BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

First case of implants in private employees in US

  
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
19:16 / 21.02.06
i can't imagine anything so important as to necessitate implants.

any thoughts on where this may take us in our rush to secure everything?

--not jack
 
 
Mistoffelees
19:41 / 21.02.06
That´s scary. And it´s life imitates art. There is a new comic by Vertigo called Testament , that had this as a topic.

People get tagged like sheep in a herd. And there´ll be arguments like "Why not? You got something to hide? It´s for the greater good!".

And the argument, that "it can be used to locate the victims of kidnapping" doesn´t hold. If these chips are common, that´d be the first thing, the kidnapper will remove.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
19:51 / 21.02.06
Well I found this:

The chips can also be implanted in hospital patients, especially children and people who are mentally ill.

and this:

For a while, a school in California toyed with the idea of implanting the chips in all its pupils.

very disturbing.

However, tempting as it is to go on about how repulsive these implants seem to me, I think it's important to stress that as a middle class white with a comfy life, I have jack all to worry about regarding my rights, at least for the immediate future.

The people whose rights are going to be impinged upon first are those incapable of defending themselves- the very old, the young, and people who don't fit in: criminals, aylum seekers, mental health patients or any number of other stations.

In many ways this is linked to the ID Cards strategy: trying to dress up a control mechanism as a safety mechanism.
 
 
ShadowSax
20:06 / 21.02.06
human nature apparently demands the abuse of power. i could see these going into children at birth in order to control all the bad things in life that need controlling: child abductions, drug abuse, getting lost in the mall, but then of course when that information is out there, it will be abused.

the challenge is for legislators to keep up to speed on new technologies and create useful laws that maintain basic freedoms while taking advantage of worthwhile potentials. this might mean we need either 12-yr-old geek legislators or constituents that are more interested in long-term freedoms than in who can create the flashier tv advertising. neither is likely.

so the human race rapes itself again. woo-hoo!
 
 
johngault22
20:32 / 21.02.06
As a person with paranoid schizophrenia, I would feel safer with a implant that would provide my location if I went missing because ending up in a psychotic state and lost in an alien city is a big fear of mine.
 
 
enrieb
21:27 / 21.02.06
Credit Cards,Store Cards, Mobile Phones and Cars are already effective ways to track peoples movments. ID cards will bring all the information together and I expect one
day these implants will also become a 'convenient' reality.

I doubt we will be forced by legeslation into having these things implanted. Yet we may feel forced into being willing hosts to these Implants by the way we live our lives in the modern world.

I never wanted a credit card, but I feel disadvantaged in not having one. I can live my life, without a credit card but, it makes things difficult at times when paying for stuff online or over a phone.

I expect one day I will need to give a DNA sample and retina scan just to order a pizza.

"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no-one could buy or sell unless he had the mark which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom, if anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person and it's number is 666."
 
 
ShadowSax
12:06 / 22.02.06
I doubt we will be forced by legeslation into having these things implanted. Yet we may feel forced into being willing hosts to these Implants by the way we live our lives in the modern world.

i agree. i think the challenge of the law is to set guidelines for the use of these things, or any technology, particularly such potentially invasive technologies, that prevent abuse. it's one thing to find out a few years after the fact that your credit card company sold your address and buying history to some sleazy telemarketing firm, it's another to find out that your employer is telling the cops that you might be drinking at a bar before you get in your car, or telling the FBI that you've spent a suspicious amount of time hanging out at the Y where sometimes a communist group gets together. unless there are laws which prevent abuse, there will be abuse, generally.
 
 
Herald of the Yellow Sun
13:33 / 23.02.06
First, I'd like to acknowledge that this was an editorial, but still that the predictions made seem pretty safe, generally.

As L/e/g/b/a R/e/x, I could also say that I will probably feel little effect of the proliferation and abuse of implants and other extreme forms of surveillance. However, I think that is a sad point to make, because that acceptance is what will allow this to fly. I would also venture to say that even the middle class will be hurt by this, especially at work.

I found two parts of the article in particular to grab my attention. The first was the idea of putting these chips in sweatshop workers. Imperialistic corporate feudalism is a despicable thing, all the more in how hard it is to form effective resistance to it. Businesses can go on treating workers like expendable resources or even like test subjects, because destroying ancient cultures and "letting them work" in the alien machine is granting them freedom. Putting chips in these workers would be to laugh at how little they can do and how little most of the first world cares. The difference between this and soviet labor camps is so small it's horrifying.

The idea of putting these in those seeking political asylum is the other part that really stuck out to me. It's a mockery of the whole idea of political asylum. If this became worldwide, it would just show that there really is nowhere to go. "Oh, you're fleeing an oppressive dictatorhip that deprived you of your basic freedoms? We can help you--can you just lift your sleeve up for a second? Thanks." The sad thing is that many really won't give it any thought beyond that.

Further, I hate the idea behind it that the government and our corporate leaders and such people are exempt from it because they need to be given slack in order to lead us effectively. The people whose decisions most broadly affect all of us (who are also the people who are often caught embezzling, insider stock trading and lying in order to start wars) are the ones who need to be given the most freedom to move and act, while the rest of us must submit to these divine emperors.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
15:26 / 23.02.06
As L/e/g/b/a R/e/x, I could also say that I will probably feel little effect of the proliferation and abuse of implants and other extreme forms of surveillance. However, I think that is a sad point to make, because that acceptance is what will allow this to fly. I would also venture to say that even the middle class will be hurt by this, especially at work.

Sure. Equally, I think that when the priveleged complain about this sheme, their status will be turned against them. Their critics will tell them that they "don't live in the real world"/"don't realise how lucky they've got it"- the standard response used by despotisms against middle-class objectors.

That's why I think it's important for people in a (my) privileged position to set up their arguments around people who are less privileged- that way our argument can't be discredited as self-interested.

Moving on, I think it's becoming increasingly clear that it is a complete fallacy to refer to today as "The information age". Sure, there are methods of information transfer, storage and retreival available today that would have been unthinkable even a decade ago, and yes, these tools have expanded exponentially since the start of the 20th century.

Yet, this information is only available to the privileged. The information is travelling one way: from the colony to the metropole, from the third world to the first, and from the individual to the state. In each case, the lattero f the pair has the monopoly on information.

Sure, nearly everyone in Britain and the US has acess to the internet, and you could cite that as an example of increased informational democracy- but what about the mass poor of India or Africa, or Australian Aborigenes, or South American tribespeople? All the marginalised peoples are still marginalised. This "information age" is a fallacy. All the tools and methods may have advanced, but all they do is oil and make more efficient the existing bad system.

That's what these chips are set up to do: give more information to the people in power. It's an abuse of technology. Give us a chip that lets us share information, that makes the structures of power transparent.
 
 
Herald of the Yellow Sun
17:10 / 23.02.06
I agree wholeheartedly. The idea of an information age in itself isn't really meant to convey a greater influx of information, but a greater availability of that information, which is a fallacy. It's easy to talk about information being more available now, because all we have to do is turn on our televisions or computers, push a few buttons and we can find out whatever we want to know. Hundreds of years ago, on the other hand, royalty had knowledge of their environment, but the masses knew nothing of it. That's the idea that the information age carries with it--where before only the occasional rumor fed our awareness, now facts are given freely to everybody. However, finding those sites where the real information is stored (possibly classified/encrypted), picking the facts out of fields of bullshit, and other means of finding information are no more accessible to the poor and disadvantaged now than they were before this technology existed. What is seen on most news broadcasts or websites is equivalent to a rumor passed through a dozen vessels and eventually being spat out on our doorstep. I would grant the conclusion that there is more information now, but the amount of misinformation so far eclipses the amount of real information, and indeed obscures that information, that we are no better off. It's like filling a tank full of seawater and saying that it's bolstered the drinking water supply.

That's what these chips are set up to do: give more information to the people in power. It's an abuse of technology. Give us a chip that lets us share information, that makes the structures of power transparent.

