Slashdot Mirror


RFID Bracelets to Track Inmates in L.A. County

Roland Piquepaille writes "According to RFID Journal, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is about to launch a pilot program to track 1,800 inmates using RFID devices. If the test is successful, the technology will be deployed for the 18,000 inmates of the L.A. county jails. With this system, inmates carry a wrist bracelet which issues a signal every two seconds and is caught by RFID readers installed everywhere in the prison. Officers and staff also carry a RFID device attached to their belts. And a central server keeps track in real time of the position of all prisoners and guardians. Besides tracking locations, the system also intends to reduce violence within the jail and to avoid escapes. If this system works as its promoters think, the potential market to equip all federal, state and county jails in the U.S. exceeds $1 billion. This overview contains other details and references, including a picture of a wristwatch transmitter worn by inmates."

451 comments

  1. My rights? by 77Punker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This has nothing to do with my rights; I am not a prisoner. It is, however, a good use of the technology, and one of the first I've heard of.

    Finally, a reason for RFID to exist.

    1. Re:My rights? by thedustbustr · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The adpotion of this technology is marked by a sudden decrease of the value of Penthouse rags while tinfoil becomes a precious metal.

      --
      This sig is false.
    2. Re:My rights? by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is a matter of your rights, as one day you may be a prisoner. Claiming its not about your rights because you're not in jail is like saying slavery wasn't about your rights because you weren't black.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    3. Re:My rights? by zxnos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      prisoners gave up many of their rights when they commited a crime against society - theft - murder - etc. personally i dont think a murderer should have the same rights i enjoy - though they should still be treated humanely .ie no cruel and unusual.

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    4. Re:My rights? by ichthus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think there might be a slight difference bewteen being black and being incarcerated. One of them has to do with biology. Can you tell which?

      --
      sig: sauer
    5. Re:My rights? by AuMatar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not disagreeing with that. I have no problems with using RFIDs within the prison walls, so long as they are removed upon release. It still is a matter of rights though, so the topic is appropriate.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    6. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has nothing to do with my rights...
      Agreed.
      Nor was that claimed.

      From the nothing-unsettling-about-that-no-sir

      And this article is filed under privacy, which I assume is a clear reflection of the fact that inmates don't have it.

    7. Re:My rights? by Mr.Progressive · · Score: 1

      If you live in the United States, you are more likely to be a prisoner at some point in your life than if you were a citizen of any other country in the world.

      --
      Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
    8. Re:My rights? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Well, there's more evidence for genetic predisposition to being incarcerated than there is to being black, so i'll go with incarcerated?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    9. Re:My rights? by zxnos · · Score: 1

      i agree w/ you there. its a wrist band, so yeah it would be removed when their term is served - a'la martha.

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    10. Re:My rights? by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > This has nothing to do with my rights; I am not a prisoner.

      "I am not afraid!"
      "Oh... you will be."
      - Some Muppet

    11. Re:My rights? by ichthus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really!? Fascinating. Can you provide supporting links? I'd like to read about this, especially since being incarcerated depends on the criminal actions of the subject (according to the local law,) the economic status of the subject, and the celebrity status of the subject (ie. OJ Simpson) to name a few. So, genetics also play a role, in combination with the above mentioned? If this is true, then do defense lawyers offer genetic disposition as a defense? Is there really a jail gene? Or, are people actually responsible for their own actions?

      --
      sig: sauer
    12. Re:My rights? by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Did it hurt when you pulled that out of your ass?

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    13. Re:My rights? by oh_the_humanity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would you still agree if the person released is a two or three time convicted child molester, who happend to move in next door to you and your lovely daughter/son etc. I think these indivduals need to be tracked for life, and ive heard its starting to happen.

      --
      "When they invent bitch slaps that can go through a monitor you better f'ing duck" --deft (253558)
    14. Re:My rights? by pinchhazard · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh ichthus! You are the most retarded ever!

      --
      Do you love freedom??? Do you love freedom!!! DO YOU LOVE FREEDOM!!!!!!!!
    15. Re:My rights? by Decessus · · Score: 1

      This is a very bad analogy. A prisoner is someone who made a choice that put him in prison. He decided to do something against the law. Slaves didn't have that choice at all. They were chained up simply because they were black, not because of something they actually did.

    16. Re:My rights? by zxnos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      you make a valid point. right now i am content just to be informed when they move into the area. that way i can deal with the situation. i dont know if they need to be tracked via gps or anything. i guess, to me, it would depend on if they have a history of abducting kids or just doing it at church / school. good point.

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    17. Re:My rights? by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      No, 12 people thought he did something against the law. A law which may or may not be a good law. These are reasons why prisoners still have many (not all, but many) of the rights they have on the outside.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    18. Re:My rights? by DenmaFat · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      prisoners gave up many of their rights when they commited a crime against society - theft - murder - etc.

      That assumes that the various criminal justice systems in the land incarcerate only the guilty.

      --
      I love that donkey. Hell, I love everybody.
    19. Re:My rights? by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think if someone was convicted of being a child molestor three times, we shouldn't let him out. But yes, if someone is released from prison, then he shouldn't be tracked. The idea of letting them out is that they have paid for their crime. They are citizens again. Tracking movements aftwards is a violation of their rights to privacy and free assembly.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    20. Re:My rights? by oh_the_humanity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I live in califonria and using megans laws databse found out that a convicted sex offender ( sodomy by force with a minor under 14 years of age) lives 1 block away from where my kid goes to school. Theres no signs saying sex offender lives here etc. its a crock.

      --
      "When they invent bitch slaps that can go through a monitor you better f'ing duck" --deft (253558)
    21. Re:My rights? by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 2, Insightful


      prisoners gave up many of their rights when they commited a crime against society - theft - murder - etc. personally i dont think a murderer should have the same rights i enjoy - though they should still be treated humanely .ie no cruel and unusual.


      Smoking crack in the leisure of your own home is not a crime against society...

      Downloading MP3s is not a crime against society...

      Crime != murder/rape ONLY...

      With more and more draconian laws being passed in the US these days, anyone has an increasing chance of being a "criminal" someday. Guilty of thought "crime" perhaps?

    22. Re:My rights? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      (Apologies if you meant this as a joke and the mods were the ones who were dumb.)

      I intend to live as a generally moral and law-abiding citizen. If I get in prison unjustly, then the problem is the unjust punishment, not the RFID tags once I happily walk in the prison.

      Prisoners neither have nor deserve all the rights of citizens. That's like saying that prisoner's free speech rights are being violated.

      And it's interesting that you consider black rights to be on par with prisoner rights.

    23. Re:My rights? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They should be tracked for such time as they are on parole or probation. Release from jail is not always a completion of sentence.

      Now, the extent of that tracking may be something to be debated. Right now, most of them just have to check in with their parole/probation officer on a particular schedule, and usually must let law enforcement conduct unannounced searches for contraband. Whether they should be tracked with more detail, such as with a GPS band or other similar instrument is worth discussing.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    24. Re:My rights? by Cromac · · Score: 1
      Only if you commit crimes. People who don't commit crimes have no more chance of becoming a prisioner in the US than in most of the rest of the world.

      Just because the US has more prisioners per capita than some other countries does not mean you are more likely to be a prisioner.

    25. Re:My rights? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative
      That is NOT, repeat NOT what the figures show. Nice troll. The figures show that more blacks are arrested for and convicted of more crimes than any other racial group in America, per capita or otherwise.

      Blacks in America also are being subjugated by a system that keeps them in an underprivileged position - the system keeps blacks committing crimes. It is a social predisposition, not a genetic one.

      Mind you, I'm mostly white (heinz 57) and a quarter mexican - make of this disclaimer what you will.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blacks are incarcerated for an amazingly disproportionate amount of crime compared to whites.

      Mostly thanks to the War on Drugs, Racial Profiling, and the general fact that if a white man and a black man commit the same crime in the same circumstances, statistically speaking the black man gets the harsher sentence.

    27. Re:My rights? by simetra · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if it's REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, a crime against society. What matters is that they are crimes. If you don't like the law, try to get it changed. In the meantime, a crime is a crime.

      --

      "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
    28. Re:My rights? by AaronStJ · · Score: 1, Insightful
      First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
      because I was not a communist;
      Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
      because I was not a socialist;
      Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
      because I was not a trade unionist;
      Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
      because I was not a Jew;
      Then they came for me--
      and there was no one left to speak out.

      -Martin Niemöller
      --
      Stupid like a fox!
    29. Re:My rights? by hoborocks · · Score: 1

      Actually, you lose quite a lot of rights when you go to prison. It's not entirely unjustified.

      And i'm all for privacy!

      --
      AccountKiller
    30. Re:My rights? by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      they commited a crime against society - theft - murder - etc.

      ...smoked a joint & got caught, pissed off the wrong cop/judge, made out with a senator's daughter, got farmed, couldn't pay back their college loans & the law wouldn't let them declare bankruptcy, etc. Obviously, their crimes are just as bad as those thieves & murderers you threw up as your rationale for eliminating their personal rights.

      For the tinfoil-wearing crowd, let's throw out one more reason for eliminating personal rights of prisoners: didn't toe the party line after fascists have completely taken over the government.

    31. Re:My rights? by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the point. Once again- my post did not make a statement on wether the RFID in prison was a bad thing or not. I'm stating that it is a discussion about one's rights. No, a prisoner does not have all the rights of a free citizen, but they maintain a large subset (which, incidently, includes speech in most circumstances, although it doesn't include assembly).

      As for black rights and prisoner rights being equal- not in the way you take it. Both are about the civil rights of human beings. Any restriction on those rights, in any situation, needs to be closely scrutinized.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    32. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That assumes that the various criminal justice systems in the land incarcerate only the guilty.

      Well, speaking for the US criminal justice system, that is the assumption. At trial, one is judged to be guilty or not guilty. If one is judged to be guilty, then the assumption is that of guilt, is it not?

      The percentage of wrongly incarcerated prisoners is small - vanishingly so. Small enough that when it's discovered that someone has been wrongly convicted, it's news. It's small enough that it's pretty safe to assume that any particular individual judged guilty is guilty. Incidentally, see if you can find any research citing the actual percentages of wrongly convicted people. It's something that ought to be statistically estimated. I can't find anything and that makes me think that it's because the percentage is extremely low.

      Don't go off on a tangent about innocent people in jail - sure, it's a problem and nobody should be punished for a crime they didn't commit. But the assumption that we incarcerate only the guilty is valid assumption.

    33. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google for orthomolecular psychiatry.

    34. Re:My rights? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Informative

      Felons are not full citizens in the US even after release. They often can't vote, can't hold security clearences, can't purchase firearms, etc.

    35. Re:My rights? by tarogue · · Score: 1

      just for the record: the irish were slaves in america long before the blacks.

      slavery is not a race issue.

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp
    36. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O was looking at these figures which are concerned with homicide. Blacks also commit disproportionate amounts of crime in other countries (warning: PDF), although their drug-dealing homicide promoting culture could be a cause of this, it is very worrying still.

    37. Re:My rights? by zxnos · · Score: 1
      i guess to me a 'crime against society' involves hurting another person in some manner, so yeah, i would elimate most of their personal rights.

      the 'crimes' you listed are intrinsically non-violent crimes and generally only affect the 'criminal'. theives can go either way, i know most convenience stores around here that get robbed also get shot up.

      does this program apply only to high-security prisons? i dont know. but you're right, there needs to be a distinction. in the interim write your senator and represenatives.

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    38. Re:My rights? by ToasterofDOOM · · Score: 1

      While I see where you are coming from, the entire justice system operates off of this concept, not just RFID trackers. Of course sentencing an innocent man to prison is a bad thing, but it doesnt mean we shouldn't imprison anyone because an innocent man might be locked away.

      --
      I am Spartacus
    39. Re:My rights? by line.at.infinity · · Score: 1

      RFID cannot erode a right that never existed in prisons to begin with.

    40. Re:My rights? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Finally, a sensible response.


      Preserving prisoner's rights because they either might not be guilty, or are guilty only in the minds of a limited number of jurors, is a distraction from the real problem: why the system imprisoned them in the first place.


      If I was imprisoned as an innocent man, I'd be pretty pissed off regardless of whether they had me wearing a locating transponder or not. In fact, I can't imagine I'd care one whit.


      Actually, as a basically non-aggressive person, I'd probably SUPPORT everyone wearing those, on the thought that it might keep Bubba the Butt-Buddy from ass-raping me in the showers.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    41. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a moron.
      you can become a prisoner.
      getting to be incarcerated is one of those special citizen things you have!

      or is it cause youre smug white and middle class?
      only blacks and spics go to jail eh?

      YRO: what about on parole? bail?

    42. Re:My rights? by holysin · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is a "jail" gene, it's XXY (or was it XYX?) either way, researchers have found a (rather) high correlation between XXY and violent/sociopathic criminals... feel free to read up on the subject if you so choose.

      However, I think the point someone was trying to make is that a larger % of the jail population is black, then the national average. Which, while true at one point, might not still hold today.


    43. Re:My rights? by NeoBeans · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Would you still agree if the person released is a two or three time convicted child molester, who happend to move in next door to you and your lovely daughter/son etc. I think these indivduals need to be tracked for life, and ive heard its starting to happen.

      Then the problem isn't the issue of removing the wristband, but the need to keep certain types of criminals locked up to protect society.

      In my opinion, if we feel a need to "track someone for life" because they are such a menace, then why are they out of prison to begin with?

    44. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you about blacks getting harsher sentances, however the difference was "only" 25% between 1994-96, which in no way accounts for the fact that Blacks were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002 (although it should be noted these are different dates). The War on drugs should not affect these figures as they are based on homicide, not drug related offences - in fact the War on Drugs could in theory bring down drug related murders.

    45. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also note that the first figures are for florida while the second ones are for the whole of the USA. Could not find figures which were for same area/dates. Somebody please supply figures if you can find them for a better comparison.

    46. Re:My rights? by shadowkin · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, open rebellion against your country was treason.

      Yet without those historical 'lawbreakers' (read : Revolutionary War Soldiers, Founding Fathers, Continental Congress), we'd still be a member of the Commonwealth.

    47. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but unless Americans are inherently criminal it does mean the US has more jailable offenses than anywhere else.

    48. Re:My rights? by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Claiming its not about your rights because you're not in jail is like saying slavery wasn't about your rights because you weren't black.

      OK, Vicente Fox, I got your back.

      Anyway, I fail to see the unsettling implications here as I often fail to do in the YRO section. (BTW, shouldn't the color scheme here be shiny metallic... you know, tin foil colored?)

      They already have these things designed to keep track of the prisoners... they're called jail cells. So they want to augment this tracking with RFID bracelets. WTF cares???

      Implying this is a slippery slope to tracking non-felons is like saying, "You better watch out, next thing you know, they'll be using those new-fangled "jail cells" to keep everyone locked up!"

      OK, so I'm bad at analogies.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    49. Re:My rights? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      "though they should still be treated humanely .ie no cruel and unusual."

      Like being sent to Australia.

      yeah yeah troll, flamebait *whatever*

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    50. Re:My rights? by UnrefinedLayman · · Score: 1

      I don't think someone selling marijuana should enjoy the same limited rights as a murderer--yet it happens all the time.

      Rather than finding new and creative ways to maintain the status quo of crime punishment in America, I think money should be spent on creating equity in the criminal justice system and finding new, less expensive ways to punish prisoners.

      An example is a program in (at least) California which permits sex offenders to be released from prison early in exchange for their testicles. I believe the program applies only to non-violet sex offenders. It is entirely voluntary and strict measures are taken to ensure that the removal of the balls will have the desired effect. I don't immediately see any problem with this method of punishment -- more care is given to being sure of the efficacy of the program than is given in being sure prison is effective at reducing recidivism. Further, this is specifically targeting one of the major enablers of sexual activity without mucking about in an offender's brain or punishing someone for having a brain that has developed a certain way. Believers in the sanctity of the person win, believers in the safety of the populace win, the offender loses, and the punishment is served. Keep in mind those are arguable points, but it's what I believe.

      I'm surprised more attention hasn't been paid to it, especially in light of the (literally) Draconian punishments for sexual assault in Colorado. Attaching devices to the genitals of prisoners to observe their reactions to pornography that is considered violent towards women (yet is still sold on the streets and available for anyone to download to see female actors agreeing to act in exchange for payment) is not an appropriate method for determining whether someone will offend again. Sex is the most natural thing people can do, and punishing someone for having irrepressible, instinctual sexual thoughts should be a crime, not the other way around.

      I believe the shortcomings of the system that should be addressed are at the foundation of the system. Problems like ballooning prisoner populations are symptoms of a failing system.

    51. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's all right, we send our criminals to the US sometimes.

      It's been a pretty effective deterrent. Who would want to willingly live there?

    52. Re:My rights? by myowntrueself · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "That's all right, we send our criminals to the US sometimes."

      Hey, I live in NZ.

      I'll never forget my Dad explaining that Australia was settled by people to whom it was said 'sod you, you are going somewhere else' while New Zealand was settled by people by whom it was said 'sod this, I'm going somewhere else'

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    53. Re:My rights? by captain_craptacular · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Last time I checked, open rebellion against your country was treason.

      Only if you lose.

      --
      They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
    54. Re:My rights? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Here you go:

      www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi263.pdf

      There are actually a number of studies on this, including identical twin studies which are very convincing about the genetic predisposition to antisocial behavior.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    55. Re:My rights? by DenmaFat · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, see if you can find any research citing the actual percentages of wrongly convicted people. It's something that ought to be statistically estimated. I can't find anything and that makes me think that it's because the percentage is extremely low.

      These guys say .5%:
      http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume8/j8_3_ br16.htm

      --
      I love that donkey. Hell, I love everybody.
    56. Re:My rights? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      By what mechanism does society make people commit crimes?

      Is it possible that the higher rates of arrest and conviction are correlated with higher rates of crime commission? I know, I know, that's crazy talk...

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    57. Re:My rights? by xchino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What you all seem to not understand, is this in NOT a prison. Jail and Prison are two completely different things. A prison is where you get sent after being found guilty and sentenced to hard time. A county jail is where you go if you got a little too drunk and ran into a cop on the walk home. A county jail is where you go if you got busted for smoking a joint (at least around here). A county jail is where they hold you BEFORE you have your day in court. At any time I guarantee you there is at least 1 innocent person in county jail. You give up your rights only when you commit a felony, not a misdemeanor. Well over %50 of the people in any county jail are still 100% full citizens of the US, and as such deserve every single right they are entitled to.

      At any rate, I don't see this as a particular invasion of privacy, you have to wear those wrist ID bands anyways, this one just identifies remotely.

      --
      Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
    58. Re:My rights? by UnrefinedLayman · · Score: 1

      It is true. While this article is a couple of years old, the data remains mostly the same today. Blacks: 12% of the population, as high as 30% of the prison population. Whites: 75% of the population, about the same for the prison population. While it gets better for you the whiter you are, non-black/non-white prisoners aren't much better off than the blacks.

      http://www.prisonactivist.org/pipermail/prisonact- list/2001-July/003968.html

    59. Re:My rights? by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      prisoners gave up many of their rights when they commited a crime against society - theft - murder - etc.

      Go take a poll of prisoners and ask them what crime got them there. Trust me, theft and murder is a minority. Most are there for drugs. I just found out that in my state, you get 3 years in prison for your 3rd DUI without a reck or anything, but getting pulled over 3 times and having over 0.06 BAC. Ironically, bars and restaurants are for some reason still legal to server alcohol even though you are not allowed to leave the place nor stay there. Unfortunately, people with wisdom are nolonger respected in our society, especially when it comes to elected officials. A person that would be way too physically unpresentable today that was our president at one time said:

      "Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."

      -- Abraham Lincoln

      It didn't take long for out government to forget.

      though they should still be treated humanely .ie no cruel and unusual

      Tell me that sitting in a place where you can trust noone, get ass pounded, get full body cavity searched regularly, and stay confined in a small cell for over 10 years when you are sentenced to death is not cruel or unusual. I would never even think of doing that to someone no matter what they did. Granted I'm a little kooky because I believe that murder should be legal so that it would deter crime, but I'm way in the minority with that belief.

