Quantcast StorefrontBacktalk » Blog Archive » Are RFID Readers Hazardous To Your Health?
advertisement
advertisement

Are RFID Readers Hazardous To Your Health?

Written by Evan Schuman
June 15th, 2006
Like this story? Share it
To share this story with people in your social network, please click on the network icons below.

FCC regs on RF exposure safety requires that at least 8.7 inches always exist between RFID antennae radiating elements and people. How many DCs bother to check?

One industry official—who asked that his name not be used—wondered whether the potential danger from RFID and related readers was being seriously explored. “Some backrooms have 14-30 antennas and all of these are clustered around doors,” the official said. “No one has started to address any of the OSHA safety issues, nor even ask any questions.”

It’s a fair question. In other industries, labor unions would sometimes push such questions, but the lack of unionization in many of these sites truly puts the onus back on management.


advertisement

One Comment | Read Are RFID Readers Hazardous To Your Health?

  1. Pete Abell Says:

    This is clearly an issue. The OSHA Regs are for 1 Watt and the Gen 2 FCC Regs are 4 Watts at the reader/antenna level. Apparently no scientific studies were done on human safety issues before the RFID craze created the initial swell of pilots and implementations. The EU has a maximum of 2 Watts which is a move up from their previous limitation of 1/2 watt. Perhaps some true studies are needed before RFID becomes ubiquitous like the bar code.

Leave a Reply

Newsletter

Quickly catch-up on the latest in E-Commerce and Retail Tech with our free weekly newsletter, with urgent bulletins as news merits.
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Kill All The Passwords

This article does mention, but does not give enough attention to, the fact that the attacks discussed are only feasible when the encrypted password file can be copied and subjected to an offline attack. The trick is to have authentication performed on a separate, much more strongly secured host - such as an Active Directory Domain Controller, or a Kerberos server, or a NIS+ server, or even using something as banal as an LDAP-over-SSL authentication dialog. In these environments, the odds of the "password file" being stolen and subjected to an offline attack go to near zero, and only online attacks may be carried out by the attacker. With sensible exponential backoff between failed password attempts, lockout after a modest number of failed attempts on a single account, and pattern detection, that minimum 7 character password is quite secure enough. Passwords aren't dead yet for security purposes, and they will be with us for a very long while to come for practical purposes. The trick is to employ them correctly. Read more...
The possibilities you describe are years away from being implemented at best, so for the moment passwords are an ugly reality. Luckily, password managers can easily manage hundreds of passwords of any length. The only thing a user needs to remember is the master password. It seems like an easier task to educate users on how to use password managers rather than implement complex security technology on a global basis. Read more...