An ATM card under your skin?

[Johnsgirl727]

http://a799.g.akamai.net/3/799/388/b79145452a3504/www.msnbc.com/news/2079180.jpg
Applied Digital Solutions is hoping their 12-by-2.1mm radio frequency identification tag catches on as an under-the-skin alternative to an ATM or credit card.

By Declan McCullagh

Nov. 25 — Radio frequency identification tags aren’t just for pallets of goods in supermarkets anymore. Applied Digital Solutions (ADS) of Palm Beach, Fla., is hoping that Americans can be persuaded to implant RFID chips under their skin to identify themselves when going to a cash machine or in place of using a credit card.

THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE, which is performed with local anesthetic, embeds a 12-by-2.1mm RFID tag in the flesh of a human arm. ADS Chief Executive Scott Silverman, in a speech at the ID World 2003 conference in Paris last Friday, said his company had developed a “VeriPay” RFID technology and was hoping to find partners in financial services firms.

Matthew Cossolotto, a spokesman for ADS who says he’s been “chipped,” argues that competing proposals to embed RFID tags in key fobs or cards were flawed. “If you lose the RFID key fob or if it’s stolen, someone else could use it and have access to your important accounts,” Cossolotto said. “VeriPay solves that problem. It’s subdermal and very difficult to lose. You don’t leave it sitting in the backseat of the taxi.”

RFID tags are miniscule microchips, which some manufacturers have managed to shrink to half the size of a grain of sand. They listen for a radio query and respond by transmitting a unique ID code, typically a 64-bit identifier yielding about 18 thousand trillion possible values. Most RFID tags have no batteries. They use the power from the initial radio signal to transmit their response.

When embedded in human bodies, RFID tags raise unique security concerns. First, because they broadcast their ID number, a thief could rig up his or her own device to intercept and then rebroadcast the signal to an ATM. Second, sufficiently dedicated thieves may try to slice the tags out of their victims.

“We do hear concerns about this from a privacy point of view,” Cossolotto said. “Obviously the company wants to do all it can to protect privacy. If you don’t want it anymore ... you can go to a doctor and have it removed. It’s not something I would recommend people do at home. I call it an opt-out feature.”

Chris Hoofnagle, a lawyer at the Electronic Privacy Information Center said implanted RFID tags cause an additional worry. “When your bank card is compromised, all you have to do is make a call to the issuer,” Hoofnagle said. “In this case, you have to make a call to a surgeon.

“It doesn’t make sense to go from a card, which is controlled by an individual, to a chip, which you cannot control.”

ADS shares have slid from a high of around $12 in 2000 to 40 cents, and the company is now fighting to stay listed on the Nasdaq. “Our common stock did not regain the minimum bid price requirement and on Oct. 28, 2003, the Nasdaq Stock Market informed us by letter that our securities would be delisted from the SmallCap,” ADS said in a Nov. 14 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company also warned that its implantable microchips are manufactured solely by Raytheon without a “formal written agreement,” and any price increases or supply disruptions would have serious negative consequences.

MasterCard has been testing an RFID technology called PayPass. It looks like any other credit card but is outfitted with an RFID tag that lets it be read by a receiver instead of scanned through a magnetic stripe. “We’re certainly looking at designs like key fobs,” Mastercard Vice President Art Kranzley told USA Today last week. “It could be in a pen or a pair of earrings. Ultimately, it could be embedded in anything—someday, maybe even under the skin.”

ADS is running a special promotion urging Americans to “get chipped.” The first 100,000 people to sign up will receive a $50 discount.

Copyright © 1995-2003 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved




Am I the only one who thinks nothing good can come of this? :confused:

[NebariNookiee]

DO NOT DO IT!!! RESIST!!! FIGHT IT!!!

[JadedLegend3]

Isn't that a sign of the apocolypse?

I'm going to agree with NebariNookiee on this one...don't do it!

Jacqui :love:

[AgentSun]

does this mean that kidnapping is going to go up cause people can't just steal your atm card and password? you have to take the whole person? or at least a limb?

