So since there is already a privacy issue the people should just give up their privacy altogether? That’s not the way to go. That is what leads to
more and more invasions of your privacy until you have none left.
It remains to be seen if it is indeed an ‘issue’. As I stated earlier, many, if not most, people gladly give up portions of their privacy for the
benefits they in turn receive i.e. recommendations for new items that would be of interest based on previous purchases, discounts and rebate offers,
targeted advertising, etc.
And I don’t think every person would be willing to get up their privacy. But they would have to with mandatory implantations.
I am not sure I am following your point here. Exactly which part of their privacy they would have to ‘give up’ would be based on which
mandatorily implanted RFID applications they were exposed to.
If we revisit the hospital scenario, we see that:
a) The ‘privacy’ that is being given up in that scenario is negligible as there is no privacy per se in hospitals.
b) And we clearly have an example where the probable benefits outweigh the probable consequences, which you have already conceded, and where privacy
is not being impinged upon.
Your personal information can be at risk with RFID chips. Information on passports, for example, can be copied and used in a forged passport.
Granted, a point I will concede, but I will also point out that my personal information is currently at risk from the magnetic strip on my CA
driver’s license (S.S.# is on it) and the magnetic strip also allows for greater potential it to be forged.
Another example of how we regularly expose ourselves to forgery and identity theft: In every MD’s office or hospital I, you, or anyone else has
been to in the U.S. it is mandatory that to give one’s S.S. # before one can receive service. This is low-tech exposure as it is numbers on paper,
but gives anyone who is interested enough info to ‘steal my identity’.
Furthermore, the threat of forged passports is not new due to RFID technology.
It is without question now harder
to create a phony (RFID enabled) passport, than the old plain paper ones as you now have to alter the chip
and, based on the information in your link, steal or fake the legitimate paper passports
in order to embed the altered chip. So what we have
here is an added step that, even when it fails in its promise, makes it harder to pass a forged document.
They promised full-proof security with RFID. They have not yet achieved it, and again, based on your link that is because not all of the countries
participating are using the ‘PKD Reader’. If they did, it appears, as per your link, the issue would be resolved.
In passports, licenses, clothes, anything that has RFID chips implanted in them, your information is being broadcast to anyone that has an RFID
reader. To good people and bad people. And if it was made mandatory there would be no alternative.
That statement is oversimplified and the threat is overstated. Here’s why:
a) RFID chips in my clothes would not
begin their journey with my personal information on them. RFID is used in retail environments to track
inventory. When the chip is implanted the manufacturer does not know who is going to buy the item.
b ) If I return to the store wearing an item I purchased there, that has an embedded RFID tag, its scanners will recognize
the product and
possibly me. This depends on if the store assigns the info they have available for me on the item I purchased to the RFID chip. This info would be,
at the most, my name and previous purchases from that store
c) The store has no upside attaching my payment information onto the chip as it would cause for unnecessary legal exposure and there is no discernable
profit or benefit for them to track that info. (Major chains are now desperately trying to resolve wireless network issues they have where it has
been found that c.c. payment info is being broadcast as they have a lack of network security and have opened themselves to lawsuits becuase of it).
Once again, I must use the end of your sourced link which sums up with:
In these embodiments, the tracking information can be used to provide targeted advertising to the person as the person roams through the store, or to
analyze and improve existing store systems, such as the physical layout of the store, advertisement displays in the store, customer service systems in
the store, lighting and other environmental settings in the store system, etc.
An intrusion of ‘privacy’ perhaps, but a benign one.
It is critical to keep in mind that the chips and whatever data is assigned to them in thier journey from manufacturing to point-of-purchase are only
functional when in the vicinity of a READER and each reader will have its own unique function, code and database that serves the merchant. The
GAP’s readers, will not be Starbucks, nor will they be operating with the same code or the same database.
Now let us consider the obvious benefits of RFID in the retail environment. This is a statement from David Bergen Snr VP of Levi Strauss discussing
an RFID pilot they first tried in Mexico City:
Bergen said the store was being plagued by ``shrinkage,'' and that doesn't mean the jeans were getting smaller. But the inventory was. Once each
pair of pants was tagged, shrinkage went down to zero, inventory management went from something that was done once a month to something that happened
every 20 minutes and the whole experiment has been deemed an unqualified success.
So we have a company that is clearly saving money, which means it makes more money, which means it is more successful, which means it is much more
likely to generate more jobs.
So once again we see the ‘probable benefits of mandatory RFID implantation, outweighing the probable consequences’.
RFID Chips and Guns
Guns would most likely be affected by mandatory RFID chip implantations. Again, with the information being broadcast to anyone with a scanner, a
criminal could find out the information of the person who owns the gun, and identify someone who is carrying a concealed firearm.
I am unclear which type of ‘scanner’ this would be. We need to keep in mind that there are no Universal Scanners (Readers). The RFID has to be
programmed to a Reader with a specific set of code for a specific purpose.
And as an aside, ummm…. What would be so detrimental about a criminal knowing I was carrying a concealed weapon? One assumes it would serve as a
deterrent, and would therefore be beneficial
As to people choosing to have RFID implanted, the only place I found where this is beginning to become a ‘common’ occurrence is in Mexico as the
threat of kidnapping is increasing for the wealthy there.
Affluent Mexicans, terrified of soaring kidnapping rates, are spending thousands of dollars to implant tiny transmitters under their skin so
satellites can help find them tied up in a safe house or stuffed in the trunk of a car.
Clearly, to the people choosing to implant RFID technology in this instance, the probable benefits outweigh the probable consequences, but since no
one anywhere is mandating that people get implanted with RFID it does not fully address our topic.
SQ 1 - Do agree that a mandatory RFID chip implantation would give criminals more opportunities to steal information from people?
Yes, but not anymore so than dozens of other new and emerging technologies. And I will add that I think that the majority of those technologies are,
and will remain, far easier to criminally exploit.