Identity Chips

[ThatRobGuy]

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."

I find it amusing that you guys still have a Queen (and pay tax dollars to sustain a figurehead who does nothing)

Yes, we quote the founding fathers because they're responsible for setting up the system of government that I reap the benefits of...It's important (at least to me) to provide reminders of what my country was founded upon when some kids who are fresh out of college start thinking that they know how to do everything better because they were fed a bunch of garbage by some liberal professor who couldn't hack it in real politics...especially when that involves infringing on my rights.

"The founding fathers weren't always right" is the reason why we've lost 4 of our first 10 amendments (and another one is being threatened right now)

We have to stop this mentality of catering to the lowest common denominator. That's not going to bring them up to our level, it's going to bring all of us down to their level.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

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

Well, the original idea seems to be based on the idea of security at any cost as a principle in itself, so, yes, that is the logical conclusion.

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."

I'm an American citizen as a result of birth, but have lived in the UK since the age of 4. And I don't quote the founding fathers because I think they're infallible, but only when I think the point they make is valid. Hell, where relevant I'll readily quote Goebbels saying, "the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it." That doesn't make me a Nazi.

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"?

A very good question. These are the issues that need to be explored. For my part I would say that CCTV cameras aimed at public areas don't really take away liberty, since anything you're willing to do in public is, well, public.

Life-long security from the "average rapist" would involve what exactly? I mean, who or what is the average rapist? Should we lock up every person with a penis just to make sure? Your average rapist is someone known to their victim, so I suppose we should criminalise women having fathers, uncles, brothers, boyfriends, husbands, male colleagues or male neighbours.

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

The way I mean it in this context is a state in which arbitrary and unaccountable laws can be enforced without recourse to independent adjudicators. It is a bad thing because whether or not you have anything "to hide", you shouldn't be subject to the constant fear that law enforcement could invade your home at any moment, and act in any way they wish.

 

[Paradoxum]

I find it amusing that you guys still have a Queen (and pay tax dollars to sustain a figurehead who does nothing)

I do believe that the Queen brings in more money from tourism, etc, than is spent.

Personally I don't mind too much if we have a Queen/King or if we have a President. Our Prime Minister and cabinet does pretty much the same job, so I don't know why we would NEED one.

Yes, we quote the founding fathers because they're responsible for setting up the system of government that I reap the benefits of...It's important (at least to me) to provide reminders of what my country was founded upon when some kids who are fresh out of college start thinking that they know how to do everything better because they were fed a bunch of garbage by some liberal professor who couldn't hack it in real politics...especially when that involves infringing on my rights.

Rather alot of negativeness there

I have no problem with you trying to defend what you believe to be your rights, and I accept that I am ignorant of most things that exist, but I hope there is no problem with me questioning the current state of affairs that is far from perfect.

"The founding fathers weren't always right" is the reason why we've lost 4 of our first 10 amendments (and another one is being threatened right now)

What are they?

We have to stop this mentality of catering to the lowest common denominator. That's not going to bring them up to our level, it's going to bring all of us down to their level.

I'm not really sure what this means in relation to this subject XD

Well, the original idea seems to be based on the idea of security at any cost as a principle in itself, so, yes, that is the logical conclusion.

It wasn't security at any cost though. As I said, I was very sceptical of it, but I find it hard to see how it would adversely affect the innocent if implemented wisely. I suggest it because it seems to give alot of security with little loss to the innocent.

I'm an American citizen as a result of birth, but have lived in the UK since the age of 4. And I don't quote the founding fathers because I think they're infallible, but only when I think the point they make is valid. Hell, where relevant I'll readily quote Goebbels saying, "the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it." That doesn't make me a Nazi.

Sorry then, I got it wrong this time.

A very good question. These are the issues that need to be explored. For my part I would say that CCTV cameras aimed at public areas don't really take away liberty, since anything you're willing to do in public is, well, public.

But I am suggesting that the chips only be used to solve crime. Would you object to the police asking you questions if you were near the scene of a crime? If not then what is your problem with them knowing who was in the area when the crime happened?

Life-long security from the "average rapist" would involve what exactly? I mean, who or what is the average rapist? Should we lock up every person with a penis just to make sure? Your average rapist is someone known to their victim, so I suppose we should criminalise women having fathers, uncles, brothers, boyfriends, husbands, male colleagues or male neighbours.

It would involve having everyone chipped so that you can see who was at the same place at the same time as the victim, almost instantly solving who did it.

The way I mean it in this context is a state in which arbitrary and unaccountable laws can be enforced without recourse to independent adjudicators. It is a bad thing because whether or not you have anything "to hide", you shouldn't be subject to the constant fear that law enforcement could invade your home at any moment, and act in any way they wish.

