RFID Tattoo for Tracking Cattle and Humans

ack154 writes "The Register reports that a St Louis based company, Somark Innovations, has successfully tested RFID tattoos to be used for tracking cattle and other animals. Details are limited for the actual tattoo, but it's said to contain no metals and can be read up to about four feet away. Engadget has some more details on the matter. And yes, the article does mention RFID tattoos are possible for people, specifically the military. From the article: 'The system developed by Somark uses an array of needles to quickly inject a pattern of dots into each animal, with the pattern changing for each injection. This pattern can then be read from over a meter away using a proprietary reader operating at high frequency.'"

Comments

Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[MECC]

The poster could have left off the 'and humans' part.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[solevita]

From the summary:

the article does mention RFID tattoos are possible for people, specifically the military

It's a sad thing to see - RFID is essentially a stock tracking system, add it to people and you too are stock to be tracked.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read TFA, their secondary target market is for the military, so they want to use it for people too.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[garcia]

The poster could have left off the 'and humans' part.

Then it would be a real news site and not Slashdot. They have to keep raising the bar to set themselves apart from the rest!

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Blakey Rat]

... same as serial numbers and bar codes.

I don't see why people get their panties in a bunch over RFID when it doesn't offer anything that we don't already have with bar codes.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[solevita]

A couple of brief reasons:

1: Barcodes can't be read at distance, without me knowing about it. If somebody, for example, tried to read a barcode in my passport, I'd know. I wouldn't know if somebody had tried to read a RFID tag in my passport.

2: I'm sure that if the article related to barcoding cattle and soldiers, you'd have received similar comments. To be honest, I don't want RFID or barcodes printed on me for the world to see.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[ElectricRook]

Actually, I think the people tracked as "stock", would become "Livestock".

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Goaway]

It's a sad thing to see - RFID is essentially a stock tracking system, add it to people and you too are stock to be tracked.

How, exactly, do you think the military works? Every soldier is treated as a precious little snowflake?

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[MECC]

If you read TFA, their secondary target market is for the military, so they want to use it for people too.

you missed the joke part - I guess I should have been a little more obvious...

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[mikkelm]

2: I'm sure that if the article related to barcoding cattle and soldiers, you'd have received similar comments. To be honest, I don't want RFID or barcodes printed on me for the world to see.

I'd go out on a limb and guess that what he meant was that it was alarmist. This isn't about the use of RFID as such. It's just a new innovation using the technology. Mentioning that humans could be tattooed as well is superfluous and not at all different from saying the same thing about any tracking technology used for animal life. "Barcodes/RFID/generic radio tags/GPS/ect is used to track animals and could be used to track humans, too! Your privacy is at risk!". It'd be slightly annoying to have to read that every time some sort of identification technology was frontpaged on Slashdot.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Anonymous Coward]

The poster could have left off the 'and humans' part.

I did.

But Zonk happens to know more about good journalism than both of us.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[d3ac0n]

A couple of brief reasons:

1: Barcodes can't be read at distance, without me knowing about it. If somebody, for example, tried to read a barcode in my passport, I'd know. I wouldn't know if somebody had tried to read a RFID tag in my passport.

2: I'm sure that if the article related to barcoding cattle and soldiers, you'd have received similar comments. To be honest, I don't want RFID or barcodes printed on me for the world to see.

Ok, a couple problems here.

1) If you RTFA, you will note that the RFID tag is only readable from "Up to four feet away". Somehow I don't think that really counts as a great distance. You are going to notice if someone walks up near you and starts wanding you to get an RFID signal. In practical applications, the RFID tag is often (although not always) little better than a barcode tag due to interference from nearby radio sources and environmental signal blockage. This is a big reason why it hasn't seen widespread adoption yet. It costs much more than comparable technologies but only adds a small value.

2) In the case of regular citizens, I absolutely agree with you. But for Soldiers the RFID tattoo has a great advantage over the dog tag as it cannot be lost. If it is small, removable via inexpensive laser surgery, and placed on a couple different points around the body, it is useful for identifying bodies that have been badly mangled due to things like bombs, mines, and other explosives.

It also has an excellent practical application for use with criminals, both in prison and out on parole. If you place RFID readers at certain strategic locations, you can go a long way to detecting the presence of, say, pedophiles that have been paroled and are hanging out near a school (assuming you have hidden RFID readers near schools, of course.) Naturally, the law-enforcement uses are very limited, due to the limitations of RFID that I mentioned in the first point. But the uses for identifying soldiers are very practical, and I imagine that we will be seeing RFID used in that manner sometime in the very near future.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[walt-sjc]

"We don't need to see your papers or ID. We already know who you are, and where you have been."

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Anonymous Coward]

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else..."

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Nitage]

If you RTFA, you will note that the RFID tag is only readable from "Up to four feet away". I frequently find myself less than 4 feet away from other people - in crowds, in bars, on planes/trains/buses

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[TechForensics]

For cattle at least, this method would be WAY too easy to defeat by placing a brand over the tattoo (assuming you know where to put the brand-- you'd need a reader).

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[walt-sjc]

If you RTFA, you will note that the RFID tag is only readable from "Up to four feet away". Somehow I don't think that really counts as a great distance.

I think 4 feet is plenty. Someone doesn't have to "wand" you, they just need to walk past you with a reader in their pocket. Also think about readers at entrances to subways, on the "walk" button poll at every street corner, entrances to buildings, on the money collector on the bus, etc.

The whole RFID thing is pretty disturbing when you look at the behavior of governments throughout history, and the behavior of the US government recently. The trend towards tracking and investigating everyone in more and more detail every month is not encouraging at all. I'm not concerned too much about today or tomorrow, but 20 years from now when the cost of readers is $2, and they can communicate wireless to a central reporting system - all in the name of anti-terrorism. I used to think that this was all tin-foil hat stuff, but recent (past 4 years) actions by the government have changed my mind.

GB isn't much better at the moment with tracking cameras everywhere, automated license plate readers, etc.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[maxume]

"you will note that the RFID tag is only readable from "Up to four feet away". Somehow I don't think that really counts as a great distance."

With the standard reader. Who knows what is actually 'possible'.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[apostrophesemicolon]

so, for point number two above:

To ensure to maximum certainty that a soldier had fallen instead of just losing limbs, there's no better place to put the RFID tag but on the forehead.

and also, since we have criminals and soldiers tagged, why not tag everyone else that are prone to 'potentially disfiguring accidents"? Included in that would be people who rides in cars, public transportation (air, land, water).

I'm trying so hard not to relate this to revelation.

PS. oh, and a person who wants to steal your identity doesn't need to wave a scanner in front of you. Just by being in close proximity with a scanner in a backpack is all it takes.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[whargoul]

1) If you RTFA, you will note that the RFID tag is only readable from "Up to four feet away". Somehow I don't think that really counts as a great distance. You are going to notice if someone walks up near you and starts wanding you to get an RFID signal. In practical applications, the RFID tag is often (although not always) little better than a barcode tag due to interference from nearby radio sources and environmental signal blockage. This is a big reason why it hasn't seen widespread adoption yet. It costs much more than comparable technologies but only adds a small value.

