RFID could be in all cell phones by 2010

RFID could be in all cell phones by 2010

Summary: All cell phones will come packed with an RFID chip by next summer — giving your phone the possibility of also becoming the keys to your car or house.

SHARE:
73
All cell phones will come packed with an RFID chip by next summer — giving your phone the possibility of also becoming the keys to your car or house.

That was the prediction of Ericsson's vice-president of systems architecture, Håkan Djuphammar, speaking at the company's Business Innovation Forum in Stockholm on Tuesday.

He told delegates: "A year from now, basically every new phone sold will have [near field communication]. It's a two-way, bio-directional RFID communication link that makes this device work as a tag or reader."

Djuphammar said devices with RFID chips will have a secure environment on the SIM card, where "trusted identities" or "secure elements" can be downloaded. This will enable phones to take on other roles, such as the keys for your car or house, or a credit card or concert ticket. He said Ericsson is working with a utilities company that has 700 separate unmanned facilities and around 15,000 keys — a logistical nightmare it wants to eliminate via the use of RFID-enabled mobiles.

"They don't know really where those keys are, so they want to replace all the locks with RFID locks, put RFID-capable phones in the hands of all their personnel, and then they can control the access to these sites."

Using RFID in this way would enable a mobile to be assigned to open a door for a certain period of time only, meaning the company could better manage access to its facilities, while also replacing the hassle of dealing with thousands of physical keys.

"All sorts of things will be enabled by [RFID] — a small piece of technology, but with an ecosystem around it that opens up tremendous opportunities for innovation," Djuphammar added.

Mobile phones could also become instruments of fraud detection. Djuphammar said credit card companies could make use of mobile user location data and IP mapping to ascertain whether a transaction is taking place in the vicinity of the official card holder, thereby judging whether the transaction is likely to be genuine or not.

"In some countries, there's a lot of credit card fraud, so it is in the interest of the issuer to be able to match the position of the phone that belongs to the person who has a card. If the phone is close to where the card is used, the fraud risk is low. But if the phone suddenly moves away from where the card is used, the issuer can be alerted to check that particular transaction — it's most likely fraud, because now the phone and the card are separated," he explained.

Another example of leveraging location data is to create real-time road traffic maps generated by analysing the speed of the mobile phone base station hand-off to ascertain how fast cars are travelling. This data could then be sold to GPS device companies, enabling them to provide dynamic travel information to motorists.

Djuphammar said selling access to mobile user information in this way would open up new revenue streams in a "win-win" scenario for all parties involved — the end user, the operator and the broker who manages the sharing of that user data.

"That is a typical win-win, where the operators share their assets/knowledge through a broker and the GPS company can sell a service to the end user. The end user wins, the GPS service provider wins, the broker provider wins and the operator wins," he added.

This article was originally posted on silicon.com.

Topics: Security, Mobility, Telcos, Wi-Fi

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

73 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • HELL no

    I'll quit having a mobile phone if it comes with one of these. Sure its a great feature, but not "all" phones should/will have them. RFID is a huge privacy concern and I'm sure there are controls, but I still would not be comfortable having this technology without a practical use (for myself). Just before I get labled "some old guy" - I'm not, a mid-20 something professional type who just doesnt appreciate being spied on.

    Another comment as to the credit card fraud stuff listed here. Again think of the logistics and privacy issues being created. If people are willing to give up everything to prevent a few unauthorized charges (which in my nearly 10 years of using credit cards have never had EXCEPT when physically using the card at a big box retailer) then the world is in sadder shape and more sheeple than I thought.
    JT82
    • No you won't

      you are addicted to it already. See people like myself that still don't own cell phones saw things like this coming a long time ago. There are other issues we saw as well... but we are far and few between.

      No all of you that have cell phones will just continue to be sheep you are addicted to your phones. People like myself that don't own one... we have no problem not accepting this new leash. We are the only real free people left in the United States. ]:)
      Linux User 147560
      • Ha!

