Human Identity Reduced To A Bar Code Idaho National E & E Laboratory 2-12-99 Canned peas, beans, and human beings all have something in common -- they can be identified with a bar code. It takes more than supermarket science to see a human's bar code, however. The Department of Energy's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and Miragen, a biotechnology company, are developing a technique that can display a "bar code" of antibodies that is unique for each person and may become a powerful new tool for law enforcement. INEEL's chemical engineer Vicki Thompson presented an overview of her work to date to the International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE). Her paper will be published in the conference proceedings called Enabling Technologies for Law Enforcement and Security in January. Miragen, based in Irvine, California, has developed a technique called the Antibody Profile Assay (AbPTM) that can identify an individual by a subset of normally occurring antibodies present in his body. These antibodies, called Individual Specific Autoantibodies (ISA's), are not affected by medicines or illnesses, and with very few exceptions are stable across a person's lifetime -- just like a fingerprint. The AbPTM technique involves flushing a sample containing blood (or potentially other bodily fluids) across a strip of paper lined with bands of specific proteins that the ISA's can cling to. The paper is then rinsed with reagents that stain the ISA's, and researchers are able to see which ISA's an individual has. There is little sample preparation necessary, and the results are in a permanent, easy-to-read format. The test can even distinguish between identical twins -- something DNA testing cannot. Until recently, Miragen has marketed the technique only for medical and agricultural purposes, but researchers at the INEEL are interested in developing this new technology for law enforcement. "The test itself is very simple to do; the chemistry behind it is not," says Thompson. Although she says she doesn't see this technique replacing DNA testing, it does offer several advantages: One, the test can be prepared by someone with a high school education. Secondly, the fact that this test does not require DNA material, only bodily fluids, gives law enforcement a very powerful new method for proving someone was at a crime scene. This could be very important in cases of alleged rape where the suspect has had a vasectomy - there is no DNA in the fluid, but there are antibodies. Also, results from the AbPTM assay are available in around two hours whereas DNA tests can take anywhere from 24 hours to three weeks. The assay provides an additional method with which law enforcement personnel can prove identity. This technique, which costs an estimated $20 per test, is significantly cheaper than DNA testing, which can range from $200 to $1,200 per test. Thompson is partnering with Miragen through a cooperative research and development agreement to test the technique's efficacy against the real-world problems facing law enforcement. Recently, she provided blood samples from 10 people to the Wyoming State Crime Laboratory. They agreed to doctor blood samples to simulate crime scene challenges for Thompson and her team. "They added gasoline to the blood samples, swabbed the blood off of sidewalks, windshields, and cars, mixed the samples, and even used animal blood," said Thompson. Surprisingly, animal blood is often found at crime scenes, and the assay technique must distinguish between human and animal blood, said Thompson. The Wyoming lab obtained samples of blood from cats, dogs, sheep, coyotes -- even moose. "It's not like you often find moose blood at crime scenes," says Thompson with a laugh, "it was just what was easy for them to obtain." The Wyoming Lab created a key of what was done to the samples (and who they belonged to) and sent Thompson 422 sample puzzles to solve. Thompson was able to correctly identify 91% of the samples. The assay technique was less reliable with blood samples that had been exposed to temperatures above 60*C (140*F) and samples contaminated with dirt. "The blood samples just get too degraded at high temperatures," says Thompson, "and we really don't understand what is happening with the dirt." Thompson later scooped dirt from outside her lab and did several new tests. "It seems to make a real difference in the samples mixed with dirt if it is over 24 hours before we test them -- that is a lot of time for microbes to work," she says. This is problematic because microbes are abundant in soils, and not all crimes scenes are discovered (and their evidence gathered) within 24 hours. Thompson also decided to make the new test non-responsive to animal antibodies completely. She changed the reagent wash composition so that only human ISA's are stained and create a color band, while the animal antibodies are ignored. A success rate of 91% is not good enough for the courts. "We realized that the technique had to be made more sensitive," says Thompson. With funding from the INEEL's discretionary research program, Thompson is improving the test procedure. By using an additional wash of reagents, she is able to build up more of the reagents that stain the ISA's on the protein strip -- refining the distinct bands. In 1999, Thompson will test her new process against more simulated crime scene situations, and work toward statistical proof that the bar code is truly as unique to each person as a fingerprint. The validity of the assay has to be statistically proven before the test results will be widely used in court proceedings.

-- a (a@a.a), February 13, 1999

Answers

This is so wonderful! And here I was feeling down. Silly me.

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), February 13, 1999.

And they could neither buy nor sell with out the mark. And the number of the mark was 666. Look at any UPC bar code the first 2 slashes longer than the rest represent the number 6 there are 2 more in the middle longer than the rest they too represent the number 6 and then at the end there they are again HMMMMMM.Tman

-- Tman (Tman@IBAgeek.com), February 13, 1999.

Do fingerprints, as a method of identifying human beings, seem scary, ominous or dehumanizing?

Of course an obvious difference between fingerprinting and the technology described above is familiarity -- fingerprinting has been around all our lives. Also, the visual shape of the data on a fingerprint card is still similar to the part of the human body from which it is taken.

But some of you may know that law enforcement agencies (and others) now store fingerprints as digital data -- basically a set of numbers, which could also be represented as (or compared to) a bar code.

Suppose that in the quoted article the author had used "antibodyprint" (analogous to "fingerprint") to refer to the stored data from this new technology instead of "bar code".

Then one might see the title of this thread as "Human Identity Reduced to an Antibodyprint" -- does that seem less ominous or dehumanizing than a reference to "bar code"?

The analogy of fingerprints to bar codes can be made just as strong as the analogy of antibodyprints to bar codes. There is no essential difference in the _type_ (aside from its origin) of data resulting -- in both cases, they can be represented as long strings of numbers.

In fact, it would be possible for the antibodyprint data to be represented as "finger-prints", with whorls, loops, and all the other features of actual fingerprints, by reversing the mathematical process by which actual fingerprints are converted to digital data. The antibodyprint data would then look less artificial, less computerized, less inhuman than a bar code, wouldn't it?

- - - - - - - - - -

a,

If the author of the article had chosen to use the analogies I present, with no mention of bar codes, would you still have posted this thread? The information content of the article would be the same in that case, but the emotional impact different.

- - - - - - - - - -

My point is that it is the analogy to bar codes that is scary to some of you, not the technology of identification through Antibody Profile Assay.

Unless you are scared by fingerprints. Are you?

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), February 13, 1999.

Tman,

Fingerprints can be represented by bar codes, with the "6"s you mention, though that is not the way they are commonly thought of. It's just a matter of running the data through a formatting algorithm.

There is no essential difference in the form of information carried in a fingerprint and the form of information derived from an Antibody Profile Assay, from the point of view of a bar-code representation.

Do you consider a fingerprint to be a Mark of the Beast?

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), February 13, 1999.

Oh yes.

And ... when I do a Find on "Y2k" (case-insensitive) in this thread it comes up empty. Just where is the explanation of connection to the topic of this forum?

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), February 13, 1999.

What about people without hands? Then what?

-- Tman (Tman@IBAgeek.com), February 13, 1999.

Tman,

Does your inquiry about people without hands mean you're not going to answer the question I posed to you about fingerprints?

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), February 13, 1999.

Land of the free?

This country became a police state when "Peace Officers" became "Police Officers". Peace officers keep the peace. Police officers police you (to keep you in line, to make sure you obey the myriads of laws your rulers have passed, etc.)

-- A (A@AisA.com), February 13, 1999.

No Spam,

>>Are you scared of fingerprints? Are you?