True, you may notice if smoeone walks up and starts "wanding" you, but what you may not notice is the RFID reader integrated into the metal detectors at schools and airports or in the anti-theft devices at the doors of most major retail stores. Imagine some time in the future, when RFID readers have gone down in price, an array of readers on store shelves tracking every movement you make as you shop. I'm not trying to be alarmist, just pointing out how someone doesn't necessarily have to "wand" you to read your RFID tat. But then, if you do get an RFID tat then it's your own fault for setting yourself up for that kind of monitoring - it's not like someone can secretly tattoo you...or can they?

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[jank1887]

is only readable from "Up to four feet away".
a high gain directional antenna with receivers (tranceivers? these are passive, or only semi-active, right?) tuned to the same frequency would get better spatial resolution and standoff range than what is likely present in the standard receiver.
Think of WiFi (std 802.11). normally very local, but with high gain directional antennas, people have used it for long range networking.
Alarmist summary, yes. Misplaced fears, maybe. Incorrect technically, not necessarily.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Kozz]

... it is useful for identifying bodies that have been badly mangled due to things like bombs, mines, and other explosives.

Or it could also be used specifically to TRIGGER bombs, mines and other explosives upon detecting a particular group of persons, or even an individual that matches an exact code.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Anonymous Coward]

It also has an excellent practical application for use with criminals, both in prison and out on parole. If you place RFID readers at certain strategic locations, you can go a long way to detecting the presence of, say, pedophiles that have been paroled and are hanging out near a school (assuming you have hidden RFID readers near schools, of course.

They could also try it out on illegal aliens they capture, since some of them are recaptured half a dozen times. A string of sensors on the border would be cheaper than a fence, and you need only one repeat customer in a group to find them.

Not that I think there is a chance in Hell of them doing so, I just like watching exciting demonstrations on TV.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Lorkki]

With the standard reader. Who knows what is actually 'possible'.

It's a passive device attached to a soggy bag of meat. I'd say four feet is pretty damn good already, if it means a reliable reading distance.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[run_w_xcors]

GB? When's the last time you looked at all the cameras that are pointed at you in the US? A friend of mine and I were walking around San Francisco and I told him to count the amount of cameras he saw while walking around town. Just about everywhere we went (admittedly, in nice parts of town, not so much in say, the Tenderloin) we could see some form of camera that could possibly be pointed at us. To make matters worse, I got stopped on the street by a crew of people shooting a video for a handheld video camera (only making things worse because it was ironic we were just talking about being recorded in public). Now look at school initiatives to place cameras in all classrooms. Our children are being raised with digital eyeballs on them. When they get older, they won't know any better than having cameras pointed at them. Tin foil hat stuff...heh. Remember when Greenpeace was a bunch of stinky hippies on a boat? Now a former presidential candidate is running around talking about global climate problems. Conspiracies aside, there are tons of information gathering tools in use by the government. At this time the good news is that you're still protected by the constitution, unless of course, an executive order trumps that in times of "emergency".

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[zombiestomper]

If you RTFA, you will note that the RFID tag is only readable from "Up to four feet away". Somehow I don't think that really counts as a great distance.
When's the last time you saw a doorway over 4-feet wide? Unless you plan on staying in the wide-open spaces the rest of your life, you're going to be scanned and tracked. All it takes is a simple scanning device and a building entrance. They already have tags and scanners at doors for tracking stolen, they just add a new scanner that tracks RFID and viola`. We track and store that data, throw it into a database maybe link a couple of other databases together and now we know where you are, who you're with and what you're buying--all the time... But you don't care, it's not like you're a criminal or a terrorist or anything..

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

If you place RFID readers at certain strategic locations, you can go a long way to detecting the presence of, say, pedophiles that have been paroled and are hanging out near a school (assuming you have hidden RFID readers near schools, of course.)

There must be some term coined by now, akin to Godwin's law, that as the length of a discussion increases, the probability of someone using combatting pedophillia to justify their argument approaches 1.

However, unlike Godwin's law, the person who brings up pedophillia usually ends up "winning" the argument, or at least persuading the most amount of people.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Kattspya]

The bomb would have to be a powerful transmitter for that to work. It wouldn't be particularly hard to triangulate its location with the EM-radiation it sends out. As a military weapon it would suck. As an assassination weapon or terror weapon it would be conceivable but less likely than other methods.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[eno2001]

American and European humans are ALREADY stock to be tracked. There was a tipping point in the late 80s/early 90s when business became powerful enough that they lost interest in you buying their products. That wasn't profitable enough. The new profit center is buying, selling and trading humans and it happens daily. Do you honestly think that television ads and the companies that make them make much money from getting you to buy a product? They make MUCH more money by selling YOU to their true customers: the business selling the product. The businesses that are actually trying to sell something aren't interested in things like customer loyalty these days. If anything, it's more profitable to them if they take a group of their customers and sell them over to another company who will pay handsomely to own you and your patronage. This is why there is no attention paid to making you happy. You only need to be "happy enough".

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Ziwcam]

... same as serial numbers and bar codes.
I don't see why people get their panties in a bunch over RFID when it doesn't offer anything that we don't already have with bar codes.
The issue I would have with this, being ex-military myself, is the fact that an RFID tattoo would be permanent. When you're done with the military you can just throw your ID card away. Not-so-easy when that ID is tattoo'd permanently into your skin.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[cheater512]

So what if they scan you?
All they get is a number. Something which isnt useful by its self.

As long as the databases using your RFID arent public then noone can identify you just by scanning you.
It also has the cool side effect of Minority Report style shops which remember you.

Creepy yes. Privacy infringing no.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[mikerich]

Tony Blair's shiny, happy New Labour New Britain is well ahead of you:

Microchips for mentally ill planned in shake-up
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2007/01/17/ncrime17.xml

'Radical measures for tackling crime - ranging from monitoring the behaviour of the mentally ill with radio chips to hormone injections for sex offenders -- are to be considered by the Government in a wide-ranging policy review ordered by Tony Blair.'

The whole briefing document is at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/policy_review/docu ments/crime.pdf (PDF document)

Knowing this lot you can be sure they'll start selling it to other parts of the population - after all if you can do it for the mentally ill you can do it to anyone. I can imagine the sales pitch;

Say mum and dad the Home Office is offering to chip your kids. Just think how horrible it will be if little Johnny got lost in the city; but now there's no need to worry, one little chip and any policeman will know his home address and return Johnny to you safe and well. Peace of mind? Priceless.

Grandad. How's that diabetes? Wouldn't it be terrible if you fell into a coma and were unable to tell A&E about your other medical conditions? One little injection and we'll know everything. The best in health care? Priceless.

Illegal immigrants - how can we be tougher? We're going to chip all legal migrants. If you're an employer you'll want to know all your employees are legal, that's easy with one of our Home Office certified RFID scanners. No chip? no place! Acceptable xenophobia? Priceless.

And so on...

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[smellsofbikes]

One of the interesting things about technology is that it rarely gets worse, which is to say: *today* the reader can scan you from about four feet away. What about next month when a new design can do 8 feet? and next year when it can do 40? At what distance do you get nervous about any arbitrary stranger being able to unambiguously identify you without your knowledge? For me, *any* distance is too far. But, hey, maybe you've never had a stalker.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[rifter]

"2: I'm sure that if the article related to barcoding cattle and soldiers, you'd have received similar comments. To be honest, I don't want RFID or barcodes printed on me for the world to see."

