Talk:Radio Frequency Identification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Radio Frequency Identification

Call for Papers

The International Journal of Antenna and Propagation (IJAP) is publishing a special issue on radio frequency identification (RFID) technologies. RFID systems are used for electronically identifying, locating, and tracking products, animals, vehicles. Passive tags (transponders) do not have a battery and have limited range, typically about one meter. Active tag systems have a power source and much longer range. Current RFID research and development include theory, antenna design, wireless communication, networking, system-on-chip IC development, database management, propagation theory, signal processing, embedded system design, and more.

This special issue is to present new RFID-related techniques to address theoretical and technical implementation challenges

Papers that reflect the current and future methods are solicited.

Topics of interest include (but are not limited to):

Reader and tag antennas Metallic object tag antenna design RF- and antenna-related techniques to improve the recognition rate of RFID Miniaturization of tag antenna Reading range for different antennas RFID measurements and modeling Printable tag design and analysis Active and passive tag antennas Location technologies RFID near-field and far-field analyses RFID impedance matching and related topics Smart label tag antennas RFID and USN system (ubiquitous sensor network) Authors should follow International Journal of Antennas and Propagation manuscript format described at the journal site http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijap/. Prospective authors should submit an electronic copy of their complete manuscript through International Journal of Antennas and Propagation Manuscript Tracking System at http://www.hindawi.com/mts/, according to the following timetable:

Manuscript Due March 1, 2007 Acceptance Notification July 1, 2007 Final Manuscript Due October 1, 2007 Publication Date 1st Quarter, 2008

Guest Editors: Youchung Chung, Department of Information and Communication Engineering, Daegu University, Gyeongsan, Gyeongbuk 712-714, South Korea; mailto:youchung@daegu.ac.kr

Manos Tentzeris, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0250, USA; mailto:etentze@ece.gatech.edu

Pavel Nikitin, Intermec Technologies Corporation, 6001 36th Avenue West, Everett, WA 98203-1264, USA; mailto:pavel.nikitin@intermec.com

Junho Yeo, System Research Team, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute, 161 Gajeong-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon 305-700, South Korea; mailto:jyeo@etri.re.kr

Jin Mitsugi, Auto-ID Labs, Keio Research Institute at Shonan-Fujisawa Research Support Center (SFC), Keio University, 5322 Endo, Fujisawa 252-8520, Japan; mailto:mitsugi@sfc.wide.ad.jp

Markku Kivikoski, Institute of Electronics, Tampere University of Technology, 33101 Tampere, Finland; mailto:markku.kivikoski@tut.fi

Hans-Erik Nilsson, Depatment of Information Technology and Media, Mid Sweden University, 851 70 Sundsvall, Sweden; mailto:Hans-Erik.Nilsson@miun.se

Zhi Ning Chen, Radio Systems Department, Communications Division, Institute for Infocomm Research, Singapore 119613; mailto:chenzn@i2r.a-star.edu.sg

This article has been cited as a source by a media outlet. See the 2004 press source article for details. "Beyond the Barcode." (1 September 2004). Network Computing Asia. [1].

This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2006 press source article for details. The citation is in: Sooman, Derek (6 January 2006). "Computer chips get under your skin". TechSpot.

This article has been cited as a source by a media outlet. See the 2004 press source article for details. "Beyond the Barcode." (1 September 2004). Network Computing Asia. [2].

This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2006 press source article for details. The citation is in: "Computer Getting Under Your Skin? ." (9 January 2006). Techtree. [3].

This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2006 press source article for details. The citation is in: "Alarm over shopping radio tags? ." (8 April 2006). BBC. [4].