      People, keep in mind that almost 2% or more, haven't looked lately, of our population is in prison or parole or whatnot. That is clearly more than any other country in the world. That says something about our society. Volumes.

    60. Re:My rights? by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...so we should wait until a DUI drivers kills a bunch of people before putting him in jail eventhough two warnings were already given... I'm sorry but I don't agree with that.

    61. Re:My rights? by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      Or, are people actually responsible for their own actions?

      I heard a priest say one time that it is unamerican for an inner city youth to choose to work at a minimum wage job over making money selling drugs. Think about it. If you had no education and came from a low income environment with no resources, would flipping burgers be a noble or better choice over drugs or prostitution? There is little to no moving up in the burger world and all you are providing is the lowest common denominator of barely edible food to people. Whereas with drugs or prostitution you are providing and controlling good feelings that people want. Being a pimp and/or selling drugs is being a risk taker and an independent entrepreneur with a constant demand and high profits (and risks) because these things are against the law, but very much in demand, and until genetics of humans change, there will be no decrease in demand in the foreseeable future.

    62. Re:My rights? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      if we feel a need to "track someone for life" because they are such a menace, then why are they out of prison to begin with?

      Because it's cheaper than locking them up orever?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    63. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Or you are a member of the ruling Establishment. I urge you to look up via Google the topic of "U.S. military aid to the Soviet Union." A good start would be the books of Anthony C. Sutton. Later books examine the close links between Wall Street and the rise of the Nazis, as well as the Bolsheviks.

      For a more recent example of Establishmentarian treason, witness the Clinton Administration's transfer of advanced nuclear weapons tech to the Communist Chinese, a sordid tale that remains all but untouched by the Justice Department.

    64. Re:My rights? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, open rebellion against your country was treason.

      It's actually a duty if the government becomes too tyrannical.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    65. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was the Roman commentator, Seneca, who said that tyrannies have many laws and free nations have few...

    66. Re:My rights? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      so we should wait until a DUI drivers kills a bunch of people before putting him in jail eventhough two warnings were already given... I'm sorry but I don't agree with that.

      Well, we could start by fixing DUI so it actually meant something. I could deal with a BAC limit of .12 or even .10. 0.06 is a joke.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    67. Re:My rights? by Skynyrd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ironically, bars and restaurants are for some reason still legal to server alcohol even though you are not allowed to leave the place nor stay there.

      Actually, you are allowed to leave the bar - just get a ride.

      But I agree with you that 0.06 is too low. However, a DOT approved breathalizer is about $100 these days. Cheap insurance.

      I was considering getting a commercial driver's license for employment possibilities, but found that in California, if you have a CDL your legal limit is 0.04 all the time (even if you are driving a regular car for non-work purposes). Ouch!

    68. Re:My rights? by Greg_D · · Score: 1

      prisoners gave up many of their rights when they commited a crime against society - theft - murder - etc.

      That assumes that the various criminal justice systems in the land incarcerate only the guilty.

      Well, why imprison anyone for anything then? After all, the only guilty people according to the media in the entire country are OJ and Tom DeLay, and they're both walking around free.

      I don't see many people wanting to raise their children around convicted sex offenders out of good faith and the possibility of an unjust conviction. You usually can't get 12 people to agree on pizza toppings... so excuse me if I feel pretty safe in the vast majority of jury decisions with regards to a person's guilt or innocence.

      This kneejerk reaction of forced ambiguity is just plain silly. These people have been convicted of a crime and have the ability to appeal their convictions, but while they're in the prison walls, it is in the best interest of everyone, guards and prisoners alike, to know where they are at all times.

    69. Re:My rights? by floodo1 · · Score: 0

      its impossible for the assumption of "convicting only the guilty" to be true if you admit that some innocent people are convicted.

      its pretty weak to just shrug off the "vanishingly" small group of people who are falsely convicted. its not like you can give them the time spent in jail back. remove the memories of being convicted and being in jail.

      still tho your point that incarceration happens to only people deemed as being guilty is true. the debate i have is about whether or not to assume that all who are labeled as guilty ARE guilty.

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    70. Re:My rights? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      You are a serious idiot with absolutely no clue about history or this country or any other country.

      And being a serious idiot, you'll end up committing a "crime" (by some other idiot's definition - or even your own - or, since you're an idiot, an actual really, really real crime) and then you'll - probably not get the clue intended, because you're an idiot.

      Have a nice day, moron.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    71. Re:My rights? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      Or the sordid tale of chemical weapons transfer to Saddam Hussein courtesy of our Leader's father, Ronald Reagan, and our current Secretary of Defense.

      Also untouched by the current fascist Justice Department - big surprise.

      Meanwhile, a Federal court just threw out Sibel Edmond's appeal to have her "national security" gag order eliminated. You remember Sibel? She's the FBI translator who says that if she is ever allowed to testify in court, "senior elected officials" of the US government "will go to jail." (Hint: How many "senior elected officials" do we have in Washington? Uhm, I think the Senate, the Congress, and the White House?)

      So Ashcroft gagged her.

      In the hearing, she and her lawyers were ushered out of the room and guarded while "Justice" Department attorneys huddled with the judge. Then they were called in, and the case was dismissed - with no reason given by the judge.

      Welcome to "Night and Fog"...

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    72. Re:My rights? by khrtt · · Score: 1

      It is a matter of your rights, as one day you may be a prisoner. Claiming its not about your rights because you're not in jail is like saying slavery wasn't about your rights because you weren't black.

      There is a big difference - according to your own words, you one day may be a prisoner, but you are far less likely to become black slave (unless you are black, and go back in time). You have a lot more interest in prisoner rights then in rights of black slaves. If you don't believe me, just ask yourself if you have used a p2p application lately - and I can think of quite a few other ways a normal non-criminal person might end up in jail through no fault of his own:-).

    73. Re:My rights? by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1
      Tell me that sitting in a place where you can trust noone, get ass pounded, get full body cavity searched regularly, and stay confined in a small cell for over 10 years when you are sentenced to death is not cruel or unusual. I would never even think of doing that to someone no matter what they did.

      Would you tell that to the guy that raped, beat, and then killed your 14 year old daughter? I find it hard to consider "human" someone who would be capable of such atrocity and, in turn, difficulty in my feelings of sympathy and attribution of human rights. When you know that those conditions could be the consequences for your actions, it should be a pretty simple choice: don't break the law if you don't like the consequences. Otherwise, this is where you go. The monster you might have sympathy for "no matter what they did" probably wouldn't have the same regard for the life of your or your loved ones.

      Granted I'm a little kooky because I believe that murder should be legal so that it would deter crime, but I'm way in the minority with that belief.

      I believe you are, because under certain circumstances, it is legal to use deadly force to protect yourself or your property from an attacker. I guess it depends on what you define as "murder".

      Ironically, bars and restaurants are for some reason still legal to server(sic) alcohol even though you are not allowed to leave the place nor stay there.

      I don't quite understand what you mean here. Why aren't you allowed to leave a place? Do you mean you aren't allowed to "drive" away? I also don't quite understand about it being ironic about it still being legal for bars and resturants to serve alcohol, then follow it up with a quote about prohibition. Am I missing something here?

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    74. Re:My rights? by Puff+Daddy · · Score: 1

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Black woman + black man = black child. Every time. Their child is genetically predisposed to being black. A similar correlation probably exists for both parents being incarcerated, and it may even have a genetic component. This is not caused solely and directly by genes inherited from the parents. Being black is. This has nothing to do with the study you misunderstood that said there is no genetic difference betweeen the races.

    75. Re:My rights? by damiam · · Score: 1

      Wow, did you really just claim that people aren't genetically disposed to be black?

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    76. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And good practice for once we start tracking the population as a whole to prevent crimes in the first place. You know, crimes like murder, rape, driving near suspicious places, voting for the Green Party...

    77. Re:My rights? by modecx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And that's part of what I've never really understood either, so they're not allowed to purchase firearms, and can't have signifigant security clearances... That makes sense--they're supposedly rehabilitated, and still not especially trustable. I have no problem with that.

      But what's with the no-voting? That seems like a basic human right sort of thing to me. In US law, you're a felon if you may be imprisoned for more than a year, at least that's what I understand. So, if you could be sentenced for more than a year by violating copyright, you could be a felon.

      If you were wrongly convicted/were deemed a felon by a stupid law, you effectively have no means to influence the system, that seems kinda' stupid to me.... Especially considering I'd probably be more inclined to trust a newly released felon more than your average politician.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    78. Re:My rights? by DenmaFat · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing anything other than the fact that x percent (maybe it's .5 percent, maybe not) of the people we jail are innocent. I certainly don't think that means we should stop putting people in jail, or that the other 99.5% don't belong there.

      What it does mean is that we can't just think, "it doesn't matter what rights we take away from prisoners--they're criminals who gave up their rights and deserve whatever they get." Perhaps .5% of them are innocent people who are getting what they don't deserve. With 2,131,180 people in state, federal, or local jails as of June 2004 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm), that .5% translates to 10,655 people--no big deal, a vanishing statistic. Unless you're one of them. Granted, RFID is probably not high on the list of issues that worry them.

      --
      I love that donkey. Hell, I love everybody.
    79. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for one small thing... punishment very rarely works as a deterrent at actually preventing those crimes. Or preventing people from commiting them again. Since many prisoners are so discriminated against after their sentence is over, they become forced to live a life of crime just to survive.

    80. Re:My rights? by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 1

      Personally I figure that if you get pulled-over and are over 0.06, they crush your car. If you do it a second time, they crush your car AND take away your driver's license for life (ie: you NEVER drive again).

      That would stop the problem with drinking and driving - of course if people started driving without licenses, a few years in jail would cure them of that.

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    81. Re:My rights? by shawb · · Score: 1

      Poverty puts people in a situation where they are desperate enough to commit a crime.

      There is supposed evidence that it is far more difficult for a black person to succeed economically than a white person. Such as a study done in which resumes were sent out which were identical in every respect besides the name. The white sounding names were asked in for an interview almost three times as often.

      However, I wouldn't be surprised if stereotypical redneck names such as Cletus, Clem and Bubba were discriminated against just as much in the business world. Alghough those are more often nicknames or non-standard shortenings, while black people just have different names given at birth.

      You will probably also find that if you compare the crime/incarceration rates of different races but from similar socioeconimic backgrounds they tend to be quite similar, but that is just a hunch rather than something backed up with cold hard evidence.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    82. Re:My rights? by Fallen_Knight · · Score: 1

      so at 2,000,000 people jailed in the states that means 10,000 people shouldn't be jailed.

    83. Re:My rights? by wft_rtfa · · Score: 1
      I think this is good use of technology for people who were only in prison temporarily.

      However, maybe we should just ship the long-term inmates to a place where they won't bother us anymore... like Iraq or Afganistan. We won't even have to build prisons. Just give them some supplies and send them on their way. A similar solution worked well for the Britsh.

      --
      :-] :0 :-> :-| :->
    84. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny. I keep hearing in other threads that RFIDs are 'safe' and that people can't be tracked by them because they only work over short distance.

      I guess that's BULLSHIT.

    85. Re:My rights? by shawb · · Score: 1

      They've been using something like this for a long time in house arrests, which is half way between bail and incarceration in my mind. Granted, these leg collars just told whether they were in the house or not. I could also see it being used in halfway houses. But these are generally situations that you enter into in lieu of sitting in the slammer, and I'd guess that most people would rather be tracked in their own home than sitting in jail.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    86. Re:My rights? by rsklnkv · · Score: 1

      Well, considering you have about a one in 145 chance of becoming an inmate in the U.S. and that 2.2 million of your fellow citizens are already locked up, I'd say it might just be your business in the future...

      --
      _____ "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." -- Orwell
    87. Re:My rights? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      I looked this up while I was posting and I don't understand it.

      Now, voting isn't a Human Right, it's a right enumerated in the Constitution and has conditions. I'm not sure it's as high a level right as Speech, Freedom Religion, Arms.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A978 5-2004Aug17.html

      The 14th Amendment (1868) permits states to deny the vote "for participation in rebellion, or other crime."

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti on.amendmentxiv.html

      Sounds like the ban exists because of anti-Black laws from the Post-Reconstruction from the Democrats that came back then, and it's held up by Republicans and Social Conservatives now, it's a State issue so it should be easier to repeal at a local level, but I don't hear about liberal states like Oregon (where I live) working to repeal it.

      I don't understand why Ex-cons can't vote.

    88. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even know the definition of fascist?

    89. Re:My rights? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Except studies show that even .06 impairs your judgment (granted it's not that much), and some countries have the limit at 0.05.

    90. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have always had a problem with tracking individuals for life. No matter how bad of an act it is including child molestation. Now I do support having them killed for acts such as rape/molestation .

    91. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, so does not sleeping enough.
      Should we have mandatory sleep checks for drivers?

    92. Re:My rights? by jdog1016 · · Score: 1

      Depends on the type of rebellion (and the country). I, for one, take great national pride in my right to burn the American Flag, even though I won't, and anyone who thinks that right should be taken away doesn't understand the ideals that the United States was founded on in the first place.

    93. Re:My rights? by daraf · · Score: 1

      Ironically, bars and restaurants are for some reason still legal to server alcohol even though you are not allowed to leave the place nor stay there

      The bar or restaurant isn't responsible for ensuring you are safe to drive home, you are (the general "you", not the parent poster). I'm too tired to type out a rant on the degradation of personal responsibility in Western culture, so please just imagine one here [X].

    94. Re:My rights? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      prisoners gave up many of their rights when they commited a crime against society - theft - murder - etc.

      I'm not sure what you mean by a "crime against society"; any rational concept of crime can only include acts against actual people, not abstract nouns.

      I've got no problem with segregating violent people from the rest of us. But many people are in jail for acts which did not violate or credibly threaten to violate the rights of anyone else (drug possession, prostitution, et cetera).

      The U.S. has far and away the highest prison population in the world (both in raw numbers and per capita). It's likely that the easier it get to bring people "within the system", the more of us will be brought in.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    95. Re:My rights? by queef_latina · · Score: 0, Informative

      The whole felony/no-vote thing was originally designed to disenfranchise niggers.

      --
      Slashdotters: You are all a bunch of faggots.

      Do you hear me, you repulsive faggots? NO DIGG.

    96. Re:My rights? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Personally I figure that if you get pulled-over and are over 0.06, they crush your car. If you do it a second time, they crush your car AND take away your driver's license for life (ie: you NEVER drive again).

      That's plain stupid. A 6 month suspended license followed by prison time on a 2nd offence would likely be more effective. Naturally, the limit should be higher.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    97. Re:My rights? by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think if someone was convicted of being a child molestor three times, we shouldn't let him out. But yes, if someone is released from prison, then he shouldn't be tracked. The idea of letting them out is that they have paid for their crime. They are citizens again. Tracking movements aftwards is a violation of their rights to privacy and free assembly.

      You don't even see the contradiction in this, do you?
      The idea of letting them out is that they have paid for their crime.
      I think if someone was convicted of being a child molestor three times, we shouldn't let him out.
      If somebody has "paid" for their crime, why is it ever an issue again? Let's put it another way:
      The idea of letting the shoppers out of the store is that they have paid for their merchandise.
      I think if someone was found to have purchased a bag of apples three times, we shouldn't let him out.
      Sounds stupid, doesn't it?

      The truth of the matter is that sitting in a cage doesn't "pay" for anything. It's a punishment for doing something wrong, in a Pavlovian attempt to make the threat of more cage time prevent you from being bad. It might make the victim of the crime feel a bit better knowing that the cause of their woes is having a bad day. But that's about it.

      There's no "rehabilitation" in the "Criminal Rehabilitation System", unless you consider extreme boredom and being Bubba's biatch "rehabilitation".

      So, let's dispense this fiction, and get on with it... some crimes are committed out of mental illness for which there is no cure. (EG: Pedophilia) Why //NOT// track these criminals? Having a running history of where they were may well prove them innocent as "not at the scene" if there's ever a question in the future!

      Otherwise, let's cook up a system whereby a criminal actually CAN "pay" for his misdeeds. But let's not start on a lie, eh?
      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    98. Re:My rights? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Is it possible that the higher rates of arrest and conviction are correlated with higher rates of crime commission?

      It is possible, however, it appears that the crime commission rates are nearly equal. What happens, however, is that a black person who commits a crime is more likely to be arrested. Black people arrested are more likely to be charged. Black people charged are more given worse deal options from the prosecution. Black people taken through the courts are more likely to be convicted. Black people convicted are given longer sentences. Black people serve a longer portion of their sentence.

      For whatever reason, a black person will serve more that twice the time in prison as a white person that commits the same crime. It may be racism, or it may be urban poverty, or some other reason, but there is a significant disparity visible along racial lines.

    99. Re:My rights? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I'd be very interested to see your numbers.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    100. Re:My rights? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      However, in a recent study it was revealed that if you drink too much alcohol, you begin to drive as if you were talking on a cellphone.

    101. Re:My rights? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "Poverty puts people in a situation where they are desperate enough to commit a crime."

      How does poverty remove someone's free will and responsibility for their actions?

      It might make committing a crime more ATTRACTIVE, but nobody can make anybody else do anything. I don't care how bad your situation is: You always CHOOSE to do good or do wrong.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    102. Re:My rights? by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      It might make committing a crime more ATTRACTIVE, but nobody can make anybody else do anything. I don't care how bad your situation is: You always CHOOSE to do good or do wrong.

      Tell that to someone who hasn't eaten in a week. They're still responsible for what they do, in some strange Stoic sense of responsibility. But they lost they are compelled to do whatever it takes to eat by biological need.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    103. Re:My rights? by pugnatious · · Score: 1

      what's so funny about this?
      I ain't saying the parent doesn't have a point.
      All I'm saying is it should be modded "Insightful" rather than funny.

    104. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is untill it becomes mandatory by law ala "666"
      it`s only the next step to getting there (666).

    105. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one smells the other doesn`t....

    106. Re:My rights? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Er. Just one point. Thy jail gene is the "y" chromosome.
      Because just having it means that you are 15-20 times as likely to kill,mug or rob someone.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    107. Re:My rights? by dangitman · · Score: 1
      prisoners gave up many of their rights when they commited a crime against society - theft - murder - etc.

      Or selling a small amount of marijuana (how is that a crime against society?) ... Not to mention that many prisoners are actually innocent, and the justice system is highly corrupt, biased and unreliable. You could easily find yourself in prison, having committed no crime whatsoever. Even many of the "terrorists" at Guantanamo were actually innocent, and have been released.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    108. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      prisoners gave up many of their rights when they commited a crime against society - theft - murder - etc. personally i dont think a murderer should have the same rights i enjoy

      What about murderers who wear suits and kills millions of people and steals their land for short-term economic profit? Usually they are on government or at high positions in multinational corporations.

    109. Re:My rights? by dotgain · · Score: 1
      The purchase of firearms is case by case here in NZ anyway, felon or not. Since I've made the mistake of letting my GP diagnose me as depressed, I could probably no longer get a firearms licence and hence purchase them either.

      I think employers should also have the right to refuse employment to a convicted robber when operating, for example, a amoured van company.

      But the right to vote!? I mean, what harm could a crim do by voting, even he tried to vote 'maliciously'.

      Last Olympic games a guy called S. Pounceby was in training to represent NZ in the boxing, but the fact the he was an ex-convicted manslaughter divided the nation on opinion. But what's the point of jailing someone for x number of years if we're still not going to be happy with them around when that time is up?

    110. Re:My rights? by Medevo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Almost every study says ANYTHING over 0% BAC causes some level of impairment, just because we have set an arbitrary standard of 0.08 or 0.10 doesn't mean that these are "safe" levels.

      Many drivers at 0% can be more impaired then people with 0.15% due to distractions. But irregardless, it is safer to EVERYONE if the limit is "if you drink ANYTHING, you don't drive", yes you might have to get a taxi ride home and pick up your car in the morning, but that's the consequence of going out to drink, deal with it.

      Medevo

    111. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like being sent to Australia.

      From the immortal Bill Hicks:

      "So let me get this straight. You get to keep the shitty food, and the shitty weather... and we get the Great Barrier Reef and lobsters the size of canoes?"

      "...I'm Jack the Ripper."
      "No, *I'm* Jack the Ripper!"

