 |
THE WORLD'S RFID AUTHORITY
 PREMIUM = Requires Subscription. Learn MoreRFID Journal Blog
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RSS Feed
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RECENT ENTRIES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How to Market RFID Products, Part 2
RFID Handhelds for Sale
How to Market RFID Products and Services in a Slowing Economy
Tagged Tattoo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In 2007, Lewan wrote an erroneous and misleading article linking implanted RFID transponders to tumors in lab mice (see VeriChip Defends the Safety of Implanted RFID Tags). Now, Lewan has drafted another article ("Businesses praise chips as privacy groups worry") attempting to scare the bejesus out of people by presenting a highly biased and grossly inaccurate view of RFID and how it will be used in the future—and not backing up his claims.
Here's a sample: Lewan opens the article with "a vision of the not-so-distant future." He writes that in "Smart Homes, sensors built into walls, floors and appliances will inventory possessions, record eating habits, monitor medicine cabinets—all the while, silently reporting data to marketers eager for a peek into the occupants' private lives."
He also writes, "new and potentially intrusive uses of it are being patented, perfected and deployed." Really? I know people have patented some ideas for monitoring shopping habits. But I don't know of any that have been perfected and deployed. And neither does he, apparently, since he does not describe any in his article.
Lewan quotes Mark Rasch, former head of the computer-crime unit of the U.S. Justice Department, as saying: "With tags in so many objects, relaying information to databases that can be linked to credit and bank cards, almost no aspect of life may soon be safe from the prying eyes of corporations and governments."
Really? Who is doing this? Who is even proposing to do this? Lewan doesn't name names because, of course, the answer is "no one." EPCglobal guidelines say not to—and frankly, if companies were to try, the government would likely step in and stop them anyway.
Lewan also quotes Rasch as claiming that by placing sniffers in strategic areas, companies can invisibly "rifle through people's pockets, purses, suitcases, briefcases, luggage—and possibly their kitchens and bedrooms—anytime of the day or night."
Really? What strategic areas? What would a company gain from doing this sort of thing? And why wouldn't this be easily exposed, publicly embarrassing the firm, damaging its brand and costing it hard-earned customers?
The story continues to bring up old nonsense about criminals using RFID technology to figure out whom to rob, and so forth. It would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that the article was picked up by newspapers around the world that are desperate for a good story—even one that's patently untrue.
Lewan knows his article is full of nonsense, and I know he knows that because I spent about an hour with him at RFID Journal LIVE! 2007 in Orlando. I could tell, right off the bat, that he was out to write a sensational article, not a serious story, and I shot down every scenario he brought up. None of my arguments made it into the article, of course, because people then would have heard the sense in what I said, and the article would have lost all its zing.
Lewan told me (and I'm paraphrasing) that his title is "investigative reporter," which means he has to write stuff that is highly charged. Apparently, that doesn't involve actual investigating and telling people the truth—that RFID is not nearly the threat to privacy that some would have you believe.
As a journalist, I find it appalling that someone would knowingly write something they realize to be untrue. I understand the desire to write sexy stories, of course, but I don't agree with the view many journalists these days (strangely) have that sexy, unfounded stories make for good reads, and that factual accuracy is irrelevant.
I don't think Lewan's article alone could turn people off RFID—but what if some legislator in Washington were to read it and decide he had to put a stop to this supposed threat to privacy? What if this legislator then managed to get a law passed, mandating that RFID tags had to be killed at checkout or else could not be used on consumer products? As a result, people could die because counterfeit drugs or tainted meat could no longer be tracked and recalled. God forbid one of those people was Lewan's son or mother or wife. Is it worth writing a good story that is untrue, if death could be the end result?
Here's a sample: Lewan opens the article with "a vision of the not-so-distant future." He writes that in "Smart Homes, sensors built into walls, floors and appliances will inventory possessions, record eating habits, monitor medicine cabinets—all the while, silently reporting data to marketers eager for a peek into the occupants' private lives."
He also writes, "new and potentially intrusive uses of it are being patented, perfected and deployed." Really? I know people have patented some ideas for monitoring shopping habits. But I don't know of any that have been perfected and deployed. And neither does he, apparently, since he does not describe any in his article.
