Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Taiwanese Researchers Plug RFIDs As Disaster Recovery Aids

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the one-way-to-look-at-things dept.

Privacy 108

Velcroman1 writes "Scientists tag animals to monitor their behavior and keep track of endangered species. Now some are asking whether all of mankind should be tagged too. Looking for a loved one? Just Google his microchip. Taiwanese researchers postulate that the tags could help save lives in the aftermath of a major earthquake. And IBM advocated chips for humans in a speech earlier this week. The ACLU disagrees. 'Many people find the idea creepy,' spokesman Jay Stanley told FoxNews.com."

cancel ×

108 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

hmm (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32216588)

first?

Dear ACLU (1)

mdenham (747985) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216608)

Creepy isn't a good argument against "why should we do X". If it were, we wouldn't have bad CGI. Or Uwe Boll movies.

Re:Dear ACLU (4, Insightful)

WarJolt (990309) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216652)

creepy is just a way of saying your gut tells you somethings wrong. My gut keeps me out of a lot of bad situations. It's a good enough reason for me. My gut tells me I don't want to be implanted with something that can track me like an animal.

Re:Dear ACLU (1)

ooshna (1654125) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216958)

Last I heard human were still animals

Re:Dear ACLU (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217216)

Last I heard human were still animals

No, not since The Singularity. The software just makes you seem like you're a living, breathing human animal.

Re:Dear ACLU (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217620)

But one good use obviously outweighs all the possible misuses of this technology.

Chance of you being in a middle of a huge natural disaster, resulting in you being unable to unable to respond to others to let them know who you are and that you are still alive, and someone with an RFID scanner happens by to scan you, and then somebody else you know then does a google search on your location: 1:1,000,000,000.

Chance of the government abusing the technology the very day it begins being implemented: 1:0.00000001

Even for something stupid like, say, speeding. You're RFID passed between point A and B WAY too quickly, and you have a drivers license. You must have been speeding.

Re:Dear ACLU (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217832)

You're assuming that the someone you know also knows your RFID number or is able to access it without much trouble.

Otherwise, simply issuing a card with an RFID chip built in at the relief tent with a photo and name that goes into a database that allows the same is enough. No need to tag people here. It all can be done adhoc at the time of need if the person actually wants other to know there he is.

Re:Dear ACLU (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217974)

What's the point of having the RFID chip inserted and then a database of rfid's/names being created then? It's WAY too late to be useful. You might as well just ditch the whole RFID thing and just take names, as the RFID adds no value.

For this to be useful, you need to match an RFID with a name BEFORE an incident, so in the immediate aftermath, rescue teams could setup rfid readers at choke points around the disaster, and have a reasonable idea of how many people have left the area and who left, without big lineups or personelle devoted to this task. And if you are unconscious or dead, they can more easily identify you than having to do dna, fingerprint or dental matching.

And they could upload all this info onto the internet, so your immediate relatives could possibly figure out that you walked away from the area [or towards it], or were injured/dead much more quickly.

But it all requires the RFID chip to be implanted before the event, along with a database of rfid's/names [and perhaps other vital statistics that uniquely identify you].

Re:Dear ACLU (1)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217898)

Chance of you being in a middle of a huge natural disaster[...]: 1:1,000,000,000.

(odds may vary in New Orleans, Iceland, most of Africa)

Re:Dear ACLU (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32229136)

(odds may vary in New Orleans, Iceland, most of Africa)

You think that Iceland is undergoing

a huge natural disaster

??

The Icelanders are undergoing a minor, quite common, local difficulty. Not quite as frequent or predictable as the geyser at, errm, Geysir (not far from the eastern side of Katla, whose western subsidiary outlet is currently erupting) ; but common enough. Other areas downwind are experiencing, almost literally, fallout from their problem, but the Icelanders are undergoing a minor, common difficulty. And that's an artificial, minor, disaster caused by an excessive degree of reliance on the alleged speed and convenience of air transport.

Re:Dear ACLU (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32219022)

Chance of the government abusing the technology the very day it begins being implemented: 1:0.00000001

Closer to 11 in 14. It might get implemented on a weekend, and there's way less chance they'll get around to abusing it before Monday.

Re:Dear ACLU (1)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217562)

Yes, but that doesn't mean we have to tracked like them. Furthermore nobody likes a pedantic asshole I would suggest you strive to not be one.

Re:Dear ACLU (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32219166)

Ah... But if you CAN be tracked like them, you can rest assured your fellow man will DO it to you.

History is replete with vast numbers of instances where something along these lines (no there hasn't been RFID of this nature until our recent times...) has been misused- with arguments like yours getting used to get it accepted first.