---

Contents 1 Better wiki page on rfid on a different language 2 Faraday cage shielding 3 Car key cloning? 4 electronic details 5 History of RFID tags 5.1 Passive Voice 6 rfid 7 Movie references 8 Several RFID factoids 9 RFID equipment vendors (External links) 10 RFID history 11 UHF 12 added to == Passports == 13 changes to types of RFID tags 14 Active editors: Have you thought of writing... 15 Criticisms? 16 Vandalism 17 Suggested addition to article 18 RFID viruses? 19 References / Citations 20 Link spam? 21 Cleanup 22 Disabling RFID 23 RFID White Papers and Research link addition 24 The mark of the beast 25 RFID and Carriers 26 RFID and Carriers 27 Vulnerability section deleted? 28 Legislation section deleted? 29 Religious reaction linkspam? 30 Explanation of semi-active and semi-passive 31 Have a standards organisation for RFID.... 32 Contactless 33 Religious Reaction

[edit] Better wiki page on rfid on a different language

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID Someone should tranfer some infomation from the german section of wikipedia to english!

• Ok i got the "Potental Attack/protection against Rfid scenarios" bit from that page to here. No time to do more though.

[edit] Faraday cage shielding

from the article-- The 125 kHz and 134 kHz tags are coupled by magnetic field instead of an electric field. As Faraday cage shields only the electric component of the electromagnetic field, aluminium foil shielding is ineffective. Any magnetic shielding, eg. a thin sheet of iron or steel, encapsulating the antenna coil of the tag, will be effective.

radio waves are magnetic aren't they? the magnetic feild would also have to impart a charge on the RFID tag for it to respond, which would be impossible through a Farady cage, correct?

RFID uses either electromagnetic coupling, using a dipole antenna, or magnetic coupling, using a coil. In the other case, the reader and the tag have the relationship of primary and secondary coils in an air-core transformer. Faraday cage will remove the longer-range electric component of the electromagnetic field, but the magnetic component needs something more. A layer of aluminum may attenuate the low-freq magnetic signal a bit by the means of eddy currents, but won't have more effect than that. Tested practically with a 125 kHz tag. --Shaddack 22:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The statement that "aluminium foil shielding is ineffective" against interrogation by a radio frequency magnetic field is patently false, as any competent electronics engineer and amateur radio buff knows. Materials that exhibit no ferromagnetism whatsoever can serve as highly effective shields against electromagnetic waves. First, it is necessary is that they be conductive to electric current; the higher the surface conductivity, the better. Aluminum does a fair job, and is cheap. Copper is better. Silver is best. It works much like a mirror in the optical range. The incident magnetic field induces an opposing current in the conductive material that creates a magnetic field of opposite polarity and nearly the same magnitude, effectively canceling the original field and preventing it from passing through the conductive shell. If this weren't true, you'd fry yourself every time you used a microwave oven in your kitchen. Ferromagnetic materials are only needed if one needs to deflect constant or slowly varying magnetic fields, such as the Earth's magnetic field. The second requirement of effective electromagnetic shields is that they must completely enclose the object to be shielded. Any openings in a shield can act as slot antennas, channeling electromagnetic energy into or out of the shield enclosures. Putting a patch of aluminum foil on top of an RFID tag will most likely do little to prevent interrogation. Wrapping it completely in household aluminum foil will make it effectively "disappear". Guaranteed. (Sorry to puncture your balloon, Shaddack.) --Quicksilver^{T @} 22:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Magnetic field penetrates aluminum pretty easily. You can put a steel nut on a metal sheet and a magnet on its other side and move it around. You will get some attenuation of AC magnetic field due to eddy currents, but it won't be much. You are likely right with the megahertz-range tags, but 125 and therefore also 134 kHz ones will be at most somewhat attenuated as the field fluctuations are not too fast. We do not talk about dipole antennas here, we talk about the short-distance coupling of two coils that is equivalent to an air-core transformer. Besides, I got my hands on a 125kHz reader module, and I tested the aluminum foil trick and then experimented with other materials; Al foil did not work significantly, thin steel worked neatly even in only one layer when between the tag and reader coils. --Shaddack 02:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this fun? That's why companies pay people like me the big bucks to solve EMI problems in their product designs so they can pass FCC and CISPR tests. I can tell a client why his design is failing, but I can't always get him to agree to fix it! --Quicksilver^{T @} 08:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, hard numbers. I repeated the experiment, this time with quantitative measurement. A creditcard-sized tag at 125 kHz is used. The reader's coil has approximately the same size as the coil in the tag. The coils have parallel configuration. A "naked" tag can be read with my reader up to a bit over 5 inches. A layer of cooking aluminium foil on one side of the tag reduces the range to only about two inches, regardless on what side of the tag it is. Wrapping the tag into foil on all sides reduces the range to about half-inch. A tin can lid made of an iron sheet reduces the range to two inches, same as the nonmagnetic foil, when adjanced to the side of the tag away of the reader. When the lid is between the tag and the reader, the range is reduced to zero. I hereby retract my statement about no significant effect, and replace it with a statement about less effectivity than usually expected. --Shaddack 20:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Modified maximum reading range of passive rfid to 1 meter as per http://www.rafsec.com/rfidsystems.pdf

