Market forces and government requirements will take care of ensuring RFID chips become implanted.
The financial benefits and incentives of voluntarily getting chipped will far outweigh not being chipped.
I'm reminded of a speech given by Michael Chertoff about the role the private sector can play in traveller screening:
There are number of ways in which the private sector can really add value and play a major role in this process... you've got a lot of people traveling almost always for private business, as we talk about trusted traveler programs getting more of the kind of information that allows us, for example, to let people move freely through airports, as we talk about biometric types of identification which maybe become available on a voluntary basis, the private sector can create a marketplace for this. If people, in fact, see value in having a biometric card and volunteering some information for it in return for getting some kind of trusted traveler status, that will create a marketplace for the technology and a marketplace for the systems that we need to drive that forward.
Once you have a sufficient number of people embracing the technology and reaping certain benefits, it's a small step from there that business can say, "Well, these people that have these chips have better chances of promotion" or whatever.
Besides, the government shall surely love the idea of having a wonderful surveillance mechanism such as this, and they (along with corporations) will continue to propagate the myth that privacy = data security, which it doesn't, in order to still use RFIDs at some point anyway.
This is demonstrated in the SM Daily Journal article when it says:
They also include measures that would bar use of RFIDs in driver's licenses and student identification badges before 2011 and set privacy-protection standards for RFIDs.
A fifth bill by Sen. Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro, is also on the committee's agenda. It would require companies that issue identification cards or other items containing RFIDs to disclose the personal information that would be revealed by the RFID and what steps they've taken to protect that information".
In other words, we'll let them use it anyway, as long as they protect the data, not your privacy (and they're doing such a good job of protecting our data already, of course). From there, it's just a short step to say, "Well, you've got RFIDs in your ID cards, why not get a chip in your arm to speed up time at airport check-in, or purchasing items at the counter, or 0% interest for the next year on purchases..."
You're not required to have a mobile phone, but market forces and social pressures are pretty damn persuasive.
You're not required to get an implant, but hey, it surely helps.
Simple, really. As a poster noted earlier, No2ID pointed out that this was a great way to introduce "fire and forget" activism. No need to go picketing in crap British weather, no need for civil disobedience, no need to leave the comfort of your armchair... one click and, hey, you've protested, cup of tea, please.
I disagree that ignoring the ID-Card petition "is hardly a big deal". Ignoring a petition with 27,000 signatures or 1.5 million is a symptom of the same problem, and it is a huge deal: the UK government does not like the idea of democracy.
The reaction by a senior UK government minister to the idea that citizens can set up their own polls is indicative of their utter contempt for the notion that citizens should be able to so easily and publicly have their say: it was "unbelievable", he said, that someone in the government could have possibly come up with the idea, concluding that "The person who came up with this idea must be a prat." The Transport select committee chairman was equally dismissive, and said: "I think it (the online petition) was daft. I don't know what under-16 year-old employment scheme they have got in Number 10, but they should revise it. If you entirely represent the thing in a negative way of course people are going to say 'I don't want to do that'."
Ever since, it's been quite clear that any such petitions will be ignored, and I rather suspect that the site will no longer allow the public to create petitions in the future. The focus by the government in dealing with these petitions has been on mitigating what is seen as a PR disaster rather than a victory for democratic participation, so it's time to engineer some consent. They've made quite clear that they fully intend to go ahead with trial runs of the road tolls, and this letter about Blair arguing for ID-Cards illustrates, yet again, that the public need to be managed.
If there was ever a clearer example of just how much politicians don't like citizens meddling in their affairs, this is it.
Slashdot Mirror
... to say we're making it up as we go along.
... if laws such as this are passed.
Market forces and government requirements will take care of ensuring RFID chips become implanted.
The financial benefits and incentives of voluntarily getting chipped will far outweigh not being chipped.
I'm reminded of a speech given by Michael Chertoff about the role the private sector can play in traveller screening:
Once you have a sufficient number of people embracing the technology and reaping certain benefits, it's a small step from there that business can say, "Well, these people that have these chips have better chances of promotion" or whatever.
Besides, the government shall surely love the idea of having a wonderful surveillance mechanism such as this, and they (along with corporations) will continue to propagate the myth that privacy = data security, which it doesn't, in order to still use RFIDs at some point anyway.
This is demonstrated in the SM Daily Journal article when it says:
In other words, we'll let them use it anyway, as long as they protect the data, not your privacy (and they're doing such a good job of protecting our data already, of course). From there, it's just a short step to say, "Well, you've got RFIDs in your ID cards, why not get a chip in your arm to speed up time at airport check-in, or purchasing items at the counter, or 0% interest for the next year on purchases ..."
You're not required to have a mobile phone, but market forces and social pressures are pretty damn persuasive.
You're not required to get an implant, but hey, it surely helps.
Simple, really. As a poster noted earlier, No2ID pointed out that this was a great way to introduce "fire and forget" activism. No need to go picketing in crap British weather, no need for civil disobedience, no need to leave the comfort of your armchair ... one click and, hey, you've protested, cup of tea, please.
I disagree that ignoring the ID-Card petition "is hardly a big deal". Ignoring a petition with 27,000 signatures or 1.5 million is a symptom of the same problem, and it is a huge deal: the UK government does not like the idea of democracy.
The reaction by a senior UK government minister to the idea that citizens can set up their own polls is indicative of their utter contempt for the notion that citizens should be able to so easily and publicly have their say: it was "unbelievable", he said, that someone in the government could have possibly come up with the idea, concluding that "The person who came up with this idea must be a prat." The Transport select committee chairman was equally dismissive, and said: "I think it (the online petition) was daft. I don't know what under-16 year-old employment scheme they have got in Number 10, but they should revise it. If you entirely represent the thing in a negative way of course people are going to say 'I don't want to do that'."
Ever since, it's been quite clear that any such petitions will be ignored, and I rather suspect that the site will no longer allow the public to create petitions in the future. The focus by the government in dealing with these petitions has been on mitigating what is seen as a PR disaster rather than a victory for democratic participation, so it's time to engineer some consent. They've made quite clear that they fully intend to go ahead with trial runs of the road tolls, and this letter about Blair arguing for ID-Cards illustrates, yet again, that the public need to be managed.
If there was ever a clearer example of just how much politicians don't like citizens meddling in their affairs, this is it.