The article makes it clear that Delta is looking into RFID as replacement technology for (or maybe companion technology to) Barcodes for Airline-supplied luggage tracking systems. Every piece of luggage that leaves the check-in desk has a luggage tag on it supplied by the carrier / airport. This is not new. There is no increased erosion of privacy here.
I think it is safe to assume that such tags are as temporary as the current Paper ones that they attach to luggage or boxes.
Now (putting on his tinfoil hat) when the Government mandates that all luggage travelling on planes require special 'government-approved' Travel tags that are pre-verified by some government or police authority, then I'll start getting concerned!!
This is an unprecedented invasion of my privacy! Anyone with a brain will realize that this is a base effort of the airlines to track where my luggage is at all times! Why, with this personal information they would know where my... luggage....
Umm, never mind.
Don't get me wrong, this is great for the current system of taking 2 hrs to get people through security checkpoints, loaded onto the plane, along with tons of luggage, and then offloading them.
I just took a flight to boston from Philadelphia. The entire trip from parking at philadelphia to landing at boston took close to 3 hrs. It's probably 6 hours drive to boston. I'm not really saving much time here. Fortunately my company paid for it, but it was amazingly expensive because it was booked last minute for a customer.
What I want to see is the Air Taxi system that NASA and the FAA were working on. This was an overhaul in the Air Traffic control system which would open up new options in air travel. An Air Taxi could simply be a small prop or smaller jet plane that would be cheaper to fly and maintain, and it would be a lot easier to get on and off... like a taxi!
Or how about some MagLev trains? A 300+ Mph train on a safe and easy to maintain elevated track. If we could just find a way to create the infrastructure, we could make transportation more affordable and easier.
As it stands, our current system is old and antiquated and inconvenient... and expensive! We need some disruptive technologies to get a foothold. Changing the nature of travel will solve more problems than trying to put patches on the current system. I consider this RF solution a patch on a much larger problem.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
My wife works for Delta and all the employees are worried about them going bankrupt and losing their jobs. At the same time Delta appears to be spending money hand over fist on the most assinine projects. Why can't they get their business in order before they start playing around with this new crap.
I personally have a fear of abuse of RFID, and I expected people to give me an idea why I am wrong about that.
"Honey, I feel a certain distance between us..." "Really? A 31ms ping ain't that bad..."
I'd say. They actually let you bring your penis mightier to work?
They won't let me do that here. Thankfully, it's detachable
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
They've been using barcoded tags for years to sort luggage. This would save the trouble of having to use a reader on a specific target. It's already been pointed out, tear off the tags when you retrieve your bags and you're anonymous again.
I work in a library, and RFID has been trying to make its way in for years. The tags for this type of use have a range of only a few feet. The applications range from inventory by just passing a reader down the rows of items while they're still on the shelf, to security gates that tell you what item(s) someone just walked off with, instead of just sending off an alarm and starting the guessing games, or checking in a half dozen items at a time by placing a stack on a reader.
RFID is not always the beast...
Here is the idea: you're an idiot with no clue what you are babbling about.
Then you tell me, instead of being a troll yourself.
"Honey, I feel a certain distance between us..." "Really? A 31ms ping ain't that bad..."
As an Atlantan, I can only hope that Delta is finally getting tired of being known as the short form of "Don't Expect Luggage To Arrive"
"To save the planet, I had to go to the worst spot on Earth, and that was Philadelphia." -- Sun Ra
- Cell phones
- Loyalty cards
- People in the street looking at you
If you want privacy, don't go into public. it's that simple :)
Meanwhile, the small airlines (like jetblue) have fantastic customer service and flights at half the price.
The real reason that Delta is failing is because theyve got a broken business plan and refuse to adapt. If they dont adapt, they should die. Period.
no
Presumably, the adhesive RFID tag has the originating and destination airport printed on it as well (article didn't mention this). Otherwise, Todd the baggage handler needs a battery-powered scanner to know if the bag should be on the plane or not.
.....
Ever watch the grocery clerk scan your groceries?
{swipe} Darn, didn't read.
{swipe} Darn, didn't read.
{swipe} Darn
Now imagine the same thing as bags fall off the belt onto the tarmac while Todd is changing batteries, or trying to get a damaged tag to read.
Chip H.
RFIDs are as inherently dangerous as barcodes. If people choose to make them more threatening in their own minds, so be it. That's why we have asylums :-P
I guess what it's going to come down to is this: which is more annoying, losing your luggage, or losing your privacy?
