Neighborhood Watched?
Each time I read about our “loss of privacy,” such as in Daniel J. Solove’s examination of effects of social-networking sites [“The End of Privacy?”], it makes me laugh. People seem often to confuse privacy with anonymity, which we invented only a few generations ago. Earlier, most Americans lived in small towns or villages, which provide limited privacy and no anonymity.
The rise of big cities gave us anonymity, which lets some of us do things we would probably not have done in the villages, where there wasn’t much crime because no one was unknown. That social control was just waiting to be replaced, so now our villagers are electronic.
Sheri S. Tepper
Santa Fe, N.M.
SOLOVE REPLIES: There is a key difference between the small towns of yesteryear, where everybody knew your name, and the sprawling “global village” of today. In small towns, people knew one another well; they could judge one another in context. Today, in our more anonymous life, we often judge people based on information fragments without context. This is a much more impoverished way to understand and judge others, and the information we have about them is far more dubious. The idyllic image of the small village cannot be re-created through modern electronic technology. Moreover, a brief dip into 19th-century history and literature shows a world rife with oppressive norms, nosy neighbors and communities ready to condemn, often unfairly. Although social control can be good, not all of it is, and sometimes it can be downright unfair, stifling, misguided and cruel.
Animal Ethics
“Primate Motions,” by Lizzie Buchen [News Scan], reports on a Swiss ruling denying two neuroscientists’ applications to experiment on macaques on the basis that their proposals did not have sufficient expected benefits to society. In criticizing strict regulation on primate research, these scientists and others interviewed seem only interested in research, with no sense of moral duty. As people of science, we must be absolutely certain that the animals we use are treated as compassionately as possible, and we must be thankful to them for the knowledge they afford us.
Bassam Salim
Boston
Tagging Trouble?
The article “RFID Tag—You’re It,” by Katherine Albrecht, continued an important discussion around privacy and radio-frequency identification (RFID) that EPCglobal has been addressing for some time. But it is important to remind readers that the majority of RFID tags do not store or collect personal information. Just like ubiquitous barcodes, the electronic product code (EPC) carried by a tag is a string of numbers that identifies only a thing—typically the tag itself—not a person. The author’s claim that anyone with an RFID reader can skim tags is therefore pointless—skimming would provide neither personal information nor access to it.
This emerging technology is a powerful tool with the potential to improve the safety, security, and availability of food, medicine and other products, providing tremendous societal benefits. To learn more about RFID and EPC and to see our full privacy guidelines, readers can visit http://aboutepc.org
Elizabeth Board
EPCglobal Public Policy Steering Committee
Albrecht paints a broad picture of RF technologies and their privacy risks. RFID tags based on the EPCglobal standard EPC Gen 2 are different from chips that comply with international ID card standards ISO/IEC 7816 and ISO/IEC 14443. The Smart Card Alliance has long stated that EPC Gen 2 RFID tags can pose significant risks to privacy and are not appropriate for identity applications.
See what we're tweeting about
4 Comments
Add CommentPrivacy and anonymity is for people with something to hide. Keep no secrets, tell no lies, and take responsibility for your actions and you've got nothing to worry about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the most useful thing RFID chips could do is relate medical info so that emergency crews can quickly find out if you have any medical issues or allergies they need to know about. For instance, if you're found unconscious after a car accident and you're wearing a medical bracelet that says you're diabetic that's pretty useful... but what if you're also allergic to latex? An RFID chip in the bracelet could easily relate that information to an emergency crew with the proper device to read it. It could also have your name and perhaps a patient number so that your medical records can be transmitted to the doctors at the emergency room before you even arrive. I could imagine that saving quite a few lives.
"Keep no secrets, tell no lies, and take responsibility for your actions and you've got nothing to worry about."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is a bit idealistic to think that if everyone where simply honest that they wouldn't have issues of oppression. In a society that loves to judge and condemn there is no one of us that wouldn't be found at fault by someone for what we consider harmless or human. With no way to protect yourself from scrutiny then you are subject to review by any standard from anyone at any point in any spectrum of morality. For instance, I can now judge you as a person with short foresight and a narrow view of social norms, who is most likely inclined to view the world in black and white terms. I could even choose to extrapolate well beyond that point, but I think I have addressed the issue enough.
RFID paranoia is just that. There are potential abuses available to the creative mind, but they will not likely be a norm or tool of a totalitarian regime any time soon given the limited range and complexity. Granted, awareness of possible abuses should not be ignored, however the possible uses most likely outweigh any of those concerns for the foreseeable future.
Rfid tags are a non-problem. IF, repeat IF, they turn out to be used for tracking people, it is quite simple - in a technologically-alert society - to defeat the tracking with a "chip" - it need not be anything as small as an embedded rfid tag - that, when interrogated by a reader, returns a random string of bits with the proper (or appropriate) length. Since this device need not be anything near as small as a "legitimate" rfid tag, it can be powered by a battery and thus emit a signal strong enough to block the signal from any "legitimate" chips in the neighborhood. Furthermore: if it is know or suspected that a particular chip is being tracked, it would not at all difficult to create clones of this chip, most likely by reprogramming the powered pseudo-chip. The result of trying to track someone who apparently is nearly instantaneously in New York and Chicago and Las Vegas and London, England as well as London Connecticut should rapidly discourage any such tracking attempt...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have absolutely NO privacy whatsoever when you live with or near Karen Franklin Barnett. Beware Gardena, CA 90247. She can see you. Die Spy!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKen Trussell Rules over Karen Franklin Barnett (fat ugly pig shit cuunt!)