Identity Chips

[Paradoxum]

Hi,

In the past I have generally been against chips being implanted in people when they are born so that the government can track where they are. To be honest I haven't thought about it much. Today though I was talking to a friend about it and she brought up the massive amount it would reduce crime and how the innocent have nothing fear. Most crimes would be easily solvable if you know who was at the crime scene when it happened. Who would dare steal or rape when police would know it was you?

I still feel very unease about it though. What do you think?

 

[Jade Margery]

I think that if you, as a parent, choose to put an ID chip in your child so that you can always know that they are safe and where they are supposed to be, then that is your decision. But at eighteen (or possibly sixteen) if the kid wants it out, it comes out.

I don't think any person should be forced or required to have one EXCEPT maybe in the case of convicted persons who have done their prison time and are released into society. A subdermal implant would be a lot less noticeable than an ankle bracelet, and if a method could be devised that would make it impossible to remove without a surgeon (or would alert authorities if it was removed) then I think it would be a good option.

But does the government really need to know the locations of all innocent people? I don't think so. And I think the potential for abuse here is huge. Best to leave it alone, offer it if people actually want it, but not make it mandatory.

 

[Paradoxum]

I think that if you, as a parent, choose to put an ID chip in your child so that you can always know that they are safe and where they are supposed to be, then that is your decision. But at eighteen (or possibly sixteen) if the kid wants it out, it comes out.

This sounds much worse to me than the police potentially knowing. If your parents can know where you are they WILL look, but the police wont know where individuals are unless they are in the area where a crime is taking place.

But does the government really need to know the locations of all innocent people? I don't think so. And I think the potential for abuse here is huge. Best to leave it alone, offer it if people actually want it, but not make it mandatory.

But if the system is that the police can only see who is in the area that a crime has taken place, for example, the police might never know where most people are for the whole of their lives. There is huge potential for abuse, but the government is in control of the army and there is massive potential for abuse there too. Just because the worst possible thing could happen doesn't mean it is any where near likely.

I've been trying to think of a reason why I wouldn't want to police to know where I am, can you give me one?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I would be very uneasy about this. For one, the government doesn't need to know where we're at all the time. Second, I think it would open up a new wave of cyber crime. If it's tied to a computer system or tech related, it can be spoofed or hacked, I don't want someone to commit a crime with a hacked chip that transmits the message that it's someone other than themselves. And last, it's only going to stop the honest criminals. If someone wants to commit a crime bad enough, they'll cut it out of their hand (or wherever it will be) and commit the crime and we're right back to where we are today.

I don't even like the fact that I have an RFID chip in my passport much less a permanent one in my body

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I've been trying to think of a reason why I wouldn't want to police to know where I am, can you give me one?

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.

The government is not allowed to snoop on you unless they have a valid reason.

 

[Amber the Duskbringer]

I prefer to be anon.

 

[Paradoxum]

I would be very uneasy about this. For one, the government doesn't need to know where we're at all the time. Second, I think it would open up a new wave of cyber crime. If it's tied to a computer system or tech related, it can be spoofed or hacked, I don't want someone to commit a crime with a hacked chip that transmits the message that it's someone other than themselves. And last, it's only going to stop the honest criminals. If someone wants to commit a crime bad enough, they'll cut it out of their hand (or wherever it will be) and commit the crime and we're right back to where we are today.

I don't even like the fact that I have an RFID chip in my passport much less a permanent one in my body

I think the cyber crime point is a good one. If it is really that easy to hack a system why don't people just hack money out of banks?

You might be able to remove it by surgery, but how many criminals are that committed and skilled, and how many crimes at planned that far ahead? Also with nano technology it might make it impossible to do this.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think the cyber crime point is a good one. If it is really that easy to hack a system why don't people just hack money out of banks?

You might be able to remove it by surgery, but how many criminals are that committed and skilled, and how many crimes at planned that far ahead? Also with nano technology it might make it impossible to do this.

People do hack and get money all of the time. I know several people who have had their credit card numbers swiped. Also, I have had to change checking accounts because I got a notification from Chase bank stating "our system was compromised" and "you will be assigned a new checking account number for your own protection sorry for the inconvenience"

There are plenty of people "that committed" to crime. If people are willing to risk federal charges to aquire a fake identity, SSN, etc.. (and spend big money to do it), if there's another opportunity, they'll take it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I prefer to be anon.

Agreed.

From reading the some of the things the Founding Fathers wrote, they would want everyone to have that right as well.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

id be less spooked about a chip that functions like an id when scanned at close range but coudnt be used as a tracking device

either way it snot a bad idea of itself if its not mandatory

 

[Jade Margery]

This sounds much worse to me than the police potentially knowing. If your parents can know where you are they WILL look, but the police wont know where individuals are unless they are in the area where a crime is taking place.

