Slashdot Mirror
Hacking the RFID Network
An anonymous reader writes "The world's largest retailers are developing the EPC Network as the infrastructure for a global rollout of item-level RFID. In many ways this 'Internet of Things' resembles the ISBN system or CueCat's codes-to-content. But the network built for tracking consumer goods could also be used for intangible items: airline seats, music tracks or service calls."
on overusing this new system
Track music downloads and service calls? That's billions of unique items every year. How many items do these RFID tags support?
So that's what the tiny stipes of metal embeded under the protective plastic cover on library books are for...
I can track my porn collection internationally?
I've tagged all my mp3 files with "downloaded from obli" in the comments field to see if one ever returns to me one day (don't know why I would download an mp3 I already have, but hey), maybe I'll see it in a friend's library, maybe someone recognizes the name, who knwos?
I knew they could be used as flotation devices- but now they're apparently virtual as well. That explains the problem with overselling flights I guess. They're selling VAPORSEATS (tm) (Patent Pending)
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
What they're saying is that RFID can be applied to intangible information - content rather than the physical media - just like ISBN/Library_of_Congress system uses an identifier for a book rather than an instance of it.
In other words: RFID can be extended to apply to an entire class, rather than instances of it, as is usually done.
Bet somebody'll mention how this is great for pr0n in the next 5 minutes.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
at least someone will be able to find my remote control
-ninjaneer
RFID presents the same looming threat as bar codes.
What does "hacking" have to do with any of this?
"err sir ... you appear to be stealing an elephant from our store .... err um please turn out your pockets ... wait I was wrong you appear to be carrying the entire housewares department ..."
...piggybacks on DNS to look up manufacturer info. The spec is here... nifty stuff!
The Army reading list
The major shortcoming of RFID tags is not their rollout in stores, it's that they want to do things like weave them into clothing fabric or hide them so you've got to work to get them out. I don't know about you, but that's a bit excessive. Moreso, the range on the tags is an issue; the tag may be tiny, but you can still get a considerable amount of range out of that, look what's possible with GPS.
Then we've got the registering everything idea. If we put RFID tags on everything that can go for 100 feet, and if everything has a unique identification code, then the government can ask for a list of which codes are associated with which objcts. Then, as stuff is baught, you swipe through your drivers lisence and a database is updated with what you have. Combine this with bank account data, wifi hotspots on poles that are constantly pinging devices, garbage trucks equiped with rfid scanning technology, and other pieces of information, and you've got one hell of a spying system. All those evil laws the people in power dream of would be possible.
If there was a law that said the RFID tags could only be put on removable stickers, and must have a range limited to less than 5 feet, then it'd be ok. It's the "weaving them into products" thing that's got everyone upset. Infact, if that weaving thing didn't exist, I think RFID tags would be pretty neat; you could buy a bunch of food and query it through your house, which could download and update a database of recipe's which could be setup on some kind of whacky algoritm that figures out which is going to go bad first.
The only problem there is that as the chips evolve, we'll be throwing small flash cards on em with advertising or more complicated systems of ensuring produce hasn't been tampered with, which if the laws don't change, will require licensing since you're copying; licensing to eat, not a good thing.
AS far as tracking people is conserned, we all know of the mark of the beast, and we all know that tracking accounts with rfid tags is just plain stupid. If you're going to track a person, have them wear a wrist band or something; even the guys on star trek didn't have that little pin thingy embedded in their forhead.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
http://news.com.com/Japan%20school%20kids%20to%20b e%20tagged%20with%20RFID%20chips/2100-1012_3-52667 00.html
i, for one, welcome our rfid tagged japanese overlords.
for a minute there, i lost myself...
Why not just write your name on a dollar bill like the rest of us?
Services?!
Tag your plumber.
If there's anything to say about the japanese, it's "wow, they're screwed up". If tagging your kid everywhere they go says something, it says "I don't trust you"; and the longer kids aren't trusted with responsability, the less they will be responsable, and if the world is filled with irresponsable people....
Dear lord...that'd be one screwed up place...
