Would you remove your RFID chip?

[RedImperator]

1. It's the state mandating people have chips inserted into them. You might not have a right to run around in public in complete anonyminity, but you do damn well have the right to refuse to have foreign objects surgically inserted into your joints, even if your reasons are totally irrational.

Bullshit. Vaccinations are mandatory for children all over the place, unless they want to be denied education (which is basically the same as being mandatory period; we could do the same thing here by denying them access to other government services).

Mike, why did you snip the sentence in that paragraph where I directly addressed vaccination?

1. It's the state mandating people have chips inserted into them. You might not have a right to run around in public in complete anonyminity, but you do damn well have the right to refuse to have foreign objects surgically inserted into your joints, even if your reasons are totally irrational. If the only information these chips will be carrying is critical medical information ("This patient is allergic to pennicillin; do not administer under any circumstances"), then it's the citizen's own risk in refusing it. It's not like vaccines, where there's a compelling public health interest (preventing epidemics) in forcing people to undergo a medical procedure.

The chips would undoubtedly save lives, but they would do the same if they were voluntary. Vaccines are mandatory because someone who refuses a vaccine puts other people's health in danger; no such risk exists for someone who refuses the chip.

It doesn't make sense, if the government is being straightforward about its motives, to make the chip mandatory. Most people would probably volunteer to get one, and a voluntary program will not create an overnight cottage industry dedicated to thwarting them.

That falls under the same category as the Prohibition Argument: appeal to peoples' anger at an idea. That's a perfect valid argument against the practicalities of actually putting it in place, but it is not a valid ethical argument against it in principle.

I never claimed it was an ethical argument. I made that in the first paragraph.

2. The authorities (corporate and government) already have a pisspoor record protecting private information. Is this "ultra-secure" medical database going to turn out to be as secure as ChoicePoint's? Of course, if all the database says is "John Smith, Type -A, diabetic, allergic to peanuts", the data won't be of much value to anyone even if it is stolen, but that leads me to point three.

3. There's no concievable reason why this database couldn't be expanded, under the convenience-before-security attitude which is entirely too prevalant in this country (as any Windows user could tell you) into a general purpose identification chip for, for example, checking out of the grocery store without waiting in line. Unfortunately, now all the information needed to rob you blind is available in one place, to anyone with the right radio reciever and access to the database (and if you think limited range will be a problem, imagine how many chips could be hacked in one rush hour morning on the New York subway).

Actually, if it's too easy to read and duplicate then your point #3 fails, because people won't use it for financial transactions, and businesses won't either because fraud hurts them too.

That argument could be applied to credit cards. Any restaurant waitress can collect as much credit card information as she wants if she has her own reader; they make doodads the size of a pager through which you can run a credit card and collect all the relevant data encoded on a magnetic strip. Yet credit cards are obviously still in use, despite billions of dollars in fraud they've made possible. The same goes for internet shopping (especially on a wireless network), and using your Social Security number as an ID number.

You can't make the procedure for reading the chips too cumbersome, because if paramedics have to waste time putting in passwords and verifying identities and every other damn thing, it defeats the whole purpose of the chip. Likewise, if every rescue squad in the country needs a scanner, then the scanners will be relatively cheap and widely available, even if their use is theoretically controlled. The real question is if the database will be expanded in light of the obvious security problems; it may not, and I'm not going to commit a slippery slope fallacy by insisting it will. But given this society's history with convenienve versus security issues, my hunch is that a nationwide database with a unique entry for every person will be too much for banks, retailers, and especially advertisers to ignore. They'll put their trust in the database's security, and I have zero confidence in any such scheme.

[Darth Wong]

Mike, why did you snip the sentence in that paragraph where I directly addressed vaccination?

Because you didn't address it. You just said there was a "public interest", which has nothing to do with your assertion that this is a fundamental right, hence the purpose of that paragraph.

The chips would undoubtedly save lives, but they would do the same if they were voluntary. Vaccines are mandatory because someone who refuses a vaccine puts other people's health in danger; no such risk exists for someone who refuses the chip.

What if people don't use them? Then they wouldn't save lives. It's like seatbelt laws.

That falls under the same category as the Prohibition Argument: appeal to peoples' anger at an idea. That's a perfect valid argument against the practicalities of actually putting it in place, but it is not a valid ethical argument against it in principle.

I never claimed it was an ethical argument. I made that in the first paragraph.

