snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Spook Central

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04 April 2008, 03:12 AM
Lisa Lisa is offline
 
Join Date: 22 February 2000
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 954
Whalephant Can you pick apart this RFID conspiracy for me?

OK, I know someone who believes he's been illegally microchipped. He has pointed me to his website:
http://home.comcast.net/~virtualcast...y/site/?/home/
and dares me to pick apart his logic.

Well, I don't really have the time, but it occurred to me that some snopesters might actually enjoy checking out the site and the logic.

So waddaya think?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04 April 2008, 05:02 AM
Penny Penny is offline
 
Join Date: 19 July 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 656
Default

I read it until my brain hurt and I'm still none the wiser as to the circumstances under which he believes he was microchipped. I looked at the X-Ray and can't see any chips there. If he has any kind of logical argument, either I'm too tired to get it or he isn't expressing it very well.

On the bright side, the FBI documentation on what's allowable in an undercover operation makes interesting reading. I can only imagine trying to write a rule book like that, that attempts to outlaw any corruption without limiting the abilities of the agents to do their job.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04 April 2008, 05:03 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 19,354
Default

I don't think there's much to say about this kind of claim. He's obviously either the victim of a conspiracy in which he is the only person who can see the evidence or he needs help for schizophrenia or some related problem. There isn't a lot of picking apart to do when the claims are so unfalsifiable. I hope he gets the help he needs.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04 April 2008, 08:58 AM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,397
Default

It's easy enough to test, RFID reading equipment is cheap (starting at $10 or so).

Also, anything that can be read can be copied, so if he, as unlikely as it seems, should be tagged, he should make copies of the chip and place them on every moving object he can find. Cars, buses, pigeons, clothes and so on. That would confuse whoever is watching him!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04 April 2008, 09:03 AM
Ravenhull's Avatar
Ravenhull Ravenhull is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2005
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 1,935
Icon27

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
It's easy enough to test, RFID reading equipment is cheap (starting at $10 or so).

Also, anything that can be read can be copied, so if he, as unlikely as it seems, should be tagged, he should make copies of the chip and place them on every moving object he can find. Cars, buses, pigeons, clothes and so on. That would confuse whoever is watching him!
The problem there is I'm sure this guy would come back that this is a special RFID that only special readers can read and can't be reproduced.

Reminds me of a quote I read somewhere (but for the life of me, I can't remmeber):

Quote:
It is not man's ability to reason that defines him, but his ability to rationalize.
I'm sure I got the wording a bit wrong, but it applies to people like our friend here. Any attempt to provide a reasonable argument will be rationalized away. He isn't just trying to fit square thoughts into round holes, but he's using a hammer to help.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04 April 2008, 09:16 AM
llewtrah's Avatar
llewtrah llewtrah is offline
 
Join Date: 13 December 2001
Location: Chelmsford, UK
Posts: 16,364
Default

You could take him down the vets and get his microchip scanned.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04 April 2008, 09:45 AM
songs78
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If there is involuntary RFIDs it is probably not an seriously invasive surgery procedure.

http://www.verichipcorp.com/content/company/rfidtags

It is more like a shot.

There have been proposals for involuntary RFID for mental patients who have been confined.

It's hardly a conspiracy when you just go to the website and they tell you that they have plans to insert this on people without consent.

http://www.verichipcorp.com/content/solutions/verimed
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04 April 2008, 10:02 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 19,354
Icon05

Quote:
Originally Posted by songs78 View Post
It's hardly a conspiracy when you just go to the website and they tell you that they have plans to insert this on people without consent.
(My bold.) Can you point that part out in your linked page? I couldn't find it.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04 April 2008, 02:28 PM
Seburiel's Avatar
Seburiel Seburiel is offline
 
Join Date: 13 July 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 657
Default

(related hijack)
Out of curiosity - how would one get an RFID implanted? where can one find a reader? what information do RFID tags store? does the reader give you a list of the RFIDs in a given area?

okay, thanks for being patient with my inanity.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04 April 2008, 04:53 PM
AmISam's Avatar
AmISam AmISam is offline
 
Join Date: 15 August 2005
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 843
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by songs78
It's hardly a conspiracy when you just go to the website and they tell you that they have plans to insert this on people without consent.
(My bold.) Can you point that part out in your linked page? I couldn't find it.
Especially since on the privacy page under Patient Rights, they say

Quote:
Choice. VeriMed microchips are only implanted in patients with their express written and informed consent. In addition, VeriMed patients are provided with choices regarding how their information is used and disclosed.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04 April 2008, 05:02 PM
k9skippy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seburiel View Post
(related hijack)
Out of curiosity - how would one get an RFID implanted? where can one find a reader? what information do RFID tags store? does the reader give you a list of the RFIDs in a given area?

okay, thanks for being patient with my inanity.
My dog has one implanted in his neck, any Vet (with a reader) can read it. Should he get lost, if he were brought to a Vet, they would have my name and contact info.

