Prisoners 'to be chipped like dogs'

[Nick227]

Few weeks behind posting this. From The Independent on Sunday, the British government is planning to implant RFID chips into prisoners so they can be released early.

No doubt JREFers will agree this is all completely agreeable and that it in no way reinforces the position of those CTists who've been writing that this kind of thing is coming for years.

Nick

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/prisoners-to-be-chipped-like-dogs-769977.html

By Brian Brady, Whitehall Editor
Sunday, 13 January 2008

Ministers are planning to implant "machine-readable" microchips under the skin of thousands of offenders as part of an expansion of the electronic tagging scheme that would create more space in British jails.

Amid concerns about the security of existing tagging systems and prison overcrowding, the Ministry of Justice is investigating the use of satellite and radio-wave technology to monitor criminals.

But, instead of being contained in bracelets worn around the ankle, the tiny chips would be surgically inserted under the skin of offenders in the community, to help enforce home curfews. The radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, as long as two grains of rice, are able to carry scanable personal information about individuals, including their identities, address and offending record.

The tags, labelled "spychips" by privacy campaigners, are already used around the world to keep track of dogs, cats, cattle and airport luggage, but there is no record of the technology being used to monitor offenders in the community. The chips are also being considered as a method of helping to keep order within prisons.

[CptColumbo]

Few weeks behind posting this. From The Independent on Sunday, the British government is planning to implant RFID chips into prisoners so they can be released early.

No doubt JREFers will agree this is all completely agreeable and that it in no way reinforces the position of those CTists who've been writing that this kind of thing is coming for years.

Nick

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/prisoners-to-be-chipped-like-dogs-769977.html

By Brian Brady, Whitehall Editor
Sunday, 13 January 2008

Ministers are planning to implant "machine-readable" microchips under the skin of thousands of offenders as part of an expansion of the electronic tagging scheme that would create more space in British jails.

Amid concerns about the security of existing tagging systems and prison overcrowding, the Ministry of Justice is investigating the use of satellite and radio-wave technology to monitor criminals.

But, instead of being contained in bracelets worn around the ankle, the tiny chips would be surgically inserted under the skin of offenders in the community, to help enforce home curfews. The radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, as long as two grains of rice, are able to carry scanable personal information about individuals, including their identities, address and offending record.

The tags, labelled "spychips" by privacy campaigners, are already used around the world to keep track of dogs, cats, cattle and airport luggage, but there is no record of the technology being used to monitor offenders in the community. The chips are also being considered as a method of helping to keep order within prisons.
Bolding mine. Do you see the difference between those two words?

IMO they will find that it is much more costly, without improving the level of security (in relation to ankle bracelets) for those under home arrest.

[Tippit]

Bolding mine. Do you see the difference between those two words?

IMO they will find that it is much more costly, without improving the level of security (in relation to ankle bracelets) for those under home arrest.

Of course, that says nothing about the morality of forcibly implanting microchips in a human being. You carefully avoided any comment about that, focusing instead on the relative costs. But since it may be done to those no-good prisoners, what-you-worry? They'll probably start with pedophiles, because everybody hates pedophiles.

[Nick227]

Bolding mine. Do you see the difference between those two words?

IMO they will find that it is much more costly, without improving the level of security (in relation to ankle bracelets) for those under home arrest.

Well, according the article, the ankle bracelet scheme was ditched as people found a way of getting rid of them....

A multimillion-pound pilot of satellite monitoring of offenders was shelved last year after a report revealed many criminals simply ditched the ankle tag and separate portable tracking unit issued to them. The "prison without bars" project also failed to track offenders when they were in the shadow of tall buildings.

The Independent on Sunday has now established that ministers have been assessing the merits of cutting-edge technology that would make it virtually impossible for individuals to remove their electronic tags.

The tags, injected into the back of the arm with a hypodermic needle, consist of a toughened glass capsule holding a computer chip, a copper antenna and a "capacitor" that transmits data stored on the chip when prompted by an electromagnetic reader.

Providing you can stop people from digging them out of their body, perhaps by placing them near a major artery or something, I don't see why it shouldn't work. And I can't really imagine that the cost will be such an issue when you consider what it costs to keep people in British prisons.

Let's see, anyway. I find that, having started writing about the things nearly a decade ago, I've almost grown attached to them. I may buy some stock in VeriChip perhaps

Nick

[Stout]

Hi Nick...you know, you were the first person i thought about when I heard this story a few days ago.

It does seem rather confusing. One one hand their talking about using this implantable technology to replace those ankle bracelets which work off an installed reader in the offender's home. On the other hand they're comparing this to those cell ( mobile ) phone transmitting systems that read GPS coordinates from satellites and simply phone it in to the authorities.

