The Independent has a terrifying story, if there is no public outcry over which, I have no hope for the short-term survival of liberty in Britain. Perhaps it is just our turn to live under totalitarianism, and our children's and grandchildren's too (assuming liberati and other anti-social types are permitted to breed in the well-ordered society) ...

Britain is to become the first country in the world where the movements of all vehicles on the roads are recorded. A new national surveillance system will hold the records for at least two years.

Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years.

Read the whole thing here. Then answer me this question: by what right is this power assumed? It is no doubt being done in the name of 'public safety', in which case where's the democratic mandate, and when was parliament asked?

Cross-posted to Samizdata

This from Your Guide to Oyster Daily Price Capping {pdf}

Once you have reached a cap, you must continue to touch your Oyster card on the card reader on every trip. If you do not do so, you may be liable to pay a Penalty Fare or you may be prosecuted.

In other words: "Even if your travel is fully paid for, we still want to know where you are."

Is it just me, or is the Oyster logo half a pair of handcuffs?

Compare this:

By 2050 earlier, probably -- all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron -- they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.

Syme {no relation} in 1984

with this:

People's names are already on a large number of databases. Most of us have dozens of cards in our wallets with our identities on. We already have a Big Brother society. ID cards mean identity fraud can be dealt with and stopped. ID cards are a means of controlling the Big Brother society rather than creating it. Big Brother society is already here.

Charles Clarke, quoted in the Eastern Daily Press today.

Controlling the Big Brother society might sound like preventing it, restraining it. But your expectations deceive you. Forget literary allusion. "Big Brother society" means whatever the establishment defines it to mean.

Now consider only the words, how they literally fit together. Big Brother society = our society. ID cards are a means of controlling society.

Wired reports that a California bill is moving swiftly through the state legislature that would make it illegal for state agencies and other bodies to use the technology in state identification documents.

The bill, which California lawmakers believe is the first of its kind in the nation, would prohibit the use of radio-frequency identification, or RFID, chips in state identity documents such as student badges, driver's licenses, medical cards and state employee cards. The bill allows for some exceptions.

The bill allows for a number of exceptions for the use of RFID, such as devices used for paying bridge and road tolls, ID badges used for inmates housed in prisons or mental health facilities, or ID bracelets and badges used for children under the age of four who are in the care of a government-operated medical facility.

The bill allows agencies to obtain additional exceptions to the ban if they can prove to the legislature that there is a compelling state interest to use it in certain situations and can prove that other, less invasive technologies would be unsuitable. The bill allows state agencies that already have RFID devices in place - such as the Senate and Assembly office buildings - to phase them out by 2011.

It would also outlaw skimming - which occurs when an unauthorized person with an electronic reading device surreptitiously reads the electronic information on an RFID chip without the knowledge of the person carrying or wearing the chip.

Wired reports how in an attempt to establish equity in the world of surveillance, participants at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference in Seattle this week took to the streets to ferret out surveillance cameras and turn the tables on offensive eyes taking their picture.

The opposite of surveillance -- French for watching from above -- sousveillance refers to watching from below, essentially from beneath the eye in the sky. It's the equivalent of keeping an eye on the eye. With that in mind, Mann conducted his tour with conference participants to see how those conducting surveillance would respond to being monitored.

In the stores, as conference attendees snapped pictures of three smoked domes in the ceiling of a Mont Blanc pen shop, an employee inside waved his arms overhead. The intruders interpreted his gesture as happy excitement at being photographed until a summoned security guard halted the photography.

Mann asked the guard why, if the Mont Blanc cameras were recording him, he couldn't, in turn, record the cameras. But the philosophical question, asked again at Nordstrom and the Gap, was beyond the comprehension of store managers who were more concerned with the practical issues of prohibiting store photography.

Mann quoted Simon Davies of Privacy International, a London-based nonprofit that monitors civil liberties issues:

The totalitarian regime is the regime that would like to know everything about everyone but reveal nothing about itself.

He considered such a government an "inequiveillant regime" and likened it to signing a contract with another party without being allowed to keep a copy of the contract.

What I argue is that if I'm going to be held accountable for my actions that I should be allowed to record ... my actions. Especially if somebody else is keeping a record of my actions.

The Daily Texan reports that State Rep. Larry Phillips, R-Sherman, isn't happy that one-quarter to one-third of all Texans drive without automotive insurance, according to his research. He aims to change that with his proposed House Bill 2893, which includes a subsection that some find disturbing: the addition of an electronic tracking and identification system onto each vehicle.

