Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 description of the IMEI format check here: http://www.cellular.co.za/ieminumbers.htm (they refer to it as IEMI, don't ask me why). 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 things in that cost range. Or you could use a multi-tier system like our current DNS setup. The root RFID address-space servers will point queries to rfid.example.com... Could work neatly. It works for DNS, it works for eg. antispam blackholes, it works for many other purposes, it's reasonably fast. Could be implemented on existing DNS software in a single weekend.
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 things in that cost range. Not anyoneinstead, think any woman. Which is its own answer. High-maintenance women require a steady diet of Fendi bags, Cartier necklaces, and $400 dinners at French Laundry. Hookers are a lot more cost-effective. BTW, I wonder if the RFID tags can be programmed to advertise themselves? Maybe an audio circuit that chirps Three thousand dollars when a society bimbo enters Le Effete Chantrelle through the mandatory security turnstyle? --Tim May
RE: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 do that. I always saw those as 1 item at a time scans on conveyor belts. That's *not* the same thing as a cart full of stuff responding simultaneously. References:: http://www.cfo.com/article/1,5309,8661,00.html?f=related (CFO magazine) Library applications (v scary) http://www.vernlib.com/VernStep6.asp For some actual rates: http://www.autoid.org/2002_Documents/WG4_SG3/Dec2002/SG3_200211_347_PtB_Demo .pdf Critical article on library applications http://www.vtls.com/Products/rfid/documents/choosing.pdf 200-800 tps: http://www.matricsrfid.com/pdf/Inlays_Data_Sheet.pdf Note in the last one it says: * Single inlay, free air, no obstacles, high performance Matrics reader equipment. U.S. FCC power limits implied. So the manufacturer is pointing out only *one* rfid is in the scanner. Which is my point - a whole cart load won't work (yet!) I suspect it will in time. ...now if we can only get rid of the delays caused by people who've clipped 50 coupons, and insist on paying by check :-) One of these days that'll be me! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
RE: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 cart were scanned at once. There are serious engineering problems before we get there; but the demand from retailers is very real, and so a very real effort will be made to solve them. I can see a couple of solutions to the checkout problem. One is to remove checkout counters, just scan the item at the shelf with a card. With rfid this actually becomes a lot simpler, you can isolate items to specific regions of the store. If the item is removed, it had better already be purchased or you get busted. I'd expect to see scanners at each entrance and exit, as well as at points where an object's status changes (stockroom vs sales floor, checkout, etc) All that has to be done is to scan the pallet of goods as it goes out to be shelved, adding the tags on the pallet to the 'unsold goods' list. Then, if a tag leaves the store without going through one of the approved routes (eg: Checkout - customer exit; expired goods - backdoor (expired goods can be recognized by the time the tag was added to the db)), raise the alarm. Heve you ever seen a store shut down for stocktaking? It won't happen any more. Shrinkage (ie, employee theft) becomes much more difficult. So does shoplifting. Checkout times are reduced to under a minute, even for full carts. A whole cart load of items responding simultaneously won't work, at least not with 5 cent rfid's of the next few years. In a decade maybe cdma rfid will be 5 cents. 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. References:: http://www.cfo.com/article/1,5309,8661,00.html?f=related (CFO magazine) Library applications (v scary) http://www.vernlib.com/VernStep6.asp For some actual rates: http://www.autoid.org/2002_Documents/WG4_SG3/Dec2002/SG3_200211_347_PtB_Demo .pdf Critical article on library applications http://www.vtls.com/Products/rfid/documents/choosing.pdf 200-800 tps: http://www.matricsrfid.com/pdf/Inlays_Data_Sheet.pdf Removing the bottleneck of checkout counters would be *very good thing* because most people hate standing in line. Of course, digital cash would be really nice to have for that too! ...now if we can only get rid of the delays caused by people who've clipped 50 coupons, and insist on paying by check Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike Peter
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 description of the IMEI format check here: http://www.cellular.co.za/ieminumbers.htm (they refer to it as IEMI, don't ask me why). 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 things in that cost range. Or you could use a multi-tier system like our current DNS setup. The root RFID address-space servers will point queries to rfid.example.com... Could work neatly. It works for DNS, it works for eg. antispam blackholes, it works for many other purposes, it's reasonably fast. Could be implemented on existing DNS software in a single weekend.
RE: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 cart were scanned at once. There are serious engineering problems before we get there; but the demand from retailers is very real, and so a very real effort will be made to solve them. I can see a couple of solutions to the checkout problem. One is to remove checkout counters, just scan the item at the shelf with a card. With rfid this actually becomes a lot simpler, you can isolate items to specific regions of the store. If the item is removed, it had better already be purchased or you get busted. I'd expect to see scanners at each entrance and exit, as well as at points where an object's status changes (stockroom vs sales floor, checkout, etc) All that has to be done is to scan the pallet of goods as it goes out to be shelved, adding the tags on the pallet to the 'unsold goods' list. Then, if a tag leaves the store without going through one of the approved routes (eg: Checkout - customer exit; expired goods - backdoor (expired goods can be recognized by the time the tag was added to the db)), raise the alarm. Heve you ever seen a store shut down for stocktaking? It won't happen any more. Shrinkage (ie, employee theft) becomes much more difficult. So does shoplifting. Checkout times are reduced to under a minute, even for full carts. A whole cart load of items responding simultaneously won't work, at least not with 5 cent rfid's of the next few years. In a decade maybe cdma rfid will be 5 cents. 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. References:: http://www.cfo.com/article/1,5309,8661,00.html?f=related (CFO magazine) Library applications (v scary) http://www.vernlib.com/VernStep6.asp For some actual rates: http://www.autoid.org/2002_Documents/WG4_SG3/Dec2002/SG3_200211_347_PtB_Demo .pdf Critical article on library applications http://www.vtls.com/Products/rfid/documents/choosing.pdf 200-800 tps: http://www.matricsrfid.com/pdf/Inlays_Data_Sheet.pdf Removing the bottleneck of checkout counters would be *very good thing* because most people hate standing in line. Of course, digital cash would be really nice to have for that too! ...now if we can only get rid of the delays caused by people who've clipped 50 coupons, and insist on paying by check Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike Peter
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 things in that cost range. Not anyoneinstead, think any woman. Which is its own answer. High-maintenance women require a steady diet of Fendi bags, Cartier necklaces, and $400 dinners at French Laundry. Hookers are a lot more cost-effective. BTW, I wonder if the RFID tags can be programmed to advertise themselves? Maybe an audio circuit that chirps Three thousand dollars when a society bimbo enters Le Effete Chantrelle through the mandatory security turnstyle? --Tim May
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 is an expensive bottleneck. The process could be streamlined a lot if an entire cart were scanned at once. There are serious engineering problems before we get there; but the demand from retailers is very real, and so a very real effort will be made to solve them. -- Shields.
