http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/12/new-zea...t-gps-receiver/



http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml;j...cleID=177101437



With the vast increase and miniaturization of microchip technology and the soon to be launched Galileo GPS system by Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_positioning_system , what could the future hold for privacy rights? Yeah, the idea of having all your vital information at your finger tips does sound comforting, elimintating identity theft, but what could some of the down sides be of getting "chipped"?

Would you be in favor of "chipping" Americans to end such problems as kidnapping or runaways?

What are the potential abuses of RFID technology?

Do you think the government would abuse this technology and invade citizens' right to privacy?

There are low power transmitters like the ones embedded in dogs cats and humans. Transmission distance about 1-3 feet. Then there are medium range like our computers with 802. And then we have medium to long range cell phones. All give a unique identifier.

Would you be in favor of "chipping" Americans to end such problems as kidnapping or runaways?I am not sure a chip will help stop runaways or kids, they are two low of a power. But other issues are like...

I would be willing to be chipped if encrypted. Thus computer security, home security, car security, credit card, and so on is raised to a level that would virtually eliminate a significant amount of the crime element of our society in those fields..

What are the potential abuses of RFID technology?In the old days garage doors were controlled by RF ands snoopers were made to copy codes, they have ended with rolling codes. Thus I look forward to encryption.

Do you think the government would abuse this technology and invade citizens' right to privacy? One way is we can be tracked by our government with our present cell phones so if abuses are being made now we can study them.

As a software engineer during the day for manufacturing and industry, I develop many RFID systems. I've done active, passive, read-only, read-write, and the whole gamut. Needless to say, that doesn't make me an expert, but I have a pretty good idea how these work.

The government is already doing far more than we ever anticipated to track us and they don't need RFID equipment to do it. Unless you don't have a bank account, pay for everything in cash only, and never use a telephone, the government knows everything they need to know about you already.

With that being said, I see the positive uses for RFID increasing quickly. Most concerns of snooping are valid in the theoretical sense, but invalid in the practical sense.

First, to read a tag, your reader needs to be very, very close to the tag. The tag is actually a coil of very thin wire that generates it's power from the RF of the antennae. To do the same thing at say, a street corner would take a tremendous amount of RF. Walmart is trying to do this (without much luck so far) so when a skid full of product comes in on a forklift, it is is read and stored immediately. Unfortunately, most suppliers can't comply because of the costs. Walmart is demanding a nickel a tag, and nobody can do it.

The point is, even if you control the zone (unlikey without anybody knowing) with that high RF and could afford the tags, readability becomes an issue. For example, to read the entire contents of say a 1K tag, the speed is minimal. To write however, is a different matter. The rule of thumb is roughly 1K per second for a passive tag (no battery). But the big car companies use 32K tags and they don't have 32 seconds to write data back during the process. So, most suppliers allow reading and writing a block of data at a time which could be 4 bytes to 1K (depending on the manufacturer). This makes the read/write times negligible. But the formats of each manufacturer could be different to accomadate speed.

Protecting the data is trivial. Most security companies (one which I used to work for) using prox encoders (which use an imbedded RFID tag) use proprietary hardware. This means, nobody can read that card unless they have the correct hardware. But for other personal information, encryption takes care of that. I sell copy protection software as part of my engineering business on the side and rely on one of many types of encryption. I convert the encrypted text to hex and it becomes pretty much useless to anybody trying to do something with it.

So, for somebody to "snoop" and get your information, they need to be right beside you and have the passcode unlocking the encryption. Assuming that changed person to person, there is no way that couple happene from a practical standpoint. It'd be easier to knock you on your head and take your money (note to men in the black suits: That's an abstract point - not an idea).

Obviously, there are other challenges, but I think most are easily overcome. At the end of the day, RFID could benefit our daily lives as opposed to negatively impact it by allowing somebody to do what they can already do without RFID - snoop on you.

Would you be in favor of "chipping" Americans to end such problems as kidnapping or runaways?

You mention the benefits adequately, so now lets look at the detriments:

Permitting that they were able to learn your signal code/frequency/whatever, just about anyone would be able to track your movement. Including stalkers, rapists, etc. I don't know how precisely that would work however.

Perhaps they could concoct a devise that could indentify your signal if they get real close to you. Or perhaps they could steal it the data from family members. If the former method is plausible, signal abuse would become quite common.

I believe at the very least, that in this case the detriments have quite the potential to outweigh the benefits, though it all depends on scientific details that I am uncertain of.

What are the potential abuses of RFID technology?

See above.

Do you think the government would abuse this technology and invade citizens' right to privacy?

Certainly. Mind you, you would only be targeted if you were important and/or deadly. One thing that might occur, might be that locator microchips would be involuntarily attached to felons.