        Sure, keep on believing that you're "the only real free people left". Riiight. That's nonsense.

        First of all, you will always have a choice whether to use this technology or not. Second of all, if you have a phone at all and if you use the internet, then you're already able to be tracked. It's nearly impossible to be untrackable in this digital society.

        Third, by you refusing to use a cell phone, you are denying yourself an extremely useful tool for modern society. What if you had an emergency that threatened your life? A cell phone owner would have a higher chance of surviving that emergency. You? Not so much.

        So, get over yourself. You're not special.
        Uncle Ebeneezer
        • Ha yourself

          Where I tend to go cell phones are useless. And cell phone owners have no higher chance than anyone else. As for me... man you are a moron. Let see here...

          1. Advanced First aid kit - Check!
          2. Emergency Water - Check!
          3. MRE's - Check!
          4. CCW license - Check!
          5. 10mm combat pistol - Check!
          6. Road flares - Check!
          7. Battlefield triage training - Check!
          8. Combat experience - Check!
          9. Advanced driving school - Check!
          10. Compass - Check!
          11. Emergency blankets - Check!
          12. Flare gun with flares - Check!
          13. Emergency cash - Check!

          That's what is in my vehicle, and at work. The handgun I carry at all times when away from home. How prepared are you? Do you know what to do if there is an active shooter in your area? I do, and I also have the training to render the active shooter, in active thereby saving lives that a cell phone wouldn't. Keep in mind in active shooter cases the cops wait... they wait till the shooter is dead because he killed himself or he stops shooting, calling the police only lets them know where to collect your body.

          Will you be able to quickly identify a sucking chest wound and initiate immediate aid so the person doesn't drown in their own blood? I know I will stand a better chance than you or most others with just your cell phones. Care to try again?

          What happens when your tech fails... and it does and will. What if your batteries are low or dead and there is no ready way to recharge them? What if your are in a cell dead zone (they still exist) then what? You just going to sit and wait hoping for help? Or you are rendered unconscious then what (of course in this case it's game over for everyone)? The illusion of safety is just that, an illusion.

          You rely too much on your phone. As for computers, proxy servers and IP spoofing for those that know how or care to bother with it. Also the PC isn't with you every moment tracking your every move. There are always some levels of acceptance.

          Another thing, unlike most of you here, I don't really need to fill my day with using a PC. I grew up in an age where we had to actually use our own mind to entertain ourselves. How long can you go without tech before you start to jones for it?

          Take it or leave it I don't need it as much as you or other do. And I bet you voted for Obama too. ]:)
          Linux User 147560
          • Superiority complex much?

            Dude you need to come down from your high horse. I have all of what you said you have (except for the MRE, because I know how to survive without readily available food, and my pistol is a .45) and I would still rather have a cell phone during an emergency than to not. Here's a scenario for you: You're driving along a road somewhere you have never been before and you get into an accident. You have to get out of your car before the leaking fuel ignites. Are you going to waste time making sure you have all that crap you carry in your car when you get out? No, you're just going to get out. Lets say your car explodes or is otherwise inaccessable. No one is around for miles and you don't have a phone. When you are walking in what ever direction you choose in an attempt to call someone I'm using my cell phone to call for help. I already know what you're going to say too. What if there is a dead zone and you can't get a signal? I can just use the GPS on my CELL PHONE (location by sattelite pretty much anywhere) to find the nearest place where people would be, and head that way until I can get a signal so I can call someone. "What if you're battery is dead?" I keep a spare battery in my phone case so that won't be an issue and both batteries have a standby time of around 15-20 hours. The battery still has a 5-10 hour life with constant use. I have extensive miltary training that I could use to survive if I needed, but I wouldn't need to use any of it if all I had to do was make a phone call.

