quote: The prospect of 'chip-citizens' - with its terrifying echoes of George Orwell's 'Big Brother' police state in the book 1984 - was raised in an official report for Britain's Information Commissioner Richard Thomas into the spread of surveillance technology.
quote: They could be used by companies who want to keep tabs on an employee's movements or by Governments who want a foolproof way of identifying their citizens - and storing information about them.
quote:In their Report on the Surveillance Society, the authors now warn: "The call for everyone to be implanted is now being seriously debated."
How depressing. I might have to rethink Alex Jones.
Do any of you think that this is even a possibility for citizens in the US or Briton in the next 15 years?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I hope not. I really don't think most people would be ok with it. I hope.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*Puts picture of abducted waif/puppy/baby seal on the television*
Look, if we had just been tracking the poor little thing/person who abducted her, we could have saved her wee, wittle life.
I mean, you're not for killing waifs/puppies/baby seals, are you?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Most air travellers would probably accept such tagging if it meant that they could go through security faster. Heck, there are already people who have had tags implanted merely to bypass the line into a popular nightclub, and to have food&drinks automaticly billed to their bar tab without ever having to pull out cash or a credit card.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Oh, the Southern Baptists will have a field day with this...
THE APOCALYPSE IS UPON US, PEOPLE.
But seriously, um. Yeah, this idea scares the crap out of me.
-pH
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I would move to another country, fast, if this were ever implemented. I would hope that it would never even be seriously considered here, but given how complacent the population as a whole has been about giving up civil liberties so far...
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Of course I think this is a good idea. Anything our great leaders, especially Uncle Cheney, Big Brother Rumsfield, or Good Ol' President Bush think is best for us folks is perfectly all right with me.
I am certainly in no way helping those who would harm our country. No need to label me an Enemy Combatant. No need for me to go water-boarding. No need for me to disappear..er..I mean to earn an all expense paid vacation maligned by the evil press as Extrodinary Rendition.
And to all the wonderful people at the NSA who are listening in, all is good. Peace through War, brothers, Peace through War.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Sorry Dan_raven, you've already been tagged..err...I mean your thoughts on this administration are already known. Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Has GWB really endorsed this? I find it hard to believe.
I think it's very plausible that this will be a requirement and people will go with it. People in at least 5 states have all agreed to be fingerprinted so they can, well, do anything (since you can't do anything without ID now). They didn't like it, but hardly any of them so much as wrote a legislator.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
It will start with sex offenders. Then move to convicted felons. Then the military, police officers, and certain government employees. Finally private citizens will be tagged. Each step along the way will make sense. I think it's a certainty that we will be somewhere along the above continium in the next 15 years-most likely near or at the private citizen end. It's all my opinion, no hard facts involved, but you asked for it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Good grief. Most of you already run around with cell-phones. Cell-phones can already be traced to a nearly exact location when they are set to receive incoming calls, as well as during the more obvious outgoing calls.
And legislation has already been passed which mandates that new cell-phones must be able to be turned on by the cell-service provider -- even if the owner has it shut off -- upon request by law enforcement or intelligence agencies. ie If ya keep a cellphone with ya, soon it will be possible for the government to eavesdrop on ya whenever they want.
[ October 30, 2006, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan: I would move to another country, fast, if this were ever implemented. I would hope that it would never even be seriously considered here, but given how complacent the population as a whole has been about giving up civil liberties so far...
I'm with you. Where shall we go?
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
aspectre, you don't think there's a huge difference between cell phones and...microchips in your skin? I mean, anyone can track my car with the almighty satellites, but that's completely different from tracking ME.
-pH
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Has GWB really endorsed this? I find it hard to believe.
Not that I know of. The article talks about Britain. However, I am with BaoQingTian that it will be done incrementally. Sex offenders, private companies, select hospital/mental patients, law enforcement.
It will get to a point that it is so convenient for commerce that the rest of the population will follow suite.
I am not convinced there is a maniacal plot behind the transition to chip-citizens, but I do think the transition is probable. It probably doesn't matter much anyway. Schools already are introducing RIF tags, biometric lunch machines, and cameras everywhere.
It is not like we live in a day of anonymity.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I mean, anyone can track my car with the almighty satellites
Actually they can track you with the little black box in your car that come in all new automobiles.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Oh, the Southern Baptists will have a field day with this...