Very good point. That's exactly what I was thinking of when I thought about the benefits of implants in foiling kidnappers and so on. Put a chip in so family or friends that a person intimately knows and trusts can find their whereabouts, not for the police and the government. Having this central authority compiling and protecting all this information is so inherently undemocratic it could make enlightened pigs squeal. In every step of the way, the government talks about how these "advances" will help individuals, make everyone more safe and powerful and give them greater utility in society, but it is always the government and the corporations that are using them and the greater populace, particularly the disadvantaged, that is having it used on them.
 
 
grant
17:45 / 23.02.06
I'm actually not freaked out at all by any of this stuff except one bit.

I mean, I tote around an ID badge for work that opens the doors to the building. I know that building security knows when I trigger the door (I tried coming in once on a Saturday, couldn't, and the guy at the desk asked me about it on Monday). My name is linked to that number. Somebody with a little wherewithal in the company could also link my name with my file at Human Resources, which contains insurance information and my flexsave account. They'd probably know I've seen a cardiologist, that I have a spouse and two dependent children, that the kids have been in daycare but aren't there as long now, which means that my spouse isn't working as many hours, and that one of us wears glasses.

I'm not sure if that really bugs me, because I don't necessarily think of that as my "identity," or as interfering with how I'd like to live my life.

I do, however, get a little heebie jeebied by this:
I propose that as the technology improves, the police will be able to scan a crowd and (assuming everyone is carrying his voluntary-compulsory ID card) produce a list of whom it contains. I further propose that it will take only a year or two for this to seem reasonable.

I think that's reasonable. I don't think the results will be all that accurate, but accurate enough to matter.

That's a heck of a tool.
 
 
enrieb
20:20 / 23.02.06
I wonder how many Jews would have survived World War Two if Hitler had this type of technology, or how many muslims would have survived in Bosnia, if the Serbs could have scaned the population for their back ground and identity.
 
 
johngault22
22:49 / 23.02.06
Enrieb, you have made me rethink my position, I think I would go for the option of having a chip that only close friends and family could scan for, instead.
 
 
enrieb
23:05 / 26.02.06
Information is where the power is, read any articles on modern warfare you will see it confirmed.

Will the information contained in implants or ID card be abused by those in power? They will tell us they are responsible people who work to strick guidlines to prevent any possible abuse.

I suppose it just a matter of trust.

Do YOU remember the last time your government lied to you? Mabey it was only a small white lie, or mabey it was a big lie that led us to war.

Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

~Benjamin Franklin
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
13:48 / 27.02.06
Current RFID tags can, at best, be read from about 30 feet away, from what I understand. I can't see the tech leading to global tracking anytime soon.

What I can see, is that if my cat runs away, the shelter scans him and gives me a call so I can pick him up. If I had a major drug allergy, or a chunk of metal in my gut that would kill me if I had an MRI, having the same sort of set up could save my life if I were in an accident.

I think that there is the potential for abuse, but I think there is a lot of good that could be done with the tech.
 
 
Axolotl
18:38 / 27.02.06
Yeah, the tech could be used for good: it's an awfully powerful technology.
It could also be used for evil, and once the element of compulsion is there then you're into serious 1984 territory.
 
 
enrieb
19:25 / 27.02.06
Yes, I admit my posts this thread have been a bit alarmist against this type of technology, but I seriously expect this technology will be abused, eventually by the usual suspects.

You would have thought that our govenments all understood and agreed to abide by the geneve conventions covering the treatment of prisoners of war, but just look at how the crazys in positons of power have abused this international standard.



Current RFID tags can, at best, be read from about 30 feet away, from what I understand. I can't see the tech leading to global tracking anytime soon.

heres a quote from the article that began this thread, the link is at the top of the thread and this is taken from the fourth paragraph

A tag such as this has a maximum range of a few metres. But another implantable device emits a signal that allows someone to be found or tracked by satellite.


