The next generation "NCF" Mobile phones will eliminate global cash.

Undergod

Are you saying that people have stopped using mobile phones because of the dangers? I haven't seen this at all, people seem as reliant on their phones as ever.

Penn

Most people have stopped using mobiles because of the dangers? My mother, who used to give out about the dangers now has a mobile phone. More people than ever are using them.

Run_to_da_hills

espinolman wrote: »

There is another down side you didn't mention in the OP , mobile phones microwave your brain and can give you cancer , i have a mobile phone but i keep it turned off most of the time and i might use it once a week .

There are very few people that use mobile phones any more because of the dangers of them .

RFID as used in transit smart cards and this new Micro SD omit a frequency of 13.56MHZ. This is the exact same frequency as used in Verichip which has proven to give tumors to rats & mice. I could imagine if this option is left on on your phone continuously for a considerable length of time it would eventually fry your brain. :eek:

robtri

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

RFID as used in transit smart cards and this new Micro SD omit a frequency of 13.56MHZ. This is the exact same frequency as used in Verichip which has proven to give tumors to rats & mice. I could imagine if this option is left on on your phone continuously for a considerable length of time it would eventually fry your brain. :eek:

you state proven.... well can we see the link or soemthing to the actual study....
not a blog please ...

Run_to_da_hills

robtri wrote: »

you state proven.... well can we see the link or soemthing to the actual study....
not a blog please ...

Article in New Your Times.

Detailed study

King Mob

espinolman wrote: »

There is another down side you did'nt mention in the OP , mobile phones microwave your brain and can give you cancer , i have a mobile phone but i keep it turned off most of the time and i might use it once a week .

Mobile phones do no such thing.
The mircowaves put out by the phone are simply not energetic enough to cause any damage.
The put out about a Watt of energy which over an hour of phone use will heat up your ear by 1 degree Celsius.

espinolman wrote: »

There are very few people that use mobile phones any more because of the dangers of them .

Really?
Where exactly are you getting this statistic?

robtri

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Article in New Your Times.

Detailed study

sorry but that is so laughable....

the ny times stories does not state there is a link, the story is about a report saying there is a link....

Thats not proof by any stretch of the imagination.....


I love your detailed study..... the website you have it on is ANTICHIPS.COM.... seriously come on.... you can do better than that RTDH

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Detailed study

That's not a study that's a review of the literature.

Not only that it's a review done by someone who's embedded against these chips and published on a site that's also embedded against them.
That's hardly a neutral source.

As for the actual review: the absolute worst result is 10% of mice having cancer.
Oddly they don't seem to mention a control group or the usual rate of cancer in mice.

And here's a choice quote from that paper that the folks at antichip seem to have missed.

the components of the BioMedic transponder have been widely used in both standard human and experimental protocols and there is little if any evidence that these materials possess any carcinogenic potential in non-transgenic animals.

Rtdh, did you actually read any of the studies linked?

RoboClam

Non-ionizing radiation does not cause cancer!

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/23/1707

This is a nice study of 420,095 people over 20 years which shows no increased risk of cancer due to mobile phone use.

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

RFID as used in transit smart cards and this new Micro SD omit a frequency of 13.56MHZ. This is the exact same frequency as used in Verichip which has proven to give tumors to rats & mice. I could imagine if this option is left on on your phone continuously for a considerable length of time it would eventually fry your brain. :eek:

Given that the article you linked to states that its a passive tag, I this its safe to say that its emitting nothing on a continuous basis....regardless of the accuracy (or lack thereof) of yoru claims regarding the effects said emissions would have.

Run_to_da_hills

More here.

This recent article is interesting.

Anyway this is going off topic on NFC phones.

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

Really?
Where exactly are you getting this statistic?

When i tell people about the dangers of mobile phone use , they stop using their mobile phones and get rid of them .;)

King Mob

espinolman wrote: »

When i tell people about the dangers of mobile phone use , they stop using their mobile phones and get rid of them .;)

Yep that's a scientific study alright.

But what dangers exactly?

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

More here.

That's the same story, with the same lack of studies.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This recent article is interesting.

Anyway this is going off topic on NFC phones.

And have you actually read any of that site?
Do you just believe everything you read on sites like this?

Have you actually read any of the studies linked in your previous post or not?

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

More here.

This recent article is interesting.

Two articles both referencing chips which are passive tags which don't emit anything on a continuous basis, so having them in the phone wouldn't be a health issue...

Anyway this is going off topic on NFC phones.

Do you maintain there's a health-risk from the emissions of a passive tag in a phone?


(Aside - does anyone else wonder how this guy managed to get a signal from a passive chip?)

Run_to_da_hills

bonkey wrote: »

Given that the article you linked to states that its a passive tag, I this its safe to say that its emitting nothing on a continuous basis....regardless of the accuracy (or lack thereof) of your claims regarding the effects said emissions would have.

