User:PandaFantasy/sandbox

Article Evalution

 * Information Privacy


 * 1) Content
 * 2) The content are relevant to the topic, but in the second paragraph, the examples of information sources that are relevant to data privacy issues are listed too many, which are distractive.
 * 3) The" Further reading" part is kind of out of date because the article is written in 1998, which is the only recommended material. So, the missing part could be some other relevant articles or books that is about information privacy.
 * 4) To improve it, maybe we need to cut down the number of the listed information sources or just list them altogether; for the missing part and the old article, we need to search for more and relevant materials about information privacy.
 * 5) Tone
 * 6) I think this page is quite neutral as I do not find any biased claim.
 * 7) No, because I think there are few viewpoints on this page, most of the information is given by statements.
 * 8) Sources
 * 9) Yes, the citations work well. Yes, the citations support the corresponding statements.
 * 10) Not exactly, for exmple, citation[20] on the page is supported by sentence "One major problem is that, though most nations either acknowledge the right to privacy explicitly in their Constitution or by means of international agreement, the extent to which privacy is defined and protected around the world varies." in the cited book, though the book's main idea is about google street view with the global right to privacy. So maybe it is not so supportative, though the conculsion is safe to draw.
 * 11) Talk page
 * 12) The conversations are about some missing or questionable citations and debate the name of the topic on the page, etc.
 * 13) C-Class, it is part of three WikiProject.
 * 14) Compared with the talk in class, the talk page is not oral information, but some written conversations with supported data or links, which seems more formal and more convincing.


 * Venmo
 * content
 * Yes; no, as the outline is simple, and I think nothing distracted me.
 * The latest informaiton is this year 2018, and it is edited last week.
 * As this is only a "Start" level article, so I do think there are some imporvement, though I do not know what exactly to do, maybe just to add more information about this service.
 * Tone
 * Not exactly, for instance, when going through the "Security" part, I noticed that firstly, it tells us that Venmo claimed its security level is high, and then the article listed some doubts from different groups or organizations. So, partly, I think it is quite neutral.
 * Yes, the viewpoint of those who doubted that Venom's security is bank-grade is overpresented because in terms of the length of the doubt is obviously longer than that of the claim by Venmo.
 * Sources
 * yes, yes
 * yes, though some citations are just from newspapers or magazines, not so reliable.
 * Talk Page
 * About some specific aspects of the article and its evaluation. And suprisingly, someone have the same question about the "Security", saying that this article is intended to criticize the security of the platform.
 * Start-Class, one WikiProject.
 * More formal with specific questions and even some inappropriate or confusing sentence.

Citation Exercise
ICTs provide easier ways to monitoring and control, which occurs in governments as well as organizations. However, monitoring of acotrs can not only contribute to social order, but can also cause resistance and backlash.

Annotations with Citations
Goodwin, Katie, Jacquie Rand, John Morton, Varun Uthappa, and Rick Walduck. 2018. “Email Reminders Increase the Frequency That Pet Owners Update Their Microchip Information.” Animals (2076-2615) 8 (2): 1.

According to the authors, the largest microchip database shows that stray animals with incorrect microchip details are less likely to be reclaimed and when compared to pets with correct microchip details, the time taken to reclaim the pets is longer, and sometimes reuniting is impossible. Next, the author performed a retrospective cohort study using data of cats and dogs that were registered only once in the database to find out whether annual email reminders increased the frequency of microchip information updates. After some procedures of data collection, analysis of owner details’ update and statistical analyses, the authors found that owners are more likely to update their details soon after receiving a reminder email. Moreover, the frequency of owner updates is significantly different by state, animal species, animal age and socioeconomic index of the owner’s postcode. Finally, the research concludes that by increasing pet owners’ updating frequency of pets’ information, it is likely that the reclaim percentages of stray animals will increase, thus reducing the number of pets euthanized in shelters every year. The source is useful, and the information is reliable because this article makes full of an extensive database, and it is also objective, as the conclusion is drawn after some rigorous mathematical analysis, using charts and diagrams. The article is useful for those who want to know more about animals and microchip implant. The viewpoint is neutral, and the target audience is readers who wish to study microchip implant of animals by using the database and statistical methods. I think the article is hard to read because the whole procedures are using the database and statistical methods, which is hard for ordinary readers, though I do think this article is beneficial once the readers understand the methodology of research. I think this article helps me understand the importance of using rigorous mathematical methods to prove or evaluate our conclusions.

Martignani, Luca. 2014. “Feline Microchip: An Exercise in the Sociology of Documentality.” Monist 97 (2): 236.

This article is an academic journal, whose main idea is to show the multiple dimensions involved in the use of the microchip on animals as a documentality device. The method used is using logical statements to find reasons behind and giving concrete examples of the feline microchip. Specifically, this article begins with the introduction of the microchip as documentality device and shows that implanting an identifying microchip in a cat, for example, related to ownership. Then, the body of this article is about three reasons for RFID Implanting: The Socio-Ethological Reason, The Political-Administrative Reason, and The Global Immunological Reason. The first reason shows that a registered cat is a cat of whom society is aware, and this cat owns a position in the social order. The second reason illustrates that the microchip helps the authorized persons to review and monitor the colony’s cat members by referring to the database; thus the registry and the implanted microchips transform cats into a social object. The last reason shows that if the owner of a cat has to move abroad with it, the microchip provides specific information concerning the diseases it might carry and the vaccinations to which it has been subjected. In the end, the author summarizes these reasons, that is, dimensions of delocalization, recording, and domestication. The source is useful and reliable as the author consults references from 1964 to 2010, and the information is entirely objective. I think this article is helpful for those who want to know the deeper reasons for pets to implant microchips. Besides, I would recommend it to others as this article is not hard to understand and gives many close-to-life examples to explain the main ideas. The target audience is readers who own pets or plan to keep a pet. From this article, I get three main reasons for the pet microchip implant, which is helpful to understand why it is essential for people to implant microchip on their pets in modern times.

Lancaster, Emily, Jacquie Rand, Sheila Collecott, and Mandy Paterson. 2015. “Problems Associated with the Microchip Data of Stray Dogs and Cats Entering RSPCA Queensland Shelters.” Animals (2076-2615) 5 (2): 332.

The article mainly idea is identifying weakness in the current microchipping system in Australia by determining the character and frequency of inaccurate microchip data used for locating owners of stray pets. The method used is statistical analysis and listing data charts and diagrams. Firstly, the authors introduce some raw data of dogs and cats living in Australia as well as microchipped animals and research by analyzing admission data for stray dogs and cats entering shelters called RSPCA-Queensland (QLD). The result shows that reclaim rates were significantly higher for animals with microchips than without, and the problem of microchip data may reduce the possibility that a pet’s owner will be contacted and the animal reclaimed. However, there still exist many outstanding issues, such as why dog owners are more likely to be approached than cat owners and why dog owners are more likely to reclaim their pet. The source is useful and reliable as well as objective because all the conclusions are based on the result of data analysis. This article is helpful for those who want to develop strategies that increase the accuracy of microchip data that will improve the reclaiming of stray animals. I would recommend it as the viewpoint is neutral though it is challenging to understand the procedure of data analysis and read all the charts and diagrams. Still, I think data collection and data analysis sometimes are necessary to be convincing and neutral. The target audience is probably the experts on the microchipping system, and this article points out the existing problems of it, providing some useful information that could be used to develop strategies that improve the microchip data system, subsequently, increasing the reclaiming of stray animals.

Annotations
Kumari, Leena, K. Narsaiah, M.K. Grewal, and R.K. Anurag. 2015. “Review: Application of RFID in Agri-Food Sector.” Trends in Food Science & Technology 43 (June): 144–61. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2015.02.005.

The main idea of this article is introducing the application of RFID (Radio-frequency identification), especially in the sector of agri-food. The principal method used is giving specific outlines and examples to show the potential applications of RFID in the agri-food sector. Firstly, the authors introduce the basics of RFID, including the main components of an RFID system, the categories of RFID tags, communication frequencies, RFID standards as well as RFID software. Later, the body of this article talks about the concrete applications of RFID in the agri-food sector, saying that the feature of RFID, namely its traceability, makes it possible for the increased security and confidence of customers. Also, the article shows the list of papers on various applications of RFID in the Agri-food sector, which includes multiple foods. Moreover, it indicates that RFID might play an active role in promoting the efficiency in cold chain monitoring, livestock management, shelf life prediction, and quality monitoring, and supply chain management. However, there exist some challenges that RFID may require more effective management of data and it also has adverse environmental effects and can even cause security and privacy issues. The conclusion is that RFID’S potential benefits are significant and many novel applications will undoubtedly emerge soon. When it comes to the evolution of this article, I think the source is useful and reliable as the authors consult pages of references. Nevertheless, I suppose that the conclusion of this journal is slightly biased because even though the authors point out many challenges of RFID technology in the agri-food sector, they conclude that the benefits of this tech overweight its demerits, which is biased. The article is helpful for those who are interested in the RFID applications, especially in the sector of the agri-food sector. I believe this article will be beneficial to me because it provides specific applications of RFID tech and shows the possible future of it, which can be included in the RFID part of my topic article.

Jian Lu, Lan Zhang, Dapeng Zhang, Sohei Matsumoto, Hiroshi Hiroshima, Ryutaro Maeda, Mizuho Sato, Atsushi Toyoda, Takafumi Gotoh, and Nobuhiro Ohkohchi. 2018. “Development of Implantable Wireless Sensor Nodes for Animal Husbandry and MedTech Innovation.” Sensors (14248220) 18 (4): 1. https://libproxy.berkeley.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedb%26AN%3d129710784%26site%3deds-live.

