Slashdot Mirror


RFID Tags in Law Enforcement

RFID tags seem to be the flavor of the month for law enforcement officials in the tracking of individuals both foreign and domestic. pin_gween writes "In an effort to speed up entry to the US, The Dept. of Homeland Security has begun a trial using RFID tags in certain visitors' papers. The tag is embedded in paperwork and "chip readers note the entry or exit of visitors who pass by and transmit that information to a government-maintained database." In addition, Saeed al-Sahaf writes "Security officials gathered Monday at a Canadian border crossing to mark the first test of this radio RFID system" Relatedly LexNaturalis writes "Wired News has an article about England testing RFID chips in license plates that can transmit VINs and other data to appropriate receivers. According to the article, the United States will be 'closely watching the British trial as they contemplate initiating their own tests of the plates, which incorporate radio frequency identification, or RFID, tags to make vehicles electronically trackable.' Naturally privacy advocates are decrying the move by stating that unlike electronic toll passes, these new plates will not be anonymous." We mentioned the concept of tracking visitors via RFID in July.

290 comments

  1. Vehicle Tracking? by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Tracking vehicles with RFID may not so bad - after all vehicles have licence plates...

    RFID tracking PEOPLE on the other hand is worrysome.

    --
    Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    1. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Paolo+DF · · Score: 1

      I didn't quite understand this passage:
      unlike electronic toll passes, these new plates will not be anonymous
      wouldn't it be exactly the same thing?

      --
      Pumbaa! I don't wonder; I know.
    2. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by thc69 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'd rather see criminals personally tracked, then non-criminals vehicles. That might have something to do with my status as a non-criminal, though.

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    3. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by w98 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah maybe, but do you know how much it's gonna cost to keep my entire car wrapped in tinfoil?! :o)

    4. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Tracking vehicles with RFID may not so bad - after all vehicles have licence plates...

      RFID tracking PEOPLE on the other hand is worrysome.
      In my opinion, it should take some real effort to track vehicles. The Government shouldn't just be able to keep tabs on people with the push of a button. They are entitled to privacy, and if there is some compelling reason to authorize surveillance then the organization being granted permission to do so should have to actually take on the burden to do so. People should not be expected to simply allow themselves to be tracked just because certain bureaucrats feel that it is in their exclusive interests to do so.

      Then again, I also believe that the government shouldn't be allowed to keep any information on an otherwise-law-abiding person whatsoever beyond that used in exchanges with that individual. This means that I personally would want them to have a file for my voter registration, my tax history, notation of the presence of a driver's license, notation of ownership of land if any, and notation of things like social security, medicare, or any other non-standard service that is used by the person. Beyond that, nothing else that I do is any of their business at all.
      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Informative

      What's more worrysome is, people seem to have forgotten that most of the 9/11 terrorists had valid passports. With this new measure in place, they'd have valid RFID-enabled passport and a chance to pass security faster, so they're a little less jet-lagged when they arrive at the hotel.

      I'm really beginning to wonder why nobody points out the fact that all these security measures just aren't any use to catch determined terrorists. My personal conviction is that companies who market those "anti-terrorism" devices are making a fat buck out of the whole deal, and they share the proceeds with the politicians who approve of these things. It disgusts me more and more each time I look at it...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    6. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by a16 · · Score: 1

      Tracking vehicles with RFID may not so bad - after all vehicles have licence plates...

      Yep, it's also worth noting that in the UK we already have speed cameras that read and identify your license plate to take your average speed over two locations, and also a similar system used to identify cars without tax disks (I've seen these set up at the side of the road reading your plate as you pass).

      Before somebody comes out with "But they can track you now wherever you drive!" or "Anybody could intercept the signal and track you!" - remember the car is already clearly labelled with a big easy to read code linking it to the owner anyway, this is just a more reliable way of reading it digitally from what I can see. As long as the chip itself holds no more data than the code linking it to the database that they already have, I don't see any new privacy problem with this.

    7. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The war on terrorism isn't about catching terrorists, or preventing attacks. The war on terrorism is simply about stripping people of their rights, and keeping them from noticing how corrupt their government gotten.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    8. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      So if a car is reported stolen, and it passes a Gatso (not a Sun reader, BTW, just felt like using the term), is there a red flag that goes off somewhere screaming 'Stolen car spotted in X!'?

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    9. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "do you know how much it's gonna cost to keep my entire car wrapped in tinfoil?!"

      No problem. Just steal someone else's plates and paint your number on them. How would they ever know?

    10. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by kryonD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "In my opinion, it should take some real effort to track vehicles."

      Uh...why? I mean, when your car gets stolen, why do you feel the police should have to take some "real effort" to find it for you. If your daughter is kidnapped by some sicko and they know the plate number of his van (why is it that they all own vans?), why should it take them "real effort" to save her life? For that matter, why should you really care if the local cops know you went through the red light in front of Albertson's at 10:37pm if you aren't doing anything wrong?

      Also, guess what? I'd bet my next paycheck that you can't name a single "bureaucrat" that personally gives a damn about knowing where you are at 2am. Now, on the other hand, I'm sure you can find plenty who are currently being begged and pleaded by overworked police forces in their districts who are trying to cope with rashes of stolen vehicles, missing persons, and wanted criminals.

      Besides, there are several HUNDRED MILLION cars on the road and no one is going to randomly just decide to find out where your car was unless they had a reason to look for it. It's not like cops just sit around trying to dream up ways to mess with the American people. In case you haven't noticed, they're American people too.

      --
      I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
    11. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RFID tracking cars is awesome. If you tracked the police going onto the freeway, you could know when a freeway was empty and had no police on it. Err, for reasons left to the reader. :-)

    12. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Feyr · · Score: 1

      one thing those bureaucrats always overlook is the fact that rfid are rather fragile machines that can be disrupted quite easily.

      sure, taking off the license off your van is illegal. but hitting the rfid chip with a large blunt object vaguely shaped like a rock... who's to say YOU purposedly did it? and as a bonus, you have no way of knowing it's disrupted, unlike losing your plate. do they really think this will stop criminals?

    13. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Tracking vehicles with RFID may not so bad - after all vehicles have licence plates..."

      There's two things wrong with that statement.

      1) In many states, the average citizen is blocked from going to the local DMV and looking up a license plate.

      2) RFID tags emit the VIN, which is a) not protected by the laws in #1, and b) anyone who sets an RFID reader next to roads and highways can not only track the individual cars, but also look up who the owner is.

      RFID makes it easier for the stalker. Or, if you think that could *never* happen to you, here's another idea: advertisers could track your car and call and mail you with the latest pitches based on your travelling habits.

    14. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like photo radar - greatly increased. You really want a ticket for speeding, automatically generated and automatically mailed? You did after all, break the law.

    15. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Uh...why? I mean, when your car gets stolen, why do you feel the police should have to take some "real effort" to find it for you. If your daughter is kidnapped by some sicko and they know the plate number of his van (why is it that they all own vans?), why should it take them "real effort" to save her life? For that matter, why should you really care if the local cops know you went through the red light in front of Albertson's at 10:37pm if you aren't doing anything wrong?
      Because we live in a free society. We are innocent until proven guilty. We are 'alleged' when accused, not convicted. We are free to go about our business without anything stopping us or hanging over us.
      Also, guess what? I'd bet my next paycheck that you can't name a single "bureaucrat" that personally gives a damn about knowing where you are at 2am. Now, on the other hand, I'm sure you can find plenty who are currently being begged and pleaded by overworked police forces in their districts who are trying to cope with rashes of stolen vehicles, missing persons, and wanted criminals.
      It doesn't matter to me whether or not a specific individual employed by the government wants to know where I am or not. It's not their business to even know where I am.
      Besides, there are several HUNDRED MILLION cars on the road and no one is going to randomly just decide to find out where your car was unless they had a reason to look for it. It's not like cops just sit around trying to dream up ways to mess with the American people. In case you haven't noticed, they're American people too.
      Here, the problem is a lot worse because the county attorney won't take the time to prosecute car theives that are caught. A friend's car was stolen. A man was later involved in a minor accident with it, and he actually waited for the police. He was an illegal immigrant with no valid license (but a nice looking fake one), a fake title with one letter difference in the VIN, and no insurance. They elected not to prosecute, despite being able to charge and slam dunk the guy with posession of stolen property or grand theft auto, TWO fraudlent documents, no license, and no insurance. The attorney general would rather go after high profile shiny cases that get a lot of media attention.
      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    16. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Franck+Binard · · Score: 1

      "Then again, I also believe that the government shouldn't be allowed to keep any information on an otherwise-law-abiding person whatsoever beyond that used in exchanges with that individual. This means that I personally would want them to have a file for my voter registration, my tax history, notation of the presence of a driver's license, notation of ownership of land if any, and notation of things like social security, medicare, or any other non-standard service that is used by the person. Beyond that, nothing else that I do is any of their business at all." Everything that you earn, everything that you buy and everything that you own. Information about your health, credit and income. All criminal charges that you have ever been under (even if not convicted). If you really are a law-abiding person, then the items you mention are enough to know or to guess with high probability (take a look at what an actuary does)everything about you, up to and including when and how you will die.

    17. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you parked your car among all the rest in an anti-war rally, why should it take real effort for them to track you down?

      I'd bet my next paycheck that you can't name a single "bureaucrat" that personally gives a damn about knowing where you are at 2am.

      Yes, if you tend to be the type that lies down and never makes a peep, no one tends to care, that's correct. Some people are pissed off enough to demand being heard, but they're not terribly interested in being monitored for effective control.

      USAPATRIOT has before and is now being used against non-terrorists. How far are we going to go in the name of law and order?

    18. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Sheetrock · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I don't know where the line of thinking comes from on things like RFID or recent overbearing legislation that suggests that the only people who have a right to express concern about potential abuses must have already suffered a direct and forceful negative experience as a result of said technology or legislation.

      In my case, you're quite likely correct that nobody that would have access to these tools would care about tracking me, personally, throughout my day. But do consider the possibility of a small town or two where the local enforcement occasionally finds itself poking in everybody's business, perhaps sweeping parking lots of bars where "odd" people hang out or looking for out-of-towners to ticket.

      And then even figuring I'm a pretty uninteresting individual, take into account that protestors and politicians aren't. If this gets integrated in any way with traffic cameras or toll booths or they decide to toss routine scans from a cruiser into a log, the information could be used to quash dissent or held over our representatives to steer their decisions. Who knows how long this information is retained for, either? Ten years down the road you might run for office only to have logs of your vehicle regularly parked outside a porn shop turn up in the paper from an anonymous source.

      What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't have to directly affect us to affect us. It's a threat, albeit one still waiting for implementation to demonstrate how benign or dangerous it is to our privacy. It also seems redundant in light of license plates, except for the fact that it would make casual electronic scans of masses of vehicles much easier than visually inspecting each plate.

      --

      Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
      -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    19. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If your daughter is kidnapped by some sicko and they know the plate number of his van (why is it that they all own vans?)
      They own vans because it's much easier and less conspicuous to kidnap and transport somebody from a relatively public place by luring them into your van, subduing them, and then driving off.

      Subduing somebody in public and then stuffing them into your car trunk has a much higher chance of attracting unwanted attention.
    20. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      First, is the obvious answer: "Those who sacrifice their liberty for their security deserve neither."

      Your examples are the obvious scare tactics. Imagine if we could track people. "Suppose something bad happens to you! Wouldn't it be great if we could just punch a button and know where you are and send help?" Let's just LoJack everybody--for their own safety, of course...

      No, I can't imagine a single "bureaucrat" who cares where I was at 2:00AM. But I can imagine a "bureaucrat" who might be interested in those cars sitting outside the headquarters for anti-way rally. Who owns them? Where do they live? They must be anti-American scum who don't believe in our president.

      Or better yet--gee, your car was a block away while this brutal murder happened. What were you doing in that neighborhood? What, you don't want to tell us? Could you have been doing something you shouldn't? Perhaps we should investigate you more.

      Better yet--you're black and your car was parked close to this robbery! Well, that makes you a chief suspect right there. After all, what was a black man doing parked in this predominantly white neighborhood. He must have been up to no good.

      (From the article: "The British government is preparing to test new high-tech license plates containing microchips capable of transmitting unique vehicle identification numbers and other data to readers more than 300 feet away.")

      In this case, I'll use your own words against you. Suppose that sicko sees your daughter driving in traffic, reads your address from the RFID tags that are on your daughter's car, shows up at your house one night and attacks your daughter? Or that guy who feels you cut him off in traffic decides to get a little bit of revenge?

      No one is saying what this "other data" is.

      "[...] there are several HUNDRED MILLION cars on the road and no one is going to randomly just decide to find out where your car was unless they had a reason to look for it."

      Good point. That's why I don't worry about spyware on my computer. After all, I'm only one of several hundred million people on line. Why would anybody target me?

    21. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Blue-Footed+Boobie · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I can see your lics. plate for a much longer distance than a shitty little RFID chip can transmit.

      --
      DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
    22. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by stoph+ct · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly.

      Finally they're coming out with new non-anonymous license plates.

    23. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That might have something to do with my status as a non-criminal, though.

      Somebody is proposing a law to change that as we speak. It is important to take away your non-criminal status, so that nobody will complain when your freedoms are taken away.

      --
      What?
    24. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      My car has a registration tag, and I carry a driver's license when I drive. What is this license plate of which you speak?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    25. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might as well just go ahead and get it over with by implanting a chip in everyone when they're born so that they can be tracked and identified at all times. For the good of society, of course. That is what this will all lead up to anyway.

    26. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      What state do you live in? Because, seriously, fuck that shit.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    27. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by jackofallbrandnames · · Score: 1

      Department of motor vehicles, by whatever acronym exists in every providence, state, and country.

      --
      The geek shall inherit the earth.
    28. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by KillShill · · Score: 1

      then why were 5 of the hijackers still reported to be alive?

      and why did robert mueller, the director of the fbi, announce that the passports they used masterfully forged?

      in fact, there aren't any documents that show that the passports were real except the talking heads on tv. the same talking heads that reported that wmd were found in iraq, even when the white house denied finding them.

      and let's not get into how the passports ended up unscathed after the crash. i mean paper is quite fire resistant.

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
    29. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by jackofallbrandnames · · Score: 1

      What's more worrysome is, people seem to have forgotten that most of the 9/11 terrorists had valid passports.

      To get on the plane. The illegal ones stayed behind.

      --
      The geek shall inherit the earth.
    30. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by jackofallbrandnames · · Score: 1

      My personal conviction is that companies who market those "anti-terrorism" devices are making a fat buck out of the whole deal, and they share the proceeds with the politicians who approve of these things.

      You have something there; the system feeds unto itself.

      --
      The geek shall inherit the earth.
    31. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by jackofallbrandnames · · Score: 1

      It's the slippery slope thing. Already they're tracking your average speed over two locations. Be sure to check your mail everyday, or you might not know. :)

      Yes, the clearly marked label identifies you, and the chip itself holds no more than a serial number, but it's the database behind the scenes that has this new information. In the form of logs, this can be a scary thing, despite well meaning intentions.

      --
      The geek shall inherit the earth.
    32. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this license plate of which you speak?

      That little metal thing with numbers and/or letters on it (outside of the car). Rectangular in shape.

    33. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Naxela · · Score: 1

      "Tracking vehicles with RFID may not so bad - after all vehicles have licence plates..." The next thing is to implement a chip in the car itself so you can run a comparison to see if the plates have been stolen, or if the car has multiple plates to run from the police. The chip in the car itself would enable the police to track from factory to retailer to end user, they all have records of when and who they sold the car to.

    34. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by renehollan · · Score: 1
      My personal conviction is that companies who market those "anti-terrorism" devices are making a fat buck out of the whole deal

      My personal opinion is that the companies who market those "anti-terrorism" devices are run by would-be terrorists.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    35. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      No, I can't imagine a single "bureaucrat" who cares where I was at 2:00AM. But I can imagine a "bureaucrat" who might be interested in those cars sitting outside the headquarters for anti-way rally. Who owns them? Where do they live? They must be anti-American scum who don't believe in our president.


      Because the license plate number on the back of the vehicle can't provide them with that information.

      Or better yet--gee, your car was a block away while this brutal murder happened. What were you doing in that neighborhood? What, you don't want to tell us? Could you have been doing something you shouldn't? Perhaps we should investigate you more.


      Why don't you want to say? As has been pointed out many a time before, so much could be resolved if people would just bother to communicate.

