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!

CA Bill Limits Skin Implantation of RFID Chips

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the wasn't-super-worried-but-thanks-just-the-same dept.

Privacy 275

twitter writes with a link to a ZDNet blog entry about a piece of legislation submitted to the California state senate. Drafted by Democratic Senator Joe Simitian, its purpose is to ensure that employers cannot require the implantation of RFID chips as part of employment. It is meeting with scorn from the American Electronics Association. "'Our bottom line is we're opposed to anything that demonizes RFIDs,' she said. 'The technology has been in existence for more than 50 years. It's in more than 1.2 billion ID credentials worldwide. ... We've not seen a single showing of ID theft or harm,' said Roxanne Gould, vice president for California government relations for the American Electronics Association, a high-tech industry group."

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

RTFA? (5, Insightful)

Vombatus (777631) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632785)

How can I be guilty of not reading the fine article, when there is no fine article to be read?

Re:RTFA? (4, Funny)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632803)

The fine article isn't displayed for you, as you don't have your security I.D. transponder within range. Duh!

Re:RTFA? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19632843)

http://whitepapers.zdnet.com/whitepaper.aspx?docid =90938 [zdnet.com]

Now you've got only one remaining excuse for not reading it : you're on Slashdot :)

Re:RTFA? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19632901)

My mistake : http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3237 [zdnet.com]

Re:RTFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19632877)

Hint: Submitter's Name

Re:RTFA? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633059)

How can I be guilty of not reading the fine article, when there is no fine article to be read?

Makes no difference -- if the dizzy bitch can't tell the difference between rfid in a credit card and employer-mandated implantation of rfid chips, probably "for homeland security and for the children", she has nothing to say worth hearing.

I must note that I'm also opposed to anything that demonizes my dick, especially whan chicks are around.

Huh? (3, Funny)

AngryJim (1045256) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632793)

'The technology has been in existence for more than 50 years. It's in more than 1.2 billion ID credentials worldwide. ... We've not seen a single showing of ID theft or harm,' Ok, am I just stupid, or did that statement about no ID theft cause anyone else to spew their beverage on the monitor.

Re:Huh? (1)

AngryJim (1045256) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632815)

Actually I think I just proved myself to be stupid by not using HTML or the preview button.

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

SnowZero (92219) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632817)

Note to Ms Gould: There's a difference between a tag you wear at work, and something semi-permanently implanted in your body.

Re:Huh? (4, Interesting)

binkzz (779594) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633125)

There's also a very big difference between choosing to have anything implanted, or being forced to have anything implanted.

That she wants to dedemonize RFID chips is fine with me, but at the moment she seems to support forced implantations of the chips. It's really only one step away from no longer being able to buy food without an implanted chip under your hand or forehead.

Re:Huh? (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633235)

I was expecting her to say this bill is preposterous because there has been no examples of employers having their employees chipped, let alone forced (has any human ever been chipped with an RFID chip?), and so it makes RFID sound bad just by outlawing a practice that doesn't happen. Kind of like a court specifically saying Joe Bob cannot have sex with children. It makes it sound like Joe Bob has tried to have sex with children.

But no, she instead wants employers to be able to do this to their employees. Ridiculous.

Auschwitz 2.0 (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633201)

Another note to Ms. Gould: I don't think it's the possibility of the RFID tag not working or being stolen that worries the CA lawmaker. I am pretty sure it's the implantation that's the worry.
For one thing, no employer should ever have the right to demand the violation of an employee's body.
Another issue is that this is too damn close to a slave collar. "Property of ACME Inc."
And finally, the RFID tag doesn't stop working once the work day is over, but works 24/7/365.

The problem I see with a ban is that the ban is likely going to be too narrow if it mentions RFID. Unless it's a ban against any permanent or semi-permanent marking of employees, it's going to be worse than nothing, as the wrong judge might rule that since RFIDs were banned, but tattoos were not mentioned, it means that tattoos are implicitly allowed.

Regards,
--
*Art

They can demand all they like (2, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633375)

For one thing, no employer should ever have the right to demand the violation of an employee's body.
Only a fool would consent to it.

Does this really need to be legislated? Eh, no I don't think so.

 

Re:They can demand all they like (4, Insightful)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633393)

Does this really need to be legislated? Eh, no I don't think so.
No, of course this does not need to be legislated. Just like with compulsory drug tests, the market will regulate itself. Just like nobody wanted to take the drug tests and work for companies, which required them, the RFID implantations won't happen because no company would find employees who would accept them.

This bill and story are histrionics (0, Troll)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633477)

Just like nobody wanted to take the drug tests and work for companies, which required them, the RFID implantations won't happen because no company would find employees who would accept them.
My company doesn't demand drug tests because they are sane, they know fine well that a significant proportion of their employees would tell them to go and get fucked whether they are users or not. In particular, the ones with talent. You on the other hand seem to have a completely divorced relationship with reality.

 

Re:This bill and story are histrionics (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633577)

What?

Re:Huh? (1)

ABCC (861543) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632869)

Same thing happened here. As we're on the topic of confessions anyway, heres another:

I've used somebody elses rfid ID card to enter my workplace for over 6 months. I'm glad to say I've not suffered any harm whatsoever, perhaps I can stop worrying about not wearing a tinfoil hat. I did however, steal the card when I lost mine, proving that the ZDNet blog post that I didn't read is total bunk.