The RFID tag would transmit a unique frequency that would show the vehicle's make, model, identification number, the title as registered with the Department of Transportation and whether or not the driver has insurance coverage. The proposed law also makes clear that the state will create a database of insurance provider and coverage information, keeping track of who has what insurance policy and whether it is paid or not. Scott Henson, a Texas American Civil Liberties Union police accountability and homeland security specialist warns:

The language opens up the whole tracking system for any conceivable law enforcement use," Henson said. "Once that happens, Texans' cars might one day appear as electronic dots on law enforcement's computer mapping screens.

The transponder lets the government track you wherever you go, whether to visit your grandmother, secretly visit a gay bar or drive to a medical supplies office, whatever.

Philip Doty, associate director of the Telecommunications and Information Policy Institute at UT-Austin goes to the heart of the matter:

In post-Patriot Act America, people have lost awareness of the little changes that lead to a chain of effects that restrict us politically and individually.

Simson Garfinkel of MIT Enterprise Technology explains:

RFID technology is already broadly deployed within the United States. Between the “proximity cards” that are used to unlock many office doors and the automobile “immobilizer chips” that are built into many modern car keys, roughly 40 million Americans carry some form of RFID device in their pocket every day. I have two: last year MIT started putting RFID proximity chips into the school’s identity cards, and there is a Phillips immobilizer chip inside the black case of my Honda Pilot car keys.

He comes to an interesting conclusion:

The problem of voluntary, industry-approved privacy standards is that they’re voluntary—companies don’t need to comply with them. And the very real danger facing the RFID industry is that a suspicious public will push for regulation of this technology. Although the industry has successfully killed legislation proposed earlier this year in California and Massachusetts, high-handed actions on the part of RFID-advocates will likely empower consumer activists and their legislative allies to pass some truly stifling legislation.

Indeed.

Something tells me that HMG does not expect their proposed fox-hunting ban to be awfully popular with the country folk:

Police are planning to use spy cameras in the countryside to enforce a ban on fox hunting.

Chief constables intend to site CCTV cameras on hedgerows, fences and trees along known hunting routes to enable them to photograph hunt members who break the law after hunting with hounds is outlawed.

They used to warn that 'walls have ears'. Now walls will have eyes as well. I suppose the panopticon countryside is nothing more than a logical extension of our panoptican cities. It is merely a matter of time before every workplace and every home is wired up to the Big Eye of Big Brother. Then the nightmare really begins.

There exist all manner of varying justifications for this surveillance-fever but there is only one reason that our political masters are deploying it with such alacrity: because they can.

The same technology that enables us to chatter with each other across national boundaries is being used to create a tightly-wrapped police state.

What a very, very grim future we face.

Cross-posted from Samizdata.net

Mayor of the City of Chicago has outlined elaborate camera network. The plan is to monitor the city a vast security network from a hi-tech command center. Thousands of surveillance cameras will be linked - and authorities will be alerted to crimes and terrorist acts.

Some people are concerned about "Big Brother" invading their privacy but Mayor Daley says the cameras will be located in public areas. The city's plan is to route the live images provided by those cameras on the public way into a unified network piped into the 911 Center. There are well over 2,000 cameras that the city and its sister agencies - like the school system - monitor everyday. The city is adding another 250 cameras to potential high risk areas, most of them downtown.

That includes every city department. That includes the Chicago public schools, the CTA, city colleges. That includes the park district, any other sister agencies that have cameras out there.

Remind me exactly, how that is not Big Brother...

The Mayor retors:

You could photograph me walking down the street. They do it every day. I don't object. You do it every day. You have that right. Why do you have that right?

Hm, I never thought that someone in his position would equate the rights of the individual (to take pictures in public places) to the 'rights' of the state (to monitor its citizens in public).

New Scientist has an article looking at the US$312 million surveillance system installed for the 2004 Olympics in Athens. The eyes and ears consist of 1,000 high-res and infrared videocameras peppering the city. Cell and landline telephone calls are being recorded, converted into text, and "scanned for phrases that could be linked to terrorist activity." The software's developers say it speaks Greek, English, Arabic, Farsi, and other major languages.

John Pike [a defence analyst] believes other undisclosed measures are undoubtedly in place, such as face recognition from video footage. He says such surveillance technology has already proven its worth in intelligence gathering. "They're basically the sort of stuff the National Security Agency has been using for some time," he told New Scientist. "And they seem to place great faith in it."

via Boing Boing

This is one scary, scary animation... It may seem exagerating and a bit on the cheesy (or sprout submarine combo) side but it is certainly my impression that things are moving in that direction.

via Dan Gillmore

Silicon.com reports on Japanese authorities decision that tracking is best way to protect kids.

The rights and wrongs of RFID-chipping human beings have been debated since the tracking tags reached the technological mainstream. Now, school authorities in the Japanese city of Osaka have decided the benefits outweigh the disadvantages and will now be chipping children in one primary school.

The tags will be read by readers installed in school gates and other key locations to track the kids' movements.

Apparently, Denmark's Legoland introduced a similar scheme last month to stop young children going astray.

Josh McHugh in Wired has a feature on RFID chips in supermarkets. He describes his visit to the Future Store built by European retailer Metro to be the premier live testing ground for RFID tags.

Thanks to the coordinated efforts of the world's biggest retailers and manufacturers, not to mention the persistence of former lipstick marketer Kevin Ashton, these little tags are about to infiltrate the world of commerce. Depending who you ask, RFID tags constitute:

1. the best thing to happen to manufacturing since the cog.
2. the biggest threat to personal privacy since the crowbar.
3. the near-exact fulfillment of the Book of Revelation's description of the mark of the beast.

There's a compelling argument for each of these perspectives - including number three.

He explains why manufacturers and retailers alike are so eager to implement RFID technology. It is mostly about the supply chain margins.

Retailers are even keener to get their hands on the sort of information RFID tags promise to reveal. The way it works now, all the little kinks along the supply chain accumulate in the lap of retailers, which take delivery of products without knowing whether the shipments are correct until they're unpacked. The average rate for shipping screwups is 1 in 20. That's a big part of why margins in the retailing business are so thin - average net profit for supermarkets is 1 percent - and precisely the reason that Wal-Mart, Target, and Metro have given their top suppliers six to nine months to start slapping RFID tags onto crates and delivery pallets. Manufacturers want this technology, but retailers need it.

RFID will be good for the customer too. Shopping will be much easier and the information gathered about their shopping behaviour will result in a closer match between demand and supply.

There is more, especially on the argument opposing RFID that we have written about here already. It is worth reading the whole thing.

Yesterday Michael Jennings introduced me to Skype, a sort of instant messaging program that is very good at voice communications. This is part of an ongoing trend which is seeing computer networks challenge the traditional telephone networks for business.

Because rather then pay a large sum of money to make an international phone call, I'm now able to speak with Michael in London from my Australian home, for free, and with a better sound quality then I was able to do before.

So as you can imagine, it is a time of fast change in the telephone business. This has implications wider then the share prices of telephone companies.

To encourage take up of VoIP, legislation has been introduced in the US Senate, by Senator John Sununu. The VoIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004 is designed to exempt this technology from most state and federal regulations.

Needless to say there's been plenty of opposition to this. Much of the opposition comes from self-interested telephone companies, but the US Dept of Justice is not happy either.

The VoIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004, sponsored by Senator John Sununu, would exempt VoIP service from a wire-tapping regulation called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA, commonly used to listen in on traditional telephone calls, said Laura Parsky, deputy assistant attorney general for the DOJ's criminal division.

"I am here to underscore how very important it is that this type of telephone service not become a haven for criminals, terrorists and spies," Parsky told the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Wednesday. "If any particular technology is singled out for special exemption from these requirements, that technology will quickly attract criminals and create a hole in law enforcement's ability to protect the public and national security."

You can read Laura Parsky's complete testimony here

What this statement is all about is that the Dept of Justice has got quite accustomed to using the wiretap to track down undesirables and is most unhappy that this legislation might prevent them from doing so in the future.

This is part of a wider trend that I suspect we will see more of, with people taking the opportunity to try out new ways of communicating with each other, and regulatory agencies scrambling to keep up. In the United States, there are US Senators who seem, like Senator Sununu, who consider privacy issues and freedom from regulation important. I fear that when the EU catches up, as it surely will, that those issues will be the least of the concerns of the people who draft the regulations.

RFID news reports that the UK-based vehicle licence plate manufacturer, Hills Numberplates Ltd, has chosen long-range RFID tags and readers from Identec Solutions to be embedded in licence plates that will automatically and reliably identify vehicles in the UK.

