I can imagine some ways to deal with this. Have certain blocks of RFID
address space assigned to specific companies, who publish what products
they'll be used for.
The same strategy AFAIK works for UPC/EAN barcodes, for assigning IMEI
numbers to cellphones, for book ISBNs.
For an example
On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 01:05 AM, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
They won't specify what *individuals* will get what tags, just that
it's a $2,500 Prada handbag -- which still raises the crime concern.
Why would anyone *want* to invest $2k5 to a lousy handbag? There are
LOTS
of more useful
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Trei, Peter wrote:
Mike, Go to the literature. They are already scanning 20 - 1000 of
tags per second (most of the more realistic reports seem to be
below 50 tps). So it takes 10 seconds to scan my cart? That's
a hell of a lot better than 5 minutes or so by hand.
I'll go
Mike Rosing[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Michael Shields wrote:
It adds up, especially in low-margin businesses. Groceries are a good
example; unpacking every cart, scanning, and bagging is an expensive
bottleneck. The process could be streamlined a lot if an entire
I can imagine some ways to deal with this. Have certain blocks of RFID
address space assigned to specific companies, who publish what products
they'll be used for.
The same strategy AFAIK works for UPC/EAN barcodes, for assigning IMEI
numbers to cellphones, for book ISBNs.
For an example
Mike Rosing[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Michael Shields wrote:
It adds up, especially in low-margin businesses. Groceries are a good
example; unpacking every cart, scanning, and bagging is an expensive
bottleneck. The process could be streamlined a lot if an entire
On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 01:05 AM, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
They won't specify what *individuals* will get what tags, just that
it's a $2,500 Prada handbag -- which still raises the crime concern.
Why would anyone *want* to invest $2k5 to a lousy handbag? There are
LOTS
of more useful
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Mike Rosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, and it takes a second or 2 to find the bar code. That's got
to cost a few pennies doesn't it :-)
It adds up, especially in low-margin businesses. Groceries are a good
example; unpacking every cart, scanning, and bagging
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Trei, Peter wrote:
You're not thinking this through. As the item goes through the door (in
either direction) the check is made Is this individual tag on this store's
'unsold inventory' list?. If so, raise the alarm. The tags are not fungible;
they each have a unique
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I can imagine some ways to deal with this. Have certain blocks of RFID
address space assigned to specific companies, who publish what products
they'll be used for. They won't specify what *individuals* will get what
tags, just that it's a $2,500
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 06:39:08AM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote:
You can't determine who the customer is if they aren't in your database,
so a centralized database would make sense. The bandwidth on that is
going to be a nightmare.
I can imagine some ways to deal with this. Have certain blocks of
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Trei, Peter wrote:
You're not thinking this through. As the item goes through the door (in
either direction) the check is made Is this individual tag on this store's
'unsold inventory' list?. If so, raise the alarm. The tags are not fungible;
they each have a unique
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I can imagine some ways to deal with this. Have certain blocks of RFID
address space assigned to specific companies, who publish what products
they'll be used for. They won't specify what *individuals* will get what
tags, just that it's a $2,500
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Mike Rosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, and it takes a second or 2 to find the bar code. That's got
to cost a few pennies doesn't it :-)
It adds up, especially in low-margin businesses. Groceries are a good
example; unpacking every cart, scanning, and bagging
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Michael Shields wrote:
It adds up, especially in low-margin businesses. Groceries are a good
example; unpacking every cart, scanning, and bagging is an expensive
bottleneck. The process could be streamlined a lot if an entire cart
were scanned at once.
There are
Think of the fun things one could do.
- Never leave the house with mismatched socks again !
- Fashion Police !
Clubs could automatically enforce dress codes (No plaid allowed !)
Smart Doors !
