You Need Not Be Paranoid To Fear RFID

An anonymous reader writes "A story at the Boston Globe covers extensive privacy abuses involving RFID." From the article: "Why is this so scary? Because so many of us pay for our purchases with credit or debit cards, which contain our names, addresses, and other sensitive information. Now imagine a store with RFID chips embedded in every product. At checkout time, the digital code in each item is associated with our credit card data. From now on, that particular pair of shoes or carton of cigarettes is associated with you. Even if you throw them away, the RFID chips will survive. Indeed, Albrecht and McIntyre learned that the phone company BellSouth Corp. had applied for a patent on a system for scanning RFID tags in trash, and using the data to study the shopping patterns of individual consumers." I think they may be going a little overboard with their stance, but it's always interesting to talk about.

Comments

Just put them in your microwave

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever you purchase something, just fry the RFID chip by putting the stuff for 15 seconds in your microwave. Problem solved.

(Or just use cash).

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, if you want to buy something with cash, you have to carry that cash around with you, which means risking it being taken violently from you by a displaced New Orleans resident. It's quite a conundrum.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[LiquidCoooled]

The only problem I see here is that not everything is microwave safe.

How do oyu microwave your brand new microwave?

What happens when your steel toe capped boots go in there?

Will the fabric on your GFs dress screw up if you you zap it?

Will the DVD you just bought be playable or writable?

thats just a few thoughts, but microwaving should be safe... YMMV

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[mikerubin]

Good point on SOMEONE taking it violently, not just some unfortunate from the Big Easy,

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Joakim A]

> How do oyu microwave your brand new microwave?
Simple, buy a new micro that fits inside your old one.

> Will the DVD you just bought be playable or writable?
I doubt that the micro can do either.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[mikerubin]

oh yeah, what about the 99.999% of people from New Orleans that wouldn't do that ?
Bear in mind they most likely don't have RFID on their list of immediate concerns

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Zog The Undeniable]

How do you microwave your brand new microwave?

Or, as the Roman poet Juvenal might have said, Quis microwavet ipsos microwaves?

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[moro_666]

since the rfid chips are all still based on common electronic circuits and microchips, you should just emit a strong enough emp signal at it, and it's fried ... and at least dvd disks and cd-roms should survive it quite well ... ( i wouldnt try it on the microwave :p )

when they make rfid based paying cards ... then emitting an emp signal at a store full of rfid card users could mean a lot of fun at the cashier :)

note that you dont need a nuclear bomb to create an emp wave, even smaller tools can do it, like the one linked to here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_fl ux_compression_generator

passive rfid chips are especially vulnerable to this because they by themselves rely on the signal energy to respond at all.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[advocate_one]

(Or just use cash).

and when the notes have RFID chips in them???

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[badfish99]

If you're going to use cash, beware of this

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[ajs318]

Use coins. I already do anyway. The authorities must think I have a massive gambling habit, but really I'm just going into amusement arcades to change serial-numbered notes for unnumbered coins. Coins, being made of metal, cannot have RFID devices embedded in them. Radio waves will not travel through anything that conducts electricity {this is a fundamental limitation of the universe and cannot be overcome by invention}. If you are really paranoid, you can test each coin for conductivity in several places using a simple home-built device {a store-bought AVO may have been rigged}.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[sgant]

You're in the UK aren't you? You're in a place where the people actually see the use of coins that are worth more than a few pence.

Here in America...they've tried several times to come out with a dollar coin, only to have it fail time and again. Even when they try to change the color of the dollar coin so it's not confused with a quarter, people still balk at it. People want their paper money here.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[advocate_one]

If you are really paranoid, you can test each coin for conductivity in several places using a simple home-built device {a store-bought AVO may have been rigged}

wow... and I thought I was being paranoid...

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[gutnor]

In my city (EU) we need to sort the different waste in different bags for recycling. ( You can be fined if you don't do it properly - crap is a serious matter here )

The future will be exiting,
1. Paper is the blue bag
2. Glass Bottle must be brought back to the shop.
3. cans and plastic in the Blue Bag
4. Black bag for other waste ...
and now, after sorting all this, think about EMP the bag.

Total time 1 Man-day a week to manage the dirt ... if you are lucky enough to be single.
If not and you have 2 children and a cat, you may be thinking hiring a project manager.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[BVis]

Here in America...they've tried several times to come out with a dollar coin, only to have it fail time and again. Even when they try to change the color of the dollar coin so it's not confused with a quarter, people still balk at it. People want their paper money here.

The attempts at dollar coins have failed in the US because of several reasons:

• Non-removal of one dollar bills from circulation (at the bank level)
  
• Poor design of the coins themselves (too easily mistaken for a quarter, etc). This could be fixed by following the model of the UK one pound coin: it's about the same size as a US nickel but twice as thick, much easier to recognize in your pocket and in the cash drawer. Unfortunately this leads to:
  
• Resistance from the vending machine industry (machines would need to be retooled to accept a coin significantly different from the ones currently in use)
  
• The perception by the great unwashed that coins aren't "real money", lack of education about the new currency (think of the oft-repeated Taco Bell two dollar bill story); this goes hand in hand with Americans' fanatical opposition to being educated.
  

It's just another case of Americans' short-sightedness, where the fact that some inconvenience in the short term would lead to significant benefits in the long term (in this case, lowered US currency production expenses, in non-trivial amounts) is completely irrelevant, and stating otherwise supports terrorism | Communism | Socialism | the Liberals | the hippies | $randomUnAmericanGroup.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[mpsmps]

As if you didn't know that cats routinely come from shelters labeled with RFID chips, you sicko

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[nospmiS remoH]

...Or just use a trashcan sized microwave (patent pending) and nuke everything you throw out at least. I can only imagine the stench of the future where everyone has smoldering bags of trash out on the corner before trash day.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[maddskillz]

That probably violates the DMCA

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[springbox]

and when the notes have RFID chips in them???

You could also put those in the microwave.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[NormalVisual]

As someone that lives in the U.S., I'd *love* it if we could get more coinage in circulation. While visiting Europe, I found the pound and euro coins to be extremely convenient. Besides, I really like the clicking sound that pound coins produce as opposed to the jingle that U.S. money makes. :-)

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Thomas Shaddack]

RFID tags are sensitive to more things than EMP. Sure, it's sexy, it's exotic, it's attractive for every geek - but you can as well hold the $thing against a light source, see the coil and the chip, and then use your trusty Dremel to drill a small hole through the chip. A handheld RFID reader then can be used to confirm the success of the operation.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[synergy3000]

The smaller tool you mention is just that, smaller than a nuke. But by no means any more feasible.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[fredklein]

Poor design of the coins themselves (too easily mistaken for a quarter, etc).

Um, the new dollar coin, the Sacagawea, cannot be mistaken for a quarter at all:

http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/golden_dollar_ coin/index.cfm?flash=yes&action=golden_dollar_spec s

Resistance from the vending machine industry (machines would need to be retooled to accept a coin significantly different from the ones currently in use)

I've seen plenty of machines that take dollar coins. The coin acceptor is a swappable unit in all the machines I've seen, meaning changing to accepting dollar coins is trivial- just swap the coin acceptor.

The perception by the great unwashed that coins aren't "real money",

Huh? Coins certainly ARE money. They just aren't worth that much. :-)

lack of education about the new currency (think of the oft-repeated Taco Bell two dollar bill story);

Are you saying that, if you had never seen or heard of a two-dollar bill, you would not have thought it was fake??

this goes hand in hand with Americans' fanatical opposition to being educated.

Ignorance about a rarely used bill does not equal "fanatical opposition to being educated".

The real reason dollar coins are not popular?? No one in America WANTS dollar coins. $20 in bills fits easily and comfortably in your pants pocket. $20 in dollar coins creates a lump in your pocket and weighs you down, swinging and bumping against your leg. Who wants that??

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[lowar]

and when the notes have RFID chips in them???

Use coins.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[paranode]

Try that out on your new iPod and see how well it works!

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[geoffspear]

Um, the new dollar coin, the Sacagawea, cannot be mistaken for a quarter at all

Not with visual inspection, sure. But try sticking your hand into a pocket full of change and reliably pulling out a dollar coin instead of a quarter. Compare your success rate to that with pennies, dimes, and nickels. Come back and tell me the dollar coin wasn't poorly designed.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[BVis]

Um, the new dollar coin, the Sacagawea, cannot be mistaken for a quarter at all

Sure, if you're looking at it. (Even then, people won't recognize it as money.) In your pocket it feels like a quarter. That's enough for Americans to reject it.

I've seen plenty of machines that take dollar coins. The coin acceptor is a swappable unit in all the machines I've seen, meaning changing to accepting dollar coins is trivial- just swap the coin acceptor.

Sure, it's technically trivial. However, buying/manufacturing the acceptors and paying people to install them is a HUGE amount of money for the industry to be spending, and that's what generates the resistance.

Are you saying that, if you had never seen or heard of a two-dollar bill, you would not have thought it was fake??

The point I was trying to make is that two dollar bills have been around for decades, and people are STILL ignorant of them. Trying to educate the average moron about a NEW form of currency is the problem.

No one in America WANTS dollar coins. $20 in bills fits easily and comfortably in your pants pocket. $20 in dollar coins creates a lump in your pocket and weighs you down, swinging and bumping against your leg. Who wants that??

How often do you have 20 singles in your pocket? (And strip clubs don't count.) If Americans can be educated to equate dollar coins with lower taxes (not that big of a stretch) I think you'll find resistance decreasing. And since when have Americans' wants been the most important thing? Stupid people need to be protected from themselves.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[FuzzyDaddy]

As long as were ranting about coins, can we finally get rid of pennies? If the copper coating is scratched, they provide a health risk when swallowed (as kids sometimes do), as stomach acid attacks rhe zinc and can lead to a sharp edge. No other coin is attacked by stomach acid, and who uses pennies anymore anyway?

Ok, I'm over it now.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Ryosen]

$20 in dollar coins creates a lump in your pocket and weighs you down, swinging and bumping against your leg.

That's just great. One more lump in my pocket to feel inadequate about.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[http101]

What I Learned From 'The Matrix'

It's nothing a little EMP can't fix! ;-)

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[CreatureComfort]

you have 2 children and a cat,

I thought the reason you had kids was for them to this kinda stuff. I envision a future where, as in the past large families were a benefit for getting the farm work done, large families will be a benefit to getting all the technological/recycling/etc. work done.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[operagost]

Poor design of the coins themselves (too easily mistaken for a quarter, etc).

This is a fun point to bring up time and time again. But really: how dumb are people? The SBA dollar had an thick, octagonal rim; and the Sacajawea dollar has a smooth edge (the quarter is reeded), thick rim, and yellow color!

Basically, you have the solution to the problem in your first point: remove the paper dollar from circulation.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[operagost]

100% success rate here. Try feeling the edge next time. Only the penny, nickel, and dollar have a smooth edge.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[BVis]

But really: how dumb are people?

Please see my sig. The more specific answer to your question is "really fucking dumb."

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Bloke down the pub]

Good point on SOMEONE taking it violently, not just some unfortunate from the Big Easy

Is your sense of humour underwater too?

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[TheGavster]

Don't forget that whatever funky alloy they make those Sacagawea dollars from rusts within a couple of years. Might as well have made them from mild steel.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[wgaryhas]

As has been mentioned earlier, it isn't that hard to find the dollar coin in your pocket instead of the quarter. The sizes and edges of the coins are designed so that a blind person can tell the difference between each coin.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Anonymous Coward]

$20 in dollar coins creates a lump in your pocket and weighs you down, swinging and bumping against your leg. Who wants that??

Me.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[kimvette]

. . . stores and banks never give out dollar coins unless you specifically ask for them, and even then, most stores won't have them and sometimes banks won't either. I rarely see 50-cent coins either, nor two-dollar bills, yet both are still minted and circulated to banks on an ongoing basis.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[fsnuffer]

Thanks for the advice. I just bought a new hamster fluffy and I want to make sure no one tracks him.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Thud457]

Or -- just don't ever throw anything away. And have sad newspaper stories written about the crazy recluse whose dessicated body was found in a house full of trash when you die. (Collect stray cats for extra ambiance.)

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Alias777]

"And since when have Americans' wants been the most important thing?" Sorry, but American's WONTS have been the sole purpose of the government and money.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Kaiwen]

If Americans can be educated to equate dollar coins with lower taxes (not that big of a stretch) I think you'll find resistance decreasing.

This argument fails to take into account one of the great universal principles of budgetary politics: politicians spend money, they never give it back. Thirty milliseconds after the mints realize their first dollar in savings, every politician in Washington will be lined up with a minimum of three proposals apiece on alternative ways to spend it, most of them involving the pocket linings of their bigger contributors back home.

Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[fredklein]

I can do it with ease. The 'Sacci' is a different size and weight from a quarter, has a different edge, and I can tell the different feel to the front/back.

If you can't, too bad.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[geoffspear]

More accurately, if the majority of the American public can't, then too bad for the coin.

Other than stamp vending machines, I've never gotten change in dollar coins. Is Walmart even still trying to push them like they were when the new ones were first introduced?

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[fredklein]

The point I was trying to make is that two dollar bills have been around for decades, and people are STILL ignorant of them.

And again, simple ignorance about one subject does not equal "fanatical opposition to being educated".

How often do you have 20 singles in your pocket? (And strip clubs don't count.)

Quite often. You see, ATMs give out $20 bills. Take out, say $100 and then use a $20 to pay for $5.99 purchase, and get $14 back, usually as a 10 and 4 ones. Repeat 5 times, and viola- $20 in singles.

Besides I didn't say "$20 in singles", I said "$20 in bills".

Stupid people need to be protected from themselves.

That is most often said by those who a)don't see themselves as stupid, and b)think they'd be the perfect ones to do the "protecting".

They are usually wrong on both counts.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[fredklein]

From ustreas.gov:

Q: Are there any plans to remove the one-cent coin (more popularly known as the "penny") from circulation?

A: You may be interested to know that the penny is the most widely used denomination currently in circulation and it remains profitable to make. Significantly, it is Congress that determines the denominations of coins that the Mint must produce and put into circulation. Each penny costs .81 of a cent to make, but the United States Mint collects one cent for it. The profit goes to help fund the operation of the United States Mint and to help pay the public debt. In 2000, this profit added up to about $24 million. As the United States Mint produces the coins that Congress mandates, it does not have the authority to abolish a unit of currency. If directed to do so by legislation enacted by the Congress and signed by the President, the Treasury Department would again study phasing out the penny. Because the demand exists and the Federal Reserve Banks require inventories to meet the demand, the United States Mint is committed to producing the penny.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[guaigean]

Here's the problem though. We moved away from the gold standard long ago. Now, when inflation happens, the value of a coin can become less than the value to make said coin. With paper, the value doesn't really inflate that much. Paper is renewable, we don't have to find another mine to produce it cheaply. It's easy to put out new currency and make changes, as opposed to retooling a minting press. Paper is economically more feasible (and just happens to be lighter to carry).

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[BVis]

And again, simple ignorance about one subject does not equal "fanatical opposition to being educated".

Again, not my point. Ignorant people don't know something; they can be educated and stop being ignorant. Stupid people either don't know or don't care that they are ignorant; you can't cure stupid. These people are stupid, so this change would need to be forced on them by removing the $1 bill from circulation.

Quite often. You see, ATMs give out $20 bills. Take out, say $100 and then use a $20 to pay for $5.99 purchase, and get $14 back, usually as a 10 and 4 ones. Repeat 5 times, and viola- $20 in singles.

You really have to put in some effort to do something that asinine. After the first $5.99 purchase you can use a $10. That gives you back 4 singles, so now you have $8 in singles. Then if you buy something else for $5.99 you use 6 of the singles, leaving you with 2 singles and 4 twenties. Lather rinse repeat.

Besides I didn't say "$20 in singles", I said "$20 in bills".

In the above scenario (if my math is correct) you would have at most 8 dollar coins in your pocket. I don't know about you but 8 coins in my pocket doesn't bother me much, and if it did it would be incentive to actually use them.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[dajak]

1. Paper is the blue bag
2. Glass Bottle must be brought back to the shop.
3. cans and plastic in the Blue Bag
4. Black bag for other waste ...
and now, after sorting all this, think about EMP the bag.

That's not the way! I will give an example. Proper procedure of disposing of a tea bag with embedded RFID tag:

1. the bag and the label go in the paper container (blue in your case);
2. the tea goes into the green container;
3. the rope goes into the textiles container at the supermarket;
4. the metal staple goes with scrap metal, to be taken to the municipal garbage sorting center;
5. the rfid tag goes into the small chemical garbage container at the supermarket.

This is assuming that separating scrap metal (?) from an RFID chip would be as difficult as separating the plastic, paper, and metal in tetrapak (which goes into the general purpose grey container, and btw happens to be a great water proof, light weight, and heat isolating building material).

There is an even better alternative.

Technically speaking the shops in the EU are required to take old electronics back when you buy a replacement, so you can also save up the tea bags and give them to the cashier when you buy a new box of tea bags. You can get rid of all of your garbage with RFID chips in this convenient way, and inconvenience the manufacturers at the same time without any extra effort!

If not and you have 2 children and a cat, you may be thinking hiring a project manager.

I do think you need to hire someone who knows what he is doing, if you don't mind me saying it.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[cayenne8]

" Good point on SOMEONE taking it violently, not just some unfortunate from the Big Easy,"

We're all hoping that much of the criminal element, won't be able to afford to come back down here.

Crime is at a really, all time low here in NOLA right now...grant it, there are still a lot of people not back in the city yet, but, per capita....sure feels safer down here than it used to be.

Hoping this is a chance to start the city again right...less crackheads, more upstanding citizens that appreciate all the city has to offer.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[dragonman97]

MTA vending machines give them as change. Oh, [deity], do they ever...

Buy a $12 roundtrip ticket with a $20, and get 8 fscking dollar coins back!

Mind you, I've started to find /some/ use for them - I mean, they are worth something, but well...we just don't use change like that over here. The best use I've found for them is NYC parking meters - some of them are damnably expensive, and a dollar coin is far more convenient than 4 quarters. (Some meters charge $0.50/15 mins)

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[dajak]

Fortunately Euro coins are available in denominations up to 400 euros (the Spanish gold Don Quichote). Unfortunately denominations above 2 euros are usually rare - and therefore more valuable than the denomination - and nobody recognizes them.

Dutch 5 euro Peace and Freedom series and 10 euro Queen Beatrix 25 years Reign series coins are still 5 and 10 euros, respectively. I am going to start collecting coins.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Chris Mattern]

> How often do you have 20 singles in your pocket?

I just pulled out my wallet and checked. I have twenty-one $1 bills in it. I like it that way; makes it easier when I don't have to wait for my change at restaurants and such.

Chris Mattern

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[cayenne8]

Wow...where do you live where you have to sort all the shit?

Glad I live where I do...you throw everything away in one big trash container, and twice a week, a big truck comes along to empty it out, and throw it away for you.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[mOdQuArK!]

Whenever you purchase something, just fry the RFID chip by putting the stuff for 15 seconds in your microwave.

I don't have a reference for it, but I believe it is possible for the RFID manufacturers to build circuits which protect the RFID circuitry when exposed to microwave radation & EMPs (shielding & bypass circuitry). Of course, anything could be overwhelmed, but I'm not sure a typical consumer would have access to the equipment necessary to do that.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[cayenne8]

"How often do you have 20 singles in your pocket? (And strip clubs don't count.) If Americans can be educated to equate dollar coins with lower taxes (not that big of a stretch) I think you'll find resistance decreasing. And since when have Americans' wants been the most important thing? Stupid people need to be protected from themselves."

Can you please expand on how dollar coins would equate with lower taxes?

Also, aside from the usual complaint, that the dollar coins need to be much LARGER like the old 1964 and older ones, so as not to be confused with quarters.....I would use coinage if they had them in larger denominations. Very seldom do I use or carry dollars around. With todays economy, you very rarely have use for anything smaller than at $20.

And...even if they did make them larger...there is the incovenience factor. Paper bills fit much easier in a money clip attached to a credit card holder. I hate large wallets. Coins are a pain in the ass to carry around. If you're carrying a significant amount of $$'s around...coinage weighs too much to be comforatable with. I usually like to keep $100-$200 in cash on me....and that would be a major PITA in coinage...

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I can tell apart a one pound coin from a fifty pence coin in my pocket just fine. But as for the difference between a one dollar bill and a ten dollar bill, that's hard.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[FuzzyDaddy]

Except they're not in circulation - their sitting in big piles on top everyone's dressers. They keep making more because they go OUT of circulation so quickly. And a 19% profit margin on PRINTING MONEY is not too impressive. I understand it's congress's issue, not the Mint's. Still, SOMEONE should get rid of these things!

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[thesqlizer]

There's also shredding. :-\

Though as another poster points out, what about things that are particularly large? Finding the RFID tag in a new pair of boots may be tough--to say nothing of that new bookshelf.

The new slogan of the RFID age:

"Some things are priceless. For everything else, there's cash."

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[elemental23]

The attempts at dollar coins have failed in the US because of several reasons:

* Poor design of the coins themselves (too easily mistaken for a quarter, etc). This could be fixed by following the model of the UK one pound coin

See, then you'll introduce a whole new reason to not use them. A pocket full of coins, at 16 oz each, gets real heavy real quick.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, somebody needs a nap.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[DaveJay]

Me too, for exactly the reasons you described. Plus, with dollars you need to pull out your wallet and count to see how many you have left; with dollar coins, you just need to jangle your pocket to see if there's more than one. :)

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[orderb13]

Yeah, they all came to Memphis. Thanks man, we appreciate it.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[slumos]

First point stipulated. However the Sacagawea a.k.a Golden dollar:

• Was easily distiguishable from the quarter by size, weight, color, and texture (specifically, having smooth sides in contrast to the quarter's ridges);
• Was quickly adopted by vending machines. For example, all of the vending machines on my campus were able to take them before I could even get one. After all, coins are much easier to take than bills. The SBA had failed before vending machine started to take dollars at all--I'm sure the vending machine companies would really have prefered SBAs to inventing bill scanners;
• Was promoted much more strongly than any newly introduced money before it, although I have to admit to getting some dirty looks for tipping with golden dollars at first.

On the other hand, there was really poor distribution. I had to go to my bank to get them, and often they did not have even a single full roll on hand (!). These days, my only source for dollars is the vending machines at the post office. And I don't buy nearly enough stamps to make that a viable option.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Kuros_overkill]

I'm acctualy supprised no body from up here (Canada) has chimed in yet. We have had $1 and $2 coins for almost a decade now. Each coin is slightly larger than the other (in order of increacing value, from the Quarter up) so it is easy to determine the difference by feel. And the $2 coin has actualy helped with the weight issue. because the coins weight approxametly the same, $20 in twoniees ($2 coin) weighs half as much as $20 in loonies($1 coin. It has a loon on it. Shut up)

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[FLEB]

You're in the UK aren't you? You're in a place where the people actually see the use of coins that are worth more than a few pence.

Here in America...they've tried several times to come out with a dollar coin, only to have it fail time and again. Even when they try to change the color of the dollar coin so it's not confused with a quarter, people still balk at it. People want their paper money here.

It still doesn't mean that you can't go to the bank and get your own rolls of dollar coins. Although two-dollar notes are a bit rarer, most every bank I've been in has plenty of dollar coins available, since there are places (mostly vending machines) that use or distribute SBAs and Sacs. As for getting them accepted, well, it's money and it's not something they can't make change for, so you'd be hard-pressed to find somewhere that turned you down.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[lothrids]

Umm two simple words.... Pay cash. And if you are so worried about someone scanning your trash take you trash to the dump. Isn't this the same crap everyone was giving when retailers started using UPC codes. "The Government is tracking us" "Its the mark of the beast" Give me a break people.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[bluGill]

When I go to the bank I make it a point to get all my cash in 2 dollar bills. I will even trade any change in if I have enough. (I don't spends singles, given a choice, even if it means that I get a single in change) I like the looks on people's faces when I pay in two dollar bills. Besides, they are the most beautiful bills.

If I used cash more ($20 can last for months - I prefer the 1% back from my card) I'd get a bunch of dollar coins too, just because I like tell clerks "No, that is the exact amount, count it again".

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Anonym1ty]

Um, the new dollar coin, the Sacagawea, cannot be mistaken for a quarter at all

Not with visual inspection, sure. But try sticking your hand into a pocket full of change and reliably pulling out a dollar coin instead of a quarter. Compare your success rate to that with pennies, dimes, and nickels. Come back and tell me the dollar coin wasn't poorly designed.

You have apparently never seen or held a Sacagawea golden dollar. The outside edge of this coin is smooth, not ridged like a quarter. It is very possible distinguish these from quarters by touch alone.

The golden dollar was doing fine. It would have ben accepted. Its biggest problem is that once they got enough of them in circulation, if you went to the bank and got a roll of dollar coins, they would be mixed with those aweful Susan Bs. Now a Susie B is hard to tell from a quarter.

The biggest problem I have had with dollar coins were the foreign drachmas or shillings that would come hiden in the middle of the roll. ---Just take the odd coin back to your bank, thry'll promptly give you a Susie B for it. On the bright side I did get a roll with a €2 coin in it once.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Reziac]

Particularly fascinating/disturbing was this statement:

"The RFID allows money to carry its own history," by recording information about where it has been, said Paul Saffo, director of Institute for the Future (Menlo Park, Calif.).

Occurs to me that the real reason for RFID in paper money isn't to prevent counterfeiting, but to kill the underground [cash] economy, by making cash every bit as traceable as using a credit card. After all, what can be traced can be taxed.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Guppy06]

"I've seen plenty of machines that take dollar coins."

In my experience it's been about 50/50 whether or not a vending machine will accept coins larger than a quarter. Newer machines will take dollar coins easily (especially since US dollar coins are the same diameter and thickness as loonies), but older machines cannot take them (but still have a bill reader).

"They just aren't worth that much."

The general perception is that a $1.00 bill is somehow more valuable than a $1.00 coin.

"Are you saying that, if you had never seen or heard of a two-dollar bill, you would not have thought it was fake??"

My own personal experience in spending dollar coins involves at least one cashier saying "I have to ask my manager if we're allowed to take these."

"$20 in bills fits easily and comfortably in your pants pocket."

Spoken like someone who's never carried around $20 in singles. An amount of dollar coins is more compact and easier to sort and count than an equal number of dollar bills.

At any rate, I think the original poster missed one big obstacle to dollar coin (or half-dollar coin or $2 bill) acceptance: retail outlets don't ask for them. They will ask their banks for stacks of singles to fill their cash drawers with but never rolls of coins. Until some of the big retail players (like grocery stores) start to notice that the dollar coins are easier to sort and count and help reduce shrinkage (two dollar coins don't stick together like two singles), they won't catch on.

But if they did catch on, there'd be no reason to stop printing dollar bills altogether, at least no more reason than to stop printing $2 bills.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[name773]

the parts are all much easier to obtain than nuclear fuel

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[kimvette]

Funny: Paying for purchases with nothing but $2 bills

More funny: Clerks calling the police, accusing you of trying to pass fake currency

Hilarious: the officer telling the clerk she's a fucking retard

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[name773]

"Stupid people need to be protected from themselves."

then who defines stupid?

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[name773]

excellent reply (i'm not kidding)

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[name773]

perhaps it simplifies to a matter of preference

the people using the currency would rather not deal in dollar coins / 2 dollar bills / etc. so why bother forcing it on them?

you probably grew up with the system you use, and (most of) the people here grew up with theirs. both societies have optimized wallets, change machines, register drawers, and practices for the system they use, and changing (get it?) would only be a hassle since each system works well for its respective country.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[ksheff]

Many vending machines in the US will dispense and accept the US$1 coins. Today at work when I tried to get change for a $5, the change machine that spits out quarters wasn't working, so I went to the ice cream machine which will take $5 bills, bought something, and it spit out 4 $1 coins as change(3 gold colored ones and an old Susan B Anthony one). I then took one of them and bought a can of Coke. The US Post Office vending machines have been dispensing $1 coins as change for quite a while.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[ksheff]

That's easy. The new Sacagawea $1 coin has a smooth rim with a ridge. The quarter has notches on the rim. Unfortunately, the SBA $1 coin has notches on the rim and that's the only one I couldn't pick right away when I just tried your suggested experiment.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[John Hasler]

> ...use your trusty Dremel to drill a small hole through the chip...

Overkill. A hammer will suffice.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[John Hasler]

> ...and now, after sorting all this, think about EMP the bag.

No. Just snip out the RFID tags and put them in your neighbor's trash.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Anonymous Coward]

then dump them in the 'take a penny/leave a penny' jar at a local convenience store.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[dajak]

Wow...where do you live where you have to sort all the shit?

In a small town in the Netherlands. It makes a difference where you live. In urban areas like Amsterdam (where people don't have gardens) you generally only sort paper, glass, textiles, and the chemical/toxic stuff (and even then people keep throwing stuff like batteries into general purpose bags). They also don't use containers because the streets are too narrow.