RE: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 number. When you purchase an item, it's tag number is transfered from the 'unsold inventory' list to the 'Mike Rosing' list, or, if no link to a name can be found, 'John Doe #2345'. I hope you're right because the amount of engineering work that will be required to make this work is huge! That's a lot of job security for EE's. As you walk up to the counter, the tag in your jockey shorts is read, and you are greeted by name, even if you've never been in that store before. And who's going to pay for that info? The tag is made by TI, but the store you walk into buys from Phillips. That means the reader has to recognize all the standards (and there aren't any right now, so it has to recognize every individual frequency and data stream). Then there has to be some kind of _central_ database that *everyone* has access to. 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. What's more, for stock control, they have 'smart shelves', so they can also say 'Mary, go get some more black hipster jeans in 34x34 and put them out - the shelf says it's empty. Yeah, that's easy. It's still within the store's control As for RFID tags vs bar codes - you missing out the labor cost differential - RFID tags can be read by a fixed reader at several feet, while bar codes must be indvidually scanned. Yeah, and it takes a second or 2 to find the bar code. That's got to cost a few pennies doesn't it :-) The tag cost is already down to under a dime. When it's under a nickle, these things will be in everything. Think about them in books. Our library already has a tagging system. You put your card down and the bar code on it gets read, then slide the book barcode over it and the book is checked out, assuming you don't have any fines. So it's already in place. But for those who have a clue, mylar is going to be very popular :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 Prada handbag -- which still raises the crime concern. Which is a good reason for them to turn it off at the counter. People that can afford those things can complain loudly. Or you could use a multi-tier system like our current DNS setup. The root RFID address-space servers will point queries to rfid.example.com... Job security anyone :-) pun intended! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 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 Prada handbag -- which still raises the crime concern. Or you could use a multi-tier system like our current DNS setup. The root RFID address-space servers will point queries to rfid.example.com... -Declan
RE: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 number. When you purchase an item, it's tag number is transfered from the 'unsold inventory' list to the 'Mike Rosing' list, or, if no link to a name can be found, 'John Doe #2345'. I hope you're right because the amount of engineering work that will be required to make this work is huge! That's a lot of job security for EE's. As you walk up to the counter, the tag in your jockey shorts is read, and you are greeted by name, even if you've never been in that store before. And who's going to pay for that info? The tag is made by TI, but the store you walk into buys from Phillips. That means the reader has to recognize all the standards (and there aren't any right now, so it has to recognize every individual frequency and data stream). Then there has to be some kind of _central_ database that *everyone* has access to. 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. What's more, for stock control, they have 'smart shelves', so they can also say 'Mary, go get some more black hipster jeans in 34x34 and put them out - the shelf says it's empty. Yeah, that's easy. It's still within the store's control As for RFID tags vs bar codes - you missing out the labor cost differential - RFID tags can be read by a fixed reader at several feet, while bar codes must be indvidually scanned. Yeah, and it takes a second or 2 to find the bar code. That's got to cost a few pennies doesn't it :-) The tag cost is already down to under a dime. When it's under a nickle, these things will be in everything. Think about them in books. Our library already has a tagging system. You put your card down and the bar code on it gets read, then slide the book barcode over it and the book is checked out, assuming you don't have any fines. So it's already in place. But for those who have a clue, mylar is going to be very popular :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 Prada handbag -- which still raises the crime concern. Which is a good reason for them to turn it off at the counter. People that can afford those things can complain loudly. Or you could use a multi-tier system like our current DNS setup. The root RFID address-space servers will point queries to rfid.example.com... Job security anyone :-) pun intended! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 is an expensive bottleneck. The process could be streamlined a lot if an entire cart were scanned at once. There are serious engineering problems before we get there; but the demand from retailers is very real, and so a very real effort will be made to solve them. -- Shields.
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 serious engineering problems before we get there; but the demand from retailers is very real, and so a very real effort will be made to solve them. I can see a couple of solutions to the checkout problem. One is to remove checkout counters, just scan the item at the shelf with a card. With rfid this actually becomes a lot simpler, you can isolate items to specific regions of the store. If the item is removed, it had better already be purchased or you get busted. A whole cart load of items responding simultaneously won't work, at least not with 5 cent rfid's of the next few years. In a decade maybe cdma rfid will be 5 cents. Removing the bottleneck of checkout counters would be *very good thing* because most people hate standing in line. Of course, digital cash would be really nice to have for that too! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 favorite: Senator John Smith, our detectors currently show that you are wearing a bra and panties from Victoria's Secret under your suit, care to explain ? -- Neil Johnson http://www.njohnsn.com PGP key available on request.
