Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware

Wireless Alliance Touts 'Magic Touch' RFID Tech 132

Posted by michael from the magic-fingers-not-the-same-thing-at-all dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Nokia, Sony and Philips have launched a new wireless technology, called Near Field Communication, that could be a threat to Bluetooth. Based on RFID, they say it will enable electronic devices to interact -- for m-commerce, file-swapping or to download info from the Web -- when touched together."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wireless Alliance Touts 'Magic Touch' RFID Tech More

Wireless Alliance Touts 'Magic Touch' RFID Tech

Comments Filter:

  • Range (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rjstanford ( 69735 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:12PM (#8601728) Homepage Journal
    Of course, unless they're very careful, it will also enable devices to communicate when they're within a couple of feet. Still, as long as the software folk treat it as "always chatting" communication, and build in the proper safeguards, rather than assuming that every conversation is spawned by a dedicated request to speak, things should be fine. This will be fun to watch.

    • Re:Range (Score:4, Funny)

      by wawannem ( 591061 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:19PM (#8601803) Homepage
      Still, as long as the software folk treat it as "always chatting" communication, and build in the proper safeguards, rather than assuming that every conversation is spawned by a dedicated request to speak, things should be fine.

      Sure... they just need to follow ethernet as an example. I mean, think about how secure and un-snoopable ethernet is, err... wait a seCARRIER DROPPED

    • It's quite easy to limit the range. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Serious Simon ( 701084 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:26PM (#8601899)
      With inductive loop antennas such as used for low/medium frequency RFID and this technology, the magnetic field strength drops off by approximately the third power of the distance.

      So, with a very sensitive receivers you might be able to eavesdrop at maybe twice the intended distance but that will be about it.

  • Other uses? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gr33nNight ( 679837 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:13PM (#8601733)
    Can I implant one of these in my gf, so when I touch her, it will tell me how many guys she has been with lately?

  • hrmmm.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by flewp ( 458359 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:14PM (#8601744)
    Good touch? Or bad touch?

    But really... radio-frequency identification ... Shouldn't the radio part of that imply wireless? If they have to be touched, that to me just seems like having wires. Albiet really short ones, but you get the idea.

    • Re:hrmmm.. (Score:1, Interesting)

      by SkunkPussy ( 85271 )
      RTFA, it says it will operate at 2cm seperation and whoever modded the parent(#8601744) up is inexcusable.
      • Psst. I did RTFA. 2cm or touching, what the hell is the difference? My point still stands. Your point doesn't. Get a clue. I won't consider truly wireless unless I can connect from the very least across the room. Whoever modded your post up is inexcusable, as are you for being a nitwit.
        • Also, why 2cm? Might as well just make it touching, since it's less than an inch anyway. That way, if you accidentally set them next to each other on your desk and don't want them to communicate they won't unless they're touching. And, what happens when you accidentally put them 3cm, or 4cm apart from each other? Do they communicate at all? Or do the communications break down and only partially transfer info?
    • "Wonder twin powers, activate!"

  • Depressing (Score:5, Funny)

    by Deraj DeZine ( 726641 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:14PM (#8601748)
    electronic devices to interact ... when touched together

    So now your electronics can get more than you do. How depressing is that?

  • Finally reliable wireless tech... (Score:5, Funny)

    by tbase ( 666607 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:15PM (#8601753)
    ...and all you have to do is touch a "male" and a matching "female" "connector" together.
  • It's SO much easier to require physical contact instead of having a 10m range. I suppose this is why contact memory buttons are so much more prevalent than RFID tags.

    Another solution in search of a problem.

  • advantage? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SkunkPussy ( 85271 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:15PM (#8601755) Journal
    the article doesn't make clear what (if any) advantage this system posesses over bluetooth?
    Is this product announcement just capitalising on negative bluetooth security publicity and the RFID buzzword, or is there more to it than that?

    As bluetooth is already in millions of devices, it seems churlish to ignore this.

    • Re:advantage? (Score:5, Informative)

      by pldms ( 136522 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:18PM (#8601791)
      I think the summary is simply wrong. The article doesn't say it's a threat, for example:

      While NFC will handle identification of users through RFID, it appears that wireless protocols such as Bluetooth or Wi-Fi will still be used for the data transfer.

