You’re next
I wasn’t sure how my commentary on RFID and the nature of liberty would do in PC Magazine. Thus far the comments are fantastic. This columns should have some legs and maybe make people more aware of these intolerable people-tracking technologies.
Here is one of the great comments within the forum:
Proponents say the RFIDs are only readable at about six inches. Bull. It has been shown that with the correct receiver antennae you can read an RFID 40 feet or more away. Toll transponders regularly read from 30 feet or more. I don’t need to say how easy theives will find that to steal your card info. Governments will start using it to track your movements. Let’s face it, we are only a few years (at most) away from speeding tickets by mail. Photoradar is commonplace and all they have to do to see if you are speeding with RFID is measure the time traveled between tollbooths right now. Police will be able to point an antenna at you and read your driver’s license without even taking it out of your wallet. Jaywalking? Rollerblading on the sidewalk? Instant ticket. The officer doesn’t even need to stop you. I’m sure they will pass some law to make it illegal to block the RFID with a shielded wallet eventually.
This is a dangerous realm that our government officials are moving us to.
Benjamin Franklin said it best “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
I can assure you that the government in Singapore is taking careful notes seeing all this as a good idea.
A very good and timely article. Kudos! It is frightening that government use of technology such as this could appear so attractive to so many. Your (also mine and at least some others) opinion may very well be the minority viewpoint. Too many people feel that Big Brother should have EVERY available tool to use as it sees fit and personal rights be damned. Good luck to our children and grandchildren.
Sorry to wander OT; but, comparing trucks rolling through toll stations to questions about RFID tags — is even further away from the topic. The trucks are carrying transponders comparable to those used on airplanes.
comparing trucks rolling through toll stations to questions about RFID tags
You have to remember that John is in Cali – where they have “FastPass” for passenger cars to pay to use Express lanes
Tracking technology is tracking technology. RFID, transponder, cell-phone triangulation, GPS…what matters the science behind it when they all are equally tempting to abuse? You split hairs over the technology mentioned instead of paying attention to the real topic which is the potential for Orwellian abuse by government in the name of security. Some technologies make that true underlying problem just too easy for those who wish to control others.
Illinois has gone one step further. They are making sure everyone signs up for the tracking by making manual tolls double the amount of the IPASS lanes. To my knowledge, there are no anonymous tags that you refill like DC subway cards.
Methuss, read the bloody post! I said it was off topic, fer cryin’ out loud.
You make me chuckle. Especially, since I’m probably one of the few folks, here, who’s ever participated in [and won] a suit against part of our benevolent government for illegal spying on it’s citizens.
You sound like you think this is a new worry in our “free” nation. I was part of a class action over 30 years ago — a couple thousand folks sued a local city administration, the police department, our Telco and the FBI for illegal wiretapping, according to pre-Patriot Act standards, of course. It took several years; but, we won the entire case. One of America’s favorite Republicans in a Democrat suit was part of the case — Joe Lieberman. He was just a Young Dem, then. I wonder if he would support such a suit, today?
Yeah, I have some perception of the problem.
I worry about how concerned the majority of Americans are about their personal freedoms.
When I think about the last time I went through airport security, I am struck by two things:
1. The number of people who took their shoes off, without prompting, because it might be required – or might make the screening process go faster.
2. The number of fingernail files/clippers and other “prohibited items” that are regularly being confiscated – as if a large number of people “didn’t get the memo” before coming to the airport.
With significant numbers of people apparently being sheep and/or clueless – I am worried it will take a large-magnitude wake-up call to get the majority of Americans concerned about the potential abuses of RFID.
As a technically-orientated person, I “get” how useful the tags can be for legitimate purposes (inventory control, etc) – but I am still leary of the historical lag-times between when a new technology is released, abuses are developed, and safeguards are put in place.
It looks like abuses are ready-and-waiting for the release of RFID, but the safeguards are rather vague.
As John quoted,
Benjamin Franklin said it best “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
The technology is being used on people already; have you ever heard of an electronic bracelet? We accept that use because they are only used on bad guys. You know, the ones that are innocent until proven guilty. Are our children next; just to make sure that they are in school and safe, of course. How about using them on Alzheimer patients? Then maybe everyone entering a Federal Building would be made to wear one while on the premises. Of course, driver licenses could be made to incorporate them…After all, only those with something to hide wouldn’t want to wear one.
Ed, I congratulate you on your stand many years ago. I am afraid though that times have changed so much that you would not be able to do that again.
Mike, people take their shoes off probably because it is required. Most likely they had to go through a personal search once, and that was the end of that. I’m looking for a good brand of non-metal shoes right now.
You;ve forgotten some of the bigger tracking/anti-privacy deals. Everyone’s health records are going to be handed out for research purposes, and the health care ID card has been passed into law but not yet funded. Also, the Census forces people to aswer all sorts of questions that researchers want to know about. I’d also throw in John McCain and company asking Mark McGwire about steroids.
