Not ALL of the information that can be obtained will be encrypted. How do you "encrypt" its presence?
Uhh.. by covering it with tin-foil, you know, like you have in your beanie.
Great - so the official use will require some sort of physical scanning device to read the machine-readable format (i.e. 2-D bar-code) - thus negating any value that RFIDs might provide. While you are reading the public-key, why can't they just read another bar-code with the actual information in it too? Pork for the RFID manufacturers?
Because the bar-code necessary to encode your photograph would be rather large. And because the information that is in machine readable format isn't a bar-code.
That shielding will hardly be a perfect faraday cage. Put enough EM juice in the air and you will make that little RIFD sing.
Oh really? So you've obtained prototypes and tested them? Well then, I stand corrected.
Apparently you didn't read my comment before you replied, or maybe you just don't have a good grasp of the language.
Here's the text you need to re-read:
"as well as putting a metal lining in the cover of the passport so that the RFID cannot be read when the passport is closed".
So when you state "the U.S. should not do it because they will be endangering citizens from the other countries that use RFID if their passports can't be destinguished from a U.S. passport", you are wrong, as U.S. passports will be indistinguishable from all other passports that are not RFID enabled, as they presently are, and distinguishable from other RFID passports in that the other ones can be "read" even when closed. Nobody will be any more "endangered" than they are now.
Oh, and feel free to call yourself an "American" if you live on North, South, or Central America.
Using RFID for passports is not only stupid but completely irresponsible. It would put anyone in danger, especially traveling abroad. It doesn't take alot of brains to imagine the worst how this can be exploited by terrorists and rogue forces. Hopefully our government will recognize and stop this crazy proposal in time.
As I stated in an earlier post, Austrailia, New Zealand and Singapore already have RFID passports. The information that can be obtained from the chip is encrypted, and will only be readable using the public-key which is encoded in a machine readable format inside the passport http://www.dfat.gov.au/dept/passports/. The plan in the U.S. is the to do the same thing, as well as putting a metal lining in the cover of the passport so that the RFID cannot be read when the passport is closed. See http://www.aimglobal.org/members/news/anmviewer.as p?a=394&print=no
they are a head and shoulders taller than most people (except in Germany!), secondly they dress funny and thirdly they are loud mouthed
Ahhh... racist stereotypes. I suppose you think that all the Polish are stupid, that all the British have bad teeth, that all Irish are drunken potato eaters, that all Germans are Nazis, etc. The US has more than 220,000,000 people of a variety of races living it, and they all have their own statures and personalities which vary greatly.
Just because the Aussie government went the encrypted & secure route doesn't mean the US Govt will.
From the article (RTFA): Even if the skimmed data is encrypted -- as e-Passport information would be...
There was a Slashdot discussion of this subject about a year ago. The plan is now, and has always been, to encrypt the data on the US RFID enabled passports. Here is another brief article discussing it: http://www.aimglobal.org/members/news/anmviewer.as p?a=394&print=no
So now the conspiracy theorists are concerned that given possession the passport and lots of time and computing power someone could crack the encryption... and read the encrypted information from the RFID chip -- which is the same information that is plainly printed in the passport.
Austrailia, New Zealand and Singapore already have RFID passports. The information that can be obtained from the chip is encrypted, and will only be readable using the public-key which is encoded in a machine readable format inside the passport http://www.dfat.gov.au/dept/passports/. Doesn't seem like there is a security vulnerability.
And if you do get fired for this you don't really want to be working for that company anyway. They just did you a big favor.
Yeah, because it's easy to pay the mortgage when you're out of work and can't get a job anywhere because you were fired from your previous position.
My method of estimating projects where there is a set deadline is to make my estimates as honestly as possible, and when the manager says that he thinks it will only take nine months rather than two years, I say "Okay", and start working.
And if I feel it is necessary to change jobs, then rather than getting fired, I can interview while I still have a job.
The study really isn't conclusive. The test was done on a simulator, not in real driving conditions with real cars. The sample size was too small to be statistically significant. The blood alcohol level of 0.08% is the average legal limit in the U.S., but in actuality, not very drunk.
