Officials secretly RFID'd at Internet Summit 216
ewoudenberg writes "A Washington Times article reports that researchers managed to gain entrance to the Internet and technology conference in Switzerland last week only to discover that the summit's badges contained undisclosed RFID chips. The badges were handed out to more than 50 prime ministers, presidents and other high-level officials from 174 countries, including the United States."
Summary (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd have a lot more respect for activist reporters if they would report the facts without hype. It's not the second coming, it's possibly a minor infraction of the Swiss information laws.
Countermeasures (Score:5, Interesting)
Privacy issue, or planning aid? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Cool. (Score:3, Interesting)
what use would the RFID be? it doesnt permit tracking a 'la gps...which would really be the only reason to take a 'politician'.
I despise the political system and politicians too...but that really isnt an insightful comment. A politician has a job, just like you. Should you be bagged and tagged to make sure you arent talking to competitors.
And besides whether we should...like I said, you must not understand RFID cause it would be useless to track people outside of a small, definitive area.
Re:Washington Times (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I agree (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, I defend this right for both parties because you can not expect that they uphold your right if you continually violate theirs.
By defending their rights, I am defending mine.
As to Clinton having an affair. I don't regard that as a cause for impeachment. That is a problem between him, his wife and his mistress. Thus a matter of his privacy.
On the other hand, he had an affair with a White House employee. That could be a ground for impeachment, if it compromises his ability to function as president.
The fact alone of having sex, with whomever is not sufficient cause.
Re:HEY, AMERICA! (Score:2, Interesting)
I want to leave the country for exactly that reason.
Re:Cool. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cool. (Score:3, Interesting)
However, since his sex life had nothing to do with his job as President, I think he's entitled to lie about it, because IMHO the question should not have been asked.
I'm a Republican, and did think the whole impeachment thing was a waste of everyone's time and money and shouldn't have been done. Richard Nixon took actions worthy of impeachment; Bill Clinton did not.
However, I don't think it's justifiable to say that what happened with Monica Lewinsky was his own business and he had a right to lie about it.
First of all, it happened in the oval office. If I had sex with someone on my employer's premises, whether it was during business hours or not, I assure you that they would take interest in that, would have a right to question me about it, and would most likely fire me. Therefore, you can't defend his lie by saying "It was his personal life, so he had a right to lie."
If it happend in the residence section of the Whitehouse, you might be able to make that claim, but since it happened in the oval office, it means he not only had sex on company premises, but he was on duty at the time. IIRC, he even made a phone call to some member of the House or Senate while he was getting knob schlobbed under the desk by Monica. That makes it very much the public's business, and I certainly think a letter of censure was in order. It's only impeachment that was a bit much.