Beware of the feds bearing gifts
New grants for congestion relief in Seattle and New York have big strings attached. And implementing road tolling is not as E-Z as it looks.
We're headed into an era of green highways, but what kind of green it is depends on who you talk to. Environmentalists are encouraging the the use of road tolls and congestion pricing as a way to combat greenhouse gases. Political and business leaders are looking at tolls and thinking of another kind of green: the kind taxpayers are often reluctant to part with.
For both groups, the August 14 announcement that Seattle has won a $138.7 million federal Urban Partnership grant to combat congestion was welcome news. King County Executive Ron Sims "applauded" the grant in a WSDOT announcement. In a press release, Mike O'Brien, chair of the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club, enthused: "This is the best news for Puget Sound commuters in years." He added: "We now have a big choice ahead of us."
Indeed. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer laid it out this way:
- A King County plan to reduce future traffic congestion on the state Route 520 bridge and elsewhere in the county has won a $138.7 million federal grant, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced today.
But there's a catch -- new tolls on the existing 520 bridge. The tolls, per agreement between the federal government, state, county and Puget Sound Regional Council, must be put in place to secure the grant.
The feds are pushing tolling and congestion pricing around the country offering the carrot of federal funds. Another grant recipient is New York City, where Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been fighting to keep a tolling plan alive despite opposition in Albany. Nevertheless, the Big Apple got a $354 million congestion grant with the priviso that they implement congestion pricing. The same day, the state legislature voted to create a commission to study just that, though a slim majority of New Yorkers oppose the plan.
In King County, it would work this way:
- The county will receive $138.7 million to implement its "traffic-fighting" proposal to use tolls, improved transit, telecommuting and other technologies, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said during a news conference in Washington, D.C. The bulk of the money goes to the 520 corridor, but also to improved ferry, transit and other services....
The county plan calls for electronic tolling technology and express lanes on the new 520 bridge, which is undergoing mediation to help determine a final design. The electronic tolling would be similar to what is being used on the newly reopened Tacoma Narrows Bridge, state transportation officials say.
The money will help build transit across the 520 corridor -- $41 million for an estimated 45 more buses -- and $1 million will go to improving passenger-only ferry service for Vashon Island....
It all sounds very tempting, but people should be under no illusion that tolling and pricing will stop with the 520 bridge. Indeed, Seattle has also been the site of a major federally funded study of road pricing called "The Traffic Choices Study," conducted by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC).
The study involved more than 275 Seattle area households and their some 400 vehicles over 18 months in a test of region-wide street tolling. Every highway and major arterial in Greater Seattle was "tolled" in the test (see the map here to get an idea of how extensive it was). Drivers were tracked, their daily driving routes sent via satellite signal to a central computer. Drivers were then "charged" against a hypothetical schedule of tolls for each trip with rates adjusted up or down by time of day. Drivers had an incentive to drive less or drive during off-peak hours: a monthly amount to cover their driving was put into an account; if they drove less or more flexibly (and thus spent less), they got to pocket the difference.
The study's results aren't fully tabulated and analyzed yet. The PSRC expects the full results to be available by early 2008. But at a conference in June, they offered a sneak preview of some of the "sketch" results. They estimated that regional road tolling would raise anywhere from $1.5-$2 billion per year. They found that people did indeed drive less. They discovered that most of the revenue came from use of a few major routes, such as 520, I-90 and I-5. Five percent of the tolled miles produced 50% of revenue. But they also learned the system would only work if people couldn't easily divert onto free secondary roads. They acknowledged that it also would only work with widespread public and political acceptance. They also acknowledged that privacy would be an issue.
In addition to the PSRC's tests, we also have a small, live test of tolling technology going on now with the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge. One recent finding: there are scofflaws who use the bridge without paying their tolls, but they are tracked down and billed, according to The Seattle Times:
- About a month after the Tacoma Narrows Bridge opened for traffic, the state Department of Transportation announced that it has issued 3,347 citations of $49 each to drivers who evaded its tollbooths.
The number of citations is about three to four percent of total crossings, officials said, and that's fewer evaders than most toll structures experience nationwide.
The E-Z Pass technology, however, is controversial and points up the privacy dangers of tolling and congestion pricing enabled by computer tracking. On the East Coast, lawyers are using electronic toll records to catch, among other things, cheating spouses:
"E-ZPass is an E-ZPass to go directly to divorce court, because it's an easy way to show you took the off-ramp to adultery," said Jacalyn Barnett, a New York divorce lawyer who has used E-ZPass records a few times.