      ""NFC won't replace Bluetooth or infrared"

      • Re:advantage? (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by Threed ( 886 )
        Slashdot looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined

        Drop and give me twenty.

    • Re:advantage? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by walt-sjc ( 145127 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:18PM (#8601796)
      If you RTFA (which the submitter didn't do obviously) you find out that this technology still uses WiFi or Bluetooth or other wireless technology to communicate.

      • It does it over a short range, though. A lot like the ID cards they have around where I work. A staff member places their card on the black panel with the red LED, and the door unlocks.

    • Re:advantage? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rm007 ( 616365 )
      I think the main "advantage" is really more of a difference - i.e. that it can be more easily adapted (and adopted) as a technology for transactions and exchanges because of the contact element. This, presumably assumes that there will be less user resistance to a transaction technology that requires a positive action controlled by the user rather than a passive "sweep" by an external reader or even a (theoretically) interceptable transmission. Just a guess, I am sure that I will be "corrected".
    • Don't know if this is the same, technology (one day I'll actually RTFA!) - but if it's related it would be cool if Sony actually started making something out of it... (PDF LINK FOLLOWS:) http://www.csl.sony.co.jp/person/rekimoto/papers/u ist97.pdf

  • Hmm... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Huxley_Dunsany ( 659554 ) <{moc.cam} {ta} {ynasnudkcuh}> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:15PM (#8601758)
    Given that a lot of nerds have a rep as being creepy 30-something guys who live in basements, maybe calling the next big thing "Magic Touch" isn't such a good idea...

    Just a thought.

    Huxley

  • Not a threat to Bluetooth (Score:5, Informative)

    by andrew_0812 ( 592089 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:16PM (#8601769)
    The article claims that this is not competition for Bluetooth, IR, or Wi-Fi. Unlike what the summary claims.
    • Yeah, where do they get the "threat" when the article contains the quote: "NFC won't replace Bluetooth or infrared. This is a new paradigm based on touching, and it will complement these existing wireless technologies," a NFC spokesman explained.
    • The article claims that this is not competition for Bluetooth, IR, or Wi-Fi. Unlike what the summary claims.

      Of course it is! Instead of using Bluetooth, you just touch your earpiece with your cell-phone.

  • The best quote of the article (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    is unquestionably "This is a new paradigm based on touching." Someone needs to tell these guys about the laws we have in place.

  • porn (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:19PM (#8601801) Homepage
    This is one innovation that I'm glad porn DIDN'T lead the way to.

  • different from Bluetooth (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hak1du ( 761835 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:19PM (#8601802) Journal
    Bluetooth has a usable range up to 300ft (there are also specs for 30ft and 3ft); it is commonly used for laptops and handhelds to connect to modems, printers, GPS receivers, and access points from across the room. Something that has a range of only a foot or so won't compete there.

    I don't see much use for these new short-range wireless technologies--they aren't short-range enough to use their range limitations for security, and they aren't long-range enough to move into Bluetooth territory. Furthermore, there are short-range versions of Bluetooth.

    For secure communications, IrDA would still be a better choice. For anything else, you might as well use Bluetooth.

    But, hey, with enough marketing and sales muscle, these companies will probably manage to force another proprietary standard upon us, whether it is a good idea or not.
      • Bluetooth has a usable range up to 300ft (there are also specs for 30ft and 3ft);

      That's 100m, 30m and 10m, ie 300ft, 100ft and 30ft.

      No 3ft Bluetooth.

      Of course if you want good, reliable data transfer rate, just divide the above distances by two or three... ;-)
    • Depends on the actual implementation. It is definitely going to different from Bluetooth. IMO its not hi-tech as Bluetooth, but it gets the job done with the proper balance of power output and battery drain.

      Here's a link that might be useful http://www.auracomm.com/ I think Aura has perfected the technology even before the NFC Forum was even envisioned.
    • IrDA isn't really that secure in my experience those flashes of light can be read even around corners if some surface is reflecting the light.

