🚀 go-pugleaf

I've been very concerned with RFID technology.  So much so, that when given 
an opportunity to research the subject during a graduate class, I took it. 
Here's the basics of what I learned:

RFID is simply a number or ID on a card.  This ID number can be read by an 
RFID reader.  The ID in itself means absolutely nothing.  That ID linked to 
a database means everything.  As long as the security of the database is 
good and the ID is not a combination of identifiable information, then RFID 
is not a security risk.

The readers have issues though.  Water, such as rain makes accurate readings 
difficult.  Remember, that the "RF" in RFID is radio frequency.  Water 
disrupts radio waves.  Distance is an issue too.  They have very short 
accurate distances.  The other major issue which will decrease in time, is 
the cost of the readers.  They are extremely expensive.

Short answer is the ID is meaningless without the link to the data.  There 
are still technical and cost issues that need to be overcome to make it 
consistantly accurate and cost effective.


"Ari Silverstein" <abcarisilverstein@yahoo.comxyz> wrote in message 
news:1ksnfkieaosro.186oh2btlmb8f$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 11 May 2006 08:52:54 -0700, Joshua Putnam wrote:
>
>> On one hand, nothing in the cited legislation says anything about
>> RFID, and RFID tracking seems like a ridiculous proposal that no
>> politician would expect to get away with.
>>
>> On the other hand, there's no legislation authorizing the NSA to
>> maintain a database of every single phone call made within the United
>> States, and it seems like a ridiculous scheme that no politician
>> would expect to get away with.
>
> Now for the reality.
>
> http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/1951/1/1/
> -- 
> Drop the alphabet for email