Re:Dear ACLU (1)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32221918)

I wasn't arguing for tracking, I was arguing against it by pointing out that animals we may be, but tracked like them we should not.

Re:Dear ACLU (3, Interesting)

nido (102070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217550)

creepy is just a way of saying your gut tells you somethings wrong. My gut keeps me out of a lot of bad situations. It's a good enough reason for me. My gut tells me I don't want to be implanted with something that can track me like an animal.

Our guts don't get nearly the credit they're due. Old medical literature talked about the body having three distinct nervous systems: brain/central nervous system, the heart, and the abdominal brain. How could paraplegics digest food if the digestive organs didn't have their own control system?

And the abdomen is, of course, the seat of intuition in the body. There's much more to 'gut feelings' than we commonly appreciate.

Re:Dear ACLU (2, Informative)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218762)

+2 Interesting? What? Intuition is in your brain, not in your abdomen. If in some situation you have a 'bad feeling' in your guts it is either because your brain figured something out and is making you feel nervous, or because you are infected with some disease or ate something bad. It is NOT because some mysterious second or third nervous system that is located in your abdomen has used its magical powers of intuition and is making your spider sense tingle.

Re:Dear ACLU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32219066)

Unless you're a mutant named Kuato. Then you are the abdominal brain.

they're called gut feelings for a reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32221358)

the brain is really quite primitive, all things considered. The signal is picked up by the abdominal brain antenna, and the other brain interprets the signal.

Get out of your head, and try paying more attention to your gut feelings. But if you're like most people, your guts are a cesspool of metabolic wastes & stagnant shit (leading to colon cancer), so maybe it's not worth your while.

Re:Dear ACLU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32221006)

If you drink more, you gut stops telling you things. Also, this is a good way to determine who/where all the illegal aliens are. There is an app for that.

Real question: Will this glow red when I turn 30?

Re:Dear ACLU (1, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216686)

Christians have a good reason - refusal to accept the mark of the beast.

"He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."
Revelation 13:16-17

Re:Dear ACLU (3, Insightful)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216736)

I think there are much better reasons to reject this concept than vague superstitions. Aren't privacy, bodily integrity, and freedom from surveillance good enough reasons?

I can always carry a GPS locator (that will only be turned on if I want to) if I'm going to the backcountry. Sure, I like having it in the event of emergency. But it only goes on if I flip the switch, and I would only do that if there were an emergency.

Re:Dear ACLU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32216774)

(I was being facetious, dude. Christianity is only one of many reasons why average joes and ultra-paranoid militiamen alike would resist mandatory RFID implantation.)

Dear slippery slope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32216922)

"I think there are much better reasons to reject this concept than vague superstitions."

Ummm, what's either "vague" or "superstitious" about it? It's certainly no more so than any of the "slippery slope" so and so is going to get us that passes for intellectual discussion around here.

Re:Dear ACLU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217316)

Sure, I like having it in the event of emergency. But it only goes on if I flip the switch, and I would only do that if there were an emergency.

You are assuming then that whatever happens will be the type of emergency that will give you some reaction time. I can recall one or two instances while hiking where things have gone from alright to near crisis in an instant. A much safer system would be one that goes off after a set amount of time if you don't "flip the switch" this way there's a chance of recovery from things like being knocked unconscious.

Re:Dear ACLU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217004)

Christians have a good reason - refusal to accept the mark of the beast.

"He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

Revelation 13:16-17

Yeah, but if you tell "Christians" (NeoCons) that it will stop the boogie man (Osama Bin Laden), then they'll line up and beg for it.

Re:Dear ACLU (1)

johnhp (1807490) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218918)

You were modded funny, but I think that's because most of the Slashdot crowd has never spent time in the midwest/south. I happen to live in the rural midwest. I think our coastal population is unaware that the country's gooey filling contains hundreds of thousands of religious zealots who literally rival the Taliban for religious rigidity and enthusiasm. My family all fit into that category. They believe that every bit of the Bible is absolutely literally true. I'm the only person in my family who understands/believes in evolution and the big bang. Believe me when I say that these people will arm themselves and fight if a tagging system ever comes through. They see accepting "the mark" as a one way ticket to hell. They'll see death as a glorious service to God. Just imagine the hardcore midwest Christians, faced with damnation, imbued with all the zealotry for martyrdom of any tribal Afghani and they gleefully slaughter the soldiers in the army of Satan, in other words, everyone else but them.

Re:Dear ACLU (1)

hierofalcon (1233282) | more than 4 years ago | (#32220210)

The scripture noted was written in the first century. At that point, most people would have said such a thing could never happen, including the Christians if you had pinned them down on it. Barter was common. You bought and sold (if you did at all) with people you knew in most places. They would have never asked you to show some mark to do that activity. If it was enforced, a black market would have been easily and readily in operation.

