Talk:Radio-frequency identification/Archive 1

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?


 * radio waves are electromagnetic, they contain an E wave (electric) and an H wave (magnetic) which are 90 degrees offset from each other. Inductive coupling (what most RFIDs today use, such as ISO14443 found in passports and other things are magentic only but pulsed at radio frequencies such as 13.65MHz) 65.166.100.202 (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.) --QuicksilverT @ 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)
 * Just tested the anti-static plastic bags. I put my RFID tags in several different bags, and they made no appreciable difference to the readability of the tags. We may want to review that statement with more scruitnyHalcyonforever (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2011 (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! --QuicksilverT @ 08:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)



Quicksilver, I wonder if you are Mike King.. I've heard where a 150 um thick magnetic sheet at the back of the 13.56 MHz reader tag improved overall sensitivity, esp. in the proximity of external metal objects.

DonL (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2009 (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.)

Jargon in the lead section
I'm sure significant higher forward link capability providing great read range means something to somebody, but can it be translated into English? -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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.  --QuicksilverT @ 22:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

microdot
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.

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


 * The microdot article does not describe these, nor is any article on the disambiguation page appropriate. Could you start one?  Also, compare quantum dots.  I never knew why they'd picked that name before. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

UK Invention
As far as I know, RFID was invented in the UK in 1938. The technology was used to identify friendly aircrafts from hostile on the radar and the system was called IFF, Identify Friend or Foe. Of course that system did not have tags the size of a stamp, but it was still radio frequency identification. Otto^ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.234.247.50 (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

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

Scary thought
That's kind of a scary thought really, as the direction of RFID technology is going, progressively geared toward the use of RFID's in everyday life. A step forward into the future, everyone having an implanted chip to eliminate chance of loosing their wallet along with their credit card sized RFID card to enter buildings, or not having to use encoded keys to open the car door which can be lost. But seriously, don't you think that the way the Patriot act has been set and the technology we use begin to conincide, eventually all citizens will be required to have an implant, thus defeating fake paperwork, "to avoid illegal entrance into the United States" and to ensure safety, but with the back benifit of being able to track anyone, anywhere, and anytime. I mean yeah, it's interesting technologically speaking but still, this is grounds for further infringement on human rights and on personal space. I'm not against technology, infact I love alot advancements that have been made but within reasonable boundaries.

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)

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)

Thanks for removing it, That was exactly the information I was looking for. Do you still have it. --Carltrimble 15:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

actually ramsingh is also using this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.145.150 (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

actually 'equipment vendors ' is what i was searching for also. Why not have that? it it useful info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.137.244.64 (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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.

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.

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


 * 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

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)

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)

The "History and Technology Background" section begins thus, "In 1946 Harry Stockman invented an espionage tool for the Soviet Union" however the Harry Stockman link takes one to a page about a racing driver, with no mention of this. It seems likely to me that this is a different Harry Stockman. 17:27 24 August 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.2.110.61 (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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) You are correct that the research community does not take the idea of "RFID Viruses" very seriously, but you do not seem to understand why. The reason that most people laugh at the term "RFID Virus" is because the demonstrated attack to which you refer was not actually a virus, that is it was not a self replicating program, rather it was a standard buffer overrun exploit. The current text on the page correctly identifies it as such, although it does not go into why it isn't a true virus. This is probably appropriate given that this is not an article on viruses.

Your statement that RFID tags have up to a couple hundred bits is incorrect, and is not your fault. The term RFID is in common use for an excessivly diverse range of technologies. I wish I had an answer as to how to get the world to use better nomenclature, but I do not. I frequently use tags that have tens of thousands of bits of writable memory, multiple microprocessors, and yet are still called "RFID" because they are passively powered. (Tshb 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

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)
 * It is a nuisance to stupidly renew the citations tag. There is a lot yet. The problem might be that either a non-technical reader is not prepared for understanding or a ideologically biased reader looks for escape. Wireless friend (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Link spam?
Previously, we deleted link spam to personal pages, etc. See my comments above Talk:RFID. 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. Kɔffeedrinksɔ|you 19:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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? &mdash;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?


 * On the contrary, I think that holding a powerful magnet up against an RFID won't harm the RFID. --75.48.165.135 07:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Microwave It 71.163.69.115 (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

The mark of the beast
Well I think you guys should read the Bible the Bible is not just a joke you should listen to it because you will go to hell if you get this chip inserted into your skin please beleive me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.190.168.115 (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The mark of the beast is npt a joke neither is this RIDF you see if ypu would read the bible in Revelations 13:16-18 you would now all about that mark of the beast that it would be inserted in the forhead and arm i am not telling a lie but this is the mark of the beast and if you do not turn you life to God you will surley go to hell read it for yourself in the bible it also says that the day of the Lord is near and the Bible says that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that jesus Christ is Lord i am telling you get your life together cause if you are playing with the Lord you are still going to hell so i would get it right today cause the Christians are going to heaven but people playing church or who do not want to except the Lord sorry but you are going to hell this is true and the bible is not a lie

== The mark of the beast is real go to Revelation 13:16-18 the Bible does not lie and the day of the Lord is near so if you didi not know you know you better accept him or you are going to hell sorry I got Jesus do you? but the Christians who really now God are going to heaven but if ypu do not know him you are going to hell and the anti-christ is coming the day of the Lord is near

It's fine to include this information in the article, but at least 1) Give it proper context and 2) cite your sources (i.e., where exactly in the Bible, who has made this analogy and where). I'm talking about the last two scattered sentences in the Human Implantation section. Zylorian (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The religious section doesn't belong in this article. It's a subjective issue not relevant to the human implementation of RFID. It is not neutral as specified by wikipedia's guidelines. I do not believe the bible makes any direct reference to RFID and its implementation in human beings. Just because some Christians believe this, does not make it worthy of being in an encyclopaedia article. Also, the section does not cite any sources, only the bible which is not a credible source for reference. Snircher (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense! It is irrelevant whether you agree with the religious interpretation. It is a factual observation to state that many Christians connect RFID technology with the "mark" referred to in the Bible book of Revelation. They believe it. Strongly. That is all that should be said in the article, with reference to an example website, of course. Excluding this statement is ignoring an obvious social effect of RFID technology; it is prejudicial and forces the article to adopt a non-neutral POV by ignoring what we don't like about how others may view the technology. Nigedo 94.194.116.167 (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Very suspect that the mark of the beast isn't mentioned once on this page (or is it). RFID will be used by VISA (Verichip). VISA = 666 (VI in Roman = 6, S in Greek = 6, A in Babylonian = 6). The mark has to be taken in the body. The RFID is taken in the body. That's not POV that's just fact. The Bilderberg group is associated with the NWO (end of days) and considered to be agents of Satan or, as they call him, "Baphomet". Or "the light bearer". They control so much that their symbol stands on Ellis Island and is, ironically, considered to be a symbol for freedom and not "enlightenment" as the statue was intended. A gift from French illuminati to American illuminati. Your leash wielders. You will, on day, demand to be enslaved by taking their mark. You will be conditioned to want it because you've been trained to be greedy, stupid and arrogant. Which is why people own cell phones now. Dig? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.248.20 (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

RFID and Carriers
Radio Frequency Identification is a technology that will revolutionize the supply chain benefiting all parts of the distribution chain, the manufacturer, supplier, shipper, consumer and finally the carrier. The implications of RFID when applied to certain business structures results in increased efficiencies and more effective distribution chains in areas including inventory control, asset tracking and asset utilization, documentation flow, loading and off loading, and finally, customer service.

