Electronic tagging  Electronic tagging is a form of surveillance which uses an electronic device, fitted to the person. In some jurisdictions, an electronic tag fitted above the ankle is used for people as part of their bail or probation conditions. It is also used in healthcare settings and in immigration contexts in some jurisdictions. Electronic tagging can be used in combination with the global positioning system (GPS). For short-range monitoring of a person that wears an electronic tag, radio frequency technology is used. The electronic monitoring of humans found its first commercial applications in the 1980s. Portable transceivers that could record the location of volunteers, were first developed by a group of researchers at Harvard University in the early 1960s. The researchers cited the psychological perspective of B. F. Skinner as underpinning for their academic project. The portable electronic tag was called "behavior transmitter-reinforcer" and could transmit data two-ways between a "base station" and a volunteer who simulated a "young adult offender". Messages were supposed to be sent to the tag, so as to provide positive reinforcement to the young offender and thus assist in rehabilitation. The head of this research project was Ralph Kirkland Schwitzgebel and his twin brother collaborator, Robert Schwitzgebel (family name later shortened to Gable). The main base-station antenna was mounted on the roof of the Old Cambridge Baptist Church; the minister was the dean of the Harvard Divinity School. Reviews of the prototype electronic tagging strategy were critical. In 1966, the "Harvard Law Review" ridiculed the electronic tags as "Schwitzgebel Machine" and a myth emerged, according to which the prototype electronic tagging project used brain implants and transmitted verbal instructions to volunteers. The editor of a well-known U.S. government publication, "Federal Probation", rejected a manuscript submitted by Ralph Kirkland Schwitzgebel, and included a letter which read in part: "I get the impression from your article that we are going to make automatons out of our parolees and that the parole officer of the future will be an expert in telemetry, sitting at his large computer, receiving calls day and night, and telling his parolees what to do in all situations and circumstances [...] Perhaps we should also be thinking about using electronic devices to rear our children. Since they do not have built-in consciences to tell them right from wrong, all they would have to do is to push the 'mother' button, and she would take over the responsibility for decision-making."