logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> RFID Technology, Privacy concerns of implants
Billy Jean
post Jan 20 2006, 04:32 PM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,173
Member No.: 805
Joined: June-16-03

From: Athens, Georgia
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/12/new-zea...t-gps-receiver/

QUOTE
New Zealand's Rakon develops world's smallest GPS receiver

So you think today's handheld, SDIO and cellphone-based GPS units are small? Get ready for a new generation of even smaller GPS devices, ranging from wristwatches to slim cellphones to -- and we just know this is coming -- implants.


http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml;j...cleID=177101437

QUOTE
Report: RFID production to increase 25 fold by 2010


With the vast increase and miniaturization of microchip technology and the soon to be launched Galileo GPS system by Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_positioning_system , what could the future hold for privacy rights? Yeah, the idea of having all your vital information at your finger tips does sound comforting, elimintating identity theft, but what could some of the down sides be of getting "chipped"?

Would you be in favor of "chipping" Americans to end such problems as kidnapping or runaways?

What are the potential abuses of RFID technology?

Do you think the government would abuse this technology and invade citizens' right to privacy?


This post has been edited by Amlord: Jan 20 2006, 08:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Jaime
post Jan 20 2006, 05:20 PM
Post #2


Group Icon

**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Admin
Posts: 5,941
Member No.: 4
Joined: July-25-02

From: Down where the River meets the Sea
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None




Topic closed...


Reason: Question to debate too vague.

Recommended action:
If you started this topic, please contact the staff member who closed it by clicking the PM button below this post with a clear question to debate.

Helpful links:
- Starting New Topics
- Survival Guide
- The Rules
- Staff Directory

Note: This is an automated response.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Jan 20 2006, 08:24 PM
Post #3


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican





Re-Opened.

Questions for Debate:

Would you be in favor of "chipping" Americans to end such problems as kidnapping or runaways?

What are the potential abuses of RFID technology?

Do you think the government would abuse this technology and invade citizens' right to privacy?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
inventor
post Feb 20 2006, 06:04 AM
Post #4


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 516
Member No.: 5,197
Joined: June-28-05

From: nevada
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



There are low power transmitters like the ones embedded in dogs cats and humans. Transmission distance about 1-3 feet. Then there are medium range like our computers with 802. And then we have medium to long range cell phones. All give a unique identifier.

Would you be in favor of "chipping" Americans to end such problems as kidnapping or runaways?I am not sure a chip will help stop runaways or kids, they are two low of a power. But other issues are like...

I would be willing to be chipped if encrypted. Thus computer security, home security, car security, credit card, and so on is raised to a level that would virtually eliminate a significant amount of the crime element of our society in those fields..

What are the potential abuses of RFID technology?In the old days garage doors were controlled by RF ands snoopers were made to copy codes, they have ended with rolling codes. Thus I look forward to encryption.

Do you think the government would abuse this technology and invade citizens' right to privacy? One way is we can be tracked by our government with our present cell phones so if abuses are being made now we can study them.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DaytonRocker
post Feb 20 2006, 08:44 PM
Post #5


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,521
Member No.: 547
Joined: February-26-03

From: Dayton, Ohio
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Republican



As a software engineer during the day for manufacturing and industry, I develop many RFID systems. I've done active, passive, read-only, read-write, and the whole gamut. Needless to say, that doesn't make me an expert, but I have a pretty good idea how these work.

The government is already doing far more than we ever anticipated to track us and they don't need RFID equipment to do it. Unless you don't have a bank account, pay for everything in cash only, and never use a telephone, the government knows everything they need to know about you already.

With that being said, I see the positive uses for RFID increasing quickly. Most concerns of snooping are valid in the theoretical sense, but invalid in the practical sense.

First, to read a tag, your reader needs to be very, very close to the tag. The tag is actually a coil of very thin wire that generates it's power from the RF of the antennae. To do the same thing at say, a street corner would take a tremendous amount of RF. Walmart is trying to do this (without much luck so far) so when a skid full of product comes in on a forklift, it is is read and stored immediately. Unfortunately, most suppliers can't comply because of the costs. Walmart is demanding a nickel a tag, and nobody can do it.

