Use of RFID Tracking Technology To Be Mandatory In US Food Stamp Program


Michael Parker

Food stamp welfare individuals must soon be chipped

“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” (Revelation 13:16-17)


In a little while, the above scene in Revelation 13 will become a global reality. People can no longer buy or sell without the mark of the beast. And sometimes that would mean no longer being able to eat!

The USDA is now considering biometric identification for all individuals who will want to benefit from their Food and Nutrition Services. The RFID chip may just soon be a must for everyone who does not want to starve!

The following is an excerpt of the executive summary of the FINAL REPORT of the Use of Biometric Identification Technology to Reduce Fraud in the Food Stamp Program:

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 .

Already operational in some states

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.

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.

Program outcomes

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.

Source – USDA

Additional information from the USDA Nutrition Assistance Program

Add To The Conversation Using Facebook Comments

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

16 Responses

  1. Phyllis R. says:

    The Lord is coming soon, watch prophecy and you will know the truth.

  2. Ralph Barnes says:

    With almost 50% of the families in the USA getting some form of Government assistance from Big Brother (Government), what a great ploy to issue a mark of the beast type system. How many of the fat cows that get food stamps would not get micro-chipped, or go through any type of RFID technology if they lose their Gov handouts without it. And look at all of the other lazy bums that get a Gov check for disability so they can sit at home and drink booze, while the rest of society gos to work for their money.

  3. steve says:

    1. RFID chips have a short scanning distance, usually a few feet.
    2. RFID (and GPS) chips are not allowed to be implanted in humans per USDA and FDA regulations.
    3. When you read or hear or see something that seems totally ridiculous, do your research. It usually is.

    • Ziva Freedom says:

      …However… in the Obamacare regs there is a section that talks about medical device tracking. It states that use of things like RFID technology should/can be used to track all medical devices. Apparently in case they fail, need to be recalled. What if a medical device manufacturer uses RFID technology to “keep track of it’s device” and the device is implanted in a human? Technically, a human has been implanted with an RFID chip. Keep an eye on this part of Obamacare and see how medical device manufacturer’s are handling it.

  4. Jessica says:

    This article is FEARMONGERING. I am totally against the use of RFID chips…but this article mentions NOTHING about it!! All the poster did was take a 13 year old article, add some “scary” pictures to it, and repost it. Quit fearmongering and put some REAL current information on here. There really is RFID studies going on right now, write some articles on that!!

  5. Trick says:

    As a CSI when I read this article, I was intrigued to say the least. I went to the sources listed (USDA) and it appears that the study they talk about was done in 1998 and 1999. Maybe they need to update the article as there may be more current data out there.

    Although I know that in some states biometrics isn’t being used in conjunction with welfare. I do know, however, that biometric data isn’t the same as when fingerprints are obtained from criminals. When a criminal is fingerprinted, their fingerprints are being checked against a known database of criminals for two reasons. First, most bad guys lie about who they are and to try and avoid a previous criminal history that may be full of warrants so they give an alias at the time of arrest. Because your fingerprints don’t change, the fingerprints are searched against the known database to see if that person has ever been arrested for anything in the past, regardless of name given. If they had been arrested previously but gave a false name at that time, they could then be charged with providing false information as well as what ever crime they were arrested for, as well as any potential past criminal activity (warrants, outstanding fines/fees/levies). Secondly, their prints are being searched against an unsolved latent fingerprint database. This database comprises of all latent prints (or crime scene prints) that were collected but not yet identified. If a person who has no criminal history committed a crime (let’s say a burglary) in which their fingerprints were recovered at the scene, we wouldn’t be able to identify those prints (the knowns aren’t in the system). But, if they get arrested several months later (for a car theft), their known prints will get searched against that unsolved database. If they hit, they would get charged with that burglary from a few months ago as well as the new charge of the car theft.

