Round 1: TheWayISeeIt vs enjoies05: : "Someone Is Tracking You"

The topic for this debate is "The Probable Benefits Of Mandatory Radio Frequency Identification Chip Implantation Outweigh The Probable Consequences."

TheWayISeeIt will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
enjoies05 will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit. Excess characters will be deleted prior to judging.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

Videos are not permitted. This includes all youtube links and other multi-media video sources.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.


[edit on 2/16/2009 by semperfortis]

Before we begin I would like to earnestly thank all of the Mods of the Debate forum, but with a special nod going out to Semperfortis and MemoryShock for being flexible about the last minute reorganization of this debate. The Mod responsibilities are great in this forum, not just in the obvious duties, but in the heavier, and more subtle, responsibility of our feelings of fairness. It is no small burden, but one that you guys consistently shoulder with deftness and grace.

A sincere shout-out of gratitude to the Judges for donating your valuable time to our efforts and helping us to become better Fighters. Readers, if you’re out there, it is my hope to entertain and enlighten as reward for your valuable time and with that said – let’s get this party started!


“The Probable Benefits Of Mandatory Radio Frequency Identification Chip Implantation Outweigh The Probable Consequences."

I will begin by saying that this is a great day for me, not only am I engaged in my first tournament debate, but find myself well and truly excited about exploring this fascinating and ‘far-reaching in its implications’ topic.

In order to investigate what the benefits of mandatory implantation of RFID technology would be, we will need to look at the myriad of applications that it has been, and is being, successfully used for.

We will also need to consider what the scope of the word ‘mandatory’ means in the context of the topic at hand. Mandatory for whom, and/or what, will be a big part of the conversation here. I do not assume when tackling this issue that we are exclusively talking about mandatory implantations for all humans. Although doubtless my opponent will try to limit the scope of the dialogue I will not allow for it, nor will California Law as of January 1, 2008

In the course of this debate I intend to argue that there is great benefit to mandatory implantation of RFID for many reasons, and in many varying scenarios, both in humans and in products that humans consume and use. But before we look at the many successes of this amazing technology, and debate the cost-benefit ratio of privacy issues around its varying implementations, let us get a brief overview of what RFI Devices are and how they work.


HOW THEY WORK


RFID chips use wireless technology to communicate data by way of signals in the RF range of the EM spectrum. Whatever data that needs to transmitted is stored in a microchip that is attached to an antenna. That chip is then packaged so that it can be attached to or, embedded in, people animals, products, etc. While there is some exploration in Nano-RFID applications the two most commonly used RFID tags, and consistently functional to date, are the tags which are known as passive and active.

Passive tags have no internal power supply. They function by converting radio frequency energy that is emitted from a ‘reader’ into signals that transmit whatever data is stored on them, typically no more than a few feet. These passive tags tend to have small amounts of data storage capability and are of limited use because the information they contain cannot be modified or changed. These types of tags are most commonly used for transportation of consumer products, anti-theft devices, product dating, etc.

In comparison, active RFID tags contain an internal battery which provides for: greater data storage, increased reliability and longer transmission ranges. This internal battery also allows for ‘on-tag’ data processing. It is the ability to internally process the data stored on these active tags, and their greater transmission range, that raises the issues of data confidentiality. These active devices are the ones that are being to be implemented in various forms if I.D. – passports, driver’s licenses, credit cards etc.


MANDATORY IMPLANTATION, A VERY GOOD IDEA

In the course of this debate I will show that the implementation of RFID technology that is already in use in our daily lives is vast, and of much greater benefit than any statistically minor issues than most of its applications have had. We will look at some of the areas where RFID is clearly beneficial to our quality of life and why we would all be better served if many kinds of mandatory implantation rules were in place.


HEALTH CARE


By implanting RFID chips in hospital ID bracelets as well as in perishables – plasma, blood supply, IV administered medications -- hospitals that implement this technology are now able to keep much better track of patients waiting times, locations in the hospital and ensure that patients are not sent into the wrong surgery. They are better able to, by bypassing the human-error element, to make sure that a patient is not receiving the wrong medication and that any temperature, freshness, blood compatibility issues and medical allergies are avoided. Babies are tracked from the moment they leave the mother’s womb, until the time that they leave the hospital.

While hospitals are not mandatorily required to implant RFID technology into patient’s wrist bands, given the obvious patient safety and improvement in the efficacy of the treatments, it is clearly an area where mandatory implantation would benefit all involved.


FOOD SAFETY


It was estimated in 2006 that 35 billion dollars in spoiled, wasted food would be saved annually if RFID technology was uniformly deployed. And while RFID is already used, with great success, in many as aspects of food growth, safety and transportation, due to the lack of mandatory implementation -- and for livestock, implantation -- we have a haphazard system in place that allows for many tainted, spoiled, mislabeled (organic) foods to be consumed by an unsuspecting public.


ENVIRONMENT


Mandatory implantation of RFID into devices of many kinds would significantly increase their ability to be successfully, and less expensively, recycled reducing environmental impact on a multitude of levels.


RECREATION AND SHOPPING


It’s important to have fun too, and in this economy to save as much money as possible while doing it. To that end, in the course of this debate, I will also show how the mandatory Implanting of RFID technology into a multitude of objects – objects that may not to be essential to our daily life, but certainly add to the quality of the experience – would be of benefit not only to our bank balance, but to our overall enjoyment of everyday existence.


With that said, I will now turn the page over to my esteemed opponent Enjoies05 and wish him the best of luck in our endeavor.

Hello..

A thank you to those that make these tournaments happen, and a good luck to TheWayISeeIt

"The Probable Benefits Of Mandatory Radio Frequency Identification Chip Implantation Outweigh The Probable Consequences."

My position in this ATS Debate is that the probable benefits of mandatory radio frequency identification chip implantation do not outweigh the probable consequences.

RFID chips can be a very useful piece of technology, as shown by my opponent. Since you gave an overview of these devices I won’t repeat it. But a mandatory implantation is not a good idea. There are consequences to these devices, and I feel they outweigh the benefits because they deal with the human‘s health, safety and privacy.

In my posts I will talk about the privacy risks, safety risks, and health risks that come from RFID chips.

I want to talk about the word mandatory too. Mandatory to me means you must get these RFID chips implanted. If it’s inside humans, in hospitals, tracking food, what have you. Everyone and everything. And I don’t feel like that California law has to do with this specific debate because we’re not talking about if it can actually happen, we are talking about the benefits and consequences if it did happen.

RFID chips may be beneficial for some products or inside some humans, but it should not be mandatory. And I will explain more in my following posts.

TheWayISeeIt…

I am invoking my 24 hr. extension.

From the below chart we can see that both the passive and active RFID technology is ubiquitously, and effectively, in use today. These are currently the most common areas of its usage:

PASSIVE RFID
• Drugs
• Other Healthcare
• Retail apparel
• Consumer goods
• Tires
• Postal
• Books
• Manufacturing parts, tools
• Archiving (documents/samples)
• Military
• Retail CPG Pallet/case
• Smart cards/payment key fobs
• Smart tickets
• Air baggage
• Conveyances/Rollcages/ULD/Totes
• Animals
• Vehicles
• People (excluding other sectors)
• Passport page/secure documents
• Other tag applications


ACTIVE RFID / BATTERY-ASSISTED
• Pharma/Healthcare
• Cold retail supply chain
• Consumer goods
• Postal
• Manufacturing parts, tools
• Archiving (samples)
• Military
• Retail CPG Pallet/case
• Shelf Edge Labels
• Conveyances/Rollcages/ULD/Totes
• Vehicles
• People (excluding other sectors)
• Car clickers
• Other tag applications

Link

To get a more comprehensive picture of how the two types of tags are used and the sheer scope of their number:





All signs and estimates point to the applications of RFID being expanded exponentially over the next eight years as ever more of the private sector embraces this technology for not only its ability to save time and money, but to benefit the end-consumer by making the experience of their respective products safer, cheaper and/or more convenient.





SQ1 – Do you agree that use of RFID technology is currently widespread in the developed world?

