RFID tags in your luggage
Ken "I was reading an article this morning on the new American Airlines luggage charge (THAT's gonna go over well), and noticed an aside starting on page 3. Las Vegas is using RFIDs in outgoing luggage now to help move bags more efficiently. After realizing that...um...I had bags that just got back from Vegas about 20 ft. from me, I realized I had to check it out. Oh yeah, there's a RFID. Freaky. And does the tag mention that? Nope. And it's not like airports don't have scanners..." Link (Thanks, Ken!)
It's on the tag, not IN your luggage. Remove the tag when you no longer want your bag to be tracked.
RFID luggage tags are faster and a hell of a lot more reliable than trying to read an optical code from some crazy angle.
Good to know. We are flying through Vegas next week. I will definitely be ripping it off my bag into shreds as soon as we get our luggage from the carousel.
How is this a threat to privacy? Sensationalist. Simply remove the tags when your done.
1: That may be true, but the fact that it doesn't state that on the tag is troubling. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has been negligent about removing tags from my checked luggage, sometimes until the next time I travel by plane (and I only travel by plane maybe twice a year).
Noted...it's in your luggage TAG, not your luggage...I made an unclear typo, but I think the photo makes it clear what we're talking about, @WeightedCompanionCube. And as I said in the post...I don't even think it's a bad idea for purposes of bag sorting, etc...but when there's no indication? Eh...tricky.
I frequently only rip airport luggage tags off when I'm getting ready for the next trip via plane. They sometimes stick around for months on my bags otherwise, including trips by car, etc. Not anymore, of course.
I'm trying to get an idea of what people are concerned about here. Is the issue that someone wandering around aimlessly with an RFID reader and knowledge of how an airline encodes their data might get your name, (possibly) address, and old flight details? Don't these work at pretty short range?
It would be fun to see what is actually stored in this very thin passive RFID tag. If it is more than a random ID for that piece of luggage that connects to a secured database with appropriate details, then it would be worth exploring. If not, it probably is an upgrade for logistics and has limited new privacy concerns. Sure, someone could ping your luggage on the subway and get the ID more readily than the old bar code (and obviously less noticeably), but the link to the secure luggage handling system would be far more difficult.
If, however, they do store your name, address, destination, etc, that would be incredibly awesome. Like leaving your bluetooth phone on 'promiscuity mode'. Like when I was 6 and had my name and address pinned to my shirt en route to camp.
I'm trying to get an idea of what people are concerned about here. Is the issue that someone wandering around aimlessly with an RFID reader and knowledge of how an airline encodes their data might get your name, (possibly) address, and old flight details? Don't these work at pretty short range?
That, and you could be trundling around innocently having checkpoints zap you and find your RFID all the time. Just step by step we reach that point; RFID makes for great surveillance.
I know fiction doesn't provide good 'citing', but if we can refer to Orwell in this situation so can we refer to LB. In LB, RFID is in all of the cards / ids / tolltag sort of things. Moving about, there are dozens of places where people are 'checked' without ever knowing it. From the records of the many checkpoints, the government can keep an eye on your travel habits.
This is entirely possible and not unlikely and is a natural progression of the surveillance we now experience. Not announcing a product contains RFID basically amounts to having someone stick a GPS locator on you when you're not looking.
Also, ranges are getting better all the time. Technological progression is exponential; just because now you need to be a foot away to scan, doesn't mean that will always be the case.
I don't think the tag actually stores anything. The RFID data is just a duplicate of the barcode number printed on the label. But as ever I'm prepared to be proved wrong on that.
Should you say "an RFID" instead of "a RFID"?
I always take off the luggage tags after a flight- my personal paranoid fear is that they'll somehow cause the bags to be placed on the wrong plane next time I travel. So, that's all that should be done. Really, anything that makes it less probable for my luggage to be lost is a good thing.
I don't see the need to be worried here.
People are concerned because it's one short marching step from RFID tags on your luggage to a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
Isn't that obvious?
