Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 3/7/2006 3:24:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 3:25:15 PM EDT by Cahill]
I want to know how to beat big brother, pass the tin foil please.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:26:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 3:28:30 PM EDT by bastiat]
someone find the link from infowars where the microwaved (and burned) a bunch of twenties to defeat the 'rfid' tag in them...

Edit:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/180304_RFID_article.html
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:26:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 3:27:20 PM EDT by dolanp]
Yeah but if all services start needing the RFID to be intact to do transactions then it won't do you much good. Besides RFID is not as easy to track as the tin foil crowd pretends it is. The range is very short which would mean readers would have to be virtually everywhere.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:30:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Yeah but if all services start needing the RFID to be intact to do transactions then it won't do you much good. Besides RFID is not as easy to track as the tin foil crowd pretends it is. The range is very short which would mean readers would have to be virtually everywhere.




I'm sure they can come up with longer range trackers,

I thought of this because I heard some libtards wanting to put rfid's on guns.

I shouldn't really care cause I already have guns and they'll never have frids on 'em
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:34:45 PM EDT
I heard they were going to put rfids on BULLETS. But yeah, you could run your ammo thru the microwave and it will take care of the rfids. I think the "Popcorn" cycle is the one you want.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:36:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cahill:
I'm sure they can come up with longer range trackers,


Wanna explain to me how that can happen? RFID chips do not transmit anything themselves - AFAIK they are passive. They only transmit when they are in proximity to an appropriate EM field. Somehow, I doubt that the government wants to irradiate the population so they can track what you purchased at WalMart.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:40:53 PM EDT

Problem solved

globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2006/01/weapons_the_rfi.html

or just set off a larger EMP pulse and solve all your problems



Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:43:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By Cahill:
I'm sure they can come up with longer range trackers,


Wanna explain to me how that can happen? RFID chips do not transmit anything themselves - AFAIK they are passive. They only transmit when they are in proximity to an appropriate EM field. Somehow, I doubt that the government wants to irradiate the population so they can track what you purchased at WalMart.



And read "proximity" to be "within 6 inches". None of the tinfoil wearers seem to understand what that implies...
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 8:29:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
Wanna explain to me how that can happen? RFID chips do not transmit anything themselves - AFAIK they are passive. They only transmit when they are in proximity to an appropriate EM field.



Not all "EM fields" are range-limited. Shortwave transmitters produce EM fields that can travel for thousands of miles.

Most current RFID tags are intentionally designed to be range-limited, simply because their target industries demand that they be short-range and extremely low-cost. However, increase the transmitter power, use a more sensitive receiver, a better antenna, and a frequency that is more conducive to distance - in other words, throw a few extra dollars into it - and you've got a range of several blocks, or several miles.

Nuking a firearm in a microwave oven presents another problem: The metal in a typical firearm would probably absorb most of the microwave energy, leaving little energy to damage the tag. Even if it didn't ruin your microwave oven, it probably wouldn't kill the RFID tag.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 8:59:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 9:01:03 PM EDT by clement]
What would stop someone from simply locating the tag and then removing it? Lemme guess they put a warning label saying it is illegal to remove it?

At the very least I doubt it would be very resistant to me jabbing at it with a screw driver.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 9:06:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 9:06:42 PM EDT by Napoleon_Tanerite]
what about a BF magnet? like the electromagnets that are used to erase VHS tapes? would that shut it down? i'm thinking about the practicality of microwaving my guns and/or ammo to kill RFID tags

ETA: and i can't microwave myself to kill the tag the gov't put in my head!
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 9:14:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
what about a BF magnet? like the electromagnets that are used to erase VHS tapes? would that shut it down? i'm thinking about the practicality of microwaving my guns and/or ammo to kill RFID tags

ETA: and i can't microwave myself to kill the tag the gov't put in my head!



But if you put a magnet on your head, wouldnt you start singing folk songs?

Link Posted: 3/7/2006 9:22:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 9:23:24 PM EDT by Winston_Wolf]
... Remember, If you agree to be tracked, you suffer the consequences.

... Microwave / Shmicrowave

... There are a gazillion ways to short the circuity of an RFID unit - You choose to have it repaired or not is the ultimate question - keeping in mind the fact that those that fitted with you will be in your office to visit you as soon as it goes kaput.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 9:31:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 9:35:39 PM EDT by Mattl]

Originally Posted By Cahill:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Yeah but if all services start needing the RFID to be intact to do transactions then it won't do you much good. Besides RFID is not as easy to track as the tin foil crowd pretends it is. The range is very short which would mean readers would have to be virtually everywhere.




