Big Brother la purtător. Microcipurile RFID. N-aţi mai auzit de ele, dar nu înseamnă că au dispărut

This article is written in Romanian. An English translation using Google Translate is below.

Ştiinţa versus etică şi noi valenţe ale controlului social.
Văzută drept o inevitabilitate de către unii oameni de ştiinţă, ideea implanturilor stârneşte îngrijorări printre specialişti.
"Microcipurile RFID sunt, în esenţă, un generator al unui ID unic încorporat în corpul vostru. Aşa cum ştim, numerele pot fi furate şi datele pot fi accesate de hackeri." atrage atenţia Dr Katina Michael, profesor la University of Wollongong, specializată în implicaţiile socio-etice ale tehnologiilor emergente.
Nu este normal, arată specialista, ca problemele care afectează bazele de date şi computerele, precum atacurile hackerilor, să fie interconectate cu corpul uman. Mai mult, ne îndreptăm spre o societate de tip Big Brother în care se doreşte ca oamenii să poarte instrumentul prin care sunt spionaţi chiar în trupurile lor. "Guvernele şi marile corporaţii vor avea posibilitatea să urmărească acţiunile şi mişcările oamenilor, şi să îi încadreze în diferite categorii socio-economice, politice, rasiale, religioase sau grupuri de consum, pentru ca în final să ajungă să-i controleze.", mai avertizează Dr. Michael.
Dr. Michael este în special îngrijorată că oamenii vor fi forţaţi sau constrânşi să aibă un implant, lucru care, de altfel, explică ea, s-a şi întâmplat. "Această perspectivă este atât de îngrijorătoare încât cel puţin nouă state americane au interzis implanturile de microcipuri." a explicat ea.

More here

In English:

Big Brother to the bearer. RFID Microchips. You have not heard of them, but they do not mean they disappeared

RFID Chip.
Thousands of people are happy to swim under their skin, hit by happiness: now they can unlock their homes and cars, they can start their computers or mobile phones with only one hand move. They are not superhuman, but passionate about technology, who injected their own microchips into the body, according to a Sydney Herald article.

Named Biohackers, they use the so-called RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) chips as the latest technology hurtle that allows them to overcome the "human condition" that presses the lever to open a door and the button to opens a computer. Of the size of a rice grain, the RFID chips can be implanted very easily under the skin with a hypodermic needle.

Once inserted under the skin and activated, the implants send a unique ID (ID) that can be used to activate devices such as mobile phones and locks. The same type of chip is implanted and pets to be easily found if they are lost.

However, biohakers willingly choose to implant their chips, not for fear of losing, but because it is cool and everything seems to be easier. Note, however, that chips do not only send data to the devices we control, but also to huge databases of RFID user information such as personal data, addresses, medical data history, etc. databases controlled by governments, corporations, and which, experience proves, can be broken by hackers anytime.

Some methods of securing the data stored on the chip exist, but they are neither safe nor easy to implement.

RFID Chips

RFID chips are almost everywhere, on credit cards, and newer passports. Some RFIDs are provided with micro-batteries or other power supplies that enable them to operate hundreds of meters away so they do not need to be connected to a reader. This type of microchips can not be made small enough to be embedded in humans.

But others are. Embedded microchips in humans are wrapped in an organic coating that makes them easy to accept by the body, however, and very difficult to extract, once integrated into human tissue.

Everything comes with a price

And if life becomes apparently easier, the remote controls, mobile phones can be replaced with a certain microchip, it should be noted that state-of-the-art technology comes with a price. Cyber pecialist Mark Gasson, from the University of Reading, UK, became the first person to be infected with a computer virus after he injected himself a chip in 2009 to control the electronic devices in his office. The virus replicated on the building access cards used by university staff and infected the institution's database. Despite the "little inconvenience," Gasson and other scientists say the future belongs to the "computerized" population, making this scenario imminent.

The implants will change the world, they think, "They will change the very essence of what it means to be human," says Gasson. "People can no longer interact with society nowadays if they do not have a cell phone We believe that human implants will have a similar path It will be so disadvantageous not to have such an implant that it is essential to be obligatory! says Gasson.

Human communication versus electronic communication from the nervous system to the nervous system

And if humanity values he conscious communication through which people choose from the notion of thoughts to communicate and to whom, science approaches, by microcipation, a completely different kind of approach. Kevin Warwick, a professor of cybernetics at Reading University, implanted into his body an electronic device that interacts with his nervous system, a simpler version of that device being implanted into his wife's arm. The two could receive rudimentary signals from one to the other, proving that between two nerve systems it is possible to make purely electronic communication.