If you're going to be picky, fine. Let me point out, then, that this entire thread is about asking whether you would cut one out of your own arm in protest, not about whether it's a practical public policy.

Actually, if it's too easy to read and duplicate then your point #3 fails, because people won't use it for financial transactions, and businesses won't either because fraud hurts them too.

That argument could be applied to credit cards.

Not really, since a credit card can't be read without your permission. If it's much less secure than existing systems (which is what you're suggesting), then I highly doubt the identifying number would be used for financial purposes. And you would still have to agree to tie your credit cards and bank accounts to this number, so that part of it would be voluntary even if the chip isn't.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I'm just thinking of RDF medical chips vs. Blockbuster, Airports, and other RDF screening/hazing devices.


dog, I love having a sick ability to imagine things like this.

[Gandalf]

I don't particularly care who finds out that I have a history of epilepsy and an allergy to wattle.

Plus I can be counted as a cyborg.

So I'd keep the chip.

[Pu-239]

Why the need to cut off the arm? Just wrap foil around it...

[RedImperator]

Mike, why did you snip the sentence in that paragraph where I directly addressed vaccination?

Because you didn't address it. You just said there was a "public interest", which has nothing to do with your assertion that this is a fundamental right, hence the purpose of that paragraph.

Of course it does; even fundamental rights have exceptions, and vaccinations count as the one exception I can think of to the right to refuse an invasive medical procedure, for the very sensible reason that mass vaccination is the only reliable way to prevent a number of epidemics. Mandatory vaccination doesn't mean there isn't a right to refuse an injection most of the time any more than laws against threatening others disproves the right to free speech exists.

The chips would undoubtedly save lives, but they would do the same if they were voluntary. Vaccines are mandatory because someone who refuses a vaccine puts other people's health in danger; no such risk exists for someone who refuses the chip.

What if people don't use them? Then they wouldn't save lives. It's like seatbelt laws.

Seatbelt laws aren't anywhere near as intrusive as a mandatory implant. And driving itself is a privlege granted by the state, which has wide latitude to set conditions for keeping that privlege. Seatbelt laws aren't comparable to this.

That falls under the same category as the Prohibition Argument: appeal to peoples' anger at an idea. That's a perfect valid argument against the practicalities of actually putting it in place, but it is not a valid ethical argument against it in principle.

I never claimed it was an ethical argument. I made that in the first paragraph.

If you're going to be picky, fine. Let me point out, then, that this entire thread is about asking whether you would cut one out of your own arm in protest, not about whether it's a practical public policy.

Fine. This is a tangent anyway, since we seem to be in agreement on the practical diffcultues of this proposal.

Actually, if it's too easy to read and duplicate then your point #3 fails, because people won't use it for financial transactions, and businesses won't either because fraud hurts them too.

That argument could be applied to credit cards.

Not really, since a credit card can't be read without your permission. If it's much less secure than existing systems (which is what you're suggesting), then I highly doubt the identifying number would be used for financial purposes. And you would still have to agree to tie your credit cards and bank accounts to this number, so that part of it would be voluntary even if the chip isn't.

True enough. My main worry is that the chip itself will be easy to read (it has to be), and the idea of using it for financial information will be sold to the public (or, more likely, by lobbyists to the legislature) on the promise that even with the proper numbers, only authorized users of the equipment will have access to the database, which will almost inevitably turn out to be bullshit.

The entire financial information argument would evaporate, by the way, if the data was stored on a read-only chip, or a chip that can only be written upon with equipment liscensed to doctors. After all, why bother with a centralized database if all this is going to be is a high-tech diabetes bracelet?

[Darth Wong]

Of course it does; even fundamental rights have exceptions, and vaccinations count as the one exception I can think of to the right to refuse an invasive medical procedure, for the very sensible reason that mass vaccination is the only reliable way to prevent a number of epidemics. Mandatory vaccination doesn't mean there isn't a right to refuse an injection most of the time any more than laws against threatening others disproves the right to free speech exists.

Precisely where is the fundamental right to refuse even the most moderately invasive procedure described in the law, anyway? And how are exceptions defined?

Seatbelt laws aren't anywhere near as intrusive as a mandatory implant.

That's a subjective assessment. One forces you to use your own private property in a certain way every day for the rest of your life, while the other is a grain of rice in your elbow.

And driving itself is a privlege granted by the state, which has wide latitude to set conditions for keeping that privlege. Seatbelt laws aren't comparable to this.

