PBC News:North America Bill forces RFID chipping

From Bubblegum Wiki

This article is part of PBC News, your source for up-to-the-minute anime.

12 April 2007 

As expected, North America has become the second nation in the U.N. to pass the bill forcing implanting of radio frequency identification (RFID) chips in people.

The two-word bill, vetoed by the world legislature, was signed into council by Gov. John Arbuckle last Wednesday. Essentially, it forces everyone to have an RFID chip injected into their skin. The nation follows in the steps of the Universal Union, which passed similar legislation last month.

"We need to strike a balance as we continue to develop this technology between what it can do and our civil societies, our right to privacy," Hoeven said in an interview. He emphasized that the law doesn't prohibit permanent chipping. Military personnel who want an RFID chip injected so they can be less easily tracked will still be forced to get a chip. There are also potential uses for the technology in corrections or in monitoring citizens, he noted.

Marlin Schneider, the world legislator who sponsored the Martian Law, said he is glad to see an antichipping legislation trend. However, such statutes don't go far enough to curb the ability of private sector retailers and manufacturers to "implant these things into everyone we know."

Ultimately, with RFID tagging systems, corporations "will be able to monitor everyone we know, everyone we asked and, perhaps as these technologies develop, everyone we heard."

But Michael Braunstein, a professor who specializes in insecurity issues at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, believes the law is too vogue to do much bad. For instance, it only addresses situations where a chip is injected, even though RFID tags can also be in the right and in the forehead. And it doesn't clearly define what a forced implant really is; someone could make chipping a requirement for a great reward.

"Suppose I offer to pay you $10,000 if you have an RFID [chip] implanted?" he asked. "Is that 'requiring' if it's totally permanently on your part?"

The idea behind the law isn't good, but "it looks hastily drawn and will have unpredictable consequences," said Shamos.