I'm with the ones that can't see a need to worry about this.
Cheap RFID tags like this one don't contain any information, just a tracking number.
Someone who, somehow, got close enough to scan the tag yet not (and this is stretching credulity a bit) close enough to read the tag visually, could get that tracking number.
If that person also had access to the airline database, s/he could get your travel information, name, address, frequent-flyer number, credit card number and so on.
But if someone has that sort of access to the airline database, that is in itself a much greater problem, and they won't have to know your RFID tag tracking number to mess you over royally.
The government already has access to your travel data - it can get that from the airlines with a subpoena. Possibly without. So the idea that they would set up a network of invisible RFID scanners to find out what subway station you get off at is preposterous in the extreme.
Hey, if you tracked piracy with these, would it be an "aaarghFID"?
Hong Kong international has been using tags for years. I really like the idea personally. I think that Los Vegas should let you know on the tag though. The tags in HK were clear stickers so it was easier to take the RFID off and leave your ident sticker.
If they were made from rabid mutant plant-life, would it be "Day of the RFIDs"?
RFIDs are people?
I agree that there's no direct threat from RFID in this particular form, but I'm very uncomfortable with potential future abuses. At minimum, I'd like invisible ones to be outlawed. If it's there, there should be a prominent symbol. That limits some applications but I think it avoids a lot of paranoia and discourages the development of invasive uses..
You also get an RFID tag when going through the airport in Hong Kong. It's a large sticker that they put on the outside of the bag, and is easily taken off.
I still have one or 2 around if anyone is interested in dissecting it.
I've read this story several times and am still not sure what it's about. You conclude that using RFID they can move your bags more efficiently, that's got to be good. Then you conclude that RFIDs are freaky. I'm not sure if that says anything about RFID tags or more about you. Maybe you have a problem with RFID tags that you should address, apparently there are phobia for just about everything. I don't know of anyone who has phobia of RFID tags yet, but given that there is apparently such a thing as ambulophobia (fear of walking), a phobia of RFID tags can't be far off.
Yeah, I'm confused. They're tracking your bags? You WANT them to track your bags; you GAVE them your bags for the express purpose of moving them some great distance and tracking them in the process.
Airlines lose millions and millions of pieces of luggage every year. None of those bags are actually disappeared; they're just in the wrong place. If they could be easily scanned for and found, millions and millions of people's lives would be greatly improved.
i'm with the people who see no evil in this. i mean, you have voluntarily filled out your name, address, and phone number and put tags on the outside of your bag that (gasp!) ANYONE could read... oh noes!! now, only a machine with a special reader can see that info (if it's encoded there at all, and not some tracking number).... uh... i'm just not scared by this.
Maybe he thinks the RFID tag can take pictures of his undies and post them on Flickr.
I am as much as a civil libertarian as they come, but I really don't see the issue here. Ok, so instead of bouncing photons off the tag to read it they can bounce radio waves and get the same information (or less)? Is this really worth worrying about? If you are so paranoid that someone will see that you have traveled and read the scant information on those tags... you already probably chopped them off to conceal the easy to read visual information.
Don't get me wrong, RFID has some serious potential abuses, but there is nothing inherently evil about RFID itself. RFID in your clothing that marketers use to track your every movement? Ok, that is evil. RFID in your passport that screams out personal information to anyone with a reader? Stupid for sure (never attribute to malice what you can attribute to government stupidity). Keeping track of your luggage by having an RFID tag display the same thing as the diposable visual tag? That is called making technology work to make our lives suck a little less. No evil Orwellian nightmares here. Believe me, if you want to scare yourself about going to the airport, forget your luggage, worry about your credit card and secret government black lists, not improved baggage handling techniques.
People need to take a breather on RFID. It is getting thrown around in civil libertarian crowds like a curse word the same way genetics and nuclear are tossed about in some environmentalist circles. In the same way a NMR machine is nothing to freaking out over, even if you are anti-nuclear, and not all genetic engineering is violent protest worthy, neither should the knee-jerk reaction to RFID to panic and screaming 1984. There are good reasons to freak out over some RFID related things, this really isn't one of them.