So what's it going to be then ? Implanted chips that are less easy to remove than ankle bracelets ? That track an offender in his immediate environs ? or the full meal track an offender everywhere he goes using satellites ? Two very very different propositions as far as my reading goes.

A while back I saw a TV program ( Discovery channel IIRC ) advocating the use of this immediate environment tracking technology to "keep an eye on" old folks in their own personal living quarters so they wouldn't have to move out into some sort of extended care facility until they absolutely had to. The basic idea is that the old folk's apartment would be wired up to let an observer know what's going on in the apartment and sound the alarm in anything "funny" happened.

Like....suppose an old dear wanders into the kitchen and puts a kettle on the stove to heat up some water for a cup of tea. Then, wanders back into the living room, sits down in their favourite chair and promptly falls asleep. According to the show, the apartment would "know" that the stove was on and the "subject" wasn't in the kitchen and sound an alarm that would either wake the sleeping person or place a call to a care provider to let them know somethings amiss.

Nothing about satellites and that sort of tracking at all. Likewise with the mention of implantable microchips being used in US prisons. What sort of technology is being used there? Might it be the same as the RFID we all know it to be now ? I'll betcha it is.

Also...note that at the end of this story, there's mention of public opposition to this type of technology being used as seems to be the case with every story I've ever read on implantable microchips.

As to my confusion...Does the technology currently exist, or will this technology exist in the near future that allows a satellite to connect with an implantable microchip and constantly broadcast the wearer's location to whomever. Or, are we looking at a system that's going to have literally millions of readers necessary to track an implanted chip as it moves throughout a city?

[Darat]

Well as ever it look like someone's swallowed the rubbish from the sales & marketing arm of a company. Indeed if I wasn't completely cynical about the lack of technical and crucial thinking skills of the populace at large I would be dubious of the veracity of the story because the report is contradictory in what it says this idea would achieve and what problems it overcomes in regards to other existing tagging systems.

(Saying that for convenience sake I love the idea of being able to forget about PINs and just be able to wave my arm over a reader in a shop to verify my identity - as long as it isn't compulsory of course.)

[Nick227]

Shame this got moved from the Conspiracy forum. Given that it's the contention of many CTists that there is a plot to implement this technology on all humans, I would have thought that it would have been pretty relevant there.

Nick

[Nick227]

Well as ever it look like someone's swallowed the rubbish from the sales & marketing arm of a company. Indeed if I wasn't completely cynical about the lack of technical and crucial thinking skills of the populace at large I would be dubious of the veracity of the story because the report is contradictory in what it says this idea would achieve and what problems it overcomes in regards to other existing tagging systems.

Hi Darat,

Could you explain these comments more? I don't follow you. The article is in a bona fide mainstream British newspaper and, whilst it doesn't name all of its sources, it does quote them as being members of the British Ministry of Justice. It also mentions the problems other tracking systems have experienced.

(Saying that for convenience sake I love the idea of being able to forget about PINs and just be able to wave my arm over a reader in a shop to verify my identity - as long as it isn't compulsory of course.)

Personally, I find I'm nowhere near as concerned about these things as I used to be. I would be pretty cool with wearing one actually nowadays. It's maybe an offshoot of Stockholm Syndrome that conspiracy writers get so used to the seeming horrors that they write about they no longer bother them.

In 1999 I wrote in a piece... "Whole groups of people within society will likely have already been 'chipped by this time. Criminals, the mentally ill, and military personnel are three likely targets. The media will constantly portray 'chipping as the socially positive thing to do. Small children will go missing in high profile cases on the daily news, then be found, "because they were 'chipped." Young people's TV will be especially targeted. Getting 'chipped will be seen as a cool thing to do, with a vast array of different 'chip features available to order. Getting 'chipped will be seen as synonymous with "getting ahead" and attracting members of the opposite sex. The media will spare no effort ensuring that the negative aspects of getting 'chipped, such as feeling like a robot, are driven from people's minds."

But give it another year or two and I think I will completely support mandatory chipping!

Nick

[NobbyNobbs]

No doubt JREFers will agree this is all completely agreeable and that it in no way reinforces the position of those CTists who've been writing that this kind of thing is coming for years.


Without even commenting on the technology itself, what I object to most is this sentence. Do not lump a wide variety of people into a single mindset. Do not presume to know what I think before I have expressed it. Do not put words into my mouth.

This statement offends me more than the program under discussion ever could.

[Nick227]

Without even commenting on the technology itself, what I object to most is this sentence. Do not lump a wide variety of people into a single mindset. Do not presume to know what I think before I have expressed it. Do not put words into my mouth.

This statement offends me more than the program under discussion ever could.

Yes, ok, you're borderline psychopath. But what actually do you think? If you can't hack being lumped into a single mindset, what are you gonna do when we put the chip in you, dude? Really.

Nick

Please remember your membership agreement. Be civil and polite.

[Darat]

Hi Darat,

Could you explain these comments more? I don't follow you. The article is in a bona fide mainstream British newspaper and, whilst it doesn't name all of its sources, it does quote them as being members of the British Ministry of Justice. It also mentions the problems other tracking systems have experienced.

...snip...

Not too sure which you want me to expand on? I'll take a stab anyway - if I've assumed wrong let me know.

I am always dubious about most newspaper reports, whilst the Independent is certainly one of the better UK newspapers I still do not trust them to be accurate. The reason why the story reeks of ill-informed people with no technical background is that many of reasons given for using such a system, is to overcome some of the problems with current tagging technology - yet a system based on the new technology would have the same technical problems that they talk about in regards to the old system (And in fact even more problems).



Personally, I find I'm nowhere near as concerned about these things as I used to be. I would be pretty cool with wearing one actually nowadays. It's maybe an offshoot of Stockholm Syndrome that conspiracy writers get so used to the seeming horrors that they write about they no longer bother them.

...snip...

Or perhaps you've started to realise that technology itself is not frightening? I've been reading about these sorts of ideas since I was a kid (and the stories I first read about this in were wrote in the 40s and 50s) the idea of embedded electronics has always seemed really cool to me. (Albeit I have many concerns regarding the practical issues involved.)


...snip...

In 1999 I wrote in a piece... "Whole groups of people within society will likely have already been 'chipped by this time. Criminals, the mentally ill, and military personnel are three likely targets. The media will constantly portray 'chipping as the socially positive thing to do. Small children will go missing in high profile cases on the daily news, then be found, "because they were 'chipped." Young people's TV will be especially targeted. Getting 'chipped will be seen as a cool thing to do, with a vast array of different 'chip features available to order. Getting 'chipped will be seen as synonymous with "getting ahead" and attracting members of the opposite sex. The media will spare no effort ensuring that the negative aspects of getting 'chipped, such as feeling like a robot, are driven from people's minds."

But give it another year or two and I think I will completely support mandatory chipping!

Nick

So what is wrong with "chipping" people?

[Nick227]

Not too sure which you want me to expand on? I'll take a stab anyway - if I've assumed wrong let me know.

I am always dubious about most newspaper reports, whilst the Independent is certainly one of the better UK newspapers I still do not trust them to be accurate. The reason why the story reeks of ill-informed people with no technical background is that many of reasons given for using such a system, is to overcome some of the problems with current tagging technology - yet a system based on the new technology would have the same technical problems that they talk about in regards to the old system (And in fact even more problems).

Hi Darat,

I agree that the papers aren't always so great and frequently have hidden agendas, if not sinister ones, then simply through the need to sell papers. But I read this article again and, whilst it would have been better if it had named more of the officials concerned, it did mention that the issue with the ankle bracelet was that they could be removed. Presumably implants can't be dug out, it would have been nice to know.



Or perhaps you've started to realise that technology itself is not frightening? I've been reading about these sorts of ideas since I was a kid (and the stories I first read about this in were wrote in the 40s and 50s) the idea of embedded electronics has always seemed really cool to me. (Albeit I have many concerns regarding the practical issues involved.)

So what is wrong with "chipping" people?

Well, I've not had so much an issue with the technology itself. Originally I just didn't like the idea of having a chip under my skin, feeding information about what I'm up to to some computer somewhere. I don't feel so uptight about that now. My main concern is trust. How do I know that the government actually does care about my welfare and life, and is not simply creating some vast control network through fear? I would happily have an implant if I could resolve this.

Nick

[CptColumbo]

Well, according the article, the ankle bracelet scheme was ditched as people found a way of getting rid of them....



Providing you can stop people from digging them out of their body, perhaps by placing them near a major artery or something, I don't see why it shouldn't work. And I can't really imagine that the cost will be such an issue when you consider what it costs to keep people in British prisons.

Let's see, anyway. I find that, having started writing about the things nearly a decade ago, I've almost grown attached to them. I may buy some stock in VeriChip perhaps

NickI was writing about the cost of surgically implanting a chip, for tracking purposes vs. snapping a bracelet around the ankle.

Placing it "near a major artery" would probably raise more objections than simply implanting the chip under the skin, and probably leave the surgeon open to lawsuits if something went wrong (as the proposed procedure would anyway). Which would raise the costs even further.

[Nick227]

I was writing about the cost of surgically implanting a chip, for tracking purposes vs. snapping a bracelet around the ankle.

Placing it "near a major artery" would probably raise more objections than simply implanting the chip under the skin, and probably leave the surgeon open to lawsuits if something went wrong (as the proposed procedure would anyway). Which would raise the costs even further.

