Slashdot Mirror
Help a Journalist With An NFC Chip Implant Violate His Own Privacy and Security
An anonymous reader writes: His wife thinks he's crazy, but this guy got an NFC chip implanted in his arm, where it will stay for at least a year. He's inviting everyone to come up with uses for it. Especially ones that violate his privacy and security. There must be something better to do than getting into the office or unlocking your work PC.
He says, "The chip we are using is the xNTi, an NFC type 2 NTAG216, which is about the size of a grain of rice and is manufactured by the Dutch semiconductor company NXP, maker of the NFC chip for the new iPhone. It is a glass transponder with an operating frequency of 13.56MHz, developed for mass-market applications such as retail, gaming and consumer electronics. ... The chip's storage capacity is pretty limited, the UID (unique identifier) is 7 bytes, while the read/write memory is 888 bytes. It can be secured with a 32-bit password and can be overwritten about 100,000 times, by which point the memory will be quite worn. Data transmission takes place at a baud rate of 106 kbit/s and the chip is readable up to 10 centimeters, though it is possible to boost that distance."
He says, "The chip we are using is the xNTi, an NFC type 2 NTAG216, which is about the size of a grain of rice and is manufactured by the Dutch semiconductor company NXP, maker of the NFC chip for the new iPhone. It is a glass transponder with an operating frequency of 13.56MHz, developed for mass-market applications such as retail, gaming and consumer electronics. ... The chip's storage capacity is pretty limited, the UID (unique identifier) is 7 bytes, while the read/write memory is 888 bytes. It can be secured with a 32-bit password and can be overwritten about 100,000 times, by which point the memory will be quite worn. Data transmission takes place at a baud rate of 106 kbit/s and the chip is readable up to 10 centimeters, though it is possible to boost that distance."
I'm sure our local superhero cold fjord can tell us why a Small, Libertarian-Approved State should mandate the installation of these on all citizens and civilians.
Well? We're waiting, my friend.
It seems small, when we think about data these days being in the multi-gigabytes, but 888 bytes is AMPLE to completely destroy the security of your legal identity.
Say, a social security number: 9 bytes.
A telephone number, with area code: 10 bytes
Full name, assuming a null padded, 3 entry struct with 15char max strings and 2 delimiter bytes: 47 bytes
Address, assuming 4 lines with 20 chars each (with null padding as needed)-- 40 bytes.
All that, and we are only about 1/7 to 1/8th of the data memory, or about 106 bytes.
One could squeeze a shortened URL to a facebook page, and quite a bit else in that space, such as DL number, credit card number, cellphone number, email address, and whatnot.
888 bytes can hold a LOT of very dangerous information.
The arm or the chip? I'd go for the formet, the latter will probably still work.
I agree fully that 888 bytes is enough to cause someone damage via identity theft. The problem with this phase of trying to "test" the security of these devices is that there is very little to interface with, which is going to create a false sense of security (I'll argue this is part of the reason for the early advertising and testing)
888 bytes is enough to hold your gender, religion, ethnic background, political affiliation, and at least your last few coordinates. Lots of stuff to discriminate, or tamper with to make it appear that you were in places not visited. Not a huge concern in the US currently (at least with most of that kind of data), but how about the Middle East, or China, or pick a country in Africa. The landscape can change very drastically depending on where you are, let alone who gets into power.
Did Facebook and Google teach the masses nothing in terms of "bad things that can happen with technology?" Probably not, because you know.. even if you could read/write fast enough to heat this gadget up and burn the carrier's arm you probably won't hear about it on the "News".
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Why does it matter what his wife thinks? And if she truly did suspect he is crazy, wouldn't he divorced right about now and caring a lot less about the chip in his arm?
Dude's doing it all wrong, it's meant to go in your right hand or your forehead! ^-^
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Maybe he has a very large active antenna?
Even then though, it wouldn't be true NFC-- because the near field is the first 1/4 wavelength of the broadcast frequency.