This sort of thing needs to be completely nipped in the bud. Once it starts with anyone - kids, criminals, whomever - it will only spread from there. It's not just a question of "risk" of abuse. We're looking at absolute certainty. And once the genie's out of the bottle, getting it back in will be a nearly impossble task.

I don't even feel the need to address the question of whether this will improve the safety of children, because there's never going to be a time of complete safety. The gain in safety will be mostly theoretical, but the loss of liberty will be anything but theoretical. There can be no equivocation on this issue.

Ok I do have a potential conflict of interest here, I do have a patent in this areas and did have a RFID patent pending. So I am obviously an advocate of it. I see how much crime it will stop, not the kidnappings, kids and such but the theft of cars, credit info and so on it will be very effective. I can see it for home appliances, cars, cameras and so on. Once you activate your TV if it is unplugged only your RFID will re-activate it, so if expensive home appliances are stolen they are worthless. the RFID can just be an identifier encrypted no other data in it like a cell phone.

I do not think we need to nip it at the bud. A cell phone is a very powerful RFID device and can track you anywhere you go while you have it on. Do you have one? So what is the difference if I have a embedded chip with a transmission distance of 1 cm? Or have a RFID device with a short transmission distance of 1cm that I can turn on/off at my will? What one must understand is power and battery size and the physics of it. To use a cell phone we need to charge it constantly because of the power requirements, look at the size of that battery to get that transmission distance. Signal strength degrade by the inverse square of the distance. A small chip under my skin like they are doing for doges cats would not have a strong signal that would be traceable/readable all over. I have heard a bar has a passive one they put under your skin to get in.

You may be able to turn it on and off at will, but you will be expected to have it on in order to be able to do much of anything. That's the difference between implants and cell phones. The notion that this would all be strictly "voluntary" is simply not credible.

Huh?

The reason some cell phones can be tracked is because they contain GPS chips. It has nothing to do with Radio Frequency Identification. And the reason phones go through batteries is because of the power consumption required for ringers, LCD displays, and other highly inductive loads (and the reason color displays cook batteries faster). Signal strength has little to do with battery life (unless it gets below a safe charging level). Otherwise, people would put "hotter" batteries in phones to get better ranges. That doesn't happen. Signal strength is dictated by the position of your phone to the nearest tower - not your battery.

Further, I didn't realize RFID tags had a fixed transmission distance (as your statement and "formula" would seem to imply). The antenna creates a magnetic field around the tag. The coil in the tag, via EMF, becomes energized and allows the tag to transmit data at a level directly proportional to the antenna power. Not the other way around as your post suggests.

I'm not an expert in this field, so please provide a reference/source to your "Signal strength degrade by the inverse square of the distance". It sounds sexy as hell, but I don't see how it is applicable to cell phones or how it is relevant to a device dependent on external RF power.

Also, how would nearby metallic objects affect that calculation? I do know that metallic objects/surfaces nearby are a deal breaker with RFID. You can't read a tag mounted on steel for example. How does your formula square with that limitation?

A little more info for us non-experts...with links to references...please...

Do you think the government would abuse this technology and invade citizens' right to privacy?
Data mining 101

What privacy? When you can track and locate specific types of people just from the Amazon wishlist--what difference will the fear of the RFID bring.
For every method anyone comes up with to "tracK or surveil anyone someone else will come up with a way to beat it. Best car security system I ever got was a 3 dollar circular keyswitch like the ones that secure vending machines.
10 minutes with a drill and never had my car taken )in what has been at several times the worst car theft area in America). Plenty of well protected car alarms didn't do their job for some very frazzled neighbors.
Just read a MAKE article about using the flash in disposable camera to deactivate the security chip used on store items to prevent theft--the ones that set off that infernal racket when the cashier doesn't deactivate them properly.


RFID fears are just bad Sci Fi. I wouldn't worry about government abuse--marketers scare me more. Since you can track purchase by person they will be able to tell what you picked and what you didn't. Just imagine the focused campaign to advertise directly to YOU. Think telemarketing was bad.

Blackstone
Again a transmission distance of 1cm is nothing. If you notice credit cards are now including RFID.
http://www.mastercard.com/us/personal/en/a...pass/index.html
so keep your credit card in a metal case if you are concerned. Do the same with your cell phone or turn it off which is much more powerful. A good example is AM radio signal strength. There are small 1000w to 50KW in strength. The stronger the signal strength the further it transmits. Cell phones origianll were bag phones with I think 3 watts the handhelds are much lower because they transmit microwave energy, do you like putting your head in a microwave oven. No, so they used only I think it was 0.6 watts.

