CA Bill Limits Skin Implantation of RFID Chips

twitter writes with a link to a ZDNet blog entry about a piece of legislation submitted to the California state senate. Drafted by Democratic Senator Joe Simitian, its purpose is to ensure that employers cannot require the implantation of RFID chips as part of employment. It is meeting with scorn from the American Electronics Association. "'Our bottom line is we're opposed to anything that demonizes RFIDs,' she said. 'The technology has been in existence for more than 50 years. It's in more than 1.2 billion ID credentials worldwide. ... We've not seen a single showing of ID theft or harm,' said Roxanne Gould, vice president for California government relations for the American Electronics Association, a high-tech industry group."

RTFA?

How can I be guilty of not reading the fine article, when there is no fine article to be read?

Re:RTFA?

The fine article isn't displayed for you, as you don't have your security I.D. transponder within range. Duh!

Re:RTFA?

http://whitepapers.zdnet.com/whitepaper.aspx?docid =90938 [zdnet.com]

Now you've got only one remaining excuse for not reading it : you're on Slashdot :)

Re:RTFA?

My mistake : http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3237 [zdnet.com]

Huh?

'The technology has been in existence for more than 50 years. It's in more than 1.2 billion ID credentials worldwide. ... We've not seen a single showing of ID theft or harm,' Ok, am I just stupid, or did that statement about no ID theft cause anyone else to spew their beverage on the monitor.

Re:Huh?

Note to Ms Gould: There's a difference between a tag you wear at work, and something semi-permanently implanted in your body.

Re:Huh?

There's also a very big difference between choosing to have anything implanted, or being forced to have anything implanted.

That she wants to dedemonize RFID chips is fine with me, but at the moment she seems to support forced implantations of the chips. It's really only one step away from no longer being able to buy food without an implanted chip under your hand or forehead.

Re:Huh?

Actually it is one step away from technology that is far worse. Once you can force the implanting of digital ROM why not digital RAM an implanted device that records you activities for downloading later. This is a important piece of legislation in order to cut off even worse technology, a politician that is surprisingly looking ahead.

Often this kind of legislation has to be extended to barring the technology altogether as corporations or government departments will try to work around the legislative ban forbidding compulsion by the use of various extortion techniques, reduced pay, promotion restrictions, implied threats of dismissal, unlikely employment.

Why wait for the abuses, ban questionable applications of technology to start with.

Just think of the benefits for the weasel in chief, he wont have to wait for you to make a phone call so that the NSA can record you calls, he can just download you sound recording chip when ever you walk past a phone for any questionable anti-republican statements.

Re:

...(has any human ever been chipped with an RFID chip?),...
---
Its old news actually.

Clubbers choose chip implants to jump queues - 21 May 2004 - New ...
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn5022 [newscientist.com]

http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Chip_Implants/ [greaterthings.com]

Re:Huh?

has any human ever been chipped with an RFID chip?

This guy [ieee.org] actually did it himself. And he convinced his girlfriend to also do it.

Re:

"...- how about no surgical methods shall be required for employment?"

Nah..that wouldn't work too well....at least for the majority of girls working at high end strip clubs.

You thought ALL of those were 'natural'??

:-)

Auschwitz 2.0

Another note to Ms. Gould: I don't think it's the possibility of the RFID tag not working or being stolen that worries the CA lawmaker. I am pretty sure it's the implantation that's the worry.
For one thing, no employer should ever have the right to demand the violation of an employee's body.
Another issue is that this is too damn close to a slave collar. "Property of ACME Inc."
And finally, the RFID tag doesn't stop working once the work day is over, but works 24/7/365.

The problem I see with a ban is that the ban is likely going to be too narrow if it mentions RFID. Unless it's a ban against any permanent or semi-permanent marking of employees, it's going to be worse than nothing, as the wrong judge might rule that since RFIDs were banned, but tattoos were not mentioned, it means that tattoos are implicitly allowed.

Regards,
--
*Art

They can demand all they like

For one thing, no employer should ever have the right to demand the violation of an employee's body.

Only a fool would consent to it.

Does this really need to be legislated? Eh, no I don't think so.

 

Re:They can demand all they like

Does this really need to be legislated? Eh, no I don't think so.