For a human, I don't know. (I'm sure that doesn't help, but...)

k9skippy
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04 April 2008, 05:14 PM
Banrion's Avatar
Banrion Banrion is offline
 
Join Date: 09 January 2007
Location: Andover, MA
Posts: 2,021
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9skippy View Post
My dog has one implanted in his neck, any Vet (with a reader) can read it. Should he get lost, if he were brought to a Vet, they would have my name and contact info.

For a human, I don't know. (I'm sure that doesn't help, but...)

k9skippy
It's not quite that direct though. A vet with a reader can scan the chip and get the chip ID. Then IF the vet subscibes to access the database your pet is registered with, they can get your name and telephone number. I believe currently there a 3 major databases currently in operation. The ultimate point though is that your information is not encoded into the RFID tag, just a serial number.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06 April 2008, 09:05 AM
songs78
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
(My bold.) Can you point that part out in your linked page? I couldn't find it.
Quote:
As a healthcare professional...
How many times have you encountered problems gaining important medical information from patients who have:

* Impaired speech?
* Memory loss?
* Lost consciousness?
Bolding mine. It says on the first page. Hard to get informed consent when the patient has lost consciousness. Although this may mean that you get informed consent before you lose consciousness.

One of the areas listed is for those who have cognitive impairment such as development disorders and Alzheimer's. It can be debated whether these kinds of people can give informed consent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent

Quote:
In common law jurisdictions, adults are presumed competent to consent. This presumption can be rebutted, for instance, in circumstances of mental illness or other incompetence.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06 April 2008, 12:12 PM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,397
Default

Quote:
The ultimate point though is that your information is not encoded into the RFID tag, just a serial number.
For pet tags, that's true. For the proposed RFID passports, it's not. It's still only an ID, but coded in such a way that information such as nationality or gender can be read. Experiments has shown that this can, for example, be used to make car bombs that go off when a person of a certain nationality pass by...

And, of course, once again, anything that can be read can be copied, so if you can scan someone's passport (which you can do just by walking past them), you can make a fake that will work in all circumstances that only use the RFID. I must admit that I can't see any sensible reason for RFID passports.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06 April 2008, 01:13 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 19,354
Soapbox

Quote:
Originally Posted by songs78 View Post
Bolding mine. It says on the first page. Hard to get informed consent when the patient has lost consciousness. Although this may mean that you get informed consent before you lose consciousness.
You missed the whole point. It wouldn't do any good to implant someone after they're unconscious if you're trying to get information about them.

The point is to get yourself implanted before you lose consciousness so that doctors can get your history right away and find out that you're a diabetic or that you're taking a certain medicine or that you have a certain heart condition. It's a technology that will save lives.

For example, it came out in a recent court case that John Ritter might have lived if doctors had known sooner about his condition. He'd probably still be alive and well if he had elected to use this technology. You can't tell the doctor a whole lot when you're unconscious and a new tag implant can't either.

I'd rather I had a unnoticeable tag under my own skin than have to wear one that says I'm allergic to certain medicines, especially as I don't like to wear one in situations in which I'm more likely to become unconscious, such as when I play hockey.

Alzheimer's is another case in point. Recently, author Terry Pratchet was diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer's. In fact, more and more people are being diagnosed with diseases that may later make them incapable of informed consent and that is expected to increase for some time. This kind of technology can improve their quality of life.

The best defense of your civil rights and human rights is to inform yourself, not to wear a tinfoil hat. So getting the facts right before you start to criticize is essential.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07 April 2008, 07:19 AM
songs78
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
You missed the whole point. It wouldn't do any good to implant someone after they're unconscious if you're trying to get information about them.

The point is to get yourself implanted before you lose consciousness so that doctors can get your history right away and find out that you're a diabetic or that you're taking a certain medicine or that you have a certain heart condition. It's a technology that will save lives.

For example, it came out in a recent court case that John Ritter might have lived if doctors had known sooner about his condition. He'd probably still be alive and well if he had elected to use this technology. You can't tell the doctor a whole lot when you're unconscious and a new tag implant can't either.

I'd rather I had a unnoticeable tag under my own skin than have to wear one that says I'm allergic to certain medicines, especially as I don't like to wear one in situations in which I'm more likely to become unconscious, such as when I play hockey.

Alzheimer's is another case in point. Recently, author Terry Pratchet was diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer's. In fact, more and more people are being diagnosed with diseases that may later make them incapable of informed consent and that is expected to increase for some time. This kind of technology can improve their quality of life.

The best defense of your civil rights and human rights is to inform yourself, not to wear a tinfoil hat. So getting the facts right before you start to criticize is essential.

