×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

154 comments

RFID on identification scares me (5, Insightful)

sempiterna (1463657) | more than 5 years ago | (#26700739)

I'm very much afraid of government implementing rfid on a widespread level. I have to admit that if I was government, I'd probably push to do the same thing.

Having Big Brother being able to know who I am by walking into a door of the court house, or if a police officer pulls you over and 'scans your arm', really scares me.

The potential for abuse is tremendous.

Why? (4, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 5 years ago | (#26700841)

Right now the police can pull you over and ask for your license. Don't show it and you see the inside of a cell.

And while you're driving around your car has license plates on it which can be scanned from far further than RFID.

The potential for abuse is already there and has been for a long time.

One cool thing with new tech is that it lifts the bar for the scammers. With RFID you need a lot more than a photocopier and laminator to make a fake drivers license.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

faloi (738831) | more than 5 years ago | (#26700921)

With RFID you need a lot more than a photocopier and laminator to make a fake drivers license.

Yeah, you also apparently need a couple of hundred bucks worth of stuff. And the added "advantage" to RFID is that most people will probably actually believe it's secure and take the scan at face value, making it easier than ever to pass off fake ID most places.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26704737)

Yeah, you also apparently need a couple of hundred bucks worth of stuff.

Meh... Any rfid hacker that can't do it with 17 cents worth of thin transformer wire and a surface mount capacitor snarfed off a dead 3.5" drive doesn't deserve a year's worth of free toll booth passage.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

NonUniqueNickname (1459477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26700949)

your car has license plates on it which can be scanned from far further than RFID

Very few people carry their car's license plates in their wallet or purses. For most of us, having RFID on our driver's license is akin to having RFID implanted in our skull.

Re:Why? (4, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701097)

Yeah, but I bet it's easier to make a RFID protected wallet [instructables.com] than extracting it from your skull.

DNA CLONING (0, Offtopic)

sanman2 (928866) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703047)

Phew, I thought I was going to find an article telling me that evildoers are grabbing bits of people's DNA from hair, skin flakes, etc, and growing clones out of them.

Re:DNA CLONING (0)

HiThere (15173) | more than 5 years ago | (#26705137)

And earlier today I was thinking of the Polynesian (well, specifically Hawaiian) taboos around the royal families. Any hair or finger nail clippings were ceremoniously burned. They had special privies built out over the ocean. Etc. To keep samples of their tissue from being collected by evil doers who would cast spells using them.

I was thinking more along the lines of targeted diseases...but clones are another possibility. The only problem is it takes so long to mature them. And they *so* don't want to do as they are told.

Re:Why? (1)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701167)

One cool thing with new tech is that it lifts the bar for the scammers. With RFID you need a lot more than a photocopier and laminator to make a fake drivers license.

I think in most places drivers license/government ID are now done on plastic cards (not laminated). Getting a color printer for those plastic ID cards will set you back quite a few grand, which is a lot more than this guy is paying to copy RFID. And this way gives minimum exposure vs. needing to have physical access to something to copy it.

But, you know, there is not much defense against someone who waits to mug you in a lonely alleyway either. Maybe instead of focusing on preventing these sort of things, the primary focus should be on making the exploitation of vulnerabilities more susceptible to post-facto detective work. (for example, if you make the RFID tags require a stronger signal, that will make this kind of setup easier to remotely detect)

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

troll8901 (1397145) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703541)

I think in most places drivers license/government ID are now done on plastic cards (not laminated). Getting a color printer for those plastic ID cards will set you back quite a few grand

Just for the sake of argument, I think a consumer CD printer (e.g. Epson R240) can be modified to print onto a piece of rectangle. With the careful use of glossy ink, the end result may fool casual glances.

The only problem, of course, is getting a stack of blank cards that are inkjet printable and looks professional.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26701237)

Yeah you need cheap easily obtainable technology. Nothing more!

Re:Why? (4, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701321)

>>>Right now the police can pull you over and ask for your license. Don't show it and you see the inside of a cell.

Perhaps in other countries, but not the U.S. The Supreme Court decided (v. Prouse) that a discretionary, suspicionless stop for a spot check of a motorist's driver's license and vehicle registration was invalid. The officer's conduct in that case was unconstitutional primarily on account of his exercise of "standardless and unconstrained discretion." A generalized roadblock that stopped all drivers would be allowed, but only in cases of border security or sobriety checks, not other tasks such as narcotics search.