The point is, even if you control the zone (unlikey without anybody knowing) with that high RF and could afford the tags, readability becomes an issue. For example, to read the entire contents of say a 1K tag, the speed is minimal. To write however, is a different matter. The rule of thumb is roughly 1K per second for a passive tag (no battery). But the big car companies use 32K tags and they don't have 32 seconds to write data back during the process. So, most suppliers allow reading and writing a block of data at a time which could be 4 bytes to 1K (depending on the manufacturer). This makes the read/write times negligible. But the formats of each manufacturer could be different to accomadate speed.

Protecting the data is trivial. Most security companies (one which I used to work for) using prox encoders (which use an imbedded RFID tag) use proprietary hardware. This means, nobody can read that card unless they have the correct hardware. But for other personal information, encryption takes care of that. I sell copy protection software as part of my engineering business on the side and rely on one of many types of encryption. I convert the encrypted text to hex and it becomes pretty much useless to anybody trying to do something with it.

So, for somebody to "snoop" and get your information, they need to be right beside you and have the passcode unlocking the encryption. Assuming that changed person to person, there is no way that couple happene from a practical standpoint. It'd be easier to knock you on your head and take your money (note to men in the black suits: That's an abstract point - not an idea).

Obviously, there are other challenges, but I think most are easily overcome. At the end of the day, RFID could benefit our daily lives as opposed to negatively impact it by allowing somebody to do what they can already do without RFID - snoop on you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A left Handed pe...
post Feb 21 2006, 04:32 AM
Post #6


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 333
Member No.: 4,459
Joined: February-3-05

From: Southwest Conneticut
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Would you be in favor of "chipping" Americans to end such problems as kidnapping or runaways?

You mention the benefits adequately, so now lets look at the detriments:

Permitting that they were able to learn your signal code/frequency/whatever, just about anyone would be able to track your movement. Including stalkers, rapists, etc. I don't know how precisely that would work however.

Perhaps they could concoct a devise that could indentify your signal if they get real close to you. Or perhaps they could steal it the data from family members. If the former method is plausible, signal abuse would become quite common.

I believe at the very least, that in this case the detriments have quite the potential to outweigh the benefits, though it all depends on scientific details that I am uncertain of.

What are the potential abuses of RFID technology?

See above.

Do you think the government would abuse this technology and invade citizens' right to privacy?

Certainly. Mind you, you would only be targeted if you were important and/or deadly. One thing that might occur, might be that locator microchips would be involuntarily attached to felons.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blackstone
post Feb 21 2006, 04:59 AM
Post #7


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,995
Member No.: 5,539
Joined: October-13-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Independent



This sort of thing needs to be completely nipped in the bud. Once it starts with anyone - kids, criminals, whomever - it will only spread from there. It's not just a question of "risk" of abuse. We're looking at absolute certainty. And once the genie's out of the bottle, getting it back in will be a nearly impossble task.

I don't even feel the need to address the question of whether this will improve the safety of children, because there's never going to be a time of complete safety. The gain in safety will be mostly theoretical, but the loss of liberty will be anything but theoretical. There can be no equivocation on this issue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
inventor
post Feb 22 2006, 06:57 AM
Post #8


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 516
Member No.: 5,197
Joined: June-28-05

From: nevada
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Blackstone @ Feb 20 2006, 10:59 PM)
This sort of thing needs to be completely nipped in the bud.  Once it starts with anyone - kids, criminals, whomever - it will only spread from there.  It's not just a question of "risk" of abuse.  We're looking at absolute certainty.  And once the genie's out of the bottle, getting it back in will be a nearly impossble task.

I don't even feel the need to address the question of whether this will improve the safety of children, because there's never going to be a time of complete safety.  The gain in safety will be mostly theoretical, but the loss of liberty will be anything but theoretical.  There can be no equivocation on this issue.
*

Ok I do have a potential conflict of interest here, I do have a patent in this areas and did have a RFID patent pending. So I am obviously an advocate of it. I see how much crime it will stop, not the kidnappings, kids and such but the theft of cars, credit info and so on it will be very effective. I can see it for home appliances, cars, cameras and so on. Once you activate your TV if it is unplugged only your RFID will re-activate it, so if expensive home appliances are stolen they are worthless. the RFID can just be an identifier encrypted no other data in it like a cell phone.

