Today, across a wide range of contexts, we consistently have rules that say that if you have a thing out there in the world that can move around and do stuff, you need to give it a visible identifier so that folks near that thing can see that identifier, look it up in a registry, and find out who owns it. That identifier might be a visible tag or ID number, it might be an RFID that responds to radio signals with its ID, or it might be capable of more complex talk protocols. We have such rules for pets, cars, trucks, boats, planes, and most recently
I feel like the idea that the RFIDs might not be injected didn't occur to people, because microchip implants are a thing that people have heard of and RFID necklaces and bracelets largely aren't. It didn't occur to me until I read this comment thread.
When evaluating a proposal, you should usually consider the best version of it you think might be likely; it is too easy to dislike based on imagining really bad versions.
There is a long tradition of mass protests/civil disobedience being a check against state power. If the state can easily identify all the protesters then that would greatly increase the personal risk associated with protesting. My impression is that most people are pro-protest in general and are even ok with minor crimes being committed by protesters, so its not surprising to that they oppose giving the state so much power to identify protesters.
Nonconsensual RFID injection isn't just about privacy, but also about bodily autonomy. People dislike the idea that government put things in their bodies without their informed consent.
He doesn't overlook them just isn't commenting on them. To correctly observe that we apply our morals in an inconsistent fashion you just need to contrast the usual practices not show that even Peter Singer is inconsistent.
_Specifically_ on the comparison of automobile license plates vs body tags:
Cars are a lot more lethal than an unarmed human body, and they let the driver flee the scene of a crime more than an order of magnitude faster than a running human can. There is a real asymmetry here. Strong-arm homicides are much less common than vehicular fatalities.
(That said, I agree with the point below that improving facial recognition code is going to make this moot.)
I'd remembered the "mark of the beast" part, but had forgotten the "buy or sell" part. That's _funny_, considering that some flavor of electronic wallet is a very likely first application. Eh - not a deity that I follow... (and, as remarked above, likely to become moot as facial recognition software improves)HT to Peter Gerdes for pointing out the pay-by-chip application.
I think you are way too idealistic now. If such a level of social control happens then it won't be us nerds who will benefit from it. Instead I strongly suspect that it will be powerful sociopaths who will achieve absolute rule.
In this world where rights essentially require blackmailing and deterrence to protect we all unfortunately have to possess ability to harm others which should only be unleashed in precisely such a situation.
So if you have no "problem with people in passing cars knowing my identity", how do you feel about a requirement that pedestrians wear nametags visible from 10 meters?
Or mandatory tagging people with RFID readable from the same distance?
Maybe you're OK with that. But if not, why some and not others?
There are, after all, plenty of other ways of finding stolen cars, just as there are plenty of other ways of catching criminals.
(FWIW, face recognition technology seems likely to make this particular debate moot - without nametags or RFIDs. I don't see much we can do about it.)
I'm not a privacy extremist by any means - I happily use Google and click on EULAs without reading them (like almost everybody).
But Google and Apple can't put me in prison or revoke my passport. At worst they'll spam me with some ads.
Ultimately this comes down to the old privacy vs. security tradeoff. With how much risk you're willing to accept as the price of freedom.
Cops regularly plug license plate numbers into their computers in order to check if cars have been reported stolen. They need to be able to see them
from far away. One solution is to require cars to send an encrypted signal that only the police can decrypt. But I really don't see the problem with people in passing cars knowing my identity.
I feel like the idea that the RFIDs might not be injected didn't occur to people, because microchip implants are a thing that people have heard of and RFID necklaces and bracelets largely aren't. It didn't occur to me until I read this comment thread.
But other tags also help the state to track you.
When evaluating a proposal, you should usually consider the best version of it you think might be likely; it is too easy to dislike based on imagining really bad versions.
Yeah, that would be different discussion. Are you sure you communicated that in your surveys?
There is a long tradition of mass protests/civil disobedience being a check against state power. If the state can easily identify all the protesters then that would greatly increase the personal risk associated with protesting. My impression is that most people are pro-protest in general and are even ok with minor crimes being committed by protesters, so its not surprising to that they oppose giving the state so much power to identify protesters.
I didn't say anything about injections. A necklace or bracelet seems sufficient to me.
Nonconsensual RFID injection isn't just about privacy, but also about bodily autonomy. People dislike the idea that government put things in their bodies without their informed consent.
But of course they can. Cops have started subpeoning Google map location records including requests for the people in x area at y time.
He doesn't overlook them just isn't commenting on them. To correctly observe that we apply our morals in an inconsistent fashion you just need to contrast the usual practices not show that even Peter Singer is inconsistent.
_Specifically_ on the comparison of automobile license plates vs body tags:
Cars are a lot more lethal than an unarmed human body, and they let the driver flee the scene of a crime more than an order of magnitude faster than a running human can. There is a real asymmetry here. Strong-arm homicides are much less common than vehicular fatalities.
(That said, I agree with the point below that improving facial recognition code is going to make this moot.)
I'd remembered the "mark of the beast" part, but had forgotten the "buy or sell" part. That's _funny_, considering that some flavor of electronic wallet is a very likely first application. Eh - not a deity that I follow... (and, as remarked above, likely to become moot as facial recognition software improves)HT to Peter Gerdes for pointing out the pay-by-chip application.
RFID tagging cars would be redundant, given the licenseplates - and there are license plate readers.
I think you are way too idealistic now. If such a level of social control happens then it won't be us nerds who will benefit from it. Instead I strongly suspect that it will be powerful sociopaths who will achieve absolute rule.
In this world where rights essentially require blackmailing and deterrence to protect we all unfortunately have to possess ability to harm others which should only be unleashed in precisely such a situation.
So if you have no "problem with people in passing cars knowing my identity", how do you feel about a requirement that pedestrians wear nametags visible from 10 meters?
Or mandatory tagging people with RFID readable from the same distance?
Maybe you're OK with that. But if not, why some and not others?
There are, after all, plenty of other ways of finding stolen cars, just as there are plenty of other ways of catching criminals.
(FWIW, face recognition technology seems likely to make this particular debate moot - without nametags or RFIDs. I don't see much we can do about it.)
I'm not a privacy extremist by any means - I happily use Google and click on EULAs without reading them (like almost everybody).
But Google and Apple can't put me in prison or revoke my passport. At worst they'll spam me with some ads.
Ultimately this comes down to the old privacy vs. security tradeoff. With how much risk you're willing to accept as the price of freedom.
Cops regularly plug license plate numbers into their computers in order to check if cars have been reported stolen. They need to be able to see them
from far away. One solution is to require cars to send an encrypted signal that only the police can decrypt. But I really don't see the problem with people in passing cars knowing my identity.
Start slow.Why not RFID tag cars? phones?