In practice you throw things like tea bags into the general purpose container, of course. I make a trip to the municipal sorting center about once a month to dispose of electronic equipment, paper, and construction materials; I can't possibly fit the amount of garbage we produce into the standard size household containers issued by the municipality.

Rumour has it that all this sorting hardly works for the recycling industry. Besides willingness, correct sorting requires knowledge of packaging materials. I think the real purpose of this sorting business is to make you produce less garbage, but the Netherlands is too small a market to pressure manufacturers into using less packaging. I do leave pointless layers of packaging materials behind in the shop and always take my own bag, and I certainly will try to return goods with RFID chips as 'electronic equipment' to shops.

Glad I live where I do...you throw everything away in one big trash container

Even glass and paper?

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually coin is cheaper in the long run. Coins last 30+ years compared to (I think) 2-3 years for paper.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[fredklein]

I just pulled out my wallet and checked.

Personally, I keep my money in my pocket, not my wallet. I might get my wallet pick-pocketed, but no one will ever get their hands in my front pants pocket without me noticing.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Anonymous Coward]

> How do oyu microwave your brand new microwave?
Simple, buy a new micro that fits inside your old one.

Great! A micro microwave.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[fido_dogstoyevsky]

The only problem I see here is that not everything is microwave safe.

How do oyu microwave your brand new microwave?

What happens when your steel toe capped boots go in there?

Will the fabric on your GFs dress screw up if you you zap it?

Will the DVD you just bought be playable or writable?

It depends on where it came from.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[ipfwadm]

you probably grew up with the system you use, and (most of) the people here grew up with theirs.

Probably not. I'm 25 and even though I've always lived in the US, I can remember the switch-over from the Canadian paper dollar to the loonie. Granted, the old Canadian dollar coin had been around for a while before the loonie, but it was during the introduction of the loonie that paper single dollar circulation was reduced. Apparently the world did not end for the Canadian people when this happened.

My personal feeling is that people are just resistant to change. If the US paper dollar were eliminated tomorrow, there would be plenty of bitching, but in a few years everyone would be used to it and you'd never hear about it again.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just another case of Americans' short-sightedness...

The short-sigtedness is of two camps: a) the inflationary policy makers (in this regard, the US has been better than many countries, especially recently) which devalues the dollar bill AND the coins beneath it; and b) yourself, for pigeon-holing "Americans" for such a stupid reason. Maybe its the market or yet another example of government failure. But noooooo, you got to go all European on us.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Anonymous Coward]

> this goes hand in hand with Americans' fanatical opposition to being educated

To be more accurate the American education systems resistence to actually educate.

1970's: The successful Open Education system is slowly dismantled in favor of the failed "Specal Education" system.
Specal ed is fedrally funded and based on political mandates by well meaning politicians.
Open ed is not fedrally funded and based on research done by educators in the UK.
Open ed helps all students, smart, dumb or in between. It gives the help as needed.
Specal ed helps the violent kids be more violent. It gives the help when it is least effective or not effective at all.

1980's: The states where the education system demands more funding get worse after receaving that funding to justify demanding even more money untill the worst schools were also the best funded schools.

1990's: Vareous political agendas determine the content of education.

2000's: A new Gov in California is blamed for problems dating back to the 1960's.
One class of kids come home having been converted to the muslum religion by a teacher.
Schools oppose every effort to eliminate bad teachers. Maybe some are bad preposals (I'm willing to admit some political blindness on my part) but ALL of them? Hay if they were ALL as bad as clamed I think I'd notice at least once. I mean for the bad preposals to hide behind the good preposals there must be at least a few good preposals.

For the teachers unions part. It's the unions job to protect jobs not improve education so it makes sense for them to oppose anything that might put teachers jobs at risk even the bad teachers.
But the school boards job is to improve education and they aren't doing that.
And who opposes hiring new teachers? Not the unions. The school board.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[mikerubin]

no,just the punchlines
(lack o' beer)

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[fastgood]

Or -- just don't ever throw anything away

Frito Lay employees used to dumpster-dive all the time to count how many chips
customers had left uneaten in bags of their various products at public events.

Market research interns: Using cheat sheets to remember how to average numbers.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Verteiron]

I live in the USA and the answer to your question is yes, even glass and paper. Recycling is the exception rather than the rule here. Fortunately, there is not now (and never will be) a shortage of places to dump our trash, and recycling anything other than aluminum is a complete waste of time and energy anyway.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[Anonymous Coward]

when they make rfid based paying cards ... then emitting an emp signal at a store full of rfid card users could mean a lot of fun at the cashier :)

note that you dont need a nuclear bomb to create an emp wave, even smaller tools can do it, like the one linked to here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_fl ux_compression_generator

You do realize your advocating setting off an explosive device in a store don't you? EMP result or not, detonating a bomb in a store (at least in the US) is not seen to be as funny as it used to be.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[dajak]

Fortunately, there is not now (and never will be) a shortage of places to dump our trash, and recycling anything other than aluminum is a complete waste of time and energy anyway.

We burn most of the clean trash (producing energy for heating homes) and ship toxic stuff to Belgium, Africa, and Eastern Europe. Lots of places to dump over there, but the economics of doing that works out differently for us. Not exporting it is very expensive in a densely populated and already very polluted country. We already live on top of meters of human waste from the past and have to dispose of huge amounts of toxic dredging sludge from the great rivers (with thanks to our upstream neighbours) and part of the 80 million metric tons of dung we produce every year and cannot use on our already excessively 'fertile' soil. The point of recycling is to reduce the amount we have to export and increase the average value of what we export by sorting and processing it so that we have to pay less.

It is economically viable to do so because the trash has a high negative value for us to start with, because we have too much of it and too little land. In addition to that we have to import almost every basic resource, including soil, stone, and wood. We are the world's biggest importer of (clean) soil for construction. Shipping stuff with a low or negative value to or from other continents is relatively expensive. The US has huge economic advantages in that it is more autonomous in resources and has huge reserves of cheap land.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[fbjon]

As I understand it, making paper from old paper requires a fraction of the energy required for making paper from fresh, dead trees.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[fbjon]

Put your wallet in your front pants pocket.

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[fbjon]

16 oz? A pocket full of one pound coins would surely weigh at least one pound, right?

Re:Just put them in your microwave

[topham]

The biggest reason AMerican's shouldn't switch to a DOLLAR coin?

It would mean the average American was saving more money.

I tell you, between the Loonie ($1CDN) and Toonie ($2CDN) coins I had about $300 and didn't even know it. I would get home at the end of the average day and empty my change into a drawer. Do that for a while and you'll build up a large collection of coins. NExt thing you know you have a couple hundred dollars worth sitting around doing nothing.

While it would have been better sitting in a bank, the truth is if it had been $1 bills I would have spent them much sooner.

I haven't figured out if this is a good thing, or a bad thing; but if I ever take my girlfriend out for the dinner I promised her for rolling the coins I know what she'll say...

The course of action here is obvious...

[raehl]

Patent tin-foil garbage bags.

Re:The course of action here is obvious...

[DutchSter]

...or I guess I'll have to resume the environmentally unfriendly practice of using the incinerator in the basement of my house. Don't think anyone's used that thing in 20 years beyond a place to shove their cigarette butts during parties!

I bet the fumes from the tags will be great for all involved!

Re:The course of action here is obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stick with aluminum foil, as the paranoid community has much more confidence in the anti-psychotronic properties of aluminum.

Re:The course of action here is obvious...

[clearbluesky]

Ok so you're shoping at your favorite store with shoes, sox, pants, shirt, underware? all of which has RFID tags. Does this mean as you check out you are charged again for this stuf you already bought? I will figure out a way to destroy RFID tags

You Need Not Be Paranoid To Fear RFID...

[laejoh]

You Need Not Be Paranoid To Fear RFID...

...but it helps?

Are you out of your mind?????

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you realise this is essential to stop terrorism????? Think of the children for a change instead of these stupid "rights" or whatever they're called.

Re:Are you out of your mind?????

[Takumi2501]

So put the RFID tags on the terrorists then. :P

Problem solved.

Re:Are you out of your mind?????

[quantum bit]

Who defines 'terrorists'?

Are drug dealers terrorists?

Are jaywalkers?

Re:Are you out of your mind?????

[operagost]

I'd rather put bullets and missiles into them instead. But the BBC says we no longer have terrorists, anyway. I think they're "insurgents" now.

Re:Are you out of your mind?????

[kimvette]

Here in America, the media refers to terrorists as "militants" out of fear that calling terrorists "terrorists" will somehow offend the *bleep*ers.

Yorkshire quote

[threaded]

Where there's muck there's brass.

Patent War Chest

[Anonymous Coward]

The Good News:
1) BellSouth is a huge company that can't figure out what to do about PTSN loses, much less how to deploy RFID scanners.
2) This is just a patent to be added to their war chest. Every large company is likely to be sued, so they need methods to fight back. Patents are often the most cost effective manner, since getting them is cheaper than mounting any defense against of a real lawsuit.

Re:Patent War Chest

[klaun]

1) BellSouth is a huge company that can't figure out what to do about PTSN loses, much less how to deploy RFID scanners.

And they have absolutely no idea what to do about their PSTN losses.

I see a market..

[jcr]

...for RFID-killers. Shouldn't need more than a watt or so at the right frequency to kill the chip.

-jcr

Re:I see a market..

[Linker3000]

You beat me to it! I forsee the latest gadget on the street being a short range EMP generator.

Re:I see a market..

[Joakim A]

Yepp, and scanners and transmitters. How long will it be before we all can scan each other, steal the RFID code and do some serious RFID spoofing? The possibilities are endless :)

Re:I see a market..

[cronotk]

A geran computer magazine (c't) has built some kind of scanner which can determine if the scanned product in the supermarket has a RFID-chip "implanted".
AFAIK were they trying to disable the chip with that device, too, but I don't know if they succeeded with this :)

Re:I see a market..

[dawggy_daddy]

1. Or an RFID reader killer.
2. Cash is being phased out to the ubiquitous 'magnetic identification' tag found on credit and atm cards and very soon on passports.
3. Toll booth passes ( like the EZpass in the northeast U.S. ) are already in great use. Just place a EZpass reader unobtrusively on a intersection traffic light to catch speeders or red light runners. Why do drivers on toll roads speed when calculating their speed by the amount of time between entry and exit of the toll road or speed through the EZpass toll booth reader ( I've been dinged by this already ) is trivial.
5. The market is ripe for mu-metal EZpass storage containers. Or 'Faraday shielding' ( SCIF ) for your automobile or house.
6. Even my two doggies have RFID tags implanted, the vetinarian can read it, but when I'm walking them, so can 'big-brother'. Do I need 'mu-metal' woven into vests or collers for them.

Am I being too paranoid?

Re:I see a market..

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

If you're worried about "big brother" getting information about your dogs, then yes, you are too paranoid.

Re:I see a market..

[S.O.B.]

If you blocked your dogs' RFID tags and they turned out to be Al Qaeda operatives then you could be arrested for helping to conceal them.

Re:I see a market..

[kimvette]

Re: speed tracking on the Pike via EZPass or even the paper ticket - YES it is possible

I don't do EZPass.

If I were to drive at high speed on the pike, I'd take the paper ticket, smudge the time stamp or accidentally spill coffee on it, and run a magnet over the magnetic strip a few times.

EZPass is not the only way to track speed on the tolls. Check your paper ticket sometime. They DO stamp the time on the ticket when you pick it up, and I'm sure that when the ticket is printed the magnetic strip is read as well. As far as whether or not they actually check it at the other end, I have no idea.

It's not a good idea to speed out there anyhow, what with the unmarked and modified Intrepids (haw haw haw, slow piece of crap), unmarked SVO Rustangs (HAW HAW HAW still slow) and slightly faster Crapmaro, and not to mention Motorola and limited and controlled on/off ramps. I'll drive 180+ out on I-70 where you can see clear horizon to horizon in all directions, but not around here. I'll stick to just under the prevaling speed of traffic. Hell, it's not a good idea to speed in much of Taxachusetts since there are few good straightaways to do it.

Several years ago here in Taxachusetts I got pulled over at 149mph (after slowing down from MUCH faster) in my ZR-1 and got let go with just a verbal warning (I'd pulled over and waited when I saw the officer pull out of the rest stop in my rear view mirror. He was probably just grateful I didn't give him any crap and didn't bullshit as to why I was driving so damn fast) - since that bit of grace from a state trooper I haven't gone more than 10 over or so here in Taxachusetts, and am usually going slower than anyone else, whether I'm driving one of my 'Vettes or one of the trucks. When I take my car out west though, it's a different story.

Re:I see a market..

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is parent modded down? c't (one of the best german computer mags, which still focuses on actual information instead of marketing bullshit and doesn't repeat those bullshit "Overclocking: How To Fry Your CPU Because You've Got No F'in Idea What You Are Doing" and "Google Tricks Every Idiot Already Knows" "stories" every other month) did attempt to do something like this. I don't know wether they succedded, either, though.

Physical counteraction

[ettlz]

Surely this is nothing a drill*/pair of scissors/giving up smoking/strong high-frequency magnetic field couldn't solve. After all, it's your RFID chip. So destroy it!

*You probably shouldn't try this if the chip is on a condom.

Re:Physical counteraction

[Anonymous Coward]

Try to tell that (it's yours) to the companies that prohibit you from copying their CD/DVD/etc to another one. To MS that tells you that you just "leased" their software, and that you're not allowed to look inside your copy of it. To Sony wo disallowes you to Mod it's game-devices so you can run Linux on it ...

I'm afraid that it's quite possible to disallow you, by force of EULA or law, to remove or disabble those tags ....

Re:Physical counteraction

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. Soon they'll not only be able to see what I do, but, paired with "gene-on-a-chip" tech, they'll be able to see who I do. (Hope they never manage to figure out how to put RFID in hand lotion :-0 )

You don't have to be paranoid - but it helps

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Already the scenes from 2002s movie Minority Report, where your retinas are scanned and "personalised" advertising is beamed at you, seems quaint. Now we know you'll be RFID scanned, and up-sold on the shoes you're wearing, as the brand, size and age of your shoes will be instantly known. And cash won't help, because RFID chips will be in that too.

Re:You don't have to be paranoid - but it helps

[FidelCatsro]

On the plus side , RFID does not involve Tom Cruise

Re:You don't have to be paranoid - but it helps

[Red Flayer]

"And cash won't help, because RFID chips will be in that too."

Cash may or may not be RFID-tagged (I suspect it will, for large denominations). But, a lot of retailers will begin charging a premium for cash transactions. Cash is messy, awkward, risky, and labor-intensive. You pay more to use a credit card at the pump today... but the opposite will be true in 10 or 20 years.

So, go ahead and use cash... but be prepared to pay extra for the privilege of privacy (it's not considered a Right anymore).

Re:You don't have to be paranoid - but it helps

[infinite9]

On the plus side , RFID does not involve Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise walks by an advert in the mall...

Good afternoon Mr Cruise. Feeling not-so-clear? It's been three weeks since your last auditing session! Just stop by the org for a quick session! E-meter low on power? We can recharge your e-meter for a small one-time fee of $3000!

Re:You don't have to be paranoid - but it helps

[DaveJay]

I'll be really surprised if your prediction comes true, because credit card/bank card transactions cost merchants a certain amount of money, and that money (plus people who float charges to the next month) are how credit card companies/banks make a good portion of their money.

Thus, for your prediction to come true, here's what would need to happen:

[a] the cost of handling cash, including the risk and handling fees charged by banks on deposit, would have to exceed the cost of credit card/bank card transactions.

It is unlikely that the cost of handling cash would rise, given that the risk of handling cash is quite stable and has been for a long time, and in recent decades banks have set up machines that handle cash much more efficiently and readily than in the past.

That means that, rather than the cost of cash going up, the cost of card transactions would need to go down. This would require that...

[b1] credit card companies/banks significantly reduce or eliminate the merchant fees for transactions, presumably because they're raking in enough money from consumer credit to cover the loss of merchant fees.

If you know how much money they make on merchant fees, you'll understand why this is highly unlikely. Plus, they're already making record levels of profit from consumer credit, so no potential windfall is on the horizon in that department, and so eliminating or reducing the merchant fees would be a reduction in profit, nothing more.

Finally, even with I were wrong on the above and the cost structure flipped, merchants still have a vested interest in doing as much business as possible in cash. Why? Fraud, of course. Defrauding the government out of taxes, defrauding business partners out of dividends, paying people under the table, cash laundering -- such things can only happen with cash.

For example, when running a restaurant was almost exclusively a cash-only business, it was both a very convenient tool for the mafia to launder money and a terrific way for a "legitimate" businessman to have a business that performed poorly on paper (low taxes) but was raking in the dough.

Heck, I know a tax accountant who has been in the business his whole life, and still is (he's in his 70s) and he still pines for the days he could hide huge piles of money in the books. Nowadays, his restaurant work consists solely of totalling up electronic transactions and calculating taxes due -- and of course hiding a portion of that tiny little smidge of cash business they still do these days.

Similarly, vegas is slowly adding ticket-based slots to their casinos, to reduce theft by employees and con artists, and to increase slots traffic (ie "with the tickets, I won't have to carry a bucket or get my fingers dirty in the coin slots"). However, uptake is VERY slow, and on the tables where *real* money is spent, it is a cash business all the way and always will be, not just for the customer's thrills, but for the flexibility it gives the casinos in reporting and managing the income.

So, all in all, I think in 20 years I'll still be able to make a cash transaction without paying a premium, *with the exception* of automated repeating payments, which are an equal-opportunity profit generator for everyone.

Re:You don't have to be paranoid - but it helps

[Red Flayer]

I would agree insofar as we're talking about small establishments. But as large establishments continue to drive small businesses out, I think it will be different. Walmart spends a ton of money on cash pickups and deliveries, as does any major retailer. Plus there is the risk of theft (especially for pharmacy chains, but applicable to others as well) and embezzlement. The cost of credit card transactions (per transaction) is dropping for retailers -- it's the volume that is driving profits in the industry. Banks are beginning to lower merchant fees because of competition for those same fees -- yes, it's a reduction in profit from current levels -- but the alternative is a reduction in sales, also resulting in lower profits.

As CC volume goes up, it will become cheaper per transaction than cash, for high-volume companies.

Re:You don't have to be paranoid - but it helps

[John Hasler]

> Now we know you'll be RFID scanned, and up-sold...

No one sells me, "up" or otherwise. Sometimes I buy. Sometimes I don't. I decide.

> ...on the shoes you're wearing, as the brand, size and age of your
> shoes will be instantly known.

A brand, etc may be known. Or perhaps 15 or 20. Or perhaps none at all. None will have any connection with what I have on my feet.

Won't really matter, though. I never shop at WalMart.

Re:You don't have to be paranoid - but it helps

[eonlabs]

Bets are they'll still send guys the breast implant spam, and girls the phallic enlargement spam. I can see Google taking a big interest in expanding its targeted ads technology. Plus, it could be interesting to be able to 'compose' your own to mess with the system. Probably wouldn't be too hard. They are passive devices after all. Not much security in a static device.

Shopping patterns

[Jugalator]

What's so bad about studying them?

Like with Google ads, if I have to live with ads, I much prefer directed ones with at least some research behind them than undirected ones. In other words -- in this case with shoes, if they wished to send me ads by mail, I'd rather only get ads for men in my age than women and kids.

Of course, connecting these studies to other databases from other companies could make it very wrong, but that's another problem I think need other laws (unless there aren't any already -- IANAL).

And at least where I live, there are already laws against storing personally identifiable data in a database, such as your social security number. I guess age, gender, and other purely statistical data don't fall under this law, and I don't see a compelling reason to why it should. Is it really such a big deal?

Re:Shopping patterns

[aussie_a]

Like with Google ads, if I have to live with ads, I much prefer directed ones with at least some research behind them than undirected ones.

Google doesn't connect me with my credit card number and name. It also does this up front, not going around to your house and going through your garbage.

Although it seems simple to me, pay cash, don't give any stores your name, phone number or postcode. If they insist, lie or stop shopping there.

Re:Shopping patterns

[tuxette]

What's so bad about studying them?

My gripe is their having to sneak around to get information they could simply ask me for. And usually, all this sneaking around leads to the collection of wrong information and we're all stuck with advertising that really isn't geared towards who we really are after all...

What ever happened to the straightforward and honest approach to getting shopping habits demographic information?

Re:Shopping patterns

[gr3g]

One thing that I worry about in targeted advertising is my ability to abstain. Even without ads targeted specifically to my tastes I have a problem with buying too much crap, I don't need my psyche pummeled into submission by seeing things I *need* put on display all the time. I have come to the realization that I am no different than that child many years ago who was way too tempted by the check-out isle displays of candy, only now my desires have shifted to electronics and gadgets (oh to desire .$50 items again!)

So for the hope of one day coming out of debt, I say no to the targeted ads.

Re:Shopping patterns

[Illserve]

It is a big deal, because directed advertising is more profitable.

And because it's more profitable there will be more of it.

So given the choice of less undirected advertising and more directed advertising, I'll take the former.

Also, directed advertising is harder to ignore. The more they know about how your brain works the better they'll be able to create ads that draw your attention to them.

Re:Shopping patterns

[Jugalator]

It is a big deal, because directed advertising is more profitable.
And because it's more profitable there will be more of it.

It's hard to say how much more though. If it gets too much, profitability will drop again (we aren't usually golden cash cows). And irrelevant ads will largely go away, causing a drop. Will the increased amount of targetted ads only increase to even things up again to same levels as before? I think that's hard to speculate in.

Also, directed advertising is harder to ignore. The more they know about how your brain works the better they'll be able to create ads that draw your attention to them.

Has any research actually been done about this? It would be interesting to hear about, because I can honestly not seeing that happen when I'm browsing the internet and have targetted ads thrown at me, for example when I use Gmail and see ads related to what a friend wrote. Heck, even the ads on Slashdot are trying to match our geeky interests reasonably well (I see a ThinkGeek one now for some peculiar gadget), but I can't remember when I last clicked on one.

Re:Shopping patterns

[Illserve]

Yes, consumers would spend the same, but advertising would be a better way for a company to spend its budget than on... say... product quality and salaries

Hence, marketing would become an even larger slice of the pie, and the more money spent on marketing, the less is spent on production.

Nike and Reebok are no longer shoe companies really, they just sell the brand name to various apparel manufacturers. It's a scary world we're approaching in which companies spend more and more of their money manipulating the minds of their consumers and less and less on making good products. The better they are at convincing us we need their product, the less effort they have to put into making sure it's actually well made.

As to your second point, we are only at the beginning of the targeted advertising age. In the next few years these companies will employ legions of psychologists, especially those dealing with visual perception, to learn how to control exogenous orienting based on expectation of what's salient to that person (booze, smokes, women, shoes, etc).

It could get pretty ugly.

Re:Shopping patterns

[Jess (geek-chick)]

I'd rather only get ads for men in my age than women and kids But some men wouldn't mind getting ads targeting women. *cough* Victoria's Secret *cough*

Re:Shopping patterns

[L0neW0lf]

And at least where I live, there are already laws against storing personally identifiable data in a database, such as your social security number. I guess age, gender, and other purely statistical data don't fall under this law, and I don't see a compelling reason to why it should. Is it really such a big deal?

Laws, feh. A good example here would be ChoicePoint, who wasn't supposed to store (according to agreements with parent credit card companies) personal information, and did anyway, for their own purposes. Now 140,000 people have had their personal information compromised. To quote (http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/17/technology/person altech/choicepoint/):

ChoicePoint said the criminals may have gained access to people's names, addresses, Social Security numbers and credit reports.

Do you think for a minute that all corporations care about your privacy laws, or further yet, that criminals care about the laws that say "You're not supposed to gain personal information illegally or use it to defraud others?

I'm not overly paranoid; I just know a really bad idea when I see one.

Calm Down: You're Being Paranoid

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, people, think about it. RFID on everything? It's not going to happen. The statistical data gained would be horribly inaccurate because nobody would ever know whether or not you're actually the one wearing the shoes. For instance, what if they were a gift for somebody 3,000 miles away?

Re:Calm Down: You're Being Paranoid

[Itchy Rich]

The statistical data gained would be horribly inaccurate because nobody would ever know whether or not you're actually the one wearing the shoes.

They don't need to know that you're the one wearing them. They just want to know that you're the type of person they can sell more of them to. One off purchases are one thing, but if they establish a pattern they can use it to predict what you might like. It's not rocket science.

Re:Calm Down: You're Being Paranoid

[Hammer]

So, the RFID tag just help the police identify me as the likely killer ... 3000 miles away from my location...
Who? Me? Paranoid? Naaah :-)

Re:Calm Down: You're Being Paranoid

[foreverdisillusioned]

Oh look, an Anonymous Coward who has absolutely no concept of statistics. Modded up to +3 too. Impressive and/or sad.

RFID on EVERYTHING means that anomalies like that become less and less significant. Cross-reference enough data and you can spot patterns without having the faintest idea why they're there. (There's actually a famous psychiatric test based on this principle, though the name escapes me. Basically, it's a bunch of crazyass questions designed to give the shrink a statistical probability that you're suffering from a mental disease. The individual answers themselves are irrelevant; only the statistical whole counts. Thus, the potential for an individual to purposefully alter his answers is in effect built into the final percentages--there's really no way to cheat.)

You've missed the point completely. How often do you send shoes to someone living 3,000 miles away? Do you think Nike or Reebok care about the handful of people who've done such a thing? Marketing people only care about the fat, juicy center of the bell curve. Yeah, there are also those niche markets at the edges, but the instant you change your focus to that niche, then it becomes the center of the bell curve.

On the whole this isn't all terribly evil so long as it's used for relatively non-obnoxious advertisements, but the potential for abuse by insurance agencies, banks, law enforcement, etc. is very, very high. If you're not in the statistical norm for the targeted advertisement, who cares? You ignore the ad. But if you're far out of the statistical norm for "law abiding citizen" and the local PD finds out, you can bet your ass you'll be hounded until the day you die (or move to a saner country.) It won't matter if you're an exception; it won't matter if there's only a 55% chance you're a criminal. They'll do it because it's efficient. It'll be like racial profiling except it will apply to every single minority conceivable, from Yanni fans to gays to diehard otakus to atheists. Your difficultly in the world will be inversely related to your conformity. Stray too far out of the norm and your insurance rates will skyrocket, you credit rating will plunge, and cops will look at you that much harder next time they've got an unsolved crime on their hands.

It's not bizzare; it's not even inherently evil. Living by statistics is just an efficient way of doing things. The problem is that greater efficiency is bought with something far more precious; individuality. For now, I can ignore the ads, but for heaven's sake let's not get complacent.

Re:Calm Down: You're Being Paranoid

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent up.. and mod OP down.. (I would if I had points) the simple fact remains that it isn't hard to put a number on how many things are given as gifts per yer.. customer survey's etc. Especially couple that with any gift wrap or gift bag purchases, or birthday card purchase at the time and viola, you start getting closer and closer to the magic number...

Re:Calm Down: You're Being Paranoid

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nobody would ever know whether or not you're actually the one wearing the shoes."

Sure they'd know that you're not wearing the shoes. Whichever postal service you sent the shoes by whould know that you sent the shoes from hee to there when the shoes' RFID signals along with the package's. Merchants 3000 miles away would also know, seeing how the shoes' chip signals at the same time that the shirt, pants, library card, and credit card all signal from the person who received your shoes.

UPS knows that you send shoes to people on the other side of the country, and your credit card knows what and when you buy gifts, for whom, and of what.

Re:Calm Down: You're Being Paranoid

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, get off the whole shoe thing, already. It's not going to happen. Stop being so paranoid.

Re:Calm Down: You're Being Paranoid

[foreverdisillusioned]

Why wouldn't it? It would be very profitable if it happened. Money is a great motivator. I defy you to explain to me why marketing and financial risk management folks would NOT do something that would save them money. The police thing wouldn't happen directly, because that would be too scary and obvious, but I bet they could get a warrant to gain access to the marketing guy's trackers.

Re:Calm Down: You're Being Paranoid

[Bloke down the pub]

They just want to know that you're the type of person they can sell more of them to. One off purchases are one thing, but if they establish a pattern they can use it to predict what you might like.

To do that they don't need to identify the original item - just the product code. I see no reason why a store should know that I bought that particular pair of size 10 brown brogues and you bought the ones next to them.

Re:Calm Down: You're Being Paranoid

[SenFo]

IANAL, so please take this with a grain of salt; but, I'd certainly think that this would be a major invasion of our right to privacy. Imagine having somebody trace you from place to place as you walk around the city. This is certainly not something out of the realm of capabilities. You say it's not as scary as the police thing. Personally, I think it's worse. Therefore I do not believe it will happen. I'm not going to deny that money allows companies/people to get away with things they would otherwise not be able to get away with; however, this is would also greatly affect the privacy of our politicians. Lets just hope I'm not proved wrong.

Re:Calm Down: You're Being Paranoid

[instarx]

Come on, people, think about it. RFID on everything? It's not going to happen. The statistical data gained would be horribly inaccurate because nobody would ever know whether or not you're actually the one wearing the shoes. For instance, what if they were a gift for somebody 3,000 miles away?