[witchdoctor]

Sure, I want a radio transmitter implanted so I my every movement can be tracked. The hardware may not be in place for it now, but if the chips became wide spread, I'm sure someone would propose it be done. Perhaps just some modification of the cell phone transmitter/receivers that are already obiquitous is all that would be needed. It would just be for our own protection, maybe it would help fight terrorism. The chips hold lots of information, so maybe we could even encode citizenship ratings on them. I don't think we have a sarcasm smilie yet, but :loco: works. :bonk: expresses my feelings on this too. :eek: Eek too is appropriate.

[generic_screenname]

Stupid stupid stupid and slightly gross

[StephX]

Oh like this won't get people (more?) paranoid of the government!

[witchdoctor]

Originally posted by StephX
Oh like this won't get people (more?) paranoid of the government!

It occurs to me that it is not just over zealous people in government to worry about. The government is at least theoretically accountable to the people, but what about private companies? Given what has happened with e-mail spam, sypware and the like on the internet, I hate to think what unscrupulous marketers might do with this technology. It could conceivably be used to track what you buy if correlated with electronic sales receipts, or to just track what stores, clubs, movies you go to, anything really. And for what in return? I have never lost a credit or ATM card.

[Judith]

Too much technology is not a good thing. I think we're getting more than we're ready for.

Just remember...when you call to get retinal scans in place of your old quikset locks...speak up. We want RETINAL scans people. Retinal. Not rectal.

[witchdoctor]

Originally posted by Judith_Shakespeare
,,,,We want RETINAL scans people. Retinal. Not rectal.

Hey, this is the radio chip ATM thread, not the pees in shower thread. :D

[Judith]

Originally posted by witchdoctor
Hey, this is the radio chip ATM thread, not the pees in shower thread. :D

All roads lead to...Pees in shower?

[Third EYe]

Kill me first. I'm against such devices in pets, let alone humans. I will never have one of these devices implanted in me, not ever.

[who45]

:g2f: No thanks.

[Egg]

Big Brother will tag your cats, will tag your dogs, and will tag the owners

:borg:

[Third EYe]

I just had a long conversation with my wife about this. For some reason, I've had many conversations about this today. Everyone, including my wife, said it was OK as long as it was only used in pets. I disagreed, and didn't let go until everyone I spoke to understood my point entirely.

The most dangerous thing is for people to allow this chip to be placed in thier pets. Incremental, we're next.

My wife finally understands. But most people are so damned numb, it's like they have embalming fluid in thier heads, yes I said MOST people, that this thing is going to fly, people will accept it willingly. Few things frighten me, this is one of them. After speaking to about a dozen people today about this, I'm convinced that in 3 years we will all know someone who has a chip, and we will see ads on TV, Banks and security firms will advertise, public announcements about saving your kids from being abducted (lojack for children), you will also go to the store and see the scanners and the people using the scanners in order to pay for thier goods.

It's unnavoidable. My only concern is who am I going to trust when it all becomes mandatory.

[Harveylives]

Third Eye,

I'll stand behind you so they don't have to use two bullets.

[JadedLegend3]

I completely agree, Third EYe!

This is just not a good sign.


Jacqui :love:

[Clarsax]

It all sounds bad to me. I'd never get one.

[Johnsgirl727]

Originally posted by Third EYe

It's unnavoidable. My only concern is who am I going to trust when it all becomes mandatory.
This is what really bothered me the most. Right now it's a novelty and soon will become a convienience. What are we all going to do when it becomes the law to have a chip? Over my cold dead body.....:mad:

[Judith]

Originally posted by Third EYe
I just had a long conversation with my wife about this. For some reason, I've had many conversations about this today. Everyone, including my wife, said it was OK as long as it was only used in pets. I disagreed, and didn't let go until everyone I spoke to understood my point entirely.

The most dangerous thing is for people to allow this chip to be placed in thier pets. Incremental, we're next.



ThirdEYe,

The purpose of microchipping pets is solely to reunite lost animals with their owners. Do you know how many pets are saved each year because of microchipping? It's incredible. Animal shelters are in general overrun, and often an animal gets lost, and by the time the family calls the right shelter, the animal has been euthanized. Microchipping has reduced the amount of lost companion animal euthanization incredibly.

