California Takes Step to Stave Off End Times

From Boing-Boing, the "directory of wonderful things," via the very wonderful Xeni Jardin:

California's senate passed a bill last week that bans the forced RFID tagging of humans (think: prisoners, employees, pedos out on the street who've done their time). The state senator who sponsored the bill described that scenario as the "the ultimate invasion of privacy." The bill is on its way to Governor Schwarzenegger's desk now; if it is signed into law, California would become the third state with such a ban on the books (along with Wisconsin and North Dakota).

Full text of the bill (S. 362).

Comments

[J sub D]

Just when I start to think California is hopeless they do something right like this. Go figure.

[highnumber]

Two questions:

Has any gov't anywhere tried to tag people?

If the feds did decide that they want to tag people, why does California think their state law would stop them? (Sub question: Have they learned nothing from their medical marijuana kerfuffle?)

[Malto Dextrin]

But....but....what about.... the children?

[Tbone]

So, if RFID tagging is end times, someone explain to me why monitoring bracelets/anklets are OK?

I'm not a fan of RFID per se, but as I have said before, you cannot even begin to get serious about immigration policy or terrorism without biometric ID.

[SIV]

"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."
Revelation 13:16-18

I think they got us with the SSN long before bar codes and RFID tags.

[David]

Has any gov't anywhere tried to tag people?

Not yet, but Alzheimer's patients have begun being voluntarily tagged, and if that works out some dick will propose that the state should start tagging the usual suspects.

If the feds did decide that they want to tag people, why does California think their state law would stop them? (Sub question: Have they learned nothing from their medical marijuana kerfuffle?)

Apparently not. It's just for show anyway.

[Jimbo]

They expect this to be signed into law by a Cyborg representative of our electronic masters from the future? I think not.

[Rick Barton]

Yea!! That's the idea. Stop government before it does something terrible.

[An Honest Question]

What about RFID ink?
http://www.industrialcontroldesignline.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196900052

[Adam]

This law seems senseless. It can't stop the feds (supremacy clause) and it can't stop a future CA legislature from passing a law requiring RFID. I guess it could stop a CA state agency from doing it on its own, but a state agency is highly unlikely to start a program like this without specific direction from its legislature.

[martin]

Piece of cake for the feds to force the states into compliance. Just withhold some kind of funds, say highway. Justification for their involvement: People travel interstate.

[Libertarian Librarian]

Doesn't a Hebrew six look like a 'W"? If so, what about the World Wide Web? WWW?

[Libertarian Librarian]

Never mind, I am thinking of Shin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_%28letter%29

[CS]

RFID tagging on such a large is bound to be very expensive, and California's budget is very strained at the moment. This bill could give Schwarzenegger an honorable way to wriggle out of mass RFID tagging without appearing to be soft on crime.

[Hugh Akston]

I'm thinking more along the lines of future CA legislatures who will turn to RFID for the usual privacy-invasion reasons. The bill prohibits "forced or coerced" implantation, but says nothing about quid pro quo requirements.

AFter all, you don't have to be chipped in order to live in CA, but it will be required to qualify for a home loan, sign an apartment or condo lease, register a car or meet employment eligibilty guidelines.

But it won't be mandatory, no sir.

[BruceM]

If you read the statute VERY closely, they could forcibly implant a sucutaneous device in a convicted sex offender so long as it doesn't personally identify the individual. But it can say "CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER!" on it. This way sex offenders (or any other group) can be singled out. You can't tell who they are, but you can tell what they are.

[BruceM]

Oh and yes, Hugh is absolutely right. They will tie RFID chip requirements (including personal info) to individuals who want government welfare, among other things. It's like the requirement to waive your 4th Amendment rights and consent to all police searches in government housing. Nobody is forcing you to live there (you could live on the streets) so it's just a quid pro quo. Must keep track of those taking government benefits. To protect the children. To win the drug war.

[Jennifer]

So, if RFID tagging is end times, someone explain to me why monitoring bracelets/anklets are OK?

Not to defend monitoring jewelry, but at least with that you can remove it without performing a surgical procedure.

RFID tagging on such a large is bound to be very expensive, and California's budget is very strained at the moment.

Given how quickly technology advances, RFID won't stay expensive for long.

[Rex Rhino]

From what I understand, the law didn't ban the tagging of people... it banned the tagging of people by employers.

The government is still clearly left with the option of tagging, if they is what they want to do.

RFID tagging on such a large is bound to be very expensive, and California's budget is very strained at the moment.

Walmart is requiring all products have RFID for checkout purposes in the next year. If RFIDs are cheap enough to put in a pack of gum, they are cheap enough to tag everyone.

[D\'Krautknabe]

You are a Scary and dangerous man Bruce M..... Maybe you should be singled out and watched very closely for the safety of the general public................