      Better yet--you're black and your car was parked close to this robbery! Well, that makes you a chief suspect right there. After all, what was a black man doing parked in this predominantly white neighborhood. He must have been up to no good.


      Because RFID is the cause of all racism.

      Good point. That's why I don't worry about spyware on my computer. After all, I'm only one of several hundred million people on line. Why would anybody target me?

      But they aren't targeting you. You see, you don't matter. The spy ware companies don't care whether you're a quadrapalegic or you like fucking animals or you sit naked while surfing slashdot except insofar as it's information they can sell. But they don't care about you as a person. You are nothing and if you died tomorrow, they wouldn't care.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    36. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They check the RFID vs. the plate on traffic stop, or just on late-nite inspection check.

    37. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by instarx · · Score: 1

      My car has a registration tag, and I carry a driver's license when I drive. What is this license plate of which you speak?

      You have a driver's license in your wallet, a registration card or slip that you keep in your glove box, and a license plate that attaches to the outside of the car. If you are going to be pedantic at least make sure of your terminology.

    38. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by R1ch4rd · · Score: 1

      The terrorists were "first class, frequent fliers" if I rememeber corectly !!!
      So they would already get checked less that the average Joe and these measures are pointless for terrorists.

    39. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by coolcold · · Score: 1

      Dear sir,

      We are doing a promotion on tinfoil. It will only cost you $99 to get a whole car wrapped in tinfoil!! What's more? We will wrap it for you at a price of $199 (tinfoil inclusive)! Don't miss it, order today while stock last and get the special discount!!!

      --
      I am harvesting funny/good quotes. Please help by putting them in your sigs :)
    40. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the license plate number on the back of the vehicle can't provide them with that information.

      If a chip in a security badge can hold my name, address, medical history and fingerprints, a chip the size of a license plate could certianly hold an address. And before you say "But they won't", how do you know? And how can you prove it if someone just tells you?

      Why don't you want to say? As has been pointed out many a time before, so much could be resolved if people would just bother to communicate.

      Because I'm hosting a surprise birthday party for a friend and I want to KEEP it a surprise. Or maybe I'm visiting a child I gave up for adoption that none of my friends knows about. Or, maybe, just possibly, it's none of your damn business - or the police's if they don't have a better 'probable cause' than that. If they have enough probable cause to get a warrant out of a judge, then I'll give them my life story if they want it. Until then, they have no need to know.

      Because RFID is the cause of all racism.

      But providing tools to let idiots be even bigger idiots is a good thing, right?

      But they aren't targeting you. You see, you don't matter. The spy ware companies don't care whether you're a quadrapalegic or you like fucking animals or you sit naked while surfing slashdot except insofar as it's information they can sell. But they don't care about you as a person. You are nothing and if you died tomorrow, they wouldn't care.

      And the police don't care either. I'm a number that popped into their database that they can profile anyway they want - or sell to the highest bidder. Did you see anything in saying they wouldn't. And if you did, do you have enough ESP to be absolutely sure that in the future they never will? Governments will always need money. And selling information would be a real quick way to get it.

    41. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by clickster · · Score: 1

      Nope. They shouldn't be able to do it at all. The moment you give them the ability to do it even under heavy oversight, you're screwed. Because the next terrorist attack will let them cut out most of the oversight because it's a "hinderance" (kind of like the walls between foreign and domestic law enforcement). It's a typical slippery slope. You agree to give them an inch and you wind up losing a mile. Take a look at the Patriot Act. Sunset clauses my ass.

      --
      If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    42. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by someonewhois · · Score: 1

      Uhh, what? How did THAT get moded insightful?

    43. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Artfldgr · · Score: 1

      yeah... thats why they searched my bag this morning... you see i am a suspected terrorist.. we are all suspected criminals... especially when moving through checkpoints (of which the car was the weak link). welcome to the 4th reich. the officer didnt like that i refered to him as ober meister...

    44. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Artfldgr · · Score: 1

      ah... so what you approve of is permanently being a person of interest because the man you bought newspapers from was a member of a terrorist cell. it turns out that because of RFIDs they know that you traded material with this person every day. given that its now ok to suspect everyone rather than the opposite, your name is now on a list. but you dont know that. you just think its bad luck that you always get pulled out of line at the airlines. [airlines are privately owned public space, not like trains that are publicly owned public spaces. when they connect searching between the two, they leave out the distinction that a person on private property has less rights than when on government property] you may find that over time you get audited more to catch tax discrepancies. perhaps now your car will get pulled over when they run your plates... why? because every day you bought a newspaper from a unknown person of interest... dont think it can happen? i live in queens and atta and another terrorist were at a store here. we all bought papers from them!!! everyone in the neighborhood knew it when we saw the pictures. the fbi investigated, and the store is under new management. there are other scenarios. like you pull over to park for a minute while your lady gets out to grab a coffee for both of you. you get a ticket a month later for being parked at an expired meter. by then the law will be changed to make the car the criminal.. that way they can ticket the owner without having to prove who was driving. what if some teenagers joy ride with your car and return it without you knowing (something i knew kids did in my neighborhood), and now you have lots of tickets. RFID will give govts unparalleled ability to track our lives and our transactions only a matter of time before they tag money and start to track how it goes back and forth from person to person. you may find yourself getting a tax bill for the money you won on sunday nights poker game! even though our money says that debts can be private... yeah.. its gonna look like that world in pink floyd the wall.. just looking down and marching... (they are polishing software that can identify you by how you walk, or pick you out based on how you move. the only way to avoid the problem will be people will walk in a proscribed manner to avoid scrutiny, as every mannerism uncontrolled becomes suspect) hey! personal rfids will make thought police possible map the voice print to the rfid signal and you can now fine them for saying that not all women are perfect. you may get on a suspect list because you dont love the president and everything they are doing. perhaps bosses will switch and use dock time.. pay you by the minute rather than the hour and have the rfid monitor your presence... oh.. well now we can deduct for bathroom time.. and if you walked around for a few mins, etc.. the list goes on and on.. i should write a book listing out all ths shit that they will do!!! for there is nothign at all to stop them! they have plenty of people that will say its reasonable, and plenty more that will step up on camera and parrot the party line in propaganda (which is why lots of small stations are much better than a few large companies - but who cares... this is now a republic for the wealthy and their corporations)

    45. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Artfldgr · · Score: 1

      the item goes back to the function of law... is it to punish every infraction, or is it to maintain the public peace with the realization that resources are limited (and it would server no purpose to cost everyone lots of money locking up someone that they can deport for free) this question has only been philosophically asked as we never had enough resources, or things never were cheap enough to attempt the concept of perfect implementation of law. just think... with rfid tags you can be ticketed for jaywalking (its easy.. each corner has a reader, and reades everything... be on the wrong corner after you were on another one, then you must have crossed the street in the middle, ipso facto, one 200 jaywalking ticket. dont step off the curb with a red light either!) the number of crimes they can find just poring over the data... as each crimes subroutine gets into play, past data will be gone through (we dont like limitations statutes), and you will suddenly start getting tickets for thigns you did years ago that you didnt even know were crimes... spent your last dollar on the way home.. wow, you get a ticket for vagrancy from every corner (why not, you didnt stop committing crime between blocks, so its perfectly reasonable that each block be looked at as a separate instance of a crime) but wait.. a panhandler begs money from you.. suddenly you have a ticket because the money was tracked in your pocket when you entered the train. and was in his pocket when you left. there is no record of prior interactoin between you and that other person and so you contributed to a crime. wow.. this is fun.. i am good at this kind of thing... and with what they can do with rfids, it will be so much 'fun' [huge sarcasm] when someone makes a bomb that is programmed to only go off if one of many people on a list walk over (you can collect the ids by getting close to them so its not secret). the difference is passive vs active. barcodes were passive line of site. so you could control its exposure (and because of this you had limitations otherwise). rfid is active and pervasive.. so now you dont have the line of site problem for companies, but you lost the security of access. not to mention that its easy to beat the mesh network that lets them talk.. just have a special tool answer yes to every inquiry.. and it all crumbles... so there will be a black market on devices to hide you. criminals will become adept at covering and uncovering their items to make alibies and to move under the radar, and appear back... it wont stop kidnapping as the other person said.. all i have to do is scan that girl for her tag. those that are not nice will cut it out rather than send a finger. they will have blocked their licences as well as their bio tags... they may even use her tag as a false bait (put it on a stray cat and let it run around the city). well, i have work to do... and no one has hired my think tank to come up with scenarios, and so i have to get going.. sayonara.

    46. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by nosphalot · · Score: 1

      I think it was a valid mod. He's pointing out a valid point about what he sees the war on terror being about. People may not agree with him, and he may not even be correct, but it is a different insight into the issue, therefore insightful.

    47. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the difference between tracking vehicles vs people, when it is people that drive those vehicles?

    48. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Slashdot isn't about news for nerds, or stuff that matters. Slashdot is simply about stealing intellectual property, malicious hacking, and communism. But that's just my insightful opinion, and you are free to disagree. Now where are my mod points?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    49. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      "Because the license plate number on the back of the vehicle can't provide them with that information."

      Ah, but now the conspiracy begins to get bigger.

      As I understand it, the only people who can turn a tag number into a name and address are the police and the DMV. Thus, said "bureaucrat" either needs to be in one of those two organizations or know someone in one of those two organizations.

      Remember, the more people you in have to involve in your activities, the harder it is to keep those activities secret.

      So we've made it easier to "gather intelligence." One guy can get all this information.

      "Why don't you want to say? As has been pointed out many a time before, so much could be resolved if people would just bother to communicate."

      Because the cop who is questioning me happens to be my wife's brother and I really don't want to tell him that I am cheating on his sister. Nor do I want to tell another officer because it will get back to him.

      "Because RFID is the cause of all racism."

      I'll admit, I went out a limb with that one.

      "You see, you don't matter. The spy ware companies don't care whether you're a quadrapalegic or you like fucking animals or you sit naked while surfing slashdot except insofar as it's information they can sell. But they don't care about you as a person. You are nothing and if you died tomorrow, they wouldn't care."

      Hey now! My Mom (and, of course, Jesus) loves me. That's what's important! :^)

      Seriously, the example of "nobody cares about me" is debatable.

      For example, I'll drive through the parking lot and get the addresses of all those people who are driving "luxury" cars. They might be good people to rob. Or, perhaps, I'll get the addresses of all those people driving ricers--they seem to be willing to spend money on their cars. I'll sell that to the local ricer accessory place so that they can do targeted mailings.

      Park in a mall? Get junk mail.

      I mean, putting the tag number into a transmitter doesn't bother me all that much. It's the fact that the article explicitly said, "And other information." What other information is not disclosed.

      If it's information I would prefer that the rest of the world not have broadcasted to them, such as my address, social security number, date of birth, etc., I don't like it.

    50. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Wow you're dense and have horrible reading comprehension.

      f a chip in a security badge can hold my name, address, medical history and fingerprints, a chip the size of a license plate could certianly hold an address. And before you say "But they won't", how do you know? And how can you prove it if someone just tells you?


      The point was, all the information you fear the chip giving to the cops is freely availible to them because it's all tied to your LICENCE PLATE which is on the back of your car already. If you're parked at Anti-Bush Ralley 721, and they want to know who's there, they don't need RFID, your license plate gives them all they could want.

      Because I'm hosting a surprise birthday party for a friend and I want to KEEP it a surprise. Or maybe I'm visiting a child I gave up for adoption that none of my friends knows about. Or, maybe, just possibly, it's none of your damn business - or the police's if they don't have a better 'probable cause' than that. If they have enough probable cause to get a warrant out of a judge, then I'll give them my life story if they want it. Until then, they have no need to know.


      Because of course the cops are going to go and blab to your friends about the suprise party you're planning (why are you there at the time of a murder if the party is in the future though?) or tell everyone that you're a whore who fucks everything that moves. They have nothing better to do than to blab your deepest darkest secrets all over town. As far as it being their business it is. You see they're investigating a crime, and thus it is there business to know why people who were at the crime scene who don't belong there were there. You don't have to give them your life story, you don't have to let them search your house and car, and yes, you don't have to tell them why you were there, however, life is so much easier when one learns that a little communication can go a long way. A simple "I was planning a suprise party for a friend" gives them everything they need and nothing they don't.

      But providing tools to let idiots be even bigger idiots is a good thing, right?


      Which is why we shouldn't issue cops guns, the ability to check on license plates, handcuffs, any powers of arrest whatsoever and a car. After all, having tools that give a small minority the ability to make an ass of themselves is far more dangerous than not giving cops access to tools which make their job easier and safer.

      And the police don't care either. I'm a number that popped into their database that they can profile anyway they want - or sell to the highest bidder. Did you see anything in saying they wouldn't. And if you did, do you have enough ESP to be absolutely sure that in the future they never will? Governments will always need money. And selling information would be a real quick way to get it.

      So now we've gone from being paranoid that the government will arrest you for exercising your right of freedom of assebly to being paranoid that they will tell the wold you have an illegitimate child to being paranoid that they're going to collect and sell information on your driving habits to the highest bidder? Here's a hint my friend, the government already has huge collections of information about you, and any information the government could collect from the RFID tags in license plates is already availible to the highest bidder beccause it's all owned by private companies.

      I hope for your sake, you always pay in cash, always use public transportation, a bike or walk, never look up at anything or anyone and never never never use any credit or loans for anything and I certainly hope that your internet connection is provided to you free of charge by the coffe shops you never visit more than once because otherwise, you're in the database, and your information is already bought and sold.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    51. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      See, now you're moving into the realm of problems with the implimentation rather than problems with the idea, and this is much easier to deal with. Free floating information can be easily dealt with with encryption. Imagine if the same people that have access to the DMV records (so no one new in the equation) have access to a computer which contains the ability to decode the information on the license plate, and the information on the chip on the plate is encrypted. Just because it's RFID doesn't mean it has to be wide open.

      As far as your cheating problem goes, well, quite simply you're screwed anyway. I mean think about it. If it's your wife's brother or a friend of his and suddenly you're acting all wierd, he's going to want to know why, and he'll look into it on his own.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    52. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by kryonD · · Score: 1

      It actually is far simpler than that. Everyone seems to have this idea that RFID is going to store ever little detail about them including their porno rental habbits. RFID is simply what it stands for: Radio Frequency ID. You hit it with an RF query and it in turn responds with its ID. No one anywhere said anything about it responding with anything more than that. Sure there are some more advanced tags that hold more than just an ID number, but they're not necessary here.

      So Mr. Paranoid's little psychotic fear that Joe Somebody will drive by his nice car at the store and suddenly know everything about him is nothing but pure paranoid conspiracy theory. If you don't have access to the database that ties that ID to any real info, all you have is an ID...you know...kinda like your license plate number is already.

      --
      I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
    53. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      All the RFID will do is allow them to read your license plate without having a line of sight to it. Do you think anyone not authorized to check your identity from a license plate will be authorized to retrieve it from your RFID?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    54. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Yeah, don't mod up Captain Obvious here!

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    55. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1
      "RFID is simply what it stands for: Radio Frequency ID. You hit it with an RF query and it in turn responds with its ID. No one anywhere said anything about it responding with anything more than that."

      Now, you see, I don't have a problem with that. And maybe I'm taking the article too literally. But go back and read it. Especially, this part (emphasis mine):
      "The British government is preparing to test new high-tech license plates containing microchips capable of transmitting unique vehicle identification numbers and other data to readers more than 300 feet away."
      Now the way I'm reading it, that says that I hit it with the RF query and it will send back the unique vehicle identification numbers and other data. What other data is anybody's guess.

      But you may be right. The reporter may not have gotten the details correct or didn't think it was important how it actually worked. I don't know enough about RFID chips, I'll admit. So maybe you can answer a question:

      Is it impossible for an RFID to broadcast a license number, name, and address? How much data can an RFID tag broadcast?

      "So Mr. Paranoid's little psychotic fear that Joe Somebody will drive by his nice car at the store and suddenly know everything about him is nothing but pure paranoid conspiracy theory."

      I know that all you people who are calling me paranoid are just out to get me. :^)
    56. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by TWX · · Score: 1
      So Mr. Paranoid's little psychotic fear that Joe Somebody will drive by his nice car at the store and suddenly know everything about him is nothing but pure paranoid conspiracy theory. If you don't have access to the database that ties that ID to any real info, all you have is an ID...you know...kinda like your license plate number is already.
      You're forgetting that the RFID interrogator also would probably note where your ID was taken. Put them at the entrance or egress for a parking lot for a given site. Start noting timestamps, and suddenly you're tracking someone. That's the problem.
      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    57. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      "[...] you're moving into the realm of problems with the implimentation rather than problems with the idea [...]"

