Ripe for abuse

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

If you're related to a felon or just happen to have similar DNA, the Police may come knocking at your door.

This is just one more reason why we need to fight and fight to prevent any type of collection and storage of DNA information from innocent people. I know that targeting relatives doesn't initially require DNA, but the obvious next step once they find that relative is to force a DNA sample for comparison.

I'm not certain I'm against that in some cases, but the primary question that comes to mind is, what do they do with the DNA evidence once the relative has been ruled out? Does it stay forever even though they were innocent?

People shouldn't be tagged like animals

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

California is working on a bill to ban RFID chipping kids.

Legislation approved Monday would prohibit public schools from requiring the implementation of radio-wave devices that broadcast students' personal identification and monitor their movement around campus — information the mechanical horrors could theoretically use to turn our children into livestock.

…

More RFID bills led by Simitian are currently being sent through California committees. One bill places a similar temporary ban on RFID technology in California driver's licenses. Another will place privacy safeguards on any existing RFID-enabled government IDs. Simitian also has led a bill that would restrict forced RFID chip implants in people.

Real ID rejection is the right choice

(Image is in the Public Domain)

According to the The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) newsletter, Washington state has also rejected REAL ID. More info on REAL ID and why it's bad here.

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

From the "don't forget we're people, not products" department, North Dakota is the second state to ban forced RFID implantation. However, even if this is a step in the right direction, does it do enough? It doesn't ban voluntary implantation and last I checked a lot of things that aren't really "voluntary" are treated such under law:

But Michael Shamos, a professor who specializes in security issues at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, believes the law is too vague to do much good. For instance, it only addresses situations where a chip is injected, even though RFID tags can also be swallowed. And it doesn't clearly define what a forced implant really is; someone could make chipping a requirement for a financial reward.

"Suppose I offer to pay you $10,000 if you have an RFID [chip] implanted?" he asked. "Is that 'requiring' if it's totally voluntary on your part?"

It's a poor example, but the right idea. Instead, what if you are offered a high paying job and move your family to a new state, get settled and begin the orientation process for your new job. You find out that they require RFID implants for "security" (which has been proven to weaken security). How much free will do you have in this instance? Can you really afford not to take the job now?

Another example, perhaps not so drastic. Companies push and push and finally get most everyone to use RFID implants as identification and method of payment. Because you're smart enough to know what a bad thing this is, you refuse, but find yourself inconvenienced everywhere. You can only shop at certain stores that still have non-RFID checkout. You pay an extra "cash handling" fee for not using the new methods. You have to drive 20 miles away to the only gas station around that's equiped to take non-RFID transactions.

Is it still a choice?

Note that both Spychips.com and Privacy.org are carrying this story and that Spychips lists Ohio, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Florida as more states with anti-implantation bills in the works. The first state to pass such a bill was Wisconsin (note the same flaw as the ND bill).

Golly. I wonder if posting private information online could be a problem

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

This lady found Social Security Numbers on a state website. She's threatened to publicly release detailed instructions on how to find them like she did and to expose the SSNs of several important people in the state if they don't fix the problem.

A spokesman for the office responsible said:

The bulk of the "hundreds of thousands" of documents on the Web site are business filings, and only 5 percent or so are believed to include Social Security numbers

Why can't states realize that putting records online makes them available to the world instead of just local people? There's public information and global public information.

That aside, this lady is my hero and I hope she does post the data. I've often wondered how long it would take to solve some of our privacy woes if a few dozen members of congress had all their personal data posted on a website.

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

It looks like the ball is starting to roll.

New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Arkansas have joined the list of states evaluating proposals to ban implementation of the controversial Real ID act.

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

This is cool. Some people took an offhand comment from the world's leading RFID privacy expert, Katherine Albrecht, and is trying to make it a reality. Some Dutch researchers are working on a portable RFID shield. I wonder about their ability to actually block the RFID transmission of a target chip rather than just interfere with the transmission.

UPDATE:

I contacted the author of the RFID Guardian research to ask the following question:

Just one question. Does this actually prevent a tag from reporting to a reader or just give the reader fake data so that the reader can't tell which one actually came from the tag?

And her response:

The RFID Guardian actually jams tag responses from reaching the RFID reader.

Neato.

They dropped their "don't be evil" motto for a reason

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

I love Google and almost all they do, but they've got to stop with the data brokering. Of course, of all data brokering companies, I trust them more since they keep they will actually fight to protect your privacy unlike some other companies.

Suck it all down

(Image used under: Creative Commons 4.0 [SRC])

Data Brokering (what I refer to as data brokering) is the practice of buying and assembling personal information and then reselling it. As opposed to credit reporting companies, these people collect everything they can about you. Companies like Facebook and Choicepoint for example.

James Derrell White, 41, who happens to live in Alpharetta, Ga., where ChoicePoint is based, was denied a job with Home Depot this year because data provided by ChoicePoint incorrectly identified him as a felon. "We thought we were in a bad dream," says Julie White, James' wife.

Data brokers have very little regulation which is what leads to problems like these.

"No matter how good any company's attitudes toward privacy, there are too many players in the (data-collecting) industry — too many intricate parts when it comes to privacy issues — to expect self-regulation to effectively deal with the problems," Solove says.

Hear, hear! We need laws and we need laws now.

(Image is used under the Pixabay license)

Apparently, some genealogy freaks have begun cataloging their relatives' DNA without their knowledge.

Unlike paper records, which can be hard to come by and harder to verify, a genetic test can quickly and definitively tell if someone is a relative. ... Some funeral homes now offer post-mortem DNA collection. But Linda Jonas saw no need for professional help when she tugged several hairs from her grandmother’s head as she lay in her casket. She made sure to get the root. "Obviously, it’s not going to hurt her, " said Ms. Jonas, a family historian in McLean, Va. "I had a little Ziploc. "