Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TransferJet Consortium Works Towards Touch Data Transfer Tech

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the ease-of-use dept.

Iddo Genuth writes to tell us that many of the large tech companies have banded together in order to develop TransferJet technology. Discussed earlier this year, TransferJet promises to allow rapid data transfer between devices in close proximity. "The group of companies involved in the development of TransferJet has been tagged the 'TransferJet Consortium' and includes many industry giants such as Sony, Canon, Kodak, Nikon, Pioneer, Toshiba, Samsung and many others. The companies intend to market a broad array of products and services incorporating TransferJet technology with the intention of increasing its usage through the consumer electronics industry. With this new technology, there will be no need for access points or complex data transfer setups. By touching the two devices together, intuitive operation will kick in and the files will be transferred automatically."

60 comments

  1. Teehee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of the piracy applications!

    1. Re:Teehee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop Touching Me!

    2. Re:Teehee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not touching you!

  2. Data Theft by harryjohnston · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A short 3cm transmission distance minimizes any risks of data theft.

    I do hope there's a bit more to it than that. There are all sorts of situations in which someone could bring a hostile device within 3cm of (say) a mobile phone without being noticed. For a start, consider a commuter train during rush hour.

    1. Re:Data Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a really powerful antenna.

    2. Re:Data Theft by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Informative

      obviously both devices still have to activate their TransferJet feature so you won't accidentally start a transfer just by brushing your cellphone against someone else's. i think what they mean is that the devices need to be within 3 cm of each other during the transfer so that someone can't walk up behind you while you're transferring to an intended target and intercept the transmission.

      so if you want to transfer sensitive data, you just need to survey the area within a 3 cm radius of your device to make sure that you can safely make the transfer. as opposed to having a 6 ft. transmission distance and having to survey a much larger area.

      if something is within 3 cm of your device, you'll know. but it's much harder (and more awkward) to try to extend your personal bubble 6 ft. and keep other people from snooping in on your transfer.

    3. Re:Data Theft by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      obviously both devices still have to activate their TransferJet feature so you won't accidentally start a transfer just by brushing your cellphone against someone else's.

      I hope so. But, if this is the case, the article doesn't make it clear.

      I think what they mean is that the devices need to be within 3 cm of each other during the transfer so that someone can't walk up behind you while you're transferring to an intended target and intercept the transmission.

      I'm left to wonder how an innocent device can distinguish between another innocent device 3cm away and a malicious device 1m away with a correspondingly more powerful signal. Certainly a sufficiently powerful antenna could still eavesdrop on the signal, so I hope it's encrypted.

    4. Re:Data Theft by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      yea, i think it's deceptive to assign a hard limit for the range of the radio transmission. obviously if you scale up the receiver you can intercept the signal from much further away.

      but i think this is where the 3 cm optimal range is significant. if a transmission protocol is designed to be receivable for up to 3 ft, it'll be much easier to intercept it from 5-6 ft away with a slightly larger receiver. however, if the protocol is only designed for a range for 3 cm, then the signal will inherently be much weaker, and you'll need a much larger receiver to pick it up from just 3-4 ft away. and it may be impractical to build a receiver large enough to intercept the signal from across the room.

    5. Re:Data Theft by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      Sure, I agree a short-range system is better than a long-range one in this context, but I'm concerned that it may create an exaggerated sense of security, which may lead to skimping in other areas which might be more effective.

      Oh, well, ultimately it's all in the implementation.

    6. Re:Data Theft by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      obviously both devices still have to activate their TransferJet feature so you won't accidentally start a transfer just by brushing your cellphone against someone else's.

      But as the trained consumers we are, we'll expect an automatic transfer option and demand it until we get it, for "convenience" or whatever. Someone will implement it, some idiot developer will make it the default option, and some user who hasn't RTFM will walk around with AutoJet(tm) enabled by default, and eventually some hacker with an amp'd up receiver or other warring device will be within range and, ta-da, your stuff is my stuff. Maybe a little extreme, but we've all seen worse things come "out of the box."