THE APOCALYPSE IS UPON US, PEOPLE.
As far as I understand the Rapture mythology, doesn't the Mark of the Beast in order to buy and sell things come after the Rapture? If so, doesn't saying that this is one of the prophecies kinda put them into the unsaved column, according to the story?
edit: Nevermind, looked it up. Apparently, there's a disagreement as to whether the Rapture will be before, after, or in the middle of the 7 years of tribulation.
---
As to the chipping? I really don't know. I find the Bush government has been able to get away with so much more than I would have ever granted had I not lived through it. I'd like to say that public opinion and protest would prevent this from being implemented, but I would have said that for a bunch of other things, such as the paperless electronic voting machines, so who the heck knows.
I do think, no matter what, we're going to be moving towards a more ID'd society, but I'm expecting (or maybe hoping) that it will be biometric as opposed to implantation that will be used.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
As far as I know, that little black box is mostly in high-end automobiles to keep track of mechanical performance. And while it could be pulled out and placed in a reader after eg an accident to see if the driver was speeding, whether the brakes were used, etc, there is no remote-read capability.
Have you run across an article that says differently? Or are you talking of OnStar/LoJack/etc?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I have OnStar, and I have no problem with having OnStar. I pay a subscription to OnStar because it really comes in handy, even though I have AAA. Plus, it automatically sends emergency help if the airbags go off. On top of that, it has a much better range than a cell phone, and a button that automatically dials for an emergency line if you need it.
-pH
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Good grief. Most of you already run around with cell-phones. Cell-phones can already be traced to a nearly exact location when they are set to receive incoming calls, as well as during the more obvious outgoing calls.
And legislation has already been passed which mandates that new cell-phones must be able to be turned on by the cell-service provider -- even if the owner has it shut off -- upon request by law enforcement or intelligence agencies. ie If ya keep a cellphone with ya, soon it will be possible for the government to eavesdrop on ya whenever they want.
Can you cite the first and third claims made here?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
If the US government starts seriously considering this I'm throwing in the towel and moving the Canada.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Yes Alcon, and they'll be able to track you all the way.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: If the US government starts seriously considering this I'm throwing in the towel and moving the Canada.
Where will you move it? There's not a lot of room left. Maybe somewhere in the pacific?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Mars. And I'll bring the atmosphere with it. And I'll go with it. Let them track me to there Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I do think that given both how ignorant most of the public is as to the extent we're already tracked, via Internet activity and purchasing for instance, it'll happen.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: If the US government starts seriously considering this I'm throwing in the towel and moving the Canada.
It's a sad commentary when people choose moving to Canada over staying and trying to be part of the solution.
I personally don't see this coming to pass in my lifetime, but I agree that it will likely be done incrementally.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I'll keep looking for the remote activation legislation.
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Of course I think this is a good idea. Anything our great leaders, especially Uncle Cheney, Big Brother Rumsfield, or Good Ol' President Bush think is best for us folks is perfectly all right with me.
Yeah, I guess that's an appropriate reaction. Seeing as how the article mentioned any of the "leaders" of either country, and specified Cheney, Rummy, and Bush.
What's next? "Independent Study Claims It Might Someday Be Possible That French People May Possibly Have To Show ID To Vote, Maybe" which is responded to by a valid "Blame Bush!" claim.
That makes sense.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Your right AK.
That was an uncalled upon attack on President Bush and his administration.
Yet the panic and hysteria I tried putting into that semi-funny post was supposed to mock those panicing about Governmental Control as much as those panicing about Terrorists Attacks.
In other words, its not time to pack up Canada and move it to a safer spot.
On the other hand I listened to a speech given by President Bush yesterday in Indiana. He asked a bunch of, what in Sales School, we called "leading questions." The idea is that if you get the crowd to yell "Yes" often enough, they won't stop when you ask for the cash.
So while the crowd was on a roll yelling "Yes!" to everything President Bush asked, he asked a final question. "Do you want us to find the terrorists, no matter what the cost?"
And the crowd yelled, "YES!!!"