[eta_carinae]

Originally posted by Judith_Shakespeare
ThirdEYe,

The purpose of microchipping pets is solely to reunite lost animals with their owners. Do you know how many pets are saved each year because of microchipping? It's incredible. Animal shelters are in general overrun, and often an animal gets lost, and by the time the family calls the right shelter, the animal has been euthanized. Microchipping has reduced the amount of lost companion animal euthanization incredibly.

Absolutely! Right on girl! Even if nobody else does, I agree with you absolutely. Though I'm not sure I would want one in me :)

[Third EYe]

Originally posted by Judith_Shakespeare
ThirdEYe,

The purpose of microchipping pets is solely to reunite lost animals with their owners. Do you know how many pets are saved each year because of microchipping? It's incredible. Animal shelters are in general overrun, and often an animal gets lost, and by the time the family calls the right shelter, the animal has been euthanized. Microchipping has reduced the amount of lost companion animal euthanization incredibly.

This is the attitude that frightens me the most. It really does. It's known as "incrementalism", you get everyone to accept one small piece of a larger pie, just one at a time, this way it is not so overwhelming and much easier for people to accept and dismiss as being a possible a threat.

I've seen it happen, in a very short period of time, it's fascinating, and frightening at the same time. You ever wonder how they get these terrorists they capture to talk? They employ this method, amongst others, but this is extremely effective. They find a common ground, whether that's family, music, science, politics, whatever, then they exploit it.

Putting these chips in animals, is the same thing. I've been following this technology for quite some time. They started using it in devices, then farm animals, cause at the time it was considered dangerous, uncertain, even immoral by a large group of people to put this type of device in a family pet. A few years later, it was ok for farm animals, why not the family dog? Then, they came up with the idea that this would be great for children. The didn't start putting them in children, they just posed the question, placed the idea out there for you and I to mull over. See, if you can track a dog with this thing, and you love your dog, what about your kid, don't you love your kid more? Of course you do, so how come you give your dog something that you won't place in your child? You are just playing lip service, you don't really care what happens to your kid do you? You just want your dog, the kid is expendable isn't he?

Some people latched on to this, and some kids in Europe anyway, have this chip already. It's sickening. Now, because of Y2K, and this is where logic gets really fuzzy, however people eat it up cause it's in print and on TV. Y2K almost destroyed the world (it didn't even come close, but this is the spin) and because we rely on electronic type money exchanges so much, our economy almost fell. (again, no basis in fact, but trust that most people really buy this crap) Well, if the computers had crashed, we would have been left with no way to spend our cash. (makes no sense, again, it's on TV, so go with it) We are going to need a system that will prevent this tragedy from happening. I know, how about a micro chip embeded under your skin, they use it farm animals and pets, this way, we would always have access to our money. ( again, think about it, it makes no sense, I have cash in my pocket, why can't I use it? Because Y2K, that's why)

Now all this happened prior to to Y2K, all the talk that is, and the farm animals, the pets, and the kids in Europe. Now, it's almost 5 years later. Think for a moment. Really think.

Is it worth saving any pets to destroy humanity? Not to me it isn't. I'm against this chip no matter what the reasoning.

My wife gave me the same argument, and I quickly turned her opinion and beleif around. This is wrong.

You know how people argue that pot is not a gateway drug, well, they are correct, and mistaken at the same time. It isn't, pot does not force anyone to go ahead and do other drugs, however, some people, because they have used pot think it is ok to try another drug. This argument can be used with tobacco, alcohol, or say snorting to injecting cocaine. This is another example of incrementalism. It's not absolute all the time, but it does work, and it is the most widely used form of manipulation around the world by the most people.

It's a proven winner.

I don't buy the argument that it saves pets so it is ok, I beleive the exact opposite, that's it's very nature is a deceitful one and should be avoided at all cost.

[Johnsgirl727]

Extremely well stated, Third EYe.

[tribsaint]

My question is, who, besides the people that developed it, are FOR this microchip? It seems all the other opinions range from "it creeps me out a bit" to "it's the eve of the Apocalypse".

