4 ms·

this is tangential, but: the chips mentioned in the first section of the article are simple RFID tags, similar to the chip a vet might implant in your pet cat.

this is tangential, but: the chips mentioned in the first section of the article are simple RFID tags, similar to the chip a vet might implant in your pet cat. they aren't GPS receivers, they aren't internet-connected, they don't even have a battery. they just store a key which is insignificant without the context of a larger system. i've seriously considering getting one of my own (to pair with smart locks or my car's ignition). i'm very privacy-conscious when it comes to technology, and people who know me are always shocked to hear me express interest. there's a lot of unwarranted FUD surrounding implantable RFID.

icebraining 8y ago
they don't enable tracking of any sort. I wouldn't say that. They enable tracking much like a credit/debit card; they provide an unique ID that can be logged by the reading device when you use it.
maxerickson 8y ago
Detecting proximity to a reader is tracking of a sort.
- woodrowbarlow 8y ago
  you're right, i spoke too broadly. systems utilizing RFID can be designed to enable tracking, but RFID implants themselves are not inherently privacy-averse. if i set up a system at home, my implant would be useless in the context of any other system. i am not at risk of being tracked by unknown parties simply by virtue of having an implanted RFID chip.
- rainbowmverse 8y ago
  If a few inches of fake fur[1] is enough to block it, I don't see how it can be tracked at a distance. [1] (the video is loud) https://twitter.com/The_Sass_Hole/status/982519966225305600 https://twitter.com/The_Sass_Hole/status/982519966225305600
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    There's no reason to assume the reader there is the best possible reader. It might even be intentionally rejecting weak signals.
lostcolony 8y ago
On that note though, while you up the convienence, you also lower the security. Passive RFID can only broadcast a number; there's no compute to adhere to any sort of security protocol that is resistant to replay attacks. Meaning anyone with a reader that passes close enough to you will have the keys to your house.
- theandrewbailey 8y ago
  "Hey, can you take a picture of me and my friend?" Later: "My phone got his RFID. Let's clean him out."
- mseebach 8y ago
  Parent said simple, not passive. Non-passive RFID is still simple.
  - lostcolony 8y ago
    From parent, "they don't even have a battery". Maybe my definition is off, but doesn't that mean passive? I.e., requires an antenna to activate it via an RF discharge, and then with that minimal charge it broadcasts back its identifier.
    - woodrowbarlow 8y ago
      you're right, i did mean passive. something like [1]. i don't claim that they are a particularly secure solution. i only wanted to dispute the implication that they enable GPS tracking. [1] https://dangerousthings.com/shop/xm1-plus/ https://dangerousthings.com/shop/xm1-plus/
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago
  > Passive RFID can only broadcast a number Nope, not anymore. Current UHF RFID tags are able to store enough charge from the RF signal from the reader to have a half-duplex conversation with the reader and do small amounts of computation. See https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:18000:-63:ed-2:v1:en https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:18000:-63:ed-2:v...
tinus_hn 8y ago
Obviously these do enable tracking because they can be detected at different locations, just like your phone can be tracked as it travels along a store if can be distinguished by its Bluetooth or Wi-Fi MAC address. And just because the reader in a door lock only responds to a nearby tag doesn’t mean they aren’t detectable from further away if the antennas are bigger.
- woodrowbarlow 8y ago
  you're right, i've edited that claim out. larger systems utilizing RFID can enable tracking; however, the implant itself isn't inherently privacy-averse.
  - tinus_hn 8y ago
    It’s just as privacy averse as tattooing a barcode on your face. Both allow you to be tracked wherever you go. The only difference is that a tattoo is visible to the naked eye.
    - woodrowbarlow 8y ago
      ... which is just as privacy-averse as having facial features which are visually distinguishable from other peoples' facial features, right? i apologize for the sarcastic example, but the point i was originally trying to make is just that media doesn't understand implantable RFID and constantly implies that if you get a chip you'll end up in a government database with constantly refreshing latitude and longitude.
      - tinus_hn 8y ago
        Facial features cannot be distinguished as exactly and easily as a barcode or RFID tag but they are indeed hard to hide. But if everyone gets an RFID tag you can be sure their locations end up in a big database the government can track, either because companies roll over each other in their efforts of covering the world with readers or the government placing them itself. Just like the database that records the tower your cell phone is connected to, all the time and basically forever. And you can be sure governments aren’t keeping their hands off that kind of data, they’ll find a reason why they need it.
pinkythepig 8y ago
As soon as you walk by someone or shake someones hand, they can copy your implanted RFID. Now, if you want to 'change the locks' to your house and car, you will need to dig out the chip in your hand and implant a new one. To me, adding the capability to a watch, fitbit or other such wrist wearable is the far more practical option. Easy to change out if it gets compromised, plus you can build in a switch so that it is only capable of broadcasting when you press a button.
- noxToken 8y ago
  You're only thinking from a security standpoint. It's valid, but there can be other goals for the system. You can take off a watch to leave at your desk. You probably don't want to chop off a finger.