Candy-Coated Knowledge
.. Are Japanese school children anyway? (Japan school kids to be tagged with RFID chips) Just wait until a stalker hacks that RFID network!
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Why doesn't some entity work on a universal system of tracking nearly everything?
I'd like to scan in that barcode at the bottom of a Walmart Reciept and import all the tag information about what I bought to my home database and/or spreadsheet.
ISBN, UPC, VIN are all fairly standard. The artical wants a standard for reusable resellabl items. Bus tickets, subway tickets, airplane tickets, and movie tickets all come to mind.
I'd love to be able to track/search/use all this information for my own personal use. I wouldn't want to have to list it on my IRS returns or to my insurance company. Well, if I'd get a big deduction I wouldn't mind listing it.
Excuse me, but I seem to have misplaced my Attorney General. Have you seen him lying around anywhere?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Why bother RFID labels when they're easily destroyed by the spark of a piezo element (like in a lighter)?
Hell, I even destroyed a radio with that (my parents weren't proud of me then....).
"and the longer kids aren't trusted with responsability, the less they will be responsable"
I'm not sure I agree with that one. It ignores the vastly different cultures and the effects they have on people. The Japanese live in a rather different society than you or I.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
How long are RFID tags (or the databases' links between a person and their stuff) supposed to last?
:P
When people get tired of or wear out their RFID clothes and then give them to Goodwill or sell them through consignment stores, tracking systems will think they're in multiple places at the same time.
So does this mean I should or should *not* start buying all my clothes at the second-hand store when RFID rolls out?
nn
"It's a wonderful idea. But it doesn't work." -- Tad Danielewski
why on earth should airline seats be intangible? last time I sat in one it wasn't. I further imagine that the seats not get lost too often and therefore do not need to be tracked..... This whole idea is just nonsense...
simply dictate where you send your products and keep the consumer in one place, like a vat of amneotic fluid. Come to think of it, all those carbon based units churning out 100W of heat and only using less than 10% of their processing power...
Imagine a super beowulf cluster of those...
Er wait...
My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
First the Mexicans, Next US!
... read more here: t ml
"Mexico's attorney general said on Monday he had had a microchip inserted under the skin of one of his arms"
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,64194,00.h
We all know where this will end up... you have seen Battle Royale right? ;-)
one benefit - an instructor or gym leader will no longer have to do 'roll call', they just check the pc for the door scanner. Here's an Excel spreadsheet of everyone who walked thru the door in the last 10 minutes. Wait, where's Keiko? Ah, she never left the previous classroom.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
If anybody wants to do something constructive, then help "hack" on the open source RFID C library on Savannah.
It's my understanding that a common practice these days is to have microships (which I assume to be RFID tags) injected under the skin of pets, so lost pets can be identified even if they're not wearing collars.
I think a good idea would be to make pet doors that can "learn" to unlock only when certain RFID tags are within 4 or five feet. You could set it for the pets you own, and other pets (and/or other critters) wouldn't be able to get in.
Also, if your pets didn't have the chips implanted, you could just get a chip on a collar.
Alaska Jack
I'll let the philosophers sort out whether the ability to track every object is a good or bad thing. However, I do know that if this system becomes too pervasive without security, this is going to be a big problem in a hurry.
I remember a commercial where a shifty guy walks through a store stuffing things in his jacket, and then walks out of the door to be stopped by security. The guard informs him that he forgot his receipt, hands it to him, and sends him on his way. I'm all for putting checkers out of work, but if such an environment existed, it would also be profitable to spoof the system.
As they are currenly used, I suppose the only profit would be to either disable the tags or somehow make the store think it has already been purchased. That brings me to the next issue. I assume most people have tried to walk out of a store with a purchased tagged item where the checker forgot to take off the tag. It is annoying and embarassing. Imagine if this could happen with every article of clothing that you own because the store database gets screwed up.
I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
What would be the easiest way to find and/or destroy an RFID tag? Put your new pullover in the microwave oven for 3 seconds?
