Loss of Privacy

California State Senator, Joe Simitian, has introduced a bill that would restrict employers from forcing potential employees to implant RFID chips in order to get or keep employment.  But this isn’t the only legislation currently pending in California.

Other measures in the works ban the use of RFIDs in driver’s licenses and student identification badges before 2011, setting privacy-protection standards for RFIDs, and requiring companies that issue ID cards containing RFIDs to disclose the personal information being stored and it is being protected.

However, there is opposition from the American Electronics Association.  Roxanne Gould, the AEA’s Californian vice president, says that Senator Simitian is wrong and damaging the image of RFID.

“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.

Apparently, Ms. Gould does not understand that there is a very large difference between putting an RFID tag on your employee swipe card and implanting them under the skin of a human being.  There is also a very large difference between choosing to have a skin implant and being forced to have one.

Currently, RFID is a ROM technology.  That means that once the information is placed on the tag, that is all there is.  It is a simple change of technology to make the RFID tag RAM, meaning all your movements throughout the day can be tracked and downloaded later.  By banning the implementation from the beginning, it prevents and employer, or anyone else, from finding a workaround of the law.  It also eliminates discrimination via extortion, pay raises, and threats of unemployment.

Also, RFID tags work 24/7.  Just because you are finished with work doesn’t mean they turn off.  They can still record and, if they move to the more likely RAM version, follow you wherever you may roam during the course of a day.  By eliminating the RFID tags now, you can ensure that some privacy of an individual will remain.

In the past, we have had a similar debate with drug tests.  It was thought that no one wanted them and, therefore, the market for such tests would wither away.  That did not happen.  However, most of the jobs that require drug screening are jobs that require repetitive tasks, such as those on assembly lines.  It is vital at such jobs that the employee be alert and have control of all his/her faculties while performing such duties.  It prevents unnecessary injuries and promotes safety at work.

RFID implants are completely different.  There is no reason to have information placed on the RFID tag in order to perform your duties.  If the information is so vital, then what will be the consequences when important information is placed on the tag, and that person goes home to find nefarious intruders waiting for them.  They can blackmail you, cut your body part off where the implant is, or hold you for ransom.

Some places, such as CityWatcher.com, have already forced the use of RFID implants for employment.

“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.”

RFID implants will also adversely affect those that are in the lower classes.  They are often left with the option of taking a job or letting their family starve.  In situations such as these, the individual is not in a position to say “no” to a job.  These are the people that the bill will protect.  Without this law, we will have RFID implants, tattoos, and the Pax to make the population docile and easy to control.

Lastly, there is a cost effective and health risk problems to forcing people to have RFID implants.  Imagine you work at a company for a few years and get laid off.  Then you get a job at another company and get another implant.  The employers are under no obligation to remove the old tags, leaving the employee with that responsibility.  What happens with upgrades?  Will that require a new implant as well?  What are the long term effects of either constantly implanting and removing the RFID or leaving a multitude of RFID implants inside your body?  And will they conflict with each other, such as they do in toll booths across states, creating some sort of medical emergency that might require surgery?

RFID implants are not part of the free market.  They do not let people freely choose whether or not to have one.  Remember, this bill doesn’t say you can’t have an RFID implant.  It just says it can’t be forced upon you.  Hopefully, this law will pass and they will join North Dakota in preventing the forced chipping of humans.  Preventive maintenance is a very good thing.

Ancestry.com intends to launch a DNA testing program to their site by the end of the summer, all for $200 and decrease in personal privacy for your entire family gene pool. Ancestry.com has 24,000 genealogical databases, meaning that your cheek-swab test would be available to anyone with access to their site. Sorenson Genomics is partnering with Ancestry.com on this project.

At first glance, this is a cool use of modern technology. However, what happens when that parent who gave up their child for adoption, suddenly has the child showing up on their door saying, “hey we’re related.” Or how about the relative who doesn’t want anything to do with their family, suddenly having long lost relatives inviting them the the annual family barbeque?

In the coming months, Ancestry.com will release technology that captures DNA test results in an ever-expanding, searchable database. Using this database, users can easily identify distant cousins and tap into thousands of hours of already-completed genetic genealogical research, breaking through family tree dead-ends or barriers such as missing or inaccurate records and name changes. Ancestry.com is also developing technology that will allow users to integrate DNA results with the historical documents already in their online family trees.

The cool factor to joining in on the DNA testing is to be able to track where your gene pool has been over the past few thousand years. Still, is it worth it to give up your DNA for a twenty minute coolness factor?

While you may not have thought about this, there are very large privacy and confidentiality issues here. What happens when an insurance company gets a hold of these results and then denies your claims, or even insurance, because you have a possible genetic, pre-existing condition? You might not even have your DNA on file with Ancestry.com, but your sister, brother, mother, father, cousin, etc., might and their results could still tell a lot about you even though you’ve taken the precaution to not have your DNA in their database.