Why is everyone thinking advertising and marketing here!? That's the least of my worries. I see this as the greatest boon to police-state surveillance ever conceived.

Ok, you buy that pair of shoes with your credit card in NY nd the RFID becomes associated with you. You then ship them 3,000 miles to Seattle and the police RFID detectors pick them up. The police know you can't be in two places at once, but now they are aware of a known associate of yours 3,000 miles away. You aren't under investigation you say? well so what - maybe your friend is or maybe the Feds are just logging data to see if they can find some suspicious correlations.

But suppose you keep the sneakers for yourself in NY. The FBI street scanners detect you and your shoes so they know what part of town you hang out in, but wait, there are other sets of RFID tags that are frequently near yours so now the CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, TSA and local police (our new information sharing poicies at work) know who your associates are. Maybe a real human doesn't know it yet, but the computer does. But wait! your RFID tags (or one of your friend's tags) were on 42nd Street at the same time there was an anti-war rally! You and your associates are now suspected as being unpatriotic subversives by the FBI data-mining bot. Bing! Your name shows up on a list of potential subversives and all your RFID data is upgraded from "not interesting" to "suspicious".

The scarry part is that all this can be done automatically with inexpensive street scanners and data-mining robots looking for "suspicious" activity or associations.

Getting a targeted ad from NIKE is the least of my worries about RFID surveillance.

Ubiquity

[the bluebrain]

Looking at the way the **AA are carpet-bombing all and sundry with outree requests in support of their business model - in the hope that the odd one will stick - once RFID tech is used widly, I foresee a future where first major brands, then other retailers and law enforcement will be making similar requests, more or less "because it's technically possible".

=> EULA when you buy a Ralph Lauren shirt, making it illegal to disable the tag?
=> Extra tax if you nuke your trash before putting it by the roadside? ("WallMart has a right to know!")
=> Automatic searches at the airport when a scan of your luggage turns results that deviate from the norm?
=> A new "coming of age" rutual, whereby you have your mandatory kiddy-goes-to-school tag removed when you turn 18 21?

Re:Ubiquity

[Anonymous Coward]

=> Automatic searches at the airport when a scan of your luggage turns results that deviate from the norm?

RFID aside, this already happens. I forgot to take off my belt before going through the metal detector. Somehow that flagged me for them to do the full body pat-down and going through my stuff. They claimed to 'discover' chemicals on my baggage handle. The 'traces' of whatever on my shoes led them to ask me if I was recently on a farm (I had been in a park, though). They took my name and address. Hoo-fucking-ray, I bet they made their quota. Hope they realize they're missing real drug traffickers.

Re:Ubiquity

[Sirch]

Why remove it when you can just change it to a "new adult pays tax" tag?

Re:Ubiquity

[the bluebrain]

Damn. Every time I aim for "maximum cynicism / paranoia", someone comes along and trumps me :)

Re:Ubiquity

[dajak]

Looking at the way the **AA are carpet-bombing all and sundry with outree requests in support of their business model - in the hope that the odd one will stick - once RFID tech is used widly, I foresee a future where first major brands, then other retailers and law enforcement will be making similar requests, more or less "because it's technically possible".

That makes sense. The most basic tests for legislative drafting we use here in the Netherlands are: 1) it is possible to comply efficiently (= without disproportionate economic side-effects), and 2) compliance is effectively and efficiently enforceable. That's why minor immorality like softdrugs and prostitution are 'tolerated', and capital gains tax is for instance charged on a fictional gain of 4% instead of the actual amount which is too easy to misrepresent. Many of our small liberties are based on little more than lack of enforceability. Off-topic sneer: the US legislator doesn't have a reputation of taking enforceability very seriously.

We need fundamental debate on privacy, copyright and fair use, patents etc. instead of complaining how the new regimes are more restrictive than the old ones like most critics do. That has never been a valid argument. We need to face the fact that the majority of the population would happily prohibit anything they don't do, like, or understand if it can be done efficiently without too much inconvenience to them. The tolerance (or should I call it political correctness?) taught by the 17th century religious wars and WWII seems to be wearing off again.

Re:Ubiquity

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably traces of ammonia. As in ammonia nitrate, a leading bomb-ingredient. Since it's also a popular fertilizer, you most likely picked up traces from the grass in the park.

Re:Ubiquity

[Reziac]

I'm not so sure either of you was the least bit paranoid... upon polishing my tinfoil hat, I'm reminded of all the new laws re "thou shalt not fly, leave/enter the country, share files, or deposit $10k in the bank without gov't investigation and approval", and how much simpler life would be for said agencies if your RFID chip was immediately to hand any time they cared to see your history.

Which brought up an even more wacko thought: "Trusted" computers that require the user to have an embedded RFID chip, which in turn reports just exactly who tried to illegally download that movie...

Re:Ubiquity

[OfNoAccount]

Actually all they need to do is claim that the tags are a requirement "for recycling", and you'll not only be committing a crime, you'll also be shunned by your peers for crimes against the environment...

Generally, who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean really. Right now, anyone can go through my garbage and recyclabes and see:

- what my spending habits are like (empty product boxes along with the other trash)
- what my diet is like
- what my consumption rate is
- what my interests are (above mentioned product boxes, tossed junk mail, etc)
- what my personal timeline is like (how much trash is developed at various times)
- samples of my dna (various personal care item cast offs, hair, finger nails, etc)
- samples of my finger prints

and lord knows what else. Really, all we're really talking about here for the average person is that they can do several of the above without getting really messy and stinky.

Re:Generally, who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Today you need to *go through* that garbage to get the information. It's a manual, long and expensive process.

With RFID, the process is completely automatized and takes less than half a second. You can integrate a reader in the garbage collection chain (or even in the garbage collection trucks) and get all that information at an industrial scale -- i.e. big-brotherize everyone.

Generally, who cares? Well I do.

Re:Generally, who cares?

[maxpublic]

My trash bin sits on my property, and the only person who has any right to step onto my property and take are the folks who work for my garbage service. So that means that anyone else who tries this is going to be looking down the barrel of a 12-gauge, trying to explain to me what they think they're doing if they want to live long enough to get charged with trespassing and hauled off by the local sheriff.

I feel for the folks who *have* to put their bins on the curb, when they could just move them a few feet back onto their drive or lawn and make it legally impossible for anyone to touch their trash except for the garbage service. Of course, I also realize that in the current political climate some Washington hack sucking Homeland Security dick would probably pass a law making this illegal if it became common practice.

Max

Re:Generally, who cares?

[VagaStorm]

They can, but they don't caus it's to costly.

What we're realy are talking about is making it practicly posible on a large scale. Could simply be automated with a scaner in the garbage truck....

Re:Generally, who cares?

[Alef]

Yes, you can do that, but it is messy and takes a lot of time. With RFID tags you could do it without even having to open the trash bag, and the whole process could be automated and performed at a massive scale, and that makes the information cheap.

I'm not saying anyone would actually do that, but it is certainly feasible from a technological point of view.

It has always been possible to gather personal information about someone, if you have sufficient resources. Secret services all over the world do it routinely. The scary part is that such information could soon be available to anyone (large corporations anyway) for a couple of bucks.

Re:Generally, who cares?

[kannibal_klown]

Let me guess, you're out West (or mid-west) United States.

Here on the east coast in suburbua it's annoying. A person can walk across my lawn on the way back from work or school and sprain their ankle on a tree root. Then they can turn around and sue us. They might not win, but there's a good chance.

How messed up is that?

Re:Generally, who cares?

[ifwm]

"My trash bin sits on my property, and the only person who has any right to step onto my property and take are the folks who work for my garbage service. So that means that anyone else who tries this is going to be looking down the barrel of a 12-gauge"

Or they could simply drag your bin onto public property and take their time.

Or they could dump your bin out and take the trash with them.

I know you don't sit in your yard guarding your trash all day.

Re:Generally, who cares?

[Hrodvitnir]

I mean really. Right now, anyone can follow me around all day and see:

- what my spending habits are like
- what my diet is like
- what my consumption rate is
- what my interests are
- what my personal timeline is like
- samples of my dna
- samples of my finger prints

The point is, people don't do these things because it's not worth it. Now it is.

Re:Generally, who cares?

[kilodelta]

This is why an incinerator is such a nice thing to have. It's kind of hard to identify your spending and consumption habits from a pile of ash and slag.

Not to mention that in these days of expensive energy we could recapture the energy from burning those petrochemical based containers that have invaded our lives.

Re:Generally, who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but that would take a FBI team 6 weeks of 24hours to work out in every detail.
with RFID, one RFID-truck could drive down suburbia street once a day and have all the data for all citizens oranized in a database in time for lunch.

Re:Generally, who cares?

[myth24601]

Aluminum Foil lined Trash bags?

Re:Generally, who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, 24 hour periods are called days, not weeks.

Re:Generally, who cares?

[Bloke down the pub]

24 hours is a week in France - a working week. But only if you do overtime.

Re:Generally, who cares?

[Jardine]

I know you don't sit in your yard guarding your trash all day.

Maybe you don't.

Re:Generally, who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is, people don't do these things because it's not worth it. Now it is.

Right, but you accept the fact that someone _could_ do that right now. So from you're perspective, you've not lost any privacy. The "other guy" has merely gained convenience. After all, if it's the marketeers you're worried about, having this information merely allows them to potentially be more selective in their annoyances, not to make them any more annoying (i.e. they still have to email, snail mail, call to sell you their wares). Now, once we have "self adapting" billboards, that's another story.

Re:Generally, who cares?

[darkfire5252]

It's not about if someone is able to accomplish something or not, it's about the barrier they have to pass to do it. Right now, if someone wanted to get your spending habits from your garbage, they have to get messy and stinky. You say that as if it's not a big barrier. Sifting through garbage by hand makes that activity seem a LOT more like an invasion of privacy.

    It's analagous to the locks on your door. If someone wants to break into YOUR house, they can. They can break your windows, pick your locks, kidnap someone you love and bargain with you, etc. You can't stop them. If someone wants to break into _A_ house, having a locked door is a barrier that not everyone has, so it's a reason to move on. Locks keep honest people honest, they don't keep out crooks.

    Right now, going through your trash isn't attractive because no one cares about _your_ spending habits. Trust me, it will change when you take away the barriers to doing it en masse. If I can drive down the street with a transciever and get everyone's spending habits, without their knowledge or permission and without getting dirty, every single barrier is gone. It's the difference between having to pick locks, and having a neighborhood with no front doors.

Re:Generally, who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, but you accept the fact that someone _could_ do that right now.

If someone follows you around all day, you can have them thrown in jail for stalking or invading your privacy.

After all, if it's the marketeers you're worried about

Way to attack the weakest argument you can find. Perhaps he's concerned about lawyers, employers, and members of his church looking at it.

Re:Generally, who cares?

[instarx]

I mean really. Right now, anyone can go through my garbage

Sure, but its hard to do. With RFID the garbage scanning vehicle can simply drive down the street inspecting the content of *everyone's* garbage. What if the police find your trash has way too many syringes and no insulin bottles? Are you now a suspected drug user? What about boxes of small glassine envelopes that are so handy for stamp collecting and for drug dealing - do you go on the suspected drug dealer list at the police maintain because you use a lot of them?

Oh, but you are going to microwave or EMP all your trash (many people on /. seem to think this is a realistic solution), but of course the garbage scanning vehicle notes that YOUR trash has no RFIDs and you become a prime terrorist suspect because terrorists would surely destroy their RFIDs.

Re:Generally, who cares?

[SirPavlova]

I tend to agree with you, but in your case of no insulin & too many syringes, anybody with half a brain would nuke their syringes & leave the rest, not nuke the whole lot. That way there's no evidence of nuking at all. Unless your trash is half syringes, of course.

Only nuke the incriminating stuff.

Associated credit cards with products?

[the_unknown_soldier]

Associating credit cards with unique indentifiers that represent a product?! THIS IS SHOCING!

Barcodes are on most products nowadays. Why is this so scary? Because so many of us pay for our purchases with credit or debit cards, which contain our names, addresses, and other sensitive information. Now imagine a store with barcodes embedded in every product. At checkout time, the digital code in each item is associated with our credit card data. From now on, that particular pair of shoes or carton of cigarettes is associated with you.

Just shocking.... Just shocking...

Re:Associated credit cards with products?

[not_a_product_id]

At checkout time, the digital code in each item is associated with our credit card data

Yeah, when you checkout. Once you leave the shop you will remove the tag and there is no longer any association between you and that pair of boots

Re:Associated credit cards with products?

[Joakim A]

No, because
Barcodes do not identify the individual item.
Barcodes cannot be remotely scanned without the owner noticing.
Barcodes are usually on the packaging material and not on the product.

Re:Associated credit cards with products?

[Anonymous Coward]

poor analogy as the RFID tag identifies a particular product and the bar code only identifies a product line.

A RFID product could potentially always be traced back to you because of this.

Re:Associated credit cards with products?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are allready products with unique productionnumbers.
Think ipod for an example.

Or a computer with the windows-sticker.

They can all be traced IF one has access to the stores database, and if the store keeps one.

RFID-tags that has writeable space so that your information would follow the product are way too expensive to be seen in products in the near future, stores can perform all the needed logistics and customer care with a license-plate tag and a database. After the warranty runs out there's no need to store more than statistical data.

RFID doesn't work through/close to metal or thorugh water-dense objects. Max-distance on a good day with expensive tags is 4 meters IF the tag is prependicular towards the reader. Inside a thrashcan you could use barcode as well, allmost as difficult to read.

BTW. If you have access to the store(s) database, the thrashcanowners name at his/hers door, the approximate date when the stuff was thrown away, and the barcode on the product, the you are quite close to what one can accomplish with RFID anyway.

In Finland we have a system with rfid-tags in the thrashbins and a reader+weighingsystem on the trucks collecting them, automatically billing the households per kilogram of waste. They tried barcode/database earlier but the code on the cans got dirty/unreadable too fast.

Re:Associated credit cards with products?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lovely thought. However, there are three problems with that solution:

• First you need to find the tag. Few people have scanners at home, and more and more tags are non-obvious (to avoid shoplifting by removing the tag in the store.) This is the current big problem.
• What happens if the tag is part of the product? Interesting you mention boots -- one of the first products to ship with embedded tags is likely to be sneakers. The tags will be in the soles of the shoes, no way to get 'em out without ruining the sneaker. Tags can be part of molded plastic (like the car keys that ship with them right now) so they'll also be in the handle of your toothbrush, not stuck on top of it and easy to remove. This is the coming big problem.
• Tag removal may eventually become illegal. A Proposed European Union IP Enforcement Directive failed, but had a small clause that citizens were not legally allowed to remove tags because -- I love this part -- it would violate the intellectual property rights of the manufacturers. See http://www.ipjustice.org/CODE/codewhitepaper.shtml #Ib3

This is going to be a big fight - no idea where it will end. Thus far, no one has a good solution for consumer privacy. A few things have been tried.

• The Metro group in Germany pledged to disable all tags at the point of sale. Turns out they didn't. But who knew, right? You take your purchase to a counter, the clerk waves something at it and tells you the tag is off, and you go on your way. Only, their system was broken. This points out that to have an effective assurance of privacy, consumers need a way to be able to check for themselves.
• Blocker tags (http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=20 60) not only don't work in practice yet, they won't work for many sorts of tags. Blocker tags are only effective against specific types of tag communication protocols. That may be good enough, but I'm not yet convinced. I'm taking a wait-and-see approach here. I think the right people are working on it, though, and I expect they'll eventually come up with something that at least helps.
• Ari Juels came up with the most serious proposal I've seen, "A bit of privacy," http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/153 6/1/133/ IMHO, the solution won't work. It depends on everyone behaving and following the spec, but doesn't enforce good behavior. However, if he's able to lobby for changes to the EPC spec, perhaps a solution like this will eventually come to market. I figure that's five to ten years at best.

There's a lot going on. It's not as simple as you hope.

Yeah, rivetting subject...

[richy freeway]

but it's always interesting to talk about.

I think you may be confusing RFID with womens beach volleyball.

Re:Yeah, rivetting subject...

[jez9999]

Eh? When was the last time you talked about women's beach volleyball?

Re:Yeah, rivetting subject...

[richy freeway]

Hmmm, I did mention to a friend that they weren't holding it on our local beach this year. Wasn't exactly a conversation though. :D

Re:Yeah, rivetting subject...

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer: Monday October 10, @10:53AM.

Re:Yeah, rivetting subject...

[SirPavlova]

Monday October 10, @08:53PM

I hate to break it to you...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but this already happens WITHOUT RFID. I work for a marketing company (who will remain nameless, and hence why I'm posting as an AC) who's work is partly geared toward this sort of work. You go to a store. You pay with a credit card. It stores your CC # (in an undecryptable hash format of course) and what items you bought. It looks for patterns and even gives competitors a chance to gain your marketshare. If Pepsi wants Coke marketshare they can pay us to print a coupon for the guy who buys Coke everytime he goes to the grocery store. We don't need RFID for someone to be monitoring our purchases.

Re:I hate to break it to you...

[SimilarityEngine]

But now: you go to a store, you pay with cash, and the f**kers can still snoop on your spending habits by scanning the RFID tags in your trash, without even getting their hands dirty.

Re:I hate to break it to you...

[bentcd]

Presumably, this is stored in an anonymous manner though? I assume that knowing the CC# (or its hash) won't give you the buyer's name?
If so, it's far less insidious. They will only recognize you every time you buy something, and if you change your CC (or it gets renewed), they forget about you and start from scratch again.

Re:I hate to break it to you...

[Subrafta]

Yep, Meijer (big grocery + department store) doesn't have one of those "customer loyalty" cards but they still know to print me a coupon for baby formula even if I just buy bread.

Re:I hate to break it to you...

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is you work for Catalina Marketing - stock ticker - POS. For many years always one of the top 3 largest unclassified databases in the world.

BTW, what are you going to do now that IBM has announced that it will drop support for OS/2?

FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

RFID tags are just barcodes that work in the RF spectrum instead of the light spectrum. They are no more powerful than the barcode on your Mountain Dew. The only difference between RFID and a barcode is that it doesn't require line of sight to read it. RFIDs don't have batteries, processors, memory, or radios in them (otherwise they would cost about $10 each, and have a shelf-life of a couple of weeks). They are antennas which remodulate and encode a tag into RF aimed at them.

They cannot monitor you, record your credit card number, or beam information to the home office. The article is ascribing super voodoo magic to a simple antenna.

I thought this was some kind of tech-savy geek site.

Re:FUD

[Zog The Undeniable]

Er...no. The RFID tag can carry a unique code for every individual item, not the same code for every item of that type (as a barcode does). That means YOUR new shirt has a different code to all those others on the rail.

Re:FUD

[slashnik]

Quite right Zog the Undeniable,the RFID code is unique for each item not for each product.

In addition the RFID tag can be read write (e.g. Selling price/Store/date)
The RFID tag can be embedded and or invisible, You don't wear your shirt with the barcode on it.
The RFID Tag can be read without your knowledge. It's not to easy reading a bar code in a bag of shopping.

Re:FUD

[igb]

Rubbish. The difference is that the barcode on one can of coke is precisely the same as that on another can of coke. RFID tags will identify individual cans of coke, and do so from a distance, rather than simply saying ``this is a can of coke'' from very close range. I'm fairly sanguine about the risks, but I'm not naive enough to believe that it isn't a new risk.

ian

Re:FUD

[Ruis]

Do you have any references to information to back that up? I'd like to read more about that.

We've been over this before

[dougman]

Sure - in theory all that's possible. However, when the world's largest retailer (Wal-Mart) will be disabling them at checkout you can bet others will follow. The market will take care of itself. Look - people thought barcodes were going to do the same thing and now you wouldn't do without 'em (everything from UPS to all the food in your kitchen).

Personally I would like to have it in some items. Books and DVD's could be quickly added to my delicious library (currently I scan the barcode), I could manage the inventory in my kitchen much better (which would integrate well with recipe software) and it would be great if I could just put my wine on the racks in my cellar and not have to track it manually.

Take off your tinfoil hat and put on your thinking cap. Let's figure out how to take advantage of a great technology and figure out how to make it safe.

Re:We've been over this before

[Anonymous Coward]

Even better: scan your own litter to see what needs to be bought in the supermarket... There are ++ and -- to every plan.

Re:We've been over this before

[Red Flayer]

"Books and DVD's could be quickly added to my delicious library (currently I scan the barcode), I could manage the inventory in my kitchen much better (which would integrate well with recipe software) and it would be great if I could just put my wine on the racks in my cellar and not have to track it manually.

Take off your tinfoil hat and put on your thinking cap. Let's figure out how to take advantage of a great technology and figure out how to make it safe.

I wear my thinking cap under my tinfoil hat... how else would I keep them from controlling my best thoughts?

Seriously, though...

Once again, we are prepared to sell our liberty for a little bit of convenience. You can already track your wine inventory automagically, get a cheap barcode scanner. Is it too difficult to scan a bottle at the door of your cellar? Is that really worth not worrying about potential government misuse of tech?

At what point are we going to look back and say, "If only we hadn't allowed THAT, we wouldn't be living in a Big-Brother type dystopia?"

Every year, we get a little closer. As the need for dissent grows, the ability to control dissent grows also. Do you think there is any correlation?

Re:We've been over this before

[virtcert]

> Look - people thought barcodes were going to do the same thing and now you wouldn't do without 'em (everything from UPS to all the food in your kitchen).

You're missing key differences here:

1) Scope of Identification

Bar codes identify a type of product
RFID identifies a unique item.

2) Size and Stealth

Bar codes are fairly large and obvious
RFID chips have already shrunk down to the size of a grain of sand

3) Scanning Requirements

Bar codes must be visible with line-of-sight with the barcode reader
RFID requires only proximity, no line-of-sight with the chip required

From what little I've read, RFID scanners are already sensitive enough to pick up tags from 30 feet away, and the technology is still in its infancy.

I don't have any problem with the use of it by informed choice, but I have no doubts that there will be abuse of the system (as there is with any system). I had to tell the cashier at Target the other day that she missed scanning an item, I have little doubt that disabling RFID tags will be overlooked as well.

And the information is easily correlated. Just driving through the Toll Booth on I-95 with your EZ-Pass RFID toll-paying-gizmo could trivially be linked with picking up the responding tags of all your RFID-enabled property in the car that can get a signal out and associating it with you personally.

The state could make all kinds of money selling off that information to marketers, and considering the cash-strapped condition of many states, I doubt "ethics" would interfere with anything that could increase revenues.

You can make all the crazy projections you want as to abuses, and they still probably will pale with what actually happens in real life.

Just don't walk into your sin-preventing RFID-scanning church door with those smokes, flask and that copy of Big 'uns under your jacket... :-)

  - Brian

Re:We've been over this before

[Secret Agent X23]

Take off your tinfoil hat and put on your thinking cap. Let's figure out how to take advantage of a great technology and figure out how to make it safe.

Rest assured that sooner or later, anything that can be abused will be.

Read this: http://news.com.com/2010-1069-980325.html
Check out the stuff Gillette Vice President Dick Cantwell says. Note his use of "at this time..." and "at this stage of the game..." That means something. The VP of a major, multinational corporation doesn't use expressions like that for no reason.

Re:We've been over this before

[Slugster]

Interesting you should mention Wal-Mart.... Wal-Mart was the major company to push suppliers to begin using the UPC barcode labelling system, and once major Wal-Mart suppliers did, every other company fell into line.

Quite frankly if you haven't been spending cash your whole life, this adver-tracking business has been going on for quite some time upon your delicate soul, if you knew it or not. Or at least, it would if it had been generally effective.

Myself I am not too worried;
as it becomes easily possible to collect greater amounts of data, it also becomes more difficult to tell what data is worth paying attention to. I'd bet if you looked back in history at the time (in any particular country) when standardized vehicle serial numbers, registration and license plates became required, you'd find howls of outrage and predicions of doomsday as well. Has anything really horrible happened to you because your car simply had license plates? Alternately, has your car ever been stolen and recovered?

There will become a system, but there will be ways to minimize involvement and hide details as well. And there will be benefits: consider the possibility of eliminating not only shoplifting, but nearly all other forms of property theft as well.... -horrible, isn't it?
~

Re:We've been over this before

[enjo13]

Of course the inverse logic works as well.

"What if we hadn't blocked THAT because we feared..."

The argument your putting forth appears to be something like:

1) RFID's in merchandise
2) ????
3) Big Brother!

While I understand the need to defend privacy as diligently as possible, simply reacting against technologies with truly useful applications because they might impact privacy seems foolish to me.

I for one would REALLY like to be able to simply call home and ask my Kitchen if I have milk.. or what I need to buy to make a certain recipe. RFID's make that practical.

There are numerous examples (in this thread alone) that justify RFID's as a useful and important technology. The key is to find ways to control the downside, while preserving as much of the upside as possible. Its a much better approach than simply the fear mongering FUD that this topic seems to conjure up so easily.

Re:We've been over this before

[Red Flayer]

Yes, there are positive aspects of RFID that can be utilized to increase quality-of-life. But do you think the downside can be controlled? Rather, do you think that there is enough public will for the downside to be controlled once it is in place?

Look at all the inroads against privacy made by the federal government in the last decade, that deal with emergent technology. Warrantless searches with no disclosure, etc., that just as easily apply to RFID tracking. Let's think for a minute... your purchases, tracked by the government, accessible to them without a warrant, and repercussions against the tracking companies if they disclose to you that your info has been disclosed to the government.

You may consider it FUD, but it is a very real threat. Proceed with caution. You may feel there is no problem with this; maybe you trust the government, or have some other reason why you feel this is not a direct threat.

Bleeding to death from a thousand papercuts has the same end result as bleeding to death from a severed artery. But in this case, we're providing a bigger knife.

Re:We've been over this before

[Stripe7]

Kind of works for a while, then they embed RFID scanners into your DVD players and use it to "Protect" their content. Each time you play that DVD your "connected" DVD player authorizes your use after suitable charges are made to your CC account. Or it just refuses to play on your friend's DVD player if you loan it to them as it has already been authorized to play only on your DVD player.

Re:We've been over this before

[Anonymous Coward]

At what point are we going to look back and say, "If only we hadn't allowed THAT, we wouldn't be living in a Big-Brother type dystopia?"

It's 1980 right now...

Condoms?!?

[binaryDigit]

*You probably shouldn't try this if the chip is on a condom.

Duh, just wait until after your done with it ;)

Actually, now that I think about it, I could see an interesting market for personal rfid scanners. You can sell it to women to take on first (or 2nd or 3rd) dates and it can scan for the product id's for condoms. That way they can catch a bit of a glimpse of what types of intentions (or hopes, or in the case of most /.'ers, dreams) their date has :)

Re:Condoms?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh oh, I was still wearing mine.

Re:Condoms?!?

[ettlz]

Duh, just wait until after your done with it ;)

Easier said than done. Even if I could be bothered, in a post-coital daze, to get out my Black & Decker and mangle the chip, the resulting noise and mess would hose the mood something proper. And as for waiting until morning and rummaging through the bin — no way!

Re:Condoms?!?

[poopdeville]

Just toss it into the microwave with your post-coital frozen pizza.

Re:Condoms?!?

[ettlz]

Just toss it into the microwave with your post-coital frozen pizza.

Is that what's know as a "blow job by proxy"?

Re:Condoms?!?

[MooUK]

But which way round would you take it? Is someone carrying a RFID condom planning on having sex? Or are they carrying it in case? Is someone not carrying one planning on abstaining that night, or are they just careless and unprepared?

Also, where the hell would you put an RFID chip on a condom?

Re:Condoms?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, where the hell would you put an RFID chip on a condom?

You would place them in several parallel rings around the circumfrence, for her pleasure ;)

Re:Condoms?!?

[Bloke down the pub]

You would place them in several parallel rings around the circumfrence, for her pleasure ;)

I buy those, but I turn them inside-out.

Re:Condoms?!?

[infinite9]

Duh, just wait until after your done with it ;)

Know how to recycle a condom so you can use it again? Just flip it inside out and shake the fuck out of it.

Re:Condoms?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

The way I make love, an RFID on a condom would be destroyed without trying.

BooYAH!

Re:Condoms?!?

[xystren]

From the "fine" article:

There are countless applications for RFID, and viewed in isolation, some are downright appealing. It would be nice for the medicine cabinet to send you an e-mail -- ''Time to buy more Viagra." But what if it's also sending that data to consumer marketing companies, eager to bombard you with unwanted advertising?

Doesn't everyone already get enough viagra spam reminders already????

Re:Condoms?!?

[MooUK]

It still fits, inside out? Poor you...

(Apologies; I couldn't resist.)

Re:Condoms?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor you..

Actually, I think it's more like "Poor her..." ;)

Re:Condoms?!?

[Locke2005]

I can't wait 'till women start using this scanner! Since I always carry Trojans Extra-Extra-Extra-Large, I'm sure they'll be impressed!

Need a portable tag shredder

[smchris]

Don't leave that empty pack of smokes at the bar. They'll show up at the crime scene later.

Re:Need a portable tag shredder

[patio11]

Does that portable tag shredder erase fingerprints, too, or is that a job for your tin-foil washcloth?