And I got scared, because there are a lot of costs that I don't want my government to pay in order to find the terrorists.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Number 6: Where am I? Number 2: In the Village. Number 6: What do you want? Number 2: We want information. Number 6: Whose side are you on? Number 2: That would be telling. We want information... information... information. Number 6: You won't get it. Number 2: By hook or by crook, we will. Number 6: Who are you? Number 2: The new Number 2. Number 6: Who is Number 1? Number 2: You are Number 6. Number 6: I am not a number, I am a free man.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Oh, the Southern Baptists will have a field day with this...
THE APOCALYPSE IS UPON US, PEOPLE.
As far as I understand the Rapture mythology, doesn't the Mark of the Beast in order to buy and sell things come after the Rapture? If so, doesn't saying that this is one of the prophecies kinda put them into the unsaved column, according to the story?
edit: Nevermind, looked it up. Apparently, there's a disagreement as to whether the Rapture will be before, after, or in the middle of the 7 years of tribulation.
---
As to the chipping? I really don't know. I find the Bush government has been able to get away with so much more than I would have ever granted had I not lived through it. I'd like to say that public opinion and protest would prevent this from being implemented, but I would have said that for a bunch of other things, such as the paperless electronic voting machines, so who the heck knows.
I do think, no matter what, we're going to be moving towards a more ID'd society, but I'm expecting (or maybe hoping) that it will be biometric as opposed to implantation that will be used.
Well...it depends. There is a fair amount of debate in the Christian community about whether the rapture will occur/has already occurred/will occur at all. The rapture is a relatively new concept in and of itself. Not Armageddon mind, but the Rapture. In fact, many believe that there will be no rapture at all. The tribulation will come, and afterward those who believe will live on a New Earth.
The rapture has become a much more popular subject (even in the secular world) thanks to the ever popular Left Behind series. (Which still isn't over, thankfully there's only one book left to go...or so we believe.) And yes, in the book The Mark the mark of the beast was a microchip along with a tatoo of a certain number combination.
Before I derail this thread any further, I'll stop. Suffice it to say that there are many schools of though on the subject.
*Resume thread topic.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Nah, the first people will PAY to have those things implanted. Why? Because they'll be the elderly.
The first round of bio-chips will read a small array of lifesigns, and in the case of emergency will send out a signal to emergency services, so if anything should happen to an elderly person living alone, or just unattended, help will still arrive much faster than ever before, ensuring even longer lives for them.
Next will come corporations PAYING people to be temporarily implanted. Why? The chip will send signals to their tvs to see what they are watching and when they watch it, then it'll track them to see where they actually go afterwards, if they go shopping at or to eat at the places that were advertised on tv. It's the ULTIMATE consumer report. They could sell that stuff at a premium to vendors who want to know how effective their ad campaign is, and they'll pay for volunteers.
Somewhere in there, the chips will be programmed to emit RFID waves to control appliances and electronic devices:
"Don't want your car stolen? Well, with this new biometric safeguard, your car can only be operated if you are in the car with it! Have a loved one? No problem! Get them implanted too and we can program their chip to operate off your frequency for a small charge!"
It'll start off as something for the uberwealthy. What's the point of kidnapping the guy to get his car? At some point you have to get rid of him, and then you still have a useless car, unless you get someone to hack the car's computer to reset the RFID code, which opens up a slew of other issues, because then you need to have the new buyer implanted and tagged too. Carjackers aren't that high tech, at least not all of them, not yet.
Same thing will go for high end electronics, like laptops or PDAs and handheld computers and cell phones. I've already seen biometric chips implanted on people who can wave them in front of door locks to unlock deadbolts, so no more picking locks, not you have to steal someone's wrist to get into their house (or just break an old fashioned window).
Don't worry about having your credit cards, wallet, license, or anything stolen, all your information is stored in your wrist, which you'll wave over a detector to pay for your lunch, or your new TV, or when a cop stops you for speeding. You'll never have to worry again about identity theft. What you say? A purchase was made in your name in Indiana when you were in Michigan? Well we'll just check...yep, you were clearly at work when the purchase was made, so no fraudulent charges will be passed on to you.
Surely you can all appreciate the peace of mind, the safety, and more than anything the convenience that this will give people. No, the state will NEVER have to force this on anybody. An RFID chip implanted society is a commercial dream for corporations, and it sounds like a fantasy land for the average citizen too. People will clamor for, demand for, and pay top dollar (and receive top dollar) for this cutting edge society changing techology.