I'd go out on a limb and guess that what he meant was that it was alarmist. This isn't about the use of RFID as such. It's just a new innovation using the technology. Mentioning that humans could be tattooed as well is superfluous and not at all different from saying the same thing about any tracking technology used for animal life. "Barcodes/RFID/generic radio tags/GPS/ect is used to track animals and could be used to track humans, too! Your privacy is at risk!". It'd be slightly annoying to have to read that every time some sort of identification technology was frontpaged on Slashdot.

I think a major reason this concerns people is when it is mandated by law. Right now you cannot get a passport in certain countries (including the US) that does not contain an RFID chip. There are companies now that require you to have an RFID chip emplanted in you in order to work for them. Now we hear you can have RFID tattoos. How long before companies or governments require these tattoos for everyone? It could start with the military, sure, but you never know.

Meanwhile people like you have been saying all along that this will never happen. And now that it has you're still denying the possibility. I wonder why the people that are concerned about this sort of thing do not believe you. It boggles the mind how far denial can go. It's this kind of denial that allows governments to do things like repeal human rights with impunity. After all, why get our panties in a bunch over a little thing like that?

Nevermind that some people think of this sort of technology fulfills an apocolyptic prophecy. It does not help that the word used in the phrase "mark of the beast" is also used for a tattoo.

I have no problem with RFID being used for the purpose for which it was designed, tracking stock. It is great for supply chain and inventory management. Unfortunately governments are already showing that our fears that we are considered their stock are better-founded than one would think. I would expect it to be strictly tinfoil-hat stuff, but it is really happening. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Whenever something like this happens, there is always a debate between the "alarmists" and the naysayers. We only see which side is right in the cases where naysayers win but are wrong. Otherwise it is a matter of conjecture whether the nefarious does not occur because it was not going to happen or because it was prevented because people raised alarm.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[mikkelm]

Hey, if you just wanted a place to publicise your opinion, you could have just replied to the article. Actually, "people like me" are fully aware that it's a real possibility that something like this will happen in the distant future, and "people like me" aren't denying anything. Are you sure that you were able to correctly form an idea of what "people like me" are like from that small post regarding preference?

It might be a possibility, but that doesn't mean that it should be specifically mentioned. It's akin to mentioning that large asteroids could do significant damage to Earth in every summary for space-related articles on Slashdot.

If fear-mongering like that becomes ubiquitous, it's only going to make more people dismiss these things as conspiracy theories. And then the terrorists/Strogg/anarchists/liberals will have won.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Anonymous Coward]

So why not just get a tattoo of your own name in different places on your body if you are a soldier for body identification? Why would it have to be an RFID tattoo?

RFID seems like a fine way to manage inventory, and is essentially a replacement for (or at least alternative to) bar codes. Being able to be read from a few feet away without requiring a specific angle, nor physical contact (as compared to mag strips or bar codes) is a good thing.

RFID was never designed to be secure, everything is open. There's research into different encryption methods, but they're all trivial. If you want to know about all kinds of cool facts about RFID, check out the RFID gaurdian. The possibility of RFID viruses also exist, with at least one proof of concept already developed.

To say RFID technology, be it this one specifically, or just RFID in general is rather naive. Like anything else, it has its place.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Anonymous Coward]

What if is a requirement citizenship? Upon birth every child is marked, er, tattooed. Renewal of your national ID requires the mark, er, tattoo. Besides, in this privileged society, why wouldn't you want this mark? What do you have to hide?

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Glonoinha]

Hehe, new innovation. Yea. Luckily that whole 'tattoos on humans to track them' is just crazy sensationalism.
It could never happen in reality.

Sorry you got annoyed. We'll try not to let it happen again.

(Tagging your ass with an RFID is the government's wet dream. Anybody that thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.)

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[mikkelm]

This is one thing I never got about Slashdot. What's the point of posting common knowledge? We all know that visual marks have been used for identification of people. We all know that there's a possiblity that any new identification technologies could be used to track people. That doesn't make it any less alarmist or irrelevant. You don't see hunting magazines explicitly state that any new hunting rifle they review could potentially be used to harm people instead of animals, do you?

There's a good reason for that.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Anonymous Coward]

:: I used to think that this was all tin-foil hat stuff,

  You're right. Time to upgrade to tin-foil suits!

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[npsimons]

If you place RFID readers at certain strategic locations, you can go a long way to detecting the presence of, say, pedophiles that have been paroled and are hanging out near a school (assuming you have hidden RFID readers near schools, of course.)

This and the registering of sexual offenders has always bothered me, and not just because of the privacy implications or the fact that sometimes innocent people are convicted or because "sexual offenses" can be something as simple as being seen peeing in the bushes. Even if you eliminate all these other objections, there is still an objection to be made: if they are out of prison, haven't they paid their "debt to society"? If they are so dangerous, why have they been let out of jail? Haven't they been rehabilitated to be a functioning part of society?

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Irish_Samurai]

here are companies now that require you to have an RFID chip emplanted in you in order to work for them.

You don't need the implant in order to work for them, just to access the data center.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, technically speaking, US military personnel is the property of the US government. No joke. Well, at least the marines are. I talked to a guy (a marine) a week ago who told that if he breaks his leg or anything like that, he'll get fined for breaking government property.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[walt-sjc]

Oh, I wasn't saying that GB was worse, just that the US isn't alone in people tracking activities.

As a side note, statistics show that cameras don't deter crime in SF. Crime in areas with cameras went up at the same rate as areas without.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[JavaLord]

It's a sad thing to see - RFID is essentially a stock tracking system, add it to people and you too are stock to be tracked.

Hmm, how about we just put it on my girlfriend? My ex is going to get it as is, god knows that bitch was a heffer.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Mjec]

The real trouble with the slippery slope argument is that I'm OK with tracking cattle using machine-readable unique IDs and I'm not OK with the same technology being used on humans. Cattle tracking, I don't think it's a privacy issue. The moment someone suggests we put this on people, then I'll raise all hell.

Having said that, someone (albeit a nobody) did suggest it, so hell-raising is appropriate, for once.

As a side note, when I renewed all three of my passports in May 2006. The Australian and EU (British) both had RFID chips with the explanation that it was required by the US Government for all passports. My US passport came without one.

As a side side note, the entire Guantanamo Bay situation is the single thing that horrifies and offends me more than anything else. Help me do something, please.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Em Adespoton]

So what if they scan you?
All they get is a number. Something which isnt useful by its self.

I take it you don't know much about profiling or database mining. It won't take long for that number to be required for various activities. However, even if it isn't, that number is YOU. You can change your name; you won't be able to change the number without getting a skin graft. Someone doesn't need to identify your name; they just need your number. Identify you once as "That number just passed our scanner," link it to the video surveilance footage, and they now have your number and your image.

Plus, I'm curious what you mean by "aren't public." You mean that only the government and private corporations will be tracking you? Personally, I'd prefer such numbers were completely public. We live in an age were data mining is big business. Your identity is wrapped up in the data collected. Only corporations and government have access to that data, which means that to some degree, they know more about you than you do... unless the data has been tainted. In which case they know more about you than is true, and there's no way for you to know what that is, or how to fix the tainted data.

Just imagine that suddenly one day you were no longer allowed to shop anywhere, travel on public transportation, or access government services... all because some database manager had accidentally flagged your RFID number as belonging to someone who was dead.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[couchslug]

" But for Soldiers the RFID tattoo has a great advantage over the dog tag as it cannot be lost. If it is small, removable via inexpensive laser surgery, and placed on a couple different points around the body, it is useful for identifying bodies that have been badly mangled due to things like bombs, mines, and other explosives."

