DISQUS

It sounds to me like the set-up does allow tracking (in the fairest sense of that word). Your objection to the story might be better focused on the claim that this gizmo "make[s] it easy".

Makes it possible? Yes. But not easy.

It's relevant to keep in mind that the availability of RF-reading technologies will grow, so it will get easier to track people - though it'll be a while before it's truly "easy."

You're so right to call out the RFID researcher for demanding "independent oversight and investigation." What does he think the Wired story, this blog post, and all the other people poking around this question are? It's the market at work, baby!

In fairness, Lauren Weinstein calls it satire in the original. It's not a PFF characterization. But it is extremely inapposite satire, and not very good, isn't it? Lauren would have done a better job by satirizing how his computer violates the copyrights of software authors each time the computer runs programs. But then that would have made a different point: that Google is not harming the market for copyrighted content and vastly increasing the usefulness of such content at the same time.

Yet too busy to check the spelling of "Aspen" . . . .

Two pieces of relevant, apparently conflicting language from the State Department's notice:

To verify that the data written on the electronic chip has not been tampered with, the Department proposes to employ digital signatures compliant with the ICAO Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) technology. In order to ensure that the data contained in the electronic chip matches the data printed in the physical book, electronic chip technology requires that the data on the electronic chip be written only once and not changed.

and

Recent press stories about the use of this technology have noted that the information will not be "encrypted" and mention the concern about identity theft by unauthorized persons through either skimming (the surreptitious reading of the electronic information without the holder's knowledge) or eavesdropping intercepting information from the electronic chip while it is being read at an official port of entry station). The United States does not intend to encrypt the data for the following reasons: the personal data stored on the passport's electronic chip consists simply of the information traditionally and visibly displayed on the passport data page; encrypted data takes longer to read, increasing port of entry processing time; and in order to be globally interoperable, encryption would require a higher level of technology and more complicated technical coordination with other nations.

So, the data may be written to the chip with the State Department's private key, but it's readable using State's public key, making it encrypted for the State Department's security purposes (anti-forgery) but not for individuals' security purposes (anti-skimming). That the way you see it, garym?

Half way through, I couldn't understand why the editing and the narrator's tone was so foreboding while they showed how cool everything was gonna be. Then they got into that "media and democracy" crap and I understood. We're supposed to dread this outcome. Uh, OK. Sure. The family farm, the New York Times. I'm so bummed to see them go. (Yawn.)

I'm not in a position to advise you on whether building a EULA interpreter would constitute the practice of law. Send big $$ and I'll think about it.

In the absence of a EULA interpreter, you should be able to rely on the adhesion doctrine to avoid really weird, unilateral contract terms. (Of course, no one wants to be the one to bring that case. You might prefer giving up your kid.)

There's lots to do in this area before the law is settled and we've only seen the first stages of what software contracts should look like. Ultimately, will we buy software or license it? Will software producers warrant its fitness for particular purposes? The list goes on and on.

ComScore, for example, may or may not be fully and adequately disclosing what they do with their MarketScore research tool. It's tough when so much of this is new to consumers and difficult to understand. But they've gotta do it in order to form an adequate, enforceable contract.

Change the analogy to leaves, and it's spot-on!

If you were to describe how an upskirt photo victim is violated (in the absence of harm: i.e., the shock of discovering the act, circulation of the pictures that sullies reputation, etc.), I think you'd find yourself talking about things that are essentially metaphysical. As to peeping, I think it's illegal because one has to commit a trespass to do it. If you can peep without trespassing, I think that's watching a strip show. Or would you make it a crime to observe from your living room a neighbor undressing through her open window? Anti-peeping statutes are just extra words in the statute books, like this video voyeurism law, that add moral opprobrium for the sake of politics.

These comments reflect good (moral) outrage. I'm making a subtle and esoteric point: I don't believe there is a role for law when the "victim" is not victimized. Improper, non-harmful behavior is the realm of morals and social approbation.




Example: If you write on a piece of paper, "Jim Harper committed a murder when he was 11," that is false and would be defamatory, but it does me no harm unless you publish it. The falsity is a necessary, but insufficient condition. The publication defames me. You're wrong to have written a falsity but, if it's unpublished, that's the end of it.





UNLESS you want to import into U.S. law the idea that people should be held metaphsically inviolate by others. The only place I know of such doctrine is the right artists in Europe have to prevent their works from being mutilated or distorted. Incidentally, these are called "moral rights."