Sorry sir! you weigh 300lbs and you are wearing only speedos, you are not
allowed out side
Or my
At 8:03 AM -0800 3/14/03, Steve Schear wrote:
Wonder what happens when one of the tags is placed in a microwave
oven. Its likely to do some instant damage without harming many tagged
articles, if they aren't left in long. I would think that the RFID
manufactures would WANT to design their tags
Mike Rosing[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
They don't want to deactivate them. Go back and read the SFGate
article I linked in my initial post. They want to recognize when a
loyal customer returns, so they can pull up his/her profile and give
then personalized treatment.
And what happens
Mike Rosing[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As Declan points out, the tags can be disabled at the counter. I would
think that since they have no internal power source, building something to
fry their innards would be easy, and you don't need a microwave oven.
Just like they pass items over
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Trei, Peter wrote:
They don't want to deactivate them. Go back and read the SFGate
article I linked in my initial post. They want to recognize when a
loyal customer returns, so they can pull up his/her profile and give
then personalized treatment.
And what happens when
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:24:35AM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote:
I think economics would be a better argument. If the manufacturer
can recycle the tags for inventory control they can save a lot of money.
And public pressure. Here's a piece I wrote a few months ago that
included some
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 12:40:27AM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:24:35AM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote:
I think economics would be a better argument. If the manufacturer
can recycle the tags for inventory control they can save a lot of money.
And public pressure.
At 09:38 AM 3/14/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 12:40:27AM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:24:35AM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote:
I think economics would be a better argument. If the manufacturer
can recycle the tags for inventory control they
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Trei, Peter wrote:
They don't want to deactivate them. Go back and read the SFGate
article I linked in my initial post. They want to recognize when a
loyal customer returns, so they can pull up his/her profile and give
then personalized treatment.
And what happens when
Mike Rosing[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
They don't want to deactivate them. Go back and read the SFGate
article I linked in my initial post. They want to recognize when a
loyal customer returns, so they can pull up his/her profile and give
then personalized treatment.
And what happens
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Adam Shostack wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:22:44PM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
| You're not thinking this through. As the item goes through the door (in
| either direction) the check is made Is this individual tag on this store's
| 'unsold inventory' list?. If so,
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:22:44PM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
| You're not thinking this through. As the item goes through the door (in
| either direction) the check is made Is this individual tag on this store's
| 'unsold inventory' list?. If so, raise the alarm. The tags are not fungible;
| they
]
To: Trei, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:51:03 -0500
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:22:14AM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
| Some research is being done in RSA Labs to produce more
| privacy-enhanced protocols for RFIDs, but it's
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 11:57:27AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
| If I build the mugger's little
| helper, a PDA attachement that scans for real prada bags, then perhaps
| the RFID tag will be removed at the counter after the first lawsuit.
|
| Nice! Possibly, it might not even be necessary for the
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:56:15PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
Various lengths of metallic conductors are already inside various
banknotes. This is NOT the same technology as RFID. I don't disagree
about it being a concern, and an area for study and experiment, but be
careful not to leap to
At 12:21 PM 03/12/2003 -0800, Tim May wrote:
They are entitled to set their alarms to trigger on CDs in my laptop case,
books from other stores, etc.
But they are not contractually entitled in any way to cause me to reverse
my direction and return inside their store for a meaningless
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:24:35AM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote:
| On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Adam Shostack wrote:
|
| On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:22:14AM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
| The other motivator is liability. If I build the mugger's little
| helper, a PDA attachement that scans for real prada
alan[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Tim May wrote:
Regarding TEMPEST shielding - there is another, complementary approach
for
shielding: jamming. There are vendors selling devices that drown the
RF
emissions of computer equipment in noise, so TEMPEST
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:22:14AM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
| Some research is being done in RSA Labs to produce more
| privacy-enhanced protocols for RFIDs, but it's a long way from
| publication, and its unclear what would motivate a tag manufacturer
| to include them.
The biggest motivators
Hadn't knew about mu metal. Thanks. :) Could be a nice thing for EM
shielding, especially of things like transformers.
Don't go jumping into the abyss without some knowledge.