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702019)

The U.S. you refer to has ceased to exist: http://epic.org/privacy/hiibel/ [epic.org] . The officer still has to have "suspicion" but who isn't suspicious to a cop?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702487)

Right....like that's going to work in practical terms.

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702653)

I suspect your laws are similar to what we have in the UK, in theory to pull you over / search you they need reasonable suspicion, in practice they can just make shit up.

Re:Why? (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 5 years ago | (#26704697)

The classic offense in the USA is "DWB", or "Driving While Black". That's not what they call it, but drive around the wrong neighborhood as a black man in a beat up car scanning house numbers, and you remain far more likely to be stopped by the police or local security than almost any other race or gender. There's been a lot of talk about how such discrimination can be avoided by "profiling", especially for not-very-random security checks, but try actually watching who gets pulled over for ID checks.

OT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702991)

Maybe in theory...

In reality they call/punch in your license plate, relate that to the owners drivers license....THEN pull you over for an expired license solely on that info. (the cop had already changed lanes to go elsewhere when the report came back)

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26704667)

Yeah, right. You go ahead and try that next time you're pulled over. You go right ahead and quote your Supreme Court decision to "Officer Friendly."

And don't drop the soap.

--
There's a good reason why I'm replying to this post as "Anonymous Coward"

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26701343)

Right now the police can pull you over and ask for your license. Don't show it and you see the inside of a cell.

This sort of thing has been declared unconstitutional many times over in Texas and other states. When the law gets tossed out, the state legislatures just pass another one or add insurance or seat belt checks, which are then eventually declared unconstitutional as well as soon as someone is willing and able to fight it up to a sufficiently high enough court and the cycle begins anew. Any RFID readable without the consent of the person possessing it should be declared unconstitutional as well, as well as asking for it without just cause.

The voters need to make it clear to these politicians that such invasions of our rights is completely unacceptable, unfortunately voters too often think it's not an invasion of rights and that it won't cause them a problem even if they realize it is an invasion of rights. You should be clearly in violation of the law before they stop you and ask you for identification.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701483)

Using RFID isn't that big a leap for the police, as they already have access to all the information that it transmits, only with RFID, they may be able to retrieve the information without having to ask you (if you keep your DL,passport,whatever unshielded).

Using RFID IS a big leap for everybody else. Suddenly, anybody who has the inclination can find out your name, address, SIN, your digitized picture and fingerprints. Without your knowledge or permission.

With license plates, they do uniquely identify your vehicle, but in a way generally keeps you as an individual anonymous to the general population. It takes a non-trivial amount of effort for someone to convert each license plate to their owner, and it must be repeated for each plate. With RFID, after the initial investment, you can acquire a large amount of very specific, private information for a large number of individuals for no significant additional costs.

And for RFID-enabled ID's, I would guess that people 'authenticating' you using them are more likely to blindly use the RFID-encoded information, and not put a lot of effort into checking that the card itself is valid.

Re:Why? (4, Informative)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701505)

Right now the police can pull you over and ask for your license. Don't show it and you see the inside of a cell.

And while you're driving around your car has license plates on it which can be scanned from far further than RFID.

Asking to see the license still requires asking. It also requires driving for one to be (legally) provided. RFID allows for scanning a crowd and (potentially) getting a crowd of identities in less than a second.

OCR on license plates are very doable if you control the conditions. Make sure the vehicle is going the desired location and mount the camera in the perfect position. Back that up with occasional human to try and work out those cases where OCR fails. With RFID you put up antennas in a few strategic locations and you cover blocks of traffic without worrying about angles, lighting, and other bothersome conditions.

The potential for abuse is already there. RFID makes it more efficient.

Re:Why? (1)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702851)

Reminds me of the movie Gattaca, though. "Who looks at photographs anymore?" The problem with your statement is that people would likely start relying on a technology that doesn't really establish identity. It only establishes the authenticity of the document.

Re:Why? (1)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703915)

Yes, but if the bar is raised, for some stupid reason, the trust in such technology seems to increase.

What this means is that when the "scammers" actually do succeed in defeating protections, their fakes have just that much more "believability".

Think "Its so hard to duplicate, it must be real".

Just more of the same "security theatre" we've seen in the past, but with the potential for serious repercussions, IF we put our trust in the system. Which, quite frankly, I do not.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26704141)

uh, did you like, uh, even read the summary? dude! i could have sworn it was hinting at how easy it is to clone (i.e. steal) an identity...much worse than a fake driver's license to buy beer...