Some civil liberties advocates are appalled, so before you pick up your "Good to Go" pass, consider this:
Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia turned Libertarian and privacy rights advocate, said people who want to protect their privacy shouldn't use electronic toll systems."People are foolish to buy into these systems without thinking, just because they want to save 20 seconds of time going through a toll booth," he said.
Getting caught with your pants down isn't the only risk. Another is that electronic tolling can be rigged to overcharge drivers. Also electronic toll payment seems to lead to "toll creep." In other words, E-Z pass users wind up paying higher tolls than those who pay with cash. According to the MSNBC blog, Red Tape Chronicles, it works this way:
A recent study published by Amy Finkelstein, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says that states with implement electronic toll collection ultimately raise tolls more than states where drivers pay cash.Finkelstein studied toll taking in all 31 states that make drivers pay. About two-thirds of those states have at least some electronic toll booths. In her paper [PDF file], she provides evidence that e-toll states raise their prices 20 to 40 percent higher than they would have without electronic toll collection. And remember, E-tolls are supposed to reduce labor costs, as fewer toll-takers must be hired.
The conclusion makes sense, because consumers are always willing to pay more for things when they don't pay right away. Credit card companies figured this out long ago. And automated deductions make overcharging much easier. It's easy to see what a great tax-collecting tool that could be!
No wonder policy makers are excited about electronic tolling: not only will the technology allow everyone's movement's to be tracked and billed for, but the ease of electronic payment encourages people to overpay. It beats having to fight Tim Eyman, right?
As I have written before, one of the controversial aspects of this is that the Bush administration sees widespread tolling as a Trojan Horse for greater privatization of our road system, just as it has encouraged privatization of social security and resists a publicly funded healthcare. It creates revenue streams that are attractive to private tollway builders and operators and tempts politicians to sell off roadways in order to get revenues they can't squeeze out of taxpayers.
Proponents and opponents of privatization and tolls are responding in the wake of the Minnesota bridge collapse. Shortly after the Minneapolis disaster, Steve Malanga argued for privatization to address the nation's infrastructure in the Wall Street Journal [subscription req.]. Meanwhile opponents of privatization, James Ridgeway and Daniel Schulman, authors of the Mother Jones article "The Highwaymen: Why You Could Soon Be Paying Wall Street Investors, Australian Bankers and Spanish Builders for the Privilege of Driving on American Roads" took to the airwaves with Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now" to warn about the tolling and privatization agenda. I have previously covered the issue here.
Part of the temptation in the case of the federal grant for 520 congestion is that it comes at a time when we're struggling with how to pay for the replacement of the aging bridge (of course, it's not a simple replacement but an even bigger bridge). Tolling seems like a no-brainder to many people and privatization is thought to be not much of a worry with anti-privatizers like Speaker of the House Frank Chopp in office.
But while tolling and pricing might make good transportation or environmental policy -- and some argue, even social policy -- its downsides shouldn't be overlooked or underestimated. There is a need for much greater scrutiny and debate before we seize $138 million worth of carrots in exchange for instituting a pilot road system that will have profound implications for our pocketbooks, our freedom, and our privacy.
Comments:
Posted Thu, Aug 16, 7:31 a.m. inappropriate
Take The Money - Build a New Bridge: The 520 bridge has two problems: 1. it is a way too congested bottleneck and has been that way for over 25 years (it has only gotten worse) and 2. it is in danger of disappearing into the lake in a big storm or an earthquake.
The sooner we get a new and better bridge - all the better. We're going to pay a toll on the bridge no matter what. If that new toll changes with traffic volumes to keep the entire bridge flowing, I'd gladly pay from 405 to I-5.
In fact, I'd be pretty ticked to be paying a new toll and still be stuck in traffic - the drive back from Redmond after work is often a big stupid wasted hour. And a lot of my fellow stupids are oldsters or kid cars who aren't going anywhere like work.
It looks like this grant comes with mostly money for new buses. What's not to like about that?
I think for sure that all the hand-wringers around here will worry the idea of tolling into a big scare and raise all kinds of noise. But for me there is a far scarier alternative - spending even more stupid time stuck in the madness and wasting all these freeways we've built as parking lots.
And hey, it might even make the air a little cleaner. But I'm guessing that the real answer there is better engines and fuels, like electricity.