And of course this information will be off limits to law enforcement officials, in fact, it's all anonymous other than your age range, gender, and other demographic data that doesn't involve names. But then a major crime will be committed, and the FBI will go to Chip Inc. and say "there's a madman on the loose, we need to check your database to see if you know where he is." The company, what with the recent track records of companies giving up confidential data to law enforcement without a fight, will say "well, just this once, for the common good," and create a precedent of using chips to track people. That's how they get their foot in the door.
There's terrorism afoot! There's a child molester lurking in your neighborhood, we're going to activate all your chips so we can see who is who, and then apprehend the suspect, no need to worry. And while we're at it, this guy here is late on child support, better round him up too, and that woman over there was short on her taxes, better pay her a visit. And the guy walking down the street in front of that apartment building, he's violating a restraining order on the women in the store across the street, better pick him up. Send out the cars!
That's what I think is the most likely scenario. Hell, it'd make a great movie, which I'd go see, if the very plausibility of just such a situation didn't scare the bejeezes out of me.
I think everyone here who thinks the government will FORCE anyone to be implanted with chips is nuts. People will DEMAND that they either be given the option to implant them for commercial reasons or for health reasons, or reasons we haven't even thought up yet.
How many injustices have been committed in the past with the populace clamoring for the injustice to be committed, not fully knowing what they were asking for?
[ October 31, 2006, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Both scenarios sound entirely too plausible.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote: Andrea Fulcher, of ADS, says she doesn't understand why people may be afraid of having the chip. "It is strictly voluntary and, in the future, we see many benefits for users." She also points out that the chip is easy to remove if you change your mind. The company is working on evolutionary developments, including chips that contain GPS trackers.
Strictly voluntary, right? Just like giving out one's social security number is also voluntary?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Still haven't found the specific law mandating that soon all cellphones must be capable of being remotely activated even if switched off, however...
[ December 16, 2006, 04:30 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
We're already tagged, everywhere we go we can be tracked, it's called your cell phone. Every new generation cell phone by law must have GPS tracking installed on it.
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
People aren't required to have cellphones, though.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
No, but they're pretty darned convenient, and it would be pretty sad if our only options were to deal with the fact that someone could be using them to spy on us or to have to forgo them entirely.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Who didn't see this coming when we all read about the university professor who implanted himself with a microchip, or when there was talk of national ID cards?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Then there's LittleSister tagging along after you...
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by Megan: I would move to another country, fast, if this were ever implemented. I would hope that it would never even be seriously considered here, but given how complacent the population as a whole has been about giving up civil liberties so far...
I'm with you. Where shall we go?
-pH
Let's go to Pokadoodle !
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by B34N: We're already tagged, everywhere we go we can be tracked, it's called your cell phone. Every new generation cell phone by law must have GPS tracking installed on it.
Yes, but can't you take off the batteries on those so they can't track you?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
you can also turn off the GPS tracking on most phones. If that doesn't turn off the GPS, you could probably nail the manufacturers for fraud.
It seems the FBI uses phones as recorders/transmitters for the surroundings of the cell phone. So if you aren't the target of the recording, you could probably challenge the FBI in a variety of property law ways.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: you can also turn off the GPS tracking on most phones. If that doesn't turn off the GPS, you could probably nail the manufacturers for fraud.
It seems the FBI uses phones as recorders/transmitters for the surroundings of the cell phone. So if you aren't the target of the recording, you could probably challenge the FBI in a variety of property law ways.
You can turn off general GPS tracking but the emergency GPS tracking always stays on no matter what which means that any authorized official or agency can tap into it.
As for the batteries thing, can't most small devices like internal clocks and what not run off their very small power supply. I honestly don't know if you take out the battery or turnt he phone off if the GPS is still functional, it probably keeps a short charge for what it is intended for emergencies. Like if you get stranded somewhere or are kidnapped but it could also be used in the wrong manner most definitely.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I would imagine that GPS uses too much power for it to run for any meaningful length of time without the battery.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
More to the point, you can leave your phone somewhere you aren't; you can give it to someone else; it can be stolen; you can smash it up; or you can just not buy one.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101:
No, but they're pretty darned convenient, and it would be pretty sad if our only options were to deal with the fact that someone could be using them to spy on us or to have to forgo them entirely.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Dang! I already have to line my sheitl with tin foil to keep the aliens from listening in to the chip they implanted in my brain, and now THIS!