I'm sure they can come up with longer range trackers,

I thought of this because I heard some libtards wanting to put rfid's on guns.

I shouldn't really care cause I already have guns and they'll never have frids on 'em



Anything with a power source can broadcast and info can be collected through something as simple as plugging in an appliance.


Something that shoul worry many here they want to put them in guns.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 9:35:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By Cahill:
I'm sure they can come up with longer range trackers,


Wanna explain to me how that can happen? RFID chips do not transmit anything themselves - AFAIK they are passive. They only transmit when they are in proximity to an appropriate EM field. Somehow, I doubt that the government wants to irradiate the population so they can track what you purchased at WalMart.



We've been over this a million times.

Yes, they're passive. They return a signal with a strength in direct proportion with the power of the signal "pinging" it, just like an echo is louder if the initial sound is loud.

Then there's active RFID, which requires a power source. In order to make long range tracking effective over time, a large power source is required. This means plugging into the wall or a large battery. Nothing that can be hidden in a $20 bill, that's for damn sure.

In both cases, long range scanning is impractical, unless there's some Area 51 shit out there I don't know about.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 9:42:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Skibane:

Most current RFID tags are intentionally designed to be range-limited, simply because their target industries demand that they be short-range and extremely low-cost. However, increase the transmitter power, use a more sensitive receiver, a better antenna, and a frequency that is more conducive to distance - in other words, throw a few extra dollars into it - and you've got a range of several blocks, or several miles.




You forgot "make it larger".

I do agree that blocks or a mile or two is on the extreme upper range of theoretical effectiveness - in the middle of the flat desert with line-of-sight, perhaps.

Part of my job deals with wireless RF telecommunications. Even in the low power stuff I deal with, the power requirements are not trivial and effective range is quite limited when you talk about going through walls and buildings. I can't imagine that you can really do a whole heck of a lot with a passive receiver that's powered by the received RF scanning signal, again, unless there's space alien stuff I'm not aware of.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 9:46:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ElCamino:

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By Cahill:
I'm sure they can come up with longer range trackers,


Wanna explain to me how that can happen? RFID chips do not transmit anything themselves - AFAIK they are passive. They only transmit when they are in proximity to an appropriate EM field. Somehow, I doubt that the government wants to irradiate the population so they can track what you purchased at WalMart.



We've been over this a million times.

Yes, they're passive. They return a signal with a strength in direct proportion with the power of the signal "pinging" it, just like an echo is louder if the initial sound is loud.

Then there's active RFID, which requires a power source. In order to make long range tracking effective over time, a large power source is required. This means plugging into the wall or a large battery. Nothing that can be hidden in a $20 bill, that's for damn sure.

In both cases, long range scanning is impractical, unless there's some Area 51 shit out there I don't know about.



Don't forget the need for some fairly gnarly antenna to pick up the signal. Like a patch antenna the size of a truck...
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 10:29:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ElCamino:

Originally Posted By Skibane:

Most current RFID tags are intentionally designed to be range-limited, simply because their target industries demand that they be short-range and extremely low-cost. However, increase the transmitter power, use a more sensitive receiver, a better antenna, and a frequency that is more conducive to distance - in other words, throw a few extra dollars into it - and you've got a range of several blocks, or several miles.




You forgot "make it larger".

I do agree that blocks or a mile or two is on the extreme upper range of theoretical effectiveness - in the middle of the flat desert with line-of-sight, perhaps.

Part of my job deals with wireless RF telecommunications. Even in the low power stuff I deal with, the power requirements are not trivial and effective range is quite limited when you talk about going through walls and buildings. I can't imagine that you can really do a whole heck of a lot with a passive receiver that's powered by the received RF scanning signal, again, unless there's space alien stuff I'm not aware of.



Yeah, yeah, you're not the only RF weenie around here...

We can argue until we're blue in the face about what constitutes a "real" RFID tag – self-powered or externally-excited – grain-of-sand-sized or half-dollar-sized – not to mention what the interrogative transceiver/antenna looks like on the other end...

Still, you can't deny that even current technology is capable of producing a transponder that (1.) is small enough to be embedded within a firearm, and (2.) is capable of being read from a distance of, say a hundred yards. And that's just using today's technology.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 11:09:20 PM EDT

Got your tin-foil on?