    112. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crimes against society... like going against the **AA of the week, and it's not as if people are ever proven guilty while being innocent, nah, stuff like that just doesn't happen.

    113. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think if someone was convicted of being a child molestor three times, we shouldn't let him out

      I hope for the world's sake that the first two kids that every child molester diddles (the free ones, according to you) are your kids.

      The recidivism rate for child molesters is so high that once and done is a more appropriate response.

    114. Re:My rights? by farker+haiku · · Score: 1

      http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_ more/30convicting.html

      Actually, the percentage of wrongly incarcerated prisoners is increasing. Yearly. And that's in death penalty cases alone, which stand the highest amount of scrutiny in our legal system. Approximately 1 in 75 people on death row are found to be innocent. That may be a small enough ratio for you but it's not small enough for me. With approximately 6k people executed a year in the US, that means that 80 people are executed wrongly. This number is rising, not falling. Don't go off on a tangent about something you know nothing about - it's a problem when people propogandize the internet with no knowledge of what they speak. Go sit down with a public defender, buy him or her a beer and learn something new. It'll be a horrifying experience.

      --
      Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
    115. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a convicted felon, I can say that prisoners should have very minimal rights. That is, food on a regular basis, a place to sleep, and no torture. But the whining and crap that goes on over stuff like this is stupid. Prison/jail is not supposed to be fun or happy or whatever.

    116. Re:My rights? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Both are about the civil rights of human beings
      The basic problem I have with civil rights is that the civil authority that granted them, can capriciously remove them; it's much better to have inalienable natural rights. That way if congress goes on a nut and screws us over, the courts hopefully can overturn the offending law.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    117. Re:My rights? by The+Ephialtist · · Score: 1

      Aren't all our actions predetermined by a combination of the genetic code that made up our brain's biochemical balance, and the sequence of events that brought us to our current status? Aren't all our so-called choices defined by these factors? This would mean that imprisonment isn't a punishment for previous wrongdoings, as the wrongdoer's illegal actions were predetermined, but it is an event that may influence the wrongdoer's future choices. I've been thinking about this recently and I can't quite persuade myself that free will isn't a myth.

      --
      The things people do for money are amazing, but not half as shocking as what they do for free.
    118. Re:My rights? by jred · · Score: 1

      If she knew so much, she would become a non-person...

      well, if I were that powerful & she had the dirt on me, she would.

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    119. Re:My rights? by Surt · · Score: 1

      The part where you go wrong is where you believe that black woman + black man = black child. It's not true every time, and it's true less often then anti-social father + anti-social mother = anti-social child. I didn't claim it wasn't 'true' just that it wasn't as well established.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    120. Re:My rights? by Surt · · Score: 1

      No, reread my post more carefully.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    121. Re:My rights? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      From WikiPedia:

      Definition

      The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that

      * exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual
      * uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition
      * engages in severe economic and social regimentation
      * engages in corporatism
      * implements totalitarianism

      Anything else you want to know?

      I'd say all of these fit right in with the current administration's attitude and behavior.

      You can't see that, you're a moron.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    122. Re:My rights? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Free will is a myth, but it doesn't matter because we can't do anything about it. So imprisoning people for acting in their predetermined ways makes perfect sense, because we have no choice about it.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    123. Re:My rights? by JJ · · Score: 1

      The article does say that inmates wear the transponders. Like forcing prisoners to wear different uniforms from guards, I don't consider this a transgression of their rights.

      --
      So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
    124. Re:My rights? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      And don't forget the flies! You get terrific flies too!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    125. Re:My rights? by che.kai-jei · · Score: 1

      um actually - i believe he does.

      he is using the term in the classical sense in regards to the current political legal climate.
      maybe you should go look it up , sweetie.

    126. Re:My rights? by Apocros · · Score: 1

      comparing serving a prison sentence to buying apples is about the most asinine analogy i've seen in quite some time. and it's not like the original use of the word pay was incorrect in its context.

      --
      "onward!" cried the copper man, little knowing brass corrupts...
    127. Re:My rights? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Odd, I knew someone would say that. And if you devise and easy and mostly fool-proof test then yes we should, however unlike alchohol sleep-deprivation is a bit harder to check for.

    128. Re:My rights? by modecx · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know voting isn't a human right, but with all of the pro-democracy stuff the US is slinging around, and how democracy is the best thing since gyros (the sandwich), it would seem to be the next logical step, in line with those other things.

      But the anti-Black aspect makes sense, as stupid as it is.. Too bad nobody's willing to change it. I say that if they're fit to rejoin society, they're fit to vote.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    129. Re:My rights? by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Will you respond? Is it too late?

      Explain to me how anything is made "right" or any debt "paid" by locking a criminal up in a cage for a year. As I've said, locking bad guys in said cages makes the victims feel a bit better.

      If something is "paid" for, the deal's over. Finite, No max. Except, as clearly demonstrated by the great grandparent poster, it isn't.

      Suffering != Payment

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    130. Re:My rights? by maddryn · · Score: 1

      the idea behind it is to protect the officers and to insure the prisoners (who have already violated someones rights (you know we lock them up for that right??, murder, rape, assault, etc.. things like that your imprisoned for BECAUSE you violated someone elses rights and freedoms) stay behind bars if you continue to read about alanco and their progress youll find in the prior press release they are assisting with one of the largest single changes in the prisons in Europe (nederlands to be exact). I find it utterly amazing where one company who is attempting to assist and actually "create" a product that helps protect people and all anyone does is snivle about how it might effect them if they were in prison.... Wow we wouldnt want to protect the people that havent commited a violent crime and revoked their rights?? And I dont suppose anyone read the article on OSDN about their push for linux and linux clusters... talk about single minded remember when you are more focused on how anything will affect you only and not how YOU might or might not better man or mankind you lose sight of true freedom and focus solely on selfish goals.

      --
      When in doubt bash it out
    131. Re:My rights? by Zareste · · Score: 1

      Let's just hope you're lawfully allowed to say that.

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
    132. Re:My rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Jews gave up their right not to be thrown in an oven when they became Jews.

      Pretty obvious where this kind of thinking comes from.

  2. You will... by admactanium · · Score: 4, Funny

    great! now i can walk straight out of my local grocery store without the inconvenience of having to stop and pay for my prison inmate!

  3. Why not? by lav-chan · · Score: 1

    Not a fan at all of using RFIDs for 'regular' people, but as far as inmates are concerned it sounds good to me. As long as the RFIDs are removed before they, you know, get released.

    1. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Not a fan at all of using RFIDs for 'regular' people, but as far as inmates are concerned

      Exactly. Don't do anything to good people, but inmates, Jews, Arabs, and other terrorists, well, we know they're less than human....

    2. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the prison will continue to have sensors all over LA? The bracelet becomes worthless outside of the prison, because there are no sensors looking for, or able to recognize, what the bracelets are. Even if you had a RFID reader, what good would the ID # the bracelet gave you do for you?

      RFID is just a wireless bar code scanner people? If you arent worried about pirate bar code scanners why does RFID scare you so much?

    3. Re:Why not? by Homology · · Score: 1
      Not a fan at all of using RFIDs for 'regular' people, but as far as inmates are concerned it sounds good to me. As long as the RFIDs are removed before they, you know, get released.

      And what benefit will it have to spend $1bn on this? I'm sure this money could be put to better use, like schools.

    4. Re:Why not? by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > > Not a fan at all of using RFIDs for 'regular' people, but as far as inmates are concerned it sounds good to me. As long as the RFIDs are removed before they, you know, get released.
      >
      >And what benefit will it have to spend $1bn on this? I'm sure this money could be put to better use, like schools.

      Spoken like a taxpayer, not a lobbyist.

      The $1B will benefit contractors who build the devices and related software, lobbyists who can expand the usage to children (to protect them while they're at the schools of which you speak from criminals not yet incarcerated :), and politicians who can claim they're protecting your children's freedom by being tough on crime.

      In other words, don't worry. Some of that money will be spent on schools. Now shut the fuck up and fork over the cash, serf.

    5. Re:Why not? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it works to improve safety and reduce escapes, then it results in lower costs through greater public safety, lower prison hospital bills, and fewer lawsuits against the state over effects of prison violence.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    6. Re:Why not? by lav-chan · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Don't do anything to good people, but inmates, Jews, Arabs, and other terrorists, well, we know they're less than human....

      Because tracking the movements of prisoners while they're locked up for committing a crime is exactly the same as tracking the movements of random Jews and Arabs. Good thinking.


      And what benefit will it have to spend $1bn on this? I'm sure this money could be put to better use, like schools.

      Beats me, i don't know anything about economics. I meant the general idea.

    7. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice troll.

      Is your mother proud of you?

    8. Re:Why not? by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      RFID is just a wireless bar code scanner people? If you arent worried about pirate bar code scanners why does RFID scare you so much?

      Not necessarilly, there are RFID smart cards, which can hold a lot more information than just a string of numbers. For example, one application is to have a number, a fingerprint, and a picture of a person in a smart card. All of this is read by a hand-held scanner, the picture is displayed, the fingerprint can be checked, and the number looked up in a database to get the rest of the info.
      With just a little imagination, this can be abstracted to a contactless National ID card, which would hold all of the information about a person, and be easily used to track citizens wherever they go, and to steal their info by an unscrupulous person.
      All that said, I like this idea. You go to jail, you get tagged. When you get out, you get to take the tag off. That the guards get tagged too is not a bad idea, it would be a good safety feature in case of riot. SWAT would know where any hostages are, and be able to storm that room to get them out. Plus, knowing where the rioting inmates are would make shooting them eaiser. Though, the guard's tag should be removed when they go home at night.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
  4. Not a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I don't like the concept of wireless inmates.

  5. Just make them a fashionable yellow... by gringo_john · · Score: 3, Funny

    Make them out of plastic, and yellow. Then all the inmates will want to wear them!

    1. Re:Just make them a fashionable yellow... by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1

      rofl. Glad to know I'm not the only who thinks the whole yellow bracelet thing is incredibly silly.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    2. Re:Just make them a fashionable yellow... by danpat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hey, those yellow bracelets are supposed to be a fundrasing exercise.

      See http://www.livestrong.org/

      Unfortunately there are a whole bunch of scams selling "fake" bracelets, or overcharging (note that the Lance Armstrong foundation sets a price of $1 each).

    3. Re:Just make them a fashionable yellow... by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1
      thats my point exactly. I see kids at my school with five or six of em in different colors. I'll bet good money that the Lance Armstrong Foundation isn't seeing any of that money.

      It might have meant something at some point, but like American flags in NYC right after 911, its been reduced to a fashion statement.

      And not a very good one.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    4. Re:Just make them a fashionable yellow... by magefile · · Score: 1

      Different colors for different groups - the LAF doesn't have a monopoly on fundraising. I've seen 'em for several rare disorder communities I belong to, for dead police officers, and a whole host of other worthy causes. Maybe it is a fashion statement - but it's a fashion statement that helps fund valuable activities, which is something most American flags don't.

    5. Re:Just make them a fashionable yellow... by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

      Electronic tags have already become a fashion accessory amongst UK youth. It's only a matter of time before the cheap imitations become common...

  6. I'm all for knowing whewre prisoners are by deft · · Score: 3, Funny

    but isn't it just slightly weird they dont know where they are now?

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    1. Re:I'm all for knowing whewre prisoners are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, strictly the warden only needs to know we're inside the perimeter - anything beyond that is just an optimisation. The RFID tags are promised in Incarceration 2.0.

      PS We're all proponents of the OSI model here: Release early, release often

  7. jail currency? by thedustbustr · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is marked by a sudden decrease of the value of Penthouse rags while tinfoil becomes a precious metal.

    --
    This sig is false.
  8. Are theseeasy to remove? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If so, inmates will just take them off and, well, I'll let you complete the rest of the thought.

  9. Ready? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be prepared for the usual bullshit slippery slope arguments to follow.

  10. Wow, Groklaw's really gone downhill by GojiraDeMonstah · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    OK, before you mod me down, I was talking about the page header they seem to have stolen from Groklaw.

    --
    "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
    1. Re:Wow, Groklaw's really gone downhill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually a Radio Userland template.

  11. In other news... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    Finally, a reason for RFID to exist.

    Yes, and in other news tinfoil and microwaves have suddenly become more valuable then sharpened toothbrushes and cigarettes. Ah, what would Morgan Freeman have done?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:In other news... by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, if the system was designed with any sanity, it will sound an alarm the moment the sensors lose track of the bracelet.

      Unfortunately, if I know anything about human behaviour, the guards will disable these alarms instead of investigating them. And this will render this system worthless.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:In other news... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds like you're never been in a prison.

      --
      "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    3. Re:In other news... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      LA County, or other County or City Jails is not Prison. Different monsters

    4. Re:In other news... by Fussen · · Score: 1

      Yes, and in other news tinfoil and microwaves have suddenly become more valuable then sharpened toothbrushes and cigarettes. Ah, what would Morgan Freeman have done?

      What would Morgan Freeman have done?? What would Gordon Freeman have done?!

    5. Re:In other news... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      Absolutely true.

      And state prisons are not Federal prisons.

      I have Federal experience and some county experience (since I was held in a county jail for ten months because the Federal Detention Center was overcrowded.)

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    6. Re:In other news... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Funny

      Makes my 3 days in Dewey County South Dakota small tatters ;)

    7. Re:In other news... by GraemeDonaldson · · Score: 1

      Never mind them. What would BRIAN BOITANO do?

      --
      I think, therefore I am. I think?
    8. Re:In other news... by plaxion · · Score: 1

      GUARD: Sir, the sensors have just lost track of 102420484096's bracelet!

      SUPERVISOR: Where'd he go?

      GUARD: I don't know! I tried to run a location query, but the system just gives me a "prisoner not found error".

      SUPERVISOR: I thought this thing was supposed to keep track of prisoners.

      [Supervisor calls the Warden]

      SUPERVISOR: Hello Mr. Warden, this new system that you recommended to the governor just lost track of prisoner 102420484096 so I was wondering...

      WARDEN: Yes?

      SUPERVISOR: If the system is supposed to track a prisoner but then loses track of them, what happens then?

      WARDEN: You get fired.

      SUPERVISOR: But sir, how could that be my fault?!

      WARDEN: It is now because I'm not about to tell Governer Schwarzenegger that I f*ed up. I've seen his movies and that man can do some damage!

    9. Re:In other news... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      No, but I've seen too many computer or cell phone users who click "Yes" to a series of damn clear messages just to have an alert go away.

      The RFID system will have a moderate amount of false alarms, and guards will do anything to return to browsing Playboy and/or playing cards.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  12. Purpose of Prisons? by jgardn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have been thinking lately about crime and punishment. We have two reasons for sending people to prison in the first place:

    (1) To punish them.

    (2) To reform them.

    Both of these purposes have been lost completely.

    We punish the prisoners by secluding them from society, cutting them away for a period of time in proportion to the seriousness of their crime.

    We reform them by teaching them new habits and skills that will help them survive beyond the prison walls without returning to crime.

    What does this have to do with either? Absolutely nothing. I'd rather we spent our prison budget on working to enhance the education and reformation of the prisoners rather than keeping track of where they are at all times, something that we don't have a problem with right now.

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    1. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Homology · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I'd rather we spent our prison budget on working to enhance the education and reformation of the prisoners rather than keeping track of where they are at all times, something that we don't have a problem with right now.

      Note that no democratic state has such a large portion of it's citizens in prison than USA. US prison system is big business, and reformation of prisoners is not part of that.

    2. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Escape from Alcatraz' would have been much more interesting with RFID involved.

    3. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      You know, that statistic is always thrown about (and has been at least twice in this document already), and I'm just curious as to _why_ we're the biggest. Do we have that many more laws or more criminals? Or more poeple we classify as criminal? I'm thinking drug use is a big seperator, but as far as I know in most western countries you can't legally buy herion or crack in a store. So what is it? The greater number of working poor? Does having more people in jail mean more crime? Could the US have as much crime as Russia and just be more efficient at prosecuting it? Sorry, no answers, just pondering.

    4. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by rizzo420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the punishments don't fit the crimes in the US. while drug use/possession might be illegal elsewhere, it's not as major an offense as it is here. prison time for possession of marijuana. it's a non-violent crime. how about a fine or community service instead? the's why our prisons are over-crowded, there's too many non-violent "criminals" locked up. drugs shouldn't even be illegal here. and don't go and say "your username contains 420, so of course you think that" because i just got in the habit of adding that after my name when "rizzo" didn't work. there's just no really good reason for drugs to be illegal while alcohol and cigarettes are legal.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    5. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by eggnet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. The primary purposes of jails are to deter crime and to keep criminals off the street. Punishment is a means to an end, and reform is just a good idea.

      2. Sometimes, law enforcement doesn't even know what jail someone's in, where they need to be transferred to, when they need medical attention, or what their release date is.

    6. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      It will be interesting to see if the number of inmates begins to decline in the coming years as three-strikers begin to get released at the end of their sentences, or die in prison. Not sure if there will be quite as many of them going in, barring something like a new crack epidemic.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    7. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have been thinking lately about crime and punishment. We have two reasons for sending people to prison in the first place:

      (1) To punish them.

      (2) To reform them.

      I can think of at least two others:

      (3) warehousing---i.e., separate them from the rest of society

      (4) intimidation --- i.e., punish a few and the rest will toe the line.

    8. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      there's just no really good reason for drugs to be illegal while alcohol and cigarettes are legal.

      We can't remove alcohol and tobacco from our society, they are too much a part of it now. However, just because our great grandparents did a stupid thing, that doesn't mean we should start letting every man and his dog start shooting up.

      In 100 years time, our great grand children will be pushing the same argument - "We should be legalising "Zoglanoff Red", because our parents legalised heroin and coke. And god damn those heroin companies for trying to conceal the fact that it's addictive, and who do we sue because our parents have mental disorders from the LSD they did as kids. Someone should have done something."

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    9. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by simetra · · Score: 1

      It has to do with tracking them, making it easier to administer the system.

      It would be very lovely if spending more money on reforming them actually helped, but most criminals are not reformable. So, we should herd them like cattle and call it good.

      --

      "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
    10. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Nf1nk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Deep down inside, I don't care if yousmoke dope or not a long as you do it on your own time. The dude who flips my burgers or sweeps my floor could be stoned out of his mind and not change his performance, but the anti drug folks always bring out the surgeon strawman (which is funny because I know a few doc's that are half in the bag most the time.
      In fact to be stuck with a mind numbing job like watching a cash register and not be blotto seems like cruel and unusual punishment.
      Oh and to the folks that point out that pot makes you stupid, I say so what, I don't use pot so its just less competition for the few remaining good jobs.

      --
      I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
    11. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by rizzo420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you haven't told me why drugs should be illegal? the facts are out there that they can mess you up when abused. people should be held responsible for their own actions, not protected from themselves. the government is protecting me by making pot illegal, yet i can use it and not cause harm to others or myself. same goes for a slew of other drugs... heroin is an exception because you're practically hooked once you shoot up the first time.

      people like you make me sick.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    12. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Ed+Thomson · · Score: 1

      Another purpose that prisions serve is that they remove criminals from society therefore reducing crime.

    13. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by TeraCo · · Score: 0, Troll
      you haven't told me why drugs should be illegal?

      Because I don't want to have to pay to look after you in 20 years time because you can't control your bladder after your brain is fried.

      Hell, I don't want to pay for people who have fucked their liver drinking, but that pandora's box has already been opened.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    14. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by megalomang · · Score: 1

      Purposes of prisons:

      (1) To punish them.
      (2) To reform them.

      (3) Remove convicts from society, where they can harm people again.
      (4) Not administer "cruel and unusual punishment" nor violate certain unalienable rights of the prisoners.
      (5) Not be an excessive financial burden on society

      It is not intended to accomplish either of your two purposes. I added a few more "purposes" to the list. While the bracelets are not meant to enhance the punishment nor the reformation, they will hopefully: (3) help keep the prisoners in the jail by hopefully alerting the guards when the prisoner is outside of permissible regions, (4) protect prisoners from murderers and rapists by holding all prisoners accountable for their proximities to others at all times, and (5) since tracking is automated, perhaps computers can alert guards when a prisoner goes somewhere that is not allowed, reducing the need for guards to sit idle (or sleep) while simply watching closed-circuit video for potential break-outs or out-breaks.

