Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sydney Airport to Instate RFID Baggage Tags

Posted by samzenpus on from the track-your-shirts dept.

AcidAUS writes "Australia's Sydney Airport is investigating high-tech tagging methods for baggage handling, which could greatly reduce the number of bags that go missing each year. Industry experts say that baggage mishandling costs the industry globally $US1.7 billion each year, and that much of this cost is due to failures in the barcode-based tagging system."

82 comments

  1. Unfortunatly by El+Lobo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Unfortunatly, better tagging is not a guarantee that things will go better with baggage. Growing passenger numbers and improved security procedures are the main factors fuelling estimated annual losses of one billion US dollars for the world's airlines in missing and mishandled baggage.
    In almost all cases, baggage IS correcty tagged, but it's as always the human factor which fails to function correctly. Because all security restrictions, the baggage is now in many cases manually examined and the volume of the baggage traffic and personal stress are still the main causes for missing or damaged baggage.

    --
    It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
    1. Re:Unfortunatly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sydney Airport taxs/fees/cost per pax are too high - globally they are bottom of benchmark efficiency. They are not providing a service as it is.

      I'll tell those wallys that the existing tags are just as strong, or stronger than any plastic rfid. At 7 cents per sticker vs $1.00 per tag, it sounds like a scam to pass on inflated costs and pocket the difference. Don't see how they will re-cycle used tags, or allow customers to 'register' their own tags.

      It also removes the incentive for on-time planes by rewarding those who don't check in hours early. The number of metal'ish suitcases means they don't work well.

      A study of lost luggage shows that airports do not attempt to find the owners- never more true since CAPS.

      Lets see, added cost, no tangible benefit, risk of tag dropping off and grinding conveyor belts, and no cost benefit transparancy . Give them a dunce hat.

    2. Re:Unfortunatly by unPlugged-2.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes but you see this is exactly what RFID helps with.

      "The Human Factor fails to function correctly"

      This what RFID helps to a certain extent. With the amount of stress the security and baggage personnel have their mistake level has gone up greatly. RFID allows an automated system that prevents this and makes it so they can just focus on their work.

      Though I am very much against RFID in passports. RFID in baggage makes a lot of sense. Just google Delta, RFID and Atlanta to see some case studies where RFID reduced the number of lost baggages and also reduced the amount of processing time it took for a bag. In some cases by 33%.

      This allows less load on airport employees and is actually needed to handle the increased traffic. So like you said growing passenger numbers and security is a concern but unless you are going to add more employees (which face it any compay won't do) you need technology to do it for you.

      In this case the best tech for that is RFID.

      --
      Software Defined RFID - The Rifidi Emulator
    3. Re:Unfortunatly by DudeTheMath · · Score: 1

      Unless I misread TFA, it's 21 cents per RFID tag, which is "ten times" the cost of the barcode.

      --
      You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
    4. Re:Unfortunatly by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      annual losses of one billion US dollars for the world's airlines in missing and mishandled baggage.


      One thing that passengers can do to limit lost/misplaced/mishandled luggage is to put a sheet with your itinerary in with your checked luggage. Include your name, home address, home phone number, cell number (if you have a cell), your flight number (both out and back) your departure and destination airports, times, where you are staying, and their phone number.

      Going on the presumption that the person rooting through your luggage is doing so because it has been mishandled and not because of some bogus random check to see if you're a terrorist in waiting, your luggage should get to you within a short time. Should being the optimum word.

      I've never had any luggage mislaid but then I haven't flown since 9/11 and hadn't done that much to begin with. Regardless, I would take a window seat and watch as they loaded the luggage. When I saw my bag, I would jokingly say, "Ok, my stuff's on board. We can leave now."

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    5. Re:Unfortunatly by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1
      Though I am very much against RFID in passports. RFID in baggage makes a lot of sense.

      Exactly, because you can remove the RFID tags from the baggage when you're leaving the airport, most of the attacks against passport RFID systems simply don't apply to baggage RFID.

      Now, if baggage companies started embedding RFID tags in my luggage, it would be an entirely different matter.

      --
      http://outcampaign.org/
    6. Re:Unfortunatly by metamatic · · Score: 1
      ...put a sheet with your itinerary in with your checked luggage. Include your name, home address, home phone number, cell number (if you have a cell), your flight number (both out and back) your departure and destination airports, times, where you are staying, and their phone number.

      Trouble is, the last time a baggage handler went through my checked luggage, it was to steal stuff. In which case, giving them my home address and the dates when the house will be empty is a bit counter-productive.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    7. Re:Unfortunatly by bloobloo · · Score: 1

      Putting your home address there goes against all the advice that I've ever heard. If a baggage handler steals your bag, they now know when your house is going to be empty. That said, I do put in my hotel details, mobile number and my work address because that way I can still be contacted. I also take a photo of the suitcase on my phone - trying to describe your bag to a foreign lost luggage attendant is much easier that way!

