I've heard that you can disable RFID readers (not tags, readers) with an appropriately-resonant coil and an EMP circuit.

I'm not sure if the same can be done to tags, but considering the size of the tiny electronics, and the fact that they are manufactured under the assumption they'll never need to be touched (aka, no CMOS spike tolerance), it might be trivially...

...wait. I just remembered about RFID alarm barriers in retail stores.

Well this is annoyingly difficult to discuss, then...

Indeed you can, from a disposable camera flash circuit[1]!

Though I concur, might be used for evil purposes, couldn't resist posting this. I just love disposable cameras hacks.

[1]:https://events.ccc.de/congress/2005/static/r/f/i/RFID-Zapper...

Ah, very interesting. Thanks for the link.

>> Well this is annoyingly difficult to discuss, then...

Why? Is there a law against public discussion about how to disable an anti-theft device or something?

Okay, not really - but it can be tricky to know where to draw the line. I guess I was uncertain.

I draw the line where actions are taken. A discussion is not an action. Using a device illegally is, like for instance pulling the trigger of a gun with the evil intent of murder, or taking something that isn't yours.

I heard that the "is there a pot on"-impulse of induction cooktops is strong enough to kill RFID-chips without burning them. Have not tried it though.

another trick would be to pay for the shoes in cash; in this case they will not be able to link the RFID chip to your real identity. Cash payment is a very privacy friendly technology.

That's not the point - the point is being identified as an entity by a unique marker that the RFID tag gives off. It's still an anonymous entity, but it can be deanonymized by correlation... with your face via video or whatever.

Next month: new shoe regulations require the use of materials that melt or burn when microwaved.

Nah, they won't need to push that hard. "Warranty void when microwaved" will most likely be enough.

I've never made a warranty claim for shoes, so that shouldn't be a problem.

Me neither (too lazy for that), but I know they are used and abused by people too. This leads to funny cases I heard of like a company specifying that some shoes are for "walking", not for "running", and refusing to refund them if you admit to running in them.

You guys need Norwegian consumer protection...

As long as it comes bundled with Norwegian famously cruel child "protection" services, thanks but no thanks.

That doesn't sound too unreasonable. Some shoes like heels are made for fashion, not function.

If it's "not unreasonable" for them to reject warranty claims if you run in shoes "not intended for running", does that mean it is reasonable to make a warranty claim on shoes "intended for fashion" if you're not picked up while wearing them?

"Wore these heels to six bars, didn't get hit on once. Please repair or refund."