Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

California Blocks RFID Implants In Workers

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the not-quite-cattle-yet dept.

Biotech 422

InternetVoting writes "California has passed a bill banning companies from requiring employees to have RFID chips surgically implanted. Already one company has been licensed by the federal government, implanting more than 2000 people. At least one other company — CityWatcher.com, a Cincinnati video surveillance company — already required RFID implants in some employees. 'State Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) proposed the measure after at least one company began marketing radio frequency identification devices for use in humans. "RFID is a minor miracle, with all sorts of good uses," Simitian said. "But we shouldn't condone forced 'tagging' of humans. It's the ultimate invasion of privacy.'"

cancel ×

422 comments

Yes... (4, Insightful)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455653)

a state legislature that "gets" it...

Re:Yes... (4, Insightful)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455725)

What is truely sad is that we live in an age of tyrany where such a thing is even concievable. Our masters trust us not...

Re:Yes... (5, Insightful)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455851)

this comment is telling "Nine senators opposed the measure, including Bob Margett (R-Arcadia), who said it is premature to legislate technology that has not yet proved to be a problem. "It sounded like it was a solution looking for a problem," Margett said. "It didn't seem like it was necessary."" ah yes, not necessary now, but it is necessary to stop you in your tracks from even going down this road in the first place...

Re:Yes... (2, Funny)

Joebert (946227) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456101)

Nobody is forcing people to work there, if the company wants to require employees be tagged with RFID there shouldn't be a problem with that because the potential employee has a choice.

Re:Yes... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20456155)

What if ALL of the companies in your field start requiring it?
Where is your "choice" now?

Re:Yes... (2)

bicho (144895) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456159)

It's the employee's body. His temple.
Nobody should be able to say what to do with it or how to treat it as a job requirement.
Besides, the employee also has a choice of quiting the job. What would they do about the surgery and the rfid then?

Re:Yes... (5, Insightful)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456283)

My question is who pays to have it removed? Say you switch jobs...

Anyhow, if this tech ever becomes widespread I may turn to a life of crime. IT would just be too easy to tell if anyone were home or not. Just drive up and down the street with a van equipped w/a powerful rfid scanner and voila.

Regards.

Re:Yes... (4, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456449)

Easier than that - just kill them, dig out the chip, and, with their chip in your pocket so that you are now "them", kill a bunch of other people, dig out their chips, and empty their bank accounts.

Then put the original chip in a nice pie and send it to your worst enemy. Watch him get blasted away on the evening news.

(okay, its a bit exaggerated today .... but in 10 years?)

Re:Yes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20456463)

man.. I have problems holding down a job ! I'll be more cyborg than human.

Re:Yes... (5, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456341)

Suppose you're raising two kids, and you need job stability. And your company says that you have to get an RFID chip implanted, or else you're fired. Do you leave your job with a chance that your kids might starve, since you can't get unemployment insurance because you left "voluntarily"? Or do you accept that you have to get tagged like an animal? Although, I can agree for some positions where security is of the utmost importance (perhaps if you have access to nuclear material or something), and the terms are agreed upon before hand...

Re:Yes... (5, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456433)

Although, I can agree for some positions where security is of the utmost importance (perhaps if you have access to nuclear material or something), and the terms are agreed upon before hand...

If an RFID tag can be implanted surgically, it can also be removed and re-implanted into someone else. Consequently, it won't provide any extra security against anyone who is willing to steal nuclear materials for presumably nefarious purposes: they simply capture and kill an employee and take the tag from his cold, dead body.

Sure, you could associate identifying information - fingerprints, faceprints, retina scan, whatever - with the tag, but you could just as easily associate it with normal passcard. No, the only "benefit" from the RFID is that it lets you more easily identify people in casual settings (streets and such). It isn't a security measure, but simply another step towards having everyone tracked 24/7, or in best possible case, just someone's private little power game.

your analysis is incomplete and wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20456567)

Ok, the alternative would actually be .. the company can't operate securely. Therefore, they will not be able to make as much money .. and be able to hire less workers.

So then you are left in a jobless position ANYWAY -- PLUS the world is deprived of whatever service that company was offering ... then what happens to your kids then .. not only are you jobless but the economy in general & quality of life in general will be crappy for them.

Baning 'required' RFID (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455685)

Good for California!
(One of the few times I might agree with the Cali govt.)

Re:Baning 'required' RFID (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455803)

Now if California can pass a budget on time instead of six weeks late, that would be more amazing.

No Problem (4, Funny)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455693)

So long as they do not start flashing red.

Re:No Problem (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20456203)

For those who missed it, this is a reference to "Logan's run" [wikipedia.org] .

Good thing slavery was abolished (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20455727)

Because RFID would make that a lot easier.

