thesubliminalman: sinanju: thesubliminalman:

A magnet will have no effect on RFID chips.

So impact damage will, magnets don't. What else does have an effect. Moisture, electrical shock, photo damage ir laser anything?

I was referring to the mag strip on the DL, not the RFID

globalwarmingpraiser: If I could reasonably I would go cash only.

Me too. How hard could it be?

thesubliminalman:
So impact damage will, magnets don't. What else does have an effect. Moisture, electrical shock, photo damage ir laser anything?

Nothing that won't leave an otherwise unexplainable mark. As mentioned, a microwave oven will destroy it, but it will leave a burn.

thesubliminalman: A magnet will have no effect on RFID chips.

So impact damage will, magnets don't. What else does have an effect. Moisture, electrical shock, photo damage ir laser anything?

Methods for disabling an RFID chip here. (new window)

BasqueBastard:
How about one of those super strong magnets like the one I found in an old crashed HD I took apart?

/Thing was the strongest magnet I'd ever seen!

No, not even a rare earth magnet. RFID is a tiny radio receiver/transmitter. Unless the magnet is large, heavy, and drops directly on the chip, the magnet will not harm the chip.

What I really want to know is if I do something to confuse the mag/rfid is that a reason for me to be locked up as some kinda turrust just cause my drivers licence fell in the pond or got near the fridge magnet.

I like it, I have hammers.

DRTFA, but when I was a cashier I would get at least one customer a month who biatched about bar codes and RFID chips. One guy in particular was absolutely paranoid that the government was going to start tracking what brand of cat food he was buying.

The best part? Those folks usually purchased their stuff with credit/debit cards. If you don't want to be tracked...

FTFA: By obliging Americans to use these sleeves, he says, the government has, in effect, shifted the burden of privacy protection to the citizen.

File that one under "NO FARKING SHIAT". The burden of privacy protection has ALWAYS fallen to the individual. (Ask someone else to hide your secrets, and that someone else will know your secrets.) The government has NEVER been interested in protecting the individual privacy of anyone not in the government. For us regular folks, the government is who we need our privacy protected from.

Enfenestrate: Also why do we need RFIDs in our IDs anyway? What are they putting in the chips that can't be put in a magnetic strip on the card?

gps tracking devices?

Danger Avoid Death: the government is who we need our privacy protected from.

Exactly. I know I seem paranoid, and maybe I am. But this is why people shouldn't use easily traceable forms of currency. The only downside to this is that if you're carrying enough cash they can actually accuse you of being a dope dealer, throw you in lockup, and take your money. Even worse, the populous will agree with the authorities. "Why are you carrying so much cash? What's the need? Get a credit card, get with the times." Atleast we can still concealed carry in this country, but for how long that lasts no one knows.

Danger Avoid Death: File that one under "NO FARKING SHIAT". The burden of privacy protection has ALWAYS fallen to the individual. (Ask someone else to hide your secrets, and that someone else will know your secrets.) The government has NEVER been interested in protecting the individual privacy of anyone not in the government. For us regular folks, the government is who we need our privacy protected from.

kind of hard to have private info when the companies you do business sell your info to the highest bidders.

thesubliminalman: We got our hats! [pic]

A winner is you!

dahmers love zombie: So...if the US and State governments are concerned about the security of the RFID tags in these new passports, um, maybe we SHOULDN'T BE FARKING HAVING THEM??

Who say's they're concerned? They put this guy in charge of the federal ID program:

Hobodeluxe: Enfenestrate: Also why do we need RFIDs in our IDs anyway? What are they putting in the chips that can't be put in a magnetic strip on the card?

gps tracking devices?

"The goal is get everyone in this world chipped with an RFID chip, and have all money be on those chips, and everything be on those chips, and if anybody wants to protest what we do, we just just turn off their chip."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVEPlxwlzCE

"The cover of the e-passport booklet contains a metallic sheathing that can diminish the distances radio waves travel, presumably hindering unwanted interceptions. Alloy envelopes that come with the PASS cards and driver's licenses do the same, the government says."

ePassport parts don't use radio waves, and neither do the EDL's. PASS cards are radio wave based.

