Speaker 1: Imagine your life, moment by moment, becoming this stream of data. Right,
Speaker 1: not just you know, your online clicks, but every physical
Speaker 1: thing you touch, every step you take in a shop, even.
Speaker 2: What's in your medicine cabinet.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all quietly broadcasting information about you too. Well, who
Speaker 1: knows who these invisible listeners think about walking into a
Speaker 1: store and the price of I don't know, peanut butter
Speaker 1: just shifts just.
Speaker 2: For you based on some hidden profile of your shopping habits.
Speaker 1: Its exactly.
Speaker 2: It sounds like something out of a Dyscopian movie, really
Speaker 2: it does.
Speaker 1: But our deep dive today is looking at a technology
Speaker 1: that well, according to the authors, we're focusing on holds
Speaker 1: exactly that kind of potential, and.
Speaker 2: That's radio frequency identification or our FID.
Speaker 1: That's the one our guide for This is a really
Speaker 1: powerful book. Actually, it's called Spy Chips, How major corporations
Speaker 1: and government plan to track your every move with r FID.
Speaker 2: Written by Catherine Elbricht and Liz McIntyre, published back in
Speaker 2: two thousand and five.
Speaker 1: Yeah, quite a while ago now, but still incredibly relevant.
Speaker 2: And this isn't some dry technical overview. The authors really
Speaker 2: position it as a critical expose.
Speaker 1: They call it a masterpiece of technocriticism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they argue it unveils what they see as a
Speaker 2: hidden sort of scheme, a plan to infest the entire
Speaker 2: physical infrastructure of the planet.
Speaker 1: With tracking capabilities. That's the core argument.
Speaker 2: They even make this really provocative comparison to Rachel Carson's
Speaker 2: Silent Spring.
Speaker 1: That's a big claim. And what makes their arguments feel
Speaker 1: so grounded is that they weren't just like speculating wildly.
Speaker 2: No, Albritton McIntyre did some serious digging. They went through articles,
Speaker 2: research papers, apparently, got insider tips.
Speaker 1: And thousands of public patent documents. That's key. They use
Speaker 1: those patents to piece together this frankly pretty unsettling vision
Speaker 1: of our future.
Speaker 2: So our mission today really is to unpack the concerns
Speaker 2: these authors raised, to try and demystify the RFID technology.
Speaker 1: Itself and explore the really far reaching implications warned about
Speaker 1: everything from consumer tracking to government surveillance.
Speaker 2: Will lay out their arguments, look at the specific examples
Speaker 2: they found, and explore those patented plans, plans that even
Speaker 2: now nearly two decades later, feel remarkably well unsettling.
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's kick things off with the basics for
Speaker 1: anyone who maybe needs a quick refresher. Yeah, what is
Speaker 1: RFID essentially, and why is it so different from say,
Speaker 1: uh standard barcode?
Speaker 2: Right? Well, at its simplest, RFID is basically a tiny
Speaker 2: computer chip attached to an antenna, okay, and that combination
Speaker 2: lets you identify and track almost any physical object. And
Speaker 2: when we say tiny, some of these silicon chips are
Speaker 2: like zero point two five millimeters.
Speaker 1: Square, smaller than a period.
Speaker 2: Smaller than the period at the end of a sentence. Yeah, microscopic.
Speaker 1: Wow. And these tags, these spike chips, as the authors
Speaker 1: call them, they're not all the same, are they not
Speaker 1: at all?
Speaker 2: You've got two main types. Passive tags are the most
Speaker 2: common for this kind of tracking concern. They have no battery,
Speaker 2: no internal power.
Speaker 1: Do they work.
Speaker 2: They get activated by the energy from an RFID reader
Speaker 2: when it comes close enough. That energy powers the chip
Speaker 2: just long enough for it to send back its ID number.
Speaker 1: Okay. So they're cheap, small.
Speaker 2: Incredibly chip very small, and they last basically forever. They
Speaker 2: can even be woven right into fabric invisible. Yeah, pretty much.
Speaker 2: Then you have active tags.
Speaker 1: These do have a battery, right like my highway toll
Speaker 1: pass exactly like that.
Speaker 2: They can transmit further, hold more data, but they're bigger,
Speaker 2: more expensive, use more for tracking, say, shipping containers or
Speaker 2: those toll transponders.
Speaker 1: And the way they can be made, it almost sounds
Speaker 1: like they're designed for stealth.
Speaker 2: You could certainly argue that these tags can be made
Speaker 2: virtually invisible, printed with conductive inc maybe, or even designed
Speaker 2: as chipless systems. Shipless, yeah, using the material properties of
Speaker 2: the packaging itself to reflect radio waves in a unique pattern,
Speaker 2: basically embedded right into the box or the fabric, very
Speaker 2: hard to spot without special beer.