    8. Re:Unfortunatly by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      Straight from the horses mouth:


      Put a tag on the outside of your baggage with your name, home address, and home and work phone numbers. The airlines provide free stick-on tags. Most carriers also have "privacy tags" which conceal this information from passersby.

      Put the same information inside each bag, and add an address and telephone number where you can be reached at your destination city.

      http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/publications/bagtip s.htm

      If you do a search for 'luggage airline put destination' in Google, you will see the same information is posted to airline sites, sites for seniors, etc.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    9. Re:Unfortunatly by bloobloo · · Score: 1

      That's the advice from the TSA, just after they tell you that they'll break your bag open if they want to. They're kind of biased in what their advice is based on.

      The advice not to put your home address comes from a lot of sources, such as Transport Canada at http://www.tc.gc.ca/aboutus/travel/Air/brochure.ht m which says "Label your luggage. Do not use your home address or business title. Luggage tags with flaps that hide your name and address are a smart idea. These steps will help protect your anonymity and thwart would-be thieves.", Transport Ireland at http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=27&url= http%3A%2F%2Fwww.transport.ie%2Fupload%2Fgeneral%2 F6535-0.pdf&ei=YQJvRf_WA47oQNy2_ZQG&usg=__Haa72yev dWerxzm-Gah18HxNr14=&sig2=P18NtWDbgiu4n6zi_3QSVA or from a wide range of house insurance companies.

    10. Re:Unfortunatly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Unfortunatly, better tagging is not a guarantee that things will go better with baggage.

      I was wondering, if Slashdot designed a baggage tagging system, what it would be like:

      [suitcase #638]: suitcase, clothes, notfud, fud
      [suitcase #639]: suitcase, clothes, panties
      [suitcase #640]: suitcase, bomb, itsatrap

    11. Re:Unfortunatly by TheDugong · · Score: 1

      I do not think it is much of stretch to imagine that Macquarie Bank (the owners of Sydney Airport) have their fingers in some RIFD chip pie.

      1) Sydney Airport buys lots of RIFD chips from XXX RIFD supplies, where XXX is owned or invested in by Macquarie Bank
      2) ???^H^H^H Charges airport users for the priviledge of using RIFD chips for baggage handlers
      3) Profit!

      For those who are unaware of Australian businesses, Macquarie Bank has it's finger in just about every single pie you can think of.

    12. Re:Unfortunatly by CommanderIsm · · Score: 1

      why not tattoo people's foreheads and give them facialy implanted rfid chip's and be done with it - all this bullshit courtesy of the inside job done on 9-11, 7/7 in london another, spain had it's own - it's all to control people - watchout for controls on the last frontier for free speech ie. the internet. all these so called democratically elected politicians - voted for by the largest minority and not the majority of people - give us proportional representation before it's too late - let the majority have a voice.

  2. riiiiiight.... by macadamia_harold · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Industry experts say that baggage mishandling costs the industry globally $US1.7 billion each year, and that much of this cost is due to failures in the barcode-based tagging system. ...and RFID, which is much like barcode except for the (far more insecure) scanning method is supposed to correct the "problem"? I smell an ulterior motive.

    --
    Push Button, Receive Bacon
    1. Re:riiiiiight.... by arun_s · · Score: 4, Insightful
      RFID, which is much like barcode except for the (far more insecure) scanning method is supposed to correct the "problem"? I smell an ulterior motive.
      I was just reading Wired's coverage of the same news, and there are actually some valid points. From there:
      A scanner can only pick up bar codes that pass directly in front of its laser; wet, folded or smudged tags are often unreadable, and scanners perform especially poorly when exposed to dirt or dust.

      Whereas:
      Utilizing radio waves instead of lasers, RFID doesn't require a direct line of sight between the reader and tag, and isn't affected by dirt or dust. RFID tags are generally more weather-resistant than paper labels, and the hardware is compatible with most existing baggage systems.

      It actually sounds alright to me. I'll don my tinfoil hat when they attach it to passengers, but this looks like one place where RFID can be put to good use.
      --
      I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
    2. Re:riiiiiight.... by sim60 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Industry experts say that baggage mishandling costs the industry globally $US1.7 billion each year, and that much of this cost is due to failures in the barcode-based tagging system.
      ...and RFID, which is much like barcode except for the (far more insecure) scanning method is supposed to correct the "problem"? I smell an ulterior motive.

      In this instance, the lack of 'security' of rfid is one of it's more useful features.

      The system allows a tagged bag to be tracked over it's entire (in airport) journey from check in to luggage hold automaticaly, meaning that many more check points can be used without slowing down the baggage handling, and any luggage in the wrong place can be flagged quickly. It also means that bags cannot 'accidentaly' walk through the wrong door without the tag being removed making stealing luggage a little more difficult.

    3. Re:riiiiiight.... by DaveCar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And how, exactly is it far more insecure? If you can see a barcode you can read all of the information on it. If you are within n metres of an RFID tag you can read all the information on it. It is just a different method to read all of the information (usually just a long string of digits) on the tag. The scanning method is no more, or less secure.

      Now depending on the context you might not want someone to be able to read the information unless they have some privileged status (border guard, checkout assistant) in which case having an RFID tag is rather like having a barcode printed on your forehead. I don't want a barcode printed on my forehead, so I probably don't want an RFID passport, but baggage which has an exposed barcode anyway - what's the difference?

      Now if they don't do something stupid like including your name, address and vital statistics on the tag (which I'm sure they won't as it would cost much more for the increased capacity tag) then it really just means they don't need line of sight to read the tag so that dirty/crumpled/obscured tags won't foul things up. If it is the same information that an arbitrary person could get with a barcode reader as opposed to an RFID reader then it might just well be a better solution.

      I smell an ulterior motive.

      And what would that be? The airline already know *everything* about you which they can glean from your baggage by cross referencing the ID on the barcode with their database. Unless FRID tags can read your mind ... </conspiracytheory>

    4. Re:riiiiiight.... by ayjay29 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >>It actually sounds alright to me. I'll don my tinfoil hat when they attach it to passengers, but this looks like one place where RFID can be put to good use.

      I agree. With RFID you can route bags to the correct plane, or baggage claim automaticaly. You can flash lights and soundbuzzers if the wrong bag goes the whong way. You can also find the location of bags easily, as the readers cost a couple of hundrad bucks, there's no reason to monitor baggage flow at numerous locations.

      As for your tinfoil hat, does it have a pocket about six inches by four?.

      --
      Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
    5. Re:riiiiiight.... by houghi · · Score: 3, Interesting
      As for your tinfoil hat, does it have a pocket about six inches by four?.


      I made one. Took tinfoil, Duct tape on one side. Folded it into a sort of envelope. Duct tape on the outside. It is pretty robust in protecting my passport. It prevents scanning and still can be easily taken out when needed.
      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:riiiiiight.... by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      > I smell an ulterior motive.

      Bzzzt, no. Ulterior motives are oderless; posterior motives, on the other hand, have a distinctive scent.

      Sorry, the editor started it. At 5:00 A.M., I felt very vincible when my brain didn't cognize "instate" as a valid word.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    7. Re:riiiiiight.... by AlHunt · · Score: 1

      > I'll don my tinfoil hat when they attach it to passengers, but this looks like one place where RFID can be put to good use.

      At your service:

      http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/2100-1009_11- 6125799.html

      I suggest a fur-lined hat for winter use.

      --
      1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
    8. Re:riiiiiight.... by Itsacon · · Score: 1

      I suggest a fur-lined hat for winter use.

      Fur-lined? I think steel wool is much more appropriate...

      --
      I take life with a grain of salt...a slice of lemon and a dash of tequila
    9. Re:riiiiiight.... by matthew.thompson · · Score: 1

      Don't worry.

      Google didn't either http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+instate

      I'm all for making up words in private with friends and cow orkers but on the front page of a busy web sites is just play dumb.

      --
      Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
    10. Re:riiiiiight.... by DudeTheMath · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but you can put scanners in the baggage hold and know that every bag in the hold is matched to a passenger who has already boarded. Much easier than a barcode reader.

      Also, this summer, I had an experience where they simply turned the carousel off too early; my bag was actually still on the ramp up to the carousel. They had *no idea* where my bag was. With a scanner at the point where it hits the carousel (so the baggage people could say, "It was on the carousel, so someone must have taken it"), they could have said, "Hey, it's still on the carousel." As it was, my clever wife had actually climbed onto the stopped carousel and looked down the ramp.

      --
      You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
    11. Re:riiiiiight.... by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

      Or more accurately, to know that every RFID tag in the hold is matched to an RFID tag which has already boarded.

      --
      Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    12. Re:riiiiiight.... by DudeTheMath · · Score: 1

      That's a good clarification of what I said. I'd add, however, that no passenger needs to be tagged; the tag on your luggage is linked to your boarding pass when you check the luggage, so all they have to know is that the boarding pass has been scanned (as the passenger enters the jetway; I suppose an evildoer could exit the jetway without actually boarding the plane, but they do watch for that sort of thing).

      --
      You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
  3. So that 1.7 billion figure... by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

    does that figure include the aggravation suffered when you wait at the baggage claim for a half hour after everyone has left and your bad hasn't shown up yet?

    It happened to me once. I then filed a claim for missing luggage, and they called me 2 hours later saying it went on the wrong flight and to come pick it up (or they could deliver it the next day).

    Grumpy

    --
    Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    1. Re:So that 1.7 billion figure... by schnooka_boy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One time I flew with EasyJet from Copenhagen to London. The devices that moved the luggage weren't working, so instead of waiting for them to work they decided to just put us all on the airplane, fly it in into the sky, and THEN tell us our luggage was left in Copenhagen. Thankfully it was the end of my trip, so no big loss. Not so thankful for a group of 4 girls who were just starting their 3 month vacation around Europe and everything they took with them was now gone. They had no place to have the airline send their luggage to either. Goooood times. Unfortunately, I don't think RFID will resolve general douchebaggery.