            You talked about a sucking chest wound. What would you do after you administered first aid? Do you carry around all the surgical equipment necessary to properly treat the casualty and keep the wound from becoming infected? I seriously doubt it. I would use my cell phone to call for help as well as treat the wounded. So while you're wandering around looking for a land line (or someone with a cell phone) I've already called the paramedics to evac the person(s) to a hospital for further treatment.

            Bottom line is that if they put RFID tags in phones then I would make every attempt to either disable/remove the tag. If I couldn't then I would just try to find a phone that didn't have them (china would be a good place to look). If it came down to it, you know someone would make an RFID blocker for the cell phones just like the ones made for passports and IDs that have the RFIDs in them. RFID's have already been shown as flawed devices that can be used by certain individuals for targeted attacks if they so wished. Experiments have already been conducted showing that someone could have a rfid reader attached to an explosive device and set to go off when a certain RFID signature is read. The federal id that was to contain RFID has yet to pass and I doubt this will either. The US government won't be able to force people to use the rfid tags, and the real sheeple are going to be the ones who willing accept the RFID tags in their devices.

            Linux has caused you to have a superiority complex that you should probably get checked out before it's too late.
            SpiderTech
          • Disappointed by both

            Both of you make valid points. However,one very critical piece left out is that commo. is vitally important in ANY emergency. I am prior svc. (combat arms, but no combat) and know that the first thing you want to do to your enemy is blind them so that they cannot mount a good defense/offense.

            By not carrying a cell phone, you are out of commo w/ your family, friends, and anyone else that you may want to get give intel to, or get it from.

            Even if you are a "lone wolf" don't you want to know in which direction to make your "tactical withdrawal". Not into the middle of rioting natives, chemical agents, etc.?

            Unless you already have a rally point for your family, as well as a 2nd place, with a plan that says if X, then Y, or if X2 then Y2 your "team" will be FUBAR.

            In an emergency, my family has a plan. Will everyone follow it? Hell, no. Panic, blocked routes etc. may occur. I want to be able to direct them where to go. If cell service is squirelly, I MAY NOT be able to reach them. With no cell phone, I WILL NOT be able to reach them.

            I could go on, but I think you get the point.
            toxic psychotic avenger
          • You've missed a key issue--that of the complexity of different systems.

            A key point missed is that the more complex systems become usually less reliable they are in emergencies. Moreover, as complex systems rely on complex subsystems and complex couplings between them, then in an emergency there is a very real chance the system may not fully work or it might have failed completely. In essence, simple systems are often a more reliable bet in an emergency as there's less to go wrong with them, however, their very simplicity also means that they're often less capable than their more complex counterparts.

            Cell phone systems can be very vulnerable due to the limited range of each cell together with any cell's limited ability [redundancy] to connect with the rest of the telephone network, also cells rely heavily on existing hi-tech infrastructure to keep them running (which is more likely to fail during an emergency). If several cells go down and their interconnection with the network also fails then a catastrophic failure of the network in all nearby or relevant environs could easily ensue, especially in areas where say natural disasters are unfolding.

            In such circumstances, having a much lower tech alternative, such as a portable HF transceiver, would probably be a much more effective and reliable option than a cell phone.

            Similarly for GPS, I often go bush walking and I'm amazed how often GPS doesn't work. A valley, large overhanging rocks, trees--especially wet ones--all conspire to kill the GPS signal. In some places (valleys etc.), the GPS might not be available for mile after mile (as I've witnessed).

            Eons ago, I too had some military training; and while GPS is very nice and comforting, I would not trade a GPS for my map-reading and other navigation skills. Except for being either unconscious or dead, these low-tech skills will always remain useful to me (and the batteries can't go flat either).

            Correct, such low-tech options are not as precise as GPS but their 'overheads' are also much lower, and in a emergency this can be very valuable and important point. Low-tech systems can easily be improvised whereas high-tech ones usually cannot (or they take much longer to set up and get working--and they often consume more resources too).