The new e-Plates project uses active (battery powered) RFID tags embedded in the plates to identify vehicles in real time. The result is the ability to reliably identify any vehicle, anywhere, whether stationary or mobile, and - most importantly - in all weather conditions. (Previous visually-based licence plate identification techniques have been hampered by factors such as heavy rain, mist, fog, and even mud or dirt on the plates.)

The e-Plates project has been under development for the past three years at a cost of more than £1 million, and is currently under consideration by a number of administrations. It is hoped that e-Plate will be one of the systems trialled by the UK Government in its forthcoming study of micro-chipped licence plates.

Brought to my attention by Stephen Hodgson of Unpersons.net. Thanks.

It is a long time since I have contributed anything to White Rose. And it is a long time since this article by journalist and novelist Alexandra Campbell appeared, in the Telegraph, on May 14th. Apologies on both counts, but better occasional contributions and late reports of White Rose relevant material than never, I hope you agree.

This article did not just appear in the Telegraph. It was also reproduced in full, in the "last word" slot, towards the end of the "all you need to know about everything that matters" magazine (i.e. lots of good bits from all the different British newspapers) The Week, of May 29th, Issue 462. That was where and (approximately) when I first read the piece.

Ms. Campbell, on the basis of vague CCTV "evidence", was falsely accused of a crime, and it took a scarily long time for the system to stop persecuting her.

Concluding paragraphs:

"In theory," said Mark, "it's innocent until proved guilty. In practice, whoever makes the allegation first is believed."

Now that we are all picked up on CCTVs up to 300 times a day, and can also easily be identified electronically through swipe cards (health clubs, the office, season tickets, etc), there is a real risk of someone linking you to a passing resemblance on a fuzzy CCTV image and making an allegation against you.

It had taken about eight months to get to this point of the inquiry and I was terrified of enduring months' more worry before I was cleared, but the police followed up my brother's statement quickly and dropped the charges. However, they told me that current policy is to leave fingerprints, pictures and allegations permanently on file.

Checking subsequently with the police press office, I find that "fingerprints may not be held for more than 42 days", but I find it scary that nobody really seems to know. I suspect our civil rights are being chipped away all the time in the name of crime and terrorism prevention.

The whole thing, I discovered, was based on a breach of the Data Protection Act. Companies using CCTV are supposed to show images only to authorised people, such as the police. The supermarket involved should never have allowed the receptionist and the credit card victim to see footage on demand. The receptionist, himself in charge of CCTV, should have known this. He wasn't even following his own company's code of practice, which asks staff who are suspicious of members to take the matter to a manager first. But he has done nothing illegal.

And neither have I. But while I struggle to have my records deleted from police files, he has drifted on and cannot, so far, be contacted. Nobody knows if he made the allegation out of boredom, spite, or genuine, if misplaced, civic-mindedness. It's Kafkaesque, said friends. It's a joke, said others. But it wasn't fiction and it wasn't funny. I was actually very lucky.

I might not have been able to prove where I was. If I'd been a lawyer, police officer, accountant or worked in financial services, my career and livelihood would also have been on the line, and if I'd been a celebrity, the story would have been splashed all over the papers before it was disproved. If the allegation had been connected to terrorism, I would have been jailed immediately.

I used to think that if you didn't break the law, you had nothing to fear from it. Now I know that if this can happen to me, it can happen to anyone.

Most Americans do not care about exposing themselves to massive data surveillance but they should, says George Washington University law professor and New Republic legal affairs editor Jeffrey Rosen in his new book, "The Naked Crowd." Rosen discussed technology and the uneasy balance between security and privacy on April 20 at 2 p.m. on washingtonpost.com.

Jeffrey Rosen: The book is a response to a challenge by my friend and teacher Lawrence Lessig, who writes about cyberspace. We were on a panel about liberty and security after 9/11, and I denounced the British surveillance cameras, which I had just written about for the New York Times magazine, as a feel good technology that violated privacy without increasing security. Lessig politely but firmly called me a Luddite. These technologies will proliferate whether you like it or not, he said, and you should learn enough about them to be able to describe how they can be designed in ways that protect privacy rather than threatening it. I took Lessig's challenge seriously, and spent a year learning about the technologies and describing the legal and architectural choices they pose. The rest of the book followed naturally, and it's an attempt to think through the behavior of the relevant actors who will decide whether good or bad technologies are adopted -- that is, the public, the executive, the courts, and the Congress.

