Slashdot Mirror
Richard Stallman Accosted For Tinfoil Hat
ndansmith writes "Bruce Perens posts in his blog about an amusing encounter between Richard Stallman and United Nations security at the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis. It seems that RFID technology, which Stallman opposes for privacy reasons, was used in the identification badges for the conference. From the blog: 'You can't give Richard a visible RF ID strip without expecting him to protest. Richard acquired an entire roll of aluminum foil and wore his foil-shielded pass prominently.' During a keynote speech, Stallman also passed around the tinfoil for other to use as well. It seems that UN security was not amused, however, as they would not let him leave the room for some time." What makes this even funnier, of course, is that tin foil hats won't stop them.
If the holeys in a mesh are half the size of the average wavelength of the radiation, practically none will get through, assuming it is made of the right material. The proper size mesh for RFID technology is left as an excerise for the reader.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Exactly. The story does NOT say "Richard Stallman Accosted For Tinfoil Hat". It says he wrapped his RFID card in aluminum foil, which is 100% effective in preventing reading the card without the card carrier's knowledge. The story also says that Mr. Stallman willingly took off the foil at checkpoints.
End of story? Because your opinion obviously supersedes everybody else's. In fact, I don't know why I'm even posting this, seeing as how you've stated what you think, which is undoubtedly without question, and there's no point in discussing it further.
Sarcasm aside... the UN could have been more polite on this issue. RMS could have been more polite on this issue. For instance, why didn't RMS protest the badge when handed it in the first place? Why did he, instead, go out and buy a roll of foil and start covering it up? Did he even attempt to talk to the organizers to obtain a badge with no RFID strip?
There's still no excuse for acting like a jackass, and being a pain to people (the security guards) who have nothing to do with the decision to use RFID badges. (If he was being a pain to, say, the Head of Security, or somebody else who was involved in the decision and had the ability to revoke it, then that would be a different story.) If you want to get something changed, being a jerk to innocent guys just trying to do their job isn't the way.
Comment of the year
Actually, beeing an electrical engineer, I can tell you that aluminum or tin would be an equally effective shield for RFID or any other frequency in which it is relativly large enough. (Relative to the wavelength used by the transmitting device..in the case of RFID it can use anything from 52 mm to 2398 m. No matter the frequency, encasing an entire object in metal foil will block its RF output as explained loosely below.)
If you wrap any RF transmitting device in tin OR aluminum foil, you are going to completely shield the device and no RF will get in or out because the foil would act as a farady cage.
This is because aluminum conducts electricity just fine, and as RF is composed of electro-magnetet waves, a solid conducting surface will act as a ground (short) and bounce the signal. If there is no way for the signal to escape, it wont.
Any electrically conductive material would have this property. You could (and it has been done many times) make a faraday cage out of aluminum just as easily as steel or tin. Aluminum of course only has about 60 percent of the electrical conductivity of copper so copper (actually silver but obviously too expensive) would be the ideal material, but for weak signals like RFID it is irrelivant and both would work fine.
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
lead is the only way to go
I used to use a anti-xray film bag for shoplifting, works a treat
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
if you had actually RTFA'd you'd realize that comment wasn't made until nearly 2 hours after he was allowed to leave the room. so no, the sarcastic "maybe i shoulda killed ..." comment has absolutely nothing to do with him not being allowed to leave the initial panel room.
/* No Comment */
Ladies and gents: Aluminum foil may not work for head-gear, but it will work just dandy for covering an RFID tag.
;~)
Tag == 100% wrapped.
Head != 100% wrapped (one would hope)
Aluminum foil is conductive. That and complete coverage is all you need for a faraday cage.
There are like 30 posts already that act like it won't work: it will. Want to test it? Wrap your walkman in foil and try to listen to FM. Freqs are different for RFID (probably), but it doesn't matter.
Take care not to touch the ant. of the radio to the foil though, or you may actually improve reception
You might want to RTFA again and pay attention this time.
He joked about killing another participant *After* being detained and released and allowed to attend another panel. Not only that, but he joked about it personally to Bruce Perens only after Bruce assured Richard of their diplomat status.
so, RTFAMC
From TFA: (Emphasis mine)
Want a high quality FOSS RTS game? Try Warzone 2100!
this wasn't a visit to someones home for tea. he was attending a conference hosted by the U.N., a political organization, where he made a political statement.
RMS doesn't represent Linux (or "GNU/Linux" as he prefers). He represents the FSF. And the entire purpose of the FSF, the reason for which RMS founded it, is to raise objections about technology being used in a manner that is harmful to the public interest, and hopefully to provide alternatives. That may have some overlap with the interests of Linux, but it's not the same thing. RMS has long taken a stand on many issues not directly related to proprietary software.
Like that would make headlines? RMS is going for max publicity.
AT&ROFLMAO
The UN has a huge positive effect on the world. Examples:
It strikes me that, of the people who are wholly negative of the UN, the vasty majority are from the USA. It's not surprising, given that the UN are criticising the USA for blocking their torture investigations at the moment.
I don't think you'll find anybody claiming that the UN is a perfect organisation. But only trolls and ignorant people could claim that the UN is not worth supporting.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
[...]
It's just another example of hypocrisy.
No, Alanis, it's not.
You can't take the sky from me...
I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious that the MIT article was a joke. Now people are quoting it as fact.
As smart as those MIT students may be they failed to explain why it amplified the signal.
Simply put, the 'tin foil' or aluminum hat they constructed was a parabolic antenna with the test subjects brain as its focal point. Go back and look at those pictures in the MIT article and see for yourself.
You can in fact shield an object if you *completly* enclose said object with aluminum foil (it's conductive). However, copper foil and screen is the standard for shielding used by professionals.