Yes, it would be good to know how it's proposed to implant the chips so that they can't be removed.

With regard to the cost, I'm not 100% sure but I seem to recall that it costs over £10,000 annually (usd20k) to keep a prisoner in a UK prison. There's got to be money to be saved with chipping.

Nick

[Nick227]

As to my confusion...Does the technology currently exist, or will this technology exist in the near future that allows a satellite to connect with an implantable microchip and constantly broadcast the wearer's location to whomever. Or, are we looking at a system that's going to have literally millions of readers necessary to track an implanted chip as it moves throughout a city?

I've read that passive rfid needs a reader within a few meters, presumably making it no use for use with prisoners released from prisons. Active rfid I think can be good up to 1 km. This would obviously still require a lot of background investment to make the scheme workable. According to the article...

"A senior Ministry of Justice official last night confirmed that the department hoped to go even further, by extending the geographical range of the internal chips through a link-up with satellite-tracking similar to the system used to trace stolen vehicles. "All the options are on the table, and this is one we would like to pursue," the source added."

...so it seems to be that it must be an implantable gps system.

Nick

[CptColumbo]

Yes, it would be good to know how it's proposed to implant the chips so that they can't be removed.

With regard to the cost, I'm not 100% sure but I seem to recall that it costs over £10,000 annually (usd20k) to keep a prisoner in a UK prison. There's got to be money to be saved with chipping.

NickUntil they found a reasonably fool-proof system that doesn't also endanger the health of the offender, it would probably and IMO should not be implemented.

It's a tough issue, even if the offender agreed to it as opposed to going to or staying in prison. IIRC In the US there have been challenges to chemical and surgical castration for sex offenders, where the offender agreed to it and not agreed to it (I'll have to find you the cases). Unlike that, this wouldn't be a permanent condition.

Personally, I would rather that the courts and lawmakers find a way of reducing the overcrowding in the prisons without having to resort to such procedures. Finding a way to reduce poverty or less mandatory sentences.

[Stout]

Problem is...that compared to the passive chips we all know as being a little larger than a grain of rice, the active RFID tags are huge.

These are being marketed as the worlds smallest, but I suppose you could implannt one....http://www.purelink.ca/Product/PLK-NT030-30.pdf

[Nick227]

Problem is...that compared to the passive chips we all know as being a little larger than a grain of rice, the active RFID tags are huge.

These are being marketed as the worlds smallest, but I suppose you could implannt one....http://www.purelink.ca/Product/PLK-NT030-30.pdf

Hi Stout,

From the article it would seem that the chip can't be rfid, as it's proposed to be satellite trackable, and active rfid still requires local readers. I know back in the early 00s there was a company called Applied Digital Solutions who were developing implantable GPS chips, but they were still pretty big in size, not a couple of grains of rice. Christian activist groups in the States kicked up a big fuss about Digital Angel, their product. I don't know if they've got it smaller yet.

There does seem to be some confusion in the piece about what format the implant would take. ADS develop both RFID implants, which are 2 grains of rice size, and which require local readers, and GPS (PLD) implants, which are bigger. The vehicle tracking systems, which the article refers to, are GPS.

Nick

[TjW]

Passive RFID chips are not going to be terribly useful for tracking anything. They're powered by the reader's RF field.
As a difficult-to-lose ID, they're pretty good. As a tracking technology, not so much.

You could set it up so the prisoner would be required to present the tag to a reader in the house periodically, I suppose. That's not going to let them get much sleep.

There's going to be a certain "loss rate" with any scheme. People have managed to escape from prison. There are probably fewer people willing to cut themselves open to remove a chip than there are willing to break a bracelet.

[Stout]

Nick. it may not be RFID it may be something I've never heard of but were someone suggesting implanting transmitters in humans that were powerful enough to communicate with satellites in a reliable way I'd be expecting a great deal of public concern...even for prisoners.

I suppose it's conceivable, that were someone wanting to protect a specific localised area like an elementary or primary school, they could ring the premises with passive RFID readers that automatically sound an alarm ( or call the police ) if a known and passive RFID implanted pedophile "crossed the line"

But tracking by satellite ??? I'm very skeptical. My guess is that the police officers who were interviewed for the article were unfamiliar with current technology. Not that I'm any cutting edge kinda guy but I do have a significant amount of time into researching the micro chipping issue.

[Ivor the Engineer]

The story from a technical point of view was complete and utter nonsense.

A chip of a size suitable for implantation under the skin of a human could not transmit to a satellite. They looked more like RFID chips, which have a range of a few meters (at best).

[Bikewer]

Criminals, by and large, do not seem to shy away from such painful body modifications as jailhouse tattoos and scarifications.