            Let me give you a low-tech example: during WW-II, POWs would often receive news from radios made from the very lowest tech parts, often improvised from old telephone bits, bits of wire and old razor blades (which were used as a primitive cat's whisker detectors). Such improvisation could only have happened with low-tech AM radio broadcasts. Had the news been broadcast on the more modern FM or the latest digital radios, then building an improvised radio set in such circumstances would have been totally out of the question (as more complex parts and circuitry would be needed to build a radio that used these more complex technologies).

            Another low-tech communications system (probably the lowest next to smoke signals), is the extremely effective and reliable Morse code. Any person in the military more than a decade or so ago would be very cognizant of this fact. Morse possesses some quite remarkable properties in that it not only extremely reliable but also it can cut through the weakest of signal conditions or work in situations where considerable interference exists to the extent that no other system is capable of. Morse can be sent though almost any coherent communications channel, as all it needs is for the channel to be turned on and off in a sequence of dots and dashes.

            Morse is just as at home being tapped out on a water pipe that interconnects prisoners' cells (also effectively used in WW-II by POWs) as it is by being sent over say a cell phone. Extremely meager in bandwidth (hundreds of Morse channels could be fitted into a single 3G cell phone channel) make it very useful in emergencies.

            There is however, a major gotcha with Morse code. In today's world, where unless something can be learned in just a few minutes, it is discarded, thus Morse struggles as it requires considerable leaning and practice before one is proficient.

            In a way the Morse example exemplifies and contrasts the two opposing views in the above posts. The first being high-tech, no-brainer-to-use solutions, which when working, are easy and highly effective but nonetheless potentially very unreliable in an emergency; whereas the other involves much more reliance on one's own training together with the necessary resilience and resourcefulness.

            In an emergency, both have their place, it just depends on the circumstances.


            _____________


            BTW, a few years back on Leno's show, a competition was held between two of America's top SMS cell phone texters and a couple of old-timer key-pounders (Morse operators). Was hardly a competition though, as one would expect, the Morse operators left the kiddy texters floundering in the dust. Again, it goes to show that new technology is not always the best (at least in some applications).

            Irritated_User
          • A key point is the complexity of the systems referred to.

            A key point missed is that the more complex systems become usually less reliable they are in emergencies. Moreover, as complex systems rely on complex subsystems and complex couplings between them, then in an emergency there is a very real chance the system may not fully work or it might have failed completely. In essence, simple systems are often a more reliable bet in an emergency as there's less to go wrong with them, however, their very simplicity also means that they're often less capable than their more complex counterparts.

            Cell phone systems can be very vulnerable due to the limited range of each cell together with any cell's limited ability [redundancy] to connect with the rest of the telephone network, also cells rely heavily on existing hi-tech infrastructure to keep them running (which is more likely to fail during an emergency). If several cells go down and their interconnection with the network also fails then a catastrophic failure of the network in all nearby or relevant environs could easily ensue, especially in areas where say natural disasters are unfolding.

            In such circumstances, having a much lower tech alternative, such as a portable HF transceiver, would probably be a much more effective and reliable option than a cell phone.

            Similarly for GPS, I often go bush walking and I'm amazed how often GPS doesn't work. A valley, large overhanging rocks, trees--especially wet ones--all conspire to kill the GPS signal. In some places (valleys etc.), the GPS might not be available for mile after mile (as I've witnessed).

            Eons ago, I too had some military training; and while GPS is very nice and comforting, I would not trade a GPS for my map-reading and other navigation skills. Except for being either unconscious or dead, these low-tech skills will always remain useful to me (and the batteries can't go flat either).

            Correct, such low-tech options are not as precise as GPS but their 'overheads' are also much lower, and in a emergency this can be very valuable and important point. Low-tech systems can easily be improvised whereas high-tech ones usually cannot (or they take much longer to set up and get working--and they often consume more resources too).