Speaker 1: Okay, this is where the history goes. It's really interesting
Speaker 1: the book connects this modern tech to something much older,
Speaker 1: much more covert. Right Leon thereman, the guy with the
Speaker 1: musical instrument, the eerie space music.
Speaker 2: That's one most people know, But the authors they reveal
Speaker 2: this whole other side. Damn his life as a Soviet spy,
Speaker 2: a spy and a pioneer in radio wave surveillance. They
Speaker 2: actually call him the father of spy chips.
Speaker 1: Why what'd she do?
Speaker 2: Because of his most well notorious invention, something called the Thing.
Speaker 1: The thing sounds like something from a Cold War spy movie.
Speaker 2: It absolutely was. Back in nineteen forty five, some Russian
Speaker 2: school children gave this gift to the US ambassador in Moscow,
Speaker 2: a big carved wooden replica of the Great Seal of
Speaker 2: the United States.
Speaker 1: Okay, a nice gesture or maybe not.
Speaker 2: Definitely not hidden inside was this incredibly clever listening device.
Speaker 2: It had no power source.
Speaker 1: Of its own, like a passive RFID tag.
Speaker 2: Exactly the principle. It was activated by radio waves being
Speaker 2: at it from outside and used that energy to transmit
Speaker 2: conversations from the ambassador's office back to the Soviets.
Speaker 1: Wow, how long did that go on?
Speaker 2: For six years they couldn't figure out how it worked.
Speaker 2: American intelligence nicknamed it the Thing. Its discovery apparently kicked
Speaker 2: off this huge, top secret CIA project just to understand it.
Speaker 1: So the authors are drawing a direct line from this
Speaker 1: Cold War bugging device to modern RFID.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's their chilling point. It's not just some quirky
Speaker 2: historical fact. They see it as the conceptual blueprint.
Speaker 1: The idea of hidden remotely activated.
Speaker 2: Tracking exactly that invisibility, the remote readability. They argue, it's
Speaker 2: baked into the DNA of the technology. It suggests that
Speaker 2: the privacy risks weren't just some accidental side.
Speaker 1: Effect, but maybe potentially part of the original appeal rooted
Speaker 1: in surveillance.
Speaker 2: That's the unsettling question they raise. Did that original intent
Speaker 2: of hidden surveillance sort of subtly guide how it's being
Speaker 2: used today?
Speaker 1: That really makes you think, Okay, So, how did this tech,
Speaker 1: with the let's say interesting origins, transition from spy stuff
Speaker 1: to this grand plan for tracking every single object on
Speaker 1: the planet.
Speaker 2: Well, the authors trace the start of that huge vision
Speaker 2: back to a surprisingly mundane problem. Oh yeah, nineteen ninety seven,
Speaker 2: a guy named Kevin Ashton, a brand manager at Procter
Speaker 2: and Gamble. He couldn't keep a popular shade of oil
Speaker 2: of ola lipstick and stock on the shelves, even.
Speaker 1: Though there's plenty in the warehouse right.
Speaker 2: Standard supply chain issue. But his frustration sparked this well
Speaker 2: radical idea, what if we could track every single item individually,
Speaker 2: not just the box, but each lipstick.
Speaker 1: And that little problem became the seed for something massive.
Speaker 2: It really did. Ashton got backing from some huge players,
Speaker 2: P and G let, the Uniform Code Council.
Speaker 1: The Barcode people, the barcode people.
Speaker 2: And in nineteen ninety nine, they founded the MIT auto.
Speaker 1: itIt Center, Okay, and their goal.
Speaker 2: It was incredibly ambitious. Put low cost RFID tags on
Speaker 2: every single manufactured item globally to achieve what they call
Speaker 2: near perfect supply chain visibility, eliminate stockouts, reduced theft, to
Speaker 2: remove human error, basically know where everything is all the time.
Speaker 1: This sounds like the early blueprint for what we now
Speaker 1: call the Internet of Things.
Speaker 2: Right absolutely, but the authors suggest it was perhaps a
Speaker 2: bit more focused than just smart fridges talking to smart speakers.
Speaker 2: How So, the autoid Center's vision was that these inanimate objects,
Speaker 2: the lipstick, the can of soup, whatever, wouldn't just be connected.
Speaker 2: They would actively talk talk to to manufacturers, to retailers,
Speaker 2: maybe even to each other, all built on the existing
Speaker 2: Internet infrastructure. The really big shift, the authors argue, is
Speaker 2: giving a unique identity and a voice not just to
Speaker 2: your fancy gadgets, but to the most ordinary physical stuff in.
Speaker 1: Your life, letting them report on themselves, their location, their history.
Speaker 2: And ultimately their interaction with you.
Speaker 1: And the key to that communication is something called the
Speaker 1: electronic product code the EPC. How's that different from the
Speaker 1: barcode we see everywhere that's.