I can well imagine a quick growth in the field of underground surgery to remove these things.

A bit of betadine, a nice new X-Acto knife, and a bit of probing.....

[Leicontis]

I'm not seeing any mention of ever removing these implants. Am I the only one disturbed by this? Unless I misunderstand the nature of the program, it seems that it would include those who are only to be tracked for a certain amount of time. Would the plan include removing their tags?

I have no objection to voluntary utility tagging, though I'm a bit leery of general-use payment tags taking the place of credit/debit cards. It seems like it would be relatively trivial to walk down the street with a portable reader, stealing thousands of dollars from dozens of people just by jostling by them on the sidewalk. By specializing the tags for different places, one would remove much of the incentive to "clone" them - someone's VIP pass in a single nightclub is worth a lot less than their driver's licence, for example.

[UserGoogol]

In 1999 I wrote in a piece... "Whole groups of people within society will likely have already been 'chipped by this time. Criminals, the mentally ill, and military personnel are three likely targets. The media will constantly portray 'chipping as the socially positive thing to do. Small children will go missing in high profile cases on the daily news, then be found, "because they were 'chipped." Young people's TV will be especially targeted. Getting 'chipped will be seen as a cool thing to do, with a vast array of different 'chip features available to order. Getting 'chipped will be seen as synonymous with "getting ahead" and attracting members of the opposite sex. The media will spare no effort ensuring that the negative aspects of getting 'chipped, such as feeling like a robot, are driven from people's minds."

WTF? Feeling like a robot? For one, it's a chip, it simply indicates where you are at all times, it doesn't make feel like a robot. For two, there is nothing wrong with feeling like a robot. Robots are awesome. I'm not that thrilled with the idea of having RFID chips implanted into my skin, and there are indeed some very real privacy concerns. (Although RFID implantation as a way of letting people go free seems like an entirely reasonable tradeoff as long as the chips eventually turn themselves off. Encryption would be nice too.) But I am super-thrilled with the idea of feeling like a robot, and gleefully await the day that cyborg technologies become available.

[Nick227]

WTF? Feeling like a robot? For one, it's a chip, it simply indicates where you are at all times, it doesn't make feel like a robot. For two, there is nothing wrong with feeling like a robot. Robots are awesome. I'm not that thrilled with the idea of having RFID chips implanted into my skin, and there are indeed some very real privacy concerns. (Although RFID implantation as a way of letting people go free seems like an entirely reasonable tradeoff as long as the chips eventually turn themselves off. Encryption would be nice too.) But I am super-thrilled with the idea of feeling like a robot, and gleefully await the day that cyborg technologies become available.

Well, I didn't include the whole quote, and that piece was written quite a while ago. It was also about the possibility of regulating the body's neurotransmitter system from implants.

I think the University of Connecticut have been working on an implant system for soldiers which monitors glucose, lactose and similar but this is not regulation.

Nick

[Nick227]

The story from a technical point of view was complete and utter nonsense.

A chip of a size suitable for implantation under the skin of a human could not transmit to a satellite. They looked more like RFID chips, which have a range of a few meters (at best).

Florida-based Applied Digital Solutions claimed to have developed just such a device in 2000. See for example this release (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/human_tracker_000814.html), there are many more.

It was about the size of a dime and was one variant of their product Digital Angel (http://www.digitalangel.com/). Following the early press releases Christian pressure groups in the States kicked up such a fuss that ADS said they would no longer produce the implantable GPS but only one that was worn on the outside of the body. They company ran into trouble financially, but bounced back with VeriChip, the RFID implant chip which stores information or monitors health functions but is not suited for tracking. I'm not sure where GPS implants are right now.

Nick

[Nick227]

But tracking by satellite ??? I'm very skeptical. My guess is that the police officers who were interviewed for the article were unfamiliar with current technology. Not that I'm any cutting edge kinda guy but I do have a significant amount of time into researching the micro chipping issue.

Hey Stout,

Yes, I agree it's difficult to get accurate info on just where GPS implant technology is at right now.

* Companies, such as ADS, certainly have claimed to have developed the chips.
* Many journos and even government ministers appear to have allowed the GPS and RFID stories to become conflated in their minds to the point where they no longer understand what is or is not possible.
* Retired CIA operative Ed Siebert claimed that the agency had developed GPS implants of its own in the mid 90s.

There's an interesting article by media watchdog AIM (www.aim.org/media-monitor/false-hopes-for-implants-in-criminals/) on all this.

Nick

[TjW]

Florida-based Applied Digital Solutions claimed to have developed just such a device in 2000. See for example this release (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/human_tracker_000814.html), there are many more.

