Micro-chipping in Humans - Share your view

[piinyouri]

A mark on the hand is very synonymous with Satan in Christian belief.

Ssssssso...why couldn't the microchip be put somewhere other than the hand, then? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Don't know. My crazy attribute isn't high enough to decipher that.

 

[Greg White]

Let's see...I've been vaccinated against an assortment of sicknesses I don't even want to think about, my background has been checked and double-checked, and I'm likely to be watched until after I die, plus I go through lord only knows how many medical exams.

Not sure how a chip implant is going to make things any worse

 

[Mobax]

It's quite the double edged sword. Obviously, strictly for ID purposes without any gps tracking would be beneficial for coroners and medical practitioners. However the idea of gps is much more divisive. Granted the ability to locate missing children or lost hikers, fisherman etc is a wonderful life-saving idea, it is also opening the door for surveillance and monitoring by any number of organizations.

I am opposed to any form of mandated micro-chipping. But I have no objections to the technology being made available to those who want to embrace it. Of course there would have to be the option to opt of being chipped also. In such a scenario I would still opt out of being chipped. Not that I have anything to hide, but I value my freedom and privacy.

 

[Fox12]

My cat recently went missing. Its a horrible feeling of not knowing if she is safe or not. This lead me to a conversation with my friends about how the local council identify lost or deceased pets using a microchip. Our cat is chipped and while we cannot locate her with it, it will be used when she is found. The conversation turned to microchips in humans and that is where the conversation took a bizarre turn when I learned that they are disallowed purely because it would spark a religious debate, particularly in predominantly Christian countries.

As one argument puts it, a microchip is considered the "Mark of the Devil". This is the argument against having a chip system to identify loved ones in case of an accident or provide emergency contact information. I could understand the argument being fear of information being provided to the wrong people but instead we have this.

I would like peoples views on the matter and possibly a discussion for and against to get some insight into what people actually want. I won't include a poll, but I will make note of everyone's opinion.

I couldn't possibly disagree with microchipping people more, and it has nothing to do with my faith. The idea of the government microchiping it's population is a very real concern for legitimate reasons. The government having absolute tabs on all it's citizens, at all time? It could, and would, be abused. Imagine if Hitler had that kind of power over his people. An extreme example, I know, but if one country made this mandatory, than it stands to reason that it would not be an isolated incident. Therefore, if the government, any government, abused the rights of its people, the people would be far less capable of fighting back. Guerrilla warfare would be hindered. A population should always reserve the right to overthrow their government, if said government violates the civil rights of its people. Microchiping a population would be the single greatest violation of liberty in human history. The bad would FAR outway the good. The government already taps phone lines, records private messages, and hacks electronics. People who argue that those who do nothing wrong have nothing to fear completely misunderstand the threat posed by a government that could potentially abuse its peoples rights at some point, any point, in the future. It's happened historically in the U.S., when all Japanese Americans were imprisoned because of race, or when the Sedition Act disbanded free speech, when McCarthyism was in full steam, or when eugenics were a mainstream idea. Violations will happen again, at some point, somewhere, and human tracking chip would give the government too much authority over the people. If anything, the government should be an open book. After all if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.

 

[twistedmic]

Why worry about your cat so much, it can take care of itself, if it couldn't it wouldn't have run away.

First of all, that would be like asking someone why they were worried about their child/friend disappeared out of the blue (pets are very often considered family members).

Secondly, because there are assholes out there that hate cats enough to shoot them, poison them, deliberately run over them or torture them to death just because they are cats.

And that's not even getting into the natural/non-malign dangers that cats, and pets in general, can face when they are out on their own (pesticides, animal traps, predators etc.)

 

[Norithics]

Having grown up on a farm, I can tell you there are plenty of things for a stray cat to fear before sociopathic humans even enter the equation.