In the article “Development of Implantable Wireless Sensor Nodes for Animal Husbandry and MedTech Innovation,” the authors illustrate the latest findings on the development, evaluation, and application of wireless sensor nodes. The method used in this article is doing laboratory experiments, reporting and analyzing the results. Firstly, the authors introduce the wireless sensor nodes, which is mainly composed of MCU, RFIC, antenna and so on, with some figures showing the first and second prototype sensor nodes respectively before package and after package. Then there is a table revealing the measured battery lifetime and calculated average power consumption of the developed sensor nodes under different conditions. The results of field tests use laboratory mice and a cow, indicating the high accuracy of the collected biological data and biocompatibility of the package. Finally, they reach the result of an extensive application of those technologies. The conclusion is that the measurement mode and power 0N/0FF can be remote controlled even after implant, which enables them to use transmitters instead of transceivers to reduce the power consumption by orders. Personally speaking, I think this article is helpful for those who are studying in the field of biology and electronic engineering. The source is reliable as well as objective because all the conclusions are based on the previous and present experimental results. However, I think this journal is not so useful to me, as I do not need the procedures of the laboratory experiments, which is the central part of this article. Besides, this paper may be helpful for those who are in the medical field to understand what the sensor society can do. The article is very complicated to understand since it illustrates the whole steps of their rigorous experiments, which takes professional knowledge and lots of efforts to comprehend.

Song, Boyeon, and Chris J. Mitchell. 2011. “Scalable RFID Security Protocols Supporting Tag Ownership Transfer.” Computer Communications 34 (January): 556–66. doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2010.02.027.

In this article “Scalable RFID Security Protocols Supporting Tag Ownership Transfer.”, The writers identify privacy, security and performance requirements for RFID protocols, especially requirements about tag ownership transfer. The achievement of this article is that the authors propose a brand-new scalable RFID authentication protocol based on the scheme that takes constant time to authenticate a tag, and they also propose secret update protocols for tag ownership and authorization transfer. The method mainly used is the mathematical representation to show how the contract is revised and introduce an RFID pseudonym protocol. The first part of this article is entering the RFID system, including its key features and its requirements, aiming to propose a scalable and efficient RFID pseudonym protocol. Then the authors show how the revised SM protocol works, and introduce an RFID pseudonym protocol using lots of mathematical proofs. After some analysis on privacy and security, performance as well as tag ownership transfer, they draw the conclusion that they have proposed novel RFID authentication protocols for tag ownership transfer that meet three identified requirements. As far as I can see, the article is helpful for those protocol engineers who want to know more about the RFID system. The source is useful and reliable as well as objective because it includes lots of mathematical proofs, which is very rigorous. Still, it is challenging to comprehend the design of the novel protocol. The target audience is probably the experts whose jobs are improving the RFID system. Personally speaking, I suppose this article is useful in that it analyzes some privacy and security issues of this new protocol, which may be helpful to the privacy topic.

Maselyne, J., I. Adriaens, T. Huybrechts, B. De Ketelaere, S. Millet, J. Vangeyte, A. Van Nuffel, and W. Saeys. 2018. “Measuring the Drinking Behaviour of Individual Pigs Housed in Group Using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID).” ANIMAL 10 (9): 1557–66. Accessed October 12. doi:10.1017/S1751731115000774.

In the article “Measuring the Drinking Behaviour of Individual Pigs Housed in Group Using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID).”, The authors aim to measure the drinking behavior of individual pigs housed in the group by using radio frequency identification, just as the title suggests. The reason why the writers try to identify the drinking behavior of pigs individually is that this kind of behavior is a good indicator to show pigs’ health, productivity state. The method mainly used is comparing RFID-based visits with visual observations and flow meter measurements based on visit overlap. The experiment begins with the introduction of a high-frequency radio frequency identification (HF RFID) system, which was designed to identify the drinking behavior of pigs. After some careful design of this experiment, the authors conduct it and illustrate the results by listing tables and figures. Later, they compare results from two different methods and claims that the validation of RFID measurement performance based on flow meter measurements. The conclusion is that RFID-based drinking variables are highly correlated with visual observation variables as well as flow meter-based drinking variables; thus, the RFID-based monitoring of pig drinking behavior is feasible. From my point of view, this paper is reliable and unbiased because the main body of it tries to prove the conclusions by explaining the detailed procedures of the test. Also, this article use charts and diagrams, which is very rigorous in mathematics and makes it more objective. The potential audiences are farmers who raise pigs and also experts in fields of RFID technology. I find this paper useful because it provides a particular and detailed application of RFID tech.

Chudy-Laskowska, Katarzyna. 2018. “Factors Influencing the Decision to Implement an RFID System.” LogForum 14 (2): 221–33. doi:10.17270/J.LOG.2018.279.

In the article “Factors Influencing the Decision to Implement an RFID System.”, The authors mainly talk about the factors that affect decisions in the process of implementing an RFID system. The methodology used in this paper is using questionnaires data from entrepreneurs and making statistical tests to show the results. Firstly, the authors report the characteristics of the test group, most of whom worked for limited liability companies. Later, it shows the factors which motivate the purchase and implementation of an RFID system. After analyzing all kinds of factors that influence the decision to implement an RFID system, the study reveals that mainly four groups of elements are responsible for the decision-making: wiliness to implement a new system and improve business operations, individual measurement capabilities, access to information about systems and financing, as well as RFID implementation cost. I think the source is useful and the information is reliable as most of the data are from first-hand questionnaires. The viewpoint is neutral because all the results rely on the statistical tests and analysis. Plus, the target audiences are businesses that are considering whether to implement an RFID system or not. The result is also helpful for those who want to get new market data in this kind of field. Besides, this articles also consult many pieces of literature, which makes it more convincing. However, the source has little to do with privacy, which is quite disappointing.

Annotations week 8 version
Goodwin, Katie, Jacquie Rand, John Morton, Varun Uthappa, and Rick Walduck. 2018. “Email Reminders Increase the Frequency That Pet Owners Update Their Microchip Information.” Animals (2076-2615) 8 (2): 1.

According to the authors, the largest microchip database shows that stray animals with incorrect microchip details are less likely to be reclaimed and when compared to pets with correct microchip details, the time taken to reclaim the pets is longer, and sometimes reuniting is impossible. Next, the author performed a retrospective cohort study using data of cats and dogs that were registered only once in the database to find out whether annual email reminders increased the frequency of microchip information updates. After some procedures of data collection, analysis of owner details’ update and statistical analyses, the authors found that owners are more likely to update their details soon after receiving a reminder email. Moreover, the frequency of owner updates is significantly different by state, animal species, animal age and socioeconomic index of the owner’s postcode. Finally, the research concludes that by increasing pet owners’ updating frequency of pets’ information, it is likely that the reclaim percentages of stray animals will increase, thus reducing the number of pets euthanized in shelters every year. The source is useful, and the information is reliable because this article makes full of an extensive database, and it is also objective, as the conclusion is drawn after some rigorous mathematical analysis, using charts and diagrams. The article is useful for those who want to know more about animals and microchip implant. The viewpoint is neutral, and the target audience is readers who wish to study microchip implant of animals by using the database and statistical methods. I think the article is hard to read because the whole procedures are using the database and statistical methods, which is hard for ordinary readers, though I do think this article is beneficial once the readers understand the methodology of research. I think this article helps me understand the importance of using rigorous mathematical methods to prove or evaluate our conclusions.

Martignani, Luca. 2014. “Feline Microchip: An Exercise in the Sociology of Documentality.” Monist 97 (2): 236.

This article is an academic journal, whose main idea is to show the multiple dimensions involved in the use of the microchip on animals as a documentality device. The method used is using logical statements to find reasons behind and giving concrete examples of the feline microchip. Specifically, this article begins with the introduction of the microchip as documentality device and shows that implanting an identifying microchip in a cat, for example, related to ownership. Then, the body of this article is about three reasons for RFID Implanting: The Socio-Ethological Reason, The Political-Administrative Reason, and The Global Immunological Reason. The first reason shows that a registered cat is a cat of whom society is aware, and this cat owns a position in the social order. The second reason illustrates that the microchip helps the authorized persons to review and monitor the colony’s cat members by referring to the database; thus the registry and the implanted microchips transform cats into a social object. The last reason shows that if the owner of a cat has to move abroad with it, the microchip provides specific information concerning the diseases it might carry and the vaccinations to which it has been subjected. In the end, the author summarizes these reasons, that is, dimensions of delocalization, recording, and domestication. The source is useful and reliable as the author consults references from 1964 to 2010, and the information is entirely objective. I think this article is helpful for those who want to know the deeper reasons for pets to implant microchips. Besides, I would recommend it to others as this article is not hard to understand and gives many close-to-life examples to explain the main ideas. The target audience is readers who own pets or plan to keep a pet. From this article, I get three main reasons for the pet microchip implant, which is helpful to understand why it is essential for people to implant microchip on their pets in modern times.

Lancaster, Emily, Jacquie Rand, Sheila Collecott, and Mandy Paterson. 2015. “Problems Associated with the Microchip Data of Stray Dogs and Cats Entering RSPCA Queensland Shelters.” Animals (2076-2615) 5 (2): 332.

The article mainly idea is identifying weakness in the current microchipping system in Australia by determining the character and frequency of inaccurate microchip data used for locating owners of stray pets. The method used is statistical analysis and listing data charts and diagrams. Firstly, the authors introduce some raw data of dogs and cats living in Australia as well as microchipped animals and research by analyzing admission data for stray dogs and cats entering shelters called RSPCA-Queensland (QLD). The result shows that reclaim rates were significantly higher for animals with microchips than without, and the problem of microchip data may reduce the possibility that a pet’s owner will be contacted and the animal reclaimed. However, there still exist many outstanding issues, such as why dog owners are more likely to be approached than cat owners and why dog owners are more likely to reclaim their pet. The source is useful and reliable as well as objective because all the conclusions are based on the result of data analysis. This article is helpful for those who want to develop strategies that increase the accuracy of microchip data that will improve the reclaiming of stray animals. I would recommend it as the viewpoint is neutral though it is challenging to understand the procedure of data analysis and read all the charts and diagrams. Still, I think data collection and data analysis sometimes are necessary to be convincing and neutral. The target audience is probably the experts on the microchipping system, and this article points out the existing problems of it, providing some useful information that could be used to develop strategies that improve the microchip data system, subsequently, increasing the reclaiming of stray animals.

