Pentium IIIs Banned in Arizona? 134
Ryan Radecki writes "News.com reports that Arizona lawmakers are planning to introduce a bill that would ban the Pentium III due to its usage of a serial number for PC tracking and identification. The bill would ban chips with serial numbers, computers with chips with serial numbers, prohibit state and government agencies from buying computers with said chips inside, and prohibit the manufacture of said chips in the state, which would be an intriguing situation for the two Intel fabrication plants located in Arizona. "
Overboard? (Score:1)
In related things, anyone think about this senario: A nasty company produces a program that encorporates Intel's unlock-the-serial-number code, at which point the program begins checking serial numbers across the internet and uses these for tracking purposes. I can see MS doing this. Be scared.
The root of all this.... (Score:1)
I heard a report on CNN about the PIII, it said
"The new Intel PIII chip has a serial number that
it sends across the internet."
I bet if the mass media actually KNEW what it was
talking about, stupid people in government office
wouldn't try to pass laws such as this one.
snicker...chortle...ROTFLMAO...no m/f's? (Score:1)
mark, who, among many other things, used to
ask for the number to give a key for
the software....
/. flamers & legislative process: Hurray for AZ! (Score:1)
No, the bill's not perfect, but it can, and probably will, be improved. I like the idea of anonymous hardware. I'd prefer that my hardware did not have machine-readable id numbers. Are folks here actually advocating the use of machine-readable id numbers???
** Why have we accepted this? I'd guess because for the most part hostids and MAC addresses predate the Web and the the explosion of consumer PC use. hostids and MAC's don't generally bother corporate types who like control and move slowly, etc. This sort of id info is inappropriate for single end-user computers. If the Arizona bill not only stops the P3 big brother fiasco but leads other hardware vendors to produce more anonymous hardware, I say that's great.
Y'all are missing the point (Score:1)
If most of the naive users don't know or care about being tracked, it will be almost impossible for those who do understand to keep anonymous. You will have to enable the serial number simply to run software, shop on the 'net, or maybe even check email. I don't know about you, but rebooting for every other task to enable and disable this number seems like a serious pain.
Look at the Social Security Number. There are lots of places that ask you for it. In a lot of cases, you are not required to give it, but the provider of the service is also not required to provide you service (e.g. a credit card). So, even though there are ways to keep the number from being broadcast, it may severely limit your ability to *do* anything (computer-wise).
Sending a message (Score:2)
My problem with this whole mess is: I haven't been able to find any details on the actual implementation. Would the actual ID be traded, or would it be used to generate a signature? Trading a trusted, indelible ID would only create a huge security hole. Once a cracker has your chip ID, he can spoof your identity and there's nothing you can do about it--you're screwed. A signature can be revoked, but not an ID. Am I wrong?
Would have been a good analogy, except... (Score:1)
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
Some of you are fuckin' DUMB. (Score:1)
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
THIS ISN'T REALLY ABOUT PRIVACY! (Score:1)
-chip can send out a serial number asserting 'I am a PIII chip!'
...and of course this leads by the expenditures of payola-type money to...
-web sites begin REQUIRING, not suggesting, not demanding but REQUIRING Intel. Not just Intel, none of those damned Celerons- PIIIs!
I am sorry but THAT is what this is about- and I see no reason to humor it. Look, if even 25% of web sites were using such an arrangement, the _first_ thing that would come to people's minds would be Intel monopolising, trying to kill off AMD not to mention Motorola and anybody else by pure market manipulation tactics. Why, why is it that when it actually starts _happening_, people flip out, totally miss the real message and start thinking Intel cares about their visiting www.pam-anderson-in-spandex.com??
Sheesh. I almost want Arizona to _pass_ this one simply because in their stupidity they are addressing the real threat of this scenario that NOBODY else seems to be cluing into. Just why do you think Windows PCs are so frickin' popular, because people chose them on the merits? No, it's because people had stuff they wanted to do that was _barred_ to anything other than a Windows PC. Now Intel is trying to set up an authentication racket. Whether or not the thing's active by default is moot- if you want to surf X or download from Y you _will_ turn it on (or throw out your celeron, go buy a real PIII and _then_ turn it on)
The motive for Intel in this should be _damn_ obvious.
What about Sun computers (Score:1)
Isn't this a bill of attainder? (Score:1)
# find
find: cannot open
Ever hear of big iron? (Score:1)
This is all silly... (Score:2)
Glad to see, glad to see (Score:1)
more weight in terms of computer consumer buying
power (like CA, TX, any New England state, etc...)
Although I truely doubt that Intel will just ignore AZ's ban, and sell to the other 49 states
unabaited.
At least I'm glad to see both people at the national and state levels standing up for
personal privacy and the net.
MAC addresses (Score:1)
Can you buy Ethernet cards in Arizona?
--
W.A.S.T.E.
Bad, but still good? (Score:1)
backwards to please corporations". . .
Try - bend over forwards.
Actually, AZ just hit up Motorola for a huge bill to clean up toxic waste.
I think the semiconductor industry isn't feeling too welcome in that state any longer.
Solution: Consumer pressure, not Govt regulation (Score:1)
selling is because consumers don't like this 'feature' they'll take it out"
No, millions of uninformed consumers will continue to buy their inferior chips, just as they have in the past, and when enough do, requirement of the PSN will become a standard, and those who do not advertise their PSN will be "shut out" of vital internet services like ecommerce, etc.
The genie is out, and intel is only making the bullets. The firing squad is the online business community, and the sheep just keep on marching to their slaughter, and taking us all along for the ride.
All of these are SOFTWARE issues (Score:1)
Think about it though, guys. The only way details like this can be sent over the web is if an applet requests your permission to retrieve it. It's the same thing with software serial numbers (like the Microsoft web registration stuff). The only way it can be sent without your permission is if the software is re-written specifically to do so. I can't imagine Microsoft doing that. In addition, re-enabling it (and requesting a reboot, deceptively so that you won't know it's re-enabled) is, again, a deception that must be deliberately written into the software. Have you any idea as to the PR nightmare that would cause once it's discovered (and it will be discovered very fast, especially in light of all the press this has gotten)? If you're worried, write them a letter and tell them your concerns. This isn't Intel's problem.
Do legislative bodies have technical advisors? (Score:2)
It seems to me that we shouldn't HAVE to bombard our legislature with corrections or educational letters in order for them to know the "real" story. If the sole source of information these people have is the mass media, we are in some serious trouble.
And what about CNN? How in the world can they get off by broadcasting misleading information like this? Don't THEY have some sort of technical staff reviewing these stories before they're released? I think it's time we have a few respectable news organizations step up and admit that most of the rest of the mass media is exaggarating the problem.
So what about Ethernet cards? (Score:1)
Apparently someone didn't do homework (Score:1)
These people would buy said chip if it's offered in an actractive way, unless they're told what's wrong with it. So, we can't just stand still and wait til the market settles, we must go and spread the word.
Brainless Arizona Legislature (Score:1)
I remember when Intel moved in to New Mexico (I was there at the time), and I've since heard about the tailspin Albuquerque went into when they scaled back (or was it pulled out) of there. Not pretty.
But then, Intel isn't a sports franchise.
Legislators looove sports franchises...
Brainless Arizona Legislature (Score:2)
I live in Arizona; used to work for the state private industry pays much better) and I can tell you that the legislature here is the absolute stupidest elected body I have ever had the misfortune to deal with in my life.
Unfortunately, their advisors are no better.
Years of futilely voting for the best person for the job has made me cynical, except in one key issue: I can usually predict the losers in elections.
In reply to one comment, yes, the state government uses Sun servers. I personally know of at least five. This guy hasn't got a clue.
Sigh.
Overboard? (Score:1)
Would also outlaw Network Cards, SCSI Disks... (Score:1)
This law would also outlaw network cards - which have unique MAC addresses hardcoded, SCSI Disks - which have a serial number, and many modern modems - which also include serial numbers. If Ethernet cards didn't come pre-programed from the factory with a unique number, maintaining uniqueness on a large LAN would be a major hassle. (worse than the current situation with IP's, since bootp and dhcp won't work for this sort of thing.) Software serial numbers on SCSI drives and Modems help ensure that the correct version of firmware upgrades are installed.
This law is even lamer than Intel's suggestion that an easily tampered with serial number could help secure e-commerce. If it becomes official, folks in Arizona would have to manually set MAC addresses on all their new network cards, as well as risk installing unmatched firmware upgrades on their new SCSI drives and Modems.
