Feds Rethinking RFID Passport

Chrissy Cruiser <doublebreasted@mail.com> wrote:

>Following criticism from computer security professionals and civil
>libertarians about the privacy risks posed by new RFID passports the
>government plans to begin issuing,

Why do they need RFID passports? Chips of the kind embedded in all
credit cards would do the purpose perfectly, and allow immigration
officials to quickly stick the passport into a reader slot for
instant feedback. One reason to go with RFID is so you can
surreptitiously scan people as they walk along, monitor their
movements, etc. At first, this allows tracking of people through
an airport but eventually you move to mandatory ID cards that do
the same whereever people walk in public.

--
Ken Tough

Chrissy Cruiser <doublebreasted@mail.com> wrote:

>But wait, see that new GSM cell phone? Sucker
>tracks you like a beacon not to mention the whole array of new satellites
>going up for real time looks at the entire nation.

I'm surprised by how many people don't know that tracking every
movement of someone with a standard cell phone is just a matter
of a few keystrokes. Any GSM can be located in a 100m circle,
and most people leave theirs switched on all the time. If anyone
in authority wanted to know where you were and what you did every
day, they can find out without leaving their desk. No "new" cell
technology incorporating GPS is required.

>> One reason to go with RFID is so you can
>> surreptitiously scan people as they walk along, monitor their
>> movements, etc.
>
>Ken, Ken, that's devious, They *wouldn't* do that, would they?Wait a
>minute. you might be right. THEY LIED. They said NO WAY will that RFID chip
>be read over 10 silly centiimeters away. Uh, tests succeeded at 30 feet.

Of course it can be read from several feet. That's the idea of RFID
chips which will before long be on every piece of merchandise you buy.
Your shopping card can be scanned instantly without unpacking it.
On the supply-side, pallets can be tracked in and out of warehouses,
and filched merchandise found easily. (This is the big driver from
the commercial side).

But on the other hand, any shop with a scanner in its doorway will
know when someone with a Gucci sweater walks in, and possibly where
you bought it. "...Greetings Sir or Madam. If you would like to
replace that 3 month old sweater you are wearing, you might like
the specials on winterwear in our mens/womens wear department..."

Already in many countries, GSM cell technology is used by shops to
send you targetted SMS just before you pass the door.

--
Ken Tough

Thus spake Ken Tough <ken@objectech.co.uk> :

>Chrissy Cruiser <doublebreasted@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>But wait, see that new GSM cell phone? Sucker
>>tracks you like a beacon not to mention the whole array of new satellites
>>going up for real time looks at the entire nation.
>
>I'm surprised by how many people don't know that tracking every
>movement of someone with a standard cell phone is just a matter
>of a few keystrokes. Any GSM can be located in a 100m circle,
>and most people leave theirs switched on all the time. If anyone
>in authority wanted to know where you were and what you did every
>day, they can find out without leaving their desk. No "new" cell
>technology incorporating GPS is required.

I have considered a throw away phone or two. Buy it with cash at
Walgreens, toss it when the time is expired. Lots of people with
something to hide do it, don't we all have something to hide?

>
>>> One reason to go with RFID is so you can
>>> surreptitiously scan people as they walk along, monitor their
>>> movements, etc.
>>
>>Ken, Ken, that's devious, They *wouldn't* do that, would they?Wait a
>>minute. you might be right. THEY LIED. They said NO WAY will that RFID chip
>>be read over 10 silly centiimeters away. Uh, tests succeeded at 30 feet.
>
>Of course it can be read from several feet. That's the idea of RFID
>chips which will before long be on every piece of merchandise you buy.
>Your shopping card can be scanned instantly without unpacking it.
>On the supply-side, pallets can be tracked in and out of warehouses,
>and filched merchandise found easily. (This is the big driver from
>the commercial side).
>
>But on the other hand, any shop with a scanner in its doorway will
>know when someone with a Gucci sweater walks in, and possibly where
>you bought it. "...Greetings Sir or Madam. If you would like to
>replace that 3 month old sweater you are wearing, you might like
>the specials on winterwear in our mens/womens wear department..."