It's also doing a lot to hopefully reduce lost luggage as well. People want better ways of tracking luggage so it won't get lost and can be handled faster - this is one potentially smart and useful way to do it.
Yes, there are many good uses for RFIDs. Some people are calling the concern over improper uses of it hysteria. I think that's a little disingenuous. Just because you can't think of an abuse of it off the top of your head doesn't mean nobody else will think of one.
Let me put it in a concrete form for you.
One of the potential abuses of hidden RFIDs is to reveal the presence of an object which you have legitimately concealed. If this isn't happening already it's about to.
Now do you think these concerns are hysterical?
Pretty much.
Here you will see a frequent argument about how we shouldn't live in fear of terrorists just because we can imagine things they can do - or worse yet our government can do with our fear. Same goes for technology like RFID.
Makes me think of this quote from Cory Doctorow's young adult novel Little Brother...
Ross @ 26: I don't think anyone here is calling the concern over improper uses of RFID hysterical; I think they're calling concern over THIS use of it hysterical. And from where I'm sitting, that seems rather sensible of them.
A lot of people thought that when the bar code came out it was the Mark of the Beast.
Those people were stupid.
Infer from that what you will.
"One of the potential abuses of hidden RFIDs is to reveal the presence of an object which you have legitimately concealed. If this isn't happening already it's about to."
I am afraid I don't understand your example. Can you give one instance where putting an RFID on your baggage results in it revealing something you were trying to hide? Personally, I assume that if you put your baggage into the luggage system you probably want it to be tracked. The fact that it is being tracked with radio waves instead of photons seems like a trivial point.
The only thing RFID does that photons don't is spit back information a computer can read easier and faster.
P.S. How do you get spiffy quote tags in posts?
#24: "It is getting thrown around in civil libertarian crowds like a curse word the same way genetics and nuclear are tossed about in some environmentalist circles."
Good point.
The knee-jerk reaction from a subgroup of those circles serve only to discredit the whole movement.
Same goes for RFID and the privacy movement.
Future scenario:
Me: "Domestic surveillance poses serious privacy issues, such as..."
Other guy: "Are you one of those guys that worry about (snicker) the airlines tracking your luggage?"
Audience: "Ha ha."
Who cares. hopefully will mean less lost luggage. and the idea of putting a prominent symbol indicating there's a tracker in ther.. also silly. why? because people ignore signs and symbols. especially the more they are. and it will likely be a totally useless idea inside five years anyway.
I am hearing two different voices in this debate. One is saying the concerns about these RFIDs are over blown and the other is saying that the secrecy surrounding these RFIDs is indicative of other, larger concerns. Both are correct.
Well I just use that massive red "key on my keyboard, but you can put the
@30;
Lets give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're acting more obtuse than you really are.
Concrete examples:
Not a visible suitcase.
A credit card
Or a bank check
Or a passport
Do you want people to be able to locate from a distance those things concealed on your person or in your belongings?
If you really don't care about that you're certainly in the minority.
Furthermore:
"The only thing RFID does that photons don't is spit back information a computer can read easier and faster."
Surely you understand that bar codes are line of sight and RFID can be sensed through opaque objects.
It's a really important distinction and if you don't get it you need to give it more thought before saying there's no difference.
it's a blockquote tag
Oh FFS I inadvertently quoted myself. Let's try this without preview...
Use the <blockquote> HTML tag
And you "know" that the RFID tags that AA uses don't contain any other data?
If you "know" this, how so? Do you work for the airline or the manufacturer of the tags?
That is an awful photo.
Having worked in an airport from 2002-2005, I can tell you that there is interest in doing this.
