Social Consequences and Effects of RFID Implants? 531
kramdam asks: "Even with all the talk about privacy and security, there seems to be a growing community of people who are implanting themselves with RFID chips. Being a developer myself, I am intrigued about building applications and solutions that will open my doors, unlock my car, log me on to my computer and control home automation. I'm seriously considering jumping into this head first, being on the bleeding edge, and going with an implant. I have looked at resources like Mikey Sklar's site, and Amal Graafstra's site, since they are two pioneers on this subject. For research, I have started TaggedLife to document my own journey. I was wondering what the Slashdot community think about this. What do you think are the social, security, privacy, and health risks associated with this? What are the pluses? Would you do it?"
WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to implant this because...? (Score:2, Insightful)
When the Jones have them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Carry it? (Score:4, Insightful)
pluses minuses (Score:3, Insightful)
- Pluses
* You're in a car accident or you collapse and you have to go to the hospital and they need a medical history.* You're child is lost and they need to find his address/phone number (this sounds incredibally pet like, I know. But the kid should be allowd to have it turned off/removed @ age 18 or younger if parents consent)
- Minuses
* Let's say someone finds a way to sniff the signal, and can open your car/house what have you* You want to take a job in the covert business..
* Anyone can track you
* If this takes off and business impliment it and you don't want to do it then you can't buy goods and what not. I personally would never do this. It's just wrong in sooo many ways, religiously and ethically.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no real advantages to such a scheme and plenty of disadvantages. For example:
Indeed, for me---and apologies in advance for my language---I believe the answer is not so much "no", but rather, "hell fucking no."
Breast implants (Score:2, Insightful)
Now maybe it's just me but we hear a lot of stories about cancer being connected to various signals from things like mobile phones or microwaves. The RFID technology is still rather young and we don't know if it will have any sort of effect like this on the human body. Now would you implant a cell phone in your face with the current warnings?
You basicly sound either extremely lazy or just trying to be cool.. Neither of which is good for your health long term. Sit down and think about the next decade, consider what may or may not happen, how much it will cost and all these important things. Because once you've got it done it maybe too later to reverse it or any side effects you get.
The Beast (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:pluses minuses (Score:3, Insightful)
Once there is a generation or two that have grown up with them...they will see it as normal, and quite possibly won't want to have it turned off/taken out. And also...those 'kids' don't stay kids. They grow up to be politicians.
Re:I have nothing to hide (Score:4, Insightful)
You did say nothing, right?
1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
"Britain is to become the first country in the world where the movements of all vehicles on the roads are recorded. A new national surveillance system will hold the records for at least two years.
Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years."
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/articl
Don't they make the kiddes read 1984 anymore? How much more blatant do things have to get before there is some sort of real effective reaction?
Oh I forgot it's for the children, and against the terrorists and pirates, nevermind.
When I read stuff like this, off the grid survivalist/back to the land hippies don't sound tin foil hat crazy, they sound like smart forerunners of an underground resistance to tyranny.
Re:Exactly - why implant an RFID device? (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/1,70601-0.html [wired.com]
Have you even thought about what you are saying? (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean like to your home? How is this secure? I mean, truely, how? What your RFID only will respond to certain readers? Someone won't be able to have a portable reader connected to say a laptop that reads your RFID and uses that to program the correct response code to other readers?
...unlock my car...
I take it you didn't read the LA Times lately. For reference, go read this article [latimes.com] and when you are done, do you REALLY think they won't be able to do something similar? In fact it will be even easier, they just watch a place that gets a lot of expensive cars, place a few RFID readers around, wait for you to leave and then walk up to your car and drive away. They wouldn't even need to spend several minutes "cracking" your car's code since they got it from you when you drove into the lot.
...log me on to my computer...
Get a fingerprint reader, or a smart card reader. Heck Sun has an entire system based on this for years, it will even move your active session from computer to computer (i.e. the applications you have open and running, your connections to other computers, the mozilla window on slashdot, the code you have compiling, etc...)
...control home automation...
Wow, you need to have a RFID "implanted" to do this? Why not a card or a chip, or widget that fits in your wallet? Why not that for ANY of the above? All you do with the implant is tag yourself for everyone else to see and track. A card/chip/widget can be easily changed. Same reason why you need to change passwords ever few weeks, it make it harder for someone to compromise and continue compromising your security.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Obsolescence (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, you have no sense of how quickly technology becomes obsolete.