G.I.s already provide DNA samples. DNA in bones and teeth survives fire and decomposition much better, making RFID unnecessary.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[cuantar]

This is exactly what I've been saying for a while. Thank you.

The problem isn't so much the fact that cameras are being used now as it is that children are growing up acceptant (and expectant) of the surveillance. These children, already accustomed to a level of surveillance which we might find obtrusive, will be much more willing to implement more radical "security" solutions than most of us ever would be. Chances are, we'll still be alive, but more or less powerless to do anything about it at that point.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[sco08y]

2) In the case of regular citizens, I absolutely agree with you. But for Soldiers the RFID tattoo has a great advantage over the dog tag as it cannot be lost. If it is small, removable via inexpensive laser surgery, and placed on a couple different points around the body, it is useful for identifying bodies that have been badly mangled due to things like bombs, mines, and other explosives.

All military personnel have their DNA on file for that purpose.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[sco08y]

A friend of mine and I were walking around San Francisco and I told him to count the amount of cameras he saw while walking around town.

You're right in that most major US cities are like that, but then most major US cities are run by Democrats. You don't get that shit in the red states.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[sgt_doom]

Neither the article's author, nor you, citizen d3ac0n, are evidently current on remote sensing technology (satellites). In fact, you are not even current with 1990 standards of remote sensing technology (satellites). Too bad.....

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[loraksus]

Because, you know, grunts walk around with EM detectors all the time...

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[cheater512]

Thats exactly why none of the databases should be interlinked.
If your bank marks you as being dead then it should only affect your bank details.

It starts getting dangerous if organisations can supplement their data about you from other sources especially if it can be done without your consent.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Em Adespoton]

I agree. The problem is that there is no way to prove that the databases HAVEN'T been interlinked, only to prove that they HAVE been. This makes the data collection itself an issue, unless most data is anonymously aggregated upon receipt... in which case it won't be very useful data for the people managing it.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Chowderbags]

Well, I suppose that's why they replaced their "Army of One" slogan.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[RealGrouchy]

RFID is essentially a stock tracking system, add it to people and you too are stock to be tracked.

We already are, it's just that our ignorance of it keeps us from getting bothered by it.

(One example is TV: we are the product; advertisers are the consumers.)

- RG>

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[faolan_devyn_aodfin]

Also a lesser known fact is that members of the SA and SS were tattooed with a runic "SA" or "SS" inscription on their arm. This helped prevent desertation towards the end of the war. In fact special checkpoints in strategic areas that would inspect people leaving an area and if you were military, SS, or SA then they would shoot you. This is also one of the reason why they were able to take out every member of the SA in just a few days with so few misidentifications.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[TempeTerra]

It also has an excellent practical application for use with criminals, both in prison and out on parole. If you place RFID readers at certain strategic locations, you can go a long way to detecting the presence of, say, pedophiles that have been paroled and are hanging out near a school (assuming you have hidden RFID readers near schools, of course.)

Even better, once all the kids have RFID tags so their parents can track them (think of the children!) pedophiles will be able to track their potential victims from the comfort of their own home (they think of the children).

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[Kattspya]

If they can walk (drive) around with GSM jammers they can use EM-detectors. I would rather use a piece of string or some wire to detonate a bomb preferably identifying targets my own eyes. Cheaper, safer, easier and less prone to jamming or general ECM.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[rifter]

Hey, if you just wanted a place to publicise your opinion, you could have just replied to the article. Actually, "people like me" are fully aware that it's a real possibility that something like this will happen in the distant future, and "people like me" aren't denying anything. Are you sure that you were able to correctly form an idea of what "people like me" are like from that small post regarding preference?

Your post seemed to indicate that the very idea that this could be applied to humans was so preposterous that it should not even be discussed. The original article mentioned the application of this technology to humans, and that the purpose of development of this technology included its use on soldiers, so the source of that idea is not slashdot. In any case, you posed the question of why this technology might be scary for some people and why these developments might be important and I answered you. You did not like the answer, apparently.

I think you are saying that it was unfair to make a personality judgement about you based on one post. That would in fact be correct. But your post was of the "nothing to see here" "don't discuss this because it's just conspiracy theory" variety and that is what I was responding to when I said people like you. I don't think we are talking about the distant future or dystopian science fiction here. We are talking about current law and current technology, which you seem to prefer not to believe. It is true that we do not currently live in the "brave new world" and it's not 1984 yet, but developments like these are the potential precursors, which, again, is why poeple discuss them.

The time to discuss this sort of thing is not after these potential worlds have come to pass. Vigilance requires that any slippage toward this sort of thing needs to be pointed out and prudence requires that disruptive technologies be studied for their potential effects, dangers, and misapplication. I don't think it is too far out to suggest that applying this tech to humans would pose a potential danger and at the very least be uncomfortable for some people for various reasons.

Re:Could have just said 'tracking cattle'

[rifter]

"here are companies now that require you to have an RFID chip emplanted in you in order to work for them."

You don't need the implant in order to work for them, just to access the data center.

At CityWatcher.com that is correct. There were other locations where all workers were required to be tagged, and some of those are listed in the wikipedia RFID site (which I thought I had linked, but apparently did not) and in other places. In any case the distinction is not very relevant with regard to slashdotters who would pretty much all be working in the data center if they worked for a company like that. Regardless this is a use of RFID that is particularly troubling because data centers tend to be the sort of installations that quickly adopt the security tech du jour in order to be as secure as possible.

When biometrics looked like they might became practical privacy advocates raised a hue and cry against that technology because of the postential for abuse (for instance discriminating against employees whose illness was betrayed by biometrics), the intrusion into the employees privacy, etc. Naysayers like the poster above said it was unlikely that the technology would be used that way if at all, and in any case was unlikely to become ubiquitous. However they were proved wrong as companies nt only adopted the technology swiftly, but in the case of data centers practically universally. Now we're hearing that they couldn't possibly be interested in RFID for the purpose despite the proven utility of RFID for tracking, inventory, and authentication, all of which are important to security.

Personally I think the tech is great and it does have the benefit of performing as promised, but it not only has potential for abuse and for a reduction of security in the guise of increasing it (especially if it is used as an end-all-be-all solution, as with anything) but it is in fact likely to be abused and exploited. That's true of any technology, and saying that something that is more likely than most others to be abused and exploited could not possibly be and that discussion of such a possibility is ridiculous is just plain ignorant.

eh?

[Phil246]

If its really rfid, the pattern of the dots wouldnt matter since it would have its own chip etc to send a unique id back. Optical patterns are irrelevent with it.

If its a pattern, and using a propriatory ( presumably optical ) reader, this is not radio based tech and thus not rfid.
surely?

Re:eh?

[FooAtWFU]

RFID means that they send out a radio pulse with an RFID reader, and they get something back. If the pattern of dots can somehow elicit the proper response on the proper frequency, then it's RFID, whether or not it's in a neat little grain-of-rice-sized microchip of some sort.

I'm not sure whether this can conform to the same specifications as what we normally consider RFID, but it's probably something they can read with radio waves, not an optical scan. Radio wave scanning can detect patterns and stuff too, you know.

Re:eh?

[Joebert]

More importantly, if theese tattoos go through the same transformation as my tattoos titties, will I one day be arrested for trying to impersonate Arnold Schwarzenegger ?

