Thoughts on Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Technology and Revelation’s “Mark of the Beast”
Burton S. Kaliski Jr., Ph.D.
All the billions of electronic computing devices produced since the invention of the transistor in 1947 (or perhaps Babbage’s analytical engine in 1834 or the abacus, c. 3000 BCE, depending on where one prefers to start counting) will be dwarfed in number compared to the newest deployment of information technology that’s underway today: Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and its many variants.
Already over 50 years old [1][2], RFID technology has recently come of age and promises to explode in deployment into the trillions of chips over the coming decades. Millions of RFID “tags” are already in the field today, and major commercial and defense organizations have announced plans that would scale to the billions and ultimately the trillions, first on shipping containers and later on individual items. The tags would enable organizations to track products throughout the supply chain and eventually within stores, with the promise of improved efficiency and quality of service. They can also be used for payment as well as for personal identification, for instance in passports, employee ID cards, and potentially under one’s skin.
The technology introduces significant concerns about personal privacy: If tags are “everywhere” in the future, then will everyone’s activities be tracked all the time? Many are calling for more careful deployment of the technology to avoid these abuses. Privacy-enhancing technologies are also being developed that can help address these concerns, provided that they are adopted.
One of the items in the recent dialogue on RFID privacy that I’ve found most fascinating is the suggestion that some have made [3][4] that RFID tags may be connected with one of the major, prophetic topics in the Bible, the “Mark of the Beast” in the Book of Revelation. The discussion intrigues me both as a technologist involved in developing RFID privacy enhancements, and as a Christian interested in Revelation. Motivated by the conflux of the two, I took a closer look at the point of view to see where it fits within the spectrum of interpretations of Revelation. I was hopeful that the suggestions would not become a source of division in the public dialogue, but rather a starting point for a better understanding of both RFID technology and Revelation.
RFID tags are tiny radio communications devices: they include a small computer chip (perhaps a millimeter or less on each side) and an antenna, and they communicate with a nearby reader at certain radio frequencies. An active tag has its own power supply, e.g., a battery. A passive tag gets its power instead from the reader’s radio signal. Passive tags, as a result, are cheaper and smaller than active tags, but active tags can be read from a much larger distance and can easily do sophisticated computations including encryption. In quantity, passive tags today cost around US $0.10 to $0.20 each, a result of standardization and improvements in manufacturing processes facilitated by pioneering organizations such as MIT’s Auto-ID Center. An industry goal is to reduce the cost to five cents and eventually to a penny in the future. Active tags, on the other hand, can cost $10 or more.
The simplest RFID tag is just an identifier: when read, it responds with a unique value. In a recently standardized version, the value is a 96-bit number, which means that there are almost 1029 or 100 billion billion billion unique values! This is ideal for supply-chain tracking applications, because every part or item ever made (or case, pallet, or container) can be numbered individually and thereby be tracked throughout its lifecycle. The number does not simply identify the type of item (as does a printed bar code today); it identifies the item itself, including both its type and a unique serial number.
More complicated RFID tags can present additional information about themselves or the item they’re attached to. Examples of such information include product or medical data; location history (perhaps as recorded by readers they’ve interacted with); and environmental information like temperature or tire pressure. A tag could also influence its environment, for instance turning on lights or locking doors. With sufficient capabilities, enhanced tags may be able to communicate with each other, not just with a reader; such devices would form sensor networks.
In the following, I’ll employ “RFID” as a general term for any of these technologies that involve chips whose primary, or at least prominent, function is to identify themselves via radio communications. Industry publications sometimes limit the term RFID to certain standardized forms of the technology, with contactless chips, proximity cards, and so forth describing related technologies. But for simplicity, I’ll keep to a single term throughout.
Numerous applications are made possible by RFID technology and its variants. Manufacturers, distributors, and retailers can track containers as well as individual items through a supply chain; companies can authenticate their employees entering a facility. RFID technology is likewise being proposed for passports and visas. Livestock are “chipped” with implanted RFID tags so they can be tracked more easily within the food supply; lost pets so tagged can be identified and reunited with owners. Public transportation and toll collection use similar technology, as do new contactless payment systems. Pharmaceuticals and patients can be tagged and tracked to ensure quality delivery of medical services. Some have even suggested embedding RFID tags within currency as a security measure.
