Kinda in another direction, but how close, if you even think it at all, do any of you see a One Government World?
[quote]pookie wrote:
I don’t remember clearly, but I seem to recall that there was some “minimal size” you could go before you can’t receive RF signals anymore. I’ve long forgotten my antenna physics formula… maybe someone here can clear that up. [/quote]
There most certainly is a theoretical lower limit to shrinking any device, but it’s many many orders of magnitude smaller than what we have now.
And just to clarify things for HH, under ideal conditions, an RFID can be queried from far far away given that you send a strong enough signal and have a good receptor. Proof of concepts that talk to the chip in RFID-enabled US passports (cracking the code was trivial if I recall correctly) have been around for a long time. The implications go beyond “The Man” knowing your every move. It also ensures malicious people with enough resources track your ass down at all time.
You may not care, but two days ago at the Washington Black Hat security conference, a bunch of geeks demonstrated a scheme to crack GSM encryption with minimal material. They’re planning to improve their prototype and sell it next month for 200k to the public.
The technology isn’t there quite yet, but I promise that it’s coming in our lifetime.
[quote]lixy wrote:
There most certainly is a theoretical lower limit to shrinking any device, but it’s many many orders of magnitude smaller than what we have now.[/quote]
I was refering to a minimal size require for an antenna that can receive RF frequencies.
You don’t want a device so small that you have to X-Ray or gamma ray a crowd to get them to register.
I’ll update if I can find the article I’m thinking about.
Most passive RFID tags don’t use encryption, they just broadcast a number back when they’re energized by the right frequency. The reader then picks it up. What the number refers too is entirely up to the scanner user.
Most of the “improvements” you claim are for active RFID tags, much larger and with batteries that must be replaced periodically.
Maybe one day we’ll have a version than can be injected, is cryptographically secure and can use the body as an energy source, but that’s still fairly off. IMHO of course.
I’d be more worried about what’s available and widely used right now: Cell phones, CCTV cameras, Low-Jack systems on vehicles, etc. People concerned about privacy should be vigilant and make sure that laws governing what the autorithies can do with the data provided by these devices is monitored and that possible abuses are planned for and have legal recourses for abused citizens.
A common problem for you?
Just kidding.
While looking for my article, I found this:
Injectable RFID tattoo ink.
Hmmm… I’d like mine to read “666” please.
They won’t set off those anti-theft devices so common in stores today, will they? I already forget to remove those little tags from new shirts, as it is. So, I get the BEEP-BEEP-BEEP coming out of the book store, for example. I don’t won’t end up like, “Uh, sorry, might be this shirt, or maybe my Mark of the Beast implant. But, I do have a receipt for the book.”
[quote]pookie wrote:
lixy wrote:
There most certainly is a theoretical lower limit to shrinking any device, but it’s many many orders of magnitude smaller than what we have now.
I was refering to a minimal size require for an antenna that can receive RF frequencies.
You don’t want a device so small that you have to X-Ray or gamma ray a crowd to get them to register. [/quote]
I see what you mean now. Although X-rays aren’t exactly radio frequency. Anything from 3Hz to 300GHz is RF. The upper bound gives us a wavelength of 3 picometer, and as far as I know, you can’t have an antenna smaller than a quarter of a wavelengh. That dimension is obviously absurd since it’s about four orders of magnitude smaller than, say a silicon atom.
I don’t work in RF myself, but I’ll make sure to ask some colleagues first thing Monday. Meanwhile, if you find a flaw in my 2cts logic, feel free to correct it.
[quote]Most passive RFID tags don’t use encryption, they just broadcast a number back when they’re energized by the right frequency. The reader then picks it up. What the number refers too is entirely up to the scanner user.
Most of the “improvements” you claim are for active RFID tags, much larger and with batteries that must be replaced periodically. [/quote]
No. I was referring to passive RFIDs. Provided you supply enough energy, tags can be read from meters away. One implication is that the creep next door can know when the kids are home alone.