So is this going to work? If it's incrementalism like Third EYe said, I think it was a bit too big of a chunk of pie for people to swallow. But I don't want to see anything anywhere LIKE this being accepted. PERIOD.

[Judith]

ThirdEYe,

If incrementalism is the enemy, are you against onstar in cars? Are you against all types of technology? With most forms of technology, you can use extrapolation to prophesy doomsday.

Technology requires human responsibilty.

[Third EYe]

If I can shut it off, I'm ok with it, however, onstar does concern me, and anything like it.

You say that technology requires human responsibility, I agree, let's be responsible and reject this sort of invasion.

[tribsaint]

Originally posted by Third EYe
let's be responsible and reject this sort of invasion.

Well said.

[eta_carinae]

Well, I guess you can believe whatever you like. I mean, YOU don't have to have your pet chipped (or your car monitored) if you don't want to. I, on the other hand, have a home security system installed that monitors whether or not someone is breaking in, or if there is a fire, etc. I also have both of my cats chipped - I would much rather be re-united with them than to worry that the government is wasting money tracking my pets. And I find comfort in the idea that if I need help far from a land line phone, my position can be triangulated using my cell phone. I guess it just depends on whether you trust people not to take advantage of you or not. Which is entirely dependent on the type of life you have lead to this point....

[Judith]

Originally posted by Third EYe
If I can shut it off, I'm ok with it, however, onstar does concern me, and anything like it.

You say that technology requires human responsibility, I agree, let's be responsible and reject this sort of invasion.

Human responsibility does not mean automatically rejecting new forms of technology just because they seem foreign or frightening. Rather, it means adopting it responsibly in such a way that our lives can receive the most benefit and the least risk. An example of this would be microchipping pets without creating mandatory microchipping of all humans, everywhere.

Assuming that microchipping pets would lead to mandatory human microchippig is quite a leap in logic. It would be much like arguing, when barcodes were first used, that they would lead to mandatory barcode tattoos for US citizens.

[Third EYe]

Cell phones can be disabled, and the triangulating is not as easy as it sounds. In the movies it's easy and can be done quickly, but the Hulk can also jump several miles at a time.

I have a home security system, I have no problem with it.

It's pollyanna to think that "we" who are not "they" can actually affect any restraint on something that once it gets rolling has a life of it's own. This chip is going to be put in humans, this is going to happen no matter what. The reason for this is that some humans don't have a clue, they are basically automated slaves. They just trek thru life doing what has been detailed to them as the "correct" "path". They go to school, they graduate, college, again graduate, get corperate job, pay taxes, vote, have 2.2 kids, a dog, a cat, fish tank, a house, 2 cars and never question the government no matter who is in office, and they don't question technology, they just buy the latest thing, and they can't fathom that anything they read or see on TV could be a lie.

Now...I'm going to argue why we need the chip...why every person living in, or visiting the United States needs this chip. Why it must be mandatory.

Prior to 9/11 this country as well as US personal interests abroad have been under intense scrutiny by "others". "Others" can and is foreign governments, both hostile and friendly, terrorists both internal and external, and rogue individuals/industrialists bent on corperate espionage designed to boost someones elses ecomony while degrading ours. (if you are a citizen of another country living there, replace US for your country, it works the same)

Since 9/11 it has become apparent to me and others that we need hightened security, and that "eyes" about the "room" will cut not. We can no longer rely on domestic and foreign intelligence alone, we need something more precise that will allow us to track the movements of individuals in order to provide an accurate assesement of the progress from which our "intelligence" is arriving. This will give the government the opportunity to quickly mobilize and sanitize any risk to our national security and/or economy. Crime will go down as a result, if you commit a murder, your location can be traced back weeks. This would be huge in just local crime fighting, imagine the cop at your door that tells you that there is little he can do to retrieve your property after you have been robbed while out at the theatre. Now the cop can just hit his palm device, enter the location of your home that is recorded in the GPS as a number assigned spefically to your family name and associated to the head of households social security number for convenience. Once this location is identified by the GPS, the cop can then determine who has been in the immediate location during a set period of time. This is great, cause now you can get your stuff back, and the thief will be arrested and convicted with no trial. Think about it, court costs are now reduced to almost nothing, judges won't be messing around with petty crimes anymore. They can use their talents and expertise to rewrite the constitution one word at a time.