Honestly, do you have any idea how scratchy a tin foil lined sheitl is in the summertime?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Oh, the Southern Baptists will have a field day with this...
THE APOCALYPSE IS UPON US, PEOPLE.
But seriously, um. Yeah, this idea scares the crap out of me.
-pH
There are days, pH, were I swear we've lived the same life in different places.
It's eerie.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Right now, I think the justification that would be used to encourage chip implantation (once beyond the private sector employees et. al.) is the notion of keeping out illegal immigrants. There appears to be a fairly ugly strain of xenephobia permeating the country right now.
Beyond that, the appeal will be to convenience. Y'know; You fight terrorism, keep out illegal aliens, and get a coupon for a free Domino's Pizza and a Blockbuster rental with your implant. Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Right now, I think the justification that would be used to encourage chip implantation (once beyond the private sector employees et. al.) is the notion of keeping out illegal immigrants. There appears to be a fairly ugly strain of xenephobia permeating the country right now.
I don't see how that would work unless everyone who lived here legally was required to get one. Otherwise, an illegal immigrant could just claim that they didn't want to get one. On top of that, I'd imagine that a lot of the same people who would be so vehemently anti immigration would also be opponents of the chips.
Posted by Temposs (Member # 6032) on :
I can't help but think that such consistent encroachment on civil liberties will be the source of a second American Civil War, if such a thing were possible(I haven't read Empire so I don't know what the reason is there). You'll have the government supporters and the freedom fighters, so to speak. I imagine New Hampshire would be the center of the resistance ^_^
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I think an implant that tracked soldiers, as long as it was part of a very secure network would be a remarkable boon. No more of these searches for MIAs, we would just follow the transponder and Blue on Blue incidents (friendly fire) would be much more unlikely. I would not expect the use of them to spread into the civilian sector except as a matter of convenience. However I will say that the fact of a chip does not mean you are being watched, with millions of chips in motion at all times the most likely candidate for abusing the thing is your wife wondering if you are at the bar instead of working late.
It is the old corollary about hiding a needle in a haystack, if you really want to hide it you need to put in a pack of needles. Law enforcement always lags behind crime, that is its nature, so it would not pick up trails until there was a trail to follow.
As for tracking your spending and such, those who are interested already know, I am sure an AI tied to Wal-mart could tell you way too much about my families habits, diet, hygiene, and interior design for my comfort.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
The one that troubles me is the program being instituted in Illinois that will have insurance companies voluntarily alerting Law enforcement that you have let your insurance expire. That means that Big Brother is not just watching you, he is waiting to pounce on you and hit you with a thousand dollar fine for driving without insurance. He knows where you live and can wait for you as you take off to work. "Oh here the list of uninsured drivers and their addresses, your quota is three, get the ones that can pay it fastest we need a new dart board..."
Not only is mandatory insurance a Tax paid to a for profit organization, it is now an extortion racket. That is Big Brother 'Vinny'...
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: The idea is to use the existing PC microphone to listen to whatever is heard in the background, be it music, your phone going off or the TV turned down. The PC then identifies it, using fingerprinting, and then shows you relevant content, whether that's adverts or search results, or a chat room on the subject.
quote: The Google program converts sound into graphs, weeds out background noise, and reduces the graphs to key features that can then be translated into just four bytes of information, so that the fingerprints for an entire year of television programming would add up to no more than a few gigabytes, the company said.
Can anyone verify if this is really going to be possible or happen? If Google can do it, why not the government?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Right now, I think the justification that would be used to encourage chip implantation (once beyond the private sector employees et. al.) is the notion of keeping out illegal immigrants. There appears to be a fairly ugly strain of xenephobia permeating the country right now.
I don't see how that would work unless everyone who lived here legally was required to get one. Otherwise, an illegal immigrant could just claim that they didn't want to get one. On top of that, I'd imagine that a lot of the same people who would be so vehemently anti immigration would also be opponents of the chips.
The "voluntary" social security number issue was mentioned. If chip implantation became sufficiently widespread, it could become difficult to find work or get health care without such a chip, particularly in areas close to the borders. There's already been murmurs of requiring identification for some basic services and preventing aliens from obtaining such identification; I don't know that I find it that much of a stretch.
Ever heard anyone be astonished that someone else didn't have something like a cel phone, or cable television, or access to the internet? Something almost no one had a decade ago? It's funny how these things work.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by ricree101:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Right now, I think the justification that would be used to encourage chip implantation (once beyond the private sector employees et. al.) is the notion of keeping out illegal immigrants. There appears to be a fairly ugly strain of xenephobia permeating the country right now.
I don't see how that would work unless everyone who lived here legally was required to get one. Otherwise, an illegal immigrant could just claim that they didn't want to get one. On top of that, I'd imagine that a lot of the same people who would be so vehemently anti immigration would also be opponents of the chips.
The "voluntary" social security number issue was mentioned. If chip implantation became sufficiently widespread, it could become difficult to find work or get health care without such a chip, particularly in areas close to the borders. There's already been murmurs of requiring identification for some basic services and preventing aliens from obtaining such identification; I don't know that I find it that much of a stretch.
Ever heard anyone be astonished that someone else didn't have something like a cel phone, or cable television, or access to the internet? Something almost no one had a decade ago? It's funny how these things work.
I guess what I meant was that it would not have an impact on the initial adoption of these chips. Certainly, once they are widely accepted a social security like situation could come about. Until it reaches such a high level of acceptance, however, this will not be an issue.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not only is mandatory insurance a Tax paid to a for profit organization
Mandatory insurance is simply forcing people to take responsibility for their own actions. It is irresponsible to operate a 100+ horsepower vehicle that can maim, kill, or destroy in an instant without having the means to reimburse those you injure.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Ridiculous, Insurance is a means to distribute economic responsibility for carelessness, poor maintenance or incompetence to everyone rather then place it on those responsible, I cannot believe anyone thinks that is 'taking responsibility' I will chalk that up with those who speak of 'efficient socialism...'
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
People who can afford to pay "cash out of hand" to the minimum liability compensation requirements are allowed to bond themselves rather than purchase insurance.
[ December 18, 2006, 02:33 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
General Sax -
Bull. The one car accident I've had that involved another person who actually stuck around afterwards was labelled my fault, even though it wasn't. If I didn't have insurance, I'd be bankrupt, and so would my mom, because her name is on the title for my car.
That's neither carelessness, poor maintenance or incompetence, it's getting screwed over and having a safety net so the wrecklessness of others doesn't ruin your entire life. Mandatory insurance makes sure that when that wreckless idiot DOES cause harm, they can't skip out on the bill.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
But the did, you got stuck with it! Nobody said you shouldn't get insurance if you want it, but making it madatory is a TAX, and taxes should not include profit for stockholders...
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Insurance is voluntary: you can post a bond instead. Or cease driving. Contrary to popular superstition, driving is neither a necessity nor a right.
[ December 18, 2006, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Police DNA profiling even for those who have committed no crime.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Ridiculous, Insurance is a means to distribute economic responsibility for carelessness, poor maintenance or incompetence to everyone rather then place it on those responsible, I cannot believe anyone thinks that is 'taking responsibility' I will chalk that up with those who speak of 'efficient socialism...'
A no-fault system might be open to those charges, but a general insurance requirement with fault-based determination of which policy pays is not. With appropriate penalties for making claims - increased rates, dropped coverage, etc. - it does not discourage personal responsibility.
It is considered irresponsible to engage in risky behavior without being sure one has the means to compensate others if your risk-taking injures them.
And driving is risky. Period.
quote:But the did, you got stuck with it! Nobody said you shouldn't get insurance if you want it, but making it madatory is a TAX, and taxes should not include profit for stockholders...
Further, aspectre is absolutely right about the bonding.
Why should you be allowed to operate a powerful machine inches away from others at speeds faster than any human prior to last century had ever gone without proving that you can pay for any accidents you cause?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: But the did, you got stuck with it!
Not sure I follow that line of reasoning. The fact that I was blamed is the fault of the legal system. If I hadn't of had insurance, I'd be screwed.
If you want a better example, my mom was in a bad car accident some years ago, and was hoping to sue the guy who hit her for medical bills and such she has to pay, for the rest of her life. He had the world's crappiest insurance, which apparently refused to pay for anything, or maybe it was that he let his policy lapse, I don't remember, and more or less told her that if she tried to sue him, he's declare banktrupcy, and she'd never see a penny. So she ended up having to sue her own insruance to try and get any money at all.