Re:Good thing slavery was abolished (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20456007)

I was thinking of another group that used to catalog humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_in_Naz i_camps [wikipedia.org]

Ironically, the current people doing this are very well connected to those.

Re:Good thing slavery was abolished (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20456085)

Right. You just keep believing everything that you are force-fed on TV and in school.

Why so specific? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20455739)

How about some GENERAL legislation saying that companies cannot require ANYTHING (not just RFID chips) to be implanted in their employee's body's.
Although not quite as knee jerk as some laws (like the various "Amber laws"), why oh why can't legislators for once think about & debate an idea for several weeks or months and get it right?

Re:Why so specific? (2, Interesting)

Torvaun (1040898) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455843)

Vaccines.

Re:Why so specific? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20456067)

Honestly I think this is a good thing as far as the law is conserned, basicly it makes it so no goverment or private emloyeer in the state is allowed to write into your employment contract that you have to accecpt a possable life time change to your body.

If someone really wants into your company and you dont use a security guard who has photos stored on a computer of the security guard station what stop him from eather secretly scanning the implant with a handshake, or with some type of long ranged scanner (talked about in RFID secruity on other places on slashdot) becomes able to get the secret code from the implant.

As for internal security, a key is just as effective on a door since the same thing could be done as with the security station but copying someones physical key requires far more work then someones RFID key.

Yeah (1)

ziggit (811520) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455741)

I wouldn't want to be involuntarily tagged, but I am fine doing it my self

The law prevents RFID in employers, not consumers (1, Insightful)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455761)

I was just reading another article on Slashdot about Circuit City gestapo tactics, and thought that it is only a matter of time before large monopolistic retailers require their customers to be implanted with RFID tags.

Tin Foil hat alert? Maybe, maybe not.

Cheers
   

Re:The law prevents RFID in employers, not consume (1)

German_Dupree (1099089) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455829)

I do not perceive this as happening anytime soon. Fortunately, the Orwellian future isn't here...yet.

Re:The law prevents RFID in employers, not consume (4, Insightful)

click2005 (921437) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456095)

Fortunately, the Orwellian future isn't here...yet.

If you wait until the Orwellian future is here then it will be too late to do anything about it.

Re:The law prevents RFID in employers, not consume (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456591)

2+2=5

I love Big Brother.

Re: Insightful? not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20455911)

and [I] thought that it is only a matter of time before large monopolistic retailers require their customers to be implanted with RFID tags.

Sorry, but the free market will prevent that from ever happening. If company X requires me to have an RFID to shop there, I'll just shop at company Y. And there will always be a company Y, because there will always be a segment of the population not willing to have RFID implants. The free market will always find a way. (Apologies to Jeff Goldblum and Jurassic Park.)

Re: Insightful? not (0)

megaditto (982598) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456357)

Not really, no. Free market is about as viable as communism, and will certainly not fix the situation you describe.

In your particular example, once X gets large enough to outcompete or buy out Y, the game is over.

Re: Insightful? not (1)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456483)

What if they offer a 15% discount and allow you to walk in the shop take what you want and leave without ever having to stop (they bill you later), it would be a fantastic convenience, sure you might not like it but many other people would think its great. I'd bet that if one retail outlet started this then others would follow, the banks would love it as it prevents card fraud, (unless someone has stolen your implanted RFID, after all they will be so secure that they cant be cloned..). Soon enough it would be noted that if people have RFID's implanted for shopping, they could have them implanted for convenient access to the library, or other government project, it could replace your drivers license and any other ID, after all it would be really convenient.

Hmm scary, I doubt it would happen but you can spin anything to sound great to most people if you try, tell everyone else its just a trial, or its voluntary and your 99% of the way there.

Re: Insightful? not (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20456651)

And if companies X, Y and Z agree together to all require them, and are the only companies reachable by you to buy eg. food, you're fucked. And a new company which *doesn't* support them won't appear overnight. Given the pure laziness of the general population, 99% of people would probably prefer an implant to an extra 5 minutes on their shopping trip.

Free market philosophy falls flat on its face when you introduce the real-world scenarios of monopolies, cartels, and other dirty practices.

Re:The law prevents RFID in employers, not consume (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455917)

It could happen the day 95% of their customers agree that they have no problem getting voluntarily implanted.

To help, they could offer a 10% discount to all their loyal implanted customers to start with and when almost all their customers are implanted, require it to get into the store ;-)

Re:The law prevents RFID in employers, not consume (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456125)

To help, they could offer a 10% discount to all their loyal implanted customers to start with and when almost all their customers are implanted, require it to get into the store ;-)

They already do that in some ways. Its called a store loyalty card.

Re:The law prevents RFID in employers, not consume (1)

zanaxagoras (1116047) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456035)

If you're referring to the article about the guy who idiotically refused to provide his receipt to the Circuit City security guy, and you're referring to THAT as "gestapo tactics", then yes... your every word comes wrapped in the shiny stuff.

