NationStates Jolt Archive

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3237



In an attempt to forestall the arrival of 1984, a California state senator has introduced a bill to ban employers from inserting identification devices under the skin of employees, reports the Associated Press.

Democratic Sen. Joe Simitian has several proposals to ban employers or anyone else from requiring a person to have radio frequency identification devices implanted.
The Senator expressed concerns that information provided by RFIDs could easily be stolen with an inexpensive monitor or track people’s movements.

“When people understand the vulnerability of the technology and the absolute lack of any privacy protections or limits on information that can be broadcast, they understand why it’s a legitimate source of concern,” he said. The use of implanted RFIDs makes “you think we really are in a world we never could have imagined,” he said.

The devices are used to transmit identifying information via radio signals in badges, passports, driver’s licenses and on bodies. But is the senator reading a little too much sci-fi?

Other measures in the works ban the use of RFIDs in driver’s licenses and student identification badges before 2011, setting privacy-protection standards for RFIDs, and requiring companies that issue ID cards containing RFIDs to disclose the personal information being stored and it is being protected.

Critics of the measures say the focus should be on preventing inappropriate use of RFIDs, not preventing the use of the technology.

Roxanne Gould, vice president for California government relations for the American Electronics Association, a high-tech industry group, said Simitian is taking the wrong approach, although her organization hasn’t taken a position on the implant bill.

“Our bottom line is we’re opposed to anything that demonizes RFIDs,” she said. “The technology has been in existence for more than 50 years. It’s in more than 1.2 billion ID credentials worldwide. … We’ve not seen a single showing of ID theft or harm,” said Roxanne Gould, vice president for California government relations for the American Electronics Association, a high-tech industry group.



So, what do you think? Insane technophobia or legitimate worry?

Take that Big Brother.

inserting identification devices under the skin of employees

That, my friend, is a legitimate concern. Companies aren't bound by things like the Constitution as far as personal rights are concerned. If the federal government wanted to do that, we'd call it an invasion of privacy, and rightly so, but if a company made it a requirement of employment, the people who work there could either submit or find new jobs. California has stepped in, it seems, and said no way, and I salute them for it.

Want to blank one? Take a neodymium magnet right over top of it.

Thats not technophobia at all, thats pretty damn legitamate to me. I think all states should follow suit.

Glad to see a good bill as this being pushed. Good bills are hard to come by these days.

That should be voluntary. If people want to have chips inserted, they should be allowed to and if they don't they should be allowed to refuse without penalty.

I mean, I'd personally get one, but they shouldn't force people to have them implanted...that's just a violation of personal rights. Subcutaneous RFID is still a pretty new technology and there still needs to be refinement in the technology in order to ensure its security, especially in this period of rampant identity theft and the abuse of information networks.

In an attempt to forestall the arrival of 1984,
He's a little late.

a California state senator has introduced a bill to ban employers from inserting identification devices under the skin of employees, reports the Associated Press.
This is a legitimate concern because some corporations have been talking about doing this for several years now. If the plan is in the works, then measures to control it and grant protections to workers affected by it are appropriate. Remember, it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you.

Critics of the measures say the focus should be on preventing inappropriate use of RFIDs, not preventing the use of the technology.
Which begs the question: Is there an appropriate use for RFIDs? I personally do not think so.

Roxanne Gould, vice president for California government relations for the American Electronics Association, a high-tech industry group, said Simitian is taking the wrong approach, although her organization hasn’t taken a position on the implant bill.

“Our bottom line is we’re opposed to anything that demonizes RFIDs,” she said. “The technology has been in existence for more than 50 years. It’s in more than 1.2 billion ID credentials worldwide. … We’ve not seen a single showing of ID theft or harm,” said Roxanne Gould, vice president for California government relations for the American Electronics Association, a high-tech industry group.
I see, so the lobbyists for the manufacturers assure us that their clients' products are perfectly okay and we should trust them and what's good for General Motors is good for the country, etc. I feel so reassured.

Which begs the question: Is there an appropriate use for RFIDs? I personally do not think so.

Yes; among other things, they're good for providing easy access large volumes of personal data for immediate use if and when it is needed, especially medical data. The main barrier at this point is security more than anything else; we need a way to keep the chips from being abused by criminals to exploit vulnerable data and a way to preserve the privacy of the data stored in these devices.

It's idiotic to ban them, but definitely even more stupid to allow companies to mandate implanting them when they are still new and far from optimized in security terms.

Which begs the question: Is there an appropriate use for RFIDs? I personally do not think so.

Inventory control, security. Ever buy anything from Wal-mart? It's fairly crawling with little RFID tags. There's a tag on every item so they can track it, if it's not deactivated it sets off the alarms when it passes the scanner at the door. They use them to track it's arrival/departure from their warehouses, and it's passage through them.

Paranoid luddites!

You have to be within a couple feet of a scanner for it to read the tag.

Which begs the question: Is there an appropriate use for RFIDs? I personally do not think so.

Prisoners until a time where they're released and it gets removed?

Permanent tagging, I can't see a legitimate use. Temporary, maybe, and only in very specific circumstances.

I've worked at some jobs where if they could, they would have put an RFID in me. Bad enough they force me to have a pager or cell phone.

Permanent tagging, I can't see a legitimate use. Temporary, maybe, and only in very specific circumstances.

It's perfect for medical data, among other things.

It's perfect for medical data, among other things.