Considering how LITTLE privacy we have in airports these days anyway, I'd rather take a little assurance that my drawers will make it on the plane after the security guards are done sniffing them.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Every time I fly Delta and check baggage, they strive to lose my luggage both ways, but they're guaranteed to lose the luggage on at least one leg of the trip. If they do *anything* differently, it will probably break their existing Service Level!!
Pretty soon, everything sold at wal-mart will have a RFID tag attached to it. For some things, they're permanently embedding them in the products. You might end up with a piece of luggage which has a tag permanently installed at the factory. It would be possible to associate that tag with your name either at the store (credit card purchase) or at the ticket counter at check in, giving an ability to track who's going where by their luggage.
Just something to think about.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Divert a few million into upgrading from peanuts to cashews.....
Thank you, now that was a plain and simple answer to my question. :-)
"Honey, I feel a certain distance between us..." "Really? A 31ms ping ain't that bad..."
in RTFA and RTFM.
Eventually everything will have a RFID in it and passengers and security officials could scan their luggage for initial counts of items inside the luggage and if scanners detect any deviations from that count can flag the luggage as suspicious.
(Reeally chipper video display)
Hi folks!
Look, I know that there have been some concerns about all of this Radio Frequency ID tags and such, but shucks, this is just a way to get your luggage to you faster! Sure, you have to fill out a few more forms and make sure your picture is attached to the luggage as well as a copy of your national ID card number, and golly, we know that takes a little more time. Aw shucks, just look at it this way, airports are big places with lots of people, so if you lose your luggage, then we can find you that much faster!
See how easy that was? Golly gee, not hard at all, now was it? Now don't forget to place the nationality of your parents in ther little red box, okay?
Once again, thanks folks, and have fun on your flight!
Sincerely,
Bud Johnson
CEO Soaring Eagle Airlines, a subsidiary of Black Helicopter Tours, LLC.
How can Delta afford this? Do they think the American taxpayers will allow another bailout of the airline industry?
They need to be tightening their belts and spend their money carefully instead of shoving $25 Million into something that might not work out.
-Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
RFID Tag + Teaser = poker chip
The industry needs to add this at all airports. Denver international was automated, but it was a disaster. The main reason is inability to dicern which bag was which. In fact, DIA's system can perfectly handle the outbound baggage. It was transfer/inbound that was horrible; Basically the none-marked baggage. Once all baggage is rfid, it will allow the system to be mostly automated, lowering costs. Likewise, there will be less lost luggage, perhaps even less damaged luggage since it will be machines rather than ppl throwing it around.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well... all those things you mention are, in one way or another, useful to you, whereas spyware is not.
Suppose my luggage wants to go on an unplanned excursion and get away from all the hussle and bussle of the airport luggage system. Suppose it wants to take a more scenic route. Lord knows is has before.
I think it is safe to assume that such tags are as temporary as the current Paper ones that they attach to luggage or boxes.
I do, too - but we're hoping for the best. Other posts wrongly ASSume that all RFID tags within consumer goods will be as easily removed...
The potential for abuse is obviously greater than barcodes, which are (duh) visible. Many, many fears about this technology would be alleviated if the presence of RFID tags was not surrepitious. Instead of treating all customers like dolts, let's see our corporate overloads bend over backwards to inform us and dispel the misinformation... or (sigh) perhaps they should be forced to disclose this - at least in the case of soft goods such as deodorant and sweaters! - as display some prudence and respect for their prey.
when the Government mandates that all luggage travelling on planes require special 'government-approved' Travel tags
The way airlines are bending over for the Government in matters of data "sharing" - which perhaps they must, or should - and then proceed to lie about it in some cases, the transition from corporate overlord tag to Government tag may get blurrier before we know it...
As another poster sagely said, "The more you rely on a system like this, the more it can hurt when a wrinkle comes along." There have been some pretty disheartening cases this year where Gov'mint officials refused to doubt the accuracy of their databases.
It's disappointing to see geeks ridicule other geeks for even attempting to acknowledge the Law of Intended Consequences. The faith of some in the benevolence of corporations and bureaucracies - future ones as well, building on the things we tolerate today - is vast and, well, stupefying.
<grrr>
Here is the answer to the following:
:-p)
Barcodes: pay in cash
Credit cards: don't use them
Driver's license: fake identity?
Grocery discount cards: lie, lie, lie
License plates: fake identity? (this answer works for all of the entries
Cookies: eat them!
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
Airline rep : "please look away while we hide the RFID chip in your luggage"
Passenger : "What ??"
Airline rep : "Security !!"
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
The article makes it clear that Delta is looking into RFID as replacement technology for (or maybe companion technology to) Barcodes
It's a misunderstanding, it's because a preliminary survey showed that 64% of passengers would rather have a RFID tag implanted than have a barcode tatooed across their forehead.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
And what happens when RFID becomes spyware?