… and will soon be invisible. Anyone who bases their arguments about the dangers of camera surveillance on the primitiveness of current technology is, unlike the latest cameras, being very short sighted. Take a look, for example, at this:

It sounds like the speeder's nightmare. A speed camera accurate up to 150mph which can be concealed in road studs as small as a cat's eye indicator, and which can also - as you're passing - cast a glance at your tyres to see if they're a bit bald.

And at you, to see who you are and where you are, and what you're up to. If not yet, then very soon.

Wake up: this camera exists, and it's being trialled.

I'm awake already.

But the anti-camera lobby can rest easy for a while. The Department for Transport says that there is no way that these cameras, designed and made by a British company called Astucia, will ever be used for "enforcement" to level fines and penalty points. However, they will start being tested around the country later this year, as part of the wider efforts to encourage motorists to respect speed limits.

So, they will not (yet) do "enforcement", not "for a while". But they can already do "encourage". Sounds like enforcement will be with us very soon.

The Australian government has long desired to force ISP's and Internet content Hosts to take responsibility for the activities of their clients. An attempt to do this in 1999 was defeated, but the authorites are back for more.

The draft bill states that ISPs are required to determine whether their services are used for "illegal conduct or speech."

Paragraph 152 of the Explanatory Notes to the draft bill says that "Possible action that could be taken by ISPs and Internet Content Hosts (ICHs) so as not to facilitate use of a carriage service by another person that breaches proposed subsection 474.16(1) includes an ISP ceasing to provide Internet services to that person or an ICH ceasing to host a particular Website containing content that breaches the proposed offence."

Obviously, the implication is clear- should this measure get up, ISP's will be legally required to be much more aggressive in their surveillance of their customers; a gross breach of their privacy.

(Via Whirlpool.net.au)

Via b3ta.com, I came across a nice piece of White Rose Relevant graphics, here.

Since I don't know what the policy is here about pictures, and in any case do not have picture posting privileges, but since b3ta.com is such a Niagara of pictorial diversions, here today and gone tomorrow, I nailed down the relevant image here, amidst appropriately educational commentary.

"Money grabbing gits!" is what b3ta said. Would that our money was the only thing in danger here.

The news just goes from bad to worse on the RFID front. Trevor Mendham quoted Tesco CEO Sir Terry Leahy as saying that RFID tracks products, not people, but American tech company Applied Digital Solutions, through it's subsidiary Verichip Corporation, has already broken through that barrier.

They have developed a RFID product that is implanted in the victim.

The VeriChip minaturized Radio Freqency Identifcation (RFID) Device is the core of all VeriChip applications. About the size of a grain of rice, each VeriChip contains a unique verification number, which can be used to access a subscriber-supplied database providing personal related information. And unlike conventional forms of identification, VeriChip cannot be lost, stolen, misplaced or counterfeited.

Once implanted just under the skin, via a quick, painless outpatient procedure (much like getting a shot), the VeriChip can be scanned when necessary with a proprietary VeriChip scanner. A small amount of Radio Freqency Energy passes from the scanner energizing the dormant VeriChip, which then emits a radio frequency signal transmitting the individuals unique verification (VeriChipID) number. The VeriChip Subscriber Number then provides instant access to the Global VeriChip Subscriber (GVS) Registry - through secure, password protected web access to subscriber-supplied information. This data is maintained by state-of-the-art GVS Registry Operations Centers located in Riverside, California and Owings, Maryland.

It's a password protected website- anyone with knowlege of the internet knows that password protected websites are not that secure; anyone that says that they can guarantee the security of such a webserver is whistling in the wind.

It's rather like that dreadful George Lucas film, The Phantom Menace, where the slaves are fitted with a tracking device. Verichip Corp. doesn't have slaves in their sights as a target market- they have a wider target market in mind.

VeriChip products are being actively developed for a variety of security, defense, homeland security and secure-access applications, such as authorized access control to government and private sector facilities, research laboratories, and sensitive transportation resources, including the area of airport security.

In these markets, VeriChip is able to function as standalone
personal verification technology or it is able to operate in conjunction with other security devices such as ID badges and advanced biometrics.

In the financial arena, VeriChip has enormous potential as a personal verification technology that could help curb identity theft and prevent fraudulent access to banking and credit card accounts.

In other words, they are after a world where everyone is fitted with these devices. Does Big Blunkett own shares in this company? At the moment, they are working with gun manufacturers. Who will be next?

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is examining the use of RFID-tagged airline boarding passes that could allow passenger tracking within airports, a proposal some privacy advocates called a potentially "outrageous" violation of civil liberties.