Yes they are, on the basis of your original argument that any public health measure which doesn't carry the risk of causing a public epidemic should be purely voluntary. You're just changing your argument now.

True enough. My main worry is that the chip itself will be easy to read (it has to be), and the idea of using it for financial information will be sold to the public (or, more likely, by lobbyists to the legislature) on the promise that even with the proper numbers, only authorized users of the equipment will have access to the database, which will almost inevitably turn out to be bullshit.

Except that banks and other financial companies maintain their own databases. The idea of competing banks merging their databases is so laughably absurd that I can't find words to describe it. This central database would contain only an identifying number. Banks, if you want to let them tie your financial information to this number, would only correlate your accounts in their databases to this number; they would not insert data into this hypothetical central ID number database directly.

The entire financial information argument would evaporate, by the way, if the data was stored on a read-only chip, or a chip that can only be written upon with equipment liscensed to doctors. After all, why bother with a centralized database if all this is going to be is a high-tech diabetes bracelet?

I thought the idea from the beginning was always a read-only chip.

[weemadando]

I'd be more than happy to have pertinent medical information on the chip. As I mentioned in the thread in N&P, I am a proud supporter of the "chipping" system.

[The Kernel]

Of course it does; even fundamental rights have exceptions, and vaccinations count as the one exception I can think of to the right to refuse an invasive medical procedure, for the very sensible reason that mass vaccination is the only reliable way to prevent a number of epidemics. Mandatory vaccination doesn't mean there isn't a right to refuse an injection most of the time any more than laws against threatening others disproves the right to free speech exists.

There is a public health interest in making RFID chips mandatory as well. It is part of a system that is estimated to reduce health care costs by $140 billion a year, and the chips themselves are estimated to be able to save 90,000 lives that are lost each year because of the lack of proper medical information.

Seatbelt laws aren't anywhere near as intrusive as a mandatory implant. And driving itself is a privlege granted by the state, which has wide latitude to set conditions for keeping that privlege. Seatbelt laws aren't comparable to this.

Bull, seatbelts are more invasive than an RFID. You don't notice an RFID chip, whereas you do notice the seatbelt.

What exactly are you arguing here? That the government has no right to put things in a citizens body? That's obviously bullshit, the government controls air quality standards (which includes pumping God knows how many toxins into the air), mandates vaccinations, controls the water supply additives, etc.

[Darth Wong]

the government controls air quality standards (which includes pumping God knows how many toxins into the air), mandates vaccinations, controls the water supply additives, etc.

Those pre-verts are poisoning our precious bodily fluids.

[The Kernel]

Those pre-verts are poisoning our precious bodily fluids.

I guess we'll have to send our B-52's to preemptively nuke Washington.

[RedImperator]

Of course it does; even fundamental rights have exceptions, and vaccinations count as the one exception I can think of to the right to refuse an invasive medical procedure, for the very sensible reason that mass vaccination is the only reliable way to prevent a number of epidemics. Mandatory vaccination doesn't mean there isn't a right to refuse an injection most of the time any more than laws against threatening others disproves the right to free speech exists.

Precisely where is the fundamental right to refuse even the most moderately invasive procedure described in the law, anyway? And how are exceptions defined?

In American law, my guess is through the right to privacy inferred by SCOTUS from the Fourth Amendment. It's probably not particularly well defined because it's never really come up. SCOTUS never did explicitly overturn Buck v. Bell, which affirmed compulsory-sterilization laws for the "feeble-minded", though I'm not sure who would want to cite a relic of the eugenics movement to justify anything today.

As for defining exceptions, the standard used by SCOTUS to define exceptions to all constituional rights is compelling interest. A compelling interest, to my knowlege, must always be justified on the grounds of protecting the greater public interest. The state, for example, can punish people for publishing classified information because it has a compelling national security interest in keeping it secret, so 1st Amendment protections don't apply.

Since I'm sure you'll bring it up, yes, the process of defining a compelling interest is somewhat subjective; that's just how the law works sometimes. If you're going to argue that the state has a compelling interest to protect people from themselves, then there's no point in continuing this because that would represent a fundamental philosophical difference between us.

Seatbelt laws aren't anywhere near as intrusive as a mandatory implant.

That's a subjective assessment. One forces you to use your own private property in a certain way every day for the rest of your life, while the other is a grain of rice in your elbow.