But how will my luggage fit into my microwave?
WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
I work in a library, and RFID has been trying to make its way in for years. [...] RFID is not always the beast...
The library is one of the places where the intentions are likely to be good but they side effects may be bad. Librarians have traditionally been very privacy conscious (though the government by laws and funding can twist their arms). I agree that RFID could be very useful in libraries (I have 4 librarians in the family, not counting my own experience in the distant past) since libraries already use security tags and bar codes. However, there are potential privacy issues in library use compared to the airport case because those RFID tags can not be thrown away when you leave the library. The RFID tag, directly or indirectly, identifies the person carrying the books and the books themselves.
That book you are carrying will identify itself to every RFID scanner you pass and these scanners will become more common. And many of those scanners could record information about foreign RFID tags as well as their own. So, you walk out of the library and through the subway turnstiles. scan. Homeland security now has a record of you location at a particular point in time. You stop at a barnes and noble and buy a book. Of course, you walk through a scanner to get out of the store and because you are now carrying a book with one of their RFID tags, they know who you are. B&N has now added the list of books you are carrying to their marketing database. We will skip the airport because you know you have a microscope up your ass there. Now on your way to the job interview, you are of course scanned as you pass through the scanners in the lobby and it is correlated with the RFID from your visitors pass. Your interviewer checks the scanner logs. If you were lucky and didn't have anything prejudicial on you, just think of having your briefcase or backpack scanned every day as you arrive at work. Now you go to the video store and of course walk through a scanner. Next a stop off at wal-mart. Your purchase of an item there with a credit card identifies you and we all know you are going through scanners there. And the supermarket. You get home to find that UPS (scan, scan) has delivered some reading material from amazon that is even more prejudicial than what you can get at the library or B&N so the scanners will have a bigger heyday.
Most of those scanners are capable of collecting marketing information on you and many owned by companies that are very eager to do so (hence all the savings cards programs at the bookstore, supermarket, video store, etc). Some could contribute to a movement tracking database. One of them can cost you a job, without your knowing it. And others could lead to harassment by security personel at subways, airports, post offices, and other government controlled locations. Far too many people will know about your sexual (bondage, polyamoury, gay/lesbian/bisexual/transexual), technical (microbiology, nuclear physics, chemistry, electronics, explosives), religious (The Qur'an) political (Chomsky, anarchism, socialism, human rights) reading material. And this is the situation before the folks from the Thought Police ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Homeland Security go around attaching little black boxes to all the RFID scanners (with the employees subject to gag orders) so they can data mine everyones data.
There are some possible ways to reduce the effect. Encrypt the data on the RFID tag so only the library can read it (until the key is stolen). Limit the range on the RFID tag to 2 inches and put it in the dewey decimal or LC number tag on the spine so you can still inventory the books on the shelf by running a scanner directly over the spines. But with more power and better antennas the walk through scanners may still be able to pick up what a hand scanner could only detect 2 inches away. Or just use the old fashioned method of bar codes and passive security tags and do inventory the old fashioned way of pulling all the books on the shelf out far enough to expose the barcode label and push them back in as you scan each one.
YEA KING MISSILE REFERENCE!
You're absolutely right that what Delta Airlines is doing is completely different from the concerns of what, say, Wal-Mart is doing.
Let's look at those two concerns.
1. Persistence: "the tags last as long as you have the item they are attached to and can be difficult to find or remove."
The kind of RFID tags that are cheap enough to go on ordinary items like clothing are passive. That is, they get their power from the reader's 915MHz signal. In order to get enough energy to transmit back to the reader from a distance greater than a couple of inches, the tags need relatively large antennas. The ones I've seen are about a quarter-inch wide and four to five inches long. Do you really think you're going to have trouble finding a tag of that size?
2. Surreptitious "the tags can be read without the knowledge of the person holding them."
The guy standing a few feet away could have disguised the antenna as a briefcase and could be acting like he's adjusting his load while waiting for the same bus you are. And maybe you don't quite notice the warming of your skin from the high-powered antenna because it's a hot day already; when I was working with readers in an air-conditioned office, I certainly noticed my body temperature rising! Reading the tags from further than a few inches away requires very high-powered antennas, and you're probably not going to stand around waiting while some guy stands around with an antenna, slowly cooking your body while he tries to read the RFID tags in your clothes.
You'll note that these aren't technological concerns -- there's not a technological way to alter them; these are based on the Physics of radio waves, which Scotty cannot alter -- you can't engineer around them: You're going to need an antenna of a certain size and a transmitter of a certain power to read from a certain distance.