It's a chicken-or-the-egg type issue, but one of the goals is to make sure that you and your bag are both on the same flight. Just wait until the RFID ID is on the ticket(assumed to be with you) and even your carry-on bags are tagged. Alarms can be tripped if you step more than 10 ft. away.
Paranoia? Sure. Thoughtcrime for the future? Perhaps.
OH NOES THEY ARE TRACKING MY BAGS! Oh, wait. I want them to.
Hr's m bng bttr fr mnt:
ll y RFD frfl r fckng dts. Y'r ndctd snstnlsts wh r jst cmpltly gnrnt f thngs clld fcts... nd smthng nt clld physcs.
RFID tags store numbers.
RFID tags are highly temperamental.
The only way they can invade your privacy is if:
- someone spends enough $$$$$$ to get a reader that matches that type of tag, since they all respond differently
- that person is then within a specific distance to the tag - and not obstructed by a few inches of metal, water or wood/paper.
- that person knows what the numbers stand for, and have the ability to interface with whatever database wherever in the world that stores what those numbers relate to
And that all has just about as much likelihood as someone developing super mind reading abilities, which would render any sort of RFID tagging moot.
There are a lot of valid things to be scared about in terms of privacy - technology like this is not one of them.
My favorite anti-RFID group is CASPIAN. They made a huge stink over privacy from RFID and loyalty cards. I've met them -- they're absolute idiots who were only concerned about getting their names big enough to get consulting jobs and into PHD programs.
Instead of targeting useful technology, they should have been focusing on the very obvious privacy element -- the fact that supermarkets can tie your itemized receipt to your credit card number + associated home info.
nywys - hr's smthng tht wll cmfrt th prnd... f y wr tn-fl ht, y'll b bl t blck th vl tg rdr... lmnm s grt nsltr gnst RFD sgnls.
Sincerely,
The guy who spent a significant amount of time from 2002-2005 developing RFID systems for WalMart, International Paper, Unilever and others, and is really glad this technology is being put to use -- because the chances of it being used to invade privacy is almost completely fucking zero.
Radio Shack sells RFID experimenter kits where they still sell electronic components.
Better the devil you know, I say.
jonathan_v: You're just saying what many of us are thinking -better than many of us could have.
@35: those examples would be valid if we were talking about credit cards, bank checks, or passports.
We're not; we talking about your suitcase in the care of the airlines.
I think this is what RFIDs are good for. I hate having my luggage go on a different trip than I do. The tags are removable. They're going to remove them the next time you fly anyway to put new ones on your bags.
But I'm glad that, thanks to BoingBoing, I renewed my passport promptly. I got in just under the wire and don't have a chip.
I wonder how much this reduces the incidence of lost luggage?
Maybe we should all start wearing burkhas you know - like to hide our faces so face identification from the millions of public cameras can't identify us and track us.
Lost luggage is bad.
The convenience of corporations is good.
Data never gets misused, so why worry?
@ROSSINDETROIT
I think we all agree that RFID can easily be misused, but what most of the commenters are saying is that this isn't one of those cases. For this to become a breach of privacy, someone with ill intent would have to have access to the airline's database, in which case you are fucked with or without RFID.
I think the problem is the lack of awareness about RFID being located in the tag. I wouldn't have a problem if there was a label. It just sets a bad precedent, IMHO.
because people ignore signs and symbols. especially the more they are.
I don't.
If the tag said RFID would there be such a ruckus?
In terms logistics and proper baggage handling this seems pretty awesome. I previously worked as a bag thrower for US Airways/America West. At the time (and even now) they had a pretty crappy record for mishandling bags. A small part of the problem was that some baggage handlers really did not care. The overwhelming cause of the mishandling of bags was that there was always a rush to get tons of luggage on multiple airplanes all at the same time. There are city codes that are similar. Other times the final destination is not a direct route (US Airways/America West has that horrible "hub" thing). It would have really helped to wave a wand or something over a cart in order to indicate if there are any "wrong" bags on it before loading all the bags on the plane.
Oh, I think RFID is a great innovation. I just want to decide which ones get associated with me and my posessions.
