|
|
Post by Merkuri on Feb 5, 2004 10:18:00 GMT -5
If you own a SpeedPass to pay tolls, have a car made in the past couple years, or have bought a DVD, you have already come into contact with this technology. An RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tag is a tiny device that listens for a certain radio signal and sends out its own unique ID number when the signal is heard. They do not require a power source, being powered by the trigger radio signal (they work sort of like a modified radio echo), and can be made very small. That little tag inside the DVD case that sets off the alarm if you try to walk it out the door without paying is an RFID tag. SpeedPasses also work on this technology, telling the toll computer your ID number so it can later charge your credit card. And many new cars have a RFID tag in the key, so that the car won't start unless your special key is in the ignition. The applications for this technology are huge. Barcodes changed the face of shopping by allowing cashiers to identify the price of a type of item simply by passing the barcode over a laser-reader. RFID tags could revolutionize shopping again. With an RFID tag instead of a barcode, the item doesn't need to be turned around as the cashier looks for the barcode. As long as the item is near the reader, the computer can pick up the RFID code. It doesn't matter what direction the item is facing or even if it is inside something like a box, shopping cart, or even your pocket. Along with that neat feature, multiple RFID codes can be read at once. Now you don't even need to take your groceries out of the cart, just push the cart through the reader and all your groceries will be totaled up immediately. Theoretically, you could find an outfit you like, put it on in the dressing room, and simply walk out the door while the computer reads the RFID tags of the clothing you're wearing and charges the RFID credit card in your wallet for the purchase. Another spectacular advantage of RFID tags over barcodes is that the number of possible unique RFID codes is so much larger than the number of possible unique barcodes. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but with RFID tags it's no longer neccesary to give a code to each type of product. Now you can give a unique code to each and every item. Every can of beans can have its own ID. Every article of clothing. Every digital camera or DVD. Stores can now track individual items all the way from the factory, to the truck, to the loading docks, and onto the shelves. The advantage of this is immense. If a factory finds out that one of its workers with ebola sneezed into a vat of beans, the store can now identify each and every can of beans that was sneezed into so they can take them (and only them) off the shelves. If a customer finds a finger in that soda can, the stores can now identify every place that can had been, hopefully eventually leading back to a person with nine fingers. And here's the rub. Let's go back to our example of the shirt you liked so much you wore it out of the store. Theoretically, the computer that scanned your shirt and your credit card could send that information to a global database. That shirt is now associated with the name from that credit card. Now, you walk down the street and into the drugstore. The RFID readers in that store scan your shirt, and Big Brother knows you are in the drugstore. See, RFID tags, when placed inconspicuously into the items we buy (especially those we wear), can be used to track us as well as the things we buy. Whenever you wear that shirt, or anything else you bought with an RFID tag in it for that matter, you are essentially wearing a tracking device. As the technology becomes more widespread it will become harder and harder to find items without RFID tags in them or buildings that don't have scanners at their entrances and exits. You think it's annoying now having companies tracking your online purchases with cookies, how about companies tracking every purchase you make with RFID tags? So what do you think about RFID tags? If you want to read a little more, here's an article on them from The Nation: www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040216&s=garfinkel |
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Feb 5, 2004 14:22:57 GMT -5
As an antitheft device it sounds perfect, but it looks like an even larger portion of my wardrobe than usual will be coming from thrift stores and garage sales.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Feb 5, 2004 16:07:34 GMT -5
Why do I get the feeling this is leading to another complant about invasion of privacy. How many out there know that in the U.S. of A. You do not a have a contitutional right to general privacy. There are only two specific right's to privacy.
Putting a tag on something to keep track of it does not bother me in the least. I would think the only people who don't like being watched are the ones committing the crimes.
The government can watch me anytime it what, and get bored to death.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Feb 5, 2004 16:49:47 GMT -5
I didn't bring up government (unless you count the "Big Brother" crack), nor was I planning to. Have you ever read 1984 by Orson Wells? If you haven't, I'd highly recommend it. That is what science fiction should be. Anyway...