There are many more positive however less impacting on the whole of the country as a whole. We can now get rid of cash and all forms of credit and just use our personal identification chip to provide all necessary information needed to complete a transaction in any and all financial forums. You can transfer money from one person to another on the street with the assistance of a palm device, which in the futur will also be a part of your hand, giving new meaning to the term "palm device". It's all very exciting.

Dad get alzheimers, no problem, he can stay at home and get that personal care now, cause of this personal ID chip, you can be certain that an alarm will sound if he goes outside a safety perimeter set by you.

House arrest. Same idea.

Think of the money that the tax payer will save, once these devices are implanted in everyone, there will be no more need for most of the things we use our wallets to carry. This will save lower back pain in many men, no more thick wallet to set us off balance causing a missalignment in our spines.

Of course these devices used in our pets will save countless hours of searching, and the ultimate pain of finding out your pet is lost forever.

Lets recap.

This device has no negative applications whatsoever. Ultimately with the use of this chip we can monitor and track domestic and international espionage and/or terrorists once they enter our countries legal boundaries. The chip itself is cheap to manufacturer. The manufacturing of this chip will create jobs. All crimes can be solved just by dictating the time and place that the crime occured, implanted chip signaling code will expose the perpetrator instantly thus saving us tax payers and victims huge amounts of time, money, and undue suffering. Oh yeah, no need for so many lawyers. Our children and elderly can be monitored from home to insure thier safety and security in reference to wandering or abduction. We can save money and time with house arrests. Our pets can be tracked. We will no longer have a need to carry credit cards, drivers lisence, check book, social security card, or any other personal identification you may use for work or other security purposes. You can simply employ the chip to carry all that information for you.

I can see no negatives to this device and to argue against it would be seen as an act of treason.

That's the short version, I didn't touch on drug wars that would be eliminated. Bail jumpers just wouldn't happen. There's more.

What would prevent a person from removing the chip? Scanning devices that are placed everywhere, they detect a heat signature then look for the 256 digitally encrypted code specific to your chip. If it doesn't record the presence of such a chip, you are immediately going to bring down a resource of security personal designed specifically to deploy in the event that someone has removed this chip. (this device exists, I've seen it, almost 20 years ago)

So, I have effectively disputed my own argument against such a device, and now have convinced myself and the entire world that this chip is not only OK, but necessary for our safety and convenience.

I guess there is no more dispute needed, just get in line and take your medicine.

[eta_carinae]

Okay, upon getting up this morning and looking at my previous post, I think I can reasonably say, not to post anything after 3 glasses of wine (ahhh....Thanksgiving).

I think my main idea is, that as long as you can choose whether or not to use it, that's okay. As in, I can choose to turn off the security system, I can choose to turn off the cell phone, I can choose not to have my pet chipped. Or the opposite. I like the idea that I can get help when I need it, or be anonymous if I don't. I would NOT one one of these chips in me, and I don't want the kind of future Third Eye is describing either.

BUT, I don't neccessarily believe that using microchips to tag pets means that we are going to become that society. As long as we have the choice whether or not to do it, then we can always say no. Reaching way back into my memory, I believe we discussed this kind of argument in one of my phiolosophy classes, and why it is usually not sound. It's called the slippery slope- taking one step in a direction leads to another, and another, and eventually some disasterous outcome.

These chips really DO make a difference in the number of pets reunited with their owners. A dog or cat (usually the only pets chipped) can easily lose its collar and become a stray. If lucky enough to be picked up, if it does not have a chip, the only way it is ever going to see its home and family again is if the family can find the right shelter. My shelter only keeps lost and found animals for a week. After that they go up for adoption. Many other shelters have to euthanize. If the animal is chipped, we can find a name and number (it can be a vet, it doesn't have to be the owner) and call and the animal is promptly reunited with the family. So I believe very strongly that these chips are useful and a good thing to have, FOR PETS. I would not agree to have a chip in me, I don't think we should use them in prisoners, the mentally retarded, or anyone else.