Enforced RFID

[iuvart]

If you say so...

To me,its a case of 'If your that fearful of your own country,your in the wrong country" type of thing...and that the" omg the black helicopters and the men in black suits" believing types continually display classic examples of mental illness,and firmly buy into the "Oh Noes,they can find me !" line of thought....says a lot....

But that's just it. That is not what this is about for serious people. It's not about fear, it's about the right to privacy. Bruce Schneier really says it best, which is why I'll link his essay again [1].

If you have nothing to hide and don't want any privacy, why not just give me all your personal information, all your bank records, all your writings ever, everything you ever said or did? If you trust any other human being with all of that, the one with the mental illness is you, because you have too much trust in the decency and honesty of people. And that is who would be looking at all this data, people.
Do you really think everyone arrested in East Germany had done something wrong? Even according to the twisted and inhumane laws of that state at the time?

Power like that in the hands of people (like government workers) will always lead to abuse. And even the people who "have nothing to fear, because I have done nothing wrong" will find out the truth behind the words of Cardinal Richelieu: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."

Aside from that, again, RFID isn't even useful to track people. As stated before a range of 20 meters is really stretching it. So to continually keep track of people you would have to install RFID-readers roughly every 30 meters, in a grid of 30 meters by 30 meters. That's 900 m². We'll be generous and round that up to 1000 m². The USA is roughly 10 M km² in size, that is 10 T m². To cover that in a grid of RFID readers requires 10 B of them. A decent price today seems to be $ 100, so the infrastructure would be yours for the cheap price of $ 1 T. The cost of $ 3 B each year to fit every citizen with the newest encrypted RFID chip (which will still be cracked long before it's replaced) is pretty much free compared to that. You really think that's a good way to spend a trillion dollars?

And then you run into the problem all of the USA's intelligence agencies already have. Too much data, too few people analyzing it. Important information is already going neglected because there is so much data coming in that they can't keep up with analyzing it. You want to add thousands of times of more data on top of that? That would give you less security, not more. People have to get the notion out of their head that massive surveillance equals great security. It does not.

By the way... what are you so fearful of that you want everyone watched all the time? In retort to the classic "if you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?": If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me.


[1] http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2 ... of_pr.html

[tkobo]

Interesting how after reading what i said, you try to use east germany under communist rule ,of all places, as an example ...and then move into "Cardinal Richelieu".Both clearly examples of the "wrong country".One might think your inferring all countries are like that.....but that couldnt be......

As for range,the average active tag's range is currently 300 feet or more.And thats as it is now, and in no way shows the practical limit.It could easily be expanded up to the point of use equal to cellphone triangulation and gps.

As for why id support it,its the same reason i support having police.i dont "fear" being robbed,but i understand that having had 2 of my houses broken into,and the favorite car i owned also broken into multiple times,that the police are my best bet currently for stopping such from happening and catching those who did so when it does.

It wouldnt be very rational to NOT want a police force,because some cops are and can be bad.Nothings ever perfect.Its why we" keep the baby when we throw out the bath water".

[iuvart]

Interesting how after reading what i said, you try to use east germany under communist rule ,of all places, as an example ...and then move into "Cardinal Richelieu".Both clearly examples of the "wrong country".One might think your inferring all countries are like that.....but that couldnt be......

So the countries of origin are reason enough to throw out the point (that giving people lots of power leads to abuse) as well?
People in the US aren't intrinsically more moral, honest or otherwise better than anyone else in the world.

And East Germany was my first thought for an example because I'm from Germany.
Have another example, the United Kingdom: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/06 ... ment_data/
Not a police state yet, but the first indicators are in place.

As for range,the average active tag's range is currently 300 feet or more.And thats as it is now, and in no way shows the practical limit.It could easily be expanded up to the point of use equal to cellphone triangulation and gps.

Yes, and their price is about 10 times as high as the ones used in my calculation. And RFID can only know if a chip is in range, not where. For triangulation of any accuracy you would need massive overlaps, so a chip would always be in range of at least three or four receivers.

Also, you would be transmitting your data to anyone with a receiver within 300 feet. A point you proponents of chipping everybody keep ignoring. If you don't like losing your wallet you will absolutely hate having your whole identity stolen from an RFID-chip without any indication about it until it's too late. When you lose your wallet you can go to the police, call you CC companies, etc.
When your RFID-chip get's hacked or cloned you will have no idea until someone uses your data. Probably for rather illegal purposes.

