We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
That’s RFID as in Radio Frequency Identification for Business.
News.com’s Eric Peters explains the point which RFID has now reached:
Earlier this summer, Wal-Mart announced that by January 1, 2005, radio frequency identification technology would become a requirement for doing business with the world’s largest retailer. A line was drawn in the sand: RFID was going to happen.
More recently, Wal-Mart said it would not put RFID technology in retail stores, and a flurry of “not ready for prime time” RFID responses followed. But Wal-Mart’s retreat from shelf RFID tags neither suggests a retreat on its earlier commitment to RFID nor a signal for the halt of adoption.
Product level RFID tagging may be years away, but a technology inflection point has been reached. Many companies are now extremely interested in the technology, and the potential is just too attractive to ignore. Globally, RFID will not sell more razors or bars of soap. What it can do, however, is redistribute the market share of the different companies that sell razors and bars of soap.
The costs of not making your supply chain RFID-compliant far outweigh the costs and obstacles of implementation. As with other high-impact technologies, the early adopters will get a disproportionate share of the wealth, and the laggards will be the companies who suffer lost market share.
So RFID (like surveillance cameras) is (are) here to stay, and will have to be lived with.
My thanks to David Sucher of City Comforts Blog for emailing me about this piece.
Maria at Crooked Timber writes:
Today, EPIC & Privacy International launch ‘Privacy and Human Rights 2003, an international survey of privacy laws and developments’. It is a meaty tome that summarises developments in privacy law and policy in 55 countries during the past year.
This year’s review “finds increased data sharing among government agencies, the use of anti-terrorism laws to suppress political dissent, and the growing use of new technologies of surveillance.” Familiar themes to readers of my entries …
And to readers here.
Maria adds:
By way of disclosure – I did the chapter on Ireland and bits and pieces on the UK, EU and electronic surveillance.
Sounds like a person White Rose should stay tuned to.
News about Italian spam:
Senders of unsolicited junk e-mails in Italy will now face jail sentences of up to three years, according to Italian media reports.
The country’s privacy watchdog issued the ruling in an attempt to limit the huge amount of advertising and promotional material sent online.
Sending e-mails without the permission of the receiver is against the law in Italy.
Offenders now risk fines of up to 90,000 euros and between six months and three years in prison, if it is proved that they did it to make a profit.
The ruling follows estimates by the European Commission that spam e-mails cost EU companies approximately 2.25bn euros in lost productivity last year.
EU legislation banning unwanted e-mail is due to come into force on 31 October, but correspondents say that, given the global nature of the internet, it may have little effect.
Most spam comes from the United States and China, and will be outside its reach.
If that’s so, you wonder what the real point of this is. Expect calls for world government to deal with this. Sorry: “global governance”.
Reading the motoring section of the Sunday Times on the weekend, I found the following extraordinary letter to the editor from a Maurice Hyman of London
We recently booked a Volkswagen Golf hire car for a four-day break in Norfolk and arrived at the depot in London to pick it up, expecting to sign the papers and leave on our holiday.
…
However, the supervisor asked that we wait a moment for a few formalities.
Suddenly, and without asking, he pointed a camera at us, linked to a computer, explaining that the picture would be transferred to the database at head office, making future dealings easier. We were then required to give our fingerprints for appending to the agreement.
He explained that because there was so much identity theft these days insurance companies were insisting on these procedures.
But according to the new laws it is merely necessary to verify that the name and address are genuine — no mention is made of photographs and fingerprinting. I had difficulty believing I was in Britain!
There are a couple of issues here. The first is simply that I find these procedures to be unbelievably heavy handed. In my life, nobody has ever needed to take my fingerprints. I like it that way. I believe that rental car companies do have the right to impose conditions like this on their customers. However, if they do, I also have the right to rent my car from another company, or to not rent a car at all. Therefore, if I book a car or pay in advance, then I must be informed in advance of any such conditions. Springing them on me at the last minute when cancelling the booking and going to another car company has been made difficult and when I haven’t been informed in advance is wrong. Taking someone’s photograph for this kind of purpose without clearly informing them and giving them a chance to object is also wrong. (Of course the reason they present it to you at the last moment is to increase the hassle to you of objecting. If they mentioned it up front, they would lose business).
Finally, the strategy of blaming somebody else (often the government, but here the insurance companies) for having to take away people’s liberties seems to be becoming more and more common. It very likely is the policy of the rental company, but saying “It is all the fault of the insurance company” is a way of shifting the blame and avoiding responsibility. Probably if you ask the insurance company they will blame the car rental agency.
Presumably, if the car goes missing the rental company will share this information with the police. Even if it doesn’t, one can see lots of ways in which your fingerprints could end up in all sorts of databases. And once such databases exist, it is hard to imagine the police not ending up with access to them.
The final point is a positive one. Being photographed without being asked first and being asked to give fingerprints is something that annoys people like Maurice Hyman, sufficiently to cause him write a letter to the Sunday Times about it. (I don’t know whether he agreed to be fingerprinted. He didn’t say). Whatever may be said for that newspaper, its editors care sufficiently about such things to print the letter. My Hyman’s words were that it made him feel like he was not in Britain. Traditionally, the British people have had more civil liberties than people in many other countries, and they are proud of this and they think Britain is a better country because of this. They notice and are bothered when people try to take them away. If the government fails to take note of this, it will likely learn it the hard way.
Another good excuse for infringing our privacy that governments are wont to provide is efficiency. In such cases, the best bet is to challenge the government agency in question to spell out exactly how these efficiencies are going to be achieved.
The latest gambit in Australia is to provide an electronic health records database. The government claims that this will improve the safety and quality of health care delivery. How, the newspapers do not say.
In another gambit to get this through, the government says there will be no electronic identification numbers, and that patient involvement was voluntary.
Both these gambits need to be challenged. If there are no numbers, one wonders how they propose to deal with the many people known as “Smith” in our country. Not everyone has a unique surname like Wickstein.
And one wonders how ‘voluntary’ this scheme will be in five years time. No doubt, after the scheme has been up and running for a few years, we will be told that to be more ‘efficient’ the scheme needs to be made universal (read, compulsory).
Privacy Commissioner Mal Crompton noted that people might be reluctant to reveal details about themselves if they had doubts about the privacy of their medical records.
There are of course sound medical reasons for the sharing of medical records with, for example, hospitals. But electronic records can stray far and wide.
I don’t think I’d have any real objections to this scheme as it stands now. However, we’ve seen in the past how one government agency likes to dig in the files of another, and frankly, I don’t trust the Australian health system to keep my details private.
How does this matter? Well, how would you like the Tax office auditing you and having access to your medical history? I wouldn’t like the creep auditing me and giving my financial records the third degree knowing my medical details.
CNET News.com reports that the labs at RSA Security on Wednesday outlined plans for a technology they call blocker tags, which are similar in size and cost to radio frequency identification (RFID) tags but disrupt the transmission of information to scanning devices and thwart the collection of data.
According to Ari Juels, a principal research scientist with RSA Laboratories. Blocker and RFID tags are about the size of a grain of sand and cost around 10 cents.
RFID technology uses microchips to wirelessly transmit product serial numbers to a scanner without the need for human intervention. While the technology is potentially useful in improving supply chain management and preventing theft in stores, consumer privacy groups have voiced concerns about possible abuses of the technology if product-tracking tags are allowed to follow people from stores into their homes. Many retailers view RFID as an eventual successor to the barcode inventory tracking system, because it promises to cut distribution costs for manufacturers and improve retailing margins.
RSA’s technique would address the needs of all parties involved, according to Juels. Other options, such as a kill feature embedded in RFID tags, also are available, but with blocker tags, consumers and companies would still be able to use the RFID tags without sacrificing privacy.
I don’t think that this article from August 13th, by Paul Craig Roberts, has had any mention here. If it has, apologies for not noticing. If not, better very late than never, I hope you agree.
Opening paragraphs:
When will the first lawyer be arrested, indicted and sent to prison for failing to help the government convict his client? You can bet it will be soon. Once the Securities and Exchange Commission, Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Department of Justice (sic) complete their assault on the attorney-client privilege, they will rush to make an example of a lawyer, lest any fail to understand that their new role in life is to serve as government informants on their clients.
Just as government bureaucrats used the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 to assault the Bill of Rights and our constitutional protections, they are now using “accounting scandals” and “tax evasion” to assault the attorney-client privilege, a key component of the Anglo-American legal system that enables a defendant, whether guilty or innocent, to mount a defense against the overwhelming power of the state.
This is the sort of thing that David Carr has been writing about in Britain, for some time now.
Layman’s Logic has a brief summary of some of the issues surrounding RFID tags (radio transmitters in products), which soon may be in most goods in large stores. One issue is quite how kooky a number of the opponents of the tags are. Another is persistent rumours Euro bills with have tags in in the future. Another is what to do about them:
“[W]hat I need to know is how to kill the tags when I get them. I don’t care that people can see what I’m buying when I use cards – they can see that anyway if they can access credit info, and they want to track stock. Not a problem. On the other hand, I would like to know how to kill the tags the moment I’ve bought something to avoid any nasty privacy surprises. Fortunately, Slashdot seem to have identified a few possibilities“
In more traditional police-states, citizens may be blissfully unaware that they have done wrong until they are woken in the wee small hours by an ominous rapping on their front doors. In modern police-state Britain, the knock on the door is to be replaced by the thud on the doormat.