SQ2 – Do you agree that use of RFID technology will keep rising as ever more private industries embrace the cost-benefit-ratio they enjoy by employing it?

Answers to SQ’s

1. Going by the chart and graph you posted, I would say yes. I agree they are widespread.

2. I agree that the use of RFID chips will rise in private industries.

Now I would like to get into the risks the come from using RFID chips.

My opponent mentioned the use of RFID chips in hospitals. A study published in Journal of the American Medical Association showed that RFID chips caused interference with some medical equipment. A number were hazardous.

The researchers used two types of RFID equipment, active and passive.

The results showed that:
In 123 tests (3 per medical device), RFID induced 34 incidents.
Of these, 22 were classified as hazardous, 2 as significant, and 10 as light.

Article

While there are benefits, there can also be costly consequences.



There is also the big issue of privacy.
In stores RFID chips can track individuals’ purchases. A store with a RFID scanner could log people’s past purchases and shopping patterns. People could be tracked and profiled. Their information stored without them being aware of it, or it could be sold to a third party. It is like your online information being sold to another website.

RFID scanners are easy to obtain. What is to stop somebody from getting one and hiding it in a store. You may be alright with a company having your information, but it also could be unknowingly to the person who put the scanner there.

If a person does not want to be tracked or profiled through the purchases they make, what can they do if it’s mandatory for the stores to implant these chips in their goods?



Socratic Question 1. Right now, would you be willing to use RFID chips in every way you mentioned that affects you? In the products you buy, the stores you enter, implanted in your body?

SQ 2. Do you agree with the risk of privacy issues that come with RFID chips?

SQ 3. Would you be comfortable with a store making a profile of you through your purchases?

Socratic Question 1. Right now, would you be willing to use RFID chips in every way you mentioned that affects you? In the products you buy, the stores you enter, implanted in your body?

ANSWER - I will answer the part of the SQ that actually references what you say I referenced, and ignore that which I did not. I most certainly, as do you, purchase products that have RFID chips in them, so yes.


SQ 2. Do you agree with the risk of privacy issues that come with RFID chips?

ANSWER - That question is not specific enough to answer Socratically as you have offered no evidence to support the basic contention. You imply that people are, or could, put scanners into stores, thus stealing data from people. I don’t know about that, and it is not my place to argue it. What I have presented thus far is how widespread RFID is in many areas of everyday life. If you would like to show some evidence of your assertions then we can start to look at statistics instead of personal fears and hypothetical scenarios.


SQ 3. Would you be comfortable with a store making a profile of you through your purchases?”

ANSWER - Yes, as stores already profile me, you and most everyone else through our purchases. Do you have a card for your grocery store that gives you discounts at the register? Do you have a ‘smart pass’ for gas stations, toll roads? Do you shop online? Ever buy a book at Amazon? Use Netflix, Gamefly, Tivo etc.? Ever you use a store credit card when making purchases?

These questions are rhetorical to the make point that the answer is going to be yes for the vast majority of the legal U.S. population. This in turn makes the concern for consumer shopping privacy a moot issue as we have already ‘lost’ that. And I would argue that many people gladly give that level of privacy up because it improves their consumer experience by allowing the Vendor to make suggestions to them based on their previous purchases (i.e. recommendation lists) as well as opportunities for discounts in products they actually use or are interested in purchasing.


Now allow me to address my one of my opponents other concerns.

If a person does not want to be tracked or profiled through the purchases they make, what can they do if it’s mandatory for the stores to implant these chips in their goods?

A person could request regulation by the city/state/country governments on the implanting of these devices that the private sector is making mandatory. If these laws were enacted even on a local level it would generate legal exposure on behalf of the vendor if they did not comply.

(See my Opening where I referenced the California Law that passed making it illegal for employers to require mandatory implants of employees, avoiding that particular issue on a State level all together. )

Now imagine if California, or even Los Angeles County, passed a law saying that all of these implanted (mostly into tags) passive/active RFID chips had to give the consumer the option of disabling them at the point-of-purchase. That would allow the Vendor to get the benefit they are enjoying from this technology on the manufacturing and retail level, but would also address your concerns and would, I will argue, encourage them to make this a business wide mandate in the selling of their products.