icebraining 8y ago

they don't enable tracking of any sort. I wouldn't say that. They enable tracking much like a credit/debit card; they provide an unique ID that can be logged by the reading device when you use it.

maxerickson 8y ago

Detecting proximity to a reader is tracking of a sort.

woodrowbarlow 8y ago
you're right, i spoke too broadly. systems utilizing RFID can be designed to enable tracking, but RFID implants themselves are not inherently privacy-averse. if i set up a system at home, my implant would be useless in the context of any other system. i am not at risk of being tracked by unknown parties simply by virtue of having an implanted RFID chip.
rainbowmverse 8y ago
If a few inches of fake fur[1] is enough to block it, I don't see how it can be tracked at a distance. [1] (the video is loud) https://twitter.com/The_Sass_Hole/status/982519966225305600 https://twitter.com/The_Sass_Hole/status/982519966225305600
- maxerickson 8y ago
  There's no reason to assume the reader there is the best possible reader. It might even be intentionally rejecting weak signals.

lostcolony 8y ago

On that note though, while you up the convienence, you also lower the security. Passive RFID can only broadcast a number; there's no compute to adhere to any sort of security protocol that is resistant to replay attacks. Meaning anyone with a reader that passes close enough to you will have the keys to your house.

theandrewbailey 8y ago
"Hey, can you take a picture of me and my friend?" Later: "My phone got his RFID. Let's clean him out."
mseebach 8y ago
Parent said simple, not passive. Non-passive RFID is still simple.
- lostcolony 8y ago
  From parent, "they don't even have a battery". Maybe my definition is off, but doesn't that mean passive? I.e., requires an antenna to activate it via an RF discharge, and then with that minimal charge it broadcasts back its identifier.
  - woodrowbarlow 8y ago
    you're right, i did mean passive. something like [1]. i don't claim that they are a particularly secure solution. i only wanted to dispute the implication that they enable GPS tracking. [1] https://dangerousthings.com/shop/xm1-plus/ https://dangerousthings.com/shop/xm1-plus/
ThrowawayR2 8y ago
> Passive RFID can only broadcast a number Nope, not anymore. Current UHF RFID tags are able to store enough charge from the RF signal from the reader to have a half-duplex conversation with the reader and do small amounts of computation. See https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:18000:-63:ed-2:v1:en https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:18000:-63:ed-2:v...

tinus_hn 8y ago

Obviously these do enable tracking because they can be detected at different locations, just like your phone can be tracked as it travels along a store if can be distinguished by its Bluetooth or Wi-Fi MAC address. And just because the reader in a door lock only responds to a nearby tag doesn’t mean they aren’t detectable from further away if the antennas are bigger.

woodrowbarlow 8y ago
you're right, i've edited that claim out. larger systems utilizing RFID can enable tracking; however, the implant itself isn't inherently privacy-averse.
- tinus_hn 8y ago
  It’s just as privacy averse as tattooing a barcode on your face. Both allow you to be tracked wherever you go. The only difference is that a tattoo is visible to the naked eye.
  - woodrowbarlow 8y ago
    ... which is just as privacy-averse as having facial features which are visually distinguishable from other peoples' facial features, right? i apologize for the sarcastic example, but the point i was originally trying to make is just that media doesn't understand implantable RFID and constantly implies that if you get a chip you'll end up in a government database with constantly refreshing latitude and longitude.
    - tinus_hn 8y ago
      Facial features cannot be distinguished as exactly and easily as a barcode or RFID tag but they are indeed hard to hide. But if everyone gets an RFID tag you can be sure their locations end up in a big database the government can track, either because companies roll over each other in their efforts of covering the world with readers or the government placing them itself. Just like the database that records the tower your cell phone is connected to, all the time and basically forever. And you can be sure governments aren’t keeping their hands off that kind of data, they’ll find a reason why they need it.

pinkythepig 8y ago

As soon as you walk by someone or shake someones hand, they can copy your implanted RFID. Now, if you want to 'change the locks' to your house and car, you will need to dig out the chip in your hand and implant a new one. To me, adding the capability to a watch, fitbit or other such wrist wearable is the far more practical option. Easy to change out if it gets compromised, plus you can build in a switch so that it is only capable of broadcasting when you press a button.

noxToken 8y ago
You're only thinking from a security standpoint. It's valid, but there can be other goals for the system. You can take off a watch to leave at your desk. You probably don't want to chop off a finger.