Today, it is just the opposite. USA Today reported a couple years ago that a resort in Europe allowed people to have RFID chips implanted which were tied to their credit card numbers. To pay for things, all they had to do was wave their hand over a scanner. Useful at the nude beach.

How close are we to this scripture being fulfilled? Currency is being reworked yearly to try to stop counterfeiting. Pretty easy step to just give up and do away with currency altogether. Merchants would prefer to not deal with checks outside of the town the bank is located in, and sometimes not even there. They don't like the float and worry about forgeries. Credit card issuers are working continually to tie their cards to people to prevent losses when cards are stolen. Don't think for a moment that they wouldn't leap at pushing the RFID chip scanning technology tied to their databases worldwide.

Throw in a huge natural disaster (to say nothing of the mess the world is likely to be in after the rapture - or at least the part that was daylight and had large Christian populations) and this prophecy makes perfect sense and would be pushed by government and accepted by the people easily.

There's room in the Bible's time line for evolution to have occurred. Gen. 1:1 really sounds like the big bang to me. The Bible's point isn't to lay out all science. Its point is to lead people to salvation through Christ. Read the Bible for the purpose it was written for and your science books for the purpose they were written for.

While I agree that there are a host of other perfectly valid reasons that this is a really bad idea, don't discount the Bible scripture referenced as another valid reason. The last major prophecy the Bible mentioned that had to occur prior to the rapture was fulfilled when Israel was formed as a nation and the Jewish people began their return. Who would have thought that would happen when the scriptures were written or even in the WWII generation of my parents. Yet it did happen. Here's another scripture that even when I was born had no real way of ever coming true, yet now could be easily fulfilled. It wouldn't be fulfilled in the way that people thought it would 100 or 200 years ago - they were thinking literal tattoos. But now there is a reality that fits the scripture. You may not like that reality, but it doesn't make it false just because you reject it.

And just to set the record straight. True Christians aren't out to kill anyone.

Creepy? Yes! (2, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216616)

Sure it would be great to find your lost loved one in the event of some natural disaster. And it would be nice to be able to track and find your kids when they're late for dinner or in the event of some foul play. But this is way to apt for abuse. If you think stalkers can get too much information on someone now you just wait until they can track you 24/7 via your new best friend RFID!

Re:Creepy? Yes! (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217544)

No disagreement with the downsides outweighing the upsides, unless perhaps you live in a place where there are 7.0 earthquakes monthly. But I think you misunderstand RFID; it's very short-range, so to track someone constantly with it, you'd need transponders every hundred feet, everywhere. But with transponders at entrances to businesses, you'd be able to track fairly well. This is why having RFID devices inside shoes (for inventory management) is a bad idea, because after being sold the devices would still respond, allowing businesses to track you via transponders under the doorways.

Re:Creepy? Yes! (1)

Poingggg (103097) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218404)

There are tags that can be tracked with satellites, and afaik these are used for tracking animals. Or do you expect all wasteland to be littered with rfid-readers?
It is also easy to couple tags to GPS. So far for 'short range'.

Re:Creepy? Yes! (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32219232)

The satellite tags are not unobtrusive little rfid tags.

Wildlife are tagged using rfid not because it enables constant tracking, but because the tag can be injected under the skin, where it is less likely to weather off.

And as I understand it, even the wildlife tags that do use satellite are not using the satellite for tracking, they are using it for data retrieval. For example:

http://www.tunaresearch.org/billfish/bluemarlin.html [tunaresearch.org]

Those tags ride along for a set amount of time, then fall off and broadcast their data up to the satellite. There is no active satellite tracking of the tag.

Has no one read Logan's Run? (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218608)

In that book, everyone has a crystal in the palm of their hands that seems to perform similar functions to an RFID chip, but the primary function seems to be an easy way to spot out how old people are. At each person's 21st birthday, they're forced to march off to the death chambers. Reading that book is what makes me creeped out about being chipped. Thanks, I'll keep that kind of personal data to myself.

Re:Creepy? Yes! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218896)

Someone brings this up every time we discuss this, and it's still ridiculous. If this hasn't been a problem with the cell networks, and it hasn't, then it's not a problem with RFID. Oh sure, the records show that the police were granted tons of positional data without subpoena, but the only difference between cellphone tracking and RFID tracking when the cops do it is that if you don't have a cellphone you can't possibly be important. You could conveniently cover up an implanted RFID so it couldn't be read, unless it was put in your nose or something.