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

FredDC (1048502) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633051)

We've not seen a single showing of ID theft or harm

Read as:

We all stand around here with our eyes closed and our hands over our ears shouting BLABLABLABLABLA.......

Ignorance is bliss!

Re:Huh? (1)

the grace of R'hllor (530051) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633603)

Not quite. Have there been cases of ID theft because of RFID tags? I believe her.

Then you get to why: Because we're not identifying ourselves with RFID tags yet. If you hold up a blank card with your RFID chip in there as your ID card, well, try flying with that; it'll be fun, I promise.

It is a good thing to limit skin implantations. (5, Funny)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632797)

The correct way to mark employees is still an ear tag.

Re:It is a good thing to limit skin implantations. (2, Funny)

sTalking_Goat (670565) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632853)

Nah, I think a radio collar a stripe of flourescent paint is the way to go...Atleast thats what my employer uses.

Re:It is a good thing to limit skin implantations. (0, Redundant)

o'reor (581921) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632855)

Yup, like cattle.

A tattoo on the forehead (2, Funny)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632857)

is the best way to mark an employee, but 666 is already taken.

Re:It is a good thing to limit skin implantations. (1)

fonik (776566) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632919)

Some call centers would be better off using toe tags instead.

Re:It is a good thing to limit skin implantations. (1)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632959)

Some would prefer the good old fashioned branding iron.

Re:It is a good thing to limit skin implantations. (1)

FredDC (1048502) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633421)

A collar with explosives that will detonate under certain circumstances is my preferred way of tagging employees!

Taking a longer break than is allowed? *KA-BOOM*
Missed a deadline? *KA-BOOM*
...

You cannot find a better motivator than this! It's well worth the cleaning crew expenses due to people exploding regularly. And if you tag them too, the workplace never stays filthy for too long!

Re:It is a good thing to limit skin implantations. (1)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633569)

No problem. Just find an argument how this helps fighting terrorism.

doesn't mean you can't have it (4, Insightful)

johnrpenner (40054) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632799)


Doesn't mean you can't have your RFID -- it just means they can't REQUIRE you to have it.

and that's a good thing.

Re:doesn't mean you can't have it (1, Troll)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632809)

It's a worthless thing. You don't want your chip implanted? Ok, it is your good right to refuse, it is our good right to choose an employee, accepts it.

Don't like the laws? (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632851)

It's your good right to select another country to do business in.

Re:Don't like the laws? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19632931)

Why not just have good laws, instead of the old "if you don't like it then geeet out" approach?

Re:doesn't mean you can't have it (1)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633007)

I already posted this in this thread, but given that it is buried where no one will read it I am going to repost it here, and hope that this self-duping won't offend greviously.

I think that is a classic libertarain mistake of not thinking carefully enough about the market for jobs (or at least I assume that your granting to employers the right to do whatever they want to employees is motivated by libertarian-esque thinking that letting the market settle such things is better than regulating them). Now if jobs were an elastic good then the market would correct for this: if all the employers started demanding something unpleasent, like hitting their employees with bats, then the supply of labor would shrink as people would be less willing to work, and thus they would have to pay their employees more. This would ensure that something unpleasent (bats, RFID) would only be universally implemented if its benefits were really worth the increased cost of hiring people.

But this analysis fails to take into account two important factors.
1- wages can't actually universally increase, they can only seem to. If everyone got paid more, proportionally, then we would simply experience inflation until real wages were the same as they previously were.
2- the labor market is actually pretty inelastic: people aren't going to stop wanting jobs, even if there are no jobs that they like, because they need money to stay alive. Thus if every employer implemented RFID people would still take those jobs, because they have no other choices, and wages wouldn't increase. Now some employers might try to get an advantage by not requiring RFID in this situation, but it wouldn't be much of an advantage for employees: what they would do is offer lower salaries, compensated by no RFID implant. Thus employees get screwed either way. So this is good for the business, but not for the workers.

Re:doesn't mean you can't have it (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633265)

I'm of the opinion that the type of people who would think that RFID implants are really not such a bad thing would not have a clue what you are talking about. Although I'm pretty sure they would accuse you of spewing socialism.

I really doubt of those people would understand economic concepts like elasticity. Nice try, but in my experience most politicians and "business" people only have a vague notion of economic concepts. Even my Business Management teacher (from years past), who has an MBA, thought it would be a good idea to create cities, because in her mind cities created jobs, and we could send unemployed people to these cities, therefore unemployment would be solved. Granted she seemed good at teaching-from-the-text-book, but she never really seemed to have a deep understanding of what she was teaching.

Re:doesn't mean you can't have it (3, Insightful)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633117)

Most people do not have the choice to decide whether they wish to work, or with whom they wish to work for, therefore at least a certain amount of legal protection has to be maintained. This is especially true when most of the wealth (and power) is distributed to only a small minority of the population.

Considering the fact that power corrupts and companies tend towards the lowest common denominator when it comes to moral issues like workers rights and just plane ordinary dignity, it is not unreasonable to have a law that requires employers not to treat their workers too much like cattle. If people really did have a choice of not to work for bad companies, I'm sure they would. Until that day comes, we will need legislation protecting us from our employers.

