Drawbacks of using RFID

RFID can give very good shoplifting protection. Each chip is uniquely serial numbeered. So a load of clothes is scanned and listed. One goes missing and you can send someone looking for it with a long range scanner. No provacy problem here as purchased items have their RFID erased at the cash.

The privacy problem is overblown. every time I buy an item with my credit card they get my name and address. I could care less about stray data as long as it stay there. I do not want my CC and address circulated and copied. This problem will end in ayear when we all get new credit vards with smart chips in them as bio-identity stuff, like a finger print or iris scan that needs to match the hash on the card. That way a stolen card is useless

aurizon:

"every time I buy an item with my credit card they get my name and address"

This is precisely why I *NEVER* use credit cards! People are lead to believe that credit cards are necessary -- that there are things you cannot do without them. But this is false. When I want to rent a car, for example, I say "here, would you hold on to this wad of cash for me until I bring your car back?" And the clerk replies, "certainly, sir!" (I don't have a high income, by the way. It's just a lot easier to save up that wad of cash when you're not seduced by credit cards into buying things you can't afford.)

The reason "they" want you to think the credit card is necessary is because "they" want the paper trail! If I want to know all your secrets, one of the things I can do is sift through your garbage. But if I have copies of all your credit card receipts, I get a much more detailed picture of your life -- without even having to get my hands dirty!

If some petty criminal steals your credit card, the potential damage is strictly limited. The thief won't be able to buy very much before the card is "maxed out" and useless. But whoever controls the repository storing all of your transactions can do you immeasurable harm (!) especially if the government gets their hands on your data.

What happens if some automated pattern-matching algorithm decides that your purchases indicate that you may be a terrorist, or a sex offender, or a money launderer, or some category of evil-doer that has yet to be invented? How will you answer when some future court demands "if you are innocent, then how do you explain these purchases from ten years ago?"

You think this is far fetched? Then you must not have noticed the passage of the Patriot Act. Or the fact that thousand dollar bills are no longer made. Or the destruction of "client privilege" between you and your lawyer, accountant and banker. Or the increasingly odious restrictions on travel... Need I go on?

Everything I have said about credit cards is many times worse with RFID.

In the age of information, privacy is the only way to defend your freedom.

It is not criminals you need to fear. It is the government. And more so every day.

Regarding the statement

"Everything I have said about credit cards is many times worse with RFID."

Here is some food for thought, copied from the link in techno's post above.

Certain aspects of the technology – notably the small size of the tags and the ability to uniquely identify an object – pose potential threats to individual privacy. These include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:

a) Surreptitious collection of information. RFID tags are small and can be embedded into/onto objects and documents without the knowledge of the individual who obtains those items. As radio waves travel easily and silently through fabric, plastic, and other materials and are not restricted to line of sight, it is possible to read RFID tags sewn into clothing or affixed to objects contained in purses, shopping bags, suitcases, and more. Tags can be read from a distance, by readers that can be incorporated invisibly into nearly any environment where human beings or items congregate. It may not, therefore, be readily apparent that RFID technology is in use, making it virtually impossible for a consumer to know when or if he or she is being "scanned";

b) Tracking an individual's movements. If RFID tags are embedded in clothing or vehicles, for example, and if there is a sufficiently dense network of readers in place, it becomes possible to track those tags in time and space. Applications to do just this, using a combination of RFID and Global Positioning System technology, are being proposed by RFID vendors. If the tags can then be associated with an individual, then by that association the individual's movements can be tracked. For example, a tag embedded in an article of clothing could serve as a de facto identifier for the person wearing it. Even if information about the tagged item remains generic, identifying items people wear or carry could associate them with, for example, particular events like political rallies or protests;

c) Profiling of individuals. When using bar codes, one bottle of water has the same barcode as all other bottles of water of that particular brand. RFID technology potentially enables every object on earth to have its own unique ID (i.e., each bottle of water would have a unique identifier). The use of unique ID numbers could lead to the creation of a global item registration system in which every physical object is identified and linked to its purchaser or owner at the point of sale or transfer. If these unique identifiers are associated with an individual (by linking through a credit card number, for example), then a profile of that individual's purchasing habits can easily be created;

d) Secondary use (particularly in the sense of limiting or controlling such use). The creation of profiles and the tracking of movement can reveal a great deal of additional information. For example, the revelation of personal information such as medical prescription or personal health histories could have an impact on the availability of insurance or employment; and

e) Massive data aggregation. RFID deployment requires the creation of massive databases containing unique tag data. These records could be linked with personal identifying data, especially as computer memory and processing capacities expand. This, in turn, could facilitate any of the practices listed above.

So if someone litters the beach with a bottle, we need just get the RFID and send a littering citation and fine to the perp. Trash receptacles would have readers for repaying deposits to the back account, even cigarette butts can be dealt with.

This is what happens in Japan, on a personal level. If you toss a piece of paper away any passer by who sees this will pick it up and give ti to you on the premise that you accidentally dropped it and you are not a litter bug. The sure knowledge of being caught and that it would cost you $$ would act to correct some people.

Singapore is similar but with extremely hefty fines. We should do it here as well, Germany is a land of litter bugs!!!

I would wish that litter was checked for fingerprints, with the fine being double the cost of identifying the perpetrator......that would stop them dead.....

aurizon:

But even such invasive applications of RFID don't go far enough, do they?

If we kept everyone in PREVENTIVE CUSTODY, then no one would ever break any rule, no matter how small. Given the content of your posts, aurizon, and the way you totally ignored the issues of freedom and privacy outlined above, you probably think this would be a good idea.

Forcing people to comply with your idea of proper conduct at all times -- even in the privacy of their own bathrooms -- is much more important than preserving freedom and privacy in your view… isn't that right, aurizon?

Do you not value your freedom of privacy at all? Or is it that you want to deprive everyone else of theirs?

Welcome to the Borg… brought to you by people who think like aurizon.

Yes, welcome to the Borg… brought to you by people who think like aurizon... and Andy Germany.

Come on, you guys, give your heads a shake!

Have you no feelings, no compassion, no shred of human decency?

What kind of cold, sterile, INHUMAN world would your way of thinking lead to?

Your cure is much, much worse than the disease!!!

What has human decency to do with being a litter bug? Why should everyone need to go into protective custody?

I am sure that some of the litter that gets blown about by the wind here is also not good for the environment and it looks so awful too.....I am also sure that it reflects on the level of upbringing of the people concerned!!! In a negative fashion of course!!

It is completely unnecessary for the few that do it, to them to dump the contents of their ashtrays and other litter into the environment......when it really should be taken home and placed in the trash there....which is why visiting Singapore (and similar countries) is so pleasant!!! No trash on the streets....

If you support the way our environment is being trashed by a few irresponsible, badly brought up people, on the grounds of human freedom/decency then I feel that you and I have little in common with another.....other than CR4 of course!!

Or have I completely misunderstood what you were trying to tell us?

Andy:

You are right -- there is no legitimate connection between littering, freedom and human decency. That connection was created when aurizon said that RFID should be used to identify and punish people who litter, and you agreed with him. In order for this to work, RFID would have to be so widely deployed that privacy would become impossible, and therefore freedom would be destroyed. Therefore the very concept of using RFID for such a purpose flies in the face of human decency. Yet neither of you seemed to realize or care about the larger consequences, or maybe you just didn't take the danger seriously.

Ray8 understood my point perfectly, and has explained it very well.