They concluded that it didn't matter if you used a hands-free phone, or a hand-held phone, that it was simply the distraction that was causing the problems. As has been noted in this forum there are lots of other potential distractions: putting on make-up or shaving in the rear view mirror (I've seen both); fooling with the radio or CD player; looking at a map or reading your Google, MapQuest, Yahoo, Rand McNally, driving directions; talking to someone else in the car; turning around to see the status of your child in the back seat; looking at other stuff outside your vehicle; lots of other stuff.
Before we go outlawing cell phone use while driving, some real studies should be done to see if we should outlaw our wives (or husbands) talking to us while we are driving, or to see if CD players should be outlawed, or... you get the idea.
Oh yeah, I'm sure that the conclusions of this study only apply to everyone else, but not *you*...
Not only does blockbuster online (the thing being compared with netflix) do everything netflix does...
Does blockbuster allow you to have multiple queues with a differing log-on for each? I have a queue for each of my two children, and one for my wife, they each can have one DVD out at a time, adding up to the three out at a time. This works well for us. I typically enjoy the movies that my son selects, and occasionally like the ones my wife selects. Also, I can put a movie on any of their queues, since I have the master log-on, and I know all the usernames and passwords anyway. So, does Blockbuster have this same feature?
Yes, they certainly can. And the courts will uphold it. (http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1684/)
Uhhh.. no. They can require you to identify yourself when asked, not to produce an ID card. Identifying yourself, in this case, is simply telling them your name.
If the government really wanted to save lives, then they'd mandate a speed-limiting seer be put on all cars, so the car couldn't go faster than 20mph. Or maybe they'd just outlaw vehicles, or most of them, and we would all have to walk or ride a horse... then again, how safe are horses compared to cars, per mile traveled that is? We'd probably get more exercise by walking, and live longer because of that too.
2) And - the review did not mention the O/S crashing - just applications crashing. Linux is not the problem here.
Here is what the article did say: "In two weeks of testing, it locked up and spontaneously rebooted more often than any computer I've used in that time."
In my opinion, if a computer locks up, or spontaneously reboots, or crashes, it is indeed the fault of the operating system.
Saying that it is not the fault of the O/S is like Microsoft saying that bluescreens aren't the fault of the O/S, they are the fault of those nasty third party applications and drivers.
A good O/S shouldn't dump or hang, no matter what the applications do. It should just allow the application to blow up, and protect other running applications.
I was in Walmart the other day, browsing thru DVDs and what did I see: The uncensored version of Comedy Central's Pamela Anderson Roast; the Director's Cut of Rob Zombie's "The Devil's Rejects"; the "Uncensored" Director's Cut of "The Girl Next Door" -- you know, the one where the porn stars move in next door to this high school kid? Tons of "uncensored" and "director's cuts" of almost-porn and very, very violent slasher movies. DVD seasons of South Park, Tripping the Rift, etc. Family-friendly fare it ain't.
Gee, I'll have to stop by Walmart on my way home!!
then the test will fail, even inside a vulnerable IE window
I found that you need to run IE at the Administrator level for the test to show the vulnerability. I generally use DropMyRights when running IE (the only browser permitted here at work), and the vulnerability didn't show up until I ran IE at Administrator level.
Good point. I really can't believe that they can patent something this basic. An on line subscription service with a queue of what you would like? Gee, I wonder if the Amazon wish list would infringe on this, or was it around before Netflix. I use, and like, Netflix, but they shouldn't have been given patents for these types of things. I'm going to patent the letter "e" and it's usage in the English language.
Let's assume ICANN says, "All porn must be in.xxx," and the Swedish government says, "Go fly a kite, any Swede can register anything they want in.se, bork bork bork."
What happens next? ICANN turns control of.se over to the Baptist church? The US invades and gives Haliburton a contract to run of Sweden's name servers?
[Insert smart-ass comment about leggy Swedish Models here]. No, but anyone who doesn't want to receive porn, could then easily filter.xxx and.se, bork bork bork.
We returned our Roomba. It gets stuck under low furniture, and doesn't really get up dog and cat hair that has worked into the rugs. You can't turn it on and expect it to do all the rooms on one floor (the whole downstairs). It has trouble with things like dining rooms and kitchens with lots of tables and chairs. It doesn't get up the stuff stuck to the kitchen floor.
If it really could clean well, it's dust bin isn't nearly large enough. And yes, it would be nice if it could do the stairs/steps, clean in the crevasses in the couch, and empty itself into the trash bin.