I do not think we need to nip it at the bud. A cell phone is a very powerful RFID device and can track you anywhere you go while you have it on. Do you have one? So what is the difference if I have a embedded chip with a transmission distance of 1 cm? Or have a RFID device with a short transmission distance of 1cm that I can turn on/off at my will? What one must understand is power and battery size and the physics of it. To use a cell phone we need to charge it constantly because of the power requirements, look at the size of that battery to get that transmission distance. Signal strength degrade by the inverse square of the distance. A small chip under my skin like they are doing for doges cats would not have a strong signal that would be traceable/readable all over. I have heard a bar has a passive one they put under your skin to get in.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blackstone
post Feb 23 2006, 04:19 AM
Post #9


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,995
Member No.: 5,539
Joined: October-13-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(inventor @ Feb 22 2006, 01:57 AM)
A cell phone is a very powerful RFID device and can track you anywhere you go while you have it on.  Do you have one?    So what is the difference if I have a embedded chip with a transmission distance of 1 cm?    Or have a RFID device with a short transmission distance of 1cm that I can turn on/off at my will?
*

You may be able to turn it on and off at will, but you will be expected to have it on in order to be able to do much of anything. That's the difference between implants and cell phones. The notion that this would all be strictly "voluntary" is simply not credible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DaytonRocker
post Feb 23 2006, 05:02 AM
Post #10


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,521
Member No.: 547
Joined: February-26-03

From: Dayton, Ohio
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(inventor @ Feb 22 2006, 01:57 AM)
A cell phone is a very powerful RFID device and can track you anywhere you go while you have it on.  Do you have one?    So what is the difference if I have a embedded chip with a transmission distance of 1 cm?    Or have a RFID device with a short transmission distance of 1cm that I can turn on/off at my will?    What one must understand is power and battery size and the physics of it.    To use a cell phone we need to charge it constantly because of the power requirements, look at the size of that battery to get that transmission distance.    Signal strength degrade by the inverse square of the distance.    A small chip under my skin like they are doing for doges cats would not have a strong signal that would be traceable/readable all over.  I have heard a bar has a passive one they put under your skin to get in.

Huh?

The reason some cell phones can be tracked is because they contain GPS chips. It has nothing to do with Radio Frequency Identification. And the reason phones go through batteries is because of the power consumption required for ringers, LCD displays, and other highly inductive loads (and the reason color displays cook batteries faster). Signal strength has little to do with battery life (unless it gets below a safe charging level). Otherwise, people would put "hotter" batteries in phones to get better ranges. That doesn't happen. Signal strength is dictated by the position of your phone to the nearest tower - not your battery.

Further, I didn't realize RFID tags had a fixed transmission distance (as your statement and "formula" would seem to imply). The antenna creates a magnetic field around the tag. The coil in the tag, via EMF, becomes energized and allows the tag to transmit data at a level directly proportional to the antenna power. Not the other way around as your post suggests.

I'm not an expert in this field, so please provide a reference/source to your "Signal strength degrade by the inverse square of the distance". It sounds sexy as hell, but I don't see how it is applicable to cell phones or how it is relevant to a device dependent on external RF power.

Also, how would nearby metallic objects affect that calculation? I do know that metallic objects/surfaces nearby are a deal breaker with RFID. You can't read a tag mounted on steel for example. How does your formula square with that limitation?

