Print PDF
Favorite
Email
So, you're wondering about RFID you say? You've read things about its goods and bads, and supposed "facts". Well, I'd like to tell you the REAL story on RFID, not just a bunch of misinformed mumbo-jumbo. If you are one of the people spreading misinformation about RFID, please read along, and share with your friends what you find. But please know, that I am only stating not only FACTS, but also my own opinion on RFID. Everyone has their own thoughts, and i respect yours, so please respect mine.
Remove these ads by
Signing UpStep 1What is RFID?
RFID stands for Radio Frequency Identification Device. Its a small coil/chip that can come in packages from tags, to small circles, even down to an 8x12mm chip. RFID chips are identified and read by a reciever, which then does whatever it's supposed to do when it reads that particular chip. It would be like me handing you a piece of paper with a 16-digit number on it, and noone has that same number. Very similar to a social security card.
| « Previous Step | Download PDFView All Steps | Next Step » |
Those 'Anti-Conspiracy Theorists' meanwhile do n't bother to think at all.
They just accept whatever bullshit the powers that be put in front of them.
Talk about 'mind control'. You don't need it with people like this.
They do n't have 'minds' to control.( That is unless they Are already being controlled.)
Unless you are some ultraparanoid cash-only baseball-cap-in-public type person, you are already pretty easy to track, with or without rfid.
On the off chance that you run into someone who is siphoning rfid's, they have no way of knowing what the particular id is used for. They have a number, but won't be able to tell if it's for a lock, a credit card, or just a pair of shoes.
http://www.rfidglobalsolution.com/ (They're so SMUG! )
And read the piece entitled: "Prison RFID Study Finds Planning Is Critical" By Claire Swedberg.
Here's a delightful excerpt: "Sept. 13, 2010—A study conducted by nonprofit research organization RAND Corp [emphasis mine-sound familiar?]. has found that RFID deployments in correctional facilities require considerable customization to each prison's unique needs and infrastructure.
According to the report, failure to properly anticipate infrastructure installation challenges, as well as the need for proper funding and training for staff members, can delay installations or render the system ineffective. The study, titled "Tracking Inmates and Locating Staff with Active Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID): Early Lessons Learned in One U.S. Correctional Facility," was conducted by the RAND Corp., with funding provided by the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) division.
Researchers took a two-pronged approach: determining how many RFID installations were actually in use in U.S. prisons, and studying the installation process in one correctional institution. "
There was mention in the subtitle of "controlling inmate violence"...wonder HOW? (they track tasers with RFID's in the UK).
For the rest: here's the totally innocuous link by those whacko conspiracy the--uh, er...by the people who MAKE the damned things!
http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/7862
"Standard" passive RFID is very short range, but various people have demonstrated that with a powerful RF field and a high quality receiver/antenna combination they can be read over considerably greater distances. The last time I looked the record was 3 or 4 metres, although this was in laboratory conditions. It's worth remembering that the reason most, if not all, commercial RFID readers only work over short ranges is because they're built down to a price, and a few centimeters is plenty for passive applications (EPOS, stock control, etc.). They can do better in the right circumstances.
Yes, RFID chips only carry a unique number. Your social security number is similar, as is your credit card number, as is the electronic lock that you open by waving an RFID chip near it. What is far more important is what that number is keyed to. If it's on a sock, did you pay for that sock with a credit card? If so that could allow a black hat to find out all about you. It will allow the forces of law and order to find out all about you. Is it a pass card for a transit system? If it's read and a copy made, someone gets to ride around at your expense. This happened in London, UK (my home town), and they had to replace all the cards (google for: +TfL +"oyster card") at considerable expense, although you might reasonably argue that this isn't standard RFID - It just appears to be.
In practice, you don't need to read these things from very far away. The Oyster card scam was apparently just took advantage of the fact that London's underground system is packed to the gunnels during the rush hour (think Tokyo), and it's normal to be in intimate contact with the 3 or 4 people standing around you. Close enough is good enough.
None of these things may concern you, but they are provenly possible, and actually seem to be a favorite prank in American Universities. It seems to me that it's unwise to play down the potential dangers. The London Underground customer who's in intimate contact with dozens of strangers every day has a very different risk profile from someone living in a rural community. The devil is in the detail.
You may find this interesting:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/primer-information-theory-and-privacy
It describes a formal technique for identifying people, stratified by the nature of the information available about them. Perhaps you should ask yourself where the random unique number in an RFID chip could lead? And could this be detrimental to the card holder?
Before anyone asks, I do have a metallic credit card holder. Faraday cages aren't illegal (in the UK, at least) and it removes the potential problems at a stroke. I do not own an aluminum beanie hat, and never have :).
The latter approach comes out of a paranoid concern that "The Man" will want to track us by the large number of RFID chips we will all be carrying around, attached to our clothes and similar. The idea is that everyone exchanges chips randomly with strangers - Imagine a bowl in every bar into which every customer empties their chips, stirs it around, then grabs a random handful. This would have the theoretical advantage of polluting any database used for tracking people, rendering it useless. Well, maybe. I'm not that paranoid yet...
A lot of UK refuse bins have RFID chips in them to allow people to be charged according to the weight of rubbish they generate. This is hugely unpopular, but is easily defeated with one of those mini-EMP generators that you can build with a disposable camera. Given that these bins (we call them "wheelie bins" because they, err, have wheels?) cost around 100 UKP, and the chips aren't replaceable, judging by the one in my drive. A recipe for trouble, if ever I saw one. :)
The time to worry, of course, is when they start to forcibly inject them into people. Fortunately this would probably be a massive vote loser, so is unlikely to happen in real life. In my opinion, of course.
Passive RFID works best in POS and anti-theft systems where the transmittter can be placed close to the chip. Further, those stick-on little anti-theft tags are super-cheap throw-aways, so there's an economic reason as well to use them in certain situations.
For instance, my credit card has a tap and pay feature. It's got my credit card number (and other info specific to my card, such as expiration date) in it. No, it doesn't have my account balance, and it doesn't have my social security number, but if someone were to use an RFID reader to read the info on the card, they could use it to create their own version of my credit card. Even if the data is encrypted, which I would hope it is, they can just store the encrypted version of the data, and the credit card machine would read that in just fine.
PS: There are no RFIDs in US currency. You can't tell how much money is in someone's wallet, or where it's been spent and by whom.
As for "active" vs. "passive" rfid chips, the only difference is in how much power is needed to read them, at any distance. A passive chip needs more power in the transmitter than an active chip. This means that either the transmitter is closer, or the transmitter has more power.
There's no reason to expect that someone who has nefarious intent will limit themselves to the same power levels as the commercial units.
I thought that the passive chips were limited in the distance they could transmit by their design, not by the power of the reader used. So, for example, you can't point a reader a a chip from across the room if that chip was designed to be read from a distance.
Also, I know it's possible to detect more than one chip at a time, but can a single reader actually read more than one chip at a time? In other words, if I'm standing in an airport, and someone has a high powered reader as you describe, and points it at my passport, will they be able to read the details of my passport from across the room, even if there are 100 other passports between mine and the reader? I don't think so, but I'm not sure.
Yes, there's a point at which the signal is so weak that it gets lost in the background noise, but if a signal that can be read at six inches with a $50 receiver, it will we readable at 20 feet with a more sophisticated receiver.