Anthony "Buzz" Cerino, communications security technology lead at the TSA, said the agency believes the use of boarding passes with radio frequency identification (RFID) chips could speed up the movement of passengers who sign on to the agency's "registered traveler" program. This would permit them to pass through a secure "special lane" during the boarding process.

Under the registered traveler program, frequent fliers would provide the TSA with detailed personal information that would be correlated by a background check. Privacy advocates said they believe the RFID boarding pass would then serve as an automatic link to the registered traveler database. Details about how the system might work haven't been released by the TSA, and Cerino couldn't be reached today for further comment.

Cerino didn't say when or if the TSA would push for introduction of the RFID boarding passes or how such a project - likely to require a massive, networked infrastructure - would be funded.

The TSA has already started to work on deploying RFID boarding passes in Africa under the Federal Aviation Administration's Safe Skies for Africa Initiative - the initiative identifies Angola, Cameroon, Cape Verde, the Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mali, Namibia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe as member countries.

Katherine Albrecht, founder and director of Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering (CASPIAN), a privacy group that has fought the use of RFID tags by retailers and other organizations, called the idea a potentially "shocking and outrageous" violation of civil liberties.

London Underground is set to roll out high-tech CCTV surveillance software that will automatically alert operators to suspicious behaviour, unattended packages and potential suicide attempts on the capital's Tube system. The move comes as London remains on a high state of alert against a possible terrorist attack following the bombs in Madrid earlier this month.

LU has been trialling the technology at Liverpool Street station during the past two months and is now evaluating the results with a network-wide rollout tipped to follow across the Tube's 6,000 CCTV cameras, which cover 95 per cent of stations.

The Intelligent Pedestrian Surveillance system from Ipsotek compares CCTV footage against pictures of the empty station and alerts operators to strange behaviour such as people loitering or bags that have been left on the platform.

Sergio Velastin, director of research and founder of Ipsotek, said that it cuts down on operator time and costs related to blanket monitoring of all CCTV screens by alerting staff only when there is a potential problem. Privacy groups are concerned about the increasing coverage of monitoring technology such as CCTV. Velastin dismissed privacy concerns over IPS and said the software monitors only behavioural patterns and not the individual.

We have tried very consciously to stay away from facial recognition issues. None of our system is capable of recognising an individual – just behaviour. Then the police can come in and say 'we need to find out who that person is'. It is a balance between being free to do what we wish and being protected.

Computerworld has an opinion article by Jay Cline about the privacy scare surrounding RFID technology who explains that the RFID hype has outpaced reality. Manufacturers and retailers have yet to agree on a universal electronic product code. RFID scanning is also far from error-free. But more important, RFID signals are so weak that they're easily blocked by metals and dense liquids. It's infeasible today for someone driving a vehicle down your street to intercept signals from RFID-tagged goods inside your home.

He also argues that the economics of RFID chips also limit how they're used. Until the price of RFID chips comes down to about a penny apiece, they'll mostly be used at the case and pallet level, clear of any personally identifiable activity. So we have several years to identify the privacy controls we want to see in RFID systems. Some companies are already creating these privacy controls. Chip makers and users are discussing how the principles of data privacy could be built into the RFID process. A top priority is notifying customers that certain items are tagged with these transmitters - which could be done by placing a common RFID logo on product packages. To give customers the ability to turn off the transmitters, some companies plan to make them peel-offs. RSA Security Inc. is also developing a chip that could be worn on watches or bags to block nearby RFIDs from transmitting certain information. So the RFID privacy ball is rolling.

Glad to hear that. Nevertheless, I will still be watching the RFID development with interest...

Information Week reports that the State Department plans to begin issuing passports with chips containing biographic information later in the year. Maura Harty, testified at a Congressional hearing Thursday that the United States needs to take the lead in issuing the new passports to encourage other nations to do likewise. Doing so, she says, will help secure our borders against terrorists and other potential troublemakers. Harty told member of the House Government Reform Committee's hearings on the government's US-Visit program, which requires many foreigners entering and leaving the United States to have their fingerprints and face electronically scanned.

We recognize that convincing other nations to improve their passport requires U.S. leadership both at the International Civil Aviation Organization and by taking such steps with the U.S. passport. Embedding biometrics into U.S. passports to establish a clear link between the person issued the passport and the user is an important step forward in the international effort to strengthen border security.

Of course, biometrics is foolproof and fingerprinting your citizens is going to improve border security how exactly?! Another example of a fallacy typical of the statists that if only we had total surveillance, then no crime, threat or terrorism would be possible. Balls, balls, balls.