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 for such easy destruction to placate consumer privacy fears. Some doctors recommend microwaving clothing to inhibit diseases that can live in the clothing and re-infect the wearer. I don't know what will happen to dry-clean only stuff. Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
RE: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 when the personalized treatment is cold sholder because of buying the competitions product? My bet is they'll just issue an rfid card and not use the inventory control for that purpose. Connecting inventory control to customer preferences can't be done without an alternate device. I can see how the grocery store will want to track your purchases over time to give you discounts on other products, and sell the info to various competing interests. Discount stores will also do the same thing, but the bar code tags already give that info. rfid doesn't add anything, it just gets in the way of store security (why keep track of *every* item purchased by *everybody* to prevent theft of CD's???) What I'm trying to say is that the info the stores want on you is already there and in use. The rfid helps track items without the bar code, and in places you can't read a bar code (like when lots of items are in a box). It can also be used for theft prevention. But you need to disable it to prevent having to deal with goods bought the week before in a store on the other side of the world. If the stores *don't* use the rfid's for security, and they can already use the bar codes for inventory, what good are they? Bar code readers are much cheaper than rfid readers and so is the paper tag that holds the bar code. There's no economic sense for the rfid tag in the first place. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike 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 number. When you purchase an item, it's tag number is transfered from the 'unsold inventory' list to the 'Mike Rosing' list, or, if no link to a name can be found, 'John Doe #2345'. As you walk up to the counter, the tag in your jockey shorts is read, and you are greeted by name, even if you've never been in that store before. What's more, for stock control, they have 'smart shelves', so they can also say 'Mary, go get some more black hipster jeans in 34x34 and put them out - the shelf says it's empty. As for RFID tags vs bar codes - you missing out the labor cost differential - RFID tags can be read by a fixed reader at several feet, while bar codes must be indvidually scanned. The tag cost is already down to under a dime. When it's under a nickle, these things will be in everything. Think about them in books. Peter Trei
RE: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 a magnet to let you get past the present coils at a store exit, they can turn off the rfid to prove you bought something rather than stole it. To avoid lots of problems with people walking around with clothing from other stores, they may all want to make sure purchased goods are deactivated (fried permenently). I can just see people going from the Gap to Victoria's Secret and getting arrested for buying the competition. The economics of that won't work too well :-) 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. Peter
RE: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 the personalized treatment is cold sholder because of buying the competitions product? My bet is they'll just issue an rfid card and not use the inventory control for that purpose. Connecting inventory control to customer preferences can't be done without an alternate device. I can see how the grocery store will want to track your purchases over time to give you discounts on other products, and sell the info to various competing interests. Discount stores will also do the same thing, but the bar code tags already give that info. rfid doesn't add anything, it just gets in the way of store security (why keep track of *every* item purchased by *everybody* to prevent theft of CD's???) What I'm trying to say is that the info the stores want on you is already there and in use. The rfid helps track items without the bar code, and in places you can't read a bar code (like when lots of items are in a box). It can also be used for theft prevention. But you need to disable it to prevent having to deal with goods bought the week before in a store on the other side of the world. If the stores *don't* use the rfid's for security, and they can already use the bar codes for inventory, what good are they? Bar code readers are much cheaper than rfid readers and so is the paper tag that holds the bar code. There's no economic sense for the rfid tag in the first place. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 recommendations: RFID tags: Big Brother in small packages http://news.com.com/2010-1069-980325.html -Declan
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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. Here's a piece I wrote a few months ago that included some recommendations: RFID tags: Big Brother in small packages http://news.com.com/2010-1069-980325.html Interesting article, Declan. Seems like the future shopper would be prudent to have a reader/detector to check for tags, just as now we have to check all over a garment for labels/tags/pins. Or somewhat like Cayce in Pattern Recognition removing the logos of her clothes, even sanding down the buttons, etc. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 can save a lot of money. And public pressure. Here's a piece I wrote a few months ago that included some recommendations: RFID tags: Big Brother in small packages http://news.com.com/2010-1069-980325.html 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 for such easy destruction to placate consumer privacy fears. steve
RE: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 the personalized treatment is cold sholder because of buying the competitions product? My bet is they'll just issue an rfid card and not use the inventory control for that purpose. Connecting inventory control to customer preferences can't be done without an alternate device. I can see how the grocery store will want to track your purchases over time to give you discounts on other products, and sell the info to various competing interests. Discount stores will also do the same thing, but the bar code tags already give that info. rfid doesn't add anything, it just gets in the way of store security (why keep track of *every* item purchased by *everybody* to prevent theft of CD's???) What I'm trying to say is that the info the stores want on you is already there and in use. The rfid helps track items without the bar code, and in places you can't read a bar code (like when lots of items are in a box). It can also be used for theft prevention. But you need to disable it to prevent having to deal with goods bought the week before in a store on the other side of the world. If the stores *don't* use the rfid's for security, and they can already use the bar codes for inventory, what good are they? Bar code readers are much cheaper than rfid readers and so is the paper tag that holds the bar code. There's no economic sense for the rfid tag in the first place. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