Re:The law prevents RFID in employers, not consume (1)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456403)

idiotically refused to provide his receipt to the Circuit City security guy


Yes, because doing what anyone ever tells you to do is a sign of intelligence.

Re:The law prevents RFID in employers, not consume (1)

ContractualObligatio (850987) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456519)

No, but using extreme cases and fallacious logic can be indicative of a lack of intelligence.

Re:The law prevents RFID in employers, not consume (2, Interesting)

umbra_dweller (797279) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456593)

I think it is far more likely that such a program would be adopted voluntarily. For instance stores could offer incesntives to chipped customers - give them a 10% discount, or design special speedy checkout lanes. They wouldn't get all of their customers this way, but they could probably get most of them to participate. Perhaps retailers could get together and design some sort of 'consumer chip' that could identify with multiple 'rewards programs'. We love our freedom in the U.S., if we do get dragged into a fascist style society, it will be with the illusion of greater freedom. "If fascism ever comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag.- Huey Long"

Libertarians, tell me why RFIDed humans are good (-1, Troll)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455775)

Freedom of contract, right?

Re:Libertarians, tell me why RFIDed humans are goo (1)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455837)

Ah, another victim of the "why are nerds libertarian" bashfest ;)

Re:Libertarians, tell me why RFIDed humans are goo (1)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455951)

Ah, another victim of the "why are nerds libertarian" bashfest ;)

I actually don't have it in for libertarians, but the limits of my faith in markets get tested in scenarios like this one. I admit to poking the hornet's nest.

Re:Libertarians, tell me why RFIDed humans are goo (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456119)

Again, freedom of contract is not without limits. You cannot enter into contracts to be denied inalienable (incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred) rights. Ownership of your body is widely recognized as an inalienable right.

Re:Libertarians, tell me why RFIDed humans are goo (1)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456135)

Many of those who pose as libertarians on slashdot would disagree with you.

Re:Libertarians, tell me why RFIDed humans are goo (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456313)

Not if they calm down, get a chance not go on defensive all the time and think it through. But when they constantly find themselves defending their right to sneeze without looking for a government permission, they do overreach in demanding how little the government intervenes.

Re:Libertarians, tell me why RFIDed humans are goo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20455873)

I am no Libertarian, but surely if people are stupid enough to allow themselves to be RFID'd then that's their problem?

Re:Libertarians, tell me why RFIDed humans are goo (4, Insightful)

sdedeo (683762) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455899)

There are two kinds of libertarians [wikipedia.org] : the ones who recognize only "the government" as a source of oppressive force, and those who realize that any group may become sufficiently powerful as to be able to prevent free exercise of one's natural rights. (The wikipedia article splits libertarians into different subsets, but I believe that my basis here is complete, if not orthogonal.)

Unfortunately, the former group gets much more press than the latter, and has largely gotten the terminology to refer only to them even among liberty dorks like us. The former group (among many other bizarre positions) would object strongly to a national credit rating system that dictated where and how you could live if it was run by the government, but have no objection against the credit system we have today simply because its officials are unelected. At the risk of igniting a flame war, Noam Chomsky's writings on anarchism should be read by libertarians or simply "people interested in freedom" just as much as Ayn Rand's.

A distinction I didn't previously know about (1)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455987)

There are two kinds of libertarians [wikipedia.org]: the ones who recognize only "the government" as a source of oppressive force, and those who realize that any group may become sufficiently powerful as to be able to prevent free exercise of one's natural rights.

I obviously have been hanging out in the wrong circles, because I hadn't previously heard about this distinction. That's the problem with broad "ism" labels. They're fairly easily co-opted.

Thanks for the info.

Re:A distinction I didn't previously know about (1)

sdedeo (683762) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456089)

Hee hee, yes. I wouldn't call it a "distinction" exactly, because the terminology itself is in a bit of a battle. The "Libertarian Party" I'm sure is in the former category. Because of the Ayn Randian image of libertarianism in the world at large, the latter category has different words (e.g., "Xian anarchist" -- but of course, anarchism is not the most public friendly term either!) Not to resurrect that "nerds are libertarian" story, but I think nerds often fall towards the latter category in spirit if not word.

I often find myself in a minority in a random political conversation, but I'm actually happy to talk with a libertarian of the former type even if I disagree. One thing common to both strains is a focus on reason, rationality, and fair debate. You can learn a lot from a libertarian of any type, often, because they have thought through a lot of things and are interested in uncovering "inconvenient" facts. Hell, the bible of the former group is even called Reason [reason.com] . I used to be a subscriber in high school.

Re:Libertarians, tell me why RFIDed humans are goo (1)

rhakka (224319) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456053)

Actually, your flip "simply because its officials are unelected" isn't really true. The type of libertarian you refer to would say that all businesses/organizations in a free market are elected, directly, when you choose to give them your money in return for whatever it is that they promise to do for you.

