Chills1994 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Hi everyone, yep, go put your tinfoil hat on now. the linkey: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/samiljan/4515/...ized-rfid-chips The possible sinister implications of this WRT to guns and reloading could be really really bad. Discuss!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Very scary. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 I don't think I really understand just how invasive to personal rights to privacy this could be made to be.... You better not cry, you better not pout, you better not lie I'm telling you why....Big Brother is watching. The NSA databanks continue to swell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Were the founding fathers insurgents, traitors or patriots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chills1994 Posted February 23, 2007 Author Share Posted February 23, 2007 (more tinfoil hatness ensues) I'm wondering if I shouldn't microwave my shoes.... http://www.spychips.com/ (hatness off) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimel Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 The ability to invade privacy goes far, far beyond gun rights. The current state of the technology does not allow for far sensing. Most RFID tags approaching this size are only able to be read from a few centimeter away. The tags a lot of us have in our dogs have a reading distance of something on the order of 10 cm (~4 inches). Proximity tags such as are found in door key cards and the like can be read up to 50 cm (~18 inches). What people often forget with this technology is that because they are passive devices they must be "excited" with enough energy to give a response. This is RF energy. Path losses and radiation density being what they it takes a considerable amount of power to excite these chips in the first place and even then the return signal is very, very, very weak. The return signal strength is really what limits the effective range of these devices. Look at how large the current RFID tags are that are in use for shoplift prevention. Also look at the size of the detection scanners and how tight a space you are herded through. That will give you an idea as to the current state of the readily available technology. There are RFID tags that have a much greater range. These are invariably powered devices. We use powered proximity tags on wheel chairs to open handicapped accessible doors on campus. These have a range of about 2 meters (manufacturer only claims 1.5 meters but our testing showed otherwise). There are tags that have a greater range but for our application we don't want someone opening doors with their tag because they are going by on the sidewalk. The longer the desired range, the higher the cost. The cost vs range curve appears to be a hyperbolic function. All that these smaller chips mean is that their presence will be harder to detect. Fresh ground black pepper on your salad sir? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Eh...people thought that giving everyone in the United States a social security number was like handing out marks of the beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 I don't think I really understand just how invasive to personal rights to privacy this could be made to be.... You better not cry, you better not pout, you better not lie I'm telling you why....Big Brother is watching. The NSA databanks continue to swell. Let's say that the Gov wrongfully takes property you own. You sue them and they give it back. If that "property" happens to be your personal identification information, fingerprints, gun buying history stored in a database someplace, will they ever "give you back" that information & not keep a copy of it for themselves? Ask people who have been wrongly placed on no-fly lists or had erroneous credit report info entered against them. www.cato.org Privacy is an ever erroding American right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 <sniff> <sniff> Smells like this thread is closing.... (even though I agree w/ you guys, for the most part....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz-0 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Well, personally there IS somethign scary about RFID. It's not that they can track you or anything stupid like that. It's the density of information you generate once some moron decides wrongly that it would be great to track all information everywhere. Then you are at the mercy of the algorithms that search and sift and organize your data, because you could never hope to do it yourself. If it is blind to anything, so are you. Going around them would mean that you could spend every second of your life form birth to death scouring info as fast as you can, and you wouldn't even make a dent. Then of course you are also at the mercy of your storage medium. Look at nasa and the issues they are running into with preserving aging digital data. Even if you believe in the inherent good intentions of those using this to provide security, what if 10 year old information on criminal activity is lost because a 10 year old storage device is like a model A ford at a formula 1 race, and because it shares space with 8 trillion trillion other bits of data, backing up the data would take as long as collecting it in the first place. The real thing that bugs me, and it underlies a lot of this big brother stuff, is that you operate as if something is comprehensive because you said so, and it is of such large scale that you can't pour any effort into alternate options. Next thing you know you have a beauracratic IT version of pacific island cargo cults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 <sniff> <sniff>Smells like this thread is closing.... (even though I agree w/ you guys, for the most part....) Back on track then: what happened to the idea of "tagants" (I think they were called) that were supposed to be plcaed in our reloading powders? Weren't there some bills introduced to require them? - its been a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny hill Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Were the founding fathers insurgents, traitors or patriots? History is written by the victorious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 The ability to invade privacy goes far, far beyond gun rights.The current state of the technology does not allow for far sensing. Most RFID tags approaching this size are only able to be read from a few centimeter away. The tags a lot of us have in our dogs have a reading distance of something on the order of 10 cm (~4 inches). Proximity tags such as are found in door key cards and the like can be read up to 50 cm (~18 inches). What people often forget with this technology is that because they are passive devices they must be "excited" with enough energy to give a response. This is RF energy. Path losses and radiation density being what they it takes a considerable amount of power to excite these chips in the first place and even then the return signal is very, very, very weak. The return signal strength is really what limits the effective range of these devices. Look at how large the current RFID tags are that are in use for shoplift prevention. Also look at the size of the detection scanners and how tight a space you are herded through. That will give you an idea as to the current state of the readily available technology. There are RFID tags that have a much greater range. These are invariably powered devices. We use powered proximity tags on wheel chairs to open handicapped accessible doors on campus. These have a range of about 2 meters (manufacturer only claims 1.5 meters but our testing showed otherwise). There are tags that have a greater range but for our application we don't want someone opening doors with their tag because they are going by on the sidewalk. The longer the desired range, the higher the cost. The cost vs range curve appears to be a hyperbolic function. All that these smaller chips mean is that their presence will be harder to detect. Fresh ground black pepper on your salad sir? Who is to say that next year the technology will not allow picking up these "low powered passive devices" from low orbit.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 It really is okay guys. Without nano technology there can be no Borg. "We are Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is Futile." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz-0 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Who is to say that next year the technology will not allow picking up these "low powered passive devices" from low orbit.... Physics and modern society. They are unpowered transmitters. To power them up, you need to hit them with a signal that provides the juice. You can't pump too much into them without causing them issues especially when so small. Thus the signal they can emit is limited in power, and thus in range. yeah, in thoery you could build a more sensitive receiver, but then you ahve to deal with all the stray RF common in today's world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Physics and modern society. They are unpowered transmitters. To power them up, you need to hit them with a signal that provides the juice. You can't pump too much into them without causing them issues especially when so small. Thus the signal they can emit is limited in power, and thus in range. yeah, in thoery you could build a more sensitive receiver, but then you ahve to deal with all the stray RF common in today's world. The scenario I see working to extract this data on the fly is based on a repeater system. Find a funnel point where what you want to read will be passing through, or standing next to sooner, or later (think lamposts, subway gates, toll gates, various public kiosks, urinals, etc...) and put an exciter/reader of sufficient power there to read nearby RFID signals and then re-broadcast the signal as encrypted data packets via radio, or network (internet) with it's collection location/timestamp added to the tag info and BAM! instant data acquisition on the fly of any RFID tag carried in anything attached to, or inside of you as you go through daily life! Levi could put RFID tags in their new 501's fabricand pay fees to collection agencies that nab the data at surreptitious public RFID data collection points. Don't get too close to anything in this world ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scirocco38s Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Benny, you obviously understand how prophetic your comment is. History is always left to the victorious, they write out what they dont like and veer the truths of the rest to their advantage. Rfids are used everywhere already now and most people dont realize it. The medical industry uses them all the time, for record keeping reasons of fda tracked and approved devices. Progress is happening daily and cannot be stopped. For everytime we find a use that offends us,( and maybe ge it removed) there are at leats 30 other uses we dont know of. We can only hope that in time cooler heads will prevail and the uses will be controlled and legitemate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Murphy Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 The only thing about all this that gives me hope is after 12 months working for the govt, I realized something. The odds are good that the equipment purchased from the lowest bidder probably will die horribly, and the employees are so disinterested in doing a good job that maybe, just maybe, the data will be lost anyway or never gathered in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fryeg7 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Were the founding fathers insurgents, traitors or patriots? all of the above, and god bless them for it. frye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajarrel Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 I don't have a tin hat, but I do wear a Faraday Shield woven into my shorts. Don't want no spying on Big Jim and the twins. dj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now