RE: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 when the personalized treatment is cold sholder because of buying the competitions product? My bet is they'll just issue an rfid card and not use the inventory control for that purpose. Connecting inventory control to customer preferences can't be done without an alternate device. I can see how the grocery store will want to track your purchases over time to give you discounts on other products, and sell the info to various competing interests. Discount stores will also do the same thing, but the bar code tags already give that info. rfid doesn't add anything, it just gets in the way of store security (why keep track of *every* item purchased by *everybody* to prevent theft of CD's???) What I'm trying to say is that the info the stores want on you is already there and in use. The rfid helps track items without the bar code, and in places you can't read a bar code (like when lots of items are in a box). It can also be used for theft prevention. But you need to disable it to prevent having to deal with goods bought the week before in a store on the other side of the world. If the stores *don't* use the rfid's for security, and they can already use the bar codes for inventory, what good are they? Bar code readers are much cheaper than rfid readers and so is the paper tag that holds the bar code. There's no economic sense for the rfid tag in the first place. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike 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 number. When you purchase an item, it's tag number is transfered from the 'unsold inventory' list to the 'Mike Rosing' list, or, if no link to a name can be found, 'John Doe #2345'. As you walk up to the counter, the tag in your jockey shorts is read, and you are greeted by name, even if you've never been in that store before. What's more, for stock control, they have 'smart shelves', so they can also say 'Mary, go get some more black hipster jeans in 34x34 and put them out - the shelf says it's empty. As for RFID tags vs bar codes - you missing out the labor cost differential - RFID tags can be read by a fixed reader at several feet, while bar codes must be indvidually scanned. The tag cost is already down to under a dime. When it's under a nickle, these things will be in everything. Think about them in books. Peter Trei
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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, raise the alarm. The tags are not fungible; | they each have a unique number. When you purchase an item, it's tag | number is transfered from the 'unsold inventory' list to the 'Mike Rosing' | list, or, if no link to a name can be found, 'John Doe #2345'. | | As you walk up to the counter, the tag in your jockey shorts is read, | and you are greeted by name, even if you've never been in that store | before. People will find this spooky, and it will stop, but how much you've spent over the last year will still be whispered into the sales clerk's ear bug, along with advice the woman in the green jacket 12 feet from you spends an average of $1,000 per visit, go fawn on her. And remind her that the jacket is nearly a year old. Very last season. Day of the RIFDs I can also see an even nastier probable RISKS article. You buy an item. The system is either down or crashes soon after the item is purchaced. (Or better yet, gets wiped out after a restore from an old backup tape.) It never makes it to the master database. You are now marked as a probable shoplifter. Now prove that you are not.
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 each have a unique number. When you purchase an item, it's tag | number is transfered from the 'unsold inventory' list to the 'Mike Rosing' | list, or, if no link to a name can be found, 'John Doe #2345'. | | As you walk up to the counter, the tag in your jockey shorts is read, | and you are greeted by name, even if you've never been in that store | before. People will find this spooky, and it will stop, but how much you've spent over the last year will still be whispered into the sales clerk's ear bug, along with advice the woman in the green jacket 12 feet from you spends an average of $1,000 per visit, go fawn on her. And remind her that the jacket is nearly a year old. Very last season. Adam -- It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. -Hume
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 Little Helper to read the tag, only detect its presence. Counterfeit bags probably won't have the tag, and if they do (and the copies are good enough), the mugger won't care. I'm also wondering about sending a fake tag signal to the Benneton detector. How many fake tags could a cleverly designed gizmo shoot out at the detector, and in how much time? If a signal indicating 100s of items are passing through hits that detector a couple of times a day for a week or so, they'll definitely take it off line. (And I'd doubt they use any crypto or authentication-type coding on those tags...do they?) -TD Brinworld my ass! From: Adam Shostack [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 a long way from | publication, and its unclear what would motivate a tag manufacturer | to include them. The biggest motivators I can see are law and liability. If you can make the case to Europe's data protection commissioners that these tags will be linked to individual information, and can then be used to track people, then perhaps the tags will include privacy tech of some sort. (Although Ari presented at FC this year, and pointed out just how few gates there are to work with.) 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 first lawsuit. (Naturally, we'll sell the mugger's little helper as a tool for undercover counterfeit investigations. We can't help that the street finds its own uses for things.) Adam -- It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. -Hume _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 Little Helper to | read the tag, only detect its presence. Counterfeit bags probably won't | have the tag, and if they do (and the copies are good enough), the mugger | won't care. We designed the Pickpocket's pal to detect large amounts of currency this way. It just helps you size up your victim, or at least size up their wad of cash. (There were some complications, because the tags do try not to chat at the same time, but hey, how well designed do you think a 10c item is?) Adam -- It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. -Hume
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 conclusions about banknotes being a location finder. Tim is correct, but perhaps the person earlier in the thread (don't remember who it was) had been thinking of this: Euro bank notes to embed RFID chips by 2005 http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20011219S0016 -Declan
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 examination of my briefcase (or purse, were I a chick). They can of course invite the police to make an arrest. That would be interesting. Several people might earn the coveted death warrant. Is that like one of those Jeff Foxworthy things? You might be in need of killin' if .. Also, to add another Brinworld connection, he at least occasionally pronounces the name of one of his recent books (Kiln People) as Killin' People; having not read it, I'm not sure how much that's meant to be a pun as opposed to just enunciation.