just had a look at rfidbuzz.com and found that it isn't at all so 360° as it would have to be to qualify to be mentioned as such. Not as it comes across now. These "360° views" (as the article had it before now) are not nearly (equally) "from privacy and industry backgrounds" (as the wording would make expect) but in fact largely industry based (and biased) and few are even just about fairly critical of RFID problem potential. Well, what should one expect when the site's name is RFIDbuzz, compare the descriptive marketing term of buzzwords... Think this justifies adjusting the link comment just a bit. - 00:58, 19 Mar 2004 62.180.204.140

Had another look at the other links and found out most of them are industry not openly saying it. Adjusted the comments to be fair (i.e. reflective of who's talking on those lines). If privacy organizations are identified as such, so should industry sources. Does seem to me that somebody passed by editing the page who is simply a less conspicuous sort of a link spammer. (Didn't remove the links, though, not playing as unfair as I don't think that's professional - although I fear some less conscientious individuals will just maliciously ROTFL about it.)

Reviewed versions: So 13:27, 23 Feb 2004 193.113.48.7 added those spam links on RFIDbuzz.com claiming they were a 360° (read unbiased) information clearinghouse. Sure they seem to be a clearinghouse, but clearingly;-) in a biased (industry) interest. While there's nothing wrong (well, maybe) with interest, there sure is with mislabeling it, whether maliciously or being unprofessionally blindfolded.

---

What is the distance a passive RFID tag can be read? And how big is such a tag? What size is an active tag? Guaka 18:08, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Answered on the page. Securiger 05:35, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Altered the range on UHF, Japan uses 950-956. Also removed a funny link to a Spanish site that seemed to have nothing to do with the topic

---

"If a tagged item is paid for by credit card or in conjunction with use of a loyalty card, then it would be possible to tie the unique ID of that item to the identity of the purchaser" This can be done with traditional UPC labels too- is this really relevant to this article? This is nothing new that comes with a switch over to using RFID tags from UPCs.

No, it can't be done with traditional UPC labels - they do not have globally unique ID numbers, and do not have room to add them. They only identify the product type. Thus your identity can be linked to having purchased a particular type of product, but the specific item is not linked back to you. With RFID of the EPCGlobal flavour, every individual item (above a value of about a dollar) would be personally linked to you. This is an "enabler" feature that synergises with other RFID features that barcodes don't have (inability for the owner to remove or disable the tag, plus ability of unauthorised persons to remotely read it) to create security and privacy risks that simply don't exist for barcodes. Securiger 03:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

From the article:

The first known device may have been invented by Leon Theremin, as an espionage tool for the Russian Government, in 1945.

Perhaps the first work exploring RFID .... reflected-power communication ...

This stuff about reflected power communication and reflected power bugs is very interesting, but it seems to me that it isn't really about RFID. For a start, until very recently the overwhelming majority of RFID devices were active transmitters and many still are; secondly the essential feature of RFID is storage and transmission of data, especially identity data - a feature not related to these examples. We probably should have an article on reflected energy communication/passive transmitters, link to it from here, and include these two comments. But these comments are not particularly relevant to RFID per se. (I will shortly start a stub for this unless someone beats me to it, but I have an appointment at the moment.) As for the actual history of RFID, I'm guessing it starts with IFF systems, but that's speculation. We can certainly throw in some dates for more recent developments such as Auto-ID consortium, EPCGlobal and so on. Securiger 07:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

From the article: Also, to deter identity thieves one would simply need to wrap ones driver's license in aluminium foil.