"Another test on the enhanced driver's license demonstrated that even when the sleeve was in pristine condition, a clandestine reader could skim data from the license at a distance of a half yard."

18" is about the max you can read one from without resorting to really over-the-top methods. In general, since ePassport and EDL use H-field parts, shielding helps but not as much as with PASS.

"In 2006, a mobile security company, Flexilis, conducted an experiment in which the transponder of a partially opened e-passport triggered an explosive planted in a trashcan when a dummy carrying the chipped passport approached the bin."

You might also just put a heat sensor in the can and do it that way. What difference if it's triggered by a passport?

Not too many years back at the Blackhat conference, Flexilis tried to imply that they were reading h-field parts from several meters, but were using a Yagi as you would for an e-field part, when questioned it was "Well, we didn't MEAN when we said it was just like an epassport - that it was the same technology - they're both RFID (waffle waffle hand wave smoke)" Of course, it's how they make their incomes.

"Some RFID critics wonder: Could government officials read the microchips in an enhanced driver's license or passport card by scanning people via satellite or through a cell phone tower network?

The short answer is no - because the chips in PASS cards and EDLs are "passive," or batteryless, meaning they rely on the energy of readers to power up. Passive tags are designed to beam information out 30 feet."

EDL's and passport card parts are h-field, and operate from the time-varying magnetic field from the interrogator. Which loses energy as the sixth power of the distance. I think the world record on reading one was something like 2 meters, and only then with a really overpowered interrogator running DSP algorithms to correlate hundreds of reads to get past the SNR issue you have.

E-field parts like PASS can be read up to 30 feet, but only have very simple data, typically nothing more than a serial number.

So yes, they're passive, and not all passive parts are of the same technology.

"Separately, a system called STAR, that adapts deep-space communications technologies to read passive tags from distances greater than 600 feet"

If they're simple e-field serial number tags, but even then, only if you've got a LOT of money for the equipment. STAR isn't a single device, it's an array of transmit nodes, one of which has to be within 30 feet of the tag (not 600...) and a phased array receiver of fair complexity and high price. So in a sense "greater than 600 feet", although they've only operated at 300, and even then you still have to have a transmit node within 30 feet. And you can't "see" the tag if it's in line with the exciter node, there's a few other gotchas.

I'd give it sort of a D-, they didn't seem to be trying to be duplicitous, just confused.

Walker: He filmed his drive-by heist, and soon his video went viral on the Web, intensifying a debate over a push by government, federal and state, to put tracking technologies in identity documents and over their potential to erode privacy.

Interestingly enough, when that came out, I called Paget out on his blog and we had a really interesting discussion about being misleading in the video. Could probably find it if I looked.

LittleSmitty: RFID just allows them to pinpoint your exact location a little faster.

Only if you walk through a field of closely spaced interrogators.

iamrex: globalwarmingpraiser: If I could reasonably I would go cash only.

Me too. How hard could it be?

Not hard at all. For a small fee cash can be turned into money orders at your local grocery store and mailed as required. The rest of the time you just use cash normally.

The trick isn't to go completely off the grid. That in and of itself is unusual. So you do things like pay your rent with regular checks drawn on a regular banking account, pay your usual utilities the same, etc. Do nothing unusual. Be just another fish swimming in the pond. Make no waves, do nothing unusual.

Or so they think.

While you're doing nothing obviously unusual you're buying all your fun stuff with cash and keeping it in a little redoubt you set up somewhere. And remember, cash only only works if you don't buy the fun stuff where you live. Buy it from places that don't like anybody and KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. Nobody likes a chatterbox.

NutWrench: How about a bomb that only explodes when a certain number of people whose passports match the targeted country come into range? You could set it up months in advance and forget about it.

You'd have to get them within about 18" to read. And it would take AC power, you'd never last with batteries. PASS, now, you can do that one pretty easy.

thesubliminalman: Has anyone got a fridge magnet the size of a bidnezz card? Would that help?

Nope. Static magnetic fields do bupkis. In truth, you have to work at it to bust one through the antenna.

ZAZ: It ought to be easy to add a button and make RFID not work if the button isn't pressed to close a circuit. The circuit can be sealed in plastic. It doesn't even need to be a conventional button. Something that changes electrical properties when compressed would do.