Re:eh?

[mrogers]

My guess is that it uses reflective glass beads injected into the skin with compressed air. The pattern could then be read with any electromagnetic wave that can penetrate a few millimetres of skin, eg microwaves.

Re:eh?

[ElectricRook]

Placing simple radio responding cells (RFID chips ) in a pattern would form an array. The pattern of chips would become an antenna array.

Re:eh?

[LMacG]

At the company's website, they say it is

a proprietary ID system based on a biocompatible ink tattoo with chipless RFID functionality. When applied, the ink creates a unique ID that can be detected without line of sight.

Re:eh?

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

Somehow I think this is useless for cows, it seems easier to stick a rfid inside the cow with a needle vs shaving a large area and tattooing them. I had my dog chipped and it was a matter of seconds.

Re:eh?

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Ah, but there has to be visual ID for the cow anyway, since not every rancher or rustler carries RFID transmitters around all the time. Brands are the classic method, though these days I see ear tags as well.
Now, wouldn't it be nice if the same cattle brand showing visual ID had fine-detailed ID of the sort RFIDs can carry? Say, the visible brand says that the cow belongs to Bar X Ranch, and the RFID inside the brand says where BarX Ranch is and what the pedigree of the cow is.
Nice for cattle ranchers. Might be painful if they give RFID-brands to humans, though.

Tattoos as ID?

[Vinegar Joe]

Didn't work out so well the last time somebody tried it.

Re:Tattoos as ID?

[Marko DeBeeste]

When they came for the Jerseies, I didn't protest, because I wasn't a Jersey

When they came for the Angus, I didn't protest, because I wasn't an Angus

When they came for the Herefords, I didn't protest, because I wasn't a Hereford

When they came for the sheep, there was no on left to protest for me

Re:Tattoos as ID?

[Tim C]

I wasn't aware that the Nazis experienced any particular problems with their system of tattooing people.

Now if you want to argue that the circumstances surrounding the scheme and the motivation for it were particularly awful I'd be in full agreement. The scheme itself, however, I believe was a success.

Re:Tattoos as ID?

[Tired_Blood]

I wasn't aware that the Nazis experienced any particular problems with their system of tattooing people.

Members of the Waffen-SS had a tattoo that indicated their blood-type. This identifier helped war-crime prosecutors considerably, so being branded in such a way did prove very problematic to those soldiers after the war.

*sniff*

[ilovegeorgebush]

Poor cows :(

What good would a four-feet RFID signal be in the middle of Basra? (of course, I know the signal would be routed, but still...not that great really...)

Re:*sniff*

[Joebert]

The corral gate they eventually walk through isn't 4 feet wide.

Re:*sniff*

[QuantumRiff]

While I disagree with this idea completely, the one thing I could see as a "benefit" for the soldiers would be to have scanners in the hospitals (mobile and permanent) as well as mobile scanners for medics. Might be useful if someone is badly injured or burned, can't find the dog tags (they blew away!) or something, perform a quick scan, and know that its Gunnery Sargent Hartman (the senior drill instructor!), he is allergic to penicillin, blood type 0-, and has a pin in his leg, so you can't put him through an MRI machine. Of course, you'd have to put it on the chest, or more than one location, in case of a missing limb.

Re:*sniff*

[Anonymous Coward]

What good would a four-feet RFID signal be in the middle of Basra?

if(rfid.data.country=="us")
prime.bomb("explode")
wait(2)
execute()

Now you can just wire your house doorways and windows with a simple reader so if a bunch of US soldiers decide to kick your Basra homes door in at 4AM or raid your weapons cache you can kill them and ONLY them, you could even target just a certain squad or an individual

sounds a great idea, iam sure the Iraqis will be implementing it as soon as its deployed

Re:*sniff*

[TempeTerra]

I wonder if many potential recruits would reconsider, if told that their limbs would be seperately marked for easy identification in case they weren't all found in the same place...

Apocalypse

[Anonymous Coward]

This should get the Revelations nutters foaming at the mouth.

Re:Apocalypse

[east coast]

This should get the Revelations nutters foaming at the mouth.

Well, if you read the posts you'll note that this is also working the other side of the coin: the tin foil hat wearers who claim that Bush is behind this. These are normally the same people who blame the Christians for everything that goes wrong as well.

Ultimately these two groups are the same people with a different outlook on religion but the same type of paranoid hysterics that make the rest of us roll the eyes.

No offense but...

[KKlaus]

I don't really see many additional privacy concerns here, seeing as RFID capsules already have been implanted in people. I guess this tech represents another theoretical vector (to the extent that its cheaper or more durable), but really the whole putting it in people thing and associated privacy issues seems pretty contrived for this issue, and only present to create artificial buzz. Here's a hint, when implanting objects (or dyes, etc) in animals, don't be surprised if those same objects can go in people because - hey! people are animals too.

Re:No offense but...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're basically saying "this has already been done, so why complain"?

How about complaining EVERY TIME it comes up. Doing otherwise could be seen as compliance.

Re:No offense but...

[zer0halo]

I don't really see many additional privacy concerns here

additional is the keyword there. The privacy concerns already exist, since as you mention this has already been done. The problem is that the more it's done, the more "accepted" it becomes, which is a slippery slope towards loss of personal freedom. Of course, any private information about you would only be available to "responsible government agencies" (cough cough), so no worries, mate. Just go back to sleep and everything will be okay. Qui Custodes Custodiat?

Re:No offense but...

[KKlaus]

Alright Its getting late for me here anyway. Gnight. But seriously, my point was that this tech isnt particularly newsworthy, not that its fine and I have no capacity for intelligent thought.

Weakling Humans!

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans *are* cattle!

-Morbo

Re:Weakling Humans!

[Overzeetop]

I thought we were sheep.

Animals!

[nighty5]

"Somark Innovations, has successfully tested RFID tattoos to be used for tracking cattle and other animals."

So when does every member of Congress receive their tattoo?

Re:Animals!

[niXcamiC]

"Somark Innovations, has successfully tested RFID tattoos to be used for tracking cattle and other animals."

So when does every member of Congress receive their tattoo?

Yes, and the other animals too, when do they get theirs?

Brilliant

[androvsky]

Just what every military wants, a mechanized, automatic, failsafe way for enemies to detect and therefore kill your troops.

I personally don't predict a lot of RFID tagging in the military.

Re:Brilliant

[hotdiggitydawg]

How long until someone invents an RFID-tracking RPG?

Re:Brilliant

[Sqweegee]

Connect the reader to a detonator on your IED and walk away... no messy trip wires or switches to give it away.

If more specific ID information can be sored in it, or the database that contains the information to go with it can be stolen, you could target them by rank.

Good for the sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

I say we tag everyone apart from those with the hutzpah to refuse. Then us untagged folk can self-identify and conspire to clean up the gene pool.

By any chance

[organgtool]

Are these tattoos shaped like barcodes? All I know is that if an EMP devastates the United States, I'm going to move to Seattle, join the fight against Manticore and get a chance to meet Jessica Alba (with sexy results)!

mark

[Anonymous Coward]

*cough* mark of the beast *cough* *cough*

Re:mark

[Anonymous Coward]

*cough*you took that number by selective services by hand*cough* 6+6+6=18

Note: I know you may not be American, but I just wanted to point out that many things can fit into a generic/broad "prediction". That was just the first one I came up with.