      Well, a little of both, really.

      First off, I have a problem with the concept that the police should be able to monitor everywhere anyone goes, just in case a crime is committed. It strikes me as bit too "Big Brother is watching you."

      Second, I'm not convinced there's really a problem. Several years ago, I and my sweetheart were mugged. I did what I was told to do--make as much of a commotion as can be done safely and stall for time. People who saw the commotion kept an eye on the muggers after they ran off and told the police where they could be found. It took the police a matter of minutes to recover everything and cart them off to jail.

      Where I see this being helpful is in the realm of "nuisance crimes." And while, sure, I don't want my car stolen as much as the next person, this is why I buy car insurance. So that if my car is stolen, I can get some money to buy another one. Do I really need to give up my personal freedom to travel anywhere unmonitored just so that the police can recover my car if it's stolen? I value my freedom more than my car.

      Third, it feels like it's more an idea to keep the honest people honest. Why should I give up my personal freedom so that the police can track the bad guys?

      Finally, how resistant to tampering are these chips? I propose the following scenario: I'm going to rob a bank. A week before the robbery, I'm going to go around and disable lots of RFID chips on cars. Then I will steal a car and disable it's RFID chip. This will be my getaway car for the bank robbery.

      The RFID chip in my getaway car will not broadcast information which won't help the police track me. If they try to track me, they will find a bunch of other cars whose RFID chips have been broken leaving a bunch of false trails. And, when the police eventually catch me, I'm sure they'll add "Tampering with RFID chip" to the list of criminal felonies--like it will make a difference next to the bank robbery charge.

      It's sort of like the "Felony Evasion" crime here in California. It keeps the honest people who made a mistake from thinking about running.

      For example, I ran a stop light right in front of a cop one morning at 2:00AM. I don't know why--I was distracted by something, it was late, it was more of an oops. I was about a block from home when I saw the lights go on. I might have made it, but I have more common sense than to add "Felony Evasion" to running a red light.

      But if I just robbed a bank, adding "Felony Evasion" to my list of crimes isn't going to make a heck of a lot of difference.

      So, in short, it's one of those cases where it's either (a) a bunch of money spent which will make no difference at all in serious crimes solved or (b) an invasion of privacy which will not make much difference in solving serious crimes.

      Just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be done.

    58. Re:Vehicle Tracking? by kryonD · · Score: 1

      Take my Mr. Paranoid comment with a grain of salt just as I do the text of the article. I generally attempt to be a little argumentative on /. just to get a rise out of readers and prompt their comments. I like to hear other points of view as well.

      The reason why I don't take the article literally is because I work for a company that writes software for police/fire/ems. Often times when you see articles or press releases regarding something public safety is doing with IT, it either involved a reporter, or an officer that really didn't completely understand the technology they are using. If I tell Joe Policeman, who barely knows how to check email, that "the device will beam you its ID and you will automatically have access to all the information regarding that plate", the officer hears, "it beams you the ID and everything you needed to know about the plate."

      Most of what you read online and on this site about "Big Brother" getting too much control over the average citizen is nothing more then rhetoric born from fear of the unknown. Every single thing that cops do on a criminal information system is tracked and logged. Sure, they can abuse it, but when internal affairs begins investigating them because they looked up someone for criminal background without subsequently filing the proper report indicating why they had probable cause, they lose their jobs. And yes, it does happen, but pretty rarely. It's just an uncomfortable compromise we have to accept that Joe Neighbor will step up and say, "I'll risk being shot at and endangering myself so you don't have to, but please at least give me some good tools to do the job with." The compromise falls in between an authoritarian police state (ala N. Korea or Myanmar) and total anarchy (parts of Africa). I'll personally trust my neighbor not to abuse his power so I can go buy a gallon of milk without having to carry a gun and papers on me.

      --
      I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
  2. More useful on the actual person by thc69 · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be more useful to put the thing on the actual criminal? And sensors at the perimeters of all areas where they might go?

    --
    Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    1. Re:More useful on the actual person by crimethinker · · Score: 1, Informative
      Ah, but then you're violating their civil rights, so says the namby-pamby branch of politics. You see, the fact that all 19 of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Middle-Eastern should never be factored into who gets searched at the airport and who doesn't, because we all know that a 70-year-old white female American citizen is just as likely to be a terrorist as a 20-year-old arab male who's here on a student visa. Bend over, granny, while we get the gloves and K-Y.

      Check out the latest news from one of the bombing suspects in the UK (the second, failed attack) claiming that it's really OK because the bomb wasn't designed to kill anyone, just scare them. Too bad the UK pussed out long ago and abolished the death penalty, because they used to do it in style, what with those drawing-and-quarterings.

      -paul

      --
      Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
    2. Re:More useful on the actual person by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Part of me wants to say this type of profile is wrong, but another part knows it makes sense. It's likely as much of a dilemma to the politicians: Do you start racial/age profiling and (possibly) make the system more robust, and loose the Slashdot vote and support of minority groups? Or do you keep the system as it is and have people complaining left and right.

    3. Re:More useful on the actual person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All it takes is one 70-year-old white female American citizen with a bomb...

      I say, go ahead and lube granny up! Just to be safe, or course...

    4. Re:More useful on the actual person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the gloves and K-Y (or whatever degrading method of search) is just as wrong for granny as it is for the 20yr old student that happens to come from an arab country.

      If the security measures were respectful then you wouldn't be able to use granny in your argument right?

    5. Re:More useful on the actual person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What can possibly make sense about it? Do you honestly think that dark-skinned arabic people are the only people out there who want to harm the US? If so, I've got a few Colombian warlords here who want to have a chat with you, seems they're upset about some crop-dusting thing. Of course, they couldn't come in person, so they sent their 12 year old sex slaves as their emissary.

      Does the thought of giving a little girl a cavity search squick you? If so, then you are seriously in the wrong line of work (of course, if you enjoy it, you're still in the wrong line of work). Nobody is asking anyone to be as depraved as the enemy, but if you are incapable of comprehending the depths the enemy will sink to, then you will never be qualified to defend against that enemy.

      If you want to focus specifically on the current major terrorist source, remember that these guys drove a carbomb into a group of schoolkids just to kill a couple of US soldiers. If using little kids is what will get them past our security, then they've proven that they'll do whatever it takes.

    6. Re:More useful on the actual person by vain+gloria · · Score: 1

      You see, the fact that all 19 of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Middle-Eastern should never be factored into who gets searched at the airport and who doesn't, because we all know that a 70-year-old white female American citizen is just as likely to be a terrorist as a 20-year-old arab male who's here on a student visa.

      Ever heard of hostages? "Just take this parcel to the airport and we won't cut any more of your kid's limbs off."

      Terrorists don't tend to play fair.
    7. Re:More useful on the actual person by instarx · · Score: 1

      Ah, but then you're violating their civil rights, so says the namby-pamby branch of politics. You see, the fact that all 19 of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Middle-Eastern should never be factored into who gets searched at the airport and who doesn't, because we all know that a 70-year-old white female American citizen is just as likely to be a terrorist as a 20-year-old arab male who's here on a student visa. Bend over, granny, while we get the gloves and K-Y.

      You are letting your right-wing philosophy override common sense. We had our own home-grown hijackers and bombers long before 9/11. Restricting searches to one group when you know there have been hijackers in other groups is simply stupid. And let's face it - the middle-eastern terrorists aren't stupid. It would be easy enough to plant a bomb in poor trusting granny's bags knowing she would be excluded from searches.

      Profiling works both ways - it also lets terrorists know which groups are NOT going to be searched. If for no other reason than that it is a horrible policy.

  3. Yes. Be RFID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
  4. License plate bar codes by GojiraDeMonstah · · Score: 1

    I've been wondering for years why they don't issue bar coded license plates. Then equip police cruisers with that little laser scanner like they have at the grocery store. If they drive past a stolen car or a car registered to someone with a warrent, BING BING BING BING.

    I guess it's happening now, albeit with a different technology.

    --
    "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
    1. Re:License plate bar codes by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      When you say you've been wondering for years, does this include 1997?

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    2. Re:License plate bar codes by raider_red · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We don't have bar codes on the plates, but in Texas, they've started bar coding the registration stickers on the windows. Some police departments do have scanners in the cars, but they only read at contact distances.

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    3. Re:License plate bar codes by sterno · · Score: 1

      There's a very good reason they don't do that. Try getting a bar code off of a car in traffic when it's raining. Right.

      Frankly a human reading off a license plate and punching into a computer is far cheaper and more effecitve than laser scanning. Besides, better to get the police into the habbit of quickly reading and remembering license plate numbers because doing so when you're not in a car could be kinda useful.

      --
      This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    4. Re:License plate bar codes by earthlingpink · · Score: 1

      The flip side to this is that you don't really need bar codes. At petrol (gasoline) stations in the UK, where you pump your petrol before paying for it, some companies are now employing technology that uses a camera to read your license plate and convert it into text (rather than keeping it as an unprocessed image). You can actually see it in operation behind the counter and it appears to be fast and accurate: presumably, such a display has a deterrent value to those considering driving away without paying.

    5. Re:License plate bar codes by dancpsu · · Score: 1
      --
      "Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." -- Max Planck
    6. Re:License plate bar codes by Catbeller · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The FBI could also scan cars around rallies to find "threats" to the president's peace of mind, AKA people with known anti-Bush tendencies, to arrest and harrass; the SS could use it to track dissidents... after all, they're doing it right now, with current tech.

      This is not a drill; this is a police state. Don't give them any more toys than those they already abuse.

    7. Re:License plate bar codes by guaigean · · Score: 1

      Although it seems it would be simple enough to use electrical tape to change some letters and fool the technology. No, I've never stiffed a gas station, most of em make little enough money as is. But, people need to start looking at the criminal gains that this technology allows before they implement it. Much of this tech makes it easier for criminals, as they never have to be ID'd, and criminal warfare will become far easier as more info is gathered, databased and utilized.

      --
      Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
    8. Re:License plate bar codes by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

      Bar code on license plate

      Police were supposed to have handheld scanners that could be used to tap into the state's database immediately. I don't know if that ever happened.

      Off-topic story time:
      They also have the www.IN.gov website address on the license plates. Some people were really upset about that so they started putting decals over it - usually covering the bar code as well.

  5. Why bother with RFID? Take the paper's fingerprint by Mynn · · Score: 1
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4741809.stm

    The Laser Surface Authentication (LSA) system scans tiny surface variations of paper, plastic, metal and ceramics to detect the material's "fingerprint".

    The system then records the naturally occurring pattern of imperfections.

    The imperfections are so minute, say the scientists, that they are virtually impossible to replicate.


    Of course, that would prevent folks from reading them ever time you walk around with it not secured in your tinfoil-lined wallet.
    --

    Face it, people are stupid, and the internet is the place where they all meet.
  6. Lower tech approach? by KarmaBlackballed · · Score: 3, Funny

    How about a tatoo on the forehead? Or will that diminish tourism?

    --

    --- -- - -
    Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
    1. Re:Lower tech approach? by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Insightful
      > How about a tatoo on the forehead? Or will that diminish tourism?

      Silly privacy-advocate! The forehead and right hand are expressly reserved for the Mark of the Beast.

      Tattoos, on the other hand, go on the chest or the inner forearm.

      /one ticket to hell, please.

    2. Re:Lower tech approach? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just watch the hell out for the guy who has 666 on his forehead! Oh shit Manson already did it. Is his room number 29A? Is his RFID implant numbered 1010011010? I think I am getting a <headache> just thinking about computers and RFID.

    3. Re:Lower tech approach? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Could we, like, put radioactive isotopes in the ink so Judge Dredd can track them from spaaaaaace, spaaaaace, spaaaaaaaaaace!?

      KFG

    4. Re:Lower tech approach? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The forehead and right hand are expressly reserved for the Mark of the Beast."

      I was wondering what these marks were...

      Oh shit!

    5. Re:Lower tech approach? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Tattoos, on the other hand, go on the chest or the inner forearm.
      >
      > /one ticket to hell, please.

      We're already there! Just this morning, my boss told me "work will set you free!"

    6. Re:Lower tech approach? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "poor impulse control"

  7. Dupe by liryon · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Well maybe not quite a dupe cause they are actually testing the system now, but close enough. Orignal Here

  8. RFID in plates by romka1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    RFID in plates could help catch stolen vechiles... Right now if your car get stolen you can file a report and that will be the end of the story (that what happend with me at least)

    --
    Visit my site @ http://www.madtorrent.com
    1. Re:RFID in plates by Anakron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And as a nice side-effect, they can track you wherever you go. But you have nothing to hide, right? RIGHT?
      *insert bad guys of the moment here

      --
      There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
    2. Re:RFID in plates by Anakron · · Score: 1

      hmph. * after "they"

      --
      There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
    3. Re:RFID in plates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Instead of requiring RFID in plates, why don't we create a car tracker system that is totally opt-in. The people who want it, pay for it themselves. No government intervention necessary. We could even run a company based on this idea. I propse we name the company Lojack

    4. Re:RFID in plates by hypnagogue · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because car thieves are not bright enough to change license plates? Sorry, RFID tags in license plates can only serve to track law abiding citizens -- they are simply too easy for criminals to circumvent.

      --
      Liberty you never use is liberty you lose.
    5. Re:RFID in plates by bezuwork's+friend · · Score: 1

      God, mod this guy up. This is the only reasonable comment I've seen so far.

    6. Re:RFID in plates by Kehvarl · · Score: 2, Funny

      It would seem God isn't responding. And none of the mods care.

    7. Re:RFID in plates by maxpublic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As with all of these moves, the point isn't to improve the security or safety of the average citizen, but to make it easier for the government to track every aspect of that citizens life. Criminals will find ways to circumvent the new devices, making them useless for any other purpose.

      The more you know about a person, the easier it is to control them. And I think it's painfully apparent at this point that our government has a vested, intense interest in making sure it can control each and every one of us in order to preserve the status quo (people in power stay in power, the rest of us remain proles forever).

      Tinfoil-hat stuff, I know, but with every one of these stories I wonder more and more often if the paranoids don't have it right.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    8. Re:RFID in plates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the plates didn't help catch your stolen vehicle, why do you think RFID tags will help?

    9. Re:RFID in plates by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Number plate recognition is only a little harder than reading an RFID (see the London Congestion Charging zone for an example), so tell me, whats so much worse having an RFID tag in the car?

    10. Re:RFID in plates by SimilarityEngine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      RFID chips in license plates that can transmit VINs and other data to appropriate receivers

      That's what's worrying me. What other data? Will it or won't it be data that the police would normally be able to link to your number plate?

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    11. Re:RFID in plates by Auken+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Damn you, answer!

    12. Re:RFID in plates by feepness · · Score: 1

      We could even run a company based on this idea. I propse we name the company Lojack

      Don't you see? It's just a corporation! And corporations are bad! Because they only care about the bottom line!

      Instead we should have people with guns FORCE us to use the product THEY choose. Then we would be safer.

  9. On Papers, not on people by Anakron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As long as this is done on the papers/documents the person is supposed to have, and not on their person, I suppose this is a step forward.
    In a way, it isn't very different from giving a person a card that they swipe at the terminal instead of paper that a person has to read/stamp. Now, if they start putting these on people, thats scary!

    --
    There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
    1. Re:On Papers, not on people by Andy+Gardner · · Score: 1

      I also can't see a problem RFID'ing papers. The only problem is, were screwed when the gov makes it a requirement to carry papers at all times...

    2. Re:On Papers, not on people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, exactly the opposite. All that putting the RFID/watermark/x in a passport or "papers" will do is garuntee the papers are valid. We can already do that right now. What it does NOT do is garuntee the person walking around _with_ the papers is the rightful owner. To do that you still need to do some sort of biometric scan. Fingerprints, retina, DNA, you name it. Who cares that Mary Lou's car drove over the border from Canada to the US? Unless we know that Mr. Terrorist did not steal/borrow said car or hide in the trunk, that really doesn't make it any safer. I say give the government what they really need: a single database with some sort of keying value (fingerprint, DNA, etc.) and a single object value of type boolean where true means terrorist/arrest warrant and false means leave them the hell alone. Maybe even be nice and give them three return values of Nice Person, Suspicious Person, and Bad Person. That's it. No link to my mortgage or whether I have rented Martha Stewart's Guide to Bondage in the past month. Just whether or not I should be searched, arrested, or let on my merry way. :)

  10. Unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    RFIDs can be swapped. If people aren't comparing them to the documents and verifying the identity by other means before entry into the central database, these RFIDs can be used to actually fool and interfere with person tracking. If they are being compared, those other means are the better, more efficient, and not unnecessarily redundant means to track people. So, in summary, this is unnecessary. RFID tags at the border solve no problems and actually create more. But it does fund a specific business, so Congress will gladly fund it for the campaign kickbacks.

