Go to I am here and I am not silent
- Add a comment
- Go to It takes a whole village to protest abusive behavior in general
I'd advise looking at my latest post
I incorporated some of the material in the comments section into my latest post - I hope this comment stays here for at least half an hour so people will come to the blog and see what all the fuss is about. Thanks for the comments, DamonLeigh, and thanks for all the free publicity (my checkbook thanks you, my accountant thanks you, etc., etc.).
posted by
kidnykid
on April 19, 2003 at 7:18 AM
| link to this | reply
AND Another Thing!
You're absolutely right.
I think there is another layer to how the UCB announced the innovation. It's a bit like planning applications here in the UK. The developer submits a plan for new houses (for example) which is knocked back through public objections. They then submit a modified plan. Then another. Then another. The effect of this is twofold.
1. The developers bring all objections out into the open over time, and address them to a minimal degree.
2. The public get bored with objecting.
The same goes on for privacy-threatening legislation and technology. Shout about the innovation. Get it shot down AND get a clear view of where the objections lie. Then taylor your next release accordingly.
Some of these announcements look naive. Don't be fooled for a moment!
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on April 19, 2003 at 6:20 AM
| link to this | reply
Well...
DamonLeigh, you're one of the "good guys" wearing a ten-gallon white hat on this issue. Not only is your analysis spot-on (as you Brits might say), you're opening your mouth as wide as it will go; no silence for you! Good going (in all seriousness).
We really never can predict the future. Here in America - a land which has raised the right to privacy to a sacred thing (the legal premise behind Roe v. Wade was a woman's right to privacy) - we are starting to think nothing of security cameras on every street corner, using that same "they're so open about it that it must be legitimate" type of thinking that drives me up a wall. They're so open about it precisely because they - whatever "they" might be in specific instances - want you to accept whatever they dish out blindly. In the eyes of many, the United Colors of Benetton merely made the mistake of trumpeting their desire to have the chips in the clothing; had they not released the information widely (and acted - gasp - PROUD of their idea), they would have been able to introduce the chips with little fanfare. The next step would have been to increase the range of the chip - to make chips that would transmit their signals for longer and longer distances, and to silently upgrade existing chips so that they would do the same things the newer chips did - until stalkers would be able to use the chips to stalk their victims.
Call me paranoid if you wish. However, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean my former boyfriend didn't develop this. And someone as devious as he could easily take that next step and fool victims into thinking he is using this method to stalk victims, when the truth is that he might be using the RFID chips to do so.
I can't state enough that silence connotes agreement - remain silent about some of the applications being mentioned, and you have registered your agreement as far as the developers of the technology are concerned. Don't let them get away with it - speak against the technology, not against those who are trying to tell you to speak against the technology.
posted by
kidnykid
on April 19, 2003 at 2:28 AM
| link to this | reply
Jacket & Chips
Well, since I started this tangled debate here, I guess I should wade in once more.
If you scroll down that page, you'll see, second from bottom, a January piece I posted about wider privacy issues. This is a concern to me, even though I've never been stalked (thank god!).
It's fair enough, in a sense, to push back on these challenges, with ideas about limited transmission range, the need for a scanning device, and whether anyone could be bothered with all the info gathered anyway. But I fear this sometimes comes from a limited perspective of what the future may hold.
Cell phones are a case in point. Five years ago, no one seriously considered the consequences of having GPS in every handset. Now, we have to, cos they're here now in dearer phones, and will become commonplace in the next 12-18 months. So potentially, your phone, registered to you, is transmitting it's exact whereabouts to a global satellite network every second the thing's switched on. I don't feel comfortable about that.
So how will the chip technology develop in the next five years? Could every till in every store, regardless of name or brand, be fitted with a scanner, creating an effective network of trackers? Could they be programmed to 'report back' when an item is, say, 2 years old, promting a deluge of marketing guff about the new range? I don't know, but every time I see a new privacy issue arise, the phrase 'thin end of the wedge' springs to mind. Sometimes this won't be valid. But we won't be able to tell which are worth worrying about, and which are not, until it's too bloody late.
So be safe - push back on everything 
posted by
DamonLeigh
on April 19, 2003 at 12:23 AM
| link to this | reply
Pay Phones
Majroj - So you're a Sacramentan! I lived there for 12 years and got my Degree From CSU-S.
posted by
Bobbieo
on April 17, 2003 at 8:05 PM
| link to this | reply
Pay phones in Sacramento...
..are disappearing because they are junkies' piggie banks and they can't keep even the new armored ones in service. Cell phones hurt them, but the sucker punch was the wanton destruction of them.
posted by
majroj
on April 17, 2003 at 7:57 PM
| link to this | reply
The thing is...
We have to stop hiding our heads in the sand and thinking that it's OK to remain silent about stuff. Phone companies are eliminating pay phones precisely because people are getting cellphones, despite the fact that you can be traced up the wazoo when you have one. The same is true if you have to use a cordless phone, despite federal laws prohibiting the interception of a cordless-phone signal. (Again, where there's a will, there's a way, and the adept stalker has a very strong will when it comes to attacking his victims.)
It is much, much easier - for precisely the reasons you mention, FreedomFighter - to get away with stalking and other forms of surveillance on people. And all because honest citizens just went on thinking that "because the companies were so open about it, it must be OK" and remained silent.
posted by
kidnykid
on April 17, 2003 at 7:44 PM
| link to this | reply
ANYTHING can be used to commit a crime
"The potential for abuse of RFIDs is enormous - and frightening. The people trying to sell us on the benefits of RFID chips do not want to admit the potentially dangerous applications of those chips."
The same can be said for:
-common household cleaning products (poisons and explosives)
-computers (hacking, identity theft, other cybercrimes)
-cars (getaway vehicles, murder weapons in rundowns/collisions in some cases)
-pets (attack dogs)
-plants (fatal allergic reactions, poisonous secretions)
-cellphones (anything that transmits a signal can be tracked)
-credit cards (identity theft, blackmail for questionable purchases)
et cetera and so forth...the only way you can get away from it is to leave literally everything behind and move someplace where there is no technology. ANYTHING you name has the potential for abuse...for every innovation that is developed to serve mankind better in some fashion, there will be at least one nutcase (and probably more) who will use it to hurt somebody. There's no getting around that.
RFID should concern you less than many other technologies, in my opinion. Credit cards provide access to your financial resources, with convenient records on where and when they are used. A cellphone can transmit a signal for MILES at published, known frequencies with a unique identifier...
"Along with the SID, the phone also transmits a registration request, and the MTSO keeps track of your phone's location in a database -- this way, the MTSO knows which cell you are in when it wants to ring your phone." (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone2.htm)
RFID, on the other hand, can go only transmit 10-20 feet with little to no obstacles between transmitter and receiver when specifically asked to do so in a particular fashion.
I'm not saying all this to raise undue concern, I say all this to reinforce the point that any and all technology is subject to abuse by those who would choose to do so. It is something that needs to be taken into account when making the decision to use or not use some form of technology. Granted in today's society cellphones and credit/debit cards are becoming almost essential, but they are still not absolutely required. One can get through life without either if one was willing to put up with the inconvenience of always going to the bank to get cash and money orders to pay bills and using land lines or payphones (which are becoming more and more scarce) when not at home.
Personally, I'd prefer carrying my debit card to using cash. A mugger can easily spend my cash, but has to actually interact with somebody to use my cebit card to make a purchase. Sure, most cashiers don't bother to check signatures nowadays, but it's at least somewhat of a deterrant--and a debit/credit card can be deactivated by calling one's bank. Try that with stolen cash sometime.
But now I get offtopic.
posted by
frdmfghtr
on April 17, 2003 at 5:21 PM
| link to this | reply
You're closer to my point than you realize
My point being that an adept stalker can install such devices in strategic locations - perhaps posing as a "security consultant" at his victim's place of employment, for example. In fact, stalkers are extremely adept at coming up with ways to stalk their victims. The potential for abuse of RFIDs is enormous - and frightening. The people trying to sell us on the benefits of RFID chips do not want to admit the potentially dangerous applications of those chips.
posted by
kidnykid
on April 17, 2003 at 5:53 AM
| link to this | reply
RFID tracking isn't like what the movies portray it as
I read about those tracking chips some time ago, and in fact used to test and build similar devices used in car manufacturing.
The RFID (Radio Frequency ID) tags do not inherently know where they are, so they can't be tracked like one sees in James Bond movies. In order to "track" a RFID'd item, the tag needs to be scanned by some sort of scanning device, when then will know where the item is since it is presumed that the scanner knows where it is. UCB knows where the clothes are because they used some sort of scanning device IN CLOSE PROXIMITY to the clothes being tracked. UCB cannot track you once you leave the store, unless they have scanners set up in the mall, in your house, at work, etc. They know where the clothes are in their distribution chain, and that is really about it.
Thus, for somebody to track a RFID tag, the tracker would need scanning devices scattered about in locations likely for the tracked item to go. The location of the tag is known only if a scanning device can find it, and the ranges on these tags is not that far. The big ones I tested for car manufacturing had a range of about 10-15 feet, and those were the size of a pack of cigarettes.
More on RFID tags:
http://www.identitrack.co.uk/usesofrfid.htm
http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/News/Daily_News_Archives/April2002/nd0417021.htm
One is always right to be concerned with privacy issues, but by the same token one must also understand the abilities and limitations of technology. Just because some hack who writes for a tech magazine says something doesn't make it so (and there are dozens of hacks out there constantly slammed to the mat for talking crap to an audience that knows a hell of a lot better than the hack gives them credit).
My $0.02 for the night
posted by
frdmfghtr
on April 16, 2003 at 9:42 PM
| link to this | reply
Don"t forget read Jim>s RamblingsSo much fun with the pettyness here tonight that
I did not even bother to post a blog.Nothing worse than a woman scorned,.lets give Molly 23 comments,
posted by
okohiored
on April 16, 2003 at 5:07 PM
| link to this | reply
Let's break the 22-comment record here! (And keep the comment up for a while to boot.)
First of all, I agree with MollyB - commenting on a blog you don't like (or even starting a flame war in the comments section of a blog you might not like) is a misguided strategy. You're only granting publicity to a blog you don't like when you actively comment. The first comment on this post was generated by me, in fact, largely to help push just such a flame war off the New Comments area. Enough, already - we're grownups and we ought to know better than to do guerilla marketing for those whose blogs we dislike. If you don't like it, don't comment. Period.
Secondly, I was right when I commented to DamonLeigh that Benetton had backpedaled somewhat - they assured customers that they do not currently use RFID chips in their clothing. The way in which their press release is worded, however, does not rule out the future use of RFID chips in Benetton goods. More to the point, those chips are not truly deactivated permanently. It is possible to "wake up" a chip after the clothing in which it is embedded has been sold. In other words, that checkout clerk is not truly going to be deactivating the chip - she will merely put it into dormancy, and any good computer hacker can figure out a way to bring the chip out of dormancy and reactivate the chip so that you can still be traced. Complete information is available at BoycottBenetton. I suggest that readers of this comment visit that website.
Then, get active - you have every right to be afraid, especially if you have once been the victim of an abuser.
posted by
kidnykid
on April 16, 2003 at 4:58 PM
| link to this | reply
Well...
I believe that was the point of the post. Benneton is like any other respectable company in the sense that it wishes naturally to prevent theft. The microchips were seen as just another theft-control device, and Benneton itself took the time to assure buyers that they would be deactivated by the checkout clerk when buyers bought Benneton clothing.
The problem is that Benneton has no reliable way of assuring customers of the deactivation of the chip. After all, checkout clerks are as human as I am; who's to say that individual checkout clerks aren't in cahoots with stalkers? And who's to say how reliable the deactivation procedure itself is? I hinted strongly in the post that maybe the checkout clerks - the honest ones, even - might themselves be fooled into thinking they were deactivating the microchips, and trained to think they were, but they might be trained to use ineffective procedures (at best) or dangerous ones (at worst), all the while believing sincerely that they were deactivating the chips in the clothing.
Privacy analysts rightly point the dangers of the chip out. It's about time we got on our collective consumer high horse and took our business elsewhere - AND notified as many members of the public as possible about the dangers of this misguided policy.
posted by
kidnykid
on April 16, 2003 at 3:54 PM
| link to this | reply
Yes...
there is an extra word in my last comment. I apologize profusely to those who get wound up about such things.
posted by
workinprogress
on April 16, 2003 at 12:44 PM
| link to this | reply
Why would they need to track Benetton shoppers....
after leaving they leave the store? They will all most assuredly end up at the nearest Starbucks.
posted by
workinprogress
on April 16, 2003 at 12:36 PM
| link to this | reply
As long as you don't shoplift, microchips wont hurt
What you got to worry about is the two way mirrors in the dressing room.They really check out the navels on security film.Wink at them when you are inhaling trying to fit into jeans three sizes smaller than you wear.
posted by
okohiored
on April 16, 2003 at 12:36 PM
| link to this | reply
Speaking of getting competitive...
So many of you are reading about Jim's navel (and commenting on your own) that you are failing to take the material I presented seriously. I've had my privacy violated quite a bit as the direct result of the abuse I suffered while young, so I have some ballpark idea of what it must feel like to be afraid of those little microchips in the clothing some retailers sell. Please - I implore you, do something about
that for a change.
Concerned? You bet.
posted by
kidnykid
on April 16, 2003 at 12:25 PM
| link to this | reply