      Hope this helps!

    15. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Reform in Prisons is not one of the original reasons people were imprisoned. It's a more modern ideal, from the 1800s in the US.

      This system does help, because the LA system has been notorious for losing prisoners, putting white-collar criminals into violent populations, etc.

      The LA County RFID system is not a prison system tracking system, it's a system to track a large population in a number of facilities and in transist across the LA County Corrections system.

      So wondering about how this effects education and reform is misplaced, that should be pondered at the Prison level, not the Jail level.

      I've been in Jail, but not Prison, so think of Corrections like this...

      Holding - At the Police/Sheriff station
      Layer of Transport
      Jail - Where you go for a few days-months waiting for bail, court, remanded without bail, misdemeanors. I did 3 days in Jail.
      Layer of Transport
      Prison - Felons, long term misdemeanors, white collar and blue collar, the big house, State or Federal or Military, hard time (somtimes) with death rows and work systems and education systems (sometimes). Various levels of security and harshness

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_pr isons
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._federal_ prisons

    16. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by shmlco · · Score: 1
      yet i can use it and not cause harm to others or myself...

      Yeah, I'm pretty sure those people who drank booze thought pretty much the same thing... before they ran their car over the kid and themselves into the tree. Or drove their airplane into the ground, or their oil tanker onto it. Or...

      Personally, I could care less what happens to you. But stupid behaviours have a way of impacting those around you, usually to their detriment.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    17. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by line.at.infinity · · Score: 1

      What does this have to do with either? Absolutely nothing. I'd rather we spent our prison budget on working to enhance the education and reformation of the prisoners rather than keeping track of where they are at all times, something that we don't have a problem with right now.

      Actually one of the main benefits of RFID systems is that they are often times the cheaper alternative when compared with other technologies. Also, keeping track of prisoners is a big issue because there have been gang wars within prisons in the past.

    18. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Uh huh. And driving under the influence is already illegal.

      Not driving while under the influence should not be illegal.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    19. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by houghi · · Score: 1

      US prison system is big business, and reformation of prisoners is not part of that.

      That is a part that scares me. The interest lies in getting as many people in prison as possible, because that brings profit.

      Now imagine that suddenly everybody behaves, these business would go out of business. Would they like that? No. Most likely they will loby to get others things illegal to get the people back into their profittable prison.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    20. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      We don't know what damage it does though. Remember, 40 years ago movie stars were encouraging children to light up and then fastforward to the present and "Holy shit, these things kill you?"

      If these things are still harmless in 40 years, then you might have a case for legalisation.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    21. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

      Your SIG: (1) Kill all terrorists. (2) Convert to Islam. Unfortunately, diplomacy is not a part of either.

      If you kill all the terrorists, you're just going to have more terrorists. You need to get to the source of the problem: "Why are these people now into Islamic extremism? Why does the population support the terrorists?" This is a realm where diplomacy helps, and dramatic shows of domination do not.

    22. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by UnrefinedLayman · · Score: 1

      So rather than restricting the rights of the government to take your money and spend it on others, you want to restrict the rights of the individual to do with their bodies as they see fit?

      Yeah, your way is much better. Everybody wins!

    23. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which do you think will be easier to sell to the legislature?

    24. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      you want to restrict the rights of the individual to do with their bodies as they see fit?

      Sure. We do that already in countless thousands of ways. Try jacking off in front of a primary school, and see how readily you are able to use your body as you see fit.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    25. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I don't care what damage it does. I should be free to damage myself.

      Note: I drink sparingly, and eschew drugs almost completely. (I do take the occasional ibuprofin tablet.) I've never ingested a proscribed substance. I should, however, be free to do so if I choose.

      I am certain that the black-market economy around drug sale is responsible for far more damage than the drugs themselves.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    26. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      I don't care what damage it does. I should be free to damage myself.

      Ahaha. Sure, but you live in the US where there is no government healthcare to speak of, so knock yourself out. In Australia, where we have to rehabilitate you after you give yourself brain damage, I think we should be a bit more guarded.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    27. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Pete · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. And if using the Internet is still harmless in 40 years, you might have a case for legalisation.

      But until then, Internet use will be harshly and brutally punished. Internet trafficking, of course, will earn the death penalty.

    28. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      (1) Kill all terrorists.

      If you kill all the terrorists, you're just going to have more terrorists.

      Technically, if you follow this plan to its logical extreme, it will be successful. The downside is that the logical extreme will end up being better written as "Kill all followers of Islam." While it's a common saying that, "Violence never solves anything" this is obviously untrue. The problem is that most modern societies lack the will to follow through with the level of violence necessary to solve some problems. Perhaps a better saying is, "If violence isn't solving your problem, use more."
      As in the example of Islamic extremists, if you kill a few of them, you just piss off more. If you kill a very large number of them, you still end up with those who become pissed off exteremists. However, if you were to commit genocide (a bit of a misnomer, but you get the point) and kill off every last follower of Islam, no matter how peaceful, in the end you would have no Islamic extremeists left. It might also require killing a lot of related people as well, but the general principal is there.
      Now, thankfully, the few societies which have the military power to start commiting genocide refuse to do so on moral grounds. Which means that, we would probably be better served to use some measure of diplomacy to resolve the issue. Though, with the general trend in US people these days, I am starting to wonder if they might soon condone genocide as an option?

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    29. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by mikelieman · · Score: 1
      Two ways to end the war: (1) Kill all terrorists. (2) Convert to Islam. Unfortunately, diplomacy is not a part of either


      Congress declared War? I must have missed the vote.

      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    30. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      Absolutely. And if using the Internet is still harmless in 40 years, you might have a case for legalisation.

      I agree, you often hear about people ODing on the internet and being raced to hospital. The internet junkies becoming physiologically addicted to the internet. The quicker we ban this terrible menace, the better for all.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    31. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      By that argument, why is alcohol legal?

      The end (saving money) does not justify the means (curtailing liberty).

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    32. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      By that argument, why is alcohol legal?

      Who knows? My theory is that it is legal because it's been around for so long that we can't get rid of it. People in favour of legalising all these other drugs go "But it's not as bad as Alcohol, and it is legal." however alcohol is a pretty shitty milestone to be using. It makes you violent, causes significant phyisological damage over time, and is a leading cause of drink driving (hoho).

      As I told a friend of mine the other day, if you can show that cocaine is nearly as harmless as lemonade (or caffiene tabs), then you have a pretty good case for legalising it, but just don't compare it to alcohol.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    33. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Pete · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, the beloved nanny state.

      Look, either you have a right to take risks with your body or you don't. And if you think we don't, then what the hell are you doing outside, walking around, breathing potentially unsafe air, drinking/eating potentially unsafe substances?

      The cost of what the government chooses to do regarding people with brain damage due to drug abuse (though I doubt that's a significant problem of drug abuse) should not be justification for criminalising the use of, eg. heroin. Otherwise you could use much the same argument to make eating at McDonalds a crime (I'm sure the cost of health care due to obesity would be two or three orders of magnitude larger than the cost of health care due to all drug-abuse problems combined).

    34. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      Ahhh, the beloved nanny state.

      Not really a nanny state as such - Go, carve your own legs off with a band saw. I couldn't give a stuff. But when we have to sew your stumps closed, you'd better be able to pay for it.

      You have as much right as you like to risk your body - I totally support people sky diving, even BASE jumping (although I think they're retarded for doing so), however they'd better have private health cover, or I'm going to be pissed off when I get the bill for their 12 months is hospital while every bone in their body heals.

      And yeah, obesity is a problem that everyone is just starting to work out. There must be a generic solution we can put in place to fix it though - We put flouride in the water to lower our dental bills, maybe we can add olestra to it as well.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    35. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I don't care if it's harmful. I think it's harmful, so I don't want to take it. There's a principle here: People should be as free as possible. That means, they should be free to make bad decisions.

      Look, if you legalize pot and cocaine, and tax the HELL out of it, the product will be safer (it won't be cut with rat poison) and will bankroll treatment programs for anybody who wants to stop using. It'll also vastly cut down the amount of law enforcement and prison spending, which is of course why it'll never happen.

      Drugs aren't illegal because they're harmful to society. They're illegal because too many people on both sides of the law make money on 'em.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    36. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by UnrefinedLayman · · Score: 1

      You're right. If slashdot allowed editing, I would amend my statement to say "with their bodies in the privacy of their homes." I like the idea of lives being lived in the "I don't fuck with you, you don't fuck with me" attitude. In that sense, jacking off in front of a primary school would definitely be considered fucking with someone.

      Victimless crimes are the type I don't believe to be steadfastly wrong.

    37. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      Look, if you legalize pot and cocaine, and tax the HELL out of it, the product will be safer (it won't be cut with rat poison) and will bankroll treatment programs for anybody who wants to stop using. It'll also vastly cut down the amount of law enforcement and prison spending, which is of course why it'll never happen.

      You're assuming that the amount we make on taxes will cover the medical bills, which it won't. Look at alcohol/alcohol related crimes and tobacco/tobacco related illnesses. They don't make nearly enough to cover the spending, and it's going to get worse before it gets better.

      Also, if it's legal, what possible incentive would people have to stop using? Look at tobacco, people know it's bad, but they continue to smoke themselves into an iron lung.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    38. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Pete · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If marijuana should be illegal because it's harmful, then alcohol and tobacco should definitely be illegal too because they're much more harmful than marijuana. And probably coffee should be illegal because that's in the same harmfulness ballpark as marijuana.

      Marijuana is an interesting case - it's the classic example of a currently illegal drug for which there is no good reason (not even the poor reason of "it'll hurt you!") for its illegality. It's mildly intoxicating and it's not addictive (perhaps habit-forming at worst (ie. much like using the internet :), but not addictive).

      Penn and Teller's Bullshit did an episode on drugs in general (and marijuana in particular) a while ago. The one bit that stuck in my head involved them showing death counts due to particular drugs. Cigarettes - quite a lot, as you'd expect. Alcohol - quite a lot as well. Marijuana... zero. As in "not any at all, ever".

      So why is it illegal again?

      I find it very difficult to believe the cost to society of legalising all drugs could come anywhere near the cost of the "war on drugs". Also, legalising drugs would (conveniently) upset one group of people more than any other - organised crime (Homer: "Mmmm.... organised crime"). Their biggest money-earner would be gone just like that.

    39. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      marijuana and cocaine ahve been around just as long as alcohol, they just haven't been as prominent in society.

      they tried making alcohol illegal in the US, but that caused teh same crime and trouble that exists due to illegal drugs.

      what scientific studies show that alcohol makes you violent? when i'm drunk, i don't get violent.

      caffeine is an addictive substance. i know several people who have tried to get off it, but had just a hard a time as people i know who were addicted to cigarettes and ecstasy (different people). and you're telling me caffeine is harmless... HA!

      marijuana is harmless. it doesn't cause addiction, it doesn't cause death, and when used properly in THE PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOME, you affect no one but yourself. there are no known deaths related to marijuana.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    40. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      We have two reasons for sending people to prison in the first place:

      (1) To punish them.

      (2) To reform them.


      Punishment is a negative reinforcer for an organism following a behavior that _reduces_ the likelihood of that behavior will be repeated.

      Reform is more of a human thing that also deals with behavior modification.

      Given the data, is prison effective at punishment or reform?

      I don't think so.

      I do believe that the most effective part of prison is the negative reinforcement associated with people out of prison. I'm sure a few people have curbed their desire to kill someone or whatever purely from the fact that people are in prison right now for doing the same thing. Seeing stuff like CSI makes it even more scary for people.

      I'd rather we spent our prison budget on working to enhance the education and reformation of the prisoners rather than keeping track of where they are at all times, something that we don't have a problem with right now.

      Education is only appreciated by a minority of people. Its easy for us geeks to say such a thing, but we are geeky and actually like learning stuff, whereas most people have pride in their ignorance. Reform would be good, but paying 40-50k a year for incarceration and ruining their lives seems more favorable.

    41. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      If marijuana should be illegal because it's harmful, then alcohol and tobacco should definitely be illegal too because they're much more harmful than marijuana.

      Absolutely.. but we tried that and we ended up with more problems than we solved. So I think that evil is out of the box for good. Find a better reason than "But we legalised alcohol" :)

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    42. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      PS: Of course Penn and Teller said 'Marijuana... zero. As in "not any at all, ever"'. They had an agenda to push. (The agenda of getting people to watch TV).

      What about deaths due to lung cancer from smoking Marijuana? I'm sure they're out there, eclipsed by lung cancer deaths related to smoking.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    43. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      I agree. If drug addicts can climb into the drug bubble and not harm anyone else. They can do it wherever they like.

      But the other side is, every dollar we spend on the drug problem (or the alcohol problem, or the obesity problem for that matter) is a dollar that we're not spending on flying robot cars (or education, or space travel, or pick your favorite funding widget).

      I want robot cars, and since I can't have them, I blame the drug dealers.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    44. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      what scientific studies show that alcohol makes you violent? when i'm drunk, i don't get violent.

      Sorry sir, some things just don't need a scientific study to be true, and this is one of them. Ask your friendly neighbourhood bouncer (or your friendly neighbourhood beaten wife) how violent drunks can become.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    45. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by qeveren · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh no, personal responsibility?? We can't allow something outrageous like that!

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    46. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like you hear about all those people ODing on marijuana and being raced to the hospital. Potheads becoming physiologically addicted to marijuana... oh wait

    47. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      Like you hear about all those people ODing on marijuana and being raced to the hospital. Potheads becoming physiologically addicted to marijuana... oh wait

      For best results: Replace marijuana with speed and see how you go.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    48. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 2, Insightful
      what scientific studies show that alcohol makes you violent? when i'm drunk, i don't get violent.

      I'm going to start off with an ad-hominem, because it's just too good to pass up: Judging from your abuse of lower case letters, when you get drunk, you come here and post on slashdot. Here's a nice summary of 41 scientific studies! But it's from the NIH, so they obviously don't know what they're talking about.

      marijuana is harmless. it doesn't cause addiction, it doesn't cause death, and when used properly in THE PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOME, you affect no one but yourself. there are no known deaths related to marijuana.

      I'm in favour of legalising marijuana, but you live in fantasy land if you think it's harmless. It's full of carcinogens ( like pretty much anything else you burn, really ), and the American Heart Association presented a study ( non journal though, so whatever ) during their March 2000 conference that said it represented a fivefold risk factor for cardiac arrest in the first hour after use for older users ( about twice the risk entailed by sex for sedentary individuals ). These are not the only medical questions surrounding cannabis at the moment, some bad, some good. Don't make the mistake of dishonestly portraying it as 'safer than sugar doughnuts' ( as one particularly retarded pothead has attempted to do in my presence. )

      Regards,
      YLFI
      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
    49. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

      Well, thank you.

      Thank you, for such a thorough articulation of the argument.

      : )

    50. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by UnrefinedLayman · · Score: 0

      I want drug dealers, and blame the man for their absence :D

    51. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ecstasy isn't physiologically addictive, yaknow...

    52. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by jdog1016 · · Score: 1

      I personally think its a little absurd to attempt to "punish" someone for their crimes. How exactly does locking someone up for 30 years for killing someone serve justice? IMHO, the only justice is for the crime to have never been committed in the first place.

    53. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by obsol33t · · Score: 1

      Prison officials don't try to hide the fact that they don't make much of an attempt to reform most prisoners. They say that they simply do not have the resources to do so, it is difficult enough to find the space for the ever increasing prison population. It's not that prison officials are cold hearted jerks. It seems like many of them would like to see changes to the laws that lead to prison overcrowding, but their job is not legislate. The top priority is keeping certain humans within a specified area while minimizing injury/death to other humans (guards) within the facility.

    54. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot

      (3) To keep them alive, which is pre-requisite to (1) and (2).

      If I were ever in prison, and this system existed, I'd be ecstatic; I know for certain that prisoner #112223, who has a history of violence against me|myethnicity|religion|language, will not be allowed within five metres of me.

      If done right, I could live through prison without being raped, beaten to death|within an inch of my life, catching Hep-C, being burned alive... ...So long as the system is not controlled by the guards. If it can be made to be run by impartial, preferably offsite personnel - I'd be all for it.

    55. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by dandante · · Score: 1


      First of all, let's please distinguish between prisons and jails. Jails, like the LA County system, exist to hold people who have not been convicted of any crime (that is, pretrial detainees), in addition to those convicted of misdemeanors carrying a sentence of less than one year.

      So before you start saying jail inmates have no rights, remember that many of them have not been convicted of any crime. Until they are tried and proven guilty, they are guilty only of not having enough money for bail.

      Prisons, as currently constituted in the US, are a means to control the surplus population of the country. Traditional employment is effectively banned for much of the population, and then moneymaking methods that lie outside the mainstream economy are criminalized. This is how we have ended up with 2 million people in our prisons and jails.

      Another function of prisons is to serve as laboratories of human rights abuse. Much of what we see going on at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib began in US prisons, especially in Control Unit prisons, super high-tech dungeons that isolate prisoners almost completely from human contact, driving them insane. It's interesting to note how many of the personnel at Camp X-Ray and Abu Ghraib came from a (so-called) corrections background.

      US prisons have been the site of Abu Ghraib-style atrocities for decades. But because of the nature of prisons, and the fact that hardly anyone gives a rat's ass about prisoners, people aren't really aware of the facts.

      A good point has been raised here: namely, that prisons do not, (or at least definitely should not) have any problems knowing where their prisoners are: therefore the large scale deployment of RFIDs may not seem to make much sense.

      Looked at in a broader context, however, how better to begin large-scale testing of a technology that one might wish to deploy to monitor the population at large?

      The Bush administration is certainly engaging in test runs of this sort, as this article http://counterpunch.org/whitney05182005.html points out.

      Call me paranoid, but during these times it seems to me that the most sinister explanation is usually the correct one.

    56. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by raxxerax · · Score: 1
      I have been thinking lately about crime and punishment. We have two reasons for sending people to prison in the first place:

      (1) To punish them.

      (2) To reform them.
      (3) To protect us from them.
    57. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by flacco · · Score: 3, Funny
      Try jacking off in front of a primary school, and see how readily you are able to use your body as you see fit.

      i just wanted to commend you for using the grammatically correct "jacking off" instead of the common vernacular "jerking off" which, sadly, has become so prevalent in the popular culture.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    58. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Note that no democratic state has such a large portion of it's citizens in prison than USA.

      IIRC the US has the largest proportion of it's citizens in jail, regardless of being "democratic". Things like the "war on drugs" are rather indicative of a failure of democratic process.

    59. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by mpe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We can't remove alcohol and tobacco from our society, they are too much a part of it now. However, just because our great grandparents did a stupid thing, that doesn't mean we should start letting every man and his dog start shooting up.

      What the US's experiment with alcohol prohibition proved is that the effects of prohibition are likely to be worst than the banned drugs themselves.

    60. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Deep down inside, I don't care if yousmoke dope or not a long as you do it on your own time. The dude who flips my burgers or sweeps my floor could be stoned out of his mind and not change his performance, but the anti drug folks always bring out the surgeon strawman (which is funny because I know a few doc's that are half in the bag most the time.

      The difference is that doctors don't have to use black market products of dubious quality and contamination...

    61. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the rates are probably extremely low. After all, how many people do you know who chain smoke Marijuana? (at the equivalent of 2 packs/day every day)

    62. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Macka · · Score: 1


      You forgot one ...

      3) As a source of revenue for the state. Prisons are big business and a convenient source of cheap labour.

    63. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Eminence · · Score: 1
      We have two reasons for sending people to prison in the first place:
      (1) To punish them.
      (2) To reform them.

      You miss the most important reason which is to separate them from the society thus ensuring that they won't harm its members. While a murderer is in prison he won't kill normal citizens.

    64. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1
      What the US's experiment with alcohol prohibition proved is that the effects of prohibition are likely to be worst than the banned drugs themselves.