    7. Re:Data Theft by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      i dunno. i think a lot of consumers would be able to see the idiocy in having the TransferJet feature automatically kick on just through a device's proximity.

      you'll have family members constantly finding each other's text messages, address book, photos, and what not randomly showing up on one another's phones and portable devices just because they sat them down next to each other on the kitchen counter or on a table. and you'll have people finding random garbage on their phones because they sat down next to someone on the subway who also had a TransferJet compatible device in their pocket.

      it would just become too much of a hassle--which, like you said, is much more of a concern for most consumers than security.

    8. Re:Data Theft by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      i dunno. i think a lot of consumers would be able to see the idiocy in having the TransferJet feature automatically kick on just through a device's proximity.

      you'll have family members constantly finding each other's text messages, address book, photos, and what not randomly showing up [...]

      While I agree that it isn't likely that the technology would perform transfers completely automatically, it might well be designed so that you only need initiate the transfer from one of the devices. Seeing as you have to choose the content to transfer, it seems most likely that sending data will be a manual process but receiving it might well be automatic. Better than the other way around, of course, but still worrying.

    9. Re:Data Theft by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      well, makers of consumer devices generally care more about projecting a 'sense' of security to the public rather than providing actual security. that's why security through obscurity is still widely used in consumer devices. outside of computer geek circles, the general public has no concept of security awareness. it's hard for a layperson to understand why RFIDs are a bad idea for secure applications, or why it's unwise to use a single password for everything, or why encryption is so important when using a public network. they're just not used to thinking in terms of security.

      of course, this is good for malicious hackers and also government agencies like the NSA, FBI, and other law-enforcement agencies. perfect security/privacy would make the jobs of such agencies much more difficult. if TransferJet gains widespread adoption, you can bet that there'll be government surveillance vans fitted with oversized antennas that can park outside of someone's home and eavesdrop on any TransferJet signals like they can already do with cellphone signals.

      and judging from the actions of the major telecoms, i'm sure the TransferJet Consortium will be more than willing to work with government agencies to help them develop these surveillance solutions. let's just hope that they don't design a backdoor into the protocol that would let police officers (or anyone with special knowledge) remotely initiate spontaneous transfers of personal data without a device user's knowledge.

    10. Re:Data Theft by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      But what if it could be a passive process, or just a little picture of two arrows and your phone is silenced? I mean, still an extreme situation, but leave it up to a user to make it happen. Of course, it would also be at the fault of awful programmers/monkeys, and one would hope that companies of this scale could do it right. I have faith, but I'm skeptical too. There is probably a fence somewhere that I should be on.

    11. Re:Data Theft by davolfman · · Score: 1

      Also I think the 3cm range might give some serious headaches in terms of antenna design. Remember alot of antenna gain is actually by changing the sensitivity pattern. With a signal that weak you pattern would have to really, really tight to pick it out, which would probably require foolishly rigid placement of the antenna to get the device in the focus point.

    12. Re:Data Theft by phozz+bare · · Score: 1

      I'm left to wonder how an innocent device can distinguish between another innocent device 3cm away and a malicious device 1m away with a correspondingly more powerful signal.

      Oh, that's easy: all malicious devices will be required to set the 'evil' bit in all data transfer headers.

    13. Re:Data Theft by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      i dunno. i think a lot of consumers would be able to see the idiocy in having the TransferJet feature automatically kick on just through a device's proximity.

      I dunno about that. These are the same consumers that made flashing sneakers popular... Recognizing idiocy doesn't seem to be their strongest point.

  3. Just like IRdA? by mediocubano · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I thought IRDA (Infrared) was supposed to do this - my Palmpilot had infrared syncing, and HP tried with some of its printers, and I had a Motorola 2-way pager that also had the ability. My Dell laptop still has an infrared window on it.