R., Manjula, and Raja Datta. 2018. “A Novel Source Location Privacy Preservation Technique to Achieve Enhanced Privacy and Network Lifetime in WSNs.” Pervasive and Mobile Computing 44 (February): 58–73. doi:10.1016/j.pmcj.2018.01.006.

In this paper “A Novel Source Location Privacy Preservation Technique to Achieve Enhanced Privacy and Network Lifetime in WSNs,” the authors propose a two-phase routing technique multiple virtual sources to provide enhanced source location privacy in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs). The method used in this paper is providing mathematical proof and listing graphs and figures to show the results. The target of this new technique is to maximize SLP without hampering the network lifetime. One of the key ideas of this journal is to exploit the excess energy available in the non-hotspot areas of the network to create dispersive routes between source node and the virtual sources. The merit of this approach is that it maximizes safety-period without hampering the network lifetime. Later, the authors presented mathematical models to estimate the overall energy expenditure. Finally, they evaluate the performance of this proposed technique in terms of its safety period and network lifetime. The conclusion of this article is that through simulations, the safety period increases as they increase the number of virtual sources in the network. Lastly, the authors mark that future work maybe on increasing safety periods and lifetime for dynamic network. From my point of view, the source is useful and reliable as the author consults references from 2002 to 2015, and the information is entirely objective. I think this article is helpful for those who want to know more about the RFID system. The source is useful and reliable as well as objective because it includes lots of mathematical proofs, which is very rigorous. Still, it is very difficult for me to comprehend the design of the novel protocol. The target audience is probably the experts whose jobs are improving the RFID system. Personally speaking, I suppose this article is useful in that it analyzes some privacy and security issues of this new protocol, which may be helpful to my own privacy topic about RFID technology.

Lopez, Javier, Ruben Rios, Feng Bao, and Guilin Wang. 2017. “Evolving Privacy: From Sensors to the Internet of Things.” Future Generation Computer Systems 75 (October): 46–57.

In this article “Evolving Privacy: From Sensors to the Internet of Things,” the authors focus on the problems of wireless sensor networks, and analyse how these problems may evolve with the development of the complex paradigm. Besides, they also try to find the future challenges that may have vital influence on people’s lives. The methodology in this journal is theorical analysis based on previous pieces of literatures. To begin with, the authors emphasis the importance of privacy preservation, which is said to be one of the major challenges in the development of the internet. Billions of sensor-enabled devices will be deployed for collecting fine-grained information from the environment and will share them with other devices and backend serves. What the authors aim to solve is the problems of sensor network. They try to envision how these problems will evolve with the integration of sensing technologies as part of internet and recoginzed new difficulties. Finally, they stress that the internet of thins will pose many technological and legal challenges which can only be overcome with sufficient anticipation and collaboration between all stakeholders. The source is useful and reliable as well as objective because all the conclusions are based on the result of data analysis. This article is helpful for those who want to learn the envisioned future of evolving privacy with sensors. I would recommend it as the viewpoint is neutral though it is challenging to understand the procedure of data analysis and read all the charts and diagrams. Still, I think data collection and data analysis sometimes are necessary to be convincing and neutral. The target audience is probably the experts on the privacy issues, and this article points out the existing problems of it, providing some useful information that could be used to help solve the challenging issues of privacy in the era of the Internet. I think this article is useful to me because it introduces various possibility of privacy issues, which is helpful for my topic with privacy.

Kumari, Leena, K. Narsaiah, M.K. Grewal, and R.K. Anurag. 2015. “Review: Application of RFID in Agri-Food Sector.” Trends in Food Science & Technology 43 (June): 144–61.

The main idea of this article is introducing the application of RFID (Radio-frequency identification), especially in the sector of agri-food. The principal method used is giving specific outlines and examples to show the potential applications of RFID in the agri-food sector. Firstly, the authors introduce the basics of RFID, including the main components of an RFID system, the categories of RFID tags, communication frequencies, RFID standards as well as RFID software. Later, the body of this article talks about the concrete applications of RFID in the agri-food sector, saying that the feature of RFID, namely its traceability, makes it possible for the increased security and confidence of customers. Also, the article shows the list of papers on various applications of RFID in the Agri-food sector, which includes multiple foods. Moreover, it indicates that RFID might play an active role in promoting the efficiency in cold chain monitoring, livestock management, shelf life prediction, and quality monitoring, and supply chain management. However, there exist some challenges that RFID may require more effective management of data and it also has adverse environmental effects and can even cause security and privacy issues. The conclusion is that RFID’S potential benefits are significant and many novel applications will undoubtedly emerge soon. When it comes to the evolution of this article, I think the source is useful and reliable as the authors consult pages of references. Nevertheless, I suppose that the conclusion of this journal is slightly biased because even though the authors point out many challenges of RFID technology in the agri-food sector, they conclude that the benefits of this tech overweight its demerits, which is biased. The article is helpful for those who are interested in the RFID applications, especially in the sector of the agri-food sector. I believe this article will be beneficial to me because it provides specific applications of RFID tech and shows the possible future of it, which can be included in the RFID part of my topic article.

Jian Lu, Lan Zhang, Dapeng Zhang, Sohei Matsumoto, Hiroshi Hiroshima, Ryutaro Maeda, Mizuho Sato, Atsushi Toyoda, Takafumi Gotoh, and Nobuhiro Ohkohchi. 2018. “Development of Implantable Wireless Sensor Nodes for Animal Husbandry and MedTech Innovation.” Sensors (14248220) 18 (4): 1.

In the article “Development of Implantable Wireless Sensor Nodes for Animal Husbandry and MedTech Innovation,” the authors illustrate the latest findings on the development, evaluation, and application of wireless sensor nodes. The method used in this article is doing laboratory experiments, reporting and analyzing the results. Firstly, the authors introduce the wireless sensor nodes, which is mainly composed of MCU, RFIC, antenna and so on, with some figures showing the first and second prototype sensor nodes respectively before package and after package. Then there is a table revealing the measured battery lifetime and calculated average power consumption of the developed sensor nodes under different conditions. The results of field tests use laboratory mice and a cow, indicating the high accuracy of the collected biological data and biocompatibility of the package. Finally, they reach the result of an extensive application of those technologies. The conclusion is that the measurement mode and power 0N/0FF can be remote controlled even after implant, which enables them to use transmitters instead of transceivers to reduce the power consumption by orders. Personally speaking, I think this article is helpful for those who are studying in the field of biology and electronic engineering. The source is reliable as well as objective because all the conclusions are based on the previous and present experimental results. However, I think this journal is not so useful to me, as I do not need the procedures of the laboratory experiments, which is the central part of this article. Besides, this paper may be helpful for those who are in the medical field to understand what the sensor society can do. The article is very complicated to understand since it illustrates the whole steps of their rigorous experiments, which takes professional knowledge and lots of efforts to comprehend.

Song, Boyeon, and Chris J. Mitchell. 2011. “Scalable RFID Security Protocols Supporting Tag Ownership Transfer.” Computer Communications 34 (January): 556–66.

In this article “Scalable RFID Security Protocols Supporting Tag Ownership Transfer.”, The writers identify privacy, security and performance requirements for RFID protocols, especially requirements about tag ownership transfer. The achievement of this article is that the authors propose a brand-new scalable RFID authentication protocol based on the scheme that takes constant time to authenticate a tag, and they also propose secret update protocols for tag ownership and authorization transfer. The method mainly used is the mathematical representation to show how the contract is revised and introduce an RFID pseudonym protocol. The first part of this article is entering the RFID system, including its key features and its requirements, aiming to propose a scalable and efficient RFID pseudonym protocol. Then the authors show how the revised SM protocol works, and introduce an RFID pseudonym protocol using lots of mathematical proofs. After some analysis on privacy and security, performance as well as tag ownership transfer, they draw the conclusion that they have proposed novel RFID authentication protocols for tag ownership transfer that meet three identified requirements. As far as I can see, the article is helpful for those protocol engineers who want to know more about the RFID system. The source is useful and reliable as well as objective because it includes lots of mathematical proofs, which is very rigorous. Still, it is challenging to comprehend the design of the novel protocol. The target audience is probably the experts whose jobs are improving the RFID system. Personally speaking, I suppose this article is useful in that it analyzes some privacy and security issues of this new protocol, which may be helpful to the privacy topic.

Maselyne, J., I. Adriaens, T. Huybrechts, B. De Ketelaere, S. Millet, J. Vangeyte, A. Van Nuffel, and W. Saeys. 2018. “Measuring the Drinking Behaviour of Individual Pigs Housed in Group Using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID).” ANIMAL 10 (9): 1557–66. Accessed October 12.

In the article “Measuring the Drinking Behaviour of Individual Pigs Housed in Group Using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID).”, The authors aim to measure the drinking behavior of individual pigs housed in the group by using radio frequency identification, just as the title suggests. The reason why the writers try to identify the drinking behavior of pigs individually is that this kind of behavior is a good indicator to show pigs’ health, productivity state. The method mainly used is comparing RFID-based visits with visual observations and flow meter measurements based on visit overlap. The experiment begins with the introduction of a high-frequency radio frequency identification (HF RFID) system, which was designed to identify the drinking behavior of pigs. After some careful design of this experiment, the authors conduct it and illustrate the results by listing tables and figures. Later, they compare results from two different methods and claims that the validation of RFID measurement performance based on flow meter measurements. The conclusion is that RFID-based drinking variables are highly correlated with visual observation variables as well as flow meter-based drinking variables; thus, the RFID-based monitoring of pig drinking behavior is feasible. From my point of view, this paper is reliable and unbiased because the main body of it tries to prove the conclusions by explaining the detailed procedures of the test. Also, this article use charts and diagrams, which is very rigorous in mathematics and makes it more objective. The potential audiences are farmers who raise pigs and also experts in fields of RFID technology. I find this paper useful because it provides a particular and detailed application of RFID tech.

Chudy-Laskowska, Katarzyna. 2018. “Factors Influencing the Decision to Implement an RFID System.” LogForum 14 (2): 221–33.

In the article “Factors Influencing the Decision to Implement an RFID System.”, The authors mainly talk about the factors that affect decisions in the process of implementing an RFID system. The methodology used in this paper is using questionnaires data from entrepreneurs and making statistical tests to show the results. Firstly, the authors report the characteristics of the test group, most of whom worked for limited liability companies. Later, it shows the factors which motivate the purchase and implementation of an RFID system. After analyzing all kinds of factors that influence the decision to implement an RFID system, the study reveals that mainly four groups of elements are responsible for the decision-making: wiliness to implement a new system and improve business operations, individual measurement capabilities, access to information about systems and financing, as well as RFID implementation cost. I think the source is useful and the information is reliable as most of the data are from first-hand questionnaires. The viewpoint is neutral because all the results rely on the statistical tests and analysis. Plus, the target audiences are businesses that are considering whether to implement an RFID system or not. The result is also helpful for those who want to get new market data in this kind of field. Besides, this articles also consult many pieces of literature, which makes it more convincing. However, the source has little to do with privacy, which is quite disappointing.

Lockton, Vance, and Richard S. Rosenberg. "RFID: The Next Serious Threat to Privacy." Ethics and Information Technology 7, no. 4 (2005): 221-31. doi:10.1007/s10676-006-0014-2.

The main idea of this article is about the current uses as well as the potential future uses of RFID technology, including item-level tagging, RFID-chipped passports and so on. The method used in this journal is stating the facts logically, including the present uses of RFID, the Walmart mandate, and privacy risks of RFID’s potential applications. According to the author, RFID or Radio Frequency Identification is a technology based on the need for remote recognition of objects. The current uses of RFID include animal tagging, ignition key of vehicles implant as well as individual RFID tags. Besides, in June 2003, WalMart allowed the use of adding RFID tags to all shipping crates and pallets sent to any WalMart distribution center. When it comes to the privacy risks of RFID’s potential applications, there will be more and more item-level tagging because of inventory control. However, this can cause consumer tracking, though firstly it is to be expected to be an anti-theft measure. The presence of readers in stores means that any live tag carried by an individual entering that store will also be read. Furthermore, if a single store chooses to connect payment information with RFID information, the actions, purchasing habits as well as whereabouts of a specific individual might also be collected. When it comes to human implants and RFID-chipped passports, privacy is threatened as well; therefore, it must be ensured that expanded personal marketing, a lack of anonymity and individual tacking are not going to happen shortly. I think the source is useful and reliable as the authors consult pages of references. Also, this article is unbiased, and it is helpful for those who are interested in the RFID’s future, especially concerning privacy issues. The possible audiences could be anyone who is interested in the future of RFID tech. I believe this article will be beneficial to me because it provides possible privacy issues of RFID tech and shows the possible future of it, which can be included in the RFID privacy part of my topic article.

Carrara, Sandro, Sara Ghoreishizadeh, Jacopo Olivo, Irene Taurino, Camilla Baj-Rossi, Andrea Cavallini, Maaike Op De Beeck, Catherine Dehollain, Wayne Burleson, Francis Gabriel Moussy, Anthony Guiseppi-Elie, and Giovanni De Micheli. "Fully Integrated Biochip Platforms for Advanced Healthcare." Sensors12, no. 8 (2012): 11013-1060. doi:10.3390/s120811013.

The main idea of this 48-page article is an overview of the essential issues to be settled in developing fully integrated platforms for innovative biosensors with applications in advanced healthcare. The method used in this article is mainly listing facts or solutions and raise a debate to claim both the merits and demerits. When it comes to the privacy issues about this fully integrated sensing system, it is supposed that an end-to-end data acquisition system is designed. One solution is using a related class of devices that are of low-cost disposable biosensors for healthcare. But another problem is that data security and privacy issues for these kinds of sensors differ significantly from those of higher data-rate sensors such as brain or intraocular implants. This review concludes that typical examples are the case of different probes requiring different electrochemical queries facing a single common electronics front-end: definitely, small receiving antennas in the implant to reduce patient pain and large receiving antennas to provide enough energy to the implants. So, substantial ongoing efforts are required and expected from the worldwide research to succeed in fully operating free and low-cost integrated platforms for advanced healthcare. However, since the review is too long in content, I only choose some paragraph about the data security and privacy issues. As far as I can see, the article is helpful for those medical researchers who want to know more about the Biochip Platforms for Advanced Healthcare. The source is useful and reliable as well as objective because it includes pages of fact analysis as well as vivid figures to show the technological mechanism, which is very rigorous. Still, it is challenging to comprehend the other part of this article. The target audience is probably the experts whose jobs are improving the biochip platforms.

Slettemeås, Dag. 2011. “RFID—the ‘Next Step’ in Consumer–Product Relations or Orwellian Nightmare? Challenges for Research and Policy.” 361–73.

In this journal “RFID—the ‘Next Step’ in Consumer–Product Relations or Orwellian Nightmare? Challenges for Research and Policy”, the author mainly talks about the RFID territory of consumer-oriented RFID research and address the development of RFID technology. The method used is analyzing the available research results about studies of RFID and consumer issues. Firstly, the writer introduces RFID and its technological history by referring to other scholars’ papers. Then, he talks about the societal relevance of RFID, its potential as well as various applications. When it comes to RFID-Related privacy and consumer concerns, it is the omnipresence, invisibility as well as the reduced human control that are the main concerns that have been raised about RFID. Later, the journal goes to the field of regulations and statements relevant to RFID in different countries or regions, including the EU, the USA and so on. This journal concludes that policy-makers and the industry are supposed to acknowledge the situation of RFID technology, and more researches should be conducted to address the complexity in understanding RFID’s interactions with consumers and the societal effects of full-scale RFID implementation. I think the source is useful and the information is reliable as most of the pages are based on previous research outcomes. The viewpoint is neutral because most of the opinions rely on scholars’ papers. Plus, the target audiences are policy-makers who are supposed to improve the RFID law. The result is also helpful for those who want to learn the general research accomplishment in the RFID fields. Besides, this articles also consult many pieces of literature, which makes it more convincing. The potential audiences are scholars who aim to do more research in fields of RFID technology. I find this paper useful because it provides some solutions to privacy issues related to RFID technology.

Lee, Baozhen, Weiguo Fan, Anna C. Squicciarini, Shilun Ge, and Yun Huang. 2014. “The Relativity of Privacy Preservation Based on Social Tagging.” Information Sciences 288:87–107.

In the journal “The Relativity of Privacy Preservation Based on Social Tagging,” the writers identify the criteria of privacy relativity by analyzing the paradigm and conflict and examine the hierarchical community characteristics of tag networks. The method used in this article is the qualitative analysis of the relativity of privacy preservation based on the criteria and construction of tag networks based on the theories and tools of community partition. Besides, this article adopts the method of listing lots of figures, including curves and abstract mathematical matrix. By analyzing the paradigm and conflict, the criteria of privacy relativity such as publicity vs. privacy and interactivity vs. independency are identified. After various mathematical proofs, using algorithms and trade-off analysis as well as some math experiments, the authors conclude that the relativity of privacy preservation depends on the degree and the scope of the privacy of user’s preferences and the independence among users. Based on the qualitative hypotheses and relevant variables of criterions, they analyze these hypotheses by relative experiments with the dataset in typical social tagging websites. The degree of relativity depends on the levels of hierarchical communities which can be determined by parameter k, and the scope of relativity depends on the number of districts in the same level of hierarchical societies. Lastly, the journal points out three aspects to be improved in the future. As far as I can see, the article is helpful for those mathematical scholars who want to use math mathematical tools to solve the problem of the relativity of privacy preservation. The source is useful and reliable as well as objective because it includes lots of mathematical proofs, which is very rigorous. Still, it is challenging to comprehend the design of the algorithms. The target audience is probably the experts who aim to find the relativity of privacy preservation. Personally speaking, I suppose this article can be useful for providing rigorous proofs to understand social tagging issues.

Puglisi, Silvia, Javier Parra-Arnau, Jordi Forné, and David Rebollo-Monedero. 2015. “On Content-Based Recommendation and User Privacy in Social-Tagging Systems” Computer Standards & Interfaces 41:17–27.

In this article “On Content-Based Recommendation and User Privacy in Social-Tagging Systems,” the authors talk about the social tagging and the new possibilities for application interoperability on the semantic web as well as the new privacy threats. The methodology used in this paper is using the adversary model and listing various figures to show the experimental methodology and the proposed architecture of a communication module managing the user data flow. Tag forgery is a privacy-enhancing technology consisting of generating tags for categories or resources that do not reflect the user’s actual preferences too accurately. Also, query forgery poses a trade-off between privacy and utility, and the authors evaluate how three possible tag forgery techniques would perform in a social tag application. Finally, they conclude that users would be able to receive personalized services while also being able to protect their privacy and their profiles from possible attacks reasonably. The source is useful and reliable as the author consults references from 1982 to 2014, and the information is entirely objective. I think this article is helpful for those who want to know the scientific view on user privacy in social tagging systems. Besides, I would not recommend it to others as this article is hard to understand and gives much complicated statistical analysis to explain the main ideas. The target audience is readers who own want to study in the field of privacy in social tagging systems. After finishing reading this article, I find that it is not only difficult to read, but also quite different from what I want to read at the beginning when I saw the title of this article. Besides, “PET” in this article means privacy-enhancing technology, which is designed to protect user privacy rather than some topics about the pet. So, I think this article is not that relevant to my privacy + topic, but maybe it can be useful when I want to explain some definition.

Thiesse, Frédéric. 2007. “RFID, Privacy and the Perception of Risk: A Strategic Framework.” Journal of Strategic Information Systems 16 (January): 214–32.

In the article “RFID, Privacy and the Perception of Risk: A Strategic Framework,” the authors mainly propose a strategic framework based on research findings of RFID-related privacy risks as well as technology acceptance. What the writers aim to do is to identify strategic options when the risk of RFID technology is still at an early phase. The methodology used in this journal is the logical analysis based on lots of previous pieces of literature. Firstly, the authors introduced the technology of RFID as well as its risks including direct and indirect impacts. Then the following section provides a review of the theoretical concepts of risk, for instance, the privacy aspects of RFID, which shows that the possible linkage with the owner and the globally unique identity of each good lead to the privacy risks. Therefore, some technologies used for securing RFID data and encompasses are invented to protect individuals’ privacy from being breached, which is called “Privacy-Enhancing Technologies (PETs).” Later, the authors analyze the risk perception theoretically, introducing some theory of risk perception such as “Psychometric Paradigm” and “Cultural Theory of risk.” Based on these theories, the authors claim that for enterprises, management of risk must also influence the process of risk development itself. After that, the authors introduce other two concepts “Risk and trust” and “Risk and technology acceptance,” and then combine these theories with empirical evidence. The result shows that intentions to use a particular technology are also determined by a range of factors that can actively be influenced, such as perceptions of trust and usefulness. In my point of view, I think the source is useful and reliable as the authors consult pages of references. Also, this article is unbiased, and it is helpful for those who are interested in the RFID’s application and how to use the strategic framework to help firms to positively influence the public acceptance of the technology, especially concerning privacy issues. The possible audiences could be anyone who is interested in the future of RFID tech. I believe this article will be beneficial to me because of it some theories about RFID as well as public views of RFID technology, which can be included in the RFID public views part of my topic article.

Bonuccelli, Maurizio A., and Francesca Martelli. 2018. “A Very Fast Tags Polling Protocol for Single and Multiple Readers RFID Systems, and Its Applications.” Ad Hoc Networks 71 (March): 14–30. doi:10.1016/j.adhoc.2017.12.002.

In the paper “A Very Fast Tags Polling Protocol for Single and Multiple Readers RFID Systems, and Its Applications,” the authors present a high-speed and straightforward protocol for polling tags in an RFID system formed by single or multiple readers. The main idea of this novel protocol is to associate a short and unique number to each tag and use such amount as the polling order. The method adopted in this article is listing graphs and figures to help understand mathematical tools and how they contribute to build the new tags polling protocol for RFID systems. The structure of this article is apparent, the first to come is the introduction of the RFID systems, and the related work about problems related to polling in RFID systems, then it talks about system model and problem formulation as well as the optimal polling protocol, using lots of mathematical languages to show the applications of this new protocol and compare the performance of TSPP protocol by listing lots of statistical tables. Lastly, the author reports the results of a simulation experiment set up for obtaining the average performance of TSPP and of the other known related protocol. The conclusion of this journal is that two significant features are owned by the new contract: optimal for a single user and simple for multireader systems. As far as I can see, the article is helpful for those protocol engineers who want to know more about the RFID system. The source is useful and reliable as well as objective because it includes lots of mathematical proofs, which is very rigorous. Still, it is challenging to comprehend the design of the novel protocol. The target audience is probably the experts whose jobs are improving the RFID system. Personally speaking, I suppose this article is useful in that it analyzes some privacy and security issues of this new protocol, which may be helpful to the privacy topic.

Cao, Tianjie, Xiuqing Chen, Robin Doss, Jingxuan Zhai, Lucas J Wise, and Qiang Zhao. 2016. “RFID Ownership Transfer Protocol Based on Cloud.” Computer Networks 105 (August): 47–59. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2016.05.017.

In this article “RFID Ownership Transfer Protocol Based on Cloud,” the authors point out the disadvantages in two previous protocols and solve the security issues of these protocols by presenting a provably secure RFID ownership transfer protocol, which can achieve the security and privacy requirements for cloud-based applications. The methodology of this journal is using mathematical representation to show how the contract works and also show the weakness of the previous protocol. To begin with, the authors introduce the relationship between cloud computing and RFID technologies. Then, other pieces of literature in this fields about RFID ownership transfer protocol are mentioned with the authors’ remarks. Later, by adopting the method of mathematical language demonstration, the writers outline the disadvantages in the two schemes and shows that when cloud computing is applied to RFID ownership transfer scenarios, the superior cloud-based RFID OT protocol is proposed. The most significant part of this paper is the first comprehensive and untraceable analysis of RFID ownership transfer protocol. The conclusion of this paper is that the proposed CROP scheme integrates cloud service and quadratic residue mechanisms to provide backward forward as well as strong forward untraceablity properties. The source is useful and reliable as the author consults references within recent ten years, and the information is entirely objective. I think this article is helpful for those who want to know the mathematical-language-based proof of the merits and demerits of a particular protocol. Besides, I would not recommend it to others as this article is hard to understand and gives much complicated statistical analysis to explain the main ideas. The target audience is readers who own want to study in the field of protocol to create better systems. After finishing reading this article, I find that it is not only difficult to understand, but also entirely different from what I want to learn at the beginning when I saw the title of this article. So, I think this article is not that relevant to my privacy + topic, but maybe it can be useful when I want to explain some definition.

Awad, Ali Ismail. 2016. “Review: From Classical Methods to Animal Biometrics: A Review of Cattle Identification and Tracking.” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 123 (April): 423–35. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2016.03.014.

In the review “Review: From Classical Methods to Animal Biometrics: A Review on Cattle Identification and Tracking,” the authors review the evolution of cattle identification methods and their advantages and problems. Furthermore, this article combines recent research findings on animal biometrics and pays particular attention to cattle biometrics identifiers. The technique used in this paper is presenting the advantages of animal biometrics by comparing them with classical cattle identification methods. To begin with, the authors introduce various cattle identification methods, such as permanent methods, temporary methods, electrical methods as well as animal biometrics. By listing figures to illustrate the differences in different traditional practices such as ear notching, ear tattooing, hot iron branding, freeze branding, and ear tagging, the authors show the properties of these methods. Later, the authors list all the merits of the animal biometrics, which can partially replace the classical identification methods by overcoming their limitations and by fulfilling the requirements for accurate and efficient cattle identification. The conclusion of this paper claims that integrating biometrics technology and the current RFID systems should be pursued in future research as a means of achieving better performance that poses few security challenges. When it comes to the evolution of this article, I think the source is useful and reliable as the authors consult pages of references. Furthermore, I suppose that the conclusion of this journal is unbiased because even though the authors point out many weaknesses of traditional methods, they never conclude that the benefits of this tech overweight its demerits, which is fair. Instead, they suppose that more researches should be conducted to integrate biometrics technology and the current RFID systems. The article is helpful for those who are interested in the new technology of biometrics, about the comparison between it and other classical methods to identify livestock. I believe this article will be beneficial to me because it compares biometrics with RFID tech and shows the difference, which can be included in the RFID part of my topic article.

Assarian, Ali, Ahmad Khademzadeh, Mehdi HosseinZadeh, and Saeed Setayeshi. “A Beacon Analysis-Based RFID Reader Anti-Collision Protocol for Dense Reader Environments.” Computer Communications 128 (September 1, 2018): 18–34.

In the article called “A Beacon Analysis-Based RFID Reader Anti-Collision Protocol for Dense Reader Environments,” the authors propose a novel protocol to reduce reader collision in a dense RFID network. The primary objective of the new scheme is to maximize the use of available resources, while in previous schemes, this goal is not reached because of reader collision. The methodology of this journal is listing lots of figures, including curves and abstract mathematical matrix, which helps to illustrate different kinds of RFID reader collision problems and examples of various schemes. After introducing one of the most critical issues, reader collision, the authors propose a new centralized scheme by managing and analyzing beacon messages. In addition, the priority code is initialized appropriately so that the readers access the channel equally. The conclusion of this paper is that the proposed scheme significantly improved throughput, reduced network delay and promoted fairness in the network. Thus, the novel scheme is efficient for a robust RFID system by managing and analyzing beacon messages and dynamic resource allocation. Personally speaking, the article is helpful for those protocol engineers who want to know more about the RFID system and learn how to improve them mathematically. The source is useful and reliable as well as objective because it includes lots of mathematical proofs, which is very rigorous. Still, it is challenging to comprehend the design of the novel protocol. The target audience is probably the experts whose jobs are improving the RFID system. Personally speaking, I suppose this article is useful in that it analyzes some privacy and security issues of this new protocol, which may be helpful to the privacy topic.

Microchip Implant (animal) Privacy
Microchip implant (animal) privacy is information security and privacy issues related to microchipping of animals. The microchip is a small, electronic chip encoded with an individual number, which is enclosed in a biocompatible glass cylinder. It is an identifying integrated circuit placed under the skin of an animal. The microchip, which is about the same size as a large grain of rice, uses passive RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) technology. This means it does not have a battery and is activated by a scanner that is passed over the area. The radiowaves put out by the scanner activate the chip, making the chip transmit the identification number to the scanner, and then the scanner displays the number on the screen. In addition, the microchip is also known as a PIT (Passive Integrated Transponder) tag.

Due to beneficial features of microchips regarding the advantage of collecting information, new approaches with microchips herald advances in physiology and conservation biology, as well as greater understanding of social interactions among individuals in a population. Besides scientific research, microchips can be implanted to various animals and even all kinds of items of production, which can cause some privacy risks. Some external microchips can be read with the same scanner used with implanted chips. However, despite the prevalence of microchips, the advantages of microchips in information collection can result in problems such as surveillance, privacy breaches, an so on. Therefore, some precautions should be taken to realize information security and privacy protection.

History
Since their first use in the mid-1980s, microchips have allowed innovative investigations into numerous biological traits of animals. The tiny, coded markers injected into individual animals allow assessment of growth rates, movement patterns, and survivorship for many species in a manner more reliable than traditional approaches of externally marking animals for identification. Microchips have also been used to confirm the identity of zoo animals, pets, and protected species that have been illegally removed from the wild.