The RFID wave has not only given rise to a large number of relatively small tag, reader, and system vendors focusing specifically on RFID, but has also caught the attention of some of the largest organizations in the world. Wal-Mart, for instance, has mandated that its top 100 suppliers implement RFID tagging for supply-chain applications; the U.S. Department of Defense has issued a similar requirement. Intel and SAP, who announced in March a partnership for managing RFID data [5] are but two of many major computer software and hardware companies adding support for this next wave of technology.
Most of the initial applications relate to the supply chain: the distribution of items from manufacturer to retailer, especially around inventory management. Container tagging is seen as improving the quality and efficiency of the distribution channel. RFID technology promises to continue the efficiency and productivity improvements already realized through computers and the Internet. The cost of RFID tags today, however, limits the applications, for the most part, to pallets and cases within a supply chain. The return on investment just isn’t there to justify a 10-cent or even 1-cent tag on most individual items in the near term. More expensive items, or items that are frequently stolen such as razor blades, may be able to justify a tag at today’s prices, as can items that are circulated and returned such as library books.
Over time it is possible that more consumer items will be tagged as the tag price drops and stores are able to capitalize on the tag’s presence in some way. For instance, a store can tell automatically which items are running low on a shelf, and restock before the shelf runs out, thereby providing better service to the customer. Another one, a personal favorite: A consumer can do “comparison shopping” by pointing a future mobile phone at an RFID-tagged product on the shelf to get independent product reviews. (Some stores might like this more than others.)
In 2001, Applied Digital announced plans to offer an RFID tag, called the VeriChipTM, that could be implanted in humans. The company has since received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration to do so for medical purposes. (See http://www.verichipcorp.com/.) The identification technology is intended to make it easier and more reliable to track patients who may otherwise be unable to identify themselves. The VeriChip tag, about the size of a grain of rice, can be injected by a physician with a hypodermic needle.
As more of a fashion statement, the Baja Beach Club in Europe is offering patrons the opportunity to receive a VeriChip tag under the shoulder. The tag (or really the shoulder) can then be presented for entry to the club’s VIP section, or to pay one’s bar tab. Some organizations have also adopted the implanted chips for security purposes.
Given these many applications, it is reasonable to assume that consumers will over time be carrying a growing number of RFID tags. The privacy discussion reflects this projection. What if a store can read my employee badge? Or my company can scan my personal items? What if a would-be thief can scan a crowd of passersby for expensive items?
Privacy concerns may apply even if tags are only on store items and the tags are deactivated when they leave the store. One concern is that stores could potentially collect data about what their customers browse on the shelf before they purchase an item through a combination of RFID tagging and cameras.
The read range of a tag is an important issue when it comes to discussions about privacy. Standardized readers will typically be subject to certain power limits, both to avoid interfering with other radio transmissions and computer systems, and for safety reasons. As a result, the advertised read range of a tag will be limited as well: a few centimeters to a few meters for passive tags, up to a few kilometers perhaps for active tags. The read range will further depend on factors such as whether the tag has power, the size of the tag’s antenna, the radio frequency, the power level of the reader, the presence of other tags in the vicinity, and the presence of other materials nearby, such as metal or water. (An RFID tag on a can of soda may be particularly hard to read!)
But non-standard readers might exceed the power limits, and multiple readers might be employed together to boost the range. The “theoretical” read range may therefore be much larger (although not orders of magnitude larger; the physics of the tag, especially a passive tag, does impose some limits). When considering privacy, the issue is not just the advertised range, but the theoretical one.
An RFID tag can’t be read by satellite; it’s not a homing device. But a network of ubiquitous readers would have essentially the same effect. If a tag can be read by any reader, and readers are “everywhere,” then effectively a tag is readable almost in any public place a person might go.
Just because an RFID tag can be read anywhere, however, doesn’t mean that it must be readable anywhere. A variety of privacy-enhancing technologies have been proposed whereby a tag is readable only selectively, on a “need to know” basis. For instance, just as a tag has an identity, a reader can also have an identity. A tag can potentially decide whether to reveal its identity based on the identity of the reader. As one practical example, the RFID tag in an employee ID badge might only reveal its identity to the employer’s readers. Another possibility is the so-called “blocker tag” [6], which prevents a reader from discerning the identifiers of tags it’s not authorized to read by selectively simulating the presence of millions of other tags. (For further discussion of these approaches, see [7].)