Otherwise, you wouldn't want to implant that technology into you.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, we kind of do. This technology has been used on animals for years.
Re:Exactly - why implant an RFID device? (Score:2, Insightful)
Human Cattle (Score:2, Insightful)
I personally think it is nuts, and so obviously a big brother wet dream model as to make it a "line never to be crossed" issue with me. You really can't see this, the implications? Just extrapolate a little, use your imagination, think of the "bad" that eventually will come of this. And it will, bet your salary on it.
And voluntarily??? You actually find it difficult just to unlock the front door and get into your car that you need to do it with an implant? It's bad enough we have government jerks hinting at making this eventually manadatory, that they are seriously working on behavioral modifications to go along with implants (command and control in other words, eventual electronic slavery so you know and keep your place, epislon drone) but to help them along by "volunteering" and promoting the idea that it is "cool" is...well...
Eventually we will be sorting this chip implant business out and it will not be pretty. I know I will be on the "pure human" side, the one not connected to the borg hive mind.
Can I implant my pocket instead? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, please, instead of putting the proprietary and easily-obsolesced technological bolus UNDER MY GOD-DAMNED SKIN can I, yuh, just stick it in my pocket?
That'd be brilliant. Cheers.
Obligiory Futurama quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Good news, It's a suppository!
You can't get an MRI once you've been tagged, so the nipple ring would be an improvement in the case you want a MRI for some critical thing instead of it having to be cut out of your arm.
RFID == SMTP? (Score:2, Insightful)
When email started, the challenge was just to make it work -- get the bits from one machine to another. Now the challenge is making it useful in a sea of spam.
The same is true for what Sklar and Graafstra are experimenting with; they're just trying to make the technology work.
There's a big difference between making a technology work and making a technology work usefully in a world of nasty, exploitive, corrupt people.
Take care,
brad
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well the last time I had imprints/samples of any body-bits taken without my will or knowledge was, oh, never. Nobody hiding in an alley that I'm passing by is getting a good picture of my retina to forge. I don't believe any strangers I may have shook hands with were surreptitiously taking my fingerprints either. With an embedded RFID tag, you could be being positively identified at any time with a very minimal risk of the snooper being detected by you. With remote access, everything is right there for anyone with the right kind of snooping equipment. That's why they had to shield the covers of those RFID passports they came out with, so I guess one would have to put the thing in their wrist and then wear a shielded glove or wristband all the time to protect their privacy. Kind of defeats the purpose of the convenience, if one is at all privacy-minded.
Security? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see how this offers any practical security benefits. Let's explore a possible holdup situation involving a standard punk and an "early adopter":
Punk: Gimme your keys or I'll cut you!
You: Sorry, no keys, I start my car with a microchip in my hand.
Punk: What the hell? Don't fuck with me! Gimme your keys!
You: I told you, I-... Urrghhrgh *Sounds of dying*
Nope, doesn't look too promising. Nope, not too promising at all... But maybe if you're reeeallly lucky he'll know about RFID tags and just saw off your hand instead!
Re:Actually, you're missing a good opportunity her (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Finally, no one in their right minds would ever take this approach. It's just not efficient enough. Identity theft works best in VOLUME.
So at that point, you need to start seeing things in a "scarier" light.
Remember how in movies it only takes an expert thief bumpin into you at the shoulder to take your wallet? Now they can grab a whole lot more with a wireless scanner.
RFID devices outright GIVE OUT their information. That's all they know how to do. There's no two-way communication. Their basic approach is to announce information given what little power they were provided with in the original radio signal.
Just how hard would it be to scan and spoof RFID given the right equipment?
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, we kind of do. This technology has been used on animals for years.
Only on animals that have a typical lifespan of 10 years though.
Re:Exactly - why implant an RFID device? (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again, some people may get off on that.
However, I'd stick with a watch/bracelet
Re:pluses minuses (Score:3, Insightful)
Therefore I move to transfer that point from (+) to (-)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. For some reason most people here seem to forget the most important thing:
RFID has nothing to do with encryption/security. It's a serial number. What fucking good is that going to do you? So your car will start when your serial number is near? It should be pretty clear that faking a serial number is trivial. With RFIDs you don't even need physical contact to achieve that.