It's not a question of whether you want to have one or not. The point was whether or not this technology would be used without expressed written consent. In emergency situations. You don't give expressed consent. The consent is implied.

RFIDs generally do not hold a lot of information. It is just a method to track patients. The medical information are held on different servers owned by each hospital. Because this is the way RFIDs work. You input the person's ID. Do lab tests and then input that information on the hospitals server. You don't need to be conscious for RFIDs. Since a lot of people don't even know their whole medical history let alone their blood type.

Even if John Ritter had RFID, it wouldn't necessarily have saved his life unless all his medical records were synced. This would mean that there has to be some sort of world wide database or at least a national database of someone's health history.

Also you haven't addressed the point of developmentally disabled people and their lack of ability to give consent.

I'm not rejecting RFIDs and that they are "teh" evil. But there are privacy concerns and to say that RFIDs will be used only on patients who are given expressed written consent is premature.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07 April 2008, 10:30 AM
Elbe's Avatar
Elbe Elbe is offline
 
 
Join Date: 28 July 2002
Location: Monee, IL
Posts: 3,768
Wolf

Quote:
Originally Posted by songs78 View Post
It's not a question of whether you want to have one or not. The point was whether or not this technology would be used without expressed written consent. In emergency situations. You don't give expressed consent. The consent is implied.
I'm pretty sure you have to consent to having an RFID chip implanted in you. If you're unconscious you can't consent to having the chip scanned, but that's kind of the purpose of having the chip in the first place. As for people who can't make personal consent, they usually have someone who can act as a legal guardian who could consent for them.

I think it's a novel replacement for those medical bracelets, but enough people have to want them so the emergency care specialists will get scanners.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07 April 2008, 10:55 AM
kitap's Avatar
kitap kitap is offline
 
Join Date: 20 January 2001
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 8,682
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa View Post
OK, I know someone who believes he's been illegally microchipped. He has pointed me to his website:
http://home.comcast.net/~virtualcast...y/site/?/home/
and dares me to pick apart his logic.

Well, I don't really have the time, but it occurred to me that some snopesters might actually enjoy checking out the site and the logic.

So waddaya think?

I think my former co-worker has probably read this website as he firmly believes that when I got my flu shot I got microchipped. That's why he won't get one.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07 April 2008, 11:13 AM
llewtrah's Avatar
llewtrah llewtrah is offline
 
Join Date: 13 December 2001
Location: Chelmsford, UK
Posts: 16,364
Default

I'm happy to have a microchip (in case I'm in an accident and taken to hospital unconscious or dead or to help police identify my remains etc), but over here I can't have one even if I want one. Because it's so unusual, I'd need a tattoo or bracelet telling A&E staff to check my microchip for medical details.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07 April 2008, 11:38 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 19,354
D'oh!

Quote:
Originally Posted by songs78 View Post
It's not a question of whether you want to have one or not. The point was whether or not this technology would be used without expressed written consent. In emergency situations. You don't give expressed consent. The consent is implied.
As I already told you, implanting someone after an emergency has occurred is almost completely worthless. It's not the proposal of the company you linked or any RFID maker I know of. The point is to have the RFID in before the emergency (or at least the emergency in which the RFID is used) happens.
Quote:
RFIDs generally do not hold a lot of information. It is just a method to track patients. The medical information are held on different servers owned by each hospital. Because this is the way RFIDs work. You input the person's ID. Do lab tests and then input that information on the hospitals server. You don't need to be conscious for RFIDs. Since a lot of people don't even know their whole medical history let alone their blood type.
Again you missed the point and misunderstand the technology. Even the smallest RFIDs can carry a 128 bit key. That, combined with encryption technology, makes it nearly impossible to counterfeit. That means an ID is much better than a name. Furthermore, it's faster and may also carry plenty of information about specific needs. You're just wrong about how much RFIDs can carry, too. (It was the guys over at Hitachi who had to complain to get chips that would carry less, rather than more. Today's chips have plenty of space.)
Quote:
Even if John Ritter had RFID, it wouldn't necessarily have saved his life unless all his medical records were synced. This would mean that there has to be some sort of world wide database or at least a national database of someone's health history.
It's an amazing technology. It's called the "Internet". And with 128 bit keys, it would be plenty secure. With an ID, it's not.
Quote:
Also you haven't addressed the point of developmentally disabled people and their lack of ability to give consent.

I'm not rejecting RFIDs and that they are "teh" evil. But there are privacy concerns and to say that RFIDs will be used only on patients who are given expressed written consent is premature.
That's a far cry from what you accused when you claimed that the linked page was planning to do so, a completely unfounded accusation and a straw man, nothing to do with the legitimate concerns of privacy.

Last edited by ganzfeld; 07 April 2008 at 11:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.