Although all segments of the supply chain have the ability to take advantage of the results and cost savings that are attached to RFID technology. Hesitance towards the technology due to the high monetary value attached to it results in an increased risk factor that not all stakeholders are willing to endure. However, as the technology becomes more mainstream in Supply Chain one stakeholder appears to benefit overall with everything to gain and nothing to loose: Third Party Logistics/Carriers. Due to the minimal investment carriers are required to make into RFID the gains they receive and time and cost savings they experience are substantial.

RFID impacts the carrier industry on many levels including asset management, loading and offloading and transportation route optimization just to name a few.

Asset Management

Carriers are able to benefit greatly from RFID technology through the tracking of capital equipment and other fixed assets including pallets, vehicles, trailers, etc. Attaching an RFID tag to the equipment allows carriers to locate the material when needed as opposed to manually searching which are timely and less accurate. RFID tagging reduces the number of lost assets as well allows for increased utilization of existing assets therefore reducing the number of fixed assets on hand and decreasing the capital required to purchase new allowing them to be more resourceful.

Loading/ Offloading and Load Optimization

With RFID tags attached to inventory that is being loaded and offloaded at the site allows for automatic recording of what has been loaded and what has been dropped off as well as what still needs to load. The traditional system used by most carriers; Serial Shipping Container Code (SSCC) is able to be programmed into the RFID tags increasing receiving times and allowing carriers to skip the receiving process all together through automatic documentation. Also, RFID tags have the ability to program the weight attached to the good being loaded. Carrier workers are aware of the weight requirements such as how much and what items are currently in the truck, the maximum capacity of the truck and what items are still able to fit in the truck. Therefore, the carriers are able to optimize each truckload decreasing the number of repeat visits.

Route Optimization

With RFID technology one is able to track the exact whereabouts of their product and their carriers as it travels through the distribution chain. From a carriers perspective this proves to be very beneficial as the RFID tags can be encoded to alarm if among their travels they journey off route, into unauthorized areas, as well as if the truck has been removed from storage without approval. This decreases the number of vehicles stolen and inventory lost as well as decreases travel time of carriers having to repeat visits or finding the correct address to match the item being shipped.

These are only a few of many ways that carriers can benefit through the implementation of RFID technology.

Virgin Atlantic Air

As can be seen the benefits of RFID for carriers is endless. One example of a huge carrier that has chosen to implement multiple aspects of RFID is Virgin Air. Richard Branson of Virgin Enterprises in hopes of increasing the efficiency of his airline Virgin Atlantic Air, implemented RFID by placing tags onto container bins that contained airline parts in Heathrow’s airport. In the beginning the tags were used to track airline parts within the warehouse however after benefits of the system were evident, within six months every item on a Virgin Atlantic plane was tagged with RFID devices. RFID allowed for Virgin to keep its planes in the air longer as they are able to see all the planes assets and better utilizing them, knowing how much longer the plane is able to fly without restocking food, re-fueling, changing the oil etc. Virgin now has full control of their operations and with RFID technology they have extended the life of an important capital asset; their air planes.

Graeme Wearden. ZDNet UK News: RFID Keeps Virgin in the Air. (21, February 2006) Viewed: June 20, 2006. 

Intermec International Inc: Supply Chain RFID: How It Works and Why It Pays. Intermec. Viewed: 20, June 2006. 

Rebecca Angeles. RFID Technologies: Supply-Chain Applications and Implementation Issues. (Winter 2005). Viewed: June 20, 2006. 

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)

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)

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)

Previously, other forms of identification such as credit cards and UPC codes had been suggested as candidates for the mark. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/300305groupfears.htm]


 * 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.
 * Problem solved. The section now has real news sources.--Metron4 21:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of semi-active and semi-passive
These are mentioned but nothing is explained. Can anyone provide details? Thanks.

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/

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)

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) Religious reaction to RFID There has been discussion by a small group of the Christian community that RFID tagging could represent the mark of the beast (666) mentioned specifically in the Book of Revelation (see Revelation 13:16). This subject is studied by those Christians interested in the fields of eschatology (last things) and dispensationalism. Previously, other forms of identification such as credit cards and UPC codes had been suggested as candidates for the mark.

While the exact Mark of the Beast used in the Left Behind series (an imaginative work of fiction based loosely on the Book of Revelation) was not fully explained, the implanted chip exhibited behavior similar to an RFID tag.

The prophecy states that none will be able to buy or sell without this Mark of the Beast. Which brings to light the possibility of an RF-ID-Chip replacing the currently used plastic cards for EFTPOS Cashless transactions in shops. To further enforce the prophecy cash would have to be removed from circulation making it a Cashless Society.

To further promote the use of the RF-ID-Chip, there are the combined uses for secure identity, and storage of personal information of fingerprints and pictures, as well as critical health data for paramedics. There is a WARNING in the prophecy about those which take the Mark of the Beast found in Revelation 14:9-11 (perhaps a symbolic 911 emergency).
 * After putting it off for too long, I've gone ahead and done the reasearch and gathered REAL news sources for the section. No more websites with single-minded opinions.--Metron4 21:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the user above, I think it's important to show how it socially effects people, including people who are regligioiusly against it. I'm pretty good techie type and also a baptist and I think it's inportant to know all the facts, I know I want to know if someone or something is going to be put on my person that can not only tell you where I am at, but also controls my spending, my money, and my health. The Cleveland Browns are awesome! (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed about Richard Stallman protesting against RFID
From the article: ''During the UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) between the 16th to 18th of November, 2005, founder of the free software movement, Richard Stallman, protested the use of RFID security cards. During the first meeting, it was agreed that future meetings would no longer use RFID cards, and upon finding out this assurance was broken, he covered his card in tin foil, and would only uncover it at the security stations. This protest caused the security personnel considerable concern, with some not allowing him to leave a conference room in which he had been the main speaker, and then the prevention of him entering another conference room, where he was due to speak.''