I found your mom (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216628)

she was fellateing a dog in a most unwholesom and possibly illegil way, !!!!!! not

Re:I found your mom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217010)

That was NOT funny.

amidoinitrite?

Mark of the beast (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32216630)

Too close to some of the stuff at the back of the Bible. There will be protests.

Re:Mark of the beast (2, Interesting)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216790)

Mark of the beast only applies to tattoos or imbedded devices.

I know Jews can't get tattoos if they want to be buried in a Jewish funeral or cemetery, what's the stance on imbedded devices?

Re:Mark of the beast (3, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217058)

I know Jews can't get tattoos if they want to be buried in a Jewish funeral or cemetery

I don't want to Godwin the thread but there must be one exception to that rule.

Re:Mark of the beast (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218506)

I'll leave the tasteless comment that crossed my mind for a moment out...

But I guess it would be the same rule that applies to muslims and eating pork. It only counts when you deliberately and willingly do it.

Re:Mark of the beast (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32220920)

OK, I read about it. If its to save your life or if someone else did it, you are fine.

"If it [the tattoo] was done in the flesh of another, the one to whom it was done is blameless" (Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 180:2-3).

And I overstated the severity, the Rabbi's fault who told me, or this Rabbi is a little too reformy.

"Tattooing is an explicit prohibition from the Torah. However, those who violate this prohibition may be buried in a Jewish cemetery and participate fully in all synagogue ritual."

Re:Mark of the beast (1)

Rashdot (845549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218546)

In WWII it was very easy for the nazis to arrest most of the Jews in some countries, because they were registered as such by the local governments.

The problem with this kind of tagging is that it would be too easy to target all the Jews in a region, or all the Muslims, or all the 15 year old firstborns, or whatever some dictator could think up.

Re:Mark of the beast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217118)

Mark of the beast only applies to tattoos or imbedded devices.

I know Jews can't get tattoos if they want to be buried in a Jewish funeral or cemetery, what's the stance on imbedded devices?

Well, there's a Final Solution [wikipedia.org] for that...

Re:Jews can't get tattoos (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218844)

Not generally true.
http://judaism.about.com/od/conversi2/f/tatoos_burial.htm [about.com]

"The Torah forbids us from tattooing our bodies. Nonetheless, one who has had tattoos can still be buried in a Jewish cemetery.

That said, every Jewish burial society has the right to enact its own criteria for who may and may not be buried in their plot. This stems from people's desire (or right?) to be buried in proximity to others of their choosing. So while technically there is nothing in Jewish law which prohibits a tattooed person from being interred in a Jewish cemetery, certain burial societies -- not the majority of them or even close -- will not bury among their own a person who willingly tattooed him/herself, as it is a permanent exhibition of violation of Jewish Law.

This practice by certain burial societies led to the common misconception that this ban was an inherent part of Jewish law".

I agree with IBM on this (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216632)

I mean, they would know, right?

Cobblers (3, Insightful)

Xaemyl (88001) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216644)

What a smokescreen. "Here, people! Let us keep tabs on you, in case of an emergency ... for your own good."

What's the state of National IDs in Taiwan? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216662)

So, are there national identification cards already in Taiwan? Are they compulsory? Do you have to have them on your person at all times? Is this just the slippery slope at work?

Re:What's the state of National IDs in Taiwan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217964)

dude, national ID is pretty much mandatory in Asian countries, they didn't have any problems with this idea since the concept of "government issued paper" has been ironed to their minds passing down in hundred and thousands of years already.
Look at Japan, in the late 16th century, women can't travel across county checkpoints without a government issued pass and be accompany with a male relative, and in current Chinese law, their own citizen can't travel to another county/state/city without proper paper, it's just not enforced due to many economic and political issues, but the law still exist!

IBM? (3, Interesting)

turbotroll (1378271) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216708)

IBM had no problems assisting a mass murder [ibmandtheholocaust.com] , so their endorsement of a proposal to tag human beings like cattle is highly surprising.

Business on demand, indeed!

Full disclosure: Yes, I am a disgruntled former employee.

Sigh (1)

DryGrian (1775520) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216720)

Whatever could go wrong? Have bad science fiction novels taught us nothing?

Fuck you all. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32216722)

Just get a damned microchip implanted up your ass, already. Obammy insists! It's not so bad. Hell, I already left DNA samples in all of your moms' holes!

I'll take my chances. (1)

retech (1228598) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216724)

I'd feel safer with an earthquake than I would with being chipped and google tracking me.

Cell phones (3, Insightful)

brass1 (30288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216738)

Don't cell phones already provide a better solution to this "problem" while solving most of the privacy issues?

Re:Cell phones (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216770)

Except when an earthquake destroys all the transmission towers.