The implication here is that if we are concerned about police powers, we must have done something wrong. This is THE classic argument used in totalitarian police states. We should all be concerned about this, and more. The Nazis managed just fine with shoeboxes and 3x5 card files. Now we have "artificially intelligent" computer systems that can run public survelliance cameras, scan the unique facial features of a large crowd, compare it with a data base of (driver's license) photos, and tell who is where. Makeup won't help; infrared physiognomy recognition reads the heat coming through your bone structure. These "smart cameras" are getting smaller and cheaper all the time; prototypes are in use now; soon they will be everywhere, and we won't even notice them. The world will be like the deck of the starship enterprise: anyone with clearance can find out where anyone is, at anytime, who they're associating with, what they're saying and doing. The media cartel hasn't seen fit to tell us about this. Perhaps they, like you, want to avoid "emotional impact."

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 13, 1999.

Wowsers! I am so scared. Is that how you spell wowsers? Poop on the NWO, they lose, we win, Freedom, Freedom, Freedom.

My prayer for the evening.

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), February 13, 1999.

E.,

Do you want to address any of the points I raised?

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), February 13, 1999.

A fingerprint will not be the mark of the beast. However the mark will be placed on the right hand or the forehead. The mark could well be a UPC code laser tattooed under the skin the technology is already there for this type of thing. The company I work for assigns an alphanumeric code to our customers when the code is entered into the computer I can tell you everything about that person including where they have been and to some degree where they are going. My point is that with the grocery store cards and other things around Big Brother is gathering more and more information about each of us. That makes me wonder! Also my father worked for the military for years and like many he is loosing trust in our system and after yesterday so am I. Tman

-- Tman (Tman@IBAgeek.com), February 13, 1999.

E., Do you want to address any of the points I raised?

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), February 13, 1999.

Heh E.,

Try thinking...We are already there!

Try transacting any business deal without the f&^%$''ng government being there. Ever had your own business? FTG!

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), February 13, 1999.

No Spam,

Well, you seem object to the use of the phrase "bar code," because it's a loaded term. I agree, to a point. I also agree about the conversion of data - the form is not the important thing. But when you equate coding identity with antibodies, or DNA, with fingerprinting, you're wrong. The use of the term "barcoding" is entirely appropriate, emotional baggage and all, if we're talking about *taking inventory of human beings* rather than identifying criminals. It is my belief that giving the state the right to TAG it's "inventory" of citizens without their having commited a crime, is tantamount to giving them the right to own people. This is fundamental to socialism, that the individual is the property of the state. As in "Brave New World," "we all belong to one another." That's evil and degrading. Any government that desires tagging and tracking citizens in this way is so paranoid as to be a threat to their lives and most essential liberties. Another point about your equation of fingerprints and DNA or antibody sampling is that fingerprinting is not intrusive. Fingerprints, when legally and ethically obtained, are evidence of intrusion (usually). Sampling DNA and antibodies, like drug-testing, is intrusive, and can be done surrupticiously. It equates the State's (often reasonable) demand for positive identification with *ownership of your body,* i.e., they can take a piece of it any time they want. In order to prove that you are who you say they are, they can get right into you, and they might demand to do it over and over again. Each time you get used to them taking some of you. It conditions us to accept a permiable boundary. They can look in your bladder for drugs; they can take "their" sample of your blood. It's more like a Dachau tatoo than fingerprinting.

Anyway, it's a moot point. The future's in subcutaneous microchip transponders for positive i.d. and other, less obvious medical biotelemetry. Investors take note!

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 13, 1999.

E: Yes, but in your view all this is being orchestrated by a powerful and sinister elite. I think that it's "just the way it is" (the political invisible hand I referred to earlier). Do you really thing that drug testing and the cruel mandatory minimums were a premeditated attempt at a Brave New World by the Powers That Be? hmmm...come to think of it, I believe one of the Rockefeller's ilk was the one who first proposed mandatory minimums...maybe you're right and I'm wrong and it is worse than I thought. But I'm sticking with my syncronicity theory for now.

-- a (a@a.a), February 13, 1999.

a.,

I don't want to sound patronizing, but it took me a long while to get to my current level of suspicion. Seek and ye shall find.