Interestingly, a number of parts, especially the h-field ones, support enabling by button, which is the best solution.

Hobodeluxe: Enfenestrate: Also why do we need RFIDs in our IDs anyway? What are they putting in the chips that can't be put in a magnetic strip on the card?

gps tracking devices?

Nope. That won't be happening, although it's a Hollywood meme.

Ubiquitous Living Part1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I3T_kLCBAw&feature=related

Ubiquitous Living Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKZm34jsNHY&feature=related

Welcome to your cage.

Is there a line for people who don't want these things?

Notabunny: thesubliminalman: We got our hats! [pic]

A winner is you!

Thanks...erewhon:
thesubliminalman: Has anyone got a fridge magnet the size of a bidnezz card? Would that help?

Nope. Static magnetic fields do bupkis. In truth, you have to work at it to bust one through the antenna.

Not a fixed magnet but a moving field?

thesubliminalman: Not a fixed magnet but a moving field?

The h-field parts have loops to pick up the magnetic field they use to communicate and receive power, so a time-varying magnetic field is coupled into them. The e-field parts like PASS, not so much.

If you have an h-field part and a big enough time varying field, you can break them. However, the design for the parts is such that they know you can't predict how much excitation you get, so they have protection diodes on their front ends. You have to work at it to break them that way.

E-field parts you'd want to use a really strong radio signal with a frequency about the same that the part uses. Same issue - they have input protection.

Enough signal, they'll pop. But it isn't straightforward, and you'll have to have the thing in the device to do it, unless you're using EMPress II or some damned thing. It won't be something like a tricorder that zaps them all over the house.

On the other hand, is anyone interested in a masker? (greedy look, rubs hands together)

Jarhead_h: "The goal is get everyone in this world chipped with an RFID chip, and have all money be on those chips, and everything be on those chips, and if anybody wants to protest what we do, we just just turn off their chip."

Rolls eyes.

Oh, puhleeze.

Chuck Ruffcorn: Is there a line for people who don't want these things?

Yes. Follow the red line down the hall and outside to an unmarked, windowless cinderblock building where you'll be asked to go inside and take a very brief communal shower with several dozen of your fellow criminals ... I mean ... "like-minded individualists". Have a nice day.

He reminded me that the only way to
keep aliens from readin' your mind
is to wear a tinfoil hat, friend
and wear it all the time.

/Life keeps on changin'....

This is why I'm pissed about RFID chips, and why I'm not pleased that I have one in my passport. Not because "ZOMG THE GOVERNMENT IS TRACKING MEES." Firstly, because quite frankly, I use my debit and credit cards often, they could already track me if they wanted two. Secondly, because once I (hopefully) get a PhD. in.. oh.. probably five years, I suspect I'll be getting tracked to do work anyways, since I want to do research (hooray, nanophysics). No, I'm pissed because they didn't farking encrypt the information . I mean, seriously! Who the FARK thought that was a good idea?

erewhon: Jarhead_h: "The goal is get everyone in this world chipped with an RFID chip, and have all money be on those chips, and everything be on those chips, and if anybody wants to protest what we do, we just just turn off their chip."

Rolls eyes.

Oh, puhleeze.

What does your technological opinion have to do with the ability to judge social implications?

It's pretty common in most SMART-card using countries for the notion of an "all-in-one" identity/payment document to be expected in the future. You're confusing whether or not that capability is announced with whether or not the purposes will be combined.

There's extreme interest in mass-surveillance technologies by many countries, including China and the US. I mean...it's not even been 3 years and you're acting as if the express interests of the government in the FISA scandal was not related to a desire to use mass-surveillance technologies on the innocent and guilty alike. It's a little early for you to reject the possibility of a payment card to be merged with an identity document...

I think if Narus Insight has taught us anything, it's that if it is technically possible, and provides an advantage in surveillance/security, then it will be pursued no matter the moral hazards.

erewhon: If they're simple e-field serial number tags, but even then, only if you've got a LOT of money for the equipment. STAR isn't a single device, it's an array of transmit nodes, one of which has to be within 30 feet of the tag (not 600...) and a phased array receiver of fair complexity and high price. So in a sense "greater than 600 feet", although they've only operated at 300, and even then you still have to have a transmit node within 30 feet. And you can't "see" the tag if it's in line with the exciter node, there's a few other gotchas.