    1. Re:Just like IRdA? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      RF based technology has pretty much murdered IRDA, presumably because dealing with IR line of sight was seen as a nuisance(the proliferation of 2.4ghz RF silicon, and thus its reduced price, probably didn't hurt). There may be other reasons as well, IRDA seemed to slip underwater surprisingly quickly and quietly for something so cheap and simple.

    2. Re:Just like IRdA? by wsanders · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IRdA is slow as hell.

      This will be much faster, and secure, assuming they can find a way for radio waves to travel 3 cm and then stop themselves.

      Of course, a towel provides effective IRdA security.

      --
      Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
    3. Re:Just like IRdA? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      This will be much faster, and secure, assuming they can find a way for radio waves to travel 3 cm and then stop themselves.

      In practicality, it's this handy little thing called the "inverse square law."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:Just like IRdA? by wsanders · · Score: 1

      My 22db gain yagi says "phffft" to the inverse square law!

      Actually, if the protocol were fast enough, you could use the time delay of propagation to make performance degrade really rapidly after a certain distance, in much the same way ethernet falls apart once you exceed a certain distance. Radio waves travel take all of 1/10 of a nanosecond to go 3 cm. That's an eternity by some design standards.

      --
      Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
    5. Re:Just like IRdA? by nbert · · Score: 1

      Of course, a towel provides effective IRdA security.

      Guess you weren't too serious about this, but this is the reason why Free Space Optics were used by military before strong encryption got fancy. Since it doesn't spread like radio and it is quite portable compared to wires it was used by the German army during WWII for voice communication to nearby stations at the Atlantic Wall. Lasers weren't available back then so I have doubts regarding reliability and range, but since it was in use it must have provided an advantage over copper and radio.

      --
      I don't read replies by ACs.
    6. Re:Just like IRdA? by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      I thought IRDA (Infrared) was supposed to do this [...]

      It does, but not at 375Mbps.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    7. Re:Just like IRdA? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that only matter for two-way communication? Performance could degrade rapidly because of either collisions due to insufficient carrier-sense times or lengthy SYN/ACKish round trips, I suppose, but that would hamper legitimate communication attempts. If you're just eavesdropping those concerns vanish, since the speedy responses are handled by the appropriately positioned intended recipient of the signal.

      Love your sig btw.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    8. Re:Just like IRdA? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I used IRdA on my phone before Bluetooth became popular. Ericsson phones used to mount the port on the top-right of the handset, so you could select a contact from your list, touch your phone against someone else's and press send. With Bluetooth, you select the contact, scan for nearby phones, ask the other person which one is theirs, and then send. IRdA was more convenient and was fast enough for vCards. I stopped using it because none of my subsequent phones supported it. I'd love to just have a touch-activated version of Bluetooth - select the thing to send and press send, and have it sent to whichever device you touch the phone against.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:Just like IRdA? by rpmayhem · · Score: 1

      Of course, a towel provides effective IRdA security.

      Never forget your towel!

    10. Re:Just like IRdA? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      a way for radio waves to travel 3 cm and then stop themselves.

      You mean something like exploiting near field effects?

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
  4. Missing from list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    he new close proximity wireless transfer technology automatically initiates the transfer of files such as high resolution videos, music, and images,

    ... viruses ...

  5. Touch ME! by Kemanorel · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of this... http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=116

    --
    Mess not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
  6. How much battery life will this suck? by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    How much battery life will this suck?

    1. Re:How much battery life will this suck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much battery life will this suck?

      About 68 molecules worth.

  7. So to summarize the entire article: by CaptainPatent · · Score: 1

    Hey baby, touch my dongle and I'll fill you with my megabits!

    Sounds like technology I've already seen on... some... websites...

    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    1. Re:So to summarize the entire article: by santiagoanders · · Score: 1

      Firm but Gentle

      --
      "There can be little doubt that union activities lead to continuous and progressive inflation." F. A. Hayek
  8. Pickpockets in a crowd by overshoot · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, the security implications certainly give a new meaning to "putting the touch on him."

