???
most of the RFID tags are passive,
meaning that they are not active
so deactivation as you stated is not even an option.
actually the retailers do not want to pay the money for the machines
that deactivate the RFID
according to this site a microwave will kill, but they also say $20
bills blow up when hit them with the nuke
http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904rfidtagsexplode.html
the folowing was taken from
http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/RFIDposition.htm#Attach1
it talks about RFID killers and RFID blockers
A Critique of Proposed Industry Solutions
The RFID industry has suggested a variety of solutions to address the
dangers posed by RFID tagging of consumer products. Among them are
killing the tags at point of sale, the use of "blocker tags," and the
"closed system." We examine each strategy in turn.
KILLING TAGS AT POINT OF SALE
Some have proposed that the RFID tag problem could be solved by killing
the tags at the point of sale, rendering them inoperable. There are
several reasons why we do not believe this approach alone and without
other protections will adequately protect consumer privacy:
Killing tags after purchase does not address in-store tracking of
consumers.
To date, nearly all consumer privacy invasion associated with RFID
tagging of consumer products has occurred within the retail
environment, long before consumers reached the checkout counter where
chips could be killed. Examples include:
Close-up photographs were taken of consumers as they picked up
RFID-tagged packages of Gillette razor products from store shelves
equipped with Auto-ID Center "smart shelf" technology.
A video camera trained on a Wal-Mart cosmetics shelf in Oklahoma
enabled distant Procter and Gamble executives to observe unknowing
customers as they interacted with RFID-tagged lipsticks.
Plans are underway to tag books and magazines with RFID devices to
allow detailed in-store observation of people browsing reading
materials. This potential was demonstrated recently at the Tokyo
International Book Fair 2003. According to Japan's Nikkei Electronic
News, "By placing tag readers on the shelves of bookstores, the new
system allows booksellers to gain information such as the range of
books a shopper has browsed, how many times a particular title was
picked up and even the length of time spent flipping through each
book."
We recognize the need for stores to control shoplifting and make
general assessments to enhance operations. However, monitoring and
recording the detailed behaviors of consumers without their consent,
even if only within the store, violates Principles of Fair Information
Practice.
Tags can appear to be "killed" when they are really "asleep" and can be
reactivated
Some RFID tags have a "dormant" or "sleep" state that could be set,
making it appear to the average consumer that the tag had been killed.
It would be possible for retailers and others to claim to have killed a
tag when in reality they had simply rendered it dormant. It would be
possible to later reactivate and read such a "dormant" tag.
The tag killing option could be easily halted by government directive.
It would take very little for a security threat or a change in
governmental policies to remove the kill-tag option. If RFID tags are
allowed to become ubiquitous in consumer products, removing the kill
option could enable the instant creation of a surveillance society.
Retailers might offer incentives or disincentives to consumers to
encourage them to leave tags active.
Consumers wishing to kill tags could be required to perform additional
steps or undergo burdensome procedures, such as waiting in line for a
"killer kiosk" and then being required to kill the tags themselves.
Consumers who choose to kill the tags might not enjoy the same
discounts or benefits as other consumers, or might not be allowed the
same return policies. In many areas of privacy law, this retailer
incentive is recognized, and there are legislative prohibitions against
inducing the consumer to waive their privacy rights.
The creation of two classes of consumers.
If killing tags requires conscious effort on the part of consumers,
many will fail to do so out of fear, ignorance, or lack of time. Many
will choose not to kill the tags if doing so is inconvenient. (The
current "killer kiosk" requires loading one item at a time, a lengthy
and time consuming process.) This would create two classes of
consumers: those who "care enough" to kill the RFID tags in their
products and those who don't. Being a member of either class could have
negative ramifications.
BLOCKER TAGS
RFID blocker tags are electronic devices that should theoretically
disrupt the transmission of all or select information contained on RFID
tags. The proposed blocker tag might be embedded in a shopping bag,
purse, or watch that is carried or worn near tags with information
consumers want blocked.
Blocker tags are still theoretical.
According to our understanding, the blocker tag does not yet exist.
Until a blocker tag is built and tested, there is no way to know how
effective it will be and whether it can be technically defeated.
Encourages the widespread deployment of RFID tags.
The blocker tag might encourage the proliferation of RFID devices by
giving consumers a false sense of security. While the proposed
invention is an ingenious idea, it's one that could be banned or be
underutilized if consumers become complacent. It's also possible that
such an electronic device could be technically defeated either
purposefully or because it stops functioning naturally.
The blocker tag could be banned by government directive or store
policy.
Consumers could lose the right to use blocker tag devices if the
government deems that knowing what people are wearing or carrying is
necessary for national security. They might disallow the devices
altogether or name selective spaces in which blocker tags would be
disallowed. It is not inconceivable to imagine a ban on such devices in
airports or public buildings, for example.