[geeks] Passwords, etc

[John Francini]

On 11 Dec 2006, at 13:08, Lionel Peterson wrote:

> On 12/11/06, John Francini <francini at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry -- that's tantamount to tattooing a number or a barcode on
>> you.  Worse, actually, since it can be read at a distance.
>
>
> Why do you you think a tattoo or barcode *can't* be read at a  
> distance? It
> comes down to a question of optics and character recognition,  
> nothing more.

Of course.

> An implantable device has a built-in obscurity factor (does he, or  
> doesn't
> he have an implant?), and pasive ID tags can only be read so far  
> from the
> "chip"/implant (on the order of inches, not feet or yards). To read an
> RFID-type ID at anything resembling a great distance would require (I
> imagine) a massive transmitter to "energize" the RFID tag enough to  
> send a
> signal strong enough to be picked up by a massively sensitive  
> receiver at
> any significant distance - oh, and I hope your massive transmitter  
> doesn't
> overload the front end of your sensetive receiver).

But an implant could have a battery in it as well, which would give  
it (potentially) more range, and need a far more modest trigger  
signal, as said signal wouldn't have to power the unit as well.


> The unrealistic hype surroundig RFID is just amazing. I've been  
> tempted in
> the past to organize a challenge offering, say, $1,000 to anyone  
> that can
> successfully read a RFID tag a distance equivalent to the width of a
> two-lane road. A half-prize could be awarded for being able to  
> identify the
> presence of an RFID tag accurately from the same distance. A double  
> prize to
> the team that can read the data off an RFID tag from across the two- 
> lane
> street using a self-contained/self-powered device (think batteries)  
> that can
> be hidden in a newspaper vending machine (18" square base, 36" tall).
>
> Gawd, work with these wretched little devices for a while and you  
> become
> very cynical about these privacy claims.
>

For the moment. But there's likely to be people working on ways  
around these 'minor problems', because there's money to be made.

>
>> If it could be used by an office it could also be used by a
>> government to collect information on your whereabouts at all times.
>
>
> Yeah, thanks to the governments MASSIVE ARRAY of readers placed on  
> every
> street corner that sheeple are to dumb to avoid...

Yes, I know it's tinfoil-hattery, but whenever someone thinks 'only'  
of the benefits of one of these double-edged sword technologies, it's  
important to also note how they could be used for harm.

john