That’ll be the day…
You may also recall the story of the RFID cars getting cracked a couple of years ago.
Yes, you should be. But it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be worried about what’s on the back-burner. CCTVs are widespread nowadays because at some point in time, people weren’t worried about them.
The implications go beyond “The Man” knowing your every move. It also ensures malicious people with enough resources track your ass down at all time.
[quote]While looking for my article, I found this:
Injectable RFID tattoo ink.
Hmmm… I’d like mine to read “666” please. [/quote]
Nice find.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
They are giving pets cancer.[/quote]
Must I explain the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation?
As for the OP’s questions:
Will you accept the implant? No.
Do you think it will be required in the future? For humans? No.
Any thoughts?
The technology is old school. Been around for ages. It is almost economically viable to chip everything.
It’s just a way for machine to quickly IDENTIFY you. A driver’s license number does the same thing.
The problem is and always has been the database in the backend and the data stored about you which can be used against you.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
pookie wrote:
Molotov_Coktease wrote:
Good thing I don’t shop at Wal Mart.
Unfortunately, once their suppliers comply, it won’t matter where you buy the goods, the RFID tag will be included.
If a technology can be abused, it will be. If tracking people becomes this easy, then you can bet it’ll be done. The era of privacy is basically over.
When did it ever exist? [/quote]
Whenever and wherever men didn’t have to be in a community…as they should live.
Sounds to me like, if you want to live as a man and not as an electronic serf, you need to move to northern Manitoba, or similar.
Maybe that’s the significance of the 2012 doomsday predictions — its when Man as Man ends, and becomes something else, with a ‘chip IN his shoulder’.
[quote]Spry wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They are giving pets cancer.
Must I explain the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation?
…
[/quote]
It doesn’t need radiation to give pets cancer. They are giving pets cancer. This is a real thing. A rabies shot gave my cat cancer. 2 out of 10,000 cats get cancer from vaccines. My cat is an unlucky one.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
pookie wrote:
Molotov_Coktease wrote:
Good thing I don’t shop at Wal Mart.
Unfortunately, once their suppliers comply, it won’t matter where you buy the goods, the RFID tag will be included.
If a technology can be abused, it will be. If tracking people becomes this easy, then you can bet it’ll be done. The era of privacy is basically over.
When did it ever exist?
Whenever and wherever men didn’t have to be in a community…as they should live.
[/quote]
Living alone in mountains like Jeremiah Johnson?
[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Never.
Edit: I figure I should expand. Yes, this will eventually become mandatory. It will begin with the sex offenders; for who will speak in their defense? Then it will be implanted into all felons entering the prison system. Shortly thereafter it will be put into members of the military. Hell, if you could get it taken out after you EAS I would even be in support of it. Then there will be tax breaks to those that get them in their children. Finally it will be impossible for us to get along in everyday activities (such as getting on an airplane) without one.
And Americans will accept it. They will accept it out of fear of the terrorists and they will accept it for the convenience it will bring to their life.
I do have a concern here though. I will never take an RFID chip. Never. You will have to kill me beforehand. But as the technology advances, how do we as citizens compete with bionic men? On one hand I fear the tech, but on the other I recognize that if you fail to embrace science then you may as well relegate your culture to extinction or accept your life and liberty to be at the whim of your masters.
mike
I share your sentiments Mike. To me, this seems horrible. Sure they can justify it with sex offenders, and the whole of the country would nod in agreement. But this is just horrible. It reminds me of the youtube I posted in jest, from the movie idiocracy. I would like to know what you mean by ‘bionic men’…I’m sure youre no luddite…its just your last words that confused me.[/quote]
No, I’m no luddite and that is the problem. In a lot of the circles I run in there is a major aversion to much of the new tech (like RFID) if there is any perception of it being capable of being used against us. I feel that many of them are in fact luddites and struggle with them daily.