It was about the size of a dime and was one variant of their product Digital Angel (http://www.digitalangel.com/). Following the early press releases Christian pressure groups in the States kicked up such a fuss that ADS said they would no longer produce the implantable GPS but only one that was worn on the outside of the body. They company ran into trouble financially, but bounced back with VeriChip, the RFID implant chip which stores information or monitors health functions but is not suited for tracking. I'm not sure where GPS implants are right now.

Nick

I can't tell from that garbled newspaper story what the "dime-sized" implant actually did, but I can tell you it didn't transmit data to a GPS satellite.
GPS doesn't work that way. A GPS satellite transmits, and ground receivers, with the information of where the satellite is supposed to be at any given time, calculate where the receiver is on the surface of the earth.
No doubt there is a receiver on the satellite, for command and control, but it's not going to be accessible to the general public.

[Earthborn]

Criminals, by and large, do not seem to shy away from such painful body modifications as jailhouse tattoos and scarifications.

I can well imagine a quick growth in the field of underground surgery to remove these things.

A bit of betadine, a nice new X-Acto knife, and a bit of probing.....If all you want is to get rid of the limitations the chip poses onto you rather the chip itself, such extreme measures are not necessary. RFID chips can be rendered useless fairly easily with an easy to make device that fries them from a short distance (http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2006/01/weapons_the_rfi.html). I doubt it will even sting a little. I also doubt any electronic device small enough to be implanted can be made immune to such measures; you can't shield them and still be able to transmit anything.

[Nick227]

I can't tell from that garbled newspaper story what the "dime-sized" implant actually did, but I can tell you it didn't transmit data to a GPS satellite.
GPS doesn't work that way. A GPS satellite transmits, and ground receivers, with the information of where the satellite is supposed to be at any given time, calculate where the receiver is on the surface of the earth.
No doubt there is a receiver on the satellite, for command and control, but it's not going to be accessible to the general public.

Hi TjW,

Could you tell me how the GPS units that biologists use to track animal migrating patterns and similar work? Would they not be similar to these proposed devices? I imagine the ones they put on birds would have to be pretty small too.

Here's an example (http://sirtrack.com/product_details.asp?Prod_ID=60), and here's another (http://www.wildtracker.com/fastloc.htm). Admittedly they're not quite implant size, but looking at this it doesn't seem to me to be so fanciful that an implant could also be developed at some point. Am I mistaken?

Nick

[e-sabbath]

I have grave concerns regarding the safety of this practice, as it seems to radically increase the potential for cancer.
http://capitalpress.com/Main.asp?SectionID=94&ArticleID=35165
I have minor concerns about the suitability of this practice, as a RFID chip can only be read somewhere between 3 cm away, with a normal reader, and 10 feet away with a 6' dish.
I have somewhat greater concerns about the practicality of this practice: Trust me, the chip can be dug out.

[Stout]

Hi Nick...thanks for the link to the AIM article.

A while ago, I looked at the technology used to track fish and small birds and I did find an implantable chip. The problem with adapting it for tamper resistant human use was the antenna that had to poke out through the skin, which, IMO, would be a lot easier to remove than a conventional strap on, RFID system that's used today.

And then there's the issue of battery life on these uber small devices....

Could the technology to support the use of chips as we all know and fear them be developed in the future? Sure, why not ?
Will society accept the use of tracking chips as we all know and fear them ?
I really, really hope not.

[sophia8]

Hi TjW,

Could you tell me how the GPS units that biologists use to track animal migrating patterns and similar work? Would they not be similar to these proposed devices? I imagine the ones they put on birds would have to be pretty small too.The trackers they put on birds aren't small - they need a power supply and an aerial and are normally mounted on secure backpack-type harnesses.
There are implantable bird trackers (http://microwavetelemetry.com/Bird_PTTs/26g.php), but even these are pretty big.

[TjW]

Hi TjW,

Could you tell me how the GPS units that biologists use to track animal migrating patterns and similar work? Would they not be similar to these proposed devices? I imagine the ones they put on birds would have to be pretty small too.

Here's an example (http://sirtrack.com/product_details.asp?Prod_ID=60), and here's another (http://www.wildtracker.com/fastloc.htm). Admittedly they're not quite implant size, but looking at this it doesn't seem to me to be so fanciful that an implant could also be developed at some point. Am I mistaken?

Nick

The first one doesn't communicate to anything remote. It's a logger. It is dormant most of the time, using about the same power as, say, a wristwatch. Periodically, it "wakes up" enough to take a GPS fix and writes it to memory. So you can use it to find out where it's been, after you recover it. But there's no way to find out remotely where it currently IS.

The other one is just a GPS module. It's basically a specialized receiver/digital signal processor to take GPS fixes. It doesn't communicate to anything remote, either.

