Interesting People mailing list archives
An exchange over RFID chips and privacy fears [priv]
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:45:10 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com> Date: July 30, 2004 1:04:49 AM EDT To: politech () politechbot com Subject: [Politech] An exchange over RFID chips and privacy fears [priv] Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/2004/07/13/rfid-defense/ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: What's so bad about RFID? Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:22:10 -0400 From: Jim Harper - Privacilla.org <jim.harper () privacilla org>To: 'Parks' <parks () uhibpd phys uh edu>, 'Declan McCullagh' <declan () well com>
Hi Drew- Sorry for the delay in replying. In my paper, I've tried to do some hard-headed, practical thinking aboutRFID to displace some of the fanciful imagination that is dominating current discussions. Your laundry example provides a case-in-point for the benefit
of really thinking it through.Let's say RFID gets traction in the laundry business. Even at five cents a tag, they had better make the tags reusable because if they don't that would
burn up about 5% of what they're getting paid for the entire article of clothing. Especially because it's reusable, the tag is going to be something the laundry clerk can manipulate with his or her hands. It's going to be the size of current paper tags, or larger. (The current smallest version is about 16mm diameter. Making it smaller will make itmore difficult to work with, so I doubt you see further miniaturization.) Thus, if the tag isn't removed for reuse at the laundry, you will find it when you go to put the shirt on, and remove it just like you do the current
paper tags.I suppose laundries could ask customers to accept smaller, permanent RFID sewn into shirts so they could process laundry more efficiently, but they'll
have to make the sale to skeptics like yourself. So, the laundry example starts out sounding spooky and ends up soundingfairly boring, don't you think? I'd be happy to hear more info if there is
something that I'm overlooking. I won't go through all of the other concerns you raise, but RFID does nomore to increase potential tracking of your purchases through the payment
system than bar codes already do. Thanks for your thoughts. Jim Jim Harper Editor Privacilla.org -----Original Message----- From: Parks [mailto:parks () uhibpd phys uh edu] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 7:28 PM To: Declan McCullagh; jim.harper () privacilla org Subject: What's so bad about RFID? Declan, Jim There are probably plenty of uses where RFID can be used that don't infringe on privacy. RFID is proposed as a tracking for laundry <http://www.industrialnewsroom.com/news/automatic_id>. Supposedly theywould remove the tags when they are through - but suppose they don't? The
problem IS with surreptitious tracking. WalMart wants to put these tags on products (like clothes) and then subtract them from the inventory when purchased. However, they might beused as an anti-theft device which would alert them when someone walks out with one they didn't purchase - so they would detect RFIDs at the door too (ALL THE DOORS!) If you pay with a credit card, its associated with that purchase, so if the RFID tags are not removed, they would know who you were
because you walked through their RFID detector at the door. This isn'trocket science and with the plethora of cameras already there (do they use
face recognition technology or even sell your face to securitydatabases?)- its obvious they are interested in security. Who could blame them? Oh, then Homeland Security wants to keep track of purchases (remember
the case of the Teddy Bear Alert from busybody at WalMart?) of certain types of material so they might put your info on-line real time.... nothard to imagine at all. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence?
There is no end to the mischief and loss of privacy that business and government can inflict on "We the Peons." BTW, DoD wants RFID on everything.I read that New Zealand is thinking of installing RFID on license plates to tax driver's mileage. Fuel economy drove down that tradition tax base. Why couldn't they just increase the tax on gas if that's what motivates them? It seems rational to assume they are interested in OTHER uses like tracking
citizens or automatically issuing citations derived from embedded speedsensors which detect RFID signals. RFID is more Big Brother technology. No
one asked me if I wanted it... - Drew -- "Did you really think we want those laws observed?", said Dr. Ferris. WeWANT them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against.... We're after power and we mean it .... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is
the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enoughcriminals one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just
pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced orobjectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers-- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system Mr. Reardon, that's the game,
and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." --Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged" More on RFID: http://www.industrialnewsroom.com - look up automatic_ID for current proposals for RFID usage.
Two previous Politech messages: http://www.politechbot.com/2004/07/13/rfid-marathon/ http://www.politechbot.com/2004/07/13/japan-rfid-kids/
_______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/) ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- An exchange over RFID chips and privacy fears [priv] David Farber (Jul 30)