Slashdot Log In
CA Bill Limits Skin Implantation of RFID Chips
Journal written by twitter (104583) and posted by
Zonk
on Mon Jun 25, 2007 01:49 AM
from the wasn't-super-worried-but-thanks-just-the-same dept.
from the wasn't-super-worried-but-thanks-just-the-same dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Science: California Blocks RFID Implants In Workers 422 comments
InternetVoting writes "California has passed a bill banning companies from requiring employees to have RFID chips surgically implanted. Already one company has been licensed by the federal government, implanting more than 2000 people. At least one other company — CityWatcher.com, a Cincinnati video surveillance company — already required RFID implants in some employees. 'State Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) proposed the measure after at least one company began marketing radio frequency identification devices for use in humans. "RFID is a minor miracle, with all sorts of good uses," Simitian said. "But we shouldn't condone forced 'tagging' of humans. It's the ultimate invasion of privacy.'"
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
RTFA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RTFA? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:RTFA? (Score:5, Informative)
Now you've got only one remaining excuse for not reading it : you're on Slashdot
Parent
Re:RTFA? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
It is a good thing to limit skin implantations. (Score:5, Funny)
doesn't mean you can't have it (Score:5, Insightful)
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:doesn't mean you can't have it (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Linky? (Score:5, Informative)
this might help.
Not yet (Score:4, Insightful)
It's in more than 1.2 billion ID credentials worldwide.
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:like ID tattoos? (Score:5, Informative)
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."
Parent
Religious objection: (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Roxanne Goebbels (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Require? Force? Oh no, c'mon, who would? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pure coincidence, of course.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Auschwitz 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Parent
Re:They can demand all they like (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:They can demand all they like (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Read as:
We all stand around here with our eyes closed and our hands over our ears shouting BLABLABLABLABLA.......
Ignorance is bliss!
Parent
Re:Good for child molesters (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Parent
Re:Where do the libertarians stand? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Parent