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Pickpockets in a crowd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the list of companies involved. If this _doesn't_ involve absurdly draconian DRM attempts, I'd be very surprised indeed. It'll fail in the marketplace much like similar initiatives that sony/kodak's kiss-of-death touches.

  9. Sir Howard... by Rick+Richardson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/2008/07/22/sony-and-company-introduce-transferjet/

    "I thought Sir Howard was supposed to put an end to this type of thing. Apparently not, as Sony is back with another proprietary technology. Making it worse, they are offering up a wireless technology to transfer video and image wirelessly, a market where there are seemingly PLENTY of standardized technologies to do just this. Sure, theyâ(TM)ve pushed a consortium around TransferJet [PR], at least giving this effort the appearance of an industry-wide effort, but in the end this looks and feels like classic Sony pushing an internally developed technology as a solution where there already is one."

    1. Re:Sir Howard... by rukcus · · Score: 1

      Truth be told, at least Sony is trying to standardize something. Look at it this way: you have company X that develops a technology Y in their products Z to make them more useful to the consumer. They get the support of similar market players in their sector and agree to normalize the technology for those involved.

      The problem lies in that they are using a saturated medium (2.4GHz radio) as a bedrock for their technology. I think this is both a blessing and a curse. In one aspect, almost all handhelds have a 2.4GHz radio in them, so they will surely see the signal. The curse, however, is that any handheld device will see this signal, doubly so if you can sniff out packets. The author of the article claims there is already a solution available in standardized 802.11[.] technology that is capable of doing this. However, we come back to the curse of the radio: anyone with such a device would see the data. If you add encryption, that's pretty fancy, but now you have to design bloatware management software to handle the device's security features through the host computer or data card.

      I like the idea, but it reeks of security flaws. I'm still going to use USB2.0 to transfer the pictures of my lame vacation and cats using the old fashion way.

  10. I thought WiMedia won by doojsdad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wireless USB (WUSB) and Bluetooth 3.0 are already using WiMedia http://www.wimedia.org/en/index.asp

    1. Re:I thought WiMedia won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original wireless USB spec did not have an NFC near field secure link association in it (proposed, but not in time, likely in the next revision). Basically, the wireless USB NFC spec meant you could associate a device with a host by putting it about 3cm between the two at a designated spot (where the host has a NFC reader with a NFC logo emblazoned on the plastic shell to make it obvious this is where you rub the device). Oh wait, that's exactly the same as TransferJet, except, well, the Wireless USB chipsets will be in FAR more consumer electronics than some wacky Sony proprietary tech ever will. The only problem being, when will Intel and the rest of the USB-IF get off their collectivist asses and approve the damn NFC spec. If they're too slow, you may see some UWB chipset makers making TransferJet compatible firmware for hybrid setups, provided Microsoft doesn't hang everyone out to dry on drivers again for TransferJet developers.

  11. Off With The Editor's Head ... by strelitsa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... is the cry every time I see the phrase "close proximity". Is there any other kind of proximity?

    --
    No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
    1. Re:Off With The Editor's Head ... by CorporateSuit · · Score: 1

      ... is the cry every time I see the phrase "close proximity". Is there any other kind of proximity?

      not-so-close proximity

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
  12. Security? Isn't that a synonym for "DRM?" by overshoot · · Score: 1

    If this _doesn't_ involve absurdly draconian DRM attempts, I'd be very surprised indeed.

    Well, of course. I was thinking of the other security possibilities, such as touching someone's portable and scoring their data files or giving them some electronic "social disease."

    That last may be a design requirement, you know. Think of updating DRM security profiles on contact. That would be a good thing, right?

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  13. Over/Under pool, taking bets now: by WiglyWorm · · Score: 1

    How long until sony pulls out and announces a proprietary competing technology available to be liscenced?