      Classic case in point being the rise of (private sector) organized crime in the United States.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    65. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by torpor · · Score: 1

      the U.S. is a police state, what would you expect from such machinery?

      honest, the reason the prisons are so full in the U.S. is because a police industry profits from having criminals around ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    66. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Vince+Mo'aluka · · Score: 1
      possession of marijuana. it's a non-violent crime.

      It's not a crime at all, according to human nature. Drug use, drug possession, drug buying and selling -- like 99% of existing "crimes", these things are only crimes because government says so. Not because human beings evolved to instinctively understand them as crimes. They can argue until the end of time that drugs are evil, and I wouldn't necessarily debate that, but the simple truth is that drug prohibition is simply a violation of arbitrary social standards, not an actual crime against another actual human being (an actual initiation of force).

      --
      You took his stuff. You pound him.
    67. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Vince+Mo'aluka · · Score: 1

      However, the benefits to the power elite (more power, wealth, and control over others) obviously dwarf the consequences, let alone the ideals of freedom and peaceful association between individuals.

      More likely, the power elite realizes that drug prohibition provides crime (much of it violent), and with more crime comes the need for (drum roll please) even more government.

      --
      You took his stuff. You pound him.
    68. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by JJ · · Score: 1

      I have a friend who works in a prison (as a cook.) She is always concerned about her safety and I believe this RFID tag could help insure that for her and all of the staff who are just doing their jobs.

      I have no problem with prison id bracelets.

      --
      So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
    69. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by Nf1nk · · Score: 1


      The difference is that doctors don't have to use black market products of dubious quality and contamination...
      and if the shit was legal neither would anyone else.

      --
      I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
    70. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by vDave420 · · Score: 1
      the punishments don't fit the crimes in the US. while drug use/possession might be illegal elsewhere, it's not as major an offense as it is here. prison time for possession of marijuana. it's a non-violent crime. how about a fine or community service instead? the's why our prisons are over-crowded, there's too many non-violent "criminals" locked up. drugs shouldn't even be illegal here. and don't go and say "your username contains 420, so of course you think that" because i just got in the habit of adding that after my name when "rizzo" didn't work. there's just no really good reason for drugs to be illegal while alcohol and cigarettes are legal.

      Ya got THAT right!

      I imagine the purpose of keeping pot illegal involves:
      - Appropriation of property
      - Industrial prison complex / Cheap labor
      - Control over (generally) opposing political party members, inc. voting rights for the same

      Plenty of other reasons, none of which are the "claims" made by average right-wing religious person who tries to convince me why they SHOULD be kept illegal...

      sigh...

      -dave-

      --
      The pig browse. With Google. Sigh is to the chicken. Chicken is fool. Giggle. The DailyWTF giggle.
    71. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      witnessing countless individuals all drunk (and this is a non-scientific study, just like your bouncer study), i will say that the majority of individuals who are drunk are non-violent drunks. this is a study of thousands of people. i went to college, i've seen what alcohol can do to people... generally they're just sloppy and stupid, not violent.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    72. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      marijuana has the same carcinogens as cigarettes... but there's a difference. the majority of marijuana users don't chain smoke. they smoke until they're high and stop. and while your risk of cancer has increased, you're rick of cancer has also increased by walking through a major city on a daily basis. do you know of anyone who was determined to get lung cancer solely from their use of marijuana?

      as for use by older individuals, the same care must be taken as that of drinking or anything that's out of the ordinary for your body. also, did their study include people who were lifelong users or just people who tried it once or twice or started when they were older? all questions that need to be taken into account. since it wasn't published, i'd imagine there were too many questions left unanswered.

      and i won't say it's safer than donuts, but it's safer than alcohol and it's safer than cigarettes.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    73. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      they're not there. the reason being that people don't chain smoke marijuana like they do tobacco. they smoke until they're high and stop. and if, per chance there are a few, it's so low, you can probably account those deaths to something else (combined use of marijuana and tobacco).

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    74. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Technically, if you follow this plan to its logical extreme, it will be successful. The downside is that the logical extreme will end up being better written as "Kill all followers of Islam."

      Not all terrorists are followers of Islam. If you suspect that religion is part of the problem then Islam's two older siblings might be just as much a problem.
      Though even if you kill off all Moslems, Christians and Jews what do you intend to do about Sikh, Hindu and even atheist terrorists...

    75. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by PMuse · · Score: 1

      We have two reasons for sending people to prison . . .

      Actually, there are several more than that. In no particular order:
      (a) to incapcitate them (while they are locked up) from committing another crime
      (b) to deter them (after they get out) from committing a second crime (specific deterence)
      (c) to deter others from committing a similar crime (general deterence)
      (d) to hurt them (retribution)
      (e) to reform them (rehabilitation)
      (f) to express our condemnation of the crime (denunciation)
      This page does as good a job as any of defining the jargon. Some punishments (other than jail) are also designed to restore to a victim something that was taken from him/her (compensation).

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    76. Re:Purpose of Prisons? by nagora · · Score: 1
      I've never met a 10year+ user of dope that didn't have memory trouble, or a 20year+ one that sisn't have severe social problems as well. It doesn't kill you but that doesn't mean it can't fuck up you. And it is very addictive at some point, from what I've seen.

      Having said all that, I do believe that the state should provide buildings were any and all drugs are given free, to be used on the premises, to whoever wants them, a simple sobriety test being the requirement for leaving again. I'd imagine that you'd need a full time undertaker's shop, but even if you left the bodies out the front to rot you'd still get plenty of losers taking you up on it, and at least they'd be out of everyone else's way and not funding drug barons.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  13. Re:Point? by zxnos · · Score: 1
    TFA says that an inmate was able to pass through the prison and stalk another inmate who was then murdered. this is supposed to help track inmates more efficiently. a red flag might go up if inmate A follows inmate B from a distance of 50' for a couple hours.

    also i dont think many (if any) states chain inmates together anymore. i know there was controversy in s. dakota when the then (motorcyclist killing) governer reinstated 'chain gangs'.

    --
    always mosh clockwise
  14. We're gonna see some blood. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long until a prisoner loses a hand trying to remove it (or someone else removing it for him?)

    1. Re:We're gonna see some blood. by lakiolen · · Score: 1

      A cross between Demolition Man and that riddick movie, whatever it was?

      --


      What are you expecting to find here?
    2. Re:We're gonna see some blood. by mikael · · Score: 1

      In that case, we will put the bracelets around their necks instead, or implant it in their heads.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  15. A false sense of security by RealAlaskan · · Score: 4, Interesting
    If you can take it off without sending a signal, then they think they know where you are, but they don't. They have a false sense of security, and you have a perfect alibi.

    From TFA:

    Thus far, no inmates have attempted to escape or tamper with their bracelets in the jails where the system has been deployed, says Oester. Knowing that an alarm would be activated if the bracelet is removed or destroyed has been a deterrent for inmates,Oester says. The bracelet includes several built-in tamper-proof safeguards. The braided stainless steel wire that runs the length of the bracelet will cause the RFID tag to stop transmitting it is cut. The device also has a sensor that is designed to set off an alarm in 15 seconds if it loses contact to skin.
    So, if you lose some weight, you could slip it off, pass it to your buddy who gets it in contact with his skin within 15 seconds, go do your crime, and get away with it.
    1. Re:A false sense of security by zxnos · · Score: 1

      isnt there a movie where the inmates where a RFID around their neck that explodes if they tamper with it / go to far away from the facility?

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    2. Re:A false sense of security by Auckerman · · Score: 1

      "So, if you lose some weight, you could slip it off, pass it to your buddy who gets it in contact with his skin within 15 seconds, go do your crime, and get away with it."

      Only if the jail is stupid enough to use it as their ONLY security measure. In the context of layered security, even defeatable measures can help. Each layer of security you have, increases the likelyhood of a desired outcome. I see this as a really good idea, as long as the guards splot check the prisoners with something that can pull up a photo.

      --

      Burn Hollywood Burn
    3. Re:A false sense of security by donutello · · Score: 1

      Bah. The braided stainless steel wire probably only ensures that connectivity exists. Put a jumper wire around where you plan to cut the wire, cut it and hand it to a buddy.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    4. Re:A false sense of security by blackmonday · · Score: 1

      Seriously. Did you see the 60 minutes report this week on the confined inmates of Pelican Bay? These guys aren't retarded criminals. These guys are genuis masterminds. It's a shame they use their brains for crime rather than for the good of society. I'm talking learning an extinct Nordic language for communication, and hiding codes inside intricate artwork. Granted, LA County houses more burglars and drug users than Gang lords, so let's hope this helps. Believe it or not, LA County "loses" inmates all the time. This is a general population prison, not Alcatraz.

    5. Re:A false sense of security by CyberVenom · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about inmates, but the general in the Coneheads movie wanted to do that to mexicans...

    6. Re:A false sense of security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you are talkin' inmates here. Not the brightest bunch.

    7. Re:A false sense of security by amembleton · · Score: 1
      isnt there a movie where the inmates where a RFID around their neck that explodes if they tamper with it / go to far away from the facility?

      I think you're talking about Battle Royale. All of the "inmates" are kids who are taken against their will to an island. Brilliant film, go rent a copy.

    8. Re:A false sense of security by value_added · · Score: 1

      So, if you lose some weight, you could slip it off, pass it to your buddy who gets it in contact with his skin within 15 seconds, go do your crime, and get away with it.

      So ... losing weight will reduce the size of your hand so that it's circumference is the same as or less than that of your wrist?

      Not bloody likely.

      Now if you'd said inmates who know Kung Fu may be able to slip off the bracelet, I'd offer a different response.

      No more TV for you.

      Most people would be unable to remove a simple plastic hospital bracelet without proper tools, let alone something constructed with braided stainless steel and an RFID tag, and that's been strapped to your wrist by a prison guard with no beside manner.

    9. Re:A false sense of security by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1
      my thoughts exactly. The problem I see with this is that the guards are going to start relying on it too much. Here's a bunch of guys with literally nothing else to do all day but find ways to exploit the system.

      I'll bet it gets pushed into wide use. The prison system is a booming business.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    10. Re:A false sense of security by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1

      a few. Fortress has the device in the stomach. There's another I cant remember right at the moment where you neck thing is tied to another unknown inmate so if you try to escape it kills the other person. That way the prisoners wind up guarding each other.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    11. Re:A false sense of security by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Is there a torrent for the 60 minutes episode? Just curious; I want to time shift it....

    12. Re:A false sense of security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Running Man

    13. Re:A false sense of security by hotspotbloc · · Score: 1
      So, if you lose some weight, you could slip it off, pass it to your buddy who gets it in contact with his skin within 15 seconds, go do your crime, and get away with it.

      A few years ago there was a story about a guy on home arrest with a tracking bracelet (part traditional home arrest system, part Lojack). The bracelet would detect the lack of movement over a certain amount of time along with leaving the house. So this guy gets the bracelet off and hooks it to his dog's collar. What seemed like a good idea in hindsight had a problem: while Mr. Home Arrest was out at the local bar his dog boogied out of the house. The local cops and his parole officer chased the bracelet all over the neighborhood, thinking they were looking for a guy, not a dog.

      Moral of the story: while this hack failed I'm sure someone has gotten it to work. Someone will break LA County's system and the whole thing will be useless unless they embed the RFID chip in the inmate (and even then someone will figure out a workaround).

      --
      "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
    14. Re:A false sense of security by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      That was Deadlock, starring the incomparable Rutger Hauer.

      What a shitpile that movie was...

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    15. Re:A false sense of security by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Perhaps there's a timing and/or strength circuit, too, so that anything that takes a longer path and/or introduces extra resistance (I think that's the effect -- electrician I am not) will set it off, too.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    16. Re:A false sense of security by o-hayo · · Score: 1
      Hmm, you bring up an interesting point...

      What if there were both, one in your wrist and one on your wrist. If the loose proximity with eachother, alarm. If one is tampered or removed, alarm. There could be other goodies too like the embeded one needing to keep a certain temperature range or something to make sure its still 'in'. Maybe I'm crossing the line of what RFID can handle though...

      Then again we could always go back to whips, chains, and torture chambers!

    17. Re:A false sense of security by Tiger4 · · Score: 1

      depending on how smart the electronics are, then connectivity is not the only thing a continuity wire give you.

      Think Wheatstone Bridge. The wire loop is part of a balanced circuit. Putting a jumper wire around the cut still sets off an alarm because the resistance changes. Get fancier and you can send pulses down the wire and detect the break that way, through impedance/induction changes.

      The skin contact detection is probably some kind of capacitance thing. Even small people have relatively huge capacitance compared to the bracelet alone.

      This sounds like a pretty smart device.

      --
      Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
    18. Re:A false sense of security by wik · · Score: 1

      >The prison system is a booming business.

      Not to mention, you can really lock the customers in.

      --
      / \
      \ / ASCII ribbon campaign for peace
      x
      / \
    19. Re:A false sense of security by Kesh · · Score: 1
      If the security folks have any sense, a prisoner will be required to present your RFID bracelet to a sensor whenever he/she goes outside to exercise, into the cafeteria, to the prison workshop, etc.

      Thus, the guy who walks through the doors without tripping an RFID sensor should draw immediate attention from the guards.

    20. Re:A false sense of security by shmlco · · Score: 1

      Of course, during the next prisoner bracelet check they may notice all is not as it should be when the thing falls off your wrist... bad boy.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    21. Re:A false sense of security by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1
      Sounds like a great idea to me.


      In a big prison population, I'm not sure that a 1:1 ratio is going to keep people from trying to escape. Maybe 1:5, or 1:1, but only within your cell or something.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    22. Re:A false sense of security by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Found good stuff on Pelican Bay.

      http://www.sfbappa.org/Awards/picturestory/picstor y28.ex2.html
      http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n707/a04.html

      "Sometimes an imprisoned gang leader writes his directives in his own urine on the back of an innocent-appearing drawing before sticking it in an envelope and mailing to an outsider. When the urine dries, the contents of the message remain invisible to the naked eye until the recipient holds the paper to heat so its secrets can be revealed.

      Or messages called "ghost writings" are lightly embossed with a pointed object on the inside of a manila envelope. The envelope is glued back together, and mailed with other documents to an outside contact, who rubs pencil lead lightly over the markings so the message can be read. '"

    23. Re:A false sense of security by brother_b · · Score: 1

      The book is much better than the movie. Read that instead.

    24. Re:A false sense of security by UnrefinedLayman · · Score: 1
      Here's a bunch of guys with literally nothing else to do all day but find ways to exploit the system.
      Not true. Most prisons have things like kitchens, laundry facilities, showers and grounds. Do you think they hire people from the local town to manage these things so the prisoners can continue their punishments of free-play all day long?

      Prisons are America's 2 million person slave system. We bathe them, clothe them, feed them, and pay them 12 cents an hour. In return, they let us wake them at 5:30 AM six days a week, work them for eight hours in various state-supporting ways, then put them back in bed. It's not exactly "plenty of time to lift weights and convert to Islam."
    25. Re:A false sense of security by IchBinEinPenguin · · Score: 1

      Even easier.
      Slip paper between the band and your skin.
      Alarm goes off, remove paper, look innocent
      Convinve/browbeat others to do the same, pretty soon the number of "false positives" will ensure no reaction from guards if/when an alarm goes off.

    26. Re:A false sense of security by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      I have extremely thin wrists and hands. Invariably, when someone puts a wristband on me for any reason (i.e. "proof that you're over 21 at this party", or "let me back into the theater"), I can slip it off with little trouble.

      One of my friends, who has even thinner wrists and hands than I do, has said "don't ask me how I know this, but California state police handcuffs don't work on me".

      (Someday I'll get that story out of her . . .)

      Sometimes you don't even need to lose weight. :)

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    27. Re:A false sense of security by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Or you lose weight / slip some cloth between your skin & the bracelet so that contact is intermittant and drive the guards nuts with false alarms. Get all your buddies to do the same. It might not gain you anything but it helps to pass the time.

    28. Re:A false sense of security by jgabby · · Score: 1

      Or better yet, if the system is so sensitive, give it a bunch of false alarms. Soon enough, the guards will get tired of tracking down broken wristbands and either get rid of the system or ignore the alarms. These little buggers have to be relatively expensive compared to what was being used before, so break a bunch of them and the prison starts having financial troubles...

    29. Re:A false sense of security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close,
      There is presently a robust market for capacitor balance dongles with a bit of zener noise thrown in, so prisoners can slip off the bracelet with impunity. This is exactly how a touch switch operates.

      As for the random callbacks, a pair of mobile phones, with at least one registered to someone else solves this. For camera links, just position the web cam in front of a rear screen projector.

      What this means is, workarounds have not been publically admitted - just like the foolproof electronic voting computers. Believe what you will.

  16. what if the RFID watch is removed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who will prevent the inmates from removing the wrist watch and leaving it in some location where they are supposed to be and walk around doing all things prevented.

    For example, they can keep the watch in their cell to deceive the officers that they are static at one location. In reality, they might be involved in a fight, or even escaped. I think introducing RFID as wrist watch is making system more prone to errors.

    The RFID tag should be embedded in something non-removable by the inmates.

  17. It does if your're a guard by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I agree that using these on imates is OK, after all they are already not free.

    However it's a little disturbing the guards wear them as well. While I can see some useful things coming of this it makes you wonder how long before the prox-cards that get lots of people into work also track them as well. I don't like where that trend heads.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:It does if your're a guard by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      However it's a little disturbing the guards wear them as well. While I can see some useful things coming of this

      Sure - it makes escapes easier, if an inmate can get ahold of a guard's rfid.

    2. Re:It does if your're a guard by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Tracking the guards allows a display of where they all are, so as to identify gaps in the patrol structure. Knowing where they should be is helpful; knowing where they are exactly is even better. In addition, this may allow rapid action if several personnel are seeing congregating rapidly on one location (perhaps stopping a fight) just in case transmission is difficult or impossible due to circumstances.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    3. Re:It does if your're a guard by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 1

      I think guards (and police) are perfectly happy to give up a little bit of their privacy knowing that if bad things happen, help can find them.

      --
      "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    4. Re:It does if your're a guard by PTBarnum · · Score: 2, Informative

      The guards in my office building already have to stop at electronic checkpoints while they are on patrol, so the supervisors know the guards are actually patrolling. RFID would just make this more continuous.

    5. Re:It does if your're a guard by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      While I can see some useful things coming of this it makes you wonder how long before the prox-cards that get lots of people into work also track them as well.

      Those prox-cards you wear(which are a form of RFID) already do track you to some extent. I used to work on access control systems, and one of the biggest things they were used for was to figure out who went through what door when. The system I worked with had default reports built right in to do just that. And those reports were admisable as evidence in court. Granted, there's always the, "I let so-and-so borrow my card" defense, but that is an easy thing to sort out in court. Plus, some systems will have a read activated camera. You swipe your card at a secure door, and a video camera starts recording. Actually, the recording starts a few seconds before the read thanks to a buffer and event triggers. Not only does the employer have a record of who went through the door when, they have a nice digital video of that person doing it, timestamped, corrolated to the access record in the database, and watermarked to prevent video tampering. Ok, so it's not real-time tracking, but it can be darn close if setup right.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
  18. Re:Point? by Baricom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you're of the camp that believes prison is for rehabilitation, enhanced freedom could be used as an effective tool to accomplish that. Prisoners that can be tracked wherever they are in prison is a necessary requirement to grant this enhanced freedom.

    On the other hand, if you think prison is punishment, look at the transmitters as yet another way to make sure everybody is accounted for, and a way to gather evidence for crimes in the building.

  19. Wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "inmates carry a wrist bracelet which issues a signal every two seconds"

    Then that is not an RFID, it is some kind of transmitter. RFID technlogy is passive.

    1. Re:Wha? by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Geez, didn't you even read the blurb, let alone TFA? The bracelet's signal is read by RFID readers installed all over the prison. The bracelet is an RFID transmitter.

      Only one 'half' of an RFID system is passive, but the other half is still "RFID". The reader doesn't work by itself - there must always be an RFID transmitter. In a retail store this might be at the checkout or at the door (do you think it works by magic?). In tracking of shipments and stock the transmitter may also be mobile, e.g. a handheld RFID scanner. In this case it's almost the same, except it's actually worn on the arm, and the reader doesn't move. It's still an "RFID bracelet" because it transmits an RFID signal. But hey, keep looking for gotchas or mistakes in every article, sooner or later you'll really spot some mistake nobody else thought of ... riight? Sigh.

