Re: A glance at the future of missing child identification

[danisch@ira.uka.de (Hadmut Danisch)]

> The car system used here in the U.S. is called "Lo-Jack," as in the
> opposite of "hijack." I don't see how putting the transponders in ignition
> keys would do much to stop theft, but maybe I'm unaware of European
> developments. (There are keys with chips in them, acting as electronic
> keys, or to make the keys harder to duplicate, but not to track the cars.)

The computer which controls the engine checks whether there is a transponder
in the ignition key. The key sends a 32 bit ID number. If this number was
registered in the computer, the engine works, otherwise not. You can't start
the engine just by shortcutting some wires.



> >Perhaps a drug dealer may be more usefull if he moves free and
> >has a transponder inside which he doesn't know about, that having
> >him in jail.

[ This should have been "than having him...". I was very tired yesterday
 evening. It's embarrassing to see how many typos I made :-( ]


> Implausible. The theft detectors are not picking up specific transponders,
> just the "on" or "off" state of the things attached to clothing, books,
> CDs, etc. (I say "things" because some of them are strips inserted in
> books, some are tag-like things clamped to clothing, etc.)

No, the theft detectors don't. But they are big and unsuspicious enough to
hide specific detectors for big brothers...



> Again, the infrastructure is lacking. The simple detectors in stores would
> have to be upgraded to track more sophisticated transponders. The stores
> would have to cooperate, etc. Implausible.

Why implausible? Stores cooperate. I know about a big department store in 
Germany (but I don't tell you which one) which has a large secret military
hospital and a medical stock below it's basement. None of the employees
knows about. If they cooperate in having a complete hospital inside, why
shouldn't they cooperate in having some antennas and some wires?

Hadmut