Is RFID really the future?

[Destructus86]

Not a police state but the next closest thing: A surveillance state. You only need to look at the UK for a glilmpse of things to come. Cameras everywhere, every movement monitored, every person tracked and eventually every aspect of your life being recorded.

But as long as you have nothing to hide...

OK, so tell me how this is bad? I'm honestly curious how you view this as a negative? How does it effect the lives of the people living there in a negative way. This is an honest, curious question.

 

[Teelie]

People like you don't see just how invasive and abusive this kind of always on surveillance can become. That you can't find a problem with it is not unexpected but disappointing. Do you find it okay for people to watch other people and observe everything they do? We normally call that stalking but if it's the government, suddenly you find it acceptable?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

OK, so tell me how this is bad? I'm honestly curious how you view this as a negative? How does it effect the lives of the people living there in a negative way. This is an honest, curious question.

Well if anyone in the police/intelligence community don't agree with your grassroots politics they might monitor your activities or even derail your progress.

You may trust every policing/intelligence leadership past, present, and future but I don't.

Even if I fully trusted the leadership now, who's to say a morally corrupt leader might not gain power later?

I don't think it's paranoid to think how these domestic spying tools might be abused in the future politically.

 

[Destructus86]

People like you don't see just how invasive and abusive this kind of always on surveillance can become. That you can't find a problem with it is not unexpected but disappointing. Do you find it okay for people to watch other people and observe everything they do? We normally call that stalking but if it's the government, suddenly you find it acceptable?

This is why i'm asking you. I'm open to new ideas and opinions.

Though I find your argument flawed in one aspect. You associate a person stalking another person as the same way the government surveillance system works. But that's not the case. For one thing, there isn't really a person monitoring all the data collected or viewed. A large portion of it is automated.

And it's not just one person, but everyone and while everyone's data is collected, it's sifted through and only people with something worthwhile for the government to look at is really pointed out (ie, terrorists or criminal activity). So, unless you decided to go out and buy a couple guns and then a bunch of materials to make bombs it's not going to ping you for a more detailed data study.

When you buy something at the store, you get coupons related to what you bought. That's not stalking. That's data collection.

Likewise, the government has phone and internet records for millions of people...does that mean they are watching your every move and purchase? Listening to your calls and seeing what you viewed on the internet?

No, they are not. That data is being collected but there is NO ONE watching to see how many rolls of toilet paper you buy or what you were walking about on the phone for an hour with your girlfriend.

So, where is the negative impact on our lives?

 

[Destructus86]

Well if anyone in the police/intelligence community don't agree with your grassroots politics they might monitor your activities or even derail your progress.

You may trust every policing/intelligence leadership past, present, and future but I don't.

Even if I fully trusted the leadership now, who's to say a morally corrupt leader might not gain power later?

I don't think it's paranoid to think how these domestic spying tools might be abused in the future politically.

They can do that now. They don't think super advanced surveillance tech for that.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

If you have a phone you can be tracked, if you have a debit card you can be tracked. If you have a face, you can be tracked :P The question is does anyone have a reason to? No.

Biometrics have many benefits, but I doubt it will be utilized much by the general population. We are far from being in a police state

The difference is I can easily get rid of a phone or debit card if I feel the information they provide is too invasive.

Biometrics removes my ability to easily control my physical "privacy settings".

 

[Destructus86]

The difference is I can easily get rid of a phone or debit card if I feel the information they provide is too invasive.

Biometrics removes my ability to easily control my physical "privacy settings".

Biometrics are merely a fingerprint of a sorts. They can only see you if you scan yourself, say...opening a lock or what not. There is no chip involved. It would be the same as using your finger print to unlock a door or be allowed access somewhere.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

They can do that now. They don't think super advanced surveillance tech for that.

Good then we agree biometric implants are unnecessary.

 

[Destructus86]

Good then we agree biometric implants are unnecessary.

Implants. Yes. Biometric scans? No. Since that is just a scan of your fingerprint or eye (or veins)

But yes...I was never for chip implantation, which I said in the beginning of this thread.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Biometrics are merely a fingerprint of a sorts. They can only see you if you scan yourself, say...opening a lock or what not. There is no chip involved. It would be the same as using your finger print to unlock a door or be allowed access somewhere.

But typically when I open a door or lock I'm not immediately identified.

Anyone could be opening those doors and locks.

I guess spies need that type of personal identification but not all people are spies.

 

[Destructus86]

But typically when I open a door or lock I'm not immediately identified.

Anyone could be opening those doors and locks.

I guess spies need that type of personal identification but not all people are spies.

Which is why that technology is mainly used in corporations...places that need that kind of security.

I'm still holding to the belief that Smartphones are the wallet replacement.
I also see nothing wrong with surveillance and believe that a fear or this comes from paranoia.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Which is why that technology is mainly used in corporations...places that need that kind of security.

I'm still holding to the belief that Smartphones are the wallet replacement.
I also see nothing wrong with surveillance and believe that a fear or this comes from paranoia.

I don't really see corporations as completely benevolent.

I'm sure most corporations don't mind handing over the personal data of consumers to intelligence groups whole sale.

I have little problem with smartphones being used like wallets. I have a problem with my biological information being required to buy groceries, start my car, open my door, etc.

People who have no problem with surveillance should volunteer to have spying devices in their home, cars and bodies. But the rest of us should have a choice to refuse such devices.

 

[SuperFerret]

By the way, RFID microchips aren't tracking chips, they're identification.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

So are people so lazy they can't carry a wallet?

They need an ID chip inside their bodies?

 

[Teelie]

By the way, RFID microchips aren't tracking chips, they're identification.

Which can track you when they are read by readers that are placed everywhere. So it's passive tracking, not active. That is only slightly and I can't stress that enough, less intrusive than actively doing so.

 

[Destructus86]

Which can track you when they are read by readers that are placed everywhere. So it's passive tracking, not active. That is only slightly and I can't stress that enough, less intrusive than actively doing so.

True...but again...no one can seem to answer the question on the negative impacts of surveillance in general.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

True...but again...no one can seem to answer the question on the negative impacts of surveillance in general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

The FBI has used covert operations against domestic political groups since its inception; however, covert operations under the official COINTELPRO label took place between 1956 and 1971.[6] COINTELPRO tactics are still used to this day, and have been alleged to include discrediting targets through psychological warfare; smearing individuals and groups using forged documents and by planting false reports in the media; harassment; wrongful imprisonment; and illegal violence, including assassination.[7][8][9] The FBI's stated motivation was "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order.[sic.]"[10]

The government is capable of playing dirty and will do so to protect the status quo. The last thing we should do is give them a blank check for domestic spying.

 

[Slushy]

We use RFID keys at the gym I work at so there's no need for a person at the check-in counter. It's pretty rad.