Re:mark

[failure-man]

That's exactly what I thought, although probably not in the same context.

How do we fight this? Use the Christians. (I don't see why cynical good and cynical evil can't both play this game.)

"OMGWTF. It's the mark of the beast! JUST LIKE IN THE ACID TRIP AT THE END OF THE BIBLE. The sky is falling!"

Re:mark

[Anonymous Coward]

*cough*mythology*cough*

Re:mark

[takeya]

Excellent point - it could easily be fought using the majority of the population's fear of the mark of the beast - just make them "realize" that this is it

Military/cattle...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference????

Re:Military/cattle...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cattle have not been used in an illegal assault on a sovereign state for centuries. Now that the enemy is Islam, wouldn't pork catapults be the vogue?

I apologize if talk about saving our bacon from the "terrorists" is off topic.

And in case of a large EMP...

[ansak]

What do you expect an antenna (whether chip or tattoo pattern) to do but receive all that EM energy and convert it to a small, localized, but sub-dermal and therefore very painful burn.

Hmmm... I don't think the military want it and I don't think any human in their right mind want it either (Implicit question regarding the sanity of those already implanted intentional).

Who needs to be a so-called "Revelation nutter" not to want to shun this? (And talk about "argumentum ad hominem - abusive" label! not that slashdot has ever been about sane, reasoned dialog <grin>)

cheers...ank

No metal?

[Cheesey]

Details are limited for the actual tattoo, but it's said to contain no metals and can be read up to about four feet away.

No metal? This doesn't sound like a radio transceiver at all. Can you make an electronic device without using any metals?

I wonder what it actually is. Glorified barcode?

Re:No metal?

[aardvarkjoe]

It uses very sophisticated materials that can be read using a device that emits electromagnetic radiation in the 400-700nm range.

Re:No metal?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Anything that produces a discontinuity in the refractive index will interact with radio waves in detectable ways. It helps to be about a quarter-wavelength or larger in size, and sizes near a multiple of a half-wavelength can resonate - thus interacting very strongly. But any discontinuity will be detectable.

Synthetic aperture radar techniques would be able to image the pattern in two dimensions. These resolve distance by using a "chirp" - a swept-frequency pulse of significant duration - and can resolve another spatial dimension by coherently combining multiple receptions of a chirp from multiple positions along a line - or receptions of multiple chirps over time from a single antenna that is in different positions relative to the target. This can be accomplished by moving the antenna, moving the target, and/or rotating the target.

Walk by the chirping antenna and the strongly-reflecting "ink" beads cause their two-dimensional pattern to appear in the two-dimensional "unrolling strip" of processed "image" data - where tatooed barcodes can then be recognized by the same algorithms that would recognize a barcode on a box on a conveyor-belt moving past a line-scan camera.

Re:No metal?

[Cheesey]

:) You should be in the patent-writing business!

(I guess it is just a barcode after all)

Renewed use for matrix printers!

[splutty]

Just put your arm in one, and tada! You've got your own personalized barcode..

Evolution of tracking.

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans already have multiple tracking methods, fingerprints, dna, phermones, iris identification, and even facial recognition. Most of these aren't useful in tracking and identifying animals. In the past hot iron branding has been the major identification for cows and this is just the natural evolution of that tracking method. If only they can track e. coli laced food this way as well...

Mistake for covert ops

[devnullkac]

Unless the tattoo is easily and cleanly removable, it would be a mistake to use on the general military population, since tattooed grunts couldn't aspire to covert ops (too easily identifiable).

Re:Mistake for covert ops

[drinkypoo]

One wonders if this tattoo can be removed by laser without more damage to the wearer than with an ordinary tattoo...

Re:Mistake for covert ops

[robably]

Solution: Tattoo everyone, then they'll blend right in.

Re:Mistake for covert ops

[uab21]

Unless the tattoo is easily and cleanly removable, it would be a mistake to use on the general military population, since tattooed grunts couldn't aspire to covert ops (too easily identifiable).

TFA states that the tatto can be placed under the hair, without shaving first - it doesn't have to be visible.

Re:Mistake for covert ops

[Wateshay]

You're assuming that the enemy will never develop the technology to scan somebody using one of the RFID readers in order to find out if one is present.

Re:Mistake for covert ops

[BytePusher]

I imagine it can be burned off or simply ruined with a higher powered radio frequency burst of the same frequency used to read it. The question is, how high power and what damage would that do to the vict...*cough* I mean person?

PR

[KKlaus]

You know you'd think they could have done a better job with their PR. I'm pretty sure identifying tattoos + people are not a winning mix, and I can't imagine trying to convince someone to use one of these. "No its fine! Think of all the other people that have done it before you... of wait... er...."

Re:PR

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Synthetic-aperture radar reader technology should work fine with some of the current tatoo inks, too. This just optimizes the ink for maximum reflection to make the job easier and the range larger.

Obligatory..

[Damastus the WizLiz]

"IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!"

Drawbacks

[jwthompson2]

Just like sub-dermal microchipping this process is invasive and has the potential for complications such as infection, allergic reactions and other issues. There is still technology in development though to implement non-invasive techniques such as iris recognition which are much more promising long-term in terms of animal identification. Here's a good dutch web site, with mediocre english translation, that details some problems with microchipping in particular: http://www.invisio.nl/antichip/

Should have just said 'and humans'

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it be daft to have said only "tracking cattle" when there are far more applications which are patently obvious. The first "harmless" use is proposed as soldiers. Next, it will seem logical to track inmates of correctional institutes. Perhaps other behavioral institutes could benefit. Sex offenders. Prison guards. Other security applications.

Then, won't someone think of the children? They'll be far safer if we know where they all are at any given moment.

Plus, it will aid in all types of commerce. Instant checkouts. No more airport shakedowns. Walk inside an entertainment facility (sports arena, porn theatre, anime convention, etc.) and have admission automagically deducted from your available balance.

Followed by inevitable abuse by the powerful. And I don't mean the subtle kind of manipulations you might expect. But the really nasty kind from futurists' novels.

It's possible all the serpent-teasing Christian wackos may turn out to be right about the Mark of the Beast. Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.

Re:Should have just said 'and humans'

[faolan_devyn_aodfin]

I'm no Christian but I do think Revelations does tell an interesting story, especially when it comes to the Mark of the Beast. This is almost the perfect analogy because RFID to the masses sound like the most benign and convenient things. Saves you time and money, even has the ability to make you safe from all those social dæmons that you fear.

But on the other hand it has an evil taint and is nefarious in every way. By it's very core it is tempting but most things evil are tempting because they appear convenient. However, this true evil because by it's very nature it is prone to abuse by psychotic men. It has the power to track you every move, you every purchase and in the eyes of the government and corporation that label, that identity has become you regardless whether it really be. You have just become a series of numbers, strings, and data points on a giant grid of databases. In the eyes of those in power you have lost your humanity and therefore cease to exist as a spiritual being because you are merely just data and should your data someone day become harmful to the overall goals of those in charge of the system you can merely be erased. They might not even have to kill you, per se for you to cease to exist--merely they could just deny you can such would be your execution if you could not longer make purchases to obtain food.

In a way RFID threatens ones humanity, the aspects that make us human. The fact we are more than just some plot on a grid. We are men and women with lives and feelings. With identity. We have desires, yearnings, and wants outside material. We crave things like inclusion, love, happiness. But RFID strips us of that in the eyes of those in power and thus in their world view we become nothing but mere components that can be replaced in a system that can be manipulated to their desires. When a government ignores the concept of humanity, freedom and the sanctity of life shall also be endangered and that is a price that we cannot afford.