Speaker 2: A really crucial distinction. The author's emphasis. A barcode the
Speaker 2: UPC identifies a type of product. All twelve ounce cans
Speaker 2: of brand xcorn have the same barcode. The EPC, however,
Speaker 2: is a unique serial number for each individual item. Think
Speaker 2: of it like a social Security number, but for objects.
Speaker 2: That's the analogy the authors use.
Speaker 1: So my specific can of corn could have its own
Speaker 1: unique digital ID, its own history.
Speaker 2: That's exactly the vision with EPCs. Businesses could create a
Speaker 2: unique data file like a web page, for every single item,
Speaker 2: when it was made, where it traveled, maybe who bought it.
Speaker 2: The amount of data atronomical. The authors point out that
Speaker 2: back in two thousand and four, Walmart's database was already
Speaker 2: twice the size of the entire Internet at the time.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 2: So yeah, this wasn't just about managing inventory better. It
Speaker 2: was about creating this unprecedented layer of surveillance over physical.
Speaker 1: Goods and, by extension, the people using them. Right, And
Speaker 1: the authors highlight other key differences beyond just the unique ID. Right,
Speaker 1: what makes RFID so much more potent, let's say, than barcodes.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, the unique idea is huge because it allows
Speaker 2: linking that specific item to you or your purchase history.
Speaker 2: But then there's the remote readability, meaning you don't need
Speaker 2: line of sight. RFID tags can be scanned right through
Speaker 2: your clothes, your wallet, your backpack without you knowing, without
Speaker 2: your consent.
Speaker 1: That's the X ray vision they talk about exactly.
Speaker 2: It completely changes the game compared to needing to scan
Speaker 2: a visible barcode at a checkout.
Speaker 1: And they also brought up potential health concerns they did.
Speaker 2: They raise questions about the long term effects of chronic
Speaker 2: exposure to low levels of electromagnetic radiation, especially if RFID
Speaker 2: readers become ubiquitous everywhere.
Speaker 1: In stores, homes, workplaces, a.
Speaker 2: Constant, low level bath of radio waves. The concern isn't
Speaker 2: just about one device, but the cumulative effect of this
Speaker 2: invisible tracking infrastructure.
Speaker 1: So with all this data being generated, who stands to
Speaker 1: gain the most? Who wants this information?
Speaker 2: According to the authors, there are three main groups really
Speaker 2: interested in secretly getting their hands on this spy ChiPT
Speaker 2: beta okay, who marketers, governments, and.
Speaker 1: Criminals makes sense.
Speaker 2: Marketers want incredibly detailed profiles of what you own, what
Speaker 2: you buy, where you go for hyper targeted ads, personalized pricing,
Speaker 2: all that stuff. Government they might want hidden scanners for
Speaker 2: mass surveillance, tracking movements, identifying people, control easy pickings, potentially
Speaker 2: scanning bags to see if you've bought expensive items, Scanning
Speaker 2: homes in the street to see what's inside, identifying targets.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's sobering. And the industry promoting RFID, they must
Speaker 1: have known this would worry people.
Speaker 2: Right, Oh, absolutely, the author's uncovered evidence of a pretty
Speaker 2: sophisticated PR strategy Like what they found documents from PR
Speaker 2: firms like Fleischmann Hillard advising the RFID industry on how
Speaker 2: to and this is a direct quote, pacify consumers.
Speaker 1: Pacify, not inform, but pacify exactly.
Speaker 2: They suggested rebranding RFID tags with softer names like green
Speaker 2: tags or radio barcodes. They could sound less threatening, less intrusive.
Speaker 1: And just educate people.
Speaker 2: That was the line push the idea that education would
Speaker 2: overcome public fears. But the authors argue this was essentially
Speaker 2: propaganda designed to downplay the risks and push the technology
Speaker 2: forward without full transparency.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's make this more concrete. The book talks about
Speaker 1: RFID turning up in all sorts of everyday things, from
Speaker 1: clothes to well medicine, cabinets. What are some of the
Speaker 1: standout examples.
Speaker 2: One of the most famous early blow ups they cover
Speaker 2: was Benetton back in two thousand and three.
Speaker 1: Right, I remember something about that underwear exactly.
Speaker 2: They planned to embed RFID chips in women's underwear. It's
Speaker 2: caused a massive international backlash.
Speaker 1: People were not happy, not at all.
Speaker 2: There was this whole I'd rather go naked than wear
Speaker 2: a spy chip campaign. Benetton eventually had to scrap the
Speaker 2: plan completely.
Speaker 1: But that didn't stop it elsewhere.
Speaker 2: No shipped work uniforms, for instance, from companies like a Mayor,
Speaker 2: Pride or synilyssas they're pretty common now, and they.
Speaker 1: Could potentially track what where employees go.
Speaker 2: Yeah, potentially track movements around a facility, how long someone
Speaker 2: spends in the restroom, chats by the water cooler. The
Speaker 2: authors argue it's less about productivity and more about quantifying
Speaker 2: and controlling every second of an employee's.