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 bags, then perhaps | the RFID tag will be removed at the counter after the first lawsuit. | | 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. | 10 cents per item isn't much, but at millions of items it becomes worth | while. Having the tag removed at the counter so they can be sent back to | the manufacturer along with returns and defects saves money, and that | argument carries more weight to someone trying to make a profit than | anything else. Having a counter clerk mess with a 10c embedded item is a loss. Longer lines, less throughput, etc. It may not matter at Prada, but it does at the grocery store. Adam -- It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. -Hume
RE: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 receivers get nothing. Are there any publicly available specs of such generators, or even building plans? Jamming is grossly less efficient than detection. If you want an explanation, let me know and I'll spend 10 minutes writing a small piece on it. But first, think deeply about why this is so. Think especially about recovering signals from noise. 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). When I posted this to Dave Farber's IP list, I added 'Maybe I should start microwaving my underwear'. I'd make an educated guess that 2-3 seconds in my Amana would fry any tag's little brains out, and when I get a chance, I'll try it. 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. It's clear that a lot of the people in this thread have not followed the links in my original post. The SFGate article is quite illuminating, and lists several other companies which are tagging their goods, including Prada, and Gillette, for their Mach3 razors. Another good article is: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/25/technology/25THEF.html?ex=1047190811ei=1; en=304071a324b09cf5 which lists a large number of retailer pilot programs. Also, look into http://www.alientechnology.com, which is selling some of the cheapest tags - now under 10 cents. 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 strips in current US currency are not metallic, they're polymer. If you hold them up to the light, you can see they are clear except for the printing of the denomination. Older British currancy DID include a metallic strip (I remember teasing them out back in the 70's). Peter Trei
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 I can see are law and liability. If you can make the case to Europe's data protection commissioners that these tags will be linked to individual information, and can then be used to track people, then perhaps the tags will include privacy tech of some sort. (Although Ari presented at FC this year, and pointed out just how few gates there are to work with.) 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 first lawsuit. (Naturally, we'll sell the mugger's little helper as a tool for undercover counterfeit investigations. We can't help that the street finds its own uses for things.) Adam -- It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. -Hume
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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. (ObCredentials: I worked inside a double-walled Faraday cage in 1972-73 doing Josephson junction experiments with superconducting quantum-interferometric devices, aka SQUIDs. I did a lot of shaping and bending of mu metal. I also later worked near Faraday cages and had occasion to do more experiments in them.) The closest encounter I had with superconductors was when I was helping a friend with some measurements on some uranium-based ceramics. Was both brief and nice, and I lost fear of liquid nitrogen there. Besides, EU plans to embed RF tags into paper money. 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 conclusions about banknotes being a location finder. I am VERY aware about the current metal strip. I am not worried about them at all. I am worried about the embedding of REAL RFID tags. The metal strip then could serve dual purpose, as an anticounterfeit device itself, and as the tag antenna. The banknotes could then carry their own history. The only consolation is that it will get cracked within few months at most. See here: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/BraveNewEuro7jan02.shtml http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20011219S0016 Jamming is grossly less efficient than detection. If you want an explanation, let me know and I'll spend 10 minutes writing a small piece on it. But first, think deeply about why this is so. Think especially about recovering signals from noise. Had my brush, though only theoretical, with integrating repeating signals back at school, when I was learning how to interpret NMR spectrums and how they work. (Good old times, it feels like yesterday.) Sorry, hadn't specified I am not talking about RFID tags anymore; was thinking about at least partially alleviating/sidestepping the problems with shielding of standard desktop computers. But will be definitely interested in the minilecture.
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
RFID technology for libraries ... http://www.demco.com/CGI-BIN/LANSAWEB?PROCFUN+LWDCWEB+LWDC025+PRD+ENG+FUNCPARMS+ZZWSESSID(A0200):29762251880047332521+ZZWNAVPAG(A0100):PROMO+DATESEQ(A0140):31210321918+FC_AZZWHDRCMP:DEMCO_HEADER+FC_AZZWNEWZON:ADM+FC_AZZWNAVPAG:PRODUCT+FC_AZZWNEWHDR:DEMCO_HEADER+FC_AZZWCATCDE:+FC_AW_KEYMSCD:+FC_SW_PRDBBID:7483 So the man can now know what books you taking on the flight (Hopefully not the flight training manual for the aircraft). -- Neil Johnson http://www.njohnsn.com PGP key available on request.
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 to those Hane's T-shirt commericals starring Jackie Chan and Michael Jordan during the Superbowl. They were advertising their Tagless T-shirts. I see an upsurge in handmade clothing coming too. (of course that will have to be followed by homemade cloth, etc.) -- Neil Johnson http://www.njohnsn.com PGP key available on request.
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 140):31210321918+FC_AZZWHDRCMP:DEMCO_HEADER+FC_AZZWNEWZON:ADM+FC_AZZWNAVPAG: PRODUCT+FC_AZZWNEWHDR:DEMCO_HEADER+FC_AZZWCATCDE:+FC_AW_KEYMSCD:+FC_SW_PRDBB ID:7483 So the man can now know what books you taking on the flight (Hopefully not the flight training manual for the aircraft). Oh hell, should have known better about the URL. Goto http://www.demco.com and search for RFID. Sorry. -- Neil Johnson http://www.njohnsn.com PGP key available on request.
RE: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 handy to find semiconductor junctions in general, so you'd get too many false positives.) You could find it reliably in eg. a t-shirt or a banknote, where there is no electronics supposed to be. Besides, if such technology will be popular enough, the readers will have to be widely available on the open market. If there will be a code specific for each class of the readers, it will be possible to eavesdrop it in the vicinity of the given reader. Pondering the banknotes. The muggers will never have to follow their victim from a bankomat through a dark park anymore. They will just wait there, remotely scanning the wallets of potential victims, picking the ones stupid enough to carry more money without using a wire-mesh purse. The cops could use it too, for picking the persons with suspicious amount of cash - see the seizure of cash under asset forfeiture laws, dubbed War on Cash. Just musing...