I believe in liberty not for its own sake but because I think long-term. In liberty we have strength and it is our strength, our ingenuity and our resourcefulness that is going to get our species off this rock millions of years from now and keep us going. Without liberty man will not survive.
Still thinking in the long-term we have to recognize two things:
Technology, while a potential inhibitor of freedom is also a great tool for its advancement. Secondly, that we don’t survive as a species without newer and better tools and tech.
So what I am getting at with the bionic man thing is that I want to know how to not be overcome by tech used against us when I cannot use that same tech in my defense. There will always be tyrants. Power will always move toward centralization and authoritarianism and good men will always resist it.
Like I said earlier, if you could chip soldiers and put a GPS and info and whatever else you can imagine, I would be behind that if it could be removed or disabled when they leave the service. But considering that as a citizen I would refuse such a chip, I am not as combat effective as those I would have to fight. Is it our refusal to embrace this piece of tech that will doom us all?
I prefer to remain optimistic: Whatever they create, our men will improve upon or nullify. I trust our free thinkers will be stronger and more resourceful and motivated than those working for the enemy. I hope that answered your question without me sounding crazy.
mike
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Spry wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They are giving pets cancer.
Must I explain the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation?
…
It doesn’t need radiation to give pets cancer. They are giving pets cancer. This is a real thing. A rabies shot gave my cat cancer. 2 out of 10,000 cats get cancer from vaccines. My cat is an unlucky one.
[/quote]
Rabbies shot is similar to an RFID chip how?
What kind of cancer?
Caused by the vaccine or the needle used?
How does an INERT piece of silicon and plastic cause cancer?
Normally, Zap, you prove me wrong but not today!
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Molotov_Coktease wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Never.
Edit: I figure I should expand. Yes, this will eventually become mandatory. It will begin with the sex offenders; for who will speak in their defense? Then it will be implanted into all felons entering the prison system. Shortly thereafter it will be put into members of the military. Hell, if you could get it taken out after you EAS I would even be in support of it. Then there will be tax breaks to those that get them in their children. Finally it will be impossible for us to get along in everyday activities (such as getting on an airplane) without one.
And Americans will accept it. They will accept it out of fear of the terrorists and they will accept it for the convenience it will bring to their life.
I do have a concern here though. I will never take an RFID chip. Never. You will have to kill me beforehand. But as the technology advances, how do we as citizens compete with bionic men? On one hand I fear the tech, but on the other I recognize that if you fail to embrace science then you may as well relegate your culture to extinction or accept your life and liberty to be at the whim of your masters.
mike
I share your sentiments Mike. To me, this seems horrible. Sure they can justify it with sex offenders, and the whole of the country would nod in agreement. But this is just horrible. It reminds me of the youtube I posted in jest, from the movie idiocracy. I would like to know what you mean by ‘bionic men’…I’m sure youre no luddite…its just your last words that confused me.
No, I’m no luddite and that is the problem. In a lot of the circles I run in there is a major aversion to much of the new tech (like RFID) if there is any perception of it being capable of being used against us. I feel that many of them are in fact luddites and struggle with them daily.
I believe in liberty not for its own sake but because I think long-term. In liberty we have strength and it is our strength, our ingenuity and our resourcefulness that is going to get our species off this rock millions of years from now and keep us going. Without liberty man will not survive.
Still thinking in the long-term we have to recognize two things:
Technology, while a potential inhibitor of freedom is also a great tool for its advancement. Secondly, that we don’t survive as a species without newer and better tools and tech.
So what I am getting at with the bionic man thing is that I want to know how to not be overcome by tech used against us when I cannot use that same tech in my defense. There will always be tyrants. Power will always move toward centralization and authoritarianism and good men will always resist it.
Like I said earlier, if you could chip soldiers and put a GPS and info and whatever else you can imagine, I would be behind that if it could be removed or disabled when they leave the service. But considering that as a citizen I would refuse such a chip, I am not as combat effective as those I would have to fight. Is it our refusal to embrace this piece of tech that will doom us all?