      • Yes, but IrDA can be shielded predictably and easily. For example, most bags and pockets will shield an IrDA transmitter very well. And for communications between a stationary and a handheld device, you can have a simple black hood under which the user holds the device: it's simple yet gives a lot of extra security.

        RF shielding is much harder in comparison, in particular if you want the resulting shield still to allow convenient user access.

  • m-Commerce (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheRealFixer ( 552803 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:20PM (#8601818)
    m-Commerce? Did we really need another x-Commerce variant? I swear, the marketing heads that come up with these buzzwords need to be taken to the woodshed.
    • Yes... WTF is "m-commerce"? Am I supposed to know what that means? Well, I'll turn to the font of all knowledge, Google... let's see... "mobile commerce"... something to do with cell phones? Hmm.

      Apparently the term has been around for at least four years, since I found a Wired article about it from Feb. 2000; but this is the first time I've seen it. The Wired article talks about smartcards.

      I still don't know what it is. File it under 'M' for "meaningless", I guess, along with "M-Life".
  • People, they say, could use it to establish a link between two handheld devices in order to swap music . . .

    This just in: Jack Valenti [wikipedia.org] and Cary Sherman [wikipedia.org] have been taken to the hospital, apparently suffering from heart attacks.

  • Power Rangers (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Gax ( 196168 )
    >RFID, they say it will enable electronic devices >to interact -- for m-commerce, file-swapping or >to download info from the Web -- when touched >together."

    It's a good idea. Imagine trading business cards with a handshake. Of course, it is likely to become more popular for kids trading files. If security is lax in these devices the old chestnut of computer viruses being transmitted by touch may become a reality.
    • Umm .. that's been done. I remember reading about it a few years ago. You use the human body as the physical transport layer of the network. Given just enough power you can establish a connection when you physically touch someone.

      Here [trnmag.com] is a related article from last year.

  • Fantastic (Score:3, Funny)

    by barryfandango ( 627554 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:22PM (#8601840)
    Great, now a savvy pickpocket armed with a 0-day exploit can empty my bank account just by rubbing up against me in the subway.

  • RIAA as chaperones (Score:5, Funny)

    by taniwha ( 70410 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:22PM (#8601842) Homepage Journal
    I can just imagine it now RIAA chaperones on every street corner making sure there's no touching and p2p file exchange ...

  • Replace bluetooth?! (Score:5, Informative)

    by tfoss ( 203340 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:22PM (#8601847)
    Apparently even the poster didn't RTFA. From the submission:

    called Near Field Communication, that could be a threat to Bluetooth.

    But in the article it states clearly:

    While NFC will handle identification of users through RFID, it appears that wireless protocols such as Bluetooth or Wi-Fi will still be used for the data transfer.

    "NFC won't replace Bluetooth or infrared. This is a new paradigm based on touching, and it will complement these existing wireless technologies," a NFC spokesman explained.

    -Ted

    • There are 13 stories on the front page right now. Of these, only one of them has extra commentary from the slashdot staff, and it's only to point out an earlier story!

      Now if we can just keep the bias-out-of-the-dept dept, we'll be set.

  • Uh-huh (Score:2, Funny)

    by Dark Lord Seth ( 584963 )
    for m-commerce, file-swapping or to download info from the Web

    Corporate monkeys, start your lawyers! Ready... Set... GO!!!

  • I can see it now... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ArmenTanzarian ( 210418 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:24PM (#8601883) Homepage Journal
    I wasn't trying to sexually harass her, I was just scanning her ports!!

    sooo many meanings for that, well two or three at least...

  • no more pushing buttons... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dever ( 564514 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:28PM (#8601926) Journal
    So, instead of pushing a button to automatically sync our devices, we'll just touch them. oh, ok, that's just lightyears ahead of anything we could *ever* do today...
    Besides not having a damn thing to do with being a problem for bluetooth or wifi (do submitters read the articles? i thought we just didn't...) how is waving my phone at a movie poster going to buy me a ticket? Am i going to end up buying a bunch of cars, jackets and vietnamese girls when i walk downtown and go buy some food at a market? Sounds like i'll really have to configure it, go through a few dialogue boxes perhaps and do the usual thang i do today, as far as electronic device convenience goes. not to mention, it's not like anyone will ever have the proper convergence/convenience to actually make it doable to wave your phone at more than a few places and have it do something useful.