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 first lawsuit. 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. 10 cents per item isn't much, but at millions of items it becomes worth while. Having the tag removed at the counter so they can be sent back to the manufacturer along with returns and defects saves money, and that argument carries more weight to someone trying to make a profit than anything else. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 checking for isotopic tracers (see Stasi), magnetic/plastic layered (see smokeless powder) tags, and UV fluorescent spy tracing powders (see http://www.covertcomic.com/CCSchool.htm spy dust). --Cypherpunk Laundry Division
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 Little Helper to | read the tag, only detect its presence. Counterfeit bags probably won't | have the tag, and if they do (and the copies are good enough), the mugger | won't care. We designed the Pickpocket's pal to detect large amounts of currency this way. It just helps you size up your victim, or at least size up their wad of cash. (There were some complications, because the tags do try not to chat at the same time, but hey, how well designed do you think a 10c item is?) Adam -- It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. -Hume
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 you're not allowed to jam it. Humm...one wonders if there's 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) 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 Faraday cage. Or we can locate the tag and physically remove or destroy it. Or we can irradiate the entire object with powerful-enough electromagnetic radiation. Active countermeasures can involve jammers, creating a RF privacy sphere. One of the possibilities is a virtual tag that will respond to read attempt with randomly generated signal strong enough to drown all other tags in it. Or, to generate forged signatures, making the reader think it is receiving a genuine signal, over which we have control; allowing us to change our wireless appearance on-fly, even copying the tag signatures of other people as they pass around, temporarily borrowing them. The sky is the limit of possibilities here. Part of the indirect passive countermeasures toy chest is a device that will alert its owner when the RF read beam is detected, and allow pinpointing its source. The changes we are about to expect are moving the battle to another stage. Let's get familiar with the new weapons about to hit the battlefield, and devise the appropriate strategies. _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 the fact of jamming will be. Considering the public awareness about how the technology works, the clerks will tend to panic that they are jammed when they kick off the cable from the antenna, or claim that that damned crap broke down again when they will really be jammed. If the problem will become widespread, jammer detectors will appear. Once they will get deployed, it's matter of couple days to few weeks until their full specs appear in 2600 or Phrack or similar zine, and stealth jammers will follow, spinning another round of arms race. Humm...one wonders if there's 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. The RF tag frequency Benetton uses is something around 13 MHz. This is unlikely to produce accidentally on too high power, though maybe if a well-designed amplifier would start to oscillate (high-gain audio amplifiers realized on high-frequency op-amps could be likely candidates, dad had long time ago similar problem in range of 100s kHz with audio preamplifiers with MAC157 opamps). The problem will be with accidental antennas; in gigahertz-range frequencies basically any short piece of wire or a suitable PCB trace does the job, while with low frequencies we have to use either a large part of a construction as an antenna, or some coil. (Disclaimer: My high-freq-fu isn't nearly as good as I'd like it to. Which is also valid for more advanced analog electronics too. Working on it, but it will take some more time.) I think I posted some link here earlier about an accidental GPS jammer.
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 you're not allowed to jam it. Humm...one wonders if there's 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. Don't know about those tags, but my laptop used to set off the library electronic detector. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 eg. http://www.elecdesign.com/1998/june0898/bb/0608bb4.shtml or google atmel.com for the datasheet). Pondering to get one such chip to play with, if I'll get time. Carrying things in metal briefcases has the pleasant side effect of shielding those little narcs. The life is so short and there are so many toys! :) PS: Doesn't anyone here know how are called those connectors that are used to connect digital displays to computer cards? Those that have arrays of holes in three rows in rectangular array, like eg. on recent Matrox videocards? I need one and my favorite stores don't carry them and I can't find it in any online catalogs without knowing its name.
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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. (ObCredentials: I worked inside a double-walled Faraday cage in 1972-73 doing Josephson junction experiments with superconducting quantum-interferometric devices, aka SQUIDs. I did a lot of shaping and bending of mu metal. I also later worked near Faraday cages and had occasion to do more experiments in them.) The closest encounter I had with superconductors was when I was helping a friend with some measurements on some uranium-based ceramics. Was both brief and nice, and I lost fear of liquid nitrogen there. Besides, EU plans to embed RF tags into paper money. 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 conclusions about banknotes being a location finder. I am VERY aware about the current metal strip. I am not worried about them at all. I am worried about the embedding of REAL RFID tags. The metal strip then could serve dual purpose, as an anticounterfeit device itself, and as the tag antenna. The banknotes could then carry their own history. The only consolation is that it will get cracked within few months at most. See here: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/BraveNewEuro7jan02.shtml http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20011219S0016 Jamming is grossly less efficient than detection. If you want an explanation, let me know and I'll spend 10 minutes writing a small piece on it. But first, think deeply about why this is so. Think especially about recovering signals from noise. Had my brush, though only theoretical, with integrating repeating signals back at school, when I was learning how to interpret NMR spectrums and how they work. (Good old times, it feels like yesterday.) Sorry, hadn't specified I am not talking about RFID tags anymore; was thinking about at least partially alleviating/sidestepping the problems with shielding of standard desktop computers. But will be definitely interested in the minilecture.
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 Faraday cage. Or we can locate the tag and physically remove or destroy it. Or we can irradiate the entire object with powerful-enough electromagnetic radiation. Active countermeasures can involve jammers, creating a RF privacy sphere. One of the possibilities is a virtual tag that will respond to read attempt with randomly generated signal strong enough to drown all other tags in it. Or, to generate forged signatures, making the reader think it is receiving a genuine signal, over which we have control; allowing us to change our wireless appearance on-fly, even copying the tag signatures of other people as they pass around, temporarily borrowing them. The sky is the limit of possibilities here. Part of the indirect passive countermeasures toy chest is a device that will alert its owner when the RF read beam is detected, and allow pinpointing its source. The changes we are about to expect are moving the battle to another stage. Let's get familiar with the new weapons about to hit the battlefield, and devise the appropriate strategies.
