Human Chips
 

Microchip Implants Raise Privacy Concern

CityWatcher.com, a provider of surveillance equipment, attracted little notice itself - until a year ago, when two of its employees had glass-encapsulated microchips with miniature antennas embedded in their forearms.

The "chipping" of two workers with RFIDs - radio frequency identification tags as long as two grains of rice, as thick as a toothpick - was merely a way of restricting access to vaults that held sensitive data and images for police departments, a layer of security beyond key cards and clearance codes, the company said.

"To protect high-end secure data, you use more sophisticated techniques," Sean Darks, chief executive of the Cincinnati-based company, said. He compared chip implants to retina scans or fingerprinting. "There's a reader outside the door; you walk up to the reader, put your arm under it, and it opens the door."

Innocuous? Maybe.

But the news that Americans had, for the first time, been injected with electronic identifiers to perform their jobs fired up a debate over the proliferation of ever-more-precise tracking technologies and their ability to erode privacy in the digital age.

more:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070721/D8QH34P80.html

Mmmmm, human chips. Do they come barbecue or cheddar/sour cream?

Seriously, it sounds a bit obtrusive. The implications of other uses are what's scary.

How many years before the studies showing these chips cause cancer?

That or that we find the hospitals are implanting them into newborns...

:D

On a more serious note, I could see the value in having them put into military persons in a war theater. If anyone is kidnapped they would be able to find them. They would be able to monitor specific operations by the individual, vs the current method of real time video, usually IR. They could put them in the people who feared being kidnapped, like high value targets, and then immediately find and capture the kidnappers, hopefully before the individuals were injured or killed. It would pretty much eliminate that form of terrorism. Make it voluntary and have the device removed when they left the area of operation.

All that from an implanted RFID chip that can transmit inches, possibly even feet?

There are different kinds, apparently ... short distance and long distance broadcast. Digital Angel was supposed to have one that would allow you to monitor your teen's movements via a website.

It's the mark of the beast, I tell you.

No corporation would ever own my ass to the extent that I'd permit them to chip it.

edit to add: Digital Angel does have a GPS "solution".

According to the rfid journal
So I was wrong about my snarky inches to feet comment. A RFID tag will transmit about as far as a shouting human voice.

Whew!! You all had me worried there for a bit.

You could worry about your cell phone being used as a listening device...

Great - the paranoia may now return

:::Looks over shoulder:::

Witness Protection woes? Yeah, me too.

I assure you that we are talking only about a technological glitch would could be overcome by some very smart people in high places.

Perhaps a very long range RFID will be invented in the future. You may be right, you may be wrong.

But...

You're either going to have a lot of low powered transmitters like we have today, or a few high powered ones. You're not going to have an army of high powered transmitters all broadcasting simultaneously. The interference would be too overwhelming.

I can't wait, and I am going to be the first to be fitted with my very own subcutaneous RFID.

I am sure the benefits will outweigh the negatives.

My dog has one already.

So does my car.

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.

Radio-frequency identification
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Low-frequency (LF: 125 – 134.2 kHz and 140 – 148.5 kHz) and high-frequency (HF: 13.56 MHz) RFID tags can be used globally without a license. Ultra-high-frequency (UHF: 868 MHz-928 MHz) cannot be used globally as there is no single global standard. In North America, UHF can be used unlicensed for 902 – 928 MHz (±13 MHz from the 915 MHz center frequency), but restrictions exist for transmission power. In Europe, RFID and other low-power radio applications are regulated by ETSI recommendations EN 300 220 and EN 302 208, and ERO recommendation 70 03, allowing RFID operation with somewhat complex band restrictions from 865–868 MHz. Readers are required to monitor a channel before transmitting ("Listen Before Talk"); this requirement has led to some restrictions on performance, the resolution of which is a subject of current research.

Hi.

I'm Clodfobble's husband. For years now, she has participated in lively conversations with many people on the Cellar. Some of these interested me greatly, but for years now, I have never once posted, nor even really read the threads. I want to mention this to provide background and perhaps a little weight to what I'm about to say:

You, sir, are a moron.

My wife's post was was stating that TX Tag was an RFID device, which you dismissed because you were not personally familiar with TX Tag, but instead based your assumptions (a dangerous thing for an engineer), on the older EZ Pass technology. You stated that the reporter must be a "technically naive reporter", when in fact you were the technically naive one. A simple google search for TX Tag gave the Wikipedia article which validated the manufacturer as Transcore's eGo product. A quick click there gave the frequencies for these devices. You want to complain about the ranges? Fine. Go ahead. But I might note that the TX Tag is a passive 900Mhz RFID system, currently in use. I'm willing to bet that the engineers that tested the system are happy that the tags are responsive within a range acceptable for operation on the tollways (which are certainly greater than 3 meters, but probably less than 10). But then again, no one was asking about that.

