PPI (DLC partner) says RFID technology should not be regulated.

[madfloridian]

This is very disturbing to me. I understand this to be the the "tags" that stay on merchandise to "follow you home." I may be wrong, and it may be my simplistic thinking....but I think this is wrong.

If it is not regulated, we will not have clue what merchandise it is on, whether it is still wrong, or what is going on.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=85&subid=108&contentid=252945

SNIP..."Government should wait to enact RFID legislation. Legislating before real harms are identified is premature and could inadvisably limit RFID use and increase the likelihood of locking out RFID applications that do not threaten privacy." (I disagree...how do you define what threatens privacy.)

SNIP...""RFID tags are poised to be one of the 'next big things' that will boost productivity and consumer convenience," Atkinson and Hutto conclude. "That's why policy makers should not give in to privacy advocates' exhortations for government to restrict this technology." WHAT! Don't give in to privacy advocates?!

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=140&subsecid=288&contentid=252944

SNIP..."Yet despite the tremendous potential benefits of RFID technology, privacy advocates worry it could lead to more detailed tracking of the products we buy, maybe even to the level of taking inventory of what is in our homes and what is on our person at any given time. Arguing that stores, corporations, and even libraries will use the technology to spy on people, RFID critics have threatened boycotts to derail the technology's adoption. In response, a number of companies have postponed item-level RFID programs and lawmakers in several states and the U.S. Congress have introduced legislation that, if passed, would curtail the use of RFID technology...."END SNIP

This is another one of those "trust us, we know best" pieces of you know what. This is the partner of a Democratic think tank, sharing the same office and same secretary.

[yellowjacket]

1. I've been to Congressional hearings on RFID

and to an RFID symposium this summer at the Federal Trade Commission and what I took away from the discussions was that privacy advocates are well meaning, but their arguments cite scenarios that are at least 20 years on the horizon. Employers or passersby CANNOT scan the contents of your purse or pockets and the tag reader have a functional range of about 10 feet. Not exactly in sync with the claims groups like EFF and CASPIAN are making. Just my .02.

[madfloridian]

3. Ok...I did not say that. Please be fair about my concerns.

I don't insult folks, and I don't expect it either.

[yellowjacket]

6. Fine, but don't take the concerns of privacy advocates

at face value. They have wildly exaggerated the reach of this technology to the point that its survival is in danger, and for no reason at all.

[madfloridian]

9. So how do you feel about environmental activists? Are they kooks also?

How do I know we really need the RFID technology? Please tell me. I feel like we are so observed already.

I find your opinion of privacy activists disturbing.

[yellowjacket]

13. They can be...

I am all for things being labled that have RFID tags in them, but don't kill the technology because of the potential for abuse 20 years down the road.

[madfloridian]

19. I did not advocate "killing" the technology...I said "regulate.!"

Please do not misquote me.

[madfloridian]

5. Also, I do NOT even know those groups.

I am glad you are so well-informed that our privacy is protected.

[yellowjacket]

7. EFF has been around a long time. Look em up.

As for CASPIAN, they are complete nutjobs. Sorry but they just are.

http://www.nocards.org/">www.nocards.org

[madfloridian]

11. I did NOT mention those groups. Democrats saying don't regulate.

If you don't regulate and oversee you have problems.

You know what, I am concerned you are so against privacy advocates.

[madfloridian]

27. I hope you do not put EFF in that category of nutjob like you did CASPIAN.

http://www.eff.org/

I think of EFF as being a great helper in the e-voting mess. I never thought I would cause a controversy on this topic at a Democratic forum at all.

[madfloridian]

14. Read some articles here. They refute what you say.

Boy, you really got upset over this topic. I value privacy, and I don't think we should put the kids in charge of the candy store...do you? That is like a corporation saying "trust us".

http://www.rfidprivacy.org/blog/index.php

Interesting article about putting chips on kids to keep track of them (over a large area.)...next we can put them IN the kids.