But I suppose that sounds fair to you. Are you against driver's licenses too? If people shouldn't have to be forced to take precautions that create a safety net for their mistakes, maybe we shouldn't be regulating automobile traffic at all.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
If a person cannot afford to pay for damage they cause anything up to indentured servitude should go as far as I am concerned, as for needing to sue to get insurance to pay, that is typical, Insurance companies make more money by delay and and confusion and they intend to operate at a profit, what is the salary of the CEOs of the top five insurance companies? How many millions? Those insuring drivers required to pay are collecting a tax and being paid more then the President. If this is not an obvious wrong to you then you are being obtuse.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Why is it wrong for a CEO that determines huge swings in company income be paid a small percentage of that value as salary?
And drivers are only required to pay if they intend to use the roads others helped pay for .
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If a person cannot afford to pay for damage they cause anything up to indentured servitude should go as far as I am concerned
So repealing the 13th amendment is more desirable to you than requiring people be able to compensate those they injure when undertaing a risky activity and we're obtuse?
Wow.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Nothing wrong with working yourself out of debt. Indentured servitude is not slavery.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But it is involuntary servitude, and it is forbidden absent conviction for a crime:
quote:Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
There isn't anything wrong with working yourself out of debt. There is something wrong with being ordered into indentured servitude involuntarily for having an accident.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
You'd also have to drastically change the bankruptcy laws. Otherwise if someone caused an accident without insurance they could declare bankruptcy, and the person they caused injury to would be screwed. And probably have to declare bankruptcy themselves, depending on the extent of their injuries. But hey, people wouldn't be forced to have insurance!
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Nobody ever said fixing things would be easy, but we cannot let the car insurance companies feed off premiums for years and when the city, be it St. Louis or New Orleans gets flooded then belly up to the public trough and grab a big piece of the pie to pay what they owe, essentially managing a government insurance program anyway. Tomorrow we will discuss how the banking system creates money despite the fact that the Constitution reserves this power for the Federal Government.
Posted by NicholasStewart (Member # 9781) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: I think an implant that tracked soldiers, as long as it was part of a very secure network would be a remarkable boon. No more of these searches for MIAs, we would just follow the transponder
This would be great, until the network was hacked and the enemy knew the exact location of every soldier!
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
hence the 'very secure' Mister Obvious...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
General Sax, could you please put a little effort into not being rude and insulting? It's really not hard to do.
Posted by NicholasStewart (Member # 9781) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: hence the 'very secure' Mister Obvious...
Not to quibble here, but even very secure networks can and have been hacked or at least compromised in some fashion. Much of security compromising comes from human flaw and not from technological flaws.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
If ya think identity theft is too easy now, wait until your personal RFID identity chip is pirated. With a handheld RFID emulator that clones the implantable microchip electronically, "You pass within a foot of a chipped person, copy the chip's code, then with a push of the button, replay the same ID number to any reader. You essentially assume the person's identity."
Speaking for the RFIDmaker VeriChip, its chief executive says "To grab information from radio frequency products with a scanning device is not hard to do." Yet "even so, he insists, it's harder to clone a VeriChip than it would be to steal someone's key card."
It's easier to physically steal a card from someone than to walk by them? Even if that were true, one would notice that ones card was missing. How would one notice that a set of numbers has been duplicated electronicly?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have personally duplicated RFID tags to prove to myself how easy it is. It was easy enough that I'm now firmly opposed to using current implementations of RFID, and intend to smash the chip in any new passport once my current one expires.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by NicholasStewart:
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: hence the 'very secure' Mister Obvious...
Not to quibble here, but even very secure networks can and have been hacked or at least compromised in some fashion. Much of security compromising comes from human flaw and not from technological flaws.
The other problem is that much of the work in security in this area regards encryption which is much easier to solve than the problem of hiding the signal in the first place.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Didn't a couple of British cities (liverpool?) already install stree cameras that could actually talk to the citizens? I remember Mph or somebody posting that here.
Britain already moniters its citizens via cameras, as some American cities are doing. I don't believe in slippery slopes, but this is something far different: foot in the door.
It's so basic you hardly want to believe people work this way at all. They start with cameras. The cameras don't come down because who wants to DECREASE security? There will have to always be money and personnel invested in that work.