Now.. don't get me wrong.. I don't agree with that. But a fundamental libertarian premise is that the free market is a robust construction most able to deal with shifting needs of a society, while government is simply hierarchy that can defend its own interests even when those interests are against those of the overall market.

That is, business is overthrown when you stop paying them. Government... well, it can take a good bit more than that.

I think the solution, personally, is to improve governmental constructs then, which is why I am not a libertarian anymore.

Re:Libertarians, tell me why RFIDed humans are goo (2, Insightful)

sdedeo (683762) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456127)

I know you're playing Devil's Advocate, but that's a strange notion of "election". Most "elections" that distributed significantly different voting powers to people would not be considered such!

The idol of the free market is relatively new in libertarian thought (modulo the terminology battles again, of course.) Libertarians you can historically connect with the strands today were around well before robust theories of the free market. I think if you time-translated some of the "founding fathers" you'd find they considered the free market a powerful tool, not a good in itself.

Re:Libertarians, tell me why RFIDed humans are goo (1)

rhakka (224319) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456173)

would not be considered such by who? by egalitarian pseudo-democratic idealists, sure. But history has a long history of plutocracy! And modern conservatives often don't try very hard to hide that basis of their own bias... money is free speech, remember?

I'll concede I have no idea of the history of libertarian thought.. I've only been involved with the modern counterparts.

I also make a habit of ignoring "founding fathers", since many of them had diametrically opposed ideals, it's hard to address them as a unified group ;)

Re:Libertarians, tell me why RFIDed humans are goo (1)

sdedeo (683762) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456345)

Depends which founding fathers they cite, as well! If they go with Proudhon ("property is theft"), well, there's definitely something up. In many cases, the intellectual history of contemporary "Libertarian Party" libertarianism goes back to "liberalism" in the Enlightenment sense -- again, well before we really had the contemporary notions of the free market.

Adam Smith, by the way, was definitely not a free market ideologue, and "the invisible hand" as we currently understand it is very different from his version. His use of the term (only once) actually is sort of backwards from how we would understand it today. He uses it to explain why we shouldn't worry about domestic merchants going overseas for goods. Smith believes that this would be detrimental to society, but according to him, we don't have to worry about this happening because the invisible hand will lead the merchant to use local goods. He never addresses what would happen if the merchant's self interest led him, as happens today, to go overseas! A bit nitpicky, but interesting nonetheless.

Re:Libertarians, tell me why RFIDed humans are goo (1)

Dan Hayes (212400) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456533)

Adam Smith also advocated that government should run certain services for the well-being of all :)

Re:Libertarians, tell me why RFIDed humans are goo (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456253)

Ok, seriously, when did Ayn Rand become the spokesman for Libertarianism? I'll take Milton Friedman over Ayn Rand any day. She makes statements that are provably logically inconsistent. This is all fun and good when trying to inspire a religion, but not when trying to establish a basis for a philosophy. My favorite phrase from Atlas Shrugged: "...and the two corollary axioms are..."

C'mon, you can't view her writing as anything more than self-help books. I won't even mention that her system of the world does not realize that looking from "outside" creates nihilism in those who are are not immediate actors in the whatever current form of progress happens to be. If you add in the fact that she has no concept of (and explicitly argues against) romantic love and scientific curiosity, you'll realize that rather than creating a model for society she creates a way to effectively structure one's life to being productive.

That being said, her argument against Robin Hood is absolutely beautiful. But that is soooooo far off the point that I am willing to welcome all the "troll" and "off-topic" tomatoes flying my way.

Re:Libertarians, tell me why RFIDed humans are goo (1)

sdedeo (683762) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456417)

I certaintly don't advocate Ayn Rand as a philosopher! But she is the distillation of a very powerful idea/fanatasy. It's also important to have some idea of what she's saying becaus so many people -- including people in government (e.g., Greenspan [wikipedia.org] was an acolyte -- believe very deeply in her parables. Friedman, by the way, was a Rand fan to a certain extent [reason.com] . By and large, the academic philosophical community has ignored Rand but I remember a famous old prof (was it Nozick?) did finally get sick of hearing about her and wrote a long debunking of the reasoning.

Re:Libertarians, tell me why RFIDed humans are goo (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456617)

Umm.. Greenspan was not a political figure though. His job was to be distanced from politics and to just crunch the numbers. Well, that was the job of the establishment that he headed. It was always a fear that putting monetary controls in the hands of the government might yield to political pressures. Of course, with anyone appointed by the current administration no chance at being corrupt has been passed, so... they do just that... yield to political pressure http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&si d=ac5M2fUfn77U&refer=germany [bloomberg.com] . Again, off the point

The point being, of course, that economically Ayn Rand and Friedman were in sync. So it didn't particularly matter what Greenspan figured as his philosophy of life -- only how he calculated the most effective FED rate.