The war on drugs exists to eliminate competition in the trade, keep the price up, and ultimately, to build prisons, employ a vast, militarized police apparatus, blur the boundaries between military and police, and condition the populace to constant survelliance, unreasonable searches and the forfeiture of all property on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. The billions spent on the WOD have not had the slightest success! Drugs also demoralize and degrade the user; they are weakening us, distracting us. We've lost the 4th amendment to the war on drugs. It's gone. They might as well cut it out of the original document with a pair of scissors. What else are we willing to give up? Post Y2k it might be freedom of speech, assembly? The precedent has been set, the people have been prepared...

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 13, 1999.

No Spam. With every post you reveal more of the hideous nature of your true being. Seek God now or forever regret.

-- Nikoli krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), February 13, 1999.

Yummy yummy yummy I got love in my tummy, and I think I'm gonna get me some more!

Yummy yummy yummy it just tastes so scrummy, I want it to come in through the door

-- Boogie Boogie (me@me.me), February 14, 1999.

What's this invisible hand nonsense, anyway? Was it an 'invisible hand' that killed hundreds of thousands in Indonesia, in East Timor, in Indochina, that killed thousands of innocents in Panama during our invasion to capture the EVIL Noriega? Is it an invisible hand that bombs civilians in Iraq every day now (perpetual war for perpetual peace, just like Orwell prophecied). Were those invisible hands that killed and tortured countless thousands in South and Central America during the '70s and '80's? Invisible hands killed the Branch Davidians? As if no one is in charge...right. Just a big chaos of randomness out there, plain as day.

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), February 14, 1999.

Spidey: The political Invisible Hand is my description of the way I see the world progressing. It is driven by Human nature, mainly greed, but is not controlled by any one person or group. It's simply "the way it is", much like all the other unexplained things that exist in nature, without which our reality would not be possible. Such as fire, coal deposits, the crystal fracturing pattern that provided early man with a cutting edge, laws of physics that enable inventions like the steam and gas engines, etc. These things are no more creations of man than his heart and lungs are. There are other forces at play, extraterrestrial, but not necessarily "space aliens". Synchronicity, if you're familiar with the phenomenon, is heavily involved in this mechanism, and post quantum theory, specifically information traveling backwards from the future, may explain some of it.

This is where my philosophy differs from E's, in that I understand perfectly well that conspiracies exist and that there truly exist a global elite, but I think that the events that are now occurring have always been "in the cards", quite naturally. For instance, look at the progression:

family unit>tribe>villiage>city-state>nation>global community

Could the Illuminati really be responsible for the entire evolution of society? If not, then where and when did they begin? And no fair answering Bavaria-1776.

-- a (a@a.a), February 14, 1999.

E, you appear to be suffering from a severe case of post hoc, ergo prompter hoc.

The war on drugs is a classic case of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The government suffers from the effects of this law whenever they try to legislate public behavior in any way that the public doesn't care to behave. This effect is especially virulent when the public, as individuals, wants everyone *else* to behave a certain way, but not *me*.

One thing that governments are terrible at is admitting error. Remember prohibition? It took a dozen years of disaster for us to decide that the cure was worse than the disease, and we've had the organized crime Prohibition bred, ever since.

We started the war on drugs to get people to stop doing drugs. People didn't want to stop, and didn't stop. As enforcement stepped up, it had the side effect (unintended consequence) of making the drug trade increasingly lucrative. Lucrative trades both rely on, and build, a solid customer base. As the base grew, our efforts to stop it also grew. Can you say "positive feedback"?

What you bemoan isn't the effects of the drugs, but the effects of the enforcement effort, which have been many times worse than the drugs themselves. You are looking at the destination we've reached by paving that road with good intentions. But you can't argue backwards, that we got there intentionally. The intention was to get people to quit doing drugs. Still is.

This situation will continue, and likely worsen, so long as there is a public mandate to get *everyone else* to quit drugs. We have met the enemy, and they is us.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 14, 1999.