666

[Anonymous Coward]

(Read the subject. (Must type body text.))

I'd be more impressed if

[Timberwolf0122]

They could use the RFID Ink technology to pickup FM radio stations so I might have easy listening jazz stations where ever I go, yeh, cool man.

Mark of the Beast

[mrshowtime]

This new tattoo technology is really the mark of the beast (literally) lol

So, uhmmm...

[philci52]

Does it look like "666"?

Why - ultimately people will be RFID...

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite our outrage and opposition....corporations that are not HUMAN will require it. And because our government is basically run by corporations (at this time) we will be "chipped".

Cattlecars

[Doc Ruby]

I bet they RFID tattoo all the "detainees" in Children of Men.

Reader information

[Anonymous Coward]

Circle number 666 on your reader information card.

Driver's License Images Online

[NutMan]

Bush & Co. is at it again!

Every day we lose more privacy, and any idiot with an Internet connection has access to our information.

You can find an image of any U.S. Driver's License online at this site: Driver's License Bureau.

Find your's and click on the checkbox, "Please Remove".

Re:Driver's License Images Online

[artemis67]

Nutman, you are, indeed, appropriately named.

Nowhere in the article does it state that the US Government has any involvement with this company.

Re:Driver's License Images Online

[c6gunner]

Yes, because, CLEARLY this program was initiated and funded by the Bush administration. And CLEARLY they're going to start tagging all Americans on Monday morning. It says so right in the article!

Were you born this paranoid/delusional/retarded, or did it take practice?

Re:Driver's License Images Online

[Paul Rose]

Got Me!!

Definitely should have shaved that day...

Re:Driver's License Images Online

[kevintron]

This is the first time I've really wished I had mod points, just to mod your comment up and counteract the humorless twit who abused the "Overrated" modifier against you, NutMan. Since I don't have that power at the moment, I want to let you know some of us appreciate subtlety.

Pity the poor drones who replied to you in deadly earnest.

Tracking e. coli-laced food is easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Just go to your local Toxic Hell^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Taco Bell.

Snow Crash.....

[Anonymous Coward]

POOR IMPULSE CONTROL

I want to be the first to say.....

[mshiltonj]

MOOOOOOO.

Will you..

[panxerox]

take the mark?

Re:Will you..

[LilGuy]

No.

New ID?

[kelarius]

Depending on what type of info is on this new RFID system, I dont know why this would nessisarily be a bad thing. Im assuming that the RFID tattoo would basicaly just contain a reference number. A scanning system would then connect to a government server and download the information stored there for whoever was reading the scanner. This would allow for provacy protection as Im assuming that the only info that would be on there is info the government already has, (i.e. Name, Age, Birthdate, Address, etc...) most of which is already available on your state drivers liscence which they could ask you for anyways. I just view this as almost more of a convenience thing for us, as I dont like standing in line at airport security any more than anyone else.

Re:New ID?

[trippedn]

Its fun until you get a few smart assed friends who copy a pedo's tattoo and get you drunk!

movie time

[usmdesigner]

Why do I have the nack to watch Judge Dredd again

Moo

[Chacham]

THIS HUMAN BELONGS TO
   DARYL JONES
SO     HANDS     OFF!

RFID to Fight Terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think if we started a catch and release program with people in Iraq. We could tag them all and record which people are near exploded bombs and sniper fire. If the same people are always near the violence we could take them in for questioning.

One thing that has always suprised me is that Hezzbullah wears masks in Palestine and thinks that will protect their identity. Wouldn't an infrared camera be able to capture the facial structure of people undernearth their masks? I bet Israel has the identity of every masked terrorist there.

Sweet!

[east coast]

Can mine look like a dragon or a skull? That would kick ass d00d.

This is usefull for when in combat...

[robinvanleeuwen]

Very usefull in combat indeed,
if you hear a signal someone is around
the corner waiting for you...

redundant

[Anonymous Coward]

human...cattle...same thing

You won't notice if...

[sacrilicious]

You are going to notice if someone walks up [to within 4 feet of] you and starts wanding you to get an RFID signal.

Sure, one wouldn't notice if someone dressed in an LED clown suit with a megaphone started jumping up and down with a wand announcing, "Please remain immobile, I am about to scan you." But you're not going to notice if there's a reader embedded in the wall of a hallway where you're walking.

Premonition

[Anonymous Coward]

2) In the case of regular citizens, I absolutely agree with you. But for Soldiers the RFID tattoo has a great advantage over the dog tag as it cannot be lost. If it is small, removable via inexpensive laser surgery, and placed on a couple different points around the body, it is useful for identifying bodies that have been badly mangled due to things like bombs, mines, and other explosives.

It also has an excellent practical application for use with criminals, both in prison and out on parole. If you place RFID readers at certain strategic locations, you can go a long way to detecting the presence of, say, pedophiles that have been paroled and are hanging out near a school (assuming you have hidden RFID readers near schools, of course.) Volley, serve.

Tracker Nano-bot Swarms

[Dareth]

Remember the lame ass Star Trek Insurrection, or whatever they called it... little probes "tagging" people for transport.

Now imagine them killing people, and homing in on the "tagged" people.

Re:Tracker Nano-bot Swarms

[c6gunner]

If we could build nano-machines, we wouldn't need tags. Want to kill a person? Steal one of his hairs, program the nanite to home in on his DNA, and then drop a bunch in the punch-bowl at the next party. Done and done.

Or, want to commit genocide? Figure out a unique genetic trait possessed mainly by your "target", and then release the nanites into the population at large. Granted you'll probably take out a few hundred thousand people who don't fall into the target category, but genocidal maniacs aren't normally concerned about causing unintended casualties.

Re:Tracker Nano-bot Swarms

[eis271828]

Perhaps a better Star Trek relation would be to the episode with Tasha Yar's sister, Ishara Yar, where everyone has a little identifier that alerts the other side when they are trying to invade. "Legacy" episode link. Of course, they never explained exactly why each side always placed these things in/on all their young.

If used to track or identify our soldiers, I see this backfiring.

I see problems

[Nom du Keyboard]

I see problems every time after this that I try to walk out of the supermarket through the anti-shoplifting detectors.

Still suffers from short read-range problem

[tulsaoc3guy]

Short-range (less than 4 feet) ways of collecting cattle ID numbers such as this technique all introduce "speed of commerce" issues in the U.S. cattle market. Thousands of cattle filter through U.S. cattle auction markets during sale days. Longer-range, simultaneous-read solutions would be more appropriate. Check out http://www.zigbeef.com/ .

Re:eh?++

[ajlitt]

Placing three boxes of Cream of Wheat directly in front of your eyes would put them within your field of view. The pattern of boxes would become a field of wheat.

Just like fingerprints...

[Belial6]

Yeah, we could use them just on criminals and the military, just like fingerprints. Of course, it won't be more than a few years before schools start offering to tag your kids "for their protection", you know... just like fingerprints. Of course, a few years later, we can start requiring them for getting a drivers license, you know... just like finger prints. After all, 'driving is a privilege', right? You don't have to get a drivers license. You can just use all the really good public transportation system. And, there is no way that once 90% of the population has been chipped, that you would start to be excluded from other parts of society. After all, we just discussed how driving a car was totally voluntary with viable alternatives.