Re:doesn't mean you can't have it (3, Insightful)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633257)

Look at the parents statement. What I meant was that laws, which does not strictly forbid RFID implantation, are worthless. A law, which just says that an employer cannot require an implantation is even worse than worthless. It gives a semblance of protection, but does in effect nothing at all. For exactly the same reasons you gave.

Re:doesn't mean you can't have it (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633253)

You don't want sexual harrassment? Ok, it is your good right to refuse, it is our good right to choose an employee, accepts it.

Linky? (5, Informative)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632831)

Re:Linky? (1)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632917)

while not the ZDNet blog, I found it before someone posted the ZDNet link above and seems to contain the same quote/general information.

Not yet (3, Insightful)

CriminalNerd (882826) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632863)


It's in more than 1.2 billion ID credentials worldwide. ... We've not seen a single showing of ID theft or harm,' said Roxanne Gould

In my humble opinion, just because something did not happen yet does not mean that it will not happen in the future

And the summary missing a link to the ZDNet blog.

Re:Not yet (1)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632899)

Hey! Quit demonizing RFID you luddite! You're as bad as those guys who think this shouldn't forced on people!

Re:Not yet (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633155)

Roxanee went out of her way to specify that, "We've not seen a single showing of ID theft or harm [in 50 years during most of which the technology was used mostly by the military]."
  • Remind me again how you go about proving a negative?
  • Correlate all this against the federal requirements that keep credit card companies and banks from making their customers personally responsible for fraud and/or ID theft.
  • Now, tell me why I shouldn't fear the repercussions from traveling the world with a chip in my scrotum that identifies me as a WASP from a country that promotes it's own agenda of Global IndUStry with so little regard for rule of law, quality of life, humanitarian concerns or the future... beyond the next 4 quarterly financial reports.
Thanks... I'll take your answer of the air.

Re:Not yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633173)

The whole statement is a bunch of BS anyway. What are "ID credentials"? Are they identifying humans, cargo, pets, what? Who cares about "world wide" ID theft statistics? Other places have different laws, don't have the U.S. credit system, etc., etc. Give these to a bynch of Americans and have them carry them around all the time and watch the I.D. theft fly. Weasel words: "We've not seen...". Yeah, because you haven't been looking. I've "not seen" a lot of things that have happened. Assuming 1.2 billion ID credentials worldwide, I find it highly unlikely that there is significantly less identity theft with RFID than there is with stolen/lost physical ID. AND the whole thing is a red herring anyway. Identity theft is a single issue, and really, not the most important or relevant one here.

Bottom Line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19632873)

FTA:
"Our bottom line is we're opposed to anything that demonizes RFIDs,"

From the Summary
ZDNet blog entry about a piece of legislation submitted to the California state senate. Drafted by Democratic Senator Joe Simitian, its purpose is to ensure that employers cannot require the implantation of RFID chips as part of employment.

The product isn't being demonized; it is just stating that it shouldn't be a requirement. So, if every company stated that you need to have your genitalia shaved as a condition of employment would you do it. Probably not. Now imagine if every company required you genitalia shaved; now you would have to do it.

like ID tattoos? (5, Insightful)

dltaylor (7510) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632875)

Employers are requiring a medical procedure as a condition of employment. How about tattooing the employee ID, or neutering the staff to make them more docile, although that would be redundant for any employee that accepted the chip in the first place.

This is not primarily about the RFID security. It is about mutilating the staff to save the employer the cost of installing and using a less Nazi-slave-like security system. Seems to me that any doctors that perform the procedure should have their license removed. The tags are hardly justifiable as cosmetic surgery providing any self-image benefit, since the tags aren't supposed to be visible.

Re:like ID tattoos? (0, Troll)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632977)

I think this is one of those CA bills in search of a problem.

No employer currently requires (or even asks for) the use of RFID implants. Most places are happy when an employers carries theirs as a badge.

I might go so far as to say these implants will never be required since the passive RFID provides static identification only, not authentication, so implanting them gives very little additional security over a photo-ID badge (unlike fingerprints, voice verification, PINs, etc.)

Re:like ID tattoos? (5, Informative)

Jaknet (944488) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633423)

"No employer currently requires (or even asks for) the use of RFID implants. Most places are happy when an employers carries theirs as a badge."

Please check your facts before stating incorrect FUD like this... I remembered reading about this a while ago and it took only a few seconds with Google to find it.

"A Cincinnati video surveillance company CityWatcher.com now requires employees to use Verichip human implantable microchips to enter a secure data centre. Until now, the employees entered the data centre with a VeriChip housed in a heart-shaped plastic casing that hangs from their keychain.
The VeriChip is a glass encapsulated RFID tag that is injected into the triceps area of the arm to uniquely identify individuals. The tag can be read by radio waves from a few inches away.
The news was reported by CASPIAN (Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering), a US organisation that opposes the use of surveillance RFID cards."

Tut-tut from the library (3, Funny)

letchhausen (95030) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632879)

So I tells the library "I lost that book." Next things I knows, the librarian looks into the screen, starts typing, then tells me, "It's in the bedroom, under your nightstand." So I goes home and there it is! That lady, wotta dish and smart to boot! Thanks RFID!