Have you ever used a GPS? Have you taken it indoors? Tried it on the bottom floor of a parking structure? Tried putting your hand over the antenna?

The 1.5 Gig signal of GPS is not very big, and is easily attenuated by many things.

e-sabbath: There are many things that go by the moniker "RFID", which may be why there's so much confusion. But the technology used for pet identification is a "passive" tag (that is, powered by the interrogator) at 125 kHz. The coupling between the interrogator (reader) and the transponder (chip) drops off as the cube of the distance.
So to double the activation distance, you need eight times the power. In real life, the distance at which the chip starts to modulate is usually some distance beyond where it's readable, because of noise.
Because the link is primarily magnetic in nature, a dish antenna is of no help at all.

A way to reliably read a pet transponder (2.1 mm diameter x 12mm or so in length) at 1 meter would win quite a few friends at animal shelters.

[luchog]

It seems like it would be relatively trivial to walk down the street with a portable reader, stealing thousands of dollars from dozens of people just by jostling by them on the sidewalk.

It wouldn't even be required to jostle them. RFID tags are easily read by standard readers up to 3 meters away; and when the US State Department made noises about mandating RFIDs in passports, a few individuals from a security investigation agency hacked an RFID reader that was easily hand-portable and concealable that could read them up to 9 meters away, possibly more.

[luchog]

For two, there is nothing wrong with feeling like a robot. Robots are awesome.
You said it, baby!
http://www.speakeasy.org/~hardrock/pictures/bender_dance_animate.gif

Oh, and I love your avatar. Haruhiism!!!

[Puppycow]

Of course, that says nothing about the morality of forcibly implanting microchips in a human being. You carefully avoided any comment about that, focusing instead on the relative costs. But since it may be done to those no-good prisoners, what-you-worry? They'll probably start with pedophiles, because everybody hates pedophiles.

If you were a prisoner and they offered you a choice between serving out the remainder of your sentence in prison or getting to go home early in exchange for implanting this microchip, which would you choose? I would choose the chip.

[richardm]

RFID tags are easily read by standard readers up to 3 meters away

Some are - it depends on the type of tag you've got. The type that gets implanted in most pets is generally readable up to about a foot away. Passive UHF type tags are readable up to about 20 feet, but the downside of that extra range is that they're relatively easy to block if you want to.

I can see questions that need to be asked with respect to what happens when the sentence is over? Current RFID tags as put into your dog tend to migrate inside the body, so even if it starts off right under the skin doesn't mean it stays there, which could mean a lot of digging around if you want to get it out again. You could make your RFID chip writeable though, and simply blank it at the end of the sentence, which might be a solution. Most current types have a unique serial number which is not overwriteable but I don't see any reason why you couldn't change that.

Just to agree with TjW, what's being proposed here is not a tracking device that someone can use to sit and watch you, as represented by a red dot, moving around a map. Current technology isn't up to it, mostly limited by the power supply problem (unless you fill every street with readers, which ain't going to happen any time soon). (Or ever). Okay, I see some police chief is saying that he'd like to have such a system, and I daresay he would, but there are practicalities involved that are difficult to overcome. Not impossible though - you could have an internal chip and an external pack running some sort of active transponder - but it would be impractical to do it all internally with some superchip as the article suggests.

It's got much more to do with making sure that prisoners released on home detention stick to any curfews that are imposed. The current system uses quite large tags that are fastened to the ankle, and these tags get read by equipment installed at their house. If the equipment doesn't find the tag in the house at the specified time, it phones the police and they pick up the miscreant. The downside of this is that the ankle tags are large, potentially removable and an often visible sign that the individual is a criminal which is not always desirable.
What's being proposed is a replacement of these external tags with a small internal one which, it is hoped, will be both invisible more difficult to interfere with. So long as the scheme is optional I don't think I have a problem with it.

[Rolfe]

I've got a lot of questions about the technology, which I see have mostly been addressed by other posters.

"To be microchipped like dogs"? If we take that literally, what good would it do anyone? The current microchips used for pets are good for two things. Returning a lost pet to its owner (dead or alive), and positively identifying an animal for legal purposes - like a vaccination certificate or a passport, or perhaps in connection with an alleged offence. They require that someone actually in possession of that animal, actually has a microchip reader, and uses it.

Suppose your pet is microchipped and goes missing, how does that help you find it? Not in the slightest. All it gives you is comfort that if the animal is found (dead or alive), then someone might have the savvy to take it somewhere there is a reader (vet or rescue centre), at which point all, hopefully, will be revealed and the finder will be able to call you. This isn't to be sneezed at (ask Darat!), but it's cold comfort while you're sitting at home chewing your nails up to your elbows and wondering if even more "lost cat" posters would make any difference.