Re:Just like fingerprints...

[spickus]

I've had a drivers license in 3 states and have never been asked for my fingerprints.

Re:Just like fingerprints...

[Belial6]

Don't move to California then... Unless you don't mind.

Re:Just like fingerprints...

[davros866]

They are required in Texas. I just melted candle wax on my finger before going.

Re:Just like fingerprints...

[spickus]

I sure wasn't aware of this. They have mine from the military but I see no need for the DMV to be collecting fingerprints.

Can we make it a dark mark?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lord Voldemort will be so pleased

Let's go over this

[retro128]

How does RFID work? Well a scanner emits an alternating electromagnetic field. The RFID chip induces this field and gets enough electrical potential within it to activate and emits its code to the scanner. Clearly, in order to do this there must be an integrated circuit involved in the RFID chip itself.

Here is what I don't understand - If this "tattoo" contains no metallic elements of any sort, how precisely is it supposed to induce an electromagnetic field from a 4 ft away, let alone kick back a serial number? I mean, the "RF" in RFID stands for Radio Frequency, right? Their site contains no more information than the press releases we've already seen. There's a lot of "look how great our technology is", but I haven't yet seen anything on the Net that describes how it works. It crossed my mind that it could read directly with a sensor using a spectrum that goes through hair, but then calling it RFID would be a misnomer since technically it would be an optical scanning technology.

Take a look at the partners, Ramos M. Mays and Mark C. Pydynowski. Take a look at Mark's profile on Somark itself. If I were an investor I wouldn't be too thrilled with his accomplishments:

Mark's talents are his ability to lead, persuade, and make things happen. His first entrepreneurial adventure began during his teenage years as the sole-proprietor of a lawn care service. He partnered with Mays on an IT service based start-up while at Washington University, but pulled the plug in the late planning stage. His previous industry experience is not limited to business development at a top tier management consulting firm.

I'll let you guys make of that what you will. I can't find anything on Ramos Mays other than that he is/was a computer science grad. I can find nothing about the claim that he has training in "Condensed Matter Physics".

Additionally, don't you think there would at least be a patent application for something like this? I can find nothing at the USPTO. Perhaps someone else might have better luck...

The point that I am trying to make is that this reeks of vaporware. The cynic in me says that this is a company that is hot on buzzwords but a little short on product. The profiles of the founders on the company's page by itself makes me wonder...And so do the grants they are generating.

No stars upon theirs

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, when a-walking, you walk past a Sneech of that type without talking.

Nostalga

[Kurayamino-X]

Remember like, a decade ago, when implanting yourself with an RFID chip was an awesome idea because you could unlock your door by walking up to it or switch on lights by entering a room?

Is it EMP resistant?

[LM741N]

Seems anything used by the military would have to be resistant to EMP. Has anyone discussed that yet in relation to RFID?

Re:Is it EMP resistant?

[ccccc]

If someone detonates an EMP device over an army emplacement, I think the last thing they'd be worried about is making sure peoples' barcodes still worked. I'd guess the more immediate concern would be, y'know, the large attack taking place while all their electronics are destroyed or incapacitated. The broken radios, radars, nightvision equipment, power generators, and many other things seem far more important.

Wonder if it will work on programmers?

[plopez]

Though of course, it is the wrong management technique.

Combination of millimeter-wave resonators ?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the fields the specialists they give as references on their site, I'm assuming they are using millimeter-wave technology. This makes sense given the portential size of the dots. Assuming the dots are made of a substance having a characteristic response (be it linear resonance, like radiofrequency or acousto-magnetic anti-shop lifting tags ; or non-linear response, like magneto-harmonic ones), they may use a steerable terahertz beam to scan for them, in which case this would be reading a pattern using synthetic aperture radar. This leaves the problem of encoding and decoding information in a pattern of deformable dots. My other hypothesis is that they are using an alphabet of dots of different characteristics, say 200, the combination of which is used to encode information - their placement being irrelevant. The spectral response of the cow would then include peaks encoding its ID. Millimeter waves should not penetrate very far in a cow, but if they are using the second system, they may get their information from reflections if they don't have line-of-sight.

Something is missing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the tinfoilhat or getoutyourtinfoilhat tag?

Innovation RFID with temperature

[Camel Pilot]

At one time I did some work for a company that uses a purely passive (no battery) RFID inside the cow. They embed a temperature a/d device within a microchip RFID to provide identification along with accurate body temperature measurement. The device is packaged in a bolus that sits in the cow rumen. When the cow walks by a reader board the id and temperature is transmitted. The cool thing is that the device is energized by the reader board so that no battery is required.

Mod up Informative

[SPQR_Julian]

Wow. I'd never even heard of that. Pretty amazing.

Just whack it

[Anonymous Coward]

with a hammer! That is what we are doing for the passports right?

Mod parent insightful? :D

[gknoy]

I agree. Artificial, "permanent" identification means aresomethign that will VERY QUICKLY be copied and used by anyone needing a faked ID. The general populace will never suspect that that guy with the Joe DoGooder ID-tattoo bought it on the black market, and actually is a terrorist.

The more and more I read things like this, the more I need to re-read the Diamond Age.

Actual Picture

[ProfessionalCookie]

I live in the foothills and ran across this at my local far and took this picture. It's the visible tattoo option.

Pretty incredible stuff!

Wow!

[treeves]

"Baby, that tattoo you got is really hot! No, I mean it's hot to the touch" "Hey man, why are you pointing that radar gun at my girlfriend?"

This is nothing new, really.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Auschwitz had a similar system going for a while. Worked well, I hear...

Invisible ink, applied in 5-10 seconds

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article at engadget:

Somark's system uses an array of needles to inject a passive RFID ink which can be read through the hair on your choice of beast. The ink can be either invisible or colored...

If I understand this correctly, the tattoo could be applied in 5-10 seconds without being visible. Governments will love this.

if you have to get that close, 1m

[justdrew]

then why not just use optics?

RFIDing people

[Anonymous Coward]

> the article does mention RFID tattoos are possible for people, specifically the military.

The military would never want their soldier's location trackable by anyone with an RFID scanner. The real application in RFID tattoos for prisoners. The Nazis tattooed their prisoners, so America will probably be following this trend. Our politicians basically think along the same lines as the Nazis did.

RFID tagging is not new

[OA]

In europe, if you ask your dog to get passport for international travel, they ask you to inplant IC (some RFID device) into your dog at vet. So this is no new technology thing.

Tracking the mentally ill

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

According to that fine PDF, America has already started to tag the mentally ill with RFID chips!
Just on a trial basis, but nonetheless, already doing it.
I hope that the fine UK gov. is mistaken about this...

McDonalds??

[advs89]

So does that mean I need to start worrying about RFID tags in my Big Mac??

Well OK, bad example (like McDonalds actually uses cows!)

But you get my point, I mean, would they even take them out before slaughtering??

Oh, and not to go all "The world is coming to an end!!!" on everyone, but doesn't the Bible speak of everyone being "marked" with numbers in the second coming of Christ?? (although I think it was on your forehead, so unless they're injecting the RFID tags there...)

Re:eh?++

[ElectricRook]

Yes, exactly, and if they were radio responding, turning them on-off in a sequence would form a three dimensional shape, which would be a wave. You just made a radio wave based on the shape of the elements of the array.