It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
So, RFID vulnerability or conspiracy must be more dangerous than rocket fuel and thermite!!
Originally posted by getreadyalready
How will you compete at your job or your university when everyone else is biometrically tapped into a wealth of information that you don't have?
The King James translates:[8]
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark
He continues, "Texas Instruments’ account of their call with Grant and our producer is factually correct. If I went into the detail of exactly why this story didn’t get filmed, it’s so bizarre and convoluted that no one would believe me, but suffice to say...the decision not to continue on with the RFID story was made by our production company, Beyond Productions, and had nothing to do with Discovery, or their ad sales department."
Originally posted by and14263
.
unless the chip is in your head then you'd need a helmet or something.
Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by and14263
I haven't watched the attached youtube video but its quite simple why they won't do the episode in my opinion.
They simply won't air an episode that reveals technical vulnerabilities about a system used in payment, passports etc
Suppose it would be like airing a documentry on creating home made bombs...
What is worrying though is that RFID technology is that insecure and open to abuse.
Originally posted by quackers
Let's say that the chip is 100% infallible, or at least a very low chance of tampering, is their still an issue? If society adopted it voluntarily, is there still an issue? I mean at some point not very many people used money, yet as time progressed everyone used money, in fact you can do very little without money. Is a chip that replaces hard cash any different in that respect if society itself decided it was practical?
Apart from the forced implementation, which doesn't really exists yet, and the vulnerabilities, which can be addressed, what is the argument against it? If neither of those were a factor, would you consider it?