As far as voluntary are ATM cards voluntary?

DaytonRocker

Cell phones can be tracked without GPS chips in them. A GPS chip makes it easier and more accurate. The cell phone is talking to many antennae at the same time. Your cell phone sends out a unique identifier so they can bill you and know you have an active cell phone. With about three antennae your position can be triangulated. With one they know your approximate location. But there are many out there, they hand you off so to speak to the other antennae as you drive.

I have designed wireless products for years, have been VP of Engineering of one. Think before you go on too far. LCD battery consumption for example is so low…. Ever own a calculator with a LCD or watch, those last for years on VERY small batteries. Now color does take more energy but it is off most of the time. and I can get the specific data of color power consumption but not needed for this debate. Again think about it. The ringer only goes on a very small amount of time also. When you are talking on a phone the battery goes down sooo fast that is because it is sending a LOT of data(RF)… When not talking it only has to send your unique identifier every long period of time. If you want to debate this I am willing to let you start another thread and will participate. Just PM me when you do.

Inverse square is applicable to the electromagnetic spectrum where the signal spreads out into space. Cell phones and RFID tags are in the electromagnetic spectrum. For your reference the antennae is a fixed size and is optimized for the wavelength. Items must pass FCC testing which limits power output. Reflectors behind anteae also gives you a directional gain.

Look at inverse square law. http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/bsf6-1.html

For those who did not take high school physics, here is a link to high school physics content.
http://kuhn.lewiscenter.org/~mhuffine/subp...sscicsframe.htm

As far as your other questions on metal and RFID interference you can always take a few classes if interested. There are great colleges all over.

Christopher,

You are right on using computers on the internet including your listed amazon, we have cookies and so on to add.

You are correct about the circular keys, you stepped out of the norm for them to make you a target. If all cars used RFID it would just about stop car theft your example shows how just a better lock also helps. Our thieves will have to become electronic techs to steal cars, then they will find they can work and make an honest living easier.

I agree with you on the marketers also.

1.) Never. We debated this a ton in my English class last semester (funny since we were technically studying Romeo and Juliet). The idea of forcing anyone to register their whereabouts every second of every day is absurd and going way beyond the mandates of protecting American lives.

2.) You get one lonely controller with an ex-wife and two children she ran with and suddenly... It's too weird to think about.

3.) I think they would if they have to. I am not sure it would be a daily thing that they tell everyone where you are but I do think it has the capacity to be abused more than our cell phone signals or credit card register.

Please give me the specifics to your conclusion.

Mind you the distance/strength of a cell phone is my guess 30 miles max but at least 13 miles for one of the below systems to work.. A chip implant as low as 1 centimeter.

To back up my other post here are a few more links.

http://www.geocities.com/henrik.kaare.poul...m_coverage.html



another interesting one, the mail link does not work.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/30/1858230
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183237,00.html


this one is up a bit higher at 65,000 feet with a line-of-sight of 300,000 sq miles. But a cell phone at 30 miles transmission would only be appr 3000 sq miles.
http://www.sanswire.com/stratellites.htm


for info about cell phones for non-techs. Explains signal strenghts and ESN electronic serial number.
http://www.briannelsonconsulting.com/balte...one-expert.html

http://members.tripod.com/~peacecraft/info...ng/cellphon.htm

I believe my wording was capacity to be abused. Not "has yet to have been." The capacity for abuse exists in any program that the civilian market buys into. Do you deny the mere possibility of abuse occurring? After all, in our world we have this "bigger, better" mentality that drives industry to create better scanners for things or bigger whatever for that in the corner. The point is that the idea of being able to be tracked, even a centimeter away, is way too close for my personal taste.

You're not getting the point at all. As I explained to you, being able to turn off the chip inside you isn't going to be of any use if you're going to be expected to have it on in order to be able to enter any establishment. That will mean you can then be monitored not only in what you buy, but in where you go. The ability to turn it off is irrelevant. The transmission distance is irrelevant.

Yes, it's bad enough that ATM activity can be tracked. It's worse to expand it to ever more things, each step being only "just a little bit" more than the previous one.

And maybe we will travel at the speed of light next year. your response is everything is possible.... but just as probable at beaming you up...


you use cards to get into work, health clubs, hotels, stores with passive devices like magnetic stripes and so on... and I said via any cell phone on you can be tracked to a meter accuracy is a possibility.....

Would you be in favor of "chipping" Americans to end such problems as kidnapping or runaways?

Only on a voluntary basis. They do this with dogs today.

What are the potential abuses of RFID technology?
I can see none. It is little more than an electronic bar code.

