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."
The device described in the article is a GPS device worn on the ankle combined with a cell phone. It's an active device, unlike RFID which is usually passive and concealed.
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.
why fight it, enjoy life while you can.. We have fully qualified & competant people running the country, George Bush, John "Super Hero" Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, years of experience has taught these people well... Remember George Bush took a stand against human cloning and stem cell lines, we're in good hands.
Chill people, its all good..
Vote GWB 2004 !!
Its really about the UK employing technology to track pedophiles that has been used for some time in the US. Granted the parallels to RFID are there, but the bigger issue is whether one can be tagged after being convicted and serving a sentence. The laws in the US have flip-flopped on this one several times, generally the only time this sort of monitoring holds up is when it is a part of the original conviction of the criminal. Therefore, there are some precedents for electronic monitoring, the real question is whether they will apply once the private sector faces legal challenges regarding the use of RFID to track innocent people.
Children in the backseats don't cause accidents. Accidents in the back seats cause children.
'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.
ToTal Democratic Patriotic Protection Act
They started with the paedophile and it was OK because those are law breaker.
Then they went on murder condemned and It was also OK.
Then they went on tagging all former felon. Ok those were bad people anyway.
Then they tagged people with bad social past and juvenil arrest since those were the one with the highiest chance to re-iterate a crime.
. Then they tagged immigrant and it was also OK, because those bastard are not like us.
Then they tagged people belonging to certain religion "because they might be potential terrorist".
When they came to tag me I was the only one left in the neighbourhood without a tag...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I wonder how many paedophile MPs will volunteer for this?
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
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...
- '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.
Very, very few RFID devices are active in the sense that you're using.
The power requirements needed to provide range, etc. are enormous and an active tag would usually be the size of a cell-phone and have about the same operational lifetime.
RFID is limited in range under most cases because of the power requirements and the fact that most of these devices have electrically small antennas, limiting the effective power they can radiate. Because of this, the devices in question have range limits- dramatically small ones and you can't say that someone like the NSA has the resources to detect them at longer ranges. The signal at 12 or so feet from most tags are so deep in the noise floor that you're not going to get enough coherent signal to detect it with any tech we are going to have in the forseeable future.
In the case of the tollway tags, they may/may not have a battery in them, but the battery isn't to power a transmitter, nor does it make them active. The battery is there to shorten the turn-on time for the tag. Most of those tollway tags have an incredible range because they're not transmitters or traditional transponders (like most RFID tags), they are very sophisticated RF reflectors that resonate at the specified frequency and impinge a carrier on the reflected signal.
Sort of like putting an LCD in front of a mirror to modulate what its reflecting back to a light source.
All the power is in the reader. And even these devices tend to have a range of only about 20-30 yards. The range is there because you're stacking the deck- if the tag is oriented wrong, you capacitively couple the tag to a larger conductor (hold the thing cupped in your hands), or anything other than that relatively precice placement and the range goes to practically nothing or the reader can't even see it.
If you do not understand how RFID really works, you really and truely should learn how it does before making comments about the same.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
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?