Refuse being RFID tagged in UK..

It has nothing to do with how it's being used. All your fear's are based on conjecture and theory. It could be used for this or that. You haven't shown to me nor anyone that it IS being used for this or that. Your sole premis for RFID being used for evil purposes has no foothold in reality because, simply put.. it isn't being used that way. Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is being used for such purposes, then ultimately all your shown is signs of paranoid delusionism, and unfortunatly that isn't proof of jack.

For example... Are all countries using RFID to track cars? Answer would be no. Ruling that out for an NWO plot.

Are all clothing outlet's including RFID. Answer would be no, as we can see, RFID when you shop isn't wide spread.

Are all cheese shops using RFID? Answer would be no, there's no point.

If you'd like to continue posting more example's of RFID being used to research security applications, or hospitals thinking about using RFID for security applications then by all means please do. If you'd like to post news article's about other countries thinking about using RFID in liscense plate's and etc... Please by all means do. But for one to come to the conclusion that it's being used for wrong purposes you should have pretty damn compelling evidence as such. Since you haven't posted any, our only possible solution is paranoid delusionism.

Again, and I can't stress this enough... obviously. ANY technology, even something as harmless looking as a keyboard can have the POTENTIAL use to do harm. I could beat someone to death witha keyboard. Unless you can show beyond a shadow of a doubt that keyboards are being used for that purpose rather then crying about the POTENTIAL purpose ... yea, well you know

My God your right.. Move along people Produkt has spoken.. Nothing to see here... move along..

Originally posted by Produkt
If you CHOOSE to use them. If you don't CHOOSE to use them, they won't have any impact on you.

They will have an impact on society and thus, an impact on all individuals living in society.

We simply are discussing the potential impacts, and considering the need for arbitration/advocacy agencies for example.

Why do you not want this discussion to evolve?

Originally posted by Produkt
For example... Are all countries using RFID to track cars? Answer would be no. Ruling that out for an NWO plot.

How about all western countries going to use RFID to track cars in the future? Plausible.
The UK is already going to use a network of several thousand CCTV cameras, which have been redesigned with automatic plate reading applications, to track virtually every car journey in Britain. Active RFID chips could be useful if there are some locations where there aren't CCTV cameras or where the visibility is bad.

This would also be a cheaper option to track vehicles, rather than the vast CCTV camera networks which are very expensive, for other western countries that aren't as rich as the UK.

Are all clothing outlet's including RFID. Answer would be no, as we can see, RFID when you shop isn't wide spread.

Seeing as big multinational corporations are buying up smaller shops around the world, or just moving their stores in some area with smaller shops, thus bankrupting them, I think it could be plausible that a majority of clothing stores could include RFID chips in their clothes in the future.

Again, and I can't stress this enough... obviously. ANY technology, even something as harmless looking as a keyboard can have the POTENTIAL use to do harm. I could beat someone to death witha keyboard. Unless you can show beyond a shadow of a doubt that keyboards are being used for that purpose rather then crying about the POTENTIAL purpose ... yea, well you know

Don't be ridiculous

It's not that I don't want it to evolve, it's just that I'd like to see some thought put into it beyond the theory that it's being used to control us.

There's no widespread use of RFID to track car's and even IF it came to that point I still fail to see the problem. With RFID GPS enabled liscense plate's you cut down on alot of car theft, catch criminals faster etc. Unless your planning on commiting a crime at some point after RFID GPS enabled liscense plate's are put into effect, then you have nothing to worry about or fear from that use. If your car ever got stolen, you'd be pretty damn thankfull you had such a liscense plate.

Your absolutley right. Big corporations do try to put smaller shops out of business, BUT there's laws against monopolies which means... Not ALL small business's will be over run by big corporation's. If that were the case all you'd see now IS big corporation's. There's also second hand store's. There's also the option of taking out the RFID tags out of your clothes after purchase and disposing of them. You guy's starting to understand what choice is yet?

And I don't think I am being ridiculous. Every itty bit of piece of technology, even a rock has the potential to do harm. That doesn't MEAN it will be used to such an effect. Again, all I see is POTENTIAL and not ACTUAL argument's. If you'd like to discuss the potential of commercial aspect's I could suggest the sci/tech forum, which would be more appropriate then the NWO forum. If you'd like to discuss implication's of an NWO plot using this technology, then it would be helpfull to provide ACTUAL use that would lead one to such a conclusion. It's called a brain.

Originally posted by Produkt
There's no widespread use of RFID to track car's and even IF it came to that point I still fail to see the problem. With RFID GPS enabled liscense plate's you cut down on alot of car theft, catch criminals faster etc. Unless your planning on commiting a crime at some point after RFID GPS enabled liscense plate's are put into effect, then you have nothing to worry about or fear from that use. If your car ever got stolen, you'd be pretty damn thankfull you had such a liscense plate.

Sure, but then again, more control equals more possible abuse of it. And shouldn't police work for a living? That's what they get paid for, right?
Actually solving crimes, like car thefts, murders and such, keeps police more on their guard and it gives them experience, but just grabbing a PDA, connecting to HQ and see the stolen car as blip on a map on the PDA, and basicly driving to it's location and returning it isn't really that stimulating. Constant struggle, stimulation and solving problems means that they in their minds evolve and become better policemen.

Your absolutley right. Big corporations do try to put smaller shops out of business, BUT there's laws against monopolies which means... Not ALL small business's will be over run by big corporation's. If that were the case all you'd see now IS big corporation's. There's also second hand store's. There's also the option of taking out the RFID tags out of your clothes after purchase and disposing of them. You guy's starting to understand what choice is yet?

Ever heard of lobbying? Major TV and Radio networks got media "deregulation" a few years ago, meaning one company can own a unlimited amount of TV and Radio stations, even though it was limited to a specific amount before. Those who argued for it, said it would promote competition, which is complete BS.
Laws have, can and will change.

Another example would be the TCP (Trusted Computing Platform) system. The concept of it is basicly that manufacturers of computer processors and motherboards embed TCP into their hardware, then only software and hardware that is approved by the TCPA (Trusted Computing Platform Alliance) will work on those computers, and registering your software with TCPA is very expensive!
This would be the end of several smaller software companies, free & cheap software and open source operating systems, like Linux and software.
It would however make it harder for hackers to create viruses and hack into systems. But then again, bugs, holes and backdoors in the software that is being used on the TCP systems will not be discovered as often as it is now, from user feedback on viruses and hackers.
So basicly companies that develop the software in question could just keep the bugs secret, incase they ever need a backdoor. It could also be useful to government intelligence agencies, because if they find a backdoor in some software, they could use it to their advantage, since there's no telling when it will be discovered by others, 'cause we will probably not have as many active hackers then.

Well yeah, you could basicly microwave all your clothes, that will fry the RFID chips
But I don't think we should _have to_ worry about that, there should be some law against RFID tagging clothes and consumer goods. If you want your clothes tagged, do it yourself.

And I don't think I am being ridiculous. Every itty bit of piece of technology, even a rock has the potential to do harm. That doesn't MEAN it will be used to such an effect.

Rocks were used a few thousand years ago, now we have more effective means of causing harm, thus the rock is obsolete.
And I still think you're being ridiculous.

If you'd like to discuss implication's of an NWO plot using this technology, then it would be helpfull to provide ACTUAL use that would lead one to such a conclusion.

Read this thread, others have mentioned several plausible NWO uses for RFID chips.

Just because police would have RFID to solve car theft's doesn't mean they'll lose "experience". Right now we use helicopter's and dangerous high speed chases to catch a criminal on the run. With RFID... let em go, catch them when they stop. You wouldn't have to ride right up their tailpipe risking everyone's life on the road.

You could always buy hardware that doesn't use TCP and build your own pc. There's open source software if someone is concerned with backdoors. Laws can and do change, I agree with that, but.. I don't agree that laws will change in the favour of monopolies. You can still buy clothes without RFID. The purpose of RFIDing consumer products is to replace scanning price tags. You can always remove the tag when you get home. No harm done.

I still don't think I'm being ridiculous. So far all application's RFID is being used for are petty and harmless. Yet we have people making sensationalist claims of potential use blowing actual use way out of proportion's. And yea, people have been posting that this tech is being used by the NWO to keep an eye on us. What I'd like to see is proof that this is so. So far all they've done is cry NWO NWO NWO without showing a single thread of evidence. Remember, potential doesn't mean much, everything has potential. Now, if they based their claims on the ACTUALS, I could understand the reasons and fears.

In all honesty, if I had the money to tag my kids I would. Why? Well, say they get kidnapped or run away, atleast this way they'll be found quickly and hopefull unharmed. I would also consider tagging my pets, I love my pets very much as does my family. I'd have my car tagged. I might even consider tagging myself and buying a new lock that made use of it for my house so me and my family could feel more secure. All these application's are pretty harmless, but provide alot of services to me and my family. Thing's that could help in the event that something does go wrong.