I think that's the concern.

It's a bit like saying, "Oh, for a closed-circuit array to work, you'd need a fixed camera every 30 feet, unless you had a person monitoring each camera manually operating each camera. So, don't worry about your privacy." And yet, you have London.

Privacy experts aren't so much concerned about hackers as they are about government. In conjunction with CCTV arrays, a supplementary RFID scanner wouldn't be out of the question. At which point, you could simply scan a subway crowd and pick out any RFID you wanted. A single scanner along the tunnel, with transmitters every 30 feet; or if you wanted to be thrifty, just place them at the exits.

So no, it's not difficult and no, it's not benign. Given how many times in the past the government has overstepped its supposedly "limited" surveillance powers, I don't think the smart thing to do is dismiss the possibility that they would not abuse new and expanded capabilities like RFID scanning.

Essentially, you're saying that the infrastructure and databases required, would make e-tags useless to DIYers. In other words, you'd have to be the government in order to have the necessary resources to abuse these tracking capabilities. Great.

RFID experimenters really should get a proxmarkiii. They're fantastic. I carry an RFID shielding wallet now.

The biggest problem is that when I go to check out at a register, I have to take the card out of the wallet, and during that time it's vulnerable.

While reading the cards from satellite is a peculiar notion, it is theoretically possible to use a satellite dish such as an old DirecTV parabolic to broadcast the carrier wave directionally here on the ground. As long as power is just right, your carrier could power on the RFID chip and allow it communicate with your station. Remember, RFID has no battery, it's all inductance. Remove the carrier, you remove the power.

It would be reasonably possible to sit in a van, point a dish at the register, and clone RFID cards. It is already possible with near field communications (NFC) such as RFID to clone a card within a few centimeters. The proxmarkiii can do this easily for some cards, and since it's programmable, eventually most cards. I betting the software keeps up with the card technology, so the card vendors won't be able to get ahead for long, and will always be vulnerable within weeks of launch.

With the proxmarkiii, your cloned card is undetectable (note that there is no card, it's just a digital image of a card). Just wrap that sucker in leather and it looks like your wallet. Put in a fake card you can whip out if asked to show it.

Our only defense is that the proxmarkiii costs nearly $500 USD. So, only rich crooks will have them. Most petty thieves would consider $500 enough to stop thieving for a while, and wouldn't consider investing it a good idea.

/not a pro, just a hobbyist

that_other_internet: What does your technological opinion have to do with the ability to judge social implications?

It's pretty common in most SMART-card using countries for the notion of an "all-in-one" identity/payment document to be expected in the future. You're confusing whether or not that capability is announced with whether or not the purposes will be combined.

It's my technological opinion that the statement is ridiculous, from a technical point of view, as stated.

For one, it's not possible to "turn off their chip" from a distance. Two, it's possible but unlikely that you'd actually store someone's financial records and credit in an implant. An identifier similar to a credit card number, perhaps. But storing the actual funds there (and data) would be an unnecessary duplication of something better stored in a banking institution (or the gubmint), so that they are available on demand.

Yes, I understand that smart cards can carry "value" loaded into them. Your Visa doesn't. Nor is your checking account in the debit card's stripe.

Had the statement been "They can disable your financial accounts by flagging them", yes, that might have been more believable. However, having read one too many "mark o' beast - all your data on an implant!" sites, I'm pretty sure from the keywords that's where jarhead_h is getting the info.

"I think that's the concern.

It's a bit like saying, "Oh, for a closed-circuit array to work, you'd need a fixed camera every 30 feet, unless you had a person monitoring each camera manually operating each camera. So, don't worry about your privacy." And yet, you have London."

The context of the article is that your data can be stolen by hackers. Not by gubmints. Yes, I suppose if you wanted to put an interrogator every 30 feet in a grid over the US, a concern could be raised, however, I find it unlikely in the extreme. If that's the sort of thing you want to be concerned about, have at it.

However, there's ways to track individuals in the open, if they're of high enough value. It's rarely done. In the future it will be a bit easier, I'd say a decade or so will see it.