For the first sentence I got a citation. Look for the first minute of this Ogg Theora video. There is also this Slashdot article. The Slashdot article links to another article, which unfortunately is not reachable at the moment, so I looked it up on archive.org and here you got it. Based on this information I removed the -tag. --Church of emacs 19:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

RFID Glossary
A pretty good RFID glossary is available over on this website Warehouse Labels RFID Glossary Page - Do you reckon it's worth putting it in the external links.. anyone?

Leftcase

Public focussed benefits link?
Suggestion for an external link to page summarizing many positive applications of RFID from a laypersons perspective. Currently page seems to focus on business aspects and only negative public privacy aspects (spychips etc.). The below link tells people how RFID benefits them in simple terms they can relate to travel, shopping etc..

RFID+: The positive source for RFID information http://www.rfidplus.org/

Jashcroft 05:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Kind of RFID used in motor racing
Radio transmitters with individual ID have been used in motor racing for decades. They had batteries or external power and broadcasted their ID continously, that is no transponders/no reception, at least not earlier on. They were used to count laps and measure time. Could these early devices be called RFID or what should they be called ? -- BIL 17:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

National Australian RFID Body
Australia's National RFID language homepage is found here with more Australian info on RFID. GS1 Home - Marrowmonkey 05:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes?
The paragraph History of RFID tags has the following content:

[&hellip;] and medical (identification, patient history).[3]

[&hellip;] The portable system operated at 915 MHz and used 12 bit tags.[2]

What are those [2] and [3] footnotes good for? Shouldn't they refer to real references instead?

--193.158.33.132 13:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

RFID & Privacy Enhancing Technologies
RFID carried by people or otherwise linked to people can have loots of unwanted security implications.

One way to increase likelihood (ensure) this does not happen is to through building in Privacy Enhancing Technologies in the RFID itself.

Some of the key elements should be

a) Ensure Transfer of Control. No later than Point of Sales should means be ensured for the consumer to absolutely control the RFID.

b) Prevent tracking and tracing of the RFID post-sales. without active user involvement, no tracking of the person through tracking the RFID should be possible.

c) Ensure transaction non-linkability in usage. No other party even in combination is able to link different transactions with the same RFID.

One possible solution is implemented by the Danish company RFIDsec (www.rfidsec.com). where the RFID no later than Point of Sales will shift into Privacy Mode.

Here several things happen:

1) Any product identifier is deleted from the RFID so that not even physical tampering can leak the product identifiers. The Consumer have and can store a copy for her convenience.

2) A new OWNER key is created and provided to the Consumer PDA (or other method). The consumer can CHANGE the key and thus ensure absolute exclusive control.

3) The RFID shift into a silent protocol mode where it will not respond to any request unless first authorized by the Consumer using the Owner Key.

4) The Consumer can check if her RFID is present without leaking identifiers of EITHER the PDA OR the RFID.

The basic security protocol is published and presented as part of Privacy, Security & Trust 2004 in Canada. www.obivision.com/Papers/PST2004_RFID_ed.pdf

Other relevant link is the EU Commission communication on RFID & Privacy Enhancing Technologies http://www.europa-kommissionen.dk/upload/application/8ac80c47/rfid_en.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.237.34.236 (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Thank you for bringing this issue to the talk page. The above looks like original research.  If that is so, the material first needs to be published in a  reliable source before it can be added to the article (with proper citation).  If this has been published by an independent, fact-checking source, please let us know where and editors not involved with the invention can consider placing the material in the article. Is this material included in the last source listed?  If so we should check whether this qualifies as a reliable source. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 19:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

RFID Assembly
An article about RFID assembly that some of you might find interesting and/or useful. http://www.finetech.de/enid/af13b5db5f30572782e73f919a65691e,0/Micro_Assembly/RFID_Assembly_fn.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.234.216.250 (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Passive tag with hundred metre range?
Using this article to do some work (Yes, me doing work! :-O ), I noticed something a bit too good to be true. In the Passive section, it refers to Hitachi's μ-Chips, and the 2007 design having a range of 'hundreds of metres'. The BBC article used to cite this paragraph seems to me like it is referring to Active tags with this statement. I honestly can't believe that a passive tag can have a range of hundreds of metres, at least without a scanner that can be doubled as a death ray. I don't know enough about RFID yet to fix it myself, but I thought it should be brought to everyone's attention. Thanks, CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

new external link

 * Make your voice heard, say no the the chip

May this be added, please? Ya2sin 16:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer this one We the people will not be chipped 83.197.201.225 09:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

NIST RFID Security Guidelines
This link contains a 154-page NIST guideline on RFID Security and Privacy. It is very comprehensive and contains practical information for addressing security and privacy risks. URL: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/index.html

72.245.29.66 02:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

RFID Radiation Crimes and No Justice: http://journals.aol.com/suehon5

RFID chips in bank notes?
I haven't seen it mentionned anywhere that bank notes might contain RFID chips. Check out this article: www.prisonplanet.com/022904rfidtagsexplode.html I'd need some insight on the validity of this article and more articles discussing on the matter, since I haven't been able to find any relatively recent articles about it.

Sorry to burst your bubble. The article has no scientific merit at all. (RFID-pro 01:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

New Link
How about a link to The ABCs of RFID at http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/rfid/review.php? Egoffman 15:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an intersting link, but could you explain to us how it adds more value than what is already written in the Wikipedia page. (RFID-pro 01:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

Not quite Viruses
To me, what is described in the "Viruses" section is not a virus at all. It is only a possible attack on RFID technology. Shouldn't the chapter be renamed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.101.131 (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

New Link about possible pathology from RFID implants in dogs
This page should include the link to a study suggesting pathology from implants in dogs== Fibrosarcoma with Typical Features of Postinjection Sarcoma at Site of Microchip Implant in a Dog: Histologic and Immunohistochemical Study M. Vascellari, E. Melchiotti http://www.vetpathology.org/cgi/content/full/43/4/545 Wetwarexpert 17:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

RFID and Manufacturing Automation
Would this be helpful:

http://www.managingautomation.com/maonline/channel/RadioFrequencyIdentificationRFID/expert/all