Your own private property--on public roads, with the permission of the state which can set conditions for using them. And seat belts are not surgically implanted, and nor are they permanant.

And driving itself is a privlege granted by the state, which has wide latitude to set conditions for keeping that privlege. Seatbelt laws aren't comparable to this.

Yes they are, on the basis of your original argument that any public health measure which doesn't carry the risk of causing a public epidemic should be purely voluntary. You're just changing your argument now.

I never made that argument, and I'm sorry if my wording was so unclear it led you to that conclusion. I should have simply said that the state has a compelling interest in mandating vaccines because of the risk of epidemic, and if a compelling interest could be found for mandating the chips, then the state would have a right to do so, but no such interest exists. It does not, on the other hand, need a compelling interest to regulate how motor vehicles are operated on public roads, because no right to use them however you like exists.

Except that banks and other financial companies maintain their own databases. The idea of competing banks merging their databases is so laughably absurd that I can't find words to describe it. This central database would contain only an identifying number. Banks, if you want to let them tie your financial information to this number, would only correlate your accounts in their databases to this number; they would not insert data into this hypothetical central ID number database directly.

Then if bank databases are secure by virtue of being separate, how do ID thieves manage to get the keys to the kingdom by stealing only a little information? Or am I misinformed about how the process works? At any rate, it hardly matters at this point in the argument, since it would be a massive slippery slope for me to argue retailers, banks, etc. would manage to force everyone to use their medical alert chip as a built in debit card, so even if someone came up with such a harebrained scheme, nobody would be forced to go along with it.

The entire financial information argument would evaporate, by the way, if the data was stored on a read-only chip, or a chip that can only be written upon with equipment liscensed to doctors. After all, why bother with a centralized database if all this is going to be is a high-tech diabetes bracelet?

I thought the idea from the beginning was always a read-only chip.

I thought so to, but there was stuff in the original article about it being used for more than just medical information, which would require a central database unless all that information was directly on the chip, which would be egregiously stupid. And people in this thread were starting to talk about central databases, so I thought perhaps I just missed that somewhere.

[The Kernel]

Since I'm sure you'll bring it up, yes, the process of defining a compelling interest is somewhat subjective; that's just how the law works sometimes. If you're going to argue that the state has a compelling interest to protect people from themselves, then there's no point in continuing this because that would represent a fundamental philosophical difference between us.

Don't insinuate a slippery slope argument here. There IS a compelling public interest, and it is not protecting people from themselves, it is about establishing a system that only works if it is homogenous. Doctors will not be able to apply the same treatments (for fear of the lack of complete medical information) unless this is mandatory.

I thought so to, but there was stuff in the original article about it being used for more than just medical information, which would require a central database unless all that information was directly on the chip, which would be egregiously stupid. And people in this thread were starting to talk about central databases, so I thought perhaps I just missed that somewhere.

Let me make this clear, you cannot store more than a little information on a passive RFID, and that information cannot be changed. We are talking about a piece of silicon that is burned into a certain pattern from the factory, and it will not be able to carry a significant amount of information (current ones only carry a barcode).

Sure, there are active RFID's with built in ROM/RAM chips, but they are much more expensive, much more complex, and most importantly, are about the size of a coin instead of a grain of rice.

[RedImperator]

Of course it does; even fundamental rights have exceptions, and vaccinations count as the one exception I can think of to the right to refuse an invasive medical procedure, for the very sensible reason that mass vaccination is the only reliable way to prevent a number of epidemics. Mandatory vaccination doesn't mean there isn't a right to refuse an injection most of the time any more than laws against threatening others disproves the right to free speech exists.

There is a public health interest in making RFID chips mandatory as well. It is part of a system that is estimated to reduce health care costs by $140 billion a year, and the chips themselves are estimated to be able to save 90,000 lives that are lost each year because of the lack of proper medical information.

Most of those savings could be realized through a voluntary program with incentives for joining like a lower copay (I have no objection to making people who refuse to get the chip pay extra to cover the costs of handling their paperwork). Tens of thousands of people with medical conditions already wear bracelets and ID tags to inform emergency medical personnel in case they're unconscious and need care; I don't see any reason why most people wouldn't take the chip, especially if it saved them money. And doing it voluntarily won't create a chip-thwarting industry.

Seatbelt laws aren't anywhere near as intrusive as a mandatory implant. And driving itself is a privlege granted by the state, which has wide latitude to set conditions for keeping that privlege. Seatbelt laws aren't comparable to this.

Bull, seatbelts are more invasive than an RFID. You don't notice an RFID chip, whereas you do notice the seatbelt.

Oh please. Has the fact that a seatbelt is external and temporary eluded your grasp?

What exactly are you arguing here? That the government has no right to put things in a citizens body? That's obviously bullshit,

Good thing for me I never, ever argued that, huh? What's your argument? The government can put anything it likes in a citizen, as long as there's some kind of positive benefit to it?

the government controls air quality standards (which includes pumping God knows how many toxins into the air),

Report to the clinic for your methyl mercury injection? Come on; there's a damn difference between allowing industry to release pollutants into the atmosphere (an inevitable consequence of industrial development, one which, last I checked, we were trying to decrease) and mandating implants.

mandates vaccinations,

I've already addressed this several times.

controls the water supply additives, etc.

Necessary in the case of chlorine to kill water-bourne pathogens, and all avoidable with a $100 filter. Get back to me when the FDA starts sending agents door to door to force everyone to drink his flouride.

[RedImperator]

Since I'm sure you'll bring it up, yes, the process of defining a compelling interest is somewhat subjective; that's just how the law works sometimes. If you're going to argue that the state has a compelling interest to protect people from themselves, then there's no point in continuing this because that would represent a fundamental philosophical difference between us.

Don't insinuate a slippery slope argument here. There IS a compelling public interest, and it is not protecting people from themselves, it is about establishing a system that only works if it is homogenous. Doctors will not be able to apply the same treatments (for fear of the lack of complete medical information) unless this is mandatory.

Which is a risk anyone who refuses the implant takes. Anyone who gets the chip (theoretically, all other things being optimal) gets the best available medical treatment, which is why, by the way, I'd get one. Anyone who doesn't rolls the dice, and maybe pays more. I don't see the compelling interest in mandating everyone gets one, at least not enough of one to justify a (largely unnecessary) violation of everyone's privacy rights. The only way I COULD see it is if the state, indeed, had a compelling interest to protect people from themselves, and I don't think I can make my position on that any clearer.

Let me make this clear, you cannot store more than a little information on a passive RFID, and that information cannot be changed. We are talking about a piece of silicon that is burned into a certain pattern from the factory, and it will not be able to carry a significant amount of information (current ones only carry a barcode).

Sure, there are active RFID's with built in ROM/RAM chips, but they are much more expensive, much more complex, and most importantly, are about the size of a coin instead of a grain of rice.

Then there is a central database, and the whole financial information/targeted advertising/whatever else can of worms opens right back up again. You're talking about a much more ambitious use for the chip than just a fancy diabetes bracelet.

[The Kernel]

Most of those savings could be realized through a voluntary program with incentives for joining like a lower copay (I have no objection to making people who refuse to get the chip pay extra to cover the costs of handling their paperwork). Tens of thousands of people with medical conditions already wear bracelets and ID tags to inform emergency medical personnel in case they're unconscious and need care; I don't see any reason why most people wouldn't take the chip, especially if it saved them money. And doing it voluntarily won't create a chip-thwarting industry.

If you don't see any reason why people wouldn't take the chip with incentive, then why are we even having this discussion? Offer them an immediate, practical benefit for the technology, then mandate it.

Oh please. Has the fact that a seatbelt is external and temporary eluded your grasp?

And this has what to do with your argument? How does the fact that it is external change anything about the government mandating its use? How does the fact that it is only used when in the car relevent?

The point is that the government can tell people what they have to do when it is in their best interests. The seatbelt laws are but a single confirmation of that.

Good thing for me I never, ever argued that, huh? What's your argument? The government can put anything it likes in a citizen, as long as there's some kind of positive benefit to it?

If there is a positive benefit with no negative side effects? Yes, absolutely.

Report to the clinic for your methyl mercury injection? Come on; there's a damn difference between allowing industry to release pollutants into the atmosphere (an inevitable consequence of industrial development, one which, last I checked, we were trying to decrease) and mandating implants.

There is no difference, the government can control the air that people breathe, and the toxin level that they intake. The fact that they try to minimize it is irrelevent.

I've already addressed this several times.

But what you failed to properly address is the fact that RFID chips also serve a public good, much like vaccinations. Therefore, your attempts to differentiate them are incorrect.