What is going to happen when you find out that your mother lied and your brother isn’t really your brother or, even worse, that your father isn’t your father? You just know that someone is going to sue over something as stupid as this and it’s going to cause a lot more turmoil than there needs to be.

We also honestly don’t know if places, such as the FBI, can access to this database. The FBI already has thousands of criminals in their own database. It’s only a simple step from there, to match other “potential” criminals via ancestry.com. Technically, all the FBI needs is a warrant listing you as a “person of interest” and they have your DNA. You’ve already cooperated by allowing your DNA to become public on a public website.

It is not so unimaginable to see that, in the near future, we will have babies DNA tested at birth, with their sample placed into a federal database, available for access under whatever newly contrived laws of the day happen to be.

There is also the question of those who don’t care about legalities and what they will do with your information. All they need is your name, then, on ancestry.com, they can get your DNA, your mother’s maiden name, etc. etc. It’s a boon for those who practice the fine art of stealing other people’s identities. Hell, with just a little bit of work, they can copy your DNA, then look online, get all your information, and, voila!, they are now you.

Whether or not you want to participate in the new DNA database, you should take into account that not only your DNA will be available, your entire family’s DNA will be linked in there via you. Giving up your DNA should be done with extreme caution, paying for it seems ludicrous, but we’ll have to wait and see how many people hop on the train and actually pay for this service, not giving a thought to the privacy ramifications that this invokes.

One of the funnier stories I’ve read this week is that of privately employed, parking attendants, now known as super wardens, in Eccles, Manchester being issued CCTV head sets and subsequently being given the power to issue fines up to £80 ($160) for littering and antisocial behavior.  This is the most humorous use of big brother watching you that I’ve seen yet.  Seriously, I can’t stop laughing at the thought of someone with little power walking around with a camera on their head, trying to catch you breaking a minor law.

Their main role is to issue parking tickets but under legislation brought in last year they will also have powers to give on-the-spot fines for anti-social behaviour.

Salford council has asked the wardens to issue penalties up to £80 for offences which include littering, flyposting and allowing dogs to foul the pavement. NCP will use the film as evidence to back up their wardens if any fine is challenged and also in the event of any attack or abuse.

Woo hoo, I got a fine for dog poo, but I still beat the crap out of that guy around the corner and stole his wallet.

Britain, like many countries, has problems with murders, rapes, assaults, and muggings and their genius idea was, “hey let’s put some cameras on those parking attendants and let them fine people for littering or hanging about.  That’ll teach ‘em.”  What will really happen is the cameras will record the traffic wardens hanging out with each other in the back alley, smoking cigarettes and tossing the butts on the ground.  This will, of course, be temporarily interrupted when a traffic warden sees a pretty young woman passing by.

Now every cop, and pseudo cop, has a head camera so they can walk around looking like complete morons.  From what I’ve read, there is a problem in Eccles with antisocial behavior, however, having people run around with video cameras is really the wrong way to go around trying to prevent this problem.

Over in Crawley, West Sussex, the local council has already had to apologize to a grandmother for a ticket she received because for accidentally kicking two potato into a gutter.

Then there’s the news agent who was fined £50 for a few scraps of paper found 120 yards away from him.  His guilt was that the scraps of paper had the name of his shop on them.  Brilliant!  Sell your stuff and put it in a bag with your store’s name on it and get fined when the customer turns out to be a litter bug.

Yes, I know I should be taking this more seriously and there is obvious good and bad aspects to head cameras.  There are also privacy concerns in the overzealousness of the new tasks given to the traffic wardens, but I’m sorry.  I need to stop now.  I can’t stop laughing at that photo.

While the USA has introduced legislation banning discrimination based on genes, the UK still thinks it’s a good idea, but for “scientific” purposes.  James Watson, the father of genetics, believes that sequencing your DNA will become routine within the next ten years.

He said that, as the costs of the sequencing technology tumble, doctors will be able to use the information to plan more effective treatments for conditions including mental illness, cancer, obesity and diabetes.

Professor Watson believes that having DNA sequencing on hand will help doctors in their diagnosis of disease at an earlier stage and enable physicians to advise their patients of the best course of action.

Using current technology sequencing a single person’s DNA takes 20 technicians around nine months. “In five years the hope is that you could reduce that to a week with just two or three people,” said Michael Jones, head of the genomics core lab at Imperial College London. “New technologies are trying to eliminate the technicians you need. The idea is you can take someone’s DNA and plug it into a machine and the data will come out.”

Just like Gattaca.  It is difficult to be overjoyed at this when privacy concerns loom large over this entire technology.  There is the benefit of knowing you carry one gene for a debilitating disease, such as cystic fibrosis, used in the article, and then be able to know if your potential spouse has the gene too.  You could prevent having a child that would be subject to such a disease by choosing not to have children with that particular person.  There is also the ability to catch diseases, such as breast cancer, however, the seemingly flippant attitude of scientists makes those with privacy concerns very nervous.

