Micro-chipping in Humans - Share your view

[Atrocious Joystick]

It depends on the chip. I'd love to see a some sort of "medical device" that you somehow have implanted or just wear that is able to monitor things like pulse and heart rhythm and in a basic fashion detect signs of things heart attacks and similar and give off a warning signal like a loud ass beep to tell people that "Yo this guy right here he's having a heart attack".

 

[Evonisia]

If it's optional and if it doesn't involve GPS (I don't take my phone everywhere I go) I would be all for it.

 

[Heronblade]

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.

A subdermal RFID chip is difficult to damage or destroy unless it is targeted by someone who knows exactly where it is. We are after all talking about a device roughly the size of a grain of rice that has no moving parts or even its own electrical power. Massive third degree burns for instance, which would make most identification efforts difficult to impossible, can indeed leave it unscathed. However, that is not what I would consider its primary role. Aside from serving as a reliable form of day to day ID, a chip could give medical personnel vital information that would save the person's life if they were badly injured, such as blood type, medical history, allergens, etc.

 

[JimB]

Well, that would be people's primary concern over the issue, wouldn't it?

Hell if I know what their primary issue would be. I only know I think it's really weird to start inserting clauses into it and then defend against the clauses you yourself inserted. It would be like if someone asked if you'd like door to door pie delivery, and you said no because it would be a program run by the government, who would poison the pies.

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.

What technology can't be easily exploited? Isn't the answer to punish those who abuse a fundamentally neutral application of knowledge rather than decry the knowledge as inherently corrupt or unsafe?

And take my word for it, at some point some politician would try to make this mandatory.

Why would he do that?

 

[nima55]

I think it would be cool, especially if you could get the financial system in on it so you could use your hand as your debit card.

 

[Griffolion]

Location aware smartphones already demonstrate a number of the negatives involved in this sort of thing. It has benefits and downsides. I imagine that for certain use cases it may be good, such as to-be-freed criminals that need watching, etc. But signing away your privacy, and possibly even your freedom, to a larger entity has no small amount of risk. Especially if that larger entity is a malicious government bent on knowing every single thing about you so as to make sure it doesn't think you're a terrorist and murder you.

 

[Aikayai]

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

I worry because if I didn't I'd be a psychopath. Also we live near foxes and people who like The Jeremy Kyle Show.

For everyone's information, the microchip in question is simply a reference chip, so just your emergency contact information and any illness you may have (e.g. Diabetes) for medical records. The chip cannot be scanned from more than 5cm away and does not include any sizable circuitry, so wouldn't support GPS or any location data. Its like a wristband or dog tag that just goes under your skin.

 

[conmag9]

Hmm. On the one hand, the idea of technological implants and the deliberate refinement of the human body fascinates me to no end. On the other hand, I've learned to have little to no trust with any corporation large and interested enough to devise the tech needed. Why build it if they don't benefit? I mean, sure, there's the initial payoff, but companies like that tend to think about how they can squeeze the most benefit from it, and I can think of a few ways to use constant information on where someone's been. Advertising, for one. Spying for another.

That, and I wouldn't likely trust the first generation of the devices, just for safety's sake. It'd be a pretty new idea and I'd want to make sure such things as tissue rejection weren't a problem.

 

[Fox12]

"Hell if I know what their primary issue would be. I only know I think it's really weird to start inserting clauses into it and then defend against the clauses you yourself inserted. It would be like if someone asked if you'd like door to door pie delivery, and you said no because it would be a program run by the government, who would poison the pies."

The original post was about why christians or political groups would have a problem with microchipping people. I then explained why certain groups are against it. You asked why I brought up mandatory microchipping at all, and I said that it is a concern that many groups have, which is why they oppose it. You're going in circles. It is not my fault if you don't understand what these groups "primary issue would be." I only attempted to answer your questions.

"What technology can't be easily exploited? Isn't the answer to punish those who abuse a fundamentally neutral application of knowledge rather than decry the knowledge as inherently corrupt or unsafe?"