Contains Q&A regarding RFID and it's application in the manufacturing automation industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.36.61 (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

clarifications needed in "replacing barcodes" section
"The storage of data associated with tracking items will require many terabytes on all levels." -- i don't understand what the author was getting at with this sentence. the amount of data storage required is completely application-dependent. Gmorten1 22:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Filtering and categorizing RFID data is needed in order to create useful information." -- maybe this is a semantics argument, but the RFID data by itself can be viewed as the answer to a question similar to "what is your name?". i would contend that this answer by itself is useful. Gmorten1 22:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"The unique identity in any case is a mandatory requirement for RFID tags, despite special choice of the numbering scheme." -- i don't see unique ID as being a mandatory requirement, especially when discussing replacement of barcodes which are typically not unique. Gmorten1 22:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When doing inventory with barcodes, you scan one item with the laser until it beeps, one item at a time, and then you point the laser somewhere else.
 * When doing inventory with RFID tags, you're generally in range of dozens of tags. It's not possible to point the RFID reader "somewhere else" to only point at one tag at a time. The unique number is needed for the RFID reader to count how many of each kind of product there is in the store or warehouse, ignoring the ones already counted.
 * I suspect that most RFID inventory systems, immediately after the inventory is done, immediately forget the "unique" parts of the tag, and only remember the count of how many of each kind of product.
 * Is there a way to re-design a RFID protocol so it can accurately count how many how many of each kind of product there is, without requiring each tag to be unique? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Viruses
Instead of referencing the Ars Technica article which referenced RFID virus research, why not simply reference the research? http://www.rfidvirus.org/index.html

Current Uses - Other
"'Slippery Rock University is using RFID tags in their students' ID cards beginning in the fall 2007 semester.'"

The University of Warwick has been using them since at least 2003. I don't know the exact date, so I haven't added it to the list. All I know is that when I started they were using them, but I don't know how long they'd been in use before I got there... R&#39;win (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Arphids
ok. so what do we do about the posting war around "Arphids" on the RFID page? I've been in the RFID business for quite a few years. And the only time we use the term "Arphid" is to make fun of people who don't know how to pronounce RFID. I did some research and the term "Arphid" has been coined by an artist who wants to change a 30 year old acronym for artistic purposes. Most don't agree with him. I sure don't. Any thoughts? 132.210.101.98 (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My thought is, take it out (which I already have). Unless there is a reliable source not just stating that there is a "debate" over the subject but that the debate is notable, it's not really our job to include little blurbs about how it is or isn't spoken.  --Spike Wilbury ♫  talk  06:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. RFID-pro (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible Link to include
Would it be possible to include a link to the AIDC European Centre of Excellence website, which provides RFID resources for the EU?

Mark Smith (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the lifespan of an RFID chip?
Is there a possibility that newborns will have RFID chips implanted when taken from their mother? Is there a possibility that they already have? Will third world countries be the Guinea Pigs for such experimentation? It is not what RFID's are currently but what they will evolve into as each generation of inventors create new ways of making them smaller and smaller and Deranged leaders will use to propel their ideals. Imagine if Hitler had hold of this technology. Imagine if there was a culture who wanted to stop such technology. We might call them terrorists to deceive. For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. Thomas Jefferson

I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be. Thomas Jefferson

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. Thomas Jefferson

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. Thomas Jefferson

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. Thomas Jefferson

Liberty is to the collective body, what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society. Thomas Jefferson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.24.241.59 (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wal-Mart & RFID
The article says that Wal-Mart still requires retailers to ship products with RFID tags. A WSJ article from Oct 3, 2007, however, says that "Wal-Mart quietly dropped the mandate earlier this year" (Gary McWilliams: Wal-Mart Era Wanes Amid Big Shifts in Retail). Could someone clarify and, if necessary, adjust the article? Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 08:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the WSJ spoke out of turn. A NetworkWorld article dated Sept.15,2008 says, "But the company is not backing down on its commitment to RFID. In fact, when The Wall Street Journal reported recently that Wal-Mart's RFID effort was fizzling, CIO Rollin Ford shot back with a feisty letter that defended the push into RFID as a way to increase efficiency and give customers a better shopping experience. 'Stores with RFID have proven to be 60% more effective in replenishing items from the back room to the store shelves than stores without RFID,' he wrote. And in a recent appearance at an RFID trade show, Ford said Wal-Mart plans to continue rolling out the technology at a rate of about 400 stores a year." Trevor216.254.190.174 (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Examples of Transport Applications Misleading?
Having worked for a company that specialises in automated fare collection using smart card technology, I know for a fact that many of the example transport applications listed on the RFID page actually use contactless smart cards, not RFID. While contactless smart cards do use RFID induction technology, there are other significant differences. Is it accurate to describe these systems as using RFID? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.175.206 (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OT: Coincidental humor in _Talk change log
From the change log for this talk page: Interesting coincidence. Wish it happened yesterday. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Radio-frequency identification‎; 16:49 . . (-666) . . 208.190.168.115 (Talk) (→RFID and Carriers)
 * (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Radio-frequency identification‎; 16:44 . . (+229) . . 208.190.168.115 (Talk) (→The mark of the beast)

Possible type of RFID tag: RFIG
From http://www.merl.com/people/raskar/Sig04/ :   RFIG = Radio Frequency Identity and Geometry Geometry includes the notion of Location, Orientation, and Displacement of tags as well as the pose of reader/projector Type of RFID tag with visual feedback / optosensing device —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.98.240.212 (talk) 07:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

New RFID Consumer information site
A new Web site provides consumers with information about RFID, its uses and benefits. Link:

www.discoverrfid.org

63.118.42.2 (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Corporate Pissing Contest
Does anyone else feel like the second half of the passive RFID background sounds like a corporate pissing contest as to who has the best technology/manufacturing process/whatever while providing no real substance as to explaining what passive RFID is? Maybe it should be separated into a "RFID Vendors" section or something. It's okay to reference a specific technology, but I don't think a comparison of fancy features is needed. Just a thought....