It's OK to be wrong. Sure, it hurts your street cred a little, and all the younger engineers start eyeing you like they're going to challenge you for dominance in the RF engineering pack, but it's much less painful then continually driving the wrong point home over and over again.

So ends my first (and probably last) Cellar post.

Oh no, no, no, no. Please. Please don't make that your last post. Look, I understand the appeal of going out on top, but I urge you to resist that siren call. Please stay. Please post. Don't go.

Honestly, welcome to the cellar, Mr CF. Any friend of CF's is a friend of mine. I personally welcome your debut, and your rebuts (if any). Plus, we could use some more brains and wit around here, god knows I'm draggin down the curve.

Ok.

Well, I guess that covers it. Since the cellar is a community property cyber state, I think you can claim the spousal exemption to the test. Oh, and that was a great opening post. See ya round the rodeo.

TW was correct for the class of tags called passive, and that includes the mobile speedpass readers you can put in your car. Those use an antenna positioned above the gas pump to imterrogate the widget you're supposed to mount in a window. The NY/NJ/PA EZpass tags are active...they have a battery and transmit when asked to...gives them a lot more range. I'm pretty sure the Mobile speedpass car gizmos are passive. I use the keyfob one, and used to have a NYS EZpass. and I design stuff like this for a living.

In theory, you could get an RFID tag to work from many miles (think military radar which identifies targets from a long distance away solely on interpreting echoes, even when the object in question doesn't want to be identified.) The issue is only one of economics: power, range, number crunching, safety.

I have credit cards that are chipped, my company badge is an RFID tag, my cellphone reports GPS position to E911, and a 802.11 LAN can do geolocation if you program it appropriately.

remember that the only time time your cellphone or laptop is "off" is when you remove the battery..all other times they are exploitable by malicious code

I forgot...frequency selection is also economics and physics, there are no unique or optimum RFID frequencies until you start placing operating constraints on the system.

Welcome to the Cellar Mr. Clodfobble. :D
Thanks for the input. I could see why you would be reluctant to post here, or anywhere she knows about. She's a very smart chick and if you flub, she'd cut you to ribbons. That could be bad, when you just can't hit the close button to escape.
That said, your post didn't sound like one prone to flubs, so please resist the temptation to protect your genitals and stick around. Please.

Which was the point from the start. It is only a matter of time until the physics can be exploited to increase the range and power of the signal. In fact, it would not surprise me at all if it is not already been done.

OK all you experts, assuming the advances can be made to increase the range to hundreds of miles, what about interference? If you have a military theater of operations with 200,000 RFIDs all transmitting at the same frequency at a range of hundreds of miles, how will you not have interference? This isn't cars zooming single file under a reader, or jeans coming out of a store one at a time.

Could you have a reader that sends out a narrow beam and scans regions of an area, much like the ray of a cathode tube scanning the individual lines of the display screen? A big eye in the sky, slowly scanning the ground back and forth for individual RFIDs?

'We again have proof that Saddam had WMDs.'

If that product does exist as an RFID for monitoring cars through toll booths, then Mr Clodfobble could provide numbers or a citation. Currently we only have his emotionally laced insistence that it is true. And that is the credibility lesson from a lying president. One whose knowledge comes only from ‘I feel I know’ need not provide credible sources. Where are those facts and numbers? Why so much emotion when simple citations could have answered the question?

When numbers suggest it does not exist, does Mr Clodfobble provide numbers and citations - or get emotional?

I did his work. Some new RFID electronic tolls booths in the UHF range work reliable if the vehicle stays under 20 MPH. RFID was not the point. Mr Clodfobble made claims without providing one reason to believe him. That should never happen now that we all learned why a mental midget president could lie same way about WMDs .

Clodfobble finally provided a citation only after being pushed. Numbers in her citation said RFID still is not sufficient for tolls booths. She did not do the required work - cite those numbers. I had to find numbers from her citation. Clodfobble was called on making claims she could not even confirm with underlying facts or a grasp of the simple technology. Her proof was same that a president used to prove Saddam was importing yellow cake from Niger.

Get those simple facts was not difficult. RFID for electronic toll collection is a recent achievement that requires a vehicle to pass through slowly. That information was available at responsible sources such as RFID Times Magazine. Only required was something to make Clodfobble's post credible. So why so much silly emotion?

Amazing how many still want to believe the first thing they are told rather than demand confirmation - the numbers. Amazing how many get childish emotional when they don't provide necessary citations.

"Mission Accomplished taught everyone this: "I know only because I 'know' means I know nothing". Attached emotion only implies a credibility problem. Basic facts were so easily avaiable. Why instead so much childish emotion?