    1. Re:Unnecessary by darkonc · · Score: 1

      Now, all Osamma Bin Laden has to do to get in the US is steal the ID tag from some innocuous victim (dead or alive).

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    2. Re:Unnecessary by tyler_larson · · Score: 1
      RFIDs can be swapped.

      This is an important enough point that it bears some expansion. If all they do is check RFID tags on the way in our out of the country, at best all they're logging is the entry/exit of someone's passport (or similar other documents). That proves nothing at all.

      To complicate things, RFID tags are not necessarily permanantly attached to anything. There's no real guarantee that your passport even left the country. It would be a lot like putting a gold star sticker on someone's papers, and then "tracking" that person just by looking for the gold star.

      Naively optimistic to say the least.

      --
      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
      RFC 1925
    3. Re:Unnecessary by demachina · · Score: 1

      Just curious .... I'm thinking from a hackers perspective....

      Are their semi universal RFID detectors that I could buy that would help me locate any RFID tags in things I own and potentially destroy them, or can they have protocols in them so they only respond to readers that know how to talk the given kind of chip. I'm interested in something that will just spot them and help locate them, not necessarily read the data on them, though reading the data would be cool.

      What kinds of secure logins and encryption are available on these things and could DVD Jon crack it in about an hour with the proper equipment?

      --
      @de_machina
    4. Re:Unnecessary by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      One would think you'd be able to figure it out by doing a signal sweep with a frequency generator and looking for spikes on an O-silly-scope.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:Unnecessary by bill_kress · · Score: 1

      +5 right on.

    6. Re:Unnecessary by demachina · · Score: 1

      I'm skeptical it would be that simple especially in ones with sensitive data on them. I'm assuming you have to send them a somewhat more complex signal to get them to respond.

      --
      @de_machina
    7. Re:Unnecessary by himitsu · · Score: 1

      i was just reading the letters section of the new 2600 (summer 2005) and there's a fairly lengthy letter from a hacker named Stormbringer about RFID hacking that seems like a good primer. Following his work may lead to a relatively easy to use scanner for RFID. What worries me most is if the US adopts this system and makes it illegal to disable any gov't issued RFIDs. I think that the excuse "hmm, i dunno why its not working officer" will only work for the first few years; after that people are going to be assumed as hostiles if they choose to defend their privacy by breaking these tracking devices...

    8. Re:Unnecessary by demachina · · Score: 1

      I saw this on linuxdevices.com today, though the link to the detained writeup was broken when I was there.

      "Linux powers XScale-based RFID reader - Alien Technology used embedded Linux to build a multi-protocol RFID reader that it says exploits features in the latest EPC (electronic product code) specifications, including DRM (dense reader mode). The ALR-9800 can be programmed for remote management or sensor-based actuation using an optional Java/.Net SDK. ...

      Have to doubt it will be able to touch all the gubermint issue RFID tags though.

      --
      @de_machina
  11. It's a big Give and Take by chia_monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People will be clamoring over the fact "the Man is invading my privacy!" and then beg for more security and question how "we let so many terrorists get by". For security, you need security provisions. If you don't want guns at a concert, you're going to have to be searched. It's just how it is.

    The fun arises when you think about the different levels of security, the personal information gathered, how the information is used, where it is kept, etc. I have no problem having my auto information on an RFID tag somewhere on the car. Hell, my credit cards have more personal information than these little tags. In the idea of more security, I'd be fine with having my passport contain an RFID tag. Driver's licenses already hold so much info, why not a passport that lets people into the country? I'm not sure I want ALL my info on these things though. And who I want to hold the info. Identity theft could get REAL hairy depending on what info is gathered. Track my car, I don't care. Let my license have my vital info (age, sex, height, weight...maybe even blood type and other medical things for an emergency situation) if you need but be damn sure that you keep that info safe and if not, YOU are responsible for fixing the mess, not ME.

    --

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
    1. Re:It's a big Give and Take by guaigean · · Score: 1

      How is it supposed to be kept safe if it's on your license plate? What happens when someone hacks up a reader for it and can walk around scanning parking lot cars til they find an appealing victim?

      --
      Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
    2. Re:It's a big Give and Take by Agent+Green · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All you need is a linking factor among several government databases...and it might as well be a one-stop shop. That's where the problem lies.

      While a lot of information is public, the ease of gathering where you are/were is now to the point of painless. Tracking an individual used to involve a lot of work and traditional gumshoeing. Technologies like this make it easier only to track your law-abiding people.

      Those who are intent to dodge the system for nefarious purposes are going to slip through much more easily. Imagine how much easier it could be to frame someone for murder if they just "borrow" a plate from a similar vehicle that's running idle. You'll go broke paying for an attorney who can prove this magical system the state has just installed is utterly useless.

      --
      // Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
      // IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
    3. Re:It's a big Give and Take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are they going to read? The VIN they can see through the window anyway?

      Fucking alarmists, the lot of you.

    4. Re:It's a big Give and Take by guaigean · · Score: 1

      And yet you post anonymously...

      --
      Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
    5. Re:It's a big Give and Take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "If you don't want guns at a concert, you're going to have to be searched."

      Or, you know, have laws against firearms...

      I don't actually think privacy advocates are the people clamouring for anti-terrorist security measures; we've done the reading on the subject and are aware that no security in the world will stop a determined terrorist suicide attack.
      The privacy advocate is more likely to suggest work on disaster response, distributed redundancy for critical systems, and attempting to prevent terrorism long-term by eliminating poverty and oppression, and trying to avoid making enemies of people.

      -smug happy unsearched-and-unshot UK concert goer and privacy advocate

    6. Re:It's a big Give and Take by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      I have no problem having my auto information on an RFID tag somewhere on the car

      Neither does the terrorist. Of course, since he's not planning on driving for much longer, he pulled his RFID off and for shits and giggles in the afterlife, stuck it to someone elses car.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    7. Re:It's a big Give and Take by chia_monkey · · Score: 1

      All very good points. It is much easier to get all that info if it's housed in one central database and that's what scares me. That's why I don't want ALL my info in one card stored on ONE database.

      I'm not really sure I get your car/murder example though. Anyone can steal a car as it is. The authorities would have to prove that I was driving it when someone killed someone else. Also, like I stated in my original post, if they (read: government agencies) are going to collect all this info and have it be easier to one-stop-shop for my identity, THEY better be responsible for proving without a doubt that it's me that committed the crime or whatever other mess that was created when someone stole my identity from their database. I do realize however that this is a fanciful dream and that the responsibility to clear one's name ultimately falls on us, the other victim in the mess.

      --

      "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
    8. Re:It's a big Give and Take by pilgrim23 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      There was a feller once by the name of Ben Franklin who said: "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -but what did he know?

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    9. Re:It's a big Give and Take by Apocros · · Score: 1

      "People will be clamoring over the fact 'the Man is invading my privacy!' and then beg for more security and question how 'we let so many terrorists get by'."

      by and large, i don't think the people uttering those two phrases are going to be the same...

      --
      "onward!" cried the copper man, little knowing brass corrupts...
    10. Re:It's a big Give and Take by KarMax · · Score: 1

      I dont think it must be that way, as someone said before, i think the "FEAR", all the "new laws" or "security ideas", are just an elements used by some guys who can pull some strings, to control peopple.

      Peopple doesn't has to "beg" his gov for security, is the duty of the gov provide this security. Im not too smart or work for gov, and i can think about two or three ideas to stop fear and don't invade privacy, so a better qualified professional must has a LOT of ideas.

      Anyway i will fly a little and tell that this is how society works...
      Society adopt us, call us "good boy" (like niger the dog), then we sacrifice freedom and power, for some unneeded stuff (that the society sell for years), then we realize of all of this (maybe not) and you can choose "run like hell"!, but then if when allmost everybody say "ok i accept the RFID if it's for more security and blablabla"

      Cya sorry for boring you

      --
      Rock and Roll
    11. Re:It's a big Give and Take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flaws in the U.S. identity system that make identity theft common is inherent, and doesn't change (and may get worse) with new technology and the so-called National ID. The flaw is simple: a central repository of a citizen's info. That provides one easy target for identity theives to hit. Simple as that. If we managed to "spread out the hit" so to speak, and made sure that those targets are locked down tight, we would be able to prove our ID without resorting to Big Brother options.

    12. Re:It's a big Give and Take by mcvos · · Score: 1

      The problem with RFID on passports is not that your passport contains personal information, but that it can be read from a distance without you knowing about it. Ofcourse it's encrypted, but encryption can be broken.

      The new Dutch passports with RFID (on insistence of the US) has already been cracked, even before they were officially introduced. This means that not just government agencies spying on me will be able to read my passport, but so will criminals.

      And why? You need your passport only to enter a country and a few similar situations where somebody asks for it, you had it over, they check it. A chip that requires actual physical contact is good enough for that, and a whole lot more secure.

      mcv.

    13. Re:It's a big Give and Take by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1
      It's a big Give and Take

      Yeah, we give, they take.

      I think there's somethime wrong with just about everything you say . . . just a few examples:

      I have no problem having my auto information on an RFID tag somewhere on the car

      Why store this on the car? You've got the license plate number which could be used as an index for this information stored elsewhere for auto registration purposes.

      In the idea of more security, I'd be fine with having my passport contain an RFID tag.

      Why? If this info had to be stored on the passport, why not use some "contact" technology to read it -- so you know when it's being read. And what "security" purpose is served by storing this information on the passport?

      [Y]ou need but be damn sure that you keep that info safe and if not, YOU are responsible for fixing the mess, not ME.

      This could be its own topic. You want to have your information stored in/on your car in a fashion that can be read by anyone in the proximity of your car, and you want that to be someone else's problem to keep it secure. And if it gets out, it's someone else's problem to fix? With what? The amnesia ray?

      How about this -- we ask ourselves how security is to be improved before we do something stupid, and then ask ourselves how security is weakened by doing the aforementioned stupid thing? Security is not just protection from each other, but protection from intrusive government and business. And no, we are not the government. Even if you believe that you live in a land of representative government, you are merely an element of "government".

      Now, would everyone please go read Beyond Fear. Thank you.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  12. Track Everyone by guaigean · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why not just implant them in babies at birth, in case they're kidnapped. It'll never get abused.
    /sarcasm

    --
    Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
  13. At Last... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...a solution for how to microwave metal objects without catching the kitchen on fire.

  14. Re:Yes. Be RFID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Am I the only one that clicked on the women's 3/4 sleeve just because it has the nicest breasts? Oh god I need a life.

  15. We welcome our alien masters by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0, Troll

    and are happy to serve them.

    It's so nice to submit to their rule and their patriotic benevolence to us sheep.

    Where's the Give Up My Rights button on my keyboard when I need it ... hmmm, must be next to the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] keys.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  16. Hello Big Brother by pin_gween · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Watch out Speeders if the RF plates become a reality. Sensors along roads take your position, computers extrapolate speed and two days later you get your ticket in in the mail.

    And Big Brother Watching you? You wouldn't even need the software predictions mentioned a few weeks ago -- just follow the RF tag around town

    --
    Ignorance is not a crime; neither should it be a way of life

    Congress control $ = inmates run the asylum
    1. Re:Hello Big Brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you shouldn't be BREAKING THE FUCKING LAW?

      don't use so many caps, it's like yelling.

    2. Re:Hello Big Brother by pin_gween · · Score: 1

      Oh I see. The government has NEVER abused its power. Don't be naive and think this is a concern for lawbreakers alone. Do you really want the gov't (or anyone else)to be able to track your every movement?

      For argument's sake, what if you are trying get a job, your prospective employer is able to track your car -- now they know a HELLUVA lot more about you than they need to know. Is it their business what grocery store you frequent? Which bars? Where your girlfriend lives? Don't think that the gov't will be sole users of this technology.

      --
      Ignorance is not a crime; neither should it be a way of life

      Congress control $ = inmates run the asylum
    3. Re:Hello Big Brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already happening with "Speedpass" on the New Jersey Turnpike. Toll booths at every exit and entrance ramp. Pick up a ticket on the way on, pay your toll on the way off. Toll adjusted for distance travelled.

      With speedpass, just drive through both gates, and the toll is automatically deducted as you exit. The catch is that they also track the time from entrance to exit. If your speed exceeds the posted limit, you get a ticket in the mail.

      Sorry, I'll take the cash lanes, thank you very much. Sure, I spend ten minutes in line on a bad day, but I make it up by doing eighty in a fifty-five.

    4. Re:Hello Big Brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that whenever there is a Slashdot article regarding car journeys, there's no shortage of people wishing a pox upon every and any person who goes but one mph above the posted speed limit?

      Is it because we are all (supposed to be) geeks who see every situation in binary with no grey areas or middle ground? 29 Good, 31 bad? The reason why I am surprised by the rate of occurance of these posts is that I don't believe I know a single person who NEVER goes above a speed limit, even if conditions are favourable. Short, tall, fat, thin, stupid, smart - who doesn't do 45-50 in a 40 zone when you can see clearly for miles and there's nobody around? I don't know who they are but they congregate on Slashdot it seems.

      And why do you you say Maybe you shouldn't be BREAKING THE FUCKING LAW? as though 'the law' is always right and justified? You better not have downloaded any copyrighted materials, Mr. AC., or broken any other laws that are broken on a daily basis by decent people.

      I'd be willing to wager that most accidents are caused by bad drivers who would have probably crashed at lower speeds, than normal drivers who automagically become jibbering lunatics because they are 5mph over as the dillusioned on here seem to believe.

      Or perhaps it's jealousy - these Slashdotters either can't afford a car or can't afford one that can outrun a rickshaw.

    5. Re:Hello Big Brother by Pulzar · · Score: 1

      Watch out Speeders if the RF plates become a reality. Sensors along roads take your position, computers extrapolate speed and two days later you get your ticket in in the mail.

      Well, they already do that with automated radar guns and red-light cameras... Having computers track you over a certain distance and calculate your speed seems like a more complicated way to do it.

      And Big Brother Watching you? You wouldn't even need the software predictions mentioned a few weeks ago -- just follow the RF tag around town

      An RFID tag is not a GPS receiver + data transmitter... It's just an ID tag. In order for the "big brother" to follow you around town, they'd have to install RFID readers on every corner of every town, and then network them all together to keep track of where you're going. It'll be quite a while before that's feasible.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    6. Re:Hello Big Brother by BreadMan · · Score: 1

      I don't worry about the national or state gov't abusing something like this, they're too disorganized in the U.S. to make a difference.

      The *local* gov't is corrupt as can be. I can only imagine small towns doing sweeps of hotels or rest stops and writing citations for minor offenses: burned out headlight, not having your windshield wipers in good working order, etc. For a small town, the fees generated by the police department make-up a scary proportion of the entire revenue pot. So long as the residents don't end-up paying fines too often, this is viewed as a "good thing" by the locals.

    7. Re:Hello Big Brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't wish a pox, consequently, I don't have any sympathy either. I know everyone does it, hell I do it. But I'm likewise not going to be pissed if I get a fucking ticket for it. The speed limit is CLEARLY posted, and it is common knowledge that it's a violation of the law to drive above the speed limit. Therefore, no pity for those who get a ticket for driving above it. It's a concious choice you make.

    8. Re:Hello Big Brother by bjason82 · · Score: 1

      You know what would be waaaaay more logical than putting rf plates on cars to control their speed?? Implement the opposite of that, allow the automobile to read an rfid of the posted speed limit and use software to force the car to slow to the correct speed. I would prefer that then being monitored everywhere I go.
      "Oh, you dont want to be monitored? What are you doing that is so wrong that you dont want the government to know about?" I think i'm reiterating what every single person on this site has been saying... The Government should be a subject of the people, the government IS the people. The people should never feel like the government is looking over their shoulder, but then again our U.S. republic vanished long ago and it is quickly being replaced with what is termed the "New World Order" ...... Wake up people, www.infowars.com

    9. Re:Hello Big Brother by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Well, they already do that with automated radar guns and red-light cameras...
      > Having computers track you over a certain distance and calculate your speed
      > seems like a more complicated way to do it.