By going over the key question - if we want our thoughts to be known to wives, and vice versa - it should be noted that this kind of communication is, however, appropriate from robot to robot, even science proves it. Warwick's chip allows him to send orders via a computer to an artificial hand on another continent. The robot hand imitates any move made by Warwik's hand with the chip, whereas the connection that the scientist has established with his wife's nervous system is rudimentary, he perceiving only that she moves her hand, not what moves do with her.

Science versus ethics and new valences of social control.

Seen as an inevitability by some scientists, the idea of mplants raises concerns among specialists.

"RFID Microchips are basically a generator of a unique ID embedded in your body. As we know, numbers can be stolen and data can be accessed by hackers." draws attention to Dr Katina Michael, a professor at the University of Wollongong, specializing in the socio-ethical implications of emerging technologies.

It is not normal, the specialist shows, that issues affecting databases and computers, such as hacker attacks, should be interconnected with the human body. Moreover, we are heading towards a Big Brother society where people want to carry the instrument by which they are spied in their bodies. "Governments and large corporations will be able to track people's actions and movements, and put them in different socio-economic, political, racial, religious or consumer groups so they can eventually control them." warns Dr. Michael.

Dr. Michael is particularly worried that people will be forced or forced to have an implant, which, moreover, she explains, has happened. "This view is so worrying that at least nine US states banned microchip implants." she explained.

We recall that the famous ObamaCare, the law proposed by the US president, provided that Americans be "equipped" with medical devices, class II, implantable.

By willing and unwilling of anybody?

In 2007, a company called VeriChip implanted microchips in 200 Alzheimer's patients, with implants going to "shed" data about the elderly into a database of information about their medical history. The elderly, many of them indiscriminately, were in the care of an elderly home in Florida, which benefited from sponsorship from VeriChip.

The scandal broke out enormously after it was discovered that the experiment did not benefit from the approval of the Florida authorities responsible for the safety of people who are doing experiments and research.

The same company, Verichip implanted microchips in Mexico's Prosecutor General and senior team members, microchips having the stated purpose of providing them with access to secured areas in official buildings. It is said that the next step is to put a chip into the military and the police.

Moreover, Solusat, a distributor of VeriChip, announced that it has entered into an agreement with the Mexican National Foundation for the Investigation of Disappearances and Child Abduction to promote the "chipping" of children in the country.

How the chip could help finding missing children is unclear because they do not have GPS tracking technology. And other companies are making strong publicity on microchip implants, and their researchers are working hard to integrate them with GPS technology. Companies in the field expect to have, after doing this, an "enormous sales market."

The success, which shows the opposite of the idea, is a two-edged weapon. "Do you really want someone to follow your child and always know where he is?" ask those who are aware that information becomes good or harmful according to the purposes for which they are used.

Citation: Loredana Diacu, April 20, 2014, "Big Brother la purtător. Microcipurile RFID. N-aţi mai auzit de ele, dar nu înseamnă că au dispărut", Epoch Times

Uberveillance cements its position as an official dictionary word

uberveillance in macquarie dictionary.png

The word, ‘uberveillance’, coined by MG Michael and further developed by Katina Michael, is now gaining international acceptance and has been officially included in the fifth edition of the printed Macquarie Dictionary.

While uberveillance did not win the Word of the Year in 2008 it did top its category which was ‘Technology’.

The dictionary notes that uberveillance refers to “an omnipresent electronic surveillance facilitated by technology that makes it possible to embed surveillance devices in the human body”.

The word was coined in 2006 by UOW Honorary Senior Fellow Dr M.G. Michael and the concept has been further developed together with UOW senior lecturer Dr Katina Michael.

The first time the term was used by Dr Michael was in a guest lecture he delivered on the “Consequences of Innovation”.

The duo said the word simply ‘came out’ in a moment of inspiration, when Michael was searching for words to describe the embedded technologies. They said the term “surveillance” didn’t describe the full extent of the technological capabilities available today.

“Michael could find no other term but to bring together the German prefix “über” with the French root word “veiller” to describe the exaggerated surveillance conducted by governments in the name of national security,” Dr Katina Michael said.

“We needed a word to describe the profoundly intrusive nature of such technologies and it was no longer about Big Brother looking down, but rather about Big Brother on the inside looking out,” she said.

The Sydney Morning Herald noted in December last year in an article focusing on how the decade of the noughties was drawing to a close that words like uberveillance “might have not yet reached their peak”. The New York Times has also noted the coining of the new word.

Bernie Goldie, February 8, 2010, "Uberveillance cements its position as an official dictionary word", UOW Media