Which in this case, is 13.5 mhz-- that gives a total wavelength of about 22meters for the full wave, and 5.5 meters for the 1/4-wave Near Field.
A large actively coupling antenna could conceivably communicate over that distance by measuring signal drop in the active antenna due to the active coupling with the near field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
you might not be able to tell what the NFC chip "sent", but you could definitely tell that one was nearby.
There's a couple schools of thought about chipping pets - one is the cancer risk is minimal, the other is that it isn't minimal.
So I'll say that a good use of his chip will be to see if he gets cancer.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
You mean help this journalist come up with some stories to write about
Just install a reader for this chip in the wife and you'll get all of your privacy and security and many other things violated...
You can't handle the truth.
Didn't some guy (a university professor) in the UK do this about ten years ago? He was a bit of a publicity seeking knob too, IIRC.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, and generally considered the second most powerful democrat behind Obama. You can't figure out why conservatives might have a problem with top democrats? You may have noticed Obama wasn't very involved with the drafting of the ACA, that was spearheaded by Pelosi. It would be more accurate to call it Pelosicare rather than Obamacare. The first draft, the last time the Democrats controlled the White House, was called Hillarycare.
For those conservatives of a more libertarian bent, they may be unimpressed with Bush and Cheney and may see some good in some democrats. Pelosi, however, supported the Patriot Act, currently supports the NSA dragnet, No Child Left Behind - she's the figurehead for the Democrats, except when the republicans have an even worse idea, in which case she gets on board with them.
Just wait 364 days, until he's locked all his authentication to the NFC, then some chloroform and a scalpel will give him all the privacy and security violation he's asking for.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I want to visually see that chip, together with the other one implanted at birth.
--ac
Why doesn't he use a Cattle Ear Tag then everyone can read it even when they doesn't have a nfc capable device. Seriously, I think it's not smart to give up you privacy like this, via an NFC tag.
Technically Obamacare IS Rommneycare, a Republican alternative to a single payer system (single payer is a much better system BTW). When the Democrats proposed it the Republicans simply lurched further to the right and declared it terrible.
If we can get the reporter's uid on the no-fly-list it should be pretty entertaining to listen to his rants.
http://geekdoctor.blogspot.com...
no, its not. stop being disengenious. Romney care was a single state issue, which makes it constitutional according to the 10th. This is not the same thing at all.
now, if another state implemented it (not the fed) you could still call it romney care
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
So just what uses can we contrive? I kind of favour using it as a proximity sensor in or near steering wheels that disables his mobile phone if the car is running, while leaving the passenger's phone functional. Of course Big Wireless may not like the hit on their bottom line.
The storage issue is a red herring. It just needs enough to store a short URI where everything else can be found. Probably want a private key too, to be used only for generating signatures within the chip.
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
Putting aside the obvious sexism
The nonexistent sexism, you mean. Using "man" to mean "people" is not sexism, and words often have multiple meanings depending on the context. There is no problem if you just use your brain.
"Man is born free, but lives everywhere in chains," does man there include women? You wouldn't know, would you?
You could read more about that person to hopefully find out. But in the end, it doesn't matter, because you're missing the greater point anyway.
It is deeply sexist. You just haven't used your brain enough to comprehend why.
Making useless statements isn't going to help you.
You see I can "argue" just like you too, relying on barefaced statements unsupported by thought, insight or argument.
You've been doing that all along. You have never once gave a rational explanation for why using a certain word that means a certain thing in the context it's used in is sexist merely because it can be used to refer exclusively to a certain gender. Again, words can have multiple meanings. Quit being a mental midget.
Now seriously though. The very existence of these multiple meaning is what is so deeply sexist in fact it is so deeply embedded that many, yourself included, are unable even to perceive the problem.
Now seriously though. The very existence of the word "multiple" is deeply racist, and it's so deeply embedded that many, yourself included, are unable even to perceive the problem.
Has it ever occurred to you that people can have different opinions than your own without being unconsciously brainwashed? Here's a shocker: I actually believe that this is not a problem in the least, even when I imagine as you want me to. Stop trying to suggest that I've been indoctrinated somehow.