Idealistically, yes, but it's very difficult to punish misuse of power in government when the government is the one who punishes misuse of power. You're basically trying to get the government to penalize itself, which is... difficult to do. I'm also talking about all governments, some of which would be more corrupt than others. With all pieces of technology, you have to assess the risks vs. the gains, and in this instance a lot of people feel that the risk is simply too great. That is why some groups appose it, which is what this thread was about in the first place.

"Why would he do that?"

I already explained this extensively. Some would want to use it to enforce immigration reform. National security organizations in government would take advantage of the system to keep tabs on the overall population. You cannot be more intrusive into a persons privacy than to track their location at all times. This would likely be used in the name of keeping America, or other nations, safe. Other countries may simply wish to maintain power over their population. Think dictatorships. The point is, there are real concerns over this technology other than a handful of Christians worrying about the mark of the beast.

 

[Fox12]

I think this has more drawbacks than applications.

 

[Fox12]

Well, that would be people's primary concern over the issue, wouldn't it?

Hell if I know what their primary issue would be. I only know I think it's really weird to start inserting clauses into it and then defend against the clauses you yourself inserted. It would be like if someone asked if you'd like door to door pie delivery, and you said no because it would be a program run by the government, who would poison the pies.

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.

What technology can't be easily exploited? Isn't the answer to punish those who abuse a fundamentally neutral application of knowledge rather than decry the knowledge as inherently corrupt or unsafe?

And take my word for it, at some point some politician would try to make this mandatory.

Why would he do that?

"Hell if I know what their primary issue would be. I only know I think it's really weird to start inserting clauses into it and then defend against the clauses you yourself inserted. It would be like if someone asked if you'd like door to door pie delivery, and you said no because it would be a program run by the government, who would poison the pies."

The original post was about why christians or political groups would have a problem with microchipping people. I then explained why certain groups are against it. You asked why I brought up mandatory microchipping at all, and I said that it is a concern that many groups have, which is why they oppose it. You're going in circles. It is not my fault if you don't understand what these groups "primary issue would be." I only attempted to answer your questions.

"What technology can't be easily exploited? Isn't the answer to punish those who abuse a fundamentally neutral application of knowledge rather than decry the knowledge as inherently corrupt or unsafe?"

Idealistically, yes, but it's very difficult to punish misuse of power in government when the government is the one who punishes misuse of power. You're basically trying to get the government to penalize itself, which is... difficult to do. I'm also talking about all governments, some of which would be more corrupt than others. With all pieces of technology, you have to assess the risks vs. the gains, and in this instance a lot of people feel that the risk is simply too great. That is why some groups appose it, which is what this thread was about in the first place.

"Why would he do that?"

I already explained this extensively. Some would want to use it to enforce immigration reform. National security organizations in government would take advantage of the system to keep tabs on the overall population. You cannot be more intrusive into a persons privacy than to track their location at all times. This would likely be used in the name of keeping America, or other nations, safe. Other countries may simply wish to maintain power over their population. Think dictatorships. The point is, there are real concerns over this technology other than a handful of Christians worrying about the mark of the beast.

 

[JimB]

The original post was about why Christians or political groups would have a problem with microchipping people.

Uh...no, it isn't. I'll grant that it does mention a religious complaint, but only as part of the explanation as to why he brought up the topic at all. It doesn't mention politics anywhere. It only asks for your thoughts, which, yes, you provided, I get that; I just don't know why you're saying "I would be opposed because it would be like this" rather than "I would be opposed if it was like this."

Idealistically, yes, but it's very difficult to punish misuse of power in government when the government is the one who punishes misuse of power. You're basically trying to get the government to penalize itself, which is... difficult to do. I'm also talking about all governments, some of which would be more corrupt than others. With all pieces of technology, you have to assess the risks vs. the gains, and in this instance a lot of people feel that the risk is simply too great.

Living in fear of what might happen seems like a really tiring lifestyle to me, but to each his own, I guess.

I already explained this extensively. Some would want to use it to enforce immigration reform.

You said that was the argument, not the reason. I figured you were saying that would be the pretext to hide more sinister motives. My apologies if I misread you.

You cannot be more intrusive into a person's privacy than to track their location at all times.