    2. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that means that if an inmate cuts off the tag, disabling the transmitter, they know it instantly, but they no longer know "where" the inmate is? What's the point of that?

      Better to put a sub-cutaneous passive chip inside the inmate's cranium, where there is no danger of it being tampered with.

      Don't they think this stuff through?

    3. Re:Wha? by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      So that means that if an inmate cuts off the tag, disabling the transmitter, they know it instantly, but they no longer know "where" the inmate is? What's the point of that?

      True, but they know where he was a second ago, literally. The prison goes into lockdown, and a team of guards go to the last known spot and search till they find the guy in the orange jumpsuit, without an orange tag.
      Heck, you don't even need to lock down the whole prison, just lock all of the doors in the area around the, now dead, tag. This could even be automated. A tag goes down in an area, that area is quarantened. Guards open one door and have all of the people come out one at a time and show them thier hands. If any of them cause a problem, you have two guards on stand-by with shotguns, no more problem.

      Don't they think this stuff through?

      I'm fairly certain that better minds than your's or mine have looked at this.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
  20. They'll cut off their hand to remove it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Or at least they'll dislocate their thumbs to take it off before an escape.)

    For security, the tag needs to be attached to their necks, or even better, their cocks.

    (Roll on the worst scenarios of SciFi.)

    1. Re:They'll cut off their hand to remove it by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      (Roll on the worst scenarios of SciFi.)

      Wasn't there a movie about a prisoner who had an EXPLOSIVE around his neck? 100 meters away from his (unknown) complement, and boom!

    2. Re:They'll cut off their hand to remove it by cmiller173 · · Score: 1

      You mean this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103239/ "Camp Holliday, a prison that utilizes explosive-filled 'wedlock collars' (a la THE RUNNING MAN) to maintain order. Each wearer has an unknown 'partner', and if they are separated by more than 100 yards, Ka-BOOM!, two headless prisoners. The genial Warden Holliday (Stephen Tobolowsky) brags of his 'perfect' record, but takes an immediate interest in the welfare of Warren (prison name, Magenta), and more importantly, his (as yet undiscovered) stash of diamonds."

  21. 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It may be 2005, but this idea sounds more like 1984...

    1. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't hear any Madonna playing. :/

  22. Rights abuse! by IntelliTubbie · · Score: 3, Funny

    Using RFID to track inmates? What are they trying to do, turn our jails into prisons?

    Cheers,
    IT

    --

    Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.

    1. Re:Rights abuse! by darkstar2a · · Score: 1

      don't you see? This is just the beta test towards the ever popular inmate control system. Explosives and all. They just need to test them externally before making it an ingestible pill ala Fortress or any other randomly choosen future prison movie.

  23. What, no magnetic boots? by payndz · · Score: 3, Funny
    Didn't they have this system in Face/Off?

    And what happened to the magnetic boots? Can't run a future prison without magnetic boots!

    --
    You must think in Russian.
    1. Re:What, no magnetic boots? by LeoHat · · Score: 1

      The movie with the magnetic boots was Fortress

      Face Off was the movie in which Travolta and Cage switch ID's

      --
      The mistakes of a clever man are equal to the mistakes of a thousand fools.
    2. Re:What, no magnetic boots? by payndz · · Score: 1
      The movie with the magnetic boots was Fortress

      Face Off was the movie in which Travolta and Cage switch ID's

      Face/Off had magnetic boots too, in the Erewhon Prison part of the movie.

      --
      You must think in Russian.
  24. For either purpose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it helps to keep them in prison and know where they are at all times.

  25. Preventing escapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now all they gotta do is rig an explosive charge to it so that it'll go off if the prisoner strays beyond the prison perimeter... ... oh wait, that was Running Man...

    "Here is your Sub Zero, now, just plain Zero!"

  26. Running Man era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make them explode when they're out of range and then you've got something there! :)

  27. So let's see... by N1ghtFalcon · · Score: 1

    Now every prisoner will have a much faster way of using the gas station - just in case they are trying to make a run for it. Don't you just hate using cash to pay for gas when the police are on your tail? Sweet...

  28. Test on Inmates now, then use on Civilians next by v3xt0r · · Score: 0

    Imagine what life will be like after WWIII...

    Armies of Cloned GWB's driving SUV's w/ embeded GPS Chip implants, and inducent toxins...

    post nuke holocost will be a time of controlled idealologies thanks to today's technologies.

    --
    the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
  29. Running Man... by silverhalide · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I can't help but recall the movie Running Man when reading this... Next thing you know, the bracelets will blow your head off if you try to remove them. Now THAT's a detterent!

    $1 BILLION though? Gimme a break. Put the money toward drug rehab programs and decriminalize lighter drugs. Save everyone some cash.

  30. Get 'Em Young by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    We need training programs to maximize the effectiveness of this program.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  31. blocking Roland Piquepaille stories.. by joeldg · · Score: 3, Funny

    this article reminded me I need to make up a greasemonkey script to block all stories submitted by Roland Piquepaille

    thanks

    1. Re:blocking Roland Piquepaille stories.. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      to block all stories submitted by Roland Piquepaille

      Hey, at least they story links aren't linking to his website anymore! :)

    2. Re:blocking Roland Piquepaille stories.. by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 1
      Hey, at least they story links aren't linking to his website anymore! :)
      Including the link for "Roland Piquepaille," there are two links in the story pointing to primidi.com. This is Roland's site.
      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  32. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to go further.

    If you read "The Diamond Age", in the future, prisoners will have "microcutters" in their bloodstream, that are location aware, and controlled by the authorities...

    Prisons of the future will be unsecured buildings, with no guards. Step off the boundry of the prison, and you instantly die as the cutters explode in vessels, and you bleed out in seconds...

    Just be on your best behavior not to piss off your prison mates who'll toss you over the fence that demarks the boundries of the prison for various infractions, such as stealing cigs.

    works for me! :-)

  33. Marauder's Map by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1

    Why am I getting Harry Potter flashbacks all of a sudden?

    (Seriously, get like a tablet pc or a pda that can be voice activated, "I solemnly swear that I'm up to no good" and bang, a map of the (prison) comes up, with little footsteps and scrolls showing where everybody is)

    --
    This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
  34. High-Tech Fix to Prison Problems? by mpapet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It wasn't so long ago the Sheriff released a bunch of convicts because they couldn't afford to keep them in jail. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050419- 0444-ca-labudget.html

    It wasn't so long ago (months?) that inmates were dying at a rather alarming rate in L.A. Sheriff's jails too. I wish I had a link, but it was very news-worthy on LA public radio. (KPCC covers L.A. news great) The phrase "Sheriff's excessive use of force" never quite stuck.

    I wonder what the resource requirements are for a system that "tracks convicts wherever they go in real-time" claim. Presumably thousands of reader devices always on and connected to some server. Is there a database backend? Or, does it just store locations temporarily. Could you /. the server connected to the network of readers?

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
    1. Re:High-Tech Fix to Prison Problems? by Tiger4 · · Score: 1

      The trouble is, the database tracks the wrong thing.

      It tracks RFID on prisoners in the prison. So you know a lot about the positions of the inmates THAT AREN'T A PROBLEM.

      What you really need to know is:
      1) are inmates getting into areas they SHOULDN'T be in? and;
      2) have you seen every inmate recently?

      If a tag doesn't come up on the hit list every X hours, then you have a problem. For all the high tech hacks I've seen discussed on the article, all an inmate really needs to do is wrap his bracelet with a few layers of foil and walk past every detector in the place on his way out the door.

      --
      Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
    2. Re:High-Tech Fix to Prison Problems? by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      Holy RTFA. The alarms go off when the rfid tag CAN'T be found/contacted. You spent a lot of energy writing a post, with complete capital letters and linebreaks, that was clueless.

    3. Re:High-Tech Fix to Prison Problems? by Tiger4 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that constructive input.

      The point is that searching for something you haven't seen in a while is compute intensive and the harder part of the job. Any decent database system can track whatever you run past the scanner. But it takes power to notice that something is missing.

      It isn't like all the inmates get searched in sequential order ever 20 minutes like on a carousel or something. They are milling around the whole prison. Some may get hits 50 times daily, some 5 times. RFID has limited useful range, so it is possible for an inmate to NOT walk past a sensor for long periods of time, but still be inside the prison. It is an ansynchronous, chaotic thing. And like any alarm system, you need to detect the problems without firing off "too many" false alarms. Doing it well is going to need lots of fine tuning on the hardware placement too.

      And, by the way, the prisoners may just decide to screw with you, so they may go out of their way to not walk past a sensor, thus creating false alarms.

      --
      Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
  35. Slippery slope by davidwr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First they RFID'd the prisoners. I was not a prisoner, so I did not care.
    Then they RFID'd the paroles and probationers. I was not a parolee or probationer, so I did not care.
    Then they RFID'd the sex offenders. I was not a sex offender, so I did not care.
    Then they RFID'd the ex-felons. I was not an ex-felon, so I did not care.
    Then they RFID'd everyone. There was nobody left to care about me.

    Apologies to Martin Niemoeller.

    Seriously, this does have utility in prisons and perhaps with high-risk parolees, probationers, and highly-likely-to-reoffend ex-cons, but society has to make some hard "dark line" decisions to make sure this doesn't become a slippery slope.

    PS: Will the next version be an implant with the number 666 on it?

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh, the line is easy. Monitoring should only be done in those cases where a person has "incurred a debt to society" and is still "paying off that debt" - i.e., certain restrictions have been imposed upon that person, and we need to ensure they abide by those restrictions. The moment they have "served their time/paid their debt" the monitoring MUST cease.

      Monitoring prisoners in prison? Fine... provided the monitoring stops the moment they are out of prison.

      Monitoring parolees' every move? Not fine. Having a watch that checks GPS and phones home if a parolee required to stay within the state has left the state? Fine. Once parole is finished, it has to come off though.

      Monitoring convicted sex offenders after prison? Not fine (heck, I'm not happy with the current system)... if these guys have "paid their debt" to society by doing their time in prison, you treat them as you would any citizen who has "no debt to pay" (i.e., no criminal record).

      Monitoring ex-parolees. Not fine (see above paragraph).

      Monitoring casino chips while they're in a casino?

      Monitoring the entire citizenry at all times? Not fine.

      Slippery slope? No. Heck, our country is already too far gone (ex-felons not getting to vote, sex offenders being required to register themselves the rest of their life, etc.)

      --AC

    2. Re:Slippery slope by category_five · · Score: 1
      Monitoring should only be done in those cases where a person has "incurred a debt to society"

      Good idea. Attach RFID's to people with low credit scores as a condition for loans. That way the company issuing the loan can track the debtors down in case they try to skip out on their debt.

    3. Re:Slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your reasoning is definitionally flawed.

      "Debt to society" != monetary debt to a single entity

    4. Re:Slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bravo! well done and yes contrary to most of what the know-it-all geeks here believe ... "666" is coming what a shame and a tragedy. geeks love to argue for thier cause but reality seems to get overlooked... pity.

    5. Re:Slippery slope by category_five · · Score: 1

      No, my reasoning is not flawed. I was not making a critique of parents comment. His comment on debt to society sparked an idea on using RFID's to track debtors. It has no relation to parents comment about debt to society as a whole other than as it relates to inspiration for my idea.

  36. Re:Yet Another Miscategorized YRO Story by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 1

    How delightfully shortsighted your post is. This sounds like the perfect test for a large scale RFID tracking database for every citizen in the US. Yes I'm referring to the Real ID Act. So no, it doesn't have any immediate relevance to your rights. It could. I will agree that it's in the wrong category though.

    But that's just my opinion.

  37. Your government is your friend... by flajann · · Score: 2, Informative
    Oh, come on. Your government has only your best interests at heart. With these RFID tags that they also want to embed in our clothing, our food products, and just about everything else, the'll know where all of us are at any given moment.

    Why, it'll become impossible to cheat on your spouse, as she'll only need to go to an online tracking system with her mouse, type in your National ID number, and see who you are boinking.

    If your political views differs from the Status Quo, yes, your government will be interested in that too! Wonderful. Orwell had no idea. At least in 1984 there were places you could go to avoid the cameras. Now, there's nowhere we can go.

    Couple that with closed-circuit cameras being everywhere in public, face recognition tecnology getting better and better, and Bush slipping his henchmen in place over the years, and you have...? All non-republicans take note!!!!

    1. Re:Your government is your friend... by J+Mack+Daddy · · Score: 1
      Three words:

      Tin
      Foil
      Hat

      --

      Jiggity

    2. Re:Your government is your friend... by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      I'm not worried until the government makes us political prisoners like Cuba, or that is to say, when it looks like it's going that way.

      Then I'll leave the country.

      I have a less US-centric view than you do, I guess.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    3. Re:Your government is your friend... by alonsoac · · Score: 1

      Why, it'll become impossible to cheat on your spouse, as she'll only need to go to an online tracking system with her mouse, type in your National ID number, and see who you are boinking.

      Will this include a live video feed?

    4. Re:Your government is your friend... by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      Don't be so sure that by that point in the future "foreign" countries will welcome US citizens with open arms (and open immigration). Just because you're American doesn't mean you can live in any country you want.

  38. Implants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The RFID tags really aught to be implanted . . . so the prisoners can't remove them.

  39. 3+ movies featuring idea of RF collar (etc.) bombs by D4C5CE · · Score: 1
  40. Oh I get it now. by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Funny
    TFA says that an inmate was able to pass through the prison and stalk another inmate who was then murdered. this is supposed to help track inmates more efficiently

    So this is supposed to make it easier for inmates to stalk each other using RFID technology. Great plan.

  41. OMFG That's teh funneeee!!!eleven by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    Prison rape jokes - just can't get enough of them. They just get funnier every time you post them to slashdot. Especially when they're not even tangentially related to the story topic.

  42. Prison != Jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jail is county operated.

    It holds people accused of crimes who cannot pay bail.

    It holds people convicted of minor crimes whom the judge sentences to jail time.

    It may hold convicts waiting to be picked up the state for transfer to prison.

    Prison is state operated and holds convicts.

  43. this is a very bad idea by milimetric · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ok, so check out what's going to happen. A dude is going to chop off like 20 people's hands and toss them down laundry chutes, catapult them over fences, attach them to radio controlled cars, etc. just to simulate as if these people are escaping. Then he/she is going to escape quietly via some other route when the guards are all chasing hands. Or am I crazy?

    1. Re:this is a very bad idea by Tristandh · · Score: 1

      Or am I crazy?
      Yes.

    2. Re:this is a very bad idea by crashley · · Score: 1

      A possible solution to this scenario would be to have a heart rate monitor attached to each. Since the monitors are already designed to track anyone close during an alarm event, the heartbeat could be listed as a alarm event. This would help to keep security gaurds safe, and the possibility of having better evidence for conviction if a murder occurs in the prison population.

    3. Re:this is a very bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      great idea actually , kudos...

  44. Sad but true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are thousands of parolees that go missing every year. You often hear about them after they have gone back to crime and murder someone or commit theft.

  45. Do it the SciFi way... by ZP-Blight · · Score: 1

    If you're going to track them, do it like every other cheesy Sci-Fi show did by using a necklace with explosives that goes off the moment they veer too far off.

    --
    Zoom Player Lead Dev.
  46. number of the beast by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Informative
    PS: Will the next version be an implant with the number 666 on it?

    Of course not.

    It has the number 616 on it instead.

  47. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  48. Re:Planting by saden1 · · Score: 1

    Haven't you watched The Running Man? The next step is to make their head explode if they attempt to tamper with the RFID tag!

    --

    -----
    One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
  49. You people are fucking nuts. by Vegeta99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People in prison have lost their liberty.

    They do not have freedom. They committed some violation of rules that society has deemed it neccesary that they be locked up. Away from society. It is VERY important to public security that their whereabouts be known at all times while in prison. It is also VERY hard to do with 18,000 inmates and only a few hundred (maybe thousand) correctional officers.

    This is NOT the first step on a slipperly slope. The government doesn't really care that at 1PM every day, I go take a shit. There's no way even if they DID care that they could seriously mark every citizen with an RFID and track their whereabouts, Real-ID or not. They can't even keep track of how many illegal immigrants there are!

    Remember, we still do afford a certain amount of control on our government. If they DID try to monitor every citizen's whereabouts, it would be shot down by the general public even if the only reason is their taxes would go up.

    Please remove the tin foil hat, because in this case, it's too damn expensive.

    1. Re:You people are fucking nuts. by nycbicyclist · · Score: 0

      This is not a prison (where most, if not all, detainees are convicts). It's a county jail. True, some of the inmates will be doing time for relatively minor offenses (making it questionnable whether they should be subjected to this level of scrutiny). But many detainees in county jails are awaiting trial (that is, presumed innocent). Here in NYC the city government locked people up for protesting the Republican convention last year and for meeting in a local park to go on a bike ride. How many basically decent people have spent a night in jail because of a barroom fight, a drunken driving arrest or college shenanigans?

    2. Re:You people are fucking nuts. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Of course, you are right that the prisoners have no rights. I also don't mind this being used for prisoners. I would like to address your other points.

      "This is NOT the first step on a slipperly slope. The government doesn't really care that at 1PM every day, I go take a shit."

      no, but will they wonder why you took a shit somewhere else?

      "There's no way even if they DID care that they could seriously mark every citizen with an RFID and track their whereabouts, Real-ID or not"
      it would be easy to create a database of general movement and notify someone if you break that pattern.

      "They can't even keep track of how many illegal immigrants there are!
      "

      doesn't matter, because all law abiding citizens will get one.

      "Remember, we still do afford a certain amount of control on our government. If they DID try to monitor every citizen's whereabouts, it would be shot down by the general public even if the only reason is their taxes would go up."

      oh no, the government lowers taxes everytime they want to implement something new. haven't you noticed?
      Look at the cost of the new airport security regulations, that's tax dollars and not exactly a lot of protest.
      Also, every law that has given the Dept. of Homeland Security authority to do something, it has also made it so there is no recourse for citizen. So even if people did get upset, there is nothing they can do, and in some cases citizens aren't even allowed to find out.

      that is not paranoia, that is actually happening today.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:You people are fucking nuts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't even keep track of how many illegal immigrants there are!

      Yeah, but they don't care. They'll keep track of whoever they can (you, law abiding citizen) just to make a name for themselves, get reelected, and give contract kickbacks to the corporations sponsoring them.

    4. Re:You people are fucking nuts. by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      For another 3 years and 6 months. After that, the american people aren't allowed to elect dubya any more. Real-ID is gonna get shot down by the states soon enough anyway. My PA ID would already meet the requirements of the act (MagStripe, UPC code of license no, and PDF214 barcode of the info on the front, etc etc), why would they pay to go do it over again? Ed Rendell will be bitching.

      Have a little faith in the checks and balances yet... if we're still going downhill in 2008, you can tell me you told me so.

    5. Re:You people are fucking nuts. by Cederic · · Score: 1


      Someone rapes your sister. You see it happening, run over, and as they're running away you shoot them.

      That's murder. You will go to prison.

      Do you really deserve to lose 'human rights'? Are you really acting against the interests of society?

      A jury may actually let you off (in America - in the UK you're in deep trouble). However, while you're awaiting trial, you're in the LA County Jail, and you're wearing one of these bracelets.

      What if it was your brother that did the shooting - you were merely providing medical assistance to your sister, but the police arrested the pair of you. Now you're completely innocent, you're still in jail. And you're still wearing a bracelet.

      This is not good. Personally I hope inmates develop a habit of disabling the bracelet (through good old tinfoil, by lifting it away from the skin, by sticking their hand in a sink of water) to force continual alarms - disobedience in the face of unreasonableness is to be cherished.

      Just because someone is in prison doesn't mean treating them badly is acceptable.

      ~Cederic

    6. Re:You people are fucking nuts. by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      No, if I'm in awaiting trial, I should wear it. They should know my whereabouts within the prison.

      If I have been accused of a crime, and have not been allowed bail, there is some credibility to the charges I've been brought on.

