RFID Tags

I'm not one to fear new technology. I think we should adapt to the technology, not ban it. That said, I can see a lot of harm caused by these things for relatively little good.

Two different trains of thought, here:

Will it be abused? Yes, of course. To not abuse something that could assist security measures in unbounded ways would be foolish.
Should it be feared? Only if you're into breaking the law. If you're adept at following the law, then these will be just another piece of evidence to support your innocence.

What I buy, whether or not I come back to the store, and how many times I do come back is none of the storekeeper's business unless I choose to share that information with him, no matter how beneficial that knowledge may be to him from a marketing standpoint. He can get his marketing data from counting the till.

Similarly, while I readily acknowledge the advantage to me from being able to track a deadbeat dad (or, better still, a fugitive's associates) by RFID tagging of vehicles, I have grave reservations about actually employing that technology. My principal reservation lies in the question, "Who writes the laws and what are they going to write?"

Case in point: Oregon enacted a statute in early 2001 permitting (in certain circumstances) "physician-assisted suicide." Never mind my personal views on the matter - I found it egregious that our beloved Mr. Ashcroft immediately issued an order to the Drug Enforcement Administration to suspend the prescription licenses of doctors who participated under that statute. Quite aside from my repugnance at dictating issues of conscience, I considered it a waste of time and resources better spent elsewhere. (Picture a DEA agent in Portland saying, "Please, Mister AG, can I get back to chasing coke dealers and meth cookers? Pretty please, with sugar on it?")

That reservation applies to whatever faction holds power. Bill Clinton, f'rinstance, did not favorably impress me, and he was a moderate Democrat. Bush the Elder didn't thrill me, either. [off-topic, that's the perspective of a small "l" libertarian - there's a difference. ]

Not that it matters - the tech's there, and it's going to be used. The questions are how, by whom, and to what end. You see, I'm not convinced that regulation is going to help much, unless it's carefully written. And that brings us back to, "Who's writing the laws, and what are they going to write?" I have little confidence in the present system's ability to keep itself in check.

-Can anyone, with the proper equipment, track someone via these tags? I seem to recall schools in Japan doing this...that means it's Criminally Accessable.
-Are Law Enforcement officers excempt? If yes, then what if they go bad, or retire? If no, then can criminals track the movements of officers...possibly undercover officers as well?
-Fakes, masking, database errors? Who will have access to the data collected and who will ensure it's legally and physically protected?
-Will companies like Walmart be able to track spending habbits with this easier? When will we get to the stage of virtual price-tags that can determine if you've shopped around or if you'll buy it anyway at a higher price?

Does anyone really want a radio collar around their neck? All you'll be doing is herding and tracking the people who use it correctly...ie...the non-criminals. And you 'reward them' by stripping another layer of privacy off of them.

Benifits? Stupid criminals, I suppose can be caught easier. The afore-mentioned "easy alibi" for innocent people. But will that innocence be worth anything if it's easily warped? Hell, Lawyers can disprove DNA testing if the lab is sloppy...all they need to start saying is that "the signal bounced" He was 21 blocks away.

Will criminals be able to obtain copies of false ID's? A small, south-african woman walking around with a copy RDIF tag of a suspected murderer could do anything and blame it on a past criminal offense someone else did.

The worst part of this is that these are what someone can think up just on the fly. Any thoughts?

I believe that the student ID cards here have RFID tags in them, or at least something similar. Yes, people can indeed track us, but if I'm recalling a conversation correctly, it's only in the newer/newly renovated buildings and it's mostly through doorways. (Okay, the conversation was how to make a Harry-Potter-esque 'Maurader's Map' using the information from the tags in one of the buildings here on campus. )

I think it works on a proximity thing, however. I'm not sure if the technology is there to have a x miles radius monitor to keep track of all the tags. Unless the person or object with the RFID tag comes within proximity of the sensor, the technology can't pick it up because the radio waves are too long to be detected. The examples cited in the article reflect this, actually. Ever single example has the RFID tag coming into a resonable proximity of the sensor: shoes through a doorway, car coming up to a gas pump, etc.

I'm not saying this isn't a privacy issue. Those of us who actually know that the ID cards have the RFID tags in them aren't exactly thrilled about it. However, it's not exactly publicized that they're there.

I predict a run on bootleg RFID chip-zorchers...

The primary benefits I can see from RFID technology lies partly in better shoplifting detection, but primarily in tracking of 10000's of items at a time in warehouse/shipping instances.

For example, being able to know at once where each single of 100000's of component "x" is in the production line, for example, and etc.

Technology: It's what Man wanted. It's what he will have to suffer with.

There is a technology called Bluetooth that is used in PANs (Personal Area Networks). It connects cellphones, PDAs, headsets, laptops, and PCs together through RF wireless communication. It is also used in Europe for "Flash" purchases, small payments that show up on your phone bill that you pay through your cellphone. Bluetooth has holes. Proponents say that the risk is minimized as you'd have to be within 30 ft of a Bluetooth-enabled device for it to be hacked. However, a Whitehat phreaker figured out how to make a directional antenna capable of receiving and sending Bluetooth signals at up to a mile away from off the shelf parts. It's called a Bluetooth sniper-rifle. The same techniquie could be applied to RFID tags. Just think how much information you could steal/hack with this device?