Re:Why? (1)

Scroatzilla (672804) | more than 5 years ago | (#26704503)

Slightly off-topic, but I took a shaky photograph one time with a disposable film camera, in a parking lot. When I got the film developed, I was surprised to see that, in this accidental photo everything is motion blurred, upper right to lower left, except for the license plate of a particular car, which was clear and in focus with no visible motion blur.

Weeeird.

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

mckinnsb (984522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26704853)

One cool thing with new tech is that it lifts the bar for the scammers. With RFID you need a lot more than a photocopier and laminator to make a fake drivers license.

Not in every state of the US.

Some states (see: Connecticut) have drivers licenses that are extremely difficult-if not impossible-to copy physically without having the exact same equipment that the DMV has. Connecticut's licenses in particular have layers of holographs and foil that overlap each other. A printer that can print on plastic combined with a laminator simply wouldn't produce anything even remotely close to the real thing. Anyone familiar with a Connecticut license - even an extremely drunk frat boy - would be able to spot the fake instantly.

Now lets talk passports. I don't think I have to get into this too much , but US passports are incredibly difficult to copy or reproduce. The majority of the time (from what I am told), passports are stolen and modified, not forged from scratch.

For your average scammer, acquiring the equipment to produce either is both expensive and extremely difficult. I'd guess that the companies who develop the machines that are capable of producing licenses or passports probably sign a contract with the state or federal government stating that they won't sell the equipment to unauthorized persons; so your only real alternative is to either get it through the black market or a contact at the company.

Now here is the problem illustrated by this experiment:

Chris Paget only spent 250 dollars on creating a device that can steal RFID's while moving. One of the primary motivating factors leading to the inclusion of the RFID in identification documents was the desire to obtain information about travellers without having to ask them to take their license or passport out of their pocket. Here is the important part: A passport or license that has to be taken out of the pocket is one that will be subject to visual scrutiny. A stolen RFID is not subject to visual scrutiny.

If this is true and reproducible, not only do RFID's present a security risk for their bearers, because I don't even have to see your license to copy its relevant information, but RFID's are not effective in achieving their original goal. If you cannot rely on the information given by RFID's , because someone could 'steal' one with only $250 of equipment, then you have to check each and every travelers' passport or license, then why do you have an RFID system in the first place?

Re:RFID on identification scares me (3, Interesting)

steelcaress (1389111) | more than 5 years ago | (#26700893)

I always thought they should do more. I'm not particularly scared of it, but I always thought that since there's a massive amount of information available on you anyway, why not implement this in a useful way?

Go to a job interview, they could have a resume, letters of recommendation, supervisor comments, phone numbers, etc already on file. No more wasted paper or wasted time filling out the same info on different forms.

Go to a hospital, they could already have the meds you're on, anything you're allergic to, and any afflictions you currently suffer from along with symptoms, last blood pressure reading, x-rays, etc -- even if you've never been there.

Enlist in the military, they'd need things for that, including competencies, education, etc.

Insurance companies, well, unfortunately would have limited medical access.

The uses for a big pool of info, with limited access, would be massive. The best thing is that it wouldn't be available online -- it would be available on a data crystal or some other media capable of storing massive amounts of information. You could even have a retina scan or a galvanic skin sensor to make sure the right person has the medium, rather than a crook who ran off with your wallet or an identity thief. RFID doesn't scare me. I think it could be a step in the right direction. As a man who's tired of answering questions and filling out forms, I think this could be a boon, not a bane.

Re:RFID on identification scares me (4, Insightful)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701049)

Who knows what your prospective employer etc would see in your file?

Who knows if it would be true?

Oh wait.. there could be some sort of efficient appeals process to get improper notations removed from your file just as easy as fixing your credit history after getting ID jacked...

Boy, my grade school teachers didn't know how right they were when they threatened me with screwing up my 'permanent record.'

Re:RFID on identification scares me (2)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701369)

Go to a job interview, they could have a resume, letters of recommendation, supervisor comments, phone numbers, etc already on file. No more wasted paper or wasted time filling out the same info on different forms.

Go to a hospital, they could already have the meds you're on, anything you're allergic to, and any afflictions you currently suffer from along with symptoms, last blood pressure reading, x-rays, etc -- even if you've never been there.

Enlist in the military, they'd need things for that, including competencies, education, etc.

Likely this would result in employers having your medical record, the military having your CV, and hospitals your supervisor comments.

Where would you store all that data? Who would authorize accesses? Why not just give them a CD containing the needed info?

Also, the paperwork has one important aspect not covered by computers: the paper trail. Logs can be tampered with, a piece of paper signed by your doctor/employer/whatever in your safe can not.

In the land of CYA it can be important.

Re:RFID on identification scares me (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701423)

Go to a concentration camp; they could have a name, phone numbers, next of kin, final will and testament, etc already on file. No more wasted paper or wasted time filling out the same info on different forms. Just send them straight to the "showers" for processing.

Go to a job interview; they could have a genetic workup, list of potential diseases, previous health expenditures, current debt accumulation, etc already on file. No more hiring of people who are sickly & likely to aste company resources, or are deep in debt and potential thieves. They can be weeded out immediately.

Point:

Having information so easily available is dangerous. It's loss of power by the citizen & a gaining of power by the politicians and the corporations.

Re:RFID on identification scares me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26704341)

Maybe Comcast could learn something from that:

Comcast: "Please enter your phone number" /me punches in phone number /me waits for an Account Executive

Person on phone: "What's your phone number?"

AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

Don't be scared (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26701123)

We're safe. Cloning RFIDs is illegal.

Re:RFID on identification scares me (2, Interesting)

Neanderthal Ninny (1153369) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701141)

No kidding.
Any form of transmittable broadcast information can be cloned and hacked, so like you, don't trust them. I have an FasTrak on my car but it is stored in a metal case to prevent it from being cloned or tracked for no good reason.
All companies that sell RFID and government agencies claim that their "technology" is safe, unhackable and unclonable but they haven't allow the real world (at least the hackers world) to have at it and truly prove they are safe, unhackable and unclonable. However, over time any encryption technology can be cracked with better and faster computers so any RFID can be cracked.

Re:RFID on identification scares me (1)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702133)

However, over time any encryption technology can be cracked with better and faster computers

This is a common misconception. Modern encryption algorithms are strong enough that "better and faster computers" won't help break them; a classical computer powerful enough to brute force 256-bit AES is physically impossible. Even quantum computers will just mean that some specific techniques need larger keys to be secure.

Encryption algorithms do occasionally get broken through mathematical trickery, but from a user perspective the most likely security issue related to encryption is some sort of design oversight in the practical system that you use. Examples include the fact that your password is on a sticky note on your monitor, or the fact that DRAM doesn't clear immediately [wikipedia.org] when a computer is powered off.

Re:RFID on identification scares me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702501)

This is a common misconception. Modern encryption algorithms are strong enough that "better and faster computers" won't help break them; a classical computer powerful enough to brute force 256-bit AES is physically impossible

And it is equally possible to get the correct key on the FIRST pass.

And no, 256-bit AES is not "physically impossible" to break in many situations, just in most of the useful ones.

Re:RFID on identification scares me (1)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26704815)

And it is equally possible to get the correct key on the FIRST pass.

No. Not in any useful sense of the word "possible". No one will ever luck into guessing a randomly generated 256 bit key on the first try.

Re:RFID on identification scares me (1)

I cant believe its n (1103137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702757)

However, over time any encryption technology can be cracked with better and faster computers

This is a common misconception. Modern encryption algorithms are strong enough that "better and faster computers" won't help break them; a classical computer powerful enough to brute force 256-bit AES is physically impossible.

Do these RFID cards really use 256 bit AES encryption? Do they even use encryption? I assume they can't be super strong, given their limited size and the amount of power available to them, but I hope they at least reply differently given a replayed request?

Re:RFID on identification scares me (1)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703917)

You certainly don't want it to be like in the olden days, where people in the town would recognize you as soon as you walked in, including all of your reputation, simply by your face.

... neat stuff, and a teensy bit scary ... (1)

ninjagin (631183) | more than 5 years ago | (#26700751)

Saw a video linked at gizmodo. Neat stuff, Chris, if a bit scary.

I'm protected by... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26700803)

I'm protected by Ninnle [goatse.fr] BSD.

My hat ain't enough (5, Funny)

sls1j (580823) | more than 5 years ago | (#26700869)

Looks like I'll be getting a matching tin foil wallet to go with the hat.

Re:My hat ain't enough (4, Interesting)

Gojira Shipi-Taro (465802) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701103)

Interestingly enough, when I got my new Passport Card, it came with a little Faraday Cage sleeve (metalized mylar) with the instruction to put the card there when not in use. I don't remember getting anything like that when I got my (RFID carrying) Passport a while back, so maybe there's some realization of the problem on the issuing end...

Re:My hat ain't enough (1)

complexmath (449417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701303)

I got a new Passport Card and plain old Passport at the same time, and the card had a sleeve while the Passport did not. I wondered whether the jacket of the Passport was lined and could only be scanned when open, but haven't bothered to investigate.

Re:My hat ain't enough (3, Informative)

kaatochacha (651922) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701623)

I just received a new US passport. The passport itself has a blurb about being shielded when closed. Don't know if this is true or not, as I haven't checked it myself, but the covers feel like there's something in them.

Re:My hat ain't enough (4, Informative)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702835)

I just received a new US passport. The passport itself has a blurb about being shielded when closed. Don't know if this is true or not, as I haven't checked it myself, but the covers feel like there's something in them.

It is true and it is not. Building a faraday cage into the cover was one of the "concessions" they made in response to all the complaints about privacy issues. But... it only really works if the covers are tightly pressed together. Leaving it open a quarter inch or so may be enough to prevent official readers from picking up the RFID, but not enough to protect against someone with a reader with more juice - like anyone who is up to no good will certainly have.

Re:My hat ain't enough (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702537)

Shoulda got it a long time ago... Its not like we didn't all see this coming. Anyone with half a brain knows that when you add technology to something simple and relatively secure, you then allow it to become complex and easily exploited.

E-voting?

WarCloning? (4, Funny)

spyder913 (448266) | more than 5 years ago | (#26700913)

WarDriving = Driving around finding open APs.
"WarCloning" = Driving around cloning RFID stuff.

Shouldn't it be "CloneDriving" or something else? Though I suppose all of them are equally dumb. So nevermind...

Re:WarCloning? (1, Informative)

spacerog (692065) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701019)

No. I know your being funny, or at least modded that way, but the correct prefix is 'war' as in WarDialing, as in War Games (the movie), which is were the term comes from. "WarCloning" is a perfectly acceptable term.

- SR

Re:WarCloning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26701217)

To expand on the explanation: Wardialing is the act of having a computer find phone numbers leading to computer modems by "scanning" blocks of phone numbers, i.e. dialing each number and listening for a carrier, like Mathew Broderick's character did in War Games. WarAnything is the act of actively or passively looking for something by scanning a block of candidates. WarDriving seems like an appropriate use of the war-prefix. WarCloning on the other hand is focussed on the cloning part, which is not a sensible application of the war-prefix. The act of finding suitable RFIDs to clone would fit that general definition though. An interesting thing to note is that the scanning is usually legal, while the attack on the discovered resources usually isn't, so I would prefer the name WarCloning not to stick, because it breaks that distinction.

Re:WarCloning? (1)

Ron_Fitzgerald (1101005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701035)

"...what do freedom fighters fight?"

~ The late, great George Carlin

Re:WarCloning? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26701171)

U.S. repression, of course. You should check the list of US excursions over the last 30 years, and UN vetoes.

Re:WarCloning? (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702377)

CloneDriving is an activity that takes place on a golf course. It's very similar to seal clubbing, but mostly seems to involve sheep.

Re:WarCloning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702755)

If your going with amalgamations, why not try these on for size:

DriveCloning
CloneWarring
DriveWarring

or the ever favorite:

WarWarring

Lucas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702771)

WarDriving = Driving around finding open APs.
"WarCloning" = Driving around cloning RFID stuff.

Shouldn't it be "CloneDriving" or something else? Though I suppose all of them are equally dumb. So nevermind...

Someone call George Lucas (or his lawyers).

Good for crime fighting, scary for potential abuse (4, Interesting)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#26700935)

Take a lesson from London video cameras and spread the RFID readers at each intersection, and now you can track everyone in the city remotely.

Re:Good for crime fighting, scary for potential ab (2, Informative)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26700957)

Re:Good for crime fighting, scary for potential ab (1)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701017)

In a brave new world of the future those will probably be outlawed...

Re:Good for crime fighting, scary for potential ab (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701135)

What, will they outlaw aluminum sheets? Those bastards!

There are plenty of threats to our freedom right now, no need to be paranoid about the "scary new technologies".

Re:Good for crime fighting, scary for potential ab (1)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702865)

What, will they outlaw aluminum sheets? Those bastards!

No. They will probably outlaw that particular application of aluminium foil. Plenty of such examples today. I'm sure it will have a smart sounding clause, something about impeding lawful functioning of RFID locators, or somesuch.

Protection (4, Interesting)

riceboy50 (631755) | more than 5 years ago | (#26700955)

The first thing I did after receiving my RFID-embedded passport was to pick up one of these [travelonbags.com] .

Re:Protection (4, Funny)

chill (34294) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701059)

Really? The first thing I did was pick up one of these [about.com] , which I already had on hand at the house. Mine is *guaranteed* effective. :-)

Re:Protection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26701085)

You're doing it wrong. The first thing I did when I got mine was pick up one of these. [acehardware.com]

Re:Protection (2, Insightful)

pluther (647209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701089)

The first thing I did was to put it in the microwave.

We are still supposed to do that to all our mail, right? To protect against anthrax? (Are we still living in fear of that? It's hard to keep up sometimes.)

Surely Homeland Security can't be upset at us for doing what they told us to do!

First thing I did, was get my passport renewed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26701259)

As soon as the plans to do this was implemented, the first thing I did was have my passport renewed for another 10 years before they could put the chip inside it. researchers had already hacked them before they where released, so I thought it best to buy myself another 10 years to sort out all the problems with the technology.

Re:Protection (1)

chill (34294) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701263)

Just out of curiosity, have you tested the effectiveness of that shielding wallet? If so, how?

Re:Protection (1)

riceboy50 (631755) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701753)

I haven't had a chance yet, but it should be easy to wave it next to an RFID reader. The ones I have encountered will beep if they are able to ping the chip, even if they don't know what to do with the information.

Re:Protection (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26701791)

I, for one, have. Well, not specifically that model perhaps but I have a wallet I have noticed to (at least nearly) entirely block RFID. Our tickets for public transport operate with cards that have RFID. Strong enough that they can be shown to the receivers in busses, trains, etc. even if the card is inside a wallet that is inside a handbag or something.

When I switched to my current wallet, I noticed that I no longer could get the things to notice the card from inside the wallet even if I touched the receiver with the wallet. The RFID ticket itself continues to work entirely well from outside the wallet so it's not about it...

I haven't throughly tested that it doesn't let anything through but should at least lower the distance from which a chip can be cloned by a lot.

Re:Protection (1)

ChrisPaget (229422) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702343)

The shield that comes with the passport card is effective, at least as far as my research so far has suggested. It's worth mentioning though that according UW / RSA, the shields supplied with the electronic drivers license in Washington are ineffective at preventing reads (although they do reduce range somewhat) - http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=3557

Re:Protection (1)

rthille (8526) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702617)

It didn't seem to help protect the passport when I put the passport in the sleeve, then the sleeve & passport together in the microwave...

Re:Protection (2, Funny)

chill (34294) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702827)

I do believe the magnetron in the microwave is a tad more energetic than your average RFID reader. Well, I hope it is anyway. If not, we're going to have some seriously upset -- and sterile -- border control agents.

Thanks for the input, though.

Where are the FUNCTIONAL RF-blocking covers? (1)

dltaylor (7510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26700969)

I would like to get both passport and driver's license covers.

A google has so much noise that I cannot find the signal.

Any links to to something other than mumetal by the sheet?

Re:Where are the FUNCTIONAL RF-blocking covers? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26701015)

For your driver's license, just use what I have for many years: an "Altoids" tin (or similar item). Perfectly sized for drivers licenses, credit cards, and other such things, and completely impervious to RF scanning technologies. I use one for my "wallet".

For a passport, well, they *did* have those jumbo tins a while back... ;)

Re:Where are the FUNCTIONAL RF-blocking covers? (1)

PayPaI (733999) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701357)

I've got one of these [idstronghold.com] for a passport, and it looks like they have card size sleeves as well.

Good (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 5 years ago | (#26700981)

I hope they do a lot of damage so that they scare enough people so that they finally start protesting against those terrible plans.

tracking abuse.. (2, Interesting)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701149)

Are rfid tags available for the consumer right now? As another person pointed out the city of london is creating a grid of tracking stations so anybody can be located and followed remotely.. but if these tags can be cloned then why not buy up a million or two rfid tags, program the buggers and distribute them throughout big cities (inside car bumpers? tractor trailers? covertly inject them in food if their small enough..) This should really cause headaches for the people tracking..

