more concerns:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.