      Surely noting your presence in two locations, and working out how long it took you by using basic maths is less complicated than bouncing light off your car using a hand held device, then having to catch you to tell you they caught you, unless they also use a camera to get your plate, or another set of police to stop you?

    10. Re:Hello Big Brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, the thing is ... people like you are dumbasses, and I *want* my government looking over your shoulder so it can fuck you up when you break the law doing the stupid shit I'm sure you do. For that, I'm willing to let the government look over my shoulder as well.

    11. Re:Hello Big Brother by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      There are cameras on some of the stoplights in my city that catch people running red lights. They snap a photo of the liscence plate and then mail you a ticket along with a copy of the photo.

      The problem with automating that process for a radar gun is that radar guns don't inform an officer of which car it's tracking. The cop points it in the general direction of traffic and it displays the highest speed that it detects. It's up to the cop to determine which of the cars in traffic is travelling fastest and thus corresponds to the speed being displayed. That judgement can't easily be automated.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    12. Re:Hello Big Brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to add to what you're saying. Some people might argue that if you're speeding, you deserve a ticket. But if these things are accurate enough, you could get fined for being 1 mile per hour over the limit or maybe less. Then you're being punished for a lack of your spedometer's accuracy or for watching the road instead of the display.

    13. Re:Hello Big Brother by Kinetix303 · · Score: 1

      Big Brother? Oh, grab me- just stop speeding. The only reason speed limits aren't higher is because they know people will drive even faster.

    14. Re:Hello Big Brother by Threni · · Score: 1

      What's that got to do with what I was talking about? I'm saying that a system where a camera (maybe on traffic lights, maybe not) captures a cars registration number, and at some later stage all the locations where that cars plates were captures are checked to see if a car has been spotted in two locations where it would be impossible to travel between without breaking a speed limit. So if you're in London at noon, and 100 miles away an hour later then the car must have exceeded the speed limit for at least some of the journey. Many cars will exceed the speed limit but get away with it because of the inability to deduce the maximum speed, although more cameras would help with this. At no point is the speed of the car captured using this system.

    15. Re:Hello Big Brother by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      If you're going to have a system in place that automatically catches speeders it has to be able to function by deducing a cars speed either instantaneously or over a very short distance (shorter then the distance between two lights). Anything less then that is impractical, it won't catch enough people to be worth half of what it would cost to maintain let alone implement.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    16. Re:Hello Big Brother by Threni · · Score: 1

      > If you're going to have a system in place that automatically catches speeders it
      > has to be able to function by deducing a cars speed either instantaneously or
      > over a very short distance (shorter then the distance between two lights).
      > Anything less then that is impractical,

      That's not true. It doesn't become impractical just because it doesn't work instantanously, not does it have to work over very short distances. There's nothing wrong with having such a system on a 50+ mile stretch of road (such as a motorway between two cities), and there's no reason for the result to be produced after just 2 hours - there's nothing wrong with performing the calculations once per week.

    17. Re:Hello Big Brother by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      The way you're setting things up you have to be able to rely on the fact that people are driving straight for a long distance with no stop lights. It's just too restrictive, you're not going to catch enough people to justify the cost of the system.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    18. Re:Hello Big Brother by Threni · · Score: 1

      > The way you're setting things up you have to be able to rely on the fact that
      > people are driving straight for a long distance with no stop lights. It's just
      > too restrictive, you're not going to catch enough people to justify the cost of
      > the system.

      There are already loads of cameras capable of reading the registration plates of car moving at speed, as well as calculating whether or not the car was speeding. I'm not sure why you think it'll be expensive to throw away the speed of the car and just keep the plate info. Or do you think it's expensive to do the SQL query which pulls up all the registration numbers of cars which have travelled between two points more quickly that allowed by law? People tend to speed on the motorways in the UK, and there are no stop-lights there. If you spend most of your time speeding but say 30% of the time in built up areas with stop-lights etc then there's still a very good chance that you could be caught by this system.

    19. Re:Hello Big Brother by Threni · · Score: 1

      > you have to be able to rely on the fact that people are driving straight for a
      > long distance with no stop lights

      More proof that you're wrong:

      http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/02/259.asp

      More info about the system, including how much money it's making:

      http://www.speedcheck.co.uk/FAQs.htm
      http://www.radar-detectors.co.uk/specs_speed_camer a.asp

    20. Re:Hello Big Brother by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      Damn... I stand corrected.

      Over here in America we only have the red light cameras (that I know of), so it would be pretty expensive to install an entire system like that, but I guess there's proof that it can be made profitable so...

      The only thing is I don't like the idea of there being a SQL database of intersections I've passed through. I'd be much more comfortable with a system that could catch speeders without keeping track of their travel routes.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    21. Re:Hello Big Brother by Threni · · Score: 1

      I know what you mean. I'm sure the US will get all this soonish. Gotta keep track of those tersts...

      > The only thing is I don't like the idea of there being a SQL database of
      > intersections I've passed through. I'd be much more comfortable with a system
      > that could catch speeders without keeping track of their travel routes.

      London has a congestion charge system based on this. If you drive into central london, you *will* get logged and you *will* get sent a £60 or £80 fine if you don't pay beforehand. If you speed on the motorways (freeways) you might see a flash in your rear view mirror - that's your car being photographed and you'll get a ticket in the post. There are little white lines on the road where the cameras are pointing so that your speed can be worked out accurately.

  17. Needs a better acronym for public relations... by Orrin+Bloquy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Universal
    Frequency
    Identification
    Access.

    --
    "Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on /. and I must look smart."
    1. Re:Needs a better acronym for public relations... by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Ugh, for all those not in the know, don't look that up...

      No seriously, don't!

      Told ya.

    2. Re:Needs a better acronym for public relations... by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      Frequency-specific Responsive Electronic Emitting Device for Orwellian-style Monitoring Tag?

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    3. Re:Needs a better acronym for public relations... by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1

      FREEDOMT?

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    4. Re:Needs a better acronym for public relations... by dq5+studios · · Score: 1

      From Wikipedia:

      UFIA is an acronym used on the website Fark.com for the phrase "unsolicited finger in the anus," based on the site's description of a trial involving a US high school football player who allegedly poked some of his clothed teammate's anuses. In the trial, the judge ruled that the action was not intended as a criminal or sexual act. Fark.com summarized the ruling with the line "an unsolicited finger in the anus, while crude, is not criminal".

    5. Re:Needs a better acronym for public relations... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      It's the totalitarian version with the T instead of the E.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    6. Re:Needs a better acronym for public relations... by nobodyhome4000 · · Score: 1

      Frequency Object Authentication Device

    7. Re:Needs a better acronym for public relations... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      I meant S.

      Gotta remember to preview.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    8. Re:Needs a better acronym for public relations... by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      Well, I intended for the 'Tag' part to be separate from the acronym, the same way it is separate in RFID Tag (as opposed to RFIDT). Alas, you have highlighted the redundancy of my acronym, as displayed by the 'Device' component, so I must walk away from a poor attempt at an ironic FREEDOM acronym joke with my head hung.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    9. Re:Needs a better acronym for public relations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      > Universal
      > Frequency
      > Identification
      > Access.

      They offered me an RFID chip implant. I told them where they could stick it. Then things got weird.

      (They gave it to me anyway. Boy, was I pissed!)

  18. Why extra RFID? by Keruo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > The tag is embedded in paperwork and "chip readers note the entry or exit of visitors who pass by and transmit that information to a government-maintained database.

    What's preventing people from storing their tickets and passports at locked storage boxes at airport?

    That way they have complete freedom to roam around the country without being followed, the database doesn't even show them ever leaving the airport if the reader is at the front exit.

    Or is there some limiting law that visitor must have his/her visa with him/her all times when moving outdoors that I missed?

    --
    There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
    1. Re:Why extra RFID? by Anakron · · Score: 1

      They want to track people getting in and out of the designated ports of entry. Not track them everywhere they go.
      Or is there some limiting law that visitor must have his/her visa with him/her all times when moving outdoors that I missed? When did you last hear of a law-abiding terrorist (even if that was the point of this scheme, which it isn't)?

      --
      There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
    2. Re:Why extra RFID? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      They also put a RFID tag on your vehicle when you drive through the border, although they say they don't do that for American and Canadian citizens.

      According to NPR this morning, that is.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:Why extra RFID? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure about visitor's visas, but 'green card' holders are required to carry their 'green card' with them at all times while in the U.S.

    4. Re:Why extra RFID? by EvilMagnus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or is there some limiting law that visitor must have his/her visa with him/her all times when moving outdoors that I missed?

      I'm pretty sure there is such a law - if you're a Nonimmigrant, you're supposed to carry positive ID at all times - and they pretty much say that's your passport. Of course, the vast majority of nonimmigrant visa holders don't do this, but some friends of mine were given a hard time by INS agents when they returned from a short pleasure flight in Cessna in MA - met at the ramp by Immigration, who demanded to see their passports! (despite the fact that they never left US airspace, or came close to doing so).

      --
      -EvilMagnus
    5. Re:Why extra RFID? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, yes there is, because the american visa is stampped on the passport, and you must carry your passport as identification.

    6. Re:Why extra RFID? by Serko92 · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is. I am a visitor, and there is a law they tell you about, but nobody ever enforces. According to the US Immigration and Naturalization Sevice, or whatever it's called now, you are supposed to have your visa with you at all times, as they can just deport you without trial or even a warning, if you dont. Of course, that's a ridiculous law, and it is not followed anywhere I know of, but in light of recent events in the world, who knows?

    7. Re:Why extra RFID? by jnewmano · · Score: 1

      People don't realize how much freedom we actually have here in the U.S or Britain or whatever country you're in. In some countries you are required to always carry a government issued id with you. Citizens and foreigners. In fact it is stricly enforced in some of these countries by armed forces sometimes with fully automatic weapons. The country I'm talking about is a 'democracy,' with 'elections' and a 'constitution' and such.

      So yes, in some places this law is stricly enforced. I should know, I was detained several times because I had a non standard immigration paper and the cops weren't always able to read all of the big words, or were just looking for some lunch money. It usually took a phone call or two and some explaining to be released.

    8. Re:Why extra RFID? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's preventing people from storing their tickets and passports at locked storage boxes at airport?

      The lack of lockable storage boxes at airports?

    9. Re:Why extra RFID? by himitsu · · Score: 1

      what show was that on? im looking on npr's site right now and i dont see anything... my search for "RFID" only found articles from 3 years ago..

    10. Re:Why extra RFID? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      it was on the morning news at around 7 am - Morning Edition? on NPR where they talked about the RFID add-ons to vehicles crossing the border, in addition to the visa/passport addition.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  19. I predict by hsmith · · Score: 1

    this century will be the most oppressed ever as we have means never before to track and trace people. The dictators of the 20th century had nothing on the technology to pillage and murder that we are developing now.

    1. Re:I predict by Seumas · · Score: 1

      But at least we'll still have Fox News, MTV Real World and movie theaters. And that's all that really matters. As long as we get to keep indulging in entertainment, we'll tolerate anything - include trading all of our privacy for theoretical security.

  20. RFID Security by ndansmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here is a piggy back question: If you were going to implement a large-scale RFID system (let's say license plates in California), how would you address the issues of fraud, hacking, etc.? It seems to me that RFID would be an attractive taget for hackers (both for proof-of-concept and malicious purposes). Do you encrypt the data being transmitted by the RFID? How do you protect the privacy of the RFIDed people? Knowing that someone could use this technology along with several receivers to triangulate any vehicle's position and therefore follow it without-a-trace, how would you protect this sort of criminal (or law enforcement) abuse?

    1. Re:RFID Security by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      If RFIDs become ubiquitous, they in a sense, become you.

      These idiots see no problem in an unencrypted number? OK, lets call you 123, and your neighbor 456. We don't know who that is, but over time, we don't care about the name. 123 goes into Kroger, and Kroger gets to use the RFID because they say to the government that they will keep an eye out for bad guys and wink wink, we donated to the congressman's campaign. And every company will do the same. Then when 123 buys pampers and milk, they know he has a new baby. Maybe the share this information with another database -- in fact, it bypasses any privacy laws because they don't have to worry about YOU, no, they are sharing an anonymous number.

      This number will be so useful and so handy that many will stop asking you for personal ID, because they'll have your handy RFID number. "Good afternoon 123, welcome to Delta."

      Of course, the people planning to do wrong will steal an RFID or hack the system. So this won't be useful for anything but population control and marketing. Which will become the same thing.

      I welcome our new RFID overlords.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  21. I haven't heard about... by Krater76 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... good RFID uses in a while. Sure you hear the tin-foil hat stuff all the time, but where's the grocery store where I don't have to stand in line, I just pass my cart between two scanners and everything in the cart appears on the screen?

    One that really interested me was where a handgun would only fire if the user was wearing a ring on their finger. Of course the ring would have an RFID chip embedded in it. Police officers have a high incidence of being shot with their own gun, whereas if the gun wouldn't fire without the ring, officers could feel much safer.

    Parents who want a gun in the house but are worried about having children around it would feel that there is another line of defense that would keep their kid from accidentally shooting themselves. I don't have children but I'd pay extra for the added level of security.

    --
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    1. Re:I haven't heard about... by guaigean · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One that really interested me was where a handgun would only fire if the user was wearing a ring on their finger.

      I agree, there ARE good uses for RFID. I do not believe, however, that those uses involve placing personal information out and available for the first person that breaks the encryption.

      --
      Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
    2. Re:I haven't heard about... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      Police 'have a high incidence of being shot with their own gun', because they are out there every day with the asshats. I imagine they wouldn't want this, so that their partner can pick up their gun and use it if the situation becomes necessary. Nothing like having a gun and not being able to use it.

      Same with the 'ring on the finger' for civilians. Unless you wear it ALL the time, it will likely not be there when/if you actually need it.
      And one extra bit of technology to fail at the worst time.

      These things haven't taken off, because people who actually buy and use guns don't want them. IMHO, anyway.

    3. Re:I haven't heard about... by Nagatzhul · · Score: 1

      The way the technology current sits on "safe" handguns are that the firearms is more likely to fail in use than to protect the user from illicit use.

      It is far from bullet proof, pun intended.

      Firearms technology needs to be kept simple to reliably fill it's intended usage. The more complicated you make it, the greater the chance of failure when needed most.

      --
      "All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
    4. Re:I haven't heard about... by shoganainaa · · Score: 1

      I disagree that this would constitute a 'good' use for RFID. I do not want to have to rely on a particular piece of jewelry or an implant or anything other than my own intent in order to activate my self defence weapon. This might make slightly more sense for LEO or military arms, but for my personal weapon I need simplicity.

      --
      ----- shoganainaa
    5. Re:I haven't heard about... by stry_cat · · Score: 1

      And just like any other so-called "smart" gun technology, what does your girlfriend do when she's home alone and must use your gun to defend her self from the home invaders? If it won't fire unless you're holding it, your girlfriend just has an expensive brick or rock in her hand. Guess she'll just need to lie down and enjoy whatever they do to her.

    6. Re:I haven't heard about... by mcvos · · Score: 1

      That is ofcourse trivial to solve. If your girlfriend has to be authorised to use your gun, give her a ring with the same code. It's as simple as that. Ofcourse with 2 rings around the chance of one of them getting stolen by a criminal who also wants to use your gun gets a bit bigger, but it's still a lot safer than nothing at all. mcv.

    7. Re:I haven't heard about... by Krater76 · · Score: 1

      Well, heh, I haven't worked out the technology exactly yet, but I would imagine that if you had more than one person that you wanted to use the gun you would have more than one ring, or said ring was more of a stretchy 'band' that fit around anyones finger. You could probably also have either the gun be 'attuned' to many rings, or have many rings 'attuned' to one gun.

      I have a gun in my house. I will always have a gun (most likely more than one) in my house. I don't have any children yet so I don't have to worry about that issue currently. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to restrict guns but I wouldn't mind an alternative so that the anti-gun .

      BTW, I don't have a girlfriend, I have a wife. Shes not a great shot but then again she doesn't really have to be - it's not a little gun (.357 S&W). It's similar to this except a little older.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  22. Barcodes? by gillbates · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What was wrong with barcodes? It seems to me that for the intended uses, barcodes would have worked just as well without the attendant privacy implications. Why on earth would the U.S. voluntarily give criminals and terrorists the tools to target people according to their nationality?

