The range of the RFID is a function of both the chip and the receiver...

Better put them in random and unpredictable places on everyone, or else you'll have a lot of hostages getting their arm cut off right off the bat.

I agree that they would be intrusive and a violation of privacy. Hell, I was a bit unhappy when my city decreed all dogs and cats had to be chipped.

But I confess, I have often wished we had this for children. Having had a child run away and been told she was most likely dead by the police . . . and with all the bad things that happen to children these days (that have always happened to children, whether we like to admit it or not) . . . yeah.

although a voluntary, employment related scenario -- I don't see anything really wrong with that.

The Mexican military has people who work in sensitive locations chipped. You can't get into their high-security locations without one.
Some clubs in Denmark have rooms where you can only go and can only pay with chips that your bank has implanted in you.
As for me, not on your life.

Passive tags are exactly that...they really don't transmit, they "reflect". the best way to describe it is imagine you're holding a signaling mirror, and when someone "interrogates" you with a flashlight, you flutter the mirror and send them a morse code serial number.

The tag operates off the energy it receives from the RFID reader transmitter. It causes the feedpoint impedance of it's antenna to change, causing energy to be reflected back to the reader, so the reader detects a the faint fluctuations in the reflections. There's no power source associated with the tag itself, and it doesn't store any energy.

If the amount of RF radiation you received during this process concerns you, is that cellphone in your pocket on?

& you have it on who's word that is what they are putting in you?

EZ Pass is not RFID. EZ Pass contains a battery. If EZ Pass is RFID, then so is a cell phone and On-Star.

Meanwhile we can expand that now liberated defintion to include license plates that simply transmit passively on a different electromagnetic frequency.

RFIDs were discussed here previously in RFID'S on February 2006.

A larger question. Who controls your identification? That is the exact same question asked in Are you Screwed - National ID back in May 2002. If we don't demand an identify protection system that serves us, then we will end up with an identify protection system designed by government extremists to serve their interests. This same point was posted repeatedly elsewhere with further details.

Appalling are number of posts with absolutely no grasp of what RFID is or the problems associated. One so foolishly thinks RFID can locate a lost soldier. That is total ignorance of a technology that was even being used in factories in the late 1980s - even sold by (if I remember) Dallas Semiconductor.

For example, buy clothes. If an RFID tag is not disabled, then you become a target for anyone with access to simple monitoring equipment. Furthermore, you would never even know that you are talking to those you don’t want to communicate with. When do you know if that tag is disabled or not? When do you even know if the tag exists?

Currently tagging you is quite legal – not a violation of your privacy. And with a more conservative Supreme Court, any privacy protection will only diminish. This court is more often saying you have no right to privacy.

George Jr wanted to put an RFID tag inside passports. That simply makes Americans easy targets. But again, he is not interested in anything important to you. His agenda (actually Cheney's) is 'more power' for his own benefit - not yours.

I don't know about EZPass, but TXTag is definitely RFID.

I don't think so. The ariticle says that TX Tag system will operate at 915 Mhz. Return to what an RFID chip does. First it generates electricity from the externally transmitted signal. Then it used that energy to transmit information inside the chip. It's life expectancy is virtually infinite.

From a Dec 2005 article in IEEE Spectrum: This chip used a relatively new material to obtain higher frequencies: pentacene. If TX is using 915 Mhz, then it is not RFID.

EZ Pass users have a transponder. A transceiver in a thin box also contains a lithium battery. Lithium life expectancy is 5 years. However at least one EZ Pass user had a battery fail after three years. She ignored repeated messages about EZ Pass not accepted. Then they started ticketing her. Only then did she get her EZ Pass replaced. If I remember, EZ Pass operates on 915 Mhz. Other systems such as in VA operate on a different frequency. However EZ Pass can be read in VA (and maybe farther south to SC) because toll booths also contain additional hardware for reading EZ Pass transmitters.

EZ Pass, et al are active devices. They transmit when a message is received requesting that transmission. If its battery goes dead, then no response. RFID uses no battery. RFID is powered by RF fields; not by a battery. In that 2005 article, best frequency was 800 Mhz - and it was probably weak at that frequency. RFIDs typically operate below 100 Mhz.

As for cancer myths - even cell phone operate at higher frequencies and with significantly more power.

Technology has improved since 2005, tw. :rolleyes: A google search turns up 142,000 results for "RFID 915 mHz." Do I really need to pick one to link you to?

From my original link:

Another IEEE Spectrum article describes a medical RFID chip from Verichip; a Spanish subsidiary of Raytheon. A technical description of this new product: Reception range even at 130 kilohertz (below AM or medium wave radio) is 10 cm. Again making it doubtful that TX Tag at 915 Mhz (well above highest TV channel) is RFID. Notice the same power problems that computer chips have as their frequencies approached 1 Ghz. RFID semiconductors have same power loss problems at those frequencies. But RFIDs must be constructed with far less expensive semicondutor technology. Remember, Intel had to push out the envelope to work at such frequencies.