Is there any way to destroy such a tag embedded in electronics? Would it be possible to make the tag a vital part of the electronics in such a way that its destruction would lead to immediate equipment failure?
Are the signals easy to spoof?
Geek rants since like... 2000 or something.
I use my cuecat for my passwords...
Kind of assinine. Now instead of the criminals trying to track him physically so they can assassinate him - they give the criminals the ability hack the Tracking System and follow him in that fashion and find out his patterns...
Pretty stupid... Gonna suck if someone designs a killer robot that homes in on someone's implanted chip
Looks like this is the kind of world we are heading to :\
No, they really don't. Yes, the culture is different, but essentially the same. The japanese culture is crazy, because their value system is completly, utterly, and totally screwed up. Namely, because of what we did to them after world war 2; destroyed most of their culture with industrialism.
Their society is decaying in much the same way ours is. They are a different people, but all people's on the planet have the same values, but different ways of going about it. You can worship a non-existant god, or a gigantic gold statue; the bible and buddist teachings teach the same thing accept in different respects.
Frankly, if you need to track your kid, you've done a poor job of parenting them. A child by the age of 7 or 8 should be able to watch themselves, and by 12 or 13 they should be capable of taking care of themselves; this is how it worked for a few hundred or thousand years in western culture, and if the westerners can do it so can the easterners. If you find that hard to believe, then you shouldn't have kids.
Some kids need to be watched, I will agree, but they shouldn't. With any luck, they'll wise up or eliminate themselves from the gene pool. Hrm, that reminds me of a quote...
"The gene pool is stagnant and I am the minister of chlorine!" - Postal Dude.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Maybe I'm just spoiled being a hardware engineer, but it seems to me that the people who are crying about these RFID tags and privacy are just plain ignorant.
I can tell you it will be trivially easy to build a jammer for them. Maybe a little harder to build an RF source with enough energy to burn out their cute little itty-bitty diodes. And until they get wise and start putting challenge/responce encryption in them, building a box to spoof them would be a weekend project for your average Radio Shack hobbyist.
Will someone please educate them about the technology so they can devote their time to something that really matters? (If they want something to bitch about, they can read my blog for ideas.)
I might just wait until they're manditory in license plates and walk parking lots blowing them all out, (but probably not being a grownup and all.) Perhaps I should have posted as AC just for suggesting it. (Damned Patriot Act bastards.)
640k items should be enough for everybody
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
They destroyed most of their culture (well I'd say half of it), but it's still on the safest country in the world (if you don't fuck with the yakuza). That's why I don't understand their behaviour. It's maybe because all the parental scheme has disappeared (the father never at home for example).
it already exists: /. and we all know how well that works at solving even the most basic problem
Well, it basically works like an RDIF, but its only one bit (checked in or checked out) not 256 bits. Do some research.
"Consider some of the main usages . . . Anti-theft . . . Quick checkout . . . 'easily-removable' defeats the entire purpose for which a lot of stores will use them."
It's not the merchants' _ostensible_intended_ usages which are excessive, Virginia; it's the _potential_ uses, by corporations, hackers, private snoops, governments, etc.
Jeez, things are going way beyond Ben Franklin's famous saying about trading liberty for security. Lately, I've been seeing way too many of these examples of people being naively willing to short-sightedly throw away privacy, the safety of anonymity, and safeguards against the Ashcrofts of the world -- irreversibly -- not for "security", but MERELY for fscking temporary CONVENIENCE!!
NOO!!!!!
Please dear lord nooooo!. This is one evil film.
"Passive tags . . . using current induced in them by an RFID interrogator . . . effective range is presently less than 2 feet"
yeah, and now we can all relax, confident in the knowledge that THIS technology will never advance further, right?
"showing the rest of us how paranoid you are"
yes, right along with all those "kooks" at ACLU, eff.org, epic.org . . .
Someone needs to make an RFID jammer. A little keychain size device that jams any RFID traffic within one's personal space, rendering any RFID tags you're carrying to be effectively inert. Surely something like this should not be hard to make.