What about Sun computers (Score:1)
It's not on the motherboard (Score:1)
or in the backplane, depending on the model.
i *heart* az! (Score:1)
it never ceases to amaze me how idiotic my state legislature is. i think i'll contact Steve May [state.az.us] (the guy who is going to introduce this bill) and inform him that his bill will force the state government to remove all its Ethernet cards. sheesh!
contact Steve May: email [mailto] | 602-542-5408
-rbw
I don't get it (Score:1)
So when a state government stands up for internet privacy rights even though there are two HUGE Intel facilities in Arizona, including at least one design center and a fab, what do you do? You complain! I don't get it.
We all know that the news.com story was badly worded and that news.com is not meant as a site for people that now the difference between the serial number etched on chip, a serial number in eprom, or Intel's indentification serial number scheme. Just for once, can we be happy? Just once?
Andrew Gardner
I (you) don't get it (Score:1)
We assume the public must be well informed enough to make intelligent decisions, but the general public doesn't know anything about encryption, serial numbers in IP packets, or anything else. The general public uses AOL and Microsoft products. Web servers run NT and IIS. People are obviously uninformed.
The free market functions only when the vast majority of people are operating under the same set of assumptions, under the same of information that is closely correlated to the truth. That isn't happening.
If we nerds (the only people with the information to make decisions like these) are to abdicate our role as leaders in favor of a libertarian, free market system full of people who don't have the fundamental understanding of these situations, we are guarenteed that whoever has the most money to market their ideas will win, regardless of cost, technical merit, or any other consideration.
Andrew Gardner
not likely (Score:2)
Cool things we'd have trouble with (Score:1)
What about iButtons? [ibutton.com] My dad has a weather station based on Dallas Semiconductor's iButton/1wire technology, and he's quite impressed with its usability and nifty factor. What makes it so cool is that these little disposable gate-activated switches each have a unique 64-bit serial number.
What about - get this - automobiles? I mean, they have registration numbers on all the parts, including the onboard computer...
There's just whole bunches of stuff with serial numbers. I have no problem with serial numbers in my chips, even in the CPU; it takes software to broadcast/care about the serial number, and so I just won't run software that violates my privacy by doing that. I mean, plenty of other programs do that without serial numbers in the CPUs; I've seen SNES emulators which use lots of system characteristics to determine a serial number (which, of course, breaks it when you upgrade your memory or CPU or whatever). Motherboards have serial numbers as well, but people don't complain about that.
---
SGIs (Score:1)
Guess this means that anyone (in Arizona) with an SGI will have to get rid of it. I wonder if it applies to network cards? Ofcourse we call that number a MAC or hardware address, not a serial number. So I guess it's alright.
Something tells me this legislation isen't going to happen.
This is really dumb...this code shows why... (Score:2)
#include
#include
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
char buf[512];
sysinfo(SI_HW_SERIAL,buf,511);
printf("serial number: \"%s\"\n",buf);
}
Hey, guess we need to ban most workstations too now, since someone could incorporate this code into a web browser!
Once again, lawmakers show they know.....shit. (Score:2)
The point has been made already that Ethernet cards and several other types of chips already have IDs. I can see it now, the reaction from the stupid state govt: "What? Really? ummmmm.....Oh." (walks away scratching head) Let's find something a LITTLE more important to work on.....
MSIE _IS_ easy to disable (Score:1)
Boo!!Hooray!!! (Score:1)
'Course this whole serial number thing could be just to make it easier to recall them for FPU problems.
Sun Microsystems already does this! (Score:1)
On the other hand, you have to see this proposed law for what it is. It appears to me that it is designed to *PROTECT* the consumer.
-chris
cjs@imall.com
Increadibly fucking stupid! (Score:1)
I got to agree. This bill was still born before the ink was dry and the people the wrote it know it was. It could be AZ's congress', or whatever, way of saying "that our people don't want this in our state and if you try it we're going to ban it."
But more likly it's just a way to grab some press coverage and make a few brownie points with the privacy groups. Is it election time in AZ?
One of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen. (Score:1)
1. Not every computer has an Ethernet card but every computer needs a CPU.
2. The MAC adress can be changed easily with most Ethernet cards
3. It is trivial to build software to run only on a CPU with a certain ID, which would force customers to turn this feature on. Using MAC adresses for the same purpose wouldn't be very useful since not every computer has one and it it is next to impossible to read the MAC adress without relying on third party hardware drivers.