70.50.48.165 (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

PIT Tag?
I wanted to confirm that a "P.I.T. Tag" (Personal Integrated Transponder) is essentially the same thing as an RFID? I do not see any reference to this term, which is used quite extensively by biologists for animal tracking. StevePrutz (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RFID in Libraries
The statement that library users "might never again need the assistance of staff" doesn't follow from the information in the text. "Self check" and "self return" (as it is being called in libraries) reduces the amount of library staff dedicated to the circulation function, but doesn't remove all staff assistance from that function, nor does it eliminate other reasons that a patron may need to interact with staff (e.g. for reference). The main cost savings in libraries using RFID is in the reduction of circulation staff hours. That might be a better statement to end the sentence. I will look for an appropriate citation to back that up. (The one study I know of is no longer online.) LaMona (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

RFID-Tags section gone without reason?
I just noticed that the whole RFID-Tags section was removed yesterday by an anonymous user; without stating any reasons in the description or any discussion entry I can find. Is this okay? (I kinda need the references for a semester paper >.< ) --92.227.24.214 (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

RFID Monthly Link
We wanted to offer a link to our RFID Monthly website. The site is new and is based off of our RFID Monthly publication, which has been contributing to the industry for over five years. Our content features more of a business perspective and provides original viewpoints, trend analysis and covers recent industry developments. Feedback from end users and industry vendors on our publication has been positive (this can be easily confirmed). Our purpose is to enhance industry education and development. www.rfid-monthly.com

Rfidmonthly (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Current uses" needs to be trimmed
Not every single possible use of RFID needs be mentioned. The article should simply list the sectors it is used, with perhaps one or two notable examples. Not the current laundry list. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  19:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation for St. Charles Sixth Form College using RFID?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rfid#Schools_and_universities

This statement: "St Charles Sixth Form College in West London, England, started September, 2008, is using an RFID card system to check in and out of the main gate, to both track attendance and prevent unauthorized entrance."

has no citation and I am looking everywhere for an article or any other source to confirm this as I want to mention it in an article I am writing but I am not turning up anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super16mm (talk • contribs) 22:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Physical Effects
Dr. Larry Bill Johnson of Wytheville, VA has been following Radio-Frequecy for quite some time. He has noted that there could be physical effects on humans who have the chip insterted in them. Many of which included rashes & diarrhea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ufoxpert (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Disney
I work for the Walt Disney World Resort, specifically the new Kim Possible attraction at Epcot. Guests use "Kimmunicators" (actually modified cell phones) to find clues. There RFID tags attached to the Kimmunicator. Every time a guest finds a clue the RFID tag will activate a hidden special effect or gag. Would it be relevant to mention this attraction in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glassmember (talk • contribs) 03:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * — Interesting! [] — Fritz Jörn (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Invention from the future
From the article: Similar technology, such as the IFF transponder invented in the United Kingdom in 2015 I don't know the correct date so I'm not the one to correct this article, but this date is obviously wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.68.155.185 (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

GRAMMAR
Some of our NESB editors need a little help eg.:
 * "In February 2007, Spanish technicians recruited now by Dipole RFID Engineers Barcelona, achieved to read 99.8% of a Tetra Pak milk pallet with more than 100 boxes in it. Impinj was collaborated like a major technology provider.[55]"

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ¿Esta in Espanõl, Que? Seems to . Habla Espanõl. ¿Nó? Me neither! Remove the link? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Class 5" tag?
The following sentence is confusing at best:

"Apart from these four classes, sometimes class 5 is also referred by users in the industry which are nothing but RFID readers.[citation needed]"

First, it seems to equate users with RFID readers (poorly constructed sentence).

This could be re-worded as:

"Apart from these four classes, users from the industry sometimes refer to a "class 5", a tag that is nothing but an RFID reader."

BUT, we were talking about various classes of tags ("four classes of tags"), but if class 5 is "nothing but [an] RFID reader", then it cannot be a tag ("Radio-frequency identification comprises interrogators (also known as readers), and tags (also known as labels).")

I don't know what is wrong here (I know nothing about RFID), but something seems messed up... 89.14.121.159 (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Technical part
A technical part is missing. How does it actually work, which information can be found in this "chip", and so on. A lot of uses are explained (too much), but technically this article is not good enough. Aventicum (talk) 10:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Be bold - go for it! Personally I believe there should be separate articles for RFID (animal management) which is one of the oldest commercial applications, RFID (library book management) which is one of the oldest public-sponsored applications, and RFID (computing), to name just a few. The technical aspects of the first two are widely different from each other, for obvious reasons (we don't often get our books wet). RFID is fairly new technology, and judging from the emotional reactions on this discussion page, a whole family of articles could be written on human RFID applications. DSP-user (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

/* Religious Matter */
I've recentely uploaded a text written by myself to this article:

"The RFID system and the possible consequences of its use are similar in an extraordinary way to the Mark of the Beast, referred in the sacred scriptures of Christianity:

"And he causeth all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, that there be given them a mark on their right hand, or upon their forehead and that no man should be able to buy or to sell, save he that hath the mark, [even] the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast; for it is the number of a man: and his number is Six hundred and sixty and six. "(Revelation 13:16-18)

The passage, written around the year 100 AD, was taken from the Book of Revelations, which is part of the Bible, the sacred book and life guide of the Christians. The book shows the revelations given by the Christian God as a prophecy describing events of a certain period of time in history, namely end of time. The similarity of the mark of the beast with RFID and its applications has generated concern in the Christian world because it can be a sign of the end of the times, according to Christian belief and the Christian Eschatology. Mainly for the fact that one of the consequences for everyone who received the mark of the beast is eternal damnation, according to another part of the Christian revelation:

"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worshipeth the beast and his image, and receiveth his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,	the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:	And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receiveth the mark of his name." (Revelation 14:9-11)"

It was deleted by the user Materialscientist, claiming lack of references and that it was a polemic matter. Iformation is a right of everyone, no matter how polemic it is. There are no personal opinions in the text, just a fact, that can be verified by ayone. I think that there need to be no more refenrences than the given in the text itself, but, if they are needed, google has much of them. Here's one http://www.tldm.org/news4/markofthebeast.htm. Respectfully, I request the undo of its deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejcalado (talk • contribs) 06:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "A text written by myself" needs reliable sources, with "the burden of evidence [lying] with the editor who adds or restores material", otherwise it's original research, which isn't allowed. It would also need to relate closely to the topic of the article: more at WP:TOPIC. I hope that makes things clearer. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

-Wikipedia allows things that are commom sense to be uploaded without the need of evidence, it's in the rules. The bible is commom sense, the fact the bible is the sacred book of the crhistians is a commom sense (even verified by wikipedia itself) and the fear the RFID is causing is also commom sense and can be verified by a very simple search on Google. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejcalado (talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not about the Bible, it is about your interpretation of it that needs reliable reference. Personally, I do not see in the quoted text any direct relation to the radio-frequency identification, and indirect one can be drawn with any topic. Materialscientist (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is one of the non-negotiable pillars of the project, and can't be replaced by "Commom sense" [sic], a quick click on Google, or truthiness. If I've overlooked the place in "the rules" which allows this, please let me know: an apology and retraction will swiftly follow. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

/* IT asset tracking? */
Wouldn't it be nice if somewhere in the subsection titled "IT asset tracking" that some discussion could be found of IT asset tracking? Or maybe retitle that section 'metal mounted rfid tag advances' or something that actually describes the content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.156.23 (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Touch 'n Go
"RFID is used in Malaysia's Touch 'n Go. As the system's name indicates, the card is designed to only function as an RFID card when the user touches it."