It is not ideologically innocent to posit one gender as (default) human and the other as other.
That's not what is happening. People are just using a word that has multiple meanings. There's no problem here.
Precisely! You would need to read more about that person simply to understand a simple English sentence.
Taking things out of context often makes it difficult to understand. This can happen with any word that has multiple meanings. Too bad.
Now imagine yourself a woman swimming in this sea of linguistic ambiguity, never knowing precisely (without further inquiry) whether you personally are included or excluded in a statement. Are you able to grasp the problem?
You can also ask. Many women I've talked with about this sort of thing have said they don't care. Of course, yes, some do care, and they make mostly the same arguments you do. It's not a settled matter among women.
I hope you're not going to suggest that they're just indoctrinated or something, because then there's no point in asking me to imagine anything, as you just want me to agree with you and anything short of that is 'incorrect.'
English is moving on.
Language evolves, but the old meanings stay and can still be used. Furthermore, common usage won't always go away so easily, even if universities resist hard.
But hey, maybe people will stop doing this. And... I don't really care one way or the other. I care more about the person's intent and whether their message can be understood. Which, despite what you've said, I have no problem understanding the point others are making even when they use words like "men" to refer to "people." To me, language is about communicating ideas, and that's what I care about.
(apart from the "they" situation ... yuck).
What?
OK, explain how. I understand what think you're doing, but look, you do you argument no service with a preposterous move like that.
Why not? I can arbitrarily decide that any word is racist, sexist, etc. based on subjective perceptions. It's quite easy, and I could even create all sorts of stories about how and why those words make me feel bad as a member of race X, since anything can be offensive to anyone.
Or do you disagree?
I don't think it even matters, since people can consciously figure out the difference even if I assume that is the case.
Again, it's possible to believe something and still be wrong.
Yes, but this is a completely subjective matter. Whether or not it is a problem is 100% subjective, so I cannot be objectively wrong for believing it's not.
Of course you've been indoctrinated (in the wide sense of that word).
So wide it's almost meaningless, since I don't think mindlessly believing things you've heard is quite the same as the usual type of indoctrination. Given enough time and education, you will start to question your culture and your beliefs. As a child, maybe "indoctrinated" would fit, but for free thinkers, it's much less of a problem. I know you later said that you didn't mean we can't transcend the "indoctrination."
As demonstrated, you have a problem absent sufficient context
Of course. I can completely confuse people by taking just about anything out of context; context matters. This has little to do with the language under discussion. But when I read that guy's comment, I fully understood what he meant. I don't think it's all that ambiguous, or at least not anymore so than normal language.
Why would one not prefer a more communicatively efficient language to one beset with ambiguity?
I wish we could, but even formal university speak is littered with ambiguity and nonsense. I doubt human language will ever be efficient or logical.
She thought we should write "he/she"
What if someone doesn't identify as either a he or a she? You need to ask about their preferred gender pronoun first. Some feminist...
Because it's impertinent. It would be a arbitrary decision based on subjective perceptions.
Much like the ambiguity you speak of. Even though you are talking about ambiguity, you also mentioned sexism.
I did not ask you whether you thought it mattered, I asked you if you disagreed that most people in hearing the sentence "a lawyer must ensure the he maintains the highest levels of ethical probity" would visualise the lawyer, --who is in fact not a lawyer at all but any member of the set of lawyers described in imprecise language --as a man. And if they do, as I think we must admit, doesn't this idiom foster sexual (feminists would probably have me write gender) stereotypes?
I don't think envisioning a certain gender for a certain profession is sexism. Again, I don't think it's a problem at all. I'm sure lots of people do that (including with nurses), but I see no reason why that would be sexism.
Two things, first it was you, not I who introduced the somewhat hyperbolic "brainwashed" and "indoctrinated" into the conversation.
Maybe, but your implication was there. When you claim that something is so deeply embedded in a culture that the people in it can't even recognize the problem, I'm going to exaggerate and use "indoctrination" as a form of mockery.