E.,

>Well, you seem object to the use of the phrase "bar code," because it's a loaded term.

"Bar code" is an inappropriate analogy to use for the Antibody Profile Assay described in the article above. It carries implications which have no parallel in the Antibody Profile Assay. Judging by the postings here, the principle problem is that "bar code" evokes the idea of printing or affixing a label or tag to something, whereas Antibody Profile Assay does _nothing of that sort_.

My contention is that the feelings of discomfort being expressed here are triggered by that "bar code" analogy, not any information about the Antibody Profile Assay itself.

>But when you equate coding identity with antibodies, or DNA, with fingerprinting, you're wrong. The use of the term "barcoding" is entirely appropriate, emotional baggage and all, if we're talking about *taking inventory of human beings* rather than identifying criminals.

But the Antibody Profile Assay does not involve any inventory of human beings!!

The only application mentioned in the article _is_ identification of criminals!!

Your "taking inventory" idea appears to have been directly suggested by the "bar code" analogy, not by anything pertaining to the Antibody Profile Assay.

>It is my belief that giving the state the right to TAG it's "inventory" of citizens without their having commited a crime, is tantamount to giving them the right to own people. This is fundamental to socialism, that the individual is the property of the state. As in "Brave New World," "we all belong to one another." That's evil and degrading.

Okay. I agree with you on those points.

But those points do not apply to the Antibody Profile Assay. They are connected only to the "bar code" analogy.

>Any government that desires tagging and tracking citizens

... which procedures are suggested by the "bar code" analogy, not by any part of the Antibody Profile Assay ...

>in this way is so paranoid as to be a threat to their lives and most essential liberties.

Agreed. But this idea is connected to the "bar code" analogy, not the Antibody Profile Assay.

>Another point about your equation of fingerprints and DNA or antibody sampling is that fingerprinting is not intrusive. Fingerprints, when legally and ethically obtained, are evidence of intrusion (usually).

One of my past employers made a sudden announcement that all employees were required to be fingerprinted. I certainly felt intruded-upon as my fingers were taken from the ink to the card and back, and judging by the murmurs of others this was a common feeling.

I had to balance my dislike of being fingerprinted against my opinion of the trustworthiness of my employer, my satisaction with my job and my opinion of the legitimacy of the reason given for the fingerprinting requirement. I decided, on balance, to stay.

>It's more like a Dachau tatoo than fingerprinting.

No, once more you've gone too far. The inappropriate "bar code" analogy strikes again.

Tattooing involves marking the body. That is related to the "bar code" analogy, not the Antibody Profile Assay which does not involve marking or affixing a tag or label.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), February 14, 1999.

Flint: This is the "keystone cops" conspiracy theory. It flatters the average person by telling him that, despite their billions, hereditary banking families are just as clueless as he is. And when they get together with the wealthy elites and media moguls and military minds of every nation in low-profile meetings, they are really just hanging out, pounding back a few brewskis, and watching the game (albeit on a really really big screen). No, no planning. They play chess, but they don't apply any game-priniciples to their stewardship of that 90+% of the world's wealth that they control. They consider themselves just ordinary people like us, and they don't think ahead, they just passively take every day as it comes...

The "war on drugs" is about anything but drugs. You are quick with an opinion, but you embarass yourself with your lack of knowledge. The "war on drugs" would be worthwhile, from the elite's point of view, if only to justify the massive military training of South American counter-insurgency (peasant-killing) troops, to forestall any left-wing activity and grease the wheels of wealth-extraction. Michael Levine, a former top DEA official in South America, has stated that the CIA overthrew a government in Bolivia which was serious about eliminating cocaine production and replaced it with one more to their liking and more repressive of the poor.