“A woman doesn’t test herself for BRCA1 unless there’s a history of breast cancer in her family. But when the cost comes down, just sequence yourself.”

Just sequence yourself.  It sounds easy.  It probably will be, but who is going to take care to keep that information private?  Since this is being pushed in the UK, will the information be placed into a large database.  Will it be kept private?  Who will assure that your DNA sequencing won’t be used to deny you vital medical services or life insurance policies?

Prof Watson said genetics would help tackle mental illness. At his Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory in the US, scientists have started a project to find the genetic root for every mental condition within 10 years.

Again, on the surface, it appears that this is a great new breakthrough.  Imagine a world where we no longer need to see the mentally retarded, the downs syndrome, and those icky people like Steven Hawking.  Are we really ready for a world where we only want perfect people with no defects?  This technology, while great, has a large upside for abuse and we must be diligent in looking past our own temporary desires for perfect children and a world with no disease before we embrace personal DNA sequencing to solve all society’s ills.

Serious doubts are now being cast against REAL-ID and whether the federal government can enforce its implementation.  Though Homeland Security continues to defend REAL-ID, it appears that ever increasing resistance to it could result in its demise.

Again, the gigantic $14 billion cost of the program is what continues to be the reason for States balking at the use of REAL-ID.  The States have already been forced to foot the bill for welfare reform and No Child Left Behind and they want no part in being told by the federal government that this is the law and they are going to pay for it.

New Hampshire Governor, John Lynch, is expected to sign the bill into law later this week, however, cost isn’t the only factor in rejecting REAL-ID there.

[T]he public policy established by Congress in the Real ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, is contrary and repugnant to Articles 1 through 10 of the New Hampshire constitution as well as Amendments 4 though 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America. Therefore, the state of New Hampshire shall not participate in any driver’s license program pursuant to the Real ID Act of 2005 or in any national identification card system that may follow therefrom.

Regardless of how this ends up, we, the taxpayers, are the ones who are going to be paying the bill for REAL-ID.  We will be paying for something most find disgusting and unimaginable.  That is why it is important to continue to put pressure on State governments to reject REAL-ID.  The more States that reject it will lead to a completely useless law.

You will also have the airlines on your side because, once this becomes a requirement, if enough States have rejected REAL-ID, then there will be far too many people that cannot fly because they don’t have the proper ID to board a plane.  How long will it be before the airlines put pressure on Washington to overturn the law due to massive losses?

Although it is rare for states to reject an act of Congress, New Hampshire and Oklahoma in May joined Montana and Washington state in passing statutes this year refusing to go along with Real ID. The refusals mean those states’ driver’s licenses eventually won’t be accepted as official identification when boarding airplanes or entering federal buildings.

In addition, the Idaho Legislature purposely left out any money to comply with the act. The Georgia Legislature passed a law giving Gov. Sonny Perdue authority to ignore the measure, but he is hoping the federal government will make the act more affordable, said his spokesman, Bert Brantley.

If you want people to have government issued ID to enter federal buildings and board airplanes, then use a passport, which happens to already fulfill all the requirements of REAL-ID.  You do not need a driver’s license in the form of REAL-ID so that you can be spied upon.  Driver’s licenses are a State’s issue.  The federal government needs to keep their hands out of the State’s business and stop pissing on the 10th Amendment.  They already have the ability to change the function of the passport, having done so in the past, so there is no legitimate reason for REAL-ID.

The National Conference of State Legislatures is asking the Homeland Security Department to allow states 10 years after Real ID rules are finalized to reissue existing licenses and to decrease costs by exempting military personnel and others with federal identification from the rigid screening process. If those conditions cannot be met by the end of 2007, NCSL plans to call for repeal of Real ID.

Once REAL-ID goes into effect, it will be near impossible to reject and overturn.  That is why is it so important to continue to push our States to stand up to the federal government and tell them to stay out of our business.  REAL-ID, in short, is an unfunded and unconstitutional mandate that, legally, should never have been allowed to exist.  It’s just too damned bad our Congressmen cannot read a bill before it becomes a law to even know that this kind of crap is slipped into unrelated bills.

Jim Harper of the libertarian Cato Institute, which opposes the driver’s license rules, said the states’ rejections doom the act to failure. “It’s more and more clear that the Real ID system won’t work to secure the country,” he said. More states are likely to refuse the requirements, creating a nightmare at airports where security screeners will have to distinguish between licenses that are Real ID-compliant and those that aren’t, Harper said.

You cannot achieve privacy and security at the same time.  You must choose one over the other and, at this point in time, privacy far outweighs security on this issue.  REAL-ID is not going to make us any more secure and it certainly isn’t going to prevent illegal immigration or fake ID cards.  We are at the line between privacy and security.  Are you going to cross it for a little false sense of safety?