Comments on: Making sense of sensors

Sensors. You either love them or hate them. But Accenture's Glover Ferguson knows this much: They will be everywhere.

[Richard G.]

Why track all people all the time?

There were two very revealing statements made by Ferguson in this article. The first:

"And in some cases it's just people not understanding, I hear a lot of concerns about RFID where people worry about being scanned and someone getting all their personal details. No, they will get a 91-bit number. Now all they have to do is hack into 17 different databases to find out anything about you."

The last two sentances. He revealed that people (presumably ALL people) have a 91-bit number to identify them. I don't know about you, but it's the very fact that I have ANY unique number transmitting from my body at all which raises privacy concerns. I'm not so concerned with whether or not the scanner knows my name and address.

It forces me to ask the question: Why do you want to track people? We've never before tracked people, other than the exceptional cases such as prison inmates who have to wear a trackable ankle unit and such. THAT'S the troubling question that RFID advocates never seem to answer. What "good" reason can you give to monitor all people all the time? I can think of lots of bad reasons, but no good ones.

This next statement says it all for me:

"We've described it as creating a virtual double. If I get enough feeds from enough different directions, I can start to construct virtual versions of every physical and real object on the planet, and with those I will actually have more information and control than I have if I confront the object itself."

notably, I WILL HAVE MORE INFORMATION AND CONTROL.

Although the context of this paragraph refered to "objects", as if he were thinking of devices and "things", (not people,) I belive the real motivations come out. Tracking people gives control. Simple.

If RFID (and any other form of tracking technology) were limited to just supply and inventory management, I wouldn't care. But RFID advocates seem to dream about tracking people and don't care about tracking products. As such, I think the "Big Brother" monikers are appropriate.

[Richard G.]

Why track all people all the time?

There were two very revealing statements made by Ferguson in this article. The first:

"And in some cases it's just people not understanding, I hear a lot of concerns about RFID where people worry about being scanned and someone getting all their personal details. No, they will get a 91-bit number. Now all they have to do is hack into 17 different databases to find out anything about you."

The last two sentances. He revealed that people (presumably ALL people) have a 91-bit number to identify them. I don't know about you, but it's the very fact that I have ANY unique number transmitting from my body at all which raises privacy concerns. I'm not so concerned with whether or not the scanner knows my name and address.

It forces me to ask the question: Why do you want to track people? We've never before tracked people, other than the exceptional cases such as prison inmates who have to wear a trackable ankle unit and such. THAT'S the troubling question that RFID advocates never seem to answer. What "good" reason can you give to monitor all people all the time? I can think of lots of bad reasons, but no good ones.

This next statement says it all for me:

"We've described it as creating a virtual double. If I get enough feeds from enough different directions, I can start to construct virtual versions of every physical and real object on the planet, and with those I will actually have more information and control than I have if I confront the object itself."

notably, I WILL HAVE MORE INFORMATION AND CONTROL.

Although the context of this paragraph refered to "objects", as if he were thinking of devices and "things", (not people,) I belive the real motivations come out. Tracking people gives control. Simple.

If RFID (and any other form of tracking technology) were limited to just supply and inventory management, I wouldn't care. But RFID advocates seem to dream about tracking people and don't care about tracking products. As such, I think the "Big Brother" monikers are appropriate.

[bdennis410]

RFID? sHOULD BE IFF

In the military and in some commercial applications like airliners, the transponder reports "IFF" which means "Identify Friend or Foe."
RFID will have to be a "friend" to consumers, and to business, institutions, and others, meaning truly great customer service, or help when needed and wanted, or whatever. OTHERWISE RFID will be a FOE TO PRIVACY, AND IT'S GREAT UTILITARIAN POTENTIAL WILL BE GONE.

Barry DENNIS
NETWEB/Omni
Marketing, PR, ADVERTISING

[George Cole]

"friend" to consumers

http://www.analogstereo.com/volkswagen_owners_manual.htm

[bdennis410]

RFID? sHOULD BE IFF

In the military and in some commercial applications like airliners, the transponder reports "IFF" which means "Identify Friend or Foe."
RFID will have to be a "friend" to consumers, and to business, institutions, and others, meaning truly great customer service, or help when needed and wanted, or whatever. OTHERWISE RFID will be a FOE TO PRIVACY, AND IT'S GREAT UTILITARIAN POTENTIAL WILL BE GONE.

Barry DENNIS
NETWEB/Omni
Marketing, PR, ADVERTISING

[George Cole]

"friend" to consumers

http://www.analogstereo.com/volkswagen_owners_manual.htm

[Al Cook]

Terrible Idea: Billboards

Excuse me, but when someone is driving a car down the road I really, really want them to watch the road. I think billboards that make a deliberate effort to distract drivers (e.g., video billboards that you need to watch for 10-15 seconds to get the message) or even billboards that change in a deliberate effort to appeal visually to my particular interests, should be outlawed as a safety hazard. We're literally talking about a life and death here.

[Al Cook]

Terrible Idea: Billboards

Excuse me, but when someone is driving a car down the road I really, really want them to watch the road. I think billboards that make a deliberate effort to distract drivers (e.g., video billboards that you need to watch for 10-15 seconds to get the message) or even billboards that change in a deliberate effort to appeal visually to my particular interests, should be outlawed as a safety hazard. We're literally talking about a life and death here.

[blaketx]

Talking medicine cabinet?

This is just like the medicine cabinet in George Lucas' THX-1138. Every time it was opened it asked "What's wrong?" It also made sure that the owner took the drugs that were required by law in the movie. I guess that is where we are headed and we're better off flushing those drugs and let RFID track them down the sewerline.

[blaketx]

Talking medicine cabinet?

This is just like the medicine cabinet in George Lucas' THX-1138. Every time it was opened it asked "What's wrong?" It also made sure that the owner took the drugs that were required by law in the movie. I guess that is where we are headed and we're better off flushing those drugs and let RFID track them down the sewerline.