I don't think this is true - I think it is a standard proximity based RFID and doesn't need the users touch to function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.221.145 (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I used to work at a casino during a period when we were transitioning from card swipe badges, to proximity badges. We had a lot of trouble at first, as many were accidentally deactivated in various ways, and new badges had to be issued quite frequently. The normal card swipe boxes were retrofitted with an attachment to read the proximity badges. Though we didn't have to actually touch the reader, the distance required between the card and the box made touching it a virtual requirement. You also had to verify that your badge was correctly read, otherwise you'd be filling out a time adjustment form later.




 * Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed External Link
I was preparing to add a new external link, when I read the notice about posting requests here instead. The laws regarding the use of passports is very relevant, and I think quite important to the article. I therefore wish to propose the addition of:

U.S. Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 75

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_75.html

Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not examine your link, but it appears more relevant to an article on passports? Have a look at WP:EL which essentially says that an external link should help the article by adding useful material directly related to the topic, but which is probably not suitable for inclusion in the article. BTW you do not need to use &lt;br&gt; tags; omitting them gives a good result. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio
Recent edits have copied text from an external source into the article. For example, "A typical RFID system consists of tags, readers, middleware, application program, and server" has been added to the article from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7101/is_1_1/ai_n28520560/, and a lot of other material from that site has been added. The copyright problems must be fixed very soon, or the material will have to be deleted again. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The post below from Johnuniq, 07:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC), was originally made on my user talk page, but I've copied it here for easier "flow" of conversation. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You might not have seen my edit at Radio-frequency identification (diff) where I reverted the new material added by with an edit summary indicating that the material is a copyvio. Since you have edited the re-addition of the material, I don't want to just delete it again so I have put a comment at Talk:Radio-frequency identification. Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I had edited the text (example) after its deletion then re-insertion, because I hadn't noticed the delete/reinsert in the history. My edits were purely for grammar, style etc - they are not intended to correct any copyright violations, nor give any approval to the re-insertion of the text. I'm quite happy for the text (including my edits) to be deleted again - and agree that it should be if copyright has been violated. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The copyvio is pretty clear (and the other site definitely had the text before it was added here), so I have removed it again. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversies--Human implantation section
Under the risks mentioned in said section, I was shocked that radiation exposure was not even discussed or considered. I know that these devices can be minuscule; however, with cancer risks finally acknowledged and recognized by certain groups concerned about mobile phone usage, it would be worth looking into if there are any sources that mention concern over radiation always inside of you! I acknowledge this may be difficult to find such a source, but I am going to be on the lookout. Perhaps as time goes on, and as more mainstream discussion and information comes forth, it will be easier to find such a source, and I guess then we can then decide if that is worthy of inclusion in the short list of risks with human implantation. Thx, 67.182.237.57 (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

RFID at Live Events / Festivals
A more recent application of RFID technology has been seen at some of the world's largest live events. ID&C Ltd, a UK based security wristband company has supplied RFID enabled wristbands to a number of festivals in the United States in the summer of 2011.

The Coachella Music Festival (promoted by Goldenvoice) was the first to pioneer RFID wristbands at the their event in Indio, California. The wristbands were used as tickets for access control. Held during April 2011, Coachella is one of the largest open air live music events in the US with a reported 100,000K + people in attendance per day. ID&C supplied the RFID security wristbands, whilst Canadian based Intelitix provided the access control infrastructure.

The same partnership also provided a mirror solution to the Chicago based Lollapalooza festival in August with Austin City Limits in Austin, TExas to follow in September. Both are organised by the same promoter - C3 Presents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RFIDSteve (talk • contribs) 16:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft TagReader Scan the QR code not functional to connect to bbc.com
Microsoft TagReader Scan the QR code not functional to connect to bbc.com 66.154.119.167 (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.154.119.167 (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

How much abuse can these take?
Can these chips resist repeated abuse as in the instance of workshop or oilfield tools? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.66.195 (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Balise tags in train control
Permit me to suggest the inclusion of prominent mentioning in this article of the safety-critical application of RFID technology in railroading worldwide, for which a link to /wiki/Balise would be appropriate. Paul Niquette (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

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.

Just comming from the German page. Interested in tech details, less in how to jam, down to apparently impossible suggestions. How to sabotage a technology shouldn’t be part of an encyclopedia – in my opinion. Let us know what exactly you like in the German version and I’ll be happy to help translating it. Fritz@Joern.De – Fritz Jörn (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"RFID on the web"
What is this? I keep seeing this term. How would a web site read an RFID tag? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.7.198 (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Where's the beef?
This article is much too long, and contains too little information. Most of the article is a long list of example applications. The only technical details are historic. Other editors are also asking for more technical information.

I suggest a reorganization. Perhaps most of the application examples could be moved to a separate article. Perhaps we should create a new article "RFID Technical".

I found a technical overview in Circuit Celler Magazine, and added an external link to the article. I would like to add some of the technical details to the article, but the article is already too long. I would like advice from more experienced editors. Wikfr (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You know what to do. I'm going to have a crack at the intro myself. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't need to list every transit authority in the world that uses RFID. Overview! Not catalog! There's a suspiciously large amount of text that feels like it was paraphrased from manufacturer's sales sites, not from actual books on the topic. We're not selling RFID here, we're just giving the facts. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

How is data encoded and read?
I came to this article knowing where these tags are used and so forth, but I wanted to learn how the data is encoded on the tag and how the reader reads the data. It seems to be missing. Are there magnetic bits on the tags, as in computer technology? I think the article needs such an explanation.