There are numerous solutions to this problem. Ethernet demonstrates one using collision avoidance. Two common solutions include time domain and frequency domain multiplexing. AT&T cell phone systems used frequency domain multiplexing. Other better systems use time domain multiplexing. Another is Wide Band Spread Spectrum broadcasting. A technology originally patented by Hedy Lamar in the WWII era. A technology that probably should have been appearing in a scaled down version in Version N of Wifi.

Also useful are antenna polarity. This is why satellites with only 12 frequencies (channels) can operate 24 transponders on those 12 frequencies.

Obviously is antenna gain. MaggieL posted pictures of her satellite directional antenna - a yahgi. I suspect it is so directional as to require adjustments to within single digit degrees.

And then we go back to Shannon's 1940s theories on communication. How to cut through the noise? Two methods. More power or slower data rates. Today those revolutionary concepts should be common knowledge to the computer user.

See, that's how they get you. "Bit unhappy" over chipping animals, but totally thrilled when it's "for the children."

In most cases, the pet-based uses are pushing you over the edge of the slippery slope that will end up in mandatory human use. There will be some side-trips to chipping criminals, probably, maybe even including seeing to it that they are all entered in a DNA database ...

It's not paranoia when it's real, people.

I don't know where you got 20 mph. I drive under the toll archway every single day at 80 mph. It scans my windshield tag and sends me a bill.

Actually, I provided a second and third citation after you accused the first one of being untrustworthy.

Ah. So first, I must be wrong because my tag has a battery, I just don't know about it. Oh, turns out it really doesn't have a battery.

Then, I must be wrong because the range of the tag is too small for a toll booth to read it as I pass by. Oh, turns out the range is at least 10 meters, maybe as many as 30, and my state's archways are about 15-20 feet over the roadway, well within range.

Now I must be wrong because I didn't mention I have to drive 20 mph through the tollbooth. Can you guess what's coming, tw? Oh, turns out you're still wrong, traffic does not slow for pre-paid TXTag customers. Your "responsible" source is either inaccurate or out-of-date, much like your original technical citation from 2005.

Clod, just because the thing works, doesn't have a battery, operates at an impossible range and at unrealistic speeds doesn't mean that you still aren't wrong, you know. :eyebrow:

Welcome aboard Mr. Clodfobble - very VERY nice to meet you. Please stick around.

People still respond to tw?

Of course we do. We are equal opportunity abusers.

But again, how do you know it is an RFID device? Or is it a battery powered transponder as was standard even in Germany long before mid-Atlantic America installed EZ Pass?

Delaware River Authority used something completely different for what - a generation now? They used bar codes. Was it RFID? Of course not. Are your archways reading RFID - or bar codes as was standard so long ago?

Clodfobble. Step back and review what happened. You claimed RFID was being used by citing only a reporter (probably a political reporter) reporting what was (probably) said by a politician. Where is the credible 'supporting fact'? If RFID was being used, and if the reporter had a grasp of what he was reporting, then the reporter would have also cited RFID as a major new technology superior to what was routine on America's east coast and on German autobahns. Your reporter did not even state that; just another reason why his report was questionable.

Cited were reasons why that RFID claim was questionable. Your first two citations (including the better one from Motorola) also did not support your claim. Neither citation defined RFIDs for automotive operation. RFIDs have been around for easily 20 years (I saw an early version patented by RCA back in the late 1960s). That does not mean RFIDs are sufficient for the toll booth operations. Your citations provided no useful numbers. I had to search well beyond those citations to find any numbers. I had to do your work.

I don't care whether you drive down the highway at 80 MPH. It tells us nothing useful. Such technology has been used for over a decade even in Germany - but not using RFID. Question remains whether that device is RFID, AND, more important, missing are reasons why we should know it is RFID. This brings us right back to the many who also believed a lying president about WMDs by using exact same logic. I feel therefore I know? When was that sufficient?

I don't know if RFID is reliable for 80 MPH. And using what was posted, nobody else does either. But RFIDs at 80 MPH is a new ability. Whether your arch is monitoring by RFID was not questioned. The question was repeatedly about *why* you know it is RFID. A credible person does not take one's word for it just as credible people here did not believe outright lies that Saddam had WMDs. The repeated questioning is about *why* you and Mr Clodfobble somehow know. Knowing without knowing why is akin to lying. Knowing without knowing why is how America destroyed the lives of millions.

I only saw two Clodfobble citations for RFIDs. Neither made any claim that RFIDs were sufficient for automotive environments. Neither provided useful numbers. The post also never quoted that so important fact: useful numbers. I had to do her work. And still, no credible evidence said RFID works at 80 MPH in that harsh automotive environment.

