Re: [76attendees] RFID

Tony Hansen <> Tue, 10 November 2009 03:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62EC73A68E6 for <>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:02:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.506
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u5Ep+Jvsmc6j for <>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:02:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 790573A6836 for <>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:02:02 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: []
Received: (qmail 29169 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2009 03:02:27 -0000
Received: from (HELO ( by with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 10 Nov 2009 03:02:27 -0000
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAA32RgE018061 for <>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:02:27 -0600
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAA32NQn017545 for <>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:02:23 -0600
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAA32Nhx027705 for <>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 22:02:23 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAA32Lfu027689 for <>; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 22:02:22 -0500
Received: from [] ([]) by (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20091110030220gw10014q4ne> (Authid: tony); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:02:21 +0000
X-Originating-IP: []
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:02:17 -0500
From: Tony Hansen <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [76attendees] RFID
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:02:03 -0000

I've seen two different interpretations of "having a card reader at the 
door": 1) a scanner that tracks everyone as they enter or exit the door, 
and 2) a reader sitting at the door that you can swipe your badge on as 
you enter as an alternative to the blue sheets. I would find the former 
troublesome, but not the latter.

Another alternative to the card reader at the door is something I saw at 
one of yesterday's sessions: a card reader passed along with the blue 
sheets. (Would that be an eBlueSheet (tm)? :-) ) However, there was only 
one of those and the *other* blue sheet clip board did not have its own 
card reader.

A couple further thoughts:

*) With the blue sheets, we have parallelism as multiple sheets are 
passed around the room. Swiping a reader that's being passed around 
would be faster, so this might not be much of an issue. If this were 
chosen as the working model, it might be better to have two of the readers.

*) A number of people, such as WG chairs, come early to a meeting to set 
up. And at the end of a meeting, the WG chairs will often hold up the 
blue sheets to get any one to sign up that missed signing in earlier. A 
eBlueSheet needs to be able to handle both of these cases, and 
differentiate signins between meetings.

	Tony Hansen

Dae Young KIM wrote:
> Although it should be very convenient, automatic detection through the 
> gates is not a recommendable way. This then begins to touch on some 
> privacy concern, I think.