However, when it comes to the privacy issues about microchip implant of animals, there exist few peer-reviewed journals about this topic, most of the privacy concerns about microchip implant are focused on humanity. As early as in 1997, some scholars argued that microchip implantation was technically possible, and suggested that it was the time to consider strategies for preventing potentially grievous intrusion into personal privacy. Still, it is possible that microchip implanted on animals can also lead to privacy issues or information breaches, which can lead to serious social problems.

Laws
At present, microchipping of pets and other animals is voluntary in the U.S. except for some legislation mandating microchipping as a means of identifying animals who have been identified as being dangerous. This is quite different from some countries, as since 6 April 2016, all dogs in England, Scotland and Wales must be microchipped. Back to the U.S., in 1994, the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry (LDAF) issued a regulation requiring permanent identification (in the form of a brand, lip tattoo or electronic identification) of all horses tested for equine infectious anemia. According to the LDAF and the state veterinarian, this requirement made a huge contribution to determining the owners of horses displaced during Hurricane Katrina in fall 2005.

Comparison
Regarding pets, microchips help reunite lost animals with their owners, which is the main reason people choose to implant a microchip for their pets. When a pet is found and taken to a shelter or veterinary clinic, one of the first things the staff will do is scan the pet for a microchip. If the pet is chipped and the microchip registry has accurate information of its owner, it is likely that the pet will be found by its owners. And since the microchips presently used in pets only contain ID numbers, owners' private information is protected by the manufacturer's microchip registries that archive the detailed information of pet owners.

However, there are some other tools such as collars, ID tags, and rabies tags that can be used to provide useful information about the pet or its owners. If a pet is wearing a collar with tags when it is lost, the quickest process to contact its owner is by reading the information on the tag. Despite the advancement of microchip, in case that the information on either side is out of date, it is safer to equip the pet with both tools. It is the same for rabies tags, which is a direct way to see if the pet has been vaccinated for some deadly diseases. Besides, rabies tag numbers also allow tracing of pets and identification of a lost animals's owners. Therefore, those need to be in place in addition to having the pet microchipped, and a microchip is not a replacement for a collar with an ID tag and up-to-date shot information. Microchips are a good back-up option for pet identification and provides additional protection. For example, a collar can come loose and fall off—in that event, a chip will help a clinic or shelter identify the pet.

Manufacturers & Registers
In the United States, the history of some tag manufacturers date back to more than 30 years age. Several the major tag manufacturers are listed below:


 * AVID, Inc.(American Veterinary Identification Devices): www.avidid.com; Norco, California
 * Biomark, Inc.: www.biomark.com; Meridian, Idaho
 * Bio Medic Data Systems, Inc.: www.bmds.com; Seaford, Delaware
 * Digital Angel Corporation (formerly Destron Fearing, Inc.): www.destronfearing.com; St.Paul, Minnesota
 * Trovan, Ltd.: www.trovan.com; Santa Barbara,California

Some RFID-USA Registers includes:


 * Home Again
 * AVID
 * AKC CAR/EID
 * Digital Angel
 * ResQ
 * ALLFLEX
 * Schering Plough
 * 24 PET WATCH
 * Lifechip
 * Banfield
 * Crystal Tag
 * Datamars
 * Destron Fearing

Pets
There are multiple reasons for the use of the microchips on pets as a documentation device, which are also the advantage of microchips regarding information collection. The three major reasons for microchip implantation are delocalization, recording, and domestication, taking feline microchip for example. The delocalization reason shows that a registered cat is a cat of whom society is aware, and this cat owns a position in the social order, which is the same for other types of pets. The reason of recording illustrates that the microchip helps the authorized people to review and monitor cat members in a certain region by referring to the database; thus the registry and the implanted microchips transform cats into social objects. Lastly, the domestication reason shows that if the owner of a cat has to move abroad with it, the microchip provides specific information concerning the diseases it might carry and the vaccinations to which it has been subjected. This makes it more convenient for owners to travel with their pets and avoid bringing foreign bacteria, fungi, and viruses to other nations.

Livestock
Thanks to the advantages of microchips, there are many concrete applications of RFID in the agri-food sector covering the majority of usual foods, such as all kinds of meats, vegetables, and fruits. The feature of RFID, namely its traceability, makes it possible for the increased security and confidence of customers. In addition, as one of the most popular livestock around the world, the health condition of pigs is vital to farmers's income and inevitably influence customers' health. Nevertheless, it is extremely challenging to monitor the pigs' health condition individually by using tradition approaches. It is common that the disease spread from a single pig to nearly all the pigs living in the same pigsty. Fortunately, by adopting the technology of microchips to measure the drinking behavior of individual pigs housed in group, it is possible to identify pigs's health and productivity state. As it turns out, this kind of behavior is a good indicator to show pigs' health condition. Compared to traditional visual observations to determine the pigs' health state, RFID-based monitoring of pig drinking behavior is feasible and even more efficient.

Wildlife
Using microchips in wild animals in biology began with fisheries studies to determine the efficiency of the method for measuring fish movement. Later, studies that use microchips to track wild animals expended over the years, including researches on mammals, reptiles , birds , amphibians and so on. Compared with previous marking and tagging techniques used to identify wild animals before the advent of microchips, such as ear tags and color-coded leg bands, microchips are visually less obvious and is more likely to be detected by their prey and predators. Due to the fact that the traditional identifications are on the exterior of the animal, tags can be lost, but scars can heal and tattoos can fade.

Furthermore, including the advantages mentioned above, other useful and significant information can also be collected by microchips. For example, chipped wild animals that are recaptured can provide information on growth rate and change on location or other data such as age structure, sex ratios, and longevity of individuals in the wild. Other researches on small mammals like rats and mice also adopt this technology to determine body temperature of terminally ill animals. In summary, as microchips are internal, permanent, durable under harsh environments, and have little influence on animals, more and more scholars are employing microchip implantation to collect useful data on wildlife researches.



Privacy Risks
Unauthorized reading of microchips can present a risk to privacy, which can potentially take advantage of information in the microchips to identify or track packages, consumers, carriers, or even owners of different animals. Several prototype systems are being developed to combat unauthorized reading, including RFID signal interruption, as well as legislation. Hundreds of scientific papers have been published on this matter since 2002. Dfferent countries are facing different privacy problems of microchips implantation on animals, but some challenges are the same.

Australia
Because the ability to trace livestock from property of birth to slaughter is critical to the safety of red meat, the Australian red meat industry has implemented a national system which is known as National Livestock Identification System, to ensure the quality and safety of beef, lamb, sheepmeat and goatmeat. There are weaknesses in the current microchipping system in Australia. According to several pieces of researches in 2015, reclaim rates were significantly higher for animals with microchips than those without microchips, which is based on the statistical analysis of the raw data of dogs and cats living in Australia as well as microchipped animals. To determine the character and the frequency of inaccurate microchip data used for locating owners of stray pets, researchers also analyzed admission data for stray dogs and cats entering shelters called RSPCA-Queensland (QLD). The result of data analysis shows that the problem of microchip data may reduce the possibility that a pet’s owner will be contacted to reclaim the animal. Therefore, it is necessary that the current microchipping system in Australia be perfect and the microchip owners update their data frequently.

The United States
Regarding livestock, similar systems exist in the United States called the National Animal Identification System. Approximately 40 million Americans already carry microchips, the types include in being embedded in car keys, building access devices, speed payment fobs, etc. In June 2003, WalMart allowed the use of adding microchips to all shipping crates and pallets sent to any WalMart distribution center. Data shows that by the end of January 2005, nearly 65% of pallets and cases transported to WalMart contained RFID tags. When it comes to the privacy risks of microchips’ potential applications, it is possible that there will be more item-level tagging because of inventory control. However, this can cause consumer tracking, which is to be expected to be an anti-theft measure. The presence of readers in stores means that any live tag carried by an individual entering that store will also be read. Furthermore, if a single store chooses to connect payment information with RFID information, the actions, purchasing habits as well as whereabouts of a specific individual might also be collected. Regarding human implants and RFID-chipped passports, privacy is threatened as well; therefore, it must be ensured that expanded personal marketing, a lack of anonymity and individual tacking are not going to happen shortly.

Corresponding Issues
The privacy issues seem to be negligible because the microchips used in pets only include ID number and the only information in the database is the information that owners choose to provide when they register the microchips or update them. Nevertheless, there exist various issues corresponding with microchips.

Difficulties in identifying a lost pet through its microchip
One of the problems is that it can be challenging to identify a lost pet through its microchip. Firstly, not every scanner is capable of reading every chip; even the best scanners miss some chips. The root of the trouble is not flawed technology, but patent protection, business interests, and politics; Secondly, taking the number shown by the scanner and figuring out which registry, out of multiple possibilities, archives the pet's identifying information.

The American Animal Hospital Association's (AAHA) makes it easier to figure out which registry keeps the animal's identifying information through a microchip search site (www.petmicrochiplookup.org). The AAHA Universal Pet Microchip Lookup Tool is an internet-based application to assist in the identification of those registries on which a particular microchip is registered, or otherwise provide the chip’s manufacturer. By searching the databases of participating companies, this tool provides useful information. To protect owners' privacy, it will not return pet owner information contained in the registries’ databases. Instead, it will display which registries should be contacted when a lost pet is scanned, and its microchip number is identified. However, since not all microchip registry companies are involved in this tool, it is missing a significant databank of Avid Identification System Inc.

Thirdly, in addition to the fact that not all companies participate with the lookup tool, some that do reportedly are not necessarily accessible or helpful. When the microchips are scanned, and the related companies are figured out, it is time to determine whether the chip was ever registered at all, and if so, whether the registration information is up-to-date. The challenging part of this problem is that only when all the third steps mentioned above are successful can the owner of the lost pet be contacted even though the pet is equipped with a microchip.