ITIL Prince: While reading the cards from satellite is a peculiar notion, it is theoretically possible to use a satellite dish such as an old DirecTV parabolic to broadcast the carrier wave directionally here on the ground. As long as power is just right, your carrier could power on the RFID chip and allow it communicate with your station. Remember, RFID has no battery, it's all inductance. Remove the carrier, you remove the power.

Um, no.

What sort of RFID part? They're in two major groups, with a number of subgroups inside each. I don't believe that a DTV dish matches the frequency any of the e-field parts use. It's not inductance, although for an h-field part, it's partially induction.

thesubliminalman: Not a fixed magnet but a moving field?

1) you're welcome. your pic made me giggle

2) Moving field? (new window)

ITIL Prince: It would be reasonably possible to sit in a van, point a dish at the register, and clone RFID cards. It is already possible with near field communications (NFC) such as RFID to clone a card within a few centimeters. The proxmarkiii can do this easily for some cards, and since it's programmable, eventually most cards. I betting the software keeps up with the card technology, so the card vendors won't be able to get ahead for long, and will always be vulnerable within weeks of launch.

An old-fashioned mugging, however, is much more personal. It says you care.

that_other_internet: I mean...it's not even been 3 years and you're acting as if the express interests of the government in the FISA scandal was not related to a desire to use mass-surveillance technologies on the innocent and guilty alike.

You'd love the Kimberlite Magic project.

erewhon: Had the statement been "They can disable your financial accounts by flagging them", yes, that might have been more believable. However, having read one too many "mark o' beast - all your data on an implant!" sites, I'm pretty sure from the keywords that's where jarhead_h is getting the info.

Thanks, but your investigative behavioral analysis is just about as useful as your socio-political opinion in the absence of anything resembling evidence.

My interpretation was that his statement was too broad to be restricted to your specific interpretation of his intent and that his statement did not explicitly or implicitly rule out account flagging. Actually, it seemed entirely compatible with the notion of flagging/suspension.

erewhon: The context of the article is that your data can be stolen by hackers. Not by gubmints. Yes, I suppose if you wanted to put an interrogator every 30 feet in a grid over the US, a concern could be raised, however, I find it unlikely in the extreme. If that's the sort of thing you want to be concerned about, have at it.

If your notion of "unlikely" is rooted purely in your ability to imagine what the government would or would not attempt in the interests of "national security", then you're also the sort of person who would suggest that they would never intercept, monitor, and analyze all domestic internet traffic from a major ISP like ATT and yet...

Again, a quick peek at the last half century suggests you're likely to be wrong. Hell, a look at the last decade would prove your basic assumption to be wrong. Even if you assume that the known abuses of the past decade represented total disclosure of all mass-surveillance abuses (truly unlikely), those abuses alone are enough to suggest that your theory that RFID could never be subject to systemic abuse is just flat out wrong.

What is your basic assumption on the philosophical stance of domestic surveillance agencies in regards to RFID arrays? "Oh no, that's going too far.", "Nah, that's too expensive", "Hey, that would require effort", or "Wait, isn't that illegal and/or immoral"?

From what I understand, the monitoring potential of RFID is completely compatible with stated objectives of "Homeland security" and not at all mutually exclusive with potential abuses.

I think you should understand that when it comes to "Security", the difference between potential and the desire and ability to implement said technologies is a factor of time, not will or legality. It's not my concern whether you personally worry about it or not, but I would just like to point out there is no basis in reality for your fundamental position that there is anything special about this technology which would categorically rule out abuse. At least, not to the point where you can instinctively ridicule concerns of systemic abuse.

erewhon: that_other_internet: I mean...it's not even been 3 years and you're acting as if the express interests of the government in the FISA scandal was not related to a desire to use mass-surveillance technologies on the innocent and guilty alike.

You'd love the Kimberlite Magic project.

Thanks for the heads up. Sounds similar to the Narus software from the ATT surveillance scandal. What's the diff?

/apologies for the snark in previous post.

My interpretation was that his statement was too broad to be restricted to your specific interpretation of his intent and that his statement did not explicitly or implicitly rule out account flagging. Actually, it seemed entirely compatible with the notion of flagging/suspension.