Sorry for the outburst, it is just one stupid statement by a state official too many... Sadly, I am sure there are many more to come.

Wired reports that privacy groups, business travelers and members of Congress asked the federal government this week to reconsider its plans to implement a passenger-profiling system because agencies have not adequately addressed privacy concerns or shown effectiveness in detecting potential terrorists.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California), joined by 25 other Democrats, sent President Bush a letter Wednesday asking his administration to protect passenger privacy. The group also proposed that airlines should tell passengers exactly what information they pass along as travelers make reservations.

Before the Computer-Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening Program (CAPPS II) is implemented, we urge the adoption of a specific policy that makes clear the role of airlines in sharing consumer information with the federal government.

Members of Congress and the public have no real assurances that the system will not rely upon medical, religious, political or racial data.

CAPPS II will require passengers to give more personal information when buying airline tickets, information that will then be checked against mammoth commercial databases, watch lists and warrants to screen for suspected terrorists and people wanted for violent crimes.

An ideologically diverse group of public-interest groups - including Common Cause, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation -joined the letter-writing campaign, asking Congress for hearings.

I rather think this may be the first posting about animal rights and their potential violation here on White Rose. (For some dumb reason I can't make that link work, so go via the link below, where for some equally dumb reason the exact same link does seem to work.)

Anyway, this just in, via Dave Barry:

AKRON, Ohio – More stray cats could find their way home under a proposed plan to implant microchips that would electronically identify the cats' owners. Democrat Renee Greene introduced legislation Monday to implant microchips beneath the fur of 1,000 cats, giving the animals a permanent identification tag. A runaway cat's owner would be identified by scanning the chip, which would be about the size of a grain of rice, then checking the scan against a voluntary registry maintained by the city. Buying and installing the microchips would cost the city nearly $10,000. The City Council still must approve the legislation.

The legislation is an amendment to a cat law passed about 18 months ago that added cats to the city's laws governing dogs and gave the city's animal wardens the right to capture free-roaming cats, which can be killed if they aren't claimed. The Summit County Animal Shelter, where stray cats are taken, already has the scanners that would be used on the microchips.

First they came for the cats …

Do you also get the feeling that humans will be next?

Paul Smith is a man with a profound interest in driving and road safety. As a driver myself I, too, have a vested interest in these matters. Whenever I depart from point A I much prefer it to be overwhelmingly probable that I will reach point B with all my favourite limbs and organs in situ and functioning as nature intended.

The British government and its various agencies claim that they share this interest as well. Moreover, they assure us that the solution to the problem lies with forcing everyone to drive more slowly and punish those drivers who fail to comply. Hence the virus-like proliferation of the 'GATSO' or 'Speed Camera' which (just by complete coincidence I am sure) has also raised tens of millions of pounds for the public coffers from already over-taxed motorists who infringe blanket and arbitrary speed limits.

In response to the wave of discontent this has caused, the government, the police and the various lobbyists that support them, have doggedly stood their ground and explained that, yes, it is all very regrettable but the point of the GATSO's is most assuredly not to raise revenue (no, perish the thought!) but merely to save lives. In other words, they are relying on the canard that freedom must be sacrificed in order to achieve safety.

Well, they are wrong and Paul Smith has made it his business to prove, publicly and beyond argument, that they are wrong. His website, Safe Speed, cuts a swathe through the cant and the piety:

We have never seen any credible figures that put road accidents caused by exceeding a speed limit at even 5% of road accidents. We object to speed cameras mainly because they fail to address the causes of at least 95% of road accidents. The Government claims of 1/3rd of accidents being caused by excessive speed are no more than lies according to the Government's own figures.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!

Mr Smith has amassed a treasure trove of documentary, audio and video evidence that entirely discredits the myth that Tax Speed Cameras are anything whatsoever to do with either road safety or saving lives. In fact, so confident is Mr Smith in his own research that he throws down this gauntlet:

So here's the challenge. We promise to publish here (in this box, on the first page of the web site) web links to any serious credible research that implies a strong link between excessive speeds and accidents on UK roads.

So if you are one of those people who thinks that the GATSO is a life-saver, you know exactly what to do.

In the meantime, more power to Paul Smith and his campaign for common sense and reason. When we eventually win this battle, the victory will be due in no small part to the dedication and integrity of people like him.

Cross-posted from Samizdata.net.

