Micro-chipping

[filburt1]

Without reading any of the replies, thus making this post useless, I'll say it's laughable how badly the media confuses RFID, a tiny passive device with a very short-range (~1 foot) ID taggins system, with GPS, a much larger device with a much larger range. What's worse is when they think GPS is bidirectional when all it does is receive signals from the GPS satellites. A GPS device would need to be freaking huge to send signals to the satellites.

I still don't think implanted RFID is good, but only because there are existing biometric alternatives like rentina scans and fingerprints--or colonic maps, if you watch Futurama

[AN-net]

Originally Posted by filburt1

Without reading any of the replies, thus making this post useless, I'll say it's laughable how badly the media confuses RFID, a tiny passive device with a very short-range (~1 foot) ID taggins system, with GPS, a much larger device with a much larger range. What's worse is when they think GPS is bidirectional when all it does is receive signals from the GPS satellites. A GPS device would need to be freaking huge to send signals to the satellites.

I still don't think implanted RFID is good, but only because there are existing biometric alternatives like rentina scans and fingerprints--or colonic maps, if you watch Futurama

now colonic maps i can live with

[Bubble #5]

Originally Posted by filburt1

RFID, a tiny passive device with a very short-range (~1 foot)

Not true. You are confusing RFID with DSRC. Depending on the frequency band in which the system operates RFID systems with with a reader-talks-first architecture can currently be read at distances of up to 300 feet, and the newer frequencies for microwave (2.45-5.8 GHz) can go even farther. Microwave RFID systems can actually work like Doppler radar.

[Marco van Herwaarden]

Originally Posted by Bubble #5

911 only works when a call is being made, and even then the signal is routed through Canada or India. In the Bay Area for example, it's anyone's guess where a cell phone call to 911 will end up -- or how long it will take for a dispatcher to answer. Also around 15% of older cell phones don't have 911 service. The FCC has failed to mandate that all carriers use the same technology in their E911 systems, and they probably won't for a while as the carriers are fighting them tooth and nail, so we're not worried about cell phones tracking us

Also, this technology won't stop the so-called crimes, it will only shuffle them around.

Sorry if i confused anyone, but i didn't mention making any (911) calls at all. I am not sure what E911 (Emergency 911??) is, since i am not familiar with specific US terms.

What i was trying to say, is that even without making a phonecall (all it needs is your phone to be on and connected to a network - or even attempt to connect to a network) is enough to locate you.

The mobile phone network is build on many antennas with relative powerless transmitters. Your phone is all the time communicating with the network, finding the strongest signal, and 'register' with that transponder. This registering with the transponders is logged (at least here), ad they can easily compute your location based on the signal strenght to the closest transponders.

[Bubble #5]

Originally Posted by Marco van Herwaarden

and connected to a network

Having your phone on doesn't help them. You have to be actually using the phone for triangulation to work, and not all systems use triangulation. Verizon Wireless and Sprint for example do not use triangulation. A servey of those who had recently tried to make a 911 call on their cell phones, 15 percent had trouble connecting, including 4 percent who never got through at all. H.R. 2898 was supposed to address this but it didn't.

In addition, only around 10 percent of all Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) nationwide ? where 911 calls are answered ? have the capability of accurately pinpointing the location of a cell phone user who calls 911. In other words 90% of the PSAPs out there can't accurately pinpoint your location. There is no way that this can be compaired to RFID, which is 100% accurate

[Marco van Herwaarden]

Sorry i am not aware of the specifics used in the US.

At least here in the Netherlands, being connected to a network (no call needed), is enough for locating you (if they want/need, it is not automatic i think).

There are known cases where police/justice have been using this to:
- Proof the telephone was in a certain area during the time a crime was commited. (still need to proof ofcourse that the phone was in the possesion of the suspect at that time ofcourse).
- In an attempt to get more witnesses of a crime, police have been sending an SMS message to all telephones that where in the area at the time a crime was commited.

PS I know it can't be compaired to a RFID device, but i think that in the privacy discussion on RFID devices it is a relevant example of how some of these privacy issues are not something for future, but already in place.

[Freesteyelz]

My cats have it.

[Bubble #5]

Originally Posted by Marco van Herwaarden

At least here in the Netherlands

The way it's used in the Netherlands is the way it should be used universally, but here in the U.S. all the phone companies care about is making money. Common sense doesn't enter into anything that they do

[peterska2]

Yes, they can locate you just by having your cell on here in the UK too. I've been caught out by that a few times

[Marco van Herwaarden]

Just like ISP's are required by law to keep logs, the phonecompanies also are required to do so by law.