For highest security, the reader would not only present its identity – because other readers might be able to copy and claim that identity as their own – but it would also authenticate its identity, perhaps by with a cryptographic operation involving a secret key known only to the legitimate reader. This type of authentication is how Web sites demonstrate their identities today – they show that they possess a private key corresponding to their claimed public digital ID or certificate.
Such privacy-enhancing technologies, however, are for the most part still in the research phase. Many are still too expensive, whether in terms of chip complexity or computing power, to be added to the present generation of RFID tags, and the standards development necessary for interoperability is still evolving. But over time, the tags will likely become more powerful due to the natural progression of chip technology (or in some cases, battery technology). The standards will presumably incorporate more security features, and privacy protection will thereby improve at the same time as the technology reaches large-scale adoption.
A practical means of privacy protection today, if tags are to be employed on consumer products, is to deactivate or “kill” the tag when the item it is attached to is sold to a consumer. (There are more effective but less consumer-friendly means of privacy self-protection, like finding the tag and cutting it out of a purchased product, or enclosing the product in a metal bag.) Deactivation is effective, but it also prevents potential consumer applications that may be of interest in the future – such as home inventory systems (e.g., an electronic medicine cabinet, bookcase, or refrigerator), or rapid product returns. If these applications are sufficiently beneficial (and hopefully, only if the consumers’ privacy is appropriately protected), consumers may choose to opt out of deactivation for some items.
In any case, whether or not tags on consumer items are deactivated at checkout, consumers will still likely carry a growing number of RFID-tagged devices. Deactivation alone just bounds the privacy problem, but does not eliminate it. (And the growing database of information about consumer purchases remains a concern, also requiring appropriate protections against misuse.) Furthermore, even if RFID tags were never employed on consumer items, privacy would still be a concern within the supply chain due to the potential for various forms of corporate or military espionage of shipments and inventories by an opponent with a suitably equipped reader. Privacy-enhancing technologies therefore remain an important area of research for RFID systems.
Many new technologies progress through a period of “hype” or inflated expectations during their early stages of adoption. The technology is the “next new thing” that everyone is talking about: mostly in terms of its amazing benefits, but also regarding its associated risks. RFID technology is still in this early period today with respect to its overall adoption. As with any promising technology on the brink if major deployment, there has been a significant amount of discussion about what the technology might lead to when deployed on a large scale: both its positive applications and its negative ones. The magnitude of this wave, over the next 10-30 years, will likely open so many new applications that it is impossible at this vantage point to prepare for all of them. (If the reader is old enough to do so, consider today’s deployment of computers and networking compared to expectations in 1975.)
Early discussion about a technology’s risks and benefits is essential if one is to impact the technology’s future. If the outcome one anticipates from the present technology portfolio is potentially undesirable, perhaps the portfolio can be changed to lead in a preferable direction. The research on privacy-enhancing technologies is an example of such an investment.
There remains a substantial open question about whether the growing “automation” of personal identity is a good thing or a bad thing. This, of course, is a question that goes well beyond the technology itself. Even though an RFID system can be designed such that RFID tags can only be read on a “need-to-know” basis - providing privacy against unauthorized parties - society still has to define who needs to know what information. Perhaps my employer can’t read the tags on my personal items; society might not have invested my employer with a need to know such things. But if Big Brother (or Big Corporation, or whoever) is judged as having the need to know, RFID technology will still have enabled what some may be consider to be abuses.
Discussions about societal impact are an important part of the development of any new technology. In the case of RFID technology, the discussions have provided a motivation for a fair amount of research in which I’ve taken part professionally. Scientists at the company I work for and in the industry at large have produced a growing set of research results that aim to improve the RFID technology portfolio regarding privacy, as well as various other security concerns. I’ve reported on some of these improvements in articles and conference presentations (e.g., [8]) within my role as a chief scientist evaluating emerging technologies.
Rather than focus further on the various privacy-enhancing technologies and the interesting policy debates associated with RFID, however, I will employ the remainder of this article to explore a related area that goes far beyond my professional work. My opinions are my own – beyond the pale, so to speak – and my comments should not be construed or interpreted to reflect the views or policies of my employer.
Societal debates about technology are at their heart ethical or moral dialogues. It is not unusual therefore to find substantial religious undertones in some of the positions. (Stem-cell research policy would be one of many recent illustrations.) The religious input to the discussion generally is on the basis of principles, informed by religious laws and traditions - theological understandings of people, society, and God.
