Would you remove your RFID chip?

[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

[Captain tycho]

It really depends.
I wouldn't mind the chip being mandantory as long as it didn't contain any personal information other than medical stuff, and was only readable from a few inches away.

[RedImperator]

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

So what? Are you telling me the fact that some people will occasionally lose their card is enough to force everyone to have a chip implanted? Trying to make the system perfect, as opposed to merely very good, does not constitute a justification for a mass violation of privacy rights, especially when the act of mandating the chips will lead directly to people trying to thwart them, making perfection impossible to obtain.

[Zoink]

Wow, a wanker who denies that he's a wanker. Never seen that before.

Well if you want to resort to name-calling: I'm not the wanker using a logical fallacy in an attempt to prove I wouldn't do it.

Do you know how many of these random killings go unsolved every year?

If the gov't could search all homes, search all personal info, record all conversations, place radio tracking chips on all people, all at any given time without your consent, then that'd catch criminals as well. Unfortunately that's not the gov't I signed up for and I will not support any such initiatives.

If I have a reason to be suspected, the police should come to my door and ask questions. It's happened before and I've happily answered all questions.

But apparently, you wouldn't care because some vaguely defined point of personal pride is more important than catching a child murderer.

And I could donate $20 towards catching child killers right now. If everyone did that, the police could put more resources towards solving crime. But I don't, so evidently a little money is more important than catching child murderers as well. I'm just so freak'n evil.

Well, you seem to want to use black-white fallacies to label people as uncaring citizens. The fact somebody has given a DNA sample one time for one case doesn't mean they've done more towards catching child murderers than everyone else or necessarily cares more. For example, a guy who has taken the time to write down observations and license plates of suspicious activity in his neighborhood is doing a hell of a lot more towards stopping crime than giving a drop of blood.

[Solauren]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

The only people that need worry about stuff like this, or 'my privacy is being invaded' an all that bullshit are the ones with something to hide.

So all the whinners
Shut the hell up

[Naaman]

So what? Are you telling me the fact that some people will occasionally lose their card is enough to force everyone to have a chip implanted? Trying to make the system perfect, as opposed to merely very good, does not constitute a justification for a mass violation of privacy rights, especially when the act of mandating the chips will lead directly to people trying to thwart them, making perfection impossible to obtain.

I'm suggesting that the question as originally asked; a rice grain sized implant, a readable range of a couple of metres containing only a database reference number which in turn relates to an entry saying that you've got a allergies to bee stings, Penicillin and aspirin (for example), is not an Invasion of Privacy, it's the medical system trying to pro-actively help you. They only broadcast when interrogated, have a limited range, small amounts of storage space and are write only (Some good info here)

As for the perfection of the system, I never claimed it would be perfect just a lot better than hoping everyone remembers to carry another card on them all the time.

[Pick]

I wouldn't remove my chip, not because I like the idea, but because I'm sure there are much more severe penalties for taking it out than I'd want to muddle with.

[RedImperator]

So what? Are you telling me the fact that some people will occasionally lose their card is enough to force everyone to have a chip implanted? Trying to make the system perfect, as opposed to merely very good, does not constitute a justification for a mass violation of privacy rights, especially when the act of mandating the chips will lead directly to people trying to thwart them, making perfection impossible to obtain.

I'm suggesting that the question as originally asked; a rice grain sized implant, a readable range of a couple of metres containing only a database reference number which in turn relates to an entry saying that you've got a allergies to bee stings, Penicillin and aspirin (for example), is not an Invasion of Privacy, it's the medical system trying to pro-actively help you. They only broadcast when interrogated, have a limited range, small amounts of storage space and are write only (Some good info here)

A forced medical procedure itself is a grevious invasion of privacy. A citizen has the right to refuse any medical procedure unless the state has a compelling interest to force him to accept it. The law cannot even compel people to undergo lifesaving medical treatment; there's absolutely no moral or legal basis for forcing people to accept an implant because it will be efficient and useful.

As for the perfection of the system, I never claimed it would be perfect just a lot better than hoping everyone remembers to carry another card on them all the time.