The tags are small, but the tag antennas give them away. You can't see the radio waves, but if the would-be surreptitious reader has to stand three feet from you with a large antenna and beam you with enough signal to warm your skin, then it's not quite going to pass your notice. So the reason for the tin-foil-hat comments is that even the concerns you do list are pretty far-fetched.
The ones I've seen are about a quarter-inch wide and four to five inches long. Do you really think you're going to have trouble finding a tag of that size?
If it's buried in a tire or something else you can't get to easily, yes, it can be very difficult to find. And even if you can find it it might be impossible to remove without destroying the thing it's attached to. Especially if it's printed directly on it.
Reading the tags from further than a few inches away requires very high-powered antennas, and you're probably not going to stand around waiting while some guy stands around with an antenna, slowly cooking your body while he tries to read the RFID tags in your clothes.
This says you're wrong.
So the reason for the tin-foil-hat comments is that even the concerns you do list are pretty far-fetched.
They aren't as far fetched as you would have people believe, but that doesn't change the fact that he didn't even let anyone voice their concerns before calling them paranoid. If he even knew what their concerns were, it would be obvious that they don't apply here.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
If it's buried in a tire or something else you can't get to easily, yes, it can be very difficult to find. And even if you can find it it might be impossible to remove without destroying the thing it's attached to. Especially if it's printed directly on it.
Granted. Large objects like tires and refrigerators will be harder to find the tags.
THIS [Link to RFID Journal] says you're wrong.
"This" is designed to promote retailers' adoption of RFID. I am someone who has actually tried to get the bloody readers to read the bloody tags without getting bloody baked, all the while nervously noting the warnings on the reader's instructions saying "BE NINE INCHES AWAY FROM THE ANTENNA!"
They aren't as far fetched as you would have people believe, but that doesn't change the fact that he didn't even let anyone voice their concerns before calling them paranoid. If he even knew what their concerns were, it would be obvious that they don't apply here.
It's obvious to you and me, because we're reasonably well-informed about the subject. Knee-jerk responses have been known to pop up on Slashdot from time to time. Microsoft sucks. Since when have all responses to articles been on-topic? This also isn't the first RFID article to appear on Slashdot where people have discussed the civil rights issues involved.
Granted. Large objects like tires and refrigerators will be harder to find the tags.
They can also be embedded in the soles of work boots or in the lining of a handbag where, even if you can find them, you can't remove them without destroying the item.
"This" is designed to promote retailers' adoption of RFID. I am someone who has actually tried to get the bloody readers to read the bloody tags without getting bloody baked, all the while nervously noting the warnings on the reader's instructions saying "BE NINE INCHES AWAY FROM THE ANTENNA!"
That your scanner doesn't work does not prove it can't be done. 900MHz cordless phones have been transmitting much, much farther without cooking anything in between. There are 900MHz baby monitors which will transmit, through walls, from one end of the house to the other and even past it without harming the baby that's in the room. If they can't read RFID tags at a distance of ten feet now (which I suspect they can based on other manufacturer's data) it's not because of the limitations of the radio signal.
Knee-jerk responses have been known to pop up on Slashdot from time to time. Microsoft sucks. Since when have all responses to articles been on-topic?
My issue with the post was that it was deliberately mistating the opposition's argument in an effort to discredit it and paint people who hold that opinion as irrational and paranoid. It did little more than say "you people believe all RFID tags are evil" which is clearly not the case. In essence, he was complaining about the noise from the party next door before the party even got started.
This also isn't the first RFID article to appear on Slashdot where people have discussed the civil rights issues involved.
Assuming that all articles concerning RFID tags are about privacy violations is as irrational as assuming all uses of RFID tags are privacy violations. That he did assume people would claim there were privacy violations means he doesn't understand what the concerns about RFID tags are. My aim was first to educate him or, failing that, at least show others that the opposition to RFID tags is not irrational as he claims it is. In the greater scheme of things I'm making the point that he (and others) should actually listen to what the other side is saying before ranting about how wrong they are.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
"900MHz cordless phones have been transmitting much, much farther without cooking anything in between. There are 900MHz baby monitors which will transmit, through walls, from one end of the house to the other and even past it without harming the baby that's in the room."
Those items have ACTIVE TRANSMITTERS. That's like saying that since I require oxygen to live and fish require oxygen, then fish ought to be able to breathe out of water because of the oxygen in the air. As I said before, RFID tags in consumer items are passive; they use the signal from the reader to power themselves. In order to transmit that far at 900MHz, they need a certain number of milliwatts of power to transmit a certain number of milliwatts of signal to reach a certain distance. And that by necessity means you either need a VERY powerful reader, or a very short range.
