8 Comments to 'Pepper is the new Salt'
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Pepper is the new Salt'.
:: Trackbacks/Pingbacks ::
-
Pingback by RFID Thingy -
Pepper is the new Salt
Posted By avi
Talking Jewelry - Popular Science
A salt, for those of you who don’t follow cryptography, is a bit of random data thrown into a code to make it harder to crack. Pepper, for those who read the article, is the size of the next generation of RFID devices. I’d previously read about devices the size of a grain of rice. But this seems smaller still.
The question that remains unanswered is how much salt will be added to this pepper to make it palatable? Will these RFID devices be as lame as the rest, answering every random scanner with “Oh, look, a scanner! Here is my ID and all my data…” ? Or will these be more discriminating, at least asking for a key I’ve agreed to before unlocking my identity?
I’d have no problem with RFID if it did that one simple thing: said nothing until it was authorized to speak. But who authorizes it? If it’s embedded in something I own, then I do. And I would only do so for scanners owned by companies I trust. It’s as simple as that. If we want to have a free market, we have to put the consumers in charge of how or when they participate.
Jun 13th, 2007
Avi: Technologically you are correct. RFID devices exist that respond only when queried with a specific code. That type of RFID would not be a beacon responding to every scanner it got near.
However, would it be worth the cost and special infrastructure?
I’m already a beacon due to my always-on cell phone. Of course, I could shut it off.
If I drive ten miles in my area, my license plate is read by a half-dozen roadside cameras. That’s a beacon I can’t legally cover.
Even if I bicycle or walk, my face is captured by cameras wherever I go. With advances in facial recognition software, in a few years my face will become a beacon. Of course, I could wear a mask.
Unfortunately, I continually drop hairs wherever I go. In ten years rapid DNA technology will turn my hairs into beacons identifying me!
As the story you linked to points out, it’s a great idea to embed RFID into things of value so they may be more readily recovered if stolen or lost.
With the pepper-size RFID the thief becomes a beacon from the moment he steals the item of value, leaving tracks at every scanner he passes.
With the selective-response RFID you favor, the thief will be in the clear until you notice the item is missing, find your record of the code, report it to the police, they distribute it, and the thief happens to pass by one of the specialized scanners.
The average person doesn’t know (or care) they are a beacon today. Even if you explain all that beacon stuff to them I don’t think they will opt for a larger, more expensive and less effective RFID device. I sure wouldn’t.
Ira, what cost and special infrastructure? The RFID device need not be any bigger. Scanners would need only to have specific keys they broadcast to get a response. That’s not a big deal.
And the rest of your argument is that we’ve lost privacy anyway, so why bother trying to get it back. Well, I never agreed to lose it, and I want it back. Find a better argument.
As for what the average person knows or doesn’t know, that’s the job of the people pushing the technology to educate them as to the trade offs. If they fail to do so, that’s technically called a “con.”
Avi: What infrastructure? There are hundreds of thousands of unrecovered stolen items. Using the system you favor, the code numbers would have to be distributed to the scanners and each would have to broadcast them 24/7/365 and repeat them all within the time it would take for your stolen item to pass within range while carried by an unsuspecting thief.
You want your privacy back (I want my youth and innocence). Once “the toothpaste is out of the tube” it’s hard to get it back in — especially if consumer-driven market forces are pushing the other way.
Initially, only high-value items will have the tiny RFID chips embedded. By law, I think buyers should be informed of the “beacon” issue and given the choice of having the chip deactivated, but that will reduce chances of getting the item back if stolen. I think most will choose to leave the chip operational.
Ultimately, according to the story you linked to, these tiny RFIDs will be embedded in all paper currency. Again, I suppose you could deactivate the chips with radiation but you might have trouble getting a vending machine or cashier to accept bills with dead chips. You could go cash-free and use your credit card, but that would also leave a computer record.
Consumers don’t always choose wisely (but neither do governments). Ultimately, if the “beacon” information is available, and consumer-driven market forces make the choices I think they will, I don’t think that is a “con.”
Ira, here is how stupid this idea is. If I was a thief, the first thing I’d do is get a scanner. If someone shows a lot of RFID responses, I know they have something valuable, and I can focus on them instead of someone else.
And you want to walk around with friggin’ beacons turned on, advertising how much jewelery you have? How dumb is that?!
Because once the thief steals the stuff, all they need to do is microwave it to deactivate the chips. You’ve done no good, except to make yourself a target.
You would absolutely want RFID that only replies when given the proper key and otherwise shuts up.
Avi: Excellent points - and you responded in fourteen minutes!
A thief with an RFID scanner, is, by definition, a couple steps above the average. He is also broadcasting RF queries that could be easily detected by police with a passive receiver. He could be held on a charge of possessing criminal tools.
If he microwaves the stolen stuff and tries to sell or pawn an item with a deactivated chip that would arouse suspicions it was stolen goods, triggering further investigation.
You assume only valuable items will have embedded RFID chips. However, in my vision (and that of the RFID technologists) these chips will become endemic as their cost goes down to a fraction of a cent. They will be in every can of coke, dollar bill, and other items I (and most other ordinary people) carry. Thus, the thief will not know if any of the RFID responses he gets on his scanner are associated with valuable items.
Each item will respond with its many-digit code, which, if properly designed will be encrypted such that it is effectively random. That is called “hiding in plain sight”.
Yes, Ira. Let’s make owning scanners illegal. That’ll solve it. Because making basic theft illegal has worked so well. And then let’s force every single object to have chatty RFID transmitters to hide the valuable ones in the noise — because no one will ever crack encryption, not with DVDs, not with iTunes….
Why do we need to come with 100 lame ways to handle a broken technology when it’s not that hard to fix in the first place?
RFID should not say a word until it’s properly authorized. It’s really that simple. If you go to a new store, all you’d have to do is get the store’s public key added to your RFID credit card’s list of accepted keys. You’d only need to do this once. Each of the store’s items that have embedded RFID would also be hard-coded to only speak with the store’s checkout scanners. And then there’s no chance of a 2nd store charging you ‘accidentally’ for something you brought in.
This is basic systems design, as taught in college. The core problem is that 2nd rate engineers are making these decisions without thinking it through.
Avi, Please - I did not say scanners should be illegal. Google “burglar tools” and you see under state laws, given certain circumstances, “a pair of gloves and a flashlight” can be considered “burglar tools”. It is true theft occurs despite being illegal, yet I don’t think you would want it legalized. Nothing is perfect. Any encryption can and will eventually be cracked, any safe burglarized, any locked door opened, but we still get value when we employ these imperfect tools to deter theft of our info, money, and homes.
If the selective-response RFID embedded in the item you purchase contains the public key for the store, you are correct it will respond only to a message encoded with that store’s private key. If the item is stolen, how exactly will your scheme help find it? Won’t the store or police have to distribute the coded message to all scanners in the region as I outlined in posting #4?
System engineering is a balancing act between performance, cost, and schedule. If you want *perfect* performance, cost will be excessive and schedules long. If you want low cost and/or a short schedule, you will get less than perfect performance. That is what I learned in decades of system engineering of advanced avionics systems at IBM and Lockheed-Martin and what I teach in my online grad course in system engineering at the University of Maryland (http://polaris.umuc.edu/~iglickst/mswe603/lesson_guide.htm)
You are correct that RFIDs *should* be selective-response and most will be in a decade or so. However, the initial several generations of RFIDs, such as described in the story you linked to, simply will not be very selective due to cost and schedule and infrastructure constraints. It ain’t a perfect world!