Futurama (1)

mshurpik (198339) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632905)

No more implanting career chips??

But, "you gotta do what you gotta do."

Re:Futurama (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633021)

Now strip naked and get on the Probulator!

Where do the libertarians stand? (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632915)

Ok, all you self-professed libertarians: where do you stand on this?

Do you believe employers should be allowed to require employees to have RFID implants?

Re:Where do the libertarians stand? (1)

AngryJim (1045256) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632943)

Strangely enough, when you put it that way, yes.

The employees then have the freedom to choose to work elsewhere. The market should fix itself.

I say this as a college student studying air traffic control. Assuming I work for the FAA, I will be required to have one of those REAL ID card that most Libertarians are in a fit over. I am willing to make that trade off for the career I want.

Re:Where do the libertarians stand? (2, Insightful)

Knara (9377) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632953)

No, the "market" won't fix itself, at least not in the direction of individual liberty. The "market" will migrate towards all the companies requiring it, and then you don't get to choose anymore. I for one would rather not have to sleep in a Faraday cage in order to sleep soundly.

This is utter utter Bollocks (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633413)

The "market" will migrate towards all the companies requiring it, and then you don't get to choose anymore.
Bollocks. If that were true, we would all be tattoo'd with barcodes by now. This is a bullshit story and the "representative" is just doing it to gain publicity.

FFS. The market is made up of human beings making at least semi rational decisions.

 

Re:Where do the libertarians stand? (1)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632987)

I think that is a classic libertarain mistake of not thinking carefully enough about the market for jobs. Now if jobs were an elastic good then the market would correct for this: if all the employers started demanding something unpleasent, like hitting their employees with bats, then the supply of labor would shrink as people would be less willing to work, and thus they would have to pay their employees more. This would ensure that something unpleasent (bats, RFID) would only be universally implemented if its benefits were really worth the increased cost of hiring people.

But this analysis fails to take into account two important factors.
1- wages can't actually universally increase, they can only seem to. If everyone got paid more, proportionally, then we would simply experience inflation until real wages were the same as they previously were.
2- the labor market is actually pretty inelastic: people aren't going to stop wanting jobs, even if there are no jobs that they like, because they need money to stay alive. Thus if every employer implemented RFID people would still take those jobs, because they have no other choices, and wages wouldn't increase. Now some employers might try to get an advantage by not requiring RFID in this situation, but it wouldn't be much of an advantage for employees: what they would do is offer lower salaries, compensated by no RFID implant. Thus employees get screwed either way. So this is good for the business, but not for the workers.

Re:Where do the libertarians stand? (1)

yndrd1984 (730475) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633099)

1- wages can't actually universally increase, they can only seem to. If everyone got paid more, proportionally, then we would simply experience inflation until real wages were the same as they previously were.

That's not quite how it works, but it is pretty close to an idea that is correct. If the only thing that changes is the supply of money, then inflation/deflation will even things out, and the result is no real change. However, if efficiency is improved or people work more then everyone really can end up earning more.

In any case, if this type of thing was tried, it would first occur in areas where security was tight, where wages tend to be higher anyway to compensate for the invasion of privacy caused by thorough background checks and the lower supply of labor for low-risk personel. I don't know why this would be much different.

2- the labor market is actually pretty inelastic: people aren't going to stop wanting jobs, even if there are no jobs that they like, because they need money to stay alive. Thus if every employer implemented RFID people would still take those jobs, because they have no other choices, and wages wouldn't increase. Now some employers might try to get an advantage by not requiring RFID in this situation, but it wouldn't be much of an advantage for employees: what they would do is offer lower salaries, compensated by no RFID implant. Thus employees get screwed either way. So this is good for the business, but not for the workers.

If the labor market was entirely inelastic then all jobs would pay minimum wage and working conditions would never be any better than legally required - which isn't what we see happening. And people do quit their jobs time in order to move to new ones fairly frequently, so there is some elasticity - which is why turnover is such a problem in some industries.

Another point is that the labor market as a whole tends to be inelastic, but there are a huge number of people offering different kinds of jobs, so the labor market for a specific type of job tends to be quite flexible. And while you suggest that all companies might require RFID, some won't do so because it isn't worth it, and others won't because it's good publicity to take a stand against unpopular things.

Re:Where do the libertarians stand? (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633439)

Wages can't actually universally increase, they can only seem to. If everyone got paid more, proportionally, then we would simply experience inflation until real wages were the same as they previously were.
Uhuh. And in a real market some things become more desirable than others and increase more than others. Inflation isn't uniform.

Now some employers might try to get an advantage by not requiring RFID in this situation, but it wouldn't be much of an advantage for employees: what they would do is offer lower salaries, compensated by no RFID implant. Thus employees get screwed either way.
I think you need to ask yourself why we aren't already barcoded. Apparently the politicians have only just discovered that it's legal to demand this kind of marking.

 

Re:Where do the libertarians stand? (5, Insightful)

slarrg (931336) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633069)

I am willing to make that trade off for the career I want.
Being willing to implant an RFID does not mean that you'll get to have the career you want. Perhaps you'll work there for only a month or two and be laid off because of an airline's financial insolvency. Then you can get a new RFID from the next business.