A leader of rebellion in the republic of Chechnya was killed in 1996 by a smart-bomb, after his location was tracked by his mobile phone signal.Dudayev, Dzhokhar

Dudayev was killed on April 21, 1996 by a precision-guided bomb when he was using a satellite phone, after his location was detected by a Russian reconnaissance aircraft, which intercepted Dudayev's phone call. Additional two aircraft were dispatched (an Su-24MR and an Su-25) to locate Dudayev's vehicle and to drop a bomb. Exact details of this operation were never released by the
Russian government. However, it is known that Russian reconnaissance planes in the area have been monitoring satellite communications for quite some time, trying to match Dudayev's voice signature to existing samples of his speech. It was a gross mistake on Dudayev's part to use satellite phone, especially with his experience as a Soviet Air Force general. Venik]


OK,I know that we are not all about to be tagged,monitored and bombed by the state, but this kind of information on people give the holders of this infromation a great deal of power.

I cannot think of a single politician that I trust with this amount of power, the state is allready powerfull enought.
 
 
Triumvir
18:58 / 02.03.06
I think everybody is forgettng that their predictions of a totalitarian nightmare state in which big brother moniters everybody via implants relies on the slippery slope argument -- a fallacy! Just because A is or will be true (ID chips are implanted in individuals where it would be useful), doesn't mean that B (our society will become a nightmare police state) will occur.

Identity chips can be extremely useful in streamlining the way we live and work, and it is wrong to fight them just on the off chance that they will lead us to some sort of 1984 situation. All innovation has some potential for maluse. If we turned down every new invention because of its potential to aid oppression, we would still be living in caves without fire or spears.
 
 
Jub
12:08 / 06.03.06
Hi MotherSuperior. I find your post worrying.

Identity chips can be extremely useful in streamlining the way we live and work, and it is wrong to fight them just on the off chance that they will lead us to some sort of 1984 situation. All innovation has some potential for maluse. If we turned down every new invention because of its potential to aid oppression, we would still be living in caves without fire or spears.

I take your point and see what you're getting at, but humanity is doing itself a huge diservice in not flagging these technologies and making people / companies aware that what they're doing is questionable. There are some instances where people have stopped RFID technology (such as the Gillette case which I understand resulted in them withdrawing this for the time being.

Granted: it can be easier, and would help in some instances maintain control / keep a hold of a way of doing something. It's not that the technology won't work, but that it will work too well.

Having ID cards or RFID tags will result in loss of privacy, loss of civil liberties and most insidious of all the slow alteration of what it means to be normal. Giving this power over willingly is plain lazy.

There is only a creep in the idrection of making things more exclusive and devisive, such that an end point will make hospitals only accepsible to those with a good credit rating for example.
 
 
Triumvir
00:41 / 09.03.06
I take your point and see what you're getting at, but humanity is doing itself a huge diservice in not flagging these technologies and making people / companies aware that what they're doing is questionable. There are some instances where people have stopped RFID technology (such as the Gillette case which I understand resulted in them withdrawing this for the time being.

Granted: it can be easier, and would help in some instances maintain control / keep a hold of a way of doing something. It's not that the technology won't work, but that it will work too well.

Having ID cards or RFID tags will result in loss of privacy, loss of civil liberties and most insidious of all the slow alteration of what it means to be normal. Giving this power over willingly is plain lazy.

There is only a creep in the idrection of making things more exclusive and devisive, such that an end point will make hospitals only accepsible to those with a good credit rating for example.

I agree in part with what you are saying. Although technology is not inherently evil, mankind is, so we will inveitably use it for evil ends. However, the potential for evil is no reason to dismiss a useful technology out of hand. Nuclear power has both the potential to be an amazing boon to mankind, in the form of energy, and also to bring untold destruction down upon our heads. Yet many countries strive for nuclear energy.

In the same vein, ID chips, although they have the potential to be tools of repression in the hands of tyrants, we should guard against man's evil, not against technological progress that can aid evil men. Thomas Jefferson said that 'The price of liberty is eternal vigilance,' and it is. If good citizens guard against tyrany and repression, we have nothing to fear from technology.
 
 
Jub
09:02 / 09.03.06
MS, part of my problem with these technologies (ie controlling technologies) is that the scope to gaurd against tyranny will be removed.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
10:12 / 09.03.06
If good citizens guard against tyrany and repression, we have nothing to fear from technology.