    Biometric data, on the other hand, isn’t comparing your prints to a database of information. The criminal database contains information like eye and hair color, height and weight, address, occupation, SSN, DOB, tattoos, scars, aliases, etc. These are discriminatory fields because they have to be. We need to know who the bad guys are and we need to be very specific about what we know about them. Biometric data doesn’t store any of those fields. It is simply an enrolling database. Buildings that have a biometric door lock record fingerprints to allow entry in to the building. When the biometric lock scans a print, it isn’t collecting any data other than the ridges on your skin. It isn’t comparing that data to any database other than the one that says, ‘This person has access to this building. I don’t know who this person is (I don’t know their hair color or how tall they are) but I do know I was told to unlock the door when this person tried to unlock it.” At Disney World, you are given a paper credit-card type card for entry. When you first pay admission, they have you place your finger on a scanner. This only associates your print with being allowed access to the park. That way, if you lose your card, you can get your print read and a new card would be issued to you. The cards don’t have names on them or any other identifying information other than the day of allowed admission. Those cards are used to get fast-pass tickets for rides and some other things. But, they don’t record anything other than; “this person paid their admission to the park for this day and they have access to the park on this day.”

    In my old job at a research company; I had to scan in my hand to clock-in and clock-out. It was a way to tell the computer when I arrived and left for the day. Then, they could pay me accordingly. It wasn’t using prints but more like the thickness/length of my fingers and palms. I had to be enrolled when I started. The problem with biometrics comes when they start to implant things in your skin or use RFID chips. Those are a huge violation of privacy and they are being used to monitor you and your whereabouts. I am completely against any form of monitoring or tracking of ordinary citizens. Tracking sex offenders; I’m all for it. Click on an ankle bracelet and be done with it. But requiring implanted chips to get food, that’s wrong. Those are the ways it could be used to violate someone’s rights to privacy and anonymity.

    I think what can reduce public assistance fraud is drug test everyone that gets government money. If you aren’t clean, you don’t get money. I also think that if you do get public assistance, you need to work with a case officer to develop a plan of when you will be transitioning from getting free money to working and earning money, or at least supplementing public assistance. I am really sick and tired of people saying why won’t the government do this or why they won’t do that…it’s time we start to help ourselves out. Maybe that means not buying 7 flat screen TVs on Black Friday with money we don’t have that comes from China. Maybe that means stop buying $300K houses when we can really only afford $125K. Maybe that means we start helping out our neighbors and not worrying about someone from the government to always be there when things go wrong.

    Forensic Services Division

    • Dr, CJ House says:

      You’re close to the truth. But fall way short, the prophets of the Bible are batting 1,000% and this is done to prepare for the Mark ( which the Pope has passed,micro-chip of all around him) and again’st the poor on food stamps that need them to get by. Some will lie,asGeithner on his taxes,still our Treasuer,but to Mark them as they do with school kids,thumb prints for lunches, get one generation and you can Mark them as in Revelation. Taking FS’s as a way to force them to comply is treason,anti-Constitution our God given rights to freedom,liberty and the pursuit of our legal desires granted us by our Constitution which Obama and Minions are destroying as they seek to destroy the USA’s Constitution,Bill of Rights and via Exec Ors’ doing all he can to do what the handlers are telling him to do,who desire to control the World by a few.RFID,GPS etc, are just the 1st pills of indoctrination to chip all of us,total control,watching you,watching me watching you.The Web around the World.They have been doing it for years and are ready! The Catholic church? The Pope? Pushing the Mark of the Beast? We are in those times Jesus in Mat: 24 spoke of.Read it for yourselves. Please….

  6. Ziva Freedom says:

    Biometric identification is not the same as identification using RFID technology. Title of the the article is misleading.

  7. Musa says:

    Its a matter of short time now, just wait n watch.

  8. Christian_Huls says:

    Guys, check the source. This is nonsense. The FDA study says absolutely ZERO about microchips or marks. They tested for FINGER PRINTING. This was published in 1999. And the Mark of the Beast will be an intentional allegiance and commitment against God. It won’t be something that you can accidentally get unknowingly…

  9. cindy says:

    this is an old article. texas no longer does the finger imaging. we haven’t for two years now.

  10. Tom says:

    We are in the End Times and Prophecy is being fulfilled before our very eyes. More importantly, we must remember the penalty for accepting the Mark of the Beast in our right hand or forehead. We should also remember to trust in the Lord and he will provide us our needs.

  11. harmony711 says:

    Food is a God given right for everyone!

    Wake up people and start growing your own food in your own communities!

  12. It was prophecy now reality. Lucifer and his minions we are in the final battle

  13. Rudy ! says:

    I prefer starving than accepting this diabolical mark in/on my skin !!!

    God will punish severely America for this invention !

Leave a Reply

© 2012 Pakalert Press. All rights reserved.