I'd buy one.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
The RF power output on a RFID Reader if you made one that could read 100+ feet would start to interfere or render other electronic devices inoperable. The FCC has VERY tight restrictions on devices that put out RF in any form. Besides the fact that unless all the shelving and walls in the store are made of non-ferrous all the metal in stores would interfere with reading the tags.
Not to mention that to get acurate reads from the tags the reader antenae will still have to be with in 8-12 inches of the tag.
or in other words: "Well, I have the assembly instructions right here. It just happens to be written in Urdu. Maybe I'm just spoiled being an Urdu speaker, but it seems to me that the people who are crying about these Urdu documents are just plain ignorant. I can tell you it will be trivially easy for you to translate it into English."
The point isn't that it's "trivially easy" to *build*; the point is designing it. Since it's so trivially easy for a hardware engineer, why don't you post a schematic and parts-list for us? Seriously, do it, and I'll build one toot sweet [sic].
No, it doesn't work like an RFID tag. An RFID tag is an ASIC containing a memory and an antenna, that's either battery powered or inductively powered, then encapsulated. STFW.
RFID Journal FAQ
A metal strip does not identify anything.
RFID tags can receive a "kill" signal that isn't undoable. When you checkout, the clerk kills the tag.
It is not an immortal beacon of the evil governement to track your oh-so-important person.
"The FCC has VERY tight restrictions on devices that put out RF in any form."
and how inconceivable is it, that readers will eventually be so small and cheap, that they can be placed so densely that you can't avoid being in range (without engaging in behavior that's considered sufficient probable cause to be detained)?
Who was predicting ubiquitous gigabit wifi ten years ago?
Truth being said in jest dept: These tags are tiny. I'd love to be able to put one on my wife's glasses, my keys, my cell phone, etc., etc., and yes, most especially the remote controls. Then, with a reader, I could at least get a "warmer... warmer... colder..." guide to where the items were.
Then there's the problem of misplacing the reader. I think I'd want to have it "want" to be in a docking station in a fixed location, and start making noise after a few minutes "away from home".
"Also, if your pets didn't have the chips implanted, you could just get a chip on a collar."
If ranchers chip their cattle? Does that make them chipped beef?
It identifies that you're trying to steal the book!
"Passive tags . . . using current induced in them by an RFID interrogator . . . effective range is presently less than 2 feet"
.
yeah, and now we can all relax, confident in the knowledge that THIS technology will never advance further, right?
Don't be absurd. Of course the technology will evolve. But why would you assume that nothing is being done to on the privacy front? As a matter of fact, the privacy argument is the most interesting non-technical discussion in all of RFID/EPC. But to assume that technical evolution automatically means the death of privacy/birth of Big Brother puts you squarely among the tin-foil hat crowd.
One thing that the RFIDTFHs (RFID TinFoilHats) fail to realize is that your purchases (UNLESS you use only cash) is already in databases. Credit cards, affinity cards, loyalty cards, SpeedPass, real estate, ATM, EZPass etc. data is already being aggregated. The horse is long gone from the barn.
"showing the rest of us how paranoid you are"
yes, right along with all those "kooks" at ACLU, eff.org, epic.org . .
And I didn't say anything about the groups you mentioned being kooky. I characterized the original poster as paranoid, and that's all I said. To infer from that remark what my views of other groups or individuals might be is faulty reasoning at best and a shopworn debating trick to boot.
...is that it's full of Mexicans.
Fucking gross Beaners can't even speak Spanish right.
Talk about a deceptive article title. I see it, and I think of people hacking an RFID network to find ways to mess with it (which would be good if the network becomes too intrusive). Instead, it's about ways of using the technology, that aren't what we're all thinking about right now.
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
"why would you assume that nothing is being done to on the privacy front?"
I'm not. But little or nothing would be done on that front, if there weren't people voicing concerns. When you make statements like "showing the rest of us how paranoid you are", you belittle the act of expressing those concerns, which the field of rhetoric calls an "ad hominem" argument -- to use your phrase, "a shopworn debating trick".