Deschreiber (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Working on this. I have some good references now. Data is usually stored in a EEPROM on the "chip" part of the tag, not magnetically. (Turns out Wiegand effect cards are more like mag-strip cards and have to be run through a reader). --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Also look at the SAW (surface acoustic wave) tags Example IEEE Article. These mechanically encode the data (ID) on the tag using reflectors and have no chip or digital logic. 152.3.216.59 (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Spychip
I've recently redirected spychip here since it was a blatant anti-RFID POV fork. I'm not expecting this to go un-noticed or unopposed so anyone who wants to put that page on their watchlist is welcome to. GDallimore (Talk) 11:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

intro is wrong and potentially misleading
from the article-- Radio-frequency identification (RFID) is a technology that uses radio waves to transfer data from an electronic tag


 * 1960s-1970s tags were primarily radio wave based, current tags such as the ISO 14443 found in passports uses inductive coupling (magnetic only). Radios waves are both electric and magnetic.  See http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/wavebasics/basicwavesjavafigure1.jpg for what a radio wave would look like.  The RFIDs which use inductive coupling do so at "radio frequencies" meaning that an ISO 14443 RFID has a magnetic field that pulses at radio frequencies such as 13.65MHz but it is not a radio signal.  I had changed the intro paragraph to reflect this and the change was reverted to say "simpler language is better" even though that simpler language is incorrect for most if not all the current tags in use today. 65.166.100.202 (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel the entire article in its present form is misleading. For instance, in the introduction, there is a picture of a 13.56 Mhz tag next to a grain of rice. The caption only mentions that it is an RFID tag. The text in the introduction (near the picture) states that tags can be read up to many meters away. For the tag in the photo to be read from many meters away would require EXTREMELY high field strength and for all intents and purposes should be considered impossible or at least highly impractical. The article should strive harder to differentiate between the different types of RFID tags (near-field coupling, and far-field coupling). (edited slightly from previous version) 152.3.216.59 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Good pick up. I've been working hard on the near and far field article and was hoping somebody would come along and tell me if there are ANY RFID tags that do NOT use near-field inductive coupling, i.e., electromagnetic fields at RF freqencies ala metal detectors and MRI machines, but rather instead use electromagnetic radiation, as in ordinary (long distance) RF transmission. Do you know of any? The end of this article makes it sound as though they exist. Yes, I'm aware that most of them are only near-field induction devices. Certainly the grain of rice ones that are used to ID your pet, are inductive near-field devices. See also near field communication S  B Harris 01:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are TONS! The field exploded several years ago (circa 2005) after the long-range (far-field, EM radiative coupling) tags came into existence. Googling for "UHF RFID" and you should see some. (Examples: Example from 2003, Recent Textbook (google books), Example Industry Site although there are others. Impinj, Alien, TI also are tag manufacturers). These tags operate in the far field region and use radiative antennas (not coils) to couple. The main protocol is EPC Class-1 Gen2 and there are several IC manufacturers that have more info (again, see Impinj Monza, Alien Higgs). Most of the main industry thrust (i.e. following the RFID Journal LIVE! recent trade shows) is in the far-field, long-range coupling tags and readers. However, these are not useful for implantables (Due to antenna size which must be relative to wave-length and radiating field decay in skin/water). These tags operate in the worldwide 868-950 MHz UHF band (902-928 MHz ISM band for US). Another technology is SAW (surface acoustic wave) tags that are "far-field" devices but do not use IC's or digital logic to transmit their ID. Generally these operate in the 2450 MHz band. All in all, there are many tags that operate in the far-field with an advantage of long-range reading. A problem that all far-field coupling tags face is that close proximity to skin will detune the antenna (See IPhone_4) causing the tag to not power-up, or not be able to backscatter its response. I'll take a look at the NFC article. I'm not as up to speed on the near-field state-of-the-art as I am the long-range UHF RFID. 152.3.216.59 (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. We should make the distinction between the two fundamental types in the lede (i've done a bit of that already), then have a first intro section that explains this distinction better (with near and far field as the main article) and then split the rest of the article in general into two MAIN sections, dealing with the near-field small magnetic types first, then these latest UHF true-radio-wave-transmitter types last (the article sort of follows that style now, but not perfectly and not explicitly). Can you start moving all sections about true radio-transmitter tags toward the end of the article, as you identify them as such? For some of these, I can only guess. S  B Harris 18:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The citation about tracking personnel on offshore oil & gas platforms is hypothetical. If it is used anywhere in the world it would be the exception rather than the rule.203.46.11.236 (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. The editor probably confused RFID tags with personnel safety RF beacons, which are a different technology altogether.  Since the statement is uncited, and not backed up anywhere in the text of the article, I have removed it.  Thanks for pointing it out.  Reify-tech (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Walmart RFID tags
Source "89" says nothing about RFID tags at Walmart being able to track specific items, and if it did, it would be absolutely incorrect. Believe me when I say, as a former member of Walmart Asset Protection, the RFID tags there are generic; they are placed on/in items at the manufacturer, from large sheets of commercially available tags. Whether the capability exists or not, those particular tags absolutely do not store information on individual items.

Jeff~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:8B00:5DA:D88C:4A0F:5E1A:D2A1 (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Active RFID
Active RFID in my opinion is added into the article as if it is the same technology as passive RFID with a battery. This is factually incorrect. What is know as active RFID is a very different technology. It operates in a different way and has a number of features that is not applicable to passive RFID. Active RFID is an electronic tag that includes an microprocessor and transmitter circuit. The tag is battery powered and provided a continues modulation control signal which transmits a unique identification and other data. The invention also included a receiver that receive the transmissions from the tag. Terrence Keith (Terry) Ashwin developed the automatic electronic identification - battery operated (active) Identification System  today known as Active RFID. The original product was called Link-IT and then renamed to Wavetrend. Wavetrend delivered a paper at the RFID Journal Live Conference in May 2006. (http://www.rfidjournalevents.com/live2006/PDF/WedBO_Bishop.pdf) Wavetrend was referenced as the leaders in Active RFID technology on page 3 of the presentation.

He developed a number of additional features that made this product even more unique.

The product in 1999 while it was commercially known as Link-IT was awarded the prestigious 'Security Industry's Finest New Product Showcase' award at the ISC EXPO, Las Vegas 2000.

Terry's invention (Link-IT) was discussed on a live SABC (South African Broadcast Corporation) program,Net Insider, with a panel that included two international experts. The Net Insider on YouTube is half an hour long, and was specifically loaded by the author to provide an extra third party reference. In the video (9:40 minutes) Jeff Jarvis, VP Business Development of Access Corporation, USA, states "That it is new technology" and "It is the best I've seen for electronic commerce in the near term". (25:10 minutes) Don Small, VP Marketing and Business Development, HID Corporation, Irvine, California, Leaders in the Passive RFID world, provides an explanation about the difference between active and passive RFID and why HID is interested in the technology. Net Insider is as far as the author could establish an independent facilitator obtaining a objective view using a panel discussion with company representatives and independent experts.