Secondly, I now recant, it's not the wide meaning at all, but the old meaning. Taking the earliest example (1635) we find the word originally means "to imbue with learning" or (1656) "to instruct in a subject, principle, etc." Thus T Fuller (Worthies (1662) Mddx. 177) wrote "The Lord Treasurer Burleigh..was indoctrinated by a Cobler in the true Tanning of Leather." (OED)
Great.
precision of language is a requirement for clear thought.
If that is so, then I'm not sure anyone has clear thoughts, given how much of an abomination the English language is. Fortunately, humans have brains and can generally figure out what is being said, even if someone isn't trying to be precise in their use of language.
In any case, this matter is not at all subjective, it's about the inbuilt presumptions of a language that existed even prior to any individual subject acquiring that language.
Yes, it is. Here's how it all went down:
"I actually believe that this is not a problem in the least"
"Again, it's possible to believe something and still be wrong."
"Yes, but this is a completely subjective matter. Whether or not it is a problem is 100% subjective, so I cannot be objectively wrong for believing it's not."
Regarding whether or not something is a problem, which is what you quoted and responded to, that is 100% subjective.
Of course context matters. Absolutely! However that particular example has everything to do with the language under discussion.
So declaring victory because it's slightly more difficult to figure out what someone was saying without context seems silly. And again, this doesn't just apply to the language under discussion, but a large amount of words with multiple definitions.
After all, neither in the German, (nor indeed in a gender-neutral English) was there any ambiguity requiring more context to resolve.
Nonsense. They might be using completely different definitions of words (perhaps ones that they made up). Without context, you wouldn't see that.
So I'd ask again "Why would one not prefer a more communicatively efficient language to one beset with ambiguity?"
Generally I do. But as I said, I don't think doing as you suggest would truly improve the situation all that much. I don't mind a bit of 'inefficiency' every now and then, either.
Now I wonder if your obviously dearly treasured preference for man over person or perhaps mankind over humankind is perhaps some kind of marker of tribal membership?
I never said that I dearly treasured it, just that I don't think it's sexist or all that difficult to figure out what someone is saying.
I disagree, but that's perhaps a matter of definition, and as you like to point out, words can entertain a variety of range of meanings. I think the presumption that a nurse must be a female and a doctor a male, for instance, clearly to be peddling sexist stereotypes.
Unless someone is telling men that they can't be nurses or acting against their ability to do so, I don't think there's any sexism. Just having an image of a female nurse pop into your head hurts no one and I do not see how that is sexist.
Observing that language may convey unspoken assumptions, or that there exist cultural assumption unrelfective taken for granted, implies brainwashing?!
I don't think it's absurd. Telling me that I don't even realize the existence of a problem that supposedly exists due to some nonsense in my culture makes it sound like I've been brainwashed to me.
I'm well aware of how it went down. However since the "problem" is not in the least subjective no amount of repetition will cure your statement of its want of relevance.
But whether something is a problem or not is subjective. You replied to my statement saying that I do not believe there is a problem saying that someone's beliefs can be wrong, making it sound as if you're saying that my belief that this isn't a problem can be wrong. If that was not how you intended to sound, I would've phrased it differently.
But even the problem itself is clearly subjective, or at least up for interpretation. Whether something is ambiguous or difficult to understand is subjective. Some people will understand it instantly, and others won't, regardless of how many possible interpretations (an interpretation is subjective of course) there are.
Indeed much ofn yours has been done using it, or?
Yes, but only because it's necessary. I live in a country where English is the primary language. If I had a choice to change it to something more logical, I would. I don't use it because I think it's beautiful, but because it still technically serves its purpose as a language (which isn't a very high bar anyway).
Perhaps there is some insight in there somewhere, but unlike OP's original misuse of man, I'm unable to grasp what you're getting at ... who is "they?"
The person who wrote the text. They might be using familiar words, but might have defined them differently somewhere else, and so you couldn't just quote a random part of the text they wrote and fully understand it.