Las Vegas recently hosted the American Association of Airport Executives and briefed the group on the RFID baggage system, mentioning agreements with some casinos to work with the airports in handling baggage. Note I am an airport planner in real life, but not affiliated with Las Vegas airport. IOW, if you have to check out of the hotel at 11 a.m. but have a 9 p.m. flight, that's a long time to hold onto your luggage. The hotel takes care of it, getting it to the airport, so you don't see it until the baggage carousel at your final destination. Eventually (my opinion, not necessarily the airport), it will work both ways, where you check in the baggage at the beginning of your "airport experience" and don't see the baggage again until you reach your hotel. This is especially great if you have a business meeting first before checking in. It could all be tied into the ordering of tickets online (pick airline, hotel, rental car, etc). Checking on luggage status is as easy as using the internet (much like you can track packages). The technology exists to more easily "unburden" the air traveler and make their travel more pleasurable (and a profit to be made for this extra service). Those that are worried about privacy should note that RFID tags will only show the location of the last scan, not the contents. Are your worried about the privacy of the package you ordered from Amazon.com, or do you like the fact that you know it was scanned locally at 6 this morning and no worries?
confuses people when your opening the door with an inkpen. Seems like a good case for "the pen is mightier" quote
Because normally you use a sword to open a door, right?
Those items have ACTIVE TRANSMITTERS.
I understand that. The point is the difference in power between being able to read a passive tag at 10 feet and cooking human flesh is several orders of magnitude.
And that by necessity means you either need a VERY powerful reader, or a very short range.
Here's a reader that can read up to 2.5 meters away (roughly 8 feet) on 4 Watts of power. While it's not quite 20 feet, it's certainly more than a few inches and looks like it could fit in a shoebox.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
"The point is the difference in power between being able to read a passive tag at 10 feet and cooking human flesh is several orders of magnitude."
Quick cooking, yes. Warming, no.
It takes a certain amount of watts to transmit a signal over a certain distance. The reader has to transmit more than an order of magnitude more than that for enough to be absorbed for the tag to send.
"Here's a reader that can read up to 2.5 meters away (roughly 8 feet) on 4 Watts of power. While it's not quite 20 feet, it's certainly more than a few inches and looks like it could fit in a shoebox."
What you don't see in that photograph is an antenna large enough to transmit over the 2.5m range and a power supply.
The antennae for 2.5m reading is about the size of a notebook -- twelve inches square by one inch deep. Once you combine the shoebox and the notebook together, you've got a bit of weight to lug around. On top of that, you'll need a car battery or two to provide sufficient wattage to power it if you want to lug it around.
Also, the maximum range is not going to read very reliably. You may be able to read a single tag with a rather large built-in antenna from that range after about a second of holding it there, but for the kind of performance you want when surreptitiously scanning an individual, you're going to want to be within a couple of feet. You'll need multiple antennas to get the whole body in range as well, or the large standing antenna pairs like they have at the exit of your local Home Depot.
Quick cooking, yes. Warming, no.
You're going to have to back this up. If a 4 Watt transmitter can noticably warm a human being, I would be very interested in knowing how since I routinely install 30KW heaters in spaces to do exactly the same thing.
It takes a certain amount of watts to transmit a signal over a certain distance. The reader has to transmit more than an order of magnitude more than that for enough to be absorbed for the tag to send.
Nobody is disputing this. It does not however, especially since you haven't quantified anything, prove it can't be done. But, just for the sake of argument, let's assume that the equipment needed to scan an individual at a couple of feet is too big to carry around. So what? There are plenty of other methods of acquiring the information without the need for the reader to be portable.
You'll need multiple antennas to get the whole body in range as well, or the large standing antenna pairs like they have at the exit of your local Home Depot.
Oddly enough, this is exactly the kind of configuration most people who criticize RFID tags are concerned about: WalMart (for example) scanning the RFID tags you are carrying as you enter the store as well as when you leave. If any one of them was purchased in the store (or another WalMart, or any other store that shares data with them) with a credit card or any other personally identifiable method, they now have a record of when you entered and when you left, whether or not you purchased anything, and you likely wouldn't know. Even if you did know you were being scanned, you have no way of knowing what information about you they have or how long they keep it, and no way of preventing it. That makes it surreptitious. That's what people are concerned about. It's looking less and less like "tinfoil-hat" paranoia.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
You're going to have to back this up. If a 4 Watt transmitter can noticably warm a human being, I would be very interested in knowing how since I routinely install 30KW heaters in spaces to do exactly the same thing.