Right. Later I found mu-metal is just a fancy name for Permalloy which I
worked with some time ago.
At 4:24 AM -0800 on 3/12/03, alan wrote:
Open up
a place to clean your clothes of all those little RFID tags
Oxpecker.com seems to be for sale, for a price...
:-)
Cheers,
RAH
--
-
R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation
RFID technology for libraries ...
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 06:24 am, alan wrote:
It sounds like there is an opertunity here for the right person. Open up
a place to clean your clothes of all those little RFID tags and other
buglets people are so interested in attaching to any object (nailed down
or not).
Gives new meaning
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 09:13 pm, Neil Johnson wrote:
RFID technology for libraries ...
http://www.demco.com/CGI-BIN/LANSAWEB?PROCFUN+LWDCWEB+LWDC025+PRD+ENG+FUNCP
ARMS+ZZWSESSID(A0200):29762251880047332521+ZZWNAVPAG(A0100):PROMO+DATESEQ(A0
One thing I worry about is a limited access tag - one which only
responds when tickled with the right stimulus. Such a tag could be
undetectable to the taggee.
A nonlinear junction detector could be a reliable way to find it.
You won't find a tag hidden in an electronics device (NLJDs are
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Adam Shostack wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:22:14AM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
The other motivator is liability. If I build the mugger's little
helper, a PDA attachement that scans for real prada bags, then perhaps
the RFID tag will be removed at the counter after the
04:24 AM 3/12/03 -0800, alan wrote:
It sounds like there is an opertunity here for the right person. Open
up
a place to clean your clothes of all those little RFID tags and other
buglets people are so interested in attaching to any object (nailed
down
or not).
Our Premium service includes
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 11:57:27AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
| If I build the mugger's little
| helper, a PDA attachement that scans for real prada bags, then perhaps
| the RFID tag will be removed at the counter after the first lawsuit.
|
| Nice! Possibly, it might not even be necessary for the
1972-73 doing Josephson junction experiments with superconducting
quantum-interferometric devices, aka SQUIDs
Isn't that a little early for SQUIDs?
-TD
_
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
already some common electronics that emit in
the same range as the scan, or if when defective (wink wink nudge nudge)
will jam such a signal.
-TD
From: Thomas Shaddack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: cypherpunks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:16:25 +0100 (CET
I guess it's just a matter of time before someone is charged with disabling
the RF signature of one of these tags. I'd guess that here in the US, the
rule will be if you bought it you can disable it, but prior to that you're
not allowed to jam it.
We will see. All depends on how detectable
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:53:55PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
Nice post.
I guess it's just a matter of time before someone is charged with disabling
the RF signature of one of these tags. I'd guess that here in the US, the
rule will be if you bought it you can disable it, but prior to that
Don't know about those tags, but my laptop used to set off the library
electronic detector.
Some laptops carry a RFID tag, as asset control or
how'sthatdamnedthingcalled. Newer Toshibas(?) have their configuration
EEPROM chip (what is used today instead of CMOS RAM) as eg. AT24RF08
(check
Hadn't knew about mu metal. Thanks. :) Could be a nice thing for EM
shielding, especially of things like transformers.
Don't go jumping into the abyss without some knowledge.
Right. Later I found mu-metal is just a fancy name for Permalloy which I
worked with some time ago.
At 4:24 AM -0800 on 3/12/03, alan wrote:
Open up
a place to clean your clothes of all those little RFID tags
Oxpecker.com seems to be for sale, for a price...
:-)
Cheers,
RAH
--
-
R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation
Seems the trend is here. We can thank Benetton for providing us with
a playground for live tests of the capabilities and limits of the system.
We have several ways for countermeasures.
Passive countermeasures are shielding or tag destruction. We can locate
the transceiver, then enclose it in a
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
Seems the trend is here. We can thank Benetton for providing us with
a playground for live tests of the capabilities and limits of the system.
We have several ways for countermeasures.