    2. Re:So that 1.7 billion figure... by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      That figure definitely doesn't include never receiving your luggage.

      I went on holiday from London to Egypt, after waiting for every bag to be collected, my luggage was still not present, however there was a bag with my luggage tag present (it really wasn't mine). I got the Sharm El-Sheik airport worker to write an incident report and telex London to find out where my bag actually was. The next day (after I had hastily tried to get some clothes) I was phoned by the holiday reps to come back to Sharm airport because they thought that they had my bag. After having to bribe my way into the departure lounge I found that Gatwick airport reckoned (but did not actually know) that it was a replacement bag. It wasn't, only four months later did my insurance company pay out, they had tried to demand that I provide an itemised account of the claims, including receipts which being mostly clothes and books I didn't have. This was of course added to the annoyance of arriving at my hotel for relaxing beach holiday with no change of clothes and only two short books.

      Fortunately, I found that Sharm has diving schools and turned what could be a horribly boring week into a great holiday. But yes it was aggravating.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    3. Re:So that 1.7 billion figure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to Sleazyjet, and to the world of ultra-low-cost carriers generally.

      To think of it another way, if you need to travel somewhere on land, you could travel by train, spend less and get a coach (or even less by bus), or you could hitch a lift with that dodgy-looking truck driver (reading his copy of the Big Ones in his cab) in the motorway service area.

      You pays your money, you takes your choice - and the lowest cost option isn't always the best one.

  4. Greasing the public before placement in the oven. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This RFID things make my tinfoil-hat sense tingle.
    The only reason to take RFID to the public(in this particular case), is to get them used to the concept and have the masses fooled that RFID != evil. The next step will be RFID in passports, after that RFID tag at birth, under the skin. And while they're at it they might as well take a DNA sample.

  5. Before or after christmas ? by Rastignac · · Score: 0

    Baggage mishandling gives nice presents to the children of the industry's employees. Lost ipods, lost cameras, lost computers, lost phones, etc, are not lost for everyone...

    --
    -- Rastignac was here.
  6. Re:Greasing the public before placement in the ove by Jello+B. · · Score: 1

    Better put on your RFID enabled tinfoil hat, then.

  7. KLM already does at Amsterdam (Schiphol) by Ixlr8 · · Score: 4, Informative

    KLM and Air France are already running a pilot project (pun not intended) on their service between Paris and Amsterdam. (See for example http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/260 0/1/1/ or go google yourself)

    --
    -- Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    1. Re:KLM already does at Amsterdam (Schiphol) by linuxci · · Score: 3, Funny

      KLM also has supposedly the worst record of losing luggage in Europe that's why they introduced RFID in order to improve this (one of the reasons they had such a bad record was that they have a lot more people transferring through Amsterdam rather than using it as a start or end point). However, despite that, I've flown KLM on average twice a month for the past two years and my luggage always arrives. I've even tried short connections and awkward routings and my luggage has still arrived fine. I feel ripped off, my Amex card has excellent luggage loss protection (£750 if gone missing for at least 6 hours plus a further £1000 is it's lost) - my luggage goes missing and I have loads to spend on new clothes. Damn you KLM, you're supposed to be the worst in Europe for baggage handling but not once do you lose my luggage, not a nice way to reward my frequent travelling :(

    2. Re:KLM already does at Amsterdam (Schiphol) by Bob54321 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They need to do something at that airport. I have been there several times on a variety of airlines and only once got my baggage on the day I arrived. The lines of people wanting to make a claim are always enormous.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    3. Re:KLM already does at Amsterdam (Schiphol) by Ixlr8 · · Score: 1

      Well it's not supposed to be a lottery, you see. And I think that's what you want it to be.

      1. Pay insurance fee via credit card.
      2. Be the one whose luggage has gone missing in KLM's price drawing.
      3. Get rich!

      Hey, wait this three-steps-thingy is actually complete?! :-)

      --
      -- Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    4. Re:KLM already does at Amsterdam (Schiphol) by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The one time my luggage got "lost" in transit, the airline quickly found it and put it on an alternative flight to an airport that was actually closer to my home than the one I'd flown into. The result was I didn't have to carry my luggage home, and it was couriered to my doorstep within about half an hour of me arriving home. I suspect that the vast majority of "lost luggage" cases end up like this (maybe a bit more delay before the passenger gets their luggage, admittedly), and luggage actually going missing is very rare indeed, which is why companies that insure your luggage against loss can offer such an apparently attractive deal - that, and the fact that they can probably claim back everything from the airline anyway, so all they're really doing is saving you some long periods on hold to the airline while you try to get compensation sorted out.

    5. Re:KLM already does at Amsterdam (Schiphol) by jimicus · · Score: 2, Informative

      the fact that they can probably claim back everything from the airline anyway

      Not true. The Warsaw Convention strongly limits the amount airlines are obliged to pay for lost baggage.