Posted Thu, Aug 16, 7:39 a.m. inappropriate
Good article: Glad you mentioned the huge issues of alternate routes and privacy. Both are huge issues. As the former, think about the impact on the Eastlake neighborhood of pricing I-5 through the CBD. It makes Eastlake Avenue East an alternative to save money and thus urban speedway. Unless you toll Eastlake Avenue East etc etc and etc. In many places you can't just toll one part -- bridges the obvious exception -- because there are alternate routes. Huge politics.
One other thing -- among many -- to note is that fans of "free market solutions" to traffic woes should be disabused of the idea that congestion pricing is not such a solution. A true market would have each individual driver negotiating with each other -- bidding, in other words -- for a place on the roads at a certain time etc. Obviously an absurdity.
Congestion pricing is simply an extension of the old "command-and-control" in which the government sets the price and the masses respond. It is not a "market solution" because it does not create a market but only a pricing structure controlled by a central authority.
The political implications should be obvious if opponents can (and they will try) frame congestion-pricing as along the lines of Soviet-style social-management. Tolls of a certain level and for a certain finite duration are of course a different matter and politically acceptable. That's why it's important for the discussion on paying for such things as new bridges to clearly distinguish between tolling-to-pay and congestion-pricing-to-manage.
Posted Thu, Aug 16, 7:52 a.m. inappropriate
Oops!: Of course what I meant to write is that "fans of "free market solutions" to traffic woes should be disabused of the idea that congestion pricing iIS such a solution."
Posted Thu, Aug 16, 9:14 a.m. inappropriate
EZ-Pass, I-Pass are not a bad idea.: My parents live in upstate New York, so whenever I visit I am able to use their EZ-Pass equipped car. It is very convenient and after using it for even a few trips I would never go back to cash-only.
Fist of all, you access your EZ-Pass account online--just like your credit card or bank--and can view a record of all your debits, your balance, and you can add more funds with a few clicks.
Secondly, EZ-Pass is integrated throughout the system. When they pick me up at the airport in Albany, they can pay for parking using EZ-Pass. Then when we get onto the freeway, we glide through at a comfy 30 MPH.
Using toll roads ten years ago was a stressful experience. You would have to frantically dig through your loose change to find exactly 80 cents (in traffic, while targeting the shortest line), you would then have to chuck the change into the basket (don't miss!), and then you would have to peel out and try to get through the mad max dash for a lane as 8 lanes funnel into 3 within a quarter mile.
Not only is that stressful, it isn't very safe.
Additionally, last week (sadly) we had a death in the family and I needed to fly to Chicago. My parents flew from Albany and we met in the Midway airport. We rented a car, and checked a map for the best route to Aurora. Once in the car (I was sitting shotgun), my mom pulled their EZ-Pass transponder out of her purse and handed it to me. Turns out I-Pass (Illinois' version of EZ-Pass) is integrated with EZ-Pass. So in the half dozen or so toll booths that we went through, we didn't have to once worry about it. Tolls were never more than 80 cents, so we were able to drive from Midway to one of the last Chicago suburbs for only a few bucks. No big deal. I spend more for parking every time I go downtown in Seattle.
As for privacy, Knute, you really lay it on thick. It's total FUD, and it is kind of disappointing. Yes, you can argue that your movements can be tracked. But your movements through cash tolls are tracked anyway already. They have cameras that take a picture of every license plate that goes through. So as far as that goes it is a wash.
To look at your privacy argument another way, the same could be said about credit cards. Every time you use a credit card instead of cash you are leaving an electronic trail that could be used to track your movements. People get caught in criminal cases all the time through things like credit card records, cell phone records, etc. While that is a risk, I certainly don't use pay phones or pay with cash because of it.
Tolling is a good idea because it encourages people to be confronted on a regular basis with the reality of their habits. If you drive a lot, it costs money, and instead of just having a gas tax, which you don't even really think about every time you fill your tank, a toll would encourage people to take responsibility for their trip frequency.
If I could drive from Seattle to the airport, park, and drive back without having to touch real cash or take my eyes off the road, I would gladly use RFID transponders. The "you use it, you pay for it" mantra has no better implementation than smart tolls such as EZ or I-Pass.