    1. Re:Over/Under pool, taking bets now: by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      I'd rather put my money on the amount of time it takes Sony to realize that the proprietary tech isn't working out and that they pulled yet another Mini-Disc out of their ass. Three years of falling sales?

  14. Different proximities by overshoot · · Score: 1

    every time I see the phrase "close proximity". Is there any other kind of proximity?

    I will point out that there most definitely is such a thing as "open proximity" even if the canonical /.er has never encountered the possibility.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Different proximities by skyshard · · Score: 1

      except proximity means the property of being close...

      after a quick search, open proximity appears to have something to do with switches, and doesn't seem to conflict in any way with "close proximity" being redundant

    2. Re:Different proximities by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Approximately.

  15. Viral Modeling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And with this wonderful technology, you'll be able to see how quickly virii spread as if they were biological entities. This would make an interesting paper for a CompSci and Epidemiology person to collaborate on.

    1. Re:Viral Modeling by rukcus · · Score: 1

      Answer: about as fast as regular pathogens would.

      You're really only adding a 3cm radius of influence on the entities. I predict it would still be at logarithmic growth in any case. The key factor is transfer rate. If the ratio between transfer rate to pathogen size is high, then you can treat it as a game of tag. If the ratio is low, then time of visit will play into the modeling.

  16. Re:Security? Isn't that a synonym for "DRM?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not if an updated profile locks you out of something that previously worked. DRM is _evil_.

  17. Another attempt to sell more dongles by rukcus · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Quoth the Article:

    The small size of the chips will allow them to be connected to any USB capable computer and possibly to other USB capable devices. In 2009 Sony plans to launch the first TransferJet-based products.

    This is really what the technology is about. You'll still need to buy another round of cables to connect your mobile devices to your PC. At a predicted cost of $40-50, this is exactly like the cellphone charger dilemma. This is what it's about.

  18. Airplane joke by overshoot · · Score: 1

    after a quick search, open proximity appears to have something to do with switches, and doesn't seem to conflict in any way with "close proximity" being redundant

    It appears I was too subtle.

    Well, that or you fit the /. stereotype too well.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  19. What about... by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

    Bluetooth? Is there some reason they want to invent new technology to do what Bluetooth seems to do already? Why not modify or expand the Bluetooth standard? I mean, whats up with that?

    1. Re:What about... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Bluetooth does have(or is working on, I'm not quite sure where they stand at the moment) a near field communication component, and is working on a high-speed ultrawideband option.

      I suspect that Transferjet has less to do with bluetooth and more to do with sony just being sony, as usual.

    2. Re:What about... by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      Correct sir, on one point. I read your comment at just the time when I felt like doing research (finally finished studying for school and cracked a beer, yay) ala wikipedia:
      Bluetooth 3.0

      The next version of Bluetooth after v2.1, code-named Seattle (the version number of which is TBD) has many of the same features, but is most notable for plans to adopt ultra-wideband (UWB) radio technology. This will allow Bluetooth use over UWB radio, enabling very fast data transfers of up to 480 Mbit/s, while building on the very low-power idle modes of Bluetooth.

      Neat!

  20. its' usage? by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

    Surprised no grammar nazis picked this one up yet. Its' isn't a valid construction in English at all. Had it been it's, I'm sure that its tags would already include its. Is everyone afraid that they've missed a rule?

    Yes, I know what posting this makes me, and I'm fine with that.

    --
    Your brain is not a computer.
  21. So... by g0at · · Score: 1

    Bluetooth?

    --
    myselfmusic
  22. Inductive charging by Staur · · Score: 1

    The whole transferjet sounds pretty useless to me. It should at least include inductive charging for this 3 cm range spec to make any sense. The way I see it, it's a lot easier to just connect a cable, set up wlan or use bluetooth. I smell yet another "firewire" snack for the USB standards.

  23. NFC & Bluetooth? by bopo_the_mofo · · Score: 1

    How does this differ (in actual user benefit) from using the NFC quick pairing profile to auto-pair bluetooth devices? I'm not seeing it.