Basically, it isn't a vacuum, but a sweeper, and not a very good one. On the other hand, it was novel and somewhat entertaining to watch, until it got stuck under the couch or something.
I'd be willing to pay about twice the cost of a good vacuum cleaner, say a high end Dyson, for a robot that really could vacuum properly, doing all the things above.
I'm going to ask - did Asimov not cover these scenarious? I seem to recall reading an Asimov short story in which human piloted spaceships were getting blown away by robot piloted ones.
And in another story, I don't remember the name, robots on one specific planet would kill anyone that came there, and had in fact killed all the people on the planet. Why? Because the people of the planet had narrowly defined "human" to be just people with the specific characteristics of the people on that planet, and then the people eventually changed and lost those characteristics. It has been a number of years since I read that story, so I may have this a bit mixed up.
Bottom line is that as robots actually do start entering more into our mainstream lives, some "real" thought needs to be given to how to make them as non harming to humans as possible. These laws, while laudible, can't be "programmed" as is, making the task much more complex.
I agree... but I would say that this device isn't breaking any of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, as those laws only apply to robots, and this device is more of a small remote controlled tank, not what I would call a robot. Everyone knows that robots have positronic brains.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhh.. by covering it with tin-foil, you know, like you have in your beanie.
Great - so the official use will require some sort of physical scanning device to read the machine-readable format (i.e. 2-D bar-code) - thus negating any value that RFIDs might provide. While you are reading the public-key, why can't they just read another bar-code with the actual information in it too? Pork for the RFID manufacturers?
Because the bar-code necessary to encode your photograph would be rather large. And because the information that is in machine readable format isn't a bar-code.
That shielding will hardly be a perfect faraday cage. Put enough EM juice in the air and you will make that little RIFD sing.
Oh really? So you've obtained prototypes and tested them? Well then, I stand corrected.
Here's the text you need to re-read:
"as well as putting a metal lining in the cover of the passport so that the RFID cannot be read when the passport is closed".
So when you state "the U.S. should not do it because they will be endangering citizens from the other countries that use RFID if their passports can't be destinguished from a U.S. passport", you are wrong, as U.S. passports will be indistinguishable from all other passports that are not RFID enabled, as they presently are, and distinguishable from other RFID passports in that the other ones can be "read" even when closed. Nobody will be any more "endangered" than they are now.
Oh, and feel free to call yourself an "American" if you live on North, South, or Central America.
As I stated in an earlier post, Austrailia, New Zealand and Singapore already have RFID passports. The information that can be obtained from the chip is encrypted, and will only be readable using the public-key which is encoded in a machine readable format inside the passport http://www.dfat.gov.au/dept/passports/. The plan in the U.S. is the to do the same thing, as well as putting a metal lining in the cover of the passport so that the RFID cannot be read when the passport is closed. See http://www.aimglobal.org/members/news/anmviewer.as p?a=394&print=no
Ahhh... racist stereotypes. I suppose you think that all the Polish are stupid, that all the British have bad teeth, that all Irish are drunken potato eaters, that all Germans are Nazis, etc. The US has more than 220,000,000 people of a variety of races living it, and they all have their own statures and personalities which vary greatly.
From the article (RTFA): Even if the skimmed data is encrypted -- as e-Passport information would be...
There was a Slashdot discussion of this subject about a year ago. The plan is now, and has always been, to encrypt the data on the US RFID enabled passports. Here is another brief article discussing it: http://www.aimglobal.org/members/news/anmviewer.as p?a=394&print=no
So now the conspiracy theorists are concerned that given possession the passport and lots of time and computing power someone could crack the encryption... and read the encrypted information from the RFID chip -- which is the same information that is plainly printed in the passport.
People fear what they don't understand.
Yeah, because it's easy to pay the mortgage when you're out of work and can't get a job anywhere because you were fired from your previous position.
My method of estimating projects where there is a set deadline is to make my estimates as honestly as possible, and when the manager says that he thinks it will only take nine months rather than two years, I say "Okay", and start working.
And if I feel it is necessary to change jobs, then rather than getting fired, I can interview while I still have a job.