As for why id support it,its the same reason i support having police.i dont "fear" being robbed,but i understand that having had 2 of my houses broken into,and the favorite car i owned also broken into multiple times,that the police are my best bet currently for stopping such from happening and catching those who did so when it does.

And RFID-chipping would do nothing to help you in those unfortunate events. All that would tell the police is who had been in a general 300 feet radius of the crime scene at the time it happened.
Yes, the police are your best bet at stopping thefts and burglaries. RFID won't change that or even improve it noticably.

It wouldnt be very rational to NOT want a police force,because some cops are and can be bad.Nothings ever perfect.Its why we" keep the baby when we throw out the bath water".

Again you are putting up a straw man. Not wanting RFID-chipping does not equal an argument to do away with the police. Throwing out the police with the idea of RFID-chipping, that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
The issue is not that some uses of RFID-chipping everybody could be bad, it's that it is a completely stupid, expensive and useless idea.

Having a police and having a police state are two different things. One keeps you safe, the other keeps the people in power safe (from the population). Why do you think so many countries with dictatorships and authoritarian regimes have or want this kind of complete surveillance? Would you still like the idea if "Dear Leader Obama" (not my words) implemented mandatory RFID-chipping and CCTV cameras on every street? From your general behaviour in the off-topic section I assume you aren't exactly fond of the current US leadership or a big government budget. But you would be in favour of the government spending $ 1+ T on an ineffectual security measure? (That's about 20x the annual budget of the US DHS)

[tkobo]

Its obvious we are not going to agree or convince the other...

[iuvart]

Yes, I was thinking along the same lines while typing up that last post.

It's actually also the reason why I don't participate in this Global Warming thread next door despite it being a very important issue for me.
I will never be able to convince you, Lightbringer and some other of my point of view on these two issues. Just like you will never be able to convince me.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, both knowing we are right and hoping we can convince the people in between.

[Ruges]

I think there is an easy way to solve most of the security issue. One would be only one unique RFID could be activated at a time. Meaning if one just sudonly appeared on the grid, exspecialy a duplicate, it would be flaged and apropriate measures would be taken. Security measures with bank info are easily solved by only allowing them to work at pre designated stores. IE if you only shop at 5 stores. Your bank will only accept RFID transactions from those 5 stores.

But you are right the technology is not quite where it needs to be yet for such a project to be undertaken.

[iuvart]

I think there is an easy way to solve most of the security issue. One would be only one unique RFID could be activated at a time. Meaning if one just sudonly appeared on the grid, exspecialy a duplicate, it would be flaged and apropriate measures would be taken. Security measures with bank info are easily solved by only allowing them to work at pre designated stores. IE if you only shop at 5 stores. Your bank will only accept RFID transactions from those 5 stores.

But you are right the technology is not quite where it needs to be yet for such a project to be undertaken.

Those aren't "easy" solutions. Tracking billions (or in the case of the US a few hundred millions) of chips in real time to filter out any duplicates? And how would you know which one is the original? Never mind that cloning an RFID-tag isn't everything a hacker could do. Just reading the information and using that without a duplicate tag would be just as bad.
Only allowing banking at pre-designated stores? Do you mean shops or bank-terminals? The former would restrict yourself to a few pre-designated shops in fear of your grand security measure being misused. Where's the big gain again...?
The same with bank terminals. What if you find yourself in need of money somewhere where the bank doesn't expect you? Does that suddenly make you suspect?

The technology is only a minor point though. The much bigger issue are the legal and civil rights consequences of such an measure.

All of those costs, losing your right to privacy and for what? If it could give a society absolute and total security with no crime whatsoever and little potential for abuse it might be worth to think about it. But as an ineffectual crime fighting technique with a huge pricetag and massive potential for abuse (not just by hackers, but the state powers as well)? It doesn't get much worse than that.