      They are not being treated badly. Hell, I'd be HAPPY if I was in a prison with one of these. Think about it. Get your ass whooped? They know who did it. Not only that, but if someone else claims YOU did something to them, you can prove yourself. Not only that, but I'd say there'd probably be less lockdowns - times when ALL prisoners lose ALL privileges because of a security breach or fight.

    7. Re:You people are fucking nuts. by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely correct. And I also think it would be an even better use in county jails. Prisoners are moving much more in prisons like this, and guards have to be much more vigilant. As you said, people are in and out all the time. Remember, this is only for monitoring them while IN prison.

      Many innocent people ARE locked up, yes, but this could help protect them from the guy next door awaiting trial for mugging thirty-two people.

  50. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  51. RFID Tags are not transmitters... by RexRhino · · Score: 1

    People should learn about the technology before they post their paranoid rants: you cannot be tracked with RFID tags any more than you can be tracked with an ID card.

    RFID tags need to be within about a meter max to be read (and really, they need to be closer than that). RFID tags don't allow people to bring up some sort of map and see your blinking dot moving around like the tracking system in some spy movie.

    In the system they are talking about, checkpoints would keep track of a person moving through (the same way they would if they used a swipe card or something like that). It is probably not much different than the system you have at work if you work in a big office building.

    The only difference between RFID tags and swipe cards is RFID tags are a lot quicker, because you don't need to swipe it through a slot.

    1. Re:RFID Tags are not transmitters... by narl · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is the same RFID you're thinking about. I interviewed with TSI (who makes the system), and the system actually does keep track of the real-time position of all the transmitters.

      They accomplish this by having enough receivers to fully cover the monitored area. I'm guessing they use trangulation between the wristbands and multiple receivers. The wristbands are actually pretty hefty - larger than a wrist-watch, so it's got more to it than just an RFID chip.

      They had people in the office wearing the transmitters, and through the system you could watch them moving around the office in real-time.

  52. no by GoClick · · Score: 1

    I'm resonably sure I'll never be black....

    I JEST I JEST! sheesh calm down.

    So how about tracking people convicted of copyright infringement or breaking the DMCA to make sure they don't go near anything with speakers or a screen?

  53. ex-felon voting is moving in a positive direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the going-in-the-right-direction department:

    Used to be ex-felons couldn't vote at all.
    Now the can in most states after they finish parole or probation.

  54. Forget the wrist bracelets, just implant them in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're just another step closer to implementing the prison control system of the future just like they had in that sci-fi movie Fortress where the main chracter played by Christopher Lambert figures out how to escape.

  55. I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    616? where did that come from?

  56. Horrible Analogy... by katharsis83 · · Score: 1

    You're comparing being a slave to a willful criminal act. That's a horrible comparison; slaves in America were denied their rights almost entirely on the color of their skin - an innate condition they had no control over. A criminal willfully broke the social contract and thus had his rights rescinded; the two are entirely different things.

    Criminals DO have less rights that citizens by the nature of their incarceration alone; we've been depriving prisoners of basic rights for as long as we've been incarcerating them. Putting RFID tags around their ankles is no more cruel or unusual than locking up a prisoner in a 6ft x 6ft room by themselves which still happens as regular practice.

    According to your analogy, should we accord prisoners the right to privacy as in the 4th Amendment, and also freedom of assembly as in the 1st Amendment?

    1. Re:Horrible Analogy... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "denied their rights almost entirely on the color of their skin"

      And here I thought they were denied their rights because they were sold by people who were that same color...

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  57. Bracelet? No, no. Try a collar...here's why: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prisoners are notoriously adept at using ANYTHING they can get their hands on to their advantage.

    How long will it be before they figure out if they can block or hide, or swap, or modify these things in such a way as to "game" the system in some weird way that only someone with that kind of time on their hands can come up with?

    A bracelet, for instance could be relatively easy to cut, or slip off, or conceal under clothing.

    A collar, on the other hand is readily visible to guards, and would be more difficult to tamper with. Plus it could contain some nifty anti-defeat technology, too, like constricting if is tampered with, or if it drifts out of "range".

    Think of the money we could save on new prisons, if those prisons didn't need walls! Or guards! All the parole officers who we can lay off, because parolees will be electronically monitored!

  58. OT: 616 by katharsis83 · · Score: 1

    I heard on NPR the other day that historians/theologians uncovered an original section of the Bible that said "616" was the actual number of the Beast. The "666" thing was a big safu.

    I think (616) is the area code to somewhere in Michigan.

  59. Slippery slope falacy by Nf1nk · · Score: 2, Informative

    Your argument requires a strong leap at the last step, also worth note the last step is the largest step and the least likley, in the original argument the steps were smaller and the last one not so big. My only worry about these is that it might make the guards complacent, or more likley cut the number of guards leading to scary new problems that will be hard to resolve with the fewer guards.

    --
    I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
  60. Re:Tracking...so what? by symbolic · · Score: 1


    It seems like there are so many ways to get around this...who is to say that a prisoner can't remove the bracelet, give it to somone else while he goes and knocks someone off or beats the hell out of someone? So much for reducing violence. As for tracking...given this major weakness, I'm not sure what the attraction is.

  61. why only 'inmates' by damicha · · Score: 1
    first: it is enough to get a blip here and there to track any person: how many doorframes do you pass a day? Tracking stations can easily be made mandatory on all public building entries, which would include stores, parking ramps, airport gates/doorframes/screening stations, reilway car doors, public bus line vehicles... With some well intended legislation, this could very easily become 'the' thing to do to provide security.

    Because: if you don't have anything to hide, then why would you object to well meaning governmnet to know where you are? There might be an emergency and you might need to be contacted....imagine!

    So let's go, let's start testing it in some confined, controlled environment, and then let's implement nationwide!

    a small step for legislator, a huge leap for the "illuminati"

  62. Ask and ye shall get.. by alphakappa · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here you go

    --
    "When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
    1. Re:Ask and ye shall get.. by Jon+Howard · · Score: 1

      Awesome, thanks buddy!

  63. Disturbed by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This last weekend, I was robbed at gunpoint. The assailant took my wallet and my cell phone. The first thing I did after calling the police (at a land line) was call my banks to turn off my various cards. As the police officer was writing down his report, my sister on the phone with the bank discovered that someone had tried to use one of my cards 5 minutes after the robbery at a 7-11 down the street from the hold up.

    The 7-11 had a video camera recording everything, and now that the cops had my description and a video surveillance image to go off of, their chances of catching the criminal are pretty high (though I was told that it was highly unlikely that I'd ever see my phone, wallet, or the IDs in the wallet ever again).

    Because of modern anti-theft measures, the man who stuck a gun in my stomach is most likely going to end up in jail. The fast-acting real-time monitoring of credit card usage, the ever present video surveillance, and the fast response time of the police from my initial 911 call all are aiding to the apprehension of this guy who, all told, ended up with about $30 in cash and a phone that can never be activated again.

    And yet, the more I think about it, the more I'm deeply disturbed. Yes, it was nice to know that because of our modern world, the guy didn't end up running up thousand dollar bills on my credit card. And yes, I do take comfort knowing that it's highly likely the guy will go to jail.

    But at what cost? Every day we are giving up more and more privacy under the auspicious of safety, yet nobody in any position of power seems to consider that perhaps the government and corporate organizations of America shouldn't have that much access to our private lives.

    I asked myself the question: What if I was on the other side of that technological dragnet? What if the government was after me because I said something that the government didn't agree with, or saw as a "threat", despite my benign intentions? What if, say, I made a remark publicly that I didn't think the current presidential administration was pursuing policies that have America's best interests in mind? What if I was in a position where people respected what I had to say, and would take it to heart? What if the administration decided to find me and silence me?

    Granted, these "what ifs" are generally the bread and butter of the tin foil hat crowd, but it does make me uneasy. When I was a kid, my parents had a chip put in my dog. Now they're putting them on wrist bands of prisoners. It doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that eventually all prisoners will have these, then all prisoners will have these implanted, then the citizenry will have them.

    I can hear someone saying "Look, if you had a chip implanted in you with your ID and bank account information on it, you would have never been mugged, and you wouldn't have to be going through the hassle of getting your IDs and life back in order right now". Then again, the guy could have just shot me and dug out my chip with a dull knife. I'm not sure.

    What I am sure of is this: We still live in a pretty good country. As misguided as I think their policies are, I still think most of the current government's activities are still in the best interests of the American people. But what is the otherwise respectable "done nothing wrong" citizen supposed to do if America's power is seized from them by people who don't mind trampling on personal liberties one bit to serve their own purpose? Things like RFID tags just adds to our impotency if the time comes when decent Americans have to raise up against our own government and set things right again.

    I for one am willing to lose a little more money in a robbery, or have the knowledge that the chances that the guy who robbed me gets caught is lower in exchange for the safety in knowing that if things ever get really bad, I have some options in standing up to the government.

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid
    1. Re:Disturbed by category_five · · Score: 1
      "Because of modern anti-theft measures, the man who stuck a gun in my stomach is most likely going to end up in jail"
      It's extremely unlikely that the person who stole your wallet will be picked up based on a description. Do you think the police will issue an APB on the mugger? Do you think they will have his picture on the projector in the morning briefing? DO you honestly, really think that there is some detective at your local police department who will take that picture from the 7-11 camera, and go through each and every one of the thousands or tens of thousands of mugshots they have on file, looking for a match? Just wondering.
    2. Re:Disturbed by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1

      They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
      -Benjamin Franklin

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    3. Re:Disturbed by man_ls · · Score: 1

      Now, that's a great quote, and very applicable, but if I recall, it was taken out of context. In the original, it was talking about Federal welfare programs.

    4. Re:Disturbed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I for one am willing to lose a little more money in a robbery, or have the knowledge that the chances that the guy who robbed me gets caught is lower in exchange for the safety in knowing that if things ever get really bad, I have some options in standing up to the government."

      You're behind the curve. You have no options in standing up to the government.

      See, the government has tanks and helicopters and missles, and all sorts of other nasty things.

      If you think that you can somehow "stand up" against such a government, you're just kidding yourself. That game was over about 100 years ago.

      It's my firm view that the only way to "stand up" is to leave and live in a place which cares more about the rights of its people.

      The US is in deep trouble, and even if Bush and all his cronies somehow went away, the trouble would still be here.

      The source of this trouble is called : The Military-Industrial Complex.

    5. Re:Disturbed by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 2, Informative

      perhaps the government and corporate organizations of America shouldn't have that much access to our private lives.

      I understand what you mean, but please note that none of the situations you mentioned had anything to do with private life.

      1- Credit card. To use a credit card you are using the CC company's network. They let you use their property, but it's still theirs to use as they please within the terms of the contract.

      2- CCTV in a shop. A shop is the property of the shop's owner (well quite often it is rented, but you get the idea). When you enter a shop you are not in public space, you are in a private space that happens to belong to someone else. They let you enter their property, but they have the right to set reasonable conditions for it. Filming people who enter your property does not seem exceedingly unreasonable to me.

      Thomas-

    6. Re:Disturbed by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

      Reread the quote:

      perhaps the government and corporate organizations of America shouldn't have that much access to our private lives.

      Companies certainly have the right to use whatever means they want to keep tabs on their customers, and that information can always be gained--either willingly handed over by the company or demanded by court order--by the government.

      When you enter a shop you are not in public space, you are in a private space that happens to belong to someone else. They let you enter their property, but they have the right to set reasonable conditions for it.

      There's a scary word you used there: reasonable. In California, I can own a bar, own the building it resides in, be the only employee in that bar. I can be a heavy smoker, and the bulk of my clientele are heavy smokers, and yet the government tells me I'm breaking the law if I allow my customers to smoke inside of my building because it's a "public" space.

      To many people, this seems "reasonable". Yet it begs the question: why is it when determining when a space is "public" and when it is "private", the law almost always makes that distinction when it limits the average person's rights?

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
  64. What slippery slope? by katharsis83 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is no slippery slope. A fundamental part of any civilized society is a social contract (Locke); if an individual in the society chooses to break that contract by comitting a crime, he/she is ostracized from the society. Over the past few hundred years we've codified this into penal codes. Granted, there are injustices in the penal code (i.e. crystallized crack is punished more harshly that powdered crack, but both have the same potency - guess which type of crack minorities have more access to), but overall it's been accepted that you give up your freedom if you break the laws of your society.

    Prisoners have no right to privacy, they have no right to free assembly, they have no right to carry arms (this part at least makes sense, right?), and a bunch of other rights that we enjoy as citizens. Now, seeing as how they have no 4th amendment rights, why can't we shackle RFID tags on them? It's not cruel or painful, and it prevents prison riots/prison escapes by letting the guards know where they are. Denying prisoners fundamental rights is part of their punishment and ostracization.

    Seeing as how strip searches/metal detectors are already standard practice in jails and have been for decades, I see this as perhaps one of the only USEFUL and legit applications of RFID tags.

    Crying foul over non-existent rights violations makes it all the harder for people to take you seriously when actual violations occur (i.e. Guantanomo Bay, secret evidence b/c of national security, etc...).

    Btw, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Look it up on Google sometime.

    1. Re:What slippery slope? by DeanFox · · Score: 1


      Try to keep in mind the Niemoeller effect. It has strong implications and is represented in your argument. You seem to be at level 4.

      A while back DNA tracking was implimented for convicted sex offenders; a good idea at the time. A little later it spread to all convicted felons. Today, they take a swab of your DNA and enter your profile into a national database when you're accused of a felony. Soon it will be standard booking procedure for all detentions. I will live long enough to see DNA swabbing common for any interaction with the judicial system including traffic offenses and police visiting your home because your neighbor complained about loud music.

      I think what Niemoeller was describing is human nature, not tin foil hats. We're all frogs in a pot of ever increasing hot water. I have an inherent distrust of government. I don't think that's paranoid; I think that it's not only healthy but justified.

  65. Linked by OgGreeb · · Score: 2, Funny

    And then link every two inmates together, so that if they ever get separated, both get fried!

    That might make a good movie.

    --
    -- Gary Goldberg KA3ZYW 301/249-6501 AIM:OgGreeb Digital Marketing Inc., Bowie, MD //www.digimark.net/
    1. Re:Linked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe have an alarm sound whenever two inmates do get linked together.

      Guard: Hey Warden, check this out! My monitor says that RFID tags 78623, 57844, and 57801 are ass raping RFID tag 92896. Shall I send some guards to break it up?

      Warden: Nah. That guy was wearing a Vote for Kerry t-shirt when they brought him in here.

  66. MOD Parent Down! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uhhh how is this a violation of their rights? The whole reason they are in prison is detention and punishment. Uhmm electronic observation (cameras) is already being used on most of these inmates and I don't hear you screaming about rights violations there..

  67. Never heard of that, thanks by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Interesting, I had not heard of that being done before. Thanks for the info, the more I think about it I guess security forces are a special matter and probably a good idea to tag like this...

    In the case of prision guards it would probably also help track down guards smuggling things to inmates as well.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  68. Yeah by katharsis83 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well yeah, no kidding. The entire justice system is based on that. You're responding to his argument by bringing up an ENTIRELY seperate argument.

    If we totally want to avoid guilty convictions, I guess we should abolish prisons then.

  69. Camera's hello? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most prison systems already monitor prisoners with cameras. I don't hear you complaining about that.
    I fail to see how this is any different. It's only a more efficient form of electronic observation.

  70. Re:Yet Another Miscategorized YRO Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's also not an online story. It tried e-mailing "daddy pants" about another non-online YRO story a few weeks back. They thought it was funny.

    All RFID stories are in YRO by default. We really just need an RFID catagory. YRO should be more like human rights in a digital age.

  71. Edited by fromtheblueline · · Score: 1

    If this system works as its promoters think, the potential market to equip all citizens in the U.S.

    Edited for truth!

  72. felons lose their rights by SkinnyJoe · · Score: 1

    This is not a violation of prisoner rights, they lose many rights when convicted. They are in jail, that reality is a loss of rights. Even after release they do not have the right to own a firearm, and probably many more rights are lost just by being a convicted felon.

    1. Re:felons lose their rights by Wandering-Seraph · · Score: 1

      Is there a limit to how many rights they deserve to lose, however? Granted they committed a crime, some more horrible than others, but they're still Human, no matter how far removed society might want them.

      If the system is wisely used this might help manage prisons (e.g. escape attempts); if, however, it is unwisely used, then a battle of rights is inevitable.

    2. Re:felons lose their rights by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      This is for county jails. That is where people are held after they have been arrested, before they are convicted.

      You know, before conviction, when they are still considered innocent.

      (No, I'm not against this proposal. This isn't any worse than the arrest process in general. But your argument against it is completely flawed.)

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    3. Re:felons lose their rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      correction: felons only lose the right to possess firearms IF their crime involved the USE of a firearm/other weapon, ie, if someone were to be found in possession of an amount of marijuana that could constitute a felony possession charge of a controlled substance, that person still has the right to purchase and legally license a firearm, since his crime did not involve the use of any type of firearm/weapon.

      as always, IANAL, YMMV from state to state

    4. Re:felons lose their rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes those too, but also misdeameenor convicts. Felons, i.e those that convicted for serios crimes 5 years of more are held in prison.

  73. Hmmm...this could be a good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With prisoners being given RFID tags, it may give this technology the stigma of "RFID tags are for criminals!", and thus it might stall RFID's usage in tracking the general public as result of public outcry. Now if only they'd condemn prisoners to have Windows attached to their persons...

  74. MOD PARENT UP - Informative by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Yes, thanks! I'd been looking for the title. I also recommend it. Very good :) Lots of tension in the movie.

  75. You should read up on the technology yourself by geekoid · · Score: 1

    a station sends a signal, and the RFID returns a signal.

    So, any one who walks by a station can be tracked.
    Stations can be very small, and some stations are sensitive enough to read 10 feet away.
    No technolgy in and of itself is evil, but even few minutes of thinking can turn out a myrid of ways this technology can be abused.
    It's good technology, but where is the protection for citizens? what recourse do we have against abuse? how can we determine if we are being tracked?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  76. Re:Yet Another Miscategorized YRO Story by oriol · · Score: 1

    Yes at last I read a comment speaking about the realID.
    Is the US gonna be the biggest prison in the world?

    BTW, they begin by innmates, then foreigners, and the next turn is for regular citizens...

  77. Hmm by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Hey, we have cameras right by our doors too - it never occured to me they might be fore more than general monitoring and take specific video of people using badges. And of course then they can catch shoulder surfers too...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Hmm by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      At a guess, they probably aren't. It's less expensive to just have a camera recording constantly. Though, that will still have a timestamp; and, it would be a very quick process to corrolate an access entry with a recording manually. The software to do the record buffer and triggering is a bit expensive, so very few places were moving to it when I left the security industry. Mostly, it was just government sites, with a few larger corporations looking into it.
      But, all in all, you can expect that, if you have cameras running, and are using an ID badge to access doors, they can pinpoint the source of a problem, if they have a rough idea when it occured.
      By way of antecdote, while I was still working with security systems, we had a large customer who needed to find out who went through a door at a specific time, a little over a year and a half prior. Now, this company has something like 1000 doors (not exagerating at all, they owned a skyscraper) and employees moving about regularly. So, you now have a table with a few million records in it, and it only took me a couple of minutes to find the data they wanted. The point of this is, that badge is tracking you, and a three year history of all doors is fairly common, anywhere you went is easy to figure out.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
  78. Yes they are by localroger · · Score: 2, Interesting
    RFID tags are indeed transmitters, and it has even been shown that you can snoop the SpeedPass tags from ten meters away as they are normally used.

    Tags without batteries are powered by a transmitter in the reader, which in turn activates a transmitter in the tag. (In one common system the tag doesn't technically "transmit" but modulates an antenna which absorbs the reader energy; this makes little difference in the operation.

    Tags with batteries can be read tens of meters away. Passive tags can be read tens of meters away if they are activated by a sufficiently powerful or otherwise close read signal. Tags which do not have to be read at high speed (e.g. vehicles) can be read at much greater distances everything else being equal.

    With existing technology, it would be quite feasible to give everyone an implant and read their tags with great reliability as they walk past, for example, every street corner in a large city.

    --
    Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
  79. Intestinate! Intestinate! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Random intestination!