The debate about RFID technology, however, has had an unusual religious input beyond just the principles, and it is this input that I wanted to explore here.
A decade or so ago, when cryptographic smart cards were the “next new thing” in information security, I heard that some were concerned that payment systems based on smart cards might be connected with certain Bible prophecies about future payment systems and dictatorial one-world governments. I filed this away for my own future reference.
Recently, the Biblical texts resurfaced during my research on RFID technology. I found that connections were again being drawn between an emerging information technology and “apocalyptic” beliefs. I’ve long been intrigued by these kinds of interactions between my professional work and my personal faith as a Christian, so I decided to explore the topic a little further this time. After a year of thinking about RFID and the Biblical texts recently connected to it, I am delighted to have an opportunity to share the issues in a more public forum.
The discussions that relate RFID technology to Bible prophecies center on the Book of Revelation, the last book of the New Testament. Chapter 13 of Revelation (here in the King James translation) offers the following verses:
16And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
(Readers may recall the “number of his name” in this passage as the infamous “six hundred threescore and six,” or “666.”)
Written in the latter part of the 1st century CE, Revelation is presented as prophecy, a “revealing” of the future to the author, traditionally the Apostle John. The book’s original Greek title, Apocalypse, literally means “removing the cover.”
Those connecting RFID technology with Bible prophecies in Revelation generally relate the “beast” of these verses to a future world ruler, the “mark” to an implanted identification chip, and “buying and selling” to a payment system involving the chip. The future prospect that implanted RFID chips might be employed for payment - given that such a mark is later condemned by the book - understandably raises alarm to those holding that the “Mark of the Beast” is “at hand.”
Four main interpretations of Revelation are held among scholars who accept the book as authoritative [9]. They differ primarily in terms of when they consider that the events in the book would be fulfilled.
The book itself says that the events “must shortly come to pass” (Rev. 1:1), but it doesn’t offer a specific date. The Greek tachei (from which comes “tachometer”), translated here as “shortly,” is taken by some interpreters to mean “soon,” but by others to mean “quickly” or “suddenly,” hence the support for views involving past or future fulfillment, or something in between.
In addition to timing, there are also distinctions in terms of how the descriptions in the book are to be understood. The Beast, who is described in Rev. 13:1 as having multiple heads, is generally taken to be a ruler or an empire, not a multi-headed monster; in other words, the beast is a symbol. But the Mark in Rev. 13:16-17 is taken by some as symbolic, and by others as a physical feature.
The correlations proposed recently between the Mark of the Beast in Rev. 13:16-17 and RFID technology primarily derive from the futurist interpretation of the timeline in the book and a physical interpretation of the Mark. Much of the correlation comes not from traditional theologians, but from commentators of technology and society who intersect the futurist interpretation (which could potentially involve many kinds of technology, or no technology at all) with current trends.
Katherine Albrecht takes this view in her 2004 video presentation On the Brink of the Mark [3]. According to the video, although it was unclear in the past how the Mark would be fulfilled, it is now “obvious” given the availability of RFID and related technology, such as VeriChip. Albrecht’s position is notable because she is also the founder of Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion And Numbering (CASPIAN), a prominent opponent of consumer applications of RFID. (See http://www.spychips.com/.) Her effective work exposing early RFID privacy issues evidently has a strong motivation from her personal position on Revelation. (CASPIAN itself objects to consumer identification schemes based on general concerns about privacy; the Mark does not appear to be a significant basis for the group’s work nor necessarily held by its membership as a whole. CASPIAN does consider RFID applications not involving consumers to be acceptable [10].)
A more extreme view is offered by a group calling itself the Resistance, whose primary objectives including maintaining “an awareness of the continuing fulfillment of Apocalyptic Bible prophecy today” and preparing “to be martyred, imprisoned, and or tortured for not bowing to the opposition and accepting the Mark of the Beast” [11]. Regarding the Mark, the group’s Web page states, “The consensus is that VeriChip, released in 2004, is thee [sic] precursor and foundation of the mark. When exactly ‘the mark’ comes to throughition [sic] isn’t known.” [2] The Resistance calls for organized opposition to the “New World Order” and the technologies that enable it.