If you think that the concerns need to be voiced, then say so. OTOH, if you think the concerns are unwarranted, then say so. But don't ridicule someone for expressing concern, then turn around and ridicule them for defending that concern by associating themselves with respected organizations who share that concern.
So, which is it? Do you believe the concern is legit? And if so, then exactly which utterances of other people do you consider to be "paranoid", and why?
"our purchases (UNLESS you use only cash) is already in databases."
I do. And that's why.
"data is already being aggregated. The horse is long gone from the barn."
Even if the horse is presently gone, that's no reason to shoot in its direction and then turn around and demolish the barn. If Samuel Adams and his ilk had had your attitude, the US national Anthem would now be "God Save The Queen".
Perhaps we can agree to elevate this dialogue by shunning the extremes of the spectrum.
No need to shoplift OUT of the store -- walk in and start tossing rfid emiters in coat pockets, bags of socks, other shoppers' carts .....
Overwhelm the system and it becomes useless.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Imagine driving through the truck stop, or rail yard, 'asking' each truck/car what it's carrying. You can then take only what is of the most value to you.
Gimme a break. The original poster used the phrase 'they want to do things like weave them into clothing fabric or hide them'... That's not so much 'voicing concerns' as it is a page straight out of Classic Paranoia 101. Who are 'they' exactly? The 'Gummit'? Or maybe the Tri-Lateral Commission?
Your statement that 'little or nothing would be done on that front, if there weren't people voicing concerns' is absurb on its face. How can you possibly argue what would be or would not be done in an hypothetical future? Can you not imagine that those who stand to benefit from RFID also have privacy concerns?
To get off the tinfoil hat posts for just a second,
What kind of database is going to be able to handle all this information. I've already heard someone say DNS where every company is responcible for tracking their own data and making it searchable, but what about, for example Pepsi. They could potentially produce 1e9 units in a year. Is database technology ready for those kind of numbers?
JFMILLER
Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
More likely implementation: a proximity landmine or a roadside bomb, with his "name" written in. Maybe, with more high-tech adversary, even a homing missile or a drone.
I can pretty well imagine one of those little UAVs that were described here on Slashdot couple weeks ago, autonomous, loaded with a RFID scanner and a small shaped charge (and a camera in order to double as a one of the Eyes in the sky), patroling above the streets and looking for targets, then descending upon them in a suicidal strike.
Uh... NOT QUITE...
Transmission ranges on the newer tags can be up to 15 feet away with standard FCC licenced readers, dependent upon their antenna size. With present technology, an RFID antenna can be the entire length of the label on the package, using metalic ink printed on the label acting as the antenna. That's EXISTING technology.
The chip itself is very small... what counts is the size of the antenna. With clothing, the antenna could be woven into the elastic strip in your underwear, creating a rather long RFID antenna if you're overweight like me.
In addition, the chips are NOT the same as the barcodes. Barcodes are not unique identifiers. All barcodes on a specific product are the same. RFID chips are unique. No two chips have the same ID. For instance, as a Walmart employee, if I scan a barcode on your underwear package, I can tell it's a Fruit of the Loom, size 38 by checking my Walmart database, and that we sell it for $5.99.
With the RFID chip woven into your shorts, I can tell it's a Fruit of the Loom, size 38, manufactured on 2/1/2004 in Chicago, sold to Walmart on 2/30/2004, sold to John Smith on 3/6/2004 for $5.99, using Mr. Smith's VISA card, number 1234 2555 5555 5544. When Mr. Smith comes back to Walmart wearing our underwear, I know it's him because our doorway RFID scanners picked up his underwear ID tag when he entered the store.
I also know that Mr. Smith's entire purchase history with Walmart and that he must be gaining weight, since last year, he bought the smaller size 32 underwear. So, being the wonderful marketing person I am, I walk up to him and tell him that we've got a sale on Diet products in aisle 7 today.
Welcome to the new marketing world of RFID.
screw trying to read them - do a DDOS of *their* readers by constantly pumping a large magnitude signal spike at the store (or in it) so you activate all the RFIDs within (the wide) range of the spike all at once!
you don't need to worry about signal quality or reading signals - just screw it so nobody *else* can use the system.