You're really fine walking around with a tracking device, Galadon? What if you found out that you might have cancer, but didn't want your wife to be frightened before you knew for sure. If you walk into that hospital you've broadcasted to the world that you're sick. You ever just wanna go somewhere to be alone? Not possible anymore, somebody always knows where you are. What if you weren't satisfied with your job and you were looking around to see if there was anything better out there? If you finally decide you like it where you are today, you don't want your boss knowing you had walked into one of his competitor's offices the day before for an interview. There are legitimate reasons for privacy, and if the information is out there, there are ways to get at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Feb 5, 2004 17:10:42 GMT -5
Going off the deep end there. Who is the biggest gossip mongers around, Why it's the liberal mass media. they sling more bull around than anyone, how much is really true. Broadcast to the world your sick, just because you walk in a hospital. So if I go to the virgin islands will that mean I am a,,,,,,
Ever heard of the grape vine, rumors, the gossip vultures. It's the people I would worry about, not the tags or tracking devices. People are emotional, irational beings. who make up things to talk about other people. Mainly because they are bored with their life. No I did security for a few years, and experienced alot of stupid people. People will lie and say anything if they think they can get away with it. The people in private life are the one to look out for.
Take a look at the strip in a 20 dollar bill, according to some nut jobs, its there to keep a eye on them. No it's there to see how much money your carrying. There is one group of people who carry large amounts of money, drug dealers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Feb 5, 2004 17:24:26 GMT -5
There's a difference between spreading rumors and tracking somebody's every movement. Rumors can be made up and are often elaborated along the way. If you leave a trail wherever you go, though, that's hard evidence. It would be hard to explain to your daughter why her computer says you spend two hours at a building labled "rehab clinic" every week.
I'm not gonna talk about the mass media besides to say that I agree with you that they blow things waaay out of proportion and something needs to be done about it. But that's a different topic altogether.
|
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Feb 5, 2004 18:26:51 GMT -5
Why do I get the feeling this is leading to another complant about invasion of privacy. How many out there know that in the U.S. of A. You do not a have a contitutional right to general privacy. There are only two specific right's to privacy. Putting a tag on something to keep track of it does not bother me in the least. I would think the only people who don't like being watched are the ones committing the crimes. The government can watch me anytime it what, and get bored to death. You're right. You don't have a constitutional right to privacy, but there should be one. People talk about crime prevention and detection like they're great things, but they're not. A criminal is just someone who does what the government doesn't want them to do. What's so bad about that? I would rather see the criminals helped than the cops. The worst of the criminals just want to kill me, rape me, beat me, and/or take my stuff. The best of them don't want to do even that; they just want to smoke some dope or tag a boring, ugly wall or jay walk or distribut copyrighted material for less than greedy corporations chaerge for it. All of the cops want to limit my freedom. |
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Feb 5, 2004 22:05:56 GMT -5
Galadon, to some extent, you are correct. The government can watch me until it gets bored, it won't really matter. That's not the issue though.
The real issue is private companies watching you all the time. Or, worse, private individuals. Imagine someone stalking you through the RFID tags that you carry. I can watch each and every move you make. As your boss, I know EXACTLY how long you spend in the bathroom at work. I know EXACTLY how long your lunch break is and I can dock your pay accordingly.
Companies could really zero in for some personal advertising. You are wearing a Nike sweatshirt? Pass by a detector and suddenly your cell phone is bombarded by ads from Nike and multiple other companies related to sports products.
BTW, just one other thing. Not only drug dealers carry a lot of money. For one, a car dealership generally has a great deal of cash on hand. I've made the money run for my father's company a number of times and been carrying, well, let's just say, a great deal of cash. There are many legitimate businesses that carry cash. And, the point is, there is nothing illegal about carrying cash. Why should the government be tracking me as I perform perfectly legal actions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Feb 6, 2004 12:29:52 GMT -5
I would worry about tags, as soon as a new item comes out, there are people planning ways to defeat it. If it comes down to I can figure out or find someone who can get around any techno gadget. If you want privacy there are ways of getting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Feb 6, 2004 12:38:33 GMT -5
Your boss pays you to work, other than breaks. I have no problem working, I do have a problem with people being pay to work and spend alot of time talking or doing other things. While I was in the Marine Corps we had a understanding, if your work was done, no problem go out and talk or do what ever. People who work most of the time and goof off a little is bad. But there are way to many people who goof alot and work alittle. So you have to keep track of these people and unfornately the other have to be watched to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Feb 6, 2004 13:38:15 GMT -5
Galadon... my dad wants me to ask you where you live because he wants to come and peek in your window tonight. He also wants to know if you close the door when you use the bathroom.
Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? There's a reason why cops need a warrant to search your house. They can't invade your privacy unless they have good reason to believe you might be guilty. They can't simply assume you're guilty and search your house because they must assume you are innocent until they find facts that suggest otherwise. The same is true with any other sort of tracking mechanism or invasion of privacy. If you are being tracked or watched there is an assumption of guilt. If you have no proof that I might be guilty, you can't watch me. Cops need a warrant to tap your phone or record a conversation without your permission. They *should* need a warrant to get the records of where the RFID tags you own have been, too. But even better would be if that information was not widely available, maybe even if it was not tracked at all.
Some solutons to the problem would be to make sure that the RFID tags are obvious, so that the consumer could remove them when they go home, or that they would be "killed" when they leave the store.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Feb 6, 2004 14:46:07 GMT -5
Who is peeking at me,,  Remember I said you don't had a contitutional right to general privacy. There are only two specific rights to privacy. 1. not to have the military live in your house during a time of war without your permission. 2. protection against illegal search and seizure. (Cops need a warrant) In legal terms innocent untill proven guilty is nice. the problem is how much of the public believes that. How many think Kobe Bryant is gulity. How many thought OJ Simpson, was guilty even before the trail started. It's a nice theory, but in the regular day life of John Q Public it's guilty till proven innocent. Ask any felon released from prison if he paid his dept to society, it never happens. No there are people who need to be watched and told what to do on a daily basis. There are people who I wouldn't trust with my dirty laundry. These are the people they make tags for. Yes it's a bad thing but I believe the time will come where we will live like the movie "The minority report" with Tom Cruise. Because simply put freedom is a nice thing but there are to many people who can't handle it or abuse it. |
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Feb 6, 2004 16:39:21 GMT -5
Remember I said you don't had a contitutional right to general privacy. There are only two specific rights to privacy. 1. not to have the military live in your house during a time of war without your permission. 2. protection against illegal search and seizure. (Cops need a warrant) Let's take a look at the fourth amendment, shall we? Clearly the intention of the law is to protect my privacy from the intrusions of the government. The government can't search my house, my things, my papers, or me without probable cause. Let me think, how old is the constitution? Over 200 years old? They didn't have security cameras or computers or RFID tags back then, and I don't think they could even concieve of such things. To say that because the fourth amendment doesn't say anything about computers doesn't give the government the right to access the data in my computer without a warrant. It may not follow the letter of the law, but it certainly follows the spirit to claim that I have the right to the privacy of my wherabouts. It simply did not occur to the founding fathers that one day it would be possible to be able to remotely tell where a person was at any given time. If they knew it, they would have included it in the fourth amendment as well. I remind my friends every time they make assumptions about the outcome of a trial that we are not the jury and that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Just because the public thinks someone is guilty doesn't mean the government has to think that as well. In fact, they're legally obligated not to think of that. Most of the country believed slavery was a perfectly moral idea at one time. That fact didn't stop the 13th amendment from making it's way into the constitution. People could think slavery was a good idea all they wanted, but the government had an obligation to think that it was not. Until a law is passed otherwise, the government has to assume EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty, no matter what the public thinks. Excuse me? Are you saying that no one has a right to freedom? I'm sorry, but I thought that was one of the founding ideas of our country. Obviously you think I'm wrong. Hmm, let me look at the preamble: There it is! "Liberty." I could've sworn that meant freedom, but maybe I was wrong. Let's check the dictionary. (www.webster.com) Hey there, not only can "liberty" be defined as "the quality or state of being free," but "freedom" is a synonym for "liberty." I guess I was right after all. The purpose of the Constitution (upon which our governement is founded) is to ensure our freedom. Before I go