We knew they'd start chipping people some day...

[Morrigoon]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19904543/wid/11915829/

I'm going to indulge myself in a foil-hat moment here, because I agree with the folks that think it's a little too close to biblical prophecy for comfort.

Even if you didn't believe in it, why would any business want to do anything THAT likely to get people riled up against your product?

[Ghoulish Delight]

I will obligatorily point out that one cannot be tracked with the technology that these people were implanted with. The range on those things is a few inches. They aren't being used to track where they are, they are being used to allow those individuals access to a secure area. Major distinction in my book.

[Not Afraid]

But, but but......they tracked Kames Bond with a similar device!

[Kevy Baby]

But, but but......they tracked Kames Bond with a similar device!And his twin brother James.

[Alex]

Poor Kames.

Even at just a few inches I am not keen on the security of it. I'd want two chips, each with half of the necessary information embedded one in each hand so that it is unlikely the chips will simultaneously be close enough to a reader without my intent.

Not so much for opening doors or anything, but when I can get my ATM and credit cards embedded.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I try not to let my job get under my skin.

[Not Afraid]

The "J" key and the "K" key are right next to each other on the keyboard and sometimes they stand in for each other when one needs a potty break.

[Morrigoon]

LOL

[BarTopDancer]

Additional security. So instead of stealing keys they will steal arms.

[Kevy Baby]

The "J" key and the "K" key are right next to each other on the keyboard and sometimes they stand in for each other when one needs a potty break.Kou must be koying! Either that or you kust don't jnow Kacj!

[Alex]

Additional security. So instead of stealing keys they will steal arms.

Yes, but the crime involved there is not the same. Just becuase you'd be willing to steal someone's keychain doesn't mean you'd be willing to kill or seriously maim to do it. Plus, walking around with human limbs is pretty conspicuous.

The number of people who would rob a bank if it kept its money out on the sidewalk is much higher than the number of people willing to do what it takes to rob a bank when access to the money is much more difficult.

[scaeagles]

Frog in the kettle.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Frog in the kettle.
Yawn. I do not fear any technology just because it might be used for nefarious purposes. Nefarious purposes can be achieved if people really want to independent of technology. I'm more worried about the individuals that are actively trying to violate people's privacy without the aid of any amazing sci-fi paranoia technology than I am of the people developing incredibly useful and practical technology that might be used for wrong purposes.

[scaeagles]

The tech is fine. Injecting it under the skin isn't tech, though. That is the specific use of a specific technology.

This happens throughout history without anyone realizing it. Look at smoking. In the 60's it was just a warning label. No harm. Then in the 70's it was just about smoke free flights. No problem. Now it's restricting the rights of private property owners.

Do you fear things like technologies for monitoring internet activity? When the tech was developed, it was just tech. Let's build up chemical and biological weapons. That's just tech. You say you don't fear tech that might be used for nefarious purposes, but I would guess that it depends on what that tech is.

And to reiterate, this isn't tech. It's a usage of a tech.

[Gemini Cricket]

They should chip single gay men. Then they should give me one of them airport wands to wave.

[CoasterMatt]

They should chip single gay men. Then they should give me one of them airport wands to wave.
Don't you already have that?

[tracilicious]

I personally hope for a society where everyone is chipped, the government sees everything, and artificial intelligence threatens our species. Then maybe we'll get some new plots for sci-fi movies.

[Alex]

If the frog also gets to turn the stove on.

As long as people can opt out (even if that makes life more difficult compared to people who don't) then I don't really care.

Besides, these things aren't even intended to track people and couldn't really be used for that purpose. 90% of us (to make up a number but the real one is high) already have consented to carry a tracking device on us at almost all times. So that frog is already mostly dead.

[Alex]

You say you don't fear tech that might be used for nefarious purposes, but I would guess that it depends on what that tech is.

Not really, I fear the nefarious purpose. There's no nefarious purpose here. When there is, I'll oppose it.

(and stupid ajax bug, my previous post was written about an hour before it actually posted)

[Not Afraid]

Airport Wand.

[Ghoulish Delight]

What Alex said.

[cirquelover]

90% of us (to make up a number but the real one is high) already have consented to carry a tracking device on us at almost all times. So that frog is already mostly dead.

Ok I"m feeling stupid and the only thing I can come up with is a cell phone or onstar in your car!? What are you refering to please?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Ok I"m feeling stupid and the only thing I can come up with is a cell phone or onstar in your car!? What are you refering to please?
Pocket lint.

[Alex]

Yes, cell phones. If your phone has juice without much work at all you can be tracked to a relatively small area and with just a bit of work to an exact area.

Plus the E-911 law requires that all new cell phones have the ability to precisely identify their location (ostensibly for use when calling 911).

So most people have already consented to an ability to be tracked way more pervasive and potentially useful (and nefarious) than embedded RFID microchips.

[cirquelover]

Pocket lint.


Whew, I'm safe I have no pockets:p

[Kevy Baby]

If anyone ever wants to find me, I am right here.

[cirquelover]

Thanks Alex. It had me pondering for a few minutes though.

[CoasterMatt]

Maybe I should bring out my aluminum foil leisure suit again?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Whew, I'm safe I have no pockets:pYou're part of the lucky 10%,

[Betty]

Of course - I can choose to leave my cell phone at home or to not have one. If I had something in my arm, it would be much more difficult to not bring it with me.


They’re embedded in Michelin tires, library books, passports and, unbeknownst to many consumers, on a host of individual items at Wal-Mart and Best Buy.


Just what items from walmart and best buy? and why? and Why in tires?

[Betty]

more concerns:

What’s the average lifespan of a microchip? (About 10-15 years.) What if you get tired of it before then — can it be easily, painlessly removed? (Short answer: No.)

How about thieves? Could they make their own readers, aim them at unsuspecting individuals, and surreptitiously pluck people’s IDs out of their arms? (Yes. There’s even a name for it — “spoofing.”)

[scaeagles]

There will come a time, in the name of safety for the children - after all, who can be against safety for the children? - that each newborn will be injected with an identity chip so that if they are lost or stolen they can be identified. Anyone who opposes something like that obviously doesn't care about children. A fine application of the technology, right? Why not make it easier for consumers, since we all have the chip from birth anyway, to link it to banking records for easy payment at retail establishments? Or medical records? Maybe every alzeimers patient should have one in case they wander away. Why not expand the range of said device so that it broadcasts the location of felons to law enforcement? That's a fine application of the technology....after all, it would only be used to locate felons. Seems like a great application for establishing citizenship as well.

This is the thing about the frog in the kettle. Each little step seems fine, but when each step is taken together, there is no way the entire journey would be taken all at once.

I suppose that could be called progress....but I don't always see it that way.

[Alex]

I don't have much of a problem with what you describe, scaeagles, so long as people can opt out.

Everything you describe is already done in some form today. So you aren't objecting the tracking, you're objecting to the attaching of it to the body. Every time I leave the house I have attached to me (in my left back pocket) something that identifies me, contains my social security number, my home address, my work address, connections to my financial records, information on whom to contact for my medical records. In my front left pocket is a cell phone constantly tracking my current location. We do the felon thing today with ankle bracelets, which unlike an implanted RFID chip has the power source and transmission capability to remain in essentially constant contact with a central server.

Most of this is information that the government can get on me without ever having to come near me and without subpoena or warrant. Thieves could get it almost as easily if they wanted to. I don't really see a big difference in this if I move the information 1/4 of an inch from my jeans pocket to my under the skin of my left buttock.

However, the usefulness of the information need not be the same since the chip need not actually possess any of that information but just enough proof of identity to authorize access to it (just like my ATM card does not contain any information on my actual bank account). And, if at some point I thought it really important to block it, it wouldn't be that difficult (and much more secure than leaving my wallet in the glove box because I'm worried about pickpockets at the street fair).

The frog was put in the kettle when electronic databases were first connected to phone lines for easy access.

Betty: RFID is mostly used at Wal-Mart and most massive distribution systems for tracking the product from warehouse to shelf. Theoretically it could be used in individual products to speed check-out at the cash register (a scanner could simultaneously read everything in a cart and total it) but there are significant logistical difficulties with that. It would require every product in the store be individually chipped (even most places that use RFID use it at the case or pallet level) and there'd be difficulty for things that couldn't easily be individually chipped (the produce section of Super Wal-Marts, for example). That is also the purpose Michelin uses the chips for in their tires, to track the movement of individual tires (tires are never packaged so the chips would have to be in the tire). But say that some snoop ran a scanner over your tire and read that chip. What would they learn?

All they'd get is some long number. More information would require access to a central database. Maybe something in it would be enough to identify that it is a Michelin tire (which, conveniently enough is written on the outside of the tire they just scanned). Maybe they can even tell it is a Michelin model XX-YY steelwall (also conveniently written on the outside of the tire. If they took the information to Michelin itself the company could look it up and probably tell that the tire was manufactured on X date, that it was ships to a Sears auto shop on Y date. If Sears provides tracking then maybe Sears would be able to say "we sold that on Z date to persona A."

But all of that information isn't available just by scanning the product (unless the person scanning the product has access to the relevant databases). Plus, the exact information is similarly retrievable using the serial number that is probably on the tire itself somewhere.

I don't really care about having a chip that ties in to my medical information because, such information should only be available to people who are authorized to retrieve medical history. If I am in a car accident the ER doctors can take my Aetna card out of my wallet, use the information on their to call and get medical information about me. If I have a chip they use that to get medical information about me.

But if someone steals my wallet out of the car and Aetna just gives my information to any person who calls then that is the problem. Not that there was information connecting me to a medical file.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Just what items from walmart and best buy? and why? and Why in tires?
Are you afraid of barcodes too? Because especially in the retail setting, RFID tags carry the same type of info as a barcode.

This paranoia's really bugging me. The library CP works at has RFID tagging on all of their books, enabling them to offer a fantastic self checkout system. Put a stack of books on the table, they're all recognized, checked out to you, and have their security bit disabled so you don't get dinged going out the door. It's wonderful and people love it.

BUT, the library cards are still barcodes. So you can't just plop your card down on top with the books, you have to scan that separately. Why? Because a law was passed (I don't know if it was on the city, county, or state level) preventing any agency from issuing any form of ID with RFID. Ridiculous. And RFID card has no more information in it than the barcoded card already in your wallet does. They can't track you from a distance, they can't pull up your personal info any more than they could with your current library card. But the paranoia wins out. Lame.

Oh, and VAM.

[Prudence]

I don't have a problem with bar codes and chips per se, but I do have a problem with them being injected into my body. As Betty pointed out - they can't be easily removed. (If I recall correctly, the article I read said something about them sometimes moving even deeper into the body and having to be located with magnets or somesuch. This does not sound like fun to me.)

If I wanted to, I could leave the cell phone and passport and tires and Walmart products behind and sprint naked into the woods, frightening wildlife all the way, and escape The Man for a spell. If I have to have a chip injected to hold a job/receive medical care/have kids/be a citizen, it will be much harder for me to jump of the grid for a spell, should I choose to do so.

[BarTopDancer]

I just get skeeved out at the thought of something being under my skin.

And remember - just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

[Alex]

If I have to have a chip injected to hold a job/receive medical care/have kids/be a citizen, it will be much harder for me to jump of the grid for a spell, should I choose to do so.I don't see why. First, the chips are passive, they only provide information when scanned. Second, they operate only under at a very short range. Third, if you are really worried about blocking the radio transmission over even that short distance it is relatively simple (though silly by current norms). If I have a chip in me and I go hiking in the mountains I am just as off the grid as if I left all my worldly possessions back home. And if I need insured medical care then I have to be just as on the grid regardless of whether the identification is in my wallet or in my arm.

But I already have a job that requires my identification to be physically implanted in my body and can be scanned over small distances. With no chip involved. So does Walt Disney World.

There are uses I would oppose but there are many uses I have no problem with. Just because there are possible problems down the road isn't good enough reason, in my opinion, to reject it altogether.

[DreadPirateRoberts]

I think LoT should create a designer line of tin-foil lined clothing, the "Faraday Cage" series, to fund the commune.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

What Alex has said is right on the money. RFID chips/tags only have a range of 6 inches or so. As soon as you're away from a reader, you're as anonymous as a person with an ID in their pocket. Even if someone walks around surreptitiously with a reader, if they don't have access to the database, all they have is your barcode number.

Every system has weaknesses and strengths. I'm sure none of us can imagine a time before photo ID, but it existed, and it had it's problems, even while people were freer in certain ways.

As for "I can leave my cell at home", yeah, you can, but do you? Would you? I think it would take a mass misuse of the locator technology for me to actually give up owning a cell phone, and I don't see it getting to that point. If it did, I'd have to move to a different country. Cell phones and other similar devices have already become mostly indispensible...almost as if they're attached to your arm.

[BarTopDancer]

I've been leaving my cell phone at home, or in the car more and more these days. There is no reason that I need to be reached at every moment of every day. It took a few times to not feel naked without it. But it happened. And it's an awesome feeling to not have a leash 24/7.

[Prudence]

I frequently leave my cell phone at home. Or I have it, but I haven't looked at it in three weeks and the battery's been dead for 2.5 of those weeks. None of those devices are indispensable to me.

And no matter how short the range for the implanted chips is - they're still implanted chips. Implanted. In my body. If you want me to carry a special card or wear a special bracelet or don a silly hat or whatever, fine. Want to implant a chip for "ease", no thanks.

[Kevy Baby]

Could you imagine NA without a cell phone? I shudder at the thought.

[Not Afraid]

I wouldn't want a chip implanted in my body, but I'd be all for a cell phone. Now THAT would be useful for me.

[Betty]

Of course I'm not afraid of bar codes. Don't be silly!

But the idea that you have something trackable in your tires isn't much the point as how far it can be read and how many readers are around. Just in the store for tracking isn't as big of a deal as readers all over the place or ones that can read from long distances. I don't want the manufacturer of my tires, or anyone he sells that service to, to know where I when my car drives to. Or how fast the tires are going. Or anything else big brotherly like that.

It's not being paranoid. I just don't want to be the stupid frog.

[Kevy Baby]

Frog in the kettle.Because I KNOW that I am not the only one who was not familiar with this phrase, I looked it up:

They say that if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water,
it will leap out right away to escape the danger.

But, if you put a frog in a kettle that is filled with water that is cool and pleasant,
and then you gradually heat the kettle until it starts boiling,
the frog will not become aware of the threat until it is too late.
The frog's survival instincts are geared towards detecting sudden changes.

This is a story that is used to illustrate how people might get themselves into terrible trouble.
This parable is often used to illustrate how humans have to be careful to watch slowly changing trends in the environment, not just the sudden changes. Its a warning to keep us paying attention not just to obvious threats but to more slowly developing ones.

An example:
Let's say that every year, the local well had an inch less of water in it. A person might realize there's a problem if there's suddenly NO water, but a slowly dropping level might not be an obvious crisis until it's too late!

Here's the source (http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/boiled.html).

And here's your sign (http://www.billengvall.com/).

[Morrigoon]

The issue is not with the concept of RFID itself, it's the concept of putting it in people's bodies and the idea that someday down the road, such a thing might become a government mandate. That someday you might be required to have something under your skin, in, say, your arm or forehead, that would be required in order to, say, hold down a job or buy food at the supermarket.

NO problem with RFID in my driver's license. No problem with RFID in my library card.

[Alex]

That's fine. Doesn't bother me but I agree that governmentally mandated implantation would be bad (not so much that it is unacceptable in private employment practice) and would generally oppose it.

I can't see why the idea of implantation itself is such a problem, as it doesn't bother me but that's a different issue from the "permanently tracked" one. Regardless of implantation we're already approaching permanently tracked status for people who have access to the right databases. And if implanted RFID doesn't come along we'll just slide towards other built in identification markers such as fingerprinting (which is what I was referencing earlier, we have a fingerprint scanner for access to our data center; if I don't submit to it I don't have my job), physiology (WDW's park entry machiens), retinal scanning, facial recognition, etc.

I don't much care if the RFID chip is in my arm or on my arm, but personally if offered the convenience I'm going to choose in.

[Morrigoon]

There will come a time, in the name of safety for the children - after all, who can be against safety for the children? - that each newborn will be injected with an identity chip so that if they are lost or stolen they can be identified. Anyone who opposes something like that obviously doesn't care about children. A fine application of the technology, right? Why not make it easier for consumers, since we all have the chip from birth anyway, to link it to banking records for easy payment at retail establishments? Or medical records? Maybe every alzeimers patient should have one in case they wander away. Why not expand the range of said device so that it broadcasts the location of felons to law enforcement? That's a fine application of the technology....after all, it would only be used to locate felons. Seems like a great application for establishing citizenship as well.


From the article:
Chipping, these critics said, might start with Alzheimer’s patients or Army Rangers, but would eventually be suggested for convicts, then parolees, then sex offenders, then illegal aliens — until one day, a majority of Americans, falling into one category or another, would find themselves electronically tagged.

[scaeagles]

Hah! Funny. I didn't even read the article. It is a relatively obviously prediction, though. But interestingly, what good does it do for an Army Ranger if it is not possible to turn up the signal (or whatever one does) so that it is readable from orbit or from a drone aircraft? It would have to be able to be used for tracking.

I believe there is a small difference, though, Alex, between the retinal scanner or finger printing. These do not broadcast a signal and they are not easily tampered with or duplicated.

I'm sorry that I didn't post the meaning of the phrase "frog in the kettle", Kevy. I made an assumption that it was more common than it is.

One thing I'd like to point out is that I never made a value judgement as to whether this is good or bad. But each tiny step in the use of this tech will lead to more and more tiny steps, until it is as accepted as a social security number for identification (which was never, ever supposed to happen, and I believe it is even against the law, though I'm not certain).

[Alex]

I assume the purpose of the Army ranger chipping would be for purposes of body identification (internal dogtags) not tracking. For it to work with tracking the soldier would have to carry a larger unit on them that could communicate with the chip and then broadcast to a satallite. If you're going to do that, the chip is almost completely unnecessary as you can just track the sending unit.

They might call it something like GPS if they wanted a fancy military acronym. There is no way you'll get an RFID chip small enough for injection that can communicate over long distances. It would need a power source external to the body.

And retinal scans do involve the scanned thing broadcasting a signal, it is called light. I've played with retinal scanners that work over similar distances as RFID readers (though they are omnidirectional).

Personally I think you have more to fear from facial recognition and ubiquity of networked cameras than you do an RFID network dense enough to do the same thing. I'm not saying the frog won't die, just that it is already pretty much there and that there isn't much difference (except symbolic) between an RFID in your wallet and one in your arm.

We have handed over any claim to "secure privacy" not because of malignant overlords bent on misdeeds but because generally we all want the convenience that giving it up provides.

My exact location to within a couple hundred feed could be tracked at any point today by the dreaded omniscient Big Brother without any further advancement in technology. You're not wrong to predict it, but for most of us it is already here and it really isn't that big of a deal (to me, anyway). The alternative is to pay cash, carry at best a no-name phone, and get a job in a completely different field.

My day as tracked by Big Brother:

I woke up, I logged into gmail (creating an identity/IP match that can be tied to my apartment. Then I grabbed my cell phone no the way out the door and Lani drove me to the BART station creating a GPS trail that the cell company could divulge. Providing secondary confiramtion I used a BART ticket purchased with a credit card in my name to get into the Dublin/BART station and exit at the Macarthur Station. Then things would get fuzzy if it weren't for my phone but 22 minutes later I bought a fruit cup with credit card at Starbuck's and then used my RFID badge to enter my workplace (entry, though not exits, are tracked and stored) where I logged into my work computer and engaged in a level of activity indicating a steady presence throughout the day except for a 70 minutes pause where cell phone tracking and use of my gym membership badge indicate I visited the gym and returned immediately to work (tracked door entry). At 3 p.m. I apparently went to the bathroom because there was only a 5 minute pause in computer activity but I had another door entry (the restroom is in the common area). At 4 p.m. I entered the other secure part of the building and didnt return to my part until shortly after 5 p.m. I logged into a computer in the UE lab so I was probably there for a meeting.

Computer activity stopped at 5 p.m. and then at 5:20 I again used the same BART ticket to enter the BART station and exited at Dublin in a time that indicates no course deviation. From the Bayfair station I placed a call to Lani and her cell phone tracking indicates she picked me up at the BART station rather than me taking the bus from there like usual. GPS tracking of the Wheels bus system indicates this is probably because a 4 minute delay on BART would have caused me to miss the bus. At 6:30 I logged into gmail from a computer IP the same as in the morning. Intermittent computer activity suggest general puttering around and at about 8pm an episode of The Closer was ordered and watched from On Demand.

[JWBear]

....I don't want the manufacturer of my tires, or anyone he sells that service to, to know where I when my car drives to. Or how fast the tires are going. Or anything else big brotherly like that....

The only way they could do that is to line the roads with readers. Ain't going to happen.

I have no fear of RFID chips. The technology simple doesn't allow the kind of tracking that people seem to fear. I don't even have a problem with having them implanted - as long as it is voluntary. Regardless of how innocuous the technology, I would oppose mandatory implanting.

My work ID has a RFID chip implanted in it. It makes opening the security doors so much easier than the old system; Id cards with magnetic strips that you had to swipe multiple times before the door would unlock. We all love it.

[€uroMeinke]

My issue with RFID is that they are so commonplace that I often trigger door alarms at various stores. So far I just keep walking and no one does anything.

[Alex]

Is it a specific one? I keep my work entry card in my wallet (reader range limited so I still have to take it out of my pocket and hold it to the sensor by the door; this leads to some interesting configurations as people with full hands try to maneuver their butt close enough to the sensor) so it is always with me and I don't think I ever have.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

The "tiny steps towards Big Brother/Armageddon/etc" is almost never a good argument, IMHO, because each one of us has some instance of "tiny steps" that they're ok with. Take the dual sides of gun control vs right to bear arms. One could argue that each stance is baby steps away from an awful end result - either a government that strips everyone of their protection, or a populace that settles scores with duels. Whatever you're ok with, I can come up with a horrible possibility of misuse.

You personally may not carry a cell phone, but do any of you view cell phones as a danger to your privacy and freedom? If you fear RFID but not your cell phone, you've got it backwards.

I personally would not agree to implant RFID tech into my body just for my job's sake. My joke about not letting work get under my skin was also a true statement. It has little to do with being tracked, though - it's idea of modifying my body for my job which is abhorrent to me. I'm sure this has to do with my personal aversion to tattooing and piercing (I love it on others but I'd never do it to myself). I could see myself, a while from now, considering chip implantation for identification purposes, but that's a ways off, and I'd find out exactly what I was getting into first.

People always complain about having to carry a library card...

[CoasterMatt]

gun control is being able to hit what you're aiming at...

[Ghoulish Delight]

Is it a specific one? I keep my work entry card in my wallet (reader range limited so I still have to take it out of my pocket and hold it to the sensor by the door; this leads to some interesting configurations as people with full hands try to maneuver their butt close enough to the sensor) so it is always with me and I don't think I ever have.When I come back from soccer, my wallet is in my shoe. I feel like Maxwell Smart every time i open a door with my shoe.

[BarTopDancer]

gun control is being able to hit what you're aiming at...

I really miss my ex...

But my aim is improving.