Overboard? (Score:1)
This is a hidden attack on privacy! (Score:1)
But it's possible to override the ethernet ID on an ethernet card (and fairly easy, too), and it's also possible to do it on the PIII. What they want to restrict is non-overridable numbers... but not even then. There are products from security companys (smart cards, smart rings, etc) with cryptographic identifiers in them that people really do buy because they are a pain to forge.
All of a sudden it's impossible to use key-card doorlocks based on this technology! Big Brother wants you to have less security in your home and business! Someone should point this out to the legislature.
SGI's (Score:1)
Hewlett-Packard PC's with DMI have serial numbers (Score:1)
Kriston J. Rehberg
http://kriston.net/ [kriston.net]
corporation as entity (Score:1)
there are some places where the punishments and rights are not the same (send Microsoft to the electric chair?), but this is the model that America, at least, has chosen to work with.
Message my ass (Score:1)
This is political opportunism by politicians who have made no attempt to understand the issue whatsoever. Unga, chip have number, some no like number, me no like number, people like me.
Neat move but..... (Score:1)
One of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen. (Score:1)
UltraSPARC chips and Solaris 7 mandatory and to
ban all other chips and operating systems. Welcome
to the brave new world!
All of these are SOFTWARE issues (Score:1)
>permission is if the software is re-written
>specifically to do so. I can't imagine Microsoft
>doing that.
Nothing has stopped them from silently over-writting things and requesting a reboot before. Bah. Having an ID on a cpu is just a bad idea.
That's crazy (Score:2)
That's crazy (Score:1)
Funny, most of the posts I see are opposed to it, although not for the reason you're saying. It is true though, Intel should be allowed to make any chip they want to - they could make a chip that costs $2Million and makes a "Ping" noise if they wanted to, and nobody should be force them not to. Of course, that dosen't mean anyone else has to buy it, and we all have the right to tell them it's a dumb idea.
The other problem with that law is (as previously mentioned) the sheer number of other systems that it would ban, which are already in use. Big Corp's like Chrysler tend to have a lot of SGI boxes around the place, and they'd have to replace all of them with dumbed-down weak boxes that wouldn't do the job right. Sorry, but there is no PC on the planet that can match a loaded down Challenge-XL, even with an equal ammount of cash dumped into it, and as far as I know, the equivalent Sun and HP servers have on-chip ID's as well. Hopefully someone who's around there will think to point this out to the lawmakers in question, I'm sure they wouldn't want to be responsible for a massive chunk of industry up and leaving their state.
They're targeting the wrong problem anyways, since chip-IDs are pretty much old news anyhow, and can be usefull in identifying stolen equipment. (Kinda like the serial number on a bicycle, but even harder to get rid of.) What they should be doing is banning the use of chip-IDs as a form of verification for supposedly secure commerce - they're too easy to fake, and would lead the unknowing masses into a false sense of safety, while they all get ripped off.
Increadibly fucking stupid! (Score:1)
Dumb, dumber and legislators.
TI Graphing calculators. (Score:1)
Next thing you know... (Score:1)
...they'll want to vote in Daylight Savings Time. No more reason to want to live here. I'm movin.
The law was *created* in the 80s! (Score:1)
M
Be careful what you ask for... (Score:1)
It is a PR ploy on behalf of the politicians. It does make a statement, but only one about how far governments will go to interfere with the privacy and private lives of individuals.
Every time you cheer for another blow to big bad Bill (Gates, that is, not the other blow to the other Bill) remember that it won't be the last time a government agency sticks their fingers into the technology pie.
If this doesn't sound bad to you, just think that Al Gore is the government's Alpha Geek.
Solution: Consumer pressure, not Govt regulation (Score:2)
The correct way to deal with the PIII serial number issue is simply not to buy a CPU that you feel comprimises your privacy. Believe me, when Intel figures out that the reason their latest and greatest isn't selling is because consumers don't like this 'feature' they'll take it out. I don't care what other motives Intel has for having it in there, they are still driven by the bottom line.
When we allow the government to 'protect' us like this we are surrendering a little more of what freedom we do have left. Enough is enough.