RFID Gathering (5, Informative)

CaptCovert (868609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701187)

What worries me about all of this is not that the RFIDs can be picked up while driving around. A little consumer education (you are supposed to worry about who you give your SSN to, and you don't just leave your other PII laying around in plain sight usually) in the form of RF-blocking wallet linings will fix that. What I'm worried about is what happens in 5 years, when advances in RF technology (it is the new form of governmental ID, after all. Technology WILL follow suit) allow for hardware that I can hide on my person (antenna down the back of a coat lining, wired to a recorder in my pocket, or hell, dropped in the lining somewhere). At that point, all it takes is one man sitting in a train station or airport. You pull your ID out for scanning, and I harvest it. You may as well walk around with your SSN printed on your shirt.

Re:RFID Gathering (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702223)

Stand in a airport with a suitcase.
What is wied about that?

Well in that you can have an antenna and battary, and computer.
And you know that there will be a lot of passports around you.
And what else that are using RFID.

Now get a group of your frinds to getter.
And now you are are standing along the path that normal persons will use.
When you all log a lot of data.
When you get home you will look at what ID you that poped up togetter at all of your.
And that way you can see what set of RFID that is belonging to the same person.

obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26701199)

Papers (rfid chip?) please...

I saw the video and it is inaccurate at best (3, Informative)

anand78 (832850) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701223)

The XR400 used in the drive through was a UHF reader. Reading a UHF tag is not as easy as the author described. All you have to do is put it against your body, and the salt water attenuates the signal, thus making the tag unreadable. Making such broad statements as scrap the whole real ID or national id, will be valid, if the author showed some substance.

Re:I saw the video and it is inaccurate at best (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703433)

"All you have to do is put it against your body, and the salt water attenuates the signal, thus making the tag unreadable. "

The old "prison wallet" looks better and better.

Knew this was coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26701257)

Ha ha ha. I knew this was coming. Ever since someone figured out how to use a pringles can to pick up wifi from a couple of miles away I knew no RFID for personal identification would be safe. Anybody with half a brain could have seen this coming for RFID.
If we don't learn from history, or we are arrogant enough to think we won't make the same mistakes on previously proven bad ideas, we WILL repeat history.

linux fags sucking obama cock (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26701271)

keep slurping it up faggots. we know you love big liberal dick in your mouth and ass. we know that obama plans on fucking the white middle class for all it's worth. you're next.

Re:linux fags sucking obama cock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26703785)

And that is a good thing, shit for brains.

Reading Passport RFID Cloning Passport RFID... (1)

Phizzle (1109923) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701643)

Couple of points - just because you can see a tag of the Passports RFID, doesn't mean you can do anything meaningful with that data. Having just traveled from US to London to Amsterdam and back, I got to say - good luck trying to walk through the check points with bogus data. Any nerd who thinks he can make a fake passport just because he can scan RFID is going to have his 30 year old cherry popped in real jail.

Where's the cloned passport? (1)

origamy (807009) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701675)

He simply shows that he could read the RFID tag of the passport. Where's the new passport created (as in "Cloned") with it?

Sure, it's bad to be able to read the RFID information, but let's not over blow what is being done here out of proportion.

Makes it much harder at border crossings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26701999)

With all those stinking hippies hanging on your back for the ride. Also makes customs more suspicious.

Stealing bandwidth is one thing, but this is going too far.

exaggerated description (2, Informative)

SethJohnson (112166) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702087)



This fellow doesn't demonstrate cloning anything. He's just reading RFID codes in the video.

Seth

Its a lie (2, Informative)

dlmarti (7677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703327)

The Author claims you can read the SSID and reprogram another tag with this SSID. This is not true. The SSID is not a R/W field. While technically you could create an active device to pretend to be a tag with the fake SSID, it certainly is not trivial.

I have an even better solution (2, Funny)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#26704161)

We should make RFID highly controlled instead. Once we make RFID ownership illegal then only criminals will have RFID, and they'll be a whole lot easier to find.

Hey, it works for guns, right?

HID... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26704427)

My employee ID card is a HID ISOProx II card that opens the outside door to my building. I'd love to know how far away it could be picked up when it's clipped to my shirt.

no one knows AAA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26704867)

hm.....seems human are getting stupid as usual

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...