Now, if I were FORCED to be tagged, my personal body. I'd fight that. It's my body and no one will force me to do anything to my personal body. No one own's the right to do that and no one own's me. As we've seen tho, this is NOT the case. This is NOT what is happening.

Produckt -

You keep insisting that it's all about choice, and that people are choosing freely. But I disagree.

IMO, "choice" is meaningless without access to all the relevant information - and the education needed to interpret that information.

Real freedom of choice involves much more than pressing a button or flipping out a credit card.

With regards to what LOAM posted on page one of this thread, about employers useing any information includeing the 'colour' of there shoes. I myself run my own buissness and have just hired a new employee, and to be honest one of the first things i looked at was how he dressed. I also had heard of this person before hand, so i went and talked to people that new him to see what he was like. Now people may say thats not right, well unfortunatly thats life, i have to protect my intrests at all costs.

Now to belive that employers would not use this or any info they can get hold of on you is utter rubbish, they will use any flaw or discrepency in your personal life or history to not employ you, they may not state that as the reasonbut that is what it would be.

Remember employers do not have to employ anyone for any reason, inc. age, race and diability, they will just give a excuse that is legal E.G. bad work history or bad interview.

This is the real world and employers will use any means to make shure they get the person they want to do the job!

Pickle.
( ps Sorry about spelling/grammer, i am in a rush)

If an employer is looking more at how a person looks or product's a person buy's determine's if a person get's the job over someone less qualified, that's discriminating, dishonest and immoral. In the long run, that'll hurt the company and isn't good practice, if as you claim is true you should know that. If you've heard of a particular person and have checked refrences and found that the person in question isn't qualified, that's just doing your job.

Which would you rather have? A person who dress's a certain way you don't like but IS qualfied for the job or a person who dress's in a way you like but isn't qualified for the job? How would each case affect your business in the long run? Which would benefit you and which would hurt you? What would be the legal implications? Can you justify the immorality of conducting business in such a way? Would you really be that inhumane as to judge someone based soley on appearence despite being qualified?

[edit on 9-1-2006 by Produkt]

Originally posted by soficrow
Produckt -

You keep insisting that it's all about choice, and that people are choosing freely. But I disagree.

IMO, "choice" is meaningless without access to all the relevant information - and the education needed to interpret that information.

Real freedom of choice involves much more than pressing a button or flipping out a credit card.

You have a very narrow view of what freedom and what options of choice's are available to you. Broaden your horizon's my son.

Anyone got the feeling that this Produkt guy is "with them"?

I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few of "them" amonst us.

Originally posted by Produkt
If an employer is looking more at how a person looks or product's a person buy's determine's if a person get's the job over someone less qualified, that's discriminating, dishonest and immoral. In the long run, that'll hurt the company and isn't good practice, if as you claim is true you should know that. If you've heard of a particular person and have checked refrences and found that the person in question isn't qualified, that's just doing your job.

Which would you rather have? A person who dress's a certain way you don't like but IS qualfied for the job or a person who dress's in a way you like but isn't qualified for the job? How would each case affect your business in the long run? Which would benefit you and which would hurt you? What would be the legal implications? Can you justify the immorality of conducting business in such a way? Would you really be that inhumane as to judge someone based soley on appearence despite being qualified?

[edit on 9-1-2006 by Produkt]

The possition i was filling did not require qualifications as such, a Sales Rep. btw, The way they dress, and conduct themseves, was in this case more important then how well they did in School. Any one who lives in the real world knows how important first impressions are.

And no i would not judge them solely on the way they dress, i didnt say that, but it does have a affect on your final choice. You dont realise how much appearence has on my line of work.

Also there is no law stating that i am discrimanating against someone for not giveing them the job because they didn't meet my expectations. Basicly if they turn up to the interview not dressed smart, i do not mean designer stuff just clean and smart, how can i trust them to be dressed smart when they go and see a customer. It all depends on what job were talking about, if you wanted to be a mechanic for me then yes i would go for qualifications over being dressed smart, but there is possitions were being dressed smart is very important. If you took it that i just blatently discriminate over anyone who cant afford a shirt and pants for a interview then you are wrong. But if you turn up to a interview for a sales job with me in jeans and a t-shirt with stains all over it, or havent washed or brushed your hair, then that person is sadly mistaken if they think they would get a job off me.

Pickle

[edit on 9-1-2006 by picklewalsh]

[edit on 9-1-2006 by picklewalsh]

Ah, well in a job position like that, entry level sale's rep. I could understand that. Such a position does require dressing for the job. It's good tho that you pointed out what you'd decide in a job that required qualifications.

Mashup,

Pointing finger's isn't nice.