Radio-frequency identification (RFID)

Michael_rev · 09-08-2010, 10:55 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-f...Human_implants

Human implants

Hand with the planned location of the RFID chip.

Just after the operation to insert the RFID tag was completed. The yellow is from the iodine disinfection before inserting the chip.
Main article: Microchip implant (human)
Implantable RFID chips designed for animal tagging are now being used in humans. An early experiment with RFID implants was conducted by British professor of cybernetics Kevin Warwick, who implanted a chip in his arm in 1998. In 2004 Conrad Chase offered implanted chips in his night clubs in Barcelona[57] and Rotterdam to identify their VIP customers, who in turn use it to pay for drinks.
In 2004, the Mexican Attorney General's office implanted 18 of its staff members with the Verichip to control access to a secure data room.[58]
Security experts have warned against using RFID for authenticating people due to the risk of identity theft. For instance a man-in-the-middle attack would make it possible for an attacker to steal the identity of a person in real-time. Due to the resource constraints of RFIDs it is virtually impossible to protect against such attack models as this would require complex distance-binding protocols.[59][60][61][62]
Privacy advocates have protested against implantable RFID chips, warning of potential abuse and denouncing these types of RFID devices as "spychips", and that use by governments could lead to an increased loss of civil liberties and would lend itself too easily to abuse. One such case of this abuse would be in the microchip's dual use as a tracking device. Such concerns were justified in the United States, when the FBI program COINTELPRO was revealed to have tracked the activities of high profile political activist and dissident figures. There is also the possibility that the chip's information will be available to those other than governments, such as private business, thus giving employers highly personal information about employees. In addition, privacy advocates state that the information contained in this chip could easily be stolen, so that storing anything private in it would be to risk identity theft.
According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), implantation of an RFID chip poses potential medical downsides. Electrical hazards, MRI incompatibility, adverse tissue reaction, and migration of the implanted transponder are just a few of the potential risks associated with the Verichip ID implant device, according to an October 12, 2004 letter issued by the FDA.[63]
It has been argued that RFID chipping of sex offenders in the US could be politically feasible, and allowable under the U.S. Constitution.[64]

**Rainer.** · 09-09-2010, 02:07 AM

Do you have a point?

**Ridley's Own** · 09-09-2010, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainer.

Do you have a point?

I'm sure he will when Alex Jones tells him what it is.

Michael_rev · 09-09-2010, 01:57 PM

Nnaw, just sharing some information. Not everything is about a conspiracy

**Rainer.** · 09-09-2010, 02:02 PM

Okay, in that case I'm just gonna close this, if anyone has anything pressing to say, feel free to PM me or one of the forum mods.

**Rainer.** · 09-10-2010, 03:03 PM

He wants to discuss this new technology, so thread reopened on user request.

Michael_rev · 09-10-2010, 09:43 PM

thank you

so does anyone have any thoughts about the benefits of using this product in society?

**MtlMom** · 09-10-2010, 09:59 PM

Tell us what YOU think, then we will comment. That's the way it usually works.

Michael_rev · 09-10-2010, 10:13 PM

i think it can actually be a useful peice of technology. Unlike the ppl who think its the mark of the beast :P

Think about it if your kids are chipped, youll never have to worry about kidnappings. No more missing ppl

There are many more benefits but thats the greatest one IMO

**Ridley's Own** · 09-10-2010, 10:57 PM

I think it's a more useful technology for pets and that sort of thing, particularly if some of the things about it moving around under the skin and that sort of issue can't be resolved.

Another thing... If a kidnapper was really intent on kidnapping a chipped kid, assuming it has to be implanted fairly close to the skin, what's keeping them from removing it?

I'm imagining the removal of the homing beacon in Gov. Schwarzenegger's head in Total Recall now, so it's probably best I go to bed.

There's a lot about this technology that we need to think through before we go around sticking it in people.

Unlike vaccines...

Michael_rev · 09-11-2010, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

I think it's a more useful technology for pets and that sort of thing, particularly if some of the things about it moving around under the skin and that sort of issue can't be resolved.

Another thing... If a kidnapper was really intent on kidnapping a chipped kid, assuming it has to be implanted fairly close to the skin, what's keeping them from removing it?

I'm imagining the removal of the homing beacon in Gov. Schwarzenegger's head in Total Recall now, so it's probably best I go to bed.

There's a lot about this technology that we need to think through before we go around sticking it in people.

Unlike vaccines...

lol

well what if they put the chip deeper then just the skin??? I think this is very useful for pets as for ppl, although i think it can be implemented just fine

roscoestring · 09-11-2010, 06:43 AM

As with nearly everything else in this world there will be those that are for or against it. I don't really have an opinion but I would probally lean towards approval.

We are fast moving in this direction. The generations that are now coming along are so into the computer and anything else electronic. I'm sure that once the older generations die out that the younger will more readily embrace these new ideas.

I know that it can be abused. There are a lot of bad people in the world. But if you can fit a book's worth of information into something the size of a grain of rice and have people benefit from it then it can't be all bad.

**Ridley's Own** · 09-11-2010, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael_rev

well what if they put the chip deeper then just the skin??? I think this is very useful for pets as for ppl, although i think it can be implemented just fine

I'd imagine if it goes much deeper (I really don't know my anatomy) it'd be imbedded in the muscle. I'd be surprised if the radio waves would be able to be picked up very easily.

JerryLove · 09-11-2010, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael_rev

Think about it if your kids are chipped, youll never have to worry about kidnappings. No more missing ppl

How does an RFID tag manage either of those things?

Let's go ahead and assume for the sake of argument that the kidnapper doesn't remove the RFID itself... it means you could, if you checked, identify the child in front of you: but you still need to get in front of the kidnap-victim and scan.

Or do you propose covering the country with RFID readers that automatically read everyone who passes by? Even that wouldn't be foolproof (similar to cameras with facial recognition... so not complete coverage), but it would surely raise major privacy concerns.

Why not take the more passive approach? Start recording DNA on birth certificates instead of foot-prints? It gives you a reliable method of ID that can't be forged / removed (well, almost). Invest in developing a portable, fast DNA reader (It's not like you need to read a full genome to ID or anything).

Quote:

There are many more benefits but thats the greatest one IMO

Well? What else you got? Other than "difficult to steal ID", I'm having trouble coming up with advantages.