Ahem: "The goal is get everyone in this world chipped with an RFID chip, and have all money be on those chips, and everything be on those chips, and if anybody wants to protest what we do, we just just turn off their chip"

Does it really seem compatible with that idea to you? I think you'd have to really stretch.

"If your notion of "unlikely" is rooted purely in your ability to imagine what the government would or would not attempt in the interests of "national security", then you're also the sort of person who would suggest that they would never intercept, monitor, and analyze all domestic internet traffic from a major ISP like ATT and yet..."

Oh, am I? Wow. Sort of a combo strawman, eh? However, let's look at your strawman - you see a similarity in constructing, emplacing and maintaining a dense 30' grid of interrogators covering at least all the major cities, if not the entire nation, and traffic scanning at a small number of fixed points. Yah. I see that. You betcha.

"Again, a quick peek at the last half century suggests you're likely to be wrong. Hell, a look at the last decade would prove your basic assumption to be wrong. Even if you assume that the known abuses of the past decade represented total disclosure of all mass-surveillance abuses (truly unlikely), those abuses alone are enough to suggest that your theory that RFID could never be subject to systemic abuse is just flat out wrong."

Wow, a non-sequitur that's almost a propter hoc. Because some internet and telephone traffic is scanned, therefore RFID can be efficiently used to somehow violate people's privacy and will be. Is that about right? These things are not strongly related, technically, and logically your premise isn't that sound either.

"What is your basic assumption on the philosophical stance of domestic surveillance agencies in regards to RFID arrays?"

That it is spectacularly inefficient and unwieldy, that it would be unworkable, and that the expense incurred would far far outweigh the value of the data obtained.

"I think you should understand that when it comes to "Security", the difference between potential and the desire and ability to implement said technologies is a factor of time, not will or legality. It's not my concern whether you personally worry about it or not, but I would just like to point out there is no basis in reality for your fundamental position that there is anything special about this technology which would categorically rule out abuse. At least, not to the point where you can instinctively ridicule concerns of systemic abuse."

Oh, sure I can. To me it's in the same ballpark as worrying about them tattooing bar codes on you and setting up a camera array. It's even worse if you're looking at implants - they'd have to be h-field parts, which sort of obviates the entire thing.

I'm away from the office, and it's 130AM here so I'm not going to bang in the numbers, but I don't think you've got a good idea of how much putting in a 30m grid would cost. And what do you get for your money? A location?

There is a lot of data which you give away every day - there are some really impressive models which can predict behavior based on that data. On the cheap they can make a damned good guess on where you will be anyway.

that_other_internet: Thanks for the heads up. Sounds similar to the Narus software from the ATT surveillance scandal. What's the diff?

Kimbie doesn't look at real-time traffic, it scans the net looking for relationships and tendencies, mostly.

The trick is to data mine for who is related to whom, when and why. Also, of course, what. But relationship graphs are at the heart of it - is Joe Blow related to Other Internet, and if Joe is up to no good, what is the likelihood that Other is also? If Other is identified as a trafficker of weapons, and Joe Blow is known to be a Randite, and he has ten relations who are communicating data relevant to a possible upcoming attack, is Joe funneling weapons from Other to his friends?

What's funny is that KM is running, and has been for, wow, a bit over two years? There's also similar projects being run that try to build psych models based on data they collect from weird crap like your Kroger KashKard usage patterns. Does the guy buy Pepsi or Coke, what sort of movies do you watch, that sort of thing. I don't have as much faith in that, personally, although the agency has a real boner for that sort of thing, and used to do it on paper with these big ass worksheets. I guess it's more efficient to have the computer make up bogus crap.

Oh, meant 10m grid. Damn, it's late.

Anyway, fwiw, here was where I was discussing the Paget thing with him, my nom de engadget was arbitraryreality.

We do this sort of thing for the gubmint from time to time; I've designed some specific use privacy violating gadgets which I'm pretty sure were used here and there, and we've done a bunch of RFID designs that were parts of other systems, mainly to keep the wrong people from using them, but occasionally fun stuff for battlefield use. The design side guys rarely get to see what happens with it in specific, however, you can often get a pretty good idea just from the specs.