Look, I'm only telling you the facts of what has happened with me, actually working with the buggers. Remember that the reader manufacturers' claims of reader performance are only going to list the best-case scenarios, because they want to sell their equipment. They're also going to minimize any health risks. However, if you download, say, the Alien RFID developer's kit and look at the setup instructions and the manual, you'll see a large number of warning listed there.
Are these 30KW microwave heaters?
The whole idea behind a microwave oven is that it heats up water and oil really quickly with very little power. 500W will get a cup of water near boiling in a couple of minutes. It works by sending microwaves at you. Now I'm not using 500W and I'm not inside an oven, but sitting in a cubicle for 8 hours a day with 4 Watts is enough to feel a difference.
That's what people are concerned about. It's looking less and less like "tinfoil-hat" paranoia.
Those antennas are really hard to miss; they're four feet tall and stand on both sides of you. You can easily spot them before you walk into the store, just as you can easily spot the four-inch-plus RFID tag antennas in most of what you wear.
There's another consideration that's important: Bags of water, of which you and I are two, absorb microwaves. You also walk through the antennas rather quickly. That and the fact that none of these systems that work for anti-theft use passive RFID.
Would you like a real-world example of passive RFID that already exists? Keycards for security. I imagine you have a high-tech job or know someone who does (This is Slashdot, right?) where they use these for entry. You have a card about the size of three credit cards layered together. You put it within an inch of a reader antenna and hold there for a good second or so, and then the gate opens. That's a real-world passive RFID reader in action. The tag readers I worked with all worked about the same way, although they did slightly better since I had the benefit of a controlled environment -- but they didn't do great, particularly in the presence of more than a dozen tags.
But I've said this all before, and you didn't believe me then, either -- and why should you? I only claim to have worked with the technology, which is not something you can verify independently. On the other hand, you have product brochures (the last bastion of corporate veracity) to back you up. So believe what you want.
Are these 30KW microwave heaters?
The whole idea behind a microwave oven is that it heats up water and oil really quickly with very little power. 500W will get a cup of water near boiling in a couple of minutes. It works by sending microwaves at you.
They are 30KW electric resistance heaters, but it doesn't matter. Heat is heat. Microwave ovens don't make things hotter with less power, they make things as hot faster. That's the whole purpose behind them: speed, not efficiency. It still requires the same amout of power to boil that water but a microwave can do it faster because it is transferring its energy directly to the water rather than to the air or the container first. There is a slight gain in efficiency, mostly due to a reduction in heat loss, but not enough to make a real difference.
Now I'm not using 500W and I'm not inside an oven, but sitting in a cubicle for 8 hours a day with 4 Watts is enough to feel a difference.
Your lighting, computer monitor and you produce more heat than 4 Watts ever could. If your office is getting warm, it's not from the reader unless you have a thousand of them operating continuously at once. Otherwise, you've discovered the solution to all our woes: a device that puts out more energy than you put into it.
Those antennas are really hard to miss; they're four feet tall and stand on both sides of you.
And look identical to the anti-theft systems in use today that just detect the metal strip. People are already used to seeing them and likely can't tell them from RFID reader antennae.
Would you like a real-world example of passive RFID that already exists? Keycards for security.
I have one. It's ten years old. It's also designed on purpose to require you to put your card very close to the reader to prevent people from accidentally opening the door.
The tag readers I worked with all worked about the same way, although they did slightly better since I had the benefit of a controlled environment -- but they didn't do great, particularly in the presence of more than a dozen tags.
Even if they don't work well now, it's still not proof that they never will. And none of this precludes the cost of active tags falling to where they are a viable option for the same uses.
But I've said this all before, and you didn't believe me then, either -- and why should you?
Honestly? Because you've done nothing to back it up. If you want to convince me you have to give me more than just "because I said so".
On the other hand, you have product brochures (the last bastion of corporate veracity) to back you up.
I never claimed they were the end-all and were unquestionable. But published manufacturer specifications, even if a little embellished, are a much better source of information than some random Joe on the internet. And, no offense, but I don't know you from some random Joe. You could be lying out of your ass and I wouldn't know. Science requires people provide evidence to back up their claims and none of the evidence I've seen supports your position. No, none of it is irrefutable, but you've shown me nothing to say otherwise.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
They are 30KW electric resistance heaters, but it doesn't matter. Heat is heat. Microwave ovens don't make things hotter with less power, they make things as hot faster. That's the whole purpose behind them: speed, not efficiency. It still requires the same amout of power to boil that water but a microwave can do it faster because it is transferring its energy directly to the water rather than to the air or the container first. There is a slight gain in efficiency, mostly due to a reduction in heat loss, but not enough to make a real difference.