Sure they'll look, and that's a good thing, especially if you're in a city that has problems with human trafficking. A good parent is only going to use the chip if they suspect something is wrong or their child goes missing. A bad, controlling parent is going to be just as bad and controlling with a chip as without one. Romanticized as 'sneaking out' is in our culture, it's still a parent's right and responsibility to know where their child is until that child becomes an adult.

But if the system is that the police can only see who is in the area that a crime has taken place, for example, the police might never know where most people are for the whole of their lives. There is huge potential for abuse, but the government is in control of the army and there is massive potential for abuse there too. Just because the worst possible thing could happen doesn't mean it is any where near likely.

I've been trying to think of a reason why I wouldn't want to police to know where I am, can you give me one?

We can start with the fact that I wouldn't trust a police officer farther than I could throw him. And as other's have pointed out, hacking and misuse is totally possible. Using the army isn't a good example of 'non-abuse' anyway, what with the institutionalized torture, killing of civilians, and invading of other countries we've got going on right now. And then there's the whole mandatory violation of people's bodies thing that's kind of a big deal.

In all countries, in all societies, there is a balance of power between the people and the government. I am very much not in favor of measures that move that balance towards the government's side. Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but the last thing I want is the idiots in charge of my country being able to know exactly where I am at all times.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

We could all but eliminate crime by putting everyone in prison at birth and only releasing them into society once they prove they're trustworthy. If reducing crime by any means possible is a good principle in itself, this is a good idea, no?

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."--Benjamin Franklin

Honestly, I'd rather live in a free society and be frightened about being the victim of crime than live secure and in a police state.

 

[Paradoxum]

People do hack and get money all of the time. I know several people who have had their credit card numbers swiped. Also, I have had to change checking accounts because I got a notification from Chase bank stating "our system was compromised" and "you will be assigned a new checking account number for your own protection sorry for the inconvenience"

So they knew they were hacked into though and what was affected? I'll accept that this is a legitimate concern though.

There are plenty of people "that committed" to crime. If people are willing to risk federal charges to aquire a fake identity, SSN, etc.. (and spend big money to do it), if there's another opportunity, they'll take it.

But that is organised crime isn't it? There is ALOT of crime which is just done by individuals, friends, or small gangs because they think they can get away with it. Good examples would be rape and the average break in.

Perhaps this could be worked round by having scanners in shops that can sense not who the person is, but if they have a chip. If they don't have a chip they can be caught on CCTV and then tracked down by the police.

id be less spooked about a chip that functions like an id when scanned at close range but coudnt be used as a tracking device

either way it snot a bad idea of itself if its not mandatory

That takes away all the useful power of the chip though.

Sure they'll look, and that's a good thing, especially if you're in a city that has problems with human trafficking. A good parent is only going to use the chip if they suspect something is wrong or their child goes missing. A bad, controlling parent is going to be just as bad and controlling with a chip as without one. Romanticized as 'sneaking out' is in our culture, it's still a parent's right and responsibility to know where their child is until that child becomes an adult.

Its not as if parents know where their teenagers are anyway. I could say I am going to town, but that doesn't mean I'm there. Parents should know where children are, but at some point it because impossible. Anyway I'm not saying that parents would be able to use the chip like this.

We can start with the fact that I wouldn't trust a police officer farther than I could throw him. And as other's have pointed out, hacking and misuse is totally possible. Using the army isn't a good example of 'non-abuse' anyway, what with the institutionalized torture, killing of civilians, and invading of other countries we've got going on right now. And then there's the whole mandatory violation of people's bodies thing that's kind of a big deal.

Personally I have no problem with the police. I've never had a bad experience with them and nor has anyone I know. The army might have been used for bad things, but hasn't been used against society as a whole like you are suggesting the chips might be.

In all countries, in all societies, there is a balance of power between the people and the government. I am very much not in favor of measures that move that balance towards the government's side. Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but the last thing I want is the idiots in charge of my country being able to know exactly where I am at all times.

What is it that the government would use the chips for that would harm the average person though? Its not as if anyone would know where you personally were unless you got caught up in some sort of crime.

We could all but eliminate crime by putting everyone in prison at birth and only releasing them into society once they prove they're trustworthy. If reducing crime by any means possible is a good principle in itself, this is a good idea, no?

I agree. I mean this is exactly like the original idea..... isn't it?

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."--Benjamin Franklin

I find it amusing how Americans (can I assume your American?) quote the founding fathers as if they were prophets of the religion of America. They quote them just like the Bible, as if we should be like, "Well if good old Benjamin said it then it MUST be true."

What is "essential liberty"? Why don't security cameras take away this liberty? In what way is life long security from the average rapist "temporary safety"?

Honestly, I'd rather live in a free society and be frightened about being the victim of crime than live secure and in a police state.

Police state.... scary words, what does it mean? Why is it bad?