So what about Ethernet cards? (Score:1)
always react to , just because I want to
finish the Subject line?
Anyway: Every ethernet card has a kind of serial number in it. This could also be used to track users - and it's used for copy protection already. Will Arizona ban all ethernet cards as well?
So what about Ethernet cards? (Score:1)
Anyway: Every ethernet card has a kind of serial number in it. This could also be used to track users - and it's used for copy protection already. Will Arizona ban all ethernet cards as well?
The real stupidity here... (Score:1)
The ID scheme is clearly for software copy protection support and really has nothing to do with privacy or security, but they could not possibly convince consumers that this was a desirable feature so they invented this ploy and it backfired terribly.
--
Howard Roark, Architect
Arizona: land of beauty and contradiction (Score:1)
Sure, SOME people might see a contradiction here,
between Intel plants and banning the PIII.
But it's just another perfectly normal day in Arizona.
One of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen. (Score:1)
I think they missed the point... (Score:1)
I also don't see how they can be used to invade privacy. See above reasons about rewriting ID. Also, I strongly doubt any web site would require a serialized CPU. It would be dumb to limit your customers to only a select group, while your competetors will sell to anyone.
Now for security they could do a little bit. If your computer is stolen it would allow a positive ID to be made on that cpu, but since the ID can allegedly be "permanetly" disabled, it's not even good for that.
The only practical use I can see for a serialized cpu is for locking software to a specific computer. This would be especially usefull for Microsoft when they ship an OS with a new computer. The license says that that you can only use that copy of windows with the computer that it was purchased on. Now microsoft could modify the cd-key code in such a way that one cd-key could work with one and only one cpu. That way you couldn't take that copy of windows that you got with your notebook and install it on your desktop.
But then again if you can disable the ID that wouldn't seem to be a practical idea, unless of cource you are microsoft and you can do things that aren't practical because you huge. If the serialized cpu is only required on the initial install then if windows is factory installed it doesn't matter.
Maybe I'm missing something, but the only people I see benifating from a serialized cpu are possibly the software companies.
Give AZ some credit... (Score:1)
Politics (Score:1)
responsibility to make laws concerning things they know
very little, if anything, about. As long as they get enough
press I suppose it does not matter if they are right or wrong.
Maybe if some of their constituents took the time to write
about how ludicrous some of their ideas are this would
happen less and less.
Arizona State Legislature [state.az.us]
Overboard? (Score:1)
> actually reboot your machine to unlock the
> serial id, which precludes companies
> doing this.
You mean you'd notice if a windows program said
"Installation complete. You will have to restart your computer before you can use it. Reboot now?"
MAC addresses (Score:1)
>addresses are needed
Umm.. why?
Yes, I know the protocol. But then, IP addresses need to be unique, and the solution is dynamic ip addresses (as used in PPP).
Pick a random number, check if it's being used, and hey presto.
Move to NZ? (Score:1)
govt. caves in to the least bit of preassure from the US. As may be shown by the Wassenaar agreement.
Protecting your privacy (Score:1)
1. female, pregnant, and don't want kids
2. homosexual
3. heterosexual with a healthy imagination
4. HIV-positive
5. Bill Clinton.
And don't get me started on the f***ing Democrats.
When it comes to politicians, my favorite quote is
from the movie "Manhunter", when Hannibal "The
Cannibal" Lector replies to the message from his
admirer. (Look it up if you're interested, I don't
need some nutcase cybercop thinking I'm totally
serious.)
Even if it does not pass... (Score:1)
As to the above ethernet card issues, How many people on the net are connected by modem and how many by ethernet? For most internet users ethernet id tracking is not an issue
Doug Bryant
You guys are missing the point... (Score:1)
The possiblity of being identified by a serial # over the net has been a possiblity for _years_.
Checkout this site [its.kun.nl] if you have a network card and know its hardware (MAC) address. Should be something like 02:06:82:45:34.
Cannot believe this.. but we shouldn't be suprised (Score:2)
Here is a copy of an e-mail I just sent to this representative:
Hello Mr. May.
Although I am no longer a constituent in Arizona, I did grow up and go to college there. I worked for Intel as a circuit design engineer from 1994 through last year, and I must tell you that your proposed bill to ban serialized integrated circuits is, at best, and uninformed attempt to ban a technology you do not even understand.