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 can locate the transceiver, then enclose it in a Faraday cage. Or we can locate the tag and physically remove or destroy it. Or we can irradiate the entire object with powerful-enough electromagnetic radiation. 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. Since the coupling is magnetic a Faraday cage won't work. But a thin piece of mu metal would work pretty well. The changes we are about to expect are moving the battle to another stage. Let's get familiar with the new weapons about to hit the battlefield, and devise the appropriate strategies. It's just for inventory control! They probably mount it on a tag you can rip off when you go to wear the clothing. The stuff you need to worry about is already out there as radio transmitters being planted by cops in your keyboard. The battle is already engaged, how's our defense look against real threats? Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 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. http://news.com.com/2010-1069-980325.html -Declan
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 you need much less power if you use a directional antenna (which can be part of some fixed installation). Since the coupling is magnetic a Faraday cage won't work. But a thin piece of mu metal would work pretty well. Wasn't aware about RF tags being magnetically coupled. Anyone other to support/deny this? Hadn't knew about mu metal. Thanks. :) Could be a nice thing for EM shielding, especially of things like transformers. It's just for inventory control! They probably mount it on a tag you can rip off when you go to wear the clothing. If it will proliferate, alternate uses spring up as natural byproduct. Until then, the countermeasures are cool toys. Besides, EU plans to embed RF tags into paper money. The stuff you need to worry about is already out there as radio transmitters being planted by cops in your keyboard. The battle is already engaged, how's our defense look against real threats? Standard area-denial measures, physical security systems, hardware/software audits, RF shielding? 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 available specs of such generators, or even building plans?
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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: http://www.matricsrfid.com/pdf/Tech_Overview_Data_Sheet.pdf runs at 900+ MHz which gives it a good few meters range. However, it still gets it's power from an outside source, so you can easily tell when one is getting sampled. Fortunatly the higher the frequency, the easier it is to shield. I still think it's an over reaction to inventory control, but I guess it'd be a ton of fun to build a reader and play with these things as people walk down the street, just to see what you can see :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 will be if you bought it you can disable it, but prior to that you're not allowed to jam it. Humm...one wonders if there's 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. Don't know about those tags, but my laptop used to set off the library electronic detector. I've had _many_ things set off anti-theft detectors--not sure if it's my Titanium Powerbook, my cellphone, my Visor in my wallet, CDs in my bag, or just random noise. I no longer stop and obediently re-enter the store and wait until they can send a manager over to inspect my items. I just keep walking. A couple of times I've had clerks run out the door as I was about 20 paces away saying Sir, sir! You'll have to come back inside! I just ignore them. 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 examination of my briefcase (or purse, were I a chick). They can of course invite the police to make an arrest. That would be interesting. Several people might earn the coveted death warrant. --Tim May
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 a hidden way. 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). Since the coupling is magnetic a Faraday cage won't work. But a thin piece of mu metal would work pretty well. Wasn't aware about RF tags being magnetically coupled. Anyone other to support/deny this? It's bullshit. 13 MHz is undeniably RF. Yes, magnetic fields are part of the electromagnetic field. 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. (ObCredentials: I worked inside a double-walled Faraday cage in 1972-73 doing Josephson junction experiments with superconducting quantum-interferometric devices, aka SQUIDs. I did a lot of shaping and bending of mu metal. I also later worked near Faraday cages and had occasion to do more experiments in them.) Besides, EU plans to embed RF tags into paper money. 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 conclusions about banknotes being a location finder. 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 available specs of such generators, or even building plans? Jamming is grossly less efficient than detection. If you want an explanation, let me know and I'll spend 10 minutes writing a small piece on it. But first, think deeply about why this is so. Think especially about recovering signals from noise. --Tim May The State is the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else. --Frederic Bastiat
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 available specs of such generators, or even building plans? Jamming is grossly less efficient than detection. If you want an explanation, let me know and I'll spend 10 minutes writing a small piece on it. But first, think deeply about why this is so. Think especially about recovering signals from noise. 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).
Brinwear at Benetton.
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 information: EETimes is reporting[3] that Benetton will be embedding a Philips RFID chip into the label of every new garment bearing the name of Benetton's core clothing brand, Sisley[4]. The 15 million chips expected sold in 2003 will allow monitoring of garments from production to shipping, shelves and dressing rooms. The I.CODE chip[5] (tech info)[6] used in Benetton's labels will include 1,024 bits of EEPROM and operate at a distance of up to 1.5 meters. RFIDs look like they would be extremely uncomfortable in some Sisley clothes[7]. [1]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/03/11 /financial1508EST0170.DTL [2]http://www.sfgate.com/ [3]http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030311S0028 [4]http://www.sisley.com/ [5]http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/markets/identification/products/i code/ic/index.html [6]http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/acrobat/other/identification/icod e_ht_ls.pdf [7]http://www.benetton.com/press/sito/photo/product_adver/sisley/2003_wet/ sisley07.html
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 Faraday cage. Or we can locate the tag and physically remove or destroy it. Or we can irradiate the entire object with powerful-enough electromagnetic radiation. Active countermeasures can involve jammers, creating a RF privacy sphere. One of the possibilities is a virtual tag that will respond to read attempt with randomly generated signal strong enough to drown all other tags in it. Or, to generate forged signatures, making the reader think it is receiving a genuine signal, over which we have control; allowing us to change our wireless appearance on-fly, even copying the tag signatures of other people as they pass around, temporarily borrowing them. The sky is the limit of possibilities here. Part of the indirect passive countermeasures toy chest is a device that will alert its owner when the RF read beam is detected, and allow pinpointing its source. The changes we are about to expect are moving the battle to another stage. Let's get familiar with the new weapons about to hit the battlefield, and devise the appropriate strategies.