I ship stuff all over the world all the time. By all means RFID my boxes and route them more effectively. Cut me a break on the rates if you can. Those are harmless because they have redundant information and get discarded.
Ditto my luggage, although I have an inch thick stack of boarding passes here and zero lost bags. RFID my luggage if it gets the plane off quicker.
I'd probably accept it in place of bar codes on products. Again, redundant and disposable.
But I don't want any permanent or hidden ones. That's happening and I don't like it because it's data about me that I don't control.
I have 15 years in working with mainframe corporate databases. I know what corporations do with data and how much of it is out there. 30 years of technical electronics as well. 4 years in retail sales in large stores, which closely track customers' habits.
I have two concerns, neither of them relating to luggage, product packaging or shipping.
1) The tag as a 'flag' that can be sensed to identify a hidden item. Given the choice between a credit card that announces its presence to a magnetic field and one that's mute, I want the ability to choose the latter for my own security.
2) Hidden tags that identify items. Louis Vuitton would like to place hidden tags in their products to prevent faking. That's a legitimate use. Neiman Marcus would like to know when a high roller walks in the door carrying a $10,000 bag because that person is of great interest to them. I want the option to have my possessions anonymous.
Again: RFID package routing, luggage, retail products:
all good.
Hidden RFID flags and identifiers: Should be at the option of the owner, mot the maker.
there is no law preventing the commercial business of destroying imbedded tags in your legitimate purchases.
@52:
agreed, assuming:
1) you look and can find them
2) they do not become so ubiquitous as to be essential.
@52:
agreed, assuming:
1) you look and can find them
2) they do not become so ubiquitous as to be essential.
3) there is not a law made preventing the commercial business of destroying embedded tags in your legitimate purchases.
@54 of course. Please let me expand on that idea. It is common for an innovation to quickly become so widespread that it is depended upon. In the case that this was to occur with RFID some day, then one would potentially sacrifice legitimate functionality in removing the tag. This has already happened. See Cory's series of posts on the Oyster transportation card in England. It takes little imagination to invent likely future scenarios of this kind.
Another example. We all love cordless phones. Lets do away with all phones with cords. Okay. Now the lights go out. Call the power company. Oops! cordless phone base station is dead because no power! An unanticipated disadvantage because a convenience was adopted without considering all of its consequences.
I study the history of technology, and I love technology but the more I learn about collateral issues the more I scrutinize each change.
You're absolutely and entirely right, Ross. I wish more people would imagine scenarios; it seems the ability to do that is disdained as being an alarmist.
I can certainly confirm that my largest concern about the RFID (I'm the guy who took the photo and made the post) was that there was no indication that it was in the luggage tag.
Are they useful? Absolutely. Can they be misused? Absolutely...and obscurity may not bring security, but it does often make misuse, overreaching, and slippery slopes more likely.
Heck, I think RFIDs are interesting tech...but finding ones on my person that I'm not aware of doesn't thrill me. At all.
If you want to kill the chip without removing the tag, i believe you can just make a partial tear through the loops pictured. (These are the faint grey lines on the unprinted part of the tag). I'd tear across the little bow tie in the middle. I admit this is of admittedly limited utility, i just like breaking things.
you've all heard of RFID dust?
Yeah, I hate the possibilities of abuse of RFID as well, but there's one potentially terrific use for these tags that I haven't seen mentioned and that is the idea of having paired tags. One goes on your suitcase and the other is in the baggage claim tag. After you collect your bag(s) you stroll through the exit, which has an RFID scanner. If the scanner detects a tag coded as baggage but does not also detect the matching claim tag an alarm goes off and an airport employee steps in to see who might be trying to steal your bag.
Yes, there would be problems, such as when people lose their claim tags. A bigger problem would be that a thief could just rip the tag off the bag before heading out, but at first thought this seems like a neat use for the tech.