The movie "Minority Report" did a good job of showing that.

>
>Already in many countries, GSM cell technology is used by shops to
>send you targetted SMS just before you pass the door.

This has been proposed in the US. I have, however, read about
legislation that will charge the sender for the message, not the
recipient. I currently pay 10 cents to send a message to my wife, who
pays 10 cents to receive it. I'll send a bill to anyone who sends me
a commercial SMS.


--
dillon

Women should be obscene and not absurd.

Dillon Pyron <dmpyronINVALID@austin.> wrote:

>>Already in many countries, GSM cell technology is used by shops to
>>send you targetted SMS just before you pass the door.
>
>This has been proposed in the US. I have, however, read about
>legislation that will charge the sender for the message, not the
>recipient. I currently pay 10 cents to send a message to my wife, who
>pays 10 cents to receive it. I'll send a bill to anyone who sends me
>a commercial SMS.

The Namerican system of the receiver of cell calls paying, is a
bit of an anachronism. [And it still applies in roaming]. The
reason for it of course is free local calls, with the cell numbering
scheme not being separate. It's a bit bizarre, really. The caller
ought to always pay [be it sending SMS or voice or whatever]. If it
were the case, then the roaming charges fiasco would be much easier
to exterminate.

--
Ken Tough

Chrissy Cruiser <doublebreasted@mail.com> wrote:

>The idea that parents would track their children is not the issue. The
>issue is that they track them and do not tell them. These very same parents
>go white in the face when they are informed over discussions like the one
>we are having here. Well, golly, gee whiz, you're doing the very same thing
>to your kids. In effect, they are self justifying a police state mentality.

I think it would be very irresponsible and totally unfair not to
tell your kids that you're tracking them. Besides, they'll find
out anyway, and just shut off their cell when they don't want you
to know.
--
Ken Tough

Thus spake Chrissy Cruiser <doublebreasted@mail.com> :

>
>
<major snippage>

>I didn't know whether to laugh, cry or run. So I put a Guttman erasure on
>it, removed my thumb drive and placed it under the rear tire of my car and
>crushed it.

No need to indanger you tires. If you are old enough to actually own
a bunch of records, you probably have a destat tool that pops the
vinyl with a strong charge to neutalize the charge on the record
(can't remember which is positive). So I use that on semiconductor
devices. My wife is a test engineer for a major semi maker and gets
microphotographs all the time of ESD damage. Quite convincing.

--
dillon

Women should be obscene and not absurd.

Chrissy Cruiser <doublebreasted@mail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 4 May 2005 19:34:41 +0200, Ken Tough wrote:
>> I think it would be very irresponsible and totally unfair not to
>> tell your kids that you're tracking them. Besides, they'll find
>> out anyway, and just shut off their cell when they don't want you
>> to know.

>Ken, I bet I know two dozen, easy, that haven't told their kids. It's
>gutless and dishonest and counterproductive and promotes heavy mistrust
>that is hard, if not impossible, to be undone.

Yeah well, I'm sure there are loads that drug test their kids
urine too (a'la American Beauty). Parenting courses could be
useful for most people.

--
Ken Tough

Dillon Pyron <dmpyronINVALID@austin.> wrote:

>Several states are about to require chipping your pets. Hawai'i
>already does. The UK requires it for all imports.

Pet chips I don't see as a major problem. Aside from the fact that
they can be read at a (limited) distance, they aren't all that much
more of a security threat than the dog tags anyway. And pets find
it very difficult to identify themselves when they need to.

--
Ken Tough

Chrissy Cruiser <doublebreasted@mail.com> wrote:

>>>MOF, I was unaware of this until about
>>>a year ago when a savvy GPS coder showed me his GSM phone and how he had
>>>dismantled the signal.
>>
>> There is no GPS in GSM. He was shitting you.
>
>Nope, it displayed GSM unavailable or some such.

Maybe he removed the SIM card. In that case it makes the phone
almost as useless as one which is powered off. [But it can still
be tracked, since emergency calls can still be made].

--
Ken Tough