A little more info for us non-experts...with links to references...please...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christopher
post Feb 23 2006, 12:11 PM
Post #11


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,352
Member No.: 1,696
Joined: November-9-03

From: Phoenix AZ
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



Do you think the government would abuse this technology and invade citizens' right to privacy?
Data mining 101

What privacy? When you can track and locate specific types of people just from the Amazon wishlist--what difference will the fear of the RFID bring.
For every method anyone comes up with to "tracK or surveil anyone someone else will come up with a way to beat it. Best car security system I ever got was a 3 dollar circular keyswitch like the ones that secure vending machines.
10 minutes with a drill and never had my car taken )in what has been at several times the worst car theft area in America). Plenty of well protected car alarms didn't do their job for some very frazzled neighbors.
Just read a MAKE article about using the flash in disposable camera to deactivate the security chip used on store items to prevent theft--the ones that set off that infernal racket when the cashier doesn't deactivate them properly.


RFID fears are just bad Sci Fi. I wouldn't worry about government abuse--marketers scare me more. Since you can track purchase by person they will be able to tell what you picked and what you didn't. Just imagine the focused campaign to advertise directly to YOU. Think telemarketing was bad.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
inventor
post Feb 25 2006, 07:54 PM
Post #12


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 516
Member No.: 5,197
Joined: June-28-05

From: nevada
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Blackstone
Again a transmission distance of 1cm is nothing. If you notice credit cards are now including RFID.
http://www.mastercard.com/us/personal/en/a...pass/index.html
so keep your credit card in a metal case if you are concerned. Do the same with your cell phone or turn it off which is much more powerful. A good example is AM radio signal strength. There are small 1000w to 50KW in strength. The stronger the signal strength the further it transmits. Cell phones origianll were bag phones with I think 3 watts the handhelds are much lower because they transmit microwave energy, do you like putting your head in a microwave oven. No, so they used only I think it was 0.6 watts.

As far as voluntary are ATM cards voluntary?

DaytonRocker

Cell phones can be tracked without GPS chips in them. A GPS chip makes it easier and more accurate. The cell phone is talking to many antennae at the same time. Your cell phone sends out a unique identifier so they can bill you and know you have an active cell phone. With about three antennae your position can be triangulated. With one they know your approximate location. But there are many out there, they hand you off so to speak to the other antennae as you drive.

I have designed wireless products for years, have been VP of Engineering of one. Think before you go on too far. LCD battery consumption for example is so low…. Ever own a calculator with a LCD or watch, those last for years on VERY small batteries. Now color does take more energy but it is off most of the time. and I can get the specific data of color power consumption but not needed for this debate. Again think about it. The ringer only goes on a very small amount of time also. When you are talking on a phone the battery goes down sooo fast that is because it is sending a LOT of data(RF)… When not talking it only has to send your unique identifier every long period of time. If you want to debate this I am willing to let you start another thread and will participate. Just PM me when you do.

Inverse square is applicable to the electromagnetic spectrum where the signal spreads out into space. Cell phones and RFID tags are in the electromagnetic spectrum. For your reference the antennae is a fixed size and is optimized for the wavelength. Items must pass FCC testing which limits power output. Reflectors behind anteae also gives you a directional gain.

Look at inverse square law. http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/bsf6-1.html

For those who did not take high school physics, here is a link to high school physics content.
http://kuhn.lewiscenter.org/~mhuffine/subp...sscicsframe.htm

As far as your other questions on metal and RFID interference you can always take a few classes if interested. There are great colleges all over.

Christopher,

You are right on using computers on the internet including your listed amazon, we have cookies and so on to add.

You are correct about the circular keys, you stepped out of the norm for them to make you a target. If all cars used RFID it would just about stop car theft your example shows how just a better lock also helps. Our thieves will have to become electronic techs to steal cars, then they will find they can work and make an honest living easier.

I agree with you on the marketers also.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VDemosthenes
post Feb 25 2006, 09:30 PM
Post #13


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 800
Member No.: 4,252
Joined: January-11-05

From: St. Augustine, Florida
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(Billy Jean @ Jan 20 2006, 11:32 AM)
Would you be in favor of "chipping" Americans to end such problems as kidnapping or runaways?

What are the potential abuses of RFID technology?

Do you think the government would abuse this technology and invade citizens' right to privacy?

*



1.) Never. We debated this a ton in my English class last semester (funny since we were technically studying Romeo and Juliet). The idea of forcing anyone to register their whereabouts every second of every day is absurd and going way beyond the mandates of protecting American lives.