The microchip ownership question
The widespread adoption of microchip identification may lead to ownership disputes to occur more frequently since sometimes the microchip ownership information is irrelevant according to the ownership laws. The main reason is that it happens when the owner is not the one to whom the microchip ownership information belongs. This is a significant problem because client confidentiality rules generally prohibit veterinarians from divulging information about a pet without the client's permission. Furthermore, veterinarians are required to get permission from the person who registered the chip to perform a surgery on a microchipped spay, even if the animal is under a severe situation. The problem can be more complicated if the animals with microchips are abandoned on purpose or stolen by someone else.

How to protect microchip Privacy
A method of protecting microchip privacy is by updating it regularly. Stray animals with incorrect microchip details are less likely to be reclaimed and when compared to pets with correct microchip details, the time taken to retrieve the pets is longer, and sometimes reuniting is impossible. When this happens, not only do the owners lose their beloved pets, but their private information stored in the microchips can be read by anyone who uses a scanner. Therefore, it is wise to update the microchip information regularly, especially when the owners move to another place or change their phone numbers. According to research, email reminders may increase the frequency that pet owners update their microchip information. By increasing the pet owners’ updating frequency of the pets’ data, it is likely that the reclaim percentages of stray animals will increase, thus reducing the number of pets euthanized in shelters every year. By this means, the owners' private information is more likely to be protected once they reunite with their beloved pets.

Another method of prevention is by using cryptography. Rolling codes and challenge-response authentication (CRA) are commonly used to foil monitor-repetition of the messages between the tag and reader; as any messages that have been recorded would prove to be unsuccessful on repeat transmission. Similarly, it is possible that some novel RFID authentication protocols for microchip ownership transfer can be adapted to protect users' privacy, which meets three key requirements for secure microchip ownership transfer. The three requirements include: new owner privacy (only the new owner should be able to identify and control the microchip), old owner privacy (past interactions between the microchip and its previous owner should not be able to be traced by the new owner), and authorization recovery (new owner should be able to transfer its authorization rights to the previous owner in some special cases). These features can protect owners' privacy to some extent.

Midwestmich99 Peer Review Week 6
I thought your lead provided a clear explanation of what your article will cover. The microchip technology is easy to follow and understand. In the RFID Tag Privacy second paragraph, I would suggest adding a little more information about the different field of RFID privacy. This could be done by explaining the most important facts about each field. This gives the reader more understanding about your topic before they read more.

In the "Ownership and Transfer Requirements" section, when you say "the authors draw the conclusion" that can be a little confusing from the reader, because you did not explain who the authors are or what their research is about. I suggest explaining that context of the research and why the information the authors present is reliable. This helps the reader understand where you got your information.

The overall structure was easy to follow. I liked how you explained your structure in the lead. I think the first two sections (Risk to RFID Tag Privacy and Types of RFID Tag Privacy) in your article are very well balanced. You split up the information into smaller sections that are easy to follow. Adding more information to the last two sections would make the overall article more balanced.

I think you do a good job of keeping a neutral tone throughout the entire article. Every section is very informative and does not have a biased tone.

I suggest adding a few more citations to each paragraph, so that the readers knows your information is coming from a reliable source.

Overall, I think you made really good progress on your article so far. I also changed a grammatical error in the Australia section you can check over!

Rainbowdolph Peer Review
Lead: The lead is very short and concise and good. It gives a brief definition, however it doesn't really provide any information about what topics the page might cover. The privacy portion right under is very direct and I know immediately the importance of the topic. The lead doesn't really provide any foundation for what will also be addressed later on in the article. If there's just a small paragraph right under the privacy part that's in bold, explaining like that the topics addressed will be different types of tagging and weaknesses and how to protect, it would provide better structure of what readers might expect to see. Nothing is really redundant, the topics are different enough from one another that they care good as is.

Sections: The sections are well organized, there is nothing really chronological that would make the outline need to be different. However, maybe adding a section about the origins or when was the first instances people started tagging animals would be helpful and a good build up. Each of the sections are pretty evenly described and none are too long that is appears to be a priority over other sections. Maybe something to add would be chips that have gone wrong or instances of breaches with them because this is mostly descriptive and very good, but there are no like case studies which are supposed to help describe how there can be conflicting views on this type of technology. There isn't really a conclusion, but the proposed solutions on how to protect this privacy is a good way to end!

Content: I could not tell the perspective of the author after reading this article. It is very, very well written! It is mostly informational and there aren't really any words that would be swayed towards a certain perspective. There are a couple words that were a little bit iffy on who they were referring to and how many people's perspective fit that such as saying "the authors" several times. This isn't super clear as to who the authors are and if they are different authors who have differing opinions. The article doesn't really focus on anything positive or negative, so maybe adding some information about that could provide different perspectives and prompt the reader to consider both sides.

Sources: There are several hyperlinks already which is a good start because it means you know your subject and can connect them to things that already exist. Maybe a couple more sources are needed for the information that have acronyms as well as the case studies/research like the "three reasons for RFID", where did those terms come from? They were most likely coined because they don't seem like normal everyday terms. Overall, very nicely written! It barely shows any biased opinions and the sections are broken down well that they are different enough but they address topics that can be linked back together. It is very good and neutral right now which I know is really hard to keep up, so this was very well done. Try and add more cases/examples of positive and negative times that this technology has in order to kind of see why it might be controversial and why privacy of this topic is an important thing to be talking about. Rainbowdolph (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

MY Peer Review
Good job on the first draft! What you have for now looks already pretty good so no worries! The outline is clear and well-structured (I like how you use the sub-headers!), so when I read through your article, it’s easy for me to follow your logic. Besides, you also did a good job translating the technical terms of microchips into common language that everyone can understand. The sources are reliable because they’re all from academic journals, and you also make good use of neutral language so there is no potential bias.

I read carefully through the draft and corrected some grammar mistakes, you can take a look on those! One advice is about how you write your sentences. Some of the sentences are very long so it’s a little confusing when I read them. You can try to break these sentences down and write them in shorter and more simple language, because Wikipedia is a platform where people from all the backgrounds can easily learn something. In addition, although the article looks very informative, more sections closely related to “privacy” can be added. Right now there is a lot of information about microchips, but its privacy-related issue can be emphasized more. I believe as we annotate more sources, you will be able to find more to them! The last small concern is that, the sub-headers looks a little long. You can keep it if you think it provides more information to the readers, but can also think about cutting it a little bit so the readers can directly find out what your theme is. Also, try to add some hyperlinks when you have time!

One thing I want to learn from you is your use of objective language. Since my topic is more controversial rather than technical, I find out that my first draft contains some biased views. But you did a good job summarizing the authors’ opinion without your own viewpoint, and even when the authors themselves are opinionated, you also precisely cite the author so it doesn’t become your biased views. In all, great job and keep going! It’s already in a great shape!

Response to Peer Review (Week 6):
Feedback: I have learned that some sentences are too long and seem to be complicated to understand, so it is wise to break down the long sentences into two or three shorter ones to make the whole content more clear and easier to understand; Besides, the language styles should be close to public, which means that the contents of my article are supposed to be accessible to ordinal people rather than only to scholars who have more knowledge in certain fields. What’s more, it would be better if I revise some of the information from my annotations, which sometimes are confusing if they are directly used in my articles. Plus, maybe I should add more information about different perspectives so that the audiences can think from both sides. Lastly, more examples are supposed to be included in my article to show the controversy of the topic. I think all of the points mentioned above are what I should make some improvement on, that is, what I should change when I revise my article draft.

Tommytheprius Peer Review week 7
The lead section is concise and informative, so well done there. Your organization makes sense to me because I like that it goes from types to risks to requirements to protection. In the livestock section I think you could put "applications" in the full title since there aren't any other subsections. Also, that section just reads like part of your annotation without first introducing the article, so it comes off a little strangely. This same issue exists in the "requirements about tag ownership transfer" section and in the "factors that affect decisions in the process of implementing an RFID system" section where they just seem like a chunk of an annotation without much context. I assume you are intending on doing this already, but it looks like you need to add more to the public views and privacy policies sections where you only have an example in each so far. I think it would be good if you explained the sentence "The first method of protecting RFID tag privacy is by updating the RFID tag regularly." and how/why updating the tag actually protects privacy. I'd advise you to make "See also" and "References" into their own headings instead of subheadings because they don't fall under the category of How to protect RFID Tag Privacy.

Overall, I think you've done a very good job. My main suggestion is to think about tweaking some of your subsections that seem like chunks of text from your annotations. I think it might flow better if you integrate them with other ideas or give them some context instead of using each article on its own and not introducing the article or its authors before saying something like "the authors" or "the article shows" in a sentence. I also think you could take another look at your titles and subtitles, because they occasionally lengthy. In terms of more technical stuff, you could thinking about adding more terms and adding hyperlinks in the See Also section and add more citations. All the citations look like they are at the end of paragraphs, which again makes it seem like those paragraphs are chunks taken from annotations.

The tone of your article seems unbiased and encyclopedic, and you have a great start. It never seems like you are just putting your own thoughts into it. It was smart to rely heavily on the annotations you've already done, but as I said before, I think you could integrate them more naturally. I also like that you already have a bunch of references.

Cal.Oasis Peer Review Week 7
In your lead section you may want to consider removing a sub section but instead add a transition that can lead to the definition and discussion of what RFID Tag Privacy is. Additionally, you say that there are topics that “might” be contained, but for now I think you should only include what you are planning on covering so the reader does not get confused.

I think for titles of subsections, you can add more information about what the paragraph is going to be about. For example, in the “necessity” section, you can explain further what necessity you are referring to. In risk to RFID Tag Privacy, you can add a sentence letting readers know that you will be dividing information based on country and its specific policies regarding tagging.

I think that the tone stays neutral within the article and that it was well written. As for sources, I think you can add additional citations, since sometimes, you only add one citation at the end of the paragraph. I think you can add more so that the reader is aware that all of the information comes from valid sources. I thought that all the sections were well balanced and that one section did not dominate another.

