![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 8 of 8. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on March 13, 2006, at 11:40:12
The state I live in, NH is passing a law now, prohibiting the use of RFID in state issued ID cards, contrary to a federal law mandating such use by May 2008. It's interesting to see the controversy surrounding this particular issue.
Where is RFID in use so far? It's used by major retailers in conjunction with product labeling, and is used as a way of tracking inventory. It's used in veterenary applications, to identify and locate lost pets. It's used on the highways as high-speed toll booths. It's used by many people to pay for gas, linking an RFID device to a credit card number. It's becoming more and more ubiquitous.
So how does it work? Basically, there is an integrated circuit attached to an antenna. The integrated circuit contains a receiver, a transmitter, some logic, and a certain amount of memory. When the RFID is within the field of the reader, it absorbs enough electrical energy from the reader to be able to function. Some negotiation goes on (Perhaps authentication, etc), and the RFID device sends to the reader the contents of it's memory. There are read-write, and read-only versions of these devices.
Some of these devices have farily large amounts of memory, and can store things such as digital photographs, etc. But most of them have just a few hundreds to thousands of Bits of memory.
Usually, they store a unique ID number that is linked to an external database. The database then stores the required information, and the RFID is merely a key to the records.
Part of what makes the use of RFID is the fact that the devices can be read without the owners knowledge or permission. Some of these may be read at distances of about 10 feet. Having one on your person, it could be read as you pass through the door of a building, or as you enter a parking lot, or driving down a road. They have the potential of being used to track movement.
With the proposed national use of RFID in government licenses, Pass Ports, etc, it will become possible to link virtually any information about an individual instantly to a single form of identification, including criminal records, health-care records, tax information, etc. Some privacy advocates are saying this goes too far.
The technology does have limitations though. The devices do not work through metal enclosures, so conceivabley, a wallet lined with aluminum foil would prevent these devices from being read from a distance. Some of these devices are less secure than others, and it is possible for someone with a reader to capture data from such a device without one's knowledge.
Kits to try the technology are available from manufacturers for about $500.oo which will allow one to program and read devices. Depending on the type of device used, and the skill at hand, it may be possible for hackers to read the device, or to alter information in the device.
Other uses of the technology that have been suggested include having a reader on-board trash collection trucks to determine usage of products at their end-of-life, tracking motorists to determine average speed between designated check-points (toll booths, etc.) Some have gone so far as advocating implantation of human beings with the goal of helping to locate missing children, etc. (The same technology could conceivably be used to track criminals, such as sex-offenders, etc.)
Whatever one thinks of RFID, I think it's good to know just what the technology is, how it is used, and how it can be abused. So that's what this post was about.
It's interesting to see various state's stances on RFID.
Dee
Posted by caraher on March 13, 2006, at 15:34:20
In reply to RFID, posted by deirdrehbrt on March 13, 2006, at 11:40:12
Fortunately this is one form of intrusion that can be mitigated through straightforward protective measures
http://www.engadget.com/2005/05/30/toppan-printing-company-develops-rfid-shielding-paper/
http://www.rpi-polymath.com/ducttape/RFIDWallet.php
http://www.rsasecurity.com/press_release.asp?doc_id=3376&id=1034
Posted by AuntieMel on March 13, 2006, at 18:16:53
In reply to RFID, posted by deirdrehbrt on March 13, 2006, at 11:40:12
Everyone - start making your tin hats now.
But - yea, I've been following this controversy for a while myself.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on March 13, 2006, at 19:56:11
In reply to Re: So those guys weren't so far off » deirdrehbrt, posted by AuntieMel on March 13, 2006, at 18:16:53
RFID cannot be tracked via satellite. It is a low-power close proximity technology. It's limited to 10's of feet distance.\
RFID can't tell anything about where it's been between scanning points... it has no GPS type of capability. (It's interesting to note though that your cell phone can be tracked to within a few hundred feet, whether or not you're talking on it, if you're in a city. A bit less accurate if you're outside of a city. Some pnones have GPS built-in, and your location can be fairly well pinpointed with those. Government regulations required being able to locate phones)
RFID can't be used as a 'bug' to listen in on conversations. RFID usually requires an external power source (the reader) to operate. (Some have built-in battery, but these are larger devices) and without an internal battery they can't transmit outside of the range of the reader. Other bugs do exist though that are quite small, but this is a different technology.
RFID doesn't work well on or in metal devices.
There's probably more, but that's what I can think of right now.
--Dee
Posted by AuntieMel on March 14, 2006, at 17:35:07
In reply to Some things RFID can't do....., posted by deirdrehbrt on March 13, 2006, at 19:56:11
It's my understanding that the phones have to have gps on when a person dials 911 so the emergency folks can find them.
Before that, it would take forever and a day to locate someone, quite often too late.
My phone has a way to turn it on all the time, but the default is to only turn it on when I dial 911.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on March 15, 2006, at 0:21:28
In reply to Re: cell phone gps » deirdrehbrt, posted by AuntieMel on March 14, 2006, at 17:35:07
There are ways to find a cell phone within a city without GPS. When a cell phone is within range of a number of different cell cites, the signal strength is compared among the sites. Using this, it is possible to triangulate on the position of the cell phone and to locate it within a couple of hundred feet. Sometimes even closer. I forget the actual specification required by the government, but it's fairly close. Much closer than most people think.
GPS just makes it easier. Technology can be amazing.
--Dee
Posted by Dinah on March 15, 2006, at 9:10:32
In reply to Re: cell phone gps, posted by deirdrehbrt on March 15, 2006, at 0:21:28
That's been true for a while, hasn't it? That's how they were able to find O.J. I remember it bothered me back then.
I can be a bit extreme on privacy rights, but the new technology scares me.
Posted by Dinah on March 18, 2006, at 12:34:07
In reply to RFID, posted by deirdrehbrt on March 13, 2006, at 11:40:12
First of all, I confess to being slightly paranoid. I never discuss anything of import on anything but a land line. I won't have a wireless phone in my house. And I don't use wireless network routers or anything else.
I hate tracking cookies, discount cards, and anything that invades my privacy even for my own good.
I was highly offended when my insurance company sent me a "I hear you've been diagnosed with diabetes" packet. I'd far prefer that the doctors have packets for those insurance companies she is affiliated with and handed it to me herself.
But I find this idea very bothersome and worse than whatever problem the government is trying to cure. It smacks of identity papers, and it very certainly seems an invasion of privacy.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.