Any moron can figure out "they" refers to the people implimenting and using the technology on the sellers side and governmental side of the affairs. If you interperete that as something else, you need to check your head. If you're insulting it, you are a fool.
I know one thing about the sellers; they are profit driven and they must do so by law. They bribe government officials to pass laws, have no problem knowingly buying goods produced out of slave labour at insane profits, and finally, they have no regard for privacy or human decency, as per evidenced by loyalty cards. In short, their goal is to, quite literally, enslave us. Look at what wallmart does in small towns; they move in and kill the competition, then reduce pay and incrase prices. It's called feudalism; the vassals must work at wallmart and buy from to survive, thus they are slaves.
If we don't make a stand now, and instead of staying alert, allow our senses to be dulled by the consumerist sirens call, they will succeed. I know people like let their guard down or outright reject the obvious in order to be safe; ignore the problem and it won't be there.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but americams have no civil rights left; if the government wasn't evil, they would've left those alone.
You need to do some reading and more importantly, sit down with yourself and logically assess the situation. Prove me wrong; I like being prooven wrong.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
1. Put away the Jolt Cola. .
9 1647 -- responded, not to the article OP, but to "And no doubt, trackable"1 4371&cid=969 1099 -- (admittedly somewhat breathless, scatter-shot, and wanting of a copy-editor).
9 1879
2. Take ten deep breaths.
3. Review the thread . .
The originating "FUD" post -- http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=114371&cid=96
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1
Nowhere in *that* thread is there any mention of "THEY want to . . . hide them".
He/she did write, 'It's the "weaving them into products" thing that's got everyone upset.'
Can we at least agree on that simple question of fact?
And he/she didn't say that spying was the *intention*, merely that it would make "one hell of a spying system. All those evil laws the people in power dream of would be **possible**."
The referenced "voicing concerns" was *my* post responding to your first "FUD" post, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=114371&cid=96
And yes, now that I've looked again, I see that you're accurate in saying, "I characterized the **original** poster as paranoid." There might have been less confusion in this thread, if your first "FUD" post had been "reply to"'d the article-OP and not the "And no doubt, trackable".
My comment about how privacy-protection flows from "people voicing concerns" isn't about a "hypothetical future", but about the past. Businesses wouldn't be concerned if consumers didn't object.
Yes, as you say, "those who stand to benefit from RFID" [I presume you mean consumers] "also have privacy concerns" -- which is why I & other posters say, in effect, that it's essential to our privacy, that RFID must be removed from consumer merchandise upon purchase. After purchase, the merchandise's location and use is no one else's business, *regardless* of whether it was bought with a credit-card.
So, let's cut through all the rhetoric and return to the privacy/paranoia issue: DO YOU AGREE OR NOT with the premise of this last paragraph, to wit, "privacy demands the right to *easily* go about our business without having RFID tags accompany our person, our private vehicles, etc."?
Hacking RFID on the cheap looks tough. Be prepared to spend a small bundle.
If there's anything to say about Westerners, it's: "wow, they're arrogant". Take it from I'm one of them. Let me urge the above author and other Slashdot readers to be cautious when judging a culture as foreign as Japanese. The Japanese put less emphasis on individual responsibility than we do. To them social cohesion is a much greater good so it is no surprise that RFID tagging does not arouse a large amount of concern. The consequences of this different cultural emphasis is that while Japanese people are expected to conform to norms more rigorously than we are, Tokyo is without a doubt the safest large city in the world.
If I'm not totally ignorant, wrapping something up in a metal casing, for example tin foil, would efficiently stop all radio communication. So if stores have "automatic tellers" charging me by scanning me, why the heck would I not have a pocket lined with tin foil?
Woops, that CF card and new camera just, uh, dropped into my super-pocket...
But seriously, if you're worried about RFID tags in your clothes, you can always microwave the clothes and destroy the chip. Or you can use an RFID reader to ping the clothes.