Businesses want to utilize this technology because it is such an asset in manufacture and retail, but do not want to alienate the end consumer. I will show one example of the ongoing conversation in the various business communities where they are sincerely trying to address this problem.

Below, an excerpt and a link to a 12 page study which is titled and was published by bnet (business net). It is titled:

“CONSUMER CONCERNS REGARDING RFID PRIVACY: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY “

RFID may not be new to the military but its use in business is rather recent but definitely growing. A number of studies have assessed consumers attitudes toward this new technology and privacy however, as its use rises among businesses, a current assessment of consumer attitudes is needed. The purpose of the study was to assess consumers' level of awareness and attitudes towards RFID and its use in business.

1


HEALTH CARE

The article which my opponent linked to in his previous post -- that parsed a 2008 study which was published in JAMA -- ended by saying :

The authors concluded that: "In a controlled nonclinical setting, RFID induced potentially hazardous incidents in medical devices."

They recommended that: " Implementation of RFID in the critical care environment should require on-site EMI [electromagnetic interference] tests and updates of international standards."

Did they recommend that RFID be removed from the ‘critical care environment’ (the study focused on critical care devices) of a hospital? No, they did not. Why? Because of the enormous and obvious advantages that RFID allows for in the Hospital setting, which, it would seem, far outweigh the statistically lesser concerns. And what else does this study indicate given that conclusion? That regulation and mandatory implanting of RFID in patient ID bracelets are both be a very good idea.

To be thorough and to clearly illustrate the typical benefits of RFID in a hospital setting, I will use the last of my ‘external sentences’:

... "CGMH implemented the RFID system in its operating rooms to improve patient safety by verifying and positively identifying patients, gathering real-time data, reducing risk of wrong-site and/or wrong-patient surgery, and ensuring compliance with hospital patient safety procedures or standard operating procedures. Since the implementation, CGMH has achieved 100% accuracy in patient ID in the OR. The new RFID system automates many manual functions of the previous operating room processes. The system helps verify that the five rights of medication safety are met - right patient, medication, dose, time, and route - as well as right surgery and surgical site. Automating patient data verification processes has saved CGMH medical staff an average of 4.3 minutes per patient. Also, automated data collection has helped prevent common manual data entry mistakes, which if gone undetected could lead to medical errors." ...

2



FOOD SUPPLY

We eat globally, so much so that I doubt there is a pantry or fridge in the U.S. that does not have at least one item from another country in it. At a time when we are beginning to see regular nationwide recalls of dangerously tainted food products it is hard to understate how beneficial mandatory implanting of RFID technology into various foodstuffs and supply chains at point-of-origin would be.

By simply mandating that RFID technology is implanted and used in the entire supply chain of food manufacturing we could not only save money, but lives.

To make this point, let’s consider a cake mix; i.e. flour from one country, sugar from another, powdered milk from a third. These could all very conceivably end up in a cake mix at your local grocers.

Now let’s say that one of these items is tainted by one shipment, of many, of any of the ingredients that was sent to the manufacture of said cake mix. As it stands now, without mandatory RFID tracking, but the more conventional use of barcodes, the cake mix maker is most likely going to have to recall ALL OF HIS PRODUCTS, stop manufacture and most likely be unable to know which specific shipment of the supplier’s deliveries was tainted.

In turn the supplier’s original tainted shipment, of… let’s go ahead and say flour, would not only have gone to that cake mix manufacturer, but to a plethora of other Vendors. So even if the unnecessary total recall serves to take the only partially tainted cake mix supply entirely off the market, the flour is still very conceivably floating around to many other manufacturers and, in turn, sickening ever more people.

If mandatory RFID was implanted at point-of-origin in the shipments of each of these items to the manufacturer, who in turn employed RFID in his final product which stored all of the shipment data, he would know exactly which supply of flour it was, where those boxes of cake mix were sent to and would only have to recall those. He could in turn, notify the flour supplier of the issue who could in turn notify all of his other Vendors. Thus time, money and lives are saved.



SQ 1 – Has the widespread use of RFID chips ever impacted you, or anyone you persoanlly know, negatively?