Necessary in the case of chlorine to kill water-bourne pathogens, and all avoidable with a $100 filter. Get back to me when the FDA starts sending agents door to door to force everyone to drink his flouride.

The point is that the government has broad authority about deciding what is best for you to drink. The fact that you can remove the additives is irrelevent.

[The Kernel]

Which is a risk anyone who refuses the implant takes. Anyone who gets the chip (theoretically, all other things being optimal) gets the best available medical treatment, which is why, by the way, I'd get one. Anyone who doesn't rolls the dice, and maybe pays more. I don't see the compelling interest in mandating everyone gets one, at least not enough of one to justify a (largely unnecessary) violation of everyone's privacy rights.

Privacy rights which do not extend to a compelling public good, by your own admission. Providing lower cost health care is certainly in the public's best interest.

The only way I COULD see it is if the state, indeed, had a compelling interest to protect people from themselves, and I don't think I can make my position on that any clearer.

You're splitting hairs here if you are trying to suggest this is unfeasible. The Federal government could EASILY pressure the states into mandating this, even if they can't sneak it in with the commerce clause (which is more relevent here than it is in most areas where it is applied) simply by giving benefits to states which mandate chipping.

Then there is a central database, and the whole financial information/targeted advertising/whatever else can of worms opens right back up again. You're talking about a much more ambitious use for the chip than just a fancy diabetes bracelet.

Yes indeed, you really should read the thread we JUST HAD on this subject (Right Here) which later on I've detailed the medical database and its benefits. The RFID chip is a key part of those benefits.

As for the drawbacks to the central database, they've been shot down already, I see no reason to repeat myself yet again. Suffice to say, the concept of the medical database is secure (proprietary system), only availible to doctors/pharmacists, and is referenced by a number, not a name, thus making it useless for any other purpose.

EDIT: BTW, in case you only skimmed that thread, the national medical database is coming, with or without the RFID chip. It's simply too valuable not to, and Congress (not to mention the president) is pushing this hard.

[RedImperator]

Most of those savings could be realized through a voluntary program with incentives for joining like a lower copay (I have no objection to making people who refuse to get the chip pay extra to cover the costs of handling their paperwork). Tens of thousands of people with medical conditions already wear bracelets and ID tags to inform emergency medical personnel in case they're unconscious and need care; I don't see any reason why most people wouldn't take the chip, especially if it saved them money. And doing it voluntarily won't create a chip-thwarting industry.

If you don't see any reason why people wouldn't take the chip with incentive, then why are we even having this discussion? Offer them an immediate, practical benefit for the technology, then mandate it.

Because I object to using the authority of the state to force free citizens to have chips implanted in their bodies, regardless of how irrational they are for refusing them.

Oh please. Has the fact that a seatbelt is external and temporary eluded your grasp?

And this has what to do with your argument?

It has precisely to do with the fact that an internal, permanant implant is more intrusive than a temporary, external seat belt, which directly addresses the ONLY point you made about seat belt laws in your previous reply. I notice you've chosen to change the subject; concession accepted.

How does the fact that it is external change anything about the government mandating its use? How does the fact that it is only used when in the car relevent?

The point is that the government can tell people what they have to do when it is in their best interests. The seatbelt laws are but a single confirmation of that.

<sigh> Did you see all the part where I argued this with Mike? Driving is a privlege, state can set conditions for doing so, all that? Driving is NOT a fundemantal right, morally or legally, which gives the state much wider latitude.

Good thing for me I never, ever argued that, huh? What's your argument? The government can put anything it likes in a citizen, as long as there's some kind of positive benefit to it?

If there is a positive benefit with no negative side effects? Yes, absolutely.[/quote]

Well then you won't mind mandating everyone take a dose of Antabuse every day, so as to completely eliminate alcohol consumption in America, which would have untold benefits for comparatively minor side effects. I'm assuming by "no negative side effects" you mean a reasonably mild negative side effect, since by the "no negative side effects" standard, you're opposed to vaccination.

Report to the clinic for your methyl mercury injection? Come on; there's a damn difference between allowing industry to release pollutants into the atmosphere (an inevitable consequence of industrial development, one which, last I checked, we were trying to decrease) and mandating implants.

There is no difference, the government can control the air that people breathe, and the toxin level that they intake. The fact that they try to minimize it is irrelevent.

Are you seriously suggesting there's no difference between allowing pollutants to be released into the atmosphere and mandating implants? Come on. Besides the patent absurdity of such an argument, even if it were true, the state would have a compelling interest to allow some pollution to occur, since the alternative is to revert to a muscle-powered organic agriculture economy.