I can't imagine pitching a system that required dense grids of interrogators just to locate a single person in public areas. It's done inside some buildings to track people movement so you don't go places you shouldn't, usually it's in the doorframes, but sometimes in the celotex, and it reads your badge tags. It also costs a pile.

erewhon: Oh, am I? Wow. Sort of a combo strawman, eh? However, let's look at your strawman - you see a similarity in constructing, emplacing and maintaining a dense 30' grid of interrogators covering at least all the major cities, if not the entire nation, and traffic scanning at a small number of fixed points. Yah. I see that. You betcha.

I don't agree that the arrays have to cover every inch of land mass. I think that displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology, or a completely disingenuous strawman.

You may understand the technology, but kind of in the dark as to population density and human traffic.

Not all territories have equal population densities and a desert is not the same as, say, downtown New York. Basically, areas with higher density would allow a smaller number arrays to have a much greater coverage as a percentage of population.

In mass-surveillance, the idea is to target bottlenecks, rather than blanket entire areas with devices. Take the AT&T Narus intercept software. They didn't install that in everyone's home, they localized the surveillance on the AT&T servers in order to intercept and relay all user traffic.

Also, look at the CCTV networks. They aren't in the farmland surrounding London, they are located in the city center. The reason is population density. You see, the technology doesn't have to be blanketed across the landmass when it can be efficiently used to monitor dense population centers.

So, the idea with an RFID scanning array would be the same. You would target high-density traffic bottlenecks and NOT broad areas.

erewhon: Wow, a non-sequitur that's almost a propter hoc. Because some internet and telephone traffic is scanned, therefore RFID can be efficiently used to somehow violate people's privacy and will be. Is that about right? These things are not strongly related, technically, and logically your premise isn't that sound either.

Your point seems to be that future abuse is unlikely because it would be "too inefficient", while I'm suggesting that RFID is a gateway technology towards some very serious surveillance that would otherwise not be possible. The cards themselves are benign, but systems can be built around those cards that allow incredible surveillance capability, moreso than credit cards, the internet, or anything else you've mentioned.

Going back to the AT&T Narus Intercept software...who would have guessed that they would intercept, analyze, and store ALL user traffic passing through that ISP? Sounds spectacularly innefficient and yet they went for it anyway. Fiber optics, supercomputers, and the whole legal shebang.

I think you're falsely dismissing the tenacity of domestic security when you speculate as to what they will and will not attempt "because it's too hard".

erewhon: Ahem: "The goal is get everyone in this world chipped with an RFID chip, and have all money be on those chips, and everything be on those chips, and if anybody wants to protest what we do, we just just turn off their chip"

Does it really seem compatible with that idea to you? I think you'd have to really stretch.

It does seem compatible.

I think you used strict syntactical and grammatical rules to defend your cherry picked interpretation whose original intent was to level a zinger at the other guy. I think if you went through all of farkdom with that kind of grammar-nazi zeal, you'd be reading an entirely different internet.

Jarhead_h: "The goal is get everyone in this world chipped with an RFID chip, and have all money be on those chips, and everything be on those chips, and if anybody wants to protest what we do, we just just turn off their chip."

This is fairly accurate. Some of the post-9/11 measures in Europe now make it possible to put people on a banking blacklist - with no judge involved. No debit or credit cards, no way to open an account, etc. Makes life pretty hard, especially in European countries where there's no such thing as a paycheck, but your pay is electronically deposited (by law). Pretty nasty.

Not much related to RFID though. Or to 911-truthers. Just overbearing, unchecked government (which is composed of individuals) in cahoots with "self-regulating" business.

RFID is just a pretty bad idea in itself. Even if you were an Illuminati member out to control everything; it's just too messy and insecure.

erewhon: Oh, meant 10m grid. Damn, it's late.

Anyway, fwiw, here was where I was discussing the Paget thing with him, my nom de engadget was arbitraryreality.

We do this sort of thing for the gubmint from time to time; I've designed some specific use privacy violating gadgets which I'm pretty sure were used here and there, and we've done a bunch of RFID designs that were parts of other systems, mainly to keep the wrong people from using them, but occasionally fun stuff for battlefield use. The design side guys rarely get to see what happens with it in specific, however, you can often get a pretty good idea just from the specs.