I prefer to remain optimistic: Whatever they create, our men will improve upon or nullify. I trust our free thinkers will be stronger and more resourceful and motivated than those working for the enemy. I hope that answered your question without me sounding crazy.
mike[/quote]
No, you don’t sound crazy in the least. I don’t consider relying on what makes us human crazy. It is afterall, what sets us apart…and the better part for that matter. Free thought, creativity and imagination…we will always win as long as we don’t sacrifice that in the meantime. That’s the crux of what’s really got me worried too.
[quote]Spry wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Spry wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They are giving pets cancer.
Must I explain the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation?
…
It doesn’t need radiation to give pets cancer. They are giving pets cancer. This is a real thing. A rabies shot gave my cat cancer. 2 out of 10,000 cats get cancer from vaccines. My cat is an unlucky one.
Rabbies shot is similar to an RFID chip how?
[/quote]
Simply an illustration that radiation is not needed.
Vaccine Associated Sarcoma
By the shot. It can be caused by any type of vaccine.
That is the million dollar question.
Today isn’t your day.
[i]When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved implanting microchips in humans, the manufacturer said it would save lives, letting doctors scan the tiny transponders to access patients’ medical records almost instantly. The FDA found “reasonable assurance” the device was safe, and a sub-agency even called it one of 2005’s top “innovative technologies.”
But neither the company nor the regulators publicly mentioned this: A series of veterinary and toxicology studies, dating to the mid-1990s, stated that chip implants had “induced” malignant tumors in some lab mice and rats.
“The transponders were the cause of the tumors,” said Keith Johnson, a retired toxicologic pathologist, explaining in a phone interview the findings of a 1996 study he led at the Dow Chemical Co. in Midland, Mich.
Leading cancer specialists reviewed the research for The Associated Press and, while cautioning that animal test results do not necessarily apply to humans, said the findings troubled them. Some said they would not allow family members to receive implants, and all urged further research before the glass-encased transponders are widely implanted in people.
…
Published in veterinary and toxicology journals between 1996 and 2006, the studies found that lab mice and rats injected with microchips sometimes developed subcutaneous “sarcomas” _ malignant tumors, most of them encasing the implants.
_ A 1998 study in Ridgefield, Conn., of 177 mice reported cancer incidence to be slightly higher than 10 percent _ a result the researchers described as “surprising.”
_ A 2006 study in France detected tumors in 4.1 percent of 1,260 microchipped mice. This was one of six studies in which the scientists did not set out to find microchip-induced cancer but noticed the growths incidentally. They were testing compounds on behalf of chemical and pharmaceutical companies; but they ruled out the compounds as the tumors’ cause. Because researchers only noted the most obvious tumors, the French study said, “These incidences may therefore slightly underestimate the true occurrence” of cancer.
_ In 1997, a study in Germany found cancers in 1 percent of 4,279 chipped mice. The tumors “are clearly due to the implanted microchips,” the authors wrote.
[/i]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Rabbies shot is similar to an RFID chip how?
Simply an illustration that radiation is not needed.
[/quote]
So radiation is not needed for cancer THEREFORE something which does not emit radiation can cause cancer? No. Logic error here.
Nothing to do with RFID chips. Your experience with a cancer which may be caused by a vaccine has shit all to do with what we are discussing - RFID chips.
Indeed. RFID chips are not a vaccine…
Perhaps it doesn’t. I’ve seen nothing to suggest it. The stats below aren’t very persausive.
[quote]
Normally, Zap, you prove me wrong but not today!
Today isn’t your day.
[/i][/quote]
Nah, today is my day. I even baked a cake to celebrate.
but… is granny spry?
sorry. carry on.
[quote]Spry wrote:
Nah, today is my day. I even baked a cake to celebrate.
[/quote]
Enjoy it, but both vaccines and RFID’s are giving malignant tumors.
Since we’re on blood powered devices…