In other words:
I am intrigued about building applications and solutions that will open my doors, unlock my car, log me on to my computer and control home automation
will not be solved by RFID. I don't even understand where someone would get that idea. You'd be crazy to rely on that. If you think that doing security through positive identification of a certain physical human being present is a good idea (which is debatable to begin with), then you're probably better off doing fingerprint or iris-scanning.
Now if RFID tags had RSA or something built in, it would be a different story. But they don't.
Eh, this whole story makes no sense at all.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, I suggest that we do. We've been putting them in domestic cats and dogs for well over ten years now. I think that the impact of placing a small glass capsule inside a body (well technically just under the skin, not inside) is well understood by now.
I believe the answer is not so much "no", but rather, "hell fucking no."
AMEN! I agree 100% there. Don't get me wrong on the first part - just 'cos they're not physically harmfull doesn't mean they're anything other than pure unmitigated evil
WRONG! on a lot of stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
Implanting a RFID is relatively easy - just a large sized needle to place it under the skin - and also fairly easy to take out that way too. The ones that have been used in pets without problems for YEARS! are covered with an inert plastic that also has been used for years in people, without allergic reactions. Yes I guess that if you did develop a large bruise,AND it became infected that the implant could get infected too, but you'd prolly' need medical attention anyway if you had an infected bruise.
Alpha particles!? WTF? - these implants are passive - they need a radio beam to power them, so that they can broadcast back. They don't need a power supply If you did implant a computer that needed a power supply, like a pacemaker, , maybe you could charge it via induction. An Alpha Nuke source emitter would generally have it's alpha particles stopped by the inert casing. Alpha particles are generally stopped by a piece of paper.
No, putting an implant deep into the abdominal cavity is a bad idea. Yes it would be more protected, but any surgery in the abdom cavity can cause adhesions, bowell obstruction, etc. There's a reason why all pacemaker batteries are placed under the skin by the chest/armpit - it's safe.
Having said all that, I still think an implantable RFID is a stupid idea, and wouldn't get one, but for security reasons, not for health ones.
Real security (Score:2, Insightful)
Some might argue that the security is greater because a theif can't remove it the implanted RFID. Violence and robbery go hand in hand, theives already stab and shoot on occation for the contents of your wallet. I recall reading an incident in my local paper years ago where a mugger used a steak knife to torture an ATM card pin number from a person. Already, theives have removed finger tips [bbc.co.uk] to obtain the goods they want.
While such a device, barring electronic exploits, will increase the security of your possessions, they decrease your corporeal security. Robbery depends on personal intimidation, the victim is being offered a choice between the loss of a possession or the loss of their physical well being. An external device, be it a traditional metal key, an RFID wrist watch, sticker, nose ring or whatever leaves this choice intact ... you can surrender your RFID nose ring, and control of your possession or take your chances with offered violent confrontation
An implantable device differs only in that it can't be readily removed. Totiltarian state slippery slope type arguements aside, when confronted with the choice "your money of your life" what are you going to say ... "nope, you can't have it, its buried in my forearm!" Somebody who wishes you enough malice to point a weapon at you and actively consider taking your life in exchange for your possession might not see this obsticle in the same light as you.
Cutting out an implant, or amputating the attached limb might seem to be excessive escalation to you and I. A person who considers taking your life a realistic option might consider walking off with your forearm a more paletable alternative. Even if they just cut it out, do you really want the disfigurment, injury, the risk of catching whatever diseases the knifes last victim had, the pain?
In short, the point of security isn't to be ultimately secure. I don't want my car to be 100% impossiable to drive away without my involvement, I only want it to be hard enough that it might not be worth the effort. The old fashioned metal key in my pocket is the ultimate security measure for me ... its possession secures my car when I'm away and its surrenderability secures my person when I'm near it.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
>>Of course, you could ask what it would do when two people with conflicting preferences are in the same room, but that's just a software problem and is thus much easier to refine over time.
Or, it could be a human interaction problem that could be solved by "comprimise." Sorry, implanting a chip into your body so that you can simply stop thinking and cease awareness of your environment and human interactions is really, really stupid.