The idea behind the sniper rifle is to enhance the signal on the local end. This leads quite well to signal degradation. Even so, most thugs won't have the know-how nor the necessity to make one for themselves which requires them to buy it (expensive) or steal it ("Honour among thieves?").

I don't think there will be any serious threat from this invention. I mean, really, why target individuals you have to see and who may be able to see you when you can log onto the internet to access hundreds of millions who have never seen you?

That said, RFID Tech, while easily traceable within a given distance, has so weak of a signal that it, quite literally, can't be reached past a few dozen feet at best. Blue-tooth, on the other hand, is being developed to be a super-connector technology to make everything wireless so everything can communicate with - and through - everything else.

Don't think this hasn't come up, before.

The problem is if someone does some Anarchist Cookbook shit and you can download the plans and shopping list off the internet. Bluetooth signals are actually about as strong as the RFID signals that are reflected back. Bluetooth sniper rifles actually send and receive week signals, they just do it over large distances.

product tracking, I can see being a big bonus...but unless your stuff is moving around, why not just use barcodes like they do now? Maybe for cattle. Have a sensor every few miles in the fence, but is that something you really want to deploy? How expensive is this going to be? IE) Can casual users aford it, or is it going to be Big-Brother faring governements mostly?

Also, Bluetooth is more akin to WiFi than a "tracking" system. BT's max range is about 110 metres, but most devices don't work past 14 metres. Example, my PC has a Bluetooth Access USB adapter running higher power and has 100m range, but the Palm I use only works about 10m away. Therefore, it's uses in tracking are limited. You'd need to put a lot of effort into triangulating.

They have equipment. You can buy. Off the shelf. That does that for you. It's proven technology. Up to one mile. With Bluetooth. The basic operation of both Bluetooth and RFID is very similar.

The basic function is the same. The actual operation is wildly different.

RFID does not have the range of Bluetooth. Period.
RFID cannot be read from far away. Period.
There is no amount of magnification that will read an RFID signal reliably. Period.
RFID != Bluetooth. Period.

Bluetooth has a very short range. There are ways around that with readily available equipment. Period.
RFID has a very short range. There are ways around that with readily available equipment. Period.
The argument you make for RFID being secure is the exact same deffense used by Bluetooth promoters before they found out the ways around it. Period.
I recognize that you're playing devil's advocate, which someone has to, and I thank you for providing debate. Period.

I could be just a smartass and point you to this rather long paper from RSA Security on RFID tags and minimalist cryptography.

However, I'll sum up some basic things from CSAIL:



And then, as SC pointed out, there's a lovely paper on how someone made a reader out of "readily (at least here) available materials". However, it must be noted, they make mention of how close they had to be to actually do anything. The freqencies emitted are rather low and magnification attempts could concievably alter the wavelength to the point where attempting to read it is absolutely worthless.

But it's not Bluetooth, which operates at 2.45 GHz. and works at a range of around 10 meters at 1 milliwatt of power. As SC stated eariler, it uses a PAN. However, RFID cannot operate on PANs.

Okay, now that I've stated that much, we here who know about them on us don't exactly like them very much. Richard Stallman basically lays it out quite nicely:



So yes, it is possible to make one that can read a few feet, but again, nothing in a large radius. But yes, the security is rather laughable, we ourselves here can hack it if we were so inclined, and it's a horrible invasion of privacy. The general opinion here on campus, and the one I share, is that the administration is playing social engineering project again and playing with "new" technology in their mulit-million dollar buildings. And a simple Google-based search of the main webpage on "RFID cards" gave me the link to CSAIL and the article on the guy who hacked it. If the range were any greater, I'd say it'd be a) more publicized and b) protested loudly.

It's not a debate when you are claiming RFID can do things it can't.

Daemon, I'm afraid you're wrong.
For one thing, devices can be built to pull data off shit that doesn't even transmit.
For another thing, it's basically a glorified satellite dish. A parabolic receiver can focus signals, and can "clean them up" just like a radio receiver does, no matter how far away the sender is. That's the whole theory behind "scanning the skies for signals." A standard antenna can't read it, because the signal's too weak- i.e. scattered- to easily pull out of the air. Just like parabolic curves in boom mikes can pick up inaudible conversation, parabolic curves can be used to pick up "inaudible" radio signals.

Sending data in this way is also exceptionally easy; that's how satellites work.

As for the whole Big-Brother thing, I dunno. Certainly this is a massive (and should be illegal) invasion of privacy. On the other hand, criminal (and regular civilian, under the right circumstances, like obsessive gun control etc.) ingenuity outstrips corporate or government power every time. There will always be a way to defeat it.