Speaker 1: Day, taking workplace surveillance to a completely new level. And
Speaker 1: in stores it gets even more specific, right down to
Speaker 1: changing prices for individuals.
Speaker 2: That's one of the really unsettling scenarios. They describe this
Speaker 2: idea of personalized pricing.
Speaker 1: So based on my shopping history tracked via RFID.
Speaker 2: Right, the system identifies you, maybe pegs you as a
Speaker 2: prime customer who doesn't worry much about price, or a
Speaker 2: bargain chopper. And then and then the price for that
Speaker 2: same jar of peanut butter could literally change on electronic
Speaker 2: shelf label just for you. I mean, double the price
Speaker 2: for the bargain hunter compared to the prime customer.
Speaker 1: Wow, that's not just a sale, that's dynamic pricing based
Speaker 1: on perceived wealth exactly.
Speaker 2: The book also mentions things like bank employees potentially seeing
Speaker 2: your account balance on a screen as soon as you.
Speaker 1: Walk in or in checkpoints. Electronic frisking.
Speaker 2: Yeah, scanners in doorways or walkways in stores or public spaces,
Speaker 2: just silently scanning everything you're carrying without you even knowing.
Speaker 1: Let's get into some specific corporate examples. The authors found
Speaker 1: patents incidents. IBM had a vision that sounded pretty creepy,
Speaker 1: like something out of Minority Report.
Speaker 2: It really does have that vibe. IBM patented a system
Speaker 2: called Identify and Track Persons using RFID casch items.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: The idea was to scan people as they enter a store,
Speaker 2: not just to see what they carry, but to infer
Speaker 2: things about them, right, Like, if this system detects an
Speaker 2: expensive watch, say a Rolex, it might categorize you into
Speaker 2: a higher income bracket. And the point of that to
Speaker 2: monitor your movements through the store and hit you with
Speaker 2: highly targeted advertising in real time, just like in the movie.
Speaker 2: The author's insight here is it's not just tracking what
Speaker 2: you buy, but who you are and how you move.
Speaker 2: That becomes the valuable commodity.
Speaker 1: And NCR, the cash register Company, if they had a
Speaker 1: patent the called cornography. What was that about?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that name highlights how detailed and frankly kind of
Speaker 2: demeaning it was. This patent described tracking shoppers micro interactions
Speaker 2: with products, like picking something up exactly like you pick
Speaker 2: up a can of brandex corn, you read the label,
Speaker 2: you put it back down, and then you grab the
Speaker 2: can of brand Y corn instead.
Speaker 1: The system logs all that.
Speaker 2: It logs all of it. And NCR apparently used terms
Speaker 2: like bottom feeder in their documents to describe shoppers who
Speaker 2: compared prices like that. Seriously, that's what the authors report,
Speaker 2: and the goal wasn't just understand you, it was to
Speaker 2: use that real time data to push other, maybe higher
Speaker 2: margin items at you leverage your own behavior against you
Speaker 2: in visibly, so at.
Speaker 1: Least could all be happening using existing infrastructure like those
Speaker 1: anti theft gates at store entrances.
Speaker 2: That's a major warning in the book. Those familiar security
Speaker 2: portals from companies like Sensormatic or checkpoint systems, they could
Speaker 2: potentially be converted almost overnight into RFID readers.
Speaker 1: So they wouldn't just beep if you stole something.
Speaker 2: They could be silently logging every tagged item you carry
Speaker 2: in and out of the store. And if you combine
Speaker 2: that with source tagging, where the RFID tags are hidden
Speaker 2: inside the product or packaging during manufacturing.
Speaker 1: Then the whole system becomes invisible.
Speaker 2: Completely invisible, and potentially on to present. Every doorway becomes
Speaker 2: a potential data collection point.
Speaker 1: Okay, so it's not just public spaces. The book really
Speaker 1: emphasizes the potential for RFID to invade our homes, our
Speaker 1: private spaces. Tell us about those smart home scenarios.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they looked at prototype homes of the future that
Speaker 2: were just packed with RFID enabled gadgets.
Speaker 1: Any specific examples that stood out.
Speaker 2: One that was particularly chilling was from Accenture. They called
Speaker 2: it the Caring Plant.
Speaker 1: Sounds nice.
Speaker 2: The concept was a system to monitor the daily habits
Speaker 2: of elderly people living alone. But the goal wasn't just monitoring,
Speaker 2: It was subtly nudging them towards good behavior through this continuous,
Speaker 2: unseen surveillance and.
Speaker 1: Feedback loop, moving beyond convenience into behavioral control.
Speaker 2: That's the fear, and.
Speaker 1: It gets even more personal. Medicine cabinets fridges absolutely.
Speaker 2: The authors describe how these appliances could track your pill consumption.