Re:Cell phones (3, Informative)

brass1 (30288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216806)

That doesn't destroy the devies themselves. They're still turned on and chattering away looking for a network, at least until the batteries go flat. For most phones with a moderately charged battery, even an iPhone, that could be a day or more.

Even then, there's still records at your cell phone company that can be used to triangulate your last known position to at least tens of feet; usually better.

Re:Cell phones (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217096)

That doesn't destroy the devices themselves

Popping you in the microwave would.

How about an MRI?

Re:Cell phones (2, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217472)

Especially if people are smart and turn on their phone, say, 10 mins/day to allow for tracking. The battery would last a long time.

Re:Cell phones (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32219056)

Even then, there's still records at your cell phone company that can be used to triangulate your last known position to at least tens of feet; usually better.

They can only tell what cells your phone has been talking to recently, and the signal strength. The full-on TDoA based locate is only done on demand, and can't be done after the fact. I believe the AGPS-based phones are the same way; the pseudoranges aren't provided to the network except on-demand.

Re:Cell phones (2, Insightful)

zubiaur (1207636) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216820)

I dont think you will be relying on a cell tower rather than on some portable gsm spectrum analyzer. and this would be a worse case scenario.

Re:Cell phones (1)

zubiaur (1207636) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216800)

Indeed, some might argue that battery life is an issue but most phones can be let on stand for at least three days, if by then you are not rescued... well chances of you being alive are very slim.

Re:Cell phones (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32219250)

The standby time might be much less than normal if the phone is shouting out trying to find a tower to talk to.

Privacy doesn't have to be a problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32216960)

The RFID tag wouldn't have to contain any personal information - all it needs to say is "HUMAN!".

There could be an app for that (2, Interesting)

kanweg (771128) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217112)

The phone could start ringing at regular intervals after being turned on by a tower/portable device, so rescue workers could hear them.
Perhaps the phone could detect the earthquake itself.

Bert

Re:There could be an app for that (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217448)

That's actually kind of a cool idea. Depending on the quality of the speaker, you could even have it emit a frequency which penetrates through concrete/debris easier and use a high-end microphone to detect it from longer ranges.

Re:There could be an app for that (1)

pentalive (449155) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217492)

This is assuming the person and the phone are not separated by the earthquake. Rescuer - We spent 30 hours digging carefully and found - a phone (the person was five feet away and died 20 hours ago)

Re:There could be an app for that (1)

kanweg (771128) | more than 4 years ago | (#32219146)

A phone could start the ringing procedure if it hasn't had contact with a cell tower for an hour (if the user is in a desert, he can turn it off).
If there is still a working cell phone tower, it could send out a message to activate the program. (This may be prankster sensitive, so a solution has to be found for that).

Bert

Re:Cell phones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32220784)

A modern cell phone with GPS capabilities may run out of battery within a couple of days time even if it is FULLY charged. And also, cell tower may not even working after a natural disaster. E.g., I am sure T-mobile will not save me if anything happens in my home area.

Regarding the privacy issues, even if the government has all the policies/rules to protect you from this privacy issues, how does the government prevent someone to abuse it..... e.g., the recent incident of a school district whose IT turned on the notebook's cam to snoop on students without authorization. Hmmm.... if I work on this RFID rescue program, I don't mind tracking on beautiful girls in the name of routine system testing.

To consider both sides... abandon assumption. (0)

cybereal (621599) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216854)

I realize these ideas, of tracking, id, etc. are not popular in the slashdot crowd. What I am not aware of is any well thought out, well grounded, and generally objective essays, or perhaps more importantly, concrete and real historical examples of why compulsory identification is bad or wrong.

I mean, I can use my imagination to come up with some random nightmare scenarios but almost universally I eventually see how those situations either happen anyway or are ridiculously unlikely.

So, I ask you slashdotters who are already fuming at my interrogation :) Where's the beef? Please respond with some resources so that, if any are actually convincing, I can finally have something to back up my own disdain for this sort of identification and potentially monitoring.

Also as a special request, please don't respond with pointers at fictional works, no matter how compelling or convincing they are.

Re:To consider both sides... abandon assumption. (2, Insightful)

Sabriel (134364) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217312)

or perhaps more importantly, concrete and real historical examples of why compulsory identification is bad or wrong.

Concrete and real historical examples of civilizations with panopticon-level surveillance and the ability to remotely help or hinder significant populations in real-time via computer command are not yet available. However, I expect such examples within my lifetime. All of the technologies are there. It's just a matter of combining them to taste as suits your ideology and those of your allies and enemies .