The 20 MPH limit is from articles in RFID Times. Is TX Tag using RFID? www.rfidtimes.org may be a useful source to justify your speculation. Notice no emotion. Just a routine demand for blunt, damn honest facts.

Meanwhile, moving back to more relevant questions is the topic of privacy. Who controls that privacy or do we still have a right to privacy?

In one environment where passive ID was used in a secure environment (one could not even use the bathroom without another who had a passive ID card), one also could control his privacy by turning the card upside down. Each person could determine whether 'big brother' knew where he was because privacy was important even in secure locations. Under the current government, you have no right to such privacy.

If true, then you have the credible source that demonstrates it is RFID? Clodfobble still did not provide it. Current she says an arch can read her ID at 80 MPH. Therefore that proves it is RFID? Obviously not true. Wrong? We still have no reason to believe it is RFID. Where such functions are being used - east coast American and German autobahn, neither uses RFID. Why does Clodfobble *know* it is RFID? Apparently xoxoxoBruce has the answer. Well Bruce, share your wisdom. Provide to us what Clodfobble still has not provided. Make your claim accurate.

Here
Another

Finally. A citation with credibility. So much pain necessary to get what should have been provided long before Mr Clodfobble went postal.

Fine. I'll use your site. My toll tag is not only passive, successfully operating in the 900mHz spectrum over the open road at normal highway speeds, but the same tags were in use on Georgia tollways as long ago as mid-summer 2005. According to your website. So suck it.

Clodfobble - Happy Monkey did your work for you. You owe him a "Thank you". You owe tw an apology for wasting bandwidth with unjustified insults. Just the facts girl.

I don't know if I'd act so superior, tw. You could have done the same 30 seconds of Googling. Your assumptions were no more supported than Clodfobble's, and yours were actually incorrect.

All of the information in HM's link was in my original link. The fact that you don't trust my original link is not my issue.

Heh. It's pretty much the same article...

Yep. But mine was a "technically naive reporter" who was only writing what he heard "some politician say."

There is not a single word that even implies am I feeling superior. If you think otherwise, you are reading into posts what was not intended. In fact, assume I intentionally misword things just so that others will have an emotional response. I don't. But to understand what is posted, make that assumption. I have no emotional attachment nor any anger at Mr or Mrs Clodfobble. As far as I am concerned, both made a human error.

The point was that Clodfobble could have done that search in 30 seconds. I even provided assistance by doing some work for her - www.rfidtimes.org. I also tried desperately to find evidence in her own citations that proved her point. I am not being smug. I am being tw which means I reply mostly to things often overlooked by others and I viciously demand honesty. Nothing smug or 'superior' about that.

It does not matter if Clodfobble was correct in every claim. A claim made without supporting facts from a credible source - and emotional outbursts when that necessary demand for supporting facts is made again - is totally irrelevant. Her claims were contrary to other existing trends. A simple citation to demonstrate technology has recently advanced significantly could have eliminated all that emotion. Instead she only provided two citations (the better one from Motorola) that provided no such numbers.

Clodfobble has simply demonstrated again why so many so hate mankind as to not always need 'why' to know. Again, minor was that Tx Tag uses RFID. More important was that the claim was made on speculation and then emotion was used rather than facts. Anyone who does not grasp that repeatedly stated point, by now, is not reading. Demonstrated from the very beginning (with no reason for anyone to be emotional) is why Clodfobble knew something without first asking why (ie. the numbers). That point provided with reasons why her claim was suspect.

Provided were many reasons to doubt her original claim. Rather than provide useful facts, there was an emotional outburst followed by two citations that did not provide useful information. Blood to sharks.

Clodfobble really did not know if it was RFID. She used speculation probably based in hearsay - the same reason why so many waste money on Listerene or believe a president who routinely lies.

Nothing smug here. This same standard confronted MaggieL when she was promoting Saddam's mythical 'WMD for attacking America'. I don't care if anyone hated me for it. I went after one thing so important everywhere in life. The irrefutilbe fact.

I not apologize for doing what is expected of everyone. However Clodfobble may owe an apology for repeatedly knowing without even knowing why (the underlying reasons) AND for then becoming emotional when reasons to doubt her claim were provided. I neither expect nor really care if that apology exists. An adult Clodfobble would simply take logical facts from this experience (speculation without supporting facts), prosper, and have zero emotion over this thread.

Again, Happy Monkey demonstrated how quickly Clodfobble could have obtained simple supporting facts from a credible source. That poltical reporter is was not credible for reasons provided previously. That is the point - and nothing else even implied.

Something that most people don't take into consideration, something I have witness first-hand (I worked at Hughes Aerospace cataloging software and hardware after the GM take-over and had some clearance and seen CRAZY stuff).
Public tech is between 5-20 years behind what is actually available in the lab/government.