End Times and Current Events

Eat Your Last Meal!!! EBT, WIC,& FOOD STAMPS TO END in exchange for MICROCHIPPING TO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu0z9O7LXYg

I dare you to go to the WIC website, or the EBT website or the SNAP/Food stamp website or the Grocery Manufacturers of america,the food and drug admins, etc. etc. Go to there search field browser and type in RFID,or biometric and WATCH what pops up. I also have Government Links to show the validity of this video.

Go Google this entire sentence..... "Planned Nationwide Usage of the biometric information sharing capability by fiscal year 2009-2013" As well as these below.

-Go Google "The human robot operating system" PDF (Super Smoking Gun Proof)

Go to FMI Dot Org. Type 2011 RFID in the search field

Go to www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ebt/ AND TYPE IN 2011 BIOMETRIC OR RFID

Go to youtube and type in "Biometric ID Cards Replace Cash mark of the beast"

Go to youtube and type in
" louisana bans cash"

Go Google "Biometrics dot gov Fingerprint recognition"

I have much more Smokiing gun proof but I'll reveal it later. I have other videos to make .

Introduction to Biometric Identification Technology: Capabilities and Applications to the Food Stamp Program

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In its continuing efforts to safeguard the integrity of the Food Stamp Program (FSP), the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) initiated this study of the use of biometric identification technologies in the FSP. As a method of reliably verifying the identity of applicants, biometric identification has the potential to reduce the vulnerability of the Food Stamp Program to duplicate participation, which has also been referred to as "double dipping."

Biometric identification technology provides automated methods to identify a person based on physical characteristics – such as fingerprints, hand shape, and characteristics of the eyes and face – as well as behavioral characteristics – including signatures and voice patterns. Although used in law enforcement and defense for several years, it has recently been used in civilian applications, such as the FSP and other assistance programs. This technology has the potential to identify individuals who attempt to apply for benefits on more than one case, or who attempt to obtain benefits belonging to someone else.

This report presents an overview of biometric identification technology with particular attention to its potential use to improve the integrity of the FSP. It briefly describes some of the major technologies, summarizes their capabilities, gives examples of applications, and discusses issues that should be considered in evaluating biometric identification technology. It pays particular attention to applications of the technology to the FSP, or to other welfare programs. Although it describes several specific biometric identification technologies, it focuses on finger imaging, which has been the primary technology used in social service programs. A companion report describes the efforts of nine States that have incorporated or plan to incorporate biometric technology in their social service programs, and discusses the cost and effectiveness of these programs, as well as the reactions to them by the client population.

Description of Biometric Technology

Biometric identification technology uses automated methods to recognize the identity or verify the claimed identity of an individual based on physical or behavioral characteristics. A biometric identification device is capable of measuring individual biometric information, comparing the resulting measurement with one or more stored biometric reference templates, deciding whether they match sufficiently to indicate that they represent the same person, and indicating whether or not a recognition or verification of identity has been achieved.

One of the most common methods of biometric identification is based on the analysis of finger images. Most automated finger image identification technology uses a process analogous to that used by a human fingerprint analyst. Finger images are processed by the software to identify the location and orientation of minutiae, which include points where fingerprint ridges diverge and points where ridges stop. The minutiae of a live image are then compared to one or more stored images. If they are sufficiently similar, then a match is declared. The steps in processing a finger image include capture of the image, image processing, feature detection, and matching.

Initial applications of biometric identification technology were for police or military organizations. More recently, biometric technology has been applied to a wider variety of civilian applications. The technology provides authentication for computer system access, eases entry into the country for frequent international travelers, replaces passwords in automated teller machines (ATMs), and verifies the time workers spend on the job. Applications differ in several ways; the specific characteristics of an application can affect the performance of the technology and its vulnerability to certain attempts at fraud.

Applications to the FSP

There are two ways to use biometric identification technology to reduce FSP fraud: when an individual enrolls for benefits and when the benefits are redeemed at a local grocery store. The goal of biometric identification technology at enrollment is to eliminate individuals who apply for duplicate benefits using more than one identity by detecting or deterring those who apply for duplicate benefits. The goal of biometric technology at disbursement is to reduce trafficking or other unlawful uses of benefits by those who are not entitled to receive them.

System Performance and Effectiveness Issues

A biometric method used at the time of application to reduce fraud in the FSP must be quick, accurate, resistant to fraud, and acceptable to clients. In addition, the technology will not be effective if it is vulnerable to attempts to change the appearance of a finger image in order to avoid detection of a duplicate applicant. Analysis of existing data suggests that finger-imaging systems are capable of detecting more than 95% of attempts to obtain duplicate benefits while incorrectly indicating fraud in fewer than 1% of legitimate applicants. System error rates can be improved by using human minutiae analysts to examine candidate matches or performing periodic unfiltered searches of the entire finger-image data base.

The performance of a biometric identification system is affected by policy decisions. For systems used at the time of enrollment, the policies regarding exemptions from biometric requirements might affect the likelihood of catching fraudulent attempts to obtain duplicate benefits. Though exemptions are required for those who are missing fingers or who cannot provide an image with sufficient quality for identification, exemptions for other reasons, such as individuals who are certified outside of the office or who have a religious objections to finger imaging, depend on agency policy.


Last modified: 10/12/2011

http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/ProgramIntegrity/biomvend.htm
 

Use of Biometric Identification Technology to Reduce Fraud in the Food Stamp Program: Final Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Biometric identification technology provides automated methods to identify a person based on physical characteristics—such as fingerprints, hand shape, and characteristics of the eyes and face—as well as behavioral characteristics—including signatures and voice patterns. Although used in law enforcement and defense for several years, it has recently been used in civilian applications and shows some promise to reduce the number of duplicate cases in the Food Stamp Program (FSP) and other assistance programs

Biometric identification systems are currently operational at some level in Arizona, California (under county initiative, first by Los Angeles County), Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. Finger imaging is the principal form of technology used in all eight States, though alternative technologies have simultaneously undergone trials in Massachusetts (facial recognition) and Illinois (retinal scanning). By the end of 2000, new systems are expected to be in place in California (statewide unified system), Delaware, and North Carolina. Other States are currently in the initial planning stages, including Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. However, there is little information available at this point regarding the specific course and trajectory these States will follow in terms of system types, implementation schedules, and the benefit programs in which they will implement the new requirement.

This report provides an overview of the experience of nine States with biometric identification technologies as of September 1999 and discusses some of the major policy and operational issues encountered during implementation and testing. The report also synthesizes available information on the effectiveness of the technology in reducing duplicate participation and provides a discussion of measurement complexities and issues on the horizon as use of the technology continues to expand. A companion report contains an overview of biometric identification technology, examining the functional capabilities, performance, and applications of the various technologies with a particular focus on finger imaging, the most commonly used and well known.

Telephone interviews of 1-2 hours in duration were conducted in May-June 1998 with representatives of human service agencies in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. As part of an earlier task of this study, we conducted site visits to San Antonio, Texas to observe the Lone Star Image System (LSIS) demonstration and to interview State and county agency staff. Information on Texas is based on those visits and interviews. The States interviewed, with the exception of Pennsylvania, have installed biometric identification systems and are requiring applicants to federal and State benefit programs to submit to the new procedures during the eligibility determination process.

The purpose of the interviews was to explore State experiences with biometric identification systems, including factors in the decision-making and planning processes, the dynamics of system start-up and implementation, issues and problems related to system and agency operations, and perceptions regarding the impact of biometric identification procedures on the application and eligibility determination processes. Each of the States participating in the study was asked to provide a description of the critical early events that occurred during the planning phases of their respective projects. In addition, those States that had already implemented systems were asked to describe their implementation experiences.

Results of State Interviews

When finger-imaging technology was first applied to reduce multiple participation fraud in assistance programs, there were many concerns about the performance and reliability of the technology in a social service application, as well as about the potential stigma that a finger-image requirement would place on potential clients. The experience of the eight States that have incorporated finger imaging into the process of applying for welfare assistance suggests that many of these fears were unfounded. Finger imaging has been readily integrated into the human services programs of the affected states. However, despite the positive reaction to finger imaging from the State officials we interviewed, there is still uncertainty regarding the extent to which this technology can reduce multiple participation fraud.

The States planned for implementation of their biometric identification systems in response to a wide variety of factors and considerations idiosyncratic to each State environment. Some States reported that their respective legislative mandates, which prescribed specific dates by which biometric systems were required to be in place, allowed insufficient time for development and planning. The States developed and followed implementation schedules in accordance with internal priorities and considerations. The States uniformly described their implementation processes as largely uneventful, though they encountered a variety of minor implementation issues, most of which were associated with the logistical difficulties of mobilizing and managing such a complex initiative.

