Posted on 02/08/2008 5:55:20 AM PST by Mike Acker
Of course it does, but it can still be mis-used, and thankfully, at least for now, we don’t have to use them.
I don’t think a concern for individual privacy, is really that hysterical.
——Location, to me, is the biggest one.——
To me that is a small part of the autonomy that will be given up by the use of RFID tags. The smooth transition to a cashless society is only possible in my opinion by RFID tags mandated for everyone. Once a cashless society is in place, the government will eventually have a complete record of all transactions(and by association most interactions) that it would be easy to target any group for elimination.
I would not have a problem with this if I trusted that all governments from that time forward would only use this incredible power to eliminate true evil from the world.
You can say that about a lot of different technologies though.
I agree. I’m just glad I probably won’t live to see it.
True, but this is the latest one that really bothers me.
Au contraire , you are living and reacting to this now(in a positive way IMO) and will have to make many choices because of its advances.
I don’t think a cashless society will happen for a while.
Can I play with your ZOT hammer?
I only let chicks play with my Zot Hammer.
Cuz I'm always looking for a Hot Hummer.
LOL! You are SOOOO evil!
Those lightning bolts are sure cool, tho!
I really can’t stop you from rephrasing the sentence - However, I’m confident nothing was wrong with my sentence.
Its also not going to happen overnight. There will be lots of changes that will need to be coped with. A revenue stream shortened here, cutoff there. Many people will give in.
Your sentence implies that the collective can dictate to the masses under a democratic rule. We live in a Republic which has supposedly forestalled that process.
Your sentence may elaborate more, but my sentence in no way implies a democracy over a republic.
I know the difference.
I believe you are believe hypersensitive.
I in no way want you to think that I am impugning your character or judgment. I consider you an ally in the struggle against those who would subjugate the many. I only posted to make a distinction that I’m sure you understand and that many do not.
SEE?!?
Never bring a stick to a paintball fight!
Add me to your ping list. You post really strange sh!t and some day I predict you are going to get zotted and I would like a chance for IBTZ.
Thanks for your attention to this.
I certainly do not disagree that RFID can be useful -- in the right place
The Main Idea that I am looking at in this thread is that i think we should look carefully at the possibilities available to criminal use when we consider deploying a new technology
To gleefully start putting a new technology into service in every way that is available without first considering criminal security risks associated with each use, is, well -- careless, at best
How much data will be stored in the RFID? If a thief steals it with a portable transponder will he acquire enough data to use in some illegal manner?
Again, the main thing I'm saying in this thread is that we need to carefully review the possible criminal use of a technology before we gleefully deploy it all around the country
as I point out in my example, this was not done for remote software update capabilities for computers and this has resulted in and epidemic of insidious computer crime
There is hope though. Congress has passed laws already regarding computer crime with more on the way -- in particular HR.964. The formation of the Authentication and Online Trust Alliance for example, shows a wide-spread industry concern over the issue of computer security, generally
The recently published book GEEKONOMICS by David Rice provides much insight into how we got where were are and where we need to go with respect to computer systems and network security management. Quickly, the software business has taken about 50 years to develop. But the time has come to treat software as engineering instead of as a black art and with this change we will assert some level of expectations and back that up with product liability -- just as we do for most of the products sold and used in the country today.
I agree with the theme of David's book. I like the provisions in HR.964. And I think that as a minimum product liability for software manufacture and maintenance must enable us to enforce the provisions in HR.964
I do think that I'm still responsible for what I do with my computer: if I add up a report wrong and turn it in to my boss that's my woops -- not the software mfr. But when I send my report to my boss if the software also transmits a copy of my report to some gumshoe in Chicago without my knowledge that is a product liability issue for the software mfr.
Think about this: if you have a RAT (remote administrative trojan) in your computer HTTPS is meaningless.
All of us have a right to clean computers where clean means running only the software intentionally installed byt the user
Not only has he been to the dark side of the moon and back, he turned me into a newt!
(And if you are really observant you will note that the letters in "Lazamataz" cannot be rearranged to spell "BLACK COPTER DEATH PILOT" which is a dead giveaway...)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.