  80. Re:More wasted money by Wandering-Seraph · · Score: 1

    If that's insightful, then may I ask: have you ever considered why they're there in the first place? Why is it, exactly, that our prisoner to average law abiding John/Jane Doe ratio is so high? Our country can't possibly be mass producing criminals like we do cheeseburgers, and if it is maybe there's something wrong with the system, not the people.

  81. What, no explosives? by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    They also had a really great system like this in "Deadlocked; escape from zone 13", where the inmates wore a collar with an explosive device on it which went off if they crossed the perimeter. Until the imprisoned geek hooks his collar to the signal of the one worn by a beautiful girl (Nia Peeples) and escapes. Great action sequences follow. Every geek should watch it.

    1. Re:What, no explosives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wedlock, Rutger Hauer? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103239/

    2. Re:What, no explosives? by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      No, this one. A TV movie; check your cable listings, it's played occasionally.

  82. Re:Planting by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


    Rutger Hauer did a movie like that. He was a prisoner in a prison where there were two neck collars that had to be within the confines of the prison or they would explode - one on one prisoner and one on the other - and no one knew who the other one was. (Yeah, I know, dumb plot - it's a Rutger Hauer movie, guys.)

    So he figured out who the other one was somehow (I forget how) and he and this female prisoner (did I mention the prison was co-ed - and allowed "cohabitation" as we say?) escaped.

    Of course, they hated each other and needed to find a way to catch up to his ex-partners who could get them unhooked.

    When I saw this stupid plot, I immediately said, "Obvious solution - cut off the female's head, take her collar with you. Who cares if she's good-looking?"

    Obvious.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  83. The litmus test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's the thing: If I were in prison, I'd want everyone to have tracking devices, I'd want cameras everywhere, I'd want complete surveillance. Why? Because I'd be trapped in confined quarters with a population that consisted entirely of criminals, and I'm not Jet Li.

  84. Re:Planting by TeraCo · · Score: 1
    Rutger Hauer did a movie like that. He was a prisoner in a prison where there were two neck collars that had to be within the confines of the prison or they would explode - one on one prisoner and one on the other - and no one knew who the other one was. (Yeah, I know, dumb plot - it's a Rutger Hauer movie, guys.)

    This movie was called wedlock - I can't remember anything else about it though.

    --
    Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
  85. They'll never figure it out... by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1
    Besides tracking locations, the system also intends to reduce violence within the jail and to avoid escapes.

    Let me tell you something. Escaping from prison is hard. People who figure out a way to escape from prison, and succeed, are very inventive and creative people. In other words, they would probably figure out that they should take that bracelet off before they make their escape.

    1. Re:They'll never figure it out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can escape!!! Just give me some tin foil to wrap my hand and off I go!!! Or build a simple RLC circuit to build up a big charge and pulse that little fucking chip to bits. Later

    2. Re:They'll never figure it out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe they wern`t that samrt scince they got caught....

  86. Re:Planting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rutger Hauer did a movie like that. He was a prisoner in a prison where there were two neck collars that had to be within the confines of the prison or they would explode - one on one prisoner and one on the other - and no one knew who the other one was. (Yeah, I know, dumb plot - it's a Rutger Hauer movie, guys.)

    Dumb, yes. The collars beeped for a good 10-15 seconds before exploding. To figure out who your 'collar-mate' is, just have one person at a time cross the line. Then go back and ask whose collar was beeping.

    There was also a similar movie, 'Deadlock'.

  87. Technology Question by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    With this system, inmates carry a wrist bracelet which issues a signal every two seconds and is caught by RFID readers installed everywhere in the prison.

    I thought RFID was a passive technology that only emits a signal when reader is putting out it's field. But that statement seems to imply the bracelets themselves are transmitting (which would require a power supply) and the readers are the passive devices, simply taking what signals are beamed at it. Am I missing smething here?

    Wouldn't the phrasing be:
    With this system, inmates carry a wrist bracelet which is caught by RFID readers installed everywhere in the prison that emit a signal every two seconds.

  88. And now for the other side of the coin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've seen several posts in this topic that make comments like "why do we need this to know where the inmates are...we already know that easily".

    The reason I'm posting this reply as an AC, something I normally never do, is because I've been on the other side. I'm an ex-con. And no, I'm not kidding. I did slightly over two years in prison, and then 8 years on parole, for credit card fraud. Now you know where my experience on this subject comes from.

    In anything less than a maximum security prison, you'd be amazed at how easy it is to get somewhere undetected and do something bad (usually violent) to another inmate. And it can happen in front of 50 other inmates, and I'll bet you money that no one saw a thing.

    Anything that could narrow the location of a particular inmate down to a room or a particular area, quickly, automatically and with a high degree of accuracy, would be a massive improvement over current systems. And it wouldn't necessarily save the lives of just inmates. Guards are around the inmates every day.

    However, I do agree with a point a couple of others have already made. If these chips are in an arm-band or something of that nature, some smart guy with a lot of time on his hands (and everyone in a prison has lots of time to think) is going to figure out how to get the arm-band off. If they're going to do it, they need to do it right. Implant the chip under the skin upon the start of the prison sentence, and remove it upon the day of release.

    You can sign me "been there, done that, got the black and white stripped t-shirt too".

  89. invasion of privacy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a big brother type of invasion of privacy! How can any of you support strapping RFID to a fellow human, even one who's a raping gang-banging mudering drug dealer?

    What is wrong with you conservative neo-nazis!??!?

  90. No, no - it's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... they are only going to put RFIDs on *pallets* of prisoners.

  91. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  92. Ob. poem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason?
    For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

    -Sir John Harrington

    1. Re:Ob. poem by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1

      Brilliant. Thanks, I was wondering where the book title, None Dare Call It Treason came from. What does one call behavior such as this? If the people who comprise the ruling Establishment harbor no nationalist sentiment, can their treachery against their subjects be called "treasonous," or is another word called for? The term "criminal" seems weak and overused.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
  93. Re:More wasted money by Wandering-Seraph · · Score: 1

    Quote: "execute all the pedophiles, murderers and rapists, problem solved."

    What about cases where the convicted are later found innocent of the crime?

    As for the incarceration rate, this paper (http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/articles _publications/publications/intl_incarceration_2003 0620/intl_rates.pdf) I discovered generally suffices: "In this regard, the U.S. rate of
    incarceration of 702 inmates per 100,000 population represents not only a record high,
    but situates this nation as the world leader in its use of imprisonment. The continuous
    rise in the prison population in the U.S. has vaulted this country ahead of our old Cold
    War rival Russia to become the world's leading incarcerator.

    "For comparative purposes, the U.S. now locks up its citizens at a rate 5-8 times
    that of the industrialized nations to which we are most similar, Canada and western
    Europe. Thus, as seen in the accompanying chart, the rate per 100,000 population is 139
    in England/Wales, 116 in Canada, 91 in Germany, and 85 in France."

    Furthermore, according to http://www.prisonstudies.org/ this rate is relatively similar; with "293.66 million at 1.7.2004 (U.S. Census Bureau)" and 2,131,180 held in prison/jail reaches a ratio of 726 per 100,000. If, however, jail is not counted then the ration drops to 486 as reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. So, I suppose one would have to settle on including those in jail or not.

    Whether it is a result of our culture or not is not so important as how can those people be helped back into society so they wont need to commit criminal acts or feel the compunction to do so (for whatever reason they do it). I imagine the growing wealth gap certainly doesn't help some of those incarcerated, nor the heavy penalties for drug use compared to more violent acts.

  94. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  95. At airports for passengers please by Bob.Smart · · Score: 1

    Why can't they do this to keep track of passengers waiting at airports. I'm so sick of waiting in the plane while the announcement goes out "Would Mrs X and Mr Y please go to Gate 42 where your aircraft is ready to depart". Meanwhile the passengers are off finishing their coffee and saying "Ha ha they can't depart without us because our luggage is on board".

  96. deadlock! by seanmeister · · Score: 1

    all that's missing now is the piece that blows their hands off at the wrist when they cross the perimeter!

  97. I disagree about the reasons by darth_zeth · · Score: 1

    The sole purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect the innocent.

    Through out the ages methods have ranged from an eye for an eye, to hanging thieves, to cutting off thieves' hands, to penitentiaries, to attempts at psychological reform.

    However, while punishment is a METHOD of protecting the innocent from criminals, I believe that once it becomes the PURPOSE if the system that we have lost perspective. As much as anger and disgust makes me think that certain criminals DESERVE certain punishments, our rationale minds must always ask, and answer honestly "Will this prevent the further criminalization of innocent people?" If the answer is "no", then I believe that satisfying our revenge instinct and blood lust to no purpose starts to edge into the realm of criminal itself.

    Likewise, "reform" shouldn't be a goal in and of itself. I think that WITHOUT reform, any system that includes the release of prisoners does NOT achieve the goal of protecting the innocent. At least, not longer then the prison sentence is for. But I also don't think that many criminals "deserve" any type of forgiveness. For more primitive societies that could not afford to feed and house themselves, much less criminals, harsh physical punishments and executions were what criminals got, and given the position of the society at the time, the society would not be in the wrong to administer their most effective punishments available. Of course mercy is desirable, so as we prosper we are able to treat even our criminals better. This is good, but I do not believe it is a matter of a criminals "right" to be treated "humanly" by a society that he or she did not treat humanly. Rights are something that ALL societies, rich or poor, are obliged to respect.

    Otherwise, you're right. This doesn't help.

    --
    "Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
  98. It starts as an early release program by elmarkitse · · Score: 0

    Eventually someones going to say, well, if you've had two strikes, and you're looking at jail time but its still a minor offence, lets let them walk freely in the general populace as long as they wear their bracelet under the assumption that the simple process of observing them will predispose them to making the right decisions.

    They'll string up the wires and blanket the pilot city with recievers, and then extend the idea to parolee's. They're citizens, but still tainted with the association of being in prison.

    Then they'll move to Molesters. No one likes them, so people won't bitch too much, and it'll be depicted as a community safety net...if they get w/in 20 feet of the perimiter of a school or daycare a little light goes off at the local PD and inside the schools admin building.

    Once we're on the topic of kids, parents will think its a great idea to be able to keep track of their kids. Their just kids you know, and need extra supervision, and since they're not yet 18, they're not technically real people either.

    By the time we all catch our breath, the unabomer is going to be the only nutjob who isn't tracked by these things, and, when it comes down to it, he's the one we wanted to protect ourselves from anyway.

    I'm not really anti RFID....I think they're pretty cool, but I also don't like the idea of my personal positioning data being treated as carelessly as my SSN #, and the "geez, well no one likes it but there's so much positioning data out there already that the cats out of the bag and how do you regulate it" approach makes me queasy.

    Night,

    EK

  99. Re:Planting by GraemeDonaldson · · Score: 1

    Goatse man..... is that you?

    --
    I think, therefore I am. I think?
  100. Tracked for life? by pugnatious · · Score: 1

    No, I'd rather shoot the motherfucker
    (or stab, or strangle, beat to death, whatever gets the job done), however, I wouldn't encourage the government to think that it's ok to track anyone for any amount of time. See, the government has at its disposal much more resources than a simple criminal, and they are therefore in a position to do much more harm, once they are out of control. Legitimizing such intervention is a step in that direction. Therefore stuff like an individual's privacy should be valued above temporary safety concerns.

  101. Today it is inmates...tomorrow? by master_p · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I'm surprised no /.er sees a trend:

    • US votes for national ID card.
    • UK votes for national ID card.
    • Passports are to contain biometric data.
    • Prison and jail inmates are tagged with RFID.
    • The VERIchip is advertised as cool, allowing entrance to high-profile clubs and other cool places. A US family (originating from a certain country in middle east) is the first to accept it.
    • A law is proposed so as that children are tagged by a high-tech device.

    One does not need a great deal of imagination to see the future: when we are born, we are implanted with a bio-electronic device that carries all our identification data, as well as our money. We will not be able to do anything without that. Tinfoil hat makers, rejoice!

  102. song quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you tolerate this then your children will be next.

  103. Ethics by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Firstly they are guards not guardians, none of this bullshit PC talk please. Secondly this is good - if people see what RFID is used for they will be less prepared to subject their kids and the rest of society to it. Just like Edison hijacked AC power for the electric chair to give Westinghouse a bad name, we need to hijack RFID and make sure its used in all the most depraved was we can.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  104. Pilot program... by Eminence · · Score: 1

    OK, so this is the pilot program for the prisons. How about viewing prisons as the pilot program for the rest of society? Let's say - cities at first.

    1. Re:Pilot program... by doppleganger871 · · Score: 0

      Scary thought, but tracking prisoners in, prison, is a good idea. I guess your comment reinfornces the need for me to never live in a city. I'll stick with small towns and such.

  105. culturally specific? by fantomas · · Score: 1
    3) As a source of revenue for the state. Prisons are big business and a convenient source of cheap labour

    I think this may vary from country to country and may not be true universally. In many European countries the prison service is run by the state, so there is a different model from countries where prisons are run (for profit, I assume) by private companies paid by the state.

    I think the 'cheap labour' aspect is a by-product of people being locked up with a lot of times on their hands, and the philosophical stance that these people should not be paid an attractive wage for the work (pennance?) they are carrying out. The question I'd ask would be "cheap for whom?" - I should imagine a cheaper form of labour for 'the state' would be to have these individuals working in legitimate jobs in private enterprises - no need to house, feed, insure, otherwise look after the labour force, and more taxes coming in. Probably results in an overall cheaper form of labour for the state if the ambition is the financially cheapest method of acquiring mail bags/ roads, etc.

  106. What chew want man? by zavfoud · · Score: 1

    Inmate 1: Sup whata want? crack? meth? shiv? Inmate 2: Eff that I need aluminum foil.

  107. A better use by sail4evr · · Score: 1

    secretly implant higher powered rfd trackers in insurgents or terrorists and let them go. Then follow. Whenever you see a bunch of them together...bomb em. Worat case scenario, when word gets out, the terrorists start killing each other because of security risks of someone who has been detained.

  108. More Major In Southeast Asia by dunc78 · · Score: 1

    Ok, I forget the country, but recently I heard about an Australian lady, whos luggage was searched at an airport in some country in Southeast Asia. They found some large quantity of Marijuana in her bags that she is claiming was planted there. She faces a death sentence if convicted of trafficing Marijuana, but her lawyer is hoping she will ONLY get life in prison. Anyhow, I believe the Australian government is up in arms about the whole thing. Sorry for the lack up concrete details, but I thought it was an interesting story relating the the parent.

    1. Re:More Major In Southeast Asia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, yeah, I heard of that. It was Bridget Jones 2, I think.

  109. Thank capitalism and freedom of the press by 87C751 · · Score: 1
    So why is it illegal again?
    What? Marijuana? Three words: William Randolph Hearst.
    --
    Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
  110. Injected Tags by sjsoko · · Score: 1

    Why not use the systems we have to protect/id our pets and inject the tag under the skin. We *could* leave the tags in for sex offenders and child molesters so that the could be identified readily if/when then are released from prison. Hell, let's just rig that explosive device to it as well which could be detonated once a perimeter is crossed, OR from a handy remote control. Hell, let's make the remote control available to the public (like a pull-switch for a fire alarm), so if anyone sees someone acting suspiciously, they could activitate the thing.

  111. Roland's Seedy Connection to Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Roland Piquepaille and Slashdot: Is there a connection?

    I think most of you are aware of the controversy surrounding regular Slashdot article submitter Roland Piquepaille. For those of you who don't know, please allow me to bring forth all the facts. Roland Piquepaille has an online journal (I refuse to use the word "blog") located at http://www.primidi.com/. It is titled "Roland Piquepaille's Technology Trends". It consists almost entirely of content, both text and pictures, taken from reputable news websites and online technical journals. He does give credit to the other websites, but it wasn't always so. Only after many complaints were raised by the Slashdot readership did he start giving credit where credit was due. However, this is not what the controversy is about.

    Roland Piquepaille's Technology Trends serves online advertisements through a service called Blogads, located at www.blogads.com. Blogads is not your traditional online advertiser; rather than base payments on click-throughs, Blogads pays a flat fee based on the level of traffic your online journal generates. This way Blogads can guarantee that an advertisement on a particular online journal will reach a particular number of users. So advertisements on high traffic online journals are appropriately more expensive to buy, but the advertisement is guaranteed to be seen by a large amount of people. This, in turn, encourages people like Roland Piquepaille to try their best to increase traffic to their journals in order to increase the going rates for advertisements on their web pages. But advertisers do have some flexibility. Blogads serves two classes of advertisements. The premium ad space that is seen at the top of the web page by all viewers is reserved for "Special Advertisers"; it holds only one advertisement. The secondary ad space is located near the bottom half of the page, so that the user must scroll down the window to see it. This space can contain up to four advertisements and is reserved for regular advertisers, or just "Advertisers".

    Before we talk about money, let's talk about the service that Roland Piquepaille provides in his journal. He goes out and looks for interesting articles about new and emerging technologies. He provides a very brief overview of the articles, then copies a few choice paragraphs and the occasional picture from each article and puts them up on his web page. Finally, he adds a minimal amount of original content between the copied-and-pasted text in an effort to make the journal entry coherent and appear to add value to the original articles. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Now let's talk about money. Visit BlogAds to check the following facts for yourself. As of today, May 19 2005, the going rate for the premium advertisement space on Roland Piquepaille's Technology Trends is $375 for one month. One of the four standard advertisements costs $150 for one month. So, the maximum advertising space brings in $375 x 1 + $150 x 4 = $975 for one month. Obviously not all $975 will go directly to Roland Piquepaille, as Blogads gets a portion of that as a service fee, but he will receive the majority of it. According to the FAQ, Blogads takes 20%. So Roland Piquepaille gets 80% of $975, a maximum of $780 each month. www.primidi.com is hosted by clara.net (look it up at Network Solutions). Browsing clara.net's hosting solutions, the most expensive hosting service is their Clarahost Advanced priced at £69.99 GBP. This is roughly, at the time of this writing, $130 USD. Assuming Roland Piquepaille pays for the Clarahost Advanced hosting service, he is out $130 leaving him with a maximum net profit of $650 each month. Keeping your website registered with Network Solutions cost $34.99 per year, or about $3 per month. This leaves Roland Piquepaille with $647 each month. He may pay for additional services related to his online journal, but I was unable to find any evidence of this.

  112. It will make escapes easier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the RFID check will create a false sense of security among guards and make escape easier. Ok so Andy Dufresne finds a way to get his bracelet off. He puts it in his bed. The guards are running through the list of prisioners for the night...Dufresne? Check!

    Meanwhile, Andy crawled to freedom through five-hundred yards of shit smelling foulness I can't even imagine, or maybe I just don't want to.

  113. I couldn't tell! by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
    the punishments don't fit the crimes in the US. while drug use/possession might be illegal elsewhere, it's not as major an offense as it is here. prison time for possession of marijuana. it's a non-violent crime. how about a fine or community service instead? the's why our prisons are over-crowded, there's too many non-violent "criminals" locked up. drugs shouldn't even be illegal here. and don't go and say "your username contains 420, so of course you think that" because i just got in the habit of adding that after my name when "rizzo" didn't work. there's just no really good reason for drugs to be illegal while alcohol and cigarettes are legal.

    Actually, I was just going to point out how your chronic drug use has crippled your ability to capitalize sentences.

  114. I have two words for you... by Tassach · · Score: 1
    Pretrial Detention

    You can be imprisoned for months, or even years, without a trial. Under the USA-PATRIOT act, you can be imprisoned indefinately without ever being CHARGED with a crime.

    The cases of Kevin Mitnick and Jose Padilla are a sobering reminder that our Constitutional right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury has become a hollow sham.

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  115. (3) To keep them from hurting more people by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1
    I have been thinking lately about crime and punishment. We have two reasons for sending people to prison in the first place:

    (1) To punish them.

    (2) To reform them.


    As far as I'm concerned, prison is primarily to keep societal scum from harming more people. If they get rehabbed and/or punished on top of that, that's secondary.

    I'd rather we spent our prison budget on working to enhance the education and reformation of the prisoners rather than keeping track of where they are at all times, something that we don't have a problem with right now.

    Until such time as we manage to reform them, I'd prefer to know where they are at all times. Wouldn't you?