That's certainly a nice idea, but you have to admit, surely, that it hasn't been working out that well so far.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
11:38 / 09.03.06
Hmm. People are saying we should embrace new tchnology, that it's not the technology that's "evil", rather the uses people might put it to.

Well that's fine up to a point. Sure, we could use these chips for some fuzzily defined "good" purpose in the future. But why should we prioritize them? Why are we focussing on this and not on new, better farming methods for the 3rd world, better systems for healthcare distribution, etc? In the face of the real needs for advancement in other areas, isn't this technology a huge waste of resources?
 
 
Triumvir
23:54 / 09.03.06
Jub: I don't see how that is true. If the population has a true interest in protecting their rights, the they will make sure that the chips (or whaever other 'controlling technologies' come around) are used for only legit purposes, and not repression. The chips can track where people are, but they can't stop them from being politically active and safeguarding their society against repression.

Stoatie: In the past, to the best of my knowlege, technology hasn't been a large factor in the rises to power of repressive regiemes. Hitler, Stalin, the Khamer Rouge, Saddam, Pinochet, etc etc etc etc usually came to power through political manipulation or just brute force, not through use of technology.

Rex: Although the question you are addressing is a valid one -- when there are so many much more worthy uses to be putting our technological prowess to, why are we wasting them on RFID chips? -- the argument wasn't about that, but rather, should we reject a useful technology out of hand because of its potential for harm. Note, that I agree with you completely on what you are saying, it just doesn't pertain to the argument at hand.
 
 
Jub
07:10 / 10.03.06
MS - technology has already been used in the UK to curtail the freedoms and rights of the public. In fact they are no longer freedoms and rights because of this! Survellance equipment has (arguably) led to safer streets etc, but these technologies have also been used on people who were protesting against the government, and has led to adjustments in the law, such as taking fingerprints without consent, and certain criminal sentences being handed down without recourse to trial by jury.

Once more and more technology comes - and is in the hands of the government - this control will slowly tighten. No government ever gave up means of control willingly - you speak about guarding against tyranny, and I see this technology as a form of tyranny, even though it might have some scope for good.

MS - I see take your point - not all technology is bad, and most of it is quite useful, however, RFID tags will do more harm than good because of their potential in controlling the populous.
 
 
Mon Oncle Ignatius
14:24 / 10.03.06
I don't have time to post thoughts on this right now, but this article from the BBC at Cebit 2006 on RFID tags may provide further food for thought.
 
 
enrieb
20:41 / 10.03.06
Its not that the oppressive state is going to be some evil lizard/specta/tutonic knights/rothschild conspiracy or a dictatorship in the style of orwells 1984.

With use of Technologys like ID cards, Databases and these RF Implants WE are slowly becoming a controled society: with less privacy, less liberty and less fredom. Yes we have some freedom, but some organisations also have the freedom to put our names and addresses on databases we know nothing about because of our political views/demographic/income status/race and so on.

I was recently turned down for a job on the basis of my credit rating, I had passed all the other tests and was told I would get the job after the result of the credit check. I failed the credit check, not because I am bad with money, but because I do not use credit very often so I have a low credit score. I have never commited a crime and have no criminal convictions.

would you trust the police with your DNA sample

would you like to be on a list of terrorists, just because of your political views

The reppressive society we are moving towards is one of control a bureocracy more in the style of gilliams film Brazil, where WE are the cogs that make the machine work in favor of the system.
 
 
Triumvir
03:06 / 13.03.06
Jub: I completely agree with you that technology can be a tool for repression. But you yourself conceded that it can also help society. I understand that RFID chips would open the door for abuse, but they would also make our world a safer place to live in. When we live in an organized society, we implicitly give up some of our personal freedoms to the government -- that is what the definition of the rule of law is. You are right in that we must balance safety and freedom , but it is important that we regulate technology, not destroy it.