Passive RFID tags which have no battery must require a external source to provoke signal transmission.

Verichip and passive smart cards also use a capacitor to store its energy. So when one tags on or off the device would be still omitting radio waves until the capacitor is fully discharged.

With NFC phones there is a unique feature to be able to "touch" two phones against each other to make a secure financial transaction. This in itself is worrying because the external source used to charge the capacitor must also be contained within the phone itself to activate it.

I would imagine that this would be the same as blue tooth where it could be switched in the "on" or "off" mode.

This promotional picture says it all.

thecommander

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I would imagine that this would be the same as blue tooth where it could be switched in the "on" or "off" mode.

Being able to turn a feature off doesn't seem like a good way to "force" people to use.

Run_to_da_hills

thecommander wrote: »

Being able to turn a feature off doesn't seem like a good way to "force" people to use.

People will never be forced into using them during the honeymoon period. It would only arouse suspicion.

NFC technology will be an attempt to sway a large percentage of the population into the cashless society. Once the majority is sucked into it they will pull the rug from under them and there will be no other options.

TFL is now 80% Oystercard give it less than five years and you will not be able to purchase any other ticket other than one of these. The next goal after that is to have them all registered and logged into a database.

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

People will never be forced to use it them during the honeymoon period.

It is an attempt to sway a large percentage of the population into the cashless society. Once the majority is sucked into it they will pull the rug from under them and there will be no other options.

TFL is now 80% Oystercard give it less than five years and you will not be able to purchase any other ticket other than one of these and the next step after that is to have them all logged on a database.

Then don't use the bus.

Why should the rest of the world be denied these really convenient things because some people are paranoid and scaremongering?

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Passive RFID tags which have no battery must require a external source to provoke signal transmission.

Verichip and passive smart cards also use a capacitor to store its energy. So when one tags on or off the device would be still omitting radio waves until the capacitor is fully discharged.

Passive tags use the radio signal of the reader to generate the electricity they need to respond. The capacitor is effectively charged by the reader's signal, and then discharged to send the response.

There's neither rhyme nor reason in putting a larger capacitor there. It would slow response times, and offer no benefit.

With NFC phones there is a unique feature to be able to "touch" two phones against each other to make a secure financial transaction. This in itself is worrying because the external source used to charge the capacitor must also be contained within the phone itself to activate it.

Its a pity that phones don't use batteries any more. If they did, then that could act as this powersource you require.

Its also a pity that phone manufacturers are clever enough to design a feature to require that phones touch each other to be able to communicate, but too stupid to get the phones to only try and communicate when touching.

I would imagine that this would be the same as blue tooth where it could be switched in the "on" or "off" mode.

So that would mean that even when you had something that wasn't a passive tag, you could switch it off, so that it wouldn't be emitting anything.

Ingenious!

Diogenes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

People will never be forced into using them during the honeymoon period. It would only arouse suspicion.

NFC technology will be an attempt to sway a large percentage of the population into the cashless society. Once the majority is sucked into it they will pull the rug from under them and there will be no other options.

TFL is now 80% Oystercard give it less than five years and you will not be able to purchase any other ticket other than one of these. The next goal after that is to have them all registered and logged into a database.

I have I think a a half dozen Oyster Cards in the house. Aside from myself and my wife, we have four we give to guests as a cheap way of getting around London transport. None are registered to my current address. I've regularly borrowed my wife's card, and vis versa.

You can buy Oyster cards from dispensers from stations.

Furthermore, unless theres someone checking your photo ID when you go into station theres no way to check if the card you are using actually belongs to you. Thus defeating the entire purpose of Oyster which is to reduce staffing levels.

Honestly this conspiracy theory doesn't make a whit of sense.

Run_to_da_hills

Diogenes wrote: »

I have I think a a half dozen Oyster Cards in the house. Aside from myself and my wife, we have four we give to guests as a cheap way of getting around London transport. None are registered to my current address. I've regularly borrowed my wife's card, and vis versa.

You can buy Oyster cards from dispensers from stations.

Furthermore, unless theres someone checking your photo ID when you go into station theres no way to check if the card you are using actually belongs to you. Thus defeating the entire purpose of Oyster which is to reduce staffing levels.

Honestly this conspiracy theory doesn't make a whit of sense.

Did I mention anything about the forced registration of these cards at this current time. :rolleyes:

If people were forced to register their details on the purchase of Oystercard there would not be such a prompt switch over.

Currently people are enticed into registering them, Ie in case of loss or theft they can be offered a replacement card with all details transferred across from the old card. Also various banks are teaming up with Oyster to offer cashcard incentives.

thecommander

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Did I mention anything about the forced registration of these cards at this current time. :rolleyes:

If people were forced to register their details on the purchase of Oystercard there would not be such a prompt switch over.