Speaker 2: They call it prescription compliance.
Speaker 1: Making sure you take every pill refill on time.
Speaker 2: Exactly your medicine cabinet knows, and maybe reports back to
Speaker 2: your doctor or pharmacy if you miss a dose. Fridges
Speaker 2: could track everything you eat, generate shopping lists automatically, and.
Speaker 1: Trigger personalized ads on your TV based on what's running.
Speaker 2: Low or based on what you should be eating according
Speaker 2: to some profile. They even found patents for home inventory
Speaker 2: sniffers RFID readers built into doorways, floors, closets, even your car,
Speaker 2: constantly taking inventory of everything you own that has an
Speaker 2: rfidtach and reporting that awhere. The patent language said something
Speaker 2: like periodically report the inventory automatically to the retailer via
Speaker 2: a modem.
Speaker 1: So your closet tells the store what clothes you have.
Speaker 2: That's the idea. The insight is the transformation of your
Speaker 2: private home from a sanctuary into an active data collection
Speaker 2: point for outside companies.
Speaker 1: It seems nothing is sacred. The book even says your
Speaker 1: crash isn't safe.
Speaker 2: It's a surprisingly powerful point they make. Think about all
Speaker 2: the packaging you throw away. If it has an RFID.
Speaker 1: Tag, it's still active.
Speaker 2: It's still active. And the authors warned that snoops and
Speaker 2: criminals could potentially drive down the street with a reader
Speaker 2: and scan the contents of your garbage bins just to.
Speaker 1: See what you've bought or thrown away.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it gets worse. They found a Bell salv
Speaker 2: patent application the phone company at the time. Yeah, their
Speaker 2: patent was for a system to collect, sort, process, and
Speaker 2: sell data gathered from RFID tags found on discarded items.
Speaker 1: Selling your trash data.
Speaker 2: Seriously, that was the plan outlined in the patent. So
Speaker 2: not only is your trash talking, someone could be profiting
Speaker 2: directly from listening.
Speaker 1: To it and even reading habits newspapers magazines.
Speaker 2: According to their research, Yes, plans were apparently discussed for
Speaker 2: putting RFID tags in newspapers and magazines. Why potentially to
Speaker 2: track not just if you read it, but where in
Speaker 2: the house you read it. They even mentioned the example
Speaker 2: of tracking if it was read in the bathroom.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's crossing a line.
Speaker 2: The implication is that truly, no aspect of your physical life,
Speaker 2: no matter how private or mundane, remains outside the potential
Speaker 2: reach of this surveillance.
Speaker 1: So we've covered tracking things clothes, food, trash. What about
Speaker 1: tracking people directly? The book gets into some really concerning applications,
Speaker 1: particularly in healthcare.
Speaker 2: Yes, healthcare is a big focus. The authors describe hospitals
Speaker 2: considering using RFID tags directly on patients like ristbands. Like wristbands, yeah,
Speaker 2: but also potentially on things like bedpans to monitor bodily
Speaker 2: outputs automatically serious. That's what they report, and they challenge
Speaker 2: the industry claims, like from Precision Dynamics Score, that patient
Speaker 2: misidentification is this huge problem justifying RFID tagging. The authors
Speaker 2: argue it's actually a relatively minor issue. So the implication
Speaker 2: is the implication is that it's less about patient safety
Speaker 2: and more about treating patients like inventory, subjecting them to
Speaker 2: constant granular monitoring, possibly driven more by efficiency targets or
Speaker 2: commercial interests.
Speaker 1: And Big Pharma is interested too. For prescriptions.
Speaker 2: Definitely plans for putting RFID on individual pills or pill bottles,
Speaker 2: things like oxyconton viagra.
Speaker 1: To monitor prescription compliance.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: No, if you took your.
Speaker 2: Mets exactly, did you take every pill? Did you refill
Speaker 2: on time? Accenture even floated an online medicine cabinet idea
Speaker 2: that would talk directly to your doctor and pharmacy.
Speaker 1: Taking away your control over your own medication management.
Speaker 2: Essentially, Yeah, removing that autonomy.
Speaker 1: They even mention things you ingest chips you swallow, uh huh.
Speaker 2: They talk about devices like the Jonah apparently ingestible to
Speaker 2: measure internal body temperature, and even, believe it or not,
Speaker 2: an RFID enabled tampon detection system.
Speaker 1: Wow, Okay. That raises some pretty fundamental questions about bodily autonomy,
Speaker 1: doesn't it It?
Speaker 2: Absolutely he does. How much are we willing to allow
Speaker 2: our internal bodily functions to be monitored externally? It's a
Speaker 2: disturbing step towards internal surveillance.
Speaker 1: Moving from ingustible to under the skin subcutaneous implants. The
Speaker 1: very chip comes up a.
Speaker 2: Lot, right, The very chip. The authors make a point
Speaker 2: of clarifying it's about the size of a dime, not
Speaker 2: a tiny grain of rice like sometimes claimed.