Both the UK and the US are treating their citizens more like chattel every day. Only their methods differ. Through the ever increasing use of surveillance, biometrics and other invasive technologies, freedom is being progressively destroyed throughout the western world. And RFID, as you say, is just one more step down the slippery slope. At the bottom of that slope there is only slavery, ruthlessly enforced by the tireless spying of billions of tiny machines from which there is no escape because they are everywhere.

You point out the pathologically controlling behavior of contemporary governments, yet you say that all this surveillance and invasion of privacy makes you feel safer. You look to your government to keep you safe from those who might commit crimes. But what will you do when that government begins to commit atrocities? How will you defend yourself and your family when the control is so tight that you can't even litter without being found out?

Rights to "privacy" and "freedom" do not give you a license to break the law. Laws against littering public spaces protect the rights of everyone.

Respondents who support littering should work to change the law in their country. Don't complain about enforcement measures.

No one here has written one word in support of littering.

The point is that loss of freedom is too high a price to pay for clean streets.

Using a method that *unavoidably* destroys everyone's freedom and civil liberties to cure such minor ills as littering and shoplifting is as insanely evil as amputating your leg to cure a hangnail on your little toe.

No doctor who suggests the latter can be trusted to practice medicine, and no government which proposes the former can be trusted to enact or enforce the law.

Don't complain about enforcement measures??????????

Don't be such a fascist!!!!!!!!!!

Gentlemen who appear only as Guests - we on CR4 cannot tell you apart, who is saying what and when.....so do not be upset too easily.....a Guest is a Guest is a Guest....

So please if you want to be taken seriously, please be so kind as to put your money where your mouths are and log on under a proper name, with full personal details, but ONLY IF you are convinced that you are correct in your assumptions, otherwise just remain as a Guest please. That still tells us a lot!

Furthermore, I still cannot fathom out the brain of someone (not that I really want to understand it!) who links littering with loss of personal freedom......Which of course does explain why we have such awful litter problems in some parts of this world.

I now understand they are all fighting for freedom of speech in the only way they know and understand! - and if I believed in that too, I would probably also become a litter Bug instantly....! but I don't.....! I DO KNOW BETTER......

Come on Guys & Girls, drop your litter everywhere and show your full support for all forms of freedom!!!!! Fight world anarchy with candy wrappers NOW!!!

Sorry guys--new computer that didn't automatically log me in. Hopefully this is fixed now.

Are police "fascists" when they use DNA evidence to catch rapists? Are the fingerprints that convict a burglar the hallmarks of "fascism?" The use of RFID's to remove the anonymity that litterbugs and other criminals currently enjoy is not fascism but another tool that society uses to enforce the laws that we all agree to

Having freedom also means being accountable for your actions to society. Laws are how we codify the social contract. In a "free" society, laws are enacted by the consent of the governed. Enforcement is how people who break the social contract are corrected.

Thus, if you don't like the laws then work to change them. Don't complain about law enforcement measures.

Brilliant habib, just Brilliant!

Are police "fascists" when they use DNA evidence to catch rapists? Are the fingerprints that convict a burglar the hallmarks of "fascism?" The use of RFID's to remove the anonymity that litterbugs and other criminals currently enjoy is not fascism but another tool that society uses to enforce the laws that we all agree to

So lets consider the next step in RFID tags, Implanting in humans. Sounds like a good idea, we already do it to our animals and it works great and hundreds of pets are reunited with their owners every year in the U.S. alone. But now lets go back in history a few decades and take RFID technologies with us. Let say we give it to our good ole buddy Hitler. Think of how many more Jew's he could have gassed and fried if he would have been a little more organized and able to track them and their sympathizers. Some of you may like this idea but I personally do not.

RFID is a great tool but as with anything it can be abused. I would much rather tell my neighbor to pick up his trash than to rely on the government to do it.

I think I understand your point. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" The more power governments/corporations have to track our movements, habits, etc... the more tempting it will be to use this information to control, influence, and ultimately subjugate the population.

The technology is here and being implemented now. Fingerprints, DNA, face recognition technology, and other tools are available not just to law enforcement but also to dictators and thugs of all kinds.

Therefore, it becomes even more important that ordinary citizens participate in government to make sure that governments are accountable and that the laws we live by are laws we can live with.

habib:

You keep repeating, "work to change the law" and "don't complain about law enforcement measures."

But in this case it is precisely the proposed enforcement measures that are laden with evil!

There is nothing wrong with a law against littering. But to use such a law as an excuse to deploy a technology which will *necessarily* lead to the complete destruction of privacy and freedom is to turn the social contract into the instrument by which the people are enslaved. This is the ultimate betrayal of the people.

You propose the use of RFID to remove the anonymity of litterbugs and other criminals. If we permit this to happen, then nothing can prevent the use of RFID to remove the anonymity of *everyone*, everywhere, at all times. This would turn society into a prison.

And therefore such enforcement measures must be resisted at all costs by all responsible members of society.

Hello "Guest"

Not sure where you live but we have a thing called "democracy" around here. Laws are made either by direct election or by elected representatives. Thus, the laws that we live by have the approval of at least a majority of concerned voters.

The police are our police enforcing our laws and answerable to civilian authority. If they exceed their authority it is our fault.

Anyone who doesn't like the way things are being run has the right to either initiate a ballot measure or run for office themselves. It isn't always perfect but it seems to work ok. If the laws of the land don't agree with you and you can't get anyone to agree with your point of view, you can either accept the situation with the satisfaction that you have tried your best, accept the consequences of disobedience (up to and including death), or emigrate to a more congenial location.

It is a truism that governments rule by the consent of the governed. Don't blame "them" and "they" for the loss of your freedom. Taking responsibility for your actions and circumstances is the hallmark of a free person. Thus, maintaining your freedom is your responsibility.

The ultimate betrayal is to see evil and do nothing--get involved or quit complaining!

habib:

Get involved? I am already involved. Bringing awareness to engineers is a very effective way of being involved.

If engineers realize the evil inherent in technologies like RFID, and refuse to implement them, then there may still be some hope of turning the tide before freedom is completely destroyed.

habib:

It must be nice to live in a truly democratic place... next you'll be telling me that you have true capitalism there, as well. Please tell me where that is, so I can move there!

Here in the Western world, we have fascism and oligopoly, masquerading as democracy and capitalism. Big business and big government are in collusion to keep the people ignorant, frightened and impoverished. They have destroyed the school system and concentrated control of the press and the media in the hands of a few powerful industrialists, so the people have no hope of obtaining objective information; only propaganda is available to the people and thus their vote has become a meaningless joke.

They steal from us constantly, but they call it "taxation" and "privatization" so it is not technically illegal. However, any attempt by the people to defend themselves against these predations is defined as a serious crime. The police exceed their authority all the time, and they don't even feel the need to be subtle about it any more because they have taken our guns away.

...we have fascism and oligopoly, masquerading as democracy and capitalism...Big business and big government are in collusion to keep the people ignorant, frightened and impoverished. They have destroyed the school system and concentrated control of the press and the media in the hands of a few powerful industrialists...

This is a powerful statement, to some degree (oligopoly) I concur, only the strive to self determination, and education, and emancipation is individual.

An attempt to mass organise a change is likely to be doomed because usually one corrupt system is replaced by another, no matter how sublime the initial ideal was.

Take 20th century socialism as an example. There, top ranking party members functioned as oligarchy, and mass-robbed the people.

As I said, the individual, not mass organised, strive to those freedoms and qualities is more likely to succeed because powerful forces in society are usually blind to individual strive.

They inherently focus their attention and effort, on mass organisation, such as a loud-mouth opposition, especially in the media.

I for one, wouldn't be surprised to learn that this advice, would prompt more objection from educated government official, than your cry-from-mountain-top, simply being more effectively subversive, in that specific sense.

They find it easier to confront movements, and loud mass organisation. It being a clear, vivid, slow, combersome target.

...Think of how many more Jew's he could have gassed and fried if he would have been a little more organized and able to track them and their sympathizers...

I did imagine it as a matter of fact, just as you stated.

Take my mother's family, as an example: She was born in Austria, and was five years old, when the Nazis annexed the country in the "Anschlus". Her brother was three, her father was twenty seven, his wife - my grandma, was twenty six.

Everybody around him said relax, they'll never harm the Jews, in spite of the vulgar rhetorics already used by then.

He took it on face value, and fled to Bratislava, later to Palestine.

By then, people in Europe, all people, not just Jews, had compulsory ID cards, and needed a signed pass to move between districts inside a country. He managed to flee nevertheless, with his immediate family. He took the Nazi rhetoric on face value.

Having biometrics then would have been horrified. None the less, I maintain it's a compromise between freedom and survival, a trade off somewhere along the line. Never an easy choice.

I agree, it was a terrible time. I was born in 1939 and my father was a stained glass artist who use do buy his glass from a Mr Berger in Poland before the war. Mr Berger and his family fled to the South and some how exited from Spain?? vague details when I was 3-4 and they arrived in the UK as displaced persons. They were then asked if they knew anyone in the UK. They said yes, my Father, and they asked if we could take them in for the duration. They being Mr and Mrs Berber, Peter and Paul and Mr Bergers mother. My dad was away in Burma and our house was bombed out and we were living in our country house in Wales. Me, my mother and the 5 Bergers.

When I entered public school I spoke both Yiddish and English, as they spoke little English and the boys were 2 and 4 years older than I was and chattered away and it was the only way I could get a word in edgewise.

So I gained an appreciation of Judeism that few of my compatriots did. As I grew older, they moved out after the war and could not go home, so they started a fluorescent lighting business, as that was glass based, and they did well. We came to Canada in 1948 and I have never seen them from that day to this, although my parents corresponded until Mr Berger passed away in the 70's.

I have often wanted to make a trip there and try to look up Peter and Paul. They would be in their 70's.

aurizon:

Having lived though such terrible times, how can you fail to see that the destruction of privacy and freedom inherent in the widespread deployment of RFID will necessarily lead to times which will be much, much worse?

I think there is a lot of hysteria about it. Remember the hysteria about bar codes. That turned out to be silly.

Now all this crap about RFID is just as silly.

As soon as someone does an inapporiate thing with RFID he will get slapped as it is against the laws of privacy to gather others data and do anything with it that differs from your stated purposees.

So people who do not want the RFID chip to leave the shop alive will surrender the benfits of the chip leaving alive. Bear in mind that they really only have product data on them at the start. Why would they put your name on them? If a deposit tracking feature is implemented. Tie it to a card that has no name. Just stored deposit refund cash and a PIN. You want to spend it, just insert the card and pin. And so on.

The cat sits motionless by the mouse hole, patiently waiting for the mouse to become complacent. The cat will only pounce when the mouse has become so careless that escape is impossible.

When bar codes were implemented, there wasn't enough processing power or data storage capacity available to abuse them. But that was then and this is now. Processors are a million times faster, disk storage is a million times bigger, and RFID tags can be read remotely.

Oh look, there goes a person wearing shoes number x, pants number y, shirt number z, etc, etc, etc... all those items were purchased by credit or debit cards belonging to... aurizon! I wonder what aurizon is doing in this part of town, at this time of night. Just out for a walk? Sounds like a terrorist's cover story. You had better come with me... for your own safety, of course...

...Sounds like a terrorist's cover story. You had better come with me... for your own safety, of course...

All of a sudden the over informed police becomes idly ignorant of the whereabouts of Mr. aurizon?

Or are you talking Mafia style? here is aurizon let's mug his new bought shoes?

Scare-tactics to manipulate the self-convinced?

I don't think it will amount to much. Each to their own call, man

Survival has no value without freedom!

Given the story you just told, Yuval, surely you must understand this.

AC,

I was only saying that this is a tough call. Here in Israel, nearly everyone has a GPS cellphone. check it out.

And Israel is hardly the size of Kent.

There in Europe, even is Scotland, situation might call for other considerations.

What I said is, that's a priority clash. Weigh and decide.

Andy,

It is not littering per say that is an affront of freedom. It is these invasive monitoring schemes being proposed to remedy it. I do not want to live in a world where my every move is being registered in some grand database for the perusal of who knows what agency or purpose.

Technology has a lot of upsides, but if we become obsessed with its capabilities we will let the obsessors into our private lives and they will find ways to herd us.

The use for littering control is not at all invasive. You cannot even see them unless you look hard. If you toss some litter it is an invasive act you perpetrate on the public domain. If a cop picks that up and reads who it came from = a fair cop. You could avoid this by taking it home and tossing it there or using a public trash can. Trashcans should be smart so they can read it as you toss it out and erase your data.

The use of this for trash is 10 years away, but it must come. Do you know the staggering size of the litter problem in the USA and other places??

It might come to Disneylands first

For those who wish we can have litter parks where people can go with unlimited free littering. An admission will be charged to maintain the park.

Hi Habib and Aurizon,

Having a traceable record of ones purchases and "trash" is most certainly invasive. One's consumption habits can be used in many ways, some being very invasive.

The temptation we are seeing here is to succumb to the lure of cheap sensors and monitoring devices and to use them to solve society's problems. Certainly there are many good used for all these technologies, but they can also easily (and cheaply) be taken to extremes. As time goes on, the costs will drop and the methods will grow. We must continually resist deploying every that is feasible.

Personally I am very much against littering and am very strongly into recycling. However, I would rather do it under less efficient, but also less invasive methods. My preferred approach is to promote "Social Responsibility". Teach our children to respect the resources they use, and instill in them the feeling that it is expected for everyone to make some effort toward returning unwanted items just as it is accepted that one makes an effort to obtain them. Most importantly, we must teach by EXAMPLE. The social pressures of our shrinking world and tight resources will provide an increasing stimulus for us to seek livable resolutions. I am optimistic that we will find a path that travels down the middle.

I am supportive of fingerprinting, use of DNA identification (but only to prove suspicions), and some degree of profiling. However, I would rather have some criminals escape justice that to implore every conceivable method to catch them. (I have suffered my share of criminal attacks). It is interesting to note that most people accept the concept of "going to war" and risking death and disability in order to preserve their "freedom". Isn't it just as consistent to daily risk an occasional "unpunished injustice" in order to enjoy this same freedom?

Invasive?? How??. You control that item, you own it. You throw it away properly and there is no track. You toss it on the street and you are held accountable. Also if a burglar or your daughters boyfriend tosses it as well.

Police are intrusive.

Remember the store give you a receipt for your cash. They know what they own and have sold you. Anyone in line also sees what you buy. Who cares if I buy condoms or catfood as long as I dispose of the item none need know (except the storekeeper). This might leads to problems at fleamarkets as the seller will have title to all his boxes and cartons, so he has to be liable for your tossing. or get your ID.

Still, what is it worth to get rid of litter?

"The use for littering control is not at all invasive."

Do you believe, for one second, that RFID can be limited to harmless uses?

Please review post #4 for a summary of how RFID will be used if we permit it to become widespread... and then stop pretending that the issue is littering. Framing the discussion in such terms only serves to distract the attention from the enormous damage that will inevitably be done to everyone's quality of life if we permit RFID to proliferate.

If we allow RFID to be deployed so widely that it can be used to police littering, then no force on earth will be able to prevent its use for the enslavement of the people.

The scuttling guest, from under rock to log to stone, never seen or heard, no-one sees or knows what he does or where he goes.

The question is:- what is worse, the scenario have fear of the one you live in now?

The ad hominem attack is the last resort of one who knows he has no valid argument to present.

Andy, don't mind that, I think I know who it is. Look elsewhere in this thread.

Some frustrated members turn into momentary guests to unload.

Let it be, it's a part of the game / comes with the territory.

I usually just answer (if I want to), for no-matter-who.

When I want to, I reply to views, not people.

Thank you, Yuval.

Who I am is of no consequence here. All that matters is the content of my posts. My message is clear, I hope, and urgent:

Information technology presents a greater danger to human freedom than any that has ever existed before, at any time in history. We, as engineers and scientists, are uniquely positioned to assist or prevent the enslavement of humanity through the use of information technology.

Do not shirk your responsibility to protect yourselves and your loved ones!

Do not give up your freedom for anything!

Let me reiterate: Here in Israel, there's a given situation, in which the citizens took matters to their own hands, and they and their cars can be pinpointed to within 50 yard radius 24-seven, all-year-round. I'm fully for it. For the freedom and protection of my loved ones. HERE.

You may have it otherwise, at yours, so you make your call accordingly: Do you have prowling terrorists looking for sporadic civilian targets? Check. Do you have ballistic missile barrages on your cities? Check. Have your public transportation bombed by suicide fanatics? Check. Do your local math, and act accordingly.

What's there to ponder so much? Give your local situation, your given means.

Pub bombing in Ireland and no private GPS? Tough shit.

What do you want me to say?

"they and their cars can be pinpointed to within 50 yard radius 24-seven, all-year-round"

I fail to see how this protects your loved ones from prowling terrorists, ballistic missiles or suicide bombers. It may contribute to the safety of your government -- but it *certainly* bears no resemblance to freedom for your people! At best, what you describe amounts to something like protective custody. And it's only a matter or time before the custodians forget or neglect to be protective!

I would never let my loved ones live in such a place. I would send them away. And if I did not have a life-and-death reason to stay, I would go with them.

It means that in any given point of the year you may immediately locate your love ones, call them, and act accordingly. you give up your privacy to the degree of being located and communicated in any case of emergency.

Or did you mean to ask: "how would your GPS cellphone able to stop an incoming missile?"

Then let me ask this: "How will your CR4 discussion here will create the specific Anti-RFID technology to elevate world attention to freedom rights?"

Freedom rights with anti-technology gizmos? Build Anti-RFID interceptor to elevate universal freedom rights? What?

What next? Moral-conscious-transceiver?

This is a social and political call, not technological. Is it not clear enough?

I guess I was hoping that, if engineers were aware of the enormous potential for harm inherent in technologies like RFID, they would react by refusing to implement such technologies. If engineers won't build it, politicians can't abuse it. Problem solved.

However, judging by the responses I'm getting, I'm reminded once again of the Borg: resistance is futile. We will be assimilated.

Yes, where were we when the book came along. With prescient view forward we would never have suffered most of the woes of man...

Hi "Guest"

You have made some good points in this blog, and is seems that your insistence on remaining anonymous is a "living out" the need to maintain one's privacy. However, it is also annoying to many of us in this blog. We can confuse you with other "guests". It also feels like we are listening to a voice in the shadows, which reduces the impact of your arguments. We are still human here, and we prefer to develop relationships.

Often a middle road is the best path between extremes. We are not asking for a total database on you. You could enhance the delivery of your views by bending a little ...taking some risk by sharing some identity with this group.

Ray8:

Thank you. You, too, have made some very good points in this thread.

Note, however, that the very fact that you can comment on my posts, taken as a group, shows that you have enough information to identify me and relate to me within the context of this discussion. And there is no justifiable reason to identify me oustide of that context.

We are here to exchange ideas. The validity of these ideas is entirely independent of whose ideas they are. Therefore, to be quite honest with you, all this sudden focus on who I am alarms me. It is sad that aurizon sees no value in privacy except hiding criminal intent. In contrast, I see no reason to care about who I am except to facilitate a personal attack, or to draw attention away from the points I am making. Neither motive is legitimate in my view.

Simply put, I am a very private person. I'm sorry if that bothers you. When I was a young man, everyone valued their privacy as much as I still do. Over the years, I have watched with amazement and dsimay as the media have subtly but relentlessly "taught" the majority of people to distrust the very privacy they need to keep their freedom intact.

I'd only vote for our freedom of choice, that's all.

It is because different situations call for different measures, and once your offered ban is absolute, this choice is taken away, leaving you exposed with less means and options.

Would you absolutely ban private transportation, to allow for reduced air pollution? What then of family emergencies? what of places with poor public transportation, rural areas, etc?

Here, the same: Let me have the informed choice.

My disagreeing with you, doesn't automatically means I'm wrong.

Get used to it: Other people may indeed have, and be allowed to have, an opinion different than yours. Is it so hard to swallow?

What's the crusade here? You really seem like a nice person.

So, please, by all means, tell us the horrid experience which led you into this crusade.

Let me assure you, we are all ears.

Yuval:

Everyone's right to make private choices are precisely what I wish to defend, and what the loss of privacy will inevitably destroy. But I don't support choices that impose unacceptable and unavoidable conditions on other people. If you want to use RFID, privately, to keep track of your family or whatever, I have nothing to say about that. It's none of my business. But if RFID is implemented by big business / big government, then everyone will be living in a fishbowl. And, in addition to the dangers I've pointed out repeatedly, those of us who find such a life unacceptable will be unable to avoid it. This is simply wrong, in any event.

In case I haven't been clear enough already, let me give you a concrete example of how information can be abused by government to rob people of their freedom. In the USA, there is a list of "performance enhancing drugs," possession and/or use of which is defined to be illegal. Very severe jail sentences apply. Whatever one may think of such a law or such a list, here is the real evil: any compound can be added to the list at any time, and users of that compound can be charged with a crime *retroactively* -- even though it was perfectly legal at the time they used it! There is no way to protect yourself against such abuses of power... except to keep your information to yourself.

Yuval:

You write "tell us the horrid experience which led you into this crusade." I find this request, and the unspoken assumptions underlying it, to be bizarre.

I have already detailed my motives. See, for example, posts #54 and #86. There is nothing more to it than that.

Can you not believe that someone might simply be concerned about the direction in which society is being pushed? Do you really think that there must be some hidden personal agenda behind it? How sad.

O.K, Maybe I was overtaken by your zeal, and overshot my point with the crusade shit.

To the point of you question here, I really do believe that people in the free world, adopt ideologies as a reaction to personal experience, and I see nothing wrong with it.

Better this, than being force-fed an ideology, in an ambiance of fear and coercion, such as in dictatorships.

I really had no intention of turning this into a personal thing, it really was sincere genuine curiosity.

Hey... no worries.

It's easy to get a little carried away when a topic is important. I've done my best to express my ideas clearly, to support them with reason based on facts and tempered with compassion, and to remain civil throughout, but I must admit that I have also gotten a bit impatient with some people who seem to stubbornly misunderstand simple arguments, deliberately confuse the issue, and wilfully ignore the most important aspects of the matter.

At such times we need to cut each other some slack in order to keep moving towards understanding.

Andy:

You say that you cannot understand someone "who links littering with loss of personal freedom," so let me be perfectly clear:

It is RFID that destroys freedom.

It doesn't matter why the RFID is deployed. If we permit it to become widespread, privacy and freedom will cease to exist. Not maybe. For sure.

As already stated in #29 above:

Using a method that *unavoidably* destroys everyone's freedom and civil liberties to cure such minor ills as littering and shoplifting is as insanely evil as amputating your leg to cure a hangnail on your little toe.

No doctor who suggests the latter can be trusted to practice medicine, and no government which proposes the former can be trusted to enact or enforce the law.

Hi Guest. We already have that problem here in the UK. We were issued with a credit card or a bank card with an inbuilt chip in it, they said that it would help in the event it was lost, stolen or otherwise, they said it couldn't cloned! Guess what, thousands of these new credit and bank cards are cloned every year. It cost me a lot of time and money trying to prove that I had not taken £700. out of my account somewhere in Romania. I have never been to Romania, let alone taken that amount of money out of my account in one week. I now never use my credit card or bank card without going into a bank to it. Spencer.

I do not agree with the "Privacy problem" being overblown. In the U.S. identity theft if a major problem. Very little of our personal information is private anymore which has made it easy for criminal to steal from us. RFID tags if abused as the U.S. social security number has been will create a fanastic way for criminals to steal identities.

Very true, but the threat of *systematic* abuse by big government and big business is way more serious than *random* abuse by small-time criminals.

I just have two comments:

1) While I am disgusted with litter, I could never trade my freedom to reduce it. I think the best way to fight litter is through education to raise the level of social awareness. This needs to be done as children are growing up. The results will probably never reach 100%, but would get close after passing a "critical mass". Show your distain for litter by occasionally picking up other peoples litter.

2) It is interesting (frightening?) to note that The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has an ongoing program to build an all-inclusive database on every aspect of a person's life, and make it searchable. The project was originally named "Total Information Awareness", but after negative reactions it was renamed to "Terrorism Information Awareness".

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/05/58909

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2003/05/58936

Of course they state that this is just an exercise and has no particular application. Beware!

Suddenly I get the impression that we are not quite so far apart, but I have to take you to task about:-

"1) While I am disgusted with litter, I could never trade my freedom to reduce it."

Why even bother to link the two together? What has one to do with the other?

Its simply bad manners and a complete lack of proper upbringing!

Also ANY country that REQUIRES its citizens to have ID cards has already broken the ice that RFID makes others afraid of.......

As far as I am aware, the UK is now the only modern culture country that still does not REQUIRE IDs. There is a move to make them available I believe, but only for those who want them....not as a requirement!!!

Now you are I would guess are probably living in the USA......."How's your freedom feeling now?", maybe you should try and emigrate to the UK......

Linking litter to personal freedom is absolutely idiotic......!!! Sorry.

Germans cannot fathom out how the UK ticks on this score of not having ID cards, they ask me how do I identify myself to a Policeman if asked who I am etc., the answers confounds them completely.....

They are even more confounded when I tell them that the same rules apply to them when on a visit to the UK....that really blows their minds!!!

The UK is the next best thing to a free country when it comes to the lack of personal identification needed, once you are in the country or of UK origins.

Though they were one of the first countries to install video surveillance in many places and some murders and other crimes have been cleared up because of that and I sincerely believe that some crimes have not happened as a result.....do they bother normal people going about their normal lives......no of course not......I cannot say that it bothers me to be safe on the streets....but somebody somewhere will always shout BIG BROTHER of course......

Remember, its only because of the USA that the rest of the world has to get its passports changed (if we want to visit the USA on holiday!) to include all this biological data...... I personally have nothing against that as I want to travel as risk free as possible, but I am sure that you are fighting it tooth and nail of course.......not.....

Please get your perspectives right and remember that your country has caused the need for a lot of this checking up with electronics.......and designed a lot of it too!!

Andy Germany,

My Litter vs. Freedom comment was in response to blogs 5, 6 & 8. Of course it is a foolish tradeoff, but I did not make that link, I only responded to it.

Don't hold me to account for any of the breaches of freedom pushed by my country since its capture by the fanatical Bush administration ...I loath their every move!

My impression of the UK is that it is further along the road to snooping and privacy infringement that the US. (though we seem to be following their example). The UK has numerous traffic cameras and vans. I believe they also lead the world in the density of cameras monitoring the streets parking lots and stores. I don't care how innocent my lifestyle is, I would still resent being monitored. However, there is always some room to compromise, so I can accept (but don't really like) cameras in stores to watch for shoplifters.

There is another program funded by DARPA to vastly enhance our ability to monitor ourselves. It uses a science-fiction-like helmet to monitor the brain waves of a camera watchman. A person would be able to monitor screens at a rate of about 10 per second. Maybe soon we will be able to watch every city block! Check it out at:

http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/17067/

We are (soon) BORG!

Ray8:

Thanks for the thoughtful posts. It's comforting to know that more and more people are seeing the danger and taking it seriously. And thanks for those links. They prove that I'm not overstating the case at all.

If the Bush league have their way, we will not just be assimilated, we will be owned. This is no ordinary Borg we're talking about here. This is the Ferengi Borg!

For further comments, see post #18 above.

I personally feel that we have a very, very long road to walk before international terrorism is stamped out, if it ever is....

That said, and although I did not lose any close friends in either 9/11 or the attacks in London, nor of course the abortive attempts in Germany (only because the bombs did not go off!!), I do feel that in the main terrorists are not stupid (just naive and completely misguided and misused from their upper echelons), they learn and often quickly.....we need methods and equipment to find and nullify their possible actions.

This still means that we will probably have more and more attacks on western targets each year from now on as their is a seemingly inexhaustible supply of these people to bomb and shoot in the name of freedom (their version of it anyway....)

I do not give a thought to my safety, I have lived longer than a lot of others anyway, but I fear for the safety of my family, my loved ones, close friends etc.. In fact I do not want to hear of any innocent people dying for the cause of terrorism...

If modern technology can close some of the possible loop holes that these maniacs can use, and severely reduce their numbers and the number of attacks, then so be it. I am sure that enough people will be around to blame whoever is in power that they are not doing enough to protect the population......at the same time complaining that their freedom is being imposed upon!!

But reducing this possible invasion into our private lives AND at the same time protecting us all from Terrorism are two factors that are difficult to bring together I feel.

What do you want, more bombs and attacks or less?

If you plump for less, how are we to achieve that without possible inroads into our private lives......remember, one of the worst terrorist bomb attacks in the USA was actually carried out by bona fide US citizens, born and raised in the USA!!!!! Do you think that their attempt will be the only one by such upright citizens in the years to come?

What about the packages of disease filled envelopes (a white powder of some sort, the details escape me) that were sent to certain people? what about the Uni Bomber? - all bona fide US citizens that did not like some part of your country or its people.

In fact, foreign Terrorists have not perpetrated as much horror on the citizens of the USA as much as your own people have......the UK is not much different or better in a lot of ways....

Your right to carry arms in your Constitution has caused massive killings over many, many years. Why not remove that completely and ban all handguns except for the police and army? The UK has done just that......you get a life sentence for just carrying a handgun in the UK - GREAT! What US President is brave enough to push that thru the courts?

California is going the right way:-

"When the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco earlier this month upheld California's assault-weapons ban, it said the purpose of the Second Amendment was to maintain effective state militias, not to give individual Americans a right to bear arms. Thrilled gun-control proponents claimed a major victory and predicted further victories once the Constitution is eliminated as a barrier to any and all gun controls."

With regard to your own government doing nasty (unspecified) things, then your only recourse is your vote. Vote them out of office.....if a large enough body of people feel the same way, that will happen, if not, you are in the minority.....learn to accept that.

Andy:

You bring up an excellent example. The UK has outlawed guns. And what is the result? The result is that the UK now has the highest rate of *increase* in violent crime of any country in the western world.

When you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.

Meanwhile, Switzerland, where there is at least one gun in every household, has the lowest crime rate. And in the US, the crime rate is *decreasing* fastest in those states that have re-introduced permits to carry a concealed firearm. These facts clearly demonstrate the falsehood of the notion that the government can protect people from criminals. The *only* safety people can count on is that which the create themselves. When law abiding citizens are armed, terrorists and criminals do not attack -- instead, they slink away in search of easier prey.

I do not need or want the government to protect me, or to take care of me in any way. The best thing the government could ever do for me would be to get out of my way and let me take care of myself!!!

As soon as you give up your individual sovereignty and let someone else protect you, they become your custodian. And your continued safety depends on their whim. If they decide to betray the trust you put in them, there is nothing you can do about once you have given up the means of self defense.

Your suggestion that the people can rid themselves of a corrupt government by voting is extremely naïve, to say the least. Remember that Adolph Hitler was elected by the German people. Are you suggesting that the German people could have rid themselves of Hitler by voting him out?

When only the police and the military have weapons, the people are slaves.

Eliminating the Constitution is as a barrier gun controls is a giant leap towards the enslavement of the American people.

Andy:

You ask if I want more bombs and attacks or less.

I strongly disagree with the unstated assumptions underlying this question. Most importantly, I do not believe that allowing the government to take our weapons away decreases the odds of being involved in a terrorist attack. But it does increase the odds of being terrorized by our own government -- in fact, once the people are disarmed it becomes a certainty that they will be abused by their government -- sooner or later. Therefore I would much rather take my chances on the terrorists.

Because it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

With regard to the UK, I am not expecting "instant" results as it would appear some others do.....I am sure that it will take a fair amount of time to filter out the pistols illegally held and to cut illegal imports etc....I do approve of the life sentence for the possession of an illegal weapon (not use!)

As a good pistol shot 40 years ago when serving in the RN, I know that 95% or even maybe more people could not hit a Barn door from 25 yards away with a pistol, so as a form of protection, it is probably very limited.

Then there is the problem that your own weapon could be turned against you, it has happened enough in the past......shooting someone, even someone who has committed a crime is not quite as simple as a lot of people make out, the slightest hesitation on your part (I assume that you are not a gun toting killer!!) could put you at the wrong end of a muzzle......your own!!

I disagree with the point of more violence as a result in the UK, where do you obtain your statistics for that? or are you making the statistics up! please give me a link or two where this point is better explained as I find that very hard to comprehend or believe.

I still believe that it should be possible to fix a lot of problems in this world without force of arms, but there are just not enough people who are fully convinced of that, I know I am a minority in this area, maybe there will never be enough people to make a positive change....

I agree with you on one point, it is better to be armed in the USA than not.....in spite of your implied assumption (?) that the USA is more law abiding than the UK is.....I have been near to several nasty incidents on some short visits to the USA (longest was 3 bouts of a month each and maybe 20 of 2 weeks or less)......but none in either the UK or Germany (25 years living in the UK and 26 years living in Germany, the rest in other countries around the world!) - maybe I was just (un) lucky?

I certainly do NOT feel the need to go armed around the UK (or Germany where I live now)when I visit it, I have always felt perfectly safe there......maybe I just scare aggressors off......its a thought!!!

I can see that it is pointless trying to convince you (and millions more similarly inclined) that there should not be a need for an individual to bear arms for his own protection in a properly civilized country...except when lawlessness has the upper hand of course.....maybe it has happened in several more places around the world than I thought!

As there should not be a need for an ID card, but only the UK is ID card free of all the civilized countries that I know about.....please update me if I am wrong on that point.

Andy:

Why do you keep focusing on criminals? I have argued over and over that it is primarily the *government* against which the people need to have a defence! Criminals act randomly against individuals, whereas the government systematically victimizes the entire population. Out of trumped-up fear of petty criminals and so-called terrorists, the people are allowing the police to turn into a modernized, more polished -- and therefore more insidious -- form of the Nazi SS.

The danger of being enslaved is much more serious than the danger of being robbed.

And if there is a life sentence for mere possession of a hand gun in the UK, then British citizens are already slaves -- in fact if not in name. The men who died saving Britain from the Nazis in World War II might as well not have bothered. The freedom, which they paid for with their lives, has been stolen by their own government. What a disgusting betrayal this is!!!

Regarding the UK's violent crime problem, don't try to sweep it under the rug by claiming that gun laws are reducing the rate of violent crime more slowly than one might want. The truth is the exact opposite: violent crime in the UK has been increasing at an unprecedented rate ever since guns were outlawed 8 years (almost a decade) ago.

In support of my statements about the rate of increase of violent crime in the UK since guns were outlawed, here are a few sources. This information is not hard to find; a Google search on [UK "violent crime" increase "gun control"] returned almost 50,000 results in about a tenth of a second. It took me about 30 seconds more to pick out these links for you.

Here's an old one from the BBC News, July 2001:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

The article is entitled "Handgun crime 'up' despite ban."

It begins with the sentence:

"A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned."

Here's another one from Reason Magazine online, November 2002:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

The article is entitled "Gun Control's Twisted Outcome: Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S."

This is a very thoughtful article, with detailed information and insightful commentary, such as:

"The English government has effectively abolished the right of Englishmen, confirmed in their 1689 Bill of Rights, to 'have arms for their defence,' insisting upon a monopoly of force it can succeed in imposing only on law-abiding citizens. It has come perilously close to depriving its people of the ability to protect themselves at all, and the result is a more, not less, dangerous society."

Finally, here's a very recent one from NewsBusters, April 2007:

http://newsbusters.org/node/12267

The title of the article is

"British Gun Crime up 242 Percent; Post Says 'Laws Seen As Curbing Attacks'"

It quotes some facts that gun-control advocates find embarrassingly difficult to explain, such as:

"The number of crimes in which a handgun was used in England and Wales has risen from 299 in 1995 to 1,024 last year."

And this is precisely the outcome that reason leads us to expect -- yet the liberal media, in this case the Washington Post, continues to mislead people by reporting that gun laws are *seen* as reducing violent crime, when the truth is quite the opposite. And this astonishing fact -- that gun laws are *seen* as reducing violent crime, when in *fact* they increase it -- only shows how effective the propaganda is.

Finally, when you argue that people are too stupid or unskilled to own guns, you treat adults like children. You may as well argue that people should not have hand tools or even cutlery, because they may hurt themselves, or each other. This sort of argument would merely be silly if it were not so insulting to the people.

The reason that guns are outlawed and other dangerous tools are not is very simple: guns can be used to defend the people against victimization by the government, and other tools can not.

That is a very strong point. If you get to weigh critical security issues - against personal freedoms, you get to see that your choice of freedom grades suddenly does have a priority list, not as before, being an absolute human right.

Over the years people tend to forget, that the state, a political state, a state of a nation, is basically a common agreement of individuals in a clan (or a mob if you so choose), a wide clan, to channel their common base of resources, to somewhat better everyone's chances of survival.

In a way, this is the base upon which technology and law exist.

When gathered into a collection of aspects called "a state", inner, aspects conflicts, are inherent, inevitable, immanent.

The question then is of priorities, hence a political system.

Once agreed that priorities breed compromises, the argument come to which against which.

Today's global terror, is no light matter, and by implication threatens our mere survival, big way, call me paranoid, I don't care. "Our" in a global sense, no less.

I personally wouldn't mind to expose my whereabouts, should it make able to pinpoint prowling terrorists, stopping the on their way. Besides, should this become a global, daily reality, the likelihood of such parties cruising, looking for a target, is diminished by large factors. But hey, this is just me, with the urban reality, I have come to know.

It all boils to one against the other, you know, priorities.

Remember, its only because of the USA that the rest of the world has to get its passports changed (if we want to visit the USA on holiday!) to include all this biological data...... I personally have nothing against that as I want to travel as risk free as possible, but I am sure that you are fighting it tooth and nail of course.......not.....

Please get your perspectives right and remember that your country has caused the need for a lot of this checking up with electronics.......and designed a lot of it too!!

Just wondering, which side of the wall were you standing on back in 1988? I also wonder if you remember any of the history of Europe.

Why did you mention 1988?

That would appear to be a strange year to mention......but maybe I am missing something......or would you be trying to refer to the year the east German wall fell? The official date of which was actually the 9th November 1989....

I was working that year you mentioned and also prior to that (and subsequently also!) on both sides of the wall and traveling often on the Transit autobahns thru eastern Germany.......does that help you in any way?

I also know europe's history, not perfectly, but I trust adequately enough.....

My political persuasions are more CDU than FDP.....or SDP...certainly not NPD.......!!! The previous top dog of the NPD lives not 3 miles from where I am sitting right now......

If you know the political parties of Germany then you will now know approximately where I stand....if you don't, I can explain in more detail if needed.....

You answered all my questions quite well and I am sure that we would rarely agree on anything that includes politics or opinions.

...but why did you mention 1988?

An honest answer would only serve to detract further from the original topic from this thread and start war of words that would serve no purpose. As I indicated earlier, from your comments and answers to my questions it is clear that you and I hold very different views and will most likely not agree on much.

Then I will assume that my questions were accurate and too difficult to answer and my points too pointed also!!

A lot of people want to have their cake and eat it.....it is sadly just not possible. I sincerely wish that it was and that you could be completely right.....I wish it for us all, but I also know that I am being totally impractical with this wish....

I disagree about the possibility of a "War of words", we were having a discussion, nothing more, nothing less......I personally never get heated up with a discussion.....

I guess we will all have to wait until Minority report becomes fact to prevent murder before it happens! But I hope to be long gone when that happens! (Not that I think it to be possible, but the film was interesting!)

I pray for us all for only pleasant days to enjoy our freedom with no terrorism to bother us, ever....

Let's forget the police state and Borg stuff.

Littering in public is a public act. It has no right or expectation of privacy.

People litter in public if there is no-one to see them litter = no accountability.

If ever piece of litter had your name and address on it, people would want to protect their privacy by disposing of this in a bin for the purpose.

So put a name and address on every item via RFID. they are gettign cheaper and at some point are cheaper than the cost of collecting the litter = a win.

In fact a system like this need not be 100% to ensure compliance. Just the idea that the police can get your name and address froma bit of litter will have a chastening effect and ensure a higher rate of compliance. Do you want the litter forever? or do you want it stopped??

On the downside, obsessive privacy advocates will assiduously take all their litter home and keep it for life. This will bring a need for large ships to be built for Viking funerals for said people, This shiobuilding industry will bring proeperity and the artificial reefs from those ships will revivify the seas

Well said aurizon.

Yes, by all means, let's forget about the Police State and Borg stuff. After all, the trends in the UK, the EU, and North America which bring these things closer every day are completely unimportant when compared to the evils of littering and shoplifting!

What possible harm could the government do with detailed knowledge of everything you buy, everywhere you go, everything you do? The absolute certainty that this information *will* be abused to bring about a Ferengi Borg Police State is perfectly fine, so long as we can be sure that no litterbug will go unpunished!

WTF?? People can see what you buy and where you go now. RFID has you running scared because you are weak on the concept. It tracks inventory, not people. You can be tracked if you wear a red hat from afar by eyeballs now.

In any event the RFID chip is supposed to be blanked on purchases by the cashier/exit reader and I am sure that regukations ensuring that will be in place. Shoplifted stuff is not, so it can be found if a tracked gets in range.

. The package tracker RFID will be a special beast that stores a number that interfaces with your deposit refund card. This can be just like cash, no name on it. But it will need a PIN so none can steal it.

Now you are back-pedalling... but this is a good thing! The ability to admit one's mistakes is a virtue.

If the chip is "killed" when the purchase is complete, then it can't be used to identify litterbugs. If I have caused you to change your mind about your suggestion (back in post #5) to use these chips in ways that allow any person's movements to be monitored, then I am very pleased.

However, even if the RFID tag is rendered entirely non-functional before you leave the store, that doesn't solve the problems stemming from centralized storage of information about every purchase you make, when and where you made it, and so on.

For various random people to be able to see what you buy and where you go is one thing. It is quite another thing for all that information to be collected in one central place and cross-correlated to form a computer model or your habits and motivations that literally knows you better than you know yourself... and never forgets even the slightest detail.

It is this ability to concentrate and correlate information which is new. It gives rise to entirely new ways for the government to manipulate, abuse and enslave the people.

How about letting individuals decide for themselves, if they want to be RFIDied or not, each to their own choice?

Would that satisfy you, or you would like to prohibit this from their decision too?

Yuval, I would never dream of interfering in any person's right to live as they choose or take whatever measures they deem necessary to defend themselves... provided they don't interfere with my right to do likewise.

It is only when such things as RFID are implemented by big business and/or big government that people's right to choose for themselves is destroyed.

Fair enough

Is your bunker a Faraday cage just in case?

No, I had in mind a chip just for deposits that is not killed unless you redeem the package and then you get a credit on the card, which you can spend for more goods.

There are RFID chips for commodity purchase, clother etc, for which there will be no deposit.

I suppose a 2 section chip can be made?

aurizon:

The difficulty is that there is no way to guarantee that it is, and will always remain, impossible to compromise the anonymity of the person doing the purchasing or redeeming.

As long is this anonymity cannot be guaranteed in perpetuity, the potential exists for abuses due to centralized correlation of information. And any such potential will eventually be actualized by some sneaky cabal of fascists.

Anonymity? is that the holy grail? Ever hear of "know your client"

In the good old days you bought face to face in the local milieu, and all were known by all. Now we are anynymous by volume. Who bothers unless you are wanted for a crime.

I see this strong desire for anonymity as the hallmark of a person with criminal intent or action who fears being caught

aurizon:

If you think that privacy has no value other than to hide criminal intent, then you have closed your mind to everything I have written.

The key point, expressed clearly in post #64 above, is that the ability to concentrate and correlate information like never before gives rise to entirely new ways for the government to manipulate, abuse and enslave the people.

If you don't see that anonymity is the only way for private citizens to protect themselves against this, or if you don't think it is desirable for private citizens to protect themselves against this, then I don't know what to say to you, except:

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

This set of worries can generally be relaxed with wider application of finger-print identifier (as currently applied in IBM's laptops) or in the future to come some other biometric apps. Ours is the fear of abusing our stolen identity, to act in our false behalf.

When so applied, and we are assured or secured, from theft of identity, we have no grave fear for our privacy. Or are we?

If not so, it's a conflicted role which needs to be relaxed with a compromise.

I can hardly see a third way.

What scares me the most is that so many seemingly intelligent people readily belittle the dangers while championing the positives. If this trend continues we will become enslaved by our beloved technologies before we really know how profound they are.

Technology is bursting like a supernova while civilization still peers from the cave!

What I have read here are well thought out arguments and points of view coming only from people who have signed onto CR4 with their names.

I see mostly panicky, misinformed, made up nonsense from people who sign on as Guests.

So I have decided for me personally, that I will not answer, heed or even read anymore Guest additions to any CR4 Blog. If they are not willing to be identified (it has just struck me, terrorists work in a similar manner!) up front, then I am not in the slightest bit interested in what they say.

I would like to thank most kindly people like Habib, Aurizon & Ray8 for their well thought out views, (If I have forgotten anyone else please accept my complete apologies.)

Furthermore, due to the fact that the die hard Guests:- 'cannot see the wood for the trees', I am unsubscribing from this Blog in the next 24 hours as I am heartily sick at reading such rubbish they are writing. I am giving up.

We will have to see how Governments control RFID over the next few years and vote them out if anything untoward happens. I cannot see that it will happen so, but I am at least willing to sit on the sidelines and follow progress.

If one terrorist or one murderer or one child molester (or one litterer?) is caught and fully and properly punished for his actions against humanity, I will be very happy. But it could be a whole lot more.....

Andy:

You resort to name-calling as you beat your retreat.

You really are a sore loser, aren't you?

Andy:

You resort to name-calling as you beat your retreat.

You really are a sore loser, aren't you?

While I do not agree with Andy on many points I do agree with his assessment of some of the guests that posted. I will also stand beside him because he is willing to identify himself when he speaks.

Andy did resorted to minor name calling but so did you which makes you a hypocrite. Please review the link with defines the word hypocrite before claiming name calling on my part.

There is a big difference between name-calling and calling a spade, a spade.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Andy:

It is better that ten guilty men should go free than that one innocent man should be imprisoned.

Lose sight of this principle and your legal system becomes inhuman.

Dear Anonymous Guest,

Given all your invested energy in this thread alone, not to mention others, wouldn't it be simpler to register and appear?

Then:

Why be so personal? Can't you except anyone disagreeing with your imposed?

When you finger someone, you triple-finger yourself. look at your pointing hand and see for yourself.

Let go, we're here to exchange views, not be in a contest with you, for anything you might imagine.

What's there to hide?

No one will bite you, rest assured

That is a simplistic PC comment. I want those ten jailed and I want the system to assess the jailed innocent on appeal.

aurizon:

Your seem to hold a naïve belief that governments are honest and trustworthy. How can you believe such a thing? Don't you read the news?

Here are a few thoughts for you:

Whatever power you give to the good cops, goes to the bad ones, too. Never forget that.

-- Phillip J. Birmingham

You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.

-- Lyndon B. Johnson

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

-- Justice Louis Brandeis

I have met the government and he is us.

The government is large and inept and any such secret is not keepable, it is leakable.

You seem to be a paranoid schizophrenic with delusions of persecution

aurizon:

Do you trust the system?

If so, have you been living under a rock?

Which do you think typical bureaucrats would rather do: admit they had mistakenly imprisoned an innocent man, or justify themselves with rationalizations, deletions and distortions of fact?

Just for example, consider the wave of "satanic ritual abuse" convictions in the 1980's. There is now good reason to believe that none of those alleged crimes ever happened. Let me repeat that: none of it ever happened. It was a wave of witch hunts triggered by the publication of a book called "Michelle Remembers," which has since been proven to be fraudulent.

Hundreds of people in the USA, Canada, New Zealand, and other countries were falsely convicted based on fabricated testimony. In many cases, children were pressured to fabricate false accusations by "over-zealous" investigators.

In one case, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled (20 years later) that "the interviews of the children were highly improper and utilized coercive and unduly suggestive methods."

Another case was condemned as "the worst example ever of mental health services being abused by a state ... to control and manage children who have been frightened and coerced into falsely accusing their parents and neighbors of the most heinous of crimes."

Some of these convictions are only now being overturned. Some of these innocent people have spent as much as 20 years in prison, marked as child molesters. Others had already "died in prison" by the time they were exonerated. Do have any idea of the gruesome reality behind a euphemism like "died in prison," when applied to an inmate convicted of molesting children?

To widen the focus beyond child abuse cases, let me refer you to an excellent study conducted at the University of Michigan Law School, entitled "Exonerations in the United States, 1989 Through 2003." You can find a copy of this study at

http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/articles_publications/publications/exonerations_20040419/exon_report.pdf

In addition to the cruelly long time delays involved, the report points out that "courts and prosecutors are exceedingly reluctant to reverse judgments or reconsider closed cases," and concludes that "the total number of miscarriages of justice in America in the last fifteen years must be in the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands."

Your glib statement, aurizon, "I want those ten jailed and I want the system to assess the jailed innocent on appeal," is dangerously out of touch with reality.

Unless, of course, you want to see the police state flourish...

I am not in favor of jailing innocents and something more then possible bad eyewitness testimony needs to be used. These cases show that the use of DNA has freed meny people and the asusmption that there is a similar number of innocents in jail from the other crimes that lack evidentiary merit. SInce little DNA is left in most robberies, that cannot be used to spring them.

I think the system works OK, but a small % get caught wrongly. It does indeed seem to be a small %

No real way to change this unless you impose better evidence rules.

aurizon:

You say we need "better rules of evidence." But the trend over the last 30 to 50 years has been precisely the opposite. One wave of hysteria after another has been trumped up and exploited to weaken rules of evidence, set aside requirements for due process, destroy safeguards against wrongful search and seizure, etc, etc, etc.

Unless you have been living under a rock and paying no attention whatsoever to current affairs, you must have seen these changes. Yet you say "the system works OK."

The system works OK for whom, aurizon? Certainly not for the people.

Andy:

The fact, that you have stubbornly ignored all the real issues in this debate, shows that you have no rational answers for them.

And the fact, that you have used every underhanded debating tactic you could muster to draw attention away from the real issues and have personally attacked those who disagree with you, indicates that you are strongly motivated to promote RFID and care not at all about the harm it will do.

Therefore, you must either be part of the government, or you stand to profit by the introduction of RFID, or you get some kind of thrill at the idea of seeing people punished...

The possiblity that someone like you could get control of the information collected by RFID is the strongest possible argument against deploying the technology.

Thank you for providing a living example of why RDID is so dangerous.