They concluded that it didn't matter if you used a hands-free phone, or a hand-held phone, that it was simply the distraction that was causing the problems. As has been noted in this forum there are lots of other potential distractions: putting on make-up or shaving in the rear view mirror (I've seen both); fooling with the radio or CD player; looking at a map or reading your Google, MapQuest, Yahoo, Rand McNally, driving directions; talking to someone else in the car; turning around to see the status of your child in the back seat; looking at other stuff outside your vehicle; lots of other stuff.
Before we go outlawing cell phone use while driving, some real studies should be done to see if we should outlaw our wives (or husbands) talking to us while we are driving, or to see if CD players should be outlawed, or ... you get the idea.
Oh yeah, I'm sure that the conclusions of this study only apply to everyone else, but not *you*...
Does blockbuster allow you to have multiple queues with a differing log-on for each? I have a queue for each of my two children, and one for my wife, they each can have one DVD out at a time, adding up to the three out at a time. This works well for us. I typically enjoy the movies that my son selects, and occasionally like the ones my wife selects. Also, I can put a movie on any of their queues, since I have the master log-on, and I know all the usernames and passwords anyway. So, does Blockbuster have this same feature?
I believe that they called it a "three day rental", but it had to be returned by noon of the third day, so it really was only a two evening rental.
I hadn't heard that they did this, is there some reference, article about this practice? Thanks.
Uhhh.. no. They can require you to identify yourself when asked, not to produce an ID card. Identifying yourself, in this case, is simply telling them your name.
I'm curious to know what you are referring to, please give a bit more detail. Thanks.
If the government really wanted to save lives, then they'd mandate a speed-limiting seer be put on all cars, so the car couldn't go faster than 20mph. Or maybe they'd just outlaw vehicles, or most of them, and we would all have to walk or ride a horse... then again, how safe are horses compared to cars, per mile traveled that is? We'd probably get more exercise by walking, and live longer because of that too.
Here is what the article did say: "In two weeks of testing, it locked up and spontaneously rebooted more often than any computer I've used in that time."
In my opinion, if a computer locks up, or spontaneously reboots, or crashes, it is indeed the fault of the operating system.
Saying that it is not the fault of the O/S is like Microsoft saying that bluescreens aren't the fault of the O/S, they are the fault of those nasty third party applications and drivers.
A good O/S shouldn't dump or hang, no matter what the applications do. It should just allow the application to blow up, and protect other running applications.
Actually, I think that Data boned Tash Yar.
Yeah, I can't work from home, because my wife refuses to understand that.
Gee, I'll have to stop by Walmart on my way home!!
I found that you need to run IE at the Administrator level for the test to show the vulnerability. I generally use DropMyRights when running IE (the only browser permitted here at work), and the vulnerability didn't show up until I ran IE at Administrator level.
Good point. I really can't believe that they can patent something this basic. An on line subscription service with a queue of what you would like? Gee, I wonder if the Amazon wish list would infringe on this, or was it around before Netflix. I use, and like, Netflix, but they shouldn't have been given patents for these types of things. I'm going to patent the letter "e" and it's usage in the English language.
What happens next? ICANN turns control of .se over to the Baptist church? The US invades and gives Haliburton a contract to run of Sweden's name servers?
[Insert smart-ass comment about leggy Swedish Models here]. No, but anyone who doesn't want to receive porn, could then easily filter .xxx and .se, bork bork bork.
If it really could clean well, it's dust bin isn't nearly large enough. And yes, it would be nice if it could do the stairs/steps, clean in the crevasses in the couch, and empty itself into the trash bin.
Basically, it isn't a vacuum, but a sweeper, and not a very good one. On the other hand, it was novel and somewhat entertaining to watch, until it got stuck under the couch or something. I'd be willing to pay about twice the cost of a good vacuum cleaner, say a high end Dyson, for a robot that really could vacuum properly, doing all the things above.
Yes, British Telecom, about a billion years ago.
Then it is about time for them to start suing isn't it?
And in another story, I don't remember the name, robots on one specific planet would kill anyone that came there, and had in fact killed all the people on the planet. Why? Because the people of the planet had narrowly defined "human" to be just people with the specific characteristics of the people on that planet, and then the people eventually changed and lost those characteristics. It has been a number of years since I read that story, so I may have this a bit mixed up.
I agree... but I would say that this device isn't breaking any of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, as those laws only apply to robots, and this device is more of a small remote controlled tank, not what I would call a robot. Everyone knows that robots have positronic brains.