No, of course this does not need to be legislated. Just like with compulsory drug tests, the market will regulate itself. Just like nobody wanted to take the drug tests and work for companies, which required them, the RFID implantations won't happen because no company would find employees who would accept them.

Re:They can demand all they like

Like with drug tests, it's the weakest that will have the least opportunity to say "no". If the choice is whether to submit to an RFID implant or not be able to put food on the table, it's hard to say no.
Legislation that hinders companies from exploiting their employees is not a bad thing. The free forces only go so far, and protect only those in a position to say "no". That's not everyone, even if it's you.

Re:

Ahhh, classic /. logic on display...

"this has never happened to me, therefore your logic is silly for suggesting it could happen. Further, I am far too talented and independent to ever work somewhere that would do such a thing."

Good for you that your compa

Re:

It's been said before, so despite the threat of being modded redundant, it can't be said often enough IMO: Anything but an outright ban will invariably result in indirect force to have it implanted.

There is a surplus of workforce compared to jobs. And whil

Re:Huh?

We've not seen a single showing of ID theft or harm

Read as:

We all stand around here with our eyes closed and our hands over our ears shouting BLABLABLABLABLA.......

Ignorance is bliss!

It is a good thing to limit skin implantations.

The correct way to mark employees is still an ear tag.

Re:

Nah, I think a radio collar a stripe of flourescent paint is the way to go...Atleast thats what my employer uses.

A tattoo on the forehead

is the best way to mark an employee, but 666 is already taken.

doesn't mean you can't have it

Doesn't mean you can't have your RFID -- it just means they can't REQUIRE you to have it.

and that's a good thing.

Re:

It's a worthless thing. You don't want your chip implanted? Ok, it is your good right to refuse, it is our good right to choose an employee, accepts it.

Don't like the laws?

It's your good right to select another country to do business in.

Re:Don't like the laws?

No, it isn't that easy. For instance, unless you come in america illegally, it will take quite a bit of time to get the appropriate paperwork and such to come in legally and find work. Now, visiting is another story, and I don't think most other countries are that far off. But you cannot just up and find another country.

Re:doesn't mean you can't have it

Most people do not have the choice to decide whether they wish to work, or with whom they wish to work for, therefore at least a certain amount of legal protection has to be maintained. This is especially true when most of the wealth (and power) is distributed to only a small minority of the population.

Considering the fact that power corrupts and companies tend towards the lowest common denominator when it comes to moral issues like workers rights and just plane ordinary dignity, it is not unreasonable to have a law that requires employers not to treat their workers too much like cattle. If people really did have a choice of not to work for bad companies, I'm sure they would. Until that day comes, we will need legislation protecting us from our employers.

Re:doesn't mean you can't have it

Look at the parents statement. What I meant was that laws, which does not strictly forbid RFID implantation, are worthless. A law, which just says that an employer cannot require an implantation is even worse than worthless. It gives a semblance of protection, but does in effect nothing at all. For exactly the same reasons you gave.

Not true

Under this current proposed law, the first time an employer ASKS you to have an RFID implant, they've broken the law and are in deep poodoo.

The employer is free to not hire someone who doesn't take the RFID implant, but then they're free to report said employer for even requesting it, and California is free to fine/imprison/punish the employer.

The question then boils down to enforcement. How likely then is the company to get punished for breaking the law, and to what magnitude? That is where we ought to be asking the biggest questions.

Re:doesn't mean you can't have it

No, his concept isn't some liberal mistake. I don't even think it is liberal.

You see, the free market concept assumes people are free to chose what they want to purchase. Now, even in IT, there are only so many jobs at so many places so if they are all filled in my town, I either have to move or find another. Now notice I didn't place a third option of not working in there. that is because you don't have that option as a realistic choice. Sure, you could draw unemployment for a while, spend your savings down but in the end, you will HAVE to find a job or dies. And that is only if you don't goto jail or something first.

Anytime you take the option to walk away out of the picture, you cannot have a free market. This is the same thing with gasoline, a certain amount in todays age has to be spent on transportation for all but a small set of people. there is nothing free about the gas market except they are free to exploit your needs. Now, these needs can be artificial yet still be enough to screw the idea of a free market. Mass or public transportation for instance, It needs to purchase gas in order to function. It will have to raise fair to cover expenses when they prices go up, so even if you do have an alternative to buying it directly, you would still be force to pay indirectly.

