RFID Tattoo: Somark of the Beast


ST. LOUIS, Mo., September 9, 2008 - SOMARK Innovations, Inc. has released a technology white paper' on its RFID ink tattoo platform technology. The paper outlines the technology's capabilities regarding features such as data density, detection range and available substrates. Additionally, the company is proud to name Greg Horowitt, Managing Director of T2 Venture Capital and Executive Director of Global CONNECT at University of California San Diego, to the SOMARK advisory board.

"To date, we have received more than two hundred and fifty customer inquiries and website hits from ninety-seven countries, said Mark C. Pydynowski, SOMARK President. "Considering interest regarding our technology's capabilities for applications ranging from animal identification to priceless art and wine bottles, we thought a comprehensive reference would be very useful.

The capabilities paper provides details on the system components such as the tattoo, applicator, readers and middleware. Additionally, it includes comprehensive substrate compatibility, tattoo size, data capacities, environmental compliance and a listing of the company's issued patents.

The white paper continues:

There are two ways SOMARK ink can be read. The first involves a handheld reader that only works when the surface of the reader is in direct contact with the tattoo. This method of reading is quick, easy and inexpensive. The second method of reading is more involved and expensive, but allows for remote reading of the tattoo similar to the way RFID tattoos are read through the use of a panel reader. This remote detection method is ideal for fixed-position automated reading of SOMARK tattoos and is more compatible with metal-laden environments than traditional RFID readers because of the fundamental differences in the way the readers work. Distances of up to 5' have been demonstrated in the lab for this type of reading using frequencies of 10GHz and above using a prototype panel reader. SOMARK ink is responsive to all frequencies and is not tuned to a specific frequency; however the frequency chosen does affect how much data can be stored in a tattoo. Both reading methods require some level of tattoo-to-reader orientation. Just like standard barcodes, the tattoo and reader are not required to be perfectly aligned, but the reader cannot decode the tattoo if it is looking at the edge of the tattoo; just like you can't read writing on a piece of paper if you can only see the edge of the paper and not the surface.

Read the Full Article:
http://somarkinnovations.com/2008/0...
Opens in media box [Open in new window]
4
Your rating: None Average: 4 (4 votes)
Please login or register to vote
Nic's picture
Nic's analysis:
Somark designed its id system with cattle and other beasts in mind. But the applications to product with a label are obvious and overcome the prohibitive costs with RFID tagging. Also, since it is a printed tag, this RFID appears to be less susceptible to hacking when compared to conventional RFID tags. A whole new tag would have to be printed with the new information stored, rather than simply overwriting the current data in a chip.

benjamin
Joined: 09/09/2010
Posts: 20

rfid chips

I agree that these chips may play a significant role in the last days.But that won't be the primary id mark.The bible states clearly that these people will carry a mark on there right hand and fore head.Not inside ,not underneath,but on.Meaning a visible mark that will enable satans henchmen to easyily capture those not marked.
Satan is always mimicking God ,or trying to.God said,that if we want to follow Him ,we must pick up our cross and follow Him.In other words ,be visible to those not following Christ.
I think satan is going to demand the same from he's followers the last three years.The mark of the beast or the number of he's name.666.

CATscanner's picture
CATscanner
Joined: 05/24/2013
Posts: 2

re: ''rfid chips''

''The Bible states clearly...those not marked''-benjamin
Isn't it the KJV that says ''in'' the right hand or forehead, as in ''And he causeth all...to receive a mark IN their right hand, or IN their forehead''? The NIV is a more modern translation, therefore possibly modified for adaptability to modern times and internationals who speak English. That was one of its purposes, according to its preface: to be an accessible English translation for internationals who are not necessarily English but who speak it. The KJV in that respect would be a more typically English Bible for us who are natives of England, and therefore literally closer to the original manuscripts. But I digress.
In answer to your assertion, benjamin, that the mark will be visible, I believe the mark may be invisible for the following reasons:
Everyone will be on a global/regional database/register of some kind anyway by the time the mark is implemented. There will be little chance that those who don't want or have the mark will remain that way for long, therefore there will be no need to distinguish those who don't have the mark from those who do, as everyone will be forced to take it (unless they comply first). Those yet to be marked will be sought out. There will be no-one outside of the scope of the all-seeing eye, i.e. various forms of surveillance. In the Bible, it says ''He caused [or forced] EVERYONE to receive a mark.'' There will be a means to distinguish those not yet marked from those who are: a simple spotcheck with a transponder reader will do it, or the awareness that someone is 'missing', i.e. AWOL, either through lack of financial presence or through not being able to use the various facilities and amenities in the country he is a resident of, and so in a sense becoming conspicuous and anomalous. In order to escape the mark, he would have to practically leave the planet!
In any case, if he didn't have the mark and was evading the system, I doubt he'd stick around. He make himself scarce and eventually arouse suspicion by his absence, e.g. his relatives and friends might report him as a 'missing person', or he might not turn up for a legally-required activity, such as tax payments or the national census. Even if he was not working, there might be a form of council tax imposed by then on the unemployed.

CATscanner's picture
CATscanner
Joined: 05/24/2013
Posts: 2

re: 'rfid chips' (cont.)

The only advantage of a visible mark would be for easy scrutiny with the naked eye or detection from a CCTV camera, and to prevent the unmarked mingling with the marked in order to convert them to become revolutionaries. This would also enable security to find their jobs easier. The sifting process of being able or not being able to use cashless facilities or pass through turnstiles or border control would do the rest.
But the transponder would be the real determinant, as a visible mark that has been forged and replicated might fool the naked eye or CCTV. In order to counteract this possibility, the CCTVs or other equipment would have to be fitted with scanners that could authenticate and verify the person under suspicion. These might have to have a longer range than handheld readers.
The other disadvantage to the authorities of the mark being visible would be that Christians would not be easy to infiltrate, as in undercover detectives seeking out non-compliants or 'traitors in their midst' posing as Christians who are trying to nab them for the authorities.
The advantages to Christians of the mark NOT being visible, i.e. by enabling them to mingle in cognito with the crowd, would be, as discussed earlier, made less by the verification capabilities of CCTV, handheld readers and alarm-fitted scanners placed strategically everywhere.
In a very literal sense, there would be no means to buy anything to eat or to hide for those who do not have the mark. You would not be able to trust even a Jack Russell. There would be no need for it to be visible in such a scenario.

Rap-Con.com is a community of people who post news articles end editorials concerning Bible prophecy.
All views and opinions expressed are those of the individual posting them and are not necessarily the views of Rap-Con.com or its operators.