Enrieb: Hmmmm. Thats an extremely interesting point. But, your model of a society moving slowly -- almost imperceptably towards a totalitarian state by the concent of the people because of gradually shifting attitudes, assumes that all the peoples' additudes are shifting. As long as there are clear thinking people us who realize that liberty must be safeguarded at all costs, such a shift will never come about.
 
 
enrieb
05:54 / 13.03.06
I would not say that society is moving this way because of peoples shifing attitudes, more that peoples increased apathy towards politics and rejection of current affairs in favor of escapist entertainment. The majorty of people I know have politial views based on common myths and rummors. Their understanding of the world has little to do with reality and its rare they actully take any notice of the news unless it is to confirm their own views.

Its not inevitible that we move towards a society with less freedom, just that we take two steps forwards and one back, sometimes its one step forwards and two steps back. There is nothing bad about technology,but it depends on who has access to this technology.
 
 
Jub
12:20 / 13.03.06
MS - I've been trying to think of a way to explain that I think this is a technology too far when it comes to our liberties, but am clearly not doing well. What do you think would be too much? What would you protest about? What would be a technology too far for you?
 
 
enrieb
15:59 / 13.03.06
Here is a link to an article from the guardian about how tescos innocent reward card technology is used to compile information on us all, whether we choose to shop there or not.

The company refuses to reveal the information it holds, yet Tesco is selling access to this database to other big consumer groups, such as Sky, Orange and Gillette

I have no objection to the invention of the T-shirt, but I would not like us to be required to wear T-shirts with individual personal identification numbers on.
 
 
Jub
07:01 / 14.03.06
In the Metro today (free rag on the tube), there was an article about how the police are requsting more and more records from TFL (the transport authority) to track users. In London there are things called Oyster cards which electronically open the barriers for you and keep a record of your travel for 8 weeks. I don't particularly want the government to have this information about me. This is what the Stasi used to do in East Germany.
 
 
enrieb
22:31 / 15.03.06
Heres a link from the BBC Technology site Viruses leap to smart radio tags

Computer viruses could be about to take a giant leap and start spreading via smart barcodes, warn experts.

Security researchers have infected a Radio Frequency ID tag with a computer virus to show how the technology is vulnerable to malicious hackers.
 
 
Triumvir
04:11 / 20.03.06
In the Metro today (free rag on the tube), there was an article about how the police are requsting more and more records from TFL (the transport authority) to track users. In London there are things called Oyster cards which electronically open the barriers for you and keep a record of your travel for 8 weeks. I don't particularly want the government to have this information about me. This is what the Stasi used to do in East Germany.

Moving now from my genuine views into the realm of Devil's Advocacy. Let me pull out some arguments that I've always found quite annoying and I'd like to hear your response to. What if, a la "V for Vendetta" all the monitering on the tube is for "your own protection." Because why should you care if you are being monitered if you aren't doing anything wrong? If you aren't breaking the law, you have nothing to fear. And as to your comparison to East Germany, just because a bad regieme did a 'good' thing, doesn't make it bad. Hitler advocated strict gun control. Does that make gun control evil like the holocaust? By the way, I realize in my heart of hearts that these implants are wrong, and a threat to our society. I am convinced emotionally, but i'm just looking to you or some other 'lither to convince me intelectually.
 
 
Jub
08:44 / 20.03.06
What if, a la "V for Vendetta" all the monitering on the tube is for "your own protection." Because why should you care if you are being monitered if you aren't doing anything wrong? If you aren't breaking the law, you have nothing to fear.

The point is, MS, that some things should not involve government. These tracking, controlling technologies are already a step too far in some cases. A recent statistic suggested 1 in 4 women will at some point suffer from domestic abuse. A shocking statistic. Yet does this mean we should have cameras in our homes (a la the telescreens in 1984) just in case? The same arguments could be peddled that if you aren't breaking the law, you've nothing to fear.

Alternatively, you might want to do something that isn't against the law, but that you don't really want anyone to know about for example. You might be having an affair for instance.

Once these technologies are in place, the government can change the law far more easily and clamp down on transgressors. So, once implants are accepted for one thing, they will then be used for something else and soemthing else, until they are needed to do the most basic of things.

So essentially, this kind of technology is worrying because it curtails our liberties - liberties which the government have no right to take away.
 
  
Add Your Reply