Does anyone have good links to confirm (or deny) this claim, which I've noticed is sometimes in dispute? (The 2 external links after this sentence seem (somewhat misleadingly) to be about the general issue of RFID in driver's licenses, rather than specifically about using foil or other means to counter the RFID.)

[edit] Car key cloning?

From: Graduate Cryptographers Unlock Code of 'Thiefproof' Car Key (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/29/national/29key.html):

Mr. Sabetti of Texas Instruments argues that grabbing the code from a key would be very difficult, because the chips have a very short broadcast range. The greatest distance that his company's engineers have managed in the laboratory is 12 inches, and then only with large antennas that require a power source.

Dr. Rubin acknowledged that his team had been able to read the keys just a few inches from a reader, but said many situations could put an attacker and a target in close proximity, including crowded elevators.

Can't they use a modified high-power reader and a good antenna? Can't they put two key readers in a door frame or the side walls of an escalator? Anyway, I think tin foil is a clumsy solution. I'll put a switch button on the key. Only when you press it, the key works like a transponder. -- Toytoy 18:04, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

hmm. then what's the difference between current car keys? they are designed with a button so that the doors will unlock and even start the engine. i think one of the advantages of smart keys is that you don't have to actually look for your key in order to get in your car as long as you have it in your possesion near your body. such a bad idea though. too many security issues. --129.254.112.91 17:03, January 4, 2006 (UTC)

User 129.254.112.91, you're confusing the RFID transponder in the plastic bulge on the car key with the key fob remote control transmitter. The transmitter uses an active power source (a button cell) to send an RF signal to the car, telling it to lock and unlock doors, etc., and usually doesn't contain a transponder, so it cannot be interrogated. The RFID transponder in the key in most cars that use them is read by an interrogator built into the steering column or dashboard of the vehicle. In most implementations, one can make a "dumb" key copy without transponder to unlock the doors and trunk of the car. It may even work in the ignition lock to activate the "accessory" circuits in the car, but the correct code from the transponder is needed by the engine management computer to start the engine. Wrap the ignition key in aluminum foil or put it into a metal box with a tight-fitting metal lid if you're paranoid about someone stealing the transponder code while you go about your business. --Quicksilver^{T @} 22:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] electronic details

i'd love to know more about the electronics involved. i'll look it up elsewhere and contribute if i figure it out. - Omegatron 19:52, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of RFID tags

Theremin's bug and RFID are not the same thing at all, besides the fact that they are both passive radio devices that transmit information. I propose a new article like Passive radio transponders to cover the general principles and mention these two examples, as well as others that exist. This will also provide a place to move stuff like tracking devices and electronic money that aren't really RF identification. - Omegatron 23:03, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Passive Voice

Please clean up the passive voice in this section. Rewrite "It has been suggested..." , to show who did the suggesting and provide a source.TheRingess 07:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Not many people know this but something quite similar to RFID was implemented in the UK in the late 90s. The system was called Alpha Dot and worked by brushing unique "microdots" on an item such as a car or TV. A police officer could later identify an item of property and establish ownership. For example a car would have about 1,000 dots, a TV would have about 50. The technology did not spread beyond law enforcement and in any case, did not spread far beyond the UK.

[edit] rfid

look at us in the tech age right now, one day we can be able to track anthing that exists on this world!

The police in the UK had 3,500 viewers for examining these brushed on microdots. These would have been analgous to RFID Readers.

[edit] Movie references

When I saw the third James Bond film Goldfinger, do RFIDs exist back in the 60's? There was a device which is similar to the little metal wafer that James Bond tucked into the heel of his shoe.