Silicon.com reports that the controversial radio frequency ID (RFID) tracking tags will become ubiquitous in consumer goods but privacy issues, standards and cost need to be addressed first, according to a senior executive of UK supermarket chain Safeway.

Safeway ran an RFID pilot with Unilever last year on 40,000 cases of Lynx deodorant tracking them from the factory through to the shelves of three stores and, in an exclusive interview with silicon.com, Safeway CIO Ric Francis said that while the company has no immediate plans to use RFID, the pilot did enough to convince him that the technology is absolutely key to the future of the retail sector.

We see that as a long-term investment. RFID is clearly going to be hugely important to the retail business. My biggest fear about RFID is that if we all try and do independent things we’ll end up with a range of standards that is not sustainable for the industry as a whole.

As and when it becomes cheap enough it will be important from the consumer point of view as well. That will start, I think, with higher value items and will come down and down throughout the sales portfolio. If these things end up being a penny a go, which I’m sure they will be at some point in time, then that will be a route to implement in a ubiquitous nature.

A kind reader provided a link to an article by the BBC warning that snooping powers given to more than 600 public bodies look set to create a small industry of private firms that will help process requests for information about who people call, the websites they visit and who they swap e-mail with. One firm, called Singlepoint, has been specifically created to act as a middleman between the bodies that want access to data and the net service providers and phone operators that hold it.

We saw an opportunity for a business or a facility that could provide secure processing for the data requests that will come out of this legislation.

Singlepoint spokesman explained that without Singlepoint it would be more difficult and costly for public authorities to request data as they would have to set up relationships with all of the UK's communication service providers. Instead, Singlepoint was setting up a system that would automatically route requests for information to relevant net or phone firms.

The Home Office estimates that up to 500,000 requests per year are made for information about who pays for a particular phone or web account. About 90% of these requests are for subscriber information. Singlepoint estimates that there could be millions of requests per year. Most of these requests are made by the police but approximately 4% are made by the many public authorities that have had new powers granted under RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act).

Other firms are starting to set themselves up as trainers for people within public bodies involved with investigations.

the Home Office was keen to get firms offering courses because the police did not have the resources to take on the training of these public body workers itself.

Bodies granted snooping powers include the Serious Fraud Office, all local authorities and councils plus other organisations such as the Charity Commission and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science.

When proposals to grant these snooping powers were first aired in mid-2002 they were greeted with alarm by privacy advocates and civil liberty groups.

A campaign co-ordinated by the FaxYourMP website prompted the government to withdraw its proposals. However, following a consultation exercise the proposals were resurrected and the powers granted in a series of statutory instruments issued in November 2003.

Wired reports that customers will want to control exactly who knows where they are and when now that wireless companies can track a mobile phone's location.

Bell Labs says it has developed a network software engine that can let cell users be as picky as they choose about disclosing their whereabouts, a step that may help wireless companies introduce location-based services in a way customers will find handy rather than intrusive.

Under a federal mandate requiring that cell carriers be able to pinpoint the whereabouts of any customer who calls 911 during an emergency, expensive network upgrades have made wireless companies more anxious to deploy services that can exploit these new capabilities for a profit. Examples of such services would typically include the ability for restaurants and other businesses to send a solicitation by text message to a cell phone when its owner wanders within range of those merchants. Other applications might include the ability to locate co-workers and customers.

While many cell-phone users might like to be notified of a nearby eatery or find it helpful to let others keep track of their movements, most would rather not expose themselves to round-the-clock, everywhere-they-go surveillance. However, given the real-time requirements of transmitting information over a telephone network, it can be difficult to program a wide range of options for individuals to personalize preferences such as when, where and with whom to share location information. One solution is to hard-code a network database with an "on-off" switch that activates or deactivates a service, for instance, during a window of time with set hours such as peak and off-peak.

Bell Labs said it used a "rules-driven" approach to programming that can take personalization to a less-rigid level without bogging down the computing power of a network.

Telegraph reports that America began a strict new regime of border controls yesterday, scanning fingerprints and taking photographs of arriving foreigners to track down potential terrorists.

The only exceptions will be visitors from 28 countries, mostly European states, including Britain, whose citizens can visit America for 90 days without a visa.

The tough measure was ordered by Congress after it emerged that two September 11 hijackers had violated the terms of their visas. Tom Ridge, the homeland security secretary, defended the scheme at its launch at the international airport in Atlanta, saying it would make borders "open to travellers but closed to terrorists".

Yeah, right.