Re:Need a portable tag shredder

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem, we've already been stripped of the right to smoke at the bar, even if the actual property owner would permit it. (Wait a second... wouldn't that mean there are no actual property owners?)

Re:Need a portable tag shredder

[milimetric]

Um, ok, in response to you and the whole article...

If they wanted to do this, they could do it with bar codes. Like... when you check out, record a list of barcodes associated with a credit card number. Sure, RFID is easier, but if RFID didn't exist, with an increasing IT budget, they could still do this with bar codes.

Mistaken Identity!

[ami-in-hamburg]

Ok, you buy a second hand jacket. I wouldn't, but a lot of people do. The tag has been connected with a child rapist by the FBI. You go to the train station. You get scanned.

Suddenly, 15 FBI agents slam your face into the dirty floor and take you away for questioning in hand cuffs. You submit to a DNA test (no, not like the CSI TV show, it really does take a long time). It will take days if not weeks to prove they got the wrong person !!! In the meantime, there is no way they are going to let you out.

Since perception is reality, you lose your job, your wife, your friends, etc...etc... because you're a deviant child molester. I mean, you must be, the evening news said you're a suspected deviant so it must be true.

Perhaps a little bit extreme for an example but not out of the range of RFID possibility.

Re:Mistaken Identity!

[patio11]

>>It will take days if not weeks to prove they got the wrong person !!!>>

Crimety, you're right! If only people would carry their name and photo on a little piece of plastic inside their wallet, with a copy of the same information backed up on a network law enforcement had access to, then we wouldn't have to wait a week to prove our identities! We could just show the card!

Re:Mistaken Identity!

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole thread is bullshit! it's based on the nonsense in the original post that said something like "your cc no. will be written to the RFID tag and forever be associated w/ that product." what a load of crap! Do you REALLY think something like that will fly? RFID is a self-broadcasting barcode. it speeds things up b/c an RFID reader can scan a wholebuncha items just by close proximity to the items rather than physically pointing each barcode at a laser. yes RFID tags enable each item to have a unique s/n rather than just the generic UPC code that barcodes allow. if there is anywhere that that unique s/n will be forever ass'd w/ your cc. no. it is in the retailer's Db, NOT on the individual RFID chip itself. Once the retailer has sold you a pair of $12 indonesian shoes why in the hell would they want to maintain the individual s/n for that item? i don't think so. most likely they are only interested in the generic identification that you purchased a size 10, brown, pointy-toe slip on. they will aggregate this info to determine buying PATTERNS in general. that's how they make money. no one is going to be making money by tracking your ratty-assed shoe after it's been to the goodwill store. therefore IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN. you can take the tin-foil hats off now.

Re:Mistaken Identity!

[Dominic]

Well it could be like car registration - when you sell something it's up to *you* to register the fact on some sort of Web site or form. I can't see a problem with this, and it means that if someone I sell my car to goes and kills someone with it then it's not my problem.

Re:Mistaken Identity!

[budgenator]

Unfortunately there is no way they can really Identify you. At best current technics can exclude you, but nothing identifies you. There was an article in the WSJ, 5 fingerprint examiner were given a set of prints and told they were from a notorious case where there print were first reported to match, then later detrermine to not match. In fact the prints were from a criminal case where each examiner had testified earier. Only one examiner said the prints did in fact match consistant with his previous testimony, all the others either said they didn't match or weren't sure, inconsistant with their previous tesimony, all because the examiners expected the prints to be a non-match.

The problem is forensics is not rigorously tested, and unscientific. What needs to be done is form known matches and known non-matches need to be slipped into each examiners normal work load as a control. With a controol each examinaer would develope a standard error rate so proper statistics can be determined. Then the examiners would have to testify that a set of prints match and that he is wrong 20% of the time.

There are a lot of ways to fake foresinic evidence, and juries are all to willing to except it as a 100.00000% science period dot. I have a lot more resepct for DNA analysis because it's presented as a probability, like blood typing is. RFID tags, I'm thinking of swapping tags, jammers, spoofers, all for people of nefarious intent to set up false alibies while prep'ing a crime and falsly pointing to innocent decoys.

Re:Mistaken Identity!

[deblau]

Believe it or not, the FBI has heard of the 4th Amendment. Your scenario violates it in at least two different ways. Even if they have an arrest warrant, they have to execute it properly, and that means a reasonable belief that you're their man. That won't happen on just an RFID scan, when a photograph would easily show you're not the right person. Frankly, I'm amazed you think the FBI would be that sloppy. Second, without probable cause, they can't take your DNA unless you consent. If you're being interrogated, you generally don't give consent, you submit to authority. Even if you 'agree' to give the sample, it will be thrown out. There may also be some 5th Amendment violations in there too (lack of counsel before DNA extraction, right against self-incrimination).

In sum, if this ever happened in real life, the guy they got would have a juicy lawsuit against the FBI that would cause them tremendous political damage. At the very least, the agents would lose their jobs, and a department head might too. Everyone involved has an incentive to prevent that.

Re:Mistaken Identity!

[Chrontius]

So has the ATF.

Not like it stops them.

Re:Mistaken Identity!

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not, the FBI has heard of the 4th Amendment. Your scenario violates it in at least two different ways. Even if they have an arrest warrant, they have to execute it properly, and that means a reasonable belief that you're their man. That won't happen on just an RFID scan, when a photograph would easily show you're not the right person. Frankly, I'm amazed you think the FBI would be that sloppy. Second, without probable cause, they can't take your DNA unless you consent. If you're being interrogated, you generally don't give consent, you submit to authority. Even if you 'agree' to give the sample, it will be thrown out. There may also be some 5th Amendment violations in there too (lack of counsel before DNA extraction, right against self-incrimination).

Sure, the FBI have heard of it. Guess that explains this news item:

(The Nation) ...With several key provisions of the controversial Patriot Act set to expire later this year, Congress has been working for months on legislation that would extend and perhaps restrict those provisions.

Most of the debate has concerned whether the Patriot Act went too far and has focused on the measure's Section 215, which allows the FBI to obtain library records and other "tangible things" in a terrorism or national security investigation by obtaining a warrant from the super-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court.

But the FBI, with the presumed approval of the White House, has been pushing for power that would go beyond that of the controversial Section 215. In particular, the bureau has wanted the new Patriot Act measure to award it the right to issue administrative subpoenas. With an administrative subpoena, an FBI agent could--without going to a court or a grand jury--demand that a person or institution hand over any record on another person or organization: financial papers, health records, library records, e-mails and more. The order would be subject to judicial review only if the recipient--say, an Internet service provider--opposed the order. Administrative subpoenas would give the FBI greater power than Section 215 and national security letters. (With a national security letter, the FBI can, without bothering a court, obtain a limited set of information--certain financial documents, credit reports and Internet-use records. But a federal court last year declared national security letters unconstitutional. The Bush Administration has filed an appeal.) Moreover, as Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, notes, "The FBI wants this administrative subpoena power forever"--that is, with no sunset provision. Beating back the FBI's demand for this authority would be a victory for the civil liberties community. And so far, the FBI has been losing.

It's a blessing: congress members don't want to give the FBI the ability to snooping into their backgrounds :)

Re:Mistaken Identity!

[mateomiguel]

If only people would carry their name and photo on a little piece of plastic inside their wallet, with a copy of the same information backed up on a network law enforcement had access to, then we wouldn't have to wait a week to prove our identities! We could just show the card!

What a GREAT idea! Don't tell any criminals though. Those bad people might try to make fake versions of these cards, and then the police might stop trusting them! Good thing no criminals read slashdot or they might profit from my extensive imagination.

Re:Mistaken Identity!

[Oscillaters]

You're relying on the competence and well-intentionedness of the FBI? Randy Weaver got $3 million. But his wife is still dead. Can't speak for others - but my wife is worth a lot more than $3 million to me. [And yes, Randy Weaver is a racist scumbag. But he's still entitled to equal protection under the law.] The historical record is very, very clear. Governments *routinely* abuse whatever power they have. Sometimes from the malfeasance of an individual, but more often because it simply makes their jobs easier. And RFID tags have the potential to give them a great deal of power. As such, they should be feared and resisted.

Re:Mistaken Identity!

[Anonymous Coward]

If only people would carry their name and photo on a little piece of plastic inside their wallet

Forging an ID is also a criminal offense, and a sure way to make sure you don't make bail.

Or do you think that if the police are going to haul you in just because of your coat that they have the integrity to admit their mistake?

Hell, based on Houston Police Department's DNA lab performance, you'd probably end up in court with the DNA results showing you raped 523 little girls, as the AG goes on tour for re-election with record case closing rates.

Re:Mistaken Identity!

[Anonymous Coward]

In sum, if this ever happened in real life, the guy they got would have a juicy lawsuit against the FBI

Like this guy? Looks like you can lose the "if".

Sorry to break your fairy tale image of how perfect our government agencies are.

Re:Mistaken Identity!

[Ruis]

From my understanding RFID tags are not unique. Like barcodes, the same number is on all the products of a certain model. So they can't find a specific jacket, just a type of jacket. Does anyone have any resources or information that says different?

Re:Mistaken Identity!

[bluGill]

Reasonable belief? That is a given. I'm a white male of average build, and I am wearing a jacket that went into the door where the rape happened, at the same time the victim was dragged through that door (as shown by the RFID of her clothing). I'd call that reason to do an arrest. It just happens that I bought that jacket from the rapest (who in turn bought it from a black guy who bought it new - retail records can only show that the rapest wasn't the original purchaser)

There are two issues. First, the police needs to be respectful when they arrest people. In the mentioned case there was good reason to believe I'm guilty of a horrible crime, but further investigation will show I'm innocent. The constitution and other laws are suppose to make this the case, but it is very easy for police to abuse their power anyway.

The second issue is do we want this much evidence. I'm sorry for the victim, but on the other hand, I was needless detained. Where do you draw the line? The police could solve a lot more crimes if they would regularly search every home in the US. That isn't considered worth the cost though.

Re:Mistaken Identity!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lucky you. The chap in London got shot instantly.

Re:Mistaken Identity!

[deblau]

You're relying on the competence and well-intentionedness of the FBI?
[Randy Weaver was] still entitled to equal protection under the law.

Ruby Ridge was an FBI screw up, no doubt about it. But who do you rely on to enforce equal protection, if not the field agents themselves? Do you want a civil libertarian field observer on every field mission with command authority? Do you just want to abolish FBI field missions entirely? Provide me an alternative I can rationally debate. Don't change the subject into an attack on the government.

RFID tags have the potential to give [the government] a great deal of power.

So do UPC symbols. One of the biggest arguments against UPC symbols when they were introduced was precisely the argument you make against RFID. The first big privacy concern with RFID is purchase tracking, and by the time you've purchased the item, you're already in the Big Database. Whether you get in through RFID or UPC makes no difference. After the sale, the next big privacy concern is RFID giving away your location. Granted, UPC symbols aren't transmitters, but on that point, I suggest you read two Supreme Court cases: United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983), then United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984), and draw your own conclusions.

If you have any other privacy concerns with RFID, please let me know.

Re:Mistaken Identity!

[deblau]

Sorry, I was pretty laconic in my earlier post. In order for police to have probable cause to arrest a person, the 4th Amendment requires a connection between an actual crime and the person to be seized. What's the crime? The rape of a child. What's the connection between you and that crime? The only evidence given is the jacket. The question is, is that enough evidence for the FBI to have probable cause to arrest you?

Now suppose that RFID hadn't been used at all to ID the jacket, suppose the child said "the rapist was wearing a jacket that looked like so-and-so". You happen to be wearing the same kind of jacket. Is that enough reasonable evidence to arrest you? Hell no, not by a long shot. Unless the person identifying the jacket had some sort of access to the RFID code, the FBI will need more than that to go on (like a particular tear, etc). The use of RFID here isn't the problem (yet).

How do they tie the RFID to the rapist? Probably by conducting a search through a massive purchase-tracking database, which doesn't yet exist (but conceivably could in the near future). That search, per se, is probably an invasion of privacy, although the law on that point isn't really clear. (Write your Congresscritters!) And what search parameters do they enter in the database? Probably a name. (How else do you identify a person in the database?) Well, if they have the rapist's name, you'd think the FBI would have pictures (or be able to get pictures or composite sketches), and that they'd give them to field agents to avoid mistaken arrests. They might get a name without a picture, if the child knew the rapist, or the rapist was dumb enough to say "Before I rape you, I want you to know my name."

Suppose they somehow didn't have a picture or sketch of the alleged rapist, but somehow the child (or someone else) was able to produce a name for the database search. OK, the search gives the FBI the knowledge that at a particular point in time, the jacket belonged to the rapist. Is it reasonable for them to believe that he still owns it? Since it's fairly simple (hypothetically speaking) for them to track the RFID tag through this Big Database, your name should have come up too when you bought the jacket. Suppose for the sake of argument that it didn't. All they know is that you were wearing that jacket at the time of the (routine) scan. Is it reasonable for them to believe that you are the rapist? That depends on a whole bunch of things, including how likely it would be that a subsequent sale wouldn't show up in the database, how long it has been since the purchase by the rapist, the location of the original purchase, the location of the alleged rape, the location they arrested you, and how long it has been since the rape (just off the top of my head). Since that info wasn't given, it's hard to say one way or the other.

There are a huge number of intermediate considerations, any one of which would invalidate the reasonability of the arrest, and which the arresting officer knew or should have known before making the arrest. Any of these would make it less than probable that you committed the crime, and would prevent you being arrested.

Question for those engenieers in the room...

[bogado]

I believe that law alone is not going to stop abusive aplications of this RFID technology. There will be police interest to investigate who passed throw some place where a crime had happend. There will be the marketing department in every major store, that will want to collect information on whitch places on the mega-store you're spending time on. There will be many people intersted in sliping an RFID without your knowlwdge, stalkers, private investigators, police, anti-terrorist people, terrorists, the list is likely to be endless.

So is there a cheappo way to detect this things reliably? How can one be shure that there isn't a NSA designed ship in that shoe you just bought? Ok, maybe a little too paranoid, but if the technology gets to be used every where, there will be time when a user that is worried will forget to disable one or a few of the RFIDs in his cristmas shopping, or maybe auntie tillie did not disable any of theirs, including your present. How can I know that some item of mine is not broadcasting his presence to anyone who happens to know how to activate the chip?

Re:Question for those engenieers in the room...

[LordFnord]

> How can one be shure that there isn't a NSA designed ship in that shoe you just bought?

I have just cut my shoes into little pieces with a pair of scissors and a Stanley knife. I can categorically state there is no chip in there, NSA-designed or otherwise.

BTW, does anyone know a good shoe shop? I need to buy a new pair.

every product will be unique?

[Maskirovka]

I'm confused, I thought that RFIDs are just a wireless barcode systems with a large address space. Is that address space large enough to give every single thing we purchase for the next century its own MAC address?

Re:every product will be unique?

[markus_baertschi]

Yes the address space is large enough. This is one important point. It allows Walmart to track products individually instead of anonymously (In store 123 we have can 234, 543 and 567 of milk instead of in store 123 we have 3 cans of milk). If you have a product recall or a similar occurrence, this makes finding the items much easier and faster.

The second part is the wireless stuff. This makes scanning stuff easier and faster, you don't have to point a scanner at a barcode any longer. Just having a wireless reader in the vicinity is sufficient.

Markus

Re:every product will be unique?

[manarth]

http://www.rfidjournal.com/faq/23/102 [RFID Journal] says that:

The Electronic Product Code (EPC) was created by the Auto-ID Center as an eventual successor to the bar code...EPC tags were designed to identify each item manufactured, as opposed to just the manufacturer and class of products, as bar codes do today.

Shoplifters have already worked this out

[Zog The Undeniable]

Shoplifters in Manchester, England, put small high-value items into a metal biscuit tin lined with aluminium foil (a bit of overkill there) which is supposed to screen the RFID tags from the sensors by the door. I saw it on a documentary about junkies last week - it's common for the police to find these tins in their houses along with the usual drug paraphernalia.

Re:Shoplifters have already worked this out

[Anonymous Coward]

foil lined pockets and bags... no need to mess with small metal tins, just slip it into the pocket and go... if you want to create some confusion while you slip out, just slip a tagged item into the hood of someones jacket and wait for them to set the alarm off

you'd have to be stupid to trust RFID+people

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem starts when there are RFID readers placed throughout a city and you are a person of interest. All your pursuers have to do is scan for the RFID signatures of all the items you own and bingo they know where you are. Also what about RFID cloning? You are walking down the street, someone in an apartment window with a modified RFID reader is sending out a loud SYN signal and your work ID card bounces back the ACK signal and now your id is out there. We live in a world where criminals can setup a similar looking banking website and fool people into giving them their passwords, you really think RFID is going to make things safer?

I can see it now...

[Joakim A]

Dressed like a bum, walking down fifth avenue transmitting RFID codes of the latest Armani and YSL apparel using the new RFID addon to my PDA.. You are so pwned! or something..

Oh, the irony

[Dachannien]

Indeed, Albrecht and McIntyre learned that the phone company BellSouth Corp. had applied for a patent on a system for scanning RFID tags in trash, and using the data to study the shopping patterns of individual consumers.

I seem to remember that, back in the day, a large portion of the information used in phone phreaking was gathered through dumpster diving for internal manuals at Ma Bell. I guess turnabout really is fair play.

RID-RIFD

[digitaldc]

"There are countless applications for RFID, and viewed in isolation, some are downright appealing. It would be nice for the medicine cabinet to send you an e-mail -- ''Time to buy more Viagra." But what if it's also sending that data to consumer marketing companies, eager to bombard you with unwanted advertising? Worse yet, what if they're sending the data to government investigators, or to hackers who've figured out how to break into the system?"

If you need an RFID chip to tell you that you need more Viagra, I mean...why even bother?

What we need is a device to disable all personal privacy intrusions:
RID-RFID - RFID Intelligent Destruction for RFID - An RFID tag disruptor that scans and destroys the electronic configurations to RFID devices. Not recommended for minors and those who need to be reminded to take their Viagra.

Re:RID-RIFD

[KDR_11k]

RFID Intelligent Destruction for RFID

Inspired by the Department of Redundancy Department?

caribou

[moviepig.com]

...scanning RFID tags in trash...

What's the practical pickup range for a scanner? If the tags indeed become ubiquitous, and immortal by default... it could spur an unprecented data-mining industry, even without a priori personal data. E,g,, just watching how people move through Grand Central Station, or the Midwest, will be fascinating and exploitable.

Re:caribou

[Anonymous Coward]

High, if the scanner is correctly isolated from human presence. The more energy you use in the scan, the farther you reach.

Re:caribou

[Anonymous Coward]

Very large. The most practical method is to use a very sensitive reciever and point it at a legitimate reader. That way, the snooper doesn't have to worry about trying to power the tags themselves with a high powered directional transmitter. Just because the tags require a reader within a short distance to power the tag doesn't mean the signal given off by the tag can't also be read from a much greater distance.

Re:caribou

[$ASANY]

Depends on the frequency of the tag, and a LOT on the physical environment. A 13.56 MHz tag can only be read at a range of an inch or two, but a 900 MHz tag can be read from up to 20 feet away in perfect conditions. Any liquid or metal in proximity to the tag will severely degrade the results. Put that tag next to metal and you can't read it at all.

There is a whole discipline in RFID that deals with tag placement, orientation and environmental impacts to help get tag read rates somewhere near where 90% of them will be reliably read. It's not uncommon to see read rates in the 60% range without a detailed engineering effort. If you're looking at a completely uncontrolled physical environment inside a metal trash container, the read rates would probably be so low that it wouldn't be worthwhile even trying to attempt this. It would be far more efficient to simply paw through the garbage.

This technology is extremely hard to get reliably working in a controlled environment. These fears attribute a level of maturity and capability in RFID technology that does not exist, and may not ever exist with passive RFID.

If the rfid fits....

[4ginandtonics]

OJ's glove comes to mind...

No way!

[Anonymous Coward]

That would infringe on my patent for tin-foil panchos!

Unwanted Advertising?

[mosb1000]

Don't they get it? The whole point of trying to track information about the kind of things people want to buy is to take the "unwanted" out of advertising. Do you think that they want annoy you and bombard you with useless information? Of course not, that wastes your time and their money, no one wants that. Sure you should be able to opt out of this kind of service, but it's strange to try to pull some kind of sinister motivation out of it. Obviously, they would sell you the device that monitors your garbage because you want this service. It's not like they're planning on covertly installing these devices in everyones garbage. I mean, is it so hard to understand why someone would want to know when they're out of something and should go buy more?

Re:Unwanted Advertising?

[tuxette]

I mean, is it so hard to understand why someone would want to know when they're out of something and should go buy more?

I (and lots of others) have no problems remembering to pick up a liter or two of milk on the way home from work, and this is without having to have some chip installed in my refrigerator, recycling bin, garbage can, whatever...

Re:Unwanted Advertising?

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies can easily stop sending me unwanted advertising. Simple: don't send me any unless I specifically ask for it.

I do find companies trying to collect more data than I choose to give them creepy, in a stalker who knows where I live kind of way. The way you frame it, companies are doing us a public service by advertising their products to us, and we should be thankful when they come up with ways that allow us to spend more money with them in trade for some of our privacy.

What are we actually getting in return for having our data collected? Being slightly less bombarded with annoying junk? The advertisers are causing the problem of annoyance in the first place, why should I give anything to them to make it go away?

If advertisers are offering me something in return (e.g. 'free' TV), then that's just about acceptable. But having every move I make tracked so they can fine-tune the junk mail I don't want isn't.

Re:Unwanted Advertising?

[tawsenior]

I am the original 'Absent Minded Professor' type of computer geek. Yes, I want RFID chips in things to track what I bought or what I have. I want my fridge to remind me that I need more milk. In fact, I want my fridge and cabinets to create a grocery list and download it to my iPaq's to do list.

Re:Unwanted Advertising?

[xWastedMindx]

Or in the case of us Americans, pick up a Half Gallon or two of milk.

Re:Unwanted Advertising?

[mosb1000]

Then don't buy it, duh! Just because you don't want it doesn't mean no one else does!

Re:Unwanted Advertising?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, is it so hard to understand why someone would want to know when they're out of something and should go buy more?

Yes, it is. I tend to rely on things like memory, reason and vision.

Re:Unwanted Advertising?

[Reziac]

When I was a lad, the dairy truck dude read the tag we'd leave in the box on the porch, and the requested milk etc. would magically appear in the box.

With RFID, there'd be this feedback initiated as soon as a condition is detected of "no milk in the fridge", then a little advertising balloon would follow you around "reminding" you, until you gave in and stopped at the store to buy more milk.

DMCA voilation??

[doublem]

Since RFID tags are so useful to corporations, I see any "RFID Killer" being classified as illegal as soon as it hiss the market.

After all, it could be used to steal items from a store, or interfere with the RFID chips that people DON'T want deactivated!!!

It'll be classified as a burglary tool or something worse in short order, if there aren't aspects of such a devise that aren't already illegal.

Re:DMCA voilation??

[The Wooden Badger]

Of course we Slashdot types will soon see an article about a homebrew RFID killer. I wonder if my dad's old VHS erasing electromagnet would do anything? I wouldn't think that it could be considered a burglary tool considering weight and dimensions, let alone the 120V AC plug that hangs from it. It's a powerful magnet, but is it powerful enough?

Re:DMCA voilation??

[Hammer]

Can't be DMCA violation. You are making it HARDER to decrypt :-)

Re:DMCA voilation??

[jcr]

Since RFID tags are so useful to corporations, I see any "RFID Killer" being classified as illegal as soon as it hiss the market.

Well, I don't have quite such a pessimistic outlook. It would probably be illegal to zap an RFID tag in a store, because until you buy it, it's not yours. Once you own it though, you're entitled to fry the RFID, rip off the tags that say "do not remove this tag", etc.

-jcr

Re:DMCA voilation??

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

It doesn't have to be illegal. For example: a ladder isn't illegal to own, however if you would be carrying one late at night you can expect the cops to ask some questions about it. The RFID-Killer(tm) might be legal to own, but it could be illegal to carry one in a shop.

I haven't heard of any ...-killer for anti-theft stickers and things in the news so far, these have exactly the same vulnerability.

Re:DMCA voilation??

[Takumi2501]

Well, I don't have quite such a pessimistic outlook. It would probably be illegal to zap an RFID tag in a store, because until you buy it, it's not yours. Once you own it though, you're entitled to fry the RFID, rip off the tags that say "do not remove this tag", etc.

By the same logic, you should be able to pirate copyrighted material based on the fact that you purchased the media it's stored on. Doesn't fly. I can see them passing laws to prevent RFID tampering if it causes enough precieved damage to a major industry.

Re:DMCA voilation??

[Takumi2501]

... if it causes enough perceived damage ...

Wow my spelling sucks today. That's what I get for not proofreading.

Re:DMCA voilation??

[jcr]

By the same logic, you should be able to pirate copyrighted material based on the fact that you purchased the media it's stored on.

Nonsense.

By the same logic, you're entitled to rub the label off of a DVD with some steel wool. Copyright is a different matter.

-jcr

Re:DMCA voilation??

[gstoddart]

Since RFID tags are so useful to corporations, I see any "RFID Killer" being classified as illegal as soon as it hiss (sic) the market.

Well, I don't have quite such a pessimistic outlook. It would probably be illegal to zap an RFID tag in a store, because until you buy it, it's not yours. Once you own it though, you're entitled to fry the RFID, rip off the tags that say "do not remove this tag", etc.

No. I doubt it would go down like that. They'd basically say there is no "significant, non-infringing purposes" for this device.

P2P is villified because it can (or 'most likely is' according to them), be used for illegal purposes. This would be like owning lock picks as far as the merchandisers are concerned.

Besides, they'll probably try to say that since the RFID tag is embedded, you are now licensing your T-Shirt, and that the data relating to the lifetime of the shirt is their property, blah, blah , blah ... or some other crap like that.

Of course, the illegality of an RFID killer may not prevent them from existing in such a scenario ... Max Headroom, here we come. :-P

Re:DMCA voilation??

[Anonymous Coward]

It would probably be illegal to zap an RFID tag in a store, because until you buy it, it's not yours. Once you own it though

Ah, but see, you wouldn't really own it. Instead, you'd merely be licensing the product, and the RFID chip would be there to make certain you didn't try doing anything that'd go against the license, such as re-selling it.
You wouldn't want to deprive the manufacturer of its constitutionally protected revenue-model, would you??

Re:DMCA voilation??

[Takumi2501]

By the same logic, you're entitled to rub the label off of a DVD with some steel wool. Copyright is a different matter.

That's not the point I was trying to make, although, looking back on my post, I can understand why it may have been interpreted that way.

I was not saying that copyright law prevents you from disabling an RFID chip. Clearly it doesn't. I was pointing out the fact that the "I bought it, so I can do whatever I want with it" argument doesn't necessairily apply in all situations.

To my knowledge, it is presently legal to disable an RFID chip. The point I was making is that if it were to be proven that the disabling of an RFID chip were harmful to an industry (such as market research) a law might be passed to prevent it, in much the same way that copyright law was passed to prevent you from copying a book, when it was found to be harmful to the printing industry.

I was not trying to start a debate about copyright law. That's a whole other can of worms that I'd rather not open. Hopefully, I have communicated myself more effectively this time.

On another note, anyone have any idea as to why my original post was moderated as "Troll"?

Re:DMCA voilation??

[Reziac]

I suspect the point of illegality will be more like anti-circumvention statutes as applied to, say, inkjet refills and their nasty little anti-refill chips that are presently protected by the DMCA and/or patents.

One could wind up licensing their underwear instead of buying it.

Re:DMCA voilation??

[eonlabs]

Which is why 8 inch bolt cutters and VCRs are illegal. It's also why you can read magnetic strips with tape players or a creative re-engineering of a hand magnet. How about paying for things with cash and legally wiping the data from a nice wall powered unit. Pass near, push button, big brother takes a flash in the face... Say Cheese!

Ehh...

[mkirsten]

So here's another business idea:

The RFID-shredder®, "Increasing the entropy since 2006"

the point

[timmarhy]

the point is, why the fuck should we have to go to all the trouble of frying chips just to stop people aquiring my information without my consent.

Re:the point

[KDR_11k]

Yeah, just legalize frying the people collecting that info and everyone is happy!

Re:but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, you are. We monitor your paranoia level 24/7 and will inform you through our "special circuit" when we detect that your paranoia level is dropping. Plus, although its not part of our "investigation", all of us here feel you aren't wiping your bum properly.

Sounds pretty paranoid to me

[ChrisRijk]

Seriously, if companies or government agencies were thinking of tracking every piece of good sold, companies that supply the computer hardware/software for all that would be deleriously happy... and the bill would be insane. Just imagine tracking every single good sold every year in just the US - that's like 1 trillion items per year. That's one insane database you're talking about.

