Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Proposal for UK Prisoners to be Given RFID Implants

Posted by Soulskill on Sun Jan 13, 2008 09:03 AM
from the resistance-is-futile dept.
Privacy Government Politics Technology
Raisey-raison writes "There is a proposal in the UK to implant "machine-readable" microchips under the skin of thousands of offenders in an effort to free up more space in British jails. The article states that uses are being considered both for home detention, as a means to enforce punishment, as well as for sex offenders after their release. Many view this as a slippery slope leading to much wider use; starting as a purely voluntary act and gradually becoming more compulsory, it would endanger human rights and privacy. There are also health questions involved, given that long-term studies have linked similar implants to cancer in lab mice and rats. Ironically, the same technology has been proposed for medical purposes as well. In the USA, some state agencies have already made decisions about this issue.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: Wisconsin Could Ban Mandatory Microchip Implants 395 comments
01101101 writes "The Duluth News Tribune is reporting that Wisconsin could be the first state to ban mandatory microchip implants in humans. The plan was authored by Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids and Gov. Jim Doyle plans to sign the bill. The bill still leaves an opening for voluntary chipping." Slashdot covered one instance of mandatory microchip implants back in February.
Submission: A proposal that Prisoners be 'chipped like dogs' by Raisey-raison (850922)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Proposal for UK Prisoners to be Given RFID Implants 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Its just criminals (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Sunday January 13 2008, @09:06AM (#22024580) Homepage Journal
    Today.

    Tomorrow children. In a generation or 2, everyone will have them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by darjen (879890)

      in an effort to free up more space in British jails.

      Or they could stop throwing people in jail for victimless crimes, such as drug offenses... for which 16% of prisoners are there for.

      http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/population-in-custody-0407.pdf [justice.gov.uk]

        • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

          by xaxa (988988)
          I already see ads on TV for ethanol, caffeine and taurine.

          Look at some actual research [bbc.co.uk]. Ecstasy is less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol.

          I want to be able to buy ecstasy legally. I don't mind if it's taxed (charge £10 for four tablets, give £9 to charities or the NHS if you like). They can put some big warning notices on the box too, like they do for tobacco, and a recommended maximum dose, like they do for alcohol.
        • Just 10 minutes ago i saw a commercial for Captain Morgan. So your point again?

            • Yeah I know that but if its legal then that means there would be companies made to supply it. Those companies will want to advertise just like alcohol and tobacco companies.

              Dude, that already occurs. Did you go to any kind of club recently?

              Fully legalizing drugs would at least regulate advertisment and control quality.

              They dont fully understand what legalizing it means.

              Depends on the drug in question. In some countries, there are plans to legalize ownership and growing of cannabis (within defined limits), while selling it remains illegal. "Legal" doesn't necessarily mean that you have to allow companies to produce and supply the product. Might as well just mean you aren't going to criminalize the users.

    • Give them to criminals? Hell - if they're going to do that, make them pay for the device, installation and maintenance. However, I heartily agree that any approach like this will lead to extension into the general public and abuse of information. The Thought Police will get us all.
      • Here locally, the criminals that get those leg-beepers for home detention have to pay some sort of fee.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nurb432 (527695)
        Thats what they said about your SSN in the beginning, and you see how that didn't creep.
        • And the fact that you and others like you are using the acceptance of the SSN along with national IDs as the justification to impose more programs like this one that go even further and kill privacy entirely is supposed to be a good way to demonstrate that there is absolutely no slippery slope nor creep??

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by meringuoid (568297)
            A simple fact that many Slashdotters apparently find hard to grasp is that the "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy. That means it's not a valid argument.

            Tell me: if I hold an apple in the air and let it go, will it fall to the ground, or hang in mid air?

            I think you will agree with me that it will fall to the ground. Why do we predict this? Because of a long history of observing similar cases. We know that unsupported objects tend to fall. We've seen it happen so many times that we have developed a sop

          • A simple fact that many Slashdotters apparently find hard to grasp is that the "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy. That means it's not a valid argument. Sorry, but there you are.

            Depends on the particular subject. In this case, it's somewhat clear to me that gradual acceptance might occur, and that we should thus not accept it.

            First, we tag criminals, maybe even only those who accept it. After a few years, there are some success stories, and it becomes mandatory, it's just criminals after all. People see that nothing bad seems to happen, and a few well-publicised cases occur where the tags prevented a crime from happening. So then people start using them as batches, for entry in

      • Or maybe it will stop at just criminals.