Electric resistance heaters work by transferring energy to coils. The coils heat up, heating up the air around them, which eventually gets to you. The conversion to heat energy happens in the heater, and then has to pass through air, which is an insulator, so it takes a lot of power to heat a small area.
Microwaves work by bombarding a target with radio waves. Radio waves excite certain molecules, especially oil and water molecules, which then heat the rest of the target. In this case, the transfer to heat energy happens in the target, and the heat transfer doesn't have to fight the air between the transmitter and the target.
Science requires people provide evidence to back up their claims and none of the evidence I've seen supports your position.
I encourage you to verify my claims.
1. Obtain an RFID development kit. Go to http://www.buyrfid.com/ and pick one of the long-range readers.
2. RTFM. Note the copious warnings about being too close to the antenna.
3. Play with it for a couple of weeks with the provided tags. Notice how performance changes if you have multiple tags, or put yourself between the antenna and the tag. Notice how long a tag has to be in the antenna's range to be read.
4. Return developer kit for a refund.
If you do this, you will see that things are as I say they are, with little cost to you other than shipping. If you aren't willing to do this, then you have a closed mind and this discussion has been a waste of your time.
Microwaves work by bombarding a target with radio waves. Radio waves excite certain molecules, especially oil and water molecules, which then heat the rest of the target.
It takes roughly 3 BTUs of energy to heat one pound of 70 dF dry air to 80 df and roughly 10 BTUs of energy to heat one pound of water from 70 dF to 80 dF regardless of how you do it. This is physics. Microwaves simply allow you to heat the water faster, but it still requires the same amount of energy. But in the case of warming your office, the water warmed from the microwaves will then have to transfer the heat to the air, so the effect is the same. A 4 Watt transmitter is not going to make your office noticable warmer.
I encourage you to verify my claims.
First of all, I don't have $4K to lay out for a scientific experiment solely to satisfy my curiosity even if I would get it back later. And even if I did, all it would prove is that this particular reader does or does not exhibit the problems you claim it has. Secondly, it's your argument, you back it up. All you would have to do is point out a reference that backs up your claims. If you aren't willing to do this, then I can't take your claims seriously.
Meanwhile, if everything you say is true, then the technology is absolutely incapable of doing what WalMart wants to use it for, which so far no one else has mentioned.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
First of all, I don't have $4K to lay out for a scientific experiment solely to satisfy my curiosity even if I would get it back later. And even if I did, all it would prove is that this particular reader does or does not exhibit the problems you claim it has. Secondly, it's your argument, you back it up. All you would have to do is point out a reference that backs up your claims. If you aren't willing to do this, then I can't take your claims seriously.
s /tests/rfid _test_results_warehouse.pdf
I'm making a claim? The whole reason we're having this discussion is because someone else said surreptitious scanning of RFID tags was paranoia that isn't backed by facts. I can't back up my claim because my only claim is: "These things don't do what you say they do." You're asking me to back up a negative claim. If I claim God exists, and then you say God doesn't exist, I can't then come back at you and say, "Prove your claim."
That's why we call it "tin foil hat" paranoia: You have no evidence, you ignore the evidence when it's presented to you, and you're not going to bother yourself to procure it.
There's a reason you can't find an experiment showing whether surreptitious tag reading is possible: It doesn't exist. There are barely any studies -- public and private -- showing the readers can even do what they're supposed to do, which leads right into this:
Meanwhile, if everything you say is true, then the technology is absolutely incapable of doing what WalMart wants to use it for, which so far no one else has mentioned.
Bingo. It's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to do per-item in-store tracking. The costs of the individual tags, the health risks posed by the long-range readers, the unpredictability of the environment, and the mere physics of the damned things aren't likely to make such things feasible, even for noble causes like shoplifting prevention and knowing when to restock bubble gum.
Wal-Mart wants to use RFID for other things, too.
In warehouses and manufacturing centers, you don't have aisles packed with men, women, and children; the people you do have are professionals who are trained to deal with a semi-dangerous environment. You can set up the pallets, products, and readers into predictable positions to obtain predictable behavior. In that way, RFID can save Wal-Mart and the US military costs in their supply chains by tracking pallets and shipments, much in the same way that Delta wants to track baggage.
This is useful. This will save Wal-Mart billions of dollars per year on its own. And it might even be feasible:
http://www.buyrfid.com/rfidwizards/doc
The RFID industry is full of a lot of hype right now, and organizations like MIT's Auto-ID center are fantasizing about what the technology might be able to do for companies. Only very recently have companies like Delta and Wal-Mart actually begun to try the equipment out to see how well it actually performs, and you can expect that it most likely will not do everything people want it to do. Underneath the hype, the stuff just really isn't that cool.