Here's some more for you on the "drug war."

http://www.sheeple.com/poisons/drugwars.html http://www.madcowprod.com/

You've got your head in the sand about Y2k, Flint, and it appears that that's not you're only blind spot. At this point, I think that anyone who doesn't notice a trend toward militarization of police, assualt on privacy and civil liberties, and a general SouthAmericanization of the U.S., is either braindead or complicit. To imagine that the people who run the government really care about a bunch of "useless eaters" smoking crack, is absurd. That's why the CIA has no problem dealing the stuff - it's primarily the surplus-labor that takes the damage. And the money goes for covert ops to keep down leftists in "our back yard." No, there is no intelligence at work here people; sometimes bad things happen. Just squeeze your teddy bear a little tighter and keep sucking that television set...

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 15, 1999.

No Spam:

me: >>Any government that desires tagging and tracking citizens

You: >... which procedures are suggested by the "bar code" analogy, not by any part of the Antibody Profile Assay ...

No, the procedures are "suggested" by the fact that they are happening. This is called "context." Universal i.d. is being pushed hard, snuck into congressional bills without notice, etc.. There is no doubt that the govt. wants to give us all "papers." They want the phone company to build systems whereby they can tap any and every phone with the flip of a switch. They can track location via with cell phones. Have you recently arrived here from some parallel reality, in which the FBI has been doing it's job (catching interstate crooks) instead of building a huge domestic spy apparatus, infiltrating "suspicious" political organizations with agents provocateurs, etc., etc.? Look at the "profiling" that goes on, just with the credit bureas. They know your buying habits, where you shop, what foods you eat. Wake the hell up! I've said that antibody profiling is insignificant in the overall scheme of things. It's just one more way of tagging people. And of course it's "only for bad people." Too bad that historically, that designation has a way of suddenly shifting...

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 15, 1999.

E.,

>me: >>Any government that desires tagging and tracking citizens

>You: >... which procedures are suggested by the "bar code" analogy, not by any part of the Antibody Profile Assay ...

>No, the procedures are "suggested" by the fact that they are happening.

Okay, my apologies -- I misinterpreted.

Would you agree that both Antibody Profile Assay and fingerprints are identification methods, but not tagging or labeling methods as are bar codes?

It could be argued that fingerprints are less permanent than antibodies because they can be changed via surgery. Is that possibility enough to make any practical difference in the privacy implications of storage of fingerprints vs Antibody Profile Assay results?

>Have you recently arrived here from some parallel reality, in which the FBI has been doing it's job

My comments were not addressed to that aspect. They are addressed to the distinction between Antibody Profile Assay and the "bar code" analogy used by the author of the article at top of this thread.

>Wake the hell up!

Please don't presume that I (or anyone else) am not aware of issues just because I do not mention them in postings to a thread.

>I've said that antibody profiling is insignificant in the overall scheme of things. It's just one more way of tagging people.

How does it _tag_ people? Do you say that fingerprints tag people?

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), February 15, 1999.

Your demand to banish the socio-political context is unreasonable. Like a piss-test, the antibody test is, unlike fingerprinting, invasive. It involves a claim on the body and it's contents. The U.S. government also has copyrights on human DNA, brain tissue for certain, but probably a lot more than that by now. These facts are part of a larger picture; some people insist it's a mindless "trend," others like myself think that it's part of an organized effort to OWN PEOPLE again. That's what I'm talking about. You can have thread of narrow, meaningless, inconsequential technicalities back now. I'm gone.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 15, 1999.

Flint: Wake up, sir! Go read any history book on the Boxer rebellion and Chinese opium wars. Britain WENT TO WAR, invading China, to maintain their lucrative game of bringing opium INTO China. When the Chinese government balked, they had to deal with British troops firing live ammunition at them. And go do a search on the Wall Street Journal's articles about Mena, Arkansas, and the CIA/cocaine connection. Go read about Barry Seal. Eugene Hasenfuss, hired labor on a contra supply flight shot down in Nicaragua. Read, my man. A: appreciate your comments; question: do you feel there is a key to this 'process,' or are we just hapless viewers. ? E.----have you read Craig Robert's book 'Kill Zone?' He thinks JFK was offed because he was about to abolish the fed. Nothing new to you, I'm sure.

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), February 16, 1999.