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 can locate the transceiver, then enclose it in a Faraday cage. Or we can locate the tag and physically remove or destroy it. Or we can irradiate the entire object with powerful-enough electromagnetic radiation. 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. Since the coupling is magnetic a Faraday cage won't work. But a thin piece of mu metal would work pretty well. The changes we are about to expect are moving the battle to another stage. Let's get familiar with the new weapons about to hit the battlefield, and devise the appropriate strategies. It's just for inventory control! They probably mount it on a tag you can rip off when you go to wear the clothing. The stuff you need to worry about is already out there as radio transmitters being planted by cops in your keyboard. The battle is already engaged, how's our defense look against real threats? Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 eg. http://www.elecdesign.com/1998/june0898/bb/0608bb4.shtml or google atmel.com for the datasheet). Pondering to get one such chip to play with, if I'll get time. Carrying things in metal briefcases has the pleasant side effect of shielding those little narcs. The life is so short and there are so many toys! :) PS: Doesn't anyone here know how are called those connectors that are used to connect digital displays to computer cards? Those that have arrays of holes in three rows in rectangular array, like eg. on recent Matrox videocards? I need one and my favorite stores don't carry them and I can't find it in any online catalogs without knowing its name.
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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. Anyone other to support/deny this? The 900MHz jobs are definitly EM. At 130kHz it's mostly magnetic. Hadn't knew about mu metal. Thanks. :) Could be a nice thing for EM shielding, especially of things like transformers. Helps keep monitors safe, but soon it won't matter because they'll all be TFT instead of tubes. If it will proliferate, alternate uses spring up as natural byproduct. Until then, the countermeasures are cool toys. Definitly cool toys :-) 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 available specs of such generators, or even building plans? Ensuring there is (or isn't) a transmitter is your best bet. After all, if you know there's a bug, you can send false info and know it's getting picked up :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 a hidden way. 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). Since the coupling is magnetic a Faraday cage won't work. But a thin piece of mu metal would work pretty well. Wasn't aware about RF tags being magnetically coupled. Anyone other to support/deny this? It's bullshit. 13 MHz is undeniably RF. Yes, magnetic fields are part of the electromagnetic field. 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. (ObCredentials: I worked inside a double-walled Faraday cage in 1972-73 doing Josephson junction experiments with superconducting quantum-interferometric devices, aka SQUIDs. I did a lot of shaping and bending of mu metal. I also later worked near Faraday cages and had occasion to do more experiments in them.) Besides, EU plans to embed RF tags into paper money. 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 conclusions about banknotes being a location finder. 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 available specs of such generators, or even building plans? Jamming is grossly less efficient than detection. If you want an explanation, let me know and I'll spend 10 minutes writing a small piece on it. But first, think deeply about why this is so. Think especially about recovering signals from noise. --Tim May The State is the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else. --Frederic Bastiat
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 available specs of such generators, or even building plans? Jamming is grossly less efficient than detection. If you want an explanation, let me know and I'll spend 10 minutes writing a small piece on it. But first, think deeply about why this is so. Think especially about recovering signals from noise. 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).
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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: http://www.matricsrfid.com/pdf/Tech_Overview_Data_Sheet.pdf runs at 900+ MHz which gives it a good few meters range. However, it still gets it's power from an outside source, so you can easily tell when one is getting sampled. Fortunatly the higher the frequency, the easier it is to shield. I still think it's an over reaction to inventory control, but I guess it'd be a ton of fun to build a reader and play with these things as people walk down the street, just to see what you can see :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 will be if you bought it you can disable it, but prior to that you're not allowed to jam it. Humm...one wonders if there's 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. Don't know about those tags, but my laptop used to set off the library electronic detector. I've had _many_ things set off anti-theft detectors--not sure if it's my Titanium Powerbook, my cellphone, my Visor in my wallet, CDs in my bag, or just random noise. I no longer stop and obediently re-enter the store and wait until they can send a manager over to inspect my items. I just keep walking. A couple of times I've had clerks run out the door as I was about 20 paces away saying Sir, sir! You'll have to come back inside! I just ignore them. 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 examination of my briefcase (or purse, were I a chick). They can of course invite the police to make an arrest. That would be interesting. Several people might earn the coveted death warrant. --Tim May
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 you need much less power if you use a directional antenna (which can be part of some fixed installation). Since the coupling is magnetic a Faraday cage won't work. But a thin piece of mu metal would work pretty well. Wasn't aware about RF tags being magnetically coupled. Anyone other to support/deny this? Hadn't knew about mu metal. Thanks. :) Could be a nice thing for EM shielding, especially of things like transformers. It's just for inventory control! They probably mount it on a tag you can rip off when you go to wear the clothing. If it will proliferate, alternate uses spring up as natural byproduct. Until then, the countermeasures are cool toys. Besides, EU plans to embed RF tags into paper money. The stuff you need to worry about is already out there as radio transmitters being planted by cops in your keyboard. The battle is already engaged, how's our defense look against real threats? Standard area-denial measures, physical security systems, hardware/software audits, RF shielding? 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 available specs of such generators, or even building plans?
Re: Brinwear at Benetton.
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 you're not allowed to jam it. Humm...one wonders if there's 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) 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 Faraday cage. Or we can locate the tag and physically remove or destroy it. Or we can irradiate the entire object with powerful-enough electromagnetic radiation. Active countermeasures can involve jammers, creating a RF privacy sphere. One of the possibilities is a virtual tag that will respond to read attempt with randomly generated signal strong enough to drown all other tags in it. Or, to generate forged signatures, making the reader think it is receiving a genuine signal, over which we have control; allowing us to change our wireless appearance on-fly, even copying the tag signatures of other people as they pass around, temporarily borrowing them. The sky is the limit of possibilities here. Part of the indirect passive countermeasures toy chest is a device that will alert its owner when the RF read beam is detected, and allow pinpointing its source. The changes we are about to expect are moving the battle to another stage. Let's get familiar with the new weapons about to hit the battlefield, and devise the appropriate strategies. _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