    6. Re:KLM already does at Amsterdam (Schiphol) by jrumney · · Score: 1

      My understanding is the Warsaw Convention protects the airline against liability due to factors outside their control. But when loss is caused by negligence on their part, their liability is unlimited.

    7. Re:KLM already does at Amsterdam (Schiphol) by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Keyword here is "airline". If it was the airport rather than the airline (or they can introduce doubt into the matter such that it /may/ have been), then you're back to 17 SDR/kilo (which equates to £/$hardly anything)

      I suspect the "unlimited liability in the event of negligence" is probably more to do with passenger safety - the airline industry's very heavily regulated, and if negligence caused a plane crash there would be serious head-rolling.

  8. Re:Greasing the public before placement in the ove by joshier · · Score: 0

    Don't you mean, "RFID != good" ??

  9. Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are going to stalk my luggage!

  10. Finally something makes sense by icecow · · Score: 1

    There ARE good uses of technology.

    --
    Stop invalid scientific research. Ask your local scientists to feed their lab rats with a phytoestrogen-free chow.
    1. Re:Finally something makes sense by SpaceballsTheUserNam · · Score: 0

      ya but you know inevitably the implementation will get screwed up and even more bags will be lost.

      --
      \.
  11. Drug dealers will like this .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All those drug dealers who have their people working in Sydney airport will be happy. This is because they'll be more easily able to detect from a distance when the bag they stuffed the drugs in is getting close. This will ensure that no accidents happen like sending their drugs to Bali by mistake in some unsuspecting persons luggage. :-) :-)

  12. Re:Greasing the public before placement in the ove by Xemu · · Score: 2, Informative

    The next step will be RFID in passports, after that RFID tag at birth, under the skin. And while they're at it they might as well take a DNA sample.

    That's not a futuristic scenario anymore... Sweden, a leader in this field, now has RFID tags in passports and has been collecting and storing DNA samples of everyone born since 1980. It's true, check it out.

    --
    Tell your friends about xenu.net
  13. Security by AlphaLop · · Score: 0

    One thing I might be worried about is the bad guys may be hackers... This could actually cause people to be less attentive due to relying on the technology which happens quite a bit. What if a Terrorist manages to snag or clone an RFID tag and throws it into the system? Am I being to paranoid in wondering this?

    --
    It's only paranoia if your wrong...
    1. Re:Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ...What if a Terrorist manages to snag or clone an RFID tag and throws it into the system?... Compared to the current problem - terrorists snagging or cloning a printed targ - nothing has changed. I would argue snagging or cloning a printed tag is no harder or easier than an RFID one.

  14. Throwing meney at the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Looks to me like they have not investigated properly what is causing the problem. Only if missing or unreadable bar codes are the cause this can be of any help, and even then it surely is not the only solution. My guess is that they are simply throwing technology (and thus money) to the problem. This is OK if you're sure it will work, but in this case I think the chances of making it worse (read, more money lost) are big.

    On the other hand, what I would like to see is a system that allows *me* to track my baggage, and thus knowing that it's in Chicago instead of Barcelona, and not having to wait for hours just in case it shows up somewhere.

  15. The Next Step by lupine_stalker · · Score: 1

    The Government has announced the implementation of new barcoding technology that reduce the amount of missing persons in Australia, unless of course they are meant to "disappear". Take that extremists!

    --
    Ninjas use italics.
  16. Re:Greasing the public before placement in the ove by Threni · · Score: 2, Funny

    > Better put on your RFID enabled tinfoil hat, then.

    Yeah, doesn't anyone care about the right of baggage not to be monitored all the time, and treated like a criminal. It's important. First they monitor baggage, and then they'll put tattoos on your head and kill you.

  17. Couriers by darkitecture · · Score: 2, Interesting


    How about using RFID tags on fucking FedEx, UPS and DHL deliveries? The current system is so illogical and antiquated, it's ludicrous. God knows how many times I've checked in on an item only to find the page hasn't been updated for four days. Sure, sometimes it works (I had updates about three times a day when tracking an item from Manhattan to Osaka using FedEx, that was nice) but most of the time it fails horribly and you come to know the tracking number as merely a "Reference Number For When The Package Goes Missing Or Gets Delayed"...

  18. Not really a new tech by giuntag · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Airports have been experimenting with this since at least 2001, and many are using it in production.

    Contrary to what some posters assumed, rfid DOES in fact help quite a bit the baggage handling system:

    - rfid reader can read tags which sit on the bottom / opposite end of the suitcase, while barcode readers cannot do it. The overall positive-read ratio is much increased. The tags are smaller and less prone to tear-off/smearing of the barcode print

    - rfid card readers can read many tags at a time, hence the conveyor line can be sped up a lot (as in: put all baggages on the truck to the runaway, and the rfid reader is put on top of the gate below which the truck passes)

    - if the complete baggage info, such as final destination, status of x-ray-check, etc is stored on the tag (there are quite a few bytes in there), any tag reader can decode it and sort the baggage even in the absence of network connection , ie . without interrogating a central db. Smaller devices, not even wifi-connected, can be used to recover info from baggages that are found stray in any airside area (and a working 802.11 inside a bhs system or covering a complete runaway is radio nightmare,trust me).
    Downside: if that info is not crypted, it could be eavesdropped...