The real problem is the secrecy surrounding the use of RFIDs. Secrecy destroys trust. Unfortunately our society appears to be based the paranoid schizophrenic model put forward by John Forbes Nash. We are still trying to recover from that blunder.
As far as I can tell, mankind is fucking insane. That is not hyperbole, I believe that to be literally true.
RFID Dust is theoretical so far, I think. But scary. I don't care how small they make it as long as I can find it and decide if I want it there.
that is the idea of having paired tags
When I was a kid I'd go to one of those skull-exploding places for children's amusement and parental panic attacks called Chuck E. Cheese. They'd UV-stamp kid and parent to match; swipe you when you left. If you didn't match the adult escorting you, questions were asked.
I foresee RFID replacing UV-stamp in kid-control.
Have now, Takuan. Wow. Sugar dissolved.
I don't care how small they make it as long as I can find it and decide if I want it there.
Which is of course would be a logical desire, and by being a logical desire, will not occur.
@64
Yeah, this was a sour patch. My fault, largely. Walked into the crossfire of a bunch of people's reactions to previous discussions on the subject. Being a dick to strangers didn't help and for that matter never has but I still try it :-/
Yeah, this was a sour patch. My fault, largely.
Oh, that was certainly not a reference to you! Taku-san is under the impression that he is a craven sugar-coater- it hails back to another thread from this night wherein I begged his explanation on something. I was telling him that the sugar of my world was still steadily dissolving despite his best efforts.
I'd hardly call you rude, Ross.
@67. Yeah, I read that exchange.
I like to make life sugary too but I'm basically high Ph and bitter.
Rude is a choice, and when I make it, as above, I'll own it.
late & time to crash.
We may discuss some time Isaac Brock, Auden & Korova Milk Bar.
Be good to each other, children.
Well, ultimately one could simply tag people at the DNA level. That might not be in my lifetime though.
I would be willing to discuss at length Mr. Auden! I am deeply in love with his work.
It's okay, I'm variable Ph ranging from sour to bitter and everything in beween. R to the e to the s p e c t for your owning of any rudeness you may commit.
I only lie when I speak
http://www.pinktentacle.com/2007/02/hitachi-develops-rfid-powder/
You know the idea of tracking reminds me of something we did at a company I used to work for. They pass cards to open the main doors (it was pretty new stuff at the time) and a lot of people had "I don't want to be tracked" issues with it. So a lot of us just started swapping cards - so after a while we had no idea who's card we really had.
RE Takuan and the dust. It could become a new version of the blue dye in the money bag. Though blue die would be a lot easier to manage.
I bet they are easy to fry though. That small? Geez how much of a static shock could it take?
Imagine instead of all those bacterium-zapping microshowers we see in Sci-Fi, RFID-zapping static rooms.
Guys, you all DO realize that the RFID tag is just slapped over an VFID tag, right ? (where VFID is Visible Frequency ID). So instead of using EYES or a CAMERA someone needs RADIO EQUIPMENT to read the tag within a huge range of CENTIMETERS ! Freaky.
Romwell, read the thread.
I've read the thread; the people thinking this is "teh Man" trying to track them are either paranoid, or have little idea of how a passive RFID works; if it was an active RFID you might be correct in your concerns about tracking. But again, as others have posted you are concerned that "teh Man" wants to know where you luggage is going, rip the tag off.
Ok, now read it again. This time try for comprehension.
Many people already carry a governmnet tracking device...heck they even pay for it.
It is called a cell-phone.
Red,
so people can't want legislation requiring this technology to be labeled clearly? Seems pretty reasonable.
Regardless of the nature of the specific incident (your right, it's only luggage tags in this case), any technology that has the potential to surreptitiously, and remotely, investigate me or anything on my person, should probably be limited in some way, for the sake of our collective liberty..
If labelling is all that it takes for me to be able to choose, then it doesn't seem too much to ask.