As for the microchip thing? I'd be first in line to get one. Honestly, between social security, driver's license, tax documents, grocery store cards, debit, etc., I'm at my wit's end keeping track of a hundred little things I need to get anything done; just put it in my palm so I can Protector Shade the magnetic reader and be done with it! While I'm at it, have it open my house and start my car, too; free up my pockets for some sweet portable gaming.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I am not in favor of chips because of all the problems that we're dealing with in society today. Corporations have too much power, politicians are corrupt, the difference between the poor and the rich is so big that justice doesn't work for the poor etc. There's just too much that can be abused if microchips are introduced.

In a perfect, or at least fully functional society, chips would be a great thing.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

If it's used for SCIENCE!! and CONVENIENCE!! and not surveillance I'm ok with it. I think ID microchips are a great idea as long as it doesn't go into GPS tracking.

 

[Sack of Cheese]

As long as there's no GPS tracking involved with the chip, and as long as it can't tell where you've been, I'm all for it.

Personally, a subdermal chip with all of your information, medical history, and contacts just seems like an entirely intelligent thing to do.

It would help police identify found bodies, it would help hospitals identify allergies and other issues in unresponsive patients, and it would be helpful in locating the homes of missing children.

But then, what if someone abuse it? Make a tracker to scan your details (they may do this by pretending to touch you for example) and use this information for illegal things?

 

[MiskWisk]

I agree with Phrozen, as long as the chip isn't for surveillance, I'm fine. Or at least, not specifically for surveillance. I mean, a chip connected to the Internet could be used for tracking, but so can a phone, so I wouldn't really mind too much (as long as there is a decent pop-up blocker) but definitely not one that tracks my movements as its primary function.

 

[ScorpionPrince]

I read the topic as: Sharing your view (as in vision) using microchips. That would be something. Anyway, I wouldn't want a chip that can track my position, but maybe a chip that can monitor my caloric intake, and an app that's linked to the chip than can say how many calories I have left (if i'm on a diet). Maybe it can give more detailed information as well (fat, carbs, protein, etc.)

 

[OneCatch]

I am not in favor of chips because of all the problems that we're dealing with in society today. Corporations have too much power, politicians are corrupt, the difference between the poor and the rich is so big that justice doesn't work for the poor etc. There's just too much that can be abused if microchips are introduced.

In a perfect, or at least fully functional society, chips would be a great thing.

I basically agree with this. Without regulation this would be a privacy nightmare.
You could have your shopping habits analysed by being 'checked into' locations, not by GPS data but by simply pinging the chip when you walk in - such info wouldn't even by anonymised. You could have shop assistants knowing your basic info at the push of a button; maybe just to sell you stuff that statistically 'people like you' buy, perhaps also trying to upsell if you happen to be in a demographic that's wealthier than average.
We'd undoubtedly have pushes by security agencies to collect data from them if in the interests of national security (and while publicly pushing for more powers they'd already be collecting and hoarding it under some secret court order).
There would be fraudsters who'd grab the personal data on it and use it to try and access your accounts (think how contactless payments [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contactless_payment] has caused problems, then remember how many people use DOB or other personal info as their passwords).

If those in authority could be trusted or compelled to use such information only within very strict parameters (only accessing it with explicit user permission, only tracking people wanted in connection with crimes, for a start) then I'd have no objection.
But time and again it's been demonstrated that neither the private sector or government are willing to draw a line and protect people's privacy. Whether it's google hoarding browsing info, facebook trying to use your photos for adverts, or the NSA reading emails, there's a consistent pattern of pushing the boundaries as far as they can, then changing the boundaries altogether to allow more intrusion.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Eh. I don't know one way or the other.

I grew up with a parent that's paranoid about public records, and refuses to fill in census forms properly.
This is unsurprising though really, as her parents, in turn had been harbouring jews during the second world war...