Well, that's my concern. The technology itself doesn't need to actually be efficient or accurate to provide "probable cause" for agencies to take things to the next level.

In my opinion, abuse occurs when accountability and responsibility can be relayed to software, deferred to by human operators as a pretext for engaging in "next level" activity, whatever that may be.

I can't imagine pitching a system that required dense grids of interrogators just to locate a single person in public areas. It's done inside some buildings to track people movement so you don't go places you shouldn't, usually it's in the doorframes, but sometimes in the celotex, and it reads your badge tags. It also costs a pile.

Ya, like I said, it doesn't have to be blanketed across landmass, just focused on dense population centers. Post office, city centers, subways, highways, etc. I think the cost will become more manageable if the technology becomes widely adopted.

The flip side of all the "positive" benign proposals of "at distance" RFID scanning is a mere impulse away from abuse.

Granted, both the benign and malevolent capabilities are decades from execution, but hey, why leave the door open? There has never been a surveillance technology in history that has not been abused for political purposes, and this one presents too many new opportunities.

I'm sure we'll disagree on this, but, oh well.

Chip and antenna embedded in passport page (new window)

Youtube video: Guy buys reader on ebay and drives around San Francisco picking up passport ID numbers (new window)


Chips in Official IDs Raise Privacy Fears (new window)


Special alloy sleeves urged to block hackers? (new window)

that_other_internet: Granted, both the benign and malevolent capabilities are decades from execution

I dunno about the US, but over here in the old world, cell phone location data is regularly used in criminal trials; high profile ones too. And the assorted intelligence services have unfettered access to telco data, so I don't see why they would not datamine it.

In the UK, it's now Rupert Murdoch's newspapers that have "alledgedly" intercepted voicemail messages and gained access to personal data such as itemized phone bills and bank statements. If you're innocent - but a celebrity - you have something to fear, indeed. Of course, these newspapers only hired private investigators; something anyone can do - such as a disgruntled spouse, your (prospective) employer, etc. etc.

moof: I dunno about the US, but over here in the old world, cell phone location data is regularly used in criminal trials; high profile ones too. And the assorted intelligence services have unfettered access to telco data, so I don't see why they would not datamine it.

Oh, I was referring to RFID.

Also, I wasn't actually aware of Chris Paget's driveby experiment which is damn scary (to erewhon: and not because of hackers).

that_other_internet: So, the idea with an RFID scanning array would be the same. You would target high-density traffic bottlenecks and NOT broad areas.

Even then, it's horrifically expensive to put up a 30' grid. What's the data gained, and is it worth the expense? Not only for the units, but installation, maintenance, upkeep etc.

Just to know where you are when you don't have a cellphone on you, it seems to be pointless, especially for the monetary expenditure. What you're up to is much more interesting.

There's also simpler ways to do it, tag scanners for cars comes to mind. Also seem to recall that they had OBD-III which was supposed to transmit your whereabouts on request, although I don't think it got anywhere, and of course the new road charge systems are good for that sort of thing also. There's you another London "service".


that_other_internet: I think you're falsely dismissing the tenacity of domestic security when you speculate as to what they will and will not attempt "because it's too hard".

Not so much that as "it's pointless for the expense incurred". Let's say you're Uncle Sam. What are you most interested in about Achmed Muhammed? Where he is all the time, or what he's doing or thinking about doing? While I admit it would be useful data in certain circumstances, I'm not sure it's worth the cost. You'd have to have one on every telephone pole.

that_other_internet: I think you used strict syntactical and grammatical rules to defend your cherry picked interpretation whose original intent was to level a zinger at the other guy.

If I hadn't heard that said with nearly the same wording on several other forums as part of what I'll call the Texe Marrs group, I'd agree. Especially when coupled with the youtube videos he posted. I've had several long and interesting threads on other forums with Mark O' The Beasters, and there are several 'gurus', Texe Marrs is one, who pushes this "your entire financial records are ON THE CHIP!!" as part of their Mark O'Beast biblical reasoning. As a database structure, it's an abysmal concept - not only are the financial records not accessible there (of course, they generally claim that they're satellite fodder), but they could easily be lost or altered. Not to mention the storage capacity of the chip required in some cases.

Perhaps I'm wrong here - but there's a definite congruence.