 

[Amber the Duskbringer]

Sounds like that movie where the psychics saw what crimes were going to be prevented. I have seen too much abuse by cops to trust them anymore than a criminal. Some are good, some are bad and I don't like taking chances with people who see all as suspects. If that answers the question and point about cops you mentioned. Over in Como texas and Sulphur Springs they are absolutely corrupt. They would harrass the family I was staying with for nothing more than being a glbt couple. Because they were different from the rest of the town, they were always having cops come and even had one try to search the backyard for drugs when their weren't any. The irony being the guy next door had pot plants in his shed that I saw the cop come back and forth and not arrest him. But his wife was on the council. So it's all good when you have people in higher places. I don't trust them. And I certainly wouldn't trust a chip in my body that let them know where I was at all times. Screw that.

 

[keith99]

Why have any of the protections we have? After all the police are always honest right?

 

[SentWest]

I would totally microchip my stepdaughter.

She's a tiny thing, and looks half her age. She's adorable and cute and totally trusting. She also has her head in the clouds most of the time and even at the age of eight I have to remind her half a million times to not go running into the street.

Yet her mom lets her walk to school alone, and I'm terrified she's going to get snatched. The crime maps of our area put us right in the middle of sex offender central, I'm afraid.

And even though we might know where to look, by the time we found her it might be too late.

Also knowing what I was like between the ages of 15 and 18, my parents should have microchipped me as well. Would have saved us all a lot of trouble.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

no using a chip for an id and or wiht some of your medical histiry on it has uses would always be on you you cant loose it easily or leve it in your other set of skin

 

[Jade Margery]

Its not as if parents know where their teenagers are anyway. I could say I am going to town, but that doesn't mean I'm there. Parents should know where children are, but at some point it because impossible. Anyway I'm not saying that parents would be able to use the chip like this.

And I'm saying that if such chips were marketable, that is one of the few situations where I could see them having a legitimate purpose for the good of the person chipped. It would be a small precaution taken to avoid an unlikely but very terrible situation.

Hell, I'd probably be okay with microchipping myself now if I could assure that one of my parents or my grandfather were the only ones who could track me. I'm effectively a single girl (boyfriend lives far away) in a very large city with no friends or family close by. I could let the person I trusted know where I was going and know that if I was for some reason taken somewhere else without telling them, they would know something was wrong and where to find me. I would also want to be able to turn the chip off sometimes. (A girl's gotta have her secrets.)

Personally I have no problem with the police. I've never had a bad experience with them and nor has anyone I know. The army might have been used for bad things, but hasn't been used against society as a whole like you are suggesting the chips might be.

Personally, I have a lot of problems with the police, but I congratulate you on being lucky enough not to have had the uncaring eye of the justice system on you.

Let us see, what has the strong arm of the government has been used for...

Well, there's tear-gassing/fire hosing/bean-bag-shooting/tazering of innocent protesters in many documented cases, police brutality, inflated arrest rates and corruption (enjoy Act II and know this is not an isolated situation), regular trampling of civil liberties, and more cases of individual injustice than I care to count. Receiving justice when you have been wronged by the state is nearly impossible; it takes many years and thousands of dollars in legal fees, and even in clear-cut cases of power abuse they will still fight you every step of the way. They have to. Add to that the overabundance of laws in our country that most people are never even informed exist, and we are basically already living in a police state. You have probably broken many laws in your life without knowing it, laws which, if the wrong person knew about them, could get you put in jail and get them a nice christmas bonus for their high prosecution or arrest record.

But don't take my word for it.

Everyone's a Criminal: There Ought (Not) To Be a Law!
Does the U.S. have too many rules, too many ‘rights’? | Quin Hillyer | Special Reports | Washington Examiner
Philly Police Harass, Threaten To Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun; Then Charge Him With Disorderly Conduct For Recording Them | Techdirt
Sometimes There Ought Not To Be a Law
http://www.economist.com/node/16636027


As I said, the last thing I want is a bunch of power-high people with no reasonable accountability knowing where I am at all times. As another person so elegantly put it: Screw that.

What is it that the government would use the chips for that would harm the average person though? Its not as if anyone would know where you personally were unless you got caught up in some sort of crime.

Your naivety is precious. I hope for your sake you never have a reason to lose it.

 

[Texan40]

Feel free to microchip yourselves to your heart's content. As long as it is a private enterprise and not mandatory I have no problem with it whatsoever as my family will be opting out. If there are many proponents to this then I am more worried that they are drugging the water supply than keeping tabs on the sheep.

 

[Wayte]

I dislike the idea of a tracking chip very much...too much probing, no privacy. But I very much like the idea of an ID chip. We already carry around dozens of different little cards and nubers IDing us, why not just consolidate it all into one chip? They cn scan the chip, see its you, and voila. And besides, it's harder to steal a chip form under someone's skin then a credit card outta someone's wallet.