dcseain | Just a Grain of Rice

Wrong on so many levels. When is a human not a human? Never. When do people treat other people as less than human? When they're a resource to be exploited. It's sociopathic behavior in my opinion.

I really don't see how this is all that different/worse, or "treating like pets", than dogtags, which the military has been using for generations now.

The fact that the military considers it's people "material resources", and tracks and accounts them just like pieces of machinery, is old hat, and is already a part of military culture and dark humor.

RFID chips in troops have the same advantages over dogtags that "chipping" pet dogs/cats/birds/horses has over collar tags.

Fair enough, and having worked for the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (http://www.sddc.army.mil/Public/Home), i know very first-hand that people and goods are tracked nearly identically.

I do think the level of effort to recover the chips, especially in an explosion of any type, for outweighs the benefits of replacing dogtags. Augmenting them, especially with medical info, could save a few lives, and possibly hasten notiication of family in the event of injury.

Hmm. Hard to say.

On the one hand, I can definitely see significant value in having a combatant's medical information attached to his person, accessible in the field, whether he's conscious or not -- or even if he's dead. It's not that unlike the dog-tags soldiers are already required to wear. (And in that sense, they're already being treated like pets.)

On the other, it does seem a little creepy on a visceral level. But on the gripping hand, I'm having a hard time pinning down why I feel that way, or how it's different from the other contraints imposed by military service.

What do you find troubling about it?

The possibilities for abuse by government and/or industry, not to mention unscrupulous people/orgs, especially as military (which for the sake of this conversation/tech, includes DOD, plus National Guard, Merchant Marine and Coast Guard) personnel re-enter society as civs.

I agree that augmenting dogtags, esp with med info, would be useful. I also agree with the VFW official that replacing the tags with the chip would make explosion ID/recovery of remains even more difficult than it is now, as the electronics could damage more easily than the tags, and certainly would be harder to retrieve on the field.

I was assuming that you'd get de-chipped when discharged. Maybe a bad assumption.

The potential for abuse is definitely a serious concern. I'm just having trouble thinking of abuses that you couldn't already easily accomplish with existing technology and practices...

(I'm not very good at thinking maliciously, I guess.)

Actually, you hit the diabolical on the head their, my friend. The tech is in fact there already, i.e. multi-wavelenght RFID readers, just a matter of how secure the backend data is. Mind you, my fears there are arguably irrelevant, now that i think about it a bit.

I use EZPass (https://smart-tag.com/index.cfm?flash=yes), an RFID device mounted on my windscreen that lets me bop though the main toll plaza on my local toll road at speed, and the exit plazas at 30-35 MPH. Going through the gate dings my account for the 75- or 50-cent toll respectively, and when the total balance on my EZPass dips below $10, they charge another $35 to one of my credit cards, which they have on file.

Since i'm willing to trust the tech with my name, addres, credit card numbers, expiry for the cards, VIN, and license plate, really why not trust it with my medical history. Hmmm.

Well, even further: it's not like you need RFID -- or even computers -- to acquire illicit copies of medical records. Or to track someone's movements. Or to identify someone.

I think the biggest danger is that if there are large caches of RFID data lying around, someone might be tempted to do dubious kinds of datamining that they wouldn't if they had to go to the effort of collecting the data in the first place. But the technology as described in the article doesn't particularly lend itself to that.

The idea of somebody with a scanner walking down a row of people and reading records from their bicep seems like it ought to be nefarious, but I haven't been able to think how. You could just as easily collect the data from a computer system or a filing cabinet. Etc.

A part of me wants to find the idea alarming, but I think it's more that I find the military itself alarming, not its technologies.

The idea of somebody with a scanner walking down a row of people and reading records from their bicep seems like it ought to be nefarious, but I haven't been able to think how. You could just as easily collect the data from a computer system or a filing cabinet.

There is at least one employer in the US who RFIDs its workers (this hit the news last winter). Ostensibly for secure access to areas as I recall, but one could also use it to monitor bathroom break length, etc. Perhaps not hugely different from badge tracking in that respect, but it's one step closer to enabling total surveillance.

Definitely a worry. But my impression is that implanted chips have a tiny, tiny range. this website (http://www.bsava.com/resources/microchipadvice/implantationsites/) gives veterinarians (heh - can't just say 'vets' in this discussion!) advice on how to scan animals for ID chips, and they talk about holding the scanner actually touching the fur, and making sure not to do it on top of a stainless steel table. So it seems ill-suited for figuring out where people are.

I guess my thought is that the employer who would use RFID tags in badges to track bathroom breaks is the same employer that would have the person whose desk is near the bathroom take notes without RFID. Like any technology, it can be abused, but it doesn't seem geared towards abuse -- at least in its current form. It could always change.

my impression is that implanted chips have a tiny, tiny range

I'm not sure about the implanted ones, but I know some RFID tags have been read at 30 feet (probably detailed in RISKS digest or on Bruce Schneier's blog at some point), despite claims by the manufacturers that their range was less than a foot.

I wish we had those ones at work! (We've got them in our employee IDs for entering the building, and I have bonked my knee on a couple occasions doing the badge-reader door-unlocking dance.)

I think the conclusion I'm coming to is that medical-record implant chips aren't, in and of themselves, a terribly worrying idea. But they're related to things that can be worrying, so if someone (especially the military) is considering using them, privacy concerns need to be clearly respected and boundaries established early. And I don't think I can tell from the article in question whether that's the case or not.

I miss card readers. My current employer uses cypher locks.

I also have reached the conclusion you state. I definitely do not think this tech is inherently a bad thing. I do think that if it's not very well implemented, that it could cause problems, but that's realyl a data security issue. Seeing as i've gotten 2 new debit cards from my bank due to the Visa/MC DB breaches last year, data security uber alles, as well as appropriate, and respeceted, limits and boundaries on the use of the tech and data.

If it was to be used in the way it is supposed to be used, I don't see an issue. Having access to medical records in emergencies, access for only medical professionals who are of good moral standing, a government that wouldn't abuse it's uses nor it's people...

You see where I'm going. Do I trust these organizations to do the right thing and not try and screw anyone and everyone in their way? Not for a sec. But does that make the technology bad? I don't know. Being able to know in an instant if you have diabetes or allergies or what the meds you are on would be a life saver. But the potential for abuse is enormous.

I think you'll find my thread with

dr_tectonic, above, of interest.

The RFID need to be easily removable once the soldier leaves the service. It should also be voluntary. Lastly, it should be on a specialized radio frequency if that's possible.

I think RFID is better in several ways-hold more information, won't get lost, less chance of damage in an explosion, etc. The injuries soldiers survive today are so much more severe than in the past, and the medical intervention, especially in the field, needed to save them is more complicated than in the past, that doctors need to know more than blood type.

Actually, I keep telling my mom that when she gets Alzheimer's, which is highly likely because of family history, we should get her microchipped. Her mother who had Alzheimer's was a wanderer and got lost and confused on several occaisions. My mom sewed her name and our phone number into her clothes and put notes in her purse. An RFID would make it easier to return my mom, and could also have medical info. like blood type and allergies.

Actually, I keep telling my mom that when she gets Alzheimer's, which is highly likely because of family history, we should get her microchipped

Supremely practical, but "when she gets Alzeimer's" makes me shudder.

My grandmother. My great-grandmother. My Tante Bertel (my mom's 1st cousin who was almost grandmother's age). The family history is there. My grandmother would often forget English. Bertel got to the point where she forgot how to walk.

My mom is approaching the age when my grandmother was first affected.

We're (our family name)s. We are supremely practical. You should see my parents' funeral instructions.

Just a Grain of Rice

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject