<p>Transmitters found inside hollow U.S. coins. At the same time, how dumb, because how long does a coin actually stay on your person?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16572783/?GT1=8921[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16572783/?GT1=8921</a></p>
<p>My inbox this morning says it’s Canadian coins…</p>
<p>It’s on the last page, almost last paragraph of this</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/2006trends.pdf[/url]”>http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/2006trends.pdf</a></p>
<p>old story…and when you consider that microchips can be put in human bodies to track people, this isn’t that creepy at all</p>
<p>The chip is the “Mark of the Beast” CGM. Some people see it as a sign to be heralded.</p>
<p>i know, don’t get me started!!!</p>
<p>Imagine chipping your child…blech</p>
<p>as for the coins, how bizarre…did they expect people to never use them- to carry them arround all the time, never empty their pockets, or donate it at church, or to a homeless guy, or give to their kids etc</p>
<p>the whole thing isn’t really creepy, its kind of stupid</p>
<p>Sounds like a hoax to me. The obvious problem - what if the target SPENDS the coin - makes the entire premise absurd.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This contains two or three common misconceptions all at once (not that cgm is holds any of these…):</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The “microchips” used to “track people” and pets and DVDs and expensive merchandise and railroad box cars and entry passes for electric doors and a zillion other things are properly called Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags. They can only broadcast when energized by radio waves from a special transmitter, and have a very limited range (measured in feet, not miles). They don’t really “track” anything – what they do is transmit a short series of numbers when they are energized by another transmitter. Products, for example, would include a UPC code – your pet would have a unique serial number. Interpreting the code coming from the RFID tag requires that the application reading the value understand what it is. If you passed your cat, for example, in front of the RFID reader on the door to my building, the door security system would not “know” anything, other than that the value from the RFID tag in your cat is not a legal security value for the door system. The door wouldn’t open, and your cat would be confused about why you kept waving it in front of a door jamb. That is, of course, if the particular RFID activation transmitter on my office building was the correct one to energize the RFID tag in your pet. If it wasn’t, the RFID tag wouldn’t energize and all you would get is a confused kitty.</p></li>
<li><p>The RFID tag (or “microchip” as the black helicopter people call it) has no power of its own. The longest range I heard of when I was using this technology professionally – for package tracking, nothing sinister – was a few dozen feet, which required wide open space and powerful transmitter. These RFID tags are way more expensive, and require more powerful readers. They also tend to generate a lot of false signals, since they are powerful enough to trigger random RFID tags in the environment around them. Not good – it takes smart software to sort through all the simultaneous transmissions, and still you get lots of “no reads” since the radio signals interfere with each other. There is NO way to stick an RFID tag on the bottom of your shoe, and then ping it from space (or a black helicopter) to see where you were in a major metro area. Staying indoors would be enough to foil this, even if it was even slightly possible, which it isn’t.</p></li>
<li><p>The advantage of RFID tags is that they contain a unique value which can be read by a scanner at close range. The longer-range RFID readers are more problematic because of the noise problem. Since RFID tags are unpowered, they will never have a long range. If you want to track humans, “microchips” are a poor choice.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The devices in the Canadian coins were battery-powered transmitters. They would have had very poor range, as the article said, and short battery life. Unless they were made as a joke by some college students, it’s hard to imagine what else they would be useful for.</p>
<p>So are you saying that a store coudn’t have a reader for example, and if I pass through their doors, they couldn’t read the info on who I am, which is all they need to access the rest of my data? isn’t that enough?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol8/fall/ramesh.htm[/url]”>http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol8/fall/ramesh.htm</a></p>
<p>it is not that they can scan you from space, not, it is that they can have “readers” all over the place…in entrances to buildings for example </p>
<p>that is very concievable</p>
<p>here is a way it could work</p>
<p>chip in body, you pass a scanner, scanner reads chip, gets a code, matches it to data base with all sorts of info about you, to be used for whatever purpose</p>
<p>is that inconvievable or even improbable</p>
<p>I will make anyone a bet, that the chip idea for children safety as an excuse will get more play as the chips get cheaper and more practical, but as time goes on, the information will be used for other means…fear has been used for lots of reasons to accomplish another goal, but guess I am not as trusting of corporations as others are</p>
<p>lets save this post and look back in a decade, see who is closer to reality</p>
<p>if you think I am far off, call me on it then</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would be a system even more complex than the ATM internetwork, and generate no revenue. It is not inconceivable, but it is highly improbable. I’ll take your 10-year bet.</p>
<p>On the other hand, our cat might actually enjoy being waived in front of various door jams :)</p>
<p>CGM Washdad is right - this stuff doesn’t exist now, and since there’s no market for it, probably no one will develop it any time soon. A few years ago DARPA tried to do a project called “Lifelog” which would call for such technology because of how they wanted to test-pilot tracking minuteau of human activity, but it was dropped for lack of available tracking devices and eventually lack of interest.</p>
<p>Probably a hoax perpetrated by the administration to justify the new passport rules regarding travel to/from Canada.</p>
<p>The new rules are effective Jan 1 for land travel and Jan 23 for air travel. This “story” breaks Jan 11. Coincidence?</p>
<p>I can see it now. New requirement for crossing the border: Empty your pockets into the dish please. We must xray your change.</p>
<p>NJres, the passport rules for land travel don’t come into effect til 2008. The air travel ones do start this year on Jan. 23.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The following paragraph in the article addresses that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If it were stuck in a crevice in a briefcase or something, it wouldn’t likely be found. But if it were found, it wouldn’t arouse suspicion.</p>
<p>Turns out perhaps the story wasn’t true after all…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1168816509163&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112101662670[/url]”>http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1168816509163&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112101662670</a></p>
<p>thank you! Can we all be just a little bit skeptical? Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.</p>
<p>LOL, it gets funnier, seems like every morning a new version shows up in my inbox:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/thomas011607.htm[/url]”>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/thomas011607.htm</a></p>
<p>I didn’t realize that people actually read CFP!</p>