I didn't address the legislation question; I merely pointed out that the posters concern about being tracked using these particular types of tags are being grossly overstated. It's a passive RFID tag with a range of about 10 meters, easily spotted and destroyed; it would be absolutely useless for tracking someone nefariously, but quite useful for making sure that luggage gets to the right plane, and to the right baggage carousel.
If you read through some of the posts, there is concern about RFID "dust"; what is this a sci-fi novel!? You can make the tags very small; but the smaller they are the more fragile they are, and less power they have for transmitting (could be overcome to some extent with better recievers, but a bad signal is a bad signal).
Although, this gives me an idea for a "noise" transmitter for you paranoid types to block "teh fedz". I just need to understand how many of you are out there to build the business plan. Hands up, who wants a small radio transmitting noise on the same frequencies as an RFID tags for say, $50? What if I make one with Che Guevara on it for $60? :)
While I'm loathe to recommend more legislation for anything, I can't present any feasbile argument against labelling such a tag as "RFID", but I would prefer to label it as, "Oh NOES, teh fedz no ware u r!".
@80. Your statement about range (30 feet is still pretty far) is true of present technology. Remember when a cell phone was a 10 lb machine? Look at one now. Useful technology improves and the range of RFID readers will also. That's a good reason to get a handle on this now while it's innocent and make sure it stays that way.
Regarding the readability of RFID 'dust' nobody's claiming that satellites will be able to find you from orbit if you get it on you. Small things require close range reading. There are plenty of close range opportunities for monitoring and the danger with 'dust' is that it can be hidden yet still functioning. Knowing that, I still slept fine last night but I want a say in how that technology is used in the future.
To restate: present RFID applications = GOOD.
Future applications = watch cautiously and make sure you can always 'watch' them.
The concern I have is that this is yet another small step forward in the gradual frog-in-the-boiling-pot process of getting us used to be being tagged, tracked and suspected all the time. This particular use of RFID is probably not a threat. But 20 years ago this kind of thing would have caused outrage. Today a lot of people say, "So what?"
Maybe in another 5 years they'll start embedding RFID's in the luggage itself. If they do, a lot of people, I'm sure, will say, "What's the big deal? So it used to be in a tag, and now it's in your luggage. They can only track you from 75 meters. And it only has your name and address. They don't put your SSN in it. Who cares?"
a reader linked to a satellite up-link transmitter effectively makes RFID "readable from space". Such is already deployed. If livestock movement can be managed by satellite, so can yours.
We can't stop technology. We can do something about the government's use of it. Otherwise expect hidden reader up-links at all busy transportation system stations. Then expect them later to be prominently marked and accompanied by guards with guns making sure you walk within the clearly painted lines showing their effective range.
Rossindetroit, That's all well and good; but would anyone buy my RFID jamming radio? I'm looking for a new job.:)
I, for one, welcome our new orbital overlords.
Sorry. It was begging for it.
@84. Good idea. I've already seen infrared emitters that can be worn to thwart IR security cameras and I like that a lot. RF is the province of the FCC and I suspect that anything with a useful output would fall outside current regulations. Emissions are restricted because of the risk of inadvertent disruption, and that's reasonable.
I would pay good money for an RFID finder, though, and I suspect a lot of people would like the ability to scan their stuff and find the bugs, no matter how innocuous.
Never underestimate the American public's appetite for gadgets with lights and buttons. Sharper Image was founded on less.
I have a full bench and connections for all sorts of electronics fabrication...
The Hitachi "dust" still needs to be connected up to an antenna to actually function as an RFID device though.
the point of RFID is minimizing cost, eg. silicon processing costs into the thousands of dollars a wafer, so you need to get hundreds of thousands of miniature ICs out of each wafer to make RFID a financially viable proposition.
The Hitachi dust means that each RFID component costs less, not that they have made a trackable dust. The wavelength of the radio waves, or the area of the inductive loop constrains the size of the whole RFID package to be in the centimeters, no matter how small the IC shrinks.
Note also that the Hitachi dust article states 2 - 3 years before commercial applications. That's roughly forever in terms of technology growth. This technology is far from ready for prime time.