[yellowjacket]

17. I am not finding the part about tracking kids...

Please point me to it because I coulnd't find that in the link provided.
Besides, an RFID tag large enough to be read over a "large area" would also have to have a HUGE antenna. A tag readable from 10ft. currently requires a 1x1" antenna attached to the chip. Do the math...

[madfloridian]

18. Here are two about putting them on children. Creepy.

http://www.rfidprivacy.org/blog/archives/000119.html

And another of interest:
http://www.rfidprivacy.org/blog/archives/000123.html

[yellowjacket]

Right. Legoland and the Japanese schools

have to literally blanket the areas with RFID readers because the read ranges are so short. This is a good thing in my opinion. Parents were informed, and kids were tracked. It's not like they held the kids down and injected them with RFID chips so they could be tracked from afar 24 hours a day. Get real....

[madfloridian]

24. We are worlds apart on privacy. Never the twain shall meet.

You put chips on your kids, I won't put them on my grandkids.

Peace. Bye.

[Justice]

28. Truth About RFID

It is not true that these concerns are 20 years away - they are here today. The technology has valid and valuable uses. There are also legitimate privacy concerns.

Today you can go into some high end boutiques and be scanned -- and the system tells you what clothing is available in the store to match what you are wearing.

[sendero]

2. God not this again...

... RFID technology as it exists today and is likely to exist for the forseeable future simply cannot do the things the "privacy advocates" are worried about.

The fucking thing only works a few feet away, period, end of story.

[madfloridian]

4. Good, I am glad you know about it. I am glad you are sure.

Please do not insult my concerns.

[Kanary]

8. Yup, it's insulting to be talked down to for not knowing every

detail in the world from birth.

Kanary

[sendero]

25. Look.....

... I did not intend to insult you personally, but re-reading my message I can understand if you felt insulted. Please accept my apology.

However, this subject was well-discussed a few months ago. I am a life-long technology nerd, and I spent considerable time researching this technology.

Bottom line - the RFID tags are not "active", i.e. they emit no RF or other radiation. They can only be "read" in the field of a scanner. This scanner has very limited range and frankly, I suspect it is near it's technological limits already.

To have the kind of system that would justify the privacy concerns I'm hearing would require some kind of "active" tag. This means it would have to have a battery which would only last so long. It would not be tiny. It would not be cheap.

There will someday be a technology that does the things that y'all are all worried about, but RFID just isn't it.

If someone starts putting tags that are really readable from distances, I'll put up a web site with a clearing house of info on how to remove or disable the tag in your consumer item. Problem solved :)

[madfloridian]

10. I worry about people who detest "privacy advocates."

And say insulting things to others who did not insult them. God, not another hater of privacy advocates!

[yellowjacket]

15. I don't detest privacy advocates.

It just so happens that the ones that I mentioned continue to - when given an audience alongside industry spokepeople - espouse conspiracy theories and use scare tactics citing scenarios they KNOW cannot possible obtain under the current iteration of the technology. Average citizens walk out of these conference thinking, "They can read what's in my purse..." when it simply isn't true.

In sum, I detest privacy advocates who are liars and serial distorters.

[madfloridian]

12. First time I have mentioned it.

Pick your fights.

[madfloridian]

16. Read the MIT forum I posted above.

It does not just work a few feet away.

[yellowjacket]

20. Again, to which article are you referring?

I can assure, I have seen demos by the guys at the Auto-ID labs at MIT and they have a max. range of about 30ft. under perfect laboratory conditions.

[madfloridian]

21. Again...here they are. I posted above.

http://www.rfidprivacy.org/blog/archives/000119.html

And another of interest:
http://www.rfidprivacy.org/blog/archives/000123.html

[MisterP]

22. technically, the PPI is a PNAC partner more than a DLC

(not that it really matters--it's all a masquerade for Chimpire)

[madfloridian]

23. They share the same office and phone and secretary with the DLC.

I agree that many of them share PNAC values.

[MisterP]

26. scads of 'em are PNAC signatories; not least among them their founder,

Will Marshall (a Kerry adviser to boot)