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.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ^_^
Posts: 106 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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'...
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...'
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Insurance is voluntary: you can post a bond instead. Or cease driving. Contrary to popular superstition, driving is neither a necessity nor a right.
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 65 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
General Sax, could you please put a little effort into not being rude and insulting? It's really not hard to do.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 65 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