Next comes the cameras that talk back. Again, when you're investing in security, downgrading has become an impossible, unthinkable suggestion. Where government waste and cost cutting are concerned, no-one wants to get caught decreasing security in any way. The cameras stay, and are slowly added, upgraded.
I know that in the small town where I live, increasing the number of parking enforcement people means that the city feels more and more justified with harassing its citizens in order to fill those working ours with profitable activity. Thus I now get parking tickets IN FRONT OF MY OWN HOUSE ON A QUIET STREET, for 18 inches and other such ridiculous citations that one would not have believed possible or reasonable, 5 years ago in the same town. Now there are the officers, now it is the reality.
With the increased revenue from parking tickets and other harassments (like j-walking or other minor citations) the cities feel justified in making a given, target amount of money. Thus, regulations will not be loosened, only tightened. Security and enforcement and the inevitable harassment will only increase.
The only way it gets better is when people react in a big way. The government eventually crosses the line. Slavery, the usurpation of the freedom of whole races of people went on for hundreds of years, and it is now gone (at least in its government condoned form). It ended because people became aware that it had gone too far. The enlightenment and the birth of our nation seeded the change a century before it was done, but human nature did not change. What changed was our awareness of the problem and its real effect on our lives. When the cameras get too close, when things get too hairy, I think our better nature will prevail and society will eliminate the "need" for these measures.
People cannot long remain aware that on one hand crime continually decreases in our country and that alarm, awareness and concern and preparation for crime continue to increase on the other, without eventually putting their hands together. Cognitive dissonance produces feedback- eventually. But modern history shows that millions of people can die before the ones that can save them are willing to face the reality of their situation.
I've never been taught to believe that our society was coming to an end, but I think that this phase of American life is all but over. The costs of our mistakes and our lifestyles are just beginning to be repaid.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It is considered irresponsible to engage in risky behavior without being sure one has the means to compensate others if your risk-taking injures them.
And driving is risky. Period.
While I agree with you... you bring ruin to your own case here. By your logic we should ensure ourselves against all of our risky acts hurting not ourselves but other people. Shouldn't these people insure themselves against injuries they may sustain, regardless of who's fault it may be? Lots of things are risky and can hurt other people, and yet you need no insurance to go hunting, no insurance to go skiing, or many other risky activities that give you the opportunity to be negligent and hurt others. You are expected to be responsible for your actions and to not willfully hurt others.
If you commit a crime, you are punished according to the law that applies to everyone. If you are careless, you are punished, but the person you injure is not compensated by the government for your acts (not directly).
It seems irresponsible to me to not insure oneself, but it also seems intrusive to allow the government to enforce participation in for-profit insurance with the threat of citations if you do not comply. If you don't trust your neighbors, they won't trust you, and you'll hate where you live. I'm afraid that's where we're headed if we aren't already there as a country.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Shouldn't these people insure themselves against injuries they may sustain, regardless of who's fault it may be?
Maybe we should, but you can't get there from my argument, which is based on a moral duty to compensate others for accidental harm caused to them by one's actions.
quote:Lots of things are risky and can hurt other people, and yet you need no insurance to go hunting, no insurance to go skiing, or many other risky activities that give you the opportunity to be negligent and hurt others. You are expected to be responsible for your actions and to not willfully hurt others.
Perhaps. It would depend on the frequency of such injuries as to whether we require a law that mandates insurance in such activities. It also depends on whether someone can practically opt out of the risk. I can't participate in society and avoid the risk of cars hitting me. I can avoid skiing accidents quite easily.
quote:It seems irresponsible to me to not insure oneself, but it also seems intrusive to allow the government to enforce participation in for-profit insurance with the threat of citations if you do not comply.
There is no requirement that someone own a car. Nor is there a requirement that someone use a for-profit insurance company. That's already been addressed in this thread.
In order to drive a car, one must (generally) participate in a for-profit auto manufacturer, for-profit auto service centers, and for-profit gas stations. These are the costs of carrying out the activity. So is compensating others for accidents one causes with one's car.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I could see this happening if the first chips are implanted so that doctors can be alerted to problems in very sick people who can't even push a button on a bracelet. Then more people will get chips as more situations are sold as equivalent to the first situation.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Then again, who says that the lack of privacy is a bad thing?
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.