NationStates Jolt Archive

The Terrorist Who Bombed The U.S.S. Cole In 2000 Has Escaped. Any Comments?

OOPS?

did you see that they dug a tunnel from a mosque over to the prison?

Any Comments?
Who cares?
He's just a man who realizes who his oppressors are and is not afraid to fight back using the small means at his disposal.

Well, he's got lots of targets now in the Middle East, hey? US Soldiers everywhere...

No, seriously, what comment do you expect? He's one of thousands, and thousands more being trained and gaining experience in Iraq right now. He won't make much of a difference.

Death Penalty Advocates: 1 Anti-Death Penalty Advocates: 0

OOPS?

did you see that they dug a tunnel from a mosque over to the prison?
Yes, In Fact. But He Still Is At Large. At Least That's What My Local News Says. And I Thought People Would Be More, Patriotic. I Mean, He Bombed The U.S.S. Cole! And He's Escaped! Come On People, I'm Not Patriotic, But I Most Definetley Am Laughing At The Bush Administration Even More Now! Wait, Nevermind.

I've always thought that it would be a great idea to surgically implant RFID transponders in the bodies of terrorists, and allow them to "escape".

Then see where they go. Who they meet with. It's better than trying to get the answers out of them any other way. If they want to continue being terrorists, they'll have to contact other terrorists one way or another.

And if they are not really terrorists, or stop being one and never contact terrorists again, that will become quite obvious as well.

Why torture, when you can get people to show their hand?

I've always thought that it would be a great idea to surgically implant RFID transponders in the bodies of terrorists, and allow them to "escape".

Then see where they go. Who they meet with. It's better than trying to get the answers out of them any other way. If they want to continue being terrorists, they'll have to contact other terrorists one way or another.

And if they are not really terrorists, or stop being one and never contact terrorists again, that will become quite obvious as well.

Why torture, when you can get people to show their hand?
That IS a great idea. Quick, copyright it or something!

I've always thought that it would be a great idea to surgically implant RFID transponders in the bodies of terrorists, and allow them to "escape".

Ya know ... that's actually not a bad idea.

Question: Would that be for life, or would it be removed after a period of time?

Ya know ... that's actually not a bad idea.

Question: Would that be for life, or would it be removed after a period of time?

RFID transponders are unpowered, and quite small. The person in question could carry one for the rest of their life and never know it. Like carrying a bit of ceramic in your body.

Probably not very practical to try and follow them the rest of their lives, but you could follow them for a year or so, and even check back once in a while.

Ya know ... that's actually not a bad idea.

Question: Would that be for life, or would it be removed after a period of time?

It'd give them cancer from the RF and they die a horrible death.

It'd give them cancer from the RF and they die a horrible death.

BS, and you know it.

RFID signals are very weak.

Ya know ... that's actually not a bad idea.

Question: Would that be for life, or would it be removed after a period of time?


I would say for life, in hopes of greatly reducing their life expectancy once some more useful facts were gathered.

RFID transponders are unpowered, and quite small. The person in question could carry one for the rest of their life and never know it. Like carrying a bit of ceramic in your body.

Well my point, really, is if they turn out to be innocent, is the continued invasion of privacy necessary? Great idea for suspects and with good probable cause, but if the person turns out to be nothing more than a regular joe with a couple of shady friends (hey ... we've all got one or two), then I say remove it.

Then put one in his friends.

Well my point, really, is if they turn out to be innocent, is the continued invasion of privacy necessary? Great idea for suspects and with good probable cause, but if the person turns out to be nothing more than a regular joe with a couple of shady friends (hey ... we've all got one or two), then I say remove it.

Then put one in his friends.

No need to remove it - it's not an active device. Just stop looking for it.

After that, it's completely inert (unless you find a reason to look for him again).

If you wanted to remove it, you would have to pick him up again and do the surgery on him to remove it (actually much more involved than putting it in him).

No need to remove it - it's not an active device. Just stop looking for it.

Now that makes sense.

Cool ... now how does one go about proposing something to DHS or the CIA?

Now that makes sense.

Cool ... now how does one go about proposing something to DHS or the CIA?

Yes, well, consider this.

The Defense Department mostly serves as a logistics organization - moving men and material around the world. A bigger shipping problem than FedEx or British Airways.

Yet their computer systems are more crude, and they're only now talking about using RFID to keep track of containers of stuff "in the future".

Wal-Mart, on the other hand, plans to have all RFID all the time in all of their stores in about a year - you'll push your cart to the front of the store, and it will be rung up without taking your stuff out of the basket - no cashier - just a turnstile with a place to put cash or credit card.

It would make sense, and an RFID tag for dogs and cats can already be had at your local vet. It would need to be a tag with slightly more range, but it's the same equipment and the same idea.

Bureaucracy, not political or religious ideology, will destroy civilization as we know it.

RFID is very weak indeed. A couple of hundred metres, and there goes the signal. The stuff available today, sure you can move it around a supermarket or warehouse no problem. But as soon as it leaves the building where you have sensors, you're out of luck. To track a guy with RFID, you'd need someone close enough for visual contact. Cheaper to just tail someone without bothering with the chip. Pipe dream, my friend.

I've always wondered why they dont do something similar to journalists and other foreigners in iraq to help in finding them if they are kidnapped.

RFID is very weak indeed. A couple of hundred metres, and there goes the signal. The stuff available today, sure you can move it around a supermarket or warehouse no problem. But as soon as it leaves the building where you have sensors, you're out of luck. To track a guy with RFID, you'd need someone close enough for visual contact. Cheaper to just tail someone without bothering with the chip. Pipe dream, my friend.

I remember people saying that WiFi is too weak, and can't be done past a certain distance.

Then my sister won a contest at a hacking conference in Vegas - she built an antenna out of stuff she found in the hotel dumpster, and did WiFi with the hotel's network from 15 miles outside of Vegas.

I remember people saying that WiFi is too weak, and can't be done past a certain distance.

Then my sister won a contest at a hacking conference in Vegas - she built an antenna out of stuff she found in the hotel dumpster, and did WiFi with the hotel's network from 15 miles outside of Vegas.
It's a different concept. WiFi and cellphones are transmitters. Passive RFID tags rely on the energy in the incoming signal to send back their reply. So you're limited to a building.

Active RFID requires a battery power source. Obviously this imposes a limit on the lifespan. The second limit imposed is the need for the subject to remain unaware that (s)he has been compromised. Thus the device must be small enough to be invisible to x-rays and ultrasound. The range will therefore be very limited.

It's a different concept. WiFi and cellphones are transmitters. Passive RFID tags rely on the energy in the incoming signal to send back their reply. So you're limited to a building.

Active RFID requires a battery power source. Obviously this imposes a limit on the lifespan. The second limit imposed is the need for the subject to remain unaware that (s)he has been compromised. Thus the device must be small enough to be invisible to x-rays and ultrasound. The range will therefore be very limited.

Then I bet we could use one of the nuclear batteries for pacemakers, and put it inside the person's chest cavity.

Something the size of a pack of cards.

Bureaucracy, not political or religious ideology, will destroy civilization as we know it.

A-fuckin'-men.