Again, I am not against what she has to say in spirit. Her heart is in the right place -- the world is bettered by those who try to better their own lives by being shrewd as long as they don't set out to do it at the expense of stealing from others... It's easy to argue with this image, of course, because these people are selfish and yet compassionate scoundrels. The ideal is full of controversy and these people are full of internal struggles and conflicts, but... it is the fact that they are human and they still manage to be disciplined enough to enrich themselves by creating rather than by fighting over what already exists that makes them better. Her romantic hero is worthy of admiration even though she makes him too flat. She just doesn't always make a compelling argument. I take an issue with her being given as the Libertarian icon. She is just not good enough -- that's all.

Re:Libertarians, tell me why RFIDed humans are goo (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455955)

I've watched Newsies enough times to know that if they don't like what their corporation is doing, they can strike. I do find it ridiculous that a company would make their employees get RFID chips, but if the employee is stupid enough to work there...

On the other hand, I can't think of a legitimate use of an RFID tag for a human. It's range isn't far enough to be useful for rescue workers who were trapped or searching for trapped people. Perhaps as an enhanced version of dog tags, but even then it seems overboard. Any need for identification is better filled with biometrics.

Re:Libertarians, tell me why RFIDed humans are goo (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456097)

Well, no. Roman citizens could enter into a contract making them gladiators. So no, freedom of contract is not without limits. You cannot enter into contracts to be denied inalienable (incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred) rights. Ownership of your body is widely recognized as an inalienable right.

Surgery (5, Funny)

Treskin (555947) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455791)

The only job that should require surgery are managerial. How else are they going to get the stick up there?

Re:Surgery (1)

German_Dupree (1099089) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455887)

Get a disgruntled employee to shove it and shove it hard. ^_^

Does it count as surgery (5, Funny)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455793)

if your employer just shoots you from a helicopter with a tranquilizer dart, and then staples the chip to your ear while you're still groggy?

Re:Does it count as surgery (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20456055)

If you Enter instead of Return, GTFO.
If you Backspace instead of Delete, GTFO.
If you Alt instead of Option, GTFO.
If you open Apple instead of Command... really, really GTFO.

Bandwagon jumpers are not welcome among real [imageshack.us] Mac [imageshack.us] users [imageshack.us] . Keep your filthy, beige [imageshack.us] PC fingers to yourself.

What happens when.. (3, Insightful)

Demanche (587815) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455827)

What happens when you decide to leave a company, I guess they have to remove the implant?

You work two jobs and you end up getting double implants? I wouldn't want this.

Re:What happens when.. (1)

Zephirum (1140635) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456281)

simple. Put your hand/arm/head into the microwave. What worries me is going through MRI with the implants, either it will heat up or rip you apart like the Alien movie...

Re:What happens when.. (2, Funny)

bcdm (1031268) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456427)

I think there would be quite a few women who would be interested in working two jobs if one of the fringe benefits was two implants.

Come to think of it, I know even more men who would want women to enter the workforce with two jobs...

Re:What happens when.. (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456545)

I'm not a big fan of silicone implants, but silicon implants are HOT!

-Peter

This "law" means nothing... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455835)

As future generations find it to be a useful thing to do, the law will most certainly be declared obsolete and stricken as easily as it was passed.

Re:This "law" means nothing... (1)

daeg (828071) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455929)

The longer it is delayed the better. If future generations want to fuck it up, that is their prerogative.

Just another step (2, Interesting)

Metathias (995621) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455939)

Im a christian, And i should hope any other person who considers themselves a christian would see this stuff for what it really is. Just another step toward a mark of the beast system.

Revelation 13:16-17 (King James Version)
  16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
  17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Re:Just another step (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456003)

I hope this is some sort of joke too subtle for me to get.

Re:Just another step (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20456079)

Well, it's not a joke insofar as revelation really does say that. I'm an "evangelical" atheist (I try to convert others to atheism on the weekends, not quite door-to-door, but close) - but I agree with many of the teachings in the bible. Serious distrust of authorities requiring you to have implanted "marks" to function in society is one of several things I wholeheartedly agree with the vampire cultists (christians) on.

Re:Just another step (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456475)

Get a life - you said the same about barcodes... I bet there are a few that say the same about credit cards (which actually fit the profile far better than rfid chips).

The problem with vague prophecy is, well, it's vague, and can be applied to just about any situation you want it to.

Re:This "law" means nothing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20455979)

You mean *IF* future generations find it to be a useful thing to do...

which is highly doubtful

Can a PiMp tag his 'hoes? (0, Flamebait)

gHeTtO RaBbi (1150785) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455881)

Can I use RFID to track cars around town? How hard would it be to stick one of these things in someone without their knowing? Are they small enough to put in food for a limited time use (until they get shitted out)? How about just clipping them on to a wallet, purse of pair of shoes? What is the range and how much does it cost to set up a system?