Popular fiction involving the Mark of the Beast may also be influencing public perception. The best-selling fiction series Left Behind, written by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, has sold 55 million copies to date - a record for a Christian fiction series. In The Mark [12], the eighth installment of this series set in a futurist interpretation of Revelation, Nicolae Carpathia, the series’ protagonist, requires every person to receive a tattoo on the hand or forehead as an indication of loyalty, together with an implanted chip for buying and selling. To the extent that readers take their interpretation of Revelation from Left Behind (much as viewers may shape their understanding of physics, for better or worse, from the TV series Star Trek), the book’s success may well be contributing to a perception that the Mark is connected with chip technology.
It is important to understand why those holding that RFID technology is a precursor to the Mark of the Beast have such deep concern. Recent world events, they argue, appear to be setting the stage for the various “end of the world” prophecies in Revelation. A payment and identification system that can be implanted in the hand is another piece of this puzzle. Once the sequence of “end of the world” events starts, they continue, a person who follows the Beast, participates in the payment system, and receives the Mark, will risk eternal judgment by God. If an RFID-based payment system is a precursor to the Mark, it must be resisted today before it becomes too difficult to refuse.
I’ve highlighted three sources from different areas of culture; surely there are others that I have overlooked, with perhaps contradictory views of RFID technology. But hopefully the three serve at least as examples that there is ample public discussion around this particular interpretation.
Not all futurist interpreters call for organized resistance to any particular governments, of course, nor boycotts of particular companies. In fact, not all futurist interpreters necessarily associate RFID technology with the Mark. (The futurist interpretation has a long history and, like the other interpretations, was taught long before RFID technology was on the scene.) Futurist interpreters, overall, tend to emphasize that the Mark will be a visible sign of a person’s allegiance to the Beast. The sign on the skin is what fulfills the prophecy, not the chip underneath it.
In their defense of the futurist interpretation taken in Left Behind, commentators Mark Hitchcock and Thomas Ice state “The mark will be external and visible” ([13], p. 145). They give a grammatical argument in support of this view: In the original Greek in which Revelation was written, the Mark is said to be “upon” or “on” the hand or forehead, not “in” (the Greek preposition is epi). Hitchcock and Ice continue, “The mark … is not cashless technology or biometrics,” but add, “… whatever modern technology is available … will be used by the Antichrist [the Beast in this interpretation], in conjunction with the mark, to control all buying and selling” (ibid, pp. 149-150; annotation added). In other words, RFID technology could be used together with the Mark, but would not be the Mark itself.
There are also technical arguments against RFID technology itself being the Mark, at least in its present form, such as the fact that the shoulder is currently the preferred location for an implanted tag, not the hand or the forehead.
The distinction between the technology for buying and selling, and the visible sign of the individual’s loyalties, seems to be crucial in an interpretation of the Mark. Tattoos, branding and other forms of skin-marking have for a long time been understood (and too often employed) as means of identification. The availability of such methods has not been seen, in and of itself, as portending the end-times in Revelation. RFID technology, on the other hand, enables (it is claimed) a payment system that could be controlled by a future world ruler. Thus, RFID technology in a futurist interpretation could make the actual Mark of the Beast effective as a means of determining who can buy or sell.
What one considers as breaking technology today, of course, will be legacy technology to another generation. More sophisticated technologies - perhaps some combination of biotechnology and nanotechnology - may well supplant RFID as the item of concern for future proponents of the futurist interpretation (respectfully granting the possibility that their predictions remain unfulfilled for some years). Arno Froese, in his technology survey The Coming Digital God, further downplays the significance of implanted chips, observing that the intelligent information systems of the future would not need implanted chips in order to determine who is actually conducting a transaction ([14], p. 199).
The futurist interpretation is one of several held by scholars. Various other interpretations have been held over the nearly two millennia since Revelation was first written. This diversity of views on the book among people who otherwise hold much in common as far as the Christian faith is important to observe, as the Mark of the Beast is seen quite differently in these other interpretations.
The idealist interpretation, for instance, could potentially apply the events of the chapter to an abusive ruler in any generation. Privacy concerns around RFID technology today would therefore likely have significant historical parallels, but would not be a particular sign of the end.
The historicist interpretation generally places the events of Revelation 13 in the past, though other parts of the book are reserved for the future. This would of course rule out any connection with RFID technology.