Do you think the government would abuse this technology and invade citizens' right to privacy?
Doubtful. The RFID “tag” is worthless unless it is “illuminated” by a specific energy source. Some implementations would allow for the destruction of the tag as you leave the store. Beyond this I cannot see why the “government” would want to track your soup purchases.

So then why go to RFID, if we already have all these things?

The answer of course is that RFID is considered more convenient. But as it's considered more convenient, the requiring of it will become more prevalent. It will also make tracking and surveillance that much easier as only one identifier is used for all these types of places, instead of multiple different cards for different applications.

yes you are correct, that is why we have how many different mouse traps? As you point out they have different conveniences/advantages.

Once it is in the electronic realm whether you have 10 credit cards or 1 it is easy for big brother to track everything you are doing. Just go to the credit reporting agancies and they have all your banking and billing info. And to believe that this information is not had by big brother would be very naïve. So the point being if big brother wants to know where you are and what you buy and when he can very easily with your cell phone and credit card if you use them.

To Summarize, the RFID potential abuses would be less than the cell phone because of the transmission distance is so limited, and equal to the credit card usage data.

Again, the transmission distance is completely irrelevant. Just look at credit cards, which you mentioned. The "transmission distance" of those is all but zero, and yet it can be used to track activity. The relevant measure is not transmission distance, but number of times you'll be expected to use it over the course of your daily activities. And that number will be far higher with RFID chips, providing government (or whomever else) with far more detailed information about what you're up to.

Blackstone,
I assume you believe there are already abuses of electronic data gathered by those/these technologies? I do not see additional potential being significantly increased if RFID is being added.

By your example I do not see additional tracking or significant tracking than is already done with the previously outlined-stated method/uses. can you elaborate how and where the RFID electronic applications is going to be increased on a person who already uses credit cards or ATM cards cell phones. Also specifically how is this more detailed information, I am not understanding the details that you are inferring here.

Did you even read any of the preceding posts? No RFID device or magnetic stripe transmits on it's own. The mag stripe only contains data that can be read by specific hardware. RFID tags can only be energized by an antenna in very close proximity to it. When it is energized, it can be read. No device is out there "beeping" information to anyone who can read it. And even if it were (which it is not), there are a multitude of frequencies and encryptions that make it impossible to decipher.

Take off the tin foil for a few moments and read the technical details about this subject before injecting an opinion like yours above that is completely absurd. You have strong objections to a system you don't even understand.

The fact that people will be expected to swipe their RFID tags in order to even enter establishments, for "security" purposes. More transactions - even the one-or-two dollar kind down at the local convenience store - will be conducted via these things than via credit cards currently. That's what I mean by more details.


Nowhere was I implying that these things transmitted on their own. If it's the term "transmission distance" that has you up in arms, take it up with inventor. He initiated the term here.

Of course, if you'd been reading the preceding posts, you'd know that.

Blackstone

I do believe you do not really understand the tech issues here. But that really is not critical. Your main point is on target as far as it is easier to track what you are doing, but everything you fear is already possible by using a cell phone and regular credit card. So do you use these two?

And yes it will force more and more people to be traceable. If they are forced into using the RFID technologies when they did not use a cell phone or credit card. By the fact that 250 million cell phones were sold worldwide last quarter and the fact that we now know our government does not need a search warrant to do what ever they want to their political enemies we do have a lot to worry about.

So your concern is properly placed. maybe a bit over the edge in my book but my book is not the only book out there.

and as always Big Brother or the Corporate Watchers paranoia gets a good slap from reality.

big brother will never be a match for social malcontents.

RFID tags vulnerable to viruses, study says

Like anything else there is always a loophole one can exploit if one is patient.
This goes right along with some plans on the net that use the flash in disposable cameras to deactivate the security tags in and on products designed to set off the door buzzers.

Always gonna be a fugg ugly in the soup.

Black hats always win

It's not just the increase in the number of people that's the problem, but the increase in the number of situations in which those people will be expected to swipe in. And it's a vulnerability not just to government, but to anyone who might have access (legitimately or illegitmately) to that information.

Here is a recent application of RFID technology. This is an example that I think is well worth the expanding applications. And again they can determine where you started and ended up. No different than renting skis or anything else that you must use a credit card for rental like car rental. But I see this application another positive that may not have worded with credit cards but works with RFID.

http://www.itnews.com.au/print.aspx?CIID=26014&SIID=35

coming to a stove top near you... This one is great, here is a RFID cooking pan. I guess for those of us who can or can not cook? It adjusts the heat to the recipe. But for those who are paranoid about big brother ease dropping, it appears big brother could now know what's cooking in your kitchen. Maybe the insurance companies will increase your insurance for cutting to much cheese? Whats next the RFID food scale? time to weigh in!

Popsci