    Of course, the point is still valid that all the new anti-terrorism measures are quite a nightmare for airports and airline handlers, and have a great impact on operative efficiency.

    1. Re:Not really a new tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FWIW, I work in the conveyor industry creating software to control conveyor systems, and am intimately familiar with the Baggage Handling System (BHS) in serveral major airports (including ones which use RFID). The conveyor systems that make up the BHS is not the cause of lost bags, bags are usually lost in the manual handling that occurs between the BHS and the aircraft. In most airports the bags are sorted to piers or make-up units which have airline employees which then manually transfer the bag to a tug cart to be taken to the aircraft.

        Contrary to what some posters assumed, rfid DOES in fact help quite a bit the baggage handling system:
       
      - rfid reader can read tags which sit on the bottom / opposite end of the suitcase, while barcode readers cannot do it. The overall positive-read ratio is much increased. The tags are smaller and less prone to tear-off/smearing of the barcode printThe laser based barcode readers used in airport BHSs are usually 6 sided scanning tunnels, capable of reading a barcode on any side of the bag. The bag tag being folded/dirty/poor quality/etc is what leads to the lower read rate from the laser based arrays. Most BHS systems which use RFID have the RFID tag embedded into the bag tag, so overall the size and proneness to being torn off stays the same. Tags being torn off does not happen very often in most BHS systems (can't say that I have ever even seen a single case of it happening).

        - rfid card readers can read many tags at a time, hence the conveyor line can be sped up a lot (as in: put all baggages on the truck to the runaway, and the rfid reader is put on top of the gate below which the truck passes)On a conveyor line, reading multiple RFID tags at the same time is a problem. The tag that is read needs to be properly associated with the bag passing through the reader to allow the BHS to properly identify and handle the bag. Most BHS systems rarely have conveyor belts moving at a speed faster than about 300 feet per minute (I have seen a few systems with high speed transports between terminals that run over 500fpm though, but that is the exception), increasing the belt speed introduces several issues with the conveyability of bags in the system.

        - if the complete baggage info, such as final destination, status of x-ray-check, etc is stored on the tag (there are quite a few bytes in there), any tag reader can decode it and sort the baggage even in the absence of network connection , ie . without interrogating a central db. Smaller devices, not even wifi-connected, can be used to recover info from baggages that are found stray in any airside area (and a working 802.11 inside a bhs system or covering a complete runaway is radio nightmare,trust me).
      Downside: if that info is not crypted, it could be eavesdropped...Most of the current BHS systems which use RFID only have a unique license plate on the RFID tag. Read/Write tags that are capable of storing all of the information you described above are considerably more expensive than the typical pre-printed license plate only tags used by most airports which have RFID.

    2. Re:Not really a new tech by giuntag · · Score: 1
      The laser based barcode readers used in airport BHSs are usually 6 sided scanning tunnels
      This does not prevent a few (a lot?) of the baggages to go misread, and end up on the line to the guy-with-a-barcode-scanner-in-his-hand queue. Afaik, rfid has lower error rates. Plus, I think the huge 6-sides readers cost more than the rfid reader does (that's why it's usual that many barcode readers deployed on the circuit are the lower-end 3 or 4-sided ones).

      On a conveyor line, reading multiple RFID tags at the same time is a problem
      It is true that on a conveyor belt reading many tags at a time is in fact a disadvantage, but it helps in almost every other part of the process, such as eg. baggage reconciliation when bags are counted again and matched to embarked passengers just before being loaded into the plane.

      Most of the current BHS systems which use RFID only have a unique license plate on the RFID tag
      It's a bit of a shame, really... The worst part is when we first evaluated the system a couple of years back, the bigger single obstacle we found was nobody (airline, airport, handler) was willing to put up with the extra price of the rfid tag (read 1 dollar per tag)...
    3. Re:Not really a new tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The laser based barcode readers used in airport BHSs are usually 6 sided scanning tunnels
      This does not prevent a few (a lot?) of the baggages to go misread, and end up on the line to the guy-with-a-barcode-scanner-in-his-hand queue. Afaik, rfid has lower error rates. Plus, I think the huge 6-sides readers cost more than the rfid reader does (that's why it's usual that many barcode readers deployed on the circuit are the lower-end 3 or 4-sided ones).Yes, you have no-reads, read conflicts, etc with the laser arrays, which is why most systems have some form of manual encoding (the bored to tears guy with the hand scanner). RFID does have a higher read rate than the laser arrays, but you still need some form of manual encoding for when the RFID reader is unable successfully read a tag. As far as cost goes, it depends on what readers you end up going with. One reader vendor that produces laser, camera, and RFID based readers has one of the best RFID implementations I have seen so far, and the price (including equipment, installation, support, etc...) on the RF reader array is comparable to laser array designed for the same situation. There are also cheaper solutions that run in the neighborhood of only about $2k that is hardware only, no installation, very little support, and has nothing that addresses the challenges of an over the conveyor RFID reader.
       