Lots of things were depicted in the James Bond films that weren't feasible in the 1960s, and many of which are still not technically feasible 40 years later. It's science fiction and escapist fun. --Quicksilver^{T @} 22:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Several RFID factoids

In the recent DefCon, someone demonstrated the ability to read (presumably passive) RFID that should be read at 4-5 inches at 69 feet. http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/000798.html http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2005/07/_defcon_rfid_wo.html

Toronto's 407 Expressway has a transponder that will charge the car's owner based on mileage. At least this device perform similarly to the RFID. --Calyth 17:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFID equipment vendors (External links)

Removed the equipment vendors external links section in its entirety. I feel it violoated WP:NOT on several counts. If anybody thinks I was wrong. feel free to drop a note on my talk page. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFID history

It's true that Theremin used reflective radio waves, but I wouldn't call that RFID either. IFF protocols are an interrogator/responder system that works over radio waves, but I don't know that in its original incarnation in the 1940s it was automatic? Anyway, the first patent for a generic passive transponder that communicates over radio, light, or acoustical waves was issued to Mario Cardullo in 1973. RFID Journal article --Deviantgoods 21:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UHF

Doesn't EPCglobal's EPC Gen 2 standard define a global UHF standard?

[edit] added to == Passports ==

Added som stuff to the passport section about the US issuing passports with RFID tags from October 2006 and about the Norwegian Passport authority.

[edit] changes to types of RFID tags

I removed the sentence "Analysts from independent research companies Gartner and Forrester Research agreed that a price less than $0.10 (production volume of one billion units) is achievable in 6–8 years, thus limiting near-term prospects for widespread adoption of passive RFID; however, the high demand for the tags from Wal-Mart, DoD, METRO, etc., has created a market gradient to support these prices." because it made no sense in conjunction with "Today, as universal RFID tagging of individual products become commercially viable at very large volumes, the lowest cost tags available on the market are as low as 7.2 cents eachin volumes of 10 million units or more.". Maybe the Gartner sentence should have the cost as one cent instead of ten? I couldn't find the source for the Gartner claim so I removed it for now.

[edit] Active editors: Have you thought of writing...

...an article about GPS/SMS bugs? These tiny devices, hidden somewhere at your car, determine its position via GPS and transmit the coordinates via GSM's (or other standards') SMS service to your surveillant(s). They are apparently widely abused by the LEC, secret services or private snoops, thereby infringing on basic civil liberties. Also the aspect of possible counter-weapons could be discussed.

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_Positioning_System and check out '14: GPS tracking'. Feel free to contact me directly, if you prefer. -- Michael [5]

Go for it, as long as you understand that GPS as a system is distinct from RFID as presently defined. --Blainster 11:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean. For those wishing to control your whereabouts, GPS and RFID are just two possible options. So this is the common denominator for them, and that is why I placed my call (also) here.

Michael Laudahn [6]

[edit] Criticisms?

I notice the page doesn't really mention any of the privacy concerns and major criticisms of RFID chips. It seems like a section about these concerns would be worth adding. - 203.110.145.13 13:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that as well... It used to have a section on that which has been deleted by persons unknown... I'll add some links. --by unknown

What about adding criticism of the so called "criticism" (more like fearmongering)?--Wormsie 07:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

It looks like somebody deleted the entire second half of this article a week or two ago. I've gone and recovered the lost content, but we should be on the lookout for further deletions, either accidental or intentional. To the user above, "I'll add some links" isn't the right approach. You've added links to corporate press releases, which is not appropriate, so I've deleted them. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Please sign your posts. Thank you! Jehochman 18:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry.. it was me who added the links but I thought some of them appropriate. They weren't all just corporate links and even the ones that were had some useful information like what the companies' future plans are. "Wikipedia is not a collection of links" - Yes I know that but unfortunately I did not feel well-informed enough to write much on this subject without letting my own opinions influence the text.. so I thought it better just to post a few links which ARE important as well - wikipedia is not the be all and end all of knowledge.

For example, the British and American people have little technical details when it comes to the technology employed in their passports. They're not calling them RFID chips, because of privacy concerns, but "contactless chips".

Also, some of the links posted were blogs and very relevant. There is precious little info in the public domain out there. Anyway, thanks for fixing the page. The Phantom.