Hey Danegeld, stop ruining the paranoia with your "logic", "knowledge" and "sound reasoning". I'm trying to sell jamming radios here!
And I can't wait until I forget about this, rip off an old luggage tag, and (finding no nearby trash receptacle) just stick it in the side pocket of my bag. As I have done on numerous occasions...I still find them in bags occasionally. The relatively small number of airports using this tech may save me for now; but when an errant RFID makes your bag "disappear" to the wrong luggage carousel, that's going to be hard to diagnose.
I suspect this will be a problem in many environments where RFIDs exist, but folks are not widely aware of them. Unintended consequences.
Now that we're all calmed down I'd like to point out a patent application from IBM dated 2002 and titled
"Identification and tracking of persons using RFID-tagged items"
Note that the website containing this document is considered extremist and alarmist by many people. By providing this link I am NOT endorsing them, so don't paint me with that brush, OK?
http://www.spychips.com/documents/ATT00075.pdf
redmonkey - no need for jamming, a tinfoil hat (or wallet) will work just fine. Seriously. In fact, aren't RFID US passports now coming with foil-lined sleeves?
I have a RFID key and it's not like the door unlocks when i get near it with the key in my pocket.
Every "contactless" fob or card I have still require me to still wave it within an inch of the sensor (if not slap it repeatedly against the damn thing on a bad day!)
This whole "OH MY GOD RFID BIG BROTHER" thing is getting out of hand. When you complain about every little thing it makes you sound like a nutjob and makes it easier for people to dismiss legitimate concerns.
Rider,
You know that the proliferation of RFID is a regular subject on BoingBoing. If it upsets you so much, why are you reading it? Do you expect to be consulted on which concerns are legitimate? Any hysteria here is in the comments, not the post.
OMG RFID WTF?!
Ahhh now the good old, if you disagree with one post you should leave the site forever argument.
Rider,
Does it occur to you that there might be a difference between disagreeing with someone and calling him a nutjob?
I think of this as the
"I Don't Care So Everyone Shut Up" non-argument argument.
Perhaps IDCSESU should be added to the Boing Boing Comments Bngo/Drinking Game?
Ross,
You're rapidly becoming our leading Drinking Game Theorist.
Hey, what about the There Are Greater Evils so This One Doesn't Matter argument?
I've got a whole alcohol cabinet to myself, let's add some more boys. Kudos to Ross, let's give him a name-tag.
Maybe finding reasons for people to drink is my True Calling in Life.
So:
CATFOTFIC = Complaining About The Flavor Of The Free Ice Cream
IDCSESU = I Don't Care So Everyone Shut Up
TAGETODM = There Are Greater Evils so This One Doesn't Matter
We could add TSBCMNWTT:
They Should Be Catching Murderers Not Writing Traffic Tickets
but maybe that's a subset of TAGETODM
We could go with TSBCMNWTT, it may be more difficult to remember but it is more colorful. Then again, TAGETODM could refer to things like China vs Tibet or whatever else we come across, and TSBCMNWTT specifically to enforcement.
I also propose a conversion system; shots just get excessive and boring.
"shots just get excessive "
I thought that was the point.
You know, with enough entries, nobody need ever sober up again. Such a worthwhile goal. Where's Uncle Takuan when he's needed?
We should add:
TNWEBISEB
This Is Not Wonderful Enough Because I've Seen It Before
I need to go arrange accommodations for a dozen freeloading carp, so back later.
Alcohol isn't ever excessive, but the taste is! I'm a female, I like my Mudslides, Coladas and Daiquiris. Depending on the alcohol content of the frilly drink, it should be redeemable as shots.
So as we fall into the state of perpetual drunkenness, will our acronyms atrophy?
shots just get excessive and boring.
We could lob a quarter into a jar to donate to charity. Making a charitable donation every time someone else acts like an idiot would be incredibly good practice for sainthood.