            Let me give you a low-tech example: during WW-II, POWs would often receive news from radios made from the very lowest tech parts, often improvised from old telephone bits, bits of wire and old razor blades (which were used as a primitive cat's whisker detectors). Such improvisation could only have happened with low-tech AM radio broadcasts. Had the news been broadcast on the more modern FM or the latest digital radios, then building an improvised radio set in such circumstances would have been totally out of the question (as more complex parts and circuitry would be needed to build a radio that used these more complex technologies).

            Another low-tech communications system (probably the lowest next to smoke signals), is the extremely effective and reliable Morse code. Any person in the military more than a decade or so ago would be very cognizant of this fact. Morse possesses some quite remarkable properties in that it not only extremely reliable but also it can cut through the weakest of signal conditions or work in situations where considerable interference exists to the extent that no other system is capable of. Morse can be sent though almost any coherent communications channel, as all it needs is for the channel to be turned on and off in a sequence of dots and dashes.

            Morse is just as at home being tapped out on a water pipe that interconnects prisoners' cells (also effectively used in WW-II by POWs) as it is by being sent over say a cell phone. Extremely meager in bandwidth (hundreds of Morse channels could be fitted into a single 3G cell phone channel) make it very useful in emergencies.

            There is however, a major gotcha with Morse code. In today's world, where unless something can be learned in just a few minutes, it is discarded, thus Morse struggles as it requires considerable leaning and practice before one is proficient.

            In a way the Morse example exemplifies and contrasts the two opposing views in the above posts. The first being high-tech, no-brainer-to-use solutions, which when working, are easy and highly effective but nonetheless potentially very unreliable in an emergency; whereas the other involves much more reliance on one's own training together with the necessary resilience and resourcefulness.

            In an emergency, both have their place, it just depends on the circumstances.


            _____________


            BTW, a few years back on Leno's show, a competition was held between two of America's top SMS cell phone texters and a couple of old-timer key-pounders (Morse operators). Was hardly a competition though, as one would expect, the Morse operators left the kiddy texters floundering in the dust. Again, it goes to show that new technology is not always the best (at least in some applications).

            Irritated_User
          • problem

            your phone doesn't use satellite GPS. It uses a Cell Tower GPS system, based on your distance from the nearest 3 cell towers. If you don't have cell signal, you have no GPS, unless you have a SAT phone, that actually sends and receives over orbiting satellites.
            Khyron
          • one small problem with your argument

            where did your combat pistol come from? where did your flare gun and flares comes from? where did the bandaides, plastic tubes, gauze, do you have a portable defribulator in there?, etc come from? That's right, they all came from technology and you are just as addicted to it as everyone else.

            The guns are worthless without bullets, shells, gunpowder, primers or flares, your driving training is worthless without a vehicle and fuel, your blankets are worthless without cotton farmers and textile industries, etc.

            I don't suppose you carry around strips of magnesium that you mine and shape yourself in your pocket, just in case a natural disaster takes out your local flare supply store do you?

            I think you get my point
            Khyron
          • Ha yourself - missing check item

            You missed out:
            Red neck - check.
            Chalfont
      • So are you

        Really?

        And I suppose you didn't see things like the computer and Internet coming and that's why you're using it?

        You use technology everyday and still diss it. Laughable.

        What does your "freedom" allow you to do that the rest of us "leashed people" can't?

        If you cannot see the advantages in something, do not assume that others cannot. Use of a cell-phone is a free choice that has no disadvantages to speak of.

        Having said that if the RFID tag is setup in such a way as to be potentially hazardous or a one stop-shop for a criminal to grab your identity and belongings, I'd be the first to dump the tag and get a phone without it.
        rahullak@...
        • That's if you are able to have any say in the matter (which is unlikely).

          "Having said that if the RFID tag is setup in such a way as to be potentially hazardous or a one stop-shop for a criminal to grab your identity and belongings, I'd be the first to dump the tag and get a phone without it."

          That's if you are able to have any say in the matter (which is unlikely).

          As with the existing IEMI (International Mobile Equipment Identity), you're very unlikely to have any say in the matter whatsoever.