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:Barcodes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why on earth would the U.S. voluntarily give criminals and terrorists the tools to target people according to their nationality?

      Because they themselves want to target people according to their nationality?

  23. think harder by sum.zero · · Score: 1

    timothy mcveigh: white mail from the usa

    ted kacynzki: white male from the usa

    sum.zero

    1. Re:think harder by crimethinker · · Score: 0
      Ted Kaczynski: killed 3, injured 23

      Timothy McVeigh: killed 168, injured "at least" 500

      19 arab terrorists: killed over 3000, injured how many thousands more?

      Oh, and for the reference you complain about in your follow-up, try Nail bomb was not meant to kill, says suspect. He's fighting extradition on these grounds:

      Mr Osman's Italian court-appointed lawyer, who was present at the interrogation, said that he had insisted that he thought the attack was "a gesture" intended to cause alarm, and not "to kill or maim".

      Why don't you go offer him some "therapy and understanding"?

      -paul

      --
      Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
    2. Re:think harder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Here is a little global perspective on the US:

      1. On December 29, 1890, 153 Lakota Indians were killed after being dis-armed by . . .

      A. Nicaraguan Contras
      B. The Weather Underground
      C. The United States Millitary
      D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

      2. On March 16, 1968, over 350 unarmed villagers of all ages were killed in My Lai, Vietnam by . . .

      A. Tamil Tigers
      B. Chechen Rebels
      C. The United States Millitary
      D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

      3. In early 1945, Dresden, Germany lost tens of thousands of citizens after being fire-bombed by . . .
      A. The Zapatistas
      B. Communist China
      C. The United States Millitary
      D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

      4. On August 6, 1945, _________ dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, killing over 100,000 civilians in the long term.

      A. The Irish Republican Army
      B. Neo-Nazis
      C. The United States millitary
      D. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

      "I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?"

    3. Re:think harder by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

      Each of the 19 terrorists averaged roughly 158 deaths. This would put them, each, on par with McVeigh, or does the fact that there were 19 of them working together somehow make profiling ok?

      Using profiling would only be effective until one person who doesn't fit the profile was used to commit another attrocity.

      Then what would you do? expand the profile to now include the old group and the new group? try to stay a step ahead and expand it to include the next likely group? or simply ignore profiling as best as possible and do your best to avoid major problems?

      No solution is perfect, but adding profiling to any of the solutions we have would do not one bit of good.

      As to the guy with the nail bomb. If he really felt that a bomb which fits the definition of an antipersonel device was not going to kill anyone, then he has serious troubles and should be locked away for his (and our) own protection.

    4. Re:think harder by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      Ted Kaczynski: killed 3, injured 23

      Timothy McVeigh: killed 168, injured "at least" 500

      19 arab terrorists: killed over 3000, injured how many thousands more?

      So I guess we should have let McVeigh waltz right past our searches. After all, if the best he can do is kill 168, he's hardly worth our time at all. Better to get that poor Arab student who came to America to get away from government interference in daily life because he happens to have been born in the wrong place. Correct?

      How many terrorist attacks have occurred on American soil conducted by Arabs/Muslims? WTC 1993, WTC 2001. Two?

      We've already listed two non-Arab terrorists who struck in the US. Let's add in Eric Rudolph. Three is certainly more than two. And yes, I'm sure I'm missing some--on both sides.

      Let's step outside America, shall we? Poor Britain has gotten it lately. Not once, but TWICE! Fucking Arabs. Let's ignore the fact that the IRA operated in Britain for decades, they're too white-skinned to possibly cause any trouble besides the occasional drunken bar brawl.

      It's just stupid to base these decisions on skin color or ethnicity. Worse than that, it's illegal and immoral. The United States should be better than that. If not, what the fuck are we fighting for? "Freedom and democracy" my ass. Freedom for WASPs, maybe. Only freedom for everybody else as we find it conveinient.

      Why don't you go offer him some "therapy and understanding"?

      You must be a Republican. That has become one of their favorite lines lately, and I have no idea why. I've never heard anybody say it. What was said is that the Republicans wanted to go to war over 9/11, kill people and treat the captured as "enemy combatents" subject to military tribunal, and the Democrats wanted to let them be handled within the domestic American legal system. Argue the merits and demerits of either position as you please, I'm not interested in doing so, but drop the moral superiority attitude about it. They're both valid responses that hope to acheive the same things.

      That said, I hope you're not taking a lawyer's legal argument as some holy statement to rail against. You think American lawyers, or non-terrorism-related defenses are any better? A defense lawyer's job is not to seek truth. Frankly it's not to protect people either. It's to 1) ensure adequate legal representation as guaranteed by civilized countries, and 2) present the defense most likely to result in a favorable verdict. Reasonable doubt and all that.

      We both know the argument isn't going to fly. Why are you trying to make something of it?

    5. Re:think harder by multiplexo · · Score: 1
      The original poster forgot about Eric Rudolph another white male.

      Of course Republitards such as yourself like to advocate racial profiling as a weapon in Dubya's GWOT. But if we look at the history of terrorism in the United States you find that most of it was done by whites against jews and blacks by the KKK.

      Republitards are not bound by any intellectual consistency on this though. Even though 15 of the 19 terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia and Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi national and the leadership of Al Qaeda is mostly Saudi Arabian the Republitards all cheered when their Boy President announced that we were attacking Iraq in response to 9/11. Sure, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but hey, it was a chance to beat up on sand niggers, and beating the shit out of niggers, spics, gooks, chinks and japs is what the Republitard party is all about, which is why they have such a hard-on for racial profiling.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    6. Re:think harder by crimethinker · · Score: 0
      1. On December 29, 1890, 153 Lakota Indians were killed after being dis-armed by . . .

      The U.S. Military. A particularly shameful chapter in our nation's history, and one of the many reasons that I do not support gun control of any kind. Ask a Jew about it if you doubt me on that reasoning. Many a Holocaust survivor has commented that they didn't have the tools to resist, having been disarmed by German gun registration laws a few years earlier, and how they wished they could have put up a more effective fight. Soviet dissidents have made similar comments. A disarmed population is more easily controlled, and more easily massacred.

      My Lai, that was fucked up. Badly. More people should have been court-martialed, and somebody should have faced a firing squad over that. Of course, when you consider that Charlie looked just like the people we were trying to help, things get a little muddier. Charlie didn't exactly play by "the rules," hiding out amongst civilian populations, and the like.

      Dresden, another collossal fuck-up. I'm not aware of any military value (other than morale) that Dresden had.

      Hiroshima and Nagasaki, well, I'll defer to the people who survived the occupation of Nanking. There's a reason they call it The Rape of Nanking. Would you like me to show you some pictures of the mass graves, the beheading contests, etc.?

      War is ugly. Terrorism is uglier, because there's no defined enemy to shoot at, just nations that give cover and people who give support in whatever way they can. If we can, through PURE statistical analysis, uncover patterns, we are BOUND to incorporate that information to prevent an attack.

      -paul

      --
      Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
    7. Re:think harder by crimethinker · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Nice try, but I'm not a Republican, and haven't been for a great many years. I vote mostly Libertarian these days. I think GWB has been a huge detriment to this country and our security. The only thing he's got going for him is he has done a better job than either Gore or Kerry would have done, and that's a damn shame that he's got nothing better to speak of his presidency.

      As for Saudi Arabia, I don't agree with our government's unwavering support for such a corrupt regime, which I might remind you was just as unwavering when Clinton was getting hummers in the Oval Office and perjuring himself about it.

      So how do we deal with Mid-Easy terrorism? Drill a hole through the glass and pump out the oil.

      -paul

      --
      Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
    8. Re:think harder by geekee · · Score: 1

      "but hey, it was a chance to beat up on sand niggers, and beating the shit out of niggers, spics, gooks, chinks and japs is what the Republitard party is all about, which is why they have such a hard-on for racial profiling."

      In 2001, Republican's were criticized for not acting on information that Bin Laden was going to attack the US. Now you want to ignore the same type of information, because it's easier just to label people as racicts than to actually think about what is going on."

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    9. Re:think harder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If we can, through PURE statistical analysis, uncover patterns, we are BOUND to incorporate that information to prevent an attack.

      OK, so we are using profiling to prevent an attack. Does someone's race have anything to do with whether or not they are going to carry out a terrorist attack? No. Racial profiling works if you want to single out people by ethnicity. That is not what we are trying to do. We want to single out the people who are going to actually carry out an attack. These attacks are a function of the behavior of the perpetrators, not their race. Therefore, it is best to look for suspicious behavior rather than race while profiling. In combination with good strategic planning and intelligence, behavioral profiling is the best deterent to terrorism.

    10. Re:think harder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Many a Holocaust survivor has commented that they didn't have the tools to resist, having been disarmed by German gun registration laws a few years earlier, and how they wished they could have put up a more effective fight.


      That's why you want guns in the USA? You feel like you live in a country controlled by a guy like Hitler, that you are deprived of you rights and the police can harass you? That's funny, we in Europe feel that way too about the USA; never thought you guys were getting it.

      BTW I totally agree on having people RFID'd, that way when terrorists kill 200 people, killing themselves at the same time, you can aproach the terrorist burnt corpse and... wait, are RFID tags fireproof? I'm sure they are. As I was saying, you aproach his calcinated corpse, read the tag, and find out who he was and... then... read his name... know where he entered the country... and that's it... Ok, now I feel safer.
    11. Re:think harder by Artfldgr · · Score: 1

      except that you dont have a model for terrorists and for such... which means that they make up behaviors...

      recent article in new york asking people to watch for terrorists on the train said to watch for those that are sweating. watch for those looking around (so now the peolpe following the article are suspect), watch for those walking 'too fast' and for those walking 'too slow'.

      and no one got that that fit everyone except for the police that were just standing there.. oh, and the terrorists that were waiting...

      not only that, but police are considered a better target... whats better than 10 of them around a little table with a bunch of civilans bunched up too? screw the train they cause more trouble by taking out the officers, and then the officers get scared to help people, crime goes up, officer roles go down, etc...

      if the politicians are this dumb, do you really want them to be able to track your movements in minutea land? especially when now they consider "taxes" as "revenue streams" and say things like maximizing... these are business terms that go for profits, not terms for people that are trying to tax minimally to provide needed services common to all people.

      then again.. i am probably just on the fringe.

    12. Re:think harder by schon · · Score: 1

      he has done a better job than either Gore or Kerry would have done

      Cool - as you apparently have the ability to see into alternate universes, I have a favour to ask you:

      Can you tell me what would have happened if my girlfriend and I hadn't broken up when I was 20? I'm just curious.

      TIA.

    13. Re:think harder by multiplexo · · Score: 1
      Give me a break, the current group of Republitards in the administration will probably ignore the Zawahiri declaration until something bad happens and then use it as an excuse to attack Syria or Iran. Or maybe to pass a capital gains tax cut or a bill banning abortions ("if we don't cut capital gains and outlaw abortions the terrorists will have won") or to use it as an excuse to further trash the Constitution. That's what they did in 2001, they ignored the intelligence and then after 9/11 they decided that we needed to invade Iraq. It might be easier to give the Republitards some credit for protecting America if they had actually fired some people for 9/11 (Hey, we fired people after Pearl Harbor) but instead the director of the CIA got the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the FBI got more money and power.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    14. Re:think harder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why Hello Thar!

      Wait, sorry, that was a link from our universe. In your bizarro world, all you got was a headline about TSA agents being reprimanded for harassing a white guy instead of focusing on those dark skinned death machines.

      What "type of information" are you talking about? You have credible information that dark skinned guys are going to attack? Funny, the link you gave was for credible information that Al Qaeda was going to attack. Something seems a little different there, but I can't quite put my finger on it, can you?

  24. When they say RFID tags in Law Enforcement by Timesprout · · Score: 1

    What they really mean is they plan to put RFID tags in donuts to help determine just how many coffee breaks cops take.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:When they say RFID tags in Law Enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they really mean is they plan to put RFID tags in donuts to help determine just how many coffee breaks cops take.

      How about RFID tags on cops, so we know when we're being stopped by a police impersonator?

  25. and a comment on moderation by sum.zero · · Score: 1

    posts should not be modded 'informative' when they have no links to sources and consist largely of opinion.

    sum.zero

  26. My thoughts on RFID chips by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You can put them in license plates. Afterall, the only difference will be being able to read the plate number from any angle within a distance.

    You can put them near the barcode of products bought in store, for the same reasons as above. Plus it can prevent shoplifting a lot easier. Scan it in, scan it out, no problem.

    But under no situation stick it in a human or into our ID cards. That crosses the line.

    1. Re:My thoughts on RFID chips by fishbowl · · Score: 1



      "But under no situation stick it in a human or into our ID cards. That crosses the line."

      What line is that? The one that divides "persons and papers" from "effects?"

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:My thoughts on RFID chips by instarx · · Score: 1

      You can put them in license plates. Afterall, the only difference will be being able to read the plate number from any angle within a distance.

      I don't agree. It takes a person to read a license plate while RFID tags allow for the constant, automated real-time tracking of vehicles. By your logic it would be OK for the government to require GPS senders on all cars so their computers could track them - after all, every car already has a unique licesnse plate that can be read on the street, right?

      I also do not understand nor agree with this "its ok to track my stuff but its not ok to track me" thinking. If the government can track your car or your coat or your hat they are really tracking you. Simply not allowing the government to put an RFID tracker in your body is no protection - they can simply track you by what is around your body.

    3. Re:My thoughts on RFID chips by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand. If they put one of those RFID microchips in license plates, and simply have it reflect the license plate number, all it would be doing it allow it to be read easier as opposed to needing to visually see it. But yes, it could be abused if they were to set up readers everywhere along the road.

    4. Re:My thoughts on RFID chips by lxw56 · · Score: 1

      You object to having an RFID in your identity documents. I object to having to carry identity documents.

  27. Re:Yes. Be RFID by Council · · Score: 1

    Hey, I just got an idea. Have a script that notes whenever a slashdot story is posted with certain keywords in it, and then post [automatically, if possible] a link to a Cafepress shop or something with a product related to that keyword sold by you. Just come up with a list of vaguely funny posts or have the link target be funny, and there you go.

    I'm not trying to mock the parent poster, I just want to get in on the action.

    On the other hand, maybe people would notice the repititon. But unless someone called you on it . . . I wonder what percentage of slashdot stories people read the top comments on, on average? Something has to happen reasonably often before it's jumped on as a dupe comment. And maybe you can vary the post content a lot. Each top mention nets you a lot of hits.

    --
    xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
  28. MMMM, Lunchtime! by xenoxaos · · Score: 1

    *walks to cafeteria for a lunch, and accidently puts portfolio in the microwave with soup* OOPS!!!

  29. Vehicle Tracking - does it work or is a farce? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    'm really beginning to wonder why nobody points out the fact that all these security measures just aren't any use to catch determined terrorists. My personal conviction is that companies who market those "anti-terrorism" devices are making a fat buck out of the whole deal, and they share the proceeds with the politicians who approve of these things. It disgusts me more and more each time I look at it...


    Because living in Fear is so much better than actually thinking.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  30. you are a bag by a11 · · Score: 0, Troll

    of douche

    test of this radio RFID system

    I wounder if I could test this "radio RFID" on my personal PC computer. Maybe I should ask the PMO office. Nah, I don't care - I'm not interested in anything Canadian. Those people from Canadia are even less interesting then the most bland population in the least eventful of the US states. RTFA the fucking acronym. gnu not eunuchs, gnu mostly on leunuchs.

    subway. eat fresh.

  31. Time to implant an RFID tag in a visa/passport by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    1 second

    Time to use a commonly available scanner to find it, swap it with someone else in your large network of "helpers" and fool the Really Bright People who think our enemy is dumb ...

    1 second.

    Having common sense and using it ...

    priceless.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  32. Other security applications by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This could be useful for tracking sensitive documents in archives, and tracking when someone like Sandy Berger violates security and steals documents to use in a political campaign.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  33. Use with guns? by chilledinsanity · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As I understand it, most RFID tags have a very limited range. If it was small enough, I'm wondering if you could have an officer's gun respond only when fired by a person wearing a RFID enabling ring or wristband. I say this because out of the majority of police officers who die each year in the line of duty, most are killed with their own weapons.

    1. Re:Use with guns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, if the officer loses his weapon, might he not also lose his cute little RFID charm bracelet?

      The word of the day is...seeping

    2. Re:Use with guns? by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      and if the guy puts the gun to an officers head? He's in range he can fire.

      --
      I like muppets.
    3. Re:Use with guns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ---
      Well that's why I'm saying maybe there could be a modified gun that only turns the safety off when the RFID bracelet or whatever is within a few centimeters of the gun.
      ---

      ---
      If he loses his weapon, such as it is grabbed out of his holster while he's not looking, there's no reason he would have to lose his bracelet, hell he could have it built into his watch. Do you lose your watch if somebody grabs something out of your hand?
      ---

      ---
      As for putting it to the officer's head, that's where the range becomes very important. I'm not familiar with the technical aspects of it, but you'd want it so that if the officer's RFID tag isn't close enough to the gun, it won't fire. As for if he's struggling with the criminal for the gun, well that could still be a problem, but that's already a problem with regular guns.
      ---

  34. What about an opt-in system? by l3prador · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What about a system wherein each individual could choose which pieces of information he or she was willing to have the RFID transmit? Like,

    First Name: No
    Last Name: Yes
    SSN: No
    Gender: No
    etc?

    If a person felt comfortable allowing the government to scan his or her information and thereby clear faster, he or she could do so, but if a person did not feel comfortable with that he or she would still be able to pass through the normal way. Would this be a possible compromise between privacy and security?

    1. Re:What about an opt-in system? by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1

      But what would be the point. A bunvh of people would not give there info becuase they're criminals, a bunch would not give it because like me they like to fuck with the system whenever possible. So then what use is tagging anyone, if everyone isn't documented.?

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

  35. Can't be hard to disable by Noer · · Score: 1

    It can't be hard to disable (fry) these RFID tags, and how's a poor innocent driver supposed to know (heh) that the RFID tag in his license plate isn't working any more, and thus automated revenue-collection systems (e.g. next-gen speed cameras) won't target him? :-)

    --
    -- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin
    1. Re:Can't be hard to disable by markana · · Score: 1

      Because he'll get a warning notice the first time he drives through an automated camera trap (and his RFID tag doesn't register). If he doesn't replace the defective plate within say, a week, he'll get a major fine the next time it happens. Good luck trying to bypass the compliance traps. And every squad car will be pinging tags as they drive by, so he'd better be able to avoid those as well. And when the car has it's regular emissions check, or goes to the mechanic, or....

      There are innumerable ways to force compliance with this system, lots of them totally automated. If gas taxes are replaced with mileage-based useage taxes, then there will be enormous social pressure to comply with the tracking requirement.

    2. Re:Can't be hard to disable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There are innumerable ways to force compliance with this system, lots of them totally automated".

      And there are even more ways to defeat the system, which may or may not involve automation, but will make use of human ingenuity.

      Don't believe me ? Ask any prison guard whether prisoners ever get away with anything.

      Dummeresel ...

  36. Could the glass be half full? by Quadraginta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know, it's also possible that, if implemented right (I know, fat chance, but still...) that RFID identification could increase privacy and security.

    Consider: one of the big problems of modern life is you have to prove your ID, credit and legitimacy to all kinds of people all over the place, with the consequences that sooner or later your private info leaks out and bad guys can get ahold of it, zap, identity theft, credit card fraud, and so forth.

    But what if something like an RFID tag could be provided by one tightly controlled source, and it gave unimpeachable evidence of right to be there on the airplane, credit enough to buy the laptop from Best Buy, whatever.

    Then imagine: you walk into the Best Buy with your bankcard with the RFID tag. You pick up the laptop and walk out. Now, the BB security can let you out, because the bank's card has told them you've credit enough to buy the laptop and given them some secret code that guarantees them payment, and when they get that payment they have to give your digital assistant a secret code that guarantees you can get warranty repairs. But your card hasn't told them a damn thing else about you. You haven't had to tell BB your address or e-mail or bank name or even your own name. No junk mail from Best Buy, no tracking your purchases, no poking their nose into your credit history...

    Same thing with the airplane. You get an airline ticket after having proved who you are and where you can be found, and in some way -- OK, things get a little fuzzy here, but bear with me -- that you're safe and can be trusted, and then you walk into the airport and onto the airplane. The chip says "legit, allowed on plane to Boston at 6.47" but nothing else. No one checks your driver's license or passport eight zillion times, no one bends you over to search for bombs up your...but I digress...

    Anyway, one of the reasons we have to send out all this extra, unnecessary, privacy-endangering information about ourselves is because we don't have one rock-solid unforgeable way of identifying those narrow aspects of ourselves (our citizenship, credit, student status, license to drive, et cetera) that are legitimate necessities of certain transactions. Maybe RFIDs with some digital signature technology could provide one? Maybe the future could be more private and secure?

    Or have I had too much caffeine already? [Peers anxiously into empty mug...]

  37. RFID tags on our elected officials by ScooterBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why not go the extra mile and put RFID tags on cops, judges, politicians, doctors, bankers, pharmacists, etc.

    Then publish their whereabouts on a googlized map system. Now when you need a doctor or a cop, you know where to go. When there's an accusation of corruption or impropriety, you can check the map logs and see if Congressman Joe "show me the money" Smith was visiting the local corporate ganstas. I think this idea has merits.

    1. Re:RFID tags on our elected officials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if I'm a bad guy, then I'll use Google Maps for my next crime and look for the closest doctor or banker away from all the cops.

    2. Re:RFID tags on our elected officials by Faithman2k · · Score: 1

      There is no need for RFID for pharmacists. In California all registered pharmacists MUST submit their finger prints to be on record. I know because I was wanting to work in CA from Australia.

    3. Re:RFID tags on our elected officials by Interrupt18 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why not go the extra mile and put RFID tags on cops, judges, politicians, doctors, bankers, pharmacists, etc

      Most passive RFID tags have a maximum read distance of less than 6". Unless the tags are in their shoes and a continuous underground antenna network is built to read them, they can't be used for tracking. It's also possible that scanners could be installed in every door in the city and you could tell the last door the person being tracked walked through.

      There is presently no infrastructure in place to track people with RFID. Why is nobody afraid of carrying a cell phone? If the phone company wanted to, they could track you using the base stations already in place, you are uniquely identified by your phone, and they have all your personal information on file.

      Being afraid of RFID tracking is even more irrational than being afraid to carry a phone.

  38. Nice by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    This is really a slap in the face in the UK, in London we have the congestion-charge camera network, who knows what that cost but it basically consists of a ring of cameras aimed at license plate level possibly with filters to make it stand out better and a network infrastructure and image recognition system. This is effectively the same as putting RFID in except now, obviously, we will drop this system and make a transition to RFID costing the tax payer another load. Oh and guess who benefits? Its not me because I can certainly testify, London traffic is as fucking crap as it always has been, its not the transport network, because I don't see air-conditioned buses, it is of course those tech companies that win the bids and then manage to deliver over budget and over time projects with half the features!

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  39. At the risk of sounding paranoid... by B11 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    First it starts with "oh, we're just going to put the VIN and the Plate number..." A year later its "oh now that we have this, we are going to pur the registered owners information on it"

    I'm sorry put yeah, for one, someone can hack a way to read all that information, now a thief has your address. And where does it stop? Once the government starts using RFID, they'll come up with all sorts of "neat" ways to use it. This is just to get us comfortable with the technology.

    I always have my tin foil hat on, so no .

    --
    insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
  40. Ti. by daviq · · Score: 0

    In other news, Texas Instruments stock grew today.

    --
    Go to the w3.org and put Slashdot.org through the validator.
  41. Active RFID? by OfNoAccount · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the criminals are rubbing their hands together with glee - it makes car ID theft so much easier having everything remotely readable. Watch the car go past, and you've got a full set of data - car make, model, colour, VIN and licence plates. Yes, I can see how that's going to make everything much more secure... The only thing this will make easier is crime!

  42. Re:Yes. Be RFID by daviq · · Score: 0

    But unlike a line of pajamas, RFID tags aren't built in.

    --
    Go to the w3.org and put Slashdot.org through the validator.
  43. ScuttleMonkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is he? Post sekrit dossier below.

  44. Renting de-RFID tools by chiph · · Score: 1

    Somebody could probably make some money renting out de-RFID tools (aka a very large hammer) just inside the border.

    I assume that that's not illegal. Yet.

    Chip H.

  45. Perfect for monitoring government officials by bani · · Score: 1

    This is great. Now we can setup a network and track our government officials in realtime.

    For example, senator xyz's frequent trips during work hours to $liquorstore, and his frequent trips after work hours to $crackdealer / $hooker.

    Or congressman abc's frequent visits to $megacorp-campaign-contributor and immediately afterwards to $uberbank or $money-laundering-hidingplace.

  46. LoJack by statemachine · · Score: 1

    There's a stolen car tracking device called LoJack. It's international, too. Of course, you need to have it installed before the car is stolen.

    1. Re:LoJack by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      problem is if the criminals have even a bit of skill lojack doesn't do sh*t. They used to have some guarantee that if you didnt' get your car back they'd pay for it... notice they no longer do it. Although, even when they did, it was a catch22. If you got your "car" back, even if it was say... only the left front rim, they wouldn't pay... talk about false advertising.

  47. Reccomend an 'RFID finder'? by glzrt · · Score: 1

    Can anyone reccomend an 'RFID finder' that can tell me if I'm 'clean' (like those 802.11b network finders')?

  48. Destroy it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they do put these RFID tags into license plates and passports what's to stop you from hitting it with a few thousand volts to destroy it? It would be a very effective way to prevent people from reading your RFID tags from a distance. As long as the information is still there in other forms it should cause no real problems.

  49. Are they using the same 40bit encryption that was. by asscroft · · Score: 1

    Dr. Dobbs had a blurb about TI's chips being cracked in 2 hours by a research team.

    I'm thinking the real bad guys will welcome something like the relatively simple encryption used in most RFID devices.

    http://www.google.com/search?hs=xlx&hl=en&lr=&safe =off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aof ficial&q=RFID+encryption+cracked&btnG=Search

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
  50. RFID range by uberdave · · Score: 1

    RFID range is dependant on the sensitivity of the receiver, so even though they only put out a small signal, RFIDs have a theoretical infinite range.

    1. Re:RFID range by MajroMax · · Score: 2, Informative
      RFID range is dependant on the sensitivity of the receiver, so even though they only put out a small signal, RFIDs have a theoretical infinite range.

      No it's not. According to the Shannon-Hartley theorem, there's a theoretical maximum transfer rate at a given bandwidth and noise floor.

      The bandwidth of an RFID response is, of course, constant. By contrast (and ignoring entirely that RFIDs are passively powered) the relative signal strength of the RFID at the receiver decays approximately with the square of the distance.

      Given some information content I and noise floor N, there's a minimum signal to noise ratio for the RFID bandwidth such that the RFID's information can be (mostly) completely recovered. This necessarily implies a maximum range on receipt.

      Of course, beyond this range you could still recover some portion of the information. You'd then need to fire the RFID many times to, statistically, recover the entire thing. This of course requires infinite refires, and thus infinite time, at infinite range. Which is beyond the realm of plausibility and utility.

      --
      "Evil company X is threatening to restrict our rights! Let's all get together to stop--OOOH! SHINEY!!!" -- AC
  51. RFID + Hammer = harmless RFID? by DraKKon · · Score: 1

    What if the RFID is broken? I plan on breaking every RFID that I am issued (read: forced to have).

    --
    "It's not like your minds are as open as the source you love..." - Me to the majority of Slashdot.
  52. Some Tinfoil Hat Fodder... by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Stuff like this really makes me wonder if the national ID cards we've been hearing about will employ RFID technology as well.

    Here's a possible worst case scenario for such a thing...

    First, have these new RFID cards required by law to be on your person at all times. Those who fail to comply with this are met with stiff penalties and become tagged as possible terror suspects.

    Then, set up a system to track each of these RFIDs to within three feet of their physical location, creating a database of common activity over time. (Going to work, groceries, etc...) If any new activity deviates from the activity stored in the database beyond a certain threshold or if the RFID goes out of range or stops transmitting beyond a set length of time, alert the feds / law enforcement to observe your activity directly, and tag you as a potential threat.

    Finally,have anyone found tampering with the RFID or willfully preventing random access to the RFID data (wrapping it in foil, etc...) tagged as a potential terror suspect and presented with stiff penalties.

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
  53. Question is, how does one destroy the tags? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I won't be tagged. Sorry.
    You want to know who I am? Use Motorola ID, the old fashioned way..

    I have no barcodes on my car, on my license or anywhere else on my person or effects. I have no longer have a mag stripe on my DL either.
    I get pulled over for an infraction, they have to call it in the radio and do it the hard way.

    I physically damaged the mag stripe and the barcode so as to be unreadable by a machine, oopsy... On my car tag (window stickers) I damaged the bar code portion of the tag, oopsy...

    I don't use banks in any form, I live strictly by cash.
    I pay my very few bills (utillities) in person with cash.
    I never carry any papers other than my slightly damaged DL. My wallet is barren. You want to rob me? My cash is strapped to my calf, not in my wallet or pocket. Stick me up and make me empty my pockets and you'll get some coins. I wear no jewelry of any sort nor even a watch. I carry no devices that you can scan. I have no loans, no dealings with any financial insitutes, I owe nobody any money.
    EVERYTHING I own is paid for and has been for years. I have no intentions of ever buying anything ever again that would require me to have dealings with a financial institute.

    I'm off the radar and I like it that way. You'll not shove your NEW WORLD ORDER bullshit down my throat.
    I am not part of "the system" by my own choice and my own free will and I've extremely happy living that way.

    No RFID tag will ever be on or in my person or my effects. I won't knowingly own items that contain them and if forced by law to be tagged I will destroy the tags.

    1. Re:Question is, how does one destroy the tags? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, you're an unemployed moonbat douchebag who wears a tinfoil hat, drives a shit car and doesn't get laid much. Enjoy!

  54. Tin Foil Your Number Plate Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here in australia some states have been testing computer numberplate recognition and it is being used to check for trucks speeding or not taking enough breaks or bad people driving cars.

    Be afraid very afraid. Be an Anonymous Coward.

  55. anonymous electronic toll passes????? by Univac_1004 · · Score: 1
    If we can't even manage that in Silicon Valley, just where do you think those exist?

    [Don't worry, your location will be upgraded in good time.]

    1. Re:anonymous electronic toll passes????? by ruzel · · Score: 1
      "decrying the move by stating that unlike electronic toll passes, these new plates will not be anonymous."

      I read that and wondered about it too. In New Jersey, they are definitely not anonymous. Not only do they send a bill to your house every month for the amount of the toll, they'll send you tickets too if you drive too fast through the booth. In fact, if someone is going to bill you then how could any toll system be anonymous.
  56. Deadly Cross-Border Traffic by darkonc · · Score: 1
    This does nothing about the most deadly traffic to cross the US border.

    Each year, a large proportion of the gun deaths in Canada, Mexico and as far away as Japan are caused by illegal guns smuggled out of the US.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    1. Re:Deadly Cross-Border Traffic by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      This does nothing about the most deadly traffic to cross the US border.

      Each year, a large proportion of the gun deaths in Canada, Mexico and as far away as Japan are caused by illegal guns smuggled out of the US


      Don't forget all the people killed in car accidents in Mexico and Cuba from US cars stolen and shipped south for "resale".

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  57. math by sum.zero · · Score: 1

    mcveigh 1:168 killed
    arab terrorist 1:158 killed

    sum.zero

  58. some other interesting numbers by sum.zero · · Score: 1

    reported iraqi civilian deaths as a direct result of us military action:

    min 23,456 max 26,559

    from the iraqi body count database

    sum.zero

  59. A new crime to charge people with by manchineel · · Score: 1

    From now on if you accidentally rip off the wrong corner of your paperwork, you can be charged with tampering with an RFID device and put in jail.

    --
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt
  60. England leading the march by chihowa · · Score: 3, Interesting
    With all of the criticism of the US and its increasingly authoritarian feel (and there's no lack of it coming from me), it's interesting to note that England appears to be much farther ahead of us in the march to 1984.

    Even more interestingly, they seem pretty content with that fact. The fact that they're an unarmed populace with an armed (and dangerous!) government seems to please them greatly. The cameras and microphones in public places seem to get constant praise, or at least little outraged criticism (at least here on Slashdot). Some of the biggest gripes I heard in a previous article about the governor chips in cars in lieu of congestion fees were about how they weren't related (speeding in a congestion zone?).

    What gives? When the US gets to the level of government involvement that England is currently experiencing, will we be happy with it, too?