The problem with implanted RFID is that most people underestimate their future costs as a result of an employer implanting the chip. It costs considerably more to remove an RFID, in money and personal risk, and the employer makes no provision to pay for this. Over a lifetime of jobs, once all employers require RFIDs, how many of these chips will need to be implanted? Assume that every time you change employers or even locations for the same employer you'll need new chip implanted. Every time a system is cracked (your individual chip or the outdated technology of the original chip) you'll need another chip implanted. If your company is bought by another company, implant a new chip. Technology changes constantly and employment terms for one entity are becoming increasingly shorter than in the past. Once employers do it, everyone else will want a chip under your skin for credit cards, or even customer memberships. You may have, literally, hundreds of opportunities to be re-chipped. How many chips can you realistically implant in your arm? Will you be forced to remove some of them because they compete with other technology? (The RFID used for toll booths in Maryland and Delaware are incompatible so I have to put one in the glove box to pass through the other because their systems interfere and cannot read their own ID if the other ID is also present.)

How many of these concerns do you think a person who is asked to install a chip has actually considered before they get implanted? The long term issues of chipping and the future costs which will be borne by the person being chipped and they are woefully uninformed. This lack of information availability is exactly what allows larger players in a market to abuse the smaller players. When a company knows the dangers but the employees or customers do not, they can shift future costs to them because they lack this information. The market is notoriously bad at affixing future costs to those who caused the problem (from cancer risks of smoking to pollution of locales to bad economic decisions.)

Re:Where do the libertarians stand? (1)

AngryJim (1045256) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633119)

You definitely misread my post. I did not say I would be willing to allow someone to implant me with RFID. I did say that I am willing to carry a REAL ID since I will be required. Additionally, I never said that getting implanted will automatically give me my chosen career. I'm not sure what orifice you pulled that one from. What I said was if I do end up as a controller I'll have to carry an ID with RFID in it, which is an acceptable trade off to me. If I were opposed to the REAL ID card I could simply find work at an FBO or some private airfield that hires their own controllers, at less pay of course. And finally, controllers don't get fired when airlines lose revenue. Controllers work for the FAA and are government employees.

Re:Where do the libertarians stand? (1)

slarrg (931336) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633267)

This thread is about RFID implants and you responded to the question, "Do you believe employers should be allowed to require employees to have RFID implants?" It's not my fault you think your yes answer only applies to REAL ID cards.

When you said, "I am willing to make that trade off for the career I want." You're making a statement that if you make this "trade-off" it would be so you can have the career you want. The problem is that meeting the first condition does not lead to your second condition. It's not a trade-off of one thing for another, you do the one thing and are not in anyway guaranteed the other. Therefore, it's not a trade-off you just already have low standards.

Re:Where do the libertarians stand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19632963)

I'm a libertarian. I don't know about the stance of others and can only speak for myself, but:
NO.

Re:Where do the libertarians stand? (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632997)

I think all the important people should have them, like the vice president. It would be a lot easier to find him and bring him home if he was kidnapped, that's for sure.

Re:Where do the libertarians stand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633063)

Kidnapped, or just hiding from zer constituents?

Re:Where do the libertarians stand? (1)

Doc Daneeka (1107345) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633027)

While I am not a libertarian, I do not consent to an employer penetrating me with an RFID chip. It's already a joke with what corporations are allowed to get away with, screwing over their employees in order to justify a marginal stock increase.

At what point would you object to the slippery slope a move like this would cause? When RFID implants become mandatory for all employees? When the government requires all RFID implants to be registered with a national database? Etc. Your rights as a person, and employee, end when you consent to let your employer, and others, walk all over you in the guise of proficiency, progress, and patriotism.

Re:Where do the libertarians stand? (1)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633345)

. This is a tough one, as I want to allow freedom of contract limited only by not being allowed to hurt third parties. Certainly organ sales should be allowed. On the other hand, I dislike the use of RFID implanted into a human without his unreserved agreement, and "I'm doing this only because I can't get a job otherwise" is not unreserved agreement.

. It's only one step from existing laws that demand proof that a person can legally be employed (which laws are wrong) to the additional law that accepts only RFID as proof of employability. That would make RFID effectively mandatory for anyone who wanted to work for a living, and it would solve no problem, just like encoded DVDs solved no problem. Such government-mandated RFID would be wrong because it means accepting actual bodily harm in order to earn an honest living. The context of existing laws and practice, and the likelihood of subsequent governmental abuse cannot be ignored when considering new laws. The proposed California law is an attempt to prevent such abuse.

. What about existing employees? Will they be fired if they don't accept implanted RFID? What about a company bought out by a company which requires RFID?

. There are other dangers involved. Suppose you're being stalked by someone at work who does not yet know where you live. He acquires the RFID info and a scanner capable of working at a distance, then just drives around the city until he gets a match. Your life is endangered by RFID in this instance. Is your employment contract going to state "I acknowledge that by accepting this RFID I am increasing my risk of bodily harm at the hand of third parties."? I doubt it.

. From a practical standpoint, RFID does not solve any problem that biometrics does not solve in a less intrusive and more effective manner, albeit at greater expense to the employer.