You need something better than efficency to justify forcing people to get an implant when you can't even force people to take lifesaving medications if they chose not to, especially when the non-invasive system will be more than adaquete.

[Molyneux]

Ooooh, look at the "give me liberty or give me death" wankers! Such tough talk! Such courage and bravery behind your keyboard!

Face it, if it actually were mandatory and a G-man said "put this in or you're going to jail", you would roll up your sleeve and take it. Nobody can even explain what the harm is, except for vague paranoid fears that there will be tons of unnecessary extra secret information on it because the government has an ulterior motive of secretly desiring to make it easier to commit identity theft).

"Deadly force ..."

Yeah, right.

The concept of being forced to accept an implant in my body is a fundamentally unacceptable one to me; if I were forcibly implanted, I'd *cut* the fucker out if I had to. Jail be damned.


The ironic thing, of course, is that if it were an option (rather than mandatory), I'd probably end up going for it.

[Rye]

I must admit, I feel it's wrong to enforce a lasting unconsented change to people's bodies, especially if it's not strictly necessary. I mean, people with no [pertinent] allergies and reactions to stuff don't exactly need one, do they? So why bother putting it in?

For the people it would save...hmm, after allergy testing and such, I think it would be a fair part of a standard medical plan for that patient. Should they be able to reject it? I think medical ethics says they're allowed to. Do I think they should be able to? I suppose so, if they are dead set against it, to the point of wanting to risk their own life, and perhaps signing something to absolve whoever gives him the wrong drug they wouldn't have given him otherwise, I don't care enough about them to intervene.

Would I cut it out if I had one? Probably not, unless I could feel it under the skin. If I could do that, I'd be prodding it all the time and would have it removed because otherwise I'd just pick at it.

[DrkHelmet]

After watching this debate for a long while, I just had a thought.

Wouldn't the chip increase the burden on airport security to an extreme degree? With a chip inside everyone's body, wouldn't they have to scan each person individually with a hand metal detector instead of just having them walk, one at a time, through the metal detectors?

It's just a thought~

[Keevan_Colton]

After watching this debate for a long while, I just had a thought.

Wouldn't the chip increase the burden on airport security to an extreme degree? With a chip inside everyone's body, wouldn't they have to scan each person individually with a hand metal detector instead of just having them walk, one at a time, through the metal detectors?

It's just a thought~

In a word, no.

Does the zip on your pants set off the metal detector? Or the eyelets on your shoes?

The machines are calibrated to a certain minimum threshold.

[DrkHelmet]

Does the zip on your pants set off the metal detector? Or the eyelets on your shoes?

My steel-toed shoes did when I went to the Bahamas years ago. Also had to take off my belt, because the buckle set it off.

The machines are calibrated to a certain minimum threshold.

Ok then, thought erased.

[tharkûn]

For myself, I imagine it would never be implanted. I work behind a door that has emblazoned on it "NO Admittance to Persons with Metallic Implants" or some such. While I'm sure and RFID implant won't have trouble with a security metal detector, most designs I'm familiar with don't like 19 T magnets. Nor will even weak "undetectable" RF signals be appreciated when you've clad the room to keep them out and already have thousands dollars in equipment to filter out cross talk and all the other inherent "error" (and yes we make fine measurement right over the common RFID bands).


Frankly I don't see why we need to use RFID technology. In most cases anything that sends you to emergency care alive is going to leave dog tags intact, particularly if you use some type of choker variant (so they can't accidentally slip off over the head). What was so terrible about mandating eveyone wear a medical bracelet or whatnot that no country has done so thus far?

[Edi]

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.

Actually, the compelling public interest in seatbelt laws is that it is the government which is providing the medical care, or a large part of it, and the seatbelt laws drive down the costs a lot, plus they minimize all sorts of damage that happens to people other than the individual who refuses to use a seatbelt (family, friends etc). Granted, that damage is largely emotional in many of these cases, but in the case of immediate family like spouse and children, in addition there is the removal of one provider and all the financial hardship that entails, which might very well result in more costs and expenses to the government (i.e. to other tax payers).