Re:Can a PiMp tag his 'hoes? (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456191)

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News .asp?NewsNum=939 [technovelgy.com]

From the article...

These devices could also be used to identify and track people. For example, suppose you participated in some sort of protest or other organized activity. If police agencies sprinkled these tags around, every individual could be tracked and later identified at leisure, with powerful enough tag scanners.

The Right Wing Response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20455927)

"if they dont want to be tagged, they can just quit and go work for another company."

Re:The Right Wing Response (1)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456619)

"if they dont want to be tagged, they can just quit and go work for another company."

There [slashdot.org] you go.

there is no where left to hide (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20455959)

whether you are tagged or not.

which doesn't mean much to most of US. butt, if you are a greed/fear/ego based minion of unprecedented evile, things might seem to be getting just a little warm right now?

infactdead corepirate nazis still WAY off track
(Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 01, @09:35AM (#20433195)
it's only a matter of time/space/circumstance.

previous post:
mynuts won 'off t(r)opic'???
(Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30, @10:22AM (#20411119)
eye gas you could call this 'weather'?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8004881114 [google.com] [google.com] 646406827 [google.com]

be careful, the whack(off)job in the next compartment may be a high RANKing corepirate nazi official.

previous post:
whoreabull corepirate nazi felons planning trips
(Score: mynuts won, robbIE's 'secret' censorship score)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, @12:13PM (#20072457)
in orbit perhaps? we wouldn't want to be within 500 miles of the naykid furor at this power point.

better days ahead?

as in payper liesense hypenosys stock markup FraUD felons are on their way out? what a revolutionary concept.

from previous post: many demand nazi execrable stop abusing US

we the peepoles?

how is it allowed? just like corn passing through a bird's butt eye gas.

all they (the felonious execrable) want is... everything. at what cost to US?

for many of US, the only way out is up.

don't forget, for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way) there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/US as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile will not be available after the big flash occurs.

'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.

some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.

concern about the course of events that will occur should the ife0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.

'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

WTF? (0, Troll)

dizzydogg (127440) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456627)

What the hell was that? Either english is your second language or you REALY need to lay off the crack pipe.

Don't be mislead (5, Insightful)

samjam (256347) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455963)

"Invasion of privacy" is misleading.

It's only about privacy in a euphemistic way, it's about sovereignty of ones body.

If it is forbidden on "privacy" grounds, then the privacy grounds can be addressed, resolved, objection removed and then can become a requirement for work/access-to-services etc.

It should be forbidden because the majority of the population said "No" without having to give a reason.

Sam

griswold (1)

sdedeo (683762) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456223)

I think one of the reasons we (and the courts) talk about bodily sovreignty in terms of privacy is because of Griswold v. Connecticut [wikipedia.org] , the contraception ruling that preceeded Roe v. Wade. There it was asserted that there's a "right to privacy" sort of hidden in the other rights. Anyway, since that strain of the law has ended up influencing lots of "hands of my body" laws, not only Roe, the "right to privacy" gets trotted out quite a bit when something similar shows up. I agree that it's a euphemism and not particularly clear, but we don't actually have a right to bodily integrity -- at least not one the courts have recognized? -- that's there for all to see and in that particular language.

Anyway, if I rewrote the thing, I'd put it in!

mod parent up (-1, Offtopic)

Potor (658520) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456237)

mod parent up

Re:Don't be mislead (1)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456663)

It's only about privacy in a euphemistic way, it's about sovereignty of ones body.


Under our current legal definitions of the word privacy, it's not a euphemism -- freedom to control one's own body is considered a right of privacy. It's not some clever word just to "get around".

What possible reason ... ? (1)

vic-traill (1038742) | more than 6 years ago | (#20455995)

This one, I don't get - at all. I can conjure up no possible positive reason for the implanting of RFID tags in the human body. It is the ultimate intrusion, both figuratively and physically.

Nine senators opposed the measure, including Bob Margett (R-Arcadia), who said it is premature to legislate technology that has not yet proved to be a problem.

What a maroon. Why the hell is it a problem to preemptively act against activity that one doesn't like the look of? Have we got to the point that a technology has to become a *problem* before we can thoughtfully act to restrict or focus its use?

Re:What possible reason ... ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20456061)

This one, I don't get - at all. I can conjure up no possible positive reason for the implanting of RFID tags in the human body. It is the ultimate intrusion, both figuratively and physically.

I'm sure you'll be singing a different tune when you wake up in a tubful of ice with a prepaid cellphone and a note that says "Call 911."