What's so great about privacy anyway? What's the harm of the government potentially (but almost definitely not in reality, since who the hell would be monitoring that?) knowing where you are?

 

[danm36]

I can see where people are all scared of it, but we're not talking about tracking augmentations or anything like that, only a small chip that can be read by a close range scanner. It would be used to identify you, and could potentially contain a global identifier that links with a database checking medical records, drivers licence, nationality etc etc (Assuming the organisation has appropriate permissions).

Personally, I think it could be extremely useful to not need passports or to carry my drivers licence which may potentially be lost. Hell, a connection to the bank as a sort of one up to chip and pin would be awesome. The only tracking that would be happening is only the type of tracking going on every day. Use a bank terminal? Logged. Go to an airport? Logged. The chip would be low powered to the extent that it can only hold information, not transmit or monitor anything.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Uh, how?

At least assuming the chips in question work the same way as those used with pets, it is no different than the driver's license and other identifying documents most of us carry around every day. When it gets to something a bit more... advanced, like a GPS locator, then you might have an argument.

Easy, if everyone has a chip with a serial number embedded in them, they will be tracable every time they walk past an object capable of scanning that serial number (like the hula hoop scanners vets use or just embedded in doorways, at state borders, public buildings, banks, you name it). If a state finds an individual undesirable, they need only update the list and suddenly that person can't walk past a scanner (because any country that implemented this would put scanners everywhere) and beep, dragged off to the Gulags, nowhere to hide.

Imagine how far Malcolm X or Martin Luther King jr would have gotten if they were tracked in this way.

beep
Scanner says you crossed state lines in violation of your parole, back to jail with you Malcom

beep
Scanner says you were in these whites only areas Mr King, off to jail with you ******

beep
Scanner says you violated your parole and went to xxx address with the following people you were forbidden from congregating with, back to jail again.

But how did you know we were here?

Oh the system picked up your serial numbers converging on this address when you all got off the bus/metro/taxi/ went through the toll booth.


What if you're a woman in Saudi and this chip is used to make sure you never, ever get within a hundred feet of people not on your approved list, that would be pretty miserable right?

What if the system gets hacked and people use it to falsify your whereabouts for fraud purposes?

Any system like this is fine as long you are at the top of the societal pile and the people with the keys find you inoffensive. Unfortunately who governments find desirable and undesirable is fluid and unpredictable, passports don't follow you around 24/7 logging everywhere your serial number has been, which is good when you're not on the top of the pile.

 

[Raggedstar]

As much as I think microchipping pets is ok, there's something I don't find ok with wearing all my personal information under my skin and all the info is there for anyone with the technology (good intentions or bad). With pets, all their info is just a number that is connected with the owner's information (and possibly vet). Not to mention if they're anything like pet microchip needles, those needles are fucking huge.

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

My boss' cat ran away last year because she was scared of the company that came into the house (she was pretty much afraid of everyone not family). The door was accidentally left open, she ran out in the middle of a snow storm, and was never seen again. The area was recently developed and isn't too far away from farms, forests, and coyote country. She's also declawed (so she can't climb, hunt, or fight as efficiently), but that's another debate for another day.

Point being that "cats can take care of themselves and wouldn't run away otherwise" is bull. A lot of cats that go missing are missing due to fear, getting lost, moving complications, injury, or getting picked up by SPCA or a concerned neighbour. They don't just decide "Hey, I wanna see the world. See ya, bipedal can-opener!". Stray life isn't that great for cats and dogs (life expectancy can sometimes be only a few years if they survive into adulthood depending on other factors), and many people consider them pests and health hazards. People have every right to be concerned if their pet goes missing, especially if they're in an area with traffic, harsh weather, predators, disease, or cat-unfriendly people (the kind that would shoot a cat if they poop in their garden). Last month these old ladies brought a stray cat they were feeding for several months. They found him in February and he was skinny and got beat up on by birds whenever he would eat. They brought him in so fat because he would keep begging for food in fear he would never eat again. He was also infested with worms and fleas. We found his microchip (see, I didn't totally derail the converstion), found his owner (not too far from where he was found), and apparently he vanished about a year before. If he wasn't found by someone, then he might've died.