Posted Thu, Aug 16, 10:47 a.m. inappropriate
Transponder Tolling - Pluses Far Outweigh Minuses: We don't know whether the Wa. State Transportation Commission or the legislature even would approve tolls. We certainly won't know whether those bodies would approve tolls on SR 520 prior to the November vote. This grant offer certainly is not a reason to vote for the upcoming ballot measure (despite the fact that some feel it would help close the SR 520 project funding gap).
That being said, radio-frequency chip tolling on a much bigger scale than this grant offer contemplates is an excellent idea.
A region-wide, variable-priced tolling system based on RFID transponders should be implemented. That would virtually eliminate peak-time bottlenecks on the existing road system.
Moreover, it would raise money for maintaining our roads from those who use them the most (and at the peak congestion times). Build some disincentives to driving into the system! That would keep plenty of people off the roads. Heck, raise gas prices too, via additional fuel taxes.
But the RTID/ST2 approach - massive sales taxes that are regressive and completely unrelated to the extent someone is burdening the road system - is nothing but a cop-out by legislators who don't want to be "responsible" for raising taxes or not delivering congestion relief.
The RTID/ST2 lack-of-accountability model is nothing but the vestiges of a failed governance experiment. Be smarter going forward, and it will be much better for the future of our region.
Posted Thu, Aug 16, 11:49 a.m. inappropriate
A big advantage of tolls: costs will be much easier to see: One of the big challenges in keeping our road system going is deferred maintenance. A big advantage of tolling is it is much easier to communicate to the public what the cost of replacement is for various alternative routes, and figure out what the price should be for that route based on cost (obviously demand also comes into the picture). For example, look at what's happened with northbound traffic as I5 is closed. It diverts to 405. The cost of expansion of 405, while high, is a lot less than adding a lane onto I5. So, we can tell marginal cost much more easily. Hopefully it will be more feasible to stay current with maintenance.
Also, this is definitely a fairer tax than a sales tax. Sales tax as a percentage of income is not always correlated. In the case of the RTID / ST2 sales tax increase, let's say someone is remodeling a vacation home. They are buying lots of items and paying sales tax on them. They are likely to buy the items close to where the home is, not in the RTID /ST2 taxing area unless the home is there. This is just one example. It may be inadvertent or accidental non payment of the RTID tax. However, I bet car dealers who are close to the border of the RTID taxing area are going to see a drop in sales, because people will drive a few miles more and save several hundred dollars.
I hope we will go ahead with the experiment, have clearly communicated goals and various tests, then see what we can learn about ways of reducing pollution, travel time, increasing bus ridership, and communicating costs of infrastructure.
Posted Thu, Aug 16, 12:34 p.m. inappropriate
Feds no longer handing out the $$$: I am not surprised that people out here are whining about tolls - since the "rugged individualists" out here in the West have been the recipients of so much Federal Money over the years. Well it is time to pay your own way, as people all over the country have had to do for decades
Posted Thu, Aug 16, 2:05 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Z-Pass, I-Pass are not a bad idea.: Not to mention that ORCA [orcatest.com, already in use, uses RFID. If you could have your car-based RFID and bus-based RFID systems interconnected, I could go to one Web site and add money that could pay for both my bus fair and road tolls. Getting on and off the tollway would be as easy as getting on and off the bus -- just pass by the reader, get scanned, and move on.
Posted Thu, Aug 16, 2:25 p.m. inappropriate
Constitutional Issue?: I was always led to believe that it's unconstitutional to impose a toll on a bridge that's paid for. That's why the toll was removed from the second Narrows Bridge in the 60s, over objections from Peninsula residents who saw it opening the floodgates to suburbification (which it did). It's also why the only toll is on the new, not the second, Narrows Bridge. Is this not correct? I decided to try using a Good to Spy transponder for a while, over my concerns about its Big Brother aspects. If I see any warning flags, I'm going back to cash. The new bridge cost one billion dollars. The State had a surplus of over 2 billion this year and still raised taxes. *Why* do we need these tolls? Social engineering has trumped civil engineering.
Posted Thu, Aug 16, 3:36 p.m. inappropriate
We WILL be discussing all of this ...: As we discussed briefly earlier, Knute, the privacy issues raised by government's use of RFID technology need dealt with ... and they will be.
Tolling policy was back-burnered at the legislature last session, because there wasn't a sense of urgency. This grant brings the issue back to the fore.
Among other things, we'll be considering just how long the state needs to keep those transponder records. Seems to me that we don't need them long enough for them to become a source for civil discovery.