    For these things to work as advertised they're going to need to saturate the shit out of the market, so businesses will want to use them *everywhere*. They'll need to come with everything, cheaply I think, for it to become some easy to use super gadget opportunity.

    WIll that happen? probably not. Perhaps it will be tied in greatly with home elctronics, and personal gadgets, but it will probably be nowhere as ubiquitous (ubi..ubu...ubo...damn) as credit cards, and i doubt it will bridge the gap from bluetooth+ that it looks like it will reside in to super convenience.

    • Actually Hong Kong has good examples of smart card technology in place using similar paradigm. Get on the bus...wave your smart card near the reader...fare paid,, go to MacD's and pay for your burger...travel on the train, use your card to get access through turn-styles. Millions of people use these every day, literally.

      Make life a lot easier than finding the correct change and possibilities for extending its use are endless.

  • That is not harassment (Score:3, Funny)

    by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:28PM (#8601932) Homepage
    I was not grabbing her ass, I was giving her my telephone number and resume for a job.

  • passive interaction (Score:5, Interesting)

    by happyfrogcow ( 708359 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:28PM (#8601939)
    They also claim the technology will revolutionise the way people interact with their environment.

    Blabitty bla bla. Show me the flying cars and renewable energy sources. Until then, I'll interact with my environment how and when I want to. ...or they could just wave their NFC phone at a smart film poster to automatically buy a ticket.

    Great! Shorter lines at the movie theatre. You all go waive your phones at inanimate objects. I'll go talk to a real person. What about checking for the age of the ticket purchaser? oh yeah, your soon to be mandatory government ID will have that info in an RFID tag as well.

    Alternatively, it could help a user to use their mobile phone as an e-wallet.

    wonderfull! now a theif can just waive my wallet in front of a smart billboard and buy anything he wants? need two forms of RFID for that purchase? lucky him, he just stole my cellphone too.

    yeah yeah, you say i have a nice origami tinfoil hat on. But what exactly are these "innovations" doing for society? It's cool that this stuff can technically be done. It doesn't mean it should permeate our entire daily lives.

    From the story submission: "called Near Field Communication, that could be a threat to Bluetooth."
    From the article: "NFC won't replace Bluetooth or infrared."

    way to go editors! way to go A.C. who submitted the story! jeebus, if people could be honest, truthfull and accountable this world would be such a better place.
  • The article brings up the ability of the protocol to exchange files, such as music. This brings up some interesting legal implications: Is exchanging digital music in person any different than exchanging digital music over p2p networks? If giving a friend a mixtape is legal, is it legal to give them digital copies of the songs on the mixtape? And if its legal to exchange digital music in person, how can you differentiate where one gets the bits from? Exchanging digits over this Magic Touch protocol is the s
    • Is exchanging digital music in person any different than exchanging digital music over p2p networks? Yes. Unless you routinely hang out with RIAA employees, you're much less likely to get caught. Just be careful not to bump MP3 players with anybody that appears to be a lawyer. Does it matter whether or not it is legal, if enforcing any laws against it is impossible?
      • That, and you're sharing with a very small number of people, as opposed to millions of users on the P2P network. Much more defensible, much easier to claim fair use.
  • It's been, what, 10 minutes, and no Wondertwins jokes have been made.

    NFD Twins... activate! Form a transaction!
    • I was thinking about it, but you beat me to it.

      Wonder-twin Powers, Activate! Form of: something lame!

      Actually, Zan just turned into something related to water, so I don't think that would go well with electronics.

      Anyway, happy now? :)

  • I already see... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Pope Raymond Lama ( 57277 ) <`gwidion' `at' `mpc.com.br'> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:32PM (#8601971) Homepage
    My to be born kids assembling together the house toaster, microwave oven and TV sets in order to form a giant-robot that has 3 times the wireless bandwidth capability of the devices standing alone.
  • And didn't people say, "Uh, no."? And didn't the company go under? And how would this be different?
  • Think Mobile's SpeedPass but with a smart object instread of a dumb keyfob.

