I'm not sure what point TFA (the Fox article) is trying to make, but it jumps all over the map and pretty much throws everything at the wall to see what sticks. For example, "making sure everyone carries an RFID tag linked to a biometric data file" is certainly scary sounding, but what does the biometric data have to do with tracking people's locations?
And if RFID tags are easily copied, isn't that a good thing? It will discourage attempts to use them for surveillance.
The comparison of RFID tags and Social Security numbers is entertaining, but the risk with SSNs is largely because they are treated as if they are secret when they are not. (Okay, they've also been overused as a primary key because too many public and private organizations were too lazy to generate their own unique ids, which does make it easier to aggregate information *once you have access to it*.)
The article refers to "Paget's cloning experiment." But it doesn't actually say that any cloning was involved, only reading at a distance. Is cloning as easy as reading? I don't know, and neither does the article's author, I would guess.