          As each of these these surveillance technologies creep in the freedoms of ordinary law-abiding citizens is further reduced.

          In the end, it is very questionable whether the benefits of these all-pervasive, all encompassing surveillance technologies will outweigh their freedom-restricting disadvantages.

          Just because they're possible doesn't mean that they are either necessary or desireable.





          Irritated_User
      • Right! Cell Phones are a serious social addiction and a threat to freedom.


        Yes, I have to admit to actually owning a cell phone but I have had BOTH SMS/texting and all Internet access, including email, removed from it.

        (At the slightest provocation (such as pressing a wrong key), my cell phone still tries to default to on-line mode (a ruse with no other advantage other than to charge us users additional fees) but now there's nothing for it to connect to. Nevertheless, I object strongly that I alone cannot completely cut off or kill the on-line 'features' in my in my cell phone and that I have to rely on my Telco to do it for me. Why should we cell phone users be so enslaved by the likes of Motorola, Nokia, Qualcomm etc. and our telcos just because we own a cell phone?

        My cell phone now functions as a normal old-fashioned telephone that just receives and sends ordinary voice calls. Moreover, I switch it off whenever I'm in restaurants or other public places so as not to annoy others.

        Cell phone addiction (similarly PC addiction) is truly an amazing social phenomenon and it ought to be of much more concern than it now is. I've nearly killed pedestrians on more than one occasion when they suddenly, aimlessly and without looking ran out onto the roadway with a cell phone embedded in their ear--totally oblivious to anything else around them let alone moving vehicles on the roadway.

        ...And who gets the blame when motorists accidentally roll cell phone addicts? For sure, it's we poor beleaguered motorists.

        ...And it doesn't stop there, I've nearly been killed by a driver who went though a red light whilst SIMULTANEOUSLY texting on his cell phone. Yet, cell phones are legal and heroin and cocaine are not. Clearly something's surely wrong with our system of values when such strange disparities can coexist within society, methinks!!

        That so many people can be totally distracted by someone at a considerable distance away yet oblivious to real and imminent local danger, is, in itself, quite frightening.

        Similarly, heaven help us when cell phone addicts get carte blanche to use their 'drug' on planes (as is about to happen). Leaving potential interference to the plane's avionics aside does the fact that cell phone users are able to transmit electromagnetic within the confines of a plane (along with the potential for radio frequency interference) give us silence lovers a similar right to possess phone jammers so that we may protect our personal space from these cretins? I doubt it very much (but we'll soon find out when such a case goes before the Law for resolution--as it surely will).

        The inclusion of RFIDs in cell phones provides users with yet another the illusion that these devices are providing them with even more control over their lives when in fact just the opposite is true--the more users become dependent on their mobile phone the more in fact that they're enslaved by it.

        So ubiquitous and accepted the cell phone has become that soon--and by default--it won't be long before governments 'mandate' them so they know where everybody is, being tracked will become a norm of everyday life. Right, something once reserved for prisoners and criminals will become standard for all of us.

        Once, not that long ago, such a concept in [supposedly] free societies would have been absolutely unthinkable. Now, it seems, that through a combination of cell phone addiction, utter damn stupidity and user acquiescence to and indifference of monitoring and being tracked, that governments will get this power by sheer default, and moreover they will do so without so much as even a whisper of dissent from the population.

        One only has to look back to the 1930s to see what damage public indifference and unquestioning acquiescence to soporific government propaganda caused the world--try 50 million or more dead for starters. As with the frog in increasingly warming water, our continued and uncritical acceptance of each and every creeping advance in this technology will end up by enslaving us much more than it frees.

        Personally, I find it difficult to understand why most users are so blind to the so very obvious. Perhaps, this is the definition of addiction from another perspective--or even its raison d'?tre.



        _____



        Re SMS:

        Oh, BTW, did you know that the average user pays more to send an SMS text message character across town than it does for NASA to send the same character to and from the far reaches of the outer solar system?