. From a political standpoint, RFID's taking of anonymity can lead to an undisclosed, and therefore involuntary, risk of bodily harm. The example above is a weak argument, but some time spent considering other possible abuses will surely find many. Just because it's a company's RFID does not mean that it can't be accessed by the government or criminals. The only certain way to prevent this abuse is to prohibit its use on any person who objects for any reason, rational or not.

Religious objection: (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19632933)

I refuse to accept the mark of the beast.

Dear Roxanne Goebbels (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19632941)

Dear Roxanne Goebbels,

Please, be advised that although the Arabic number system had been in use for centuries without significant bugs or security compromises, the abuse of the Arabic number system in the form of tattooing Arabic numbers onto the wrists of European Jews became problematic.

in other news... (0)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632969)

Providence, RI. In a remarkably Frenetic twist, the American Mathematical Society (AMS) is suing the Catholic Church. Peter Owen Paul Sicle, lawyer for the AMS, explains: "The AMS is sick and tired of the bad image that the number 666 has gotten over the years. We've identified the Catholic church as primarily responsible, and want to send a message." When asked about the fact that 666 is not prime: "Our bottom line is we're opposed to anything that demonizes numbers, and that goes for multiples of 37 too. Numbers have been in existence for more than two thousand years. They're in more than 1.2 billion textbooks worldwide. We've not seen a single showing of harm related to the prime factors 2 and 3 either."

Re:in other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633615)

Actually, string of characters "666" never appeared in the Book of Revelation. However, "The Mark of the Beast" is described as number, which in "human" understanding would be "six hundred and sixty six".

Why this number? Why is it considered so sinister? Who is The Beast?

Now, for explanation we have to look at historical background of early Christianity. We can see Roman Empire dominating their daily life, oppressing them to no end and them feeling like everything Romans do is done just for oppression sake. It takes not much insight to realize that The Beast is Roman Empire (or Roman emeperor), and Whore of Babylon is very City of Rome.

Illiterate unwashed masses of early Christian paupers probably found no use of some Roman bureaucratic features such as enumerations, permits, etc... For what we can decode, "mark of the Beast" could have been a number of market trader permit ("None would be allowed to make trade without Mark of The Beast"), any number from 1 to 999. 666 is just a model number which comprises ALL different Roman numerals lower then 1000 (M) exactly once.

There it is folks, actual, original, genuine "Mark of The Beast": "DCLXVI".

I wonder why "M" was left out? Perhaps because it spoils the melody and rhythm of repeating "six...".

About the evilness of it ... we don't know for sure how this numbers were attached to particular people. It wouldn't be too illogical for a brutal empire to brandish them on people's skin, especially if those were "subhumans", slaves who run trade businesses for their masters (we know for certain that slaves did run commercial businesses for their masters).

Here's the bill (3, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632973)

SB 362 [ca.gov] . "A person shall not require, coerce, or compel any other individual to undergo the subcutaneous implanting of an identification device."

Re:Here's the bill (1)

binkzz (779594) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633111)

I believe that is a Very Good Thing (tm), as a Christian and a human being. Finally a decent bill.

No thanks (1)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632975)

An RFID chip from an employer? Call me paranoid, but there seems to be too much potential for abuse. All it'd take is a few systematically placed RFID readers spread across a location, and your employer becomes a sort of Big Brother. Its unlikely that everyone would be constantly monitored, but if it can be done, it will be. Say, for example, that you go to a rival corporations building, you know, to investigate your options, and the next day find that you've been downsized. What baffles me is that a bill that forbids mandatory implants would meet criticism. If anyone wanted me to get one of those, I'd tell them where to implant that chip.

Obligatory The Prisoner quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633001)

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! My life is my own."

What a wonderful world. (1)

cyanyde (976442) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633009)

First they came for my ID, and I didn't have to say anything, they just banged my head against technology and took it.

Good for child molesters (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633023)

This sound like a good idea for convicted sex offenders,child molesters. But under the skin wouldn't do,maybe somewhere deep up there ass somewhere where they couldn't dig it out easily. Or how about for our troops on the combat field,they would hopefully be found before them scum kill or behead them. Just my 2 cents

Re:Good for child molesters (3, Insightful)

aero2600-5 (797736) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633043)

Or how about for our troops on the combat field


This is a bad idea for the same reason that it's a bad idea to be chipping our own citizens:

What happens when people who weren't intended to be reading these chips start using them to track and find the chipped?

Aero

Re:Good for child molesters (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633249)

What happens when people who weren't intended to be reading these chips start using them to track and find the chipped?

Well, in the case of "troops on the combat field", those trying to operating the high-powered RFID readers, throwing off EMI in every direction for hundreds of miles, have a very short life expectancy.

Re:Good for child molesters (1)

afaik_ianal (918433) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633055)

Uh - wouldn't they need to find them to be able to scan them? Do you know what RFID is?

It doesn't work like you think (1)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633427)

RFID are "passive" devices, in that they're powered by the reader's electromagnetic field. Think like a transformer (the kind with coils, not the robots;), sorta, and the reader has one half while the RFID chip has the other half.

Well, there are active ones too, but you wouldn't want to operate that guy every year to change the batteries.