In the preterist interpretation, finally, the Beast is generally considered an allusion to the Roman government and a Roman emperor in particular, such as Nero (see [15] for a defense of this position). The Mark is seen as a symbol indicating a person’s loyalty to Rome and to Caesar as Lord, as opposed to the Christian faith. The book is thus a message of encouragement to early Christians to persevere through a particular time of trial in their own immediate future. The meaning of both the Mark and the Beast, in this interpretation, were intended to be understood directly by the 1st Century audience, familiar with related symbolism in the Old Testament, who first read the book - not only by a technologically advanced people of some future time.
Gary DeMar, commenting on how such a 1st Century audience would interpret language about marks, cites passages in the Old Testament that relate to symbolic marks on the hand and forehead, and observes: “Throughout the Book of Revelation marks given on the hand and head are symbolic” ([16], p. 244). One of those other marks is the Seal of the Lamb of Rev. 7:2-3 and 14:1. The seal, which is placed on the forehead, is a sign of protection from the Beast; it is not involved in buying and selling. Hitchcock and Ice, who as noted above hold to a physical Mark, also consider the Seal of the Lamb to be symbolic: it is “most likely invisible” ([13], p. 145).
The distinction between the physical and the symbolic is central to the whole suggestion about a connection with RFID technology. The marks and seals in the vision (and many other symbols, such as beasts, a lamb and a dragon) communicate in Biblical language familiar to the author and his immediate audience. The author is not reporting video news from time travel to the future, but rather a visual narration of his temporary translation into heaven. He “sees” what will happen in a rich prophetic sense, not necessarily in the routine physical way. He sees letters, and foresees loyalties. The loyalties might be expressed with physical features, but they need not be, unless the Mark of the Beast (as an exception to most other descriptions) is interpreted physically.
There is much more that could be presented about each of these interpretations than I’ve given here, whether in terms of origins, scholarly support, perspectives on the rest of Revelation, or theological and social impact, and I do not wish to diminish the credentials or faith of those espousing one of the views by offering such a cursory treatment. Nor do I minimize any of the major themes of Christian theology that Revelation affirms by focusing on this single issue. But for the purposes of this essay, my point is simply this: Associating the Mark of the Beast with a particular technology is not an inevitable consequence of holding more than an ordinary respect for the book of Revelation. It is, rather, a result of a particular interpretation that considers the events of Revelation 13 yet to be fulfilled in our future, the Mark to be physical, and 21st Century identification and payment technology to be associated with the Mark. Under all these assumptions, RFID technology understandably raises concern. But it is also possible to regard the book as prophetic, and to consider these elements quite differently.
Despite the differences just mentioned, there does appear to be significant common ground among the various prophetic interpretations of Revelation regarding technology. That is the message that technology, in the wrong hands, has the potential to be abused. Some may foresee the abuse of technology in the hands of an evil end-times ruler; others by everyday governments, corporations, or individuals. Whichever interpretation one holds, or even if one has more ordinary respect for the book, one message does seem clear: an evil ruler will apply whatever controls are available to advance his or her own agenda. (This is not the end of the story either; in the book, such a ruler is finally defeated.)
Technology might be considered “morally neutral,” but it often enables negative applications not intended by its initial designers. In the case of RFID, the positive applications of tracking items more efficiently, or improving convenience or safety, are counterbalanced by the negative applications such as tracking people without permission, and imposing control. To achieve the benefits, society needs to weigh the risks. The advanced technologies that have such promise themselves need to be tracked and controlled to ensure that they serve society, not vice versa. Industry also needs a more complete set of technology options that reflect a better balance among the interests of multiple stakeholders than the basic “everywhere readable” tag.
Thankfully, the public debate about the potential risks is already underway while it is still early enough to design the technology (and supporting policy) to minimize those risks. The discussions around end-times prophecy are an interesting side-effect. To some, they are the heart of the issue: RFID technology is seen as a sign of the end. To others, the interest in the Mark is at the very least, a timely reminder of the need to assess carefully the long-term impact that technology can have on society, and whose interests it serves.
I’ve been concerned on the one hand about the perception my fellow technologists may have about the book of Revelation upon hearing arguments that connect the Mark of the Beast with RFID. I value the book personally, and I hope that popular suspicions aren’t the only acquaintance knowledgeable people have with such a great writing. If the suspicions have “missed the Mark,” then maybe there is more to the book than the recent discussion tends to reveal.