Phantom, please type 4 ~s to sign your posts. Instead of adding links, can you summarize the content of the articles, and then cite them. Citations to major, reliable sources of information are fine. Corporate press releases and minor blog will probably be removed, but main stream media or recognized bloggers will probably be acceptable. I encourage you to participate. Jehochman 08:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Just deleted some vandalism, but not being familiar with dealing with vandals, need help please with all the redirects to here. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Pedroperegrino Thanks. Perspective 22:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There is repeated linkspam vandalism to a personal website, http://www.lgi.ecp.fr/~rekik from different IPs in France. Could be the author? Suggestions for stopping this are welcomed. -- Perspective 21:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested addition to article

Two things that I was trying to find out from this article and I would expect listed prominently in the article were: 1) Do most tags integrate with GPS systems or do they only work with a reader and if so 2) What range do RFID tags have. I'm sure this information is listed in the article and I think the article would be improved if the info was listed in the definition summary. Antonrojo 16:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFID viruses?

> The New York Times reported on new research showing how RFID tags could be "infected" with computer viruses. "RFID malware is a Pandora's box...," the Times quotes from the study available at www.rfidvirus.org.

I've spent the weekend at RFID Journal Live Convention, and I could not find anybody who took this seriously. RFID tags have very small amounts of memory, ranging from zero to a couple hundred bits. While you can do this in a "tech demo" sort of way, there's no evidence that you can launch a real attack against a real system. In other words, I don't think it's notable - there's no real world ramifications, just one fringe researcher who got some press attention.

How comfortable are people with the length of this article? I've been learning a lot about RFID at work, and there's lots of interesting things that could be added to this article. The contents of the box can seriously affect the range of the tag, for instance. On the other hand, this is an encyclopedia, not a technical white paper - and I know you folks have a general disdain for experts around these parts anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.120.73.60 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References / Citations

It seems that the further down this article you read, the fewer references there are. I've added the verify tag. and will have a closer look later. Kevin 09:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

References are good, just don't add any to corporate PR pages, corporate product pages,, unpubished research, or some sort of opinionated advocacy. All references should be to the most authoritative publication available, which could include main stream media, well-known bloggers, or e-zines. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link spam?

Previously, we deleted link spam to personal pages, etc. See my comments above Talk:RFID#Vandalism. Yet there seem to be no objections to the same personal web page (rekik) labelled "academic papers." So I'll leave it to another editor to remove it, if objectionable. -- Perspective 23:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I see you out there- wikitruth americans united for change lou dobbs Repmarkey Senmenendez, Repnadler whoever else- you'r slinging on security. or maybe that CSI thing is the thing for containers security. Kɔffeedrinksyou 19:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I spent a good amount of time going through the references and deleting all the crud. There were references to unpublished papers, corporate PR pages, corporate product pages. The associated content was also removed if obvious that the content was there for promotion. I've left in references to journals and bloggers that appear to be legit. I've left in SpyChips because we need to tell the anti-RFID side of the story, and that appears to be the best source available. Feel free to make further improvements. If you want to re-add a deleted external link, please discuss it here first. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disabling RFID

Perhaps I'm just paranoid, but it greatly interests me as to what methods there are for disabling RFID. I know it's possible to disable them by breaking them, but as the chips get exponentially smaller and more difficult to find I wonder more and more if it would be possible, short of an EMP (if that would even work...) to disable a tag without physically snapping it/tearing it off a product/out of your body. --Shaikoten 18:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Should this page mention the RFID Zapper? —Tobias Bergemann 14:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think a brief description of the technology would be appropriate. Unless some ridiculous restriction like the DMCA has made that illegal already. ;) I think I'll do a bit of learning up and see if I can't contribute my findings. --Shaikoten 18:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What was it about that many people don't know where they are. I'm any one can see them cuz i take as soon I get home. Don't people know you can disable it using a high powered magnet as such from a speaker?

[edit] RFID White Papers and Research link addition

Hello, I would like to suggest an external link to RFID White Papers and Research page (http://www.rfid-asia.info/papers.htm) to the Wikipedia's Radio Frequency Identification page. I would appreciate your comments or feedbacks. Cheers, Adi

Adi, please don't be offended, but I would consider this link inappropriate. Thank you for talking about it first! Wikipedia isn't a collection of external links. Add content to Wikipedia, not links. The only reason for a link is to reference an authoritative source of info about a topic. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 13:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

None taken. Adi

If it is possible at all, I would like to suggest a correction to a common misunderstanding regarding the RFID tags as written in the introduction. It is currently written "RFID tags contain silicon chips and antennas to enable them to receive and respond to radio-frequency queries from an RFID transceiver.". I think it would be more precise if you write "Chip-based RFID tags contain silicon chips and antennas ...", because there are chipless RFID tags and they may not contain silicon chips and antenna. It is also imprecise to write that RFID tags "receive and respond to radio-frequency queries from an RFID transceiver", because there are "Talk-First RFID tags" that do not only receive and respond to radio-frequency queries. My suggestion is to delete this part to avoid ambiguity and change the sentence into "Chip-based RFID tags contain silicon chips and antennas.". I write this here because I couldn't find the link to edit the introduction part. Adi

Go for it. You're in charge at Wikipedia and you don't need permission to add content. Edit boldly. I think it's great to explain the difference. You should find the most authoritative source of info, and provide an inline reference. That way other editors can check your information and try to make further improvements. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The mark of the beast

This is the thing that Christians refer as the mark of the beast, which will be forced to be taken in the end times right before Jesus comes back (the rapture). The bible says something like, "if you accept it, you're goin to hell." I will never get this thing, even if it had nothing to do with going to hell, it is just plain weird.

This information keeps getting bumped off the page along with several others. I am the one who first added information on it, and I will be ever vigilant in assuring it stays here.--Metron4 18:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFID and Carriers

I get the feeling that this section has been copy/pasted in from some company's public relations brochure. I'm sure this, for example, violates WP:WEASEL:

As can be seen the benefits of RFID for carriers is endless.

It just feels like PR-ese. Thoughts? Brownsteve 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly not neutral - a sales job that makes sweeping unsupported statements.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sithech (talk • contribs).

Looking further, it's one big chunk from only one user: [7] Brownsteve 00:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this stuff from the article. I couldn't see anything worth saving. Feel free to look through the stuff below and restore any facts you can find. It's mostly opinion and rhetoric. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vulnerability section deleted?

Hi I'm trying to understand the reason behind the edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_Frequency_Identification&diff=64820460&oldid=64786065

Part of the old stuff deleted from there was restored in part, but the entire vulnerabilities section has gone. Perhaps some of the deted stuff should be brought back in?

132.72.138.1 06:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the content was removed. Could you sign in if you have account. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 13:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legislation section deleted?

Hi, I noticed that this edit by 220.226.37.206 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_Frequency_Identification&oldid=77319912

removed the entire section on RFID legislation in the USA. Has this been moved into a different article or is there some other reason for the change? I edited the same section a few days ago http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_Frequency_Identification&oldid=77132640

to add a link to the full text of SB 768, one of the bills discussed there. David Molnar (Dmolnar, Talk)

I readded this section as it was deleted by an annonymous editor and at least two of us deem it worthy. I also updated SB 768. Grika Ⓣ 20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious reaction linkspam?

Do the weblinks provided at the end of this section constitute linkspam? Three out of the four appear to be personal pages of information, and the fourth is a news article. What say yea? Delete, or do they corroborate the information in this section?--Metron4 18:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• delete - These sources clearly did not satisfy WP:RS. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep fourth link - The last one was a published article directly addressing the subject.

[edit] Explanation of semi-active and semi-passive

These are mentioned but nothing is explained. Can anyone provide details? Thanks.

[edit] Have a standards organisation for RFID....

Hi I think that the following URL will be useful content as it's the standards org for RFID:

http://www.gs1uk.org/

[edit] Contactless

Contactless redirects to this article. There are several other contactless technologies such as MIFARE. Therefore I'd say there should be a disambig page at Contactless. Anyone else agreeing with me? --Abdull 16:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Reaction

I've pulled the following section because it's completely unsourced, and there's no way to tell if it's fact or fiction. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)