It's a hell of a lot better than any other system for restricted access areas also. Wouldn't bother me to have one put in with medical data, allergies to medications and the like. It's not detailed enough to be abused.

It's a hell of a lot better than any other system for restricted access areas also. Wouldn't bother me to have one put in with medical data, allergies to medications and the like. It's not detailed enough to be abused.

Same here. I'll probably get a VeriChip as soon as I can to store medical data for faster checkups and better preparedness in the case of an emergency. Now, once the technology is more developed, I'd go beyond medical data, but right now it's still too new to go beyond medical data.

All banning does is move the RFID industry from California to Texas, India, or some other technology hub, costing them billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs. These technologies have real merit, and it is a lot more logical and beneficial to develop laws to protect against abuses than to act like an irrational Luddite and ban them regardless of the facts. If California wants to remain a tech hub and wants to protect civil liberties, it needs to embrace the future and draft laws that protect people while still reaping the benefits of these devices.

Yes; among other things, they're good for providing easy access large volumes of personal data for immediate use if and when it is needed, especially medical data. The main barrier at this point is security more than anything else; we need a way to keep the chips from being abused by criminals to exploit vulnerable data and a way to preserve the privacy of the data stored in these devices.

It's idiotic to ban them, but definitely even more stupid to allow companies to mandate implanting them when they are still new and far from optimized in security terms.
OK, but why does that data need to be under my skin? Why does knowing a lot of stuff about me need to include where I am and what I'm doing at any given moment of my life? Does my employer really need to know that I am in my bathroom on a Saturday afternoon?

Essentially, you have thought up a possible use, which frankly, could be accomplished by other means using the same or related technology, and which you already identify a major problem with, which would seem to render it useless before it's even applied.

I have a better idea - implement far stricter data sharing laws between companies and penalize banks and credit unions from issuing out cards to any idiot who applies. And uncouple SSN from everything while you are at it.

And this is technophobia
Other measures in the works ban the use of RFIDs in driver’s licenses and student identification badges before 2011
^^ Stupid.

Inventory control, security. Ever buy anything from Wal-mart? It's fairly crawling with little RFID tags. There's a tag on every item so they can track it, if it's not deactivated it sets off the alarms when it passes the scanner at the door. They use them to track it's arrival/departure from their warehouses, and it's passage through them.

Paranoid luddites!

You have to be within a couple feet of a scanner for it to read the tag.
Yeah, cute, "luddites," adorable. I worked in retail for 10 years. I know all about inventory control.

A) Tagging systems are of limited usefulness. Their best applications are to track items in shipping, which is very important, and to track illegal rerouting of items -- i.e. theft, smuggling, etc. At point of sale, they become irrelevant. I think consumers should be able to deactivate them after purchase, just like we are allowed to remove the Do Not Remove tags from our mattresses after we get them home.

B) Thank you for identifying one appropriate use of RFIDs - inventory tracking prior to final sale. Now, what about tagging people?

Prisoners until a time where they're released and it gets removed?

Permanent tagging, I can't see a legitimate use. Temporary, maybe, and only in very specific circumstances.
I can agree with that.

OK, good, two legitimate uses for RFIDs: pre-final-sale inventory tracking and prisoner control.

But to require a person to be RFID tagged in order to have a job? I see no validity to such a plan.

I seem to remember reading an article about RFIDs, specifically the idea of having passports with RFIDs in them. The gist of the article was basically that all they would do would be to make identity theft easier due to blind trust in the technology that will undoubtably occur.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/idcards/story/0,,1950226,00.html

OK, but why does that data need to be under my skin? Why does knowing a lot of stuff about me need to include where I am and what I'm doing at any given moment of my life? Does my employer really need to know that I am in my bathroom on a Saturday afternoon?

It's under your skin so that they can use a handheld scanner to immediately bring up all of your medical data, something impossible with any other system. That means they would know immediately what to do before you have even been brought to the hospital, enabling hospitals to treat emergencies far faster and far more reliably. That can save thousands of lives each year.

And we're just not ready for tracking chips yet, which is why they should be voluntary. If you want one, you can get one, but no company or government should be allowed to mandate them at this time; in my opinion, they should never be allowed to mandate them, but I'd rather it be done when the technology is proven than allow them to do it now.

Essentially, you have thought up a possible use, which frankly, could be accomplished by other means using the same or related technology, and which you already identify a major problem with, which would seem to render it useless before it's even applied.

No, there really aren't any other ways at this time to do what RFID chips do. The speed and data access benefits of these medical chips is a world of improvement over existing systems and can't be duplicated in any other way at this time. The problems, like in any technology, will be worked out over time, emphasis on over time. It's not going to happen overnight, and that's the main reason why we need to wait for that to happen before moving dramatically forward with implementing this technology; if society rushes in to RFID tagging too quickly and ends up creating a disaster due to any flaws or exploits that might appear, we will lose a lot more than if we wait to see how things develop.

But banning them does nothing but stymie their development and cost us economically and technologically. It is a foolish solution based upon legitimate concerns; we need a legitimate solution that allows the technology to develop while protecting people from potential abuses.

OK, but why does that data need to be under my skin? Why does knowing a lot of stuff about me need to include where I am and what I'm doing at any given moment of my life? Does my employer really need to know that I am in my bathroom on a Saturday afternoon?

Essentially, you have thought up a possible use, which frankly, could be accomplished by other means using the same or related technology, and which you already identify a major problem with, which would seem to render it useless before it's even applied.

You should probably make an effort to understand a technology before you go screaming about privacy violations. 'cause that ain't possible. Unless of course your boss mounts a scanner on your ceiling.

It's perfect for medical data, among other things.
It takes away the individual's right to control that data and all access to it. Therefore, not an appropriate use.

RFID chips arn't GPS emitters. Tagging prisoners isn't going to do anything but up the cost of the prison system.

It takes away the individual's right to control that data and all access to it. Therefore, not an appropriate use.
Who knows what some dastardly villain could do with knowledge of your blood pressure.

I seem to remember reading an article about RFIDs, specifically the idea of having passports with RFIDs in them. The gist of the article was basically that all they would do would be to make identity theft easier due to blind trust in the technology that will undoubtably occur.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/idcards/story/0,,1950226,00.html

See now that's a really dumb use for them. Absolute idiocy. Good thing it's really easy to disable them.

That, my friend, is a legitimate concern. Companies aren't bound by things like the Constitution as far as personal rights are concerned. If the federal government wanted to do that, we'd call it an invasion of privacy, and rightly so, but if a company made it a requirement of employment, the people who work there could either submit or find new jobs. California has stepped in, it seems, and said no way, and I salute them for it.

If the Federal government decided to do it, say, to military personnel, there's nothing that California could do to stop it.

This law certainly wouldn't.

It's under your skin so that they can use a handheld scanner to immediately bring up all of your medical data, something impossible with any other system. That means they would know immediately what to do before you have even been brought to the hospital, enabling hospitals to treat emergencies far faster and far more reliably. That can save thousands of lives each year.


How is that? The chips aren't collecting data from your body. They're just holding data about other co-morbities. They may save lives by preventing the use of contra-indicated drugs, etc in emergencies

But to require a person to be RFID tagged in order to have a job? I see no validity to such a plan.

That has no validity, at least nothing I can see at present. Maybe if you were in a particularly dangerous or security-sensitive occupation, like a lunar colony or DARPA, but not in the vast majority of jobs in the civilian market. No company should be allowed to mandate employee tagging as a condition of employment at this time.

If the Federal government decided to do it, say, to military personnel, there's nothing that California could do to stop it.

This law certainly wouldn't.

Be a damn sight better than dog tags.

Be a damn sight better than dog tags.
Speaking of which, dogs have been getting chipped for years...

SOmeone needs to up the dosage on their medication!

I hope it isn't me! :eek:

How is that? The chips aren't collecting data from your body. They're just holding data about other co-morbities. They may save lives by preventing the use of contra-indicated drugs, etc in emergencies

It would provide data on what other medical conditions you have, blood type, allergies, and all kinds of things, greatly aiding diagnosis. All of that would be available immediately and could be applied far faster than it would be under conventional data storage techniques.

It reduces the risk of all kinds of errors and cuts down on treatment time, which would save a lot of lives each year. Plus, it would be useful in non-threatening situations, playing a role in the development of personalized medicine.

Be a damn sight better than dog tags.

Yes, they would. In addition, the current soldier already has his DNA recorded by the military, in case there's nothing left of you short of a blood stained left rear pants pocket.

It would provide data on what other medical conditions you have, blood type, allergies, and all kinds of things, greatly aiding diagnosis. All of that would be available immediately and could be applied far faster than it would be under conventional data storage techniques.

It reduces the risk of all kinds of errors and cuts down on treatment time, which would save a lot of lives each year. Plus, it would be useful in non-threatening situations, playing a role in the development of personalized medicine.

You said they would know what to do before you even arrived at hospital. Not necessarily. It would still be important to go through the normal procedures of gathering as much information as possible from the paramedics, family members, bystanders, etc. It would help add to the information gathered (and make sure that nothing important is forgotten) but things may have changed since a patient last had a check-up. Rather than speed things up it would be more important as a back up resource

It's under your skin so that they can use a handheld scanner to immediately bring up all of your medical data, something impossible with any other system. That means they would know immediately what to do before you have even been brought to the hospital, enabling hospitals to treat emergencies far faster and far more reliably. That can save thousands of lives each year.
Suppositions and speculations. That is all proponents of this technology have. The California measure does not make assumptions about that, only about the intentions of businesses that are planning to use it, which seems perfectly valid to me, as those businesses have already published outlines of such plans in public statements.

But you will not sell me on a technology based solely on what you think it could be used for.

I have no problem with people doing what they like with their own bodies. You want a medical alert RFID tag, fine, go get one. If I don't want one, I should not be required to have one. You are focused solely on what the tags might do. I don't care about that. I am focused on how they will or will not be forced into my life. I do not think it paranoid to envision insurance companies and HMOs requiring people to have such tags whether they have health issues or not in order to qualify for coverage -- and only because it will be more convenient to the companies, not to me. I do not consider that valid, and any law preventing that sounds good to me.

And we're just not ready for tracking chips yet, which is why they should be voluntary. If you want one, you can get one, but no company or government should be allowed to mandate them at this time; in my opinion, they should never be allowed to mandate them, but I'd rather it be done when the technology is proven than allow them to do it now.
Are you really saying that, once they can be used to track people, we should all be forced to get one?

No, there really aren't any other ways at this time to do what RFID chips do. The speed and data access benefits of these medical chips is a world of improvement over existing systems and can't be duplicated in any other way at this time. The problems, like in any technology, will be worked out over time, emphasis on over time. It's not going to happen overnight, and that's the main reason why we need to wait for that to happen before moving dramatically forward with implementing this technology; if society rushes in to RFID tagging too quickly and ends up creating a disaster due to any flaws or exploits that might appear, we will lose a lot more than if we wait to see how things develop.

But banning them does nothing but stymie their development and cost us economically and technologically. It is a foolish solution based upon legitimate concerns; we need a legitimate solution that allows the technology to develop while protecting people from potential abuses.
Mm-hm. I refer you back to my earlier remark about not selling me on pie-in-the-sky projections of what might be possible with the latest new miracle gadget. By your own admission, the technology has little use today and needs so much development that it is impossible to say how useful it will be or how long we will have to wait for it to be worthwhile.

Second, kindly point out where in the OP article there is any mention of banning RFID technology. Kindly do not attempt to demonize those who wish to regulate an industry by setting up strawmen.

Suppositions and speculations. That is all proponents of this technology have.

You're from Europe aren't you?

You should probably make an effort to understand a technology before you go screaming about privacy violations. 'cause that ain't possible. Unless of course your boss mounts a scanner on your ceiling.
No one has yet to tell me why an employer has a legitimate need to be able to "scan" (regardless of whether he is doing it or not) me 24/7 if I only work for him 40 hours/week. Some people resent having to carry trackable ID cards or cell phones that can be GPS tracked, but they only have to carry those while they are on duty. Tell me why we should have to carry it always rather than just while they are paying us to be available to them.

Usually, all that's in an RFID chip is the numerical ID.

It is then used to look up your information in a database.

If you don't have access to the database, all you can get from the person is a numerical ID. Oh, that's useful.

Some RFID chips will only do a public/private key handshake with a system they already are registered with - no other reader can even get the ID out of it.

Most of the US business and government already has database entries on most people - details you've probably forgotten. They already have the ability to track you via your credit card or debit card, and if you use a keycard to get into the office (as many do) they know when you came to work. On the Metro, if you use the convenient SmartCard (Oyster card in London), they know when you rode the train.

All without a chip under your skin. The chip adds nothing in terms of surveillance, while it does add a lot in terms of convenience (we could replace your credit cards, debit cards, keycards, driver's license, etc. with a single chip). And if someone wants to steal your identity, they have to kill you and dig the chip out of your body.

RFID chips arn't GPS emitters. Tagging prisoners isn't going to do anything but up the cost of the prison system.
Then what would tagging employees do but up the cost of doing business?


Who knows what some dastardly villain could do with knowledge of your blood pressure.
So you are one of those people who see no value in privacy of medical information? I suppose you don't see any reason why employers should not be able to screen out people who have smoked or who are pregnant or who have high blood pressure or cancer from getting employment? I suppose you think no one has ever tried to do that, or that making it more difficult for people other than the individual and his/her doctors to access that information has any validity at all?

No one has yet to tell me why an employer has a legitimate need to be able to "scan" (regardless of whether he is doing it or not) me 24/7 if I only work for him 40 hours/week. Some people resent having to carry trackable ID cards or cell phones that can be GPS tracked, but they only have to carry those while they are on duty. Tell me why we should have to carry it always rather than just while they are paying us to be available to them.

This falls back to the LEARN THE TECH BEFORE YOU CRY ABOUT IT.

That has no validity, at least nothing I can see at present. Maybe if you were in a particularly dangerous or security-sensitive occupation, like a lunar colony or DARPA, but not in the vast majority of jobs in the civilian market. No company should be allowed to mandate employee tagging as a condition of employment at this time.

Be a damn sight better than dog tags.

I was thinking that tagging combat personnel would be a good idea, but it has been mentioned that security is an issue with that. We would not want the enemy to be able to access information about prisoners.

This falls back to the LEARN THE TECH BEFORE YOU CRY ABOUT IT.
And that falls back on the EXPLAIN WHY I HAVE TO HAVE IT UNDER MY SKIN TO DO WHAT THE EMPLOYER NEEDS FROM IT.

Yelling that I just don't understand is not an answer.

Then what would tagging employees do but up the cost of doing business?

So you are one of those people who see no value in privacy of medical information? I suppose you don't see any reason why employers should not be able to screen out people who have smoked or who are pregnant or who have high blood pressure or cancer from getting employment? I suppose you think no one has ever tried to do that, or that making it more difficult for people other than the individual and his/her doctors to access that information has any validity at all?

That's not how the tags work. Your medical history is not stored on the chip.

An ID number is stored on the chip. When used with an appropriate reader, the ID can be recovered and used to access a database - that's where your information is stored.

Wow, you're just so ignorant of technology it's shocking.

That has no validity, at least nothing I can see at present. Maybe if you were in a particularly dangerous or security-sensitive occupation, like a lunar colony or DARPA, but not in the vast majority of jobs in the civilian market. No company should be allowed to mandate employee tagging as a condition of employment at this time.
By the way, this is what the California measure is about. It is not about banning a technology, so all those who are crying about that maybe need to LEARN ABOUT THE ISSUE BEFORE CRYING ABOUT IT (nod to Kadghar).

It doesn't matter whether the chips would do what the employers hope or not. The issue is forcing me to accept such an intrusion in order to get hired. It could be about forcing me to dye my hair in order to get hired and still have the same effect.

Speaking of which, dogs have been getting chipped for years...
Dogs are property. People are not.

By the way, this is what the California measure is about. It is not about banning a technology, so all those who are crying about that maybe need to LEARN ABOUT THE ISSUE BEFORE CRYING ABOUT IT (nod to Kadghar).

It doesn't matter whether the chips would do what the employers hope or not. The issue is forcing me to accept such an intrusion in order to get hired. It could be about forcing me to dye my hair in order to get hired and still have the same effect.

No one says you have to work there.

You're from Europe aren't you?
No.

That's not how the tags work. Your medical history is not stored on the chip.

An ID number is stored on the chip. When used with an appropriate reader, the ID can be recovered and used to access a database - that's where your information is stored.

Wow, you're just so ignorant of technology it's shocking.
Complaints about other people's ignorance about issues is funny coming from you.

A) All you need is a scanner and access to a database to get the information from the chip.

B) Without regulation, there would be no way to control who could buy, sell or otherwise permit such access nor to whom they could grant it.

C) We have already seen, in the age of identity theft and warrantless surveillance, that inappropriate sharing of access to information is possible.

D) Regulation is therefore appropriate.

E) Not one of the above points is in any way dependent on how the technology works because they all focus on people, not the technology.

Complaints about other people's ignorance about issues is funny coming from you.

A) All you need is a scanner and access to a database to get the information from the chip.


You're an idiot. Only a number is on the chip, not information.

You need access to the database, which is protected by other means.


B) Without regulation, there would be no way to control who could buy, sell or otherwise permit such access nor to whom they could grant it.


Those databases are already protected by laws and regulations.


C) We have already seen, in the age of identity theft and warrantless surveillance, that inappropriate sharing of access to information is possible.

Some financial information theft is possible - stealing your lifetime medical records simply is not.


D) Regulation is therefore appropriate.

Regulations for those databases already exist. The chip changes nothing.
E) Not one of the above points is in any way dependent on how the technology works because they all focus on people, not the technology.
Still an ignoramous.

By the way, this is what the California measure is about. It is not about banning a technology, so all those who are crying about that maybe need to LEARN ABOUT THE ISSUE BEFORE CRYING ABOUT IT (nod to Kadghar).

It doesn't matter whether the chips would do what the employers hope or not. The issue is forcing me to accept such an intrusion in order to get hired. It could be about forcing me to dye my hair in order to get hired and still have the same effect.

Seriously. Do you guys even fucking read shit before slapping your keyboards? California isn't trying to ban RFIDs, if you have such a hard on to have one they're not stopping you. It's about requiring it.

And yes, there is a security issue. Blue tooth makes your information vulnerable, the credit cards that don't require the magnetic swipe make your information vulnerable, but for some magical reason the RFID won't. Oh no, it's just a number, and people have never been able to match that up on their own-no no, for some reason this is the data that won't be abused even though thats happened to every other piece of technology thats ever fucking existed.

And even if that weren't the case, why the fuck should I be required to have one? Yes, there are other things that can track certain movements, but once off the job I can leave those things behind.

Most of you need to go back and read what the actual article says.

Seriously. Do you guys even fucking read shit before slapping your keyboards? California isn't trying to ban RFIDs, if you have such a hard on to have one they're not stopping you. It's about requiring it.

And yes, there is a security issue. Blue tooth makes your information vulnerable, the credit cards that don't require the magnetic swipe make your information vulnerable, but for some magical reason the RFID won't. Oh no, it's just a number, and people have never been able to match that up on their own-no no, for some reason this is the data that won't be abused even though thats happened to every other piece of technology thats ever fucking existed.

And even if that weren't the case, why the fuck should I be required to have one? Yes, there are other things that can track certain movements, but once off the job I can leave those things behind.

Most of you need to go back and read what the actual article says.

How can the data be abused from the chip if it is not on the chip?

If you're in the military it's a useful thing that can't be lost, and assures us that you are who you are.

And, if the Federal government requires it of the military, or Federal employees, there's jack shit that California can do about it.

Same here. I'll probably get a VeriChip as soon as I can to store medical data for faster checkups and better preparedness in the case of an emergency. Now, once the technology is more developed, I'd go beyond medical data, but right now it's still too new to go beyond medical data.

All banning does is move the RFID industry from California to Texas, India, or some other technology hub, costing them billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs. These technologies have real merit, and it is a lot more logical and beneficial to develop laws to protect against abuses than to act like an irrational Luddite and ban them regardless of the facts. If California wants to remain a tech hub and wants to protect civil liberties, it needs to embrace the future and draft laws that protect people while still reaping the benefits of these devices.
Hold on a second. California, as I read it, isn't banning RFID chips. They banning companies from forcing employees to get them inserted under their skin. There's a universe of difference between the two.

How can the data be abused from the chip if it is not on the chip?

If you're in the military it's a useful thing that can't be lost, and assures us that you are who you are.

And, if the Federal government requires it of the military, or Federal employees, there's jack shit that California can do about it.

If the federal government requires it of their employees, there's a privacy case that can be made in the courts, unlike a situation involving a corporation or company.

If the federal government requires it of their employees, there's a privacy case that can be made in the courts, unlike a situation involving a corporation or company.

The Feds already require DNA registry of military personnel. And they share the data en masse with law enforcement on a daily basis.

If a violent crime that has any DNA evidence occurs, not only do Federal prisoners get their DNA run against it, so do the soldiers.

It's policy.

I don't think you could stop them from using a chip.

A) All you need is a scanner and access to a database to get the information from the chip.
You're an idiot. Only a number is on the chip, not information.

You need access to the database, which is protected by other means.


Before you toss about accusations of 'idiot' make sure you didn't just repeat what the dude said thinking you refuted him.

[quote=Muravets]A) All you need is a scanner and access to a database to get the information from the chip.[/edit]


Before you toss about accusations of 'idiot' make sure you didn't just repeat what the dude said thinking you refuted him.

You need to know how it works.

You can't just "get into the database".

Especially medical records.

I voted that it wasn't an immediate worry, but that was before I thought it through all the way. That's instantly a violation of personal rights, and only becomes a bigger worry if it is used in the future to track people.

Good for California.

The Feds already require DNA registry of military personnel. And they share the data en masse with law enforcement on a daily basis.

If a violent crime that has any DNA evidence occurs, not only do Federal prisoners get their DNA run against it, so do the soldiers.

It's policy.

I don't think you could stop them from using a chip.

First of all, there have been cases of privacy with the information that the government stores, so it's hardly a settled issue, and second of all you are not required to wear an easily accessible version of that information that you can't take off, which is an important leap for something that's hardly settled as it is.

You need to know how it works.

You can't just "get into the database".

Especially medical records.

Yeah, because databases have never been compromised. Except all those times when they have...

Democratic Sen. Joe Simitian has several proposals to ban employers or anyone else from requiring a person to have radio frequency identification devices implanted.It would seem sensible enough to simply ban employers or others from requiring anyone to get anything implanted.
I wouldn't particularly limit it to RFIDs.

Dogs are property. People are not.

Same technology. And you, like most people, seem to have no idea wtf RFID is or its limitations.

Complaints about other people's ignorance about issues is funny coming from you.

A) All you need is a scanner and access to a database to get the information from the chip.
Assuming the data isn't encrypted and you are within 2 or 3 feet of the person, maybe even closer depending on the power output. The RFID chip in my work badge only works at less than a couple inches.

B) Without regulation, there would be no way to control who could buy, sell or otherwise permit such access nor to whom they could grant it.
Which is an issue wholly apart from this one.

C) We have already seen, in the age of identity theft and warrantless surveillance, that inappropriate sharing of access to information is possible.
I don't think the government wants to spend double the national debt to try and install enough RFID checkpoints to track your every move.

E) Not one of the above points is in any way dependent on how the technology works because they all focus on people, not the technology.
Wrong, almost every single point you made makes assumptions about the specifics of the technology and its implementation.

Assuming the data isn't encrypted and you are within 2 or 3 feet of the person, maybe even closer depending on the power output. The RFID chip in my work badge only works at less than a couple inches.


Which is an issue wholly apart from this one.


I don't think the government wants to spend double the national debt to try and install enough RFID checkpoints to track your every move.


Wrong, almost every single point you made makes assumptions about the specifics of the technology and its implementation.
Fine, you trust the technology or that it won't be abused, get one installed, or implanted, or whatever-but don't require that other people have them implanted.

I have yet to see a valid argument as to why this should be required. Think about that, a medical procedure required by an employer. This goes beyond something as simple as a physical or a drug test (both of which I have separate issues)

Fine, you trust the technology or that it won't be abused, get one installed, or implanted, or whatever-but don't require that other people have them implanted.

I have yet to see a valid argument as to why this should be required. Think about that, a medical procedure required by an employer. This goes beyond something as simple as a physical or a drug test (both of which I have separate issues)
I have yet to see a valid argument against personal RFID chips.
Like I already said, twice, privacy problems related to taking and sharing information is completely separate from this RFID issue. We already have privacy issues because of information sharing and selling, we need to address it as it stands, not because some new big bad technological boogeyman might make it even more evident.

I have yet to see a valid argument against personal RFID chips.
Like I already said, twice, privacy problems related to taking and sharing information is completely separate from this RFID issue. We already have privacy issues because of information sharing and selling, we need to address it as it stands, not because some new big bad technological boogeyman might make it even more evident.

So, once again, champ-then go ahead and get one. But you have yet to come up with a compelling reason that they should be required by a company.

You're last point really underlines the issue-if we already have problems then why, exactly, are we going to try and exasperate the problem?

I mean, no one would mess with RFIDs...you know, except that they already have. (http://news.com.com/RFID+tags+become+hacker+target/2100-1029_3-5287912.html)

So, once more with feeling because we all know how hard it is for you to focus-No one is saying you can't implant yourself silly with the devices, what we are saying is that no one should be required to, and I have yet to see even an attempt at explaining why someone should be required to.

I have yet to see a valid argument against personal RFID chips.
Like I already said, twice, privacy problems related to taking and sharing information is completely separate from this RFID issue. We already have privacy issues because of information sharing and selling, we need to address it as it stands, not because some new big bad technological boogeyman might make it even more evident.

You're missing the point. The valid argument against having an RFID chip subcutaneously implanted in my body against my will is that it's against my will. Over my body I should be sovereign. There should be no way that an employer can force me to have something implanted as a condition of my employment. It doesn't matter if it's good for me or not--it's the issue of personal sovereignty.

I mean, no one would mess with RFIDs...you know, except that they already have. (http://news.com.com/RFID+tags+become+hacker+target/2100-1029_3-5287912.html)

I don't suppose you feel like pointing out anywhere in that link where some one was apprehended hacking RFID chips. All I see is a hacker association going on about what a hacker with the right software and their own scanning tool could possibly do to an RFID chipped system. You realize they have these conferences and make up these scenarios all the time, right?

You're missing the point. The valid argument against having an RFID chip subcutaneously implanted in my body against my will is that it's against my will. Over my body I should be sovereign. There should be no way that an employer can force me to have something implanted as a condition of my employment. It doesn't matter if it's good for me or not--it's the issue of personal sovereignty.
You're missing my point. I'm not arguing pro-forced chipment, I am arguing against the unfounded, ill-informed position of Murayvet and the idiot from California.

You're missing the point. The valid argument against having an RFID chip subcutaneously implanted in my body against my will is that it's against my will. Over my body I should be sovereign. There should be no way that an employer can force me to have something implanted as a condition of my employment. It doesn't matter if it's good for me or not--it's the issue of personal sovereignty.

How's it different than requiring a dress code or not having piercings or visible tattoos?


I can't imagine an employer would bother making an employee get one anyway, just put it on their ID card and make it so they can't come on the property without it.

I don't suppose you feel like pointing out anywhere in that link where some one was apprehended hacking RFID chips. All I see is a hacker association going on about what a hacker with the right software and their own scanning tool could possibly do to an RFID chipped system. You realize they have these conferences and make up these scenarios all the time, right?

Not possibly, he did it. His tool works. And for some reason you think he's the only one who is going to come up with something?
You're missing my point. I'm not arguing pro-forced chipment, I am arguing against the unfounded, ill-informed position of Murayvet and the idiot from California.
Welcome to the topic of the thread, numbnuts-required implantation.

Not possibly, he did it. His tool works.
Irrelevant. I saw the same thing on the Today show months ago in opposition to RFIDs in credit cards, that doesn't mean there are hackers running around with homemade scanning equipment actually screwing with RFIDs.
“Our bottom line is we’re opposed to anything that demonizes RFIDs,” she said. “The technology has been in existence for more than 50 years. It’s in more than 1.2 billion ID credentials worldwide. … We’ve not seen a single showing of ID theft or harm,” said Roxanne Gould, vice president for California government relations for the American Electronics Association, a high-tech industry group.

Welcome to the topic of the thread, numbnuts-required implantation.
In case you need a refresher, the article and what the Senator is proposing goes beyond opposing implantation.

Irrelevant. I saw the same thing on the Today show months ago in opposition to RFIDs in credit cards, that doesn't mean there are hackers running around with homemade scanning equipment actually screwing with RFIDs.
And for some reason your experience in this world is that when something can be abused it won't...

The technology has been in use for 50 years, but not to the extent or application that it is being now or is being proposed.

And gosh, a tech advocate advocates tech? No way! Well, I'm sold!


In case you need a refresher, the article and what the Senator is proposing goes beyond opposing implantation.
several proposals to ban employers or anyone else from requiring a person to have radio frequency identification devices implanted.
and
Other measures in the works ban the use of RFIDs in driver’s licenses and student identification badges before 2011, setting privacy-protection standards for RFIDs, and requiring companies that issue ID cards containing RFIDs to disclose the personal information being stored and it is being protected.
Thats about it. Please find this crazy beyond that your yamering about.

Still seems reasonable to me. Still haven't seen a reason why we should be compelled to be implanted.

And for some reason your experience in this world is that when something can be abused it won't...
Irrelevant, you asserted it had been hacked. It hasn't - not maliciously.

The technology has been in use for 50 years, but not to the extent or application that it is being now or is being proposed.
Which is why hackers hack it and show their findings - so companies can fix security problems. And you forget the simple fact that the OP exaggerates - RFID chips don't run on some nuclear reactor; their ranges are limited to at most a few feet and at best one or two inches.
If some one walks up to you with a rickshod scanning device and waves it over your entire body really close, chances are he's trying to steal your RFID chip identity, better report him.

And gosh, a tech advocate advocates tech? No way! Well, I'm sold!Let's play dismiss facts out of hand! I'm betting a tech advocate is more informed than you are on the subject of RFID chips.


Still seems reasonable to me. Still haven't seen a reason why we should be compelled to be implanted.
The red herring of it. Why shouldn't RFID chips being in driver's licenses and especially student id cards?

Irrelevant, you asserted it had been hacked. It hasn't - not maliciously.
Yes it has. Maliciousness is your own side note.

It seems ironic that someone with a pro-privacy quote in his sig somehow thinks an information technology won't be abused...


Which is why hackers hack it and show their findings - so companies can fix security problems. And you forget the simple fact that the OP exaggerates - RFID chips don't run on some nuclear reactor; their ranges are limited to at most a few feet and at best one or two inches.
If some one walks up to you with a rickshod scanning device and waves it over your entire body really close, chances are he's trying to steal your RFID chip identity, better report him.
Up to fifteen feet, and it's a range that can be increased with the receiver. And that's just at its current levels of use.

Let's play dismiss facts out of hand! I'm betting a tech advocate is more informed than you are on the subject of RFID chips.
Lets play 'consider the source'! It's part of critical thinking, I know it's stranger to you.



The red herring of it.
Sometimes it appears that you just use words and phrases you've heard somewhere and hope they apply.
Why shouldn't RFID chips being in driver's licenses and especially student id cards?
Well, since the 'good guy' hacker has already found a door into fucking with the information isn't there merit to waiting until the technology sorts itself out before putting it in something as sensitive as DL or student IDs? A whole three and half year ban, my god, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

Yes it has. Maliciousness is your own side note.
Everything has been hacked, if it isn't employed maliciously, it doesn't matter. Companies have hackers that work for them to hack their stuff to fix security holes.

Up to fifteen feet, and it's a range that can be increased with the receiver. And that's just at its current levels of use.
Oh that makes sense, the receiver increases the range of the transmitter. Hell, we need to send that technology down there to the boys working on the 802.11* and wireless USB standards.


Lets play 'consider the source'! It's part of critical thinking, I know it's stranger to you.
That reply would have made perfect sense - if I had made it. I'm pretty sure the tech advocate knows more about the tech than you, which is how the facts are looking now.

Well, since the 'good guy' hacker has already found a door into fucking with the information
Looks like some one doesn't get the point. Big surprise there.

isn't there merit to waiting until the technology sorts itself out before putting it in something as sensitive as DL or student IDs?
What do you think would be on your student ID and driver's license cards? Maybe your name and address, but I think they can read that themselves. or you know, find your chipped dog. Maybe your lunch account number on your student Id card. Oh no, a thief is gonna come to school and eat up all your food!

Everything has been hacked, if it isn't employed maliciously, it doesn't matter. Companies have hackers that work for them to hack their stuff to fix security holes.
A hole is a hole. Your faith that only 'good guy' hackers will find the holes is laughably disconnected from what has happened with every other piece of information technology in history.


Oh that makes sense, the receiver increases the range of the transmitter. Hell, we need to send that technology down there to the boys working on the 802.11* and wireless USB standards.
Eric Blossom, a veteran radio engineer, said it would not be difficult to build a beefier transmitter and a more sensitive receiver that would make the range far greater. "I don't see any problem building a sensitive receiver," Blossom said. "It's well-known technology, particularly if it's a specialty item where you're willing to spend five times as much."
Source (http://news.com.com/2010-1069-980325.html)




That reply would have made perfect sense - if I had made it. I'm pretty sure the tech advocate knows more about the tech than you, which is how the facts are looking now.
And of course you take everything Tony Snow says as gospel because he should know better, too? And tobacco lobbyists?



Looks like some one doesn't get the point. Big surprise there.
As usual, you.



What do you think would be on your student ID and driver's license cards? Maybe your name and address, but I think they can read that themselves. or you know, find your chipped dog. Maybe your lunch account number on your student Id card. Oh no, a thief is gonna come to school and eat up all your food!
Yeah, that's the biggest threat. Keep telling yourself that. Of course that has no connection to the modern world where theft of that information is already a problem, but sure.

Once again, slugger, to the point of the thread and the discussion at hand-you trust it, implant it. Implant a hundred, fuck if I care. But no one should be compelled to. You have yet to make that case, just to restate your starry eyed belief that no one will ever abuse this technology because it's somehow different than all the other types of technology like this that have been abused.

A hole is a hole. Your faith that only 'good guy' hackers will find the holes is laughably disconnected from what has happened with every other piece of information technology in history.
No one is putting forward that position but you in opposing it. Not once have I even implied no one else will find the holes. I have repeatedly rebutted your claim that "omg it has been hacked it is insecure!" because hackers go around all the time hacking things to prove they can be so companies increase security.


Source (http://news.com.com/2010-1069-980325.html)
I'll believe it when he does it.



And of course you take everything Tony Snow says as gospel because he should know better, too? And tobacco lobbyists?
Judging by your tech knowledge presented, yeah I will go with the tech advocate.


Yeah, that's the biggest threat. Keep telling yourself that. Of course that has no connection to the modern world where theft of that information is already a problem, but sure.
I don't see you actually saying what identifying information would be contained on, and therefore lifted from, driver's licenses and student ID cards that arn't already there.

Once again, slugger, to the point of the thread and the discussion at hand-you trust it, implant it. Implant a hundred, fuck if I care. But no one should be compelled to.
Once again, you assert I am holding a position I'm not. Go debate DK, you two would enjoy each other.

I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which an employer would need to track someone that way... Not coming up with any reasonable cases.

No one is putting forward that position but you in opposing it. Not once have I even implied no one else will find the holes. I have repeatedly rebutted your claim that "omg it has been hacked it is insecure!" because hackers go around all the time hacking things to prove they can be so companies increase security.
End result:It's insecure, and not in that 'it thinks it looks fat in that dress' kind of way.

You can't have it both ways, "It's totally secure except for this guy who found a hole, but people find holes in shit all the time so that means this is secure."

Do you even listen to yourself?



I'll believe it when he does it.
Apparently not, since we've been going back and forth on what someone has already done like it hasn't happened...or it has, but it won't happen again, or it will happen again but that doesn't mean it's not secure, or whatever your position on it is now...




Judging by your tech knowledge presented, yeah I will go with the tech advocate.
I've sited others. Forgive me for not suckling on the wag.



I don't see you actually saying what identifying information would be contained on, and therefore lifted from, driver's licenses and student ID cards that arn't already there.
I'm sorry, I forgot I had to demonstrate blue skies or wet water or that identity theft exists. Or that people don't currently have workable x-ray specs that see my ID in my pocket but having an RFID in it will give them that ability by simply brushing up against me in a crowd.


Once again, you assert I am holding a position I'm not. Go debate DK, you two would enjoy each other.
Yeah, nutty crazy old me, talking about the actual subject of the thread. I'm out of control.