This limits range drastically, since both EM fields power is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Basically, if you wanted to scan from a mile away to see where your sex offender is, be prepared to fry everything that moves in that area. You'd have to not only have a beam powerful enough to power a normal RFID from a mile, but still be powerful enough that the RFID can broadcast enough power to be sensed from a mile.

The army is an even pickier customer, since while you may want, for example, to know how many gas masks or shells are still in a crate, you don't want the enemy to know that from a mile away anyway. You don't want the enemy's radar stations to say, "guys, I'm sensing a big ammo dump at these coordinates, aim all artillery that way and fire at will."

That said, "sex offenders" is:

1. a broad enough category. It can mean just as well someone who was drunk off their ass and peed in public, or whatever. It doesn't have to mean convicted rapist.

2. something which should be the courts' domain, but instead ends up a public hysteria issue, as you illustrate in proposing to perform mandatory surgery on them.

I'm sorry, but there's a fine difference between "rule of the law" and "mob rule", even for sex offenders. It's up to the courts to determine if they're still guilty/dangerous enough to be kept behind bars, or served their sentence and can probably rent a flat and get a job like everyone else. It's not up to neighbourhood mobs to require everyone scanned, or up to random gas station owners to decide "youse can't tank here, 'cuz we don't deal with your type", which is what would happen with a RFID implant.

Plus, the courts and police have enough rules and safeguards (and still occasionally send an innocent to jail) which evolved out of thousands of years of discovering how to apply the law _fairly_. We've already had city-state mayors passing arbitrary decrees and applying their own uneven justice. We've already had mob rule plenty of times and its dispensing arbitrary justice by whims, populism and mass hysterias. (E.g., the democracy of ancient Greece also produced such excesses as Athens executing its fleet admirals because they failed to save some sailors in a _storm_, or as Socrates being sentenced to death for just being the unpopular guys.) And it took us a lot of time and some bloody revolutions to get rid of that crap. In the meantime we've discovered that it's better to apply the law fairly and uniformly, and we wrote the rules and passed the laws to see to it that it happens that way.

Mob rule just doesn't have any of those safeguards, and it already had thousands of years to show how much harm it can do.

So even for convicted offenders (sex or otherwise), I'd rather have the courts deal with them, than have them scanned by neighbourhood posses and judged summarily by every newspaper stand owner.

In other words, there's a reason we don't just tattoo it on their forehead. If we wanted those people victimized for the rest of their life, we wouldn't have had to wait for RFID, it would be cheaper to do just that. But the whole idea is that it's not supposed to work that way. Unless you're a judge and it happens in court, it's just not your job to decide extra punishment, including where that guy can go or can't go.

Why... (4, Insightful)

aero2600-5 (797736) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633025)

Why is it always California that's always ahead of the rest of the country? The best time to take care of a problem is before it starts. Everyone here in the IT business has probably heard of it. It's called preventative maintenace . California has started applying it to politics, and I applaud them for it.

I've never been to California, and I know that it's not perfect, but a good portion of their newer laws make a ton of sense, and should probably be implemented nationwide.

What's sad is that when a government body passes a law that is good for it's people, it's news.

Aero

Re:Why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633179)

Why is that sad? Whats sad is when government subjugates its people unnoticed.

Re:Why... (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633185)

I've never been to California, and I know that it's not perfect, but a good portion of their newer laws make a ton of sense, and should probably be implemented nationwide.

As a Californian, I can acknowledge some deficiencies that my state can exhibit. But I'm very proud to be a Californian. This is another example of why this is so.

California has led the United States for at least the last 50 years. It's the single largest exporter of culture worldwide. It's huge on manufacturing, agriculture, aerospace, information technology, and tourism. It's the largest state in the United States, and has the 6th largest economy in the world.

California passed the stem cell research law, working to stem (pun intended) the tide of highly qualified US genetic researchers going oversees. When the Federal Govt stood down, California stood up and took its place.

California passed the "million roofs" law providing needed backing for solar energy statewide. [environmen...fornia.org]

And on, and on, and on. California is a neat place, full of movers and shakers from the north (like Bruce Perens) to the south (like Lockheed)

Well it's not all peachy in CA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633209)

As progressive and ahead of the curve as CA is in the environment, there are still some areas [sonyclassics.com] where the state totally caved to money interests.

And when it comes to the rights of individuals, CA can really suck [sfgate.com] . The voters gave the state the right to collect DNA information and enter it in a database [smartvoter.org] upon your arrest, NOT CONVICTION. So your DNA goes on file even if you're wrongly accused. See any potential for abuse here?

Plus, don't forget the state is home to the MPAA, and the House co-sponsor of the Patriot act [house.gov] .

Tech isn't the issue (1)

brucmack (572780) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633037)

I don't know the specifics of why the bill was passed, but I would imagine privacy is the bigger concern than exactly what technology is used. I wouldn't want somebody to be able to more easily track everything I do, regardless of how they are doing it.