Now, with jobs this is no different. In most areas, they have reserved sections of the town to provide the bulk of the jobs and with the smaller towns, you have to go outside in order to get a job that pays a decent amount of wages. Most jobs now require a certain skill set (like IT) where you cannot just up and learn another in the time it takes to quit one job and goto the next even if it is outsid your skill set. When a person is forced to work or live in poverty or die, you cannot consider that a free market. Even if you manage to find one example where it might be. When a person is forced to have years of training to do a certain line of work you cannot expect them to find another job in another market area because he disagrees with a policy, it would take longer to train then it would take for the policy they disagree with to be implemented. They would be forced to adapt to the policy. Again, it isn't a FREE market by any means. And that is the entire point of the GP. If you think it is a free market, then you just aren't looking at it good enough.

Linky?

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php? type=wnews&id=76472&eddate= [smdailyjournal.com]

this might help.

Not yet

It's in more than 1.2 billion ID credentials worldwide. ... We've not seen a single showing of ID theft or harm,' said Roxanne Gould

In my humble opinion, just because something did not happen yet does not mean that it will not happen in the future

And the summary missing a link to the ZDNet blog.

like ID tattoos?

Employers are requiring a medical procedure as a condition of employment. How about tattooing the employee ID, or neutering the staff to make them more docile, although that would be redundant for any employee that accepted the chip in the first place.

This is not primarily about the RFID security. It is about mutilating the staff to save the employer the cost of installing and using a less Nazi-slave-like security system. Seems to me that any doctors that perform the procedure should have their license removed. The tags are hardly justifiable as cosmetic surgery providing any self-image benefit, since the tags aren't supposed to be visible.

Re:

Employers are requiring a medical procedure as a condition of employment. How about tattooing the employee ID, or neutering the staff to make them more docile

There are also privacy implications in that this identifies the them as an employee even when th

Re:like ID tattoos?

"No employer currently requires (or even asks for) the use of RFID implants. Most places are happy when an employers carries theirs as a badge."

Please check your facts before stating incorrect FUD like this... I remembered reading about this a while ago and it took only a few seconds with Google to find it.

"A Cincinnati video surveillance company CityWatcher.com now requires employees to use Verichip human implantable microchips to enter a secure data centre. Until now, the employees entered the data centre with a VeriChip housed in a heart-shaped plastic casing that hangs from their keychain.
The VeriChip is a glass encapsulated RFID tag that is injected into the triceps area of the arm to uniquely identify individuals. The tag can be read by radio waves from a few inches away.
The news was reported by CASPIAN (Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering), a US organisation that opposes the use of surveillance RFID cards."

Re:like ID tattoos?

passive RFID provides static identification only, not authentication

This is incorrect. Some passive RFID systems do challenge-response authentication. See Exxon's SpeedPass. It does it BADLY, but it does it.

Tut-tut from the library

So I tells the library "I lost that book." Next things I knows, the librarian looks into the screen, starts typing, then tells me, "It's in the bedroom, under your nightstand." So I goes home and there it is! That lady, wotta dish and smart to boot! Thanks RFID!

Religious objection:

I refuse to accept the mark of the beast.

Dear Roxanne Goebbels

Dear Roxanne Goebbels,

Please, be advised that although the Arabic number system had been in use for centuries without significant bugs or security compromises, the abuse of the Arabic number system in the form of tattooing Arabic numbers onto the wrists of European Jews became problematic.

Here's the bill

SB 362 [ca.gov]. "A person shall not require, coerce, or compel any other individual to undergo the subcutaneous implanting of an identification device."

Why...

Why is it always California that's always ahead of the rest of the country? The best time to take care of a problem is before it starts. Everyone here in the IT business has probably heard of it. It's called preventative maintenace . California has started applying it to politics, and I applaud them for it.

I've never been to California, and I know that it's not perfect, but a good portion of their newer laws make a ton of sense, and should probably be implemented nationwide.

What's sad is that when a government body passes a law that is good for it's people, it's news.

Aero

Actually, California Dragged Their Feet...