If this report from the UK Times is accurate (and it is just about creepy enough to be true) then it may be time to think about buying a bicycle:
EVEN George Orwell would have choked. Government officials are drawing up plans to fit all cars in Britain with a personalised microchip so that rule-breaking motorists can be prosecuted by computer.
Dubbed the “Spy in the Dashboard” and “the Informer” the chip will automatically report a wide range of offences including speeding, road tax evasion and illegal parking. The first you will know about it is when a summons or a fine lands on your doormat.
The plan, which is being devised by the government, police and other enforcement agencies, would see all private cars monitored by roadside sensors wherever they travelled.
Who the bloody hell are the ‘other enforcement agencies’? And the very notion of an informer in every vehicle! Saddam Hussein could only dream about that level of control.
Police working on the “car-tagging” scheme say it would also help to slash car theft and even drug smuggling.
The same old, same old. Every accursed and intrusive state abuse is sold to the public as a cure for crime and ‘drug-dealing’. The fact that it still works is proof that we live in the Age of Bovine Stupidity. A media advertising campaign showing seedy drug-dealers and leering child-molesters being rounded up as a result of this technology will have the public begging for a ‘spy in the dashboard’.
Having already expressed my doubts about the viability of new government schemes here I should add that the fact that this relies on technology rather than human agency means it just might.
The next step is an electronic device in your car which will immediately detetct any infringement of any regulation, then lock the doors, drive you to a football stadium and shoot you. HMG is reported to be very interested and is launching a feasibility study.
[This item has been cross-posted on Samizdata.]
The State of California has, I’d guess almost unnoticed, passed new financial privacy laws that require banks and other financial service providers to obtain their customer’s consent before passing or selling on their client’s financial details.
It shows that it is still possible to get legislators to pay attention to privacy issues, but, as this interview with the new law’s proposer, State Senator Jackie Speier reveals, you do have to be persistent.
Still, it’s good to see hard work paying off.
If only to have something of interest up here today, here’s a New York Times article from yesterday about a TV show which specialises in harrassing celebs.
It seems to me that what viewers of this show are likely to witness is techniques of harrassment and privacy violation applied to somewhat secondary and somewhat unpopular “fair game” type celebrities, which will thereby be established as reputable, or at least excusable, or okay, or done before so what are you fussing about? – for later use by anyone, against anyone.
Television is an efficient biosphere where the perfect predator evolves for every species in the food chain. If reality shows are the coral reef of prime time, then the television-oriented Web site, the Smoking Gun, is its crown-of-thorns starfish.
It was the Smoking Gun (thesmokinggun.com) that revealed in 2000 that Rick Rockwell, the beau ideal of the hit FOX show “Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire,” had once been under a restraining order from a former girlfriend. The Smoking Gun, which digs up arrrest records, mug shots, show business contracts and divorce papers, became a tip sheet for journalists and a cult Web site for reality show aficionados. It managed to embarrass seemingly squeaky-clean contestants on reality shows from CBS’s “Survivor” to Fox’s “Joe Millionaire.” (Most memorably, it uncovered the early bondage films of a bachelorette, Sarah Kozer.)
Whoever she is. Which is my exact point. Next in line: non-celebs. Yes, these people are probably fair game. If they can’t take the heat they shouldn’t be prancing about in the kitchen. But who’s next?
I’m not saying shut the damn show down. I’m just, you know, saying.
Telegraph reports that Tesco, a British supermarket chain, is taking pictures of everyone buying razors in a bid to cut down on shoplifting.
The experiment, at a Tesco store in Cambridge, has been condemned by civil liberty campaigners. Demonstrators have gathered outside the supermarket calling for a boycott until the “Big Brother” scheme is dropped.
Gillette razors in the company’s Newmarket Road branch are being tagged with individual microchips developed by Cambridge University’s Auto-ID Centre.
When anyone removes a product from the Mach 3 display, the chip triggers an in-store CCTV camera which takes a picture of the shopper.
Greg Sage, a spokesman for Tesco, said that the scheme was designed to keep track of its products within the store and stressed that the chips would have no further use once the products left it.
We would never compromise the privacy of our customers.
Police are said to be “impressed” with the images taken of shoppers, but civil rights activists claim that the microchips could soon be placed on a much wider range of products.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