Lewan quotes Mark Rasch, former head of the computer-crime unit of the U.S. Justice Department, as saying: "With tags in so many objects, relaying information to databases that can be linked to credit and bank cards, almost no aspect of life may soon be safe from the prying eyes of corporations and governments."
Really? Who is doing this? Who is even proposing to do this? Lewan doesn't name names because, of course, the answer is "no one." EPCglobal guidelines say not to—and frankly, if companies were to try, the government would likely step in and stop them anyway.
Lewan also quotes Rasch as claiming that by placing sniffers in strategic areas, companies can invisibly "rifle through people's pockets, purses, suitcases, briefcases, luggage—and possibly their kitchens and bedrooms—anytime of the day or night."
Really? What strategic areas? What would a company gain from doing this sort of thing? And why wouldn't this be easily exposed, publicly embarrassing the firm, damaging its brand and costing it hard-earned customers?
The story continues to bring up old nonsense about criminals using RFID technology to figure out whom to rob, and so forth. It would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that the article was picked up by newspapers around the world that are desperate for a good story—even one that's patently untrue.
Lewan knows his article is full of nonsense, and I know he knows that because I spent about an hour with him at RFID Journal LIVE! 2007 in Orlando. I could tell, right off the bat, that he was out to write a sensational article, not a serious story, and I shot down every scenario he brought up. None of my arguments made it into the article, of course, because people then would have heard the sense in what I said, and the article would have lost all its zing.
Lewan told me (and I'm paraphrasing) that his title is "investigative reporter," which means he has to write stuff that is highly charged. Apparently, that doesn't involve actual investigating and telling people the truth—that RFID is not nearly the threat to privacy that some would have you believe.
I don't think Lewan's article alone could turn people off RFID—but what if some legislator in Washington were to read it and decide he had to put a stop to this supposed threat to privacy? What if this legislator then managed to get a law passed, mandating that RFID tags had to be killed at checkout or else could not be used on consumer products? As a result, people could die because counterfeit drugs or tainted meat could no longer be tracked and recalled. God forbid one of those people was Lewan's son or mother or wife. Is it worth writing a good story that is untrue, if death could be the end result?
20 Comments
Brainy Blogger
I hate to sound like one of those harsh book reviewers, but your article is neither deep, informative nor interesting. It also contains a factual error: You state that the FDA approved VeriChip's implant. As I understand it, however, the FDA
only indicated that the implant does not pose a risk. It has not
approved it for any medical applications, the way it would approve a drug to fight cancer, for instance.
All of your points have been brought up by others, such as that implants could cause infections or problems with getting an MRI. You do touch on the privacy issue, but like many others, you don't go into any depth. You don't explain, for example, how a device that can only be read from a few inches away could possibly present a big threat to an individual's privacy, or
how obtaining a random serial number off a chip threatens that
privacy.
You also fail to address the two biggest problems with
VeriChip: A) that it is unnecessary (a pendant would work just as
well as an implant) and B) for it to be effective, there would have to be a single database containing every citizen's information. Otherwise, if I were in an accident and couldn't talk, you wouldn't be able to read the chip in my arm and access my data, since it wouldn't be in your database. Does anyone really want one company, or even one government agency, having access to everyone's medical records? Me thinks not.
Posted By: Mark Roberti 6/15/08 at 4:54 AM
I hate to sound like one of those harsh book reviewers, but your article is neither deep, informative nor interesting. It also contains a factual error: You state that the FDA approved VeriChip's implant. As I understand it, however, the FDA
only indicated that the implant does not pose a risk. It has not
approved it for any medical applications, the way it would approve a drug to fight cancer, for instance.
All of your points have been brought up by others, such as that implants could cause infections or problems with getting an MRI. You do touch on the privacy issue, but like many others, you don't go into any depth. You don't explain, for example, how a device that can only be read from a few inches away could possibly present a big threat to an individual's privacy, or
how obtaining a random serial number off a chip threatens that
privacy.
You also fail to address the two biggest problems with
VeriChip: A) that it is unnecessary (a pendant would work just as
well as an implant) and B) for it to be effective, there would have to be a single database containing every citizen's information. Otherwise, if I were in an accident and couldn't talk, you wouldn't be able to read the chip in my arm and access my data, since it wouldn't be in your database. Does anyone really want one company, or even one government agency, having access to everyone's medical records? Me thinks not.
