Micro-chipped license plates coming to UK and soon to US

jimpgh2002 > wrote in
:

> On 9 Aug 2005 16:02:13 -0700, "proffsl" > wrote:
>
>>jimpgh wrote:
>>>
>>> Every person should be micro-chipped.
>>
>>Which would be a Crime in itself.
>>
> Why?
>>
>>> Crime would drop substantially.
>>
>>How do you reduce crime by perpetrating wholesale crime on everyone?
>
> That's your opinion. Mine is that if a crime occurred it
> would be easy to trace who was there at the time.
>

That can be done with video cameras in public places,not by inserting
intrusive devices into one's body.

Besides,it would be easy to shield any microchip in or on ones body.
If the chip cannot be interrogated,or if it's reply cannot pass the
shielding then it cannot be read.

A common shoplifting tactic is to have a foil-lined pouch to place the
heisted goods in to shield them from the RF scanners.
That is why some anti-theft methods use magnetics along with RFID.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

mr_antone <mr_antone@> wrote in
:

> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:39:15 -0400, Alex Rodriguez >
> wrote:
>
>>In article >,
says...
>>
>>>Proponents argue that making such RFID tags mandatory and ubiquitous
>>>is a logical move to counter the threat of terrorists using the
>>>roadways, and that it will scoop up insurance and registration
>>>scofflaws in the process.
>>
>>The only proponents are the guys selling the stuff.
>
> Big business is in love with RFID tags.
> Wal-Mart, Toys R Us for example..
>
>>
>>What they forget is that plates can easily get damaged in parking
>>maneuvers. Batteries wear out and things can fall off of plates. It
>>happens all the time. I know that on my plate, the batter would fall
>>off in no time. Parking in the street will do that.
>>-------------
>>Alex
>>
>
> RFID tags don't require batteries. The RF reader provides the energy
> when the tag is scanned
>
>
>
>
> mr_antone
>

Except that system uses RFID that is energized by the interrogating RF
field which means a *much shorter range* than the E-Pass type of battery
powered RFID. No unpowered RFID tag would work for auto purposes,the range
would not be useful.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

mr_antone <mr_antone@> wrote in
:

> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:23:44 -0500, mr_antone <mr_antone@> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:39:15 -0400, Alex Rodriguez >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
says...
>>>
>>>>Proponents argue that making such RFID tags mandatory and ubiquitous
>>>>is a logical move to counter the threat of terrorists using the
>>>>roadways, and that it will scoop up insurance and registration
>>>>scofflaws in the process.
>>>
>>>The only proponents are the guys selling the stuff.
>>
>>Big business is in love with RFID tags.
>>Wal-Mart, Toys R Us for example..
>
> Even the State Department is looking at them to put in passports.

Again,only a short-range RFID impractical for automotive road monitoring.
That is why E-Pass transponders are battery-powered;longer range.

>
>>>
>>>What they forget is that plates can easily get damaged in parking
>>>maneuvers. Batteries wear out and things can fall off of plates. It
>>>happens all the time. I know that on my plate, the batter would fall
>>>off in no time. Parking in the street will do that.
>>>-------------
>>>Alex
>>>
>>
>>RFID tags don't require batteries. The RF reader provides the energy
>>when the tag is scanned
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>mr_antone
>
> mr_antone
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Billy" > wrote in news:ne9Me.19007$Ji4.11497@fed1read03:

>
> "proffsl" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Billy, let me ask you a simple question. If there were no government,
>> nor any of their laws, would you still consider Theft a Crime?
>
> Trick question, because there would be no such thing as theft.
>
>
>

Are you claiming that without government,there are no property rights?
That whatever one creates or accumulates can be taken from them...and it's
not theft?

Got news for ya;rights exist prior to government,that government is
INSTITUTED by societies to protect those pre-existing rights.
Sound familiar?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Billy wrote:
> > Proffsl wrote:
> > >
> > > Billy, let me ask you a simple question. If there were no
> > > government, nor any of their laws, would you still consider
> > > Theft a Crime?
> >
> > Trick question, because there would be no such thing as theft.
>
> Are you claiming that without government,there are no property
> rights? That whatever one creates or accumulates can be taken
> from them...and it's not theft?
>
> Got news for ya;rights exist prior to government,that government
> is INSTITUTED by societies to protect those pre-existing rights.
> Sound familiar?

Billy doesn't have the slightest idea what he's claiming, nor does he
care. He's completely disingenious in everything he writes. Billy is
an immoral idiot.

Or, should I say amoral?