Emphasis intended. That is the "beef". The problem is not that these technologies will combine, the problem is (a) acknowledging that many want it and at least one will get it, (b) ensuring that combination occurs within a regulatory framework that resists tyranny. And history is littered with real and concrete examples of where humanity has done poorly in that regard.

Re:To consider both sides... abandon assumption. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32218112)

Actually wouldn't britain's use of cameras, abuse of said cameras, andlack of improvement in either crime, or accidents be a good enough example?

Re:To consider both sides... abandon assumption. (2, Insightful)

Reziac (43301) | more than 4 years ago | (#32222776)

This cannot be repeated too often:

"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
          -- Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.

30-40 years and Public Opinion will be a lot diffe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32216860)

give 30-40 years and public opinion will be a lot different, Build-in microchips will be everyday affair

IBM knows all about tracking people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32216924)

Ask them about their technology sales to Nazi Germany and what the Nazis did with that technology back than..

In theory a good idea, but not the time yet. (3, Insightful)

jacks smirking reven (909048) | more than 4 years ago | (#32216956)

Having chips in people can serve a number of functions and conveniences in a somewhat modern age as we seem to be in. It would be handy and helpful in many ways besides the ones the researchers describe, but because of our governments and human nature itself, it's not worth the risk. With something like that it's not a matter of if it's abused, but simply how they'll abuse it.

Re:In theory a good idea, but not the time yet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32216986)

Yeah, I rather die in an earthquake than being tracked by IBM. Go team!

What about the dead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217044)

Wouldn't it lead rescuers to the dead, as much as the survivors?

It is a fantastic idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217060)

It is also the grandfather of the mark of the beast. I have no problem with the implementation, the concept-- it's the way forward. But we're going to give too much power to a small group when we implement it such that it becomes a serious problem for personal liberty, and many Christians will be killed or starve because of it.

Temporary tags maybe? (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217080)

Instead of tagging people, how about RFID tags you can store with any other emergency supplies (no personal info on the tags), and you can grab one and keep it in your pocket if an earthquake is suspected, or even occurring. Rescuers could then pinpoint any signals, and if some sort of button is added, victims could signal they are still alive, should rescuers need to prioritize which signals to reach first.

I realize earthquakes often have little enough warning that it would be difficult at best to go grab a tag, but the only better way to use them is to just carry one by default. Of course, you could always just carry an RFID tag when at school or work- you could then be issued a tag with your name and any other information helpful for rescuers, but that would be easily abused by schools/employers.

Regardless, I think RFID can be useful enough it should be looked into, and I am sure it can be used in a way that does not unnecessarily violate privacy.

Re:Temporary tags maybe? (4, Insightful)

Raptoer (984438) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217234)

RFID and earthquakes

One major thing everyone overlooks is the range of RFID. To be small enough to comfortably fit in a human only a passive unit with a small antenna can be used. This limits the range since the power has to be pushed to the RFID tag. You're going to get a range of maybe a meter.

Additionally no materials that respond to a magnetic field can be used, as it would tear out the tag during an MRI. From a security standpoint, want to become someone else? take their chip. After all, it's a perfect ID system, so if it says you're joe, there's no way you could be bob with joe's chip. (This is why there are photos on id, although it's much more difficult to steal a chip than a card)

I've also never figured out how they can listen to multiple tags at once, the same type of tag is going to be on the same frequency, so don't their transmissions overlap?

Finally there is no time when an earthquake is supposed to happen, except for aftershocks (in which case if the original earthquake is strong enough to warrant getting your tag, it's probably too late anyways)

Re:Temporary tags maybe? (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217480)

>I've also never figured out how they can listen to multiple tags at once, the same type of tag is going to be on the same frequency, so don't their transmissions overlap?

As someone who's played with it: yes it can be done, and yes it's hell.

Re:Temporary tags maybe? (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218820)

As for the overlap, high end chips respond to an reader request. If an overlap is detected then the reader will try again. The reader then selects the chip by selecting it through the chips ID (just a couple of bytes, 4 to 7 in case of 14443 for instance). The other chips will then become inactive which mean that they don't respond to subsequent communications. This also means that they don't draw much power so that better communications are possible with the active chip.

In most passports 3 of the 4 bytes are randomized (the other being an indicator byte) - some countries forgot to enable this randomization feature though. Other cards, especially public transport cards normally respond with a unique serial number which can be used to create derived keys to communicate with the card. This obviously has the drawback that the card will send a unique number to anyone with a reader. This was e.g. covered when a guy skimmed US passport cards (which are different from ICAO compliant passports).

I'll just keep my phone with me in a pouch. If that breaks, I'm probably dead anyway. Even then, I don't see the survival rate go up significantly with this kind of solution. Which means that by definition, it will loose against the drawbacks of using it.

And the dead??? (0, Redundant)

Striek (1811980) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217114)

This is pointless... Wouldn't this lead researchers to the dead, just as easily as it would to the living?

disaster tracking/many already tagged (3, Interesting)

whitis (310873) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217136)

The continuous wearing/implanting of RFID tags has extreme privacy issues and enormous ability for abuse. But most of us are already tagged and trackable, and many don't realize it (see below).

To be fair, I did suggest something similar back during Hurricane Katrina, though with some level of privacy controls. Boat comes up and rescues you, dead or alive. You are given a numbered wristband with RFID/barcode. You are given a chance to enter, or not enter, identifying information and select which info is searchable and which is viewable. GPS based point of rescue information is recorded. The boat relays that information up to the next helicopter that flys over via a ad-hoc store and forward WiFi network or any other stationary or mobile access point in range. When you reach a shelter, hospital, etc. you are scanned in. When you leave to go on a bus/train, you are scanned out of the shelter and onto the bus/train. You are basically tracked like a package for as long as you want to be and friends and family inside or outside the disaster zone with the right information to search by can find out where you are. Rescue/shelter/hospital personnel can spend more time helping people and less time trying to locate missing persons. Less load on cell phone networks. If you have a stalker or outstanding warrants, you don't give any identifying info. Still lots of subtle issues with privacy and technical implementation.

Today, you might just do a mobile update of your facebook status; facebook being a whole different set of privacy issues, and use direction finders on cell phones.

And we are already tagged and trackable via our cell phones (hackers can access GSM network location and ID info). And many of the RFID attacks can be applied to any active cell phone, only worse. SIM number, bluetooth/WiFi/WiMaX MAC addresses. A cell phone is an RFID chip from hell with a long range and even a preexisting network which can be exploited to further extend the range to the entire world. At least you can yank the battery when you really need to disappear.

Re:disaster tracking/many already tagged (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32219246)

But unlike implanted RFID, you can pitch it, easily switch to throwaways, etc.

This, on the other hand, is a completely differing beast and couldn't really do a good job (Sorry, range limitations would ruin what they're proposing for many of the situations we'd see that they're suggesting this for. I've worked in the RFID industry and there's only so much you can do with an electrically small antenna...) and can be misused in many, many more ways than the proposed idea would able to be used for.

Voluntary and under your control (1)

kanweg (771128) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217150)

You could have it voluntary and under your control (able to turn it on/off).

I'd have it turned on most of the time. Never having to worry about keys and whether I locked my house. Front door could open automatically. There was this English guy who had one for a while and missed it when he had to have it removed.

Bert

Re:Voluntary and under your control (1)

Striek (1811980) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217368)

...until the government requires you to activate to pass airport security gates and border crossings...

I don't so much mind something I can carry, but... (1)

the_rajah (749499) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217162)

I'll pass on the implanted part. I'd like the option of leaving it behind if I so choose.... or wrapping it in foil.

There are just too many ways that this could be misused against my best interests in spite of all the reassurances that I'm sure would be put forward.

Trust? Security? (1)

tnok85 (1434319) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217332)

I'm kind of surprised at the lack of backlash from the rest of you here. Even most people I know in real life are opposed to this sort of thing - and they're not tin foil hat wearing slashdotters who stay off the grid (unless they feel particularly funny and are willing to expose themselves briefly for a +5 funny).

Who would you be comfortable having this information?

Corporations? No, a lot of the +5 insightful comments around here refer to the big bad corporations holding down the lowly employee. You really trust them?

Government? No, just as many of the +5 insightful comments around here refer to the big bad overbearing government that wants to control the lowly citizen. You really trust them?

A non-profit group perhaps? Maybe. Until they have some sort of security breach (not that the corporations/governments wouldn't, they'd just be more likely to sweep it under the rug successfully) comes in and the government starts installing watch dogs.

How long until GPS statistics are used by businesses for profit? Use the existing infrastructure to profile information on what type of people go where and at what times on an unprecedented scale. It would be a marketing dream.

How long until GPS statistics are used by the government for... whatever the hell is deemed necessary for oh, I don't know, national security? "We need to have access to this tracking info to stop TERRORISM. You don't want there to be another 9/11 do you? DO YOU?" Or maybe... "If we had access to the GPS database, we could have saved that thirteen year old girl from being tortured to death."

I don't care who you give the power to. Just because you trust them now doesn't mean you will in as little as a couple years. Once the infrastructure is there and people get used to it being 'normal', it'll be expanded.

