RFID, Coins and Currency
Today’s post brought to you by:
Last night, one of the fictional cable shows talked about how our (US) currency gives off radio frequency information, and when in large quantities such as a ransom payment, it gives off much more information.
Remember, this was a FICTIONAL show. But, how close are we to having RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) embedded into our currency? It could happen.
This is an interesting commentary from RSA Laboratories on RFID in currency:
Will RFID tags be embedded in currency? If so, when?
Various media reports have suggested that there were plans in Europe to embed RFID tags in currency by 2005. It is the position of RSA Laboratories at this time that such a plan is highly unlikely in the next several years. Indeed, RFID tags do not seem likely to serve as a cost effective anti-counterfeiting measure at present. RFID tags might be used to help track currency. As explained in a scientific paper by RSA Laboratories, however, it is very difficult to provide tracking capabilities to law enforcement authorities without making those capabilities more generally available and thus jeopardizing privacy.
With a simple search via Google, several patent requests such as “Passive radio frequency identification system for identifying and tracking currency” and “Embedded RFID Verifiable Currency” can easily be found.
Plus, there’s significant discussion about tracking Euros, especially large denominations, with an RFID thread. From a technology perspective, here’s an article from 2003: Radio ID chips may track banknotes. Along that same vein, here’s a discussion of the RFID Euro on a collector’s web site: RFID Banknotes.
But, RFID information can also be attached to coins. Take a look at this 2007 article: Canadian coins bugged, U.S. security agency says. But as one gentleman in the article claims, “From a technology perspective, it makes no sense. To me it’s very strange. You give the guy something with a transmitter that he’s going to spend — I mean, he might have it for an hour.” He’s right, putting a transmitter on a coin for spy purposes does not make sense.
A search for “RFID” on the Bureau of Engraving and Printing web site shows information about how RFID might help the visually impaired. However, some think a better optical reader for the current currency would be more cost effective and easier to do.
For more interesting (and scary) information check out this 2004 summary document FTC Workshop on Radio Frequency Identification: Applications and Implications for Consumers from EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) where they claim, “RFID should never be employed in a fashion to eliminate or reduce anonymity. For instance, RFID should not be incorporated into currency.” Then later in the document, they comment, “Money now poses a risk to privacy because governments are considering embedding RFID tags in currency.”
EPIC’s main web site’s RFID pages also provide more information along with more recent legislation proposed. Scrolling down their page, they include a discussion on how to protect your privacy with the increasing technology and “Big Brother is Watching” concerns. Plus, they have links to many other web sites about the use of RFID technology.
One more site, RFID: Radio Frequency Identification Technology and its impact on privacy, includes a discussion of RFID and lists a significant number of other web sites with details about the use of RFID technology, both helpful and a threat to our privacy.
Back to the origin of this post. The statements made in last night’s fictional show about RFID information in our currency appear to remain fiction, but they could become fact.
(On a side note, a couple of years ago, many of the technology sites suggested a hammer blow strategically placed was the best solution for the RFID chip in the new passports. In the one of the links above, an article discusses how the Dutch considered our e-Passport technology until they determined an individual’s passport information was easily copied and compromised from 20 feet away.)
Today’s post brought to you by:
Computer Dependency
Today’s post brought to you by:
Computers – and their software – you’ve got to love and hate them at the same time.
Last week’s challenges included being hit by the McAfee issue on one computer. Luckily, we have access to more than one computer, and the others were not damaged by their “false positive” on a critical Windows operating system file. When McAfee deleted the critical file, the system was crippled.
But, we were able to research the problem on a second computer and fix the faulted machine. However, this took time. The first few hours were spent trying to fix an unknown problem on the damaged system. Too many blue screens in the past made us think this was an operating system crash. Only later did we learn that McAfee’s “protection” had severely impacted the system by erasing an important file.
Even more of an issue, the “fixes” noted on the internet required you to have internet access to identify the solutions to the problem. Unfortunately, removing the critical file also removed the ability to access the internet from the damaged system.
We were fortunate to have another computer, not damaged by the McAfee file removal, that provided the ability to research the problem and identify the appropriate steps for repairing the system.
If that wasn’t character building enough, over the weekend, the weather impacted the cable modem on another computer. That took out a second system. Again, we were fortunate to have a separate computer with wireless access to the internet allowing us to research the problem and the suggested solutions.
Various steps were taken to recover the cable modem and repair the various files. Still no internet access.
After time spent in e-chats and on phone calls to customer service, someone at the cable vendor noticed that we had an internet outage in our area.
Hopefully, the cable modem will be operational soon.
But, these sagas illustrate how dependent we are on the internet. We use it for business and for research. These problems show how important it is to have alternative ways to access the internet when issues like this occur.
After many hours on computer repair duty, I certainly feel sympathy for those folks who only have one computer that is adversely impacted either by the McAfee Security problem or by the internet outages.
That sympathy is especially warranted for the computer problems of today. They require access to the internet to research and solve when inability to get to the internet is one of the fundamental problems.
This certainly sounds similar to the chicken and egg problem.
How do you get an egg without a chicken? Or, how do you get a chicken without an egg?
In our case, how do you get to the internet without software network connectivity? Or, how do you get software network connectivity without the solutions found on the internet?
Lessons learned. Diversify computer equipment, operating systems and internet access just like you diversify your numismatic collections and your investments!
Today’s post brought to you by:
Gold Backed Credit Cards? Just Odd…
This article, New gold bullion-backed credit cards being introduced soon, strikes an odd chord. Of course, the article does not provide details, but still, just think about it. Credit card (debt) and gold (investment) simply do not fit together in the same sentence much less as a financial strategy.
Generally, people invest in gold as either a numismatic interest in gold coins or as a hedge against losses in other investment vehicles (e.g., the stock market).
Without details and only speculating, the upside of a gold backed credit card could be a potential decrease from the astronomical interest fees some banks charge their best and fiscally responsible credit card customers.
But the downsides, again speculating, seem to far outweigh that advantage.
First, you would have to deposit your gold with the credit card company. This means, of course, that you no longer have control of the asset.
Second, your available credit line would fluctuate with the market value of gold. Depending on how you use the card, you would need to keep a watch on your available credit line.
Third, you would have to pay the credit card company fees for the storage of your gold and the management of the credit card. Plus, businesses go into business to make money, so will they also charge you interest in addition to the fees merchants pay them? Probably.
Now, wouldn’t it be wiser for individuals to cease and desist with their credit card debt?
Don’t misunderstand, credit cards provide a valuable service and contain protections above and beyond those of debit cards for individuals and businesses. In the spirit of “you get what you pay for,” reasonable fees for the use of those cards should be expected.
But, why involve an investment (gold) into the equation?
Perhaps the business plan behind these gold backed credit cards depends heavily on the spending habits of the last fifteen to twenty years. People had to have the latest and greatest, newest and best, things that everyone else had.
Yet as a population in these turbulent times, we have begun spending less and being more frugal with our purchases. That’s good, very good.
People, more and more every day, realize their financial futures depend on taking control. They understand Social Security is a tax on the working people and not a fund they can depend on in their latter years. Many people will not receive corporate pension plans which are almost extinct anyway, and their 401k plans diminish with the stock market.
Perhaps these gold backed credit cards will help people with their money management and fiscal responsibility strategies, but skepticism runs rampant.
Credit cards (debt) and gold (investment) … just odd….
Commission versus Profit
Now why is it that two words with similar meanings have two very different reactions?
First, the dictionary definitions:
commission – n. – A fee or percentage allowed to a sales representative or an agent for services rendered.
profit – n. – The return received on a business undertaking after all operating expenses have been met.
In both cases, someone is receiving monetary compensation for goods or services rendered. However, many people think of commission in a positive way, whereas profit is a dirty word.
Why is that? Could it be the Negative Nellie media have brainwashed people into thinking businesses making a profit are BADDDDDD?
What purpose does that serve? Those same businesses hire people and provide goods and services. How can the business owners do that without making profit for themselves?
Should they provide the goods and services for nothing? Then it’s charity not a business. Who funds charities? People who make money fund charities. But if people can’t make money with their businesses then there can’t be charity.
What an odd concept. Businesses are horrible if they make money, yet people want businesses to hire them, pay them and allow them to buy goods and services from other businesses.
Without profits, this whole scenario becomes a conundrum.
What generated this discussion?
Well, a coin dealer advised that when someone asks why he’s not paying full melt value for gold, he explains the difference is commission. He used to try to explain the difference was profit, but he learned that people became angry with the word “profit.” Now, when he says the difference is commission, people nod their heads knowingly.
It’s a strange, strange world…