[Rhyus]

I would die before having a RFID chip inside me because i am a private person and i dont like people knowing my business unless i want them to know. Where i work they dont even have my phone number and until recently they thought i lived at my old address and i have been moved over 3 years. Now some of you my think that i am weird but i have my reasons for this, first my boss if he has your phone number he will phone you to come into work on your day off and if you say no, no matter the reason he will be a real dick wive you for about 2 weeks, second about a month after they got my new address on my day off my boss sent someone to my house to tell me (not ask) to go to work. The second reason caused alot of trouble, alot of arguments and me and my boss nearly had a punch up and we did not talk for a long time after this, he also never apologized for this. So why would i give them this info about me when all they are going to do is abuse and all it dose is cause me problems. Now i know its not like this everywhere this is just my example from my personal experience on how your personal details can be abused. Also i believe that if they introduce these chips then you should have a choice, if we are forced to have them then we are no longer living in a democracy.

[CptBritish]

Basically what the people who support RFID are wanting isn't the same as it is now. Its coverage like your mobile but better lol (Mobile phone signal in Norfolk, Derbyshire or the Peak District is sh*te).

Anyone whos conveying total privacy - I'm not saying your wrong for thinking so but - I hope you don't have a mobile phone... If you do then you argument for not wanting an advanced version of RFID is - in my eyes - invalid.

Now I only support the chips knowing where you are, not all the bank details stuff etc although in a perfect society this would be great, but we don't. But just think of the good, Tracking of Pedophiles, Possible terrorists, Rape victims, wanna be gangsters also the people in the London riots for example.

1. List all the people in Tottenham at say 8:00pm. A Map of Tottenham appears with for example small red blips for every person.
2. Right list all the people outside such and such burning building. Smaller zoomed in map appears.
3. Then with like a drag box with all the people on that particular street. You could find out there names, addresses, age and a photo for each person.
4. Crosscheck with CCTV to make sure all the people selected were actually rioting not just watching in horror.
5. Bam alot of investigating saved then all the Police do is go to each persons house question them show them the evidence "Your I.D, Your Face blah blah blah"

Or another example the Rape victim Now I admit this wouldn't be a solution to every rape:

1. Drunk woman after a long night out gets drunk and on her way home she gets raped.
2. She goes to Police although she can only remember that the act happened.
3. Police search for her details on such and such date and find that she was on such and such Road then follow the saved data til when she was walking home find out that another red blip approached her at lets say 3am.
4. After questioning the blip and after gathering evidence they can then charge him.

I'm not saying the above system is perfect as there has been some of rape cases where it has been proven through video evidence or some other way that it wasn't rape and she just regretted it after the fact.

Now final and last example.

1. Child goes home from school and is snatched on his/her travels.
2. Parents report child missing.
3. Police search up the particular persons "blip" and find that he/she is in a house not far from the school.
4. After a quick raid the child is safely back home.

Now I know what people are going to say and thats "Where are you going to store all this data!!!11!" Well it would cost a bit but personally the gains out weigh the cost. Yes it would infringe on some Human Rights, like the oh no the Government knows that i'm in the same room with my Fiance at 11pm I wonder what they are up too? he he he!!1! Grow up. Like I said before as long as no bank information, health information etc is saved the only thing worth getting is your address also do you really think the government can't get access to that information anyway? HA! Also someone mentioned monitoring it, the system I'm talking about wouldn't be monitored unless a crime had been commited like in the above examples. One thing and probably what I would see as the main cause for abuse would be "Requests" from other departments or companies wanting to know where you are etc. As long as it was written in a law protected by a referendum that NO OTHER DEPARTMENT/COMPANY/INDIVIDUAL other than the Police can access it, I really think it could be a force for good.

[iuvart]

I will save myself the time of commentating much on those naive fantasies. If you honestly believe that is how RFID (even in future development cycles) can and will be used I cannot possibly argue with you. I can only state that you would be absolutely wrong.

I do, however, have to comment on this bit:

Now I know what people are going to say and thats "Where are you going to store all this data!!!11!" Well it would cost a bit but personally the gains out weigh the cost.

How can you say that the gains outweigh the costs when both are just figments of your imagination? Have you done a cost/benefit-analysis? Do you know (even a general estimate of) what you are dreaming up would cost? Not just in terms of money, but also civil liberties, rights and plain human dignity? I'd like to see that analysis.

Yes it would infringe on some Human Rights, like the oh no the Government knows that i'm in the same room with my Fiance at 11pm I wonder what they are up too? he he he!!1! Grow up. Like I said before as long as no bank information, health information etc is saved the only thing worth getting is your address also do you really think the government can't get access to that information anyway? HA!

This actually left me speechless.
"Yes it would infringe on some Human Rights", like it's no problem.
What you satirize as a fear of the government peeping on you in the bed and you would so happily waive is one of the most basic rights of a citizen in a free and democratic society. Namely the sanctity/inviolability of the personal home. Here in Germany it's article 13 of our constitution.
"Grow up" indeed.

That aside, would you be as comfortable having anyone with access to a system like that know that it is not, in fact, your finacé you are spending the night with, but her best friend?

And no, the issue is not just the address. Of course the government knows the address of (most of) a nation's citizens, that's part of the census and it actually makes sense. But knowing where your home is and tracking your every move are two completely different ballgames.

Also someone mentioned monitoring it, the system I'm talking about wouldn't be monitored unless a crime had been commited like in the above examples. One thing and probably what I would see as the main cause for abuse would be "Requests" from other departments or companies wanting to know where you are etc. As long as it was written in a law protected by a referendum that NO OTHER DEPARTMENT/COMPANY/INDIVIDUAL other than the Police can access it, I really think it could be a force for good.

Oh, you mean like phone wiretaps, which are actually only legal with a warrant, but are used all the time without?
The belief that such an immensely powerful und abusable system could exist in a vacuum, surrounded by perfectly moral and lawabiding paragons of virtue (the police), is as much a complete fantasy as your view of what it could accomplish to fight crime. One should not base real world descision on fantasies, especially ones of this magnitude.
And one certainly should not throw away fundamental rights for a miniscule and misleading sense of security the next big surveillance scheme might promise.

[CptBritish]

How can you say that the gains outweigh the costs when both are just figments of your imagination? Have you done a cost/benefit-analysis? Do you know (even a general estimate of) what you are dreaming up would cost? Not just in terms of money, but also civil liberties, rights and plain human dignity? I'd like to see that analysis.

No i'm basing it off the fact that all technology gets released and then within a couple of weeks is cheaper than what it was when it came out such is the speed of advancement. Your basing your numbers off technology of today what if in 20/30/40 years time it was only a fraction of what it is now. I'm not gonna "dream" up a number as I don't know and neither do you. Wait so the Government knowing where I am is really depriving me of all that? lol You make it sound like been "Chipped" would be the same as spending a lifetime in a North Korean Prison camp...

This actually left me speechless.
"Yes it would infringe on some Human Rights", like it's no problem.
What you satirize as a fear of the government peeping on you in the bed and you would so happily waive is one of the most basic rights of a citizen in a free and democratic society. Namely the sanctity/inviolability of the personal home. Here in Germany it's article 13 of our constitution.
"Grow up" indeed.

That aside, would you be as comfortable having anyone with access to a system like that know that it is not, in fact, your finacé you are spending the night with, but her best friend?

And no, the issue is not just the address. Of course the government knows the address of (most of) a nation's citizens, that's part of the census and it actually makes sense. But knowing where your home is and tracking your every move are two completely different ballgames.

I am grown up in the fact that I really wouldn't care what some random Police Officer could see could see about me and have a guess at what I was doing. I'm still in privacy can they see me in the shower? No. Can they see me cuddling up and watching some crap TV with the missus? No. All the system I mentioned would see is two blips.

Oh, you mean like phone wiretaps, which are actually only legal with a warrant, but are used all the time without?
The belief that such an immensely powerful und abusable system could exist in a vacuum, surrounded by perfectly moral and lawabiding paragons of virtue (the police), is as much a complete fantasy as your view of what it could accomplish to fight crime. One should not base real world descision on fantasies, especially ones of this magnitude.
And one certainly should not throw away fundamental rights for a miniscule and misleading sense of security the next big surveillance scheme might promise.

I don't know about in Germany but in the UK wiretaps can't be admitted as evidence unless they had been authorised by the court (Or thats as far as I know). Yea ok i'm not stupid enough to think that all Police Officers are paragons or virtue as you put it, but if you can't put any trust in Law Enforcement then really I don't know what to say to you. I'm sorry but I can't see how the examples I put forward and the solutions this system would give for those examples is fantasy? So you saying if a child was kidnapped and the Police could find him/her on a map basically that he/she couldn't be found? You don't have to agree with me but at least you must admit it would help in this partiular case.

They aren't "fantasies" as you put it just ideas of how a system could work. I wonder if at the turn of the last century if one man said to another "Within a hundred years we'll have been to the moon and will beable to travel round the Earth in less than 24 hours" he would have probably been laughed out of whatever room he was in and then some, but oh sh*t it as actually happened.