That, coupled with the difference of permanent/non-permanent and invasive/non-invasive (using strict medical context here) is what makes these issues not as analoguous as you make them out to be. They are not totally dissimilar, but they are not totally the same either.

Edi

[Edi]

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?

No, the change is made to the DB, while the pointer to the DB (the RFID tag) stays unchanged.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

Frankly I don't see why we need to use RFID technology. In most cases anything that sends you to emergency care alive is going to leave dog tags intact

In every factory I've ever worked in, that's false because you have to take them off before you go on the floor. Safety regulations. And of course, if you're rendered unconscious by some sort of horrible accident, it's unlikely that people are going to be rifling through your personal possessions at your desk in order to see if you left any bracelets or tags behind; they'll be rushing you to hospital.

[General Zod]

One thing I'm curious about is why everyone is assuming it's either mandatory or not done at all. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the chip implant be purely voluntary on a case by case basis? If all it contains is medical data, then someone with peculiar allergies or medical problems could elect to have the chip inserted with their data. As RedImp mentioned, it's already a constitutional right to reject any medical treatment or procedure, even if it's beneficient.

So as far as I can see, if someone has the chip then it's obvious they've got some type of medical condition that needs taken care of. If the chip isn't there, then it should be assumed all things are kosher. Naturally there's always likely to be the occasional slipup, but as long as it were voluntary nobody could be blamed except the person who chose not to get the chip. Not much different from a card in your wallet that says what problems you have, just more difficult to lose.

[DrkHelmet]

One thing I'm curious about is why everyone is assuming it's either mandatory or not done at all.

The reason is because in the news article linked to at the beginning of the thread refers to a polititian who wants the chips required.

[General Zod]

One thing I'm curious about is why everyone is assuming it's either mandatory or not done at all.

The reason is because in the news article linked to at the beginning of the thread refers to a polititian who wants the chips required.

Yeah, though the only real objections that I'm seeing is because the asshat in question wanted it to be mandatory for everyone. If it was changed to a voluntary procedure, would people still be as viciously objecting?

[DrkHelmet]

Yeah, though the only real objections that I'm seeing is because the asshat in question wanted it to be mandatory for everyone. If it was changed to a voluntary procedure, would people still be as viciously objecting?

Not likely. Americans in particular are particularly difficult about things forced upon them. If it were voluntary, there would probably be no objections whatsoever.

I wouldn't want one either way, but I have no serious medical conditions that doctors would need to be informed of if I was brought in on a stretcher.

[CmdrWilkens]

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.

Its an indirect resriction much as the Crandall case (and related cases where a per person ingress/egress tax was levied). Even in cases where the individual may not lose the reasonable ability to move freely there is a resriction on their exercise of the right and such could be easily ruled unconstitutional.

[Surlethe]

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

Its an indirect resriction much as the Crandall case (and related cases where a per person ingress/egress tax was levied). Even in cases where the individual may not lose the reasonable ability to move freely there is a resriction on their exercise of the right and such could be easily ruled unconstitutional.

A tax is a completely different animal from surveillance. Watching a person in no way restricts their exercise of the right to travel.

[CmdrWilkens]

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

Its an indirect resriction much as the Crandall case (and related cases where a per person ingress/egress tax was levied). Even in cases where the individual may not lose the reasonable ability to move freely there is a resriction on their exercise of the right and such could be easily ruled unconstitutional.

A tax is a completely different animal from surveillance. Watching a person in no way restricts their exercise of the right to travel.

Its a hinderance in that a person can easily claim that knowing others are watching will prevent them from moving to places that they would have a legal right to enter (such as a legal brothel or porn shop). The point of relating this to the Crandall case (and the maritime cases it cited) is that even when the individual is only feels secondary and tertiary effects from legislation in regards to their freedom of movement that is an illegal restriction. Moreover one could argue that such an action would contravene (and not explicitly) the "full enjoyment" clauses of the Civil Rights Act.

[CyberianKnight]

Key word here is 'voluntary' I have no problems with such techs as long as it is voluntary.