RFID must do so much with so little power. That means operation at lower frequencies. TX Tag sounds more like a battery powered transponder mislabeled by a technically naive reporter.

Demonstrated again is why numbers - the most critical details - are so important in any report.

I HAVE ONE IN MY CAR TW. THERE IS NO GODDAMN BATTERY IN IT.


Edit: I apologize. I am worked up about something else in real life. Here, have a link. And another. Do I need to go so far as to buy you one of these 915 mHz passive RFID tags for sale?

My EZ Pass battery failed, but I noticed. Turns out there was a "bad batch" of batteries that only wound up lasting 2 years.

Fine. Where are the numbers you used to "know"? How do you know it has no battery? I have a date time clock chip from Dallas Semiconductor - mid 1980s - that maintained data and time without a battery. Surprise. A battery was built into the integrated circuit. DS1287 if I remember the numbers.

If it is an RFID, then you can tell us why. Currently no facts - especially no numbers - are provided to prove you have an RFID operating at 900 Mhz for . All we have is you insistance. We had same from George Jr. Back then, I was one of the few who demanded numbers - and therefore declared 5 years ago that I did not believe those claims. Why? Claims were made without numbers and with gusto. Gusto without numbers? A big red flag that creates more suspicion.

If your transponder is an RFID, well, how do you know? If I was making the claim, I would have done something like provide the URL for the 900 Mhz RFID that is for sale. We don't even have that. Claims must also be accompanied by reasons for why we know. That is the fundamental lesson from George Jr's WMD claims. Do you know only because someone told you? Or do you do as I do? Demand more so that the claim has credibility.

That Dallas Semiconductor IC was a direct replacement for the date time clock in IBM PC-ATs. But it maintained date time without a battery. Was it also RFID? No. Tiny battery was part of the IC. 1980s technology.

Numbers suggest that what you call an RFID is not. How would we say otherwise? Facts with numbers. Gusto tells us nothing useful.

BTW, I also have one additional advantage. Met the guy who installed EZ Pass which is why I knew those transponders required batteries and how EZ Pass can work south of Delaware. But you claim your have RFID for the car - no battery. OK. Show me. No reason for emotion. I am only asking for what any good engineer even outside of Missouri would demand. Supporting facts that put credibility to a claim. Show me. Where are the numbers?

As best I can tell (I had to get numbers that were not provided and should have been provided), both examples under ideal conditions are readable up to 10 meters. This will be significantly reduced when conditions are not perfect (ie orientation of RFID antenna, interference from adjacent systems, directional antenna not pointed directly at RFID device). For automotive purposes, 10 meters may be a minimum for reliable operation. The RFID device ideal numbers would therefore be maybe 30 meters so that it works reliable in 10 meters. Neither RFID device claims that. Both claim only 10 meters under ideal conditions.

These latest devices are a significant improvement over what I had seen years ago. UHF devices were reliable for a meter. Utilized where the reader was adjacent to that RFID tag and where RFID tag was not moving at 30 MPH (ie shipping dock).

10 meters is marginal for detecting an RFID device inside a car where adjacent metal within one wavelength (one foot or less) of the tag adversely affects antenna operation and where a moving car must remain inside that 10 meters during the entire 'charge and read' process.

Motorola datasheet for best 'state of art' RFID does suggest that RFID for vehicles is approaching reality. Based upon numbers from both datasheets, UHF RFID appears to be reliable maybe for 3 meters. Technology at an ideal 10 meters today is only approaching usefulness. Unless better numbers can be provided (not just an ideal best case number), then those datasheets still don't suggest UHF RFID operates reliable for moving cars.

Having done the work, then what I was asking for and what should be provided up front was located - supporting facts and numbers. No numbers or other supporting facts meant the claim was not trustworthy.

Current numbers suggest the technology is, at best, marginal for implementation in that harsh and moving environment (assuming toll booths are not reconstructed to optimize UHF performance).

Many ifs. None acceptably possible without numbers. The point was never to argue about RFIDs here. The important point: a claim of something 'more advanced than currently exists' was made without supporting facts. Only provided was a report written by a newspaper reporter who typically has little technology grasp and probably less idea what RFID is when he started his report.

No information that even implied the reporter (or his editor) knew what RFID was. If he did, then implementing RFID at UHF frequencies should have been noted as a major change from current technologies. Other systems (such as EZ Pass) could not use RFID even at lower frequencies. RFID in such harsh environments just was not sufficiently reliable.