I've already addressed this several times.

But what you failed to properly address is the fact that RFID chips also serve a public good, much like vaccinations. Therefore, your attempts to differentiate them are incorrect.

They do serve a public good. Just not, in my opinion, enough of one. There's a very important distinction with vaccines--refusing one potentially harms someone else, maybe many someone elses. The risk to a person who refuses the chip is to himself.

Necessary in the case of chlorine to kill water-bourne pathogens, and all avoidable with a $100 filter. Get back to me when the FDA starts sending agents door to door to force everyone to drink his flouride.

The point is that the government has broad authority about deciding what is best for you to drink. The fact that you can remove the additives is irrelevent.

It isn't irrevelant when you're comparing it to a mandatory implant. The fact you can remove the additives entirely negates the comparison, in fact. And I'd further argue that setting minimum water quality standards isn't "deciding what's best for you to drink" anyway. I'm still free to drive over to the Delaware River and drink to my heart's content. I'm not compelled by law to drink township tap water.

[RedImperator]

Which is a risk anyone who refuses the implant takes. Anyone who gets the chip (theoretically, all other things being optimal) gets the best available medical treatment, which is why, by the way, I'd get one. Anyone who doesn't rolls the dice, and maybe pays more. I don't see the compelling interest in mandating everyone gets one, at least not enough of one to justify a (largely unnecessary) violation of everyone's privacy rights.

Privacy rights which do not extend to a compelling public good, by your own admission. Providing lower cost health care is certainly in the public's best interest.

The voluntary chip would do the same thing, and the difference would come directly out of the pockets of people who refused to take it. And frankly, it's the database that would do almost all of the saving; you could accomplish almost all of this by issuing people a medical card with the same barcode the chip would carry, with the added benefit that there's no reason it would ever actively transmit anything. The drawback is that it could be lost or stolen, but there are ways to secure the card (biometrics) or other ways to carry that number, such as in a chip built into a ring or a necklace.

The only way I COULD see it is if the state, indeed, had a compelling interest to protect people from themselves, and I don't think I can make my position on that any clearer.

You're splitting hairs here if you are trying to suggest this is unfeasible. The Federal government could EASILY pressure the states into mandating this, even if they can't sneak it in with the commerce clause (which is more relevent here than it is in most areas where it is applied) simply by giving benefits to states which mandate chipping.

Huh? I talked about feasability, but that was in terms of resistance to a mandatory chip. My position is that the chip wouldn't provide enough benefit to offset the massive violation of privacy rights a mandatory implant would be.

I'm sure the Feds could use the commerce clause to mandate it. I'm equally sure SCOTUS would use the Fourth Amendment (which has been interpreted by the judiciary to protect a general right to privacy) to un-mandate it, and the 4th and 14th to do the same if the states tried it.

Yes indeed, you really should read the thread we JUST HAD on this subject (Right Here) which later on I've detailed the medical database and its benefits. The RFID chip is a key part of those benefits.

As for the drawbacks to the central database, they've been shot down already, I see no reason to repeat myself yet again. Suffice to say, the concept of the medical database is secure (proprietary system), only availible to doctors/pharmacists, and is referenced by a number, not a name, thus making it useless for any other purpose.

EDIT: BTW, in case you only skimmed that thread, the national medical database is coming, with or without the RFID chip. It's simply too valuable not to, and Congress (not to mention the president) is pushing this hard.

I know of the proposed NMD, and I don't oppose the concept. It's absurd, however, to argue that the success of the whole thing depends on the chip; nobody arguing for it, to my knowlege, has mentioned anything about an RIFD chip. The principle benefit of that would be in regards to emergency care, but most medical care is NOT emergency care, and even for emergency care, a card or a ring would work most of the time, and you could STILL offer the chip for anyone who WANTS to take it.

[CmdrWilkens]

Now that I think about it, the fears of people writing your financial information onto a read-only chip and other such silliness are really just distraction tactics used by the naysayers. No one can take that bullshit seriously.