Speaker 1: And it's implanted where how is it used?
Speaker 2: Usually implanted in the arm. It gained some notoriety being
Speaker 2: used in places like nightclubs or bars for customers to
Speaker 2: pay for drinks with a wave of their army. Maybe perhaps,
Speaker 2: But the FDA also approved it as a medical device.
Speaker 2: The idea was to link the chip's ID number to
Speaker 2: a patient's online medical records.
Speaker 1: But the authors raise safety.
Speaker 2: Concern significant ones, potential tissue reactions around the implant, the
Speaker 2: chip migrating within the body over time, security flaws making
Speaker 2: it hackable, and MRI incompatibility. What happens in an MRI
Speaker 2: The metal in the chip could heat up dangerously or
Speaker 2: the magnetic fields could physically move the implant.
Speaker 1: Not good, No, and apparently the implant ideas get even
Speaker 1: more invasive unfortunately.
Speaker 2: Yes. The book details patents from companies like Persephone, Inc.
Speaker 2: These weren't just under the skin. They were for deep
Speaker 2: organ implants.
Speaker 1: Deep organ like where head.
Speaker 2: Torso, gastri intestinal tract, even the uterus.
Speaker 1: And what would these implants do?
Speaker 2: The patents describe capabilities like vibrating, delivering electric shocks, broadcasting
Speaker 2: audible messages inside the body, or even acting as microphones.
Speaker 1: That's terrifying, complete loss of physical.
Speaker 2: Control, that's the implication. And then there was George Vawsen's
Speaker 2: patent for kevlar armbands, armbands with a remote controlled injection
Speaker 2: module designed to deliver knockout anesthetics on command, proposed for
Speaker 2: crowd control or you know, restricting someone's movement remotely.
Speaker 1: The potential for abuse there seems enormous.
Speaker 2: It's hard to overstate. It represents a potential for complete,
Speaker 2: forced loss of physical autonomy, with control handed over to
Speaker 2: someone else entirely.
Speaker 1: So it's clear governments could be interested in this, not
Speaker 1: just for items, but for tracking people. The book mentions
Speaker 1: refugee tracking early on.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's a really stark example of what the authors
Speaker 2: call function creep, how a technology developed for one thing
Speaker 2: gets applied elsewhere.
Speaker 1: What happened?
Speaker 2: They report the US military used RFID laced bracelets on
Speaker 2: Haitian and Cuban refugees held at Guantanamo Bay back in
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety four, and the tech came from technology originally
Speaker 2: developed for tracking farm animals.
Speaker 1: Livestock tracking humans like cattle.
Speaker 2: That's the uncomfortable parallel. The insight is how easily surveillance
Speaker 2: tech designed for non humans gets adapted for people, often
Speaker 2: starting with vulnerable groups who have less power to object.
Speaker 1: And this idea expanded. The RAND Corporation discussed something called dmpi's.
Speaker 2: Right, the deployable Mass Population Identification and Tracking System.
Speaker 1: What was the context for that?
Speaker 2: It came up in discussions about responding to bioterrorism. The
Speaker 2: idea was a system to quickly round up, tag, and
Speaker 2: track large groups of people in an emergency situation. The
Speaker 2: worry is The worry is how quickly a system like
Speaker 2: that designed for a crisis could be normalized and applied
Speaker 2: more broadly, eroding civil liberties under the banner of safety
Speaker 2: and security.
Speaker 1: Passports were also on the crosshairs, weren't they.
Speaker 2: Yes. Back around two thousand and five, the US stew
Speaker 2: Department was planning to embed r FID chips in all
Speaker 2: new passports. Encrypted Initially, the plan was for them to
Speaker 2: be unencrypted, which raised huge privacy alarms, and the Department
Speaker 2: of Homeland Security launched its US Visit program using RFID
Speaker 2: for foreign visitors, tracking entries and.
Speaker 1: Exits, so tracking people as they cross borders. And what
Speaker 1: about on the roads. Toll tags aren't just for tolls.
Speaker 2: That's another key point from the book. Those highway toll
Speaker 2: transponders like the easy pass or systems in Houston they mentioned,
Speaker 2: aren't just pinging when you go through the toll booth.
Speaker 1: They're tracking elsewhere.
Speaker 2: They can be. Readers placed miles away from the actual
Speaker 2: tolls can track vehicle speeds and locations, atributing to this
Speaker 2: bigger picture of intelligent vehicles that are constantly communicating their whereabouts.
Speaker 2: It shifts from payment convenience to ubiquitous location tracking.
Speaker 1: And this surveillance extends into workplaces and even schools.
Speaker 2: Oh absolutely, we mentioned chipped employee badges tracking movement. The
Speaker 2: book adds examples like woodward laboratories putting readers in bathrooms
Speaker 2: to monitor if employees wash their hands.