 * References


 * External links
 * Official website

gert@eureka-technology.net – gcmbotha (talk) 08:30 pm, 24 June 2014


 * I removed the insertion about TA. See Articles for deletion/Terrence Keith Ashwin. Glrx (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is unfortunately not good enough. A number of additional substantiating documentation was provided. The post that you deleted contained 3rd party article that was not previously posted. If you have a reason for removing the content then state reasons and respond to all the additional information provided. See Articles for deletion/Terrence Keith Ashwin. [User:Gert Botha|gcmbotha]] (talk) 01:32 pm, 1 August 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 11:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted and also cited a WP:POV. Patents, reworked press releases, and presentations by company employees are not independent secondary sources. You need to get a consensus to add the material. See also WP:BRD. Glrx (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

France Rode
France Rode inventor of first Rode also invented and created the first workable RFID products

source: France Rode

So why he isn't mentioned? Because he is not an American? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.107.192 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 25 September 2014


 * WP is not a reliable source, so it cannot be used to support an RFID invention claim. Rode's patent is 12 years after Cardullo's 1972 patent. Rode was an employee of HP; there does not seem to be any basis for a discrimination claim. Glrx (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. Rode's work is a milestone but not the first working system.  For that you have to go back to the IFF system deployed in August 1939 just in time for WW2. Wundermac (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Radio-frequency identification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150801102438/http://cargo-box.com/ to http://www.cargo-box.com
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130524023009/http://networks.silicon.com/lans/0,39024663,39122042,00.htm to http://networks.silicon.com/lans/0,39024663,39122042,00.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121201202427/http://www.snowboard-mag.com/content/vail-resorts-launches-epic-mix-39814 to http://www.snowboard-mag.com/content/vail-resorts-launches-epic-mix-39814
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928040106/http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/000798.html to http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/000798.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130927084924/http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2005/07/_defcon_rfid_wo.html to http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2005/07/_defcon_rfid_wo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External Links Section
The link "What is RFID? - Animated Explanation" seems to be broken. I was able to identify this URL: http://www.explania.com/en/channels/technology/detail/rfid-explained but it says "Sorry Because of its privacy settings, this video cannot be played here." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbarcelo (talk • contribs) 13:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The link What is RFID? Educational video by The RFID Network also appears to be broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbarcelo (talk • contribs) 13:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That site (explania) is not a reliable source: 1) hosted by a marketing company 2) with no clear author information, let alone information about the authors' expertise and credentials, and 3) allows "company sponsoring" and other PR activities influencing their content. GermanJoe (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Antique orthography
Moving Radio-frequency identification to Radiofrequency identification ought to be noncontroversial given that it is not 1942 anymore. Hyphenating "radio-frequency" is antique orthography, which WP does not use for current technology topics. I moved it per WP:BOLD, and it was reverted. Please explain below any valid objections to removing it (besides "I personally like to write with unusual or outdated punctuation", which is not a valid reason for the Wikipedia article on RFIDs). Thanks. — ¾-10 00:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Doing some simple searches returns "Radio-frequency" (hyphenated) or "Radio frequency" (two words). IEEE uses two words, which I would not oppose as a move target should a request for move be made in that direction.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  00:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I must retire my objection. I am so used to seeing "radiofrequency ablation", which usually does not take the hyphen in modern U.S. publications. But I see that Google results for "radio-frequency identification (RFID)" in quotes outnumber results for "radiofrequency identification (RFID)" (although there are many of the latter, in contrast to the assertion that there were none), and now I see that several dictionaries have an open or hyphenated compound, such as AHD at RFID. Oh well. I still would like to see it moved to the more modern styling. But I can live with it if not. — ¾-10 01:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Radio frequency" is commonly two words; both Oxford and Merriam-Webster spell it that way. Under the strict hyphen rules, "radio" goes with "frequency" rather than identification, so the phrase should be "radio-frequency identification". Arguably, it could be "radio frequency identification" because most people would understand that "radio" modifies frequency. It may be that "radio frequency" will follow the same path as "screen play" to "screenplay", but that is not typical yet. RFID Journal's website description uses "RFID (radio frequency identification)". Glrx (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggest merge October 2017
Bulk reading contains only a little content which would be a paragraph or two in this article and make it more comprehensive. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Glrx (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Mark of the beast
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/21/schoolgirl_expelled_rfid_chip/

Is a single lawsuit notable enough? Hcobb (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A lawsuit by itself is not WP:notable. A lawsuit is a primary source, and WP needs a secondary source to tell us it is notable. That said, notability is a requirement for a separate article; it is not a requirement for inclusion in an existing article.
 * The story you cite is not the lawsuit but rather an article about the controversy. If The Register is a reliable source, then it can be used to add information to an article. A google search turns up other sources for the story.
 * The question becomes does the story merit inclusion. I'm on the fence. The story has human interest and is growing, but WP is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The story is more about privacy in general than RFID. There are additional privacy issues: the badge barcode is apparently her Social Security Number. On the flip side, the WP article has a lot about RFID privacy issues: Radio-frequency identification. Maybe that section will spin off.
 * I would be shocked if the number of the card is her SSN. Schools are really not that lax with sensitive information. Read the article again... they say "correspond" to her SSN. There is a database, somewhere, that matches her RFID number to her SSN. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 20:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Consequently, I'd say be bold and put something about the story in the article -- but keep a neutral tone.
 * Glrx (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Be aware that most of the headlines you'll find are incorrect. The student was disenrolled only after refusing an ID card without an RFID chip. Almost all articles claim, usually in the headline, that it was because she refused one with a chip. Very sensationalist, sells papers, but one would hope we at Wikipedia care about facts. See the copy of the letter from the district referenced in some of the articles for a direct reference to the disenrollment. It does no good to merely regurgitate bad journalism. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 20:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The "Mark of the Beast" references Revelation 13. The passage is not very specific as to what it is, and that therefore we cannot be very specific as to what it is not. However, human identification is involved in this chapter, especially for economic ends, and, more broadly, for purposes of control. The Book of Revelation is held authoritative, as it is in the canon, of all major divisions of the Christian Faith. (John G. Lewis (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC))

Who's human identify? MystinaRose (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Credibility
Under 'Frequencies->Band 120-150kHz->Range' author claims 10 cm. This is TOTALLY wrong! I personally reached 25 cm with an ID-2 from Innovations and a 16 cm square antenna. The 'Electrodragon' module achieves 40 cm. Many (amateur) people achieve similar ranges. Masstect claims 90 cm. UHPPOTE Middle Reading Distance Range: Common Card up to 30-40cm (11.8"-15.7") Long range proximity card up to 80-100cm . And I didn't even check professional products. There is a reason why Wikipedia has no credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not according to any "author" but to a reference. If you can find a reference that supports your claim and provides the distance for the others using the same methodology, do so. but remember what you are doing is considered original research, which is not allowed here.192.26.8.4 (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)