        Or maybe the earth will explode. I'm planning on being alive tomorrow anyway.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by CmdrGravy (645153)
        I think the background to this is that the current bunch of clowns in government have been imprisoning more people and not building any more prisons with the, obviously surprising, result that there are now not enough spaces in prison for all the prisoners. Thousands are being released early to free up space and the government is desperately trying to look as though it is doing something about it when in fact it's not.

        They already tag people so they don't have to lock them up despite the fact that tags obvi

  • Maybe it's just me... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Serenissima (1210562) on Sunday January 13 2008, @09:11AM (#22024610)
    But does no one think that Prisoners might be inclined to remove their tracking chips? I'm just saying I can't imagine most of them are losing any sleep about breaking the law...

    • Re:Maybe it's just me... (Score:5, Funny)

      by sakdoctor (1087155) on Sunday January 13 2008, @09:15AM (#22024652)
      Which is why they will implant them deep in the brain.

      Then only outlaws will wear tinfoil hats.

    • Re:Maybe it's just me... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Naughty Bob (1004174) on Sunday January 13 2008, @09:30AM (#22024740)
      The UK already employs an extensive system of electronic ankle bracelets as part of early release programs, they're radio-linked to an internet connected receiver in their houses. A small percentage of them are removed, virtually always triggering the tamper detection devices. A much bigger problem so far has been the comically inept way the schemes are run.

    • I just hope it's optional.

      Prisoners should be given the option to say either, "Implant the chip under my skin", or "Shove it up your arse."

  • Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by usul294 (1163169) on Sunday January 13 2008, @09:14AM (#22024644)
    How long does it take till this spreads to all criminals, then slowly spreads into the population. The privacy issues are obvious, today dogs can get chips under their skin to help if they get lost, tomorrow the government may use them to find a "person of interest". Thats not to say there are not benefits to the idea. Namely, being able to tie personal identification to the chip (no more REAL ID), and being able to tie personal bank accounts to that chip as well. That's not to say its a good idea, but there are some positive impacts if applied to the whole population.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mapkinase (958129)
      It will spread in a different way. Now we are easily tracked by our phone calls, by our credit card purchases and other digital traces. Yes we have a choice to go off the grid, but it's really inconvenient. RFID will happen the same way.

      They won't force them on us, they will just make it really inconvenient to us, pussies, to live without it.

      [/macho trip]
    • What TFA doesn't mention is that the implants ocasionally find their way into your DNA (they implant them in the gonads, to dissuade removing it) so you pass them on to your children!

    • Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by AmiMoJo (196126) <mojo@wDEBIANorld3.net minus distro> on Sunday January 13 2008, @02:08PM (#22027026) Homepage
      Parents are the scary ones. A lot of them seem to think chipping their kids is a good idea. I suppose it is if you treat your kids the same way you treat your pets. Prisoners until age 18.

      I think the last time anyone tried this in Western Europe was when the Nazis tattooed numbers on the hands of Jews.
    • I've been hearing about this one from my psychotic step-father for years now. He read about RFIDs on Jeff Rense.com [jeffrense.com] of all places, and how they could, for example, be placed in the back of the neck. Apparently there's something in the bible about the mark of the beast being on the back of the neck and how it will signal the end times, and he's been ranting about it ever since.

      He's also a complete idiot, as are the greater portion of Americans. (I'm American, don't start the flamewar) You're quite right
  • California is suffering from a huge budget crunch. the Governator is talking about prisoner releases there. and with the state employees (free people. or are they?) there already under threat of implants, i'd say Ahnold will be calling Brown soon for the chip vendor information.

  • This is /. - how long before chip mods? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by grolaw (670747) on Sunday January 13 2008, @09:51AM (#22024860) Journal
    Let's get real. If these RFID chip or multiple chip implantation policies become widespread so will chip mods.

    If your ID chip accesses your credit line - how long before Warren Buffett/Bill Gates' ID becomes the hot new fake ID?

    It is well known that all manufacturing processes produce a some number of defective products. How do we deal with those?

    RFID can be zapped with a static charge - anybody for Van DeGraff generators?

    Retasking, rewriting, forged, hacked and destroyed RFID is all that this policy will lead to. AND, /. readers will be in the front of THAT revolution.

    • Re:This is /. - how long before chip mods? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Cheesey (70139) on Sunday January 13 2008, @10:17AM (#22025042)
      The solution to most of those problems is to use many RFID chips rather than a single one (these things are microscopic). You'll be identified by the cloud of chips that you carry - some may be implanted, some may be in your clothes, and others will be part of the gadgets you own. Failure of individual chips is no problem: indeed it is expected. The surveillance systems will be watching where most of your RFID chips go.