Okay, let's play.

Lets say most of your consumer goods are tagged with RFID. On your person, you have your shoes, your belt, your wallet, a watch, that sort of thing.

You walk through a device (knowingly or not) that has an RFID reader system in it. It records the GUID of each RFID chip and stores it as a single linked group in a database. Lets say this happens at a place where you have provided identification--such as a credit card at a store or gas pump.

Over time, you wear several pairs of shoes, maybe two wallets (one daily one dress), and a couple of watches. Once all those GUIDs are associated with you, then any time a statistically significant number of those GUIDs are tracked at any location that does not require ID, you can be identified. Say, the gates of a stadium, the door of a courthouse, whatever.

Every time you ID yourself at a location with an RFID reader (again, known or unknown), you add to or confirm the database about you. With a relatively small amount of data (RFID samples) a person or system could then uniquely identify you purely based on the combination of RFID numbers carried on your person.

Librarians who support RFID book checkout systems (because it does, in fact, provide a whole host of very, very handy new tools for librarians) claim that no one could tell from the RFID chip what book you have unless they have access to the database. Of course, if someone has access to the database, you don't need to read the RFID chip. BUT, someone (government agent or private individual) could read the GUID on the RFID chip of whatever book(s) are of interest to them, and then watch to see who walks out the door with that RFID tag tucked away in a bag after checkout. You wouldn't need access to the database to tell who had the book, only access to the output of the RFID reader at the door or another RFID reader elsewhere.

Class dismissed, you may remove your tinfoil now. :)
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 11:40:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Skibane:

Originally Posted By ElCamino:

Originally Posted By Skibane:

Most current RFID tags are intentionally designed to be range-limited, simply because their target industries demand that they be short-range and extremely low-cost. However, increase the transmitter power, use a more sensitive receiver, a better antenna, and a frequency that is more conducive to distance - in other words, throw a few extra dollars into it - and you've got a range of several blocks, or several miles.




You forgot "make it larger".

I do agree that blocks or a mile or two is on the extreme upper range of theoretical effectiveness - in the middle of the flat desert with line-of-sight, perhaps.

Part of my job deals with wireless RF telecommunications. Even in the low power stuff I deal with, the power requirements are not trivial and effective range is quite limited when you talk about going through walls and buildings. I can't imagine that you can really do a whole heck of a lot with a passive receiver that's powered by the received RF scanning signal, again, unless there's space alien stuff I'm not aware of.



Yeah, yeah, you're not the only RF weenie around here...

We can argue until we're blue in the face about what constitutes a "real" RFID tag – self-powered or externally-excited – grain-of-sand-sized or half-dollar-sized – not to mention what the interrogative transceiver/antenna looks like on the other end...

Still, you can't deny that even current technology is capable of producing a transponder that (1.) is small enough to be embedded within a firearm, and (2.) is capable of being read from a distance of, say a hundred yards. And that's just using today's technology.



I won't dispute that it's not *possible* - just that there are "nontrivial" challenges that need to be met before the government can track you by your Walmart underwear with a satellite.

The tinfoil scenario is more likely in "gateway" scanning at choke points for lack of a better word. Scanners embedded at the entrances to public places, for example.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 11:43:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 11:44:20 PM EDT by blacklisted]

Originally Posted By callgood:
I heard they were going to put rfids on BULLETS. But yeah, you could run your ammo thru the microwave and it will take care of the rfids. I think the "Popcorn" cycle is the one you want.



Actually, you aren't too far off. Here in California, a law that would have required every bullet and case to have a unique serial # registered to the buyer made it to the state Senate. It also required that a handgun firing pin stamp the gun's serial number on to the primer.

There was a grandfather clause for old ammo, but it would become illegal in public by 2012 or something.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 12:49:36 AM EDT

And read "proximity" to be "within 6 inches". None of the tinfoil wearers seem to understand what that implies...

You need to do more research before you start name calling. The range is short with the default very low power amplifiers and omni-directional antennas. With more power and a better antenna, you can greatly increase the range. I haven't tested it, but I have a passive RFID tag that the manufacturer claims has a 30 foot range with their expensive reader. One of the antennas I've used for RFID equipment has a gain of 30dB. That means it's outputs the equivalent of 100 times more power when aimed at the RFID tag. In no way are passive tags limited to only six inches.z
Top Top