[LINK] US-AMA far too complacent about human RFID tags

[Geoffrey Ramadan]

Daniel Rose wrote:
> Geoffrey Ramadan wrote:
>> There is no doubt that privacy is going to be a huge concern in 
>> regards to RFID human implants.
>>
>> In the end, people are going to have to make a judgment as to whether 
>> the value of RFID implants outweigh the privacy risks.
>
> Shouldn't that judgement be made in the beginning, rather than in the 
> end?
Agree - what I am saying is that in the end, people will agree.
>
> The problem is that most benefit goes to those scanning the implant, 
> and most risk is carried by those being scanned.  It's important to be 
> aware of this.
Not sure this is valid in all cases. Take a medical implant. Who 
benefits? I would ague the patient, as Doctors would get information in 
a timely manner (possibly saving the patients life as a result), 
obviously benefiting the patient (and agree is  also bearing the risk).


>
>>
>> As I have already commented before, I see it as inevitable. To manage 
>> our growing sophisticated, complex and mobile society and risks, more 
>> automated identification will become essential. It will be impossible 
>> to remain anonymous.
>>
>
> Inevitable means that no people anywhere, no matter what they do, can 
> stop it.  That's different from really probable.
> Tides and sunrises are inevitable.  The implantation of RFID in humans 
> isn't; except of course in the sense that it's already been done in 
> many places.
I was referring to "automated identification" as being inevitable, not 
necessarily by implants.

Reg
Geoffrey Ramadan

<snip>