SQ 2 – Do you acknowledge that the benefits of RFID use in hospitals outweighs its disadvantages?

SQ 3 – Do you agree that the RFID ‘cake mix’ recall scenario is superior to the one that is currently, and for the moment, most commonly, in place?

SQ 4 – If not why?

Answers to opponent’s SQ’s

1. I can’t say that it has.

2. There are a number of benefits. RFID chips in hospitals could save lives, but also cost lives if equipment malfunctions. But if you’re going by number of benefits compared to number of risks, you could say yes, benefits outweigh the risks. But they both deal with human lives, so I think both are important.

3. Yes.

This in turn makes the concern for consumer shopping privacy a moot issue as we have already ‘lost’ that.

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.

And I don’t think every person would be willing to get up their privacy. But they would have to with mandatory implantations.



Your personal information can be at risk with RFID chips. Information on passports, for example, can be copied and used in a forged passport.

Using his own software, a publicly available programming code, a £40 card reader and two £10 RFID chips, Mr van Beek took less than an hour to clone and manipulate two passport chips to a level at which they were ready to be planted inside fake or stolen paper passports.

'Fakeproof' e-passport is cloned in minutes

This could be used by criminals as well as terrorists. Terrorists overseas could scan passports looking for Americans to target.


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.



Tracking Humans

This is from an IBM patent, filled in 2001 that shows how humans can be tracked by RFID chips implanted on a good they have on them.

. The RFID tag information collected from the person is correlated with transaction records stored in the transactiondatabase to determine the exact identity of the person, or some characteristic about the person. Then, as that person moves around the store, different RFID tag scanners located throughout the store can pick up radio signals from the RFID tags carriedon that person and the movement of that person is tracked based on these detections.

Source

This same idea could be used to track people anywhere. Not only by stores, but by the government, or criminals. Everyone could be tracked if RFID implants are made mandatory.



Another consequences could be health problems for humans implanted with RFID chips. A series of studies should that RFID implant induced tumors in some lab mice (USA Today Article). This is not saying that everyone with a chip implanted in them is at risk for a tumor, but it is a concern.



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.



SQ 1 - Do agree that a mandatory RFID chip implantation would give criminals more opportunities to steal information from people?

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.
1


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.

2


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.

3

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.

As I stated earlier, many, if not most, people gladly give up portions of their privacy

But that is a choice they make. Going back to your point about getting profiled by store cards, online shopping and things. Are you forced to use a store card? I don't think so. You could use cash, the last way to buy and sell anonymously. Until RFID chips are mandatory in dollar bills, and the movement of cash can be tracked from person to person.

Some people wouldn't want to give up their privacy for convenience. What stores should do is have products that have RFID chips and also have products that do not. Not mandatory, but by choice of the store owner. People shouldn't be forced to buy products with RFID chips.




RFID chips in tires would have a unique number associated with the car's VIN. The benefit is for the manufacturer, but the consequence is that your car's tires can broadcast your every move.

RFID chips don't know who it is sending the information on it to. Any information a company's scanner is sent, a criminal's scanner can be sent too.



Companies hide these risks under the idea of personalized advertising, recommended products, and things like that. When a consumer hears about these benefits they don't think about how they are just giving out their information. If a person came up to you and asked for your name and a list of everything you purchased, would you tell them? That's what RFID chips do. They tell anyone who wants to know. And criminals have access to the tools needed. Scanners can be bought or made. Searching the internet you can find articles that show how to make extended range scanners.

If you were walking around a city, would you want to tell someone everywhere you've been? Scanners don't need to be placed every couple of inches, but only in certain spots, like store entrences or street corners, giving the person who put the scanners information on everywhere you went. The same idea could track you in a car.


RFID chips could also be connected to a database that hold an unlimited amount of data. Serial numbers in RFID chips can be used as a reference number that corresponds to a internet database which could keep an unlimited amount of information about an individual.