Speaker 1: Wow. Micromanagement to the extreme pretty much.
Speaker 2: And in schools they cite Texas Instruments setting up a
Speaker 2: system to track k through eight students at a charter
Speaker 2: school in Buffalo, New.
Speaker 1: York, tracking kids all day.
Speaker 2: That was the idea, and UCLA had a smart kindergarten
Speaker 2: project with RFID tags on the children on toys, even
Speaker 2: on hats, plus microphones and cameras. The goal was an
Speaker 2: all knowing.
Speaker 1: Classroom, an all knowing classroom.
Speaker 2: That sounds intense, it does, But there's a really important
Speaker 2: counter story there too.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, what's that?
Speaker 2: The book highlights successful parent protests, specifically in Suttern, California,
Speaker 2: when this school district there tried to implement RFID tagged
Speaker 2: name badges for students.
Speaker 1: Parents pushed back.
Speaker 2: They pushed back hard, organized, got media attention, brought in
Speaker 2: privacy groups, and they won. The school had to withdraw
Speaker 2: the program.
Speaker 1: That's actually huge. It shows pushback can work.
Speaker 2: It's a crucial takeaway. It demonstrates that informed, collective public
Speaker 2: opposition really can force these systems to be reconsidered or abandoned.
Speaker 1: Okay, lastly on applications, what about crime or just weird function?
Speaker 2: Creep Well, on the creepy side, there's that accentric patent
Speaker 2: They mentioned the real World showroom like that. It described
Speaker 2: a system where individuals could use their PDAs. This was
Speaker 2: two thousand and five tech Remember to scan other people's
Speaker 2: clothes or purchases on the street. Scan strangers, why to
Speaker 2: find out where they bought something? Maybe it's essentially enabling
Speaker 2: electronic frisking by ordinary citizens.
Speaker 1: Which raises serious concerns.
Speaker 2: About stalking domestic violence. Imagine an abuser being able to
Speaker 2: track their victims' purchases, maybe even their location, just by
Speaker 2: scanning items they bought. The authors float a concept called
Speaker 2: the rf Tracker Website, a fictional database linking RFID tags
Speaker 2: to people chilling.
Speaker 1: And then there was the really bizarre stuff like a
Speaker 1: sniper rifle.
Speaker 2: Ah, the ID sniper rifle that was actually a piece
Speaker 2: of satirical art by Jacob Bosco. Yeah he faked this invention,
Speaker 2: a rifle that could supposedly shoot GPS enabled RFID chips
Speaker 2: into people from one thousand yards away cure commentary. But disturbingly,
Speaker 2: the authors report that the Chinant's government apparently took it
Speaker 2: seriously and inquired about dying it, which just shows how
Speaker 2: quickly even outlandish surveillance ideas can seem plausible.
Speaker 1: To some wow and guns themselves.
Speaker 2: They mentioned smart guns, firearms designed only fire if they
Speaker 2: detect a corresponding chip, maybe implanted in the authorized user,
Speaker 2: apparently unpopular with police, and also government funded patents for
Speaker 2: remotely disabling military weapons using RFID.
Speaker 1: Taking control away even from the soldier holding the weapon.
Speaker 2: Right. The critical insight running through all these examples is
Speaker 2: constantly asking who really benefits from these security or efficiency
Speaker 2: measures and what's the cost to individual freedom and privacy.
Speaker 1: This whole deep dive, it paints a picture that's pretty
Speaker 1: close to a nightmare scenario of total surveillance. The authors
Speaker 1: even ask that really start question, what if Hitler had RFID.
Speaker 2: They used that deliberately provocative question to make a very
Speaker 2: serious point that this kind of technology could automate discrimination
Speaker 2: and control on a massive scale, not just charging some
Speaker 2: people higher prices, but potentially enabling digital redlining, meaning cutting
Speaker 2: off entire groups or communities from essential services, digitally identifying
Speaker 2: and isolating them based on data profiles. And they connect
Speaker 2: this to the dangers of unchecked government power. How So,
Speaker 2: they cite the work of RJ. Rummo on demicide death
Speaker 2: by government, arguing that historically, governments with too much power
Speaker 2: are far deadlier than random crime.
Speaker 1: And surveillance enables that power.
Speaker 2: Their argument is that of surveillance fundamentally serves the security
Speaker 2: of the regime, not the safety of the citizens. It
Speaker 2: chills descent, discourages social change, and makes opposition much harder.
Speaker 1: So the erosion of privacy is absolutely central here.
Speaker 2: It's fundamental. RFID, as envisioned by its proponents undermines our
Speaker 2: basic everyday assumptions about privacy, like putting something in your
Speaker 2: bag used to make it unseen, not anymore potentially.
Speaker 1: And they warn't about a slow creep.
Speaker 2: Yeah, a slow progression towards demanding fool proof ID. It
Speaker 2: often starts they argue with groups on the margins prisoners,
Speaker 2: the homeless, and expands to semi captive populations, the elderly
Speaker 2: in care homes, school kids, the military, then maybe government
Speaker 2: employees than private sector.
Speaker 1: Workers, and eventually the general public, leading to embedded chips.
Speaker 2: That's the trajectory. They warn about, a slippery flope that
Speaker 2: we need to recognize and resist early on.
Speaker 1: Of course, the industry pushing RFID didn't just ignore these criticisms.
Speaker 2: Now, the authors document what they call the continued bin
Speaker 2: and sometimes outright slurs against opponents.
Speaker 1: Like calling critics confused or fringe.
Speaker 2: Exactly, dismissing legitimate concerns instead of engaging with them. They
Speaker 2: even mentioned that infamous email leak from the grocery Manufacturers
Speaker 2: of America.
Speaker 1: What was that?
Speaker 2: Where GMA executives were apparently trying to dig up dirt
Speaker 2: find juicy pasts on opponents like castn Albright herself, trying
Speaker 2: to discredit the messenger instead of addressing the message.
Speaker 1: So, face with all this, the tech, the corporate push,
Speaker 1: the government interest, the pr spin, how do the author
Speaker 1: suggest people actually fight back? They do offer some hope, right,
Speaker 1: a message of victory.
Speaker 2: Yes, this is really important. Their core message is actually
Speaker 2: quite empowering. They emphasize that consumers collectively hold enormous power
Speaker 2: market power. Exactly, we can effectively pull the plug on
Speaker 2: the worst applications of RFID through our choices. How boycotts
Speaker 2: boycotts are key. They urge readers to identify and boycott's
Speaker 2: specific companies actively pushing invasive spikech They named Gillette, PNG, Walmart,
Speaker 2: metro Tesco as examples from that time, and they point
Speaker 2: to instances where boycotts did force companies to backtrack on
Speaker 2: RFID plans.
Speaker 1: So consumer pressure works.
Speaker 2: It demonstrably has work, and legislation is crucial to like
Speaker 2: what mandatory labeling. They strongly advocate for laws like the
Speaker 2: proposed RFID Right to No Act, which would require clear,
Speaker 2: unambiguous labels on any product containing an RFID.
Speaker 1: Tag, giving people informed choice exactly.
Speaker 2: Know what you're buying. And then on a personal level,
Speaker 2: they list very concrete actions anyone can take, such as
Speaker 2: use cash more often for anonymity, avoid store loyalty cards
Speaker 2: that explicitly track every purchase, pay tolls with cash if possible,
Speaker 2: get active, yeah, write letters to editors, contact public officials,
Speaker 2: participate in protests if you feel strongly, return products with
Speaker 2: hidden tags and tell the store why you're returning.
Speaker 1: Them even small symbolic acts.
Speaker 2: Wear a protest t shirt. Join privacy advocacy groups like Caspian,
Speaker 2: which Catherine all Break co founded. Every action contributes to
Speaker 2: raising awareness and building pressure.
Speaker 1: Okay, So, wrapping up this deep dive, we've really journeyed
Speaker 1: through how OURFID technology, which kind of disturbingly has these
Speaker 1: roots in covert surveillance.
Speaker 2: There's this undeniable potential for incredibly pervasive tracking, yeah, affecting
Speaker 2: almost every corner of our lives, shopping, travel, healthcare.
Speaker 1: Work, and raising these huge questions about privacy, ci celebrities,
Speaker 1: corporate power, government surveillance. The potential for misuse seems immense.
Speaker 2: It does the ability for corporations and governments to gather
Speaker 2: just unprecedented amounts of data about what we own, where
Speaker 2: we go, even our intimate habits, often maybe usually without
Speaker 2: us even knowing or agreeing to it.
Speaker 1: But and this is the crucial countupoint from the authors,
Speaker 1: it's not necessarily inevitable.
Speaker 2: Exactly as we saw with the Sutter School protests, as
Speaker 2: we saw with Benetton Boycott. Informed collective action does have power.
Speaker 2: It can influence companies, it can influence policy.
Speaker 1: So your choices, your actions as a consumer, as a citizen,
Speaker 1: they really do matter. And deciding what kind of future
Speaker 1: we build with this technology.
Speaker 2: Absolutely so, maybe here's a final thought to leave you
Speaker 2: with something to mull over. Go on. Remember those RFID
Speaker 2: enabled artificial rocks the book mentioned, Yeah, supposedly developed to
Speaker 2: sit by a path and listen sense approaching footsteps.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was weirdly specific.
Speaker 2: It makes you wonder, doesn't it. What does it mean
Speaker 2: for our future when even the simulated nature around us
Speaker 2: might be listening. Where is the next hidden sensor going
Speaker 2: to turn up? Something to think about until our next
Speaker 2: deep dive