Turing word: marital

P.S. I bet J.W.B. wouldn't have minded an RFID implant. Might have made tracking his package easier after his marital difficulties.

Re:What possible reason ... ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20456301)

Because you could spend all your time making laws for situations that may not arise. Seems you should wait to find problems rather than looking for them. That way you can be sure they are actual problems and make sure the legislation correctly addresses it. Just imagine Computers could break down. Lets pass a law preventing computers to be used for anything critical. That should solve the problem. Does this legislation allow for an RFID tag in an artificial heart ? What about other medical devices ? What if paramedics need to insert some RFID device inside you when they are trying to save you life?

Inaccurate headline (1)

Garabito (720521) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456009)

To ban FORCED implants on workers != ban on voluntary implants

Re:Inaccurate headline (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20456397)

I think they will see a surge in "volontary implants" in the near future....
Manager - "Do you like your job ?"
Worker - "Yes, It is very fullfilling to work with so many geniuses..."
Manager - "Well...", waving an implant gun, "...would you like to keep it ?"
Worker - "...I do this volontary...of free will...without any one or anything forcing me..."
*Pang!*

Lets have it be a huge problem first... (1)

Nozsd (1080965) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456021)

Nine senators opposed the measure, including Bob Margett (R-Arcadia), who said it is premature to legislate technology that has not yet proved to be a problem. "It sounded like it was a solution looking for a problem," Margett said. "It didn't seem like it was necessary."

Maybe if it was tatooing barcodes on people's arms instead of RFID chips, then they'll see the problem.

Could be bad (1)

jspoon (585173) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456093)

I hope they work better than the RF tags at the library where I work. I saw one of those, applied inside the cover of a paperback that burned through the front and scorched several pages into it.

surgery: This is security by difficulty.. (3, Insightful)

radarsat1 (786772) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456123)

I find this trend somewhat short-sighted. RFID of course has many uses, but it is known to have several vulnerabilities when used for security purposes. I can imagine what some of them are, but I'm not a security researcher so I won't speculate. However, the reliance specifically on surgically embedded RFID chips may fall quite easily into the trap laid by "security by difficulty."

Most of us agree that "security by obscurity" is a bad thing. Relying on closed code and hidden private keys (cough DRM cough) to ensure security just doesn't work well in the end. However, there is a tendency to have more faith in security which relies entirely on the difficulty of achieving some goal. In the case of mechanical locks, this is quite obvious and locks have been designed this way for centuries, the level of "difficulty" based on current technological knowledge and the known level of skill of lock pickers.

In software, we see "difficulty" being important for public-key encryption, which is the corner stone of many cryptographic paradigms. The difficulty, in this case, is finding a pair of primes which can be multiplied to get the private key. However, in this case we can use mathematics to formally identify the time required, according to current technology, to perform this calculation. Thus, we can have some very good, provable assurance that a particular algorithm won't be broken by brute force methods. (Until the next technological breakthrough... quantum cryptography? But that, we are told, is assuredly still far in the future..)

Now, here we have a tendency to embed an identification chip in a person, so that you can be sure that this person is who they say they are. After all, once a chip is embedded surgically, there's no way it can be wrong, right?

Unfortunately this logic is way too dependent on the current idea that surgery is a difficult thing. Already there exist plastic surgeries that take less than a week to recover from. Even the procedure in question I'm sure is quite minor and takes no time at all. So how does embedding a chip in someone add to the sense of security? It's perfectly imaginable to me that in the near future there will be devices which can easily inject such chips into the skin or remove them without requiring a doctor present at all.

So that is why I fail to understand this idea. Even after considering the man-in-the-middle attacks and several other ways to break RFID security, I cannot see that relying in surgical implantation will help much in terms of security. You may as well just get a magnetic card reader so that employees can use their ID cards to get in, and be done with it. Relying on surgery or even fingerprints/retina identification will only add to a false sense of security, as any of these can be fooled. And yes, someone eager enough to break into a high-tech workplace to steal data is going to be be smart enough to have thought of several ways to do it before breakfast.

I'm afraid that when it comes to physical security, people are still better at doing it than machines, and I believe this will be the case for some time.

Re:surgery: This is security by difficulty.. (1)

perlchild (582235) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456227)

I agree, I mean, once you agree on injecting rfid, to ascertain identity, how do you make sure someone even just carries only one?

I have relatives with numbers on their arms (4, Insightful)

gelfling (6534) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456131)

They would not support this kind of 'efficiency'. I'm afraid that in the world, the excuse of using technology because "it's just easier this way" has in fact lead to atrocities that will be remembered for a thousand years.