But this isn't what I'm suggesting.

 

[quatona]

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?

Well, not to argue from a slippery slope - but where do you think should be limits to "big brother", and why?
E.g. if they´d scan all your snail and virtual mail, if they´d pre-emptively install a trojan on everyone´s computers, a ceamera in your bedroom etc.etc. - would that be ok with?
I mean, "the innocent have nothing to fear" there either. Is that really the only criterium relevant here - "the innocent have nothing to fear"?

On another note - and even if assuming they were established with the best intentions - , I wouldn´t know how to prevent abuse of these "big brother" methods by a future government that seeks some form of totalitarianism.

 

[Amber the Duskbringer]

I think it is best to take the Edgar Friendly approach here.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In regards to your question about which amendments are being threatened...

What are they?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


I constantly hear politicians campaigning on the basis of their "faith". We can't say what we want because "we might hurt someones feelings and we have to be politically correct"

The patriot act (and the chip you mention) violates our rights to not be searched and monitored unless there's probable cause.

Any powers that are not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved by the states...that's not happening. The federal government constantly steps over the line and passes laws at the federal level when they have no right to do so.

They're trying to pass laws to take away our right to have firearms.

 

[visionary]

And now diabetics are going to get the chip.

 

[DCJazz]

The day any government requires me to implant a chip for whatever reason,
is the day I refuse and go to prison...
..Or worse.

Also I apologize for the stretching. I have no idea what's causing my post to act all wonky like that. My other posts are never like this.

 

[MattRose]

I don't think they have the technology to chip someone and have it "read" from a distance of more than a few feet. Animal chips are read by holding a reader against the chip and AWWW... sheesh.. the back of my neck..is.. it's burning!!
cant typ about this........ the pain...ahhhhh

 

[Whisper of Hope]

This will come up against a lot of opposition.

 

[WagginDog]

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?

Naturally tracking chips are anti-democratic technology. They'd let the religious leaders know who was going where, help the police in their racketeering, let powerful leaders track where voters were going and which groups were against them. It would be like turning the world into one of Henry Ford's factories.

 

[visionary]

To much power in the hands of the wrong people bring a world of hurt on the helpless.

 

[fenix144]

Against it at 100%. Government has no business gpsing everybody.

 

[Biblewriter]

It is a very reasonable argument that only criminals need to fear having their whereabouts constantly known.

But what is a criminal?

You may not be a criminal today. But what if the government ruling over wherever you live passes a new law tomorrow that makes you a criminal?

Whereas in the past, homosexual activity was a crime, in many English speaking countries it is now a crime to even say it is evil.

Hitler did not assume power by force. He was elected by popular vote. But after he assumed power, it became a crime to even be a member of a certain race.

Any government may make a law that something you value above your own life is illegal. That is why it would be foolhardy to allow any government to gain the power to totally enforce any law they might be pleased to enact.

 

[Lockguy3000]

I think it is best to take the Edgar Friendly approach here.

I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is?
It's a 47-year-old virgin
sitting around in his beige pajamas,
drinking a banana-broccoli shake,
singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".

 

[Publius]

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?

What legitimate reason does the government have to know where I am or where I go?

Why is it any of the government's business where I go or what I do?

 

[Umaro]

I feel the bigger issue is that this was a fight lost long, long ago. You are already tracked. Every single one of you posting on this site is able to be located by either the service provider you use, or the government who subpoenas them, or anyone clever enough with a computer to to find you. We don't need identity chips because that ship has sailed.

 

[visionary]

They just need to get the GPS sticker to stay attached to the body and the rest is history.

 

[Jade Margery]

I feel the bigger issue is that this was a fight lost long, long ago. You are already tracked. Every single one of you posting on this site is able to be located by either the service provider you use, or the government who subpoenas them, or anyone clever enough with a computer to to find you. We don't need identity chips because that ship has sailed.

True.......

But that just means they are tracking my computer. Married to it I may be, but it's not physically attached to my body. When I leave my house, there's really no way to know where I've gone. I don't own a smart phone. I'm not a noticeable person. If I wanted to disappear for a few days, I could. I'd need to resurface eventually to, y'know, earn money for food, but my movements aren't being tracked everywhere.

We're not as badly Big-Brothered as England at least.

 

[Amber the Duskbringer]

I feel the bigger issue is that this was a fight lost long, long ago. You are already tracked. Every single one of you posting on this site is able to be located by either the service provider you use, or the government who subpoenas them, or anyone clever enough with a computer to to find you. We don't need identity chips because that ship has sailed.

Cept me :3 I am on one of the best proxies you can get and not one of those crappy little sneakme sites well they could but it would take them longer