The privacy risk not only happens after a consumer leaves the store with the good that has the RFID chip, but also inside the store. In a bookstore, for example, with RFID chips the owner of the store can tell how long a person has looked at a certain book, and the range of books the person has looked through, without them knowing. This would also violate the Fair Information Practice Principles

We need to keep in mind that there are no Universal Scanners (Readers).

I am not so sure. I've found articles on a few universal scanners.
Digital Angel Introduces New Universal RFID Scanner For Companion Pet Market is a universal scanner used for the pet market.

And also, ThingMagic tracks success with universal RFID reader

The technology is not that far away.

In the course of this debate we have learned that it is the private sector that is mandating the implantation of RFID technology and that it is already in widespread use and at work in our daily lives. We have heard from my opponent who readily admits that not only is this the case, but that this exposure has never impacted his, or anyone he knows, in a negative fashion. We have also clearly seen the benefits of this technology in various settings and how its implementation is saving time, money and lives.

We have heard some murmurs from my opponent about the potential for misuse and abuse of this technology in regards to privacy, but we have yet to see any solid real-world evidence to substantiate his personal concerns. In his last statement my opponent linked to a site that was talking about universal scanners that can read all kinds of pet tags; I am able to remain unalarmed and unable to see what the point is besides the fact that if my dog is lost the chances of her recovery are increased by this wonderful new development in RFID readers and will thank him for pointing out yet another benefit of implanting this amazing technology.

He then linked to an article about a company called ThingMagic which is, or was in 2006, developing a reader that could universally read RFID using open standard software applications. It is unclear if they are still in business as all of their website links are now going to RoadRunner. So, once again, I find myself unalarmed by the allusion of these ‘jumped to’ conclusions. 1

While I will certainly agree that this technology raises privacy concerns, I will reiterate that there are personal privacy implications in virtually every type of new technology that we are seeing in this age, many which do not easily demonstrate a privacy-to-benefit ratio we see with RFID. The proliferation of CCTV monitoring being an obvious example of how, by simply stepping out of your door – especially if you live in an urban environment, or London in particular -- you are surrendering your right to physical privacy with no obvious personal benefits.

CCTV Boom has Failed to Slash Crime, say Police



I have to say this has been an interesting debate for me. I came to it not knowing much of anything about RFID and its various uses and applications, but did have an instinctive bias towards it that was other than the position I was assigned to argue. This bias was uninformed and during the course of this debate, as I have been required to become more knowledgeable on the topic, I have learned that far from being something we should fear RFID should be embraced for its many benefits.

I have also learned that the ‘genie is out of the bottle’ as it is the private sector that has mandated RFID implantation globally, for years now, with no signs of stopping. To the contrary RFID use is experiencing, and is anticipated to keep experiencing, exponential growth on a global scale. And while I do believe -- and believe I have proved -- that the benefits clearly outweigh the consequences, I also believe that a little bit of regulation by governments would be able to dramatically decrease the somewhat legitimate privacy concerns surrounding the technology.

The thing to keep in mind about RFID is that it is overwhelmingly used to keep track of items during the process of manufacturing and transport of things that are created to be purchased. If consumer privacy laws were enacted at the point-of-purchase allowing for the disabling of these chips to those who were so inclined, we would be left with the technology in its purest form. And in its purest form RFID is a technology that surely makes the world we live in one of greater convenience and safety.

Thanks to my opponent and the Moderators for the opportunity to learn about that which I did not know, and to the Judges for their time and consideration.


TWISI

RFID chips have many benefits, but the consequences outweigh them. A mandatory implantation would put too much information at risk. Private information that criminals want access to.

Saving money or getting personalized advertisements isn't worth the consequence of putting everyone's information at risk, tracking humans without them knowing, and profiling people without them knowing.

There are places where RFID chips can have great benefits, like hospitals. If this is the case have RFID chips in hospitals, but not everywhere and on everything.

I have also learned a lot about these devices during this debate. I never thought about if they were in the products I buy or in the clothes I wear, and because of that I never knew if they had impacted by in a negative way. Now I know if RFID chips were made mandatory, I could be tracked or profiled easily.

The links to the scanners were to show that the technology of a "universal scanner" isn't far off, because my opponent mentioned there were none of them.