I hope you find your kitty, OP.

 

[EvilRoy]

I don't know if I would use it myself, although I don't see too many downsides.

I can't see the govt making it mandatory, because it would be unenforceable, and any sort of gps broadcasting device would require some sort of additional power source beyond what is used in cat-chips (body heat I think?) and that power source would need constant recharging. I don't know about you guys, but even if I don't touch the damn thing all day leaving my gps on will murder my phone battery, and it doesn't even work inside.

As a guy above said, it would be approximately as abusable as tracking debit/credit card purchases, which we do already.

 

[DarkRyter]

I wouldn't go for one.

I don't want my left hand chopped off by some katana wielding cyborg.

 

[IndianaJonny]

Helpful for diabetics.

Assuming we're looking beyond just "ID" microchips and considering microchips that can control/stimulate functions of the body...well, thank God for the 21st Century:

 

[Heronblade]

Uh, how?

At least assuming the chips in question work the same way as those used with pets, it is no different than the driver's license and other identifying documents most of us carry around every day. When it gets to something a bit more... advanced, like a GPS locator, then you might have an argument.

Easy, if everyone has a chip with a serial number embedded in them, they will be tracable every time they walk past an object capable of scanning that serial number (like the hula hoop scanners vets use or just embedded in doorways, at state borders, public buildings, banks, you name it). If a state finds an individual undesirable, they need only update the list and suddenly that person can't walk past a scanner (because any country that implemented this would put scanners everywhere) and beep, dragged off to the Gulags, nowhere to hide.

Imagine how far Malcolm X or Martin Luther King jr would have gotten if they were tracked in this way.

beep
Scanner says you crossed state lines in violation of your parole, back to jail with you Malcom

beep
Scanner says you were in these whites only areas Mr King, off to jail with you ******

beep
Scanner says you violated your parole and went to xxx address with the following people you were forbidden from congregating with, back to jail again.

But how did you know we were here?

Oh the system picked up your serial numbers converging on this address when you all got off the bus/metro/taxi/ went through the toll booth.


What if you're a woman in Saudi and this chip is used to make sure you never, ever get within a hundred feet of people not on your approved list, that would be pretty miserable right?

What if the system gets hacked and people use it to falsify your whereabouts for fraud purposes?

Any system like this is fine as long you are at the top of the societal pile and the people with the keys find you inoffensive. Unfortunately who governments find desirable and undesirable is fluid and unpredictable, passports don't follow you around 24/7 logging everywhere your serial number has been, which is good when you're not on the top of the pile.

A.) What you describe is not a problem specifically linked to said chips. If a government chooses to abuse its power in terms of where a person can go and/or in terms of tracing where a person has been, they can and will do so, whether or not this particular piece of tech is available. Hell, between cellphones, extensive debit/credit card use, and vehicle GPS units, your scenario offers very little information not already available to a corrupt federal body. Fighting against one tool usable by a corrupt system is ineffective when alternatives abound. Common sense would dictate focusing on the actual problem instead.

B.) The subdermals currently in use have a very limited range, simply walking by a scanner would not be sufficient. The person would nearly have to use the unit as a backscratcher. It would be far more effective (and much cheaper) to just start quietly embedding RFID chips in other items, such as your driver's license.

Besides, I don't recall anyone suggesting that this be a matter of forced implantation. (although, apparently unlike you, I would have ZERO problems with the government using such methods to trace prisoners and parolees.)

I can't see the govt making it mandatory, because it would be unenforceable, and any sort of gps broadcasting device would require some sort of additional power source beyond what is used in cat-chips (body heat I think?)

Chips of that type are powered externally by an electro-magnetic field produced by the scanner used to pick it up. While in the influence of said field, a very weak sympathetic current is induced, which is just enough for the chip to send out its own signal. It is the same tech used in some of the newer credit and security ID cards, not to mention keyless car ignitions and the antitheft detectors near store entrances.

Basically, yeah, you'd need something with quite a bit more juice to it for a GPS to work.