      Forgery is possible but it's non-trivial, particularly as the chips shouldn't offer any way to reprogram the UUIDs that they broadcast. You'd need a pirate RFID manufacturing plant: possible but costly. Destroying the chips is a more likely attack, but these things will be so common in the future that it will be extremely hard to go anywhere without picking a few up by accident, so you'll soon be back on the system if you do that (albeit as an anonymous person until you do something else to identify yourself, such as using a credit card).

      • Re:This is /. - how long before chip mods? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by grolaw (670747) on Sunday January 13 2008, @10:34AM (#22025166) Journal
        Every ID system has been beaten. You seem to be discussing nano-level tech (and, I'm unaware of how that size device could pick up enough RF to power their system) and not the 1-2 cm standard today. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID/ [wikipedia.org]

        The market for pirated DVDs couldn't exist without the blanks. Perhaps a third or so are created in factories in China - but the rest are purchased from the usual sources and diverted to illicit copying. What's to keep chip manufacturers from supplying the black market?

        Want to consider what would happen if the chips were really tightly controlled? There would be a market for chips forcibly extracted from the original "owner."

        At root, it is a stupid idea - but my pets have them. Now, if the animal control folks would just buy the scanner we lobbied for (and, budgeted two years ago) so that a lost/runaway could be returned....

        In short, the barriers to adopting this policy are formidable and the end result is far from certain.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Cheesey (70139)
          I like to make posts such as the grandparent in the hope that someone more knowledgeable than me will tell me why I'm wrong. An RFID-based national surveillance system is clearly on the UK government "wish list", and it would be nice for everyone if it was actually impossible to build one, rather than merely expensive. I would be very pleased if physical laws prevented RFIDs being manufactured in microscopic sizes, but I suspect that this is not the case. It doesn't have to be nanoscale, it just has to be i

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by grolaw (670747)
            RFID is a "passive" responder that generates a signal when "charged" or "pumped" with enough current from an active RF field. Look at the Wikipedia link I posted and you will see that the most massive part of any RFID device is the antenna. Through that antenna induction takes place and thence the power to generate a signal. RFID are without internal power supplies and must make use of induction to function. The smaller the device the smaller the antenna. Once we reach true microwave frequencies the tr
            • It shouldn't be too hard to make a IPod sized device that could broadcast thousands/millions of fake RFID numbers if it picks up that one is being scanned nearby. Or just have it on the whole time, filling the scanners with noise. Websites could have extensive lists of other peoples RFID numbers all uploaded, thereby providing a kind of digital alibi, if you will. I'm sure that someone will make cracking type of programs, that can produce valid RFID numbers, or hack into legitamite databases that have RF

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by grolaw (670747)
                The technology exists - consider radio scanners and repeaters. Add in some memory and create an interface to your mini scanner/repeater (sounds like a job for gumstix http://gumstix.com/ [gumstix.com] ) and off you go.

                FWIW directional antennas (dish, yagi) could direct a RF signal source at distance & coupled with a rifle site it would make all of those people carrying RFID easy targets to pick out of a crowd.

                Whose idea was RDID tags in passports, anyway? The Saudi's?
      • A alternative to getting a RFID manufacturing plant is just to rig up a little transmitter to a computer.
        You'd then emulate the cloud. Pretty simple.
  • That's been already worked out for them: One on the forehead, and another on the right hand.
    • That's been already worked out for them: One on the forehead, and another on the right hand.

      Well, the frontal sinus would make an ideal location for them... Well within the ability of modern endoscopic techniques; no visiable lump as with subcutaneous insertion; virtually no way for the animal - er, prisoner - to remove it without medical assistance; and, it lies close enough to the surface to respond to a reasonably low-powered scanner .

      Now, the wrist, on the other hand, not such a great place. The w
      • This is yet another opportunity for you educated people to express your disdain for Christianity (and Judaism indirectly) religions: Downmod the above!

        Welcome to the exciting world of "sarcasm". The GP did express his disdain for superstitious BS such as otherwise-rational people fearing the spooooooooky Mark of the Beast.

        I absolutely oppose any proposals to "chip" humans (for ID purposes - Put me at the front of the line to have a machine/neural interface jack installed, however), but doing so for re

      • "He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name." [Rev 13:16-17, NIV]

        Everyone knows that refers to Bill Gates [egomania.nu]. The mark on the right hand is Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and the mark on the forehead came from pounding it on the keyboard.