Putting readers at store entrances isn't going to be very reliable either. For a start, RFID on clothes isn't going to work very well I think - current tags are pretty big and even if they're shrunk a lot they won't be invisible and wouldn't necessarily survive daily wear and tear. Then there's simply the technical problem of handling multiple people coming in/out of a shop at the same time. RFID vendors are having enough trouble getting RFID to work reliably on the outside of containers coming down a conveyor belt. Putting RFID on each seperate good (instead of just the containers today) is some way away, last I heard.

Besides, if you're THAT worried... you can always pay with cash. And keep all your trash inside until handing it directly over to the bin men. Oh, and don't carry a mobile phone or similarly networked device when you go out. And don't drive a car/similar since the license plate can be read and tracked.

Re:Sounds pretty paranoid to me

[ChrisRijk]

And the economic incentive for every cog in the system to keep a permanent record of every single individual item is...?

Bear in mind that even with store loyalty cards and such (which enable companies to track every product they buy at the store), a lot of the data is simply discarded already since it costs so much and is of so little benefit.

To get a useful cross-company database still requires agreed-upon standards... requiring a big virtual database, effectively.

Re:Sounds pretty paranoid to me

[DaveJay]

And the economic incentive for every cog in the system to keep a permanent record of every single individual item is...?

An excellent question! Why would these companies be so gung-ho about developing and/or paying for systems that track all of this information?

Well, we know that grocery stores use loyalty card data to track your purchasing habits so that they can (a) get an easier picture of what groups of products get purchased together, and (b) charge companies to throw coupons at you when you buy a competitor's product, or (and here's the genius part of the loyalty card) if you stopped buying their product after consistently buying it before. So there's a good reason: financial gain.

Now that we know why a company would track your information (profit), why would they track it permanently? I would posit that they would do so because:

      1. They can (see Google);
      2. There's no profit in aging live data unless you need to pay for more storage;
      3. There's no profit in aging backup data unless you need to pay for more storage.

The funny thing is, they don't need to track it -forever-, just long enough for it to make a profit (or potentially make a profit in the future). Why? Here's why:

      1. There's no profit in keeping this data secure.

If you knew how insecure credit card transactions really were (I do), you wouldn't use credit cards -- and credit card companies actually have a profit motive for keeping it secure, because scanned card purchases that turn out to be fraudulent cost the credit card companies money. Do you really think the grocery store, say, has any interest in keeping your information secure if there's no profit motive?

Anyway, excellent question. Thanks for asking. :)

About RFID

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a quick though...
US Army has started to incorporate RFID chips in every item... Just to make it quicker to inverntorize anything. (Shipments, crates, lockers...)
All I wonder 'bout is: how long before there is a "cantenna" like reader for these chips, incorporatet perhaps in a sniper scope...
A sniper can now look up the signals, and pick his targest based on age of uniform, and type of gear... (hm, sidearm only, all new fatigues... might just be an officer...)

Re:About RFID

[patio11]

Gack, people, for the love of little apples: your uniform doesn't say "I'm a new uniform". Your uniform says "My ID number is 3452859823402034". For the sniper to know 3452859823402034 is a US Army uniform they have to have a satellite uplink or something to the army's inventory system -- and if Osama has on-demand access to the Army's inventory tracking system we're screwed regardless of whether there are RFIDs or not.

This is the same scenario with interception on the street, from your garbage, when walking into a competing store -- without access to the underlying database all RFID gets you is an expensive way to generate poorly randomized numbers.

Re:About RFID

[ray-auch]

Not going to work.

To read the passive RFID chips you need to send a signal to them (which they use to send you one back).

Passive rfid ranges are _low_. For cars, they are talking about powered rfid tags (ie. big ones with batteries in) to get the signal as far as the roadside.

I don't see any way this is going to work at sniper range - but even if it did, your outgoing signal would have to be enough to fry everything relatively close to you, and you'd need a _big_ receiver.

Who the hell is going to want to be a sniper when you have to expose a large RF receiver and carry a high-power RF emitter (think about it) ?

Re:About RFID

[RagingR2]

So what are you saying? That this new technology has no use and we need not be affraid of the people who will be using it? Somehow I think you're being a little optimistic. This new technology can be used to gather an awful lot more data than is already being gathered today... and I'm pretty sure these possibilities will be exploited to the max.

Re:About RFID

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong, there is no reason why YOU have to send a signal to a RFID tag for YOU to read that tag. It is quite possible to read a RFID tag at long range by pointing your reciever at a legitimate RFID reader and picking up the signal the tag gives off after the RFID reader activates the tag. Remember, there are actually two limits that determine RFID range, how much power is needed to activate the tag and the power of the signal the tag gives off. Since the signal the tag gives off can be read at a much greater range than the tag can be activate from why not let a legitimate reader (say, in a doorway) activate the tag for you?

Re:About RFID

[hughk]

Um, no. If I know that anything with a type id of 657621533 is something that is issued to an officer, I could design a booby trap that only goes off when such an ID is around. Finding who has what may be a problem, but just get part-numbers of bits of uniform would be relatively easy.

Chilling effect

[badfish99]

From TFA:
His organization has a code of ethics ... So how about putting these principles into law? ... any regulation "would have a chilling effect that would put us back years"

In other words, the RFID maker claims to have a code of ethics, but doesn't want to be held to that code.
That smells to me like his code of ethics is going straight out of the window the instant it suits him.

Re:Chilling effect

[CrimsonScythe]

I'm sorry, but you seem have misunderstood what they were saying about their code of ethics.

The code in question is a small and blue, but still important, barcode that they have printed on a rectangular white piece of plastic which they keep in a airtight metal box in their company's safe. This code of ethics will, of course, be upgraded to an RFID tag when the technology has proven itself good enough.

What happens if someone misplaces or loses this code of ethics, however, is a different story...

Need an RFID targeter/remover

[sl4shd0rk]

It all makes sense now. That's what Trinity was using on Neo in the backseat of the car.

Why are they different than barcodes?

[AnonymousYellowBelly]

Are RFIDs always unique? Do they identify a particular product or a particular ITEM? Or are they 'unique' only in batches? If they are not unique to a particular shoe box there's no difference to the current situation if you use a store's fidelity card or pay by credit card. So don't be paranoid about the future and be paranoid NOW. Or like me, pay cash and go on with your life.

Now, I see interesting uses for RFIDs implanted on /. trolls =D Computers could be programmed to zap with 10kV those bastard's genitals anytime they go near a PC, or when they post here.

Re:Why are they different than barcodes?

[Anonymous Coward]

RFID is different than regular "ol barcodes". The major difference is that barcode are only optical and must have a line of sight to read them. Entirely the opposite for RFID tags. When a barcode label is printed the code on the label corresponds to information in a database. No additional information can be added at any time. Barcodes get a little "wear and tear" and are unreadable. RFID tags can store data. Information can be actively written to a RFID tag. Such as the temperature during a shipment. No line of sight is needed as RFID tags are proximity locators. They hold up much better than barcodes. And a person is not required to scan them.

Mr. Simpson .........

[Anonymous Coward]

the RFID proves these Gloves DO belong to you! You bought them at Walmart the day before the murder with your credit card # 1234-5678-9123-4567. Mr. Jury Foreman how does the Jury find? GUILTY!

"false positives"?

[tuxette]

The trackers could be attached to every can of beer in the case, and allow marketers to track the boozing habits of the purchasers.

If I bought a few cases of beer, it doesn't necessarily say anything about my boozing habits. I could very well be a teetotaler who doesn't mind that others drink, and that I'm buying a bunch of beer for a party.

Dating scene

[the bluebrain]

Come to think of it, it would impact the dating scene some ...
 
(holds up handheld scanner) BZZZT!
(starts channeling Frank N. Furter) What charming UNderwear you have!
 
... well no. All the scanner would really have to do is pop up a total.
 
ca-CHING$$ ... this person is wearing clothes valued at U$ 975.-, is carrying U$ 231.- in cash, and three major credit cards ... all valid ... with a purchase of baby food last week ... WARNING! NEGATIVE DATING MATERIAL! BAIL OUT! NEGATIVE DATING MATERIAL!

Re:Dating scene

[ray-auch]

Dating doesn't work logically like that.

Want to be attractive to women ? - be attached, preferably obviously so, and to a good looking woman.

Want to be unattractive / ignored ? - be single, and looking. Make it obviously so to be even more unattractive.

And for the real killer, wnat to be stopped in the street and engaged in coversation by women (often including some really good lookers) ?

    - try carrying a small baby. works every time.

A word of warning though - if borrowing a baby for this purpose, do your research well first. A significant part of the initial conversation will actually be questions to test if it is really _your_ baby. Answer unconfidently or obviously wrong, and watch the encounter draw rapidly to a close...

Why ? Who knows. Some speculate that women are attracted to men carrying babies because they "want" (biologically) a mate who will stick around to help raise the kids. Nature and hormones are clearly not logical.

Some things you might want to keep private.

[twitter]

What's so bad about studying them[shopping patterns]?

Here's a short list of things that you might not want everyone knowing:

1. Your drinking habits.
2. Your method of birth control.
3. Medications especially for things like anti-depressants or treatments for STDs.
4. The books you read.

All of these things can be used against you by your employer or insurance company.

You only think you want targeted ads. Imagine your wife getting ads for the wrong brand of tampon at just the right time. That's how invasive and awful your phone company's snooping can be. The grocery store comes close right now. The targeting works as intended and is as annoying as hell because the stupid coupons are always for the wrong brand.

Finally, ask yourself what snooping through your garbage has to do with phone service. Is this why federal, state and local laws protect incumbent phone providers from competition? BellSouth, thank you for a new low.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Jugalator]

Here's a short list of things that you might not want everyone knowing:

What do you mean with "everyone"? This is just for the involved store, right?

As I said before, if this info is publicized or shared, it's a completely other problem and I do believe it shouldn't be shared.

And no, I wouldn't mind the store I shop from knowing my drinking habits.
I have nothing to hide, I'm no alcoholic, if they see I indeed prefer a brand of beer over any cider, big deal?

Similarly, if they see me preferring sci-fi books over cooking books, what about it?

The only times there are problems I can see with this is if they somehow share this data with others.

No, they can't be used against me by my employer or insurance company if the data isn't shared.
But sharing is a separate issue not connected to RFID tag technology, or RFID at all.
It's about laws guarding your personal privacy.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent post is right on. 20 years ago, political operatives wanted SC nominee Robert Bork's video rental records. 10 years ago, everybody wanted to know who didn't pay tax on their nanny's salary. Last month, the New York Times wanted SC nominee Roberts' children's adoption records, just in case the children might have been illegally offered to him and thus be a sensational story. The threshold of who is snooping continues to move downward; the pool of who might incidentally want that information and have the means to get it continues to increase; and the threshold of privacy they want to invade continues to move inward. And it won't respectfully stop when it reaches your comfort level.

In the near future, your neighbor, the blogger, might just decide you need to be put in your place by posting what his Acme RFID-Max SuperScanner can find next time you're away. And the Internet Wayback machine and Google may ensure that it is never difficult to retrieve or forgotten.

The best way to secure sensitive data is to NOT enable its collection in the first place. Unless you actually want a society where everyone is afraid to deviate from the community's blandest common denominator.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Momoru]

Maybe these things matter if you live in Amish country or something, but a) who cares about anyones drinking habits? Drug habits might effect employment or something. And the books I read? What? What books are you reading that this would really make a difference? I can't think of a single book i've ever read that I would be afraid if someone found out I was reading it...maybe you can give an example? Method of birth control is also a weird one for your list...not sure who really cares about that either, again unless you live in some puritanical society or something.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[zeoslap]

The targeting works as intended and is as annoying as hell because the stupid coupons are always for the wrong brand.

Well that's the whole point of the coupon isn't it? To get you to switch from your current brand. Doesn't make much sense to offer you a coupon to buy something you'd already buy at the undiscounted price..

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[ifwm]

Here's a short list of things that you might not want everyone knowing:

      1. Your drinking habits.

No, actually, they would simply know what you bought and when. NOT when you consumed it, not in what quantity.

      2. Your method of birth control.

Only for over the counter products. Prescriptions would be confidential.

      3. Medications especially for things like anti-depressants or treatments for STDs.

See above, but this a FAR worse example. The FIRST company to do anyhting negative with this information would get sued off the planet under the ADA in the US. Confidential, AND because you're being treated for a medical issue, they would be violating your civil rights by taking action.

      4. The books you read.

No, they would, again, know the books I BUY. Which they know already if I buy them online or with a credit card.

All of these things can be used against you by your employer or insurance company.

HOW? You can't just throw FUD out there and hope it sticks.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine your wife getting ads for the wrong brand of tampon at just the right time.

Oh my god, yes. The humanity! Did you have a point that involves more than discomfort? You know, like liberties or human rights?

Oh, and not trolling today?

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Generic Guy]

As I said before, if this info is publicized or shared, it's a completely other problem and I do believe it shouldn't be shared.

And no, I wouldn't mind the store I shop from knowing my drinking habits. I have nothing to hide, I'm no alcoholic, if they see I indeed prefer a brand of beer over any cider, big deal?

There was recently a case in my state where a fellow slipped and fell in a store and ended up needing to sue for medical treatment. It seemed like a pretty clear-cut case, but the store was trying to weasel out of responsibility and decided to pull up his "customer loyalty card" info and tried to use a defense implying that the guy was a drunkard based upon his alcohol purchases -- on the public record in court! Anyway, it didn't save their case and the guy won. And as I recall, he bought a lot for hosted parties and the like, and didn't drink much of it himself but irregardless he should never have been put in a position to defned his purchases let alone even needing to explain himself.

Anyway, it was the first time I actually saw the media show concern about all this personal data collection. And that was just with a store card. I stopped using all my store loyalty cards after that expose. RFID seems more insidious if anyone (think: lawyers) can scan your car, house, or trash trying to establish patterns for whatever reason. The old 'I have nothing to hide' argument doesn't mean we should allow any of this, because it will be abused. No one should have to actively think or worry about how their shopping purchases might look to uninvolved RFID observers after the fact, especially when it can be so easily twisted against you.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Rob the Bold]

1. Your drinking habits. . .

2. Your method of birth control. . .

3. Medications especially for things like anti-depressants or treatments for STDs. . .

4. The books you read. . .

All of these things can be used against you by your employer or insurance company.

HOW? You can't just throw FUD out there and hope it sticks. How these things could be used against you?

Just a few examples off the top of my head.

1. Alcohol. Higher insurance premiums for drinkers, or heavy drinkers, or malt-liquor drinkers. The question of did he or did he not actually consume it would be irrelevant for the users of the data, they're not trying to prove it in a court of law, they're just using it as an excuse.

2. Birth Control. Again, higher insurance premiums for people who use too many (or too few) condoms. Increased risk of STDs and pregnancy. Or maybe you're the IT director at some fundamentalist whack-job church -- any purchase of birth control gets you sacked for not being fruitful and multiplying enough.

3. Perscriptions. Your employer probably already knows if you're on the company insurance plan, and your insurance company certainly knows unless you self pay. But again, insurance co. would love to know as much as possible about you, legal or not. They're not going to tell you they went through your trash.

4. Books. Again, I think we'd assume for harassment purposes that you read any book you buy. Whole categories of readers could be assumed to be untrustworty in their jobs because of their reading habits. Jobs with secrets, or working with children, or the elderly, or in a pharmacy, just to name a few.

I imagine someone paid to come up with evil things to do with personal infomation (like HR director or Insurance risk-analyst) could make a much longer list than mine.

Also, with regard to "throwing FUD out there" . . . the "U" is "uncertainty", the unknown. You cannot, by definition, enumerate the unknown. It's difficult to discuss the future without some degree of speculation.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Alain Williams]

Imagine your wife getting ads for the wrong brand of tampon at just the right time.

Imagine going to a store on the way home to get some tampons for your wife ... the store computer knows that your wife's period is coming up soon[**] and confusing you with ads for rival tampons -- wow, that could get you into a hell of a lot of trouble at just the wrong time of month!

[**] They know from her buying habits what her cycle is, they can probably work out that you are married to her.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[ifwm]

"1. Alcohol. Higher insurance premiums for drinkers, or heavy drinkers, or malt-liquor drinkers. The question of did he or did he not actually consume it would be irrelevant for the users of the data, they're not trying to prove it in a court of law, they're just using it as an excuse."

Good. If you engage in a risky behavior, your insurance premium should be higher. I notice you fail to allow for lower premiums for those who drink in moderation. You know what the research says about moderate amounts of alcohol.

"2. Birth Control. Again, higher insurance premiums for people who use too many (or too few) condoms. Increased risk of STDs and pregnancy. Or maybe you're the IT director at some fundamentalist whack-job church -- any purchase of birth control gets you sacked for not being fruitful and multiplying enough."

Nonsense. This is just alarmist garbage. There's no way to know WHEN you used a condom, so this is impossible. Your other example is just as silly.

"3. Perscriptions. Your employer probably already knows if you're on the company insurance plan, and your insurance company certainly knows unless you self pay. But again, insurance co. would love to know as much as possible about you, legal or not. They're not going to tell you they went through your trash."

Why did you list this? you didn't refute anything, just restated something. You CAN'T penalize someone for seeking treatment for a disease/disorder in the US. The ADA makes it a civil rights violation to do so.

"4. Books. Again, I think we'd assume for harassment purposes that you read any book you buy. Whole categories of readers could be assumed to be untrustworty in their jobs because of their reading habits. Jobs with secrets, or working with children, or the elderly, or in a pharmacy, just to name a few."

More ridiculous alarmist thinking without one iota of reason behind it. And you still fail to address how these evil people who plan to harass you are going to come by this information. The stores have your purchasing habits already if you use a credit card. RFID is no different. Unless of course you believe your employer/the government is going to follow you home and scan your books while you're out.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Anonymous Coward]

who cares about anyones drinking habits? Drug habits might effect employment or something.

You wouldn't want to know if your neighbor regularly drank human blood?

I can't think of a single book i've ever read that I would be afraid if someone found out I was reading it

Green Eggs and Ham . A thinly disguised roman a clef about an ordinary guy, stalked and worn down until he gives in and joins a culinary cult. The ending glorifies joining the cult. Further, both the main charaters are furries, signifying an affinity to sexual perversion. This is a disturbing book, and all who agree with it should be watched closely. Good thing the Patriot Act was passed.

Method of birth control is also a weird one for your list
Maybe so regarding a married couple. But it might be good to know who the cheap tramps are, either to stay away from them or perhaps to avail yourself of their services.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine your wife getting ads for the wrong brand of tampon at just the right time.

Why do you assume he/she is a male?

..Oh right.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Taevin]

who cares about anyones drinking habits? Drug habits might effect employment or something.

"Well Mr. Smith, we had decided to hire you until we had a look at your RFID data. It seems you purchased 14 cases of beer last week. That's two a day. This concerns us greatly and we have decided to reject your application. We've also forwarded this information to an alcoholic rehabilitation center and they should be contacting you shortly."

And the books I read? What? What books are you reading that this would really make a difference? I can't think of a single book i've ever read that I would be afraid if someone found out I was reading it...maybe you can give an example?

Sure. Let's say that I am disturbed at the amount of death a terrorist bomb can cause. I purchase/rent books on bombs (so I can understand how they work, thus possibly having the information to help formulate ways to prevent them and/or protect against their effects) and books on terrorism (so that I can understand their beliefs and motivations, also so I can possibly help fight terrorism). What is an FBI agent who knows nothing about me going to think we he sees a red flag come up that someone is reading books on bombs and terrorism? Now what if I happen to have an Arabic name?

Method of birth control is also a weird one for your list...not sure who really cares about that either, again unless you live in some puritanical society or something.

Uh... who was America founded by again? Let us not forget that at one point in history, it was illegal to dance in public in certain places. Something about it stirring up feelings of lust or some such.

Scenario: Someone is running for a public office. RFID data reveals this man has purchased many condoms. Obvious conclusion (to some): Lots of pre-marital sex, public opinion drops (After all, what righteous, Christian, married couple would need condoms? They should only be having sex to procreate anyways). Enter sleezebag with a 'clean' purchase record. Wins by a land slide and proceeds to screw the government up even more.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[gcatullus]

The grocery store comes close now, I agree. But at least their data snooping is still nominally opt-in. Just pay cash and don't use a grocery savings card, then there is no trace of what you specifically did. Of course you don't get the savings or the double coupons, etc., and you do have to pay cash, but the store deosn't get the data. I look at that as an equal trade off.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

I have nothing to hide, I'm no alcoholic,

If you ever have more than 2 standard drinks a day (for a man) or 1 (for a woman) in the eyes of many who have a lot more power than you think you are an alcoholic.

Such as these people:

http://www.rwjf.org/

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[johnlcallaway]

I use my store card to buy beer, books, and my prescriptions (no need for birth control, my fiancee has her tubes tied). So they already know what I buy. And I have the store coupons at checkout to show for it.

Now that I have bought this stuff, I walk into another store and they scan me and now know what I have on me. Unless I buy something, they don't know who I am (unless RFID is on my store card or credit cards). It would require massive cooperation to do something as dramatic as track an individual can of beer.

Since I don't take any of these itemsto work, it would be very difficult for my employer or insurer to find out about them unless they came into my home for a scan. I had to submit to a blood test for both work and health insurance, so I can see how a scan could become part of an employement contract, but again RFID doesn't add anything to it that isn't already there.

It is also very doubtful that each can of beer will have a unique number. It is more likely that the same method used today for UPC codes will be used .. all Bud Lights that are part of the 'Drink early and often' promo will have the same codes. Or maybe the batch just for Safeway will have the same number. The same for books, etc. There is very little value for a store to have unique serial numbers on each product, as they would have to store each serial number and track them. It's far easier to track 'I have 1200 bottles of bud with UPC/RFID code xyz' than to track 1200 unique codes. With margins what they are in supermarkets, I doubt they would track every item without some type of incentive.

So that leaves the garbage truck scanner to scan and record each house. Possible, but then again so is it possible for them to take my garbage (without a warrant once I've set it out on the street) and go through it to find these things out. It's far cheaper to study garbage when you need it than to store the accumulated inventory of a couple hundred million households on a weekly basis. It is doubtful that anything but legal items will have RDIF tags in them, so again I can't see any reason for a mass scanning project.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Unless you actually want a society where everyone is afraid to deviate from the community's blandest common denominator.

We are close to that already.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Momoru]

We've also forwarded this information to an alcoholic rehabilitation center and they should be contacting you shortly."

First, that would be descrimination under the ADA. You cannot descriminate against alcoholics or drug addicts, if they choose to seek treatment. Also if you drink this much it is unlikely you would have gotten whatever job anyways. As an employer this would be good to know, and as an alcoholic, this rejection would be good to get me on the right track, i see no negatives here...you want someone who drinks 2 cases of beer a day flying your airplane or driving your taxi?

What is an FBI agent who knows nothing about me going to think we he sees a red flag come up that someone is reading books on bombs and terrorism?

Well sure, if you eventually blow something up then this is great evidence to have, simply reading it would not be enough to prosecute...don't use bombs and reading like this wouldnt come back to haunt you. Despite all the hype and fear, no one has been detained for reading the wrong material.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Kirkoff]

Well, as far as I can tell, for many slashdotters it will go as follows:

1. Your drinking habits.

   Lots and lots of Caffiene

2. Your method of birth control.

   Body Odor

3. Medications especially for things like anti-depressants or treatments for STDs.

   Parents upstairs are on anti-depressants. STD? You mean stdio.h? I think C programming is still OK.

4. The books you read.

   PERL in a nutshell and Applied Cryptography. Watch out for the second one.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Damvan]

Why must we continually see comments like this on slashdot.

The attitude of "I don't care if people know all about me and I don't have privacy. Since I don't care, no one else should care either."

Well, Einstein, you don't represent us. Until you become emperor of the world, your opinions don't count.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine someone paid to come up with evil things to do with personal infomation (like HR director or Insurance risk-analyst) could make a much longer list than mine.

Dogbert's got that one!

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Momoru]

So what makes you think that, you, the tinfoiled "Teh GovenRMent WaNt$ to READ My MinDorX!!!!!" represent us either?

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Artifakt]

What books are you reading that this would really make a difference?

Several persons who have had collections of military related books have been arrested for various things, and someone in LE has made statements to the press, or the press has made statements on their own before the trials that these collections constituted "Nazi paraphenalia". In one case I know personally, the person violated a BATF ordanance when reselling a civil war era replica firearm, showed no signs any of the times I met him of being either a Neo-nazi or even a racist, and had 10 times as many books on the Napoleonic wars as WW2, and more than either on Medeval warfare, knit your own chainmaille and join the SCA type stuff. This kind of smear is really super-extra-easy to fight, with both the authorities and the press claiming the other party put the spin on things.
        With the right spin, a Playboy or Cosmo subscription or even a copy of C. Everett Koops writings as Surgeon General becomes a "hard core pornography" collection, especially if you are accused of child molestation. For that matter, Cosmo has a lot of cigarette ads... Are you sure you're a non-smoker? We're just asking because you told your insurance company that, and here you got lung cancer. Your subscription habits suggest you might be fudging the truth a little. You're not? Oh, we'll just mention the possibility to the jury anyway.
          Method of birth control? The pill has some 'significant' cervical cancer related risks for women with a family history of the disease. That same insurance provider wants to know if you lied about that, too!
          Are you running for office? Working to help elect someone? Those condoms you bought now are something at least a few voters will care about. Better hope the race isn't viciously close - when the margin is a few votes either way, no smear is too petty to try.
          Drinking habits? You must have missed the congressional bill that will let your employer off the hook for that little accident with the chipper shredder machine. Yes, they took all the safety guards off and let an under-age trainee operate it unsupervised, but you had at least one drink within 72 hours of going to work that monday, and that means YOU are 0.01% at fault, which the new law translates to ALL. Quit trying to collect unemployment, ya lazy bum.
          The McMartin daycare center scandal happened in that ultra-puritanical society, southern California in the 1980s. Read up on just what items were found in various accused people's homes and offices, and how these got described to or by the press. Then, you'll understand. You DO live in a puritanical society, where if a person in certain types of power wants to get you, a true crime novel or Harry Potter book becomes another tool to bury you before you ever get a trial. A how to manual for murder! Satanic ritual texts!

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[NicklessXed]

Good. If you engage in a risky behavior, your insurance premium should be higher. I notice you fail to allow for lower premiums for those who drink in moderation. You know what the research says about moderate amounts of alcohol. That's probably because you wouldn't get those lower premiums. "Oh, you buy that much alcohol, we are just going to assume you drink it all yourself, so you get to pay more." The other way around, tho: "You apparently didn't buy many alcoholic drinks. However, this doesnt mean you didn't drink any. No, no lower premiums for you. Where did you get THAT idea?" Nonsense. This is just alarmist garbage. There's no way to know WHEN you used a condom, so this is impossible. Your other example is just as silly. Again, they'll probably just make assumptions. So much for these two. The other arguments the original poster made are indeed rather silly, but for me that doesn't change the fact that there are things I do not want "everybody" (as in all the people who have access to the information collected about me, which won't be too few) to know about. The "Why, do you have anything to hide?" argument is just as idiotic. Anyone who ever used this: Would you mind me installing cameras in your bathrooms? Yes? Why? You don't have anything to hide, do you? (Or maybe... something you don't even have to hide for me not to be able to see it? (j/k))

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[NicklessXed]

Well, I guess this is what that mysterious "Preview"-stuff I keep hearing about is for.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Kaiwen]

I notice you fail to allow for lower premiums for those who drink in moderation.

So do many insurance companies. Which, of course, was his point.

There's no way to know WHEN you used a condom....

Unless each one were individually tagged. Next morning out goes the garbage with a couple of condoms in it. But never mind that. Purchasing records show Tom Jones picking up a 10-pack of Trojans on the way home from work on Monday. Friday night he purchases another. That alone tells us a hell of a lot about Tom's sex life, even if we don't know exactly when each condom did duty.

You CAN'T penalize someone for seeking treatment for a disease/disorder in the US. The ADA makes it a civil rights violation to do so.

But I can easily imagine drug companies bedding down with insurance firms to subtly pressure their customers into seeking the right brand of treatment. And in the real world it's only a violation if you get caught. Remember, age- and race-discrimination are also civil rights violations. Doesn't change the fact that it happens a hundred thousand times a day in the U.S., and 99.44% of the time it's damn near impossible to prove.

Unless of course you believe your employer/the government is going to follow you home and scan your books while you're out.

Ah, then you've forgotten the flap over Amazon.com's "purchasing circles" back in '99. Do employers care about what their employees read? Damn straight they do. Just ask the Microsoftees who found themselves in deep doo-doo when Microsoft discovered they had been purchasing anti-MS books.

Only a couple of years ago RFID tags couldn't be read from more than a few inches away. Today it's 30 feet. Within a few years it will be possible to inventory your entire house in a couple of seconds from inside a moving vehicle. Insurance companies would love to know what's sitting inside your medicine cabinet or fridge. Legal or not, I expect in the near future drive-by scannings will become part of the standard background check all insurance companies and employers do.

Or forget insurance companies. I imagine even those of us who have nothing to hide are happier living in a country where police can't just come barging in our doors on a whim. There's a reason police need subpoenas for anything that's not in plain sight. But we're now entering a world where police can search our homes from the comfort of their squad cars, where every police-wielded radar gun has a built-in RFID scanner, and "plain sight" just may include anything in the EMF range.

Lee Kaiwen

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your method of birth control.

That would be reading slashdot of course. Try to get it from from these stupid RFID tags! :)

And of course, "For everything else [on your list] there is Mastercard." I mean you can get a scary knowledge of most people's life from credit card records.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[DaveJay]

There's no way to know WHEN you used a condom....

Unless each one were individually tagged. Next morning out goes the garbage with a couple of condoms in it. But never mind that. Purchasing records show Tom Jones picking up a 10-pack of Trojans on the way home from work on Monday. Friday night he purchases another. That alone tells us a hell of a lot about Tom's sex life, even if we don't know exactly when each condom did duty.

Even better, Tom is married, and never buys condoms -- except when he travels for business once a month. That tells us a LOT, eh? And you can already find that out if he buys with a credit card. Presumably Tom is smarter than that, but you never know. I personally always buy my extramarital-affair condoms in cash, and discard the receipt immedia-- what, honey? Oh, no, just typing on the computer, nothing speciNO DON'T LOOK WAI~=$#

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Taevin]

Well, it turns out you are correct about alcoholics being protected by the ADA. That was not quite my point however. This type of thing just removes one more barrier protecting our privacy. If alcoholism cannot affect whether you are hired or not, why should the company know about it in the first place? At the very least however, it might cause the employer to form a negative opinion of an applicant and it seems it would cause the same reaction in you.

Again, that wasn't quite my point. I merely said the RFID data indicated Mr. Smith purchased 14 cases of beer. You see how easy it is to mistake that with actual consumption? Mr. Smith could completely detest the taste/effects of alcohol and still purchase that much beer (perhaps for a party, friends, etc.).

Well sure, if you eventually blow something up then this is great evidence to have, simply reading it would not be enough to prosecute...don't use bombs and reading like this wouldnt come back to haunt you. Despite all the hype and fear, no one has been detained for reading the wrong material.

No, but at the very least it's likely to cause a full background check to be conducted, and possibly surveillance of your activities. Again, not the point. The scenario shows another false positive that is likely to negatively affect the innocent's life. Some might say a person reading those books should be watched carefully. But you see the problem with that, yes? If the negative consequences (being put on a government watchlist, etc.) out weigh the positive ones, people will stop trying to access that information. Later, books containing ideas conflicting with those of government are frowned upon and all of a sudden we're in a nose-dive towards a police state.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Bent Mind]

I've been watching the debate over RFID for a while now. The technology could have a lot of benifit. I currently work in a high security warehouse. I have to walk through a metel detector, have a wand passed over my body, pull my pockets inside out, remove belts and shoes, pull my pant waist away from my body, and pull up my pant legs to get outside. It would be nice if RFID would allow me to simply be scanned for RFID tags and exit. In the home, it could make computerized inventory a reality. My pantry would be able to tell me I'm low on tomato sauce before I go to the store.

However, I can also see the dark side. I've lived in neiborhoods where you're asked to leave if you don't cut your grass a certain way. RFID would be a godsend to the busybodies that live in these places. Just think, they could kick you out for buying generic food. Of course I can choose not to live in such places. I currently avoid them if I know about them in advance. However, I can see other problems.

1. Alcohol. You say good because If you engage in a risky behavior, your insurance premium should be higher. You go on to say that premiums might be lower for those who drink in moderation. What about those places where alcohol is illegal? What if you have children? Have you heard the garbage taught in schools concerning alcohol?

2. Birth Control. You say There's no way to know WHEN you used a condom, so this is impossible. What does it matter if anyone knows you used them? The fact that you have them can cause all sorts of problems. Many religious groups would like to see birth control made illegal. The examples are only silly if you exclude all of the silly people out there. Thinking back to high school, I wonder how many girls carried condoms. I wonder if people would have considered them sluts if everyone knew they were on birth control. It kind of discourages the use of contraceptives.

I'll pass on three. Though I don't want everone knowing what perscriptions are on my body, thieves don't need RFID to find out what is in my garbage.

4. Books You say More ridiculous alarmist thinking... I'm not too worried about my employer knowing what books I read. Actually, I'd be more interested in knowing what books my employer read. However, I can certainly see getting nasty anonymous letters in the mail based on my reading habits. When you expand this to movies and games, I might even end up in jail or having my children taken away. I have violent games in my house. My daughter loves to watch me play Halo. However, she's not allowed in the game room when I'm playing Doom III.

On my way to work this morning, there was a news story on the radio about a couple that had been arrested for watching porn. They confiscated the TV and DVD player. The police had received a complaint about the TV being too loud. Just think, with RFID, the police won't need a complaint to dictate how you live your life in the privacy of your own home.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how you can sue people for your own clumsiness. Slip on some ice? Sue somebody!

Litigation is out of control.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[instarx]

3. Perscriptions. Your employer probably already knows if you're on the company insurance plan, and your insurance company certainly knows unless you self pay. But again, insurance co. would love to know as much as possible about you, legal or not. They're not going to tell you they went through your trash.

Many people, fearing retaliation from their employers, often see doctors outside of their health plan . I've done this myself. Examples are drug counseling or treatment, psychological counseling, anti-depressants, treatments for STD, AIDS drugs, etc. Although in theory there is some legal protection against health data collected by company health plans being used by the company for other reasons, in reality it is a very thin wall (for example do you turn your doctor bills over to your HR department for procesing?). However, we all know that once a company discovers a bad behavior in an employee it then can easily trump up some other reason to get rid of them. Even the anonymity of going to a non-company doctor goes away if your trash can be scanned for med-relted RFID tags.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[eonlabs]

Well, we have IBM standing up and saying it won't discriminate on Genetic Makeup... What are the odds of people not descriminating on things like that! Free information isn't just going to affect us. It's going to affect a lot of people in higher places with dirtier habits. In that respect, it could be very interesting to see where this goes.

Re:Some things you might want to keep private.

[SirPavlova]

Have you heard the garbage taught in schools concerning alcohol?

No, I haven't. Mainly because I live in Australia, & don't pay attention anyway, but still. You've made me curious... what is said garbage?

Some good sides

[Dominic]

A lot of people have privacy concerns, and that's fair enough. However, there is an upside to this system. Think of all the junk that people don't recycle properly or just throw onto the street. Well, now those people can be tracked-down and fined. At last we may see an end to litter and dumped TV sets at the side of the road.

I think the system could work quite well. There needs to be some easy way of registering that you sell something to someone else (who has to authorise the change obviously), or recycling centres and other official disposal agents can transfer items. Otherwise your item can be linked to you and it's your responsibility. If they can do this while satisfying privacy concerns then I'd be 100% behind the scheme.

Re:Some good sides

[RagingR2]

I think the system could work quite well. There needs to be some easy way of registering that you sell something to someone else (who has to authorise the change obviously), or recycling centres and other official disposal agents can transfer items. Otherwise your item can be linked to you and it's your responsibility. If they can do this while satisfying privacy concerns then I'd be 100% behind the scheme.

If this will also mean that if you sell an old pair of computer speakers to a friend, you're gonna be charged an income tax for that... I'm not so sure what you're describing is a favourable improvement.

no need to be paranoid?

[dAzED1]

No need to be paranoid? Then why say things like "now imagine..." and talk about going through trash? It's all stuff that could be done, in theory.

So why doesn't this just qualify as paranoia? It's *possible* that my phone at home is bugged, that there is a video camera in my bathroom, and that someone sneaks into my house during the day to put mind controlling substances in my food. But just because something could happen, doesn't mean that it's happening...or even that it's legal (which this wouldn't be). "Paranoia" isn't exempt simply because something is possible...

Being able to trace the buyer is the best feature!

[Anonymous Coward]

The best part of RFID tags is that roadside trash can then be scanned and the rotten disgusting litterer can then fined and jailed! I hope they get embedded into everything, including fast food bags, soda cans, and beer bottles AND that they require showing valid ID to purchase everything so that what they do with their trash can be tracked.

Nothing pisses me off more than seeing someone deliberately thow trash out of their car. It should be legal to shoot them on site.

What does the RFID chip store?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious. Does the RFID chip store a unique number per chip or is it like a bar code where there's a number per product?

The reason why I ask is if I buy something in shop A with an RFID chip in, then go into shop B that happens to sell the same item, will the security people in shop B try to stop me as I exit, telling me I haven't paid for said item?

If it's a unique number per chip, how can shop B gain any information from me walking in and out of their shop other than I bought an item with tag AABE1234AF? They won't know what shop A associated that tag with.

Just how stupid people are here...

[msormune]

Uhhh...so every trash in YOUR OWN FUCKING TRASH CAN may have a rfid chip associated to you? On a side note, why would I care about this? I pay virtually everything with plastic. So just about everything I buy already leaves a trace. I don't even care about that, and I doubt no ordinary person does. I guess we don't live in constant fear.

Dating fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Female: Is that an RFID chip in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?
Female removes an RFID scanner from her bag and scans man's pants.
Female: Oh. I see.

Let's not forget the government

[LaughingCoder]

All this chatter is about potential abuses of RFID by nasty corporations. I imagine that their are areas in the government simply drueling over the possibilities ... that bullet was purchased at KMart in Osh Kosh on October 19th at 7:22pm by ...

And what about the IRS, and the state governments. I am sure the state of Massachusetts, which never leaves any revenue stream untapped, is intrigued by the possibility of being able to "capture" all those lost sales taxes from people shopping outside the state (neighboring NH has no sales tax and the parking lots in the malls are always filled with cars with Mass plates). Imagine getting a retro-active sales tax bill with an itemized list of everything you bought.

wanted Advertising?

[twitter]

Do you think that they want annoy you and bombard you with useless information? Of course not, that wastes your time and their money, no one wants that.

All advertising is a waste of time, duh.

The best targeted advertising is already annoying. The grocery store already knows what I buy and always gives me coupons for all the WRONG brands. It's annoyingly invasive and wrong.

Of course, there are lots of things you don't want other people sharing.

I don't want directed advertising either.

[RagingR2]

Like with Google ads, if I have to live with ads, I much prefer directed ones with at least some research behind them than undirected ones. In other words -- in this case with shoes, if they wished to send me ads by mail, I'd rather only get ads for men in my age than women and kids.
 
Personally I prefer not to receive ANY ads by e-mail, regardless whether they are about stuff I never buy, or about stuff I do sometimes buy. My mailbox is for mail, and I don't want any advertising clogging things up in there at all. If I want to buy something I'll do some research myself. So frankly, I'm not at all in favour of any new techniques to make e-mail ads more directed.
Because this will only mean that e-mail advertising will become more effective, thus more profitable, which makes it highly likely that we're gonna receive more of it than ever before!

Re:I don't want directed advertising either.

[Jugalator]

Personally I prefer not to receive ANY ads by e-mail

Of course. That goes without saying.

That's why I said "if I have to live with ads".
I assumed that they aren't going to cease all advertisement tomorrow or so.

Because this will only mean that e-mail advertising will become more effective, thus more profitable, which makes it highly likely that we're gonna receive more of it than ever before!

You can turn that argument and say they today need to pump out much more ads to reach their proper audiences since they aren't too sure about which one it is.

Re:I don't want directed advertising either.

[Jugalator]

By the way, for the record I was speaking of MAIL here, not e-mail.
I usually get local ads via mail, not e-mail. That's rather the land of viagra and so on. :-)

I would like to place a bet with you.

[hummassa]

Coins will be made of plastic (the rfid being the way of authenticating them) before 2020.

Re:I would like to place a bet with you.

[ajs318]

I'm not sure that will ever work. Plastic coins, RFID or not, would be too prone to forgery. The devices are easy enough to spoof, and the whole point with coins is that they are used in machines in unsupervised locations. It doesn't matter that you need a rucksack full of gear to simulate a few pound coins, if nobody is going to see you doing it.

Forging actual metal coins is difficult, not impossible but difficult and expensive, and usually not worth it for the returns involved. Better quality requires more investment, which can only be recouped by doing a bigger run; but larger quantities increase the risk of discovery. Forging RFID is trivial and inexpensive by comparison -- and you just know somebody is going to want to have a go at it.

If there is an upside to knowing the history of every banknote, it's this: shops could erect signs saying MONEY WON IN LAWSUITS IS NOT WELCOME IN THIS STORE. And mean it.

Re:I would like to place a bet with you.

[Moofie]

Right, because when you win a lawsuit, the judge hands you a sack full of cash. Perfectly reasonable assumption.

You should be more paranoid

[o0SupaCB0o]

They don't need RFID to collect anymore information than they already.

I've seen the amount of information they collect at these POS systems. You use a credit/debit card, your card encodes your zip code, first name, last name. Your purchase is collected already by scanning the item into the register.

Your info is then sent to the 3 credit bueraus and your infor is merged with those large databasese. If you give your email to the retailer, your email is attached to your credit report. Through those credit reports the credit bueraus then sends back your address to the retailer and all other information the retailer can afford.

Your information is already available in catalog dealers, your internet info is available at experian online (yup experian started an internet division). How much you make and how much own is already available at experian, transunion and can't remember the last one.

The retailer already got the information they need, RFID is just a way to track inventory, really no joke. RFID does not add any additional information that the retail/catalog industry does not already have. Oh yea, they used to be able to get large amount of info through the DMV before 9/11.

Experian will sell your info to ANYBODY at the right price, private detective already have this ability, without license. Now the funny thing is the only person that has a hard time getting your info, is yourself! Oh yea don't get me started on the 2 files they keep, one public one that you see, and one that is hidden, that keeps every single transactions you've made in your life. the law says some items fall off the report, but the hiden one is available to anybody with money and can make your life horrible. There are no laws saying that your bank need to tell you they based their decision on this second file. So you think your report is clean, but the hidden one says otherwise. Oh yea that second one contains all your purchase habbits too.

God where's my hat? I can't see an after market of people scanning garbage from a particular locale/district etc. The marketing drones already have this information. Retailers routinely sell their lists to each other. Catelogs company give them to each other as "gifts". Or worse TRADED like comodity. You people are not paranoid enough!

Re:You should be more paranoid

[Knight2K]

If your two file theory is true, then I think the easiest way to solve this is: mandate by law that the 'second file' (obviously some different legal terminology could be used here) be available to the consumer for free. These companies are obviously making a lot of money off the residue of our consumer lives, so this wouldn't affect their revenue stream. But I would love to have a record of every transaction I make, if only because I'm not the world's greatest bookkeeper. Then I would see some actual value from providing this information to retailers, rather than feeling f*&ked over when asked for it.

And if people become upset about how much information truly is stored, then public outcry may see some changes made. As long as the information collection is effectively invisible, then it will be difficult to get the public excited about this.

Re:You should be more paranoid

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

How much you make and how much own is already available at experian, transunion and can't remember the last one.

Equifax.

They also make SSL certificates.

And likely do a whole bunch more stuff.

Re:You should be more paranoid

[elgatozorbas]

I think the easiest way to solve this is: mandate by law that the 'second file' (obviously some different legal terminology could be used here) be available to the consumer for free.

This would obviously defeat the purpose they have for this 'second file'. It would be like saying 'everybody tell your secrets'. Later:'and also the ones you would like to keep.'

Re:You should be more paranoid

[sirwired]

They don't need RFID to collect anymore information than they already.

I've seen the amount of information they collect at these POS systems. You use a credit/debit card, your card encodes your zip code, first name, last name. Your purchase is collected already by scanning the item into the register.

Your info is then sent to the 3 credit bueraus and your infor is merged with those large databasese. If you give your email to the retailer, your email is attached to your credit report. Through those credit reports the credit bueraus then sends back your address to the retailer and all other information the retailer can afford.

Your information is already available in catalog dealers, your internet info is available at experian online (yup experian started an internet division). How much you make and how much own is already available at experian, transunion and can't remember the last one.

The retailer already got the information they need, RFID is just a way to track inventory, really no joke. RFID does not add any additional information that the retail/catalog industry does not already have. Oh yea, they used to be able to get large amount of info through the DMV before 9/11.

Experian will sell your info to ANYBODY at the right price, private detective already have this ability, without license. Now the funny thing is the only person that has a hard time getting your info, is yourself! Oh yea don't get me started on the 2 files they keep, one public one that you see, and one that is hidden, that keeps every single transactions you've made in your life. the law says some items fall off the report, but the hiden one is available to anybody with money and can make your life horrible. There are no laws saying that your bank need to tell you they based their decision on this second file. So you think your report is clean, but the hidden one says otherwise. Oh yea that second one contains all your purchase habbits too.

God where's my hat? I can't see an after market of people scanning garbage from a particular locale/district etc. The marketing drones already have this information. Retailers routinely sell their lists to each other. Catelogs company give them to each other as "gifts". Or worse TRADED like comodity. You people are not paranoid enough!

You can take this "two-file" theory and flush it down the toilet.

1) Do you have any idea what kind of database would be required to keep track of EVERY purchase you ever made, everywhere, and attach item data? Do you have any clue how long it would take to search such a database? Most credit card companies keep statements on file for a year, and that only covers where you purchased, and the amount.
2) No, the banks cannot deny you credit based a file that you cannot get a hold of. This is pretty plain in the law, if you chose to actually read it, instead of spreading rumors. (See the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681)
3) Yes, your credit card company (and maybe Experian) will happily tell whoever pays them exactly where you shop. Of course, you can write them and tell them not to, but that isn't nearly newsworthy enough. They still won't know what you bought, they would have to pay the retailer themselves for that.
4) Exactly how would Experian know how much you own? They can't possibly know what you have and what you have gotten rid of, outside of what is already available in public records. (Any schmuck can find out where you live, what real estate you own, which elections you voted in, all campaign contributions, etc. That all comes from your local government.)
5) Considering my credit report never can even get my employer right, I doubt they have any idea how much I make.

Yes, our privacy is pretty bad, but spreading paranoid, ignorant crap like this doesn't make things any better.

SirWired

Re:You should be more paranoid

[Anonymous Coward]

WOW, This makes me wish there was a law to protect me from this sort of thing. They could call it the Fair Credit Reporting Act

Oh, wait there is already such a law. It defines what these agencies are allowed to report and what they are not allowed to report. It also says how long somethings(bankruptcy,e tc.) can be reported.

From the FCA: (a) Information excluded from consumer reports. Except as authorized under subsection (b) of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information: (1) Cases under title 11 [United States Code] or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be, antedate the report by more than 10 years. (2) Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period. (3) Paid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven years. (4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years.(1) (5) Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years.1

Now, if you have proof of this double file being used as you say it is then report and let's see someone go to jail.

Re:You should be more paranoid

[Reziac]

Costco (and probably every "membership" store of any sort) keeps a complete record of everything you ever bought there -- you can still return stuff for a refund even if you don't have the receipt, because they can instantly look up your purchase history to see if you bought the item there or not.

My VISA card sends me a year-end statement that itemizes *every* time I used the card for the past year.

So those are two that I know for a fact keep my complete purchase history for at least a year. (And I can pull my Edison records online going back about three years, tho I know they have more on file since I did once order it back to the beginning of my current account.)

This isn't very much data in terms of raw bytes; for myself, I'd estimate my annual total for all such data (including not only purchases, but also my mortgage, phone, electric, etc.) is less than 10k. Given today's storage arrays, that's pretty trivial, even if there's an entry for every man, woman, and child.

Anyway, the "hidden file" theory may have escaped from an ill-fitted tinfoil hat, but there are already outfits that keep ALL your transaction data. And you may not have control over whether that is used only for non-personally-identifiable marketing (not a problem) or something more nefarious (see someone's post above about the slip-and-fall lawsuit where the store brought the guy's purchasing record into court, trying to prove he was a drunk. This was a real case, BTW.)

Accuracy won't be the problem.

[RagingR2]

For instance, what if they were a gift for somebody 3,000 miles away?

People may be buying presents now and then, but I think it's pretty safe to assume that most of the times you buy shoes for yourself. And I'm pretty sure that the people who are gathering these data know that too. So what if 1 pair of shoes out of every 500 is a present? If for instance they're gonna use the data to send advertising, then they're gonna send out 1 useless advert. Or maybe not, because if you buy it as a present, then maybe you are likely to visit the shop again.
Anyway, I think the "error rate" is gonna be lower than in the case of undirected, random advertising such as snail mail or the kind of e-mail spam we know these days.

So what's the big deal?

[cryptocom]

Who cares if someone knows everything that I buy? I don't. I mean hell, I'm not going around buying Stinger missiles and hand grenades all day long...there was that M-xxx that I bought in N. Carolina for 4th of July that nearly blew a crater in my apartment complex's parking lot...but hey, gotta have a little fun SOMEtimes... :)
: )

Re:So what's the big deal?

[tuxette]

Who cares if someone knows everything that I buy?

I care. And it has nothing to do with whether I buy Stinger missles or not. It's not your or anyone else's fucking business what I buy. Or don't buy.

Re:So what's the big deal?

[cryptocom]

Well, i'm sure i'm going to catch crap for this, but i'm going to take the unpopular route this time. Maybe it's a GOOD thing. Forget for a moment your paranoia about everyone knowing what brand of dish detergent you buy, and think about the useful possibilities. Let's say you've lost an object in your house. If it has an RFID tag in it, you can use a device to narrow down and locate that device, or at least detect whether or not it's in your house. RFID tags could be use as security devices as well. Embed the RFID tag in a personal object that you don't want anyone taking, and place it next to a receiver. When the object leaves the vicinity, an alarm sounds. RFID tags could be hidden in cars, and mobile detectors placed around town to track where particular vehicles go...this would be useful when tracking down wanted criminals. It's much cheaper than GPS. Anything can be misused. Same goes for gun control. Yes, people kill people with guns, but no, guns do not kill people by themselves...furthermore they don't increase the likelyhood of someone killing someone else if one is around. If someone is determined to misuse something, they will find a way to do it one way or another.

Paranoia is egotism

[redelm]

The real issue is: Who will care?

Yes, there might be a lot of data, but who is going to pay for collecting and (more importantly) analysing it? Why would anyone be interesting in you?

The general case is the TLAs who have the money also have no personal interest. The people with interest (parents, GFs) have no access to data, nor any money. Corps have some interst, but not differentiated interest. You're just one cusotmer, fungible. They may try some targetted margetting, but I can't see any harm in that. They'll also know when it doesn't work, 'cuz I won't buy.

Re:Paranoia is egotism

[lmlloyd]

You would be surprised who would care. Many businesses ask for permission to run a credit report on applicants before hiring them. They will then pay a fair amount of money to get a fairly detailed report that tells them a lot more about you than you might be comfortable with them knowing. By the same token, once they have that permission, they never need to ask for it again. Performance at work dropping off? Let's run another detailed report and see what's going on in his life outside of work, before we decide how to approach this. I have even known (particularly unpleasant) women who would run a detailed credit report on a guy before deciding if they wanted to get serious with him! I also know several people who rent properties they own, and you would be amazed at the detail they can (and do) get before deciding if they want to rent you a house. I have a friend who lived at my apartment for quite some time, simply because a good job, plenty of money, and a clean-cut appearance wasn't enough to get him over some irregularities on his credit report. He couldn't rent an apartment in any decent part of town, he couldn't buy a house, he couldn't stay in a hotel (no credit card for them to hold). He was a grown man forced for years to live with friends, simply because of his credit report. If that isn't ruining someone's life, then I don't know what is. Sure, if you own a house in the suburbs, never plan on moving, have a stable job, and plenty of money in the bank, I suppose you can be cavalier about how everyone is being paranoid. But if your life is at all out of the norm, then the amount of information being tracked about up can actually cause some very real problems in a society that is evermore leaning towards treating a credit score as an indication of how good a person you are.

Re:Paranoia is egotism

[foreverdisillusioned]

Advertisers will care. Statistics is their lifeblood. Same goes with creditors--what do you think your credit score is based on if not a statistical analysis of your life? It doesn't matter how trivial seeming a statistic is--they're always looking for patterns. Like maybe you've worn the same pair of shoes for three years now (as confirmed by RFID readers), and that means you're more likely to be a credit risk because you're more likely to be down on your luck. Or maybe this fact is more statistically likely to mean that you're frugal and thus have a better handle with your money.

They'll also know when it doesn't work, 'cuz I won't buy.

Oh Christ al-fucking-mighty. You know, I'm a highschool dropout and I still seem to have a better grasp of statistics than oh, say, 89% of the population.

THEY DON'T FUCKING CARE IF YOU BUY ANYTHING OR NOT. If they can determine that you're not likely to buy anything via statistics, then they won't waste as much money targeting you specifically (sending you junk mail, etc.) On the other hand, they'll still send you nigh-free advertisement (e.g. most forms of net advertisement) on the things you're more likely to at least consider buying. Even if you don't buy anything, someone else that share a similar profile will. It's a mistake to assume that targetted marketing it centered around the individual. It's not. It's centered around the bell curve, and if you're not in the center of the bell curve than they just don't care about you. (Except for nich markets, which are really just little miniature bell curves within the main bell curve.) You might think that this makes you immune to any potential evil side effects, but increased statistical knowledge could very well affect things like your credit rating and insurance rates.

Holy hell, man, if you could track how long people keep using the stuff they buy, what items are bought and used together, the kinds of places these items are generally taken, etc. you'd be a fucking billionare. The basics of developing and producing stuff and selling it for a profit have been fine-tuned to death over the past 100 years--the real money is in getting people to notice your product. What if you could determine that the average person buys a new pair of shoes every 9-13 months? Wouldn't it be a good idea if you could concentrate all your shoe-related junk mail on previous shoe buyers who're just now approaching that window? What if a certain brand of shoe was most commonly detected (via RFID) in certain types of clubs or restaurants--you don't think that it'd be worthwhile for the company to put up a poster or billboard in the area?

You're just one cusotmer, fungible.

They don't care about "just one customer." Targeted advertising is a more refined way of ignoring the different, the non-conforming, and the extraordinary in favor of targeting the least common denominator.

Re:Paranoia is egotism

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Denied an apartment because of credit?

Heck, here in Vegas a mid 500's FICO score will let you pay a bond ($85) instead of a full deposit ($500) for an apartment and have you be told you have "good credit" :)

Perhaps he had multiple serious delinquencies and/or a FICO under 500. Then it seems plausible. But one can get out of that gutter in a couple years if one was a good job and money in the bank (secured credit cards, then gas cards, etc). It is easier to go from 400 to 500 than it is from 600 to 700 or 700 to 800.

You could've always co-signed for him instead of letting him stay.

There is risk in doing that though.

Re:Paranoia is egotism

[redelm]

I think there must be quite something to those "irregularities". People around here have little trouble getting credit after bankruptcy. But you may be living in someplace like the US NE where rent control or other measures tighten the market and force/allow landlords to be choosey.

Re:Paranoia is egotism

[lmlloyd]

Actually, the irregularities were that he was in his 30s, had a good job, had money, yet had never had a bank account, had never had any form of credit, had never financed anything, had never had any kind of debt, yet spent money, and bought things. It was a situation so odd that none of the credit services could even asses a score to his credit. I cannot really speak for the people who denied him a place to live, but I suspect they wouldn't rent to him because they thought there was something illegal going on.

As hard as it might be to believe in today's corporate, debt-driven society, it actually is possible to live a cash only lifestyle. Or at least it was until very recently when credit reports started being used as a judge of how good a person you are.

Re:Paranoia is egotism

[redelm]

Well, sounds like he didn't want to leave a paper trail. And he didn't. But some people wanted to see one. Ooops.

Everything has costs and benefits. Often the costs are hidden or not anticipated. If legal, He could have opened a bank account anytime he wanted, and worked up from there. He chose not to. Other people chose not to rent to an unknown. Everyone gets to chose.

Re:Paranoia is egotism

[lmlloyd]

That is a great platitude, but the simple fact is that living on the streets, and surfing couches isn't a very balanced choice for just not wanting to owe anyone anything. It cracks me up how people like you are so caught up in today's debtor society that you actually believe there should be consequences for someone doing the right thing, and going their whole life never buying anything they can't afford to pay cash for. By the way, no, it wasn't that he didn't want to leave a paper trail, he was just raised to believe that it was bad to owe anyone anything. The reason he didn't have a bank account, was because he didn't see any reason to pay someone to hold his money for him. There was never any conscious decision on his part to try and skirt or circumvent anything, he just believed that a man should pay his own way, and not borrow money when he didn't need to. Humorously enough, this attitude is all but illegal these days. You can't buy a car in cash, without getting reported to the FBI, DEA, IRS, and Homeland Security. Many banks will refuse to cash a check over $10,000, and it is flat-out impossible to buy a house with cash, even if you have the full asking price.

Personally, I admire people who stand on their own two feet, instead of living beyond their means and being constantly in debt. I wish I could do it, and I think they should be rewarded, not punished by society. Unfortunately, we as a society have decided that being different automatically makes you a bad person, and if everyone else can't manage to live within their means, then you must be some kind of freak if you actually manage to do it, and therefore should be punished.