    -Pete
  • electronics interacting with each other might be cool, just as long as they dont make trapper keepers [southparkstudios.com] interact with electronics

  • Illegal use (Score:4, Funny)

    by AragornSonOfArathorn ( 454526 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:42PM (#8602073)
    So, when this technology is used for nefarious purposes, will it be called "bad touch"?
    • I'd actually consider it quite nefarious in a possibly unintended / unpublicized kind of repercussion way.

      How would you feel if you and your buddies all got new phones eventually, new gadgets and new little smart-fobs...

      only to wake up one morning to realize that you and everyone you know are carrying around at least one, possible more RFID tags / devices everywhere you go

    • I'd actually consider it quite nefarious in a possibly unintended / unpublicized kind of repercussion way.

      How would you feel if you and your buddies all got new phones eventually, new gadgets and new little smart-fobs...
      only to wake up one morning to realize that you and everyone you know are carrying around at least one, possible more RFID tags / devices everywhere you go.

      Any chance that other huge corporations will pick up on this and we'll see a fruckin HUGE push (through addon conveniences in lar

  • What threat to bluetooth are you talking about? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The article says:
    While NFC will handle identification of users through RFID, it appears that wireless protocols such as Bluetooth or Wi-Fi will still be used for the data transfer.
    "NFC won't replace Bluetooth or infrared. This is a new paradigm based on touching, and it will complement these existing wireless technologies," a NFC spokesman explained.

    What kind of threat is that? RFID is not a short rage data communications medium if you want bandiwdth you need something else.

  • Battle Mode - GO!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by subjectstorm ( 708637 ) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @02:45PM (#8602103) Journal
    I wonder how long it will be until kids in Japan are touching cellphones together and watching them fight it out.

    "AHA! my PDA defeat your N-GAGE, AHA!"
  • I thought the idea was to be wireless? How does needing to touch things together compete with Bluetooth, a wireless data transfer technology?
  • Bluetooth works at a good distance, this requires extremely close proximity. This certainly won't replace my bluetooth mouse, keyboard or cell phone since I don't feel like having to press my mouse and keyboard against my machine to make them work. Ditto for the cell phone. Or am I really missing something?

    • RTFA, just like the submitter didn't. This isn't supposed to replace BlueTooth or WiFi or IR or anything, it's just meant to be it's own thing, possibly using BlueTooth or WiFi to transfer data. How can it replace a system that it itself uses?

  • I could setup my beowulf cluster of RFID in the clothing department at Walmart!

  • The IButton [ibutton.com] also uses "touch" to transfer digital credentials and other information to nearby devices. It uses plain, old-fashioned serial communications technolgy.

    This "Magic Touch" technology simply sounds like a more complex way of achieving the same thing.

    I can only hope this alliance will take security as seriously as the IButton folks have.

  • they say it will enable electronic devices to interact -- for m-commerce, file-swapping or to download info from the Web -- when touched together."

    So, now we'll need to get condoms to keep our handhelds from getting viruses. Just like in the real world.

  • can I avoid the problems I had when I tried to use the "Bad Touch" [goodtouchbadtouch.com] RFID tech?

  • No more incompatible connectors, so we'll be free to experiment with daisy chaining a laptop to a mobile phone to an electric toothbrush to a banjo to a pneumatic otter crusher. Wait! Hold off on the otter crusher - we don't have a hot standby for that.
  • I can see this working. First, I buy a device, say a laptop, that is NFC enabled. Than perhaps I decide I want to set up a home wireless network. So, I buy a WAP that is also NFC enabled. I plug it in, bring my laptop within "touching" range and all of the protocol negotiations neccesary for comminucation are automagically taken care of. The only company I can see accomplishing this type of integration and maintaining the simplicity is Apple.

    Picture it, they touch, and VOILA! Secure encrypted wireles

Slashdot Top Deals

There is no opinion so absurd that some philosopher will not express it. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero, "Ad familiares"

Close