  • Makes perfect sense to me! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by definate (876684) on Sunday January 13 2008, @09:58AM (#22024906)
    This makes perfect sense to me!

    After all, it's not like RFID chips could be swapped, erased, removed and as we all know, relying on technology to enforce behavior has never failed. That's why DRM is so popular and electronic passports are completely unhackable, and even if they were hackable, it's not like people get used to the new systems and forget to do the most basic of checks.

    Also, the social repercussions for putting these in inmates raises no problems, all you need to do is look at the great success the US has had with the sex offender registry in rehabilitating people.

    I can't find a single reason not to do this. Go Britain!

    WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!? It took me a whole 2 seconds to think of all of these, how has this idea made it this far?
    • sex offender registry in rehabilitating people.

      The purpose of the sex offender registry is not to rehabilitate. It is to notify the community to beware. So many sex offenders reoffended after being released, and so many parents said that they would have been more careful, had they only known that a predator was in the neighborhood. So, you get pressure on politicians, and bam, democracy in action.

      P.S. You might have more success in expressing your opinions if you didn't use so much sarcasm.

      P.P.S. Yo

  • Another reason... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Computershack (1143409) on Sunday January 13 2008, @09:59AM (#22024914)
    Just another reason to leave this country. Once upon a time I used to be proud to be British. Nowadays if I say that, I'll be flagged up as a racist, be DNA profiled and have my life gone through with a fine tooth comb.

    This country has surveillance and tracking that's gone beyond anything the Nazi SS and the KGB could ever dreamed of having. So much for living in a free democracy.

  • Banning involuntary tagging won't work.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Things like this don't need to be legally mandated - only socially. When it becomes the 'next big thing' and you can buy a sixpack just by waving your hand next to a reader, it'll catch on and people will voluntarily do it - after which point, in a few years, it would be as odd to be without one as it would be odd to be without a cellphone today. I'd plan on mitigating the effects of everyone having the implants as opposed to trying to stop them.
  • I think this is an example of where technology, or at least people's visions for the technology, is outpacing common sense. RFID-like tags are a great idea for identifying lost pets or livestock, but they absolutely suck as a criminal monitoring device compared to existing systems for enforcing home detention. RFID is a passive system - a tag moves by a reader, it's energized and sends its data to the reader. As I understand it, the ankle bracelets currently used are active systems - the bracelet and the mo

    • Re:What is so wrong with current monitoring system (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Cheesey (70139) on Sunday January 13 2008, @10:40AM (#22025210)
      I think all that you're missing is the scope of the plans, which are technically achievable, but are also science fiction of the David Brin variety. This is belied by the disparity between what is actually needed (a way to enforce house arrest - existing solutions are adequate) and what we are told is needed (RFID everywhere). The vision is a nationwide network combining RFID with existing surveillance technologies such as CCTV and the automatic number plate recognition system (ANPR). The problem with ANPR is that it only recognises number plates, and the problem with CCTV is that it is no good for automatically recognising anything. RFID is the answer: the tiny chips uniquely identify their carrier. So with the help of RFID you can both (1) record everything and (2) tag each recording with the people featured in it without any human intervention. A database with a record of everyone's activities is the eventual goal. Modern technology makes it possible, if unethical and expensive.
  • I for one welcome our RFID-implanting overlords!
  • Pile them all on to ships and send them to Australia!
    • Let me get this straight...
      You keep the shitty food and the shitty weather and we get the Great Barrier Reef and lobsters the size of canoes?...
      .
      .
      .
      I'm Jack the Ripper! --No, I'M Jack the Ripper! We're all Jackthefuckingripper!

  • Why is there such a high prison population? Are all of these people behind bars dangerous persons who would damage society if left free? I don't think so. Perhaps only a few of them are really dangerous. Most of them would probably do no further damage if released, so I see no point in spending tax money in feeding people who would do no further damage to society. Punishment? Does anybody still believes that punishment is the right approach to crime? We should focus on changing people, not punishing t

  • how long until secret service agents start putting nano RFID chips into the food or cars of political enemies and tracking their movements?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Loibisch (964797)
      We really need a moderation option "+1 Sarcasm" because there's no way the above comment is funny or insightful...:(

        • You seem to have reinforced my concern.

          I am not part of the hive. I do not always think the current fashionable thoughts. That is good, as far as I'm concerned.

          My post responded to your question, specifically, "What's the huge issue for abuse?". The huge issue for abuse is that the act of implanting an RFID tag in someone against their will is abuse. The reasons of the objector are irrelevant.

          Your original post seemed to make the assumption that there is no harm in having the tags implanted, although the

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.