Wisconsin passed a similar law over a year ago. [Article [computerworld.com]]

Its not RFID...

It's not the RFID tags the senator is going after... its employers being able to fire anyone who doesn't want a CHIP EMBEDDED IN THEIR SKIN by the company they work for. I think RFID technology is great, and I completely support this bill.

This is another case of an industry group going crazy to protect what they perceive to be their interests, when in fact its no challenge to the technology at all, its a challenge to having an employer being able to modify your body.

Require? Force? Oh no, c'mon, who would?

We just pay our employees that allow us to chip them 10 cents an hour more. And for some odd reason, whenever we lay people off, the ones not tagged are the first ones to get sacked.

Pure coincidence, of course.

What's more frightening

is that cal.gov are having to legislate on this because some HR person has seriously considered it...

Re:

No, the "market" won't fix itself, at least not in the direction of individual liberty. The "market" will migrate towards all the companies requiring it, and then you don't get to choose anymore. I for one would rather not have to sleep in a Faraday cage

Re:Where do the libertarians stand?

I am willing to make that trade off for the career I want.

Being willing to implant an RFID does not mean that you'll get to have the career you want. Perhaps you'll work there for only a month or two and be laid off because of an airline's financial insolvency. Then you can get a new RFID from the next business.

The problem with implanted RFID is that most people underestimate their future costs as a result of an employer implanting the chip. It costs considerably more to remove an RFID, in money and personal risk, and the employer makes no provision to pay for this. Over a lifetime of jobs, once all employers require RFIDs, how many of these chips will need to be implanted? Assume that every time you change employers or even locations for the same employer you'll need new chip implanted. Every time a system is cracked (your individual chip or the outdated technology of the original chip) you'll need another chip implanted. If your company is bought by another company, implant a new chip. Technology changes constantly and employment terms for one entity are becoming increasingly shorter than in the past. Once employers do it, everyone else will want a chip under your skin for credit cards, or even customer memberships. You may have, literally, hundreds of opportunities to be re-chipped. How many chips can you realistically implant in your arm? Will you be forced to remove some of them because they compete with other technology? (The RFID used for toll booths in Maryland and Delaware are incompatible so I have to put one in the glove box to pass through the other because their systems interfere and cannot read their own ID if the other ID is also present.)

How many of these concerns do you think a person who is asked to install a chip has actually considered before they get implanted? The long term issues of chipping and the future costs which will be borne by the person being chipped and they are woefully uninformed. This lack of information availability is exactly what allows larger players in a market to abuse the smaller players. When a company knows the dangers but the employees or customers do not, they can shift future costs to them because they lack this information. The market is notoriously bad at affixing future costs to those who caused the problem (from cancer risks of smoking to pollution of locales to bad economic decisions.)

Re:Good for child molesters

Or how about for our troops on the combat field

This is a bad idea for the same reason that it's a bad idea to be chipping our own citizens:

What happens when people who weren't intended to be reading these chips start using them to track and find the chipped?

Aero

Re:RFID rsucks

Roxanne Gould, Spokesweasel for the American Electronics Association says 'Our bottom line is we're opposed to anything that demonizes RFIDs'

Actually, I found that part of it refreshingly honest. What she's saying is tantamount to something like this:

We don't care a hoot about the moral or ethical aspects. We don't even care if RFID are a good idea in any context, neither do we care if they happen to be an astonishingly one. All we care about is that industry buys more RFID chips, and that's what we will say in any and every debate.

The nice thing about that is that it means their opinion on any subject can be dismissed out of hand. It's like a binary signal that's always set to one; it carries no data. We already know what they're going to say, whatever the question ("RFID tags are GOOD!") and we know why ("because it make us MONEY!").

It's just rare to see one of these industry pressure groups quite so willing to disqualify themselves from the debate.

Re:

I don't know, somehow a little device just sitting out there waiting for something to happen for interaction sounds remarkably like a daemon to me.

Re:I don't remember exactly how this goes

From Revelation:

11Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. 12He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. 14Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17so 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.

18This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.

I've heard many interpretations of this, but the bottom line is, many Christians will resist to the death any attempt to be "marked" or "implanted" because of this passage. I don't see forced RFID implants happening in this country any time soon.