Back to the original point of this discussion, that is why I don't really think it is paranoid to be worried about this level of consumer tracking. The simple fact is that it promotes a certain lifestyle, and if you live outside that lifestyle, it punishes you. It doesn't matter why you live outside that lifestyle, just that you are different, therefore are to be shunned by society. I personally have this naive belief that people should be allowed to live their life as they choose, as long as they don't hurt anyone. Of course, that is just a quaint anachronism, since it is easier to sell products if you force everyone to live the same lifestyle, and selling product is what is really important in the world, isn't it?

Re:Paranoia is egotism

[lmlloyd]

This was in Austin Texas back during the internet boom, when there was something obscene like 300 people a day moving into town, apartments were literally at a 99% occupancy rate, and they were selling new houses faster than they could build them.

As I said in the other branch of this thread, his problem was that he had no FICO score at all. My fiancé had better credit than he did, even with $20,000 in outstanding student loans, because he had no credit at all.

As far as co-signing, you assume my credit is good enough to co-sign for anyone. I had to pay a $1,000 deposit just to get an apartment myself back then.

RFID: too much hype

[helix_r]

People make comments on RFID without being aware of the rather strong limitations of this technology. Not all RFID tags are the same. Some only work at very close ranges (millimeters), some are are active, some are passive. Read failure rates for some tags are in the double digit percentages.

If there was a way I could invest money in anticipation of a total failure of RFID, I would do it.

Not paranoid enough ...

[quarkscat]

"Just imagine tracking every single good sold every year in just the US - that's like 1 trillion items per year. That's one insane database you're talking about."

The whole problem with your scenario is that you are visualizing a single gargantuan database of RFID data. This is totally unworkable. Instead, think about each retail store, each manufacturer, and each service provider maintaining their own RFID datasets, and then making such data available to whichever marketing company (or government) pays the fees for access to that data. The USA government, under the aspices of the DHS and MATRIX (Poindexter's successor to TIA) the sharing of commercial databases with the governnment is already happening. That little nugget of info, plus the recent history of data collection companies like "Checkpoint" should bring images of Orwell's "1984" and "Minority Report" into proper perspective.

The concerns about the invasion of personal privacy are not "being paranoid", and the prospect of RFID tags being nearly ubiquitous in the future is not some "Reality Distortion Field" paranoid delusion.

This may be a silly question, but...

[Name Anonymous]

Where will the RFID chips be? In the packaging? Or in the device itself? Clothing gets washed. People clip the tags in clothing. Where in clothing would be a good place for a tag other than packaging or the tags? And for a multipakc, they may only have one tag for the whole box and not for each item in a box. And packaging is much easier to destroy an RFID tag in. However, RFID tags in credit cards may be a very bad thing if they don't take full security cautions. I don't mind a smart card that has to be inserted into a reader. But a card that can be and then accepted without the clerk (or system) verifying something (PIN or signature) is a bad idea.

By hook or by crook

[October_30th]

What ever happened to the straightforward and honest approach to getting shopping habits demographic information?

Not efficient and comprehensive enough. Too many a people will refuse to give that information and the companies want information... information... information...

The 'Necessary and Proper' Cycle

[The Monster]

I see any "RFID Killer" being classified as illegal as soon as it hiss the market.

Well, I don't have quite such a pessimistic outlook.

Ever hear of 'paraphernalia' laws? Tommy Chong went to prison for selling pipes that could be used to smoke marijuana. This is typical of how new laws are often made: A law is passed to criminalize activity based on a correlation to an existing illegal activity as a means to make the latter easier to enforce. After some time passes, the process repeats, with a new class of behavior criminalized to make it easier to enforce the prior law.

Soon we'll see laws against making 'precursors' to 'circumvention devices'; just you watch it happen.

Re:The 'Necessary and Proper' Cycle

[agraupe]

Only in the US would there be laws against selling pipes... hell, in Canada there's legal stores that will sell everything you need except the actual marijuana, all legit. Maybe the US's problem is they are insanely backwards and stupid...

Re:The 'Necessary and Proper' Cycle

[eljasbo]

People here can sell a 'waterpipe' for smoking tobacco and legal herbs just fine. But if a seller calls it a 'bong' than it is considered paraphanalia. If you mention that it is possibly for illegal purposes when you buy it, they will refuse to sell it to you.

Re:The 'Necessary and Proper' Cycle

[Rick Zeman]

Only in the US would there be laws against selling pipes... hell, in Canada there's legal stores that will sell everything you need except the actual marijuana, all legit. Maybe the US's problem is they are insanely backwards and stupid...

Shitbull.

Re:The 'Necessary and Proper' Cycle

[Sir_Eptishous]

You're correct about Mr. Chong, however he was a celebrity, doing something that would obviously attract law enforcement attention.

You can purchase "tobacco smoking" devices in any major American city.

Also, from TFA:
Not to worry, said Jack Grasso, spokesman for EPC Global of Lawrenceville, N.J.,, the nonprofit organization that sets technical standards for RFID systems. His organization has a code of ethics that requires notifying consumers about the presence of RFID tags. The group also recognizes the right of consumers to deactivate RFID tags, and is working to develop systems to make this easy.

Re:The 'Necessary and Proper' Cycle

[Pig Hogger]

Only in the US would there be laws against selling pipes... hell, in Canada there's legal stores that will sell everything you need except the actual marijuana, all legit. Maybe the US's problem is they are insanely backwards and stupid...

Shitbull.

Er, in Québec (french canada), we say "boulechitte", which is pronounced exactly like in english.

This is so retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Comeon this is ridiculous.. because you buy a pair of shoes with RFID in the box (same as a barcode scan on the box), it's now associated with you forever? that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard. almost everything you buy today, has to be scanned... does that mean it's now associated with your credit card, and thus you forever?

your credit card # is associated with the purchase.. it's validated, then charged, then (usually) discarded. it doesn't go into a magic database where the KGB is studying it to track you for the rest of your life.

if you're paranoid about your spending habits being tracked, then don't sign up for the "shoppers club" that most stores have. that's where they keep track of your purchase history, not with your credit card.

Who will RFID the RFIDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do they track RFIDs? I don't mean the items that RFIDs are "attached" to. Do RFIDs have even smaller RFIDs embedded in them?

Degausser

[fdiskne1]

I think I'd just stop by work on my way home from shopping and degauss my new clothes/whatever. With the way the thing fries the circuits in watches, hard drives and such, I don't think RFID chips would stand a chance. I may even have to invest in one for home. Granted, it wouldn't work so well for some items, but for many that really matter it would.

Re:Degausser

[MImeKillEr]

I was going to ask about this; Whether or not one could simply destroy the RFID using a magnet or something. Surely there's a way to kill an RFID.

I can see some special interest group getting a congress critter to pen a bill making it a crime to do such a thing, however.

Bullet ID

[Dr_Barnowl]

There was actually a question on the Nanodot board a while ago by a chap who was researching the feasibility of embedding a unique identifier in *every* round of ammunition, using barcoded fragments of microscopic wire, or similar. So there are people who want to make a buck from this.

We pointed out that that it would require the mother of all gun-control bills to pass to be a viable product, and that the NRA would probably have hunted him down long before that.

Can't you use a scanner....

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

... to find where the RFID tag is hidden in the product and simply remove it?

oh, come on

[FlippyTheSkillsaw]

As if the RFID tag is going to be the catalyst for this type of behavior. Tracking customers has been a trend since it was discovered useful( i.e. $$ ). It will blatantly continue until there is legislation against it, at which point it will go underground, but it will never go away.

So this store sells you items with RFID tags hidden inside. They associate those RFID numbers with you as a person. Okay, then use cash. If they ask for your contact information, give them something fun.

You can pick up an RFID reader/writer for your laptop/PDA for around $200. Even if you can't write over the number, you can at least see if you have any.

Finally, what is to prevent you from carrying an RFIDSD (spewing device) which randomly spits out RFID data in an attempt to mask the valid data?

The best way to fight high-tech is with low-tech

[pushf popf]

Nobody has ever developed an RFID chip that's mallet-resistant,

And if you have way too much time on your hands, you can swap them with your friends and neighbors for hours of fun and enjoyment.

Organic RFID at 0.5 cents each developed in Korea

[Lord Satri]

I agree, it could go wrong. Especially with the price of RFID tags falling down dramatically, it is reasonable to believe we'll be flooded by RFID in our not-so-far future. We will required strong laws. But the is those who don't care that much with about the law!

Taking from slashgisrs.org: MobileMag have a small article about a 100% organic matter RFID chip developed in Korea, costing only 0.5 cents. From the article: The new RFID Tag chip is able to function on the 30 kHz frequency by only using 100% organic compounds and an inkjet printer. By cutting down the price considerably it will allow for thee mass production through the printing process. The chip can also be printed on any paper, plastic and wood standard. The new chips from Korea will use the 30 kHz frequency.

The IBM Protectorate

[mfh]

I foresee a future where first major brands, then other retailers and law enforcement will be making similar requests, more or less "because it's technically possible".

Me too! But there is a catch-all to it and it might actually make sense for IBM do apply their patents with stringent force over all businesses -- to protect us.

FTA: "Patent applications are routinely written to include every possible use of a technology, even some the company doesn't intend to pursue. Still, it's clear somebody at IBM has a pretty creepy imagination."

Examine this and a company like IBM could protect us from some the GREATER EVIL of RFID applications. IBM would be a white knight; they already support Open Source!! Maybe we should trust them on this? Of course, they might not be a good samurai, but think of the press if their patents actually SECURED humanity from a possible abuse like we're talking about here. IBM could become a protectorate. That's profitable!

Re:The IBM Protectorate

[bentcd]

All you can trust a large corporation to do is desire more money. IBM supports open source because wide adoption of open source would be beneficial to IBM's business model. If IBM can profit from wide-spread adoption of RFID, they will champion it. If IBM sees potential loss in wide-spread adoption of RFID, they will combat it. If neither is the case, they will ignore it.
The only people in power who will look out for _your_ interests are those that you elect into public office. If RFID worries you, find an honest politician and vote for him. (Yes, I know that is a lot harder than just crossing one's fingers and hoping for IBM to bail us all out :-)

Re:The IBM Protectorate

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people in power who will look out for _your_ interests are those that you elect into public office.

When was the last time THAT happened? The number of voters knowledgeable enough on such a technical issue to send letters saying "You've lost my vote" is easily offset by number that can be convinced to vote for the candidate with all the TV ads he can buy from corporate lobbyist bribes...

If RFID worries you, find an honest politician and vote for him.

I'd like to vote for an honest politican, but one would have to exist first.

Re:The IBM Protectorate

[Reziac]

RFID in the hands of IBM worries me a lot less than RFID in the hands of politicians, even honest ones (given that any single politician hasn't much influence relative to the whole gov't).

I know! Let's elect IBM to congress. At least it'd be no worse. :/

Re:The IBM Protectorate

[mfh]

find an honest politician and vote for him

There is no such thing. To seek power is to corrupt. To seek office is to corrupt. To corrupt is to be human.

Re:The IBM Protectorate

[bentcd]

To seek power is to corrupt. To seek office is to corrupt.
Then vote for someone who does not seek to become a politician.

Someone already tried microwaving the euros!

[Dogmeat83]

Check this out! http://www.propagandamatrix.com/010304rfidtagsineu ros.html

Re:Someone already tried microwaving the euros!

[Thud457]

Whuuuuuhh?

Re:Someone already tried microwaving the euros!

[badfish99]

What I want now is a note detector. It needs a range of about 10 feet, and a little screen that says how much money it is detecting, and shows a little arrow pointing in the right direction.

This will be extremely useful for my new career as a pick-pocket.

Re:Someone already tried microwaving the euros!

[Dogmeat83]

After the detector I would want Duke Nukem's microwave gun, and shoot people with more cash than they deserve (especially politicians).

Here in Brasil a politician was caught with approximately U$ 100.000 in his pants (http://www.radiobras.gov.br/anteriores/2005/sinop ses_0907.htm)!


RFID in notes: U$ 1.000.000

Note detector: U$ 5.000.000

Microwave gun: U$ 50.000.000

Watching a politician's pants explode: Priceless!

Re:Someone already tried microwaving the euros!

[4of12]

What I want now is a note detector.

Purportedly, about 20% of the benjamin's have traces of cocaine. I have to wonder now if the monetarily denser (100's are 11 lb per US$1e6, IIRC) €500 note might be similarly highly-scented.

An effective drug-sniffing device should therefore help to find large-denomination currency.

faraday cage

[swestcott]

I wonder if this could be used to protect your house from this type of drive by snooping and could you use your existing home wiring to implement this

trading privacy for convenience

[void*p]

What's fascinating to me is that rather than our privacy being "invaded", it's turning out that we're mostly giving up our privacy willingly, in exchange for the convenience of faster or more facile transactions. Let's say Nas-T-Mart implemented an RFID checkout, but kept the old- fashioned bar-code scanner lines. How many people do you think would keep using the (way)slower lines? Someone pointed out correctly that there's usually an anonymous alternative -- using cash would be one in this case. It's really just a matter of effort. And I think - at least here in the USA - the desire to avoid effort far outweighs concerns about privacy, all soapboxes aside. The trend of willingly surrendering our privacy has already been underway for a long time, and I can't see it reversing. It will be cool to see where it goes, especially considering the fatal flaw of profiling: the absence of "intentional" data to go along with the transaction. Amazon.com has all sorts of misconceptions about me because of gifts I've bought. Some people who do web searches for child pornography are doing so in order to combat it. Etc., etc. It's going to be truly fascinating to see how that problem is solved.

Hey, I got RFID ideas I want to patent too!

[Anonymous Coward]

RFID jammers
RFID chips with ID randomizers
Anti-RFID scissors

I want to see big brother squirm until they finally say "We can't track your every move if you keep messing with our signals!" Of course they won't actually say that, they'll use their PR spin and say "We can't effectively market our products to eager consumers if you keep messing with our signals!"

An obvious question

[shareme]

An obvious question.. Once the RDIF chips is canned adn the data from the chip is transmitted to teh computer infrastructure is any data than transmitted back to the chip?? In every implementation I have read it is not.. I do not knwo which is worse Boston Globe readers levle of IQ after the Red Sox loss or Slashdot readers.. Go White Sox!

Huh.

[AnObfuscator]

He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Revelation 13:16-17

Creepy, eh?

Yeah, I'm a Christian, and yeah, RFID freaks me out.

No EULA = stolen jacket

[smose]

If only people would carry their name and photo on a little piece of plastic inside their wallet...

...then you'd get busted for wearing a stolen jacket. Until you re-register the jacket in your own name, and pay the applicable licensing fee, you aren't allowed to wear it.

Waiter! A tin foil hat for my friend, here. No, no, I insist. My treat.

Real issues but also with FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Because so many of us pay for our purchases with credit or debit cards, which contain our names, addresses, and other sensitive information.

First of all, this information is NOT embedded in your card. Secondly, the stores already know what you buy with or without RFID. The fucking items are already scanned at the register to get your total.

tracking polluters?

[Tominva1045]

Would RFID help track polluters?

Is this a good thing or a bad one? (probably good right?)

RFID Dustbins

[Raithmir]

Indeed I had a letter through the post the other day stating that I am to leave my green recyling bin out this week so that it can be fitted with RFID tags, "for monitoring purposes". Should I be afraid? Do slashdot reader recommend any particular brand of tin foil to make my hat? Should I avoid the big name tin foil manufacturers in case they too have been "got to"? OMG, what if tin foil contains RFID tags?!?!

Look

[paranode]

You can't convince me that bar codes aren't tracking me, or that RFID won't either.

Bar codes are the mark of the devil...

Just like that damned foosball.

You can trace RFID tags in a trash can. So?

[thesilentkiller]

I, for one, am not sure why such a hype is being created over tracking an item in trash. As an extreme case, what if some corp. does find out that you trashed a pair of shoes? Are they gonna sue you for that?

Give it a chance guys. RFID is an emerging technology. Ofcourse it has its flaws, security being one of them. But it will evolve over the course of time and, just like barcode dominated the supply chain for about 25 years, so will RFID.

A chip (like the one that can go into a pair of shoes) can only be scanned at a very short range and the id that is embedded in the chip would make no sense to anyone else apart from the companies involved in the supply chain. I agree that there is a possibility for abuse, but I think the mass is panicking without having the facts straight. Ain't it true that panick sets in when logic goes out the window?

-SK

Mmm, errr, I am an RFID engineer. :-s

Re:The best way to fight high-tech is with low-tec

['nother poster]

I don't know about that. The conductive ink ones that are traced directly onto the material may be pretty mallet resistant.

obligatory "Naked" quote

[erroneous]

"What is the mark? Well the mark Brian, is the barcode. The ubitiqous barcode that you'll find on every bog roll, and every packet of johnny's and every poxie-pot pie. And every [expletive-removed] barcode is divided into two parts by three markers and those three markers are always represented by the number six. Six-six-six. Now what does it say? No one shall be able to buy or sell without that mark. And now what they're planning to do in order to eradicate all credit card fraud and in order to precipitate a totally cashless society. What they're planning to do; what they've already tested on the American troops; they're going to subcutaneously laser tattoo that mark onto your right hand or onto your forehead."

Not a DMCA voilation.

[nurb432]

Since you arent really bypassing anything, i dont believe the DMCA will apply.

However, your idea about burglary tools wont be far off..

No big deal...just be 'RFID Shredder'

[limabone]

People buy shredders for their home now to cut documents that contain sensitive information so they cannot be (easily) reconstructed. If the RFID equivalent of a shredder does not yet exist, it will soon, and you will be able to buy them at Wal-Mart for 29.99.

RFIDs = more IT work

[ehiris]

RFIDs will generate a lot of mostly useless data that needs to be stored, backed up, analyzed, and transmitted. From my point of view I don't see how that's bad for all the geeks here on Slashdot.

Re:RFIDs = more IT work

[Anonymous Coward]

RFID technology does mean more work for IT people. Someone needs to maintain the databases (DBA's), maintain the scanners (hardware), the responders (network group), and someone will have to create the middleware for all the databases and apps to work together (developers). Why complain about that?

We want to use it within our organization to track products through the supply chain. We will also use RFID technology for asset tracking WITHIN the company. RFID tags will only be placed on the shipping container. If you do not want the tag, throw away the box!!

We are also exploring the possibility of a new microwave that will not destroy RFID tags. Ha, if you want to be paranoid read Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID (Hardcover)!!!

Major corporations are NOT out to get you. We are interested in improving our bottom line!!

Oh yea, if you use a keycard to get into the building you are already being tracked by passive RFID. The security group can confirm the last door you entered and in some companies your exact location within the building.

foil-lined wallet/purses

[peter303]

The solution is not that complicated. For the convenience of quicker swipes, we'll have the counter-solutions of foil lines for are credit cards, licenses, passports, etc.

RFID, making theft easier

[Dark Fire]

Theft and Burglary have just gotten easier with the aid of RFID technology. Now you can find out what is in someone's home or business just by driving by the building! No need to waste your time trying to profile homes and select the most profitable targets. Just drive through the neighborhood and make out your Christmas list. Point and click profiling. Brought to you by IBM.

Not that bad? Maybe. But they don't have a right.

[electrosoccertux]

Sure, we all say its not that bad; and it really isn't. People defend stuff like this by saying "oh, well I don't care cause I haven't done anything." But the problem with that school of thought is that you are assuming they have a right to this information. They haven't shown me how this is going to benefit me, and even if they show me, I'm still the one who make the decision about whether or not I think this is good; regardless of what they say. The only real reason they want to implement these is because it gives them more power at our expense. Sure its not a big expense, but why do they deserve that power? They don't and therefore don't need to be doing this.

Not all bad

[Anonymous Coward]

RFID isn't all bad - Londoners have been using Oyster cards for a while to simplify travel on the Tube and on buses. Waving the card over the reader at the start and at the end of the journey allows your progress to be tracked and the cheapest possible fare charged. Whilst I'm not in favour of the more extreme uses of RFID mentioned in the article, you do have to admit that RFID could be as useful as it could be dangerous.

Think for the bright side.

[hummassa]

Beats having to put up with her tormenting day and night. :-)

How is this different from UPC?

[iambarry]

Everything you buy already has a UPC on it. If you pay with a credit card, all the information about all the products you buy as scanned by the cash register is already associated with you in a database.

--Barry

hard money

[ChristTrekker]

Another reason to get back on the gold standard. Not only can't the gov't screw with the value of money by practicing inflation, but RFID can't work either.

Re:hard money

[Anonymous Coward]

Another reason? More like the only one.

Re:hard money

[Money for Nothin']

What? That's ridiculous.

Just because a quantity of currency is tied to a quantity of gold does not mean the pieces of currency could not have RFID chips embedded in them. They are not logically-connected problems in any way.

You could have a $460 bill (that's about what gold is going for, IIRC), with an RFID chip embedded in the paper it's printed on. And that $460 bill could be exchanged with the Federal Reserve (or whichever government arm (e.g. the Treasury) would control access to the gold and exchange a portion of that gold for an appropriate payment) for 1oz. of gold.

But the RFID chip would still be in the paper...

The point about government control over inflation is true though.

As to the merits of the gold standard, well, the God of Monetary Economics Himself, Milton Friedman, disagrees with the gold bugs... (personally, I see merits to both sides of the gold coin)

Re:hard money

[ChristTrekker]

The idea of hard currency is that you wouldn't have unconstitutional fiat (i.e. paper) money. I'm not sure the Federal Reserve is constitutional, either. And AFAIK, RFID chips can't work embedded in metal.

Re:hard money

[Money for Nothin']

#1) The idea of a gold standard is *NOT* that you would not have a paper money. A gold standard does not mean that we go back to a system of trading, literally, pieces of gold (taken to its logical extreme, we could go back to a system of barter, trading cattle for pigs and turkeys and such).

Paper money and the gold standard have both nothing and everything to do with each other. On one hand, a gold standard would be the underlying metal against which the value of the paper money is determined; on the other hand, paper money only represents a quantity of gold, but is used to trade for other, non-gold goods/services.

Prior to the U.S. coming off the gold standard under FDR in the early 1930s, we had paper money that was tied in value to a certain amount of gold. $1 was worth X ounces of gold -- gold, I might add, which was held by the U.S. Federal government.

Money thus represented a physical quantity of a universally-desired (irrational though it may be) commodity. The quantity of money was tied to the supply of gold at some particular rate.

Today, under our fiat system of currency, money does not represent goods (e.g. gold), but labor -- each dollar bill represents a guarantee by the U.S. government to pay the owner of the dollar bill in a product of some form. But that product must be produced, ultimately, by the fruits of at least a small amount of labor (if nothing else, the process of developing the idea of the product). Money today, thus, represents the labors of Americans. Increase the money supply by printing more money and the value of American labor will be reduced by it (more money supply at a constant level of labor means there's more cash to go around, and thus, inflation); the reverse is also true.

The difference is that under the gold standard, you could literally go to the Federal govn't and demand a quantity of gold in exchange for your money. Under our current fiat standard, you certainly can't go to the government and demand a quantity of labor from other people in exchange, even though that is (ultimately) what it represents...

FDR took away the ability to demand gold in exchange for coins and bills, and he took all Americans' gold too while he was at it, because he was a socialist pinko who believed that doing so would save the U.S. from economic disaster (clearly it didn't). The govn't paid people for this taking, at a rate of $20.67/oz, the official price of gold for 97 years to that point. After taking everybody's gold (and silver), FDR promptly had gold revalued up to $35/oz.

Hell of a way to make money for the govn't -- just take peoples' gold and price it at whatever level is convenient, regardless of real-world market conditions...

I might add that this is part of the folly of a gold standard. Even if we revert back to one, what, exactly, guarantees that the govn't won't come along and take us off the gold standard again? Or define gold to be worth whatever it wants it to be worth? And since the govn't can define the value of money, Constitutionally (see #2), how is that ultimately any different from the Federal Reserve defining the value of money by controlling the supply of fiat money?

The fact of the matter is that the government will take what it wants, when it wants, and the only prevention against this fact is an armed, angry, government-restricting people. Of course, we don't have such a populace anymore; we have an "entitlement population"...

#2) The idea that paper money is somehow "unconstitutional."

See the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5:

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power...

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Congress has the Constitutionally-defined power to control the money supply, period, and the power to determine the value of our money (i.e. to

Book recommendation

[necrognome]

I recommend Spychips to any /.er, especially for quick plane reading. It's easy to go all "black helicopters" about issues like these, but the authors do an outstanding job of explaining the technology and privacy risks; they even respond to industry criticisms (of their so-called paranoia).

Re:Book recommendation

[Anonymous Coward]

That book is especially one-sided. A more complete over-view is http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnIn quiry.asp?userid=rf1CioKC11&isbn=0321290968&itm=2 This is a great introductory book on RFID.

Re:Book recommendation

[Anonymous Coward]

"RFID : Applications, Security, and Privacy" by Simson Garfinkel and Beth Rosenberg is an excellent book, and is certainly more balanced than Spychips. However, it doesn't contain the wealth of patent information that Spychips does. As a result, the Garfinkel book isn't a replacement for Spychips. If you want to know what's in both books, you'll have to read both books.

Don't even need to transport them to go to jail.

[doublem]

Given the fact that having burglary tools in your home is illegal, even if you've never even been suspected of a crime, it's probably safe to assume any RFID Killers would get a similar classification.

You wouldn't need to be carrying them around, transporting them or taking them into a store. Just having them in the back of your closet could land you in jail.

"No honest person would want such devices, only criminals with something to hide would want an RFID Killer. Even the NAME is threatening and criminal."

Trash tracking

[Wansu]

Officer, I cannot lie. I put that pair of old running shoes at the bottom of that mound of trash.

AFDB's anyone?

[qbasicnewbie]

Yes, that's right folks: Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie time!!!

Reminds me of the Beast

[The Wooden Badger]

Reminds me of the conspiracy theory type talk of the computer called the Beast, I think in Belgium of all places. The one that evokes panic and fear in the minds of anyone that thinks anything of the number 666. If I remember correctly it has to do with barcodes, bla, bla, bla. If you stop and think about it, how much can "they" really get from you. Think about the kind of storage capacity they would need to store the information let alone the manpower it would take to sift through the information just to get to the nuggets they would want. There is a lot of talk about certain items that people might not want "them" to know about, but what kind of resources would it take to do what people are afraid of. Sure there is a potential for abuse, and there should be logical limits to the use of the technology, but the people that have the resources to truly exploit the technology are probably set. How much good is it going to do someone to link my identity to purchasing five or six gallons of milk a week?

Electronic counteraction

[ThinkingGuy]

Whenever the topic of RFID tags comes up, I see suggestions on destroying them or disabling them. What about a different approach: jamming them?

Think of the children's story where the man forces a leprechaun to lead him to his pot of gold. The man ties a ribbon around the tree where the gold is buried, and makes the leprechaun promise not to remove the ribbon while the man goes to get his shovel. When the man returns, the leprechaun has tied ribbons around thousands of different trees, making it impossible for the man to find the one he wants.

Along the same lines, if you just bought a handful (several thousand or so, after all they're small and cheap) RFID tags and carried them around with you, wouldn't the multiple responses make it difficult or impossible for anyone to "scan" you without your knowledge or permission?

Can someone who's more familiar with the technical workings of RFID tags comment on whether this would work or not, and why?

Re:Electronic counteraction

[Merk]

No, it wouldn't. UHF RFID tags (the ones that work at up to about 10m) are simple, cheap devices. The protocols governing how they're read are anti-collision searches. The whole point is that you can read a whole lot of them at once, like a whole pallet of them coming off a truck into a warehouse. If you have several thousand of them, it might cause problems, but they'd have to be the right protocol to tie up the search algorithm. If the tags they're looking for are EPC class 1, and you've scattered class 0 tags everywhere it would easily(*) spot your class 1 tag.

(*) easily meaning, if you had it exposed, nowhere near your body, far from any metal, water, etc. The fact is, RFID tags are hard to read under ideal circumstances. 10m is about the limit for a lone tag in air. If you put the RFID tag on a nametag and put that nametag on a person, you'd have to read that tiny signal as it's distorted by a huge bag of salt water right next to it, something very hard to do.

The thing is, if you wanted to get rid of the tag, you could just take it off. These things are not hard to spot. Sure, the chip itself is really small, a little bigger than a grain of sand. On the other hand, to have any read range at all, this chip has to be attached to a pretty big antenna. Most are at least 10cm long, or 8cm x 8cm square. The smallest one I've seen is about 5cm x 1cm. If it's sewn into the lining of a jacket, or buried in the foam of a cushion you might not see it, but aside from those cases it's pretty unlikely you'd have trouble finding the tag. Think of them like those anti-theft tags they put on CDs and clothing. How hard are they to spot?

And if you harken back to GATTACA...

[suitepotato]

Then you can see where that goes. Micro DNA scanners xmit results at all times. Nowhere you can go without being known. Lead albatross around your neck forever. No more starting over. Permanent lock in.

And will those advocating use of tuned-EMP device designed to defeat these tags be tarred and feathered as terrorists?

Don't blame the Republicans here kids. The Democrats are not averse to abusing your rights basic, human, and civil to get what they want and the press will always go along with it all. The public has no attention span, doesn't think too much, and will always vote in the same array of idiots no matter who it is that is running.