The enclosure doesn't have to be air tight. But the gaps or holes in the foil need to be smaller then the wavelength your trying to attenuate. This is why RF "screen rooms" can use copper screen instead of solid copper and still be effective to up around 3 GHz.
The more you know...
Before you go flaming against patriots who care about the smallest freedoms, maybe you'd like to identify "we". You said "Westerners." Are you an Easterner? As in France? Greece? China? Maybe you're just trolling, Anonymous Coward. Or maybe you're actually that ignorant.
If "We" has been experiencing all the stuff that "We" said, how did "We" get onto Slashdot to complain about it? Why would "We" so passionately offer up "We"'s opinions into a public forum without showing respect to the soldiers' blood that bought the privilege?
Why not clear "We's" head from the cobwebs of all those anal probes and realize that every Free Person's freedom starts somewhere, and Stallman shows a highly idealized and ecclectic way of expressing it? Why is that not something worth celebrating, "We"?
All freedom is born of conflict, and Stallman's nonviolent middle-finger approach should be applauded. By the way, he's part of that "you in the West" group to which you so arrogantly refer. The removal of the smallest personal freedom leaves us all damaged, and free people have the responsibility of clinging to those freedoms. That's why "We in the west" don't have to go through all the vile crap that happened to your mom.
Stop being grumpy about your freedom. Go and enlist in the army. Fight against oppression. Or buy a roll of tin foil and wrap your brain in it. Or write a letter to the newspaper. Or join a democracy and vote. If "We" can post to an internet forum, "We" obviously has a measure of freedom, doesn't "We"?
Anyone can understand the outrage over the evils that "We" mentioned. But if "We" thinks that complaining about others' freedoms somehow rids the world of oppression, then "We" needs to spend some time worshipping on the shores of Normandy.
The U.N. general from Canada motioned to intervene. The U.S. refused. From your link:
The U.N. itself cannot do anything: It's a place for the member nations to talk. If the biggest member decides that a genocide is not worth the risk of potential military casualties, then the fault for inaction is not with the U.N. for trying, but for the member nation for refusing to act.
You can't take the sky from me...
I am not sure how it works relative to Gauss's law, it has been a long while since school and working in RF is sometimes a lot of guesswork to go with the theory, but I will try to explain it this way...
In the RF world if you have a perfect short circuit between the transmitting element and ground, or a perfect open circuit, you will have a perfect 100% reflection. Free space has a certain resistance to RF, and to avoid reflections, antennas match resistances between your system and free space (and back again).
If you have a grounded metal surface, this acts like a (near) perfect short to ground. So in RF it will act like a mirror, reflecting any RF that hits it. This is the reason something like a satellite dish works. It is an antenna with a grounded reflector behind it reflecting all the energy in one direction.
In the case of the faraday cage, the whole thing is grounded. If you transmit RF inside of it, the energy will just keep bouncing off the walls untill free-space loss and other losses reduce the signal to nothing. Outside of the cage you will not see any energy. Basically it creates the worst possible translation from the transmitter to free space and is therefore the worst antenna you could build.
In practice I've seen numerous uses of faraday cages built inside buildings to keep tests involving high powered RF from damaging or interfering with property in other parts of the building. So theory aside, I can attest that they do work to isolate equipment in both directions.
Also, there is a faraday cage inside every microwave oven keeping the 2.4 GHz RF from getting out. And every piece of waveguide transmission line is also the same thing. The signal bounces around untill it reaches the other end.
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Pssst. Hey you want to know a secret? Come here, let me whisper it in your ear.
there are starving people in the US too.
evil is as evil does
Countries pay according to their BNP and since US has a large BNP compared to many other countries US pay more than any other nation. Second largest are Japan with 19 % compared with US 24%.
BTW Germany UK France and Italy together pays more then the US so EU totally pays more than than the US.
Just saying it like it are.
Money owed by U.S. to U.N.: $1bn
9 p3.htm
Money owed by U.N. to U.S.: $4.7bn
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa10319
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
My point is that it is not aversion to change that causes his site to be a little behind technologically. It is time constraints of everyone involved.
It isn't but military intervention from the UN member countries under UN flag needs an a resolution from the UN Security Council. The council has 15 memberstates, out of which 5 are permanent. For a decision on substancial matters, 9 yes votes are needed for an OK. Furthermore, for a resolution to pass, all 5 permanent members must concur.
In this case, permanent members USA and France didn't concur and hence no resolution.
So you see, it's not just about the material aid, it's about tying unamir hands behind it's back and not allowing the force to intervene.
Stallman COMPLIED with the security, you maroon.
Did you RTFA?
He willingly unwrapped it to go through any of the visible check-points, he simply objected to the potential that people might be reading the RF ID without his knowledge and tracking him around the grounds.
He made an important point, to a bunch of people who probably need to know it. Maybe the VIPs at the UN didn't know that their ID could be compromised by a 'terrist' with a RFID scanner.
As Schneier said in his latest Cryptogram "Security always gets better, it never gets worse".
You will probably be able to read RFID from hundreds of metres away soon. Far enough away to make selective targeting a reality.
Get with the program.
Of the 191 UN member states, 94 contribute 39,329 troops to 13 different missions.
The five permanent members of the security council, who effectively ordered all those blue helmets dispatched, provide 1,030 troops in total.
The US has deployed a quarter of a million troops in Iraq and several thousand in Afghanistan. To serve the UN in 2003, it sent two soldiers. The UK does slightly better: 415 British troops currently wear blue helmets.
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, India and Ghana are the five main contributors, providing 18,745 troops.
Note: those figures dates back to february 2004.
One more point : since 1990, in missions in Sierra Leone and Liberia alone, more than 1,200 peacekeepers died. One of them was Canadian, the others were all Nigerians.