A comparable analogy is with the stolen animal. Any thief would certainly not be scanning the animal in order to return it to its rightful owner! And any thief might well be able to locate the device and get it out. It's useless in that situation, except in the unlikely event of the animal being sold on, and the new owner both finding the chip still there, and being honest.

If technology existed to make chips small enough to implant trackable, the best market for them would be to worried pet owners. I'd buy one myself! Once these things are on the market as pet trackers, and proving successful, I'll buy the idea that doing the same with people might be possible. (Then I'll start asking how I'd stop the hardened criminal digging the damn thing out.)

The same thing has been suggested as a safety device for children, but the same caveats apply. Show me the technology, and I'll show you a huge market (pet owners) to sell it too. If nobody's doing that, it suggests to me the technology isn't yet practical. Even if early versions were expensive, the market's still there. Some people are prepared to spend fortunes on their animals.

Rolfe.

[Nick227]

The first one doesn't communicate to anything remote. It's a logger. It is dormant most of the time, using about the same power as, say, a wristwatch. Periodically, it "wakes up" enough to take a GPS fix and writes it to memory. So you can use it to find out where it's been, after you recover it. But there's no way to find out remotely where it currently IS.

The other one is just a GPS module. It's basically a specialized receiver/digital signal processor to take GPS fixes. It doesn't communicate to anything remote, either.

Have you ever used a GPS? Have you taken it indoors? Tried it on the bottom floor of a parking structure? Tried putting your hand over the antenna?


Hi TjW,

Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I have a gps in my car, must admit I haven't tried using it underground. It's good to have someone explain these things. I still find it bizarre that perfectly legit companies can claim to have developed these kinds of devices, and that state officials announce that they intend to employ them. It's not good to see the government so conflating fantasy and reality. I will try and see if there is more follow up to the story.

Nick

[richardm]

I have a gps in my car, must admit I haven't tried using it underground.

Caveat for anyone testing this: If your GPS unit is built into your car then some have the advantage that they know how fast the wheels are turning and which way you turn and can continue to plot your position even though you're out of reach of the satellite signal. Handheld models like TomTom can't do this.

[TjW]

Caveat for anyone testing this: If your GPS unit is built into your car then some have the advantage that they know how fast the wheels are turning and which way you turn and can continue to plot your position even though you're out of reach of the satellite signal. Handheld models like TomTom can't do this.

True. This is a big help when navigating among tall buildings. The time delays in multi-path reception can screw up the fix even if the signal strength is okay.

[Nick227]

A friend forwarded me this interesting note about RFID yesterday, from The Miner Diaries - Metal & Diamonds Investment Bulletin...

"We put greater store in hopes for silver tags. An increasingly popular way of tracking goods is to use Radio Frequency Identification Devices – RFID tags. A radio frequency from a transmitter activates the tag, which then sends out information. The system is a competitor to bar codes. As technology cuts tag costs they are expected to dominate the market. Tags are used by everyone from Tesco to the US Defense Department.
The key is that each tag has a minimum of 10.9 milligrams of silver in their antennas. US research group IDTechEx forecasts that by 2016 there will be 13 billion in use. Others suggest over twice that number, using around 257 tonnes of silver a year. Crucially, the silver cannot be recycled, and if incorporated in paper would just get chucked.
China has a $6bn programme for national roll-out of RFID tags. The reason is, according to The Silver Book, that its logistics industry is badly lagging its booming consumer industry. Thus goods are not being delivered. So, the plan is to use them to track everything from railway tickets to consumer goods for export to the US, as well in anti-counterfeiting measures."

Nick

[Rolfe]

A radio frequency from a transmitter activates the tag, which then sends out information.


So how is that of any use in tracking someone who has absconded? How close does that radio transmitter, and the detector, have to be?

Rolfe.

[richardm]

If there is that much silver involved then it's a useful extra market, although the amount of silver mined globally per year is something like a thousand times that so it's not that exciting. Might help to offset some of the losses caused by the drop in demand for traditional photographic papers, perhaps?

However Symbol have already moved away from silver and copper and are starting to use aluminium which has the benefit of being cheaper and having fewer environmental pitfalls, at the expense of not being quite as good as silver.

[Nick227]

So how is that of any use in tracking someone who has absconded? How close does that radio transmitter, and the detector, have to be?

Rolfe.

Hi Rolfe,

I was quoting the article as I found it tangentially interesting to the general subject area. If the Chinese are investing $6bn in developing tracking systems to improve their process management, there may well be spin-offs which bring the development of tracking implants closer. Apologies for not making that clearer before.

Nick

[TjW]

I think you misunderstand. They're not talking tracking in the sense of physical location in real time. Process management doesn't require that. This is more akin to the tracking that Federal Express does. You can be "tracked" in that sense now, via credit card purchases and so forth.