Currently people are enticed into registering them, Ie in case of loss or theft they can be offered a replacement card with details credited from the old card. Also various banks are teaming up with Oyster to offer cashcard insentives.

So you don't know if this will actually happen then? The thread title seemed sure that cash would be eliminated.

Run_to_da_hills

thecommander wrote: »

The thread title seemed sure that cash would be eliminated.

And it will.

thecommander

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

And it will.

Sorry, I can't accept a) a work of fiction or b) foretelling the future as evidence of something.

Diogenes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Did I mention anything about the forced registration of these cards at this current time. :rolleyes:

If people were forced to register their details on the purchase of Oystercard there would not be such a prompt switch over.

And your implication is that once this enforced registration means it will mean they can track your every move.

Nothing of the sort.

Currently people are enticed into registering them, Ie in case of loss or theft they can be offered a replacement card with all details transferred across from the old card.

A monthly travel card for zones 1-3 is £123. When my wallet was stolen at the start of November, I was able to get a new travel card, with the full travel card, within minutes.

I wasn't out of pocket to the tune of £123 pounds.

Thats not an enticement it's a sodding no brainer.

Also various banks are teaming up with Oyster to offer cashcard incentives.

Enticements aren't the same as an enforced policy.

I can either buy a travelcard or put cash on the card.

If you think Osyter is going to be some kind of big brother tool, you should see the sheer awkwardness that is happening trying to integrate Oyster with the south london train network.

Run_to_da_hills

Diogenes wrote: »

And your implication is that once this enforced registration means it will mean they can track your every move.

Nothing of the sort. .

Say again?

And this is old news.

Diogenes wrote: »

A monthly travel card for zones 1-3 is £123. When my wallet was stolen at the start of November, I was able to get a new travel card, with the full travel card, within minutes.

I wasn't out of pocket to the tune of £123 pounds.

Thats not an enticement it's a sodding no brainer.
.

Did I ever say you couldn't get a refund on a conventional registered pass. 30 Years ago you could get a replacement CIE monthly tcket if you could provide your photo ID with corresponding pass number.

The difference with Oyster is that if your ticket is unregistered you loose everything on it.

On top of that the thief can continuously use the card until such time as all the credit is used up unless you can provide TFL with a reference number to the card which would be highly unlikely in most cases.

When the Oyster card is registered it can be blocked immediately just like the IMEI on any handset.

Diogenes wrote: »

If you think Osyter is going to be some kind of big brother tool, you should see the sheer awkwardness that is happening trying to integrate Oyster with the south London train network.

Of course it will be a surveillance tool as I pointed out on the BBC press link.

Did you ever hear of digital fingerprints?

More advantages of cashless transactions.

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Say again?

And this is old news.

Can you show a single person who has ever been convicted based solely on this data, let alone someone wrongly convicted?

Diogenes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Say again?

And this is old news.

Your article states that it's been used by the Police 61 times. 61 times out of 5 million daily users. Not exactly the most effective tool.

Did I ever say you couldn't get a refund on a conventional registered pass. 30 Years ago you could get a replacement CIE monthly tcket if you could provide your photo ID with corresponding pass number.

And that is better? More convenient? 30 years ago I didn't have a mobile phone, what's your point?

The difference with Oyster is that if your ticket is unregistered you loose everything on it.

And if I didn't make a note of the number with my CIE bus pass then I'd equally be screwed.

Also your point is completely wrong, when you buy your monthly travel card you get a receipt, and this is the ideal way of getting your money back.

If you don't have this, provided your card is registered, you can usually get your travelcard back.

On top of that the thief can continuously use the card until such time as all the credit is used up unless you can provide TFL with a reference number to the card which would be highly unlikely in most cases.

The thief can also use all the cash in my wallet, and theres nothing I can do about that.

When the Oyster card is registered it can be blocked immediately just like the IMEI on any handset.

You're saying that like it's a bad thing...

Of course it will be a surveillance tool as I pointed out on the BBC press link.

As mentioned it's pretty easy to get an Oyster card without minimum fuss, I keep several spare in my house for visitors to use. So it's easy to circumvent this.

Consider this, millions of tourists visit London every year, if and this is a big if Oyster became the only way to traverse London using public transport, there would need to be a way to arrange temporary cards for these people.

If you wanted to travel around London securely and secretly you would only need to buy one of these cards, use a false name, and even with cashless interaction you could use a pay as you go credit card, and viola, you're travelling around London anonymously.

No one has been convicted of any serious crime based only on their Oystercard usage. 61 requests on a network that sees tens of millions of people use it every week? C'mon....

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Can you show a single person who has ever been convicted based solely on this data, let alone someone wrongly convicted?

Yes.

A murder was caught and convicted when he foolishly tried to use the Oyster card from his victim the following day.

Lesson learned, if you ever find an Oyster card don't ever use it because you dont know the history of the card.