Return-Path: <Wesley.E.George@sprint.com>
X-Original-To: 76attendees@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 76attendees@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
 with ESMTP id 133333A69B4 for <76attendees@core3.amsl.com>;
 Sat,  7 Nov 2009 20:46:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300,
 BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
 [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2yb71RBhJSHP for
 <76attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Sat,  7 Nov 2009 20:46:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from VA3EHSOBE001.bigfish.com (va3ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com
 [216.32.180.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FFDB3A69A5 for
 <76attendees@ietf.org>; Sat,  7 Nov 2009 20:46:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail13-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.235) by
 VA3EHSOBE001.bigfish.com (10.7.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.340.0;
 Sun, 8 Nov 2009 04:47:15 +0000
Received: from mail13-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])	by
 mail13-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB2A61088773;
 Sun,  8 Nov 2009 04:47:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -40
X-BigFish: VS-40(zz542N98dN4015L9371Pba9lzz1202hzz1033ILz2fh87h176h6bh61h)
X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0
X-FB-DOMAIN-IP-MATCH: fail
Received: from mail13-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail13-va3
 (MessageSwitch) id 1257655635446218_3546;
 Sun,  8 Nov 2009 04:47:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS032.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.250])	by
 mail13-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6947015A0057;
 Sun,  8 Nov 2009 04:47:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from plsasdm2.corp.sprint.com (144.230.168.26) by
 VA3EHSMHS032.bigfish.com (10.7.99.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id
 14.0.482.32; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 04:47:15 +0000
Received: from PLSWH02A.ad.sprint.com (PLSWH02A.corp.sprint.com
 [144.226.242.131])	by plsasdm2.corp.sprint.com
 (Sentrion-MP-4.0.0/Sentrion-MP-4.0.0) with ESMTP id nA84lCSW023544
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL);
 Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:47:13 -0600
Received: from PLSWM01C.ad.sprint.com ([144.226.242.77]) by
 PLSWH02A.ad.sprint.com ([2002:90e2:f283::90e2:f283]) with mapi;
 Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:47:12 -0600
From: "George, Wes E [NTK]" <Wesley.E.George@sprint.com>
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>,
 =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCQ2ZCPBsoQiAbJEI9JBsoQg==?= <osamu@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:47:10 -0600
Thread-Topic: [76attendees] RFID blocker card
Thread-Index: AcpgLhrNagZDoYfsS8iwc9KZ1B4kQgAADuwQ
Message-ID: <F7EB0A7C707E39409A73CD0353242551A8873B23E7@PLSWM01C.ad.sprint.com>
References: <4AF646BD.9060001@viagenie.ca>
 <8A45C13C-CF88-4C10-90E0-2BD1DD58016B@wide.ad.jp>
 <4AF64C89.6010108@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <4AF64C89.6010108@viagenie.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Reverse-DNS: smtpls2.sprint.com
Cc: "76attendees@ietf.org" <76attendees@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [76attendees] RFID blocker card
X-BeenThere: 76attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <76attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/76attendees>,
 <mailto:76attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/76attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:76attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:76attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/76attendees>,
 <mailto:76attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:46:52 -0000

If as indicated on the materials, only a number (and no personal informatio=
n) is stored on the RFID card, why would skimming be a concern? Is this jus=
t standard procedure when doing tests of this type to supply a shield?


Thanks,
Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: 76attendees-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:76attendees-bounces@ietf.org] On=
 Behalf Of Simon Perreault
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 11:44 PM
To: =1B$BCfB<=1B(B =1B$B=3D$=1B(B
Cc: 76attendees@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [76attendees] RFID blocker card

=1B$BCfB<=1B(B =1B$B=3D$=1B(B wrote:
> If you stack RFID card and the skimming protection card(which is black
> one),
> your RFID card will be safe from skimming.

This confuses me again.

Is the lawful act of reading the card for blue-sheeting purposes
considered skimming or not?

If I want to opt-in, should I do this or not?

Simon
--
DNS64 open-source   --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server    --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
vCard 4.0           --> http://www.vcarddav.org
_______________________________________________
76attendees mailing list
76attendees@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/76attendees

This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel Company proprietary information inten=
ded for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. =
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete=
 all copies of the message.