Note: I am definitely being hyperbolic. Most of the examples above I would find unlikely on an individual basis... but the chance that one of them will happen? I wouldn't be surprised. And giving somebody that capability (as well as all successors to that somebody) does not make me comfortable in the least. Call me paranoid.

Because most of us aren't complete idiots (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32219000)

GPS statistics? Really? What are those exactly? Your delusional brain can't still comprehend how GPS works? The receiver only receives, it simply measures the time differences between signals and calculates its position from that. Nothing is transmitted, nobody knows where the receiver is or even that its exists.

And that is why most people tend to be more relative about privacy issues, because nutters like you make so much fuss about nothing that it drowns everything else out.

GPS database...

Really.

Anyone want to bet this guy has a mobile phone on him 24/7 with a contract? Turns of his GPS so the state can't track him, but keeps a personal identifier that can turned on religiously.

Big step up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32217450)

How far science has advanced! No longer are we limited to tattooing serial numbers onto forearms in pursuit of the Final Solution.

Risk == Freedom (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217596)

It seems like some organizations, particularly governments, have as a major goal the elimination of all risk. It's like they've taken the idea that government's job of protecting its citizens means that they need to be made completely safe from even the most remote cause of harm. After all, just how many people will end up caught in some sort of disaster and be unrescuable through any other means besides RFIDs? I wager the number is on the order of 1 in a million. Yet for such a tiny risk these people are seriously proposing an idealized and unproven system with the potential for a massive increase in other kinds of risks.

We need to end the insanity. Public policy needs to recognize that the tighter you clench your fist, the less sand you can hold. All things like this RFID proposal do is spend lots of money to change one kind of risk into another kind of risk, potentially magnifying it in the process.

Along those lines - try to find a serious study of the effectiveness of E911 in saving lives - not simply do E911 calls result in people being deployed and thus people being saved, but rather would those people still have been saved without the fancy gps-locator mandated in all new cell phones or the requirement for VOIP services to have the service address on file for E911 dispatch. I sure haven't been able to find anything to empirically justify the cost of all that extra infrastructure.

Um, what about that whole cancer thing? (1)

Secret Rabbit (914973) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217630)

I mean, it's already caused tumours in mice and rats. Are we honestly going to entertain this violently dangerous idea (both by way of freedom and health)?

http://www.naturalnews.com/022467_RFID_implants_RFID_cancer.html [naturalnews.com]

Re:Um, what about that whole cancer thing? (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 4 years ago | (#32222740)

Dogs and cats too (risk is about 1% per studies I've seen). The problem isn't the chip; it's the coating that's designed to cause scar tissue to anchor it in place. Chronic irritation can cause a tumour in susceptible tissues and/or individuals.

No one said the RFID device has to be an ID (1)

BurningTyger (626316) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217684)

No one said the RFID device has to be an ID or carry any unique information. Cellphone is a bad idea because it is unique and can be traced/linked directly to you.

Couldn't RFID device be just a simple transponder on you so that the firefighters & rescue workers can quickly pinpoint how many people are still trapped in the building during fire or after an earthquake?

There is no invasion of privacy. It could just be a device that signals "hey, someone is still inside"

Re:No one said the RFID device has to be an ID (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32219076)

No one said the RFID device has to be an ID or carry any unique information.

Let me break it down for you:
RFID RF ID

Yeah, it's an ID.

Cell phones are more useful (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32217722)

We already all have cell phones in a purse or pocket and these are more useful than a tag. Phones will continue to get smaller and smaller and eventually it will be a Comm Badge, stuck inside the ear like a babel fish, or implanted in a tooth.

We are all being track, tagged, cataloged.... (1)

bigdogpete (1796228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32218020)

You have to be living under a rock to think that governments and organizations are not already tracking everything you do. If it can be logged or traced all it takes is someone to connect the dots. In a totally connected world the there is really no privacy. Just take the IT guys at work, we can go in at any time and tell you exactly what you did all day at work. It is not really that hard. Credit card swipes at the store. Cameras on the streets. I am saying that you should have a choice if you want the chip. I for one say just take the next step and give me the RFID and link it to my info and access. Might as well make my life easier while they are logging me anyway.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32219190)

That it would even be suggested should be the scariest thing of all, but it isn't. The scariest thing of all is that none of you are saying "over my dead body!" The worst said about it so far is that "Many people find the idea creepy"?? Cell phones, computerized driving, cameras, satellites, Google (Oops, we've made a little boo-boo)and now this proposed full body invasion?? What is wrong with people. Aren't there any Americans left?

reminds me of "zeitgeist" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32220792)

reminds me of the film "zeitgeist"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197

nika (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32225840)

türk travesti sitesidir
  travesti [travestitc.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?