And Perotistas wouldn't be any different.

Commitment to the sanctity of human privacy and dignity is just not on the radar of the political establishment.

This seems tinfoil hat now, but so did a lot of things we take for granted today and a lot of it would sound like a Stalinist police state to the McCarthyites of the fifties and like a satanic tyranny to the founders of this nation.

Not surprisingly, governments everywhere, not just here, will embrace this. As usual, the state vs. the people will be the showdown. At it has been throughout history.

Ay corrumba! A wacko sequel!!

[Rick Zeman]

But (no shit) she's already releasing a sequel:

The Spychips Threat : Why Christians Should Resist RFID and Computer Tracking

An updated version of the authors' previous Spychips, this book explores the inherent dangers of RFID (which stands for Radio Frequency Identification and is a technology that uses tiny computer chips to track consumer items and consumers) and shows how this powerful new technology actually fits into the schema of many evangelicals' interpretation of biblical prophecy. Compiling massive amounts of research with firsthand knowledge, Spychips explains how RFID works, reveals the history and future of the mater planners' strategies to imbed these trackers on everything (from postage stamps to shoes to people themselves), and ties in these ominous new devices to current Christian thought about the coming New World Order.

From:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1595 550216/ref=pd_sim_b_1/104-0662104-7062340?_encodin g=UTF8&v=glance

Aren't we paranoid.

[Inoshiro]

"From now on, that particular pair of shoes or carton of cigarettes is associated with you."

How so? Do you even know how a UPC works? Our anonymous reader clearly does not. A UPC doesn't have a uniq bar code attached to each item, why should an RFID (which is, essentially, the same idea) suddenly have a uniq code per item attached? How would you coordinate the manufacture? It was hard enough getting everyone on the same page for UPC.

Heck, UPCs are guarded like MAC addresses -- each company pays for the intro bits, and then is responible for the sub item numbering. The master UPC database is distributed in a form that can be embedded in POS systems. I'm sure that every retailer in the world would love to pay not for the extended RFID version, but something really fancy that tracks your every purchase, plus the associated cost of making all RFIDs uniqe!

Re:Aren't we paranoid.

[DigitalSorceress]

I think that all the hullabaloo is that RFID chips make it feasable to provide a UNIQUE NUMBER for each chip as well as a UPC-type number for the product id.

Re:Aren't we paranoid.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're correct that UPC barcodes do not have unique per-product codes, but that's about it. The whole point of RFID is to have a unique code. It's "Radio Frequency IDentification."

As one example, check out the Hitachi Mu chip, http://www.hitachi.co.jp/Prod/mu-chip/ [hitachi.co.jp] The *only* thing it holds is a unique ID, like a serial number. That's it. All logic, all mapping, everything else has to happen from the back-end database.

The RFID tags that go on products are almost all EPC global gen2 tags. There is a taxonomy that all manufacturers use, as the poster above correctly guessed. For example, a class 0 tag must store:

• A 21-bit domain manager, effectively a code for each manufacturer. (Ex: gillette)
• A 17-bit object class, which is a code for each product a manufacturer makes. (Ex: men's mach three turbo razor in black)
• A 24-bit serial number, unique to that specific item. (Remember, kids, 2^24 = nearly 18 million unique IDs.)

So, not to be overly blunt, you're just wrong. Products do have unique codes, and there are increasingly sophesticated back-end databases to support tracking these codes.

ph33r the llap-goch master!

[Thud457]

$20 in quarters in a sock allows you to easily procure more coins!

I'm taking out a patent for a faraday cage lined..

[NecrosisLabs]

..trashcan.

I'm trying not to be paranoid about this stuff, and I understand the need for companies to make a buck, but this stuff just gives me the willies.

I also have a dream about those "loyalty" cards that are used to track shopping habits, it goes like this:

At the common areas in a public place (office, gym, whatever) there is a fishbowl filled with these loyalty cards. You need to go grocery shopping, so you go over, and pull out one for the store that you need, tossing in the one that is already in your wallet. You shop, and get the "discount" (as opposed to my perspective that I resent having to pay a premium to retain my privacy). Next week, you happen to be somewhere else before you go shopping. Toss in that last card, grab a new one! This would really do a number on their datamining accuracy.

I'm aware that some people use these cards for check validation and suchlike. This would only work for those who have them for the discount.

credit cards?

[Anonymous Coward]

As fraud is rampant, the use of credit cards is actually declining. Most of the people I know had their credit card info stolen at least one time within the past couple of years and it seems to get only worse. Credit cards are not just annoying when you have to wait in line for a transaction but are becoming more and more "The Cash of the Stupid".

Re:The best way to fight high-tech is with low-tec

[Lonewolf666]

That's the antenna. There should also be a little chip that holds the circuitry. AFAIK there is no alternative available for this yet. Note that the chip may be very small, an awl may be more appropriate than a mallet.

It's an intelligence test...

[Belial6]

If your on a date, there is at least some chance that passions could ignite and sex could happen.

Thus anyone on a date that doesn't have condoms is a complete idiot.

Whether the girl thinks being an idot is a good thing or a bad one is a whole different story.

Re:It's an intelligence test...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is immoral.

Sex without love is promiscious.

Re:It's an intelligence test...

[Doctor Faustus]

Yeah, isn't it great!

Re:The best way to fight high-tech is with low-tec

[HungWeiLo]

Imagine swapping RFID chips from various underwear vendors with your next-door neighbors.

Hilarity ensues from these outlyers of the marketing data.

Yes, carrying your ID works very well...

[Dr. Manhattan]

Pensioner freed after FBI bungle

"Derek Bond, 72, was held at Durban [South Africa] police station under FBI orders for nearly three weeks after being arrested at gunpoint while on holiday with his wife."

PLEASE MOD UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

No mod points for me today...

oh please

[XdevXnull]

"Now imagine a store with RFID chips embedded in every product. At checkout time, the digital code in each item is associated with our credit card data."

Yeah, because that's not EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS NOW every time you use your credit card with, say, a UPC code. Granted, it's harder to track a upc after it leaves the store... But come on; if you're that concerned about privacy, you couldn't be using a credit card at all.

Re:oh please

[Tankko]

Wrong. A UPC says something is a tube of Crest Tooth Paste. A RFID says it's *this* tube of Crest Tooth Paste.

Big difference. Don't let the RFID lobby tell you this is just a electronic version of UPC codes, it's not.

The problem with RFIDs..

[OmgTEHMATRICKS]

It isn't just a way to help with inventory.

Sure, you say there are things they can already find out about you through other ways, but those take time, money, effort, things people don't want to spend to get information about you. Honestly, do you think advertisers have people waiting outside every potential customer's trashcan to dive through their dumpster and find out information about what they buy? No!

It's a pain in the butt. See, that's the difference. You have privacy because people just don't -want- to go through to the effort of finding out these things about you. With RFIDs, you're tagged like cattle, for crissakes. There is no effort. They just scan EVERYTHING and information about EVERYONE who has bought items with RFIDs in them are instantly put into their databases.

And it isn't just advertisers either. Anyone who wants to find out what kind of person you are can go on RFID scanning joyrides. Or if they have access to these databases(which I'm sure advertisers have no qualms about giving away or selling away) they just use those. If your life is decided by time, time is money, and you buy things with your money, people can find out about your entire life by scanning every single item you buy(or having it automatically scanned when you buy them, which is a hell of a lot more likely. Don't buy it when company's say they won't scan your products - they sure as hell will. More money for them.) It's just that simple. RFIDs will be in cash too and then that'll be that.

All that privacy you thought you had goes away. Right down the drain, out the window. Sayonara, it's gone. Say goodbye because you won't ever see it again.

RFID Laws and Standards

[samj]

RFID has a lot to offer, but we're implementing it left right and centre before we've thought it through properly. We need laws that dictate how these gadgets can and can't be used, probably tied in with our privacy laws, and with big, fat, pointy teeth. If you want RFID on your clothes so you can model them on LCD screens in changerooms then go for your life. Let one walk out the door still activated? Fine. Big fine. Like $10k fine.

Technologically there's a few things that could be done too. I don't know a great deal about the technology itself with respect to frequencies used, etc. but it would seem to me that most of the problems would go away if you implemented two universal, standardised functions:

PING - so you can reliably detect any tag.
KILL - so you can reliably and irreversably destroy any tag.

In some cases the KILL command may need to be restricted (for example when the tags are used for security purposes you don't want thieves being able to use their 'KILL wand' on it), but any such restriction would have to be removed the second the device left your posession (e.g. at the point of sale).

Should be future legislation: RFID Kill Switch

[FathomIT]

I imagine stores that rely on RFID in house will also be required to destroy the RFID before you walk out of the place.

Radio ID chips to come with kill switch

Re:Should be future legislation: RFID Kill Switch

[illumina us]

No, because for examples, some new refridgerators will rely on the RFID tags of your products to tell you whether or not to throw them away, or go get more because you are low, etc.

Re:Should be future legislation: RFID Kill Switch

[Reziac]

And they'll behave like inkjets that decide your ink is state-dated and stop printing even tho the cart is still full. So now you'll hear it from your fridge: "Your margarine has expired. You must throw it away and buy a new box."

Misleading article

[ChrisGilliard]

This article leads you to believe that someone could get your credit card by scanning your trash for rfid tags. This is not possible. All they could get is some sort of identifier (user102938844903) bought a certain pair of shoes, etc. If some sales analyst wants to look in my trash can, go ahead. I'm not concerned with that. In fact, most of us do the same with Google every time we search. We have a cookie on our computer that uniquely identifies us. That's why the ads are targeted better to us. In fact, this is a positive, not something to be scared of. As long as they don't give away my email address or contact info I'm fine with it.

Depends on the area

[nurb432]

In my area, posession of 'tools' at home does not constitute a crime.

Driving around with them with out a license would take some explaining, but depending on the situation that wouldnt be automatically a crime either. ( much as the transport of a firearm to the range, unloaded in your trunk, without holding a carry license is legal )

However, getting caught doing something wrong with them in your possession gets you extra time in jail.

Now of course in your area YMMV.....

COnsummers could destroy the RFID devices

[ChrisA90278]

It should be possable to destroy an RFID device with a very powerfull _pulse_ of RF energy. People who like to use shreaders could buy a device that frys the RFID chips. I think these "RFID shreders" could be low priced too as the _average_ power emitted would be low

Condom-Popper for Catholic Girls

[Anonymous Coward]

This patent is for a hand-held EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) device that can be carried easily in a purse and which, when activated, applies an EMP pulse that heats and destroys the integrity of RFIDs that may be embedded in birth-control devices such as condoms.

safe disposal service

[dickens]

Another Business idea:

I'll pick up your trash at the curb (in its metal container) and immediately run it through a chipper/degausser guaranteed to kill 98.5% of RFID tags.

FWIW

[Anonymous Coward]

If your "lump" reaches all the way into your pocket, you have no need to feel inadequate. At least on my pants, the pockets are a good seven inches from the crotch.

Why we hide

[Anonymous Coward]

In a perfect world, laws would be based upon rational policy and enforced fairly. Since when have "privacy laws" prevented those in power from breaking their own rules?
"Oh! We're a civilized people. We'd never condone the use of: torture, assassination, the use of the H-bomb, or even intentionally fouling up your credit history. Certainly we'd never use covert surveilance of the civilian population to single out those that we need to silence in order to maintain power. Never. Nope. No way. We'd NEVER do anything so sneaky!"
I'll quit being an ANONYMOUS coward when I can afford really expensive lawyers and a BIG megaphone.
-AC

undecryptable?

[mkcmkc]

It stores your CC # (in an undecryptable hash format of course)

I wonder what "undecryptable" means exactly. Seems like it'd be pretty easy to work out the list of all md5sums for all possible CC #'s, for example.

Re:undecryptable?

[Eli Gottlieb]

It means the number is actually encrypted by an algorithm that doesn't lose bits in the process, thereby making every hash unique to the number it came from.

the real reason for dollar coin failure

[mkcmkc]

I recently had occasion to spend several hundred two-dollar bills in my day-to-day transactions, and it's made this question of why unconventional coin and currency haven't succeeded quite clear. In my experience, people almost uniformly love these rare items.

The reason they don't achieve widespread use is because merchants pull them out of circulation, rather than giving them out as change. Why do they do this? Perceived inconvenience, the idea that employees will mistake their value, etc. The solution? Remove alternatives (as the parent suggested), or offer them at a discount (e.g., 100 dollar coins for $99).

All of this theorizing about customers not liking them is just so much self-serving bilge.

Re:the real reason for dollar coin failure

[fredklein]

offer them at a discount (e.g., 100 dollar coins for $99).

Oh, that'll go over well.

Customer: Here's $99. Please give me $100 in dollar coins.
Bank: Here you go, sir.
[Customer pockets one coin, pushes the rest back across the counter]
Customer: Here's $99. Please give me $100 in dollar coins.
etc...

Re:the real reason for dollar coin failure

[mkcmkc]

Obviously some thought to detail needs to go into this. Perhaps instead an extra $.01 fee should be assessed on commonly used items, rather than the discount. Etc., etc.

Re:the real reason for dollar coin failure

[daft_one]

And don't forget that, like 50-cent pieces, there just isn't a slot in most cash drawers reserved for them. So, when they come in, they get tossed into the "catch-all" slot with those free-soda bottlecaps, checks and large bills (unless those are under the register).

Anyway, come change time, the cashier can either 1) dig through multiple types of coins and misc crap to give out dollar or 50-cent coins, or 2) give out the easily-accessible dollar bills and/or "normal" coins like quarters. Guess which they're more anxious to give out with several impatient-looking people waiting in line!

Yes, this is possible to fix... But you try convincing retailers to buy all-new cash drawers--which I'd guess would either have to be wider (new registers too), or have narrower change slots which you can't dump into from your change counter's bins(yup, new change counter).

(Yeah... I cashiered through a lot of college at a hardware store.)

Proper garbage disposal

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading the RFID tags in garbage may not be bad. What about people that dump their garbage illegally, on the roadside, on your street, on private land, in nature spots, woodland, streams? In the UK, we call this fly-tipping. It causes a lot of trouble and expense, since the local authority has to clean it up. People take old sofas, fridges, broken washing machines, and dump them on country lanes. Now your sofa has an RFID tag, we'll know who dumped it.

The European Union is finally bringing in laws to make people dispose of their old cars properly. Now you'll have to dispose of all your rubbish properly, not just pretend it doesn't exist because you threw it out of your car window someplace.

Pay Cash

[Anonymous Coward]

If you pay cash there is nothing to correlate or trend.

Re:Ay corrumba! A wacko sequel!!

[Artifakt]

The Christian take on this just isn't all that whacko.
          That part of the Christian faith that takes the revelation all that literally (and many consider it more a metaphorical work, or coded talk about what was happening in Rome under Nero more than a prediction for modern day times), usually agrees that ultimately, the real mark of the beast will require the receiver to swear an oath putting their governemt or leader above their allegience to God.
          The 666 code part is supposed to be obvious only in retrospect, that is: First you get a government sponsered symbol that requires the reciever have it to sell or buy anything, AND requires they explicitly say something along the lines of "Glorious Leader is more important than my old God to me. Glorious leader is my new God." (Hopefully you see what's morally repugnant about that regardless of just how it's named). Then and only then you see how 666 fits in to confirm it.
          Even if you are an Atheist or something, would you really want to swear that a secular leader now is your God? I'd figure that Atheists would be among the last people to want to go back to worshipping a deified Roman emperor, or something along those lines.
          So if a lot of Christians don't think Barcodes or RFID are the actual Mark of the Beast, why do so many oppose them? Because we think they have a dehumanizing effect, for one. I certainly can't speak for all Xians, but it's pretty common to think that anything that encourages people to treat other people like just numbers, or in this case like conveniently exploitable data generators, instead of people, is a bad thing, and for many Christians, one step closer to the possible final BAD thing. What's sad is that most Agnostics, Secular Humanists, Platonists, Pagans, Neo-Pagans, Randroids and the Rotary Club all tend to agree with at least the first point, even if they don't believe the second point is ever coming.
          "Whacko" is only a good term to use on this particular point, if you want to split the people saying "This is Bad!" from the people saying "Yeah, and I'm afraid it might get worse!".

BION

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Will the DVD you just bought be playable or writable?
>I doubt that the micro can do either.

Believe it or not - with manufacturing costs so high these days most electrical devices are made from the same standard circuit board.

For instance Panasonic's NN-T995SF microwave oven can be converted into their TH-42PWD7UY plasma television with just 3 resistors, some Saran Wrap, and a 60 watt light bulb.

I can not think of a microwave that will easily play dvds, but it would have to come with a rotisserie attachment.

Privacy tape.

[Anonymous Coward]

2 common household items - duct tape and a few layers of tin foil would cause some significant attenuation. Better yet, wait for 3M to start selling Privacy tape - a foily tape that attenuates RFID signals - it will be cheap and effective.

No more litterbugs

[Autonomous Crowhard]

Think about it... If item can be tied to you at the point of purchase then the litter folk will definitely have someone to go after. With the fines as high as they are this is would not be a waste of money.

Vending machine cos. WANT dollar coins

[ccmay]

Resistance from the vending machine industry (machines would need to be retooled to accept a coin significantly different from the ones currently in use)

Shows how much you know. The vending machine companies are some of the biggest boosters of replacing the paper dollar with a dollar coin. They know it is psychologically much easier for people to part with their "chicken feed" than to spend folding money.

Or as someone with a poor grasp of social psychology recently said,

The perception by the great unwashed that coins aren't "real money"

Yup. That's what the vending machine owners are banking on.

This goes hand in hand with Americans' fanatical opposition to being educated. . . It's just another case of Americans' short-sightedness

Yeah, and we kick puppies and eat babies, too. Boo!

-ccm

Re:Vending machine cos. WANT dollar coins

[dajak]

The vending machine companies are some of the biggest boosters of replacing the paper dollar with a dollar coin. They know it is psychologically much easier for people to part with their "chicken feed" than to spend folding money.

Switching to larger or smaller denomination coins does seem to have psychological effects for a few years apparently. I heard Italians complain of how they spend the 1 and 2 euro coins too easily, while we in the Netherlands would have preferred also having 5 euro coins (as we already had fives, and would have moved to ten coins at some point). To me using paper for denominations like $1 buying you 15 minutes on a parking meter is weird. You would have to take huge amounts of quarters to park for a day. To me coins simply signify hard, Northern European currency and bills signify soft, Southern European currency.

The issue is becoming irrelevant anyway since parking meters and vending machines increasingly only accept bank cards, which signify the receding state and the disintegration of national identity.

age is a factor

[bluGill]

People learn currency when they are first introduced to it. The US has not has a major change in over 100 years, so most people never learned the difference between the two.

Sure when pointed out the differences are obvious, but when you reach your hand in your pocket you know that anything between the size of a 50 cent piece and a nickel is a quarter, so you never consider that there is something else in that range as well.

I learned my coins as the SBA was introduced. I can instantly tell the difference because when I was teaching myself to recognize coins that difference mattered. My parents learned when that difference was important, and they never entered learning mode, so they never learned the difference.

It isn't that you can't do it, it is that you never learned to pay attention. Intelligence is not a factor.

What a FANTASTIC idea! Thieves take note!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if there's enough information in BellSouth's patent application to allow me to build a scanner. Also, I wonder what the effective range will be. If it's great enough, then I can cruise neighborhoods on trash day looking for signs of something that I might want to... shall we say 'acquire'? I'm thinking that for some of the larger items, the RFID chip may be on the packaging that gets thrown away, so seeing a blip for a new computer or stereo system show up, well... I haven't even made myself suspicious be being seen going through trash cans, I'm just out for a leisurely drive. And when I come back later, when no one's home, and let myself in, what might I find with the portable scanner that I take in with me? It should lead me straight to the good stuff!

And just think, if some of the predictions I've seen here are true and they put RFID chips in cash! I can sit in a corner of a bar with a portable scanner and just wait for some drunk with a lot of cash in his wallet to walk out of the bar, follow him out, and play a little 'Mack the Knife' tune with him.

And those wonderful rapid access RFID mechanisms they're talking about implementing for entering and leaving the country! Just grab the right person's wallet and vehicle, and it's clear sailing across the border. Just think, they're promoting as being more secure!

DISCLAIMER: I am not a career criminal. If you really want to know how to profit illicitly from RFID chips, you should probably consult a professional. I'm sure they can think of things that I haven't even considered. As for me, I'll damn well be disabling RFID on anything if I can; I'll resist the idea of RFID in cash, credit cards, and checks, and I'll probably carry a wallet or bag with a metal liner for shielding, just in case.

I don't get it!?

[Anonymous Coward]

that bullet was purchased at KMart in Osh Kosh on October 19th at 7:22pm by

I can think of several reasons why RFID causes privacy concerns, but this particular "example" has me mystified. How, exactly, is tracing the provenance of a bullet such a bad thing?

How Long

[Valiss]

Shouldn't need more than a watt or so at the right frequency to kill the chip

Yeah but how long until defacing a RFID chip is illegal? What do you mean they can't tell you what to do with something you own stuff? Ever hear of the music industry?

How is this any different from having . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . information from scanned bar codes associated with your credit card? Sure, RFID tags may provide more info, but these privacy concerns have been around for a long long time.

Fight back against the loyalty cards

[bezuwork's friend]

You can always try and fight back.

I, for example, use the phone numbers of others I know (people I don't really like). Just tell the cashier that you forgot your card and want to enter your number. Then try one (that you know from beforehand). You can always say you are buying stuff for roommates and you know one of them has a card, so you can try 2 or 3 if the first doesn't work. If none of your numbers work, say you're not paying the full price since you have a card - especially after the cashier has rung everything up she or he is unlikely to negate that and will use the card they keep on hand.

Never had that happen to me though, the first number I used (a disagreeable neighbor) worked, and that's what I continue to use even though the neighbor has long moved away.

Otherwise, you can trade cards with people you know, as a less beneficial alternative.

System works sometimes

[bezuwork's friend]

I agree with you 100%.

Just wanted to add that in response to media attention to the Bork episode, we did get the Video Privacy Protection Act.

So media attention can help, at least when there is high-profile abuse.

Until that is made illegal.

[Anti-Trend]

"I see a market for RFID-killers. Shouldn't need more than a watt or so at the right frequency to kill the chip."

Indeed. Of course, we already have blatently freedom-stifling acts like DMCA, Patriot Act (I & II) and many, many more in existance. It would suprise me if the powers that be miss an opportunity to nip this one in the bud. After all, "privacy is for people with something to hide, like terrorists!!!1", right? Nevermind that dusty old document; the founding fathers didn't consider freedom to be more important than personal safety, did they? ...Did they?

-AT

I think it would be more amusing...

[Coyoteold1]

I think it would be lovely to have consumer-available writers for RFID tags that could either erase the info in the tags, or replace it with whatever the end-user wants.

If there is a threat, it could be reduced to absurdity in this fashion, could it not? Is it difficult to hack RFID tags? Are they particularly secure?

I think it would be funny if all that could be read from the trash cans mentioned in the article is "Mortimer Snerd loves Oranges," or "Richard Nixon bought these high-heeled shoes."

Cash is Safe!?!?! HA!

[acidbass]

Just in case you were thinking us cash is safe: http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904rfidtagsexplode. html Just our govt needlessly wasting our tax money to put rfid chips in our 20$ bills. Now, dont you just feel safer?

Now it's making sense...

[Ub3rT3Rr0R1St]

I remember back in my first year of college, I had this old nun for an English teacher. We always thought she was extremely paranoid, because she kept telling us about how the Illuminati were scheming on giving everyone in the world a "number", or something like that.
Now that I hear that individual codes can be given to RFID chips, not just a uniform barcode for a set of products, I begin to wonder if maybe she wasn't such a windbag after all...
Think about going into the doctor to get your annual flu shot, and unbeknownst to you, the shot carries with it the newest version of the RFID chip. Sure it sounds insane, but you gotta wonder...

RFID != GPS

[cecil_turtle]

In the IBM commercial referenced in TFA, they seem to imply that RFID was the technology that alerted the home office that the truck went the wrong way. This could be accomplished with GPS locating and a radio transmitter to send the coordinates back to the office, but neither technology has anything to do with RFID. Unless IBM has a grid of RFID readers laid into roads throughout the US...

coin

[ChristTrekker]

To coin Money

The verb "to coin" is there for a reason. It means to make coins - pieces of metal representing value. It doesn't say "to print". The government has no authority to print paper bills and pass it off as currency. The only thing that's keeping the economy aloft is faith in the credit of the United States. If that faith should ever falter, we'd be spiraling down into hyperinflation so fast it would make your head spin. The happens, sooner or later, to every country that adopts a fiat currency.

You can't pin the economy to something that is fundamentally a fiction. Gold and silver have value. Paper does not. Paper only has promises backing it, and government is really good at breaking promises.

The fact that government coins money (at least originally it did) and regulates the value thereof was one of the primary reasons the government is also in charge of establishing standards of weights and measures. It's in the very same clause because the two go hand-in-hand. If the definition of "ounce" wasn't critically important to the economic lifeblood of the country, you could turn that over to an independent organization, kind of like ANSI or something. But when your money hinges on that definition, it's too important to leave open to the possibility of tampering. However, gov't took it upon itself to tamper with the money system. The meaning of "dollar" fluctuates, and it's under the control of gov't. My bank account can be worth less tomorrow simply because some bureaucrat decided more paper should be printed, diluting the value of what I have. That's just wrong.

Re:coin

[Money for Nothin']

The verb "to coin" is there for a reason. It means to make coins - pieces of metal representing value. It doesn't say "to print". The government has no authority to print paper bills and pass it off as currency.

You're making a argument regarding the medium of transfer of value. This argument is incredibly-weak in light of the purpose of the existence of money in the first place; namely, to be a more-efficient *representation* -- a pointer to a value, if you prefer Comp Sci terms -- of a physical quantity of value.

Without the element of efficient transport of a represented value via some medium -- credit card, paper currency, coins, shells, big-ass rocks (no, really, people used to use rocks that were as big as they were for currency!) -- the very concept of "money" becomes pointless. Why not go back to a barter system, if money is worthless? Quite simply, it's because the argument of greater efficiency of money stands on its own. Who wants to have to deal in trading pigs or cows when buying a loaf of bread or a new DVD?

Even assuming we stick with coins (not paper) as the only Constitutionally-valid form of currency the government can create, riddle me this:

What would happen if we replaced all our paper currency with coins of the same value?

Oh, wait, the Fed would stamp more metal coins as it needs, instead of paper. So, what difference does the medium -- of coins vs. paper -- make?

None at all, except that you are substituting a heavy, more-expensive-to-produce medium -- coins -- for a lighter, less-durable-but-much-cheaper medium -- paper.

The medium of currency is absolutely, positively, 100% irrelevant to the argument of whether we should base that currency on a gold standard or a fiat standard of "the public's labors" (as we do now).

In fact, I said as much in my previous post (in the very first paragraph: "#1) The idea of a gold standard is *NOT* that you would not have a paper money. A gold standard does not mean that we go back to a system of trading, literally, pieces of gold (taken to its logical extreme, we could go back to a system of barter, trading cattle for pigs and turkeys and such).").

The idea that we should go back to less-efficient forms of currency on the basis of government produceability is utterly silly and economically-inefficient. I would make such arguments from other perspectives, privacy/anonymity being chief among them (because sentimental value is irrelevant when the vast majority of the population doesn't care for one's own sentiments).

The only thing that's keeping the economy aloft is faith in the credit of the United States. If that faith should ever falter, we'd be spiraling down into hyperinflation so fast it would make your head spin.

Quite true. Much of our currency is held in bonds to prop up our national debt (which is increased with every year's budget deficit). Were the U.S. govn't to fail to pay for one of those bonds -- something it has never happened in U.S. history (hence, investment in U.S. government bonds is seen by investors as the safest investment in the world) --

The happens, sooner or later, to every country that adopts a fiat currency.

Over time, the chances that any single country will experience hyperinflation due to a fiat currency *do* rise. This is because over time, the behavior of those people who control the money supply (the Fed) will vary (hence the current hand-wringing over who President Bush will pick to replace Alan Greenspan, who has been probably the best chairman anybody can hope for under a fiat currency regime), and eventually, one of the outer points in the variances will be an extreme case. That extrema causes hyperinflation through poor decisionmaking.

Hence, such risks are mitigated as the number of people who decide the fate of the currency increases. But such probabilities, so long as we are dealing with the

exchange one fiat currency for another

[ChristTrekker]

Why not plastic? The paper bills we have are already of no inherent value. Paper or plastic, it makes no difference.

Doesn't anybody see the dangers of a fiat currency? Doesn't anyone think money should have intrinsic worth so that if the gov't collapses, the economy doesn't tank along with it? Money should be secure from the meddling of gov't manipulators.

Infeasible.

[hummassa]

Gold/silver/copper/platinum coins are falsifiable (you can plate a coin made of another (cheaper) heavy metal league). Mettalic powder is not very practical. No, the only way of controlling the value of stuff is _less_ government meddling and _more_ information available to everybody.