2.) You get one lonely controller with an ex-wife and two children she ran with and suddenly... It's too weird to think about.

3.) I think they would if they have to. I am not sure it would be a daily thing that they tell everyone where you are but I do think it has the capacity to be abused more than our cell phone signals or credit card register.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
inventor
post Feb 27 2006, 05:53 AM
Post #14


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 516
Member No.: 5,197
Joined: June-28-05

From: nevada
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Feb 25 2006, 03:30 PM)

3.) I think they would if they have to. I am not sure it would be a daily thing that they tell everyone where you are but I do think it has the capacity to be abused more than our cell phone signals or credit card register.
*



Please give me the specifics to your conclusion.

Mind you the distance/strength of a cell phone is my guess 30 miles max but at least 13 miles for one of the below systems to work.. A chip implant as low as 1 centimeter.

To back up my other post here are a few more links.

http://www.geocities.com/henrik.kaare.poul...m_coverage.html
QUOTE
The signal strength decreases exponentially with the distance from the GSM radio station as shown in the figure:



another interesting one, the mail link does not work.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/30/1858230
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183237,00.html
QUOTE
So far, none of those plans have fully materialized, but GlobeTel Communications Corp. of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., has signed contracts to provide the nation of Colombia with unmanned communications blimps that would hover 10 to 13 miles up.


this one is up a bit higher at 65,000 feet with a line-of-sight of 300,000 sq miles. But a cell phone at 30 miles transmission would only be appr 3000 sq miles.
http://www.sanswire.com/stratellites.htm


for info about cell phones for non-techs. Explains signal strenghts and ESN electronic serial number.
http://www.briannelsonconsulting.com/balte...one-expert.html

http://members.tripod.com/~peacecraft/info...ng/cellphon.htm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VDemosthenes
post Feb 27 2006, 11:17 PM
Post #15


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 800
Member No.: 4,252
Joined: January-11-05

From: St. Augustine, Florida
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(inventor @ Feb 27 2006, 12:53 AM)
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Feb 25 2006, 03:30 PM)

3.) I think they would if they have to. I am not sure it would be a daily thing that they tell everyone where you are but I do think it has the capacity to be abused more than our cell phone signals or credit card register.
*



Please give me the specifics to your conclusion.

Mind you the distance/strength of a cell phone is my guess 30 miles max but at least 13 miles for one of the below systems to work.. A chip implant as low as 1 centimeter.
*



I believe my wording was capacity to be abused. Not "has yet to have been." The capacity for abuse exists in any program that the civilian market buys into. Do you deny the mere possibility of abuse occurring? After all, in our world we have this "bigger, better" mentality that drives industry to create better scanners for things or bigger whatever for that in the corner. The point is that the idea of being able to be tracked, even a centimeter away, is way too close for my personal taste.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blackstone
post Mar 1 2006, 03:35 AM
Post #16


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,995
Member No.: 5,539
Joined: October-13-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(inventor @ Feb 25 2006, 02:54 PM)
If you notice credit cards are now including RFID.
http://www.mastercard.com/us/personal/en/a...pass/index.html
so keep your credit card in a metal case if you are concerned.
*

You're not getting the point at all. As I explained to you, being able to turn off the chip inside you isn't going to be of any use if you're going to be expected to have it on in order to be able to enter any establishment. That will mean you can then be monitored not only in what you buy, but in where you go. The ability to turn it off is irrelevant. The transmission distance is irrelevant.

Yes, it's bad enough that ATM activity can be tracked. It's worse to expand it to ever more things, each step being only "just a little bit" more than the previous one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
inventor
post Mar 8 2006, 04:07 AM
Post #17


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 516
Member No.: 5,197
Joined: June-28-05

From: nevada
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Feb 27 2006, 05:17 PM)
QUOTE(inventor @ Feb 27 2006, 12:53 AM)
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Feb 25 2006, 03:30 PM)

3.) I think they would if they have to. I am not sure it would be a daily thing that they tell everyone where you are but I do think it has the capacity to be abused more than our cell phone signals or credit card register.
*



Please give me the specifics to your conclusion.