See how much of a fundamental right you would think it would be if something as major as a kidnapping, murder, violent burglary happened to someone in your family.

I'll put this as the bottom as I love debates like this but I can get carried away in my sarcasm. I mean you no offence and i'm not trying to say you are wrong for thinking the way you do just trying to explain why I think like I do.

[fool]

Everyone is chipped. Your country goes down the path of a dictatorship. It is now impossible to meet with other people without the government knowing about it.
What do?

[iuvart]

You are right that nobody can know what the future holds, which is why I based my arguments on the current technology. And arrived at the conclusion that it is not worth it. I was criticising your use of made up situations not possible with the current technology to argue for it's use. Unless of course I misread you and you were actually just arguing for a use of that (maybe never possible) future scenario.

To also clarify a few other things:

Wait so the Government knowing where I am is really depriving me of all that? lol You make it sound like been "Chipped" would be the same as spending a lifetime in a North Korean Prison camp...
I am grown up in the fact that I really wouldn't care what some random Police Officer could see could see about me and have a guess at what I was doing. I'm still in privacy can they see me in the shower? No. Can they see me cuddling up and watching some crap TV with the missus? No. All the system I mentioned would see is two blips.

Privacy does not just mean being by yourself under the shower. When you are home and when you are not, who you visit, who visits you and when, that is all your private business. That is all covered by the right to privacy and may only be breached by the executive branch with good cause. And that is a good thing.
Being chipped is not the same as spending a lifetime in a North Korean prison camp and I have never said so. It would however be the wet dream of any authoritarian regime on the planet. Never before would it have been so easy to round up dissidents. (Pretty much what fool is describing)
The potential for abuse should be obvious, so I am not going to list it here.

So you saying if a child was kidnapped and the Police could find him/her on a map basically that he/she couldn't be found? You don't have to agree with me but at least you must admit it would help in this partiular case

No, in that case, in that scenario, your system would be a help. I'm not disputing that.
Just like torturing suspects willy-nilly to see if they have information or threatening a kidnapper with torture to find the kidnapped child might help solve the crime. But the price - ceasing to be a "Rechtsstaat" - is too high. Unless maybe the proposed system abolished crime absolutely. But short of robbing all citizens of their free will no system will ever be able to do that.
So I am a proponent of fighting crime within the bounds of law, but not outside. And ignoring basic rights is such a case outside the bounds of law.

They aren't "fantasies" as you put it just ideas of how a system could work. I wonder if at the turn of the last century if one man said to another "Within a hundred years we'll have been to the moon and will beable to travel round the Earth in less than 24 hours" he would have probably been laughed out of whatever room he was in and then some, but oh sh*t it as actually happened.

Yes, if someone had predicted the moonlanding a century before he would be pretty famous. The reason there is no such person is that pretty much all predictions and ideas of the future never materialize. That is why one should not base current descisions on such ideas.

See how much of a fundamental right you would think it would be if something as major as a kidnapping, murder, violent burglary happened to someone in your family.

I know that argument and have thought about it before. If someone kidnapped and murdered my future husband I would personally want to kill him/her. Maybe after a nice long weekend of torture (I can be rather sadistic at times ). And I would like anything that helped with catching the perpetrator.
That does not, however, change the fact that I would be wrong to do so. Individual fortunes are not a good basis for general policies of a nation. Either basic human rights and civil liberties are afforded to everybody or a state becomes arbitrary and it's citizens become dependent on the whims of the government.

I'll put this as the bottom as I love debates like this but I can get carried away in my sarcasm. I mean you no offence and i'm not trying to say you are wrong for thinking the way you do just trying to explain why I think like I do.

The same is true for me, as I should be working on my diploma thesis instead of typing this, but...
But as so often seems to be the case, neither of us will be able to sway the other to any other outcome than an agreement on disagreeing.

[The Khan]

Now final and last example.

1. Child goes home from school and is snatched on his/her travels.
2. Parents report child missing.
3. Police search up the particular persons "blip" and find that he/she is in a house not far from the school.
4. After a quick raid the child is safely back home.

1.Develop jamming or counter-tracking methods.
2.Snatch kid.
3.Remove chip.
?
4.Crime done.

If you think such a chip will protect you, you need to read a quote of Benjamin Franklin.