Re:Tech isn't the issue (1)

Cairnarvon (901868) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633357)

That's harder to phrase succintly, though, and overly broad bills have a tendency to come back to bite people in the ass later on. Dealing with obvious problem areas as they show up (preferably before they become problematic) is the best way to do this.

and when you change jobs... (1)

0WaitState (231806) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633041)

When you change jobs, how do you remove the RFId chip from your bod? Foreign objects tend to wander around once under the skin. Is your former employer obligated to find and remove it? Do you really want your recently rejected employer digging around in your bod (again)?

Change jobs? (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633127)

Impossible! Once chipped, you're their property for life.

Twitter, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633049)

Ha ha ah! oh twitter... how the mighty have fallen!

RFID rsucks (1)

BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633071)

Roxanne Gould, Spokesweasel for the American Electronics Association says 'Our bottom line is we're opposed to anything that demonizes RFIDs'

Sounds crazy? In Australia kids doing advertising letter box drops (for below minimum wage*) have been fitted with GPS tracking devices, and the privatized Telstra teleco tracks employees time spent in the toilet or making coffee. RFID is the sort of thing these employers would love. Nice to see Government (well, at least one person in Government) being pro-active, as opposed to retro-active or more usually not doing anything at all.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s19520 54.htm [abc.net.au]
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/junk-mails-s pyinthesky/2006/05/22/1148150175310.html [smh.com.au]

* = below minimum, since they have to bag and rubber-band the advertising materials on their own spare time. News limited advertises "We even provide the bags and rubber bands for you!" like they're doing you a favor. They at least now advertise "No GPS tracking device required" because no one wanted to do it. Imagine that.

Re:RFID rsucks (3, Insightful)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633611)

Roxanne Gould, Spokesweasel for the American Electronics Association says 'Our bottom line is we're opposed to anything that demonizes RFIDs'

Actually, I found that part of it refreshingly honest. What she's saying is tantamount to something like this:

We don't care a hoot about the moral or ethical aspects. We don't even care if RFID are a good idea in any context, neither do we care if they happen to be an astonishingly one. All we care about is that industry buys more RFID chips, and that's what we will say in any and every debate.

The nice thing about that is that it means their opinion on any subject can be dismissed out of hand. It's like a binary signal that's always set to one; it carries no data. We already know what they're going to say, whatever the question ("RFID tags are GOOD!") and we know why ("because it make us MONEY!").

It's just rare to see one of these industry pressure groups quite so willing to disqualify themselves from the debate.

Reading Between the Lines? (1)

TwilightSentry (956837) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633079)

"Our bottom line [would be impacted by] anything that demonizes RFIDs," she said.

Its not RFID... (3, Insightful)

DTemp (1086779) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633095)

It's not the RFID tags the senator is going after... its employers being able to fire anyone who doesn't want a CHIP EMBEDDED IN THEIR SKIN by the company they work for. I think RFID technology is great, and I completely support this bill.

This is another case of an industry group going crazy to protect what they perceive to be their interests, when in fact its no challenge to the technology at all, its a challenge to having an employer being able to modify your body.

Manhunter (1)

piratesyarr (1117287) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633163)

Get out your MAD, The Orb Alliance has landed.

Require? Force? Oh no, c'mon, who would? (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633213)

We just pay our employees that allow us to chip them 10 cents an hour more. And for some odd reason, whenever we lay people off, the ones not tagged are the first ones to get sacked.

Pure coincidence, of course.

Re:Require? Force? Oh no, c'mon, who would? (2, Funny)

astrec (244528) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633335)

In Australia we call this WorkChoices.

Re:Require? Force? Oh no, c'mon, who would? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633587)

Called "job perks" here. Or "job security". Your job is secure 'cause you got a chip for 50 cents under your skin, and your employer would hate to let you go and take that precious thing with you.

What's more frightening (3, Insightful)

simong (32944) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633415)

is that cal.gov are having to legislate on this because some HR person has seriously considered it...

It's dangerous (1)

bytesex (112972) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633467)

The problem with implanted RFIDs is that it turns people into keys, making the 'kidnap the bankmanager the night before the heist' scenario all the more likely and attractive. Before, they would have to steal my keys, now they have to steal me.

RFID in skin? In USA? Lol. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633489)

For a country with so many Christians, I can't believe people aren't up in arms at the talk of putting RFIDs in humans.

Or are church leaders completely ignorant of the Book of Revelations and how the Mark of the Beast ("And no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark..") may actually be manifest by this global police state and RFID+identification+credit-card+etc under-the-skin business?

Even without the whole 2000 year warning on this, are US citizens (and world citizens) really THAT ignorant/scared/apathetic on what certain power-whores are trying to do to our "hard-won" freedoms?

At least there's SOME awareness (check out http://infowars.com/ [infowars.com] at least not *all* Americans are sleeping).

not a single instance of harm? (2, Interesting)

tedivm (942879) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633555)

"...We've not seen a single showing of ID theft or harm"
From Wikipedia:

In 1948 Léon Theremin invented an espionage tool for the Soviet Union which retransmitted incident radio waves with audio information. Sound waves vibrated a diaphragm which slightly altered the shape of the resonator, which modulated the reflected radio frequency. Even though this device was a passive covert listening device, not an identification tag, it has been attributed as the first known device and a predecessor to RFID technology.
The next major event in RFID history is in 1973, so either she's an idiot for claiming fifty years of no harm or she's a communist (insert 'in soviet russia' joke here).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?