Information being stolen from RFID chips isn't a concern to just me. It is also a concern to California and Washington, who both passed laws making it a felony or a crime to steal information from a RFID chip.

Article

The law sets a penalty that includes a maximum fine of US$1,500 and up to a year in prison for someone convicted of surreptitiously reading information from an RFID card.

Earlier this year, Washington became the first state to pass a law against theft of RFID data. Washington makes it a class C felony to steal data from an RFID card specifically for the purpose of fraud, identity theft or other illegal purposes.

Judgment Time

Semper

And the Winner is......

TheWayISeeIt
Opening was very thorough and gave a great overview of the topic at hand. Really came strong out of the gate with the openly reply and has set the bar high for his opponent to come back quick.

enjoies

A very brief opening but I give credit for the approach that has been taken. A smart move to tacke the mandatory component of the debate, not the RFID chips. As this debate evolves, this strategy could prove to be wise.

After reading the openings, I give the current upper hand to TheWayISeeIt.

For TheWayISeeIt's first rebuttal, I'm very disappointed. After a very strong opening, I was expecting a lot and was left wondering. The list he quoted was merely a copy paste and same with the chart. Seems like no effort was made to further his position. While important information was presented, I think TWISI may have let one get away from him here. (assuming gender, my apologies)

For enjoies first rebuttal, again disappointed. While the approach he has taken is certainly the more strategic, I feel there were plenty of openings for him to pounce and he let them slide. Quoting the hazards was wise and raises a point yet to be addressed by his opponent. These hazards are something that his opponent will need to refute if he wishes to gain the upper hand.

This round to enjoies. After 2 posts each, we are even.
TWISI's second response has put him back on track. Very thorough and really cutting through the meat of his opponent's position. I felt he could have done more to respond to the socratic questions and took the easy way out. Responding to these questions is a major factor in deciding who has put their best foot forward and wiggling out from the questions isn't a wise move.

But aside from the socratic questions, this was a great reply that has put his opponent back against the wall.
enjoies bringing up the criminal exploits of such a system was again a wise move and a strategic one. But after reading the post, I'm not convinced he did enough to topple the previous reply of his opponent. I thought it was a good reply, but he could have done more. He touches on some key points to this debate, but it's just that.. he only touched on them. His opponent is being much more thorough on the points he references and it is beginning to show.

This round to TWISI.

TWISI's third rebuttal is one of his best. His concession of the risk was very wise as it was a logical and strategic move. But in conceding the point, he moved forward with several points that his opponent will be in tough to refute. TWISI seems to be taking his time in making his position while giving very little for his opponent to respond to. Unless enjoies comes back very strong in his next reply, I see TWISI beginning to pull away.

enjoies offers another strong reply and does a good job on furthering his position. But at this point it is clear that his efforts are coming up short. While he is making a strong case for his own position, too much has gone unrefuted and too little substantiated on his own end. enjoies continues to say that "people won't want it" but doesn't spend enough time supporting why they won't.

Closings were both good and both fighters were impressive in this debate.

But I give the win to TheWayISeeIt by a somewhat safe margin.

Round 1: TheWayISeeIt vs enjoies05: : "Someone Is Tracking You"

Victor: TheWayISeeIt

Subjectively this judge agreed primarily with the standpoint of enjoies05 in this debate, but unfortunately feels forced out of an obligation to objectivity to cast in favour of TheWayISeeIt. It becomes, though, somewhat difficult to remain objective when writing the required paragraphs explaining why I believe TheWayISeeIt to be victorious.

Nevertheless, it appeared to me – going by the most common judgement criteria – that enjoies05 (even though he argued well, in my opinion) was not fully able to deal with the efficacy of their opponent's argument and calculated Socratic questions. Therefore I have cast my vote in favour of TheWayISeeIt, because that is the way that I see it.

TheWayISeeIt!!!!

Congratulations!!!!!!

Thank you Judges for taking the time to render a verdict. Judge 1, I am a woman and Judge 2, I'm with you I would not have liked to give it to me either.

Thanks to Semper and all debate Mods, but most of all thanks to Enjoies for debating with me.

Be happy if you can!
TWISI