on, let me say that I agree with you that people who abuse their freedom should have it taken away. This is why we have punishments for crimes. But it sounds like you want to take away everyone's freedom because some people might abuse it. This is not why our government was founded. It is not here to watch over us for any signs of deviency. It is here to protect our freedoms, from other people and from the government itself. The colonists didn't like their government breathing down their necks, so they decided to make a new government that didn't have that power. Essentially, they wrote the constitution to protect J.Q. Taxpayer from his government. I don't know about your, but I value that protection. I value my freedom to live my life as I choose. This is why I love this country. If you want to live someplace where the government is constantly watching you and your fellow citizens, making sure nobody makes the slightest wrong move, go back half a century or so to fashist Germany and live there. I'll stay here, thank you very much. |
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Feb 7, 2004 3:29:26 GMT -5
Actually, it was Nazi Germany. Italy was Facist. But that's not important.  Well said Merkuri. Why should freedoms be taken away simply because they may be abused? I might run over someone with my car, does that mean I should have my car taken away? I might steal tomorrow, so I should not be allowed to enter any place of business? You cannot legislate the future. No matter how hard people want to, you cannot make a law which prevents the possibility of an action. All laws are retroactive. If you break that law, you are punished after commiting the crime, not before. |
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Feb 7, 2004 7:49:32 GMT -5
First off, just to play devil's advocate, a tag might tell the gogvernment that you're at the grocery store or drug store (whatever the example was). And to some of you, that's an invasion of privacy. But: Would that chip have been an invasion of privacy to the young girl found dead in Florida yesterday? Or the still-missing CO college student? Or Elizabeth Smart? Or would it have saved their families months of hearache? For every "invasion", there is also a benefit to be weighed.
Legally speaking, you have no right to privacy of your whereabouts. As long as the police don't harass you (and yes, for some of you like khyron, their mere presence is harassment, but I'll deal with that one in a minute), they can in fact follow you, and they don't even need a warrant to do it. BUT, Merkuri does raise a good point. 4th Amendment legal jurisprudence is constantly evolving. 200 years ago, there was no thought about whether a warrant was needed to search your car, as they didn't exist. Now there is enough case law on motor vehicles and other modes of transportation that it takes years to learn it all. 50 years ago, the police coudn't rifle through your mail, but what if they found a way to look into your house without being intrusive? They figured out a way, and it got declared unconstitutional as fast as the courts could get at it. On the downside, the police can listen in on a phone call made in a public place, a conversation made in a private place, etc w/o too much problem. So perhaps in 50 years a body of law will have developed in this area, it would be interesting to see.
About the right to privacy. Although there is no "constitutional" right to privacy, strictly speaking (conscription and warrants aren't technically "privacy rights" per se as much as they are a means of avoiding overwhelming governmental intrusion into our lives without cause), the US Supreme Court has come up with this nebulous concept known as the "penumbra of privacy". That's how we have extended to the people rights such as abortion, consensual non-marital sex, birth control, homosexual sex, etc. If there's no Amendment protecting it, it gets dumped into this class.
Khyron, you really need to reassess your stand on the police. You'd rather be beaten, raped and robbed? I think you'd not last very long in a true anarchy; the idealists usually don't. Don't let the small number of idiots on any given police force convince you that all cops are bad.
Merkuri, although you are correct in theory about the goverment believing that my clients are innocent until proven guilty, it's hardly the fact. 90%+ of the time, the assumption is that my client probably did SOMETHING, even if it wasn't what he's in court for.
Finally, the Constitution was not originally written with our freedoms in mind. That was a complete and utter afterthought, Merkuri. The original Constitution dealt with taxes, and trade, and commerce, and separation of powers, and the framework of the governement, etc. That's why the part guaranteeing us all those charming little freedoms are called "amendments". They were added after the original draft. Some felt that it was the only way to get the darn thing ratified.
|
|