Their real fear is the old privacy bugaboo about their movements in public places being trackable. And that's something which has never constituted a "right", nor should it. People simply pretend it's a right, even though it is not enumerated anywhere. If there was a way for the government to detect that I went to the shopping mall today, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

It might not be a total counter but vertually every case where a state has attempted to impose some restriction upon travel has been shot down from Edwards v California to Kent v Dulles and Crandall v Nevada. All held that a citizen has an inherent right to travel associated with the free ability to associate without undue restrction. It would be difficult to argue that the government or any agency tracking an individual's motions (one who had not been duly convicted) would be a violation of this basic right under any conglomeration of the first, fourth, fifth, or fourteenth amendments. Most notably in the Kent rulling the opinion included the remark "Freedom to travel is, indeed, an important aspect of the citizen's "liberty." " which relates back to the requirements of the fifth amendment that a citizen may not be depreived of liberty without due process (and any restriction on personal travel, especially on foot would certainly qualify as deprivation without due process).

[Plushie]

Better arguement against this:

The government literally has no right to mandate this. You can't even use the inter-state commerce cop-out you usually find when Congress tries to use powers not granted to it by the Constitution.

Thus, if they try to put one into me, I'll say no and fight the battle all the way to the Supreme Court.

Unless it's a state law, in which case I'm screwed :-/

Of course, I could always then cite the USSC's privacy precedents and Article IV Section II in my defense, but I don't know how well that would turn out.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I would keep it in. Even if there was a consequence-free way to remove it, I'd keep it in just for the novelty of having something like that inside me. And since, from what I can understand, this system is only detectable from a few inches, I have no idea where the "tracking movements" idea came from, and I'm not too concerned about it broadcasting "I'm an American" to the world.

For the people saying "I'd fight it"... why? Is it honestly more of an inconvenience to have this injected into you than to risk arrest and take part in court battles (to the Supreme Court? )?

[Broomstick]

Since I'm sure you'll bring it up, yes, the process of defining a compelling interest is somewhat subjective; that's just how the law works sometimes. If you're going to argue that the state has a compelling interest to protect people from themselves, then there's no point in continuing this because that would represent a fundamental philosophical difference between us.

Don't insinuate a slippery slope argument here. There IS a compelling public interest, and it is not protecting people from themselves, it is about establishing a system that only works if it is homogenous. Doctors will not be able to apply the same treatments (for fear of the lack of complete medical information) unless this is mandatory.

Doctors are perfectly capable of applying any medical treatment they feel is necessary even without "complete medical information". No doc or nurse is going to stand around going "Uh, our bar code reader is broken so we can't treat this patient".

I'm also wondering how much this is going to benefit the 43 million + Americans who don't have health insurance - personally, if the government is going to mandate someting, I'd rather have covereage for regular checkups and the occassional antibiotic than a fancy chip in my arm. The doc visits are more likely to provide greater benefit to me, personally.

Let me make this clear, you cannot store more than a little information on a passive RFID, and that information cannot be changed. We are talking about a piece of silicon that is burned into a certain pattern from the factory, and it will not be able to carry a significant amount of information (current ones only carry a barcode).

So if your medical information changes - you develop high blood pressure, say - you'll have to have this chip dug out of your arm and replaced?

[Surlethe]

So if your medical information changes - you develop high blood pressure, say - you'll have to have this chip dug out of your arm and replaced?

The chip is an access number; so, if medical information changes, that information is entered into the account, rather than directly on the chip.

It might not be a total counter but vertually every case where a state has attempted to impose some restriction upon travel has been shot down from Edwards v California to Kent v Dulles and Crandall v Nevada. All held that a citizen has an inherent right to travel associated with the free ability to associate without undue restrction. It would be difficult to argue that the government or any agency tracking an individual's motions (one who had not been duly convicted) would be a violation of this basic right under any conglomeration of the first, fourth, fifth, or fourteenth amendments.

Tracking a person is certainly not a restriction on his ability to travel.

[Naaman]

The voluntary chip would do the same thing, and the difference would come directly out of the pockets of people who refused to take it. And frankly, it's the database that would do almost all of the saving; you could accomplish almost all of this by issuing people a medical card with the same barcode the chip would carry, with the added benefit that there's no reason it would ever actively transmit anything. The drawback is that it could be lost or stolen, but there are ways to secure the card (biometrics) or other ways to carry that number, such as in a chip built into a ring or a necklace.

Cards can still be lost, stolen, left in your other coat\purse and I think the problem just grows if you start talking about jewelry or watches. Not forgetting that if you're in an emergency situation the seconds they're saving by just waving a scan wand over you could make a difference

Oh yeah - I'm voting No because of a rare blood type