Mr X
2006-07-17 17:38:02 UTC
In article <***@individual.net>, chippy <***@wood.co.uk>
writes
RFID tags are passive devices.
LOL, so tell us how it can be "tracked by satellite", then
Local detectors which are linked to satellite, it is quite easy, but
hellish expensive for the number required.
Please Mr RFID/GPS satellite technology expert tell us how an RFID
device planted under the skin can be "tracked by satellite"?
It's pure unadulterated bullshit, but what would you expect from some
ignorant plod at ACPO?
'Let's track paedos with chip implants' - top cop fails tech test
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/16/acpo_jones_paedo_implant/
Shall we just believe in witchcraft while we're about it?
By John Lettice
Published Sunday 16th July 2006 12:44 GMT
Britain's most senior policeman has, according to a Sunday Times report,
suggested that surgically implanted chips could be used in order to
track the movements of paedophiles and dangerous sex offenders. "If we
are prepared to track cars, why don't we track people? You could put
surgical chips into those of the most dangerous sex offenders who are
are willing to be controlled," said Ken Jones, president of the
Association of Chief Police Officers.
Well Ken, where shall we begin? Should we explain that the chip you're
talking about would have around about the same capabilities as the RFID
chip that's going into ICAO standard passports? That this is the kind of
technology you're probably going to insist can only be read in close
proximity to a reading device? That if you tried really hard (and we're
sure people will), you could read it at maybe 10, maybe 30 metres? That
satellites are actually quite far away? Or that what GPS does is it tell
a reading device on the ground where it is, which would only help
paedophiles if they were lost - if it's going to help you then you need
to insert another bit of technology (A mobile phone maybe? Where would
you stick that?) that would pass the location over to you.
To grasp the full horror of the situation, one should be aware that top
UK cops have a whole IT unit, the Police Information Technology
Organisation (PITO) available to them, and in that sense really ought to
be a tad better informed than some technology-challenged couch potato
who's been conned into chipping themselves as a protection against
kidnappers. And given that - in the face of all the evidence - the Home
Office remains mustard-keen on making the UK penal system totally tag-
tastic, one really would expect a top cop to have some passing
familiarity with the capabilities (and, ahem, size) of current tagging
technology.
Jones suggests a "pilot scheme for the people who represent the highest
risk and who would voluntarily want to go into this. Youd be surprised
how many would be willing to submit to that kind of control," while the
Times report suggests the chips "could also monitor the heart rate and
blood pressure of the offender, alerting authorities to the possible
imminence of an attack." We can't tell whether it was Jones or some
unnamed loon who came up with this corker, but even if we didn't already
know how catastrophic the monitoring of existing tagging systems is,
it's clearly a non-starter. What evidence do we have that paedophiles
undergo a werewolf-like transition immediately before striking? And if
they do, to what extent do the vital signs differ from those produced
by, say, running for a bus? Clearly, it's nuts.
The Times does however have some support from (aha...) a boffin from
Reading University. Dr William Harwin of the cybernetics department
tells us tags like this are already available, and that: "Similar
tracking chips are already extensively used on pets and livestock." A
swift scan of Harwin's work suggests that his area of expertise is
robotics, haptic interfaces and remote fondling, so he's probably not as
culpable as his colleague Captain Cyborg, who's been misleading a
willing press about people chipping for years.
And another thing... Ken Jones' statement that "If we are prepared to
track cars, why don't we track people?" shouldn't be allowed to pass
unnoticed. It is actually Jones and ACPO who are prepared to track cars
- those of you who might think you're part of "we" but have no
recollection of being asked about the matter are slap-bang on the money.
ACPO has been happily constructing and publicising a 24x7 vehicle
movement database intended to cope with 50 million records a day by the
end of this year. As it is doing this by simply adding more ANPR cameras
and joining them and existing surveillance systems up to a network and
database, it hasn't needed to ask either "we" or our elected
representatives. But more on this shortly. ®
writes
Ken Jones, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers
(Acpo), said the implants would be tracked by satellite
And how is this device to be powered?(Acpo), said the implants would be tracked by satellite
hellish expensive for the number required.
device planted under the skin can be "tracked by satellite"?
It's pure unadulterated bullshit, but what would you expect from some
ignorant plod at ACPO?
'Let's track paedos with chip implants' - top cop fails tech test
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/16/acpo_jones_paedo_implant/
Shall we just believe in witchcraft while we're about it?
By John Lettice
Published Sunday 16th July 2006 12:44 GMT
Britain's most senior policeman has, according to a Sunday Times report,
suggested that surgically implanted chips could be used in order to
track the movements of paedophiles and dangerous sex offenders. "If we
are prepared to track cars, why don't we track people? You could put
surgical chips into those of the most dangerous sex offenders who are
are willing to be controlled," said Ken Jones, president of the
Association of Chief Police Officers.
Well Ken, where shall we begin? Should we explain that the chip you're
talking about would have around about the same capabilities as the RFID
chip that's going into ICAO standard passports? That this is the kind of
technology you're probably going to insist can only be read in close
proximity to a reading device? That if you tried really hard (and we're
sure people will), you could read it at maybe 10, maybe 30 metres? That
satellites are actually quite far away? Or that what GPS does is it tell
a reading device on the ground where it is, which would only help
paedophiles if they were lost - if it's going to help you then you need
to insert another bit of technology (A mobile phone maybe? Where would
you stick that?) that would pass the location over to you.
To grasp the full horror of the situation, one should be aware that top
UK cops have a whole IT unit, the Police Information Technology
Organisation (PITO) available to them, and in that sense really ought to
be a tad better informed than some technology-challenged couch potato
who's been conned into chipping themselves as a protection against
kidnappers. And given that - in the face of all the evidence - the Home
Office remains mustard-keen on making the UK penal system totally tag-
tastic, one really would expect a top cop to have some passing
familiarity with the capabilities (and, ahem, size) of current tagging
technology.
Jones suggests a "pilot scheme for the people who represent the highest
risk and who would voluntarily want to go into this. Youd be surprised
how many would be willing to submit to that kind of control," while the
Times report suggests the chips "could also monitor the heart rate and
blood pressure of the offender, alerting authorities to the possible
imminence of an attack." We can't tell whether it was Jones or some
unnamed loon who came up with this corker, but even if we didn't already
know how catastrophic the monitoring of existing tagging systems is,
it's clearly a non-starter. What evidence do we have that paedophiles
undergo a werewolf-like transition immediately before striking? And if
they do, to what extent do the vital signs differ from those produced
by, say, running for a bus? Clearly, it's nuts.
The Times does however have some support from (aha...) a boffin from
Reading University. Dr William Harwin of the cybernetics department
tells us tags like this are already available, and that: "Similar
tracking chips are already extensively used on pets and livestock." A
swift scan of Harwin's work suggests that his area of expertise is
robotics, haptic interfaces and remote fondling, so he's probably not as
culpable as his colleague Captain Cyborg, who's been misleading a
willing press about people chipping for years.
And another thing... Ken Jones' statement that "If we are prepared to
track cars, why don't we track people?" shouldn't be allowed to pass
unnoticed. It is actually Jones and ACPO who are prepared to track cars
- those of you who might think you're part of "we" but have no
recollection of being asked about the matter are slap-bang on the money.
ACPO has been happily constructing and publicising a 24x7 vehicle
movement database intended to cope with 50 million records a day by the
end of this year. As it is doing this by simply adding more ANPR cameras
and joining them and existing surveillance systems up to a network and
database, it hasn't needed to ask either "we" or our elected
representatives. But more on this shortly. ®
--
Mr X
Mr X