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

Microchip / RFID Implants: Issues, Concerns & Ramifications

Well, The DaVinci Code is also a best seller, but that doesn't enhance it's veracity in any way.

And this is still way way off from mass implantation in humans, etc..
 
Well, The DaVinci Code is also a best seller, but that doesn't enhance it's veracity in any way.

And this is still way way off from mass implantation in humans, etc..
Click to expand...

were you missing a smiley of the end of that comment

I hardly think a comparison between the Davinci Code and her book is constructive.

Technology creep is never in your face Jerry it slips in the back door, just like this is doing.
 
Sure does with a little lube !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Such tracking technologies, including new applications for Global Positioning Systems, are coming to a campus, cafe, or care center near you.

After years of false starts and underwhelming results, systems for locating people, places, and objects are finally finding themselves. Once the province of the fanciful imagination of Q from the James Bond series, location technologies are wending their way into ordinary business practices and extraordinary human applications, from monitoring the elderly to connecting a cardiac patient admitted to the emergency room with the nearest surgeon.

The advances are being aided by upgrades in hand-held and other mobile devices, which can now process prodigious amounts of data generated by navigation and related technologies. Communications networks are more robust and can provide more saturated coverage, and the costs of chip sets for GPS and other tracking technologies have fallen steeply.

Indeed, consumers are now so accepting of mobile devices such as cellphones that industry analysts predict they won't be reluctant to adopt this next wave of newfangled technologies.

''Everyone in the family now has a cellphone," said David H. Williams, whose firm, E911-LBS Consulting of Wilton, Conn., specializes in wireless technology. ''That change in consumer sentiment has made the time right to go the next level."

Not everyone is pleased about the technology's potential, however. Privacy advocates warn that tracking technologies can invite unwarranted snooping or unwanted spamming. Yet businesses are moving ahead with myriad uses, often in cases for which there is a real safety need to know where someone or something is.
Click to expand...

link

edited by TheQuixote: created hyperlink to stop pagebreak
 
techybloke666 said:
were you missing a smiley of the end of that comment

I hardly think a comparison between the Davinci Code and her book is constructive.

Technology creep is never in your face Jerry it slips in the back door, just like this is doing.
Click to expand...

Nope, no smiley was needed. My point that was the 'bestseller' label doesn't necessarily add to the veracity of the text between the books' covers.

Technology creep is still far removed from mass population control and a Police State.
 
Technology creep is still far removed from mass population control and a Police State.
Click to expand...

As I have said before just the fact that we know about the implementation of the technology and its abilities a degree of control is enabled.

If You believe you are being watched so the Majority of people change their actions to comply with the observation from afar.

Even if Big Brothers new toys are not up to doing 100% surveilance 100% of the time their effect is still felt and can be observed in the populace.

Control
Measurable Control

And some people don't like the Idea of being lab rats and potentially loosing their civil rights and privacy.

These things are already going into the infrastructure as I write this.
If you choose to ignore this as a fact I think you are being narrow minded.
 
Well, there is no 'fact' about this being used in nefarious ways as is implied by some, nor does there seem to be any 'fact' about us all heading inexorably towards living in a police state (in whatever form).

That actual fact that I'm not narrow-minded means that I'm not willing to believe thus far that things are going to go as you envisage, until it's proven to me otherwise. I don't subscribe to the rather black and white conspiratorial view, that's all. At the same time, this doesn't mean by implication that I'd accept being a 'lab rat' etc..
 
Really !!!!!!

So we don't have the most CCTV camera's per square mile than any other country in the world.
Speed camera's are growing alarmingly so is their potential extra capabilities with ANPR and the like.
We are well on the way to ID cards ( for no good reason except control )
RFID is taking off as "THE SECURITY METHOD" for tracking goods etc etc.
GPRS tracking is becoming common place for both tracking your KIds Whereabouts and goods in transit to real time tracking of horse movements in the US.
All new cars are having active RFID transponders inbedded into them for supply and control and future use for car tracking/speeding/fining using GPRS and Mobile RFID trackers.
BMS systems are becoming the buz word for 2006 and still the IP network is open to hackers gallore.
IP CCTV is a reality as is control of these devices using PDA's and mobile handhelds using a variety of wireless technology.
Nearlly everyone owns a Mobile phone - Nokia are 12 months away from combining a RFID transponder in their mobile phones ??? WHY ???
And thats not mentioning all the RFID chips in shopping products.
The UK National database being implemented by our own government and will be hacked for sure at some point making it easier for the bad guys.

Why is it so difficult for you to spot any pattern developing regarding surveilance and security and control ?????

and OUR ID cards will be the portal for access to myriads of services so forcing their compulsory use on us without our full consent.
(the ID bill says they do not have to ask us again to make them compulsory have you read the bill ????)

Identity cards will be a "gateway" to an array of everyday services, from borrowing money to hiring a car, the minister in charge of the scheme has predicted.

As the proposals to introduce ID cards faced attack in the House of Lords, Andy Burnham, the Home Office minister, said the legislation had a "potentially huge application". Although the cards would not be compulsory at first, Mr Burnham set out the scope of the project in an interview with the Financial Times.

"We think ID cards could be the single gateway into a whole range of services that people need in their everyday lives from picking up a parcel or hiring a car to applying for a loan or registering with a doctor. Being able to prove who we are is a fundamental requirement in modern society," he said.

It was "possible" that people applying for driving licences might eventually need an ID card, although he stressed that no decisions on such a move had yet been taken by the government.

Mr Burnham said: "It [the bill] allows you to create so-called designated documents. The passport would be one, i.e. to have a passport you have to go through the national identity register . . . You could then take that principle further forward and extend it to documents that already rely on an identity check. In that group you would have potentially the driving licence . . . It's a possibility later down the line."

It is clear that although ID cards will not be compulsory until 2012-13, they will increasingly be the easiest way for citizens to prove their identity and gain access to both public and private services.

From 2008, people applying for the new biometric passports, which incorporate a chip containing data from a facial scan, will get an ID card and their names and details will be entered on the national identity register.

Government officials believe that as time goes on banks and doctors, among others, might ask people to produce an ID card before opening an account or registering at a surgery.

That has raised the hackles of both peers and MPs, who complain that by reintroducing national ID cards for the first time in more than half a century the government is redrawing fundamentally the relationship between the state and the individual. The Lords began debate on the bill yesterday.

Nevertheless, the minister is optimistic about the prospect of pushing the bill through the second chamber, pointing out that the ID cards proposal was a manifesto commitment. Under the Salisbury Convention, the Lords does not challenge legislation that enacts manifesto promises. Asked if the government would feel justified in using the Parliament Act to force the bill on to the statute book, Mr Burnham said: "It was very, very clearly placed in the middle of the manifesto."

Clearly the government hopes it does not come to that, and wants instead to get its way through the force of its arguments. The minister attempted to turn on its head the claim that ID cards were an infringement of civil liberties. "This is about the individual, empowering and protecting the privacy of the individual . . . What I mean by that is that when you have a biometric system every individual citizen has the chance to place their own unique stamp on their own data, thereby protecting it from misuse," he said.

Despite a poll in the summer for the Daily Telegraph showing that backing for ID cards had plummeted from 78 per cent less than two years ago to 45 per cent, Mr Burnham said there was "pretty solid constant support" of about 70 per cent.

But he accepted that the public had concerns about cost and practicalities.

The scheme will cost £5.8bn over 10 years, and although Charles Clarke, the home secretary, has unveiled a cut-price £30 ID card, he has yet to announce the fee for the piece of plastic issued alongside the new biometric passport.

Mr Burnham conceded it that was "impossible to say" if high take-up of the £30 card would push up the price of the more expensive card and passport package. The prospect of subsidies for the low-paid and unemployed - an issue the minister said was "under review" - would also alter the economics.

That is why the government is keen to make the cards compulsory as soon as possible.

The government estimates that ID cards will become compulsory by 2012 or 2013. But Mr Burnham did not rule out bringing that date forward.

Parliament will have to vote again before every UK citizen has to apply for an ID card. In the meantime people applying for the new breed of biometric passports will have little choice in the matter: whether they like it or not, private data - the unique detail of an individual's iris colour or the exact pattern of a thumbprint - will increasingly be the property of the state.
Click to expand...

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/7d41ec10-4a7d- ... e2340.html

STILL THINK ID CARDS ARE GOING TO BE SCRAPPED JERRY ?
 
techybloke666 said:
Why is it so difficult for you to spot any pattern developing regarding surveilance and security and control ?????
Click to expand...

It isn't difficult at all, becaue the 'pattern' is only there to people like you who have a conspiratorial outlook. Things like speed cameras etc. are nowhere near being anything like a police state, etc.. Even CCTV isn't an effective means of social control - they didn't stop those recent riots, and they certainly don't stop people wandering the streets after so-called binge drinking, etc..

WRT ID cards, even if the stuff goes through the Parliamentary process, that doesn't mean it won't get scuppered somewhere down the line. It could end up being yet another govt. cock-up. Not the first time.
 
You tell me ;)

The thing is, disease or not, it can warp your perspective on things. You think that speed cameras are some sort of civil liberties issue, when in fact they only exist to fine people who break a specific law, which can be completely avoided by anyone. They're just a newish twist on what is still basically an old road law. Secondly, CCTV cameras haven't arisen because the state is really interested in watching everyone. What seems to be more the case is that, in terms of money being spent, it's cheaper to set the cameras up and to be attended by a few people than actually paying alot more policemen to be about on the streets. Cameras can also only be of use pretty much after the fact. As they really haven't worked in terms of being a 'real time' option, what we now have is calls for more 'bobbies on the street' etc., an option which somewhat costly and not a bill the State is particularly fond of footing. WRT ID cards, it's already been admitted that they won't curb things like crime or terrorism, and I wouldn't be surprised that, after a while of being in place, there will be very few situations in which they're actually needed for anything. There doesn't seem to be any plans for any secondary infrastructure to keep the ball rolling.

So if you look at things without your conspiracy theory glasses on, this sort of stuff looks somewhat inept rather than threatening. Yes, there are some civil liberties issues in some specfic areas, but I doubt that the govt will be given carte blanche to just steamroller over them. They've already had to backtrack over similar issues that don't even affect Joe Public in any day to day way. Most of it is all about trying to fulfill Blairite policy and his manifesto aims - I wouldn't be surprised if alot of it gets chucked away once he's out of the picture.
 
Speed camera's are a way of taxing people who drive.
CCTV is a way of controlling the behaviour of the Majority of people who know they are being watched.

In Discipline and Punish Foucault studies the practices of discipline and training associated with disciplinary power. He suggests that these practices were first cultivated in isolated institutional settings such as prisons, military establishments, hospitals, factories and schools but were gradually applied more broadly as techniques of social regulation and control. The key feature of disciplinary power is that it is exercised directly on the body. Disciplinary practices subject bodily activities to a process of constant surveillance and examination that enables a continuous and pervasive control of individual conduct. The aim of these practices is to simultaneously optimize the body's capacities, skills and productivity and to foster its usefulness and docility: 'What was then being formed was a policy of coercions that act on the body, a calculated manipulation of its elements, its gestures, its behavior. The human body was entering a machinery of power that explores it, breaks it down and rearranges it…Thus, discipline produces subjected and practiced bodies, "docile" bodies' (Foucault 1977: 138-9). It is not, however, only the body that disciplinary techniques target. Foucault presents disciplinary power as productive of certain types of subject as well. In Discipline and Punish he describes the way in which the central technique of disciplinary power - constant surveillance - which is initially directed toward disciplining the body, takes hold of the mind as well to induce a psychological state of 'conscious and permanent visibility' (Foucault 1977: 201). In other words, perpetual surveillance is internalized by individuals to produce the kind of self-awareness that defines the modern subject.
Click to expand...

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/foucfem.htm

Big Brother is expanding and so is its reach on a subconsious level.
 
techybloke666 said:
Speed camera's are a way of taxing people who drive.

Big Brother is expanding and so is its reach on a subconsious level.
Click to expand...

Let's not dig up that old argument again shall we?

Speed cameras are a way of taxing people who break the law regarding speeding, don't break the law, don't pay, it's that simple.
 
Let's not dig up that old argument again shall we?

Speed cameras are a way of taxing people who break the law regarding speeding, don't break the law, don't pay, it's that simple.
Click to expand...

Yep we'll agree to disagree on the speed Camera's

what about the philosphy of surveillance ??
 
To assume that a culture of surveillance is being aimed at as an end-game objective pre-supposes that someone has that definite intention and that someone will gain from it.

Surveillance benefits only those soceities that have a captive population (i.e. behind the Iron Curtain or North Korea) and wish a measure of control over them and can enforce that control because the population has no other choice. Government policies like the European Union allow the free movement of populations not their constriction. Don't like the speed camera culture, don't like CCTV, fine you can move, it is not in any governement's interest to create a brain drain by over restrictive legality.

Unless of course you buy into a one world government and the whole world is a prison, in which case I suggest hiding under your bed as we are all clearly doomed.
 
So I,m not captive in as much as I can leave to go another country that does not have 10% of the world CCTV ?

hmmmmm suppose I could yep.

But from a practicle point of view YOUR behaviour is modified due to you being watched by 2.5 million CCTV camera's in the UK

and its no good denying that it makes no difference to you as you don't do things wrong.

The fact they exist and you know they do affects your behaviour.

That is the real reason for CCTV
Control of the more rational people by use of continual surveillance
a NANNY state
 
If that is the case and the intention, then there is no practical requirement for any of the infrastructure of this repression to actually work, merely appear to work, so why bother to go to the trouble of actually making it work and using it?

Also your point rather falls down when you realise that as innumerable 'Yob Culture' documentaries show most people either don't notice or don't care they are being filmed and after a gallon of WKD can be found in most town centres kicking off. Their behaviour is not modified.
 
Also your point rather falls down when you realise that as innumerable 'Yob Culture' documentaries show most people either don't notice or don't care they are being filmed and after a gallon of WKD can be found in most town centres kicking off. Their behaviour is not modified.
Click to expand...

A good point and one I would have made myself.
The government will have you think its to stop YOBS but it does not.
Its not a safety thing in most cases.
However it does sometimes aid to catch em later after they have bashed in the head of their victims.
When the operator has time to go over millions of pictures.

Its proacative use is only for the rational people not YOBS.
it makes sure that a more rational individual follows the guidelines as the risk of what they may do isnt worth it.

YOBS can't think like that, rational people do.

hence the CCTV in Glasgow made no difference to crime stats when implemented.

The also have no effect on suicide bombers !
 
Heckler20 said:
Also your point rather falls down when you realise that as innumerable 'Yob Culture' documentaries show most people either don't notice or don't care they are being filmed and after a gallon of WKD can be found in most town centres kicking off. Their behaviour is not modified.
Click to expand...

Exactly - this ties in with my points about binge drinking, riots, etc.. CCTV stopped neither of those and continues not to do so. So in fact it is absolutely useless as a means of social control - which puts piad to the idea that the state is always watching all of us and that people are cowed into obeyance by the presence of CCTV. Also bear in mind that London, for example is thicky forested with CCTV cameras, but it hasn't stopped nor solved various murders. Most people are picked up for criminal behavious after the fact, and most by other means (i.e. a previous record). CCTV is merely a white elephant, as stand-in in order to keep expenditure of police costs down - and it's pretty much failed.
 
techybloke666 said:
Its proacative use is only for the rational people not YOBS. it makes sure that a more rational individual follows the guidelines as the risk of what they may do isnt worth it.
Click to expand...

Have you actually any proof of that though, or is it just how you assume they work? Because I have to say it sounds like somewhat bogus cod-sociology to me ;)
 
Also TB, it's amusing that you seem to pander to the idea that 'yobs' are mindless, unlike 'normal' people. You haven't been reading The Daily Mail have you...? ;)
 
More to the point, if you have 2.5 million CCTV cameras active all the time, who is watching the pictures? No government can afford that kind of overhead on the off chance of catching a few people being drunk and disorderly or doing something they shouldn't be.

For CCTV to work properly as a control mechanism then it has to be actively monitored. As Jerry points out its just a scam allowing the government to be seen to be doing something when actually doing nothing.

Perhaps the best way of "social control" I've come across is that of state informers. Could be anybody, a neighbour or family member who would report any transgressions to the state (East Germany prior to unification anybody?). Now thats scary.
 
CCTV is just a cheap form (relatively speaking) of policing that helps fulfill manifesto stuff about curbing crime. It doesn't stop crime to any great extent any more than speed cameras stop speeding. But it is sometimes usable after the fact, but of course that doesn't really do anything to stop any given act in the first place.
 
techybloke666 wrote:
Its proacative use is only for the rational people not YOBS. it makes sure that a more rational individual follows the guidelines as the risk of what they may do isnt worth it.


Have you actually any proof of that though, or is it just how you assume they work? Because I have to say it sounds like somewhat bogus cod-sociology to me
Click to expand...


shows how much you understood the quoites about Foucault.

What I love about you chaps on here how much you like to pull peoples idea,s apart knowing bugger all about the technology in the first place.

AS a rule one CCTV adminstrator tends to look after about 60 CCTV camera images - this has been helped significanlty by IPS which helps to display images that may already be some sort of affray etc.

And yes they do work - on people who can reason the risks involved with commiting a crime and waying up the chances of being caught.

People in hoodies are quite hard to distinguish on CCTV pictures or havent you noticed.

People like me and you tend to look pretty cleear on digital CCTV images like the bombers on 7/7 as they didnt care if they were captured on film !!!

in case you missed it the first time

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/foucfem.htm
 
It doesn't matter how things actually work WRT the minutae of things like CCTV - the issue is whether it works as a form of social control, as part of a supposed police state. It must be clear by now from the illustrauions given to you that it does not function as a means of social control. Nicking people after the fact from CCTV footage is a different thing from the idea that we're constantly being watched by the state in terms of it noting what we all do. CCTV is a cheapo scattergun approach to policing, nothing more.
 
CCTV and Social control : the politics and practice of videosurveillance - European and Global perspectives A two day conference to be held at the Centre For criminological Research, University of Sheffield in conjucntion with The Journal -Surveillance and Society

Thursday January 8th and Friday January 9th 2004

Although the UK has clearly the most developed public infrastructure of surveillance cameras in the world, in the wake of September 11th other countries are increasingly deploying cameras in a range of settings, including city centre streets, sporting venues, transport systems, schools, hospitals, to name but a few.

The aim of this conference is to explore the extent and diversity of CCTV deployment in different countries and institutional settings and to consider the social, political and legal issues that arise from the expansion of surveillance. Although the conference will have a particular European focus we would especially welcome contributions from researchers in North and South America, Australia, Africa and Asia. The conference aims to be truly inter-disciplinary and welcomes contributions from sociologists, anthropologists, geographers, criminologists, socio-legal scholars, historians, economists and social scientists researching video-surveillance

It is planned that all papers given at theconference will be considered for publication in a special edition of the web journal - Surveillance and Society. However, acceptance of a paper for the conference is not a guarantee of publication as all submissions will be subject to normal peer review procedures. The special edition will be jointly edited by Professor Clive Norris (University of Sheffield) and Dr Mike McCahill (University of Hull) and Dr David Wood (University of Newcastle)

We particularly welcome papers on the following topics

• Theorising CCTV surveillance • National trends in the growth of video-surveillance - national/international perspectives • Case studies of the impact of CCTV surveillance in different institutional settings/countries • The effectiveness of CCTV as a crime prevention measure • Video surveillance and social exclusion • CCTV and the media • CCTV and legal regulation • The history of video surveillance • The politics of resistance • The contours of public acceptability of CCTV • The new technologies of video surveillance • CCTV and Civil liberties. • Ethical issues in CCTV surveillance

Information about the University of Sheffield can be found at http://www.shef.ac.uk/ Details of how to get to the University can be found at http://www.shef.ac.uk/travel/ Maps of the university can be found at http://www.shef.ac.uk/travel/maps.html Details about the city and hotels can be found at http://www.shef.ac.uk/city/ The most convenient airport is located at Manchester. Sheffield is one hour away by train. Details can be found at http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/ Flights to and from Manchester can be found at http://timetables.oag.com/man/

A conference web page will be up and running in April. 2003 and this will give further details of accommodation, travel arrangements and the conference.

The Conference fee is payable by 1st June 2003.
Click to expand...

http://www.conflits.org/document.php?id=1479


Policing, Surveillance and Social Control
CCTV and police monitoring of suspects
By Tim Newburn and Stephanie Hayman



This book reports the results of research carried out in a London police station on the role and impact of closed-circuit television (CCTV) in the management and surveillance of suspects - the most thorough example of the use of CCTV by the police in the world. Research methods involved the analysis of CCTV footage, analysis of suspect's backgrounds, and extensive interviews of both suspects and police officers

The research is situated in the context of concerns about the human rights implications of the use of CCTV, and challenges criminological and social theory in its conceptualisation of the role of the police, their governance and the use of CCTV. It raises key questions about both the future of policing and the treatment of suspects in custody.

A key theme of this book is the need to move away from a narrow focus on the negative, intrusive face of surveillance: as this study demonstrates, CCTV has another 'face' ­ one that potentially watches and protects. Both 'faces' need to be examined and analysed simultaneously in order to understand the impact and implications of electronic surveillance.


Key points

this book is about Big Brother and the police - presenting the results of research into a unique experiment carried out in a London police station which involved blanket CCTV coverage of suspects in custody
the authors situate their findings about this unique experiment in the context of the key questions it raises about human rights and privacy, the treatment of prisoners and suspects, the use of CCTV and the way in which the police operate
Click to expand...

http://www.federationpress.com.au/books ... 1903240506

CCTV is very quickly becoming an integral part of crime control policy, social control theory and 'Community consciousness'. It is promoted by police and politicians as primary solution for urban dysfunction. It is no exaggeration to conclude that the technology has had more of an impact on the evolution of law enforcement policy than just about any technology initiative in the past two decades.
Click to expand...

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-61925&als[theme]=Video%20Surveillance&headline=CCTV%20Frequently%20Asked%20Questions

http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles2(4)/ni.pdf

http://www.aclu.org/Files/getFile.cfm?id=13549

http://www.privacy.org/pi/issues/cctv/

CCTV is very quickly becoming an integral part of crime control policy, social control theory and Community consciousness. It is promoted by police and politicians as primary solution for urban dysfunction. It is no exaggeration to conclude that in Britain, the technology has had more of an impact on the evolution of law enforcement policy than just about any technology initiative in the past two decades.

Privacy International has consistently expressed its concern over the development of this technology. This page offers information and advice about the downside of a technology which we believe will have a profound effect on future generations.


You have your Honest opinion Jerry and I,ll have mine

I just happen to agree with Privacy international and Foucault.

I agree to disagree as usual
 
Yes, but you're looking at stuff that deals with CCTV in the light of theory. That's all well and good, but recent events have shown that in reality, this simply doesn't work. Don't get too suckered in by symposiums, etc. that natter away about all this sort of stuff - any meaning that any of that has in real terms is moot. As I've said, CCTV didn't stop the recent riots, doesn't stop people binge drinking, doesn't stop murders, etc.. So obviously it doesn't do anything to 'solve' any form of 'social dysfunction' nor does it have any power of 'crime control'. The only policy behind that is to save money and gives certain politicians the ability to say that they are doing 'something' about crime and/or policing.
 
Aha - using government reports now to back up you claims, eh? Ironic.

So, lots of statistics, some showing good results, some bad. Has it really done a huge amount to curb people's criminal intentions? Not really. Does it make anyone else become cowed into obeyance? Unlikely. So it may just make some criminals think twice. That's hardly the stuff of Big Brother and a police state is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top