• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Microchip / RFID Implants: Issues, Concerns & Ramifications

Jerry_B said:
Quake42 said:
Jerry - if I had said "That's not about safety - it's about raising revenue", rather than taxes, would you disagree then?

No, because I don't have any problem with the notion that money can be made from anyone who can't stick to the speed limit. If people stick to the speed limit in an area where there are speed cameras, then to all intents and purposes the safety level has increased.

But given finite resources, would it not be better for the speed cameras to be placed in actually dangerous areas rather than places that are likely to raise more money?

And I don't necessarily agree on the safety point. On my North Circular example, people slam on the brakes as soon as they see the cameras. This increases the risk of an accident.

For the record, I *never* speed in built up areas and rarely exceed 80 mph on a motorway - I'm no "boy racer"! I don't have any objection to cameras which are, say, outside schools. But I think it is hard to argue that some of the cameras which have sprung up recently are, frankly, taking the piss.
 
Quake42 said:
I don't have any objection to cameras which are, say, outside schools. But I think it is hard to argue that some of the cameras which have sprung up recently are, frankly, taking the piss.

How?
 
How?

Because the point of the cameras should be to make the roads safer. Speed is a contributing factor in a lot of accidents, although rather fewer than sometimes thought. Putting a camera at the bottom of a hill, immediately after the speed limit has dropped from 50 mph to 40 mph, does nothing to improve road safety. It does, however, do quite a lot to raise cash. If I may use an old-fashioned phrase: It's just not cricket! :)

If the government is serious about road safety I would suggest they insist on all new cars being fitted with alcolocks so that no one over the limit can start them. Simple, sensible and would over time cut drink driving massively. They won't, because it would piss off the car manufacturers.
 
Are there no speed camera signs in the area? I'm not sure if they're always on display. And if people are having to 'slam on the brakes as soon as they see the cameras', doesn't that suggest that they're going a bit too fast anyway? Surely they wouldn't have to do this if they knew to keep under the speed limit?
 
Jerry I think you would understand what Quake is trying to get at if you drove a car.

Seeing as you don't partake in that particular actiivity as I have said before you are going to struggle to see a drivers point of view.

for my view
Speed Camera's generally speaking do not stop accidents as the stats since 1993 have shown.
There has been an increase overall in road deaths.
 
There has also been a fantastic improvement in car design and safety features.

These alone are responsible for saving thousands of lives.

Hey as I say I,m all for safety

Why not limit the speed of cars in 30 and 40 zones so that they can't travel over the speed limit at all ?

no need for speed camera's at all then !!!!!!!!!!!
 
techybloke666 said:
Jerry I think you would understand what Quake is trying to get at if you drove a car.

Seeing as you don't partake in that particular actiivity as I have said before you are going to struggle to see a drivers point of view.

for my view
Speed Camera's generally speaking do not stop accidents as the stats since 1993 have shown.
There has been an increase overall in road deaths.

Do you have the stats - I would be interested to see them.

I do think all of this "obey the law"/"if you can't do the time don't do the crime" type posts are missing the point somewhat. The law should not be imposed from above in that way; it should operate with the consent of the people. Most people would agree that excessive speed when driving, especially in built up areas, is dangerous and should be penalised. I suspect most people would also agree that the two speed cameras I have described - in North London and rural Northumberland - are not positioned to increase road safety but purely as revenue raisers.

My point is illustrated by a court case that was held in South London recently - an individual had been arrested carrying a small craft knife following a routine stop and search during a clamp down on knives. Although the knife was clearly for the man's work (opening packages in warehouses) for some reason a prosecution went ahead. I'm glad to say the jury acquitted him in half an hour or so.

Now I don't know what was going through the jurors' minds, but I should imagine that most of them would be in favour of people being banned from carrying knives in most cases, but would also have the common sense to appreciate when a prosecution was completely over-the-top and inappropriate.

And that's my point really. Someone passing the North Circular camera I described is hardly comparable to someone speeding outside of a school.
 
Quake42 said:
[

I do think all of this "obey the law"/"if you can't do the time don't do the crime" type posts are missing the point somewhat. The law should not be imposed from above in that way; it should operate with the consent of the people. Most people would agree that excessive speed when driving, especially in built up areas, is dangerous and should be penalised. I suspect most people would also agree that the two speed cameras I have described - in North London and rural Northumberland - are not positioned to increase road safety but purely as revenue raisers.

My point is illustrated by a court case that was held in South London recently - an individual had been arrested carrying a small craft knife following a routine stop and search during a clamp down on knives. Although the knife was clearly for the man's work (opening packages in warehouses) for some reason a prosecution went ahead. I'm glad to say the jury acquitted him in half an hour or so.

Now I don't know what was going through the jurors' minds, but I should imagine that most of them would be in favour of people being banned from carrying knives in most cases, but would also have the common sense to appreciate when a prosecution was completely over-the-top and inappropriate.

And that's my point really. Someone passing the North Circular camera I described is hardly comparable to someone speeding outside of a school.

But two wrongs do not make a right - all Law is imposed to some extent from above - or else we have anarchy. Speeding is not a victimless crime - Accidents can happen anywhere including in quiet rural roads - or should we wait til a area is an "accident blackspot" before taking action? To take a extreme example - should we not impose sanctions as a society on murderers because the murderers might not give their consent to being detected? One of the the greatest deterrents to crime is the possibility of getting caught.

-
 
But two wrongs do not make a right - all Law is imposed to some extent from above - or else we have anarchy. Speeding is not a victimless crime - Accidents can happen anywhere including in quiet rural roads - or should we wait til a area is an "accident blackspot" before taking action? To take a extreme example - should we not impose sanctions as a society on murderers because the murderers might not give their consent to being detected? One of the the greatest deterrents to crime is the possibility of getting caught.

True... but I think there is a question as to how effective a law can be when it is regularly broken by millions of people who otherwise consider themselves law-abiding, productive members of society - or indeed whether it should be a law at all.

This is especially true when, as in the case of recreational drug users and small scale drug dealers, there is no victim involved. A lot of people would argue similarly that speeding is a victimless crime. I wouldn't necessarily subscribe to this, but I do think a "facts and circumstances" approach is needed:

- driving at 60 mph outside a school is highly dangerous and the speeder should have the book thrown at him/her.
- driving at 45 mph on the North Circular is not something that anyone should be getting too excited about.
 
Quake42 said:
- driving at 45 mph on the North Circular is not something that anyone should be getting too excited about.

Yes it is, usually it's impossible to get above a crawl... ;)
 
techybloke666 said:
Seeing as you don't partake in that particular actiivity as I have said before you are going to struggle to see a drivers point of view.

I disagree - after all, I still understand the concept behind going too fast or not too fast. Obviously some drivers can't - but somehow we're supposed to have some sympathy for that, and agree that it's part of some plan by the State to curtail individual freedom?
 
techybloke666 said:
Why not limit the speed of cars in 30 and 40 zones so that they can't travel over the speed limit at all ?

no need for speed camera's at all then !!!!!!!!!!!

Why not just take some responsibility for your actions and actually only drive at those speeds in the first place?
 
Quake42 said:
- driving at 60 mph outside a school is highly dangerous and the speeder should have the book thrown at him/her.
- driving at 45 mph on the North Circular is not something that anyone should be getting too excited about.

Perhaps so - but if a driver is legally required not to drive above 40mph in a 40mph zone, they're still breaking the law if they go just a little bit above 40. It may seem piffling because it's 'only 5mph more', but you have to draw the line somewhere - and that line is at 40mph. And if people don't pay attention and go over the limit, then they're going to get fined for it - and they know it. I think too often people are trying to make out that there's no element of choice involved.
 
techybloke666 wrote:
Why not limit the speed of cars in 30 and 40 zones so that they can't travel over the speed limit at all ?

How ? How bout a microchip in every car? Sounds like the same kind of technology that you are so paranoid about in case it leads to surveillance etc etc....

-
 
How ? How bout a microchip in every car? Sounds like the same kind of technology that you are so paranoid about in case it leads to surveillance etc etc....

Now now theres no need for that

how can anyone complain about putting technology to good uses ?

If we can track cars traveling at 320 Kmph then its makes sense to be able to limit speed on certain roads using the same tech.

I know it's possible.

what I was getting at is they won't do sonething like that becaouse it would dry up all the revenue from speeding fines.

And the RFID and GPS are going into the cars anyway why not make better use of it ?
 
Now now theres no need for that

how can anyone complain about putting technology to good uses ?

You have been. We already have technology put to good use. Cameras to deter drivers from speeding and breaking the law.

And the RFID and GPS are going into the cars anyway why not make better use of it ?

Better use for who? Again sounds like the technology creep you keep telling us is so bad.

-
 
techybloke666 said:
what I was getting at is they won't do sonething like that becaouse it would dry up all the revenue from speeding fines.

What's more likely is that people (Clarkson, etc.) will then turn around and say that such measures are a factor of the 'Nanny State', curtailing a driver's freedom to drive as they like (above the speed limit or not). It would probably be very expensive to set up too - so speed cameras come out as the cheaper option. And of course they provide revenue from people who go over the speed limit.
 
Yep Jerry like I said

the gravy train would dry up
it would be expensive to set up
it would need a buy in from car manufacturers

and Clarksons a wanker

have a good day
 
Texans battle RFID-driven black helicopters
Wal-Mart 'awareness-raising' protest
By Lester Haines
Published Wednesday 12th October 2005 12:32 GMT
Get breaking Reg news straight to your desktop - click here to find out how
Anti-RFID protestors will on Saturday descend on a Dallas Wal-Mart to protest against the company's use of RFID chips and alleged corporate plans to use the technology to secretly track consumers.

Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering (CASPIAN) reckons that, contrary to business claims that RFID is simply a way of improving stock control and warehousing procedures, "companies like Procter & Gamble, BellSouth, NCR, Phillips, Intel, Accenture, Texas Instruments, and IBM have blueprinted ways to track consumers and their purchases through 'spychips' in everyday objects slated for the shelves of retailers like Wal-Mart".

Good Lord. That, at least, is according to CASPIAN founder and director Katherine Albrecht, whose snappily-titled book, Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID, issues dire warnings over potential abuses of RFID.

Albrecht explains: "This technology poses serious risks to privacy and civil liberties. We have evidence that major corporations have developed ways to register products to individuals and secretly track them after purchase. Businesses have dismissed consumer concerns by characterizing RFID as an 'improved bar code,' but RFID is far more dangerous.

"These RFID spychips can be read silently from a distance, right through your clothes, wallet, backpack or purse by anyone with the right reader device. Already these companies have developed ways to use RFID tags embedded in credit cards and sewn into clothing to identify and track people."

Yes, the black helicopters are airborne, make no mistake. CASPIAN has targeted Wal-Mart because "it is selling RFID-tagged items in violation of a call for a moratorium by CASPIAN and over 40 other leading privacy and civil liberties organizations".

Accordingly, protestors will gather for the "awareness-raising" Dallas event at which Katherine Albrecht and co-author Liz McIntyre will be available for press interviews and susbsequent abduction by industry spooks fully kitted out in mirrored sunglasses and RFID cranial implants. We do not expect to be hearing from them again. ®

Source
 
But one has to ask how anyone can be usefully tracked (in terms of being an individual) by such of RFIDs...

And, of course, why such nefarious corperations should even bother. Seems yet again to be an idea coming from people with an exaggerated view of their own worth ;)
 
The fact that something as relatively harmless as the IBM advert about RFID causes such a kerfuffle shows I think that far from humanity being branded without a whimper that the issue is causing a heartening distrust.
 
Heckler20 said:
The fact that something as relatively harmless as the IBM advert about RFID causes such a kerfuffle shows I think that far from humanity being branded without a whimper that the issue is causing a heartening distrust.

Oh, I dunno - the reasoning behind such statements as 'sewn into clothing to identify and track people.' seems somewhat flawed. Unless for some reason they're suggesting that clothing manufacturers are suddenly going to take a keen interest in who their customers are and what they're doing from minute to minute.

The anti-RFI lobby have to demonstrate some solid ideas other than some vague 'They're out to get us' type of thing.
 
Jerry_B said:
Heckler20 said:
Oh, I dunno - the reasoning behind such statements as 'sewn into clothing to identify and track people.' seems somewhat flawed. Unless for some reason they're suggesting that clothing manufacturers are suddenly going to take a keen interest in who their customers are and what they're doing from minute to minute.

The anti-RFI lobby have to demonstrate some solid ideas other than some vague 'They're out to get us' type of thing.

Interestingly, I was at a technology meeting with a large UK retailer recently, centred entirely around RFID technology. It was established pretty early on that the manufacturer / reseller couldn't give a toss about what happens to the goods outside of their stores and operational premises, the number one reason they were looking to implement was to prevent pre-display "shrinkage", and curtail shop-lifting once at the display stage of the product's life.
 
Point is, any technology - especially expensive technology - must give some form of value for money.
"They do it just 'cause they can" makes no economic sense.
 
Can the Government and Corporations Track You With SpyChips?
October 27, 2005 10:53 AM EST

Can a microscopic tag be implanted in a person's body to track his every movement? There's actual discussion about that. You will rule on that -- mark my words -- before your tenure is over. - Sen. Joseph Biden, to Judge John Roberts at Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Sept. 12, 2005
Imagine a world of no more privacy, where hidden radio frequency scanners will be constantly pointed at you, wirelessly reading microchips embedded in your clothing, shoes, bank cards and even your own flesh.

It’s the ultimate in “Big Brother,” and according to the explosive new book, SPYCHIPS: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track your Every Move with RFID (Nelson Current, October 2005), companies including Wal-Mart, Target, Gillette, Proctor & Gamble, Kraft, IBM, and even the U.S. government have all invested in making this a reality within the next decade.

Welcome to the world of Radio Frequency IDentification (RFID), where tiny computer chips smaller than a grain of sand will track everyday objects—and even people—keeping tabs on everything you own and everywhere you go.

While it sounds far-fetched and futuristic, it’s already here and documented in SPYCHIPS, written by Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre. These two irrepressible privacy advocates have uncovered extraordinarily detailed plans to use this new technology to watch us all.

Revelations in the book include IBM’s blueprint for a “PERSON TRACKING UNIT” that scans the RFID tags on unwitting members of the public as they move through retail stores, airports, train stations, elevators, libraries, theaters and even public restrooms. They intend to follow your every move.

Nokia is developing an RFID-reader cell phone that could be used to scan people and inventory their belongings as they walk past on the street. Bank of America has cooked up a “CROWD IDENTIFICATION DEVICE” to scan RFID tags on the things people are wearing and carrying to pinpoint, identify, and bombard them with targeted audio advertising messages. There is even a devilish RFID armband that delivers a dose of paralyzing medication or an electroshock to subdue individuals.

These are just a few of the unbelievable patents and patent applications revealed in SPYCHIPS that major corporations and the U.S. government don't want you to know. The book chronicles efforts to keep these plans a secret, revealing the contents of confidential industry documents and outlining plans to "pacify" the public, co-opt public officials, and develop spin to ensure the adoption of the RFID infrastructure.

The book also discusses the industry's more underhanded tactics, like a foiled plot by the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) to mount a smear campaign against author Katherine Albrecht. As the authors were researching the book, illegal efforts were made by unknown persons to gather intelligence on them, including siphoning telephone records and targeting bank records. Someone even contacted their friends and family to probe for information.

The authors are not making this up. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been invested in what global corporations are calling the hottest new technology since the bar code—and billions more are in the balance. Wal-Mart's top suppliers are already on board with RFID tracking, and high-level former government officials like Tommy Thompson and Tom Ridge have joined the boards of major RFID companies. In fact, Thompson, former Secretary of Health and Human Services, now sits on the board of the VeriChip human implant company and has publicly suggested RFID implants for us all.

Spychips could strip away our last shreds of privacy and usher in a nightmare world of total surveillance—to keep us all on Big Brother’s very short leash.

“Brilliantly written—so scary and depressing I want to put it down, so full of fascinating vignettes and facts that I can't put it down.”
– Freedom activist and author Claire Wolfe
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/art ... ml?id=9246

I will have to get a copy of that book !!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Sounds overly sensationalist IMHO. Note how reference is made, for example, to Gilette's use of RFIDs - which has nothing to do with tracking people.
 
Sounds overly sensationalist IMHO

well it would to you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

everything does

The Authors obviously don't think of it it that way and the book is a best seller so many others have parted with hard earned cash to at least have an open mind to it all.

According to Mann, High-frequency radio transponders are also being considered. The higher frequency (about 1,000 times the current frequency being considered) would allow the microchip to be read at a greater distance and through materials such as metal. So, a trailer of horses passing through an identification point (for instance, a racetrack entrance) could be read without the need to stop, saving time.

http://www.thehorse.com/viewarticle.aspx?ID=6275

same technology used to track horses in metal vehicles passing along a road !!!!!!!!!!!

At least some people are worried enough to start shouting about civil rights.

lets hope there are enough protestors to stop any of this before its to late.
 
Back
Top