Posted By: Mark Roberti 6/15/08 at 4:54 AM
RFID
Thanks for the information on the VeriChip.
We recently wrote an article (http://brainblogger.com/2008/06/09/the-implications-of-...) on the VeriChip on (http://brainblogger.com/). What kind of medical concerns does this chip bring up? What about privacy issues?
We would like to read your comments on our article. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kell
Posted By: Kelly 6/10/08 at 2:47 PM
Thanks for the information on the VeriChip.
We recently wrote an article (http://brainblogger.com/2008/06/09/the-implications-of-...) on the VeriChip on (http://brainblogger.com/). What kind of medical concerns does this chip bring up? What about privacy issues?
We would like to read your comments on our article. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kell
Posted By: Kelly 6/10/08 at 2:47 PM
Ronan, Ronan, please!
Ronan is ever the promoter of bar codes and basher of RFID. We've done several stories on successful RFID implementations in abattoirs. All went to RFID because bar codes and other ID technologies didn't work. The meat hook tags aren't that expensive. The tag on the cow is associated with the tag in the meat hook and as the animal is cut up and put into plastic bins that are tagged and associated with the tag in the meat hook. This is simple to deploy and provides knowledge of which meat shipments came from which animal. Tracking individual pieces of steak obviously isn't viable at this point, but the systems successfully implemented would greatly improve recalls and save hundreds of thousands of dollars.
As for the mad cow issue, the question is do you have the ability to find out which cows were in the same herd so you can slaughter them and any cows they might have been with in the supply chain, or do you slaughter all cows. Ronan believes its better to not use RFID and slaughter all cows. I say its better to use RFID and identify the cows that could have the disease and slaughter those. But what do I know?
Posted By: Mark Roberti 2/29/08 at 10:15 AM
Ronan is ever the promoter of bar codes and basher of RFID. We've done several stories on successful RFID implementations in abattoirs. All went to RFID because bar codes and other ID technologies didn't work. The meat hook tags aren't that expensive. The tag on the cow is associated with the tag in the meat hook and as the animal is cut up and put into plastic bins that are tagged and associated with the tag in the meat hook. This is simple to deploy and provides knowledge of which meat shipments came from which animal. Tracking individual pieces of steak obviously isn't viable at this point, but the systems successfully implemented would greatly improve recalls and save hundreds of thousands of dollars.
As for the mad cow issue, the question is do you have the ability to find out which cows were in the same herd so you can slaughter them and any cows they might have been with in the supply chain, or do you slaughter all cows. Ronan believes its better to not use RFID and slaughter all cows. I say its better to use RFID and identify the cows that could have the disease and slaughter those. But what do I know?
Posted By: Mark Roberti 2/29/08 at 10:15 AM
Stable to Table
RFID is not practicable to implement after slaughter. To clarify my earlier comment, I can see the benefit in tracking cattle in a farm for various reasons and I have actually just embarked on such a project in Ireland. Once the tag is removed at slaughter is where the problems arise and it is too expensive to implement. I have spent enough time in abbatoirs to know that the required investment to implement RFID CORRECTLY is not available. Regardless of wether a tag was on a cow or not, the first indication of mad cow in any animal in the UK (or anywhere) will create such a public stir that all of the animals will be destroyed anyway. Any meat that potentially came from any farm within a hundred mile radius will be recalled regardless. Imagine if you were told that your steak came from a farm where there was an outbreak of mad cow, but it's OK because your particular steak didn't come from an infected animal. Would you eat it? Not a chance. I can really understand the desire to manage and control this industry but it just isn't, and will never be, viable. Even the systems (that have been around for 20 years) that are implanted on the meat hooks are difficult to justify in terms of cost. They have to be built so as to withstand the chemicals they are cleaned in. My company has implemented bar-coding in a number of meat factories in Ireland with great success, so it is hard to say that it doesn't work.
Posted By: Ronan Clinton 2/28/08 at 2:52 PM
RFID is not practicable to implement after slaughter. To clarify my earlier comment, I can see the benefit in tracking cattle in a farm for various reasons and I have actually just embarked on such a project in Ireland. Once the tag is removed at slaughter is where the problems arise and it is too expensive to implement. I have spent enough time in abbatoirs to know that the required investment to implement RFID CORRECTLY is not available. Regardless of wether a tag was on a cow or not, the first indication of mad cow in any animal in the UK (or anywhere) will create such a public stir that all of the animals will be destroyed anyway. Any meat that potentially came from any farm within a hundred mile radius will be recalled regardless. Imagine if you were told that your steak came from a farm where there was an outbreak of mad cow, but it's OK because your particular steak didn't come from an infected animal. Would you eat it? Not a chance. I can really understand the desire to manage and control this industry but it just isn't, and will never be, viable. Even the systems (that have been around for 20 years) that are implanted on the meat hooks are difficult to justify in terms of cost. They have to be built so as to withstand the chemicals they are cleaned in. My company has implemented bar-coding in a number of meat factories in Ireland with great success, so it is hard to say that it doesn't work.
Posted By: Ronan Clinton 2/28/08 at 2:52 PM
Mad Cow Disease happens at the Farm
I guess you should tell the farmers in Britain who destroyed their entire stocks that the problems start at the butchery and not the farm. If there is an outbreak of Mad Cow disease, it's going to cost you a lot more to kill your cows than it ever would have cost you to deploy RFID. As a consumer of beef, I can tell you I am concerned about the food supply and would feel a lot better if we could track meat from stable to table.
Posted By: Mark Roberti 2/22/08 at 2:33 PM
I guess you should tell the farmers in Britain who destroyed their entire stocks that the problems start at the butchery and not the farm. If there is an outbreak of Mad Cow disease, it's going to cost you a lot more to kill your cows than it ever would have cost you to deploy RFID. As a consumer of beef, I can tell you I am concerned about the food supply and would feel a lot better if we could track meat from stable to table.
Posted By: Mark Roberti 2/22/08 at 2:33 PM
Contaminated meat happens at slaughter, not the farm
Mark says - "I'm amazed that you can say RFID has no use in tracking meat. Canada has already done successful "stable to table" proof of concepts. You need to get off the idea that RFID doesn't work. If bar codes are so great, how come they routine recall tons of beef, rather than only the beef that that has a problem? Answer: Bar codes require too much labor to track back the meat to its source."
If you knew anything about the cause of these meat recalls, you would know that the contamination happens at the slaughter house - not the farm! RFID is not used after slaughter when meat from hundreds or thousands of cows is ground and mixed together. That's where the problem is. Tracking cows back to the farm of origin puts the blame on the wrong people.
Oh, and BTW, Australian ranchers aren't too happy with their tracking system. It's killing them.
http://arkansasanimalproducers.8k.com/whats_new_32.html...
Posted By: Barbara 2/15/08 at 11:59 PM
Mark says - "I'm amazed that you can say RFID has no use in tracking meat. Canada has already done successful "stable to table" proof of concepts. You need to get off the idea that RFID doesn't work. If bar codes are so great, how come they routine recall tons of beef, rather than only the beef that that has a problem? Answer: Bar codes require too much labor to track back the meat to its source."
If you knew anything about the cause of these meat recalls, you would know that the contamination happens at the slaughter house - not the farm! RFID is not used after slaughter when meat from hundreds or thousands of cows is ground and mixed together. That's where the problem is. Tracking cows back to the farm of origin puts the blame on the wrong people.
Oh, and BTW, Australian ranchers aren't too happy with their tracking system. It's killing them.
http://arkansasanimalproducers.8k.com/whats_new_32.html...
Posted By: Barbara 2/15/08 at 11:59 PM
RFID
Sometimes technology can be a good thing, sometimes it's destructive. Not all potential applications should be given full reign of their capabilities. That is the biggest issue with those in research and development in current times. The idea; that because it is invented, it needs to be developed, does not mean it has to be deployed in all areas of life. In some areas RFID may make sense - like in a wrist band on a patient, but NEVER as an implant to that patient. Likewise, I recent any company that will send out radio waves to make me buy product, this type of coercion is illegal in the US, unless you techy folks feel criminal activity is also warranted with new technology. I am not a techy person; I loathe most of the new stuff coming to market because it is manufactured in a throw-away mentality. Lives are also becoming “throw-away”, whether human or animal because of this ideology.
Countries that have used RFIDs have seen database tampering and cancer in animals due to this technology. China has implemented RFIDs in certain cities to in order to track at least one aspect of living there: the only one child policy. Corporations here in the US are implanting employees already to save on employee ID badges. I find it irresponsible of any journalist that does not print both sides of an issue in a factual manner. It used to be our country had strong moral values and would see what new technology could due to its citizens in the future and not allow certain applications. Anymore, techno geeks, laboratories, and manufacturers are given free range with anything invented with no regard to the consequences. Medical breakthroughs in the past used to be for the betterment of mankind, now it is solely for the stockholders, corporations, and those that are fear mongering that technology is the only way to be safe, healthy and free. It is an illusion and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see RFIDs will NOT solve even a small percentage of the issues it claims to. It will only create more if allowed free reign to be implemented in anyway, shape, and form. It has been stated that the RFID market is one of the fastest growing technologies. Without more restraints on this invasive technology, we will be experiencing more of our civil rights lost.
Posted By: FarmGirlAtHeart 2/15/08 at 8:21 AM
Sometimes technology can be a good thing, sometimes it's destructive. Not all potential applications should be given full reign of their capabilities. That is the biggest issue with those in research and development in current times. The idea; that because it is invented, it needs to be developed, does not mean it has to be deployed in all areas of life. In some areas RFID may make sense - like in a wrist band on a patient, but NEVER as an implant to that patient. Likewise, I recent any company that will send out radio waves to make me buy product, this type of coercion is illegal in the US, unless you techy folks feel criminal activity is also warranted with new technology. I am not a techy person; I loathe most of the new stuff coming to market because it is manufactured in a throw-away mentality. Lives are also becoming “throw-away”, whether human or animal because of this ideology.
Countries that have used RFIDs have seen database tampering and cancer in animals due to this technology. China has implemented RFIDs in certain cities to in order to track at least one aspect of living there: the only one child policy. Corporations here in the US are implanting employees already to save on employee ID badges. I find it irresponsible of any journalist that does not print both sides of an issue in a factual manner. It used to be our country had strong moral values and would see what new technology could due to its citizens in the future and not allow certain applications. Anymore, techno geeks, laboratories, and manufacturers are given free range with anything invented with no regard to the consequences. Medical breakthroughs in the past used to be for the betterment of mankind, now it is solely for the stockholders, corporations, and those that are fear mongering that technology is the only way to be safe, healthy and free. It is an illusion and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see RFIDs will NOT solve even a small percentage of the issues it claims to. It will only create more if allowed free reign to be implemented in anyway, shape, and form. It has been stated that the RFID market is one of the fastest growing technologies. Without more restraints on this invasive technology, we will be experiencing more of our civil rights lost.
Posted By: FarmGirlAtHeart 2/15/08 at 8:21 AM
Who has had their privacy infringed?
Pat S.,
Thanks for your post. None of the patents Ms. Albrecht and Ms. McIntyre uncovered have been implemented. There's no doubt that companies would like to use RFID to gather more information about what we buy. It's also true that retailers aren't stupid enough to scare away all their customers by implementing something that infringes their customers' privacy. You've witnessed demonstrations. You've seen the TV shows. But it doesn't change the fact that no one has ever had personal information gathered through the use of RFID used in a way that infringes privacy. I read Spy chips. There's not a single case. Sorry, but that's the fact.
Posted By: Mark Roberti 2/11/08 at 11:00 AM
Pat S.,
Thanks for your post. None of the patents Ms. Albrecht and Ms. McIntyre uncovered have been implemented. There's no doubt that companies would like to use RFID to gather more information about what we buy. It's also true that retailers aren't stupid enough to scare away all their customers by implementing something that infringes their customers' privacy. You've witnessed demonstrations. You've seen the TV shows. But it doesn't change the fact that no one has ever had personal information gathered through the use of RFID used in a way that infringes privacy. I read Spy chips. There's not a single case. Sorry, but that's the fact.
Posted By: Mark Roberti 2/11/08 at 11:00 AM
Biggest Fearmonger
Ronan, Thanks for your comments. I've been called a lot of things -- Satan, tool of big business, etc. -- but you are the first to call me a fearmonger for pointing out that RFID can help save lives. I'm amazed that you can say RFID has no use in tracking meat. Canada has already done successful "stable to table" proof of concepts. You need to get off the idea that RFID doesn't work. If bar codes are so great, how come they routine recall tons of beef, rather than only the beef that that has a problem? Answer: Bar codes require too much labor to track back the meat to its source.
Posted By: Mark Roberti 2/11/08 at 10:55 AM
Ronan, Thanks for your comments. I've been called a lot of things -- Satan, tool of big business, etc. -- but you are the first to call me a fearmonger for pointing out that RFID can help save lives. I'm amazed that you can say RFID has no use in tracking meat. Canada has already done successful "stable to table" proof of concepts. You need to get off the idea that RFID doesn't work. If bar codes are so great, how come they routine recall tons of beef, rather than only the beef that that has a problem? Answer: Bar codes require too much labor to track back the meat to its source.
Posted By: Mark Roberti 2/11/08 at 10:55 AM
Additional...
Also, the pharmaceutical industry are showing a preference for 2D barcodes as opposed to RFID for tracking....
Posted By: Ronan Clinton 2/9/08 at 11:06 AM
Also, the pharmaceutical industry are showing a preference for 2D barcodes as opposed to RFID for tracking....
Posted By: Ronan Clinton 2/9/08 at 11:06 AM
Fearmongering
Mark, I'm afraid that you are one of the biggest fear mongerers of them all, yet you fail to realise it. I have sat and listened to many 'experts' tell me that if you are not on the RFID train, you will be left behind. Now you are suggesting death as an alternative to RFID???? Get real for once. You are in a responsible position of influence and the more of this tripe that you talk, the less you will be respected as a professional. Granted the spy theories are as far fetched as the success stories but until you wake up to the realities you will keep losing respect. Lay of the death idea. Even worse, lay off trying to defend your comments. The world will find new ways of killing people with or without RFID!!!! It is not viable to track meat through RFID. I provide many companies in Ireland with bar-code systems in the meat industry and as yet, RFID will not provide any additional benefit worth mentioning. You know about RFID, yet I am beginning to think that you believe some of your own journalistic rants and you are taking your eye off the ball. Keep it real!!!!
Posted By: Ronan Clinton 2/9/08 at 11:04 AM
Mark, I'm afraid that you are one of the biggest fear mongerers of them all, yet you fail to realise it. I have sat and listened to many 'experts' tell me that if you are not on the RFID train, you will be left behind. Now you are suggesting death as an alternative to RFID???? Get real for once. You are in a responsible position of influence and the more of this tripe that you talk, the less you will be respected as a professional. Granted the spy theories are as far fetched as the success stories but until you wake up to the realities you will keep losing respect. Lay of the death idea. Even worse, lay off trying to defend your comments. The world will find new ways of killing people with or without RFID!!!! It is not viable to track meat through RFID. I provide many companies in Ireland with bar-code systems in the meat industry and as yet, RFID will not provide any additional benefit worth mentioning. You know about RFID, yet I am beginning to think that you believe some of your own journalistic rants and you are taking your eye off the ball. Keep it real!!!!
Posted By: Ronan Clinton 2/9/08 at 11:04 AM
the other side of the coin
"................has yet to document a single case in which RFID was used to infringe someone's privacy."
YET! OTOH, the people who want to infringe on our privacy want to use RFID chips. USDA wants me to chip my horses so they can track them. Since my horses don't go anywhere without me, and I'm not doing anything illegal, I call that an invasion of my privacy. And... there is a possibility that the chips (which I would have to pay for - and they are not cheap), could cause physical harm to my horses.
http://www.invisio.nl/antichip/
I'm not willing to risk my horse's health for something that provides NO benefit to me or my horse.
Posted By: Barbara 2/8/08 at 9:04 AM
"................has yet to document a single case in which RFID was used to infringe someone's privacy."
YET! OTOH, the people who want to infringe on our privacy want to use RFID chips. USDA wants me to chip my horses so they can track them. Since my horses don't go anywhere without me, and I'm not doing anything illegal, I call that an invasion of my privacy. And... there is a possibility that the chips (which I would have to pay for - and they are not cheap), could cause physical harm to my horses.
http://www.invisio.nl/antichip/
I'm not willing to risk my horse's health for something that provides NO benefit to me or my horse.
Posted By: Barbara 2/8/08 at 9:04 AM
Please enlighten those of us with our head in the sand
Thanks for your post, Kim. Perhaps you can really enlighten us about what's really going on? Who has had their privacy infringed? RFID has been used to track cattle for 20 years. What's the terrible tragedy there? Are you okay with the fact that when a cow with mad cow disease was discovered in the US the authorities could not figure out what other cows were from the same herd? I, for one, am not.
Posted By: Mark Roberti 2/8/08 at 8:20 AM
Thanks for your post, Kim. Perhaps you can really enlighten us about what's really going on? Who has had their privacy infringed? RFID has been used to track cattle for 20 years. What's the terrible tragedy there? Are you okay with the fact that when a cow with mad cow disease was discovered in the US the authorities could not figure out what other cows were from the same herd? I, for one, am not.
Posted By: Mark Roberti 2/8/08 at 8:20 AM
Get Realistic About RFID
Looks to me like Latesttwo and Mr. Roberti need to do some serious homework. Seems you are missing what NAIS (National Animal ID System) wants to do. Seems that you have been ignoring the articles and research showing that chips ARE causing major problems in animals. There have been a few articles about the chip companies thinking "what a great idea it would be to chip certain patients"...for their own safety of course. What about RFID in passports?
Pat S. is quite correct in his/her statements, and shame on the industry to forge ahead, with their heads in the sand about what is REALLY happening with RFID, and industrial and government plans for it.
We're not in this for fearmongering. We're in it for the truth which, obviously, people in this industry don't really want to hear. It means that RFID is not the safe little benign piece or equipment it is being sold to the public as.
Posted By: Kim 2/7/08 at 4:50 PM
Looks to me like Latesttwo and Mr. Roberti need to do some serious homework. Seems you are missing what NAIS (National Animal ID System) wants to do. Seems that you have been ignoring the articles and research showing that chips ARE causing major problems in animals. There have been a few articles about the chip companies thinking "what a great idea it would be to chip certain patients"...for their own safety of course. What about RFID in passports?
Pat S. is quite correct in his/her statements, and shame on the industry to forge ahead, with their heads in the sand about what is REALLY happening with RFID, and industrial and government plans for it.
We're not in this for fearmongering. We're in it for the truth which, obviously, people in this industry don't really want to hear. It means that RFID is not the safe little benign piece or equipment it is being sold to the public as.
Posted By: Kim 2/7/08 at 4:50 PM
Not Fearmongering
Dear Pat:
I wasn't fearmongering. Just pointing out a fact. If RFID is not adopted for some applications, people will likely continue to die, even though RFID could help solve the issues that cause those deaths today.
Here's another fact for you. With all her research, Katherine Albrecht has yet to document a single case in which RFID was used to infringe someone's privacy.
Posted By: Mark Roberti 2/7/08 at 1:24 PM
Dear Pat:
I wasn't fearmongering. Just pointing out a fact. If RFID is not adopted for some applications, people will likely continue to die, even though RFID could help solve the issues that cause those deaths today.
Here's another fact for you. With all her research, Katherine Albrecht has yet to document a single case in which RFID was used to infringe someone's privacy.
Posted By: Mark Roberti 2/7/08 at 1:24 PM
Latesttwo, you need to do your homework!
Dr. Albrecht and Liz McIntyre have the collection of documents that back their claims - their credentials are impeccable. They have traveled the world, attending industry meetings, doing the detective work to get the facts - and nasty those facts are. Dr. Albrecht has personally helped with my own cause, which is the fight against the National Animal Identification System (which is already using RFID chips for animals), and her dedication has nothing to do with selling books. It is all about educating the public about the serious downside and downright dangers of uninhibited new technologies.