       
      On a conveyor line, reading multiple RFID tags at the same time is a problem
      It is true that on a conveyor belt reading many tags at a time is in fact a disadvantage, but it helps in almost every other part of the process, such as eg. baggage reconciliation when bags are counted again and matched to embarked passengers just before being loaded into the plane.
        There have been some trials that I am familiar with that have attempted doing this. I know that they did run into some issues with reading the tags on bags inside of one of the containers that are loaded onto some of the bigger planes. This is usually not a function of the BHS itself and would typically be something done directly by the airline.
       
      Most of the current BHS systems which use RFID only have a unique license plate on the RFID tag
      It's a bit of a shame, really...The worst part is when we first evaluated the system a couple of years back, the bigger single obstacle we found was nobody (airline, airport, handler) was willing to put up with the extra price of the rfid tag (read 1 dollar per tag)...I agree that it is a shame that more information is not used, but there also needs to be some realistic limitations on the type of data that is stored on one of these tags.

      BTW, are you in the conveyor industry? If so which state are you in?

  19. Umm.. I have a suspicion its abandoned luggage. by hnile_jablko · · Score: 1

    If you have ever been through immigration and customs at Kingsford Smith, you will know it is pretty thorough (xray, an entire army of baggage troops to go through your luggage on random searches let alone the sniffer dogs). I am guessing people smuggle things back in, then panic, remove the barcode tag and claim they lost their luggage. I bet this is a security messure to catch the people who bring the luggage into the country.

    Just a thought.

    1. Re:Umm.. I have a suspicion its abandoned luggage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In your senario what would prevent the smuggler from ripping off the RFID tag?

    2. Re:Umm.. I have a suspicion its abandoned luggage. by hnile_jablko · · Score: 1

      Well I am assuming they arent like traditional baggage tags attached by a small band. I am assuming they are part of the suitcases structure. Furthermore, I would also assume that Customs would automatically want to search all luggage without the RFID chip.

    3. Re:Umm.. I have a suspicion its abandoned luggage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is quite the leap of assumptions. It would be far easier for the airport to attach the tags much like they attach the barcodes now.

  20. Impact on overall sortation rates by kelv · · Score: 1

    I have had a lot to do with the baggage handling system at Sydney Airport (SACL T1 & T2) having worked at both these terminals as a control systems engineer in the last few years.

    I can confidently say this will have bugger all effect. The scanning rates on the primary infeed scanners are already over 96%, we have secondary scanner that achieve 80+% (they are dealing with the bags that could not be read first time through) and manual enconding stations at the third level. So the chances of miss-reading a bag are very close to zero.....

    The hard part about a baggage handling system is tracking the bags along the conveyors until they get tot he right sortation device. This is the hard problem and involves writing very complex PLC code to and RFID tags will not help this problem one iota unless they are prepared to put an RFID reader next to every sortation device, which if RFID readers are 100th the price of scanner gantries then this might work....

  21. What happens when ... by niks42 · · Score: 1

    you fill your suitcase with RFID tags?

  22. I wouldn't mind.. by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1, Funny

    having to wear an RFID necklace or bracelet once inside an airport if it mean that I never had to hear this announcement for my flight again:

    Paging Mr. and Mrs. Idiot who are still shopping or sitting at a bar, your flight is now fully boarded with the exception of you. You are holding up the plane, and we are about to have to remove your luggage. This will cause considerable delay to the other passengers who know how to GET TO THE FUCKING GATE ON TIME !

  23. Baggage Handlers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know if it's related but on the news in Sydney tonight was a story about a big cocaine dealer (30kg) who was geting helped by baggage handlers at Sydney airport being arrested. Could this make the baggage handlers more accountable by having information about the baggage such as weight associated with the RFID tag?

  24. Re:Greasing the public before placement in the ove by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

    In the UK, they already have your DNA if you've ever been arrested for anything of late (even if the charges were dropped).

  25. Why is there a hate of RFID on slashdot? by porkThreeWays · · Score: 1

    I've never understood this hate of RFID on slashdot. We've used RFID in our organization where once we had to manually scan individual items. We save A LOT of time, it's just as accurate, and the system was fairly inexpensive to implement. We're not talking about putting these things in people here... we're talking about solving real world issues with a technology that was designed for that purpose.

    --
    If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
    1. Re:Why is there a hate of RFID on slashdot? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      I don't think people hate RFID as much as the idiots that hyped it to hell. As I work in the packaging industry, I actually got shill magazines that existed for the sole purpose of pushing RFID, yet they pretended to be real technology magazines.

      There have been billions and billions spent marketing RFID for things it never was suited for. We hate the misapplication of technology, and this marketing machine behind RFID has caused it to be applied in many places it never should have been. Kinda like Java or XML.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Why is there a hate of RFID on slashdot? by toddhisattva · · Score: 1

      Same reason people hate nuclear power: they don't understand it.

    3. Re:Why is there a hate of RFID on slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the government wants to probe all Slashdotters up the ass apparently and they are very anal about it.

      But serioulsy it just kills a places credibility like this when they freak out and exaggerate all problems with their tin foil hat conspiracy theories; whether its DRM, RIAA, Microsoft or how the U.S. is a police state it is all part of the Slashdot fear mongering which has progressively gotten worse.

  26. Will they actually use it? by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I got a lesson about the baggage bar-code system a few years ago. I was flying from Calgary to Washington DC via Toronto -- you have to retrieve your bags in Toronto so you can clear US customs in Canada, plus there's extra security for Washington-bound flights (special secure gate, mandatory hand-search of carryons, baggage matching), so if the bags don't show, you miss your connection.

    Well, my bag didn't show. I asked the clerks to check the computer and find out where it was, and they said they couldn't. I eventually pressed them as to why, suggesting that the bar codes might be useful, and they said the bar codes were not actually ever scanned. Now, that may have been true, or they may have been trying to get rid of a pestering customer, but it was clear in any case that the computer did not know where my bag was. They could not even confirm that it had been loaded on the flight out of Calgary. They had no idea at all.

    As it turned out, it had been mistakenly directed to the domestic arrivals carousel instead of the US connections carousel, and I was able to retrieve it and go on my way.

    I would love it if some kind of actually-useful, actually-used baggage tracking system were implemented.

    --
    2*3*3*3*3*11*251
    1. Re:Will they actually use it? by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can confirm that this is the case. The bags may be scanned for sorting purposes, but that scan doesn't seem to be connected back to a tracking database. I had a big argument with someone several levels up in United about this. United's stance was that they are NOT in the luggage shipping business, they are in the people moving business. Luggage is an "oh yeah, I guess we have to take your luggage too" category rather than being equally important.

      I no longer fly United. In my opinion, (and I do a fair amount of travel - at LEAST one round trip a month, usually more) there is no worse airline than United.

  27. Too bad for DIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Denver international had a baggage system that was built for automation. But it had 2 problems. The first was that many of the systems were windows and had slow response time (as well as too much down time). The second was the miss-reads of the bar codes. All that was needed was to move away from windows to something stable such as *nix and then to use RFID in place of barcodes. But 2 years ago, United cut deals with the unions who insisted that the system had to be removed. So much of it is now gone. What a waste.

  28. Re:Slashdot blurbs have TWO kinds of labels... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well one of the editors would need to read the article.

    Good God man, the whole fabric of spacetime would be put at risk.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  29. Re:Unfortunatly (Avoid the mess all together...) by ahcomeon · · Score: 1

    Use an alternative method to get your luggage to your destination. A guaranteed method. I use a company called Sports Express http://www.sportsexpress.com/. I avoid all lines at baggage check and claim since my stuff is waiting for me at my hotel.

  30. Following luggage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "How's everything Joe?"
    "Alright, all the blips are going from here to there"

    Blip Blip Blip Blip ...

    "Hey! Wait a minute, where is this blip going?"
    "Which one?"
    "That one"

    Blip Blip blip b l i p b l ...

    "He went out of the airport!!!"
    "Oh my God! it looks like it took off"
    "Damn, we lost another bag"

  31. Reality-based community on line one by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    "failures in the barcode-based tagging system."

    It's called "stealing the baggage". It's been going on for decades. Organized crime has had a hand in it for as long. I once saw my zip up bag coming down the carosel opened wide and spilling clothes down the conveyor. That was a looonnng zipper; took some doing to get that open. The asshats unloading the plane were looking for a quick uptick in their personal monetary portfolio.

  32. RFID automatic error 1/3rd printed by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The Wired article says the 10-15% of printed tags cant be read by scanners or become too smudged or torn for humans. RFID read errors are 3-5%.

  33. Baggage by Dabido · · Score: 1

    I just hope whatever gets introduced WORKS.

    I once flew from Cairns to Sydney, and my luggage flew from Cairns to Alice Springs. Took over 24 hours for QANTAS to locate and return my luggage, and when the guy did deliver it to me, he abused me, as though my luggage loss was my fault. I personally don't want to go through the experience again, as my medication was with my luggage.

    --
    Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  34. Sydney Airport owned by Macquarie Bank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Macquarie Bank in turn is run by Prime Minister John Howard very own answer to Karl Rove: Maxmore Wilton: Turdblossom to George Bush's favourite little Aussie brownnoser.

    Macquarie Bank are greedy and evil. Since they took over Sydney Airport (sale of a public asset that was supposed to drive down costs), things have gone up. They don't even let you drop off passengers outside the terminal 'for security reasons', so instead you have to use their overpriced airport parking.

    MacBank, "The Millionares Bank", will find a way to screw the public for this new baggage system too. It's nothing ability efficiency or security. It's about milking more money out of the public.