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    1. Re:England leading the march by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      England? You mean the UK.

      England != UK;
      UK = ['England', 'Norther Ireland', 'Scotland', 'Wales'];
      if (UK.pop('England')) UK = ['Norther Ireland', 'Scotland', 'Wales'];

  61. yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's coming out next year

    http://www.sensorgeneral.com/

  62. What about... by gregh76 · · Score: 1

    ...when there's a hit and run accident? Unless witnesses can remember a bar code, it's going to make tracking criminals down that much more difficult.

  63. Lose the tin-foil attire, please. by jnelson4765 · · Score: 1
    Naturally privacy advocates are decrying the move by stating that unlike electronic toll passes, these new plates will not be anonymous.

    Who the f**k thinks that things like the EZ-Pass in the US Northeast is anonymous? Speaking as someone who works for a company that has them on our entire (1800+ vehicle) fleet, keeping track of the serial numbers assigned to each vehicle is a real pain.

    Plus, they're kinda connected to your BANK ACCOUNT!!! I dunno if the OP is trying to troll or not, but nobody that knew sh*t about toll tag systems would say something like that.

    Jim Nelson
    Shop Steward, ATU Local 1700

    --
    Why can't I mod "-1 Idiot"?
  64. A not so perfect world by Wardish · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In a perfect world we wouldn't be concerned about privacy, we wouldn't need checks and balances on government power, we wouldn't need laws.

    BUT

    It's not a perfect world.

    All forms of power are eventually corrupting, in the rare event that a particular person isn't tempted in a way they are vulnerable to then time itself will cycle up someone who is.

    All structures in which power is accumulated is a beacon to those who would use it for good as well as those who would use it for personal gain, and many will switch from good to gain over the long run.

    Power can be even more insidious, you don't need to wield the ultimate power to be affected. You can in fact find satisfaction in exercising what control you can. Many people who for one reason or another seek power over other's gravitate to the twin bastions of abused power.

    GOVERNMENT and BUREAUCRACY

    Worse yet, in many positions where you have both the power and the desire to do good. You encounter those who would take advantage, those who are dishonest, those from whom you must protect the resources you control so that the good people will have them. Thus rules are made, rules that grow over time to cover manifold individual situations. Rules that take up much time to bypass for those few who are exceptions. First one is slighted, for the good of all, after all we wouldn't be able to help 10 other's if we took the time to help that one. And so it goes. Leading ever downward to the stereotype called

    BUREAUCRAT.

    But back to the point of this post... It's not a perfect world. We do need protections from ourselves, not individually, but that we do as a group. I've always been amazed at how the intelligence of a mob (in all it's many forms) is defined by it's lower limits. But again I digress.

    On the one hand our law enforcement agents need information in order to provide protection from those members of society that seek to harm other's.

    On the other hand if that information is easily obtained, not bound by strict and ruthless controls and access then IT WILL BE ABUSED. It is the nature of power.

    The US has had a good time of it, our constitution was well designed, with numerous limits and balances built in to check the natural growth of government power. These checks and balances weren't there by accident.

    The founders were so wary of and understanding of the nature of government and power that their first attempt failed (Articles of Confederation) by being so weak on the federal level to be essentially useless. It was in fact so bad that when they gathered to fix it tossed it and started over.

    That good time is coming to an end. Defeated by time and technologically aided abuses that are overwhelming the built in protections. Even though the founders built in methods for these protections to be updated and modified when necessary they weren't able to build in the will and resolve to do what's necessary.

    I don't believe we should turn away from technology, and I do think it can be a tremendous help in combating crime. HOWEVER it should be used and applied with 80% of the resources applied to checks and balances. The smallest incursions on our rights should be met with the assumption that such will be misused unless rigorous controls and safeguards are implemented.

    I'm not saying we can't trust those in power. I don't know them that well. I'm saying that if the power is there, then eventually someone we can't trust will be wielding it.

    --
    Ward

    . Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
  65. RFID in guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not insert RFID device in gun? Would make them easier to track.

  66. RFID Scanner Scanner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there a product out there that lets you know when you're walking past an RFID scanner? Let's call it an RFIDSS (RFID Scanner Scanner). If not, there should be.

    For any enterprising citizens out there, I'de be the first in line to buy one provided that it costs under 100. I'de be willing to drop 150 on one that also tells me if I'm in 802.11 country.

  67. Re:You're not paranoid at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does the term "social security number" mean anything? It also had a very limited application at the time of its inception. Look what a mess it is now...not only is it a key component thieves can use to steal someone's identity, it's quite literally used for a LOT more than was ever intended, and it's quite frankly, ALL OVER THE DAMN PLACE. Many entities that want you to prove your ID, or require a way to uniquely identify you, will ask for your SSN (or other ID). Every time that happens, this information becomes just one more target available to someone who wants to steal it.

  68. Answer is : Microwaves ! by redelm · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I believe a brief exposure to common food-preparation microwaves will fry any RFID device. Even if attached to something metal like a licence plate unless full Faraday-caged.

    BTW: barcodes are most easily rendered unreadable by line-color marks parallel and over the lines. One is usually sufficient. More may be necessary for checksumed codes. Better grocery stores do this when they put dated goods on sale. Magstripes are easily destroyed by wiping with rare-earth magnets (check the positioner on an old Hard drive).

    Also BTW: an empty wallet is not good when confronted by muggers. They tend to get upset over a poor haul, and commit further violence. Our security people recommend a "bait" wallet with some money, expired credit cards, etc.

    People have a right to live how they wish, but any and all security precautions cost. The question is: do they payout? who are the opponents, and how likely are they to act? Personally, I believe that paranoia is a form of egotism: an exaggerated sense of self-importance.

    1. Re:Answer is : Microwaves ! by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 0

      That may be one of the best ideas I've seen in a while. Let's take it further - tag the credit cards, money and the wallet. Antenna in the wallet (so you can go pick it up out of the recycling bin when they are done with it), funny money (if they try to use it as a store they will get done for passing fake bills) and best use of all: Credit cards which flag to the bank to arrest the person trying to use them.

      The third option is the best.
      They may get annoyed when they find the funny money, putting an antenna into a wallet won't help much - probably cheaper just to buy another $2 wallet (don't forget it to pad it with receipts and business cards) .. but the credit card could go a long way. I wonder if VISA would offer 'criminal catcher credit cards'?

      --
      You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
  69. Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    persons from the middle east should be treated as full citizens = namby pamby

    executions = namby pamby

    universal freedom of speech, like for bookstores = namby pamby

    next these idiotarians are going to say muslims should be able to vote

  70. oops by sum.zero · · Score: 1

    calling these acts mistakes does absolutely nothing for the victims and is a tactic meant to difuse the responsibility of the acting party.

    the bottom line is that the usa undertook these actions. the other side has their own views about whether to call them mistakes or war crimes or whatever.

    ask all of the asians in n america that were detained, had all of their possessions confiscated and were placed in internment camps how they feel about that.

    all sides have plenty to be ashamed of and playing the 'their fault' game doesn't allow for the opportunity to learn from those mistakes.

    sadly, war and terrorism are often synonymous in this highly unlevel playing field called the world. to some it is simply a matter of perspective: one man's guerilla warfare is another man's terrorism.

    your last statement is logically flawed. you start off with the conclusion that you are certain to discover what you are looking for through the method you are using. there is plenty of evidence that this type of thinking finds exactly what it is looking for even if that 'it' doesn't really exist.

    and finally, racial profiling is hardly pure statistical analysis.

    sum.zero

  71. looks like an EMP bull market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    somebody's going to make a killing selling cheap EMP devices. I wonder how long before possession, conspiring to use, build, or trasmitting knowledge of how to build EMP devices is banned?

  72. It has *no* privacy problems: the gov't says so. by geekotourist · · Score: 4, Informative
    From a post from the last time Slashdot covered this story:

    The Department of Homeland Security has a Privacy Assessment of this program. Guess what? It has no privacy implications.

    • The information can only be shared with "...other agencies at the federal, state, local, foreign, or tribal level, who are lawfully engaged in collecting law enforcement information (whether civil or criminal) and national security intelligence information and/or who are investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing civil and/or criminal laws, related rules, regulations, or orders." "The Privacy Act SORNs for the systems on which US-VISIT draws provide notice as to the conditions of disclosure and routine uses for the information collected by US-VISIT. Any disclosure by DHS must be compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected."
    • The tag only contains an unencrypted number, and only the very limited number of groups above would have access to the information.
    • The tag can't be used to ID someone as a visitor because the DHS has contemplated this problem. Thus problem solved... "it is contemplated that the unencrypted RFID tag number will not be structured in such a way that it can be used to identify the individual as a non-immigrant."(pg 15)How exactly? Will everyone soon be carrying an RFID, so the visitor won't stand out?
    • And of course it can't be used for surveillance, as "There is also a low risk that the RFID tag could be used to conduct surreptitious locational surveillance of an individual; i.e., to use the presence of the tag to follow an individual as he or she moves about in the U.S. However, ensuring that RFID tag numbers do not exhibit properties that can be readily attributed to US-VISIT and using a limited radio frequency range effectively mitigates this risk. The design process is also taking into account methods of reducing eavesdropping and skimming possibilities." (pg 15). Reducing the "possibilities" by sticking their fingers into their ears and singing "La la la" each time a new tech groups shows them ever longer read ranges.
    • And most importantly it doesn't affect US Citizens, because the document doesn't mention them. Never mind that every traveler in the car must be identified in order to separate the residents and citizens from visitors (by definition). They'll now know who you're associating with as you travel.
    As I said last time...

    I'm now going to "contemplate" that being asked for "your papers, please" and being tracked every time I enter and leave my country, that there is no more "If" in "If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free." doesn't change our rights (4th Amendment anyone? it says "Persons") in the US. Whooohoo, I'm ever so much safer! [btw, that's one of the best essays on why privacy is a necessary and fundamental right in a free society. He warns Canadians not to give up what the U.S. has already lost. Worth reading.]

  73. 3 step bypassing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. find a stink normal person with a passport with rfid tag. Or an auto with a RFID plate.

    2. Steal the pass. Or steal the tag from the licence plate of the other auto.

    3. Disable your own tag (whatever the means) embed the other persons tag in your passport/licence plate.

    Et voila ! You are now able to go thru all automatic unattended system with a new identity.

  74. RFID Tracking by D4C5CE · · Score: 1
    It is important to take away your non-criminal status, so that nobody will complain when your freedoms are taken away.
    Looks like a page right out of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (1957) indeed:
    There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
    Sure enough everyone around here can name a few...

    And now that the authorities also want to start
    using RFID tags in (...) certain visitors' papers (...) embedded in paperwork (...)
    RFID chips in license plates that can transmit (...) data to appropriate receivers.
    (combined with all the RFID technology deployed commercially!) the additional problem is that you won't even be able to notice either whether they also transmit data just as easily to inappropriate receivers.

    But don't worry, of course there will be embedded technical "security features" one day to allow only "authorized" surveillance - and we all know that every government use of information technology always is mathemagically proven to be 100% unhackable forever... ;-/
  75. RFID = mark of the beast by davidcombes · · Score: 1
    News in from theregister, the resistance manifesto report that RFID tags are most definitely marks of Satan.

    From their site:

    Christians across the country are calling for a boycott of the VeriChip implantable microchip, now becoming popular in the U.S., calling it "the mark of the Beast" as referred to in the Bible. The VeriChip is planned to rapidly replace credit and debit cards, as well as traditional forms of identification. Could Revelation 13:16-18 have been any more specific? "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads, and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

  76. i'd rather educate my child by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so he can save his/my life

  77. Nexus Pass by RobinH · · Score: 2, Informative

    I cross the US/Canadian border regularly, and use a special "commuter" lane called the nexus lane (both ways - it's a cooperative program between both countries). In that lane, there is an RFID reader and we are all issued plastic cards with RFID chips in them. You just drive up, the RFID reader reads the chip in the card, a camera takes a picture of your license plate and does character recognition on it, then compares it to the database to make sure it matches one of the vehicles assigned to that card, and then a border guard makes sure the picture on the card matches you. I think this program started in 2002 or something.

    So, this is not new to me.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  78. Has its good points by smchris · · Score: 1

    FINALLY economic libertarians might support anonymous mass transit in the U.S.

  79. Saeed al-Sahaf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saeed al-Sahaf...um...guilty! Isn't he on the terrorist watch list??

  80. The article is WRONG in one respect! by Mycroft_514 · · Score: 1

    It claims that Toll Passes are anonymous. Excuse me! I get a bill every month fromt he Expressway Authority. It shows the date and time I pass each toll booth, just from my transponder. Anonymous my ASS.

  81. Widespread RFID - free broadcast power? by ankhank · · Score: 1

    So, once we have RFID implemented everywhere, how big a loop antenna will I need to draw enough power to run my wearable electronics?

    I foresee the copper-coil hat and cape replacing the tin foil hat.

    Power to the people!

    At least until Heinlein is proven right again, see his novel Waldo.

  82. Too Orwellian! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This type of article seems to be prevasive in slashdot. Technology takes a forefront to... Perhaps a more restrained look on up and coming advancements in our knowledge. Shouldn't we try to look at all of the possible positives and negatives before introducing a new way of science (tracking?). Becouse something seemes "neat" we try to use it in as many ways as possible without considering the consequences. Just a simple observation. There is more behid the jab, but I think you are all capable of doing your own research into such matters. Read, learn, educate. And always be willing to admit you are wrong. That is the only way we can advance as a civilization/species.

    Thank you for your time.

  83. I give up! by Hanging+By+A+Thread · · Score: 1

    I'll except the number of The Beast. Let's get this little Apocalypse thing rolling. I'm sick of being the frog in the slowly rising water temperature. Boil me already!

  84. Mark offenders by GvOvS · · Score: 1

    Instead of putting people in jail just mark them with embedded RFID chips. It can be more then just a convinient surveillance, if you were involved in a really bad crime, everytime you go to public place you'll get red lights turn on whenever you pass by the scanners, and people pointing fingers at you. And therefore a hope for more appropriate social adjustments then the one you got in jail can exist.

  85. RFID's already in car tires... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An article a couple years ago said tire manufacturers were adding grain of sand size RFID to tire to help with inventory control and product tracking. Unfortunately the tracking doesn't stop when the tire is sold!

    1. Re:RFID's already in car tires... by Lihtan · · Score: 1

      If you read this, it would appear to go much further than just inventory tracking.

      --
      Divide by zero hurts my brain.
  86. US or AUS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In US? No idea.
    However, I have noticed that in Australia (only recently so far as I can tell) they demand to see 'photo identification' and write down the details of said identification - or you cannot rent a room in their hotel or motel.

    I'm not sure if all places do this, but the Toad Hall in Melboune staff said: "If you do not produce ID then we will not give you a room.". I asked what happens when interstate people (ie: Me) did not give ID. They didn't care.

    I also asked why: They said 'In case there is a fire. We need to know who is in the hotel'. I did not hang around to discuss the flaws of this argument (eg: They already have people's first and last names, they know the guest count, etc).

    So, they were collecting ID information for the Government or for themselves (to chase you if you wrecked the room). Considering that I used a credit card to pay for the room and that the police would be able to find me if they reported me for destruction of property.

  87. Kill the Rfid! by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 0
    How do you stop the general population from Zapping RFIDs?

    Will people be charged when their RFID dies?

    --
    You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
  88. http://www.tagzapper.com/ by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 0
    --
    You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
  89. RFID license plates in Canada by Lihtan · · Score: 1

    RFID license plates, as part of a a distance based insurance scheme, was investigated by ICBC here in British Columbia. The plates would have been supplied by the Vancouver based company EVI Managment Group (more info here). ICBC eventually decided not to pursue distance based insurance.

    --
    Divide by zero hurts my brain.
  90. 666 by PaulC010 · · Score: 1

    Robert Rankin's book East of Ealing http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0552 138436/104-7870562-5727148?v=glance does a good fictional treatment on the subject of imposed numbering/tagging of the population; humerously of course. The basis is in the bible..... "16. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond to receive a mark in their right hand or in their foreheads. 17. And that no man might buy or sell save that he had the mark or the name of the beast or the number of his name. 18. Here is wisdom. Let he that hath understanding count the number of the beast; for it is the number of a man, and his number is six hundred, three score and six." So a 666 barcode would have you sorted then...... [BTW the Brentford Trilogy of which this is the third book is a good light-hearted read] Paul.