Deb Eddy
Posted Thu, Aug 16, 3:42 p.m. inappropriate
Privacy Does not Exist: Unless you move out to the willderness. The only people I have ever seen affected by tracking of movements are criminals - why is this bad. The government only uses this tracking if they have a reason too - I doubt anyone is being paid to watch the average person and besides, credit card transactions can already provide a lot more info on where you go, than an EZ Pass -
Posted Thu, Aug 16, 3:57 p.m. inappropriate
Take it as a given: government cannot be trusted, so load it with restrictions on the gathering, use, dissemination, and duration of its access to any data garnared by any means. If you don't, then as sure as you're born some bureaucrat out there will figure out a nasty, invasive use for it and will then be seen running amok putting it to maximum advantage for government control over our lives (read that also as erosion of liberty and freedom) and maximum disadvantage to individual citizens.
The Piper
Posted Thu, Aug 16, 4:28 p.m. inappropriate
RE: We WILL be discussing all of this ...: Deb: I think it's great that you and some of your fellow legislators are on this. I think this is a case where some policy wonks, the ACLU, some lawmakers, and the tech industry are ahead of the general public in worrying about how this stuff is implemented. But I also think the issues aren't merely technical, or limited to the E-Z passes. They have to do with the possible collision of fundamental issues--privacy, surveillance, and freedom of movement, and what constitutes the commonweal. Most of us gave up much of our privacy to get frequent flyer discounts. I would hate to see us sell of what little we have left for the sake of widening roads and buying buses.
Posted Thu, Aug 16, 4:40 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Privacy Does not Exist: We consensually give up lots of information about ourselves; cell phones track our whereabouts right now.
Yes, this technology may help us get the "bad guys" ... and that's good, as a general proposition, unless, incrementally, the definition of "bad guys" grows quite broad . Note the finding mentioned in Knute's article of creep in toll amounts in those states using transponder technology. Now imagine that same sort of creep in terms of who we "track". Where's the boundary? We don't know ... yet.
A guy named Weston proposed this definition of privacy: "The claim of individuals, groups or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others." We don't yet have a definition of civic privacy in this country, a minimum expectation that we can impose on government or private industry. Europe has actually done some of that definitional work and has a strong privacy policy in place.
Now, all that said, I'm not sure whether Knute's post was a net-positive on tolling/congestion pricing or a net-negative. But I do know that these topics will be much discussed in future years.
Posted Thu, Aug 16, 4:53 p.m. inappropriate
RE: We WILL be discussing all of this ...: Agreed. In short order, we'll have to wrestle with some issues, because we need a tolling policy. And the federal grant serves to make that part of the discussion urgent. And those "enhanced" drivers' licenses are to be available early next year, so we need to discuss the security/encryption and privacy implications of those documents (it's sort of REAL ID-lite),
But we also need to convene a longer-term discussion, as you suggest, because some science-fiction fantasies are becoming more and more feasible. Maybe it's inevitable; maybe we can't stop it ... but we can try to manage it, as it comes at us. I'm working on a framework for that discussion right now.
And I'd agree, it's a devil's bargain to sell privacy in exchange for some buses.
Posted Thu, Aug 16, 5:04 p.m. inappropriate
RE: We WILL be discussing all of this ...: Question: how is ORCA or EZ-Pass any different than the bus cards in use now w/ magnetic stripes?
In order to use a monthly bus pass, you have to swipe your card as you board the bus (this "transaction" is logged). This means that if if the government were so inclined they could track any bus rider's movements by mining these logs (as an aside: they DO mine these records, because they can use that data to determine how people use the system and where the pain points might be--a data set that could help us be more informed about traffic patterns were it applied to automobiles).
The only difference between EZ-Pass and bus cards is the technology used to register your unique ID and add the data to a log. What happens after that transaction is in the system wouldn't change.
In reality EZ-Pass is nothing new in terms of potential government abuse because it is only an incremental increase in technology applied to a long-standing, pre-existing sytem (that system being a mechanism for verifying valid funds for use of transportation).
The new privacy risk has to do with third parties intercepting the RFID signal, a risk that, while real, in practice would be highly unlikely (and could be somewhat mitigated through implementing security best practices). I am as concerned about someone reading my EZ-Pass RFID signal as I am about someone listening to my cell phone conversation.