It starts out as a labor issue and they tell you it's ok because you don't have to work there. Then they give them to all convicts. Then mental patients, then the ex-sex offenders, then bullshit pot bust people, then the DUIs, then the green card holders then it becomes an automatic step in the arrest process then your car insurance needs it then your health insurance then your bank and still they keep telling you that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. And if you don't want to use a bank no one is making you. Then everyone in the armed forces gets one then everyone on the public service payroll then all the welfare recipients, then all the school children, then everyone working for a company that has any government contract, then any passport holder. And whoever's left is corralled into special camps. Trust me, I've seen this before.

A MEANS OF CONTROLLING THE WORKERS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20456157)

DEAR CAPITALIST PIGS!

FINALLY YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION MUST BE CONTROLLED BY THE PROLETARIAT.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN OTHER 49 STATES WHERE THIS ACTION NOT BLOCKED? I WILL TELL YOU FORTHCOMING:

THE RFID WILL BE IMPLANTED IN MANDATORY DIRECTION.

NEXT, THE WORKER WILL NO LONGER APPLY FOR JOBS BUT BE LEASED BY ID NUMBER FROM "MONSTER.COM"

(MONSTER IS CALLED THIS NAME BECAUSE IT IS CAPITALIST MONSTER.)

INSTEAD OF PAPER WORK HISTORY WHICH THE WORKER CONTROLS YOU WILL HAVE ELECTRONIC HISTORY IN YOUR BODY THAT THE CAPITALISTS CONTROL. INSTEAD OF JOB INTERVIEWS WITH NEGOTIATION, YOU WILL GO ONLY FOR AN RFID UPLOAD.

JOB OFFER WILL BE IN FORM OF SMS ONTO MONSTER.COM MOBILE TELEPHONE OWNED.

YOU ARE VERY LUCKY TO HAVE 1 STATE LEFT WITH WORKER FREEDOM, KALIFORNIA.

I THINK IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS IS BECAUSE OF VICINITY OF KALIFORNIA TO RUSSIA.

REST OF YOU CAN WEAR TIN FOIL - GO AHEAD, TRY TO BLOCK RFID FROM SPYING STATE.

ONLY IN SOVIET KALIFORNIA AND MOTHER RUSSIA, STATE BLOCKS RFID FROM USE AGAINST YOU BY CAPITALISTS.

FINALLY YOU UNDERSTAND THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION MUST BE CONTROLLED BY THE WORKER.

BUT - AND THIS IS IMPORTANT TOO - THE WORKER MUST BE CONTROLLED BY THE WORKER.

SERGEI VLAGASCHONOVEVSKIVOV

OMG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20456263)

I am actually agreeing with a Democrat on an issue? Somehow the fabric of space / time is being ripped apart.

Ultimate (2, Interesting)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456279)

...we shouldn't condone forced 'tagging' of humans. It's the ultimate invasion of privacy.

Really? The wireless equivalent of a bar code is the ultimate invasion of privacy? Not, say, ECHELON, or warrantless phone tapping, or a city filled with cameras? It's an RFID chip? Interesting. And all this time I thought the ultimate invasion of privacy would look more like a helmet cam. Silly me.

The smell of things to come.. RFID + MRI = ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20456391)

So what happens if you go through an MRI scanner, and forget you've got
one of these puppies under your skin?

Seems like it'd be a bad idea to be around intense sources of RF,
strong microwave sources (with or without a candybar in your pocket),
alternating magnetic fields, close proximity to neodymium magnets..

I think the FDA indicated RFIDs are 'incompatible' with MRIs,
which brings to mind the smell of DVDs in microwaves, and TTL chips
roasting on wall current..

Think I'll tell the HR department I'll pass on those RFID implants,
and if that means my resignation, they can have that too.

What's such a big deal about a body! (4, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456411)

Everyone is caught up in this notion of "your body is your temple", and that, you have an inviolate right to your body, and, I'd argue that you don't. There's nothing that you do with your body that is without social consequence, from the food you eat, water you drink, the air you breath, and the waste you make. Really, the whole "it's my body" argument that women have when defining abortion rights or even the notion of "reproductive rights" is utterly laughable. The tribe ultimately has every right to boot you off the island and it certainly may control its breedings. It is only our comperitive wealth that allows us to ignore this, and, so, arguing absolutes about freedom in an ephemeral context will only doom us overall. At some point, we may need to legislate birth rates or even those who should be born, and organize humanity optimally for an even distribution of sexual activity.

Mark of the beast (1)

Silver Surfer 1 (193024) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456485)

Let's not forget that more people than you would imagine would consider this the same as the mark of the beast due to religious convictions and belief's.

whats next (1)

Nick_taken (1090721) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456645)

So we dont even own our bodys? Whats next? a device to submit your thoughts? How many years until we dont own ourselves?

Your Choice (1)

skap35 (1026252) | more than 6 years ago | (#20456657)

If you don't want it then don't work there. If you feel strongly enough about it then don't buy their products. Capitalism will quickly filter out any irresponsible companies.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...