I’ve also been concerned that the connections made between RFID technology and the Mark of the Beast would deter the many beneficial and non-controversial applications of RFID and related technologies. Many others may be discovered that more directly improve the human condition. The “Blink Right” system, for example, alleviates the affects of Bell’s palsy by replacing a failed nerve controlling an eyelid with a radio-frequency communications link. Recently announced by the University of Pittsburgh [17], it is one of many examples of RFID-related inventions that can improve the quality of life – even though it involves a human implant.
So rather than just a sinister tool of a future dictator, I propose that RFID technology might well be considered instead as one of the many “surprises” of a universe cared for by God, to borrow G.K. Chesterton’s metaphor [18]. Who does not find it at least a little remarkable that sand and metal can be turned into a tiny computer chip with an antenna, which when properly applied, can improve the quality of human life?
I do appreciate the genuine concern that commentators have expressed about potential abuses of RFID technology, because adverse side-effects might otherwise have been overlooked. I am nevertheless optimistic that with appropriate privacy-enhancing technologies and public policy, RFID technology, like so many other advances before it, can be primarily helpful, not harmful. But I can also see realistically that it is only with such precautions that this objective can be achieved.
Finally, I hope that, as in my own case, the discussion provides an opportunity to reflect more knowledgeably on both Revelation and RFID technology - and an encouragement to continue, with wisdom, to bring good technology to society.
I appreciate the opportunity the editor, Arun Koshy, has given me to share these thoughts, and the comments and helpful editorial suggestions by David Haddon, Ari Juels, and Vin McLellan.
[1] Mario Cardullo. Genesis of the Versatile RFID Tag. RFID Journal, 2003. Available at http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/392/1/1/
[2] Jeremy Landt. Shrouds of Time: The History of RFID. The Association for Automatic Identification and Data Capture Technologies, 2001. Available at http://www.aimglobal.org/technologies/rfid/resources/shrouds_of_time.pdf
[3] Katherine Albrecht. On the Brink of the Mark (DVD/VHS). Endtime, Inc., 2004.
[4] The Mark of The Beast. The Resistance Manifesto. Accessed July 30, 2005 at http://www.theresistancemanifesto.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=6
[5] TechWeb.com. “Intel and SAP Team On RFID.” Information Week, March 10, 2005. Available at http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=159400891
[6] Ari Juels, Ronald L. Rivest, and Michael Szydlo “The Blocker Tag: Selective Blocking of RFID Tags for Consumer Privacy.” In V. Atluri, editor, 8th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 103-111. ACM Press. 2003. Available at http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2060
[7] Jan E. Hennig, Peter B. Ladkin, and Bernd Sieker. Privacy Enhancing Technology Concepts for RFID Technology Scrutinised. Technical Report RVS-RR-04-02, University of Bielefeld, Germany, October 28, 2004. Available at http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/cms/publications/RVS-RR-04-02
[8] Burt Kaliski. RFID Privacy: Challenges and Progress. Presented at Information Security Solutions Europe (ISSE) , Berlin, Germany, September 28-30, 2004. Available via http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2018
[9] Steve Gregg. Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary. Nelson Reference, 1997.
[10] Position Statement on the Use of RFID on Consumer Products. Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion And Numbering, et al., November 14, 2003. Available at http://www.spychips.com/jointrfid_position_paper.html
[11] Primary Objectives. The Resistance Manifesto. Accessed June 25, 2005 at http://www.theresistancemanifesto.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=1. (This page no longer available as of the time of publication of this article.)
[12] Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins. The Mark, volume 8 of Left Behind Series. Tyndale House, 2000.
[13] Mark Hitchcock and Thomas Ice. The Truth behind Left Behind. Multnomah Publishers, 2004.
[14] Arno Froese. The Coming Digital God. Midnight Call Ministries, 2001.
[15] Kenneth L. Gentry. The Beast of Revelation. American Vision, 2002.
[16] Gary DeMar. Last Days Madness. American Vision, 1999.
[17] Bruce Steele. “Blink Right: Pitt Team Developing Device to Stimulate Blinking in Patients with Facial Nerve Palsy.” University of Pittsburgh Research Review, Spring 2005. Available at http://www.umc.pitt.edu/rr/2005spring/blinking.html
[18] G.K. Chesterton. Orthodoxy: The Romance of Faith. 1908.