On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 15:42, David Corcoran wrote: > I'm actually quite impressed with the contactless smart cards that are > emerging in the marketplace. > There are a couple full featured ones that do everything a normal card > would do and are quite fast.
Processing speed is usually proportional to clock speed not to IO channel technology (assuming internal crystal in chip) so I assume you are talking of the IO speed here? As far as I am aware "normal" (contacted) cards run at 9.6-115Kb/s whereas contactless run at 400--800Kb/s. Certainly the Sharp systems run at this "overclocked" higher rate. > I like the idea of contactless cards used with passports. Although > passports generally have a physical > picture printed, a contactless card would provide a high speed, > convenient mechanism to pass a > trusted, digitally signed digital picture of the user as well. > > One of my big concerns on the emergence of contactless is that we are > sort of starting over from a protocol perspective. > Contact card readers are just now finally getting to the point where > interfaces are standardized and a > reader will work with lots of different cards without problems. As > contactless emerges, I'm almost positive there > will be similar issues with certain readers not working well with > certain cards like we had with the contact cards > a few years ago. Hopefully it won't take long before vendor A-Z's > contactless cards will work with vendor B's contactless > reader. Contactless works well now because the contactless provider > provides the card and reader in most cases or has > strategic relationships with another vendor that provides the reader. > As this technology broadens, we may open ourselves up > to problems we had with contact based cards a few years ago. I guess ISO7816 should have dealt with all the card / reader interoperability but somehow failed. I guess there could be a problem with ISO14443 particularly as there is a A version a B version and a C version. However, as far as I am aware the main problem with contactless cards is the power transfer (some cards need more power that some readers provide) not the T=CL protocol. > > On Mar 5, 2004, at 1:14 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote: > But I believe a "Wireless Citizen Card" is much more > > interesting long-term because if you are "identified" > > you can "be" all the other things you need to be like > > paying using 3D Secure which do not require a local > > credit card (as it resides on secure servers). > > > > So far it looks like the EU will lose the initiative as > > we have no dominant software vendors and other > > important parties seem unable to go outside of their > > own core business. > > > > I say it one more time: The smart ID card is dead and gone. > > It is beyond repair. If the smart ID card is dead and gone why are so many governments putting large projects together to make such cards a reality. What makes you say it is dead and gone? Perhaps your comment related to the huge debate as to whether the card should just be a token and token verification system with all other processing in the reader or host system (or remote server) or whether the card should have real processing capability. -- Russel. ==================================================================== Dr Russel Winder, Chief Technology Officer Tel: +44 20 8680 8712 OneEighty Software Ltd Fax: +44 20 8680 8453 Cygnet House, 12-14 Sydenham Road [EMAIL PROTECTED] Croydon, Surrey CR9 2ET, UK http://www.180sw.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