Cal.oasis Peer Review Week 8
Within the draft there are some grammatical errors that you can fix - that include subject verb agreement and tense shifts. For example, in the first sentence of the lead section you say “Microchip implant (animal) privacy is the privacy issues related with microchipping of animals.” You may want to say “is a privacy issue related to..”

Additionally, a lot of your sentences are very long, you can break them up to make it easier to read. For example, you say “About the same size as a large grain of rice, the microchip uses passive RFID(Radio Frequency Identification) technology, which means that it does not have a battery and is activated by a scanner that is passed over the area.” You can simplify this and break up your sentences by saying “The microchip, which is about the same size as a large grain of rice, uses passive RFID technology. This means….” I think if you work on breaking up your sentences, it will make the information easier to retain also. Regarding the paragraph that is starred, I think that it would be important to include this information! I was not sure if that will be in your actual article, but if you include it, you may want to put it at the end of the lead section after you talk about new approaches to microchips.

In your header sections, it may be good to be more specific and explain what history or laws you are talking about. For example, you can say “history of microchips” or “laws about microchipping”. Additionally, with “information advantage”, you should explain advantage over what. Additionally, within the sections, you can break up the paragraphs so that they are not so condensed. For example, in your history section, you can break the paragraph when you say, “however, when….” Additionally, you should explain the people you talk about. For example, who is Dr. Ramesh? (in the history section).

In your section on “risk to RFID tag privacy” there is a section that is oddly formatted. I am not sure what this section is about.

Overall, I think that your article has come a long way over the past week! Each section has enough information; I felt there was equal amounts of information within each section. I think the main issue is grammar mistakes and long sentences, but that can be fixed. I think the tone was unbiased and informative. Each section is also cited correctly. Good job this week!

simhhyena peer review (week 9)
Your lead section is engaging and informative, but I think that you should change some of the wording. For example, you should take out extraneous phases such as "to be more precise." Taking out such phrases will make your piece more encyclopedic in its tone. I overall liked the information, but certain facts such as the one about comparing the size of the chip to rice, are unclear if they are proven facts or original research. If it is a proven fact, you need to cite it, and if it is your original research, you need to omit the fact. Be careful of this in other parts of your article as well: you cannot have original research in a Wikipedia article. But overall, you have ample citations and hyperlinks which is good. In general, make sure modifiers are properly placed in your sentences, as I sometimes got confused with what descriptors went with which subject.

For the history section, I would reword the first sentence of the second paragraph; mainly the part with "there exist" was weird to read. The in comparison section needs more hyperlinks. Moreover, in the manufacturers and registers section, you should take the links out of your article and rather cite the links. The descriptors along with the information is enough for the audience to understand the topic with. For this section, I also think you should add a paragraph to accompany the list, as this would make your article more descriptive.

I really liked the data collection and privacy risks section, as it was worded nicely and had plentiful citations/hyperlinks. However, under the corresponding issues section, some of the sub-headings were wordy which I would change. Condensing the subtitles would be less intimidating for the reader. Lastly, avoid certain vague phrases such as "to some extent." These phrases are vague and unhelpful in the reader's understanding of the scope of the topic.

I really like your article and how it has evolved! I can really tell how hard you have worked. Nice job, and keep up the great work!

Response to Peer Reviews (week 8)
To sum up, I think the main problems are:


 * The contents of many sections have nothing to do with privacy.
 * In some sections, the paragraphs are not combined naturally.
 * Some subheadings seem to be very strange.

What I do think I need to do in order to improve my articles:


 * 1) Do more research to find more relevant journals for my topics so that the following sections can be more natural considering the title and subheadings of the article.
 * 2) Try to write some transitions that can lead audience from the subheading to the following contents and make everything fit with the context.
 * 3) Rewrite some part of my article rather than put the annotations directly into my article.
 * 4) Add more citations and reuse them in the article and put more links to the "See Also" section.
 * 5) As I am not a native English speaker, it is wise to let my American friends to read my article and change according to their suggestions.

Response to peer review (week 9)
Summary of existing problems:


 * There are some wording problems that makes the article not encyclopedic, such as “to be precise” in the lead section.
 * Not clear description of some sentences due to lengthy descriptors.
 * Some sentences are not natural to read.
 * Some of the sub-headings are wordy.

REMEDIES:


 * Carefully modify the grammatical errors in some of the sentences.
 * Condense some lengthy sub-headings to make it clear and straight-forward.
 * Check some sentences that are not based on citations to avoid original research.
 * Revise some citations or reuse them to make the article more reliable.

Microchip Implant (animal) Privacy
The above link will go to the mainspace of my article.

Rainbowdolph Peer Review
Lead section: I fixed some of the grammar in your lead section. Maybe introduce the microchip earlier so put like: “The microchip, also known as PIT (Passive Integrated Transponder) tag, which is about the same size as a large grain of rice, uses passive RFID….” It helps with the order to introduce the term first. In the second paragraph, the word “prevalence” and the word “advantages” aren’t really contradictory enough to be able to use the transition “however”, so this sentence doesn’t really work. Try maybe, “Despite the advantages of microchips, during the information collection process, there can result in some problems in areas like surveillance, privacy breaches, etc. Precautions should be taken note of in order to realize information security and privacy protection.” The last sentence seems to be a little informal in tone so it would be better to address that like you are going to talk about precautions in the article.

History: “injected” seems like the wrong word, maybe “implanted” or “inserted” because injected seems to be associated more with like a shot or like needles that are temporary, but implanted/inserted is more permanent. Fixed this sentence: “As early as 1997, some scholars believed microchip implantation was technically possible, but it was suggested that it was time to consider strategies for preventing potentially grievous intrusion into personal privacy.” Your wording right now does not clearly show that there are two sides to this argument.

Laws: The wording is a little funky, but your links are really good here! Try “This is not the case in other countries. As of April 6, 2016, all dogs in England, Scotland, and Wales must be microchipped.” It slows better and the grammar has been fixed here. But also for the sake of ordering correctly, finish talking about the US before you go into the other countries (so this should go in the very end of the paragraph).

“At present, microchipping of pets and other animals is voluntary in the U.S. except for some legislation mandating microchipping as a means of identifying animals who have been identified as being dangerous. In 1994, the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry (LDAF) issued a regulation requiring permanent identification (in the form of a brand, lip tattoo or electronic identification) of all horses tested for equine infectious anemia.[2] According to the LDAF and the state veterinarian, this requirement made a huge contribution to determining the owners of horses displaced during Hurricane Katrina in fall 2005.[2][3] This is not the case in other countries because as of April 6, 2016, all dogs in England, Scotland, and Wales must be microchipped.”

Also is there a reason that other countries have to be microchipped? This sentence is just kind of put out here, there is no backup information or supporting sentences that give any other information.

Comparison: Maybe edit this to be more clear: “If the pet is chipped and the microchip registry has accurate information of its owner, it is likely that the owner can be contacted.” It’s not really the pet being found but the information that is important in this sentence. The next sentence, don’t start a sentence with “and”, just go into “Microchips used in pets today only contain ID numbers; owners’ private information…”. The part about rabies tags, is there a clear distinction about rabies tag numbers and microchipping and collars because if not, don’t use the word” besides” it doesn’t really fit, say something like “Besides disease identification, rabies tag numbers also allows tracking and pet identification. However, not to be confused that rabies tags are adequate substitutes for microships and vice versa.” this sentence is just confusing. I get your point that rabies tags can also be used for tracking although their main purpose is for shot tracking but it shouldn’t be out of the blue like that because this sentence just jumbles all the ideas together.

Manufacturers and Registers: maybe just add one small sentence before you list each of these to explain what a manufacturer does and what a register does even though it may seem kind of obvious.

Pets: Start the “taking feline microchip for example” as a new sentence. “The three major reasons for microchip implementation are delocalization, recording, and domestication. Take feline microchip for example. Delocalization shows that a registered cat is one that society is aware of and the cat owns a position in the social order of other types of animals. Recording shows that the microchip helps authorized people review and monitor cats in a certain region by referring to the database. Domestication shows that…” keep the sentence structure similar and together.

Livestock: Start with “Due to”, not “Thanks to” because that sounds bias. This paragraph was really good and comprehensive, and unbias. This along with the wildlife section I just fixed some grammatical and clarity things.

'''Australia: is the weaknesses in the current microchipping system having to do with the NLIS, so are there weaknesses in NLIS? Because that’s what the direction of the paragraph seems to be going in. “The result of data analysis shows that the problem of microchip data may reduce the possibility that a pet’s owner will be contacted to reclaim the animal.” This sentence doesn’t make sense. I don’t get what the issue is. The last sentence seems to hold some bias that the system HAS to be perfect but this is irrelevant to being informed about Australia’s system.'''

The US: Do you have a citation for the Walmart things? Because there are specific numbers you need to cite these. You had a lot of transitions that were counteracting the tone of the sentence so I fixed a bunch of them or just took them out.

Difficulties: “One of the problems in ______ is that it can be…” Have to be specific about what the problem you are addressing is. I would switch the first two sentences about AAHA because you want to talk about who they are first and then what they do. So say they are an application first, then write what they do.

Solutions: This looks really good! Fixed some grammar but that’s about it.

Good work this looks amazing and I fixed a lot of the tone to make it seem more formal and took out unnecessary transitions so it flows smoother.

Response to peer review (week 10)
I cannot thank Rainbowdolph enough as the peer review is so concrete that I only need to change the grammatical errors or some unclear parts according to the suggestions. Most of the problems are because of inproficiency in English, and I am provided with super beneficial rewrites. Also, I have changed some biased words like "Thanks to". I have already revised the article and fixed most of the grammatical errors and learned a lot from these suggestions.

Still, I need to add some sentences to explain what a manufacturer does and what a register does, which I think is necessary. Besides, the problems in the "Australia" part is sever and I will fix it after doing more research and reread the cited article. As mentioned above, some sentences doesn't make sense. I am going to rewrite this part.

In sum, the suggestions are really to the point, I have also received some suggestions from Shalor this week, which is also very helpful.