        Telcos couldn't believe their luck when they 'sold off' the SMS--the Short Messaging Service--and turned it into a remarkable cash cow. Not even the Telcos' most forward thinking marketing gurus predicted people could be so gullible and stupid to pay so much for so little.

        SMS was originally designed as a maintenance aid to help Telcos' in-field service techies communicate technical info etc. (that's why there's a severe limitation on the amount of text that can be sent--but for its originally intended purpose this was plenty). Thus, SMS is a lean an mean service with tiny overheads with little if any effect on voice channels and it costs the Telcos almost nothing to run.

        Probably no other technology in history has earned so much money for so little expended effort. On principle, even if someone else paid for it, I wouldn't use SMS. Extortion should not be rewarded.

        I feel sorry for the gullible and those addicted to SMS for not having collectively forced the Telcos to include SMS/texting as an integral part of the main service (i.e.: that it be both free and have no limitation on the number of messages sent--no overhead for Telcos should translate into no cost for users/consumers).

        Irritated_User
    • not for me

      I agree...no RFID on my phone please. That is a HUGE security risk just by itself. Whatever personal information is available to the RFID chip can be obtained by any capable RFID reader as you walk by. WOW, now I have your address and security access codes, so I spend a few days hacking/duplicating them into a new device and look at that, I have access to your car/home now. People can do the same thing with your keyless vehicle access/start features available now. Unless they make major improvements in RFID security they can keep the RFID tags.
      endorphine44
    • === Honest Truth about RFID ===

      Everyone is distracted from the truth - RFID is a close proximity technology - it does not send information about you to big brother. IT CANT. Just like GPS - devices don't upload information to satellites with GPS, because it can't!

      But you know what does allow for easy tracking? Plain-old cell phone - no internet neccesary.

      Seriously - RFID isn't the threat here. The phone in your pocket, constantly communicating with towers, is the one you should be concerned about.
      MyDoom
  • RFID and GPS

    "RFID could be in all cell phones by 2010"

    You mean it isn't already?

    Will all of the radios in cell phones already, I wouldn't be surprised if there is something with similar functionality already in them.

    And it's not totally win-win, considering the implications on privacy, which is already a bad enough situation.

    "Another example of leveraging location data is to create real-time road traffic maps generated by analysing the speed of the mobile phone base station hand-off to ascertain how fast cars are travelling. This data could then be sold to GPS device companies, enabling them to provide dynamic travel information to motorists. "

    Umm, no. I think the GPS providers would [b]much[/b] rather add their own app to the cell phone and ignore RFID, especially since most phones now have GPS built in.

    The RFID providers would probably want to make the GPS folks pay a lot more for the information than they could get by installing an application on the user's phone and getting it for pretty much free.

    I know that TomTom already uses their own phone applications and GPS receivers to allow users to make and share corrections to their maps, and to share other information.

    Why go through a third party when they can go directly to the customer? They can get their win-win without a third party.

    The less people messing with our data, the better. Cut out the third party, go direct.
    CobraA1
    • Ever see minority report?

      ... this is the step or two before ocular scanning and RFID implanting... ]:) Don't say it won't happen... these cell phones are just a step toward desensitizing people to the next step... and like good little sheep you are all following right along.

      No, I still don't own a cell phone. ]:)
      Linux User 147560
      • Yes, but...

        ...you apparently DO own a computer.

        Way to go on eschewing technology for the sake of
        privacy!

        (Do I hear bleating?)
        Reply_account
        • Not from me...

          maybe if you shut your yap the bleating would go away. Just a thought. As for me using a PC:

          I don't use Windows.
          I use proxies to get out so as to mask my IP.
          I don't use my real information
          And I block ads and so on.

          There is no true privacy but I am still more free than most of you sheep. You keep thinking I am like you... and I will keep laughing at your ignorance. ]:)
          Linux User 147560