The Jewish population of the Netherlands, incidentally, appears to have been wiped out more thoroughly than that of any other country, including Germany itself.
And the reason for this can be traced back to the incredibly thorough records the dutch government kept on it's citizens.
These records were created for the best and most well-intentioned of reasons...

But, then the country was invaded, and those same records were suddenly a convenient way to track down anyone the Nazi regime didn't like.

Make no mistake, a microchip is a fairly minor thing in the scheme of things.
I'd be far more concerned about the amount of information about you that various governments and corporations have.

What do you think someone could do with unrestricted access to the records of google, or facebook for instance?

Far more dangerous than a religious question, yet taken for granted to a far greater extent, even though history has already demonstrated the risks...

 

[Thaluikhain]

When I was young, I remember seeing posters up around warning against this very thing, because of concerned Christians and the mark of the devil or somesuch.

 

[JimB]

Don't know. My crazy attribute isn't high enough to decipher that.

Yeah, I think this is one of those things I'm going to have to make peace with not understanding. Oh, well. Thanks for the answers.

I couldn't possibly disagree with microchipping people more, and it has nothing to do with my faith. The idea of the government microchipping its population is a very real concern for legitimate reasons.

Uh, who said anything about the government installing them? Or about it being mandatory?

 

[KOMega]

As one argument puts it, a microchip is considered the "Mark of the Devil". This is the argument against having a chip system to identify loved ones in case of an accident or provide emergency contact information. I could understand the argument being fear of information being provided to the wrong people but instead we have this.

I would be against this because I don't like being tracked all the time for privacy concerns?

Okay, for identification purposes? fine. It just has data on who you are I guess. We carry I.D. on us anyways.
GPS? uhhhh maybe not. Maybe leave it as an optional thing.

Infact if we are chipping humans, why not make it optional AND make it something that you wear rather than in your head/skin/appendages? Like a wristband or watch or something?

Like if you were to chip your cat, why not put it on the cat's collar? That seems reasonable right?

The key here is that people need choice and control over this.

Captcha: easy as cake

 

[ShipofFools]

In this day and age?
What with all the patriot acts, PRISMs, increasing corruptions and divides between rich and poor (ME being poor)..
KEEP THAT SHIT AWAY FROM ME!

Call me paranoid, but...
Yeah call me paranoid.

 

[Fox12]

Don't know. My crazy attribute isn't high enough to decipher that.

Yeah, I think this is one of those things I'm going to have to make peace with not understanding. Oh, well. Thanks for the answers.

I couldn't possibly disagree with microchipping people more, and it has nothing to do with my faith. The idea of the government microchipping its population is a very real concern for legitimate reasons.

Uh, who said anything about the government installing them? Or about it being mandatory?

Well, that would be peoples primary concern over the isue, wouldn't it? In the case of the Christians, the mark of the beast would be mandatory, which is why their concerned over the possibility of abuse. In the case of Civil Libertarians, we understand that this technology could be easily exploited, and if the chip has a GPS then the government could track you, without you being aware of it, regardless of whether they were the ones to implant the chip or not. And take my word for it, at some point some politician would try to make this mandatory. Very far down the road, after it had become more accepted in the public mind, but still. The argument would probably center around immigration issues, and proving your a citizen. The government is already talking about a federal registry, which concerns me, so why wouldn't this be the next logical step? The question was why do people have problems with chip implementations, and it is impossible to discuss that issue without discussing how it could be easily abused. These are the primary reasons people are wary of the idea of chip tracking, even if it's optional at first. It threatens peoples rights to privacy if it was ever abused.

 

[Genocidicles]

If it's like how cats have it IE: Primarily used to identify the cat, not track it then I don't really see the point unless the person in question has Alzheimers or something.

I think that a healthy person would be able identify themselves, and if they're dead then dental records and the like are a good way of identifying them, and if whatever it was that killed them somehow made them unidentifiable through traditional means then surely that would wreck the microchip too?

If the chips are used for tracking then they can get out. It's a gross violation of privacy.