Benjamin Franklin said it best “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
I am so sick of this quote. Franklin was talking about those who would choose Monarchy over Democracy, the Divine right of Kings over people’s self-determination.
He wasn’t talking about balancing the freedoms of society with the state’s duty to provide law and order.
Maybe Singapore will put RFIDs in packets of gum, so they can track the terrorists. 🙂
Actually, they could mix a chemical (or nuclear) compound into the gum that would have a unique signature for each packet. Then they could analyse the illegally discarded wads of gum and track them back to their source packet. Then thanks to gum control laws, the person who had to register for a gum license and wait 5 days before they could get their gum, would be in a database of purchases that links them to the particular packet. Another terrorist plot foiled!
Benjamin Franklin said it best “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
T.C. so what is your point? I cannot remember the background to the quote, and, actually in this case it doesn’t matter.
The quote is apt and fits quite well into the discussion. It is concise, yet very powerful. There is a warning that everyone should heed because you don’t necessarily get what you wished for, but what you deserve.
And an FYI. The concept of the Devine Right of Kings was abandoned after the English Civil War and the execution of Charles I. When his son, Charles II, regained the throne he denounced the concept of Devine Right to the English Parliament. So Franklin could not have been referring to the Devine Right of Kings as it was established English law for over 120 years.
So certain you are, TC Moore, that you think it still does not apply? Well here’s one more specific for you by John Adams:
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”
From wikiquote.org:
This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document. Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson to be the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it could well have been Franklin.
I thought the author, whoever it was, referred to Loyalists during the Revolution, who would rather stay loyal to the King in order to protect their wealth and position, than make a clean break and stand firm with the countrymen for the good of all the colonies. Apparently the quote predates that.
From wikiquote.org:
This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document. Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson to be the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it could well have been Franklin.
I thought the author, whoever it was, referred to Loyalists during the Revolution, who would rather stay loyal to the King in order to protect their wealth and position, than make a clean break and stand firm with the countrymen for the good of all the colonies. Apparently the quote predates that.
It seems the key words in Franklin’s quote are the qualifiers that go with it: ESSENTIAL liberty, vs TEMPORARY safety.
Absolutists overlook that aspect, and use the quote to bolster their claim that any compromise with respect to our civil liberties is unacceptable, always.
Maybe we are in a time of hightened threat, when reasonable powers the police probably should have anyway should be granted in order to increase our long-term security. I speak specifically of the Patriot Act and Roving Wiretaps (for cell phones) and National Search Warrants. Reasonable compromises to cut red tape and increase the chance of catching criminals and terrorists in a new era of paper cell phones and easy travel. Do we give up something Essential here?
However, I totally agree with the Adams quote. The centralizing of power and decision making in the hands of the Attorney General — and potentially with FBI agents themselves with “administrative warrants” — is very dangerous. It’s unconservative, I don’t support those aspects of the Patriot act, and I’m disappointed that more conservatives have not rose up in opposition. “What happens when the appointee or elected body is Democratic (or a Messianic nut)?” should really be the watchword for the right-wing today.
With regard to RFID, those of you who think the state is already Orwellian are too far gone. Laws and regulations govern the conduct of our government, despite the hysteria surround the Bush Administration.
It’s just technology. We decide what we do with it. And directly or indirectly, that is completely within our power.
Arguing against RFID is a waste of time. The savings benefit for companies and customers is too high. You’re talking about instant inventory for small and large companies, going to the grocery store and getting a total without emptying your cart, etc. How are you going to get that banned? At best you can require companies turn off all RFID after purchase. As usual the potential government uses are the bigger problem.
T.C.
Thank you for the research on the quote. I was unfamiliar with its origin’s.
My point with the first post was that there may be many legitimate uses but where do you draw the line. They may be used as electronic monitors for those on bail, or to monitor senile walkers with safety in mind. But at what point would use by ALL citizens be required.
As other posts suggested, they might be used so law enforcement could automatically send you a ticket through the mail or to see if your license was expired / suspended. Or maybe, they could be used so the government would know exactly WHERE you were and WHO you were with at every moment. In George Orwell’s book, 1984, the government depended upon microphones and cameras to keep tabs on all of the citizens. Could you imagine the cost saving to the taxpayer if they had electronic monitors that would do the same thing?
So giving up a little ESSENTIAL liberty for TEMPORARY safety might not be a bad idea. And I am being sarcastic with that last line.
As an example of where a useful idea of monitoring people has gotten out of hand, I suggest you read the blog here about the Illinois man now a registered sex offender for grabbing a girl’s arm.
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2283
RFIDs may be a good idea for inanimate objects, or even livestock and pets, but not people. The same as cloning sheep and other livestock may have advantages, ethics demand not with people.
You’re probably right about administrative warrants, but how is that different from the use of subpoenas to get credit card or bank information? If this is truly a war on terror, then I would want the agents and actions involved to be secretive.