(begin shameless plug) Now mesh networking, THAT's cool, and THAT's going to change the world forever, especially THIS company: http://www.kiyon.com/ (end shameless plug)
I'm making a claim?
Yes. You are claiming that you can't possibly scan RFID's without the carrier knowing you have. Your specific reasoning was they don't have the range necessary (which started at "a few inches" and became "a couple of feet"). You are also claiming that any RFID reader capable of reading passive tags at more than a few inches would noticably warm the person's skin. I have shown manufacturer data claiming the range of passive tags can be as much as ten feet. You have shown nothing except to claim that manufacturer data is unreliable. You have also yet to show that the reader would warm the skin of the person being scanned except for some specious reasoning based on a misunderstanding of how microwave ovens work. Neither of these is asking you to "prove a negative." By your reasoning, the statement "one plus one does not equal five" is not provable.
You have no evidence,
I have provided evidence to which you have only responded "they lie".
you ignore the evidence when it's presented to you
You have provided none except anecdotes based on personal experience which nobody can verify. That's not evidence.
and you're not going to bother yourself to procure it.
I have seen, and shown you, evidence supporting my claims. You have shown me no evidence supporting yours. It is not up to me to prove your argument for you.
It's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to do per-item in-store tracking.
Yet the very site you directed me to claims to meet WalMart's standard.
The costs of the individual tags,
Which are falling as the technology progresses.
the health risks posed by the long-range readers,
which you have yet to show any evidence of other than mentions of disclaimers in manuals that I have no access to.
the unpredictability of the environment, and the mere physics of the damned things aren't likely to make such things feasible, even for noble causes like shoplifting prevention and knowing when to restock bubble gum.
First of all, the very idea that someone is attempting to do it is worthy of discussion, regardless if the technology is capable of it now. Second, that the technology is not capable now does not mean it won't be in the future. The time to raise the concerns about the technology is while it's being designed, not when it's already been implemented.
The RFID industry is full of a lot of hype right now, and organizations like MIT's Auto-ID center are fantasizing about what the technology might be able to do for companies. Only very recently have companies like Delta and Wal-Mart actually begun to try the equipment out to see how well it actually performs, and you can expect that it most likely will not do everything people want it to do. Underneath the hype, the stuff just really isn't that cool.
I have no doubt it's over-hyped. Most new technology usually is. But it might live up to some of its claims. If the tags can be read at a distance as small as 5 feet, it can pose a privacy problem. They may never be cheap enough to put in every single product, but they may be cheap enough to put in most things. They are most definitely capable of being individually identifiable. There are concerns. Writing those concerns off as impossible simply because the technology is not yet up to the task is incredibly short-sighted and naive.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
You know, I actually agree with you that you can't just believe whatever I say. You're absolutely right. "I read it on the internet, it must be true," (wink wink, nudge nudge) and all that. Google != Reference and all that.
Now what's the basis for believing this is feasible? Oh, that's right... you read it on the internet. Well, it must be true then.
The fears are "tin foil hat" fears because there isn't any solid evidence out there suggesting that these devices are capable of doing what we fear. Note that I say "we" -- I'm concerned about privacy and our rights, too; I put my money where my mouth is by contributing to the EFF every month.
And to show you that I am not just some random shmuck hiding behind internet anonymity, I sign this with my real name. And if you have any further questions, you can e-mail me; my address is there for you to use. I'd be happy to talk about what RFID readers can and cannot do there.
Jimmy Rimmer
Now what's the basis for believing this is feasible? Oh, that's right... you read it on the internet. Well, it must be true then.
"Don't believe everything you read" does not mean "believe nothing you read". I've done research. I've found the best evidence I can. You, however, have given only your opinion and not backed it up with a single, independently-verifiable reference short of insisting I spend $4000 on an experiment which won't, in the end, prove anything useful.
The fears are "tin foil hat" fears because there isn't any solid evidence out there suggesting that these devices are capable of doing what we fear.
I have presented some evidence to support the idea that it might at least be possible, yet you continue to argue that it flat out isn't and never will be and refuse to back up your claims. And you accuse me of ignoring the evidence.
And if you have any further questions, you can e-mail me; my address is there for you to use. I'd be happy to talk about what RFID readers can and cannot do there.
If you are going to ignore my evidence, if I am not allowed to question the claims you make nor expect you to provide references for them, I have little use for any further conversation about it with you. No hard feelings, but it just isn't productive.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.