Preparing staff for the implementation of the biometric systems, both philosophically and operationally, took different forms, priorities, and levels of effort in the States. At implementation, advance notification to clients and/or the general public about new biometric client identification procedures was considered important by all State representatives. The objective of providing advance notification was to inform and prepare clients for the additional application or recertification step (i.e., to explain the requirement and who is required to submit, and to address client concerns), as well as to accelerate enrollment of the existing caseload. All States prepared informational mailings to clients advising them of the new requirement. Some States reported developing additional outreach media including multilingual (English and Spanish) videos, posters, and brochures for viewing and distribution in the local office. Most of the States also identified various outlets in the community through which they informed the general public in advance about the implementation of biometric client identification procedures.

The States with operating systems reported that implementation of new biometric client identification procedures had a negligible impact on operations at the local office level. In general, States also reported that the problems and obstacles encountered in operating their respective projects are not unlike those encountered in demonstrating any new technology or procedural modification. These States also reported that their systems and procedures were implemented without unexpected difficulty and were rapidly institutionalized. All the States confronted a range of basic physical space and logistical issues, including where to situate the new equipment, how to appropriately alter job descriptions, who to reassign or hire to handle the new procedures, and how to adjust the flow of clients and paperwork most efficiently. However, none reported any particularly noteworthy difficulties. States reported that clients have been cooperative and accepting of the technology.

Finger Imaging and Fraud Reduction

Assessing the ability of finger imaging to reduce fraud is difficult because the amount of fraud caused by duplicate participation in welfare programs is unknown, and because changes in caseload after the introduction of finger imaging cannot be interpreted unambiguously as reduction of fraud. The evaluations of finger imaging systems conducted by six States have produced the following findings.

    A small number of duplicate applications (approximately 1 duplicate for every 5,000 cases) have been detected by finger imaging systems. Finger-imaging systems appear to detect more fraud in statewide implementations than in regional pilot systems. Additional matches have been found by interstate comparisons of finger-image data.

    Institution of a finger-imaging requirement can produce a significant, short-term reduction in caseload, because some existing clients refuse to comply with the requirement. The number of refusals depends on the implementation procedures and appears to be lower when finger imaging is incorporated into the recertification process.

    The most carefully controlled estimate of non-compliance among existing clients suggests that introduction of a finger-imaging requirement reduces participation by approximately 1.3%. However, this estimate reflects both reduced fraud and deterrence of eligible individuals and households.

Finger Imaging as a Deterrent to Legitimate Participants

Clients do have some concerns about finger imaging. Roughly 15% expressed concerns in the State surveys and interviews conducted to evaluate finger-imaging programs. These concerns center on issues of privacy, unjust treatment of poor people, inconvenience, and fear of interagency sharing.

There is little data on which to estimate the size of the deterrence effect. Based on the results from client surveys in five States, a substantial majority of clients had no objection to finger imaging and thought it was a good idea.

There was little evidence that clients discontinued benefits because they were intimidated by the finger-image requirement. Interviews with former clients in Texas found that only two of the 78 former food stamp recipients (both of whom had refused to be imaged) attributed their loss of benefits to finger imaging. Similar interviews in Los Angeles County found that, of those former clients interviewed, no one who refused to be finger imaged expressed a concern with the process.

Cost and Effectiveness of Finger Imaging

Since there is no reliable estimate of the magnitude of duplicate participation in the FSP, there is uncertainty regarding the cost effectiveness of finger imaging. Available data are inadequate to make precise estimates of either the costs or benefits of finger imaging for the FSP. Calculations using the data that are available, supplemented by a number of assumptions, suggest that reduction in caseload covers the costs of finger imaging technology. However, the percentage of the caseload reduction due to decreased multiple participation is unclear.

The analysis makes no assumption about how costs or benefits are allocated among Federal or State agencies. In addition, it does not include the cost required to modify existing software to make it compatible with the finger-imaging system. Finally, it does not take into account that certain cost elements, such as the cost for infrastructure or centralized equipment, may be independent of caseload fluctuation.


Last modified: 10/12/2011
 
   
   
 

I didn't see anything in the FDA reports that specifically mentioned RFID implants but I'm sure its only a matter of time. >:(

It's been a matter of time! They did it back in 2004...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/14/human_rfid_implants/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/14/human_rfid_implants/)

Here's an FDA link
http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationSafety/ElectromagneticCompatibilityEMC/ucm116647.htm (http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationSafety/ElectromagneticCompatibilityEMC/ucm116647.htm)

And here's a pdf...
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf3/k033440.pdf (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf3/k033440.pdf)