Posted By: Pat S. 2/6/08 at 8:40 PM
Dr. Albrecht and Liz McIntyre have the collection of documents that back their claims - their credentials are impeccable. They have traveled the world, attending industry meetings, doing the detective work to get the facts - and nasty those facts are. Dr. Albrecht has personally helped with my own cause, which is the fight against the National Animal Identification System (which is already using RFID chips for animals), and her dedication has nothing to do with selling books. It is all about educating the public about the serious downside and downright dangers of uninhibited new technologies.
Posted By: Pat S. 2/6/08 at 8:40 PM
Not Extreme
Any data that is collected can be used. Any data that can be used can be abused. Any data that can be stored can be acessed - eventually. Even if there is no business reason to do this. Why not put in reasonable technical safeguards to prevent it?
Posted By: Mark Rasch 2/6/08 at 1:26 PM
Any data that is collected can be used. Any data that can be used can be abused. Any data that can be stored can be acessed - eventually. Even if there is no business reason to do this. Why not put in reasonable technical safeguards to prevent it?
Posted By: Mark Rasch 2/6/08 at 1:26 PM
NOW Who's Fearmongering?
"As a result, people could die because counterfeit drugs or tainted meat could no longer be tracked and recalled. God forbid one of those people was Lewan's son or mother or wife. Is it worth writing a good story that is untrue, if death could be the end result?"
The years of research done by Kathryn Albrecht and Liz MacIntyre (www.spychips.com) has uncovered the documented evidence of just how industry plans to use (and is already using) RFID. Mr. Lewan is right, his concerns are valid. There is a lot of industry denial going on, but real research demonstrates there is a great deal of cover-up. You say "The story continues to bring up old nonsense about criminals using RFID technology to figure out whom to rob" but it is hardly nonsense. I have witnessed demonstrations of just how easy it is to steal, change, and delete information on a chip with relatively unsophisticated electronic equipment that can be carried in a briefcase and just casually passed by persons carrying microchipped items. A local TV station showed how their own chipped ID/Entry cards could be compromised this way. A lot more to be said, but I congratulate Mr. Lewan on his story, and a lump of coal to you for not doing some simple unbiased research looking at the other point of view.
Posted By: Pat S. 2/4/08 at 9:01 PM
"As a result, people could die because counterfeit drugs or tainted meat could no longer be tracked and recalled. God forbid one of those people was Lewan's son or mother or wife. Is it worth writing a good story that is untrue, if death could be the end result?"
The years of research done by Kathryn Albrecht and Liz MacIntyre (www.spychips.com) has uncovered the documented evidence of just how industry plans to use (and is already using) RFID. Mr. Lewan is right, his concerns are valid. There is a lot of industry denial going on, but real research demonstrates there is a great deal of cover-up. You say "The story continues to bring up old nonsense about criminals using RFID technology to figure out whom to rob" but it is hardly nonsense. I have witnessed demonstrations of just how easy it is to steal, change, and delete information on a chip with relatively unsophisticated electronic equipment that can be carried in a briefcase and just casually passed by persons carrying microchipped items. A local TV station showed how their own chipped ID/Entry cards could be compromised this way. A lot more to be said, but I congratulate Mr. Lewan on his story, and a lump of coal to you for not doing some simple unbiased research looking at the other point of view.
Posted By: Pat S. 2/4/08 at 9:01 PM
?
It's sad that you write an article and at the same time you are so ignorant not knowing what you are writting about, Who do you think you are fooling? go back to school.
Posted By: Valeria 2/4/08 at 6:33 PM
It's sad that you write an article and at the same time you are so ignorant not knowing what you are writting about, Who do you think you are fooling? go back to school.
Posted By: Valeria 2/4/08 at 6:33 PM
Kudos!
Kudos on getting to the crux of this matter. Lewan and spychips have concocted some
devious scenarios just to sell
some books. They remind me of the folks who used to claim that your tv was secretly transmitting what was going on in your home.
Posted By: Latesttwo 2/4/08 at 9:55 AM
Kudos on getting to the crux of this matter. Lewan and spychips have concocted some
devious scenarios just to sell
some books. They remind me of the folks who used to claim that your tv was secretly transmitting what was going on in your home.
Posted By: Latesttwo 2/4/08 at 9:55 AM
Please enter your name or an alias and your email address.
Only your name or alias will appear in your post.
Only your name or alias will appear in your post.