But getting back to the potential for government abuse, has there been any instance where passenger transit logs have been used nefariously by Sound Transit? I would be interested in learning about what the transit officials that study this data do with it, and what policies they have in place regarding personal privacy. How long do they keep transit logs? What kind of data is kept in these logs? Who has access to it? Does it contain SSNs, driver license numbers, etc.? Are people able to export this data to a portable format such as .csv, .xls, .mdb that could be put onto a thumb drive or attached to an email?
Perhaps a solution to your concerns is already on the books and in active use as we speak?
Posted Thu, Aug 16, 5:24 p.m. inappropriate
RE: We WILL be discussing all of this ...: I have NO information that anyone's used anything nefariously ... and you're right, RFID only offers a new way to collect the same informaton that we're already giving out, incrementally, to various agnecies, public and private.
And yes, with appropriate encryption, RFID-enabled identity documents can be secure in themselves (or so I've been told; I'm no technology whiz, but I can follow along ...).
But these aren't just my concerns. At a symposium held at the UW Law School in July, it was apparent that technology experts see the potential for problems and are anxious to help us solve them (techies are citizens, too :-)). I understand that information from that symposium will be posted to the web soon; search for "Shidler Center UW Law".
Posted Thu, Aug 16, 6:44 p.m. inappropriate
RE: We WILL be discussing all of this ...: All of the above concerns being expressed will certainly have to be vetted before agreeing to accept Federal Funding. I would much rather have EVERY State and Federal government agency wave any additional review of the rebuild project rather than sending a 138 million strings attached grant. The Corps of Engineers, the various Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the DOE's all need to agree that this structure is a public necessity and by virtue of the bridges existence in it's present form, the new bridge should be moved forward without the massively expensive environmental review process. It would save millions in dollars and months if not years on the timeline.
Posted Thu, Aug 16, 9:46 p.m. inappropriate
I've said it before...I don't fear Safeway tracking my purchases or Verizon Wireless, dropped call cads that they are, tracking my calls. Neither can use the information to seize my property or have me jailed. But I do fear government, and the more I see of it - my good friend Deb notwithstanding - the more I believe we must assume the worst and plan accordingly.
Because the essential goal of obtaining infomration via RFID technology is to take money from us (good reason or bad, it makes no difference) it is imperative that safeguards be rigid to the point of Draconian in order to prevent not one red cent be taken that isn't owed.
Having had the experience of government wrecking havoc with my checking account due to errors it made and refused to acknowledge until I raised holy hell, I know whereof I speak.
Let's not mess around; do the job right up front so there are no horror stories that demand doing it right later on.
The Piper
Posted Sun, Aug 19, 1:56 a.m. inappropriate
Privacy matters: Once we willingly give up our privacy--which in the name of comfort we seem to be willing to do---it will be very hard to get it back. And like that extra sweater that you should have taken along on the 10 mile hike, you dont miss it until you need it.
Where do we draw the line on privacy? Our electronic communications already have no leagal protection from the government, and its not very clear that we have any privacy protection from corporate snoopers either. The Constitution gives our personal "papers" privacy, but it says nothing of our location, actions, DNA, video store rentals-- a host of endeavours and medias that didnt exist in 1789. Do we just assume that beyond our "papers" the governmnet has the right, the need, to know all of our actions?
So, for the sake of ease and comfort we put transponders in our cars. For the sake of ease, comfort and saftey shouldn't we also be willing to have chips implanted in our bodies? Like the ID chips we put in our pets-- but more complex. We could store medical information, making first responders much more effecient. The chips would act as a life time ID card, letting us board quickly on planes, or cross borders, or prevent underage drinking. Tied to our financial records, the chips could supplant money, allowing us to make purchases with the wave of a hand.
The chips could also keep track of our bloodstreams, recording blood alchole levels, or possible perscription drug use. Such a chip could also forever clear up, or give an asterisk to, Barry Bonds. The chips could also help search and rescue teams, keep our kids from seeing porn on line, record our eating of transfats, saving the insurence companies millions. The chips could make of record of where we go, where we've been, and give the advertizer the opportunity, based on this record, to make a good guess of where we are going in order to more perfectly taylor his marketing pitch directly to us.
For all the good these chips could do-- even if there were no governments or corporations willing to take advantage --- they would forever take away our dignity as human beings. Loose privacy, and you loose autonomy. You stop being human, and you start being a -- I want to say "number", but it's less than that really, for a number is in one sense a value, an expression of "more" or "less". Without privacy, without autonomy, we, I, can only be less.