Intel's press release that it's serialized Pentium III's was little more than a marketing ploy, albeit a poorly orchestrated one. I will not argue that Intel's suggested use of serialization on it's chips leave many questions regarding privacy unanswered but consider the following:
1. It is quite likely that Intel has been selling (and manufacturing in Arizona) IC's that have been serialized for years.
2. Other manufacturers also have motivation serialize their chips. Motorola is an example.
3. Many other components on a PC, such as motherboard BIOS's, Ethernet network cards, and thousands, possibly millions of components already in use contain serialization.
4. Most (if not all) software on the market includes a unique serial ID that is easily readable through software and can be used to 'track' users. Windows 98 automatic software update feature is a good example of a technology that already makes good use of this type of technology.
The bill you propose could have the following consequences if, by some odd twist of fate, it were to pass:
1. It would cripple the computing infrastructure of most companies, since the local area network (ethernet) cards would become illegal.
2. The ban on manufacture of serialized chips would likely shut down operations of large portions of two of the biggest employers in Arizona, namely, Intel and Motorola, even if the aforementioned network card issue was given reprieve. Let's not forget ST Microelectronics, Honeywell/Bull, Burr Brown and Microchip.
3. The ensuing economic disruption would surely cost the Arizona legislature millions (if not billions) in litigation defending cases brought by these companies, not to mention the economic havoc that would be associated with turning tens of thousands of Arizonan's away from their jobs.
4. It would demonstrate that Arizona's state legislature is as uninformed and non-sensical as is sometimes joked about by it constituents.
Sincerely,
-name omitted for \. post-
Apparently someone didn't do homework (Score:1)
Seems like a god idea gone awry. I agree that Intel's idea is totally kooky, but I am one to believe that the market should determine itself. Hey, I don't want a chip that goes on spouting off my information, so I won't buy one. What a crazy idea that is. And then, I can form a group of buyers, and say, "Hey, you are going to lose all these Millions of dollars" to "The Man". Looks like that worked better than any law ever will.
Bad, but still good? (Score:1)
Corporate rights?? Err... (Score:1)
Please quote the bit in the constitution that covers Rights of Corporations.
I don't think there is one. Corporations don't have rights like you and I do. If they did they would have killed us all off long ago. Seems like far too many people think there is some sort of constitutional protection for corporations.
Intel cannot make any chip it wants to make. I'm sure the exploding chip or the heroin chip would be outlawed. Az CAN pass any bill it wants to, as long as it doesn't interfere with federal law.
Bad, but still good? (Score:1)
I don't really see how it hurts the individual. Maybe it hurts the people that want to physically drive to store to buy computer hardware...
Who's paranoid?
I (you) don't get it (Score:1)
Cars would probably never have been made safer if the government had not intervened.
The free market thing only works if there are viable alternatives to the product or policy. And I mean really viable, not just out there (case in point, Windows..most people hate it, but most people use it).
It seems to me there are far more cases of the government 'interfering' on behalf of the people than there are cases where a boycott was successful.
Corporate rights?? Err... (Score:1)
IMHO the logic is faulty that says corporations have rights. I realize that it's pretty debatable, and it's one of the excuses that people use to justify corporations donating money to politicians (which I also think is bad), but right or wrong, I don't like it
Nutcases (Score:1)
One of the greatest ideas I've ever seen. (Score:1)
One of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen. (Score:1)
Just Anoter Reason To Get a K7 (Score:1)
For example: Your isp could set it so you could always log in, because you are on the same machine.
Downside: Somebody, somewhere will figure out a way to fake the ID, either with hardware or software.
For example: You would never need a cookie sent to YOU again, the server would hold the info if you have been there or not.
Downside: Same as the isp deal.
It seems to me that the security risk is larger than the advantages. Plus, what if you ever sell your computer? You are going to have to notify ALOT of people that you aren't using the same computer any more. You would have to email somebody at the site about it in order to reinstate your account with them on your new computer.
So, I think it is a horrible idea, but besides, I'm never going to buy an intel chip again as long as AMD keeps going the way they are.
It's the software, stupid! (Score:1)
A clue to the AZ legislature: if you want to do something productive then regulate tracking software, not hardware. A chip simply cannot, in and of itself, send an ID anywhere!
Would have been a good analogy, except... (Score:1)
That's one of great rhings of open source software!