Passive countermeasures are shielding or tag destruction. We
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:51:15AM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote:
I think you're over reacting. RFID tags only have a range of centimeters.
You'd need a huge current to power them from more than 1 meter, and that's
just not going to be out on a beach in a hidden way.
This is incorrect. I
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Mike Rosing wrote:
I think you're over reacting. RFID tags only have a range of centimeters.
You'd need a huge current to power them from more than 1 meter, and that's
just not going to be out on a beach in a hidden way.
I heard these ones have range up to 1.5 meters. And
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote:
This is incorrect. I interviewed one RFID tag maker who said up to 15
feet in free space. Presumably a beefier transmitter or a more
sensitive receiver would allow longer ranges.
I stand corrected, the one by Matrics looks very nice indeed:
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 11:22 AM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:53:55PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
Nice post.
I guess it's just a matter of time before someone is charged with
disabling
the RF signature of one of these tags. I'd guess that here in the US,
the
rule
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 12:07 PM, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Mike Rosing wrote:
I think you're over reacting. RFID tags only have a range of
centimeters.
You'd need a huge current to power them from more than 1 meter, and
that's
just not going to be out on a beach in
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Tim May wrote:
Regarding TEMPEST shielding - there is another, complementary approach
for
shielding: jamming. There are vendors selling devices that drown the RF
emissions of computer equipment in noise, so TEMPEST receivers get
nothing. Are there any publicly
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/03/12/0156247.shtml?tid=158
An anonymous reader writes Clothing manufacturer Benetton has announced
that
they will begin embedding RFID tags in clothing[1] for inventory control
purposes. You
can read more about this at SF Gate[2]. morcheeba adds more
Seems the trend is here. We can thank Benetton for providing us with
a playground for live tests of the capabilities and limits of the system.
We have several ways for countermeasures.
Passive countermeasures are shielding or tag destruction. We can locate
the transceiver, then enclose it in a
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
Seems the trend is here. We can thank Benetton for providing us with
a playground for live tests of the capabilities and limits of the system.
We have several ways for countermeasures.
Passive countermeasures are shielding or tag destruction. We
Don't know about those tags, but my laptop used to set off the library
electronic detector.
Some laptops carry a RFID tag, as asset control or
how'sthatdamnedthingcalled. Newer Toshibas(?) have their configuration
EEPROM chip (what is used today instead of CMOS RAM) as eg. AT24RF08
(check
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
I heard these ones have range up to 1.5 meters. And you need much less
power if you use a directional antenna (which can be part of some fixed
installation).
Easy to find the antenna then :-)
Wasn't aware about RF tags being magnetically coupled.
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 12:07 PM, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Mike Rosing wrote:
I think you're over reacting. RFID tags only have a range of
centimeters.
You'd need a huge current to power them from more than 1 meter, and
that's
just not going to be out on a beach in
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Tim May wrote:
Regarding TEMPEST shielding - there is another, complementary approach
for
shielding: jamming. There are vendors selling devices that drown the RF
emissions of computer equipment in noise, so TEMPEST receivers get
nothing. Are there any publicly
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote:
This is incorrect. I interviewed one RFID tag maker who said up to 15
feet in free space. Presumably a beefier transmitter or a more
sensitive receiver would allow longer ranges.
I stand corrected, the one by Matrics looks very nice indeed:
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 11:22 AM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:53:55PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
Nice post.
I guess it's just a matter of time before someone is charged with
disabling
the RF signature of one of these tags. I'd guess that here in the US,
the
rule
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Mike Rosing wrote:
I think you're over reacting. RFID tags only have a range of centimeters.
You'd need a huge current to power them from more than 1 meter, and that's
just not going to be out on a beach in a hidden way.
I heard these ones have range up to 1.5 meters. And
already some common electronics that emit in
the same range as the scan, or if when defective (wink wink nudge nudge)
will jam such a signal.
-TD
From: Thomas Shaddack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: cypherpunks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:16:25 +0100 (CET
69 matches
Mail list logo