A modern day terrorist might enter a big supermarket and set off a microwave bomb which would be totally undetected except for a short burst of static in electronic devices, and all RFID tags everywhere would be dead.
I don`t understand one thing: if you go in a shop and buy, say, 30-40 different goods, are they tracked all "at the same time" or one by one? That, although it doesn`t seem so important, has a lot to do with our privacy: If the RFID tags can`t be tracked in groups, then when you bring what you bought to your car, when you throw away the garbage it won`t get tracked or, at least, -some- of the things will get tracked, but not the whole bunch. Not being so technical regarding RFID technology, I understand it like "the signals could get mixed" or something... Does it work that way?
If that happens, won't you be wishing you had replied to that Nigerian prince's e-mails...
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
Well, that's one way to look at it. Another way (the way that I, as a nerd-recently-become-father, am inclined to think of it) is that if your kid disappears (against their will) in a department store or at the park you've got at least as good a chance of finding him/her as you would your LoJack-equipped SUV. Of course, you wouldn't want to advertise to the world that you've got a chip implanted in your kid's arm (like this fool), and it would have to be something that wasn't "always on" but rather could be remotely activated in the event of an emergency (again, sort of like LoJack...)
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
Frankly, if you need to track your kid, you've done a poor job of parenting them. A child by the age of 7 or 8 should be able to watch themselves, and by 12 or 13 they should be capable of taking care of themselves; this is how it worked for a few hundred or thousand years in western culture, and if the westerners can do it so can the easterners. If you find that hard to believe, then you shouldn't have kids.
So that's your take, but how much do you know about life in Japan? I was over there recently and one of my guides was telling me that child kidnapping was a major problem in some of the larger cities. If I worked there and had a schedule which didn't allow me to personally walk my kid to school I'd feel much better watching them online, knowing I could call the police if they suddenly strayed off their normal path and started going 60 miles an hour down a highway. Not wanting your child raped and possibly killed is not 'crazy' by any means.
And who says they can't carry around a 6 inch knife on their side, or learn martial arts? If your kid can run and won't get into some strangers car, as well as walks to school in a group with other kids and doesn't take shorcuts through dark alleyways, chances are they're pretty safe.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
> DO YOU AGREE OR NOT with the premise of this last paragraph, to wit, "privacy demands the right to *easily* go about our business without having RFID tags accompany our person, our private vehicles, etc."?
I know you weren't asking me, but I do not agree with that statement. Privacy demands the right to go about our business, however we see fit, without having someone TRACKING any tags we might have on our person. Having a GPS device does not automatically make you less private. When a privacy invasion occurs, it's because someone else, without our permission, is tracking that device.
It's a subtle difference, but it is the intentions of another individual that invade privacy, not the fact that it's possible to do so. Of course, making that easier to do (regardless of initial intent) is still a problem, IMO, but the tags aren't the invaders.
It would cause major problems for WalMart if someone discovered their RFID security code, built a device to kill/deactivate the tags and just walked around the store with it.
Or if they were especially mean, they could just hide the devices in a couple of shopping carts and let the customers do all the work. Just when they think they have all the RFIDs fixed, another customer uses the 'special' shopping cart.... doh!
Your rights are violated if you're forced to wear a yellow star or pink triangle -- even if the badge is in a non-visible location, and even if "forced" merely means that it's legally permitted, but practically awkward or difficult, to remove the badge. Having a GPS device DOES automatically make you less private, if you haven't *chosen* to have the device.
The right not to be tracked is meaningless without the right to have the *certainty* of not being tracked, i.e. what the courts call "the expectation of privacy". If you can't move about except in the constant presence of tracking devices, and you have no knowledge or control of when the devices are currently tracking you, then that's not privacy.
And this is scored +5 informative. How about -5 misinformed?
If they're small enough for me to put on many, many things I own, and if I control the database that maps an ID to a thing, I can walk through my house with an RFID scanner looking for the keys, or the OpenGL book, or my apartment's rental contract, or whatever. Instant pseudo-organization!
There are practical questions: