Slashdot Mirror
RFID Hell
Matrix2110 writes "Finally, somebody has stepped up with an article that descibes the potental abuse of RFID. Imagine being flagged for social tendencies.
Gattaca is not so far off as we think. it is simply a pass of a wand for your embedded tag rather than a drop of blood."
I'd really like to think that the people running our state wouldn't sink to this level. But the USA Patriot Act kind of disabused me of that notion. I'm offering donations for anyone who can make a device that will disable all RFID tags within a 50 foot radius.
'Because it tracks where they go every day it would mean they would not have to be picked up every time there is an offence committed,' Wyre said.
This logically implies that unregistered "sex offenders" WILL be picked on every time there is an offence committed, most likely before any serious researching is done.
So when this is extended beyond known offenders that means it will be YOU being tracked, your every move logged.
don't be simplistic.
true, it's not RFID tags per se. however, the group targeted to wear tags is such that "no one" will oppose it--protect the children and all that stuff.
until, of course, some old politician gets caught with a teenager.
"convicted paedophiles" can quickly become "sex offender"-which is sometimes something as stupid as pissing in the park.
As touched on above the tracking devices in use within the Unites States are used as an alternative to incarceration, not as a tracking device *after* a sentence is served. We worry about the infringement of rights perpetrated on the convicted but fail to realize that while in prison these individuals are subject to far more oppression than governmental oversight. I can assure you that while serving time within the walls of a correctional facility the precept of "tracking" inmates would not raise the first hackle on even the most liberal neck. Instead, release the inmate prior to the completion of his/her sentence and implement an oversight mechanism and - viola! we have rights violations. It is curtailing illusory freedom that frightens us. It was mentioned in the article that this "blurs the line between guilt and innocence" - I would think the real psychological struggle is contained in blurring the lines between freedom and incarceration...
How long before the GPS tag is used for people who, while offenders in some shape or form, have not committed offenses of the nature that others feel they have to know where they are for the safety of others?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
- 'To be able to have "Talk down" with an offender because he is in a high-risk area and likely to offend is the single most effective control measure that be applied,' Crosby added
IOW, pedophiles that don't want to offend again, but feel they may be tempted in some situations can be given a optional program where assistance is available to help them control their "urge".This is called "rehabilitation", a concept that seems regretably foreign to the Department of Corrections.
Even more surprising, it saves money:
- Wyre said the new technology was far cheaper than the current tagging devices used to enforce curfews and probation orders which costs around 500 per offender each month.
So, everyone either a) don't read the article, b) misunderstand what it says, c) misrepresent the technology used and then condemn a pilot program that is trying to help pedophiles help themselves with lower cost to the taxpayer and lower risk to the community at large. After all, this isReading through the responses to this technology, it seems that several issues are being addressed/readdressed:
1) Mandatory tagging of criminals - There seems to be a fundamental difference between tagging someone as part of their sentence and tagging someone after their sentence has been served (eg, after release from prison). The latter seems a dangerous trend since it indicates that the punishment for certain crimes may change in an arbitrary fashion, even *after* a criminal has served their time and been "rehabilitated" by societal punishments.
Granted, some crimes are heinous and deserve drastic punishments, but punishments should be known at the time of sentencing. Make the punishment as harsh as is warranted (eg, death sentence or consecutive life sentences effectively ensures that an offender never returns to society), but once a punishment has been fulfilled , no additional arbitrary punishments should be levied. Being unable to agree on what the rule-of-law is at the time of sentencing is very bad. A rule-of-law which is not transparent and clear is not a rule-of-law.
2) RFID technology is good|bad - Anyone who has spent their life thinking about technology knows that technology itself it neither our damnation nor our savior. It is amoral and merely a tool created and used by humans to leverage our ideas.
However, history has shown that we have a penchant for killing each other over issues with no obvious resolution (eg, Who's God is better, Who's skin color is better, etc). Technology just speeds up the process of letting us work out our differences, and, when that fails, subjugate/maim/torture/kill the enemy when they it is obvious that they will not take on our point of view.
3) The posters are "anti-technologist fear mongers" - since this crowd is generally very technology savvy, it is probably more likely that you misunderstand the message being articulated. People on Slashdot certainly seem to get more worked up that your general everyday nongeek citizenry. But that is likely because of the "slippery-slope" issues that are addressed. Looking at how humans use and misuse technology to abuse each other, it is often clear to those with a background in technology what form the abuses could take. Generally, it seems that humans eventually arrive at a solution better for everyone (eg, more tolerant), but only after a more short-term period which exploits the technology to the severe disadvantage of an unfortunate minority.
BTW, although annoying that the article is not based on RFID technology, that hardly matters in the grand scheme. GPS, RFID, biometrics, DRM, etc. are all just technologies. They have amazing potential for benefit of societies. But unless the potential for human-rights abuse is acknowledged and carefully monitored, things will get very bad before things get better.
No technology is without potential for abuse. Period.
Everyone seems to have missed the one truly scary idea in this story.
The electronic diary can be studied remotely by experts to build up a profile of the offender which will help them predict whether the person will offend again.
I've heard this idea before.
The point about narrowing the pool of usual suspects when a crime has been comitted is very fucking scary as well. What if a tagged individual is in the area when a crime is committed by an untagged individual? I sure wouldn't want to be in that guy's position.
The idea of tracking an individual during probation is not in itself objectionable. Those on probation are not considered absolved, they are still serving a portion of their sentence. However, the story indicates the promoters of this technology are not making much of a distinction. And that they expect the offender will continue to wear the device. I'd give this one an 8 out of 10 on the slippery slope scale. If it works with paedophiles, why not track bank robbers to ensure they only use ATMs? How about B&E artists? The system could tell the cops if they were in a strange neighbourhood in the middle of the night. And why not anyone with a history of violent crime? Think how many police officers would be saved by knowing in advance that the car they are stopping contains ex-cons?