Mind you the distance/strength of a cell phone is my guess 30 miles max but at least 13 miles for one of the below systems to work.. A chip implant as low as 1 centimeter.
*



I believe my wording was capacity to be abused. Not "has yet to have been." The capacity for abuse exists in any program that the civilian market buys into. Do you deny the mere possibility of abuse occurring? After all, in our world we have this "bigger, better" mentality that drives industry to create better scanners for things or bigger whatever for that in the corner. The point is that the idea of being able to be tracked, even a centimeter away, is way too close for my personal taste.
*

And maybe we will travel at the speed of light next year. your response is everything is possible.... but just as probable at beaming you up...


QUOTE(Blackstone @ Feb 28 2006, 09:35 PM)
QUOTE(inventor @ Feb 25 2006, 02:54 PM)
If you notice credit cards are now including RFID.
http://www.mastercard.com/us/personal/en/a...pass/index.html
so keep your credit card in a metal case if you are concerned.
*

You're not getting the point at all. As I explained to you, being able to turn off the chip inside you isn't going to be of any use if you're going to be expected to have it on in order to be able to enter any establishment. That will mean you can then be monitored not only in what you buy, but in where you go. The ability to turn it off is irrelevant. The transmission distance is irrelevant.

Yes, it's bad enough that ATM activity can be tracked. It's worse to expand it to ever more things, each step being only "just a little bit" more than the previous one.
*

you use cards to get into work, health clubs, hotels, stores with passive devices like magnetic stripes and so on... and I said via any cell phone on you can be tracked to a meter accuracy is a possibility.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Mar 8 2006, 05:53 PM
Post #18


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Would you be in favor of "chipping" Americans to end such problems as kidnapping or runaways?

Only on a voluntary basis. They do this with dogs today.

What are the potential abuses of RFID technology?
I can see none. It is little more than an electronic bar code.

Do you think the government would abuse this technology and invade citizens' right to privacy?
Doubtful. The RFID “tag” is worthless unless it is “illuminated” by a specific energy source. Some implementations would allow for the destruction of the tag as you leave the store. Beyond this I cannot see why the “government” would want to track your soup purchases.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blackstone
post Mar 9 2006, 05:06 AM
Post #19


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,995
Member No.: 5,539
Joined: October-13-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(inventor @ Mar 7 2006, 11:07 PM)
you use cards to get into work, health clubs, hotels, stores with passive devices like magnetic stripes and so on...
*

So then why go to RFID, if we already have all these things?

The answer of course is that RFID is considered more convenient. But as it's considered more convenient, the requiring of it will become more prevalent. It will also make tracking and surveillance that much easier as only one identifier is used for all these types of places, instead of multiple different cards for different applications.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
inventor
post Mar 19 2006, 03:35 AM
Post #20


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 516
Member No.: 5,197
Joined: June-28-05

From: nevada
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Blackstone @ Mar 8 2006, 11:06 PM)
QUOTE(inventor @ Mar 7 2006, 11:07 PM)
you use cards to get into work, health clubs, hotels, stores with passive devices like magnetic stripes and so on...
*

So then why go to RFID, if we already have all these things?

The answer of course is that RFID is considered more convenient. But as it's considered more convenient, the requiring of it will become more prevalent. It will also make tracking and surveillance that much easier as only one identifier is used for all these types of places, instead of multiple different cards for different applications.
*



yes you are correct, that is why we have how many different mouse traps? As you point out they have different conveniences/advantages.

Once it is in the electronic realm whether you have 10 credit cards or 1 it is easy for big brother to track everything you are doing. Just go to the credit reporting agancies and they have all your banking and billing info. And to believe that this information is not had by big brother would be very naïve. So the point being if big brother wants to know where you are and what you buy and when he can very easily with your cell